Loading...How many of the early Christian writings consist of scissors-and-paste jobs, where later editors cut up earlier writings and stitched them together into one continuous work, so that what we have now are not the originals but only the final edited version? Are there books like that, for example, in the New Testament? In my last two posts I discussed how the early Christian writing called the Didache is that kind of thing, with three documents artificially combined into the 16-chapter book we now have.
And what about in the New Testament?
The first thing to stress is that the cut-and-paste approach to “editing” a book is not quite the same as what we find more commonly, for example among the Gospels. When Matthew “used” the Gospel of Mark, he took over many of its stories; in some instances he rearranged their order, changed their wording, added material to what he found, took away material, and so on. That’s not what we’re talking about now. Now we’re talking about an author literally cutting up a text and combining it, wholesale, with very little editing, with another.
The most famous instance of this kind of suspected cut-and-paste job in the New Testament occurs in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, which appears to contain two different letters – or even up to five different letters! Here is part of what I say about that in my textbook on the New Testament. (The New Testament: A Historical Introductoin to the Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press)
Immediately before this discussion, in my book, I point out that Paul’s “tone” of this his Second letter to the Corinthians seems to be significantly changed from what we find in his *first* letter to the them (1 Corinthians). And I continue on like this:
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!
Dr Ehrman,
Has the fact that several gospels are word for word the same in some places ever used as “proof” that they were inspired by God.How could gospel A and gospel B be the same unless inspired.
The same way two student papers can be word for word the same without being inspired. One student copied another’s.
I used to partition 2 Cor, but have since repented. Titus was Paul’s envoy to Corinth and then became the Corinthians’ envoy to Paul. His role, as such, was to present the Corinthians in the best possible light. Paul has appointed Titus to organize and deliver the Corinthians’ collection to Judea, so it is imperative that the Corinthians trust that Titus will represent them well. This explains why Paul writes that Titus has given a glowing report about the Corinthians. It is also important that Titus be insulated from the conflict between Paul and the super-apostles. This is surely why Paul leaves his harsh words to the last 4 chapters. Indeed, when he starts this severe section, he detaches himself from his co-sender, Titus Timothy, by using the words, “I, myself, Paul ….” (2 Cor 10:1) and by using mostly the first person singular thereafter.
In chapter 7 Paul pretends that Titus has spoken well of the Corinthians. What else could he do, without jeopardizing the Corinthians confidence in Titus as their emissary to deliver their collection?
Please can you tell me if, in the New Testament, heaven and paradise are the same place or is, as I have heard a friend say, paradise is some kind of holding place (perhaps like Limbo or Purgatory)?
Paradise in Luke refers to the place where God dwells that will be the destination for righteous humans. It is never a holding place. (either was purgatory. It was a place of punishment for sinners ultimately bound for heaven; but it did not become a widespread idea until the 13th century)
I want to commend you for your original , thought provoking analysis of memory in your book – Jesus before the Gospels. Your depth and clarity of writing is so refreshing.
Less of a question and more of a comment, but… I wonder what’s going on with Oxford’s in-house Journal of Theological Studies. They published an article by John Finnis recently, a super-Catholic “gay people are evil” emeritus professor of Law (not religion!), on the Epistle of Barnabas. He argues that its date was 40 AD (!!!), contemporary with Paul’s letter, and maybe really by Barnabas. The reference to the Temple being rebuilt was actually just a fun historical aside about the destruction of the First Temple, in this view. This is… bananas, right? I get that Oxford wants to publish Oxford professors, and viewpoint diversity is the spice of life, but this seems a real stretch.
Wow. OK then!
I have heard you say on occasion that when we are interpreting the words of Jesus we should remember that he was a Jew.
That being the case, do you believe that he would have encouraged his disciples to ‘drink his blood’ (even symbolically)? Thanks
I don’t think he would have if he was Jewish or not.
Hello, Bart,
1) In the creation story we see that woman was created from the rib or side of the man (depending on the translation). Do you thing it’s a sound argument to say that we should expect the final version of man to be missing a rib or a even a part from his side? 🙂
2) What are some of the most prominent (or strong if you may) arguments you heard Christians have on verses like: “Some of you standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of god has come in power” ?
I’ve heard that some interpret the kingdom to mean “royal splendor”, hence referring to the transfiguration.
I would like to see you share your thoughts on this.
1. I think that’s sometimes used to explain floating ribs; 2. Yes, that’s one interpretatoin. Another is that it was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. Or with the coming of the church. All these strike me as highly problematic, since none of them is in fact a reflectoion of what Jews meant by a kingdom of God, a real kingdom here on eaeth in which Israel would rule the nations with power, headed by a representative of God, the future king (=messiah)
Bart:
I’ve found two passages about women cleaning Jesus’s feet with their hair. In Luke 7:37-39, a woman wets his feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, and applies perfume. In John 12:3, the woman is identified as Mary (presumably Magdalene), and perfume replaces the tears.
Hair is about the worst tool to use to absorb liquid, but it’s abasing for the woman. And you’re not going to clean much with a few drops of tears. Perhaps this poor approach parallels the women’s own unworthiness?
Is there more to these stories? I’m thinking of verses like Ruth 3:4 and Exodus 4:25 where (ahem!) feet are mentioned. Is a bowdlerization happening with the women and the hair, or do those examples need a literal meaning?