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.
I’m not sure what you mean they weren’t meant to be read separately? Do you mean when Mark wrote his Gospel he was intending it to be read alongside the other three?
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?
No, I don’t think the statement “he was buried” in itself shows there was an empty tomb. Dunn’s argument is suspiciously thin. But I do think Paul clearly understood there was an empty tomb, since Jesus then “appeared” to others and in 1 Cor. 15 he makes it quite clear that this was a physical resurrection, not of a cadaver with a NDE but of a glorified, immortal body that had been transformed. For the body to be transformed into another kind of body meant the old body was no longer in the place it was buried but had been raised. (In Judaism “resurrection” meant bodily being raised.)
Couldn’t Paul’s understanding be that Jesus was physically resurrected from the communal grave where Pilate’s soldiers put the decomposed bodies of their crucifixion victims? I’m assuming Paul knew that Rome didn’t permit crucifixion victims a descent burial, e.g. tomb burial, and that crucifixion victims were left on their crosses to be attacked by scavenged and then the remains were thrown into a communal grave/pit.
Sure. Paul doesn’t say what he has in mind, so it could be most anything: Jesus was buried (how?) and raised.
How do scholars know that Mark was written by someone living outside of Israel?
He is highly literate in Greek for one thing; we have only one surviving author from Israel who was highly literate in Greek, and he was one of the highest level elite we know of (Josephus). Few Jews in Israel could read write at all (Catherine Hezser, in teh fullest analysis that looks at all the evidence, thinks it was somewhere just over 3%), and these would have been urban elites. Jesus’ earliest followrs, from Israel, appear to have been Aramaic-speakers, as was almost everyone in Israel except, again, the highly placed elite.
In addition, Mark is not well versed in some aspects of Judaism, thinking, e.g., that all Jews follow Pharisaic ritual laws, and he appears to think that Pharisees were historically everywhere (standing around random corn fields on a sabbath to make sure no one plucked anything to eat).
So, well, there are lots of reasons.
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?
I’m not sure I’m following our logic. If Jesus was raised as an immoral being, as the earliest Christians believed, then he could get to Galilee most anyway he wanted. He didn’t have to walk! Luke and Mark/matthew are at odds on whether Jesus’ appeared to his disciples in Galilee or Jerusalem only. (I’ll be discussing this at some length in my upcoming lectures on The Other Doubting Thomases). I don’t know if that’s an impeachable offense since I’m not sure what the articles of impeachment are. 🙂
Obviously you don’t know what impeached evidence consists of which is surprising for one whose livelihood centers around the credibility of evidence such as that found in these impeached gospels. But if you knew such then you would not have had any problem with my logic. You seem to have run your train off of the track thinking impeached evidence had anything to do with articles of impeachment in the political arena.
Sorry — “impeached evidence” is not a term that I have ever heard in my field of study. Nor is “impeached books.” Is it a legal term?
Bart, not long ago you wrote very wisely and astutely that students of the four gospels should not only study them “up-and-down” (vertically) but also “side-by-side” (horizontally). This led me to believe you were correctly thinking like a lawyer-theologian inasmuch as the purpose of such an exercise would lead truth seekers to the irrefutable conclusion these four gospels are so irreconcilably-different in so many places they reveal themselves to be the “impeached” words of errant men who wrote “sua sponte” (at their own volition) as opposed to being the inspired, inerrant and infallible words of some Omnipotent, Supreme, Divine, Being we call God. For example, John would have us believe the Jesus of his conception was crucified as the Lamb of God on Nisan 14 (the preparation day for the Passover) whereas, in contradiction, Mark and Luke recount that the Jesus of their conception was crucified and died on the next day (Nisan 15) which was the Passover itself. Now, any lawyer worth his salt would conclude that both of these contradictory and irreconcilable accounts cannot be true because they “impeach” (or throw discredit and unreliability on) one another. Continued below.
But we find in the authentic translations of Matthew (ASV of 1901and earlier) that Matthew impeaches (discredits and throws unreliability on) John, Mark and Luke in that he would have us believe the Jesus of his conception was crucified midweek when it was Nisan 14 which fell on the fourth Jewish weekday (Wednesday); however, we find that the corpse of the Matthewan Jesus was entombed for three nights as opposed to two according to John, Mark and Luke. Such gross, irreconcilable differences cause both theologians and apologists to scramble to try to untie just this one Gordian knot. One scientific theologian in Ireland wrote that, because of these impeached (discredited) accounts, we do not know and cannot determine whether Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14 (Wednesday: Matthew), Nisan 14 (Friday: John), Nisan 15 (Friday: Mark and Luke) or on some other day. (The truth is we do nor even know the year of Jesus’ crucifixion.) Apologists scramble in vain to bring harmony to these impeached accounts which were never written to be in harmony. For example, as I previously wrote, the RSV of 1946 erroneously changed Matt. 28:1 from “Sabbath (Saturday) evening” to “Sunday morning.” Impeached evidence is unreliable.
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.
Yup, done by my friend Joel Marcus. Best commentary on Mark written.
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?
Yes, it’s because the last word of the book is GAR, which is always postpositive (that is, it cannot be used to start a sentence or a clause, but has to come in the second position) and seems to many readers as a very weird way to end a sentence let alone a book. It turns out it’s not as weird as people have claimed, and so is not a probative point (especially since ending the book in that way makes a perfect conclusion given the theme of secrecy and lack of understanding) , but it’s why some suspect the sentence and the book continued from there.