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.)
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.
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?
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.