(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...As many of you know, this past year I published the 8th edition of my textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2024), but this time, rather than doing it myself, I asked my colleague Hugo Mendez to join me in editing / updating it, and truth be told, since hey, I believe in telling the truth, he did the vast bulk of the work on this one. Most of the changes came in his rewriting sections that needed to be brought up to snuff with current scholarship, including
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!
Sounds like I’ll have to buy a more up-to-date copy of your NT introduction, Dr Ehrman 😉.
I’m curious to know, though, how scholars who don’t believe that Q existed, explain away the non-Markan material that’s found in Matthew and Luke?
THey say Luke copied both Matthew and Mark, and got the mateiral from Matthew.
You have periodically written about “Q” and you mention that your colleague Hugo as well as Mark Goodacre do not think the source existed, which is counter to what the bulk of scholars have thought over the years. Could you bring us up to date on the current scholarship is on “Q” in one of your terrific threads? I would be extremely interested.
I had an occasion to look up information on the Chaldean Church. They use Syriac in their liturgy which they furthur identified as Aramaic. They also said it is now written in cursive. I thought it was a dead language, so here at 84yo going on 85 in a couple of weeks I learn something new. Do they still read and write from right to left as other Semitic languages do?
I certainly have learned a lot from your blog and books over the years, and congratulations on the two-year anniversary of Misquoting Jesus. I wouldn’t miss it for the world.
Good idea.
I understand that most critical scholars are in broad general agreement with the approximate time frames stated (Mark 70 CE, Matthew & Luke 80-85 CE, John 90-95 CE) for probable composition of the gospels.
But am I correct in understanding that some (perhaps many) evangelical scholars tend to assign considerably earlier dates than these, clashing with the mainline consensus?
From occasional listening to Christian talk radio and sometimes perusing conservative Christian websites, I recall finding much earlier dates being bandied about. Is it fair to say that more conservative biblical scholars often suggest very early composition dates?
If so, do they do so on the basis of arguably good scholarship? Or might they be seen by most other critical scholars as perhaps a bit “less critical” than warranted given the evidence, perhaps due to their theological biases (and commitments to biblical accuracy and authority) disposing them to favor the earliest feasible dates?
By way of example, I’ve seen estimates for Matthew dating as early as 40-45 CE.
What historical grounds do such conservative scholars give for arguing their case for such early dating? And how do more critical scholars respond to their views?
They do so on a number of grounds, but most critical scholars think their views are implausible. To say 40-45 is really just picking a date out of a hat. One of the basic arguments for an early dating (that a highly educated Greek speaking person outside of Israel wrote a full account of Jesus’ life 7 years after his death?!?) is that Matthew shows no evidence of knowing about later things like the mission of Paul or the destructin of Jerusalem (maybe other readers know of other things); but most critical scholars think Matthew to some extent is arguing *against* Paul and his view of hte law, and that hte apocalyptic discourse of chapters 24-25 show that he does refer to the destruction of the Temple. If he is based in part on Mark, are we to think Mark (another highly educated in Greek Xn from outside Israel) wrote his account in say, 35-40???
Just to append a brief “P.S.” to my previous comment:
Do we have any general notion of how many deeply conservative vs mainstream critical scholars there are, in academia?
I imagine the lines are probably largely drawn between scholars at public (and private but “liberal”) universities and mainline denominational theological schools on the one hand, vs. private (often “fundamentalist”) Bible colleges and more conservative evangelical seminaries on the other hand — where signing an official boilerplate “statement of faith” is often a condition of employment.
Any sense of the numbers on each side? And whose views constitute the majority? The demographics would be interesting to know.
I don’t really know. There are lots and lots of evangelical professors who teach in conservative Christians colleges, universities, and seminaries, but they produce very little of the scholarship actually found in the major academic journals in Europe and the U.S. and in the major academic presses (Oxford, Yale, Harvard, Columia, California, Chigago, Princeton, etc. etc.)
Im not convinced by the logic that because the gospels talk about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem predicted by Jesus then they must have been written afterwards the event.
If Jesus did predict that, it might be simply that the authors of the gospels are reporting it because it’s a huge thing to say or predict…i mean: how many predictions does Jesus make in the gospels? And of those how many are bigger than the one about the temple’s destruction? It’s a huge thing to say! So that might be simply why it’s reported with emphasis in the gospels..
It’s usually phrased a bit more stronlgy than that. Luke e.g. seems to know about hte siege of Jerusalem, etc.
Dr. Ehrman,
Speaking of the Gospel of Mark, have you considered devoting a book to that topic? I seem to recall you saying that is your favorite Gospel, and it is mine as well. I own many of your books and some of them have extended passages about Mark, but it would be great to have a thorough exploration of it in one book. I know you can only write so many books, so if you have more information in an existing book (trade or textbook) that I have missed, please let me know. Thanks of all your great work!
I”m afraid it’s not in the works. I do wish I had more time to do one!
Is it plausible that Mark’s gospel was meant to argue against the authority of Peter/James and their community? Essentially, Mark’s gospel chooses a more Pauline view contrary to the community founded by the apostles in a very early debate about who is (not) in charge? This could also argue why Mark is the supposed author.
There have been scholars who have suggested this, but I don’t quite see it. James is never singled out in the Gospel and at the end Peter is the one that Jesus is particularly interested in learning about the resurrection. I think the failures of the disciples functoins mainly as part of the secret of Jesus’ messiahship in Mark.
I agree with your point that Paul should have known of the traditional 4 gospels because of his travels and connections. I would add that in his letters he clearly argued against anyone who disagreed with his “Gospel”. If he had read or heard about the four Gospels, then he would have warned his followers to disregard at least parts of all of them. The fact that he did not is another bit of evidence, IMHO.
“Obviously, in order to show that Jesus knew what he was talking about, an author would want to write about these predictions only after they had been fulfilled. Otherwise the reader would be left hanging, not knowing if Jesus was a true prophet or not. So even if we assume that Jesus did predict such things, the fact that they are written so confidently by later authors suggests that they did so after the events – that is, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE.”
I am not sure I understand this argument. Doesn’t Jesus predict other things in the gospels that have not happened? “This generation shall not pass,” comes to mind.
This also reminds me of another argument you are not making here that I have never understood. Don’t some scholars date Mark to just before the destruction of the Temple and Matthew and Luke to be just after. I have never understood this argument since they all mention the destruction of the Temple.
Some things that are predicted can be reinterpreted pretty easily: when he said the end was coming “soon” — what does that mean? The later writers thought he meant soon in their day (just as people today often think). But the temple destruction is a lot more specific, and there seems little reason to keep repeating it if the author wasn’t sure it would happen. (I can’t think of too many other things that Jesus predicted… except, for example, something like “you will deny me three times” or “you all will fall away” — both of which are emphasized precisely because the authors know they happened)
So the earliest gospels were not written until many decades after the time of Jesus. Is it safe to say this was because the earliest Christians didn’t think written gospels would be necessary, because they thought the imminent Kingdom was about to break into history?
I”d think that owuld be one of the reasons, yes. Another would be that the vast majority of earlist Christians couldn’t read, let alone write, let alone write compositions, let alone write compositions on the level of these texts.
While attending University in the late 60’s I took an advanced course in cultural anthropology. The professor when discussing for lack of a better word ,simpler cultures, those without the tools of more developed cultures commented on oral tradition. (cut me some slack because I’m not proposing this as oral tradition) Said there were “official rememberers” whose job was to keep things straight. A comparison would be how we memorize prayers. Here’s my question: was that a common opinion 50-75 years ago?
Yes, I suppose so. And it’s true, prayers and such could be memorized. Narratives were not, at least in the sense we think of as word-for-word memorizatoins. That has amply been demonstrated by anthropologists since your professor did his work. (Jack Goodie, Jan Vansina, etc.)
Thanks. Great information. Next question, which you have mentioned in previous posts: How to know the INTENTION of the authors? Bart, you seem to support that the intention is to tell Jesus’ ministry and message.
However, the ancient world is full of allegorical and symbolic writings that convey messages other than the details of the figures these stories depict. Books of and stories in the Torah are only one example. Do scholars use certain criteria to evaluate authors’ true intention?
Considering the numerous anomalies and outright errors in the synoptic gospels and John, why should these not be evaluated as mythic analogies rather than as true stories or even stories that convey Jesus’ true message?
My view is that you can’t assume one way or the other what an author is attempting to do when she / he write. You have to look at what is written and carefully analyze the hints in the text. When I read Luke 1:1-4, for example, it is almost impossible for me to think the author is meaning to write an allegorical / symbolic tale. The other Gospels are not as explicit, but there are clear hints that they are writing descriptive narratives (or mean to be) rather than fables, allegories, numerologically dense and to be unpacked narrativres, etc.
I’d like to challenge the argument that “an author would want to write about these predictions only after they had been fulfilled.” I see two problems with it:
1. We have the book of Daniel that predicted the fall of the second temple over 230 years before it fell (Dan9:26).
2. Much of the Mk13 predictions were flawed, so if Mark is writing after the events, why does he not align the predictions with history? Some examples are:
Mk13:2 – The western wall stands today, so not every stone temple fell, as Jesus predicted.
Mk13:9-13 – We have no record of family members betraying one another in the 1st C, as Jesus predicts.
Mk13:14 – If “the abomination that causes desolation” refers to Titus’ troops sacrificing to their banners on the temple mount, the opportunity to flee to the mountains had long passed – the Jerusalemites are either slain or in chains. Moreover, the Jerusalem church is said to have fled long before any abomination was seen and settled in Pella, which is below sea level.
If Mark is writing after the events, why did he make so many errors?
Daniel doesn’t repeately put it on the lips of someone he was trying to prove gave a true predictoin. Like many others, he predicts it. So too did other people. The point is that the Gospel writers make it a repeated claim of Jesus, unlike many other things he could and probably did say.
Re: Mark. Because he wasn’t living in Jerusalem, had probably never been there, and didn’t know any better.disabledupes{f479d3eab2747a7f3bcf17ef8fa456f9}disabledupes
Mark’s Jesus predicted the temple’s destruction only once in Mk13:2. We have accusers at his trial (Mk14:58) claiming Jesus threatened to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, but Mark claims these are false witnesses. If Mark wished to emphasise Jesus predicted the fall of the temple, why would he distance him from these claims?
I agree with Sanders that the historical Jesus probably did offer an approximation of this teaching, but it is likely that Jesus was metaphorically speaking of his body, not the Jerusalem temple. Mark’s Jesus appears to privately explain this metaphor in Mk8:31, 9:31-32, and 10:32-34, but, as Mark makes clear, the disciples didn’t understand this explanation at the time (Mk9:32). Jn2:21-22 is explicit that the temple image was a metaphor of his body.
According to Acts12:12, Mark’s home was in Jerusalem. But if that isn’t enough, we have internal evidence that Mark was bilingual in Aramaic and Greek as he often transliterated and translated Aramaic phrases in his gospel. He also knows the Jewish scriptures and customs, the names of Palestinian towns and cities, as well as the types of vegetation growing in Palestine, so he is likely an Aramaic-speaking Jew who hails from Palestine.
Hey Bart,
I was recently conversing with some conservative evangelicals who brought up the work of Eta Linnemann to me in the interest of questioning what for me was an assumption that the synoptic gospels were dependence on each in a literary fashion. They challenged this assumption, arguing instead that the synoptics could have merely come out of a common oral tradition. I ran through some arguments that I was aware of in favor as a literary tradition, in particular, the existence of editorial notes like, “Let the reader understand” shared by the synoptics. However, they pressed me for a mathematical study showing that the agreement between the synoptics is statistically more like a copyist than merely independent writers recording a “common story”. I figure that surely something like this must already exist given how extensive academia’s interest is in plagiarism. Can you speak something to this effect? I know questions like this must seem like they come from a pipe-dream factory but to the lay person, like me, I honestly don’t know how to answer such a question on the very foundations of gospel study. Thanks!
I wasn’t aware that Linnemann rejects the idea that there is copying of written sources goiung on behind the Synoptics. But I looked it up, and it appears to be right: she had a born again experience of some kind late in life and rejected all teh scholarship she had produced, including the view that there was a Q etc. I don’t know of any critical scholars taking that view, though you will certainly find it among fundamentalists. The reason for not thinking it’s right is that oral tradition cannot account for the extensive verbatim agreements, since in oral tradition wording always gets changed, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in anthropological studies, etc.