Loading...QUESTION:
I find the historical evidence for existence of Jesus pretty compelling as far as ancient history of antiquity goes. Just to play devil’s advocate, how confident can we be that Paul’s letters have not been significantly doctored over a period of decades, inserting references to a historical Jesus when no such references exist in the originals? What are the oldest fragments and whole letters of the Pauline epistles?
RESPONSE:
Interesting question. I think I need to answer it more fully than just by giving a comment because some of my work (Misquoting Jesus) has been used by some people to claim that I don’t think we can know *anything* about an early form of the texts of the New Testament. And that ain’t true. My view is that we cannot know for *certain* about the original texts at any point, since we lack manuscript witnesses from near the time. That is a very BIG problem for fundamentalists and hard-core evangelical Christians – a number of whom see me as the devil incarnate, even though I’m simply dealing with the realities of history. It’s a problem for them because they are committed to the idea that the very words of Scripture are inspired by God. If the reality is that there are places we do not *know* the very words, well, what’s the good of saying that those words (that we don’t know) were inspired?
Tov meod! (Very good!) Very understandable now. Thank you!
A really good question and response.
Just like a puzzle or a mosaic, they more pieces you have, the more complete it is.
Thanks!
Hopefully, you’ll remind readers how little Paul actually says about events in Jesus’ life or sayings of Jesus. In terms of “events,” what is there beyond “born of woman, born under the law,” the last supper, the crucifixion, and the resurrection? Also, what is your estimate of the probability that anything resembling the “last supper” actually occurred as Paul/Mark report?
I gave a list in my post, I think!
Bart.
Re. Paul.
If Jesus died around 29 or 30 CE and Paul had his “experience” of the risen Jesus around 33 CE, is it likely there would have been a sufficient number of Christians (or, more precisely, Jews who believed Jesus had risen) for him “to persecute”?
You have said before that the number of believers (just after Jesus died) was very small, maybe 15 or 20, and that this number grew very slowly year on year, maybe by 40% or so. This would mean that in the year 33 there would only have been about 65 Christians in the entire world, and most of them, I assume, would have lived in Judea or Galilee.
Would the activities of such a small number of Christians have warranted “persecution”?
There must have been enough for him to persecute, since he did persecute them! Maybe they numbered in the (low) hundreds at the time already?
How do we know that Paul persecuted Christians before he started organizing the Gentiles?
He himself says so.
Bart…..You are dealing primarily with the written documents and how those documents have been handed down, copied, manipulated and so on. You do this from the point of view of ascertaining the historicity of these documents and the historicity of what these documents tell us as an historian and not as a theologian.
I am also interested in what happened **before** these documents were written and how that information got to the writers, either of the gospels or of Paul’s letters.
An example:
Jesus gave his famous Sermon on the Mount. It seems to be a spectacular event with Jesus speaking to thousands of people. I mentioned once to an evangelical Christian that I wondered how all of those people could hear Jesus. She said he surely had a very powerful voice and that God must have amplified what he said so all would hear. That is speculation.
Let’s be more realistic and think that Jesus spoke these things many times to many small groups and perhaps to only his disciples, but the story became dramatized and all of Jesus’ talks were put into one colossal sermon.
This idea of mine I just suggested is also speculation !! We don’t know what happened historically.
Who was there to take notes and write own what Jesus said or did? I think that no one wrote down anything until much later. It must have been memory and imagination.
I guess we call this “oral tradition”, but I don’t know exactly how that works.
Request…..Sometime can you explain to us what probably happened between the time Jesus spoke what he did and did what he did, and when all of this was written down in the gospels….Paul mentioned Jesus but he didn’t mention much about Jesus. His letters were written after Jesus died and I am guessing that he didn’t hear much about the historical Jesus, even from Peter or James, or he surely would have said somethings.
**So…What is the story about “oral tradition?” How did it get from the Jesus event into the gospels accurately, or did it? I don’t know; I’m not sure anyone can really know.. **
Any thoughts on this issue of the story before the stories were written? Can scholars even speculate on this?
Thank you.
Yes, this is my next major research project (after the current one). I’m seeing it as the next BIG thing I do….
My understanding of,the Sermon on the Mount is that it has problems, and the problems are that some of the concepts in the Sermon n the Mount are based on faulty translations in the Greek septuagint. In other words, they appear to be Greek compositions, rather than a handed down hebrew oral tradition. I am sure I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong.
I’m not sure which parts of it you’re referring to….
Instead of following the rabbit down the mythicist hole much further, I wonder if you could discuss a little about the logic of combining texts in Paul’s letters. My understanding is that there are scholars who feel that Philippians and the Corinthian letters are mash ups of various earlier sources. Why wouldn’t a good copyist just leave fragments be? As a secondary question (future post?), could you speak to the place of modern computing in textual criticism. We seem to be at a point where numerous manuscripts are available in high quality images online, so do OCR and crowd sourced transcriptioning do anything exciting for you guys and does anyone run statistical algorithms on these text, and if so are there any interesting surprises?
It’s a good qusestion about leaving hte fragments be. Scholars have debted the issue, but no one really knows. Maybe somoene wanted a letter filled with “the greatest hits”?
Computing in textual criticism. I’ll think about it. There’s a lot going on! h
What do you think of Gerd Lüdemann’s early dating of 1 Thessalonians to circa 41 CE and the authenticity of 1 Thes 2,13-16: “evident beyond serious doubt”?
I don’t share this view, but I don’t recall his argument. But I do think 1 Thess 2:13-16 is authentic to the letter (despite all those who have contended otherwise; I think they just can’t make sense of it, so solve the problem by saying it’s an interpolation)
Could you say something about the copying practices of these times? For instance, would they tend to keep master copy sources for as long as possible, so that most copies, say around 200 AD would be no farther removed from the original than 3-4 generations ?
Theoretically one could fill the entire middle east with millions of copies based on the principle of a hierarchical copying structure and a very high number of copies per generation and still be within a few generations for quite a long period. On the opposite end is the model of a strictly linear chain of copies. The truth is of course somewhere in between. But still the ancient churches/communities must have realized this possible source of error and treasured really old manuscripts, giving them priority in the copying process. Or what do you think?
I wish we *knew* about such things. We don’t. Unfortunately, there’s almost no evidence that churches realized that it would be a good thing to hold on to the originals, or even to the older copies once new onces were made. For a social history of early scribes, see Kim Haines Eitzen, Guardians of Letters.
Although we have no secure evidence that the autographs lasted well into the second and third centuries, we do have a quote from Tertullian which may allude to the fact that the original texts were available to be consulted (“run over to the apostolic churches…in which there own authentic writings are read uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”) and the recent work of George W. Houston who has studied the library collections found in the Oxyrhynchus papyri has shown that the average papyrus document found at Oxyrhynchus was between 200-300 years old before being discarded (he’s able to date these manuscripts because many of them are dated). We also have Dead Sea Scrolls like 4QMMT which exist in many fragments; some that were between 200-300 years old when the Qumran community ceased to exist. What this shows us is that it’s at least “possible” (I wouldn’t say probable at this point) that papyrus documents lasted a lot longer than we often times think today.
I’m not sure how familiar you are with Tertullian, but I think he needs to be taken with a pound of salt when he makes exaggerated claims like this. He also claims that Christians outnumber pagans in the major cities of the empire and that at will Christians can in public demand demons to depart — and they always do!
I’m not familiar with the George Houston argument. Is this my friend in classics at Chapel Hill? He’s a very smart fellow, if so! How does he know when the documents were discarded?
Dr. Ehrman, if I could add to your list of topics to blog about, I would love to know the evidence on how Paul’s letters were gathered and distributed throughout antiquity. I heard, from a scholar, that a person went around gathering them in the early second century. But, that is all I know on it. Maybe its a theory.
Yeah, it’s a complicated issue. I”ll think about posting on it.
In a way it seems like reading a newspaper today…we can have an overall confidence that what is reported is correct. Very often however, some of the details of a story are incorrect – which you will know if you have ever had a newspaper article written about an event you witnessed. And if a publication with an ‘agenda’ puts out the story, there may be some very major errors.
.
I’ve always been struck by how little Paul says about Jesus outside of his death and resurrection (maybe that’s all he thought was important, or maybe that’s all he knew!). Here’s a kind of a reverse of today’s question: is it possible that Paul’s version of the Last Supper was later inserted into the Gospels, rather than those being independent accounts of it? Paul says in 1 Cor. 11 that he received his knowledge “from the Lord” not man. And the usual rendition of the Lord’s Supper seems to fit Paul’s theology.
Same (or similar) problem. It’s in three Gospels, all of which had separate manuscript traditions, and none of the manuscripts omit it. So it’s hard to understand how some version of the story could not be original to the mss.
Prof. Ehrman,
You say the Lord Supper is in all three synoptic gospels. Yes, but that’s only because Matthew and Luke copied the story from Mark. You claim that there are three “separate manuscript traditions.” No, that’s not true. The fact that Matthew and Luke had to rely on Mark’s account of the so-called Last Supper shows that Matthew and Luke didn’t have their own independent sources of information.
There are NOT three separate traditions reflected in the gospels. The gospels of Matthew and Luke don’t contain their own unique versions (aside from some editorial changes) of what happened at the Last Supper. Matthew and Luke simply borrowed the story from Mark. If the Last Supper was a well-known traditional story among early Christians, why don’t Matthew and Luke show any evidence of having known it? Why didn’t they describe the Last Supper in their own words, instead of plagiarizing from Mark?
Surely, you know all this. So why are you saying that there are three “separate manuscript traditions”? Why are you giving credence to this fable which is laden with unrealistic story-telling, such as Jesus exhibiting ESP about who would betray him? This is a fairy tale. Paul claimed that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper to “do in remembrance of me,” as if Jesus expected his imminent demise. This is just another far-fetched legend. The whole thing is made up.
The Last Supper isn’t believable or corroborated by anything. Come on, let’s apply more critical thinking and skepticism to the tall tales in the gospels. Maybe, Jesus and his 12 gullible dupes ate a last meal together, but it probably wasn’t as recounted in the gospels.
Luke appears to have a different version, much more in line with Paul’s in 1 Cor. But I don’t take any of the accounts as historical.
I agree with your comments. One has to ask where Mark got his oral tradition about the last supper … obviously he was not speaking to those in Jerusalem who might be closer to the event. It is evident that Mark and the other gospel writers were mining oral traditions from the Greek speaking members who had all been influenced by Paul. Sometimes directly and other times by his letters.
The symbolism ascribed by Paul makes absolutely no sense in the mouth of Jesus. Even according to Acts, James gives his verdict that the Gentiles are not to drink blood. I believe this is evidence that James et al had heard of Paul’s symbolism of the Last Supper and was forbidding it.
You might also add the symbolism of the Last Supper found in the Didache which is more likely traceable to the community in Jerusalem under the leadership of James. There is NO mention of blood or body in these prayers.
James Tabor argues that the gospels were probably written in the light of Paul’s version of the Last Supper. He doesn’t think that Paul got the wording of his Last Supper from oral tradition because Paul mentions explicitly that he received it from Jesus (i.e. from one of his vision/relevations/whatever). The gospels – that were written decades later – have almost exactly the same wording. This can hardly be a coincidence.
So according to Tabor Paul put his version of the Last Supper into circulation and the gospel authors included it in their works.
After all, the gospels were most probably written in a Pauline environment, weren’t they?
Actually, Paul does not say he received it from Jesus. But yes, I think Mark was influenced by Paul; Luke had Paul as his hero, but didn’t seem to understand his theology (including his understanding of the Lord’s Supper!)
Hmmm…
” For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Cor 11:23)
Emphasis to be put on “For I received from the Lord…”. To me this looks like one of the revelations that Paul claims to be from Jesus.
The question is what he meant by that. Was it delivered by a Christian prophet? Was it something he heard from the disciples of Jesus as something they were passing on from Jesus? Is it something he heard in a dream from Jesus himself? Something else? I’m not sure I know!
Your are technically correct. He says he received it from the Lord, who he has previously called Christ Jesus. Part of the whole problem between those who claim that Jesus did not exist as a human being is the fact that orthodox Christianity has conflated the historical Jesus who walked the Galilee proclaiming his conviction the God was soon to intervene in human affairs, with the mythical Christ Jesus preached by Paul. Since nine tenths of current orthodox Christian beliefs are traceable to Paul it is small wonder that the historical Jesus as been under attack as also being part of the Pauline myth.
I might add that if the current Christians were to admit that one of their most important rites was traceable to pure myth created by Paul then it would be far more devastating than proof there was no virgin birth nor bodily resurrection.
How many times does Paul actually mention Jesus without saying Christ? He usually says Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus or Lord Jesus Christ. I do not count Paul as having anything to say about Jesus. His intent was to tie his Christ figure into a Jewish man who was rumored to have risen from the dead so that he could then tie his new religion to the ancient religion of Judaism so he had a better chance of recruiting his Gentile audience.
In other words, I don’t think Paul was actually ever referencing Jesus who he had never met. He was always referring to his mythical Christ figure who he wanted to give the illusion of having a human life. All for the purpose of building his new church…that had nothing to do with Jesus.
Yes, this is a view others have as well. But the reality is that Paul refers to Jesus as a living human being on numerous occasions. I lay it all out in my book Did Jesus Exist. (Also: I don’t see how inventing a crucified criminal would be attractive to Jews *or* non-Jews!)
Thanks for going through the process in such detail. So often people make assertions without any attempt to think, “How would that work exactly?” You do better than that, though it would be good to have more examples to illustrate why it’s silly to think Pauline letters or other writings are complete fakes or completely trustworthy.
yeah right, you are the devil incarnate, for who else would come up with something as devilish as to set up a blog to raise money for charities devoted to poverty, hunger, and homelessness 😉
Just to play the devil’s advocate again: could the mythicists reply that the later copyists wanting to create a historical Jesus out of Paul’s letters, were pretty skilled? They knew that if they make references to Jesus too copious and unambiguous, later readers could suspect something fishy (in the same way, the author of 2 Peter protests too hard that he is indeed the apostle, making modern-day scholars suspicious). So instead, they simply insert, in a casual and sparse manner, a few scattered references to the historical Jesus and brother of James. The proto-orthodox Christians of the late 1st century got to work systematically going through the Pauline letters, inserting references to historical Jesus, and from these doctored manuscripts, all our extant manuscripts originate. Those manuscripts of the true originals without historical Jesus were transmitted by the gnostics or some other groups who knew Jesus was a mythic figure, but lost out to the proto-orthodox Christians, so their authentic copies of Pauline epistles were tragically lost to posteriority. How’s this for a mythicist thesis?
My view is that the mythicist can and will argue *anything*. But you won’t find a textual scholar on the entire planet who could help smiling at an argument like this….
Hi,
I was wondering what the scant amount of references to Jesus in Paul’s writings tells us about the early church. Does it mean that perhaps there were written accounts (Gospels) circulating already at this time so that it was not necessary for Paul to write about the life and ministry of Jesus neither was it necessary for the members of the church to *ask* him about it since they had these sources available? Or does this tell something just about Paul? Like that the death and resurrection of Jesus matters more than his life, in Paul’s mind? Or that he didn’t emphasize the Gospels since he wasn’t part of it….
Another thought: even if we had the originals of all early Christian writings wouldn’t it mean that then we would know for certain what the authors thought of Jesus but we would still talk today about who Jesus *probably* was or did?
Thanks yet one more time!
First question: my guess is that it means Paul didn’t know of any such writings. Second: Yes, indeed. Knowing what someone *says* is not the same as knowing that what he says is *accurate*!
If 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation, though, wouldn’t that imply that all our manuscripts of 1 Corinthians go back to one manuscript on which someone scribbled 34-35 as a marginal note?
I wonder how that happens (and how often it happens) that all of our manuscripts go back to the same (non-original) copy of a manuscript.
Yes, that’s right. It’s a very early interpolation and all our mss descend from that one. The problem is that the references to Jesus are not just two verses found in a single book. The odds get very long indeed once you start figuring in the complexities.
“… If a scribe wanted to insert Jesus in there, we’d get references to his birth in Bethlehem to a virgin mother, to the Sermon on the mount, to his miracles, to his exorcisms, to his trial before Pontius Pilate – and lots of other things. ..”
That is the most illuminating statement in this article. Is Paul talking about a different character to the authors of the Gospels?
Nope, same guy!
Hi Bart,
If, in fact Paul had never met either Peter or James, but instead, very early on, someone changed Paul’s original writings to reflect that he did, where would you stand on the issue of Jesus’s existence?
John
There still would be an overwhelming amount of evidence. (Apart from the fact that there’s no way that happened, textually)
Another good post, especially the point about how the few references to Jesus from Paul are a clue that some scribe was not loading the texts because such a scribe would have inserted much more. I think you do a great job of explaining that parts, but not all, of the Bible are “probably” historical and that it’s a matter of probabilities not possibilities. Thanks.
But what if one of the earliest copies of an original was altered (not necessarily talking about inserting references about Jesus where there are none, but just general changes), and all our extant manuscripts can be traced back to that *that* copy? E.g. Paul sent out the letter of Romans, an altered copy was made within a few years, and *that* altered copy was widely copied and circulated while the original wasn’t, so that all our extant manuscripts trace their origins back to *that* altered copy – is that plausible?
[Again, I’m not referring necessarily to inserting references about Jesus – the part about a scribe being likely to insert far more references seems very compelling – one of the (many) reasons it’s impossible to take the Bible seriously as “God’s inspired word” – if He was really going to send us all the information we needed to know about Jesus through a later apostle who never met him, wouldn’t He have done a much clearer and more thorough job??]
Yes, if the references to Jesus were really only a single reference in only one epistle with just one history of transmission, one would have a much easier time arguing that it was an interpolation, not original. There probably *are* interpolations, here and there, on other topics, as you describe (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:34-36)
Excuse me, Prof. Ehrman, I think I misunderstood your comments about separate manuscript traditions.