Loading...One of the most intriguing letters forged in the name of Paul is his alleged letter to the Laodiceans. As you’ll see, it’s intriguing both because some Christian churches accepted it as part of the New Testament for centuries and because scholars have never been able to figure out why a forger bothered to write it. I have a theory about that though, which I laid out in my book Forgery and Counterforgery (Oxford University Press, 2013), from which I have taken this discussion.
(I’ve edited it a bit to get rid of the weeds; here I explain the issues and my argument in accessible terms).
******************************
The Letter to the Laodiceans
The Letter of “Paul” to the Laodiceans is a pastiche of Pauline phrases with no obvious theme or purpose. Apart from the opening line, drawn from Gal. 1:1, the borrowings are almost exclusively from Philippians. About a tenth of the letter represents “filler” provided by the author, which is also without character or color.
Scholars have long vied with one another to see who could express the greatest contempt for the letter’s sheer banality. Thus Leon Vouaux in 1913: “It is indeed as trivial as possible;[1] Karl Pink in 1925: “The letter is a pitiful concoction without any kind of personal note on behalf of the author, without a trace of heresy, without bias or purpose”; Adolf Harnack in 1931: “It is with regard to content and form the most worthless document that has come down to us from Christian antiquity”;1031 and most recently Régis Burnet, who moves the lament to the title of an article: “Pourquoi avoir écrit l’insipide épître aux Laodicéens?” (= “Why Was the insipid Epistle to the Laodiceans Written?”) The letter nonetheless
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’m new to the blog, so forgive me if I’m out of order. I’ll correct myself with time.
I understand I can ask Bart an off topic question in the current blog post, and that this is the way to do it. So here goes.
Before reading Bart, I had come to thinking that the Jesus of the gospels was some sort of composite character, partly invented, partly inspired by other similar characters of the period, with an obscure core character being the seed of it all. Now I think this hypothesis is not needed and the later character constructions can be explained more simply, even though it might be possible that some stuff from Appolonius of Tyane did influence later greek speaking christians, might it not?
Nevertheless, I am curious as to other similar (to Jesus) messianic jews in the time of Jesus. The Teacher of the Essene’s texts, from some 150 years before Jesus, was, if I’m not mistaken, such a messianic figure. Are there others? How much do we know about their pretenses and movement? Were they known to the Jesus followers? Were there influences?
My presumption is that they were contained, isolated movements.
What is your take on this, professor?
I don’t think stories of Apollonius could have influenced the early Gospels, since he died later. But there were certainly stories of other figures floating around. Most of these figures were historical, as was Jesus, so for them as well there is a core of historical material.
The Teacher of Righteousness was a leader of the Qumran community, but he is not portrayed in the Scrolls as a messianic figure (coming to save then rule the nation of Israel). There is attested in stead (in the Scrolls) the expectation of two messiahs, one apparently a Davidic king and the other (superior) a great priest.
Colossians is considered a forgery? I was a little surprised. It’s been awhile since I’ve read your books about this subject matter. I found your post from Dec 16, 2014 talking about 2 Thessalonians. That was almost 10 years ago. My question is do scholars still think the same thing about all these books supposedly from Paul. Has there been a shift in understanding or maybe new information to adjust the conclusions about the authenticity of the Pauline letters?
For probably the past 50-70 years most critical scholars have talked about the seven “undisputed Pauline epistles” (maybe longer: I should check!); the Pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are almost always considered pseudonymous (among critical scholars) and Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians widely/usually so. There are always dissenters but the landscape hasn’t changed for a long time.
Hi bart
How big of an a influence did peter and paul have between their death 33 AD -64 AD. Where they simply some peolple who jesus or were they big preachers. He was in Antioch according to Galatians 2:11. I have heard that you think it is foolish to think that peter could rebuke the miracles and legend stories if they were not true. Could you explain?
No, I don’t recall ever saying that about Peter. I’ll be doing a course called Did Peter Hate Paul? in a couple of weeks. I’ll be announcing it on the blog tomorrow — you may want to come. It’s a two-lecture freebie!
Hello Bart,
I have a question pertaining to Hebrews 12:22-23, which says:
“But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to myriads of angels in joyful assembly, to the congregation of the firstborn, enrolled in heaven. You have come to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect.”
Are the myriads of angels synonymous with the “congregation of the firstborn enrolled in heaven” and the “spirits of the righteous made perfect”? Is this saying that the chosen of God become angels?
Jesus said in Mark 12:25, “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.” We see here that Jesus declares that we will be “like the angels”.
Romans 8:9 says, “The creation waits in eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God.”
Here again, Paul said that the chosen of God are adopted as sons of God; a title shared by angels.
Along with the belief that Jesus is the Chief Angel of God, and those who believe in him will become “just as he is” in glorified composition, does Hebrews 12:22-23 imply thus?
It’s debated it the “firstborn” in Heb. 12:23 is referring to actual angels just mentioned or to a separate group, those who belong to the “Firstborn” son of God — that is humans who are folowers of Jesus. I think it could go either way — either you join the angels in heaven, or you join the angels and the followers of Jesus who preceded you there. If it’s saying that the firstborn ARE the angels, I’m not sure it’s saying that they are people who BECAME angels. (That does become a more explicit teaching by the time we get to the Martyrdom of Polycarp)
What do you think of the “Paul within Judaism” perspective led by Paula Fredriksen and Mark Nanos? They suggest Paul taught everyone needed Jesus but Jews —but not Gentiles — could continue to observe Torah.
Yes, I think Paul was perfectly happy for Jews to observe Torah — he says he himself did when among other Jews. BUT, he did NOT think that they should do so if it required not sharing table fellowship with gentile believers. That was the source of the big dispute iwth Pete in Antioch.
Hi, Bart,
I will try to keep it to 2 questions a post but it is hard because I have so much to ask:
(1) I find that the absolutist teachings of Jesus created such misery for people, from old to modern times. They are not at all *practical*. Commandments that no man and woman can keep to perfection, yet we are told to do so with almost no exception. Sayings that were interpreted in many ways and that have led people to be sexually and socially repressed, guilty and fearful, neurotic about the ways Satan acts, frightened of not falling into sin, etc. For what purpose were they uttered by Jesus? How was this impractical teaching transformed into such madness by later followers?
(2) Where did the idea that Jesus was the perfect man/sinless person originated from? He asks jews at some point to tell what he sinned about and no reply in return. It makes sense. If you meet me couple of times and I act normally as I do, you do not know me enough to utter what sins/wrong doings I commit or what are my unspoken thoughts.
1. Yes, they are impossible to keep and have caused real difficulties for people, and allowed others to come up with very creative interpretations to argue he didn’t mean what he said! In my next book I’ll be aruging he did mean them, but that there’s a reason: he thought the end was coming right away and that his ethical demands were certainly possible in the short run. He wasn’t teaching ethics for the long term because he didn’t think there would *be* a long term.
2. As soon as his followers came to believe he wsa raised from the dead they drew what was for them was the sensible conclusion: he was the one chosen by God because he was so righteous; he could not have died for his own sins, and therefore for the sins of others; he had become a divine being. Eventually they thought he was always a divine being. Hence perfect. I deal with this a bit in my book How Jesus Became God.
Do you have a book on the impractical teachings of Jesus? What’s it called?
My next one will be dealing with how extreme the views are and unkeepable over the long run.
Such irony — forging a “genuine” Pauline epistle to counter a forged epistle others claimed was genuine!