Loading...Most readers of the blog are interested – either passionately, intently, deeply, moderately, or somewhat – in, well, the New Testament. But many do not actually know much about it as a whole. You may well be the exception! But hey, all of you are exceptional.
My view is that anyone who claims to be a New Testament aficionado should be familiar with the basic contents of each book and know the essential facts about it – both its major themes / emphases and its basic historical context – when it was written, by whom, and for what reason.
On the most basic level, that would mean being able to state what any of the 27 books is about in ONE SENTENCE. How many of you can summarize the major themes and emphases of the Gospel of Luke in one sentence? Or, well, 2 Thessalonians? 1 Peter? Ephesians? My guess is: very few indeed. Or how many can explain what we know about the author of any of these books (without looking it up!)?
Exactly.
But where does one go for information like that in one handy packet? Well, the packets are a bit hard to find, especially when we’re talking about information that is critically informed by scholarship as opposed to so much other “information” out there.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I love this idea, Bart! It is your ability to explain both in depth, and in layperson terms, what the New Testament authors were or weren’t trying to convey that quickly made me a fan of your work. As well as your concise way of refuting false beliefs about the books being spread around in much of today’s theology surrounding them.
I managed to find a used copy of The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings and it is one of my favorite books to dig through as I’m trying to study one aspect or another of one of the New Testament books.
I LOVE this plan! Can’t wait to dig in.
This sounds wonderful! I look forward to it!
Outstanding!!
I am looking forward to these posts!
Is there any chance of The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings and the publishing of the upcoming posts (And THEN I will publish the whole thing as a unit.) being available on Apple Books or Kindle? Thanks
The posts won’t be. I don’t know (oddly enough) where the textbook is available online
Professor Ehrman, what a wonderful idea! I’m going to love it.
Sounds like fun! I’ve been “unlearning” so much from you over the last few years, I think I’m ready to dig in!
Terrific, Bart!
This is a fabulous idea. Thank you very much
Hi Bart…..Our church is doing an extended edition series on Paul/Roman. I want to try to get an accurate answer to this question: “When Paul wrote his letter to the Roman church, approximately how many “house church members existed in Rome at the time of Paul’s letter?
I looked at your book “Triumph of Christianity” and some of the work of Hopkins and Stark…..I am guessing the answer to my question is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100-150.
What is your estimate? Are there any reliable sources for this question?
Thanks….Jim
I’d say that’s a plausible ballpark. We don’t have any sources of informatoin for the time apart from Paul and Acts, and neither of them says. If that guestimate is right, then it must mean there were a handful of meeting places/house churches in parts of the city, which also makes sense.
While focusing on the New Testament, please consider going beyond the Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian context to include all major religions worldwide. It would be fascinating to read about parallel ideas of resurrection, virgin birth, sacrificial killing, twisting of scriptures to meet theological ends, etc.
I would if I could! But unfortunately, I’m not a world-religions expert. But in terms of *context* I don’t think it matters, since religions elsewhere (e.g., Native American, Chinese, Southeast Asia, etc.) did not play a role in the development of the NT / early Xty.
Bart, which two or three biographies of Paul do you recommend for a layman who’s read most of your blog posts for the past 10 years? I’m looking for solid, understandable scholarship.
Harrill, Albert. Paul the Apostle: His Life and Legacy in Their Roman Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. One of the most informed studies of Paul in recent times, this highly informative biography situates the apostle carefully in his own social world.
Hooker, Morna Dorothy. Paul: A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oneworld, 2003. A very useful introduction to the life and letters of Paul; a good place for students to begin.
Sanders, E. P. Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thoughts. Fortress Press, 2015. A brief and authoritative introduction by one of the great Pauline scholars of modern time.
Segal, Alan. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990. A very interesting study by a Jewish scholar who examines the importance of Paul’s conversion for his theology and practice.
Hi Bart,
What the heck is Jesus talking about at the end of Luke 22, after the last supper?
As a former evangelical believer I always kinda abridged this passage to only include the bits I understood (last shall be first, kingdom will be yours, Peter’s not at hotstuff as he thinks).
But what’s the deal with the swords and purses?
In 36, is he saying that in order to be “counted amount the transgressors” they’ve got to rig things to make themselves appear violent? Or that they should do just a little bit a violence to provoke the authorities into fulfilling prophecy?
Those don’t really make sense with 38 where they bring him some swords, and he says “that’s enough” or with 51 “No more of this!”
Can you shed some light on this?
Do you mean 22:36-38 about having/taking a sword? And them saying they had two? It’s a much debated passage. V. 37 is showing that in part the order to have a sword is so that Jesus can fulfill scripture by being among people who transgress God’s law (because they engage in violence?). If’ always that that when they say they have two already and Jesus says “that’s enough” that he’s actually being ironic: taking up the sword is ridiculous, since there’s no way you’re going to (a) overcome the Romans no matter how many swords you have and (b) stop God’s plan of having Jesus arrested and crucified. Lately I’ve been also drawn, though, ot the view that when at the end of v. 38 he says “it is sufficient/enough.” he means “enough of that nonsense already!”
Wow! What an undertaking! I would suggest including how we got the canon of the New Testament. Who decided which books would be included and when did they decide this? I know you have been planning to write a whole book on this subject after your current book. Thanks
Yup, that’ll be in there, probalby at the end.
That’s a great idea for the blog series!
Regarding RonaldTaska’s request, is there any way you can start off with that or do a separate blog post addressing this?
Thanks for all the important and wonderful work you do!
Good suggestion! But I’m afraid it needs to come at the end.
Sounds great!
So excited about exploring this new blog series!
Really love this planned series! Looking forward to all of it.
I noticed that δικαιοσύνη is usually translated as “righteousness” (for example Romans 10:5) but from what I understand, the word typically meant “justice” outside of the Bible (?) Since Paul was writing to mostly gentiles, would they really have understood that he was talking about “righteousness” instead of “justice”? Or is this a case of later Christian theologians overlaying their ideas on top of what Paul was actually talking about to his non-Jewish audience?
It can mean both “justice” and “righteousness” in sceular Greek.
This sounds great. My knowledge of the themes in each book is spotty. A comprehensive survey will be a must read
Fantastic Bart. Thank you
Thank you for existing
I say that to myself every morning I wake up. 🙂
Like nearly everyone else, looking forward to this! (I assume coverage of Acts, Romans and Revelation will be more extensive than 2&3 John, Jude, and Philemon). Recently bought the 8th Edition and am halfway through, so this will be a great supplement. Thanks.
I very much am looking for more in-depth coverage on the early writings of the NT – thank you for your textbook recommendation.
Speaking of early NT writings – the king that stands in out in paving the way for the other gospels is Mark. As per current mainstream scholarly consensus, we think that Matthew & Luke used Mark and Q as sources to write their gospels.
But… who, or what, did Mark use?
We don’t know for sure. He may have had other written accounts, but I kinda doubt it. Mark used what almost every Christain in the first century used for their understanding of Jesus: stories they hear. I deal with this in my book Jesus Before the Gospels
This is a great idea Dr Ehrman. I’ve wanted something like this for a long time, can’t wait to read it.
This is a great idea! I for one am looking forward to reading!
I’m happy you are going to publish this as one unit. Do you mean as a hard copy book, or one lengthy blog post? P.S. Enjoyed the live seminar yesterday on charity.
Lengthy post.
Thanks!
I am at a loss, in Matt 23 1-29 a total of 8 time’s, Jesus addresses the pharisees in the plural form, but in verse 26 He uses the singular form, and just right after using the plural to describe
the same action of the cup and dish. I looked at alot of our earliest manuscripts and most all in-line with each other. So my question is: Why do you think all the sudden its this way in verse 26 singular? It seems out of place (almost like when you say “copyist make errors when transcribing” or is it some sort of philosophical point? It seems out of place, especially since He just addressed them in the plural form the whole time and especially in verse 25 only to address one pharisee (singular) during the same diatribe (? same lesson, same sentence)
I don’t get the reason why, is it proper writing format, something academic? Was a pharisee (singular) just so happening washing out his coffee cup when Jesus was speaking and used him as an visual example? I don’t know. Thanks
It’s usually taken simply as a generalized singular. “You Americans are just a bunch of money grubbing capitalists who don’t care about anyone else. Come on Mr. American: get your act together”!!!
Would you consider Luke 17:21 a generalized singular? If, no why. Thanks
Which word? Are you referring to the statement that “the kingdom of God is among YOU” and asking about the YOU? It’s not a singular It’s a plural personal pronoun. (You plural) The problm is that in English we use “you” for both singular and plural; Greek uses different words.
sou (Greek) is singular for you, right? So Jesus when was saying the kingdom of God was inside “you” (plural), he was addressing the Pharisees, more than two.
Plural means two or more. If he had said “XXX of each of you” then “inside” would be more clearly the meaning; but based on the context of the saying, and what happens in the next verses, and the factx that the “you” is plural wihtout “each of” — it appears to me that he really does not mean “inside” but “among” — i.e., “in your midst”
Please, what specific verses are you referring to? I have found, the eight times in the LXX ἐντός is used, it all meant “inside,” in Matthew 23 it was inside, there are no manuscripts that show variant readings of ἐντός for this verse. The Latin is unambiguous “intra.” I didn’t find any contemporary Greek writers of Luke, or preceding ever use ἐντός in to convey “among.” Luke demonstrates in 2 different chapters before using “among” ἐν μέσος, and twice after this chapter. All the church fathers who wrote commentaries on this verse, define an inner dwelling of this kingdom of God. So far ἐντός has not been used for anything other than inside, and the author demonstrates that he understood the difference between the two with his use of ἐν μέσος. It is a weird passage. It’s an odd chapter, a tough one, and with no parallels, but regardless given the pedigree of ἐντός I don’t see how all the sudden it can just do a left turn to convey something else, the word is just too purposeful for the author to use it and mean something else which he demonstrates multiple times. What do you think?
When trying to figure out what a word means, it is important ot see how it gets used broadly at the time, not just in a certain collection of writings, especially when it is a usually fairly neutral word (without theological or ideological baggage in most contexts) such as “in” “before” “alongside” “to” “from” “inside” “among” etc. The fact such a word is used in clear ways within the NT is definitely worthy knowing. But it cannot be probative for how readers of a particular saying understood it in that saying (since, for one thing, they didn’t have a New Testament data base of words!).
So, to interpret it, you first learn what the word usually means, often means, sometimes means, occasionally means. And THEN based on how it is used in a particular context, you try to understand the best way to make sense of it there.
We normally do that in the flash of an eye and rarely even think about it. But when dealing with an unfamiliar language it takes a lot of thinking sometimes.
As an example, the Greek word GENEA can mean family, offspring, race, generation, birthplace, or, well, eagle’s eyrie. What does it mean in any particular context? It depends completley on teh context. IT would be a mistake to say that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” really means “family” or “race” even if it often does mean that. I’d say it doesn’t mean eagle’s eyrie. When does it mean that? When it’s in the appropriate context.
so too ENTOS. It can mean a range of things, “within” “inside” “among” etc. You’re welcome to think it means “inside” a person in Luke 17:21; that would be the more common usage in other contexts. My view is that this does not make sense in *this* context, as I’ve explained.
It is not as you are claiming that ENTOS always necessarily means “inside” as in “inside a body.” It is used to talk about people being inside “walls.” That doesn’t mean they are literally inside the brick and mortar. They can be inside the lines of battle. They can be inside a crowd. When the object is *plural* it is normally not taken to mean inside ONE of the plural elements. When the plural is a group of people “inside the crowd” it does not mean inside the body of each person in the crowd. IN English we phrase what it means as “among the crowd.”
Part 2 of 2
There is an example in one of Homer’s writings using “in your (singular) heart” to a group of people. The author has demonstrated numerous times in Luke and Acts the exact words used to support your claim ἐν μέσῳ + genitive or even the common idiom ἐν + dative, used in both classical and koine Greek, but did not. “Among” is also out of context given what he just Jesus said in V20 “that kingdom was invisible” and “future”, so for it to be present, visibly in-front of them, in the very next verse would be contradictory to what he just said. I really do understand what you are saying, and I agree, but not here in Luke 17:21 a visual external realization is very clearly not what the author is describing, or in-line with the authors position though-out Luke, and to take the “among” position (my opinion) is either purely theological, and/or a complete lack of consideration for the meaning of ἐντός in Greek literature. ἐντός has too much evidence to see it any other way, for now.
I more than welcome any further discussion about this verse, I respect your work and time.
I think I’ve said all I have to say. Do you read Greek? If so, just look up the word in LSJ and you’ll see the optoins.
Part 1 of 2
The modern english translation of ἐντός to “among” in Luke 17:21 that was made popular by John Nelson Darby for theological reasons to support things like “the rapture,” and a language that applies a blanket system of procedural directives, that did not even exist until (maybe) 6 centuries after Luke was written, I see has no effect on the meaning of THIS passage. ἐντός has a very clear, use and meaning of “inside,”
In which no one could provide a single example of it being used to mean anything else, because one dose not exist. ALL prior and contemporaneous Greek writers of Luke and Acts, ancient church fathers, and others who were closer to the rhetorical culture of koine Greek, and all Latin translations to the time of Luther (and early english translations too) are unanimous in the understanding of the meaning of ἐντός as inside.
There is not one single occurrence of ἐντός meaning “among” in the entire bible, and all derivates of ἐντός also have meanings of interior, not exterior “among.” Greek often uses the plural for singular and vice versa, and we also get the same in later Greek.
Where did you hear that this was originally John Nelson Darby’s view? I’ve never thought of him as an expert in ancient Greek but maybe he was. I guess most educated people had some Greekl back then.
During the time the Bible was being translated into English this issue that we are talking about, was a problem (being converted into English) back then as well. Matthew Henry even commented on it. John Darby took this view and incorporated it (among) into his dispensational theory, so for the kingdom of God to be inside someone would be contradictory to the rest of his newly created theological view. This is why this view is so popular in (he travelled here) America. He popularized the “in the midst of you” view by included it into his bible. This is the first time in history that anyone had put it into a bible. Yes, apparently John Darby was fluent in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, he is know as a scholar.
There is just way too much information on ENTOS to see it any other way(inside), and the only instance of something else is maybe Arrian, maybe. I had fun discussing this topic with you, certainly less violent than my interactions with the fundamentalists and the Calvinists, and many others. I have been researching this topic for years now to find the truth, that’s why I initially asked you about it.
Good day, Bart! I was going to ask about publishing it as a single unit, but after reading reading through the comments you’ve replied to, I found the answer—LOL! You mentioned that it will be one lengthy post, and I bet it’s going to be very extensive!
On another note, I have a question. Did you recently do something over the Trinity? If so, where can I find it? I remember seeing it promoted somewhere whether it was in the emails I receive or on Miss quoting Jesus or maybe here on the blog. Thank you!
On January 10 I did a webinar on “The Birth of the Trinity” for members of the Biblical Studies Academy (not connected with the Blog); it wsa recorded for BSA member who weren’t able to attend.
I am now a BSA member, however I joined after the 10th. Will I be able to find it there?
Yup. Make a query at that site and someone will direct you. (I’m just hte guy who gave the talk!)
Sounds great. Looking forward to it.
I went and lay down for ten minutes, phew! But I’m glad you’re doing it! I’ll tryn keep up.
you are the best!
I fully appreciate your material online. and print!
if people can’t find the books online try bookfinder.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foGIxeB_i6U