Loading...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!
Good lesson, Bart. I liked yesterdays post a great deal as well. I find when I start my day with a dose of Bart Ehrman I just feel smarter.
And you are!! 🙂
Two thoughts (all my interest is historical, not theological/faith-oriented):
First, other letters may have been lost because the churches went defunct or had external mishaps (at some point it became a little bumpy to be a Christian — in some places, at least). I agree with you (and have thought before) that getting more of his letters would be extraordinarily fascinating. After all, one supposes that he didn’t write these seven knowing that they would be preserved for 2000 years (or rather that they any more than the likely dozens (scores?) of other letters he wrote). So these might not even represent his full or best rendition of his message. Plus, as you’ve mentioned before, there may have been some evolution of his thought, it would be nice to have more “links” in that chain.
Now to turn the tables a bit. When thinking about the forgers of the other six letters (and other non-canonical forgeries), I initially react with a tiny bit of “outrage” (again, not as a person of faith, but egads, these cretins wrote forgeries!) I sometimes think I detect a note of disdain in your references to this matter, as well (as an academic and an author, you may feel a personal affront to plagiarism, etc.).
But if the general interest is in “Christianity in Antiquity” rather than in the “revealed truth as reported by Paul”, in some ways aren’t these forgeries (add in I suppose James, Peter, etc) actually MORE revealing about the development and progress of Christianity in Antiquity as it actually played out, perhaps even more so than the development “intended” by its founder (Paul — and I know “intended “development” of the church over time is not a very accurate description of how Paul would have viewed his mission).
These forgers represented some kind of “interest” in the presumably ongoing polemic, i.e. are part of the lifeblood of CIA.
You may be interested in reading my books on forgery, where I explain why that is the appropriate term for the phenomenon. (The ancients too considered it a matter of deceit)
Well, I suppose if they all thought the world was going to end any day now, there was no real point saving them for posterity.
I wish it were clearer to us exactly what Paul wanted of Philemon . I mean, presumably it was clear to Philemon!
In my textbook on the NT I argue that what Paul wanted was for Philemon to give him Onesimus as his *own* slave!
Is that something in a later edition? I read the one with the burgundy cover and don’t recall that part, but I have always kind of suspected the same thing (and used it to make certain advocates of inerrancy very uncomfortable.)
Yes, that view has been in there from the first edition of the book.
Maybe other letters he wrote contained theological teachings that weren’t accepted by the church(es) he wrote too. Obviously things went awry with the Corinthians at the very least because of other preachers in the area stirring up trouble. Maybe in at least some situations a church he established had beliefs that evolved beyond what Paul originally taught them so they didn’t see the merit in preserving his letter(s).
Best use of serial triple parentheticals I’ve ever seen!
Thanks. It’s how my brain works!
“The phrase ‘both in the flesh and in the Lord’ is a crucial element for understanding Paul’s meaning. Philemon cannot keep Onesimus as a Christian slave by claiming that – inside, spiritually, in our souls – we are all equal before God and Christ. The equality of liberation must be both physical and social as well as spiritual and theological.” – Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, “The First Paul” (This referring to verse 16 of Philemon). I much prefer their interpretation.
the problem is that Paul never urges Philemon to provide Onesimus with physical liberation.
I find Paul’s letters curious in that he never mentions any miracles of Jesus, none of the major teachings of Jesus (not in a major way, at least), and his brief mention of Jesus’ resurrection is at odds with the Gospels. Nor does he describe in detail his own conversion (which may be at odds with Acts). Does Paul represent an early version of Christianity, or an aberration, or offshoot?
I wish we knew!!!
Hi Bart, its why you can get a PhD writing about Paul as you can make anything up and not be proved wrong. So unlike the sciences! Oooch! 😉
Actually, that’s not true. Maybe you should read some dissertations on Paul to see what it means to write one. I’d suggest, for example, the book recently published by my student Benjamin White (a revision of his dissertation on Paul) to get an idea; or the earlier one by my student Mark Given (also a revision of his dissertation.) If you think it’s simple, in contrast to your field, I’m afraid you’re sadly mistaken!
Paul was admant that circumcision was not a requirement for salvation. He appears to be quite angry that some were insisting it should still be performed. I wonder if he further expanded his reasoning regarding this in other lost letters? It is a grotesque practice of genital mutilation for most males with normal length foreskins. The risk of infection and death would have been high in those days. In Waris Dirie’s book, Desert Flower, she tells of how important it was for her to have circumcision performed on herself in order to conform and be accepted by her community. Paul was attacking THE major cultural practice in his time and I have no doubt that many letters were flying back and forth on the subject.
Circumcision is something that is obviously man made and yet Jesus was God and said nothing about it? Or is it we know what Jesus was and he certainly wasn’t divine or God. Animal sacrifice or turning the money tables over? Get your priorities right young man! Oh you are coming back shortly are you? Pagan acts like circumcision was what the witch doctors prescribed. You would think 21st century Jews and Muslims would have sussed this out at least!
I understand why fundamentalists reject the concept that Paul didn’t write all that he was supposed to. But you indicated some reputable scholars who supported that view as well. I am surprised. Are there many and can you name names?
There aren’t a lot, but there are some. Luke Timothy Johnson would be in that camp. My teacher Bruce Metzger was as well.
Here is a thought, and I base it on the one of the thesis of your book How Jesus Became God: what if several of these other letters of Paul surrvived several decades after they were written, but those early editors decided they were not Paul and discarded because they elaborated on the Christology of Paul that was no longer held by latter Christians. In that same vein, they could have further stressed the immediate “END” in Paul’s generation, or any other number of things that later Christians had to edit.
Interesting idea!
I like a daily morning dose of Ehrman as well. What interests me here is how much of the New Testament seems to have been forged.
Obviously coming to this discussion late, but most of the collections of letters we have from antiquity were compiled by the authors, not the recipients. It was a recognized literary genre, and for obvious reasons the authors (who would have their own copies) were better able to create such a collection (the letters themselves often being written with an eye to later publication, and later edited as well). This is the case for the letters of Cicero, of Pliny, of Fronto, of Sidonius Apollinaris, of Gregory…. It is in fact quite rare for us to have letters preserved by the recipients, apart from cases of official letters that were intended to be transcribed on stone. So having few of Paul’s letters shouldn’t surprise us — we have rather more than we should expect.