(10 votes, average: 4.70 out of 5)
Loading...It occurred to me that another nice resource for this “Nutshell” Series might be some of the additional materials I present in my New Testament textbook for each of the books I discuss. Two separate items I provide there are (a) rapid fire summaries of each book that I call “At a Glance” and (b) a set of study questions that challenge students to take a position on key aspects of the book, that I call “Take a Stand.”
I’ll present these on the blog in the same canonical sequence as I’ve provided the Nutshell posts.
Here they are for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.
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!
I would argue that the Gospel of Mark does not portray Jesus as God. Mark 12:28-34 highlights this relationship: when a scribe asks Jesus about the greatest commandment, Jesus cites the Shema, and the scribe interprets Deuteronomy 6:4 by saying, “You have spoken the truth, for there is one God and there is no other but he,” possibly thinking of passages like Deuteronomy 4:35, 39. Now, the statement “no other but he” is a singular, third-person statement, which I would argue precludes any notion of the Trinity. Jesus could have said, “You are mistaken; you do not know the scriptures,” like he did to the Sadducees just before addressing this friendly question; however, Jesus commends this man. A few chapters earlier, Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is God,” or “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” In all these things, Jesus is talking about a being separate and distinct from himself, which I think is the lens by which we should interpret Jesus forgiving sins in chapter 2.
Thank Dr. Ehrman, I appreciate very much this new approach how to get more out of our study. 5 stars.
Loving Matthew, Take A Stand #3
Dr. Ehrman been missing you on the podcast. Where have you been the last 3 weeks?
I’m around! We just had some other interesting interviews we wanted to do as well.
I know this question isn’t specifically about this post but in the gospels Jesus gives the Fisherman Simon the name Peter and he goes on to become the first Pope, is this the reason that Popes take on a new name when they become Popes? Following in the tradition of Peter?
Jesus changed his name long before he is thought to have become a leader of the church in Rome. I’ve never heard of the connection.
What do you think of Edgar J. Goodspeed’s argument in “New Solutions of New Testament Problems” (University of Chicago Press, 1927) that the book of Acts made Paul much more famous, and then some letter collector traveled around the Mediterranean, collected Paul’s surviving letters, and then wrote Ephesians as an introduction to the collection?
It was a view that had some traction for a while, but it’s not one anyone holds any longer that I’m aware of. One main problem is that there is no evidence of it.
The “At a Glance” and “Take a Stand” sections are both very creative approaches. You are a good teacher,
If GMk got its material from stories that the author had heard, why are its contents so different from the kinds of things that early Christians discussed about Jesus? I just don’t find evidence that first century Christians discussed healings of Jesus or other miracles, except the resurrection. They discussed how Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecies, and they discussed his teachings and sayings, but there seems to have been no interest in his miracles or narrative details, such as we find in GMk. GMk is not oral traditiony, is it? The part of GMt that its author did not get from GMk, however, is the kind of thing we would expect Peter and others to have preached. It fits oral tradition. What evidence do you have that the material in GMk was the stuff of early Christian conversation?
Where have you found access to what early Christians were discussing in the first century? All we have is the NT.
Again, it seems you are trying to misunderstand me. We get a good sense of what things about Jesus were discussed in the early church by reading the NT, First Clement, the Didache, Barnabas, Ignatius, etc.. Specific healings by Jesus were not topics of conversation, as far as we can tell. They belonged only in biographies of Jesus, it seems. So it seems reckless to suppose the Mk was written from oral tradition.
I think I understand your view full well. You are appealing to books that do not talk about the historical Jesus in order to establish what people were saying about the historical Jesus, and I’m saying that is not the way to do it.
You wrote, “You are appealing to books that do not talk about the historical Jesus in order to establish what people were saying about the historical Jesus”.
If you are right, then no early Christian document, except the gospels, talks about the historical Jesus. Do you really mean that? Don’t you think that (Paul thought that) 1 Cor 9:14, for example, refers to a teaching of Jesus?
Nope, that’s not what I said. Of course Paul mentions the historical Jesus on occasoin; he explicitly quotes his words three times (all in 1 Cor.)
This is awesome.
Dr. Ehrman, I’m currently finishing the final lecture in your course, “Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide” and I have a question for you. Do you think the gospel writers could have been converts of Paul or familiar with the atonement theology he taught?
There’s nothing to suggest they were his converts; his view of the atonement is shared for the most part by Mark and Matthew, but that doesn’t mean they got it from them. It was a view widely held among the earliest Christians, even before him, as he himself indicates in 1 Cor. 15:3-5.
Also, do we have any reason to believe the atonement theology was pre-Pauline? Or could it have originated with him and then distinctively impacted the gospels?
He says it preceded him (1 Cor. 15:3-5). My sense is that it arose just as soon as Jesus’ followers said he had been raised from the dead. They had to explain why God would want his chosen one to die, and the obvious explanatoin was that since he was not killed for what he did, he must have died for the misdeeds of others.
I’l bite, but I’ll do ya one better: MARK is absolutely antisemitic. Judas, who doesn’t appear – and isn’t mentioned – in the first 90% of the Gospel, suddenly shows up to betray his rabbi for a couple hundred bucks. Why? Never said. Perhaps Mark’s audience knew; in a vacuum, the reader doesn’t. And he hands him over to the Jewish authorities, who, I’m presuming, had a whole process for capital punishment, except, they hand him over to Pilate. Pilate’s like, what do? Release him or have this other guy? The high priest convinces the crowd to release the other guy, and the Jews are like we want the other guy. Pilate’s like, give them what they want, absolving the Roman authorities.
Mark is a literary train wreck. The people who laid palms at his feet a few hours before are like, nope. crucify. Judas, a presumably observant Jew, comes out of nowhere to betray his master. The Romans, who had no problems putting peoples on crosses are absolved? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.
Mark is writing for Gentiles. It’s shaped for the audience. And it’s impossibly stupid.
Camel, spice, pearls, wineskins (instead of the typical ritually-pure vessels you taught me about, Dr. Ehrman), financial estate managers, vineyard tenancies, a traveling wedding awaited by a fleet of servants, sheep and goats –
Jesus’ parables do *not* match First Century customs for hand-to-mouth Jews. Sheep and goats – even king David a thousand years ago delegated flocks to a Hagarite and camels to an Ishmaelite, but First Century Jews were settled, not shepherds. The Ituraeans that Josephus wrote were displaced from nationhood in Galilee were shepherds. And archaeology finds the kingdom of Nabataea to be the hub of everything above.
If it’s academic consensus that the Parable of the Brambles is about King Abimelech, and the Morning Light of Isaiah a Babylonian king, what about Jesus’ parables, Dr. Ehrman?
Can’t they be spiritual truths taught about the homeland of Galilee’s long-time queen? A call to return to Nabataean hegemony instead of the Romans? A camel through the eye of the needle seems likely the Siq, the narrow opening where they taxed luxuries at 25-33%. Funding a gov with lux tax is better for peasants than the Roman prop tax that required currency in lean times too.
Another Matthew parable to a Jewish audience:
Matthew 7:24-27
“…it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.”
Rock or sand foundation is not a choice in Galilee, their foundations were packed earth. But it *is* the choice in Petra.
As I’ve written before, John the Baptist’s followers wrote that Jesus worshipped Hayyi Rabba and not Adonai/Yahweh.
Their sacred text the Hawron Gawaitha has them escaping c. First Century Jerusalem to the Nabataean Hauron, and then landing in Nasoriyah c. the 3rd C. Scholars connect the title Hayyi Rabba with the very ancient deity Ea, and Nasoriyah contains Ea’s very ancient city, Eridu.
Now compare the Feeding of the Multitudes:
• 2 barley loaves – Ea’s grain
• 5 fish – Ea’s animal
• 2 + 5 = 7 – Ea’s magic number
• flowing freshwater – Ea’s substance
And the Feeding of the Multitudes is traditionally said to have occurred at the – 7 Springs.
Aniconism, illiteracy and insularity is why “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.”
Mk.16:5, ”They saw a Young Man”
Mark does not identify the Young Man as an Angel.
Matthew, who likes to improve Mark, changes the Young Man into an Angel (Mt,28:2).
Mk.16:6, ”He has been raised” Mark confirms that the tomb of Jesus was empty.
Mk.16:7-8, ”He is going to Galilee. You will see him there.”
Mark, circa 70 AD, does not confirm any of the post-death Jesus appearances. However, Mark may have been apocalyptic about Jesus, now that Jerusalem had been destroyed. Mark expects the ”one and only” return of Jesus will bring the Messianic Kingdom and this will start in Galilee. Obviously, this goes against the other narratives regarding the post-death Jesus. So Mark, knowing he will be in hot water with other believers, tells those who agree with him to keep this to themselves. Mark writes many times ”Tell no one” and then gives a final ”They told no one because they were afraid.”
Accordingly, Mark’s Gospel could be considered an authentic, esoteric, counter-narrative.
Just an intuitive hunch.