Loading...To my surprise, I’ve never talked about the “agrapha” of Jesus before on the blog. It’s about time I did! This is an intriguing topic connected with the teachings of Jesus known to almost precisely No One!! (I’d bet a case of fine French wine that your pastor — if you’ve ever had one, in any kind of church whatsoever — wouldn’t be able to tell you what it’s all about!
Welcome to the world of the insiders.
Here is what I say about the agrapha (plural of agraphon) in the book I published with my colleague Zlatko Pleše, The Other Gospels (Oxford, 2014).
******************************
The term “agrapha” has traditionally been applied to a group of “unrecorded” sayings allegedly delivered by the historical Jesus. The term is not altogether apt, since technically speaking these sayings have indeed been recorded–otherwise we would have no access to them. And so the term is more normally taken to mean sayings of Jesus that are not found in the canonical Gospels. Even this definition is problematic however, since it privileges books that eventually came to be included in the canon, a decision that involves theological, rather than historical judgments. And so perhaps it is best
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!
Hi, Bart,
By what means can people get rid of the fear of going to hell or fear of God’s wrath upon them leaving their faith?
What some people do is share their story with others and that may help gain confidence and sanity, but at the same time the core issue (fear of Hell, etc.) is not resolved solely by this.
People remain confused, very afraid and uncertain.
I think a powerful tool is to read/listen to a person like you that goes to the core of the text’s issues and alterations.
What other things can someone do about these fears? Very few psychologists are equiped to handle the religious trauma so what else is there to do?
In my case I just forced myself to be rational about it. Would a good God torture people for trillions and trillions of years, and that just the beginnig, becuase they made mistakes for, say, ten? I came to think that was simply not possible, and that someone had come up with the idea and then drove it into us. I just odn’t believe it could be true.
I heard today that there were 100billion people that lived on earth since the dawn of time.
the OT and actually the NT God is vindictive and choosy.
He’s the Creator.
dear Dr Ehrman U are walking the diligent & superb walk as this nation lacks civility & decency.
thank U
All the quotes listed are difficult, if not inscrutable. Having the context (where any survives) may — or may not — help clarify the meaning, and in turn, perhaps, authenticity of the saying.
OTOH, despite the fact that Acts is specifically noted as a potential source, the listing somehow omits the far less enigmatic (indeed, quite authentic *sounding*) one that Paul is quoted as attributing to Jesus at Acts 20:35.
Neither is there a single quote from the whole collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas — including, likewise, a number of seemingly quite credible ones, e.g., the also authentic sounding “Parable of the Broken Jar” at Th 97.
Thomas is, of course, a non-canonical (and BTW near-miraculously resurrected) work. But as you note, that is the result of “a decision that involves theological, rather than historical judgments.”
Further, the absence of evidence from Thomas is certainly not evidence of its absence. These putative quotes of Jesus have been known for nearly a century.
Isn’t exclusion of everything from every text that has been labeled by scholars as a “gospel” as arbitrary as the distinction itself?
I’m not sure what your question means!
Sorry. I’m whipsawed in the eternal battle between concise and cryptic. 😕
Preliminarily, I’m not nearly as sanguine as you about damage inflicted by the aborning RCC’s Holy Henchmen, aka “heresiologists.” Thus, I’m keenly interested in a collection of “sayings allegedly delivered by the historical Jesus […] that are not found in the canonical Gospels.”
In making such a compilation economy does suggest omitting any saying that:
1. appears to be a regurgitation of one found in the canonical gospels since these are probably just that. I would, however, regard this as being a rebuttable presumption. If scholars can make a case for the source *not* being derivative, that would not only provide independent attestation, but make any differences worth examining.
2. is pre-incarnate or post-resurrection, i.e., not from Jesus’ public ministry, as these would necessarily be apologetic and legendary.
3. from a non-Christian source as that is a double-edged sword. While such would not have to overcome the credibility hurdle of having been preserved by apologists, they perforce require prying open the worm can of that alternative (and also potentially agenda-driven) context.
All that said, I will aim for fewer birds per stone… 😉
First among the (triaged) “principal sources” you cite is the canonical, but non-gospel, book of Acts — a work that AFAIK provides only one, relevant candidate: Paul’s “remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, for he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” (Acts 20:35)
To my amateur ears this is the single, most authentic-sounding, unique quotation from *any* source outside of the gospels — canonical or non-. It is as pithy, powerful, and counterintuitive as any saying recorded in any source. It strikes me as being an absolutely classic, Jesus aphorism.
I can appreciate that your list cannot be “exhaustive.” But after first citing Acts as a specific example of non-gospel sources considered, how is it that ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive” didn’t make the cut? 🤔
I dohn’t think authentic-sounding is a criterion? Sounding to whom?
And made the cut for what? It is indeed an agraphon.
I was merely saying that this is an “authentic-sounding” aphorism “to my amateur ears.” So it seemed conspicuous by its absence from your list of examples of agrapha. I wasn’t suggesting that such an inherently subjective assessment could be a criterion for scholars (or, for that matter, anyone else. 😌)
The “made the cut” I had in mind was for inclusion in your enumeration. The omission of this saying attributed to Jesus by Paul (who, after all, was not a witness to *anything* Jesus ever said) got me wondering whether my “amateur ears” deceive me since it does strike me (but not scholars?) as the single, most “authentic-sounding” Jesus-type aphorism not found in the canonical gospels.
More important here, however, is *your* assessment of its authenticity! 🙂 Do you think that “It is more blessed to give than to receive” is something the historical Jesus actually said?
IOW do you believe this saying goes back to an actual witness and was telephoned to Paul? Or is it one of the things Paul “did not receive from a human source,” but rather “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” in one of his visions?
I don’t know if Jesus said it or not. But I’d say there are a large number of ways Paul may have heard it, not just two options. I don’t think, though, that it’s likely that Paul is claiming Jesus told him this in a vision.
I just assumed that the telephone tree was the only way Paul could possibly have heard the line (other than in a vision 🙄).
My own “Quest of the Historical Jesus” is limited entirely to what *he* appears to have actually said.
For this we must rely on a daisy-chain (of indeterminate length) of anonymous, word-of-mouth sources as, first, anonymously recorded, then, transcribed by fallible — not to mention agenda-driven — apologists (likewise, anonymous and of indeterminate number.)
I can’t read Greek. And, aside from some modest familiarity with the gospels, my acquaintance with the contents of the canon — even in English translation — pales in comparison with your lifelong study. This is precisely why I find your *objective* analysis of the surviving record so invaluable! 🙂
But AFAIK the aphorism that Luke recounts Paul quoting (Acts 20:45) is the *only* candidate in this work that meets the specified criterion, i.e., a teaching Jesus reputedly conveyed to followers during his public ministry.
Since you abstain on the question of the authenticity of this one, are there others in Acts that you consider potentially authentic in the “(a) sayings of Jesus recorded in books outside the Gospel genre (e.g., the book of Acts)” category?
Not really. I”m open to being convinced,but I can’t think of solid grounds for any of them off hand.
Okay. Then moving on to the other, two categories…
I note that all five examples on your list are from “(b) manuscript variations of passages found within the Gospels.” Further, they appear to derive from a single text — identified as “ms” with alphabetical (“et al”) suffixes.
I am especially curious about the first of these that adds, “For every sacrifice will be salted with salt,” to the (IMHO *already* enigmatic) salty quote in Mark (Mk 9:49-50).
I searched the web for the ascribed “ms D” source to see if context might shed some additional light. Unfortunately, this form of identification seems a bit too “inside baseball” for Google, and the manuscript (presumably) too late for the “Early Christian Writings” website. 😕
My unlettered groping suggests that all of these “ms” alphabetical variants reference Codex Bezae — a work that (according to Wikipedia, anyway) originally dates to the beginning of the 5th century, but went through a number of editions from the 6th to 12th centuries. That suggests “ms D” was fourth in the series. The weeds then get a bit too deep for me to see through.
But on this supposition (and stop me here, professor, if I’m pursuing undomesticated, aquatic fowl 😉)…
Ms D is simply the official designation of codex Bezae; it is a bilingual (Greek/Latin) manuscript from around 400 CE, and is one of the two or thre emost studied manuscripts in existence, mainly because it has highly unusual readings in places. For informatoin about major manuscripts you might take a look at Bruce Metzger’s introduction, The Text of the New Testament. References to D are usually to it’s first hand, not to its later edited forms.
My amateur understanding is that Codex Bezae was created to render the NT in Latin — which compounds the difficulties for yours truly by interposing another layer between English (my *only* language) and the original Greek.
Instead of elucidating the cryptic saying at Mark 9:49-50, the peculiar expansion in ms D merely redoubles my perplexity — specifically, WRT how Jesus used “salt” as a metaphor. 🤔
For you professionals, however, it appears the Bezael translator(s) thoughtfully included the original Greek along *with* the Latin translation of it! 🙂
Have scholars managed to track the provenance of the cited Greek text back to its earliest source?
If not, are there any other manuscripts — earlier or even contemporaneous — that independently attest the extra iodizing of Mark by ms D?
If neither, can we even be sure this line doesn’t descend from some other pericope that might have crossed the oral divide independently before having been — at some point, by some copyist — *incorrectly* salted into the one that Mark preserved?
(Such a sua sponte editorial decision by a gospel author/copyist would, after all, not be unprecedented. 😏)
The fullest study of Bezae is still David Parker’s exhaustive work, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and It’s Text. In 1993 there was an international conference in Lunel, France, with academic papers dealing discussing different aspects of the manuscript over the course of three days; I was asked to give one of the major papers. Some of the papers were in French, others in English, and all were published in the volume edited by Parker and Christian Bernard-Amphoux, Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium. Unfortunately, it’s a bit pricey….
For so short a pericope Mark 9:49-50 raises some tall questions (even with “no added salt” per ms D. 😉)
Your expertise disentangling authentic history from legendary interpolation would be appreciated since *none* of the points here makes sense to me — individually or syllogistically.
Jesus begins by inaptly mixing metaphorical salt and fire together — in a single phrase! 😳
Is there *anywhere* else in the surviving record (canonical or non-) where the virtuoso of parable and analogy makes this kind of rhetorical faux pas? Or was this flub put on his lips somewhere along the way by an artless apologist?
Though a commonplace commodity, obviously, “salt is good.” It’s a dietary essential that both enhances flavor and provides vital nutrition. But how could salt possibly have “lost its saltiness”?
Accepting, arguendo, the strange premise, one might well ask: “How will you season it?” But that would be IFF the “it” here is an unpalatable dinner, *not* the unsalted salt as the text actually states. (Okay, there is “seasoned salt” — but that, too, is used on food, not on salt! 🙄)
Finally, while followers should certainly be ‘worth their salt,’ isn’t bringing “peace with one another” a happy, but merely secondary, benefit?
It literally means “loses its saltness” and that means that at some point it is no longer able to act as a good preservative.
Re: Luke 6:4 in ms D
Here’s a go. An analogy. James Joyce intentionally breaks the rules of grammar, transcending them, for artistic affect. Compared to the hapless beginner who breaks the rules of grammar out of ignorance of them.
Perhaps if he understands that the sabbath was made for man, then he is blessed, but if he believes as the Pharisees the opposite, then he is cursed?
[in other words, willing to work on the sabbath for the right reasons, those of Jesus’ view]
Thank you Dr Ehrman. This is an intriguing subject.
If I could ask an off topic question, please. I have to give a brief talk on early Christian communities to a group that I belong to. Is it fair to say that the early communities (say from around 40-70 AD) were quite small (? 10-20 people) and would meet in private houses? What would be the best sources on this subject? Many thanks.
They did meet in private houses, and so almost certainly could not number more than 40 or 50 — depending on the size of the house!
Thank you Dr Ehrman. That’s very helpful. When giving the talk (which I mentioned in my original question) I got a question I couldn’t answer. Perhaps you can.
‘ How did the earliest Christians (I guess we’re talking 1st century) keep tabs on, or know about, all the other various Christian communities throughout the Mediterranean? Was there some kind of central register?’
I suppose the variety of early Christianities is a factor here, but it is a good question. Do you have any thoughts on this, please Dr Ehrman?
No, there wsa no central organization at all. They knew of each other only by word of mouth and through written correspondence.