Loading...So far I have been talking about how I conceived of my textbook when I first started working on it in the mid 1990s, stressing in particular that I wanted to approach the task from a rigorously historical perspective. I should say again, I really was not sure that anyone would be interested in a textbook like that. The only think comparable that I knew about at the time was a textbook by Joseph Tyson, a fine scholar at SMU, whose book, though, was not widely used.
In addition, I heard, while I was doing the research for my book, that an Introduction was being written by none other than Raymond Brown. I thought that this was *certain* to make my book a non-entity. Many of you may not know who Raymond Brown was. At the time, he was arguably the premier scholar of the New Testament in North America. He was extremely learned; incredibly deep; unusually insightful. He had read everything. He was tremendously energetic. He trained some of the finest scholars of my generation in his position as professor of NT at the acclaimed Union Theological Seminary in New York. He was remarkably productive. He was known by everyone and revered by just about everyone. And he was writing an Introduction. I was sure that his book would take over the entire market, and that I didn’t have a prayer. In contrast to him, I was a young and insignificant nobody – someone who was known principally as a textual critic who specialized on the most specialized of areas in New Testament studies, not someone with a breadth of experience and knowledge – which were ust the sorts of things that one needs to write an Introduction to the field.
But one thought made me wonder. The thing about Ray was…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE!!!
Bart, I’ve read your Third Edition (2004) and (at age 64) enjoyed it. … Lord willing, I’ll read the new edition too.
The amazon entry for Raymond Brown’s introduction to the New Testament does not have a “Look Inside” so people can see the Table of Contents.
The amazon entry for your book mentioned above, the introduction to the New Testament does not have a “Look Inside” so people can see the Table of Contents. What I’m looking for at the moment is whether or not you have a chapter or a section in a chapter that explains definitively 1) that Paul died in 67 and 2) rationale additional to Paul’s death and biographical info in Acts that the authentic letters of Paul were written before 67 and which of the non-authentic letters were written before 67.
An independently written narrative of Paul’s life and ministry, found in the Acts of the Apostles, is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle to Philemon 1:7; based on this statement, J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea, while W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul’s captivity in Rome, while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus. One difficulty with this position is * the limited data available on Paul’s historical setting, * and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul’s death. It also assumes that the book of Acts was written by an actual traveling companion of Paul’s. However, as A.N. Sherwin-White has noted, in travel romance literature of this period, it was a normal literary convention to use the first-person plural while characters were on a shipboard voyage, and “we” passages in Acts coincide with such voyages.
If we have 5 authentic letters of Paul referencing 5 historical cities, we might have 100 members minimum per congregation: 100 Romans, 100 Corinthians, 100 Galatians, 100 Philippians, and 100 Thessalonians for a total following of 500 people: 495 people and 5 leaders of each congregation.
Dr. Ehrman, with the congregation of Romans yielding a surviving early Christianity, I do not see the remaining four in your Lost Christianities (mistakenly titled Early Christianities in another post I made).
Also in the Archaeological Study Bible, I do not see pictures or mention of Christian symbols (burials, necklaces, mosaics) from the Congregation of Corinthians, the Congregation of Galatians, the Congregation of Philippians, or the Congregation of Thessalonians.
Did they survive? Did these four have a bishop by year 125 C.E. and did those bishops become early fathers who wrote about its community’s correspondence with Paul?
I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers of 100 persons per congregation. My sense is that some of them were much larger than others. But I would have no idea how to assign actual numbers. We don’t have much by way of material remains in the first three centuries.
The numbers of congregants are brainstorming #s towards plausibility for a Paul to write letters to community leaders encouraging them to keep the faith and grow their congregations. Yet, not one of them left archaeological evidence of materializing.
In Lost Christianities, I haven’t yet come across you speaking of any of the early Christianities that received Paul’s letters. The Marcionites are not early enough for my interests. There still are the Ebionites and the Gnostics. But the Ebionites may not be early enough for my interests either (before Josephus died):
“The earliest reference to a group that might fit the description of the later Ebionites appears in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (c. 140). They were led by Simeon of Jerusalem (d. 107) and during the Second Jewish-Roman War of 115–117, they were persecuted by the Jewish followers of Bar Kochba for refusing to recognize his messianic claims. According to Harnack the influence of Elchasaites places some Ebionites in the context of the gnostic movements widespread in Syria and the lands to the east.”
In your book, pages 116 – 120, you have a section called, “The Origins of Gnosticism” but instead of providing a date for this lost Christianity or listing the dates of all Gnostic Gospels and listing the cities where these communities are, we are brought way back to Gnostic theology being associated with the Exodus.
Was there a community in a city for the disciples of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas?
Was there a community in a city for the disciples of Judas and the Gospel of Judas?
So, as your book speaks about the gnostics, to mention one lost, early Christianity and the battles for scripture and faiths we never knew, I’m seeing the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas texts around which these Christianities developed and maintained themselves. The problem I have with Paul and his 5 early and lost Christianities is a letter of Paul may not have been enough to maintain an early Christianity. Yes, one of the books in my library says Letter to the Roman’s is Paul’s Aenid by Virgil; but, Rome isn’t an early lost Christianity.
Second, one would think the 5 churches and the Roman church were cohesive around Pauline Christianity (even though Paul did not found the Roman church–to what extent was the Letter to the Romans powerful enough to be the new sacred scripture of the pre-existing Roman church?) Did Paul send copies of Romans (a great piece of writing) to the 5 churches, in addition to their own letters? So, the six churches can be considered a federation or, lightly, a Pauline early Christianity denomination differing from the Johannine community and the Jerusalem church.
Still, Dr. Ehrman, we have the letters of Paul appearing in the earliest pro forma compilations of a New Testament (second century in Marcion, Muritorian Canon, Papyrus 46). How were these letters called back for compilation in the second century? Would Paul have had Epaphroditus to have a scribe copy these letters before they went out?
The 5 letters survived into the 2nd century 50 years after they were written and mailed but the 5 churches did not survive 50 years? What was the succession planning of Paul with regards to administering these 5 churches? He invested the time and money to write to them. To whom did he pass on this responsibility? Rome did not care about the Jerusalem Church, unless you state otherwise. Did the first 5 popes keep in contact with these 5 churches. Even if they did, Marcion and the Muritorian Canon are not under the first five popes, or are they?
Without Paul’s letters being archived by the popes 1) Peter in Syria; 2) Linus in Tuscia; 3) Anacletus in Rome; 4) Clement I in Rome; or 5) Evaristus in Bethlehem, the historicity of Paul’s letters being older than 67 C.E. is problematic. What’s left is that they were preserved by secular Rome, for example, the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis, responsible for the regulation of foreign cults in Rome or by private and personal patrons of Paul.
It is usually thought that there was a collection of Paul’s letters in circulation around the year 100. The only group of Christians we know of who rejected them were the Ebionites; but it’s almost impossible to put a precise date on them — they claimed, at least, to go back to the very earliest Christians in Jerusalem under James.
What is the best way for a non-scholar, non-student, mere “hobbyist”/enthusiast to learn koine Greek? Any particular recommended textbook or video series or teaching software? Or is it even practical to self-learn?
I’m afraid I don’t know. It’s one of those languages that it really helps to have some guidance on. I think there is a NT Greek discussion group on the Net. They’d be the place to ask. Good luck with it.
It’s impressive that you read scripture in the original languages, but I wonder how a lay person is to counter when they present their views of independent study of scripture to another lay person. Recently, I’ve been studying the Bible daily and more in depth than my peers, who read daily devotionals and carry their bibles to church on Sundays. I’ve presented what I’ve learned and why I cannot believe that the Bible can be taken literally; the response I get is, “You need to talk with my pastor” or “You’re interpreting scripture incorrectly. You’d have to go back to the original text/language (Sunday services) to get a true understanding of scripture.” I have received these comments from evangelical family, friends, and preachers alike. If you weren’t knowledgeable about the initial languages, how would you suggest a lay person respond to original language remarks?….By the way, I’ve ordered this textbook from Amazon and awaiting its arrival.
Some contradictions of the NT cannot be reconciled no matter *what* language you read them in (Greek, English, Swahili, or whatever). You might want to focus on those (I give a bunch in Jesus Interrupted).
A few times during your discussion of the textbook, you’ve alluded to the idea that a scholar specializing in textual criticism is an unlikely author of an introductory text. I’m a little surprised by that. Seems like someone who must marshal internal and external evidences for original readings would have to be completely immersed in the historical, social, and theological context of a text. While the specialty of NT textual criticism comes, I suppose, to a pretty narrow point (yup, I came to that conclusion while reading Orthodox Corruption), seems like it just can’t be done without the kind of broad expertise that would also be necessary to write an intro text.
Yes, I agree. But you’d be amazed at how narrow many (most?) textual critics are, unfamiliar with some of the major and many of hte minor areas of NT scholarship.
Absolutely fantastic insight, Dr. Ehrman. As someone who hopes to one day write a textbook in my own field, this is a great personal resource – although i do not look forward to rising at 4AM every morning to read primary sources!
Quick workload question-when you get into this phase of waking up at 4 am to read/write, etc, what time are you generally going to bed? Do you let yourself nap? (Sorry if thats getting personal-I’m adjusting to a new schedule based on the college day.)
I don’t do it anymore! (thank the gods). But I would usually go to bed early enough to get 6 1/2 or 7 hours of sleep. Today I sleep a lot more!
For whenever you have time…I’m still puzzling over the question of whether the “Judas” story could be nonhistorical.
In my earlier post, I said, “I know you think that’s impossible, on the ground that Christians wouldn’t have wanted to invent a story in which Jesus wasn’t revered even by all his disciples, and wouldn’t have known one of them was plotting against him. But don’t the Gospels portray him as *anticipating* the betrayal, and letting it happen for the sake of its ‘fulfilling prophecies’?”
In your reply, you said, “I deal with the question of whether Judas was ‘made up’ in my book The Secret Gospel of Judas Iscariot (where I argue that Judas was probably a historical figure).”
In the book, after noting that the story is multiply attested (the “independent” sources being Mark, John, and the Gospel of Judas), you say, “Moreover, this is not the sort of datum that early Christians would have been likely to make up when telling their stories about Jesus – that one of his own hand-chosen followers was the one who gave him up to the authorities. Would early Christians imagine that Jesus had no more sway over his own followers than that?”
That’s what I’d stated, in different words, as my understanding of what you believe. You don’t deal with the possibility that by the time the story took shape, it could have included a divine Jesus’s having known Judas would betray him, and let it happen because it would supposedly fulfill some sort of “prophecy” (those early Christians’ catch-all explanation for a good many things).
As for its appearing in both Mark and John, that’s also true of the “empty tomb” story, which you reject. And if a false story had been circulating widely enough to have been picked up by both Mark and John, its having also reached a (later) Gnostic writer wouldn’t constitute much in the way of proof.
In your footnotes, you mention a book by Hyam Maccoby that argues against Judas being historical. I read the few reviews of it at Amazon.com, and the one that seemed most intelligent and open-minded says the author can’t make a strong case. But that might be partly because he’s trying to claim the made-up Judas was somehow “based on” Jesus’s actual brother.
I can’t help seeing parallels between the “betrayal by Judas” episode and the “discovery of an empty tomb” episode. In both cases, there has to be one or the other of two reasons for Peter’s not having mentioned it to Paul: the disciples found it embarrassing, or it never happened. (I’d like to say more, but this Comment is way too long already.)
Yes, it’s a complicated set of questoins — too long for a brief comment here. Maybe I should post on it at some time. Short story: independent attestation on its *own* isn’t enough to establish historical reliability; but in combination with dissimilarity, it becomes much stronger. Of course it’s *possible* that Judas was invented. It’s always a quesiton of what is most *probable.”
Another quick question about Jesus’s disciples… Do scholars accept, as established fact, that he had the same twelve men as disciples throughout his ministry? There’s certainly confusion about their names. (As a Catholic schoolgirl, I was taught that “Bartholomew was sometimes called Nathaniel, Matthew was sometimes called Levi, and Jude was sometimes called Thaddeus.” Um, *why*?)
Jesus was seemingly bent on having twelve disciples, to represent the supposed twelve original “tribes of Israel.” Might some have become disillusioned and walked away, with his then finding “replacements” – men he might not really have known all that well?
I’ve never heard that theory before. It’s an interesting one. More commonly it is thought that everyone knew that there had been twelve of them, but not everyone knew what their names were.
There are a number of books by you listed on Amazon indicating … “an Introduction to the NT….” with different publication dates, for example: **The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman (Jul 1, 2011)**
Which text are you discussing here…the title and the publication date?
Thank you
That’s the one! But I’ve been discussing it’s first edition in 1997. The 2011 version is much improved!
Real quick bart
Predictive roadmap
From john disciple and not john bar from present environment it was during or followed
By the time of Rome when there was war and destruction.
Could these events alone be the Inspiration of Book of revelation ? As a believer no
I believe these Guys risk there lives and sacrificed their lives for something they experienced from Jesus
Or again time of destruction and natural human instinct to help those In need with a
Purpose larger than them selves
Like For example jesus followers
No the works of men but of god
Let me say this jesus even said to John the Baptist,
That he would be Back for judgment and send his angel ?
and let me add jesus was fulfilling his purpose but when he heard what happened he deserted everything that moment ?
I wonder was jesus was saying the way there ? Still trying to find a verse stating jesus showing emotion like this
not even for peter we’ll that we know of
Just a believer arguing his beliefs on a blog
Rev 22:16 the angel ?
Who was jesus referring to ?
John the Baptist as for paving road for him ? Or possibly angel from rev 16:5
I’m afraid I’m not sure what you’re asking. Sorry!
Rev 22:16 who’s was jesus referring to ?
Himself.
I found a copy of Prof Brown’s “The Death of the Messiah”, two volumes in the slip case, for a quite reasonable price in a used bookstore here in Washington DC where I live. It sits on my “to read” shelf even as I type, quite daunting I must say.
I just finished Gerd Ludemann’s recenlty revised and expanded commentary of I Thessalonians. Very interesting. I was not aware there was a minority opinion that the letter is inauthentic. Prof Ludemann thinks it is authentic but he dates it as early as 41 or 42. Your work figures somewhat in his notes and bibliography. I also found it interesting that he refers explicitly to the Pastoral Letters as forgeries.
Prof Ludemann’s book is less than a 150 pages but densely packed. Lots to chew on. What do think of dating I Thess to the early 40s?
Thanks
I’m not an expert on Pauline chronology (never was much interested in it); but the 40s does seem early to me. Usually it’s dated to 49 or 50.
Please let your fellow scholars who are experts on Pauline chronology know you have an audience at your blog which would like their input on Pauline chronology. If you could introduce your colleagues, that would add even more value to this site. For example, someone asks a question. The scholar answers. You second with, this is so and so, doctorate degree such and such, author of such and such. I personally thank him for taking the time to contribute a comment that advances this thread.
This Introduction worked very well for me. One of the nice things about it is that it is possible to open it at almost any page and start reading and it engages the reader immediately. If any blog member is in doubt whether to buy it or not, my opinion is that it is the best buy I have made within this field.
A question: Which , in your opinion , is the best of the traditional introductions to NT? I already have W.G. Kümmel, but that one is perhaps a bit outdated now.
Kuemmel is great if you want a state of the question from the 1960s. For a state of the question 30 years later, Ray Brown is the best. For something today — well, I’m not sure there is anything at the level of sophistication of those two.
Looking at the Bibliography of Lost Christianities, I do not see Allegro, John M. One reader from Portugal had this to say about his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth
“Unlike Kersten, Messadié and other polemical authors, John Allegro doesn’t fall in just an easy speculation completely without logic and strong historical evidence. No, Allegro knows deeply the religious background of the Essenians [Essenes] and other Near-East cults. He can so easily describe the rituals and beliefs of those strange * * gnostic * * movements that one feels like we’re actually reliving those past times with them: the reader can see the Ancient World through the eyes and words of John Allegro.”
An argument can be made that the Essenes of the 1st century B.C.E. were an early and Lost Christianity, as you speak of gnostic Christianity being a Lost Christianity.
It’s because the Essenes were Jews, not Christians. Allegro was an interesting scholar, but unusually idiosyncratic.
A podcaster with a *large* audience, who seems to buy Allegro’s crazy Mushroom theory, said something with great authority that I can’t really figure out the meaning of. Maybe he’s referring to Paleo-Hebrew or gematria or something (I have no idea). He seems to show very little knowledge about the subject he’s speaking about (he doesn’t seem to realize the NT is not in the Dead Sea Scrolls for example). But here’s the quote:
“The ancient Hebrew version of the bible—they don’t even know all the words—they only know a certain percentage of words in ancient Hebrew—like they literally don’t know what the words mean—and part of it’s because letters were also numbers in ancient Hebrew–like the letter A is also the number 1. So like there was a certain numerical value to words that we don’t understand… and on top of that the oldest version of the bible which is the Dead Sea Scrolls is so f*cking crazy that they don’t even use it. It’s just so filled with these vague stories of trips and UFOs and visitations and all sorts of nutty sh*t.”
1. Is there any truth at all to the claim that scholars don’t know what ancient Hebrew words mean? I mean we have an old silver scroll that goes back to c. 600 BCE and the LXX was written about the same time as the Dead Sea Scrolls and was quoted in the NT—I know of no evidence suggesting scholars had/have trouble with understanding ancient Hebrew words—do you?
2. Is there any truth to his claim that scholars do not use the Dead Sea Scrolls because they’re more “crazy and nutty and/or vague” than the LXX and Masoretic Texts? Again, I know of no evidence that supports this claim—but maybe you do?
3. I won’t bother with the rest of the nonsense, but as mentioned, he cites John Marco Allegro to support his idea the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden so the Romans wouldn’t figure out the bible was based on psychedelic mushroom trips! I know Allegro was seen as a quack scholar by his peers… is that pretty much your view on him too?
I’m afraid this person has no clue what he is talking about. He has heard some things and filtered them through a very strange set of assumptions. He obviously has never studied Hebrew or the Dead Sea Scrolls (or the LXX etc.)
What about John Marco Allegro (whom he mentions for support of his “Dead Sea Scroll Mushroom theory”). I know the basics about Allegro (his “mushroom book” got him fired and mocked by most of his peers)—but he was an actual scholar (Robert Price seems fond of him for obvious reasons). What is your scholarly take on Allegro?
He was a learned scholar who ended up taking some veyr peculiar stands.
Got it, thanks. One more on this. It’s not that I haven’t looked this up on my own, but since you’re a world class scholar, I imagine you have unique information on this. This same podcaster recently said the following:
“Mainstream Jerusalem scholars now believe that Moses was on drugs. They believe that Moses was taking psychedelic drugs and that’s what the whole burning bush was—the burning bush represents the acacia bush, which is a very common plant in that area, and it’s rich with DMT. So they think that the burning bush was them smoking DMT—which is the most potent psychedelic known to man, and it also gives you all these experiences where you feel like you’re in contact with some sort of a higher power. So they think that that’s what was going on.”
My question(s): From what I can tell, he got this from Benny Shanon, who was a professor of psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. What’s your take on the above quote and prof Shanon? I wonder what your colleagues who specialize in this would say… Shanon is a professor of psychology so I don’t think he’s really trained in the areas he’s speaking on, but then again, your recent book (which I bought) is based on memory and psychology, so IDK… maybe Shanon has a point? *I don’t buy it… but IDK for sure.
No, that’s completely bogus.
Looked up this blog article after hearing Bart on his podcast mention how he came to write his Intro to the NT. As a non-scholar of the Bible, but very interested in scholarship on it, over the last few years I’ve been reading different intros to the NT. If I had to choose two intros and no more, I would choose Raymond Brown’s and Bart’s, for just the descriptions Bart gives. Bart’s intro is excellent for those just starting, and Ray Brown’s is excellent for those who want to go a bit deeper. Both intros are engaging and excellent for their particular target audiences.