Loading...This now is the fourth of FIVE FAVORITES with which I’m beginning the new launch of our blog site, one from our fourth year of operation 2015. I am trying to pick different kinds of posts and even though I am not saying these are my all-time favorites of all, they certainly are posts (from five from sequential years) that for one reason or another I very much like.
I need to give a more extensive introduction to this one. It is actually one of a series of posts connected with the discovery of the “Nag Hammadi Library” — known more popularly as “the Gnostic Gospels.” These “heretical” books were discovered by accident in 1945, not by archaeologists looking for ancient books but by Egyptian fellahin in a wilderness area near the village of Nag Hammadi Egypt. Scholars have long told the story of their discovery — I have done so roughly 4000 times; but my friend and colleague in NT studies at Duke, Mark Goodacre, has argued that the story itself is an unsubstantiated legend.
This post is not about that issue per se; but if you want to read about it, here are the relevant posts:
Here is my original post on the traditional discovery narrative:
https://ehrmanblog.org/the-discovery-of-the-nag-hammadi-library/
Here is Mark’s guest post in which he responded.
https://ehrmanblog.org/mark-goodacre-questioning-the-discovery-of-the-nag-hammadi-library/
And here is my response to mark’s response!
https://ehrmanblog.org/my-response-to-mark-goodacre-on-the-discovery-of-the-nag-hammadi-library/
You can see more posts on similar issues simply by doing a word search for “Nag Hammadi Library” on the blog.
Now, on to the related post that I’ve wanted to repost.:
*****************************
I have received a number of questions from readers about the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library, arising out of my earlier discussion of it and the beginning of the back and forth I’m having with Mark Goodacre (as we await his reply to my initial response; he is overseas attending an academic conference and has his hands full just now). Here I will deal with two questions, one that’s a zinger and the other that has been asked by several readers.
First the zinger. The reader noted that I indicated that the books of the library were manufactured in the fourth century; we know this because the leather bindings on the books had their spines strengthened with scrap papyrus (and is therefore called cartonnage) and some of these papyri were dated receipts. And so the reader’s question:
QUESTION:
Just out of curiosity – what form of dating did the compilers of the books use, that would correspond to our “341 CE” and so on? I’m assuming they weren’t using Roman dates. But were the Romans themselves, in that era, still using dates “ab urbe condita”?
RESPONSE:
This is a great question, and I have to admit…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN UP!!! It costs very little, you get a whole lot, and every dime goes to charity. Win-Win-Win!!
I suppose, when I first heard it, I thought the NHDN was a little too Indiana Jonesesque to be absolutely true. But I agree with Professor Bart that there is more than likely to be a large kernel of truth in the story. I believe attempts were made to ‘tone down’ the dramatic elements in the story of the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun, by saying that Carter had discovered it much earlier and had already explored the tomb before announcing its ‘discovery’ to his patron, Lord Carnarvon. However, as Bart says none of this really detracts from the substance of the discovery itself. Great post.
Since we know so very little about the history of the apostles and their martyrdom after the death of Jesus, I am curious whether there is any evidence for the continuity between st. Peter and the later catholic church. Do we have any reason to think that popes in later centuries are somehow linked to the supposed authority given by Jesus in Matthew 16:19, if it would exist?
I don’t know if it would exist, but I absolutely do not think Peter was responsible for starting the church in Rome or that he was its first leader. Among other things, our first evidence of the church in Rome is Paul’s letter to the Romans, where he greets a large number of people he knew there (he hadn’t been there himself yet). Peter’s not mentioned. Other leaders are. So I think the idea that he was the “first bishop” is just a later legend. (That’s a very common view among non-Catholic scholars)
Throughout the 2nd century CE, we find Christian apologists writing about various forms of ‘gnostic’ and other Christianities which they considered unorthodox. By the early fourth century CE, theologians were arguing amongst themselves about the manner in which the man Jesus was also divine (divine in the same manner as God the Father, or similar to him, or an exalted first angel). It seems like the Christological and cosmological options had contracted over the two centuries for Christians.
Would you say that by the early 4th century CE, there were no longer significant number of ‘Gnostic’ Christians to warrant the orthodox writers writing about them (even though the 4th century Nag Hammadi Library indicate that there were some who treasured and preserved these ‘gnostic’ texts and beliefs)?
Yes, that’s my view. And a widely shared one, I believe. These groups still existed but they were no longer seen as important threats. Even thought they do continue to be attacked, most notably, e..g, by Epiphanius.
First of all, I am impressed with the technical upgrade of the blog. Providing an audio version is greatly appreciated as I listen to the material every morning on my walks. You and your team continue to offer the highest standards of informational and technical benefits available in a blog. Also the money benefits so many in need.
I attend both sunday school and church services on a regular basis and enjoy watching the teacher/pastors gloss over or ignore the difficult parts of the scriptures. The theme of most teaching at our church is”faith” and how much it appears in the Bible. Pastors typically define faith as belief in the promises and attributes of God, But rarely mention the evidence that may be necessary to support faith.
Last week the pastor used the example that we have faith a chair will not collapse when we sit on it. But there is Science, facts and evidence to support our faith in a well built chair. That’s not true in most of the Biblical claims.
Thanks again for the upgrade
As a historian you have an era that you specialize in. What would say are – roughly – the boundaries of that era? Early Christianity starts around AD 30 but when does it end? With Augustine and the fall of the Western Roman Empire?
My major expertise would probably be first and second century, with strong interest in everything from Jesus to Constantine.
This begs another question (that is perhaps too large to be tackled here). What are the different time periods of Christianity, and what ends one time and starts the next? (For example, why does early Christianity end with Constantine – what’s happening there that it shifts into a new phase in Christian history?)
It’s like all time periods: they are later ascriptions by people looking back. They might put dates on them, but they are largely arbitrary. When was the Middle Ages, e.g.? But in terms of your qeustion, Constantine marks the major shift from the Empire persecuting Christains to adopting Christianity.
I wonder if Cornelius the centurion in Acts who was converted by Peter (he was said to be in the Italian Cohort) may have later returned to Rome and helped to build up the church there. Perhaps his experience may have led them to venerate Peter.
Usually it’s thought (at least by critical scholars) that he is a legendary figure. If he had been in Rome, it is never mentioned anywhere in our sources (he never appears outside of Acts 10-11). When Paul greets people he knows in the church in Rome in Rom. 16, he is not mentioned.
Professor, what is the difference between the historical (historische) Jesus and the historical (geschichtliche) Jesus? If there is a difference, your book Does Jesus Exist? speaks to which one? Thank you.
I think the difference is probably that one is referring to the historical person of Jesus and what he said and did and the other to the historical signficicance of Jesus, starting with what he said and did. In that particular book I deal with the historical figure. I reflect on the historical significance in other books, e.g., Jesus before the Gospels.
Dear Bart,
Thank you for this informative blog.
I was listening yesterday to your course “Lost Christianities” (one of your courses in the Great courses series) where you analyze how the gospel of Thomas can be understood as a Gnostic document. However, you mentioned above that now it is considered to be a non-gnostic document. Has the consensus changed amongst scholars recently? If so, then why? and how are the different sayings in this gospel currently understood? or am I misunderstanding the point?
Best regards
Mohammed
Yes, it has changed. And I changed my mind after I did the course! The main reason for not calling it Gnostic these days is because it does not set forth any of hte Gnostic myths that stand out prominently in texts that are widely recognized as Gnostic.
Dr Ehrman, in the last of the original posts you linked to at the start of this post (dated June 22, 2015), you said that Prof. Goodacre would “later post a response to each of my responses”. I’ve searched the archives and can’t find any final follow-up response from Prof. Goodacre. Did it ever happen?
Now that you mention it, I don’t believe he did! I must have mis-spoken!
Shame, but thanks for confirming!
Professor: I just re-read Marcus Borg’s 1994 Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (for the umpteenth time). He references the Gospel of Thomas and cites it together with Mark, Q, the synoptics as authoritative in discerning whether “Jesus said it” among (i think he said) MOST of the Jesus Seminar members when deciding how to cast votes. Do you “hear” the actual voice of the pre-Easter Jesus in these sayings generally? Or maybe just comment as you wish on your position on the Thomas sayings. Thanks!
Yes, that was a key point for the Jesus Seminar, in no small measure because the Gospel of Thomas does not present an apocalyptic Jesus and teh was what they wanted to promote. I think the synoptic-like sayings of Jesus in Thomas do indeed help to know what he taught; the others appear by and large to be influenced by later trends of Christian thought.