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.
Deadly even!
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.
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!
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
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.
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?
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?)
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?
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?
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.
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?