Loading...In this “nutshell” series summarizing each book of the New Testament, I have now done both Matthew (the first book, canonically) and Galatians (the ninth).
If you’ve paid heed to both sets of posts (or as I say to my students, “If you’ve been awake and sober this semester….”) you will notice they have, well, a slightly different take on whether followers of Jesus should keep the Jewish law. Slightly different? OK, well, let’s ask it this way: if the author of Matthew and Paul were locked in a room and not allowed to emerge until they hammered out a consensus statement about the relevance of the Jewish law for followers of Jesus, would they ever have emerged? Or would archaeologists discover their skeletons still in a joined in a death grip?
To refresh your memories:
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!
In SM is Jesus addressing Jews, while in Galatians is Paul writing to gentiles? Would that make a difference?
I think the issue is that Matthew’s audience is almost certainlky both Jew and gentile, and his message is meant for both.
Imagine Matthew locked in a room with Marcion.
Imagine Matthew locked in a room with Marcion.
Might get ugly.
If the Synoptic Gospels were written early, how would this affect our understanding of Paul’s epistles? I suspect Peters influence behind Matthew, given the nuanced positive depiction of him there compared to Mark, and Paul played a role in developing Luke.
If this holds, it could shed new light on Galatians. The “contrary gospel” might refer to Matthew, while the gospel Paul preached to the Galatians could be Luke. The reference in Galatians 2:2, where Paul submits his gospel to the Jerusalem leaders, might also allude to Luke. Galatians 2:8, which mentions the one who worked with Peter and Paul in their respective apostleships to the circumcised/uncircumcised, could be referencing the Gospel of Mark. The reference about remembering the poor could be the leaders telling Paul to add the beatitudes and other humanitarian references in Luke.
Paul is upset because the deal was that Matthew was for the Jews, and someone broke that deal.
If we assume an early authorship of the Gospels, with Peter influencing Matthew and Paul influencing Luke, would it be plausible to interpret Paul’s references to “the gospel I preached” and “a contrary gospel” in Galatians as specifically referring to the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, respectively?
I don’t seen any evidence that Peter influenced Matthew; the fact he portrays him more positively isn’t indicative. One rather major reason for not being able to say is that we don’t know what Peter thought about much of anything (not having any writings) (since he couldn’t write!) I’d say teh same even more strongly for Paul on Luke: they seem to have quite contrary interests and their theologies (e.g. atonement — rather important!) are different. He may have thought highly off Paul, but I don’t see evidence even in Acts (or rather, especially in Acts!) that he had read Paul’s letters.
Its not just that gMatthew presents Peter positively. gMatthew softens the negative portrayal of Peter in gMark- he’s defending Peter.
Given Paul’s accounts of Peter, it’s likely that a gospel influenced by Peter would resemble gMatthew.
gLuke’s preface critiques the ordering of a prior gospel(s)– potentially gMatthew, which differs from gLuke’s arrangement of Jesus’ teachings. Papias appears to defend Mark’s ordering of Peter’s “charaia”, yet it’s gMatthew that contains collections of charaia, ordered differently than in gLuke.
The “we” passages should be taken seriously and discrepancies between Paul’s letters/Acts can be reasonably explained. However, Acts intertwines Peter&Paul, makes allusions to the Gospels, and blurs the line between history/embellishment. But I do think the author knew Paul. 🤷♂️
When it comes to gLuke, I find it plausible that the author couldve collaborated with Paul. Both focus on Jesus as savior for the world. Unlike Luke, Paul focuses on substitutionary atonement-(he was a Pharisee, Luke was a gentile convert). GLuke emphasizes the poor/marginalized because James told him to in Galatians.
*Assuming* early Gospel authorship, I’m wondering if Paul’s references in Galatians *could* pertain to written Gospels that contradict each other, or if he’s 100% discussing his own revelation about Gentile exemption from Jewish law?
There were a lot of Christians who defended Peter. That doesn’t help much in figuring out who wrote which books that are anonymous.
Expressing admiration for Malcolm X over Martin Luther King Jr. or defending his character doesn’t necessarily imply a direct affiliation with Malcolm X, especially given the significant time gap and the widespread influence of both leaders. In contrast, if I were to defend a lesser-known figure, like evangelist Bob, against another relatively unknown figure, Billy, during a window of time closer to their lives and ministries and within a small circle where their views were actively being discussed, it would be more plausible to assume a personal connection or familiarity with Bob. This would be particularly true if Bob’s teachings weren’t well-documented and the prevailing narrative about him was largely negative. In the case of Peter, he couldn’t even write. How would someone so early become so defensive of him if not for direct familiarity? I’m not saying this is conclusive, but given the other arguments I’ve mentioned, it makes it at least a bit more probable.
I’m not sure why we’re not communicating well. I have a high view of a highly controversial community organizer in my community and may well write an article to the press defending her. I’ve never met her.
You’ve discussed how early Christianity faced resistance in Jerusalem and likely experienced slow growth in the Roman Empire before rapid expansion. You’ve also noted the limited information about the 12 disciples’ missionary work, with most knowledge focused on John, James, Peter, and Paul. Given this, it seems counterintuitive that you question the connection between these early leaders and the authorship of the Gospels.
Your perspective seems to suggest the Gospels were written in complete isolation from any affiliation with the apostles.
Given the small, tight-knit nature of early Christianity, isnt it likely that the communities behind the Gospels, even if written around the turn of the first century, would have had some connection to the apostles?
I think all the evidence shows that the Christian communities around 70-100 CE were anything but tightly-knit. The ones we know about were small communities in a wide range of places witha wide range of views on a wide range of important issues; outside of Israel they all spoke Greek; the apostles did not, and are not known to have traveled to them (except Peter to Antioch).
I think all the evidence shows that the Christian communities around 70-100 CE were anything but tightly-knit. The ones we know about were small communities in a wide range of places witha wide range of views on a wide range of important issues; outside of Israel they all spoke Greek; the apostles did not, and are not known to have traveled to them (except Peter to Antioch).
Based on mathematical modeling, if we assume 100-500 followers of Jesus after crucifixion, with 20 apostles spreading the message (primarily Peter, Paul, and John), and a 7.5% annual growth rate, reaching around 8,000 Christians by the end of the first century, it’s highly likely (over 90%) that most Christians between the year 70 to 90 AD would be connected to an original apostle within 1-2 degrees of separation. Given the close-knit nature of early Christianity and the importance of apostolic authority, it’s even more probable that the Gospel authors around 70-90 would have had a direct connection to an apostle.
I’m still not sure where you’re getting the idea that eh communities were “close-knit” at the time? Paul gives precisely the opposite impression, and he was writing even earlier!
Do you accept the tradition, found in 1 Clement/Ignatius’s letter Romans, that Peter was active in Rome? Given that he lived near the Decapolis and had a brother with a Greek name (Andrew), do you think it’s likely they had some command of Greek language? In John 12, Philip and Andrew seem to act as intermediaries between Jesus and Greeks—do you think this suggests they were fluent? Papias mentions that Peter relied on an interpreter. Do you find that unlikely?
Do you think the early church operated with a defined leadership structure? Paul refers to having an “apostolic seal.” 1 Clement seems to reflect an early sense of apostolic authority. In your view, were the first churches founded by leaders connected to disciples, or were many early communities detached from firsthand eyewitnesses? If so, how do you imagine they were started?
Although the early church struggled with disunity, it often occurred *within* relatively small close-knit groups—house churches made up of just a few dozen people.
Thessalonians references persecution and the church forced out of Jerusalem. In the face of adversity, early Christian communities would have rallied together. This sense of unity would’ve been strengthened by their expectation of Jesus’ imminent return.
Remind me: where do 1 Clement and Ignatius say that Peter was active in Rome. And why would a fisherman who lived on the other side of the sea of Galilee from one of the towns of the Decapolis be more likely to know Greek than a fisherman who lived, say, fifty miles farther away from it? And are you imagining that someone who can undersgtands a bit of conversational Greek, enough to say, sell some fish, is thereby likely to be able to write a major Greek composition. Think of immigrants in our country who can do an amazing job getting by. Could they write a Gospel in English? Or take me in France. I can read French and speak enough to order a meal. Could I write a book in French? I coudn’t write a decent paragraph to save my soul.
That’s a great example. Now, let’s take your scenario—defending an organizer from your community, someone you’ve never met but feel compelled to support—and apply it to the gospels. Imagine an early writer who didn’t personally know Peter but lived among people who were familiar with his teachings. These community members passed down Peter’s ideas, prompting the writer to build upon gMark by adding nuance that both defends Peter and incorporates teachings attributed to him—such as the “chreia” found especially in the Sermon on the Mount. In that case, we would say the Gospel of Matthew was written by someone who had secondhand knowledge of Peter’s teachings, drawn from within his own community. At the very least, I think that much can be said.
But I believe there’s a cumulative case that suggests even more. While I would argue that Papias was incompetent/unreliable, he remains our earliest source on gospel authorship. I’m convinced he’s responding to Luke’s preface, defending the way Mark arranged the chreia in response to what he saw as Luke’s criticism. This flawed early source points to a tradition in which Mark recorded Peter’s teachings—and this account is what eventually became the Gospel of Matthew. Chreia=Q
One can imagine a scenario where Jesus spent part of his childhood in Egypt, where he encountered educated circles in Alexandria, possibly even the Therapeutae. He might have had ties to figures like Hillel. As an adult, Jesus moved to Galilee and began gathering young students, likely from modest backgrounds. To fund their education, he welcomed support from wealthy women in his circle. Grateful parents saw this as a rare educational opportunity. His teaching emphasized memorized aphorisms, apocalyptic themes, and parables, with students reciting them regularly. After his crucifixion, some former students—like Peter—fled Judea to avoid persecution. Hearing of a fledgling church in Rome, they went there for support. In Rome, literate believers met with these illiterate disciples to gather/preserve their memories, forming the narratives we now recognize as the Gospels.
Based on Ignatius and 1 Clement, Peter was remembered as a figure of great authority to the Roman church, though neither source explicitly states he was active there. Ignatius says Peter “gave orders” to the Roman Christians, implying a past connection. Though neither text directly says Peter ministered there, both reflect an early Roman memory that linked him closely with that church. Do you think Peter went to Rome?
No, I don’t. I explain why in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene.
Professor, if the Passover Sacrifice was for deliverance from slavery and the continued covenant, and for Jesus disciples/followers was a sacrifice for Jews for the same (?) but by Mathews time it at least expanded to the forgiveness from sin (Matthew 1:21), when do you see the forgiveness part thrown in ? Paul was apocalyptic. Would not . Jesus death have been “deliverance” into the Kingdom to come?
Forgiveness comes from the Hebrew Bible (say the Psalms) and was a major element of Jesus’ own teachings; it was only after his death that his followers started speaking instead of atonement. I’m devoting a discussion to this very issue in my next book…
Many Christians believe that Jesus’ teachings are higher than the law. For example, Jesus believed that in the issue of adultery, behavior is a low requirement, while high requirements require inner fulfillment as well. If the teaching of the law is 1, then the teaching of Jesus is 2. But ‘loving the enemy’ and ‘retaliating’ are contradictory, the law is -1, and Jesus’ teaching is 2.
I’ll guess what you mean. Matthew 5:43, Jesus quoted the law to oppose the practice of exchanging heads for teeth, not to deny the practice of exchanging teeth for teeth.
Hello.
I would like to know if there are books of the New Testament in Greek where the Greek alphabet has been replaced by the Roman alphabet. I would like to read the New Testament in Greek but learning the Greek alphabet and learning a new language is something I cannot manage.
I understand there will not be a direct correspondence of the letters so some letters maybe rendered with a a new symbol. I hope these would be few in number. I understand that learning the Greek alphabet would be a better choice for understanding but, this will not work for me.
Thank you for your considertaion.
Regards,
Steve Dilts
Not that I know of! You may want to look it up on line. But the Greek alphabet is much easier to learn than Greek grammar and vocabulary, which you would still need to know to read it in Roman letters.
Can you point us to a link that shows the time of authorship of the books of the Bible. Ideally, a time-line created by those who lean more toward critical scholarship than Evangelical Christian apologetics. If not the whole of the OT and NT, I’d sure love to see one for the NT. Thanks! Great post.
There is one in my texbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction.
Do you have any sense of why Matthew often *but not always* changes Mark’s “kingdom of God” to “kingdom of heaven”? I’ve heard the explanation that Matthew wanted to avoid using the word “God” (for Jewish reasons), but if that’s the case, why not change ALL the “God”s to “heaven”s? Or could it be a scribal alteration?
Yeah, it’s a good questoin. My sense is he’s just not consistent and doesn’t notice sometimes. But who knows! There doesn’t seem to be a coherent pattern. But yes, “heaven” is just a kind of euphemism. He certainly has not problem using the term God in other contexts. There are only half a dozen or so instances.
I asked a Christian friend of mine if he thought there were many cavemen in Heaven. He said that it depends on what they believed. So according to my friend, Paul was right, cavemen didn’t have to be circumcised.
(With a sharp rock?)
Ouch. Well, we hope it was sharp.
A few years ago you said that you have wondered if Paul might have grew up as a slave and that could possibly be where he received his education…as a slave.
If this is true, it seems that Paul likely would have been a slave to a Gentile.
Perhaps he had a good relationship with his master who at some point set him free.
So Paul had a very favorable view of pagans and wanted them to be included in his Christ movement.
But Paul also knew that the only way Gentiles would join his Christ movement was if the men did not have to be circumcised and if they all did not have to follow other Jewish requirements such as kosher food, the Sabbath, etc.
Does this sound like it could be what led Paul to be so adamant about Gentiles not having to convert to Judaism in order to be a part of his Christ movement?
Jews had slaves as much as gentiles, so I’m not sure how we would decide.
Dear Bart,
Is the contrast between Paul and Matthew a question of law-obedience or not, or maybe between what type of law Christians are expected to follow?
Paul seems very keen that Christians should abandon the ἔργων νόμου / works of the law (Rom3:20, Gal2:16), and embrace the νόμος τοῦ Πνεύματος / law of the Spirit (Rom8:2), where Christians are expected to ζῶμεν Πνεύματι / live by the Spirit (Gal5:25).
Matthew presents Jesus as reinterpreting the Torah, and I agree that it sounds like the Matthean Jesus believes his reinterpreted Torah is very much in force.
So, perhaps Paul and Matthew agree that Christians should be law-obedient, but it seems they disagree over either the type of law or its source? Matthew would say the source is the reinterpreted Torah, as found in his gospel, whereas Paul would say the spiritual law is sourced from the Holy Spirit.
The interesting thing, of course, is that when Matthew mentions about laws to be kept, they are never ones that Paul would urge gentiles not to keep (e.g., in the Antitheses).
Is there any evidence that the big “obey the old laws” injunction in Matthew was maybe inserted later?
Nope.
Jesus’ most explicitly legalistic statements were
follow the law more closely than the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:17 ff)
When asked how one receives eternal life, he says “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (19:17).
Jesus’ followers must do whatever the Pharisees demand of them (23:3).
It’s funny that many inerrantist Christians agree with Dr. Ehrman that there is straight-up contradiction between Jesus’ gospel and Paul’s gospel. How can this be? Easy: They are known as ultra-dispensationalists. They claim that the gospel Jesus taught before he died was thus taught during the Old Covenant, thus it was a legalistic gospel. But they insist that because the covenant changes upon death (Hebrews 9:16-17), this change necessitated a non-legalistic gospel. They resolve the contradiction by pretending that the apostles after the crucifixion agreed with Paul’s non-legalistic gospel and therefore must have thought Jesus’ legalistic gospel was never intended to be preached after the Cross. The risen Jesus required his pre-crucifixion gospel be obeyed by future followers (Matthew 28:20), but ultra-dispensationalists deny that the Great Commission is the modern church’s “marching orders”.
Dear Bart
What evidence (albeit flimsy) is there that Matthew was written in Antioch?
The main point people often make is that it must have been written in an urban area with a large Jewish and large gentile population, with lots of the followers of Jesus from Jewish roots, and lots of differences among the church(es) about the importance of the law, and that works better for Antioch than most any place else. My view is that it’s guess work.
Tres dudas profesor Ehrman:
1. A pesar de estás diferencias, ¿podemos seguir considerando que Mateo es un evangelio con claras
influencias paulinas?
2. ¿Para Pablo, los judíos que crean en Jesús como Mesías, sí han de cumplir la Ley?
3. ¿Cree que Jesús podría haber pensado alguna vez en la inclusión d gentiles en el reino de Dios?
Gracias.
1. I don’t see any Pauline influences on Matthew; the things they have in common (the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus and the need to take the message to the gentiles) were held in just about all Christian circles
2. Paul doesn’t say directly, but since he says he himself was a Jew with Jews and a Greek with Greeks, I think certainly not.
3. Yes, I think Jesus did think gentiles would enter the kingdom (see matt 25:31-46, which I think Jesus really spoke.
Hi Bart, Have you written much on the Matthean community for the sake of providing the context of the Gospel of Matthew? For example, I would appreciate a post the reviews scholarship on the Matthean community. Thank you very much for your consideration.
No, I haven’t. I directed a dissertatoin on the topic a long time ago, but these days many scholars are reluctant to think we can reliably reconstruct any of the Gospel communities based based on inferences from the Gospels themselves.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you for your very helpful answer!
Dr. Ehrman,
Here’s the way I see this potential conflict between Paul and Matthew.
Jesus preached and ministered to Jews. He told Jews the law would not end. He told Jews to keep the law.
Paul’s mission was to gentiles. He said they, as in *they* the gentiles, did not need to keep the law. In his vision from Jesus/God Jews could and should keep the law because, well, keeping the law was what separated Jews from everyone else. But in his mind that did not, NOT, translate to salvation.
I think if Paul and Matthew were in a room, Paul would say “Matthew, part of what you teach is correct, but only to Jews. I’m right in what I preach to gentiles. The disciples agreed. Deal with it.”
Thoughts?
I’m not sure Paul would aggree with Matthew that Jews who didn’t keep the law better than the scribes and pharisees would not enter the kingdom.