(12 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...I now conclude this short thread and who wrote the Pastoral epistles, when, and why by picking up on my previous argument: that aspects of these letters reveal a church situation after Paul’s day when proto-orthodox Christians were appealing to the authorities of the clergy, the creed, and the canon of Scripture to support their views, in contrast to those of “false teachers.
The Creed
Proto-orthodox Christians of the second and third centuries felt a need to develop a set of doctrines that were to be subscribed to by all true believers. As was the case with the proto-orthodox clergy, the proto-orthodox creed was acclaimed as a creation of the apostles themselves: hence the name of the most famous of these statements of faith, devised in the fourth century and known today as the Apostles’ Creed.
The proto-orthodox creeds affirmed beliefs that were denied by other groups who claimed to be Christian, and they repudiated beliefs that these other groups affirmed. For example, Gnostic Christians claimed that there were many gods, not just one; and that the true God had never had any contact with the material world, which had been created by a lesser, evil deity. In response, the proto-orthodox creed proclaimed,
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!
Thanks Dr. Ehrman for these insightful posts.
I have some questions regarding the “Muratorian Fragment” which has the Pastoral Epistles on the list. From what I could read it appears it was written around the end of the second century. The problem I have with it is that it opens an entire set of legitimate questions such as–the books it refers to–how do we know those are the books in our current New Testament as we do not have surviving copies of the books the Muratorian Fragment refers to?
Thanks!
Yes, it’s a probability judgment. If an author mentions a letter Paul sent to Timothy, or calls a book the Gospel of Luke, but doesn’t quote it, how do we know it’s the one we have? It helps a lot if whatever the author says about it coincides with what we know about our books by that name, and if other authors at the same time also mention those books by name and quote them, so that we can tell they are ours at least for contemporaries, AND if at the time we have no other books that have survived oging under those names. If all three are true, we’re in pretty good shape. But if not…. (It’s definitely NOT the case when Papias talks about Matthew and Mark: are they OUR Matthew and Mark? His comments don’t pass these criteria; for the Muratorina Fragment, at just about the same time we have the discussions of Irenaeus who was trained in Rome where the Fragment derives from at almost exactly the same time it was produced, and he explicitly mentions books of the NT, even though he never provides a list)
From a “Christian” to a scholarly former Christian:
It seems that man’s theology has overtaken the theology of Jesus. This includes the Gospel authors (whatever their true identity) who were shaping their own theological perspective to fit their cultural understanding. Much of what people believe seems to be based on church doctrine, which is man made and continues to evolve.
Would Jesus like, or even understand, what man has done to his image and theology? ( I.e, the Trinity, Hell, tithing, virgin birth, Revelation, Paul’s theology, salvation, and almost all the late additions).
Is it time to jettison man’s theology and return to the basics as taught from the Torah in the Sermon on the Mount?
I’d say the problem with being human is that we are human, and as such we cannot understand anything apart from our human ways of understanding, so necessarily there is no way to understand even the Torah or the Sermon on the Mount wihtout interpretation, and interpretatoin is always done by humans (or the machines they program). I’d also say that it’s probably a mistake to think that what really matters is only what something originally meant and to follow it. The torah, for example, orders the death sentence for a child who is disobedient. Following that law (or many others) in our day and age does not seem like a smart move.
I can understand the Proto-orthodox wanting to ‘standardize’ beliefs and church activities. My question: Did any of them question why so much variation existed if Jesus had been clear to his disciples? My conclusion is that Jesus was not very clear to his disciples and that situations existed after Jesus’ death that Jesus had not contemplated.
Thoughts?
They tended to think that many of Jesus’ followrs were either thick as a brick, willful, or misled by demons. Not they, however!
Hello Dr. Bart Erhman
Like other jewish preachers in the first century Jesus also taught the law but you said that he interpreted the law. Does this also means that he changed the law in some way? For example when he talks about loving your enemy then he said you were taught to hate your enemy but now love your enemy. He is in odds with the torah how is this possible if he only interpreted the law?
Everyone who teaches the law is interpreting it, unless they’re simply quoting it without comment.
In reading the New Testament, it seems that people just “got the spirit”, or “got the faith”, or “got the good news”. They didn’t get the book (that is the NT). The New Testament didn’t even exist then or for them.
How important could some kind of literature or creeds have been to people back then?
The Jews had the Old Testament, but non-Jews didn’t seem to have or look to much writing or literature at all. They just “got the faith”.
Yes, Judaism was distinct in having a sacred book; and Christians eventually took the idea and put it on steroids….
There seems to be a real element of controlling people’s experience of God and of Christ in the New Testament.
I can understand that there might have been some real need for some moderation and limits, but not nearly to the extent that it went in the final outcome of the New Testament and in the hierarchical church.
IN 8TH GRADE, at an Episcopalian school, before class each day we went to the chapel & HAD TO RECITE THE nicene creed & apostle creeds often.
I thought did the other kids really mean what the spouted. I felt quite distant [words, not an intimate prayer].
the year before 2 door knockers [Mormons] showed me where the Lord’s Prayer was which let me commit that to memory.
But who is disingenuous us, who recite, which I often deeply prayed or God for doing nothing.
THY kingdom come, thy Will be done
btw the church I grew up in, my still involved aunt says their hymns that we sang WERE NOT PRAYERS to god
Is there any chance that the Pastoral Epistles were written by another person who was also named Paul?
How common was the name ‘Paul’ in those days?
Was the author claiming to be the same Paul who wrote the 7 authentic letters, or just another person named Paul?
We don’t know of any other early Christians named Paul, and given the contents of the letters (just their openings), and their writing styles, it’s pretty clear the author is claiming to be “that” Paul.