Loading...Here are some of the more interesting questions from readers over the past few weeks, and my responses:
READER’S QUESTION
Have you considered the angle that Jesus may have been a revolutionary Essene? This would explain his outward orientation instead of inward. I mean he fits right in with being a disciple of John the Baptist and has a very Essene worldview. A good amount of his followers were also followers of John the Baptist. Most of the points he makes, eating with tax collectors and sinners, doing things on the Sabbath, not obsessing over ritual purity. All of these seems strangely specifically targeted towards the essenes, which means he is very familiar and actively critiquing them.
I am wondering if he could basically be what Luther was to Catholicism. As in Luther was a catholic and started a revolution inside Catholicism.
Like on the surface it doesn’t fit but if he’s a counterculture within Essenism, it fits pretty well
MY RESPONSE:
Yes, I’ve thought a lot about it and written about it. For starters,
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!
Dear Bart,
I am trying to put some notes in order about the Gospel of Mark, having watched your course on it several times, read the relevant chapters from your New Testament textbook, etc. Apologies in advance for all the pestering which will result from this
I feel like the traditions about John Mark and Mark the interpreter of Peter are separate ones which we tend to discuss jointly, am I correct? From your lectures I got that Papias is the first source linking a Gospel of Mark (which may not be ours!) to an interpreter of Peter named Mark. That tradition seems to be repeated by Irenaous around ~180. But I have not found the first source for “John Mark in Acts wrote the Gospel of Mark” or “John Mark in Acts is the same as Mark the interpreter of Peter”. Do we have it? I am curious to know when John Mark was first mentioned as author of our Gospel.
Also, since Luke used Mark’s Gospel and wrote Acts, wouldn’t we expect some mention of that in Acts when John Mark is brought up? I know argument by silence are not great, just curious if this is ever discussed.
Thanks!
It’s a good questoin. Offhand I can’t think of anyone else in early Christianity named Mark other than John Mark. (So that when in the Pauline letters “Mark” is mentioned it is usually understood to be the Mark connected with Barnabas and Paul in Acts 12 (where he once is called, simply, Mark) It would be interesting if someone could make a case that there were two indivicuals, Mark and John Mark, but I’m not sure what would lead someone to think so? The name Mark wsa fairly common, so it’s certainly possible there were two of them connected wiht Paul and Barnabas (and Peter).
Thank you, Bart!
My question comes from the fact that the Pauline epistles and Acts present Mark as someone close to Paul, but they say nothing about him being close to Peter. Then 1 Peter, a forgery, brings Mark up, but I’d expect at that time there’d be more than a thousand Christians, and Mark being such a common name I don’t automatically jump to thinking it must be the same Mark, who no one before linked to Peter. I am not even sure the author would expect us to make that connection, given how the explanation we are given about him from “Peter” (“my son”) does not reference anything else we seem to know about John Mark.
Also, wouldn’t you expect Luke, who is using Mark’s Gospel, to bring up at some point that John Mark wrote an account of Jesus’ life, or that he was close to Peter, at some point if he knew it?
The problem is that Mark’s Gospel was published and circulated anonymously — no name attached. The first time we know for certain that it was called Mark was about a century after Luke would have used it. So he would not have tied it to Mark.
Oh, yes, I am aware of that hypothesis and I consider it to be true. But I have bumped into people who assume that the Gospels were not anonymous and that the tradition that gMark was written by an interpreter of Peter goes to basically the beginning.
My train of thought was that since we know that Luke used gMark, if Luke thought John Mark was the author of gMark we’d expect him to say something about that. Since he didn’t, we may assume that either Luke did not know who wrote gMark (so the idea that people always knew the author was John Mark the interpreter of Peter is not true) or he did know who wrote gMark but didn’t think it was John Mark. In any case, it wouldn’t look like Luke considered that John Mark wrote Mark.
I am aware it is an argument from silence, so not a great one, but I thought it was interesting.
It doesn’t go to the beginning. Around 130 CE (60 years after our Gospel was written), Papias indicates that there was a Gospel that Mark made based on the teachings of Peter, but since he does not quote that Gospel or give us any informatoin about it, there is no way of knowing if he has OUR Gospel of Mark in mind. The reason for suspecting not is that he also speaks of a Gospel by Matthew, and the two and only two things he says about it do not apply to the Gospel that 50 years later Irenaeus identified as Matthew. Papias does not appear to be referring to our Matthew, or if he is he doesn’t know what it is; and if that’s true of one of the two Gospels he mentions, it’s not clear that the situation is any different with the other onbe.
Good afternoon Dr. Ehrman. I would like to propose a debate topic between yourself and a Muslim scholar/historian. You’ve had many debates in the past on topics including the historicity of the resurrection but I don’t recall you being involved in a debate on thr historicity of the crucifixion. Would this be something you’re interested in? And if so how do I contact you to schedule it? I am willing to cover all the expenses as well as any fees you require God Willing. Thank you so much for your time.
Thanks. I’ve discussed it with Muslim scholars before, but I don’t remember what the interviews/podcasts were. For speaking enagements, etc., if you go to my website, http://www.bartehrman.com you’ll see a way you can contact my agent about it.
Hi Bart,
In your podcast from the 7th of October, you talked about this topic with Meghan. And when you said something along the lines of John the Baptist probably not being an Essene because of what was written in the Gospels, I am wondering if those can answer this question about him. Indeed, the Gospels are written about Jesus and for people to follow him, and not John the Baptist or someone else. So, could it be that what is written about John the Baptist is not accurate enough of his life to be able to conclude that he was not an Essene?
Yes, it’s certainly possible. We have to treat the traditoins about John in the Gospels the same way we treat traditions of Jesus, applying historical criteria in order to determine what is probably historical and what more legendary. I didn’t give the full story in the post, but the reasons I give for thinking he had a very different perspective from the Essenes appear to be historical (also: when Josephus mentions him his description doesn’t match the Essenes.)