Loading...These “In a Nutshell” posts on the books of the New Testament are obviously meant to provide quick, concise, and accurate information about each of the books of the New Testament. Many of you may be interested in longer expositions. To that end, you may be interested in the far more extensive discussions that I give in the various lecture courses that I’ve done on some of them for the venture I started a couple of years ago, Paths in Biblical Studies (unconnected with the blog).
I particularly enjoyed the eight-lecture one I did on the Gospel of Mark (50 minute lectures; two Q&A’s; and additional materials provided). You can find it here: Unknown Jesus. Blog members get a discount with the code Blog5.
Whether you want to get the course or not, I thought it would be valuable to explain what I cover there, lecture by lecture. And so here is a summary,
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!
Of course, the canonical gospels aren’t supposed to be read separately (that’s how they were chosen). And few Christians do. They read them as a whole, a combined narrative of Jesus that avoids the differences and contradictions. For the vast majority of Christians, that works, while a separate reading of each gospel does not. Bart has written and spoken about this many times, so my comment isn’t original. My intent is that Christians don’t really want to read the gospels, preferring their own gospel and narrative. BTW, Mark is my favorite, John my least favorite.
Hello Bart. I had a question on whether 1 Corinthians 15:4 implies an empty tomb. I don’t think it does but I’d like you to respond to an objection that says it does.
The late James Dunn argued it does saying “Why the second clause (‘that he was buried’)? Why not the immediate transition from death to resurrection, as in other accounts? (E.g., Acts 3.15; 10.39-40.) The most obvious answer is that the disposal of the body in burial was an important point in the earliest confessional statements. Which probably reflects the place of the tomb narratives — burial but also empty tomb — in the earliest traditions of Easter.”
Just wondering what you’re response to this objection would be assuming Paul didn’t know any empty tomb tradition. Maybe it’s meant to simply be a parallel statement confirming Jesus death and that he’s “dead and buried” much like modern day expressions?
How do scholars know that Mark was written by someone living outside of Israel?
Greeting Dr Ehrman ; Since Mark states that the original disciples never really understood Jesus and Judis betrayed Jesus and Peter denied knowing Jesus, I’ve become curious as to what happened to the disciples? Did they disband out of fear? Are there reliable accounts that explain what happened to them by say early church fathers?
Randolah
We don’t have any historical records, only legends that started to be written about a century and a half later. I’ll be dealing with this in my forthcoming lectures, The Other Doubting Thomases.
Thank you, I’m looking forward to it. Ive just about completed your book The New Testament. It’s just outstanding.
Randolah
Dr. Ehrman,
Elaine Pagels says Gos. of Jn puts Thomas down 3 times–and these, she says, are not in the Synoptics:
11:16
We’re going to die with Jesus in Jerusalem.
14: 5
Jesus: I’m going to the Father. You know the way.
Thomas: We don’t know the way.
20:24
Thomas wasn’t there when after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples.
Thomas: No, I don’t believe it.
Then, to have Thomas be won over by John:
Thomas: Yes, my Lord and My God–not my twin, not my brother. We are unlike you.
John does not have Jesus, himself, talking about the kingdom of God. It is:
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
No one comes to the Father but through me.
I am the light. Thomas is wrong to say Christians are children of the light with Jesus being one of the children of God.
I am the door, I am the bread of life, I am the Resurrection and the Life.
I am the only begotten Son.
You’ve got to believe in the only begotten Son and if you don’t, you’re doomed for eternal damnation.
John is correcting the beliefs that can be traced back to Thomas and the Synoptics.
What do you think about that?
I don’t think John knew Thomas and teh Synoptics. The evidence is too thin. I don’t see how Thomas can date before the 120s or so. It’s also thin that Thomas knew John and the Synoptics, but that is becoming more widely held. (Mark Goodacre has a book on it)
Dr. Bart Ehrman: I don’t think John knew Thomas and the Synoptics.
Steefen
The Gospel of John was likely written in Ephesus, in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), during the late 1st century, around 90-100 CE, for Christians of Hellenistic background.
1) But he would have known about the Church of Ephesus and how Paul (who died 64/65) preached the coming kingdom of God and Eph 5:5.
2) With Mark being written approximately 70CE, the author of John did not know the first of the Synoptics or the Oral History of Jesus teaching people to prepare for the kingdom.
Pagels: a follower of Jesus is not like Jesus, a child of God Gos of Thomas, saying 50
Steefen: Gos of Thomas isn’t the only place this is seen: Matthew 5:9, 1 John 3:2
So, we don’t know why there are the three put downs of Thomas in the Gos of John
Conclusion: Pagel’s argument is not strong or in error.
Bart:
I don’t see how Thomas can date before the 120s or so.
Thin that Thomas knew John.
Steefen
Author of Thomas has at least 10 years and doesn’t know of the Johanine community or its gospel?
Yes, lots of Xn communities did not know lots of Xn books for decades. Books were not mass produced, and so it’s so different from today.
I’ve been doing a comparison between the synoptics and John’s gospel to see where their information overlaps and to what extent John may have gotten information from the synoptics or sources with similar information as is in the synoptics. To me, it seems that the beginning and the end of all four gospels contain common `biographical’ type information but the middle parts of Mark and John differ. It seems that Mark’s middle content sort of centers around persecution related issues and John’s middle content centers around the two Christological themes of Jesus as the logos and the lamb of God. But I noticed that the authors, and possible later editors, of John’s gospel didn’t seem to know that the mother of Jesus was named Mary. John’s gospel never names the mother of Jesus as Mary. I’m assuming this is well-known among scholars. If they didn’t know, that suggests that John’s authors/editors had no access to the synoptics. But it also suggests other things: the `biographical’ stuff didn’t name Mary but it did name Joseph as Jesus’ father (John 1:45). Question 1: could it be that Jesus mother wasn’t named Mary? Mark is the only independent source for the name Mary.
There are key traditions in Matthew and Luke that are independent of Mark, and of each other, that name her Mary. So I’d say there are three independent traditions. If John did have access to the Synoptics (I don’t think he did) that doesn’t mean he would use her name. He may have plenty of reasons not to.
What are those key traditions in Matthew and Luke? Thanks in advance, this is news to me.
If you’ll read through the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke you will find her name in passages they do not share (and that are obvioulsy not in Mark since he doesn’t have a Q narrative), 5x in Matthew and 12x in Luke.
Yes, but did whatever sources Matthew and Luke use have the name “Mary” in them or did those sources not contain the name “Mary” and Matthew and Luke got the name “Mary” from Mark? As far as I can tell, there is no way to know. So, conservatively speaking, can it be claimed that the name “Mary” is multiply attested?
They appear to be basing their accounts on their sources. Nothing suggests they changed or added the name at all these places. I’ve never seen any reason or heard any argument that the name doesn’t come from the sources. So yes, it is multiply attested, easily.
Thanks for the help with this issue. I’ve been going over it in my mind and still have a big issue with this one. Do the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke have sources or were they made up by their authors for theological reasons? If the latter, then there were no sources which means Matthew and Luke just got the name “Mary” from Mark. Maybe there is no way to know if there were sources for these birth narratives. Thanks again for the help with this one.
Since they agree on major issues of the birth, it seems unlikely they both dreamt them up independently.
In Mark 14:28 Jesus reportedly prophesied that after he was risen he would go to Galilee where his disciples were to meet him. In Mark 16:7 this prophecy is corroborated by a young man (present in the tomb which was empty of Jesus’ corpse) who told the women at the tomb to go tell Jesus’ disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee as he had prophesied before. If we read all the way through the rest of Mark’s Gospel (including the spurious verses found in 16:9-20) we will find not one word about Jesus redivivus (or his disciples) ever going to Galilee. Moreover, how could Jesus redivivus have made it to Galilee inasmuch as he reportedly ascended to heaven from Jerusalem within a matter of hours following his reported resurrection (16:19)? Furthermore, the Gospel of Luke would have us believe Jesus told his disciples to remain in Jerusalem (or not go to Galilee) and then we find Jesus redivivus ascended to heaven from Bethany within a matter of several hours of his reported resurrection. So, Dr. Ehrman, does not this show that (1) Jesus was a prophet who had prophesied presumptively and (2) these Gospels stand impeached?
Thank Dr. Ehrman, I appreciate very much your knowledge and your desire to share it.
Perhaps one reason the author wrote anonymously was due to the fact he was writing tendentiously as opposed to simply reporting the facts as a real journalist would do. For example, he was making Pilate out to be more like Jesus’ public defender instead of defending the sovereignty of Rome and its emperor. Any Jew who came riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (which was a Messianic symbol) allowing himself to be hailed as the king of the Jews was guilty of the capital offense of sedition against Rome unless Rome had bestowed this kingly title on such a Jew as was done decades before when King Herod the Great ruled. If Mark had penned his name on this Gospel he might have been put on Rome’s ten most wanted for writing what we today might call fake news. Such a gospel could have had the effect of lighting the fire of insurrection against Rome which meant if its author was known he would face the same fate as Jesus, i.e., crucifixion. In other words he would be looked at as being an accomplice, aider and abettor to such an uprising.
Bart, you write here
“Jesus teaches the crowds through parables, but he says he does this “so that” they will not understand and repent”.
Since this doesn’t make sense and it’s unacceptable coming from Jesus, I have always thought that it must have been a misunderstanding or mistranslation. An easy mistake to occur between manuscripts, centuries, scribes and endless translators . The obvious meaning is that Jesus speaks in parables so that the unlearned crowd would understand and repent. Wasn’t repentance, since the Baptist’s inspiration and ritual foundation, the entire goal of the movement? Don’t logic, Jesus’ teaching skills and his benevolence trump one of innumerable errors made in the interpretation of Scripture? Occam’s razor?
I’m not saying Jesus really said that, but it’s clearly what Mark wrote (the other Gospels change it), and for a good reason: Mark wants to emphasize that Jesus tried to keep his message secret — hence the “Messianic Secret” of Mark.
I read the Anchor Bible volumes on Mark. They were fascinating. They described how each section contributed to a coherent whole narrative. I never knew there was so much meaning in Biblical texts. And incidentally, reading and studying it section by section, a few verses at a time, made me see how easy it would be to memorize it all.
Bart, can you rule out that, in Mark’s Gospel, the young man dressed only in a linen cloth and who fled naked when Jesus was arrested was the disciple Jesus “loved”?
YOu can’t rule out any young man who happened to be in Jerusalem at the time. But you think it was one in particular, you’d have to mounnt a case based on evidence/argument. I’ve seen what others have adduced as evidence/argument, and don’t find it convincing; my sense is that most scholars are on teh same page. For one thing “the disciple Jesus loved” is unique to the Gospel of John and is almost always thought to be either someone known only in John’s community (not broadly) or John’s own invention.
Thanks. Even though John’s gospel is the only one which mentions this disciple Jesus loved, this author does write about Lazarus coming with Jesus and his disciples to that final Passover. One can rightfully infer that this same beloved disciple could well have been with Jesus in the garden at the time of Jesus’ arrest (based on Mark) inasmuch as he was with Jesus at the supper soon before if John’s Gospel be half-way credible. Where else could this young man who fled naked from the garden (according to Mark) come from? No need to answer as we are all left guessing about most things like this anyway. But guessing, supposing, hypothesizing and theorizing are all we can can do simply because we are left with evidence which is so replete with inconsistencies, incongruities, disparities, contradictions and irreconcilable differences it reveals itself as being the impeached (discredited, unreliable) writings of errant men and in no way, shape or form the inspired, inerrant infallible words of some Omnipotent, Supreme Being we call God as preachers duped me into believing decades ago.
Years ago, I heard a podcaster claim that the Gospel of Mark ended in mid-sentence, implying that the original version (prior to the later additions) was actually incomplete — like it was missing a page or two. Is there any truth to this claim? Are you aware of any scholars who have made this claim?
If mankind and son of man are the same words in greek, why was it translated son of man in Mark 2, 28?
They can be expressed by the same term in Aramaic. In Greek they are different terms. Mark uses the phrase (in Greek) “man” for the first two statements,” and “son of man” for the third.
Why was Marks Jesus surprised about his death after he predicted it three times?
One of the great ironies of Mark. But I’m not sure Jesus in Mark was “suprised” by it so much as not wanting to go through with it when it came to the time, and not understanding why it had to happen — psychologically perfectly consistent with human behavior I’d say.
But why would he ask: “Why have you foresaken me” if he already knows the answer (Mark 10, 45)?
My sense is that Mark is trying to explain to his readers who were being persecuted that they would have to be persecuted — it was God’s will — even though it may not be clear why. Jesus himself at the end is shown as not understanding why. You’re right, it doesn’t coincide well with Mark 10:45, but it lines up with the idea that one might wish God would find another way.
I’m rereading Mark at the moment. I find it difficult to pierce through decades of familiarity and generations of traditional exegesis to read a text with fresh eyes and an open mind. That’s why I’m excited to consider your reflection questions! These will be really helpful aids. It’s like being a student in one of your classes! Thanks so much, Bart. I feel like I’m growing as a person because of your work. You are truly a blessing to me.