(17 votes, average: 4.59 out of 5)
Loading...I thought it might be fun to intersperse some posts from years ago to break up here and there the thread on the Trinity, for those who have, well, lots of other interests too! So here’s a good option.
I did a short thread before the vast majority of you were on the blog (and maybe before you were born. 🙂 ) based on a question: among all the ancient Christian writings that have been lost, which ones would I especially love to get my grubby paws on? Here’s the original question and my first response to it.
QUESTION:
What lost early Christian books would you most like to have discovered?
RESPONSE:
Ah, this is a tough one. There are lots of Christian writing that I would love to have discovered – all of the ones that have been lost, for example!
But suppose I had to name some in particular. Well, this will take several posts. To begin with, I wish we had the other letters of Paul. Let me explain.
In the New Testament there are thirteen letters that claim Paul as their author. But scholars since the nineteenth century have argued that some of these do not go back to Paul. There is no absolute consensus on the issue of course; fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals argue that all thirteen go back to Paul; some critical scholars agree (not many!); others think that ten go back to Paul. But the most widespread view is that six claim to be written by Paul even though he didn’t write them.
The six are …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet — JOIN ALREADY!!! All of the money that comes into the blog goes to fight poverty!
I think the simple answer is that Paul’s letters were never assembled and copied as a group until sometime well after his death. We have letters like those from Cicero because Cicero himself edited them and sent them around (as a collection) to his acquaintances. But as you note, Paul’s letters were addressing specific needs of individual communities. Once the circumstances that prompted the letter were no longer present, then it is unlikely that anyone would see a need to preserve the letter, any more than one would keep a grocery list after the groceries had been purchased.
Now, at some point, presumably after Paul’s death, someone did try and assemble a collection, perhaps from letters that had been copied and circulated on their own, and perhaps by going around and seeing which communities might still have had one or more in their archives. I’d love to read more about what scholars think about _that_ process!
Preservation seems to have required copying; the more copies you have the more likely it is that something will survive. But then why would some letters have been less copied, or not copied? Why would a letter be copied in the first place, since they seemed to have specific targets– once read and discussed within the target group, why copy? Is it possible that some letters were destroyed later because they didn’t conform to the orthodoxy of that later time? It would be nice to have more material that could be attributed to James, the brother of Jesus. I’ve just started reading Eisenman’s thick volumes on James. Fascinating! Then again, how likely is it that James would have been literate??
Books were copied when they were considered valuable. So if the ones that weren’t copied presumably weren’t just all that valuable to them. Eisenman is clever and smart, and yup, it’s fascinating. But highly implausible (to say the least). But no, I don’t think James could have been literate. I explain in my book Forgery and Counterforgery
Quote – … There is no absolute consensus on the issue of course; fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals argue …”
Ah yes, ‘fundamentalists and conservatives.’ It seems Bart is a political of the leftist kind.
But does this self-called ‘progressive’ POV provide special insights?
I encountered this from another Bart in the WSJ and was reminded of this blog.
‘A Most Peculiar Book’ Review: Why Read the Bible?
Barton Swaim
Beginning in Germany in the mid-19th century, the “historical-critical” discipline, as it came to be known, adopted the pretensions of a science: scholarly rigor, technical jargon, esteemed academic journals, and so on. But for all the prestige of its institutions, the claims of this modern “scientific” form of criticism are no more verifiable than simple religious beliefs; in some cases, less so. There is no certainty to be found in its innumerable theories about the provenance and meaning of biblical texts, only loose and fleeting concurrences of opinion.
…. A healthier academic discipline would have ditched this conceptual framework decades ago and started anew, but modern biblical criticism prefers to remain a self-contained system intent on preserving its cultural authority. Dissenting scholars were (and still are) ignored or ridiculed as crypto-fundamentalists.
I was actually talking religion, not politics. And yes, that was quite an interesting WSJ review. One does wish that reviewers would do a bit more reading before attacking the views of others though.
How about Q, L, and M? There may be more stories there we don’t know about.
Personally I’d like more gnostic texts – full texts, not the things we have now.
Yes to all the above.
You bring up an interesting point. What might have been in 3rd Corinthians or 4th.
4th probably said something like “Stop it… Don’t make me come back there.”
We actually have 3 Corinthians! It’s very interesting. And not at all like Paul!
My thought is that they didn’t deliberately throw them away, but weren’t necessarily careful about preserving them either. For one thing, if they were expecting the end of the world any day, for whom would they need to preserve them? Also, picture these churches meeting furtively in people’s houses and other quiet or secret locations; they had enough on their minds without worrying about preserving a letter once they had read it. Philemon as a rich man would have had reason and means to keep such a letter; would poor people trying to keep body and soul together?
More importantly, I think, they were just not copied, or not copied very much.
Aww I’m so disappointed with you now (joking). I would have wanted the complete gospel of Peter as I believe it was more than the partial we have. I would also like the secret Mark in its whole. Unfortunately I think secret mark is of too much of a theological change, they would never change their mind of thinking regardless of sources provided.
Which reminds me. In what book did Morton Smith write: “To the one who knows”?
I’m inclined to believe that’s just for those who know the gnostiç/mystical teaching in writing. Taken his interest in magic it can be that simple.
I read in Albert Schweitzer’s book one German scholar said that Peter might have made up the resurrection to make up for denying Jesus and that he wanted continue with the teachings of Jesus because if it all ended after the cruxifixction, he and the other disciples would have to find real jobs and they enjoyed their status within the community.
So, I’d like for some sheep herder to find in an old clay jar someplace antiquities version of a Rolling Stone interview with Peter.
You may be going to cover these possibilities in a later post, Dr Ehrman, but I would probably go for Q or the L and M sources as documents that it would be great to ‘discover’ and study. I would hope that such texts might include material that Matthew and Luke chose to ignore that nevertheless a modern NT scholar would find fascinating and illuminating.
Me too!!
You’ve mentioned in the last lecture that Paul believed that Jesus got glorified body at his resurrection. What about Luke and John – did they think the same? Could we assume that Mary Magdalene in John and two disciples in Luke didn’t recognize resurrected Jesus because his body was different – glorified? Or is there a different reason for not recognizing their own teacher? What about Jesus’s wounds – shouldn’t they be healed after resurrection? If his wounds didn’t disappear – would that mean that if my arm, leg or head would be amputated before my death, I would be missing them even after resurrection? 🙂
Luke and John appear to have thought that the resurrected body was a revivified cadaver (with a digestive system!), not a glorified body.
Thanks. But if Jesus’s resurrected body was “a revivified cadaver” can we know the reason why Mary Magdalene in John and two disciples in Luke didn’t recognize resurrected Jesus in the same body? Surely they spent some time with him and knew his face and voice… Especially two disciples, they even mentioned that women told them Jesus is alive. they are talking to Jesus and do not recognize him?
It’s a great question! Unfortuantely, there’s no certain answer. Maybe they just weren’t expecting to see him since, well, he was dead. So what they saw they didn’t take to be him at first.
In my weaker moments, I wonder if they came across someone who looked ‘kind of’ like Jesus, and convinced themselves (perhaps gradually) it was Jesus?
For those skeptical that that sort of thing could happen, see the Tichbourne Claimant, and the case of Martin Guerre.
When did people starting viewing Paul’s letters as god inspired scripture? Maybe prior to that, they were seen as nothing more than private correspondence that once read was no longer needed. Only a few churches held on to his letters recognizing their polemic value for positions that they supported, i.e. they could whip it out in the middle of an argument with opponents. Or maybe his words was particularly inspiring. Maybe other letters were not as memorable as the ones that were preserved so they were discarded.
The first evidence we have of it is 2 Peter 3:16, where Paul’s writings are put on a par with the other “Scriptures”
I read, and I do not remember from where, that early non-violent persecution was the ceasing and destroying of scripture by those wishing to stamp out this new non-conforming cult. Some what like “your letters or your life”.
I believe the first record we have of that is under the Great Persecution of Diocletiain in 303 CE (not earlier)
If I recall correctly from one of your lectures, Paul himself did not think he was writing scripture. How early on, then, did Christians begin to consider Paul’s letters as scripture?
The first evidence we have of it is 2 Peter 3:16, where Paul’s writings are put on a par with the other “Scriptures”
“Why would someone throw away a letter from Paul, of all people? ”
Perhaps from the perspective of 2 Peter 3 15.16; that much of the teaching in Paul’s letters may be tricky to understand; and too easily capable of twisting into meanings that would later be considered dangerous?
“So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
Within 1 Clement, for example, there is consistent reference and praise for the letter we know as 1 Corinthians; but 2 Corinthians does not appear to figure; and nor do any other of Paul’s letters. It seems that Clement prizes Paul primarily as a source of practical Christian ethics – how to live as a Christian in a (time-limited) world of non-Christians – rather than for his more ‘spiritual’ teachings; on faith, on the Law, on being united in Christ, and on the progression of all creation from the Flesh to the Spirit.
I wonder if Paul ever sat and wrote an actual book that wasn’t a letter to another person or body of people. He may have been too busy with his epistles, but one would think that at some point he’d say “okay I’m getting tired of writing the same thing over and over” and just codify his christology and eschatology, etc.
Also: my Ehrman Blog membership goes back a ways: I’ve been a member since it was called CIA and the oldest invoice I have is from a donation in 2014, but I’m certain I was a member before that and it just took me that long to guilt myself into donating some money 🙂
OK, slightly off topic. Thanks for making the Sunday lectures available. While the material you cover is included in your textbook, it’s always interesting to hear you deliver it in person!
My question is: Could Jesus read? I thought I had read in your books or heard in one of your videos that you thought he, along with his immediate followers, were illiterate. But recently in one of your Sunday lectures you either stated or implied that he could actually read, and at least some of the instances in the gospels where he was reading from “the scrolls” were likely true.
Please straighten me out on this topic.
It’s a difficult question. He is said to have “read” in only one passage of the NT: Luke 4. I’m pretty sure he could not write, but it’s hard to know about reading. I think I’ll devote an entire post to it.
What about letters by other Apostles, to the communities they founded? Paul may have been the most literate of the Apostles, but the original followers of Jesus must have been in communication, via scribes, to their own followers. As Pauline Christianity came to dominate these letters would have been marginalized, discarded, or even declared anathema. To be able to read a true missive from Peter, say, would be invaluable.
Is it plausible that the letters between Seneca and Paul were intended as something akin to the Platonic dialogues, instead of outright forgeries? Perhaps we’re missing the preface that introduced them as such.
Interesting idea — but they don’t really work as the Platonic Dialogues do (which are a unitary collection heading toward an end result). If you’re interested in a full discussion, I give it in my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
Thanks for the replay. I just noticed that the letters are in your _Lost Scriptures_, and I see what you mean: they are not at all like the dialogs.
If I might ask a couple of more questions: I am puzzled by “Seneca”‘s admonition to Paul in number 13 to use proper Latin style. Were these letters in Latin? Or is “Seneca” referring to the epistles?
Also, is the letter to the Achaeans mentioned in number 7 thought to be a real, lost epistle, or did the forger just make it up? I guess there is no actual evidence on this point, though.
Yes, the letters are in Latin, and Seneca is upbraiding Paul for not being able to write very well! It’s one of my favorite parts of the letter. As to the Achaeans, right, there’s no way to know.
It’s interesting that the letters are in Latin. Seneca, the real Seneca, must have known Greek. Is there reason to think that the real Paul knew Latin? I guess that they were forged in Latin because, by the time they were forged, Greek was much less common, and the potential audience would only have know Latin.
No, he almost certainly didn’t. And that’s one of the reasons modern scholars for a very long time have known they were forgeries. But there are lots of other reasons. They were forged in Latin because that was the forger’s language and he naturally assumed that if Seneca were writing letters….
I wish we still had Papias’ ‘Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord’ in five books. He interviewed witnesses like a modern-day reporter. Ironically, those who subsequently referred to his work (i.e. Irenaeus and Eusebius) did not give much credence to his work, as they considered that the testimony conveyed to him was either unreliable, or misunderstood.
How do you explain the total absence of the primitive Jerusalem church recorded teaching among the early Hellenestic church fathers and authoritative manuscripts? Do you think someday we will find any primitive Jewish-Christian work from the 1st or 2nd centuries, perhaps inside some jars buried somewhere in the Judean desert?
I doubt it. For one thing, I’m not sure if much of anyone in that community was literate… But I hope I’m proved wrong….
The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius which buried Pompeii and Herculaneum in AD 79 also charred and buried thousands of scrolls which scientists are now attempting to read with a type of particle accelerator. Perhaps among the thousands will be a few early Christian documents. One can hope!
After hearing your point of view I would definitely agree with the Lost letters of Paul. My initial thought was either the full works of papias or some heretical writings like the modalists. I would like to hear the pure version of these ancient Christians.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. I would love to attend one of your trips to Rome or Croatia this year but unfortunately it just won’t be feasible this year. Do you think you will be doing a similar trip/trips next year?
I hope so!
What do we know of Pauls status among the earliest christian communities? Did they think highly of them, because he helped found them, or was he perceived as a giant pain in the ass (sometimes)? Our view of Paul might be highly influenced by the fact that later christian generation viewed him as one of the central authorities of the early church. The fact that later generations believed he was, does not necessarily mean he was as important as they deemed him to be. If some of the earlt communities thought he was only meddling in their interal affairs without much authority, would it not be unreasonable to think the would just discard these letters (as we discard our junkmail)?
Both things, I think. My guess is that he was not NEARLY as signficant in his own day as he later became. (That was true of Jesus as well, of course) In his day, he was simply one voice among many.
“Paul urges him to take the slave back without punishing him for the wrong doing he did, but he does *not* ask him to set the slave free! ”
Yes; I agree that is what Paul says, with the addition that Paul also offers financial recompense for any injury to Philemon occasioned by the Onesimus’s running away.
But that begs a question; if Paul had been prompting Philemon to free the man whom he formerly knew ‘as a slave’, and now knows ‘as a brother’, how might Paul have expected this to be done?
My understanding (please correct if I am wrong) is that formal Greek, as distinct from Roman, manumission was ‘sacral’; usually a fictive sale from the former owner to a god or sanctuary ‘on condition of freedom’. But Paul enjoins his followers to shun the local gods; so would that also inhibit their engaging in sacral manumission?
In Ignatius letter to Polycarp, early in the 2nd century, he apparently takes issue with church funds fictively ‘buying’ the freedom of slave members; from which it would seem that this practice had been locally current. Might that have arisen as a device to avoid performing ‘sacral’ manumission?
My view is that Paul is definitely not asking for Onesimus to be set free (he in fact does not ask it); he is asking Philemon to give him to Paul as his own slave. Read the text. He asks Philemon for a personal *favor* with respect to Onesimus, who has been, until now, so “helpful” to him….
Hmm Bart; is it ‘give’ or ‘lend’?
Fairly clearly Paul is hinting that Philemon might consider sending Onesimus back to him; as I would see it, this ‘favour’ would be a loan. But supposing Paul had wanted Onesimus as his own slave property, then I think he would sent a letter (without Onesimus accompanying) offering to purchase at a price to be set by Philemon. Philemon, as a ‘favour’ could then have specified a nominal sum. Slaves were valuable property; if Paul were seeking transfer of legal title, he would surely have said so explicitly.
Paul uses manumission as a metaphor; as in Galatians 5:13 “For you were called to freedom (literally ‘to be manumitted’) brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another.”
This, I think, relates to the common moral construction of manumission; that it should be praised a ‘reward’ for good behaviour from the slave, slaves generally being assumed as morally deficient; so that ‘unmerited’ general manumission was ‘prima facie’ offensive to morals. I think Paul accepts this view, as later would Ignatius and the ‘Apostolic Tradition’.
My sense is “give.” But as you know, it’s a complicated issue given how brief Paul’s discussion is. One might assume that Philemon knew what he was talking about, even if it’s not unambiguous to us. (There were, though, lots of reasons to manumit a slave) BTW: have you read Dale Martin’s Slavery as Salvation? A good place to start on this kid of thing (though it’s not about Onesimus per se) Slavery then is much more complicated than we often think…
Fair points Bart.
And also that the legal context of slavery (and thence too of manumission) varied from one place to another.
Nevertheless, the documentary (and literary) evidence suggests that manumission was generally expensive. A manumission contract with a local sanctuary – sale on condition of freedom – might be fictive; but the money paid was not. Hence, in part, Ignatius’s concern at church funds being applied for this purpose.
What intrigues me; is that notwithstanding there being no support for manumission of slaves in the letters of Paul, and 2nd century Christian writings being generally hostile; nevertheless there appears to have been a fair amount of Christian manumission going on.
In the case of the Apostolic Tradition, the writer clearly has his own reasons for mistrusting specific manumitted former slaves; but there does seem to be an underlying assumption that, once slaves are admitted to the membership of a church, their subsequent manumission may become an expectation. Hence his stipulating that slaves should not be admitted without a favourable report from their master – possibly (this point being unclear), even when the master is not a Christian.
Thanks for the recommendation of Dale Martin’s ‘Slavery as Salvation’. I have not yet read it – but your recommendation prompted me to check out some reviews, and it looks very interesting; especially on the complex practice and rhetoric of Greek and Roman ‘slavery’ and ‘freedom’.
And, judging from the reviews, Martin looks spot-on in seeing ‘weakness’ and ‘strength’ as key metaphors in 1 Corinthians.
Where I am less sure is whether Paul claims ‘borrowed’ higher status as the ‘slave of Christ’; just as being the slave of a strong figure could confer worldly power and status. But Paul absolutely denies that Christ is ‘strong’; Christ on the Cross is as ‘weak’ as possible to be. Others (Luke perhaps) may present the crucified Christ as heroic; but not Paul.
Secondly, Martin does not seem to make sense of the dynamic athletic references in 1 Corinthians 9. Paul defends his working for a living, as (in Acts) a tentmaker; and the major markets for tents and awnings were the Games. Where for the athlete, everything changes at the crack of the starting rope; he has made himself his slave solely for that moment.
Yes, his major point is the status issue — it’s worth seeing his evidence. And tents were more commonly used for armies, etc. But I”m not sure Paul ties his particular craft (which he had before his conversion) to his status as slave of Christ.
Not much demand for army tents in Corinth, I would think. ‘Tentmaker’ probably also implies ‘sailmaker’ – for which there certainly would have been regular demand in Corinth; nevertheless, Paul’s extended athletic metaphors (as here in 1 Corinthians) do suggest a personal familiarity with the Games on his behalf, and of those he is writing to. Which is not usual in Jewish writing of the time.
One common theme across the Book of Acts and Paul’s letters; is that Paul is both a friend to, and an employee of, Prisca and Aquila – who ran a tentmaking business in Corinth. So as this passage starts as an explicit discussion of Paul’s maintaining a day-job in Corinth, we can be pretty confident what that day-job was.
My point though; is that Paul’s understanding of slaves ‘being manumitted’ in Christ, and of being ‘slaves to one another’ is explicitly sequential in Galatians 5:13; our sharing of ‘slave’ responsibilities follows on our being ‘manumitted’. The same sequence is apparent in his discussion of ‘slavery’ in 1 Corinthians in the context of the Games. The athlete is freed from being slave to himself by the starting rope’s crack.
In istablishing churches – why ‘possibly’ – is that disputed or not well known?
Paul of course didn’t istablish Churches in Rome nor Alexandria nor Antioch…
My vote as to early Christian book I would like to be found is Q.
Assuming it exists. Earlier versions of sayings of Jesus!
Dr. Ehrman, you mentioned that Philippians and 2 Corinthians are probably composites. The fact that we don’t have the originals would strongly imply that our text was altered by someone other than Paul, at the very least omitting openings and endings, but perhaps changing other things as well, before the earliest version we could ever get at. I guess I have a 2-part question.
1) I’ve heard you argue in debates that we can’t ever know for sure what the original text of Biblical books contained, but I’ve never heard you mention these letters in those debates. Wouldn’t this be strong evidence that Paul’s original words are in some places unrecoverable? I’m curious why you didn’t use that argument.
2) I’ve heard others conclude that Paul’s letters were compiled early on by a fan, and were copied and distributed widely as a group, and that all our manuscripts stem from that compilation. Does that sound likely to you? And is there any chance that this early fan of Paul was Marcion himself?
1. I don’t use that argument mainly because my opponents in those debates would not agree that those two letters are composites, not unitary compositions; and so there’s no point even going down that rabbit hole with them.
2. Yes, I think that’s possible, though I’m not convinced it’s necessary. But it couldn’t have been done first by Marcion. 2 Peter 3:16, e.g.,already knows of a collection of Paul’s letters, and so do some of the writings of the Apostolic fathers — all before Marcion.
What is the consensus on how important he was to these early Churches? I know that he is now looked upon as being a major figure in the early church, but would that have been the way he was viewed in his time?
My guess is that he was not *nearly* as important than as he became after his death (kind of like Jesus); he was more likely just one of a large number of competing voices.
Be sure to mention the Q source in this thread — if you’d love to get your hands on a copy.
Yes indeed. I’d love it in my grubby paws as well….
A twist — you can name any Early Christian source you like, and it will appear, verifiably ancient and intact. But you only get one request.
However: if you name a source that in fact, never existed, then nothing appears and you waste your chance.
Do you still ask for Q?
Papias, Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (all five volumes)
I’d like to have the entire contents of the Library of Alexandria. That’s going to be my first stop once I get my time machine back from the shop.
A bit off topic, but you mentioned both ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘conservative evangelicals’ as distinct groups. Can you explain the difference?
Many evangelicals thing fundamentalists are unreasonable extremists. Most fundamentalists don’t identify themselves as fundamentalist, since it’s seen as a four-letter word in some circles. Usually the fundamentalist is the guy to the right of you… But fundamentalists are more sectarian, dogmatic, and Bible-thumping.