Loading...Many people on the blog are interested in textual criticism, the field that examines our surviving manuscripts of the New Testament to figure out what the authors originally wrote and to see how and why their writings came to be changed by later scribes. One of the most important books I’ve published was one I didn’t write (!), an edited collection of essays by leading scholars in the world on various aspects of the topic. The book was for academics, but some of you might be interested in what it was all about. I was asked about it many years ago on the blog, and thought reposting the question and response would be a good way to introduce it here.
QUESTION:
Dr. Ehrman, in your first and second edition of The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis that you co-edited with Dr. Michael Holmes, what was your role in editing, especially since some articles were beyond your admitted expertise?
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!
Thanks Dr Ehrman. A fascinating post. I see that the Bruce Metzger book is still readily available on Amazon (and other sites).
PS. I do hope Hurricane Debby leaves you alone.
I am in a theology group that has met for 4 years. In August I am presenting the program and want to address the “issues” with John’s gospel…its authorship, validity, theology, impact, etc. I have had a problem with that gospel since we spent a year on the New Testament and want to pursue that in more depth. Do you have recommendations for materials besides whole books I might use for pre-work for the session, either articles or videos or whatever? I have found it easier to find this kind of material for the other gospels but that isn’t what I need! I would like to flesh out the problems beyond just the variations in stories in a horizontal reading style….those can be found anywhere. Any thoughts on how to make this interesting and what questions would provide thought-provoking ideas for a more vibrant discussion? Our class is 1 ½ hours long.
Also, I want to thank you for your series on Islam and Christianity….extremely informative and interesting. If fact, Javad Hashmi has agreed to address our group on “Is Islam Exceptional” for our first class!
Thanks for any suggestions you may have.
I’d suggest you look at the chapter on John in my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, especially the 8th edition that has just come out, where the chapter on John has been rewritten.
Hi Dr. Ehrman! Something I often wonder about when I hear you commenting on Jesus’s interaction with Pilate or the higher Jewish leaders before his crucifixion, is “how do we know that?” For example you seem to put a lot of emphasis on how this is the only context in which Jesus is referred to as the “king of the Jews”.
How do the authors of the gospels know what happened between Pilate or high Jewish leaders? Is there reason to think we have direct testimony that’s found its way into the gospels? Or are people inferring what the conversation was about based on, perhaps, Jesus’s cross having “king of the Jews” on it and someone reported that? Thanks!
My view is that they cannot have known. These are simply the stories that were being told about their interactions by later Christian story-tellers, who would not have known what actually took place.
Hi bart
In 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8 Paul used twelve and all the apostles. Its wierd because why would he refer to the same people 2 times. What does he mean by all the apostles? And if he dosent mean the twleve then why does he mention james after mentioning the twelve he is also part off them.
It’s not clear if by “all the apostles” he means only the original twelve disciples (minus Judas) or a larger group who were commissioned to take the gospel afield. He either is referring to two different groups with significant overlap, or he is indicating that Christ appeared to the same group on more than one occasoin.
Dr. Ehrman,
The 2013 version, is it for scholars or lay people or people have spent a couple semester’s worth of time and study reading your work?
It is definitely directed toward scholars, but lay people with extensive background reading about textual criticism (who know the information, e.g., in Metzger’s book The Text of the New Testament) may find it useful as well.
Professor,
I have come across this in an old and well rated magazine, Jerusalem Perspective, 1990:
“The Jerusalem School scholars believe the first narrative of Jesus’ life was written in Hebrew, and that it can be successfully recovered from the Greek texts of the synoptic Gospels.”
How does that viewpoint hold up today?
I don’t know of any scholars who hold that view.
The idea, then getting it together, then asking people to do it, and then getting them to deliver on time, is an incredible achievement. And a one-year deadline!? Few people who haven’t tried it will know just what an achievement. Well done!
Third edition? 😉
Professor,
Since I was a teenager, predeluvian times, I was always suspicious of Jesus dying the same day as crucified, maybe as little as after three hours, since crucifixion was used as a means of torture supposed to last several days, sometimes a week. You bring up the point of why would the romans care to give back the corps of one killed for pretending to the throne of the king. Maybe if he was proved innocent, and still alive. But a would be usurper? Hard to accept.
So here is my question. Would you object to the idea that after a few days, once dead and decomposing, the body was brought down to be dumped in a common grave, thus giving the opportunity for some disciples to get hold of the corpse, with or without the Romans’ consent, and give it a decent burial? This would reconcile roman crucifixion practices and the reported burial, although not the timing in the Gospels, which are contradictory anyway.
Would you not agree?
It certainly is a hypothesis worth considering — as are all hypotheses when the known facts are so limited! And with all hypotheses one has to ask not only is it possible but … what makes it *probable*? If there’s no hint of that in the sources and no known analogy to it in Roman history, then I think it would need to reamin in the realm of hypothesis. In any event, it appears the disciples left Jerusalem right away and so were not around a few days later to perform a better burial.