Loading...I often get asked about the difference between my trade books for general audiences and my academic monographs for scholars. Three times in my career I have written on the same topic for a popular and a scholarly audience. The first was one on the manuscripts of the NT. The popular book was Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why; the academic one was The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Just from the title it should not be too hard to tell which one is trying to cater to a wider audience and which one is directed to fellow academic nerds.
So too with the next set, dealing with the issue of pseudonymity in the New Testament and other early Christian Writings. The popular account: Forged: Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible’s Authors are Not Who We Think They Are; the academic one: Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in the Early Christian Tradition.
And now the one just completed, with the the second book (academic one) due to be available this coming April 5. The tradebook (from last year) was called: Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife and the (soon to appear) academic one: Journeys to Heaven and Hell in the Early Christian Tradition.
In this final case the difference isn’t overly clear just from the titles; in part that’s because the publisher (Yale University Press) was not particularly intrigued by the title I suggested, which was something like: Katabasis in the Early Christian Tradition and Its Greek and Roman Comparanda. For some reason they didn’t think that wouldn’t attract a lot of readers….
I thought it might be fun to show the difference between the two books simply by posting the openings of each one. Here is how the trade book Heaven and Hell begins. (Please don’t worry about typos or other kinds of mistakes: this is simply a typed out version that hasn’t been copy-edited)
******************************
In the winter season of 1886-87 a French archaeological team digging in Akhmim Egypt, about eighty miles north of Luxor, made one of the most remarkable manuscript discoveries of modern times. The site was a cemetery; the archaeologists were digging in a portion dating to the eighth century CE. In one of the tombs, taken to be that of a Christian monk, they discovered a sixty-six page book, written in Greek and containing a small anthology of texts. One of them was a portion of a Jewish apocryphon known today as 1 Enoch. Another was a previously unknown Gospel that provided an alternative version of Jesus’ trial, death, and resurrection, allegedly written by his closest disciple, Peter. A third was also a book claiming to be by Peter, which in some respects was the most intriguing of all. This was an account, written in the first person, of a guided tour of the afterlife, a detailed description of the torments of sinners in hell and, in far less detail, the blessings of saints in heaven. It is the earliest Christian forerunner of Dante’s Divine Comedy, and the most authoritative such account ever to appear – allegedly authenticated by one of Jesus’ own apostles.
Except no one today thinks Peter actually wrote the account. It was produced by a later Christian who simply wanted his readers to think he was Peter. And why not? What better way to convince them that his descriptions of heaven and hell were bona fide?
Before the text was discovered, scholars had known that some such “Apocalypse of Peter” once existed in the second Christian century. It is mentioned by church fathers from the period. In fact, in some circles, down to the fourth century, Christian authors considered the book a legitimate part of the New Testament, with church leaders arguing whether it, rather than the Apocalypse of John (the book of Revelation), should be included in the canon. Eventually it lost this battle and then disappeared from sight, until serendipitously uncovered by our French archaeologists. [1]
Some years after its discovery, a longer and more detailed version appeared in an ancient Ethiopic translation. Careful analysis has shown that this Ethiopic text provides a more accurate version of the original writing.
The Realms of the Damned and Blessed
The account begins with Jesus seated on the Mount of Olives, speaking to his disciples who want to know what will happen at the end of the world, a scene familiar to readers of the New Testament (Matthew 25; Mark 13).[2] Jesus responds by telling them that false Christs will appear before the end of time, and there will be unimaginable cosmic disasters: cataracts of fire will be let loose; the whole earth will burn, the stars will melt, the heavens will pass away, and the entire creation will dissolve. Only then will Christ come from heaven with his righteous ones and angels. At that point the dead will be raised and all people will face judgment: punishments for sinners and rewards for the righteous, for all eternity.
The account proceeds to describe in graphic and stunning detail the torments awaiting the damned, who are being punished for their most characteristic sin while living, often following…
[1] It is mentioned already by Clement of Alexandria at the end of the second century; see Eusebius, History of the Church, 6.14; Eusebius himself, writing in the early fourth century, suggests that some Christians considered it to be canonical Scripture; History of the Church 3.25. Scholars have determined that the 66-page book that contains the Greek text was produced some time in the sixth century; see Peter van Minnen, “The Greek Apocalypse of Peter,” in Jan Bremmer and István Czachesz, eds, The Apocalypse of Peter (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), pp. 15-39.
[2] I’ll be following the older, Ethiopic version of the text in my summary. For side-by-side English translations of both the Greek and Ethiopic texts, see J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) pp. 593-612. Quotations are from this edition.
Damn, having the Greek word “Κατάβασις” in the title would have been so badass!! Them publishers playing it too safe!
Yeah, I know. On the other hand, I have no objection to having people read teh book…
I read today about two researchers independently identifying Q of Q Anon through machine learning.
Would it be useful applied to the entire Bible?
I know it’s been done to some extent at least to the writings attributed to Paul
Yes, there have been substantial attempts to establish authorship of biblical writings with sophisticated computer systems. They haven’t really born any compelling fruit.
I vaguely recalled seeing some of this applied to sort authorship a la the Documentary Hypothesis for OT in the computational linguistics community in the 2010s and, sure enough, DoubtingTom, you can find:
Idan Dershowitz, Navot Akiva, Moshe Koppel, Nachum Dershowitz; Computerized Source Criticism of Biblical Texts. Journal of Biblical Literature 1 June 2015; 134 (2): 253–271
I think they published it first at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics but can’t find the exact paper.
I seem to recall human/machine analysis of Greek phrasal embedding in NT, as well, though I can’t find it now.
Got one more for NT:
Matricciani E, Caro LD. A Deep-Language Mathematical Analysis of Gospels, Acts and Revelation. Religions. 2019; 10(4):257. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10040257
It’s open access, too, which is lovely.
I just love reading your books. I look forward to a new one. I bought some when the library didn’t have them and donated them. I found ‘ Jesus before the Gospels’ on Amazon after you recommended it- it will be heading to the library after I am finished with it.
That’s very good of you!
If indeed he said it, I’ve always wondered what Jesus meant by “false Christs,” or whether that concept was added to scriptures to bolster its legitimacy.
Fascinating…I thought the civil war battles were the most interesting study that I had ever studied ( Lee/Longstreet letting men walk across a 3/4 mile open expanse directly into fire at Picketts Charge belongs in the Revelation of Peter)
But this beats that in amazing history.
Dr Bart do you know which Bible translation that deliberately change the contradiction so they will match, I see one at the NIV when they change the age of jehoiachin from 8 to 18 so the contradiction will gone, are there any more like this ?
I’d say there are lots. But I’m not familiar with the one you’re referring to. What is the biblical reference and what is the contradiction?
It’s found in 2 Kings 24:8 and its parallel 2 Chronicles 36:9. In the NIV, both verses are forced to read: “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king.” In the Hebrew MT, however, the first reads בֶּן־שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה “eighteen years old,” whereas the second reads בֶּן־שְׁמוֹנֶה שָׁנִים “eight years old.”
Ah, right! That’s one I used to know! Thanks.
I just saw your interview on the podcast When Belief Dies. It made me decide to loook for a better translation than the NKJV. Which in your opinion is a better translation The Alpha and Omega Bible or the NSAB or is there something to be had from both? I’m not opposed to buying both. Do you know a website, off hand which can go into more detail about bible translations altogether? I am no longer a bible beleiving born again Xian just wishing to have understand for conversations with friends who are.
Do you mean the NASB? That’s a very very literal translation with a clear evangelical bias. I don’t know the Alpha and the Omega. For a study Bible I prefer the NRSV. Most evangelicals prefer the NIV.
Dr E what about the nrsvue? I’m afraid in our era of political correctness and genderless everything the magnificent work begun by dr metzger will be carried forward by snowflakes. As you point out, the nrsv dropped the ball in a few places, what is your impression of the nrsvue and most importantly will the scholarly community embrace it the way they did the nrsv? Thank you for your time and consideration.
I think the NRSV is the best translation available, and that it’s policy toward inclusive language is absolutely sensible. When a noun or pronoun refers to males it should be masculine; when it refers to females it should be feminine; when it refers to groups that are both male and female it should not be masculine OR feminine, but inclusive of both. Doesn’t seem very snowflaky to me, just sensible.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. I have a question on the synoptics in regards to the “I Am” saying in Mark that many Christians seem to point to for Jesus calling himself God. If Matthew, who from my understanding loves the OT, saw that Mark used “I am” and knows what that could imply why would he change it? It seems like if anything he would emphasize this by saying something like “He said this to show he was God”. What do you think is the most likely reason? That he didn’t know what it implied? He did know what it implied but instead had Jesus answer the same way he does with Pilot for consistency? Although he could have changed what he said to Pilate and got both the God emphasis and consistency. Or, what I think may be happening here, he does see how people could take this and does not think Jesus is God so he makes sure to change it. Maybe this is an argument to show early Christians, especially those who were well familiar with the OT and prophecy, did not view Jesus as God?
Could you mention the verse (or cite it) and then ask the question? Taht way others could have a better sense of what you’re asking and I can address it more clearly.
Sure thing. I definitely could have worded that better. I have heard some say that Jesus before the Sanhedrin in Mark 14:62 states “I Am. And you will see the Son of Man….” when responding to the Messiah and Son of the blessed one question, and that this is Jesus claiming to be God by saying “Ego eimi”, or whatever the Aramaic translation is. But doesn’t Matthew change this in Matthew 26:64 to “You have said” or “Sy eipas”? If Matthew, who from my understanding had a strong fondness for the OT, was an early Christian and he thought Jesus was God and claimed to be God, why would he change this and not leave it alone or emphasize it? It seems like an argument can be made that early Christians, like the author of Matthew, did not believe Jesus was God and when he came across this verse he knew how some might interpret it so he changed it. Or can we not interpret what Mark meant by how Matthew changes it?
I think one of the problems with this interpretation is that the phrase “I am” in Greek is not necessarily anything offensive or blasphemous. It’s a way of saying “Yes” to a direct question. For example, when the “man born blind” is asked if in he in fact is the one Jesus has healed he says, “I am” (EGO EIMI). They don’t decide to stone him for saying so. In Mark, the high priest asks Jesus if he is the messiah and he answers “I am” — i.e., Yes. But the priest doesn’t cry out blasphemy until Jesus says that he, the priest, will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. Evidently the priest understands that Jesus is referring to himself as the future divine cosmic judge of the earth (which is what Mark portrays him as), and *that* is when he cries out “Blasphemy”
Do your academic critics tend to rely more on your popular texts or your academic texts or both fairly equally when taking you on? If the answer is the popular texts, why do you think that is?
Popular texts. They’re afraid I’m destablizing the nation.
One major difference between trade publications and monographs is of course, price. I find myself in that small but mighty group, while not specialists, and not able to do research and produce such scholarship, are nonetheless interested in and knowledgeable about certain subjects to the level where they can no longer benefit from works for a trade audience. I enjoyed Forgery and Counterforgery best of all your books precisely because it was “down in the weeds”.
I understand the reality of the situation. Monographs are intended for specialized audiences. Most of them will find their destiny in a library somewhere. But lay folks can be interested in a scholarly subject too and sometimes you want to have your own copy of a seminal text. But then you find it’s being published by Brill and you are filled with despair.
Yeah, I know. Those academic presses, though, have very thin margins. The textbook prices are the most surprising; all market driven.
Dr Bart we know that NT quote a word from the Septuagint but do you know The case where the quote actually didnt match with Septuagint wording ?
Since we know the Septuagint got corrupted also
The very big problem is that there was no one official Septuagint version, only Greek translatoins in different manuscripts with different wordings in places. So we can’t compare quotatoins with “the” Septuagint. THere wasn’t just one version.
The very big problem is that there was no one official Septuagint version, only Greek translatoins in different manuscripts with different wordings in places. So we can’t compare quotatoins with “the” Septuagint. THere wasn’t just one version.
Dr Bart do you know part of Septuagint that completely corrupted? because sometimes we found whole story and whole passage that appear and disappear
That makes it like virtually ever other book in the ancient world. When books were not changed, it was not because of a miracle; it was because the copyists were simply more careful to copy accurately.
Dr Ehrman, I hope you don’t mind a question rather unrelated to this particular post.
Since The gospels followed at least a generation after Jesus, and the Canon a number after that, do you think it’s historically accurate to say the Catholic Church came before the Bible? Or was the orthodox view and what became the Catholic Church still too formative through this period when ‘scripture’ was being written and settled?
It completely depends on what you mean by the CAtholic Church. If you mean the Roman Catholic Church as it came down to us today, I’d say that was not in place before most churches agreed on which book sshould be considered scripture.
I have been given a book entitled ‘Unlocking the Bible’ by John Pawson (in the hope it will keep me on the straight and narrow!).
One snippet has intrigued me. In a passage claiming that the gospel of John was written by John Zebedee he adds ‘at least five, and probably seven, of the Twelve were Jesus’ relatives.’
As is Pawson’s wont he does not elaborate nor does he provide an index or references. I have never encountered this assertion before and so I wonder if you are able to say if there are grounds for his statement, please.
Wow. OK, then. YOu might want to take a different path to find your straight and narrow!
This is off topic to the current post, but I have an interesting post suggestion to commemorate the very auspicious day coming Tuesday. The date on Tuesday 22 February 2022 will be both a palindrome and an ambigram: the date will read the same from left to right, from right to left AND upside down: 22022022.
How about doing a post on Tuesday on numerology in the Bible especially in prophecies and their cosmic significance?
An interesting article on the humanity’s fascination with numerology, including its exploitation in the 1990s bestselling book “The Bible Code”:
https://theconversation.com/happy-twosday-why-numbers-like-2-22-22-have-been-too-fascinating-for-over-2-000-years-176093
Interesting idea. Thanks. I read a newspaper article that said 2.2.2022 was a palindrome. Uh….
I am noticing that some blog posts, this one included, APPEAR to be truncated (The account proceeds to describe in graphic and stunning detail the torments awaiting the damned, who are being punished for their most characteristic sin while living, often following…). Anyone else have the same issue?
Thanks!
Almost always that happens when a reader needs to renew their blog membership. Click on Help and then Contact Support, and someone will figure it ourt for you.
Were the Gospels a new genre of writings, or were there comparable writings about other non-mythical Jewish or pagan preachers, prophets, and charismatic leaders?
There were numerous biographies of religious men. If you want to see some selections, check out Documents for the STudy of the Gospels, by D. Cartlidge and D. Dungan. Stories of others include miraculous births, miracles of healing, casting out demons, raising the dead, and ascending to heaven.
What are the similarities and differences between the Apocalypse of Peter and the Book of Revelation?
There are generic similarities in that both are apocalypses that describe visoins of the heavenly realm and insights into the future destiniy of humans; but there are huge differences as well, since Peter is concerned about what happens to a soul at death and Revelatino with what will happen with the destruction of the forces of evil on earth. And lots of others similarities and differences!
I recently finished reading the Apocalypse of Peter on a gnostic webpage. Fascinating!
Ah, there are two of them. You probably redn the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, which is extremely fascinating as well. But that’s not the one that nearly got into the New Testament that describes heaven and hell.