(5 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...Here are some of the scintillating questions I’ve received recently, on a range of topics, that I thought more readers would enjoy seeing, along with my responses.
QUESTION:
Dr. Ehrman, I read a number of your trade books (inc. How Jesus became God) and found it really interesting that you showed the increasing exaltation of Jesus toward his current state of being coequal with God.
Your book mentioned the “how” behind this exaltation process but I wanted to hear from you if you knew the “why”. Why did early Christians feel the need to exalt Jesus to that level? Why not be content with understanding him as a divine servant of God (as what the Synoptics portrayed)? Were there theological difficulties with limiting Jesus to a divine servant?
RESPONSE:
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
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!
Learn More!
Another question: Suppose hypothetically we had access to Luke and Matthew but not Mark. Would any method you know, if applied carefully, be successful in identifying Mark material as a distinct source different from other shared material in Matthew and Luke?
Some scholars would claim that it would be possible, but I frankly don’t think so. Almost certainly the consensus would be that Luke used Matthew for all their agreements.
As a theologian working in hermeneutics, I’m particularly interested in how interpretive labour—often invisible—shapes the production of meaning. My recent work applies Paul Ricoeur’s notion of narrative identity and the “productive imagination” to questions of authorship and cognition, exploring how unseen contributors and interpretive tools mediate understanding across time.
Recently, Candida Moss has argued in “God’s Ghostwriters” that enslaved and marginal scribes likely played a significant compositional role in early Christian texts. While direct sources are rare, Moss uses social context and the prevalence of slave labour in Roman document production—as well as mentions of figures like Tertius in Romans 16:22—to infer unseen agency. She acknowledges this approach as “critical fabulation,” aiming to reconstruct plausible scenarios from what is known about ancient practices.
My question:
Have you considered Moss’s argument that invisible scribal labour may have shaped Christian texts in ways not captured by surviving documentation? What do you think are the risks or rewards of using indirect evidence and social history to recover “hidden” authorship in the New Testament—not as forgery, but as creative, though unnamed and therefore marginalized, collaboration?
Yes, I’ve read her book. She’s very smart, knows a lot, and has interesting theses. I did not find most of her evidence compelling myself. I definitely think we need to understand social history to make sense of texts, and history benefits from bold new proposals; but it also requires a close analysis of the data, as she knows. (As an example, to say that Mark was probably enslaved because he was a secretary to Peter requires accepting Papias’s claim about Mark being Peter’s secretary; but Candida herself doesn’t think the claim is reliable)
Hello Bart
Could you recommend the best catholic scholars and their works that I can read ? (Lay level). I’m an atheist who loves your work but I need to understand both arguments. My parents are catholic.
Bishop Barron has failed to come up to par, after reading his review of your book.
It depends what you’re looking for. On what kinds of issues/topics. Biblical studies? Historical jesus? Theology? Beliefs?
Beliefs.
And how to deal with contradictions in the NT. And who really wrote them for example if they think Paul really wrote everything he’s said.
And why they think they’re the one true Church.
I don’t have the full context of your questoin — it was in a different comment of yours and I only get the current one, not the one my response was to. But if you were asking how evangelicals deal with these kinds of things, I’d suggest you start with an evangelical textbook on the New Testament; I think a popular one is by Elwell and Yarbrough.
What’s the best book from a catholic scholar that deals with contradictions in the NT. And something that covers why they think they’re the one true church.
Ah, those would be two different questions. For contradictions, one place to start might be wiht Raymond Browns book the Birth of the Messiah, which is dealing only with the infancy narratives but is higly informative on contradictions etc. (He was a famous NT scholar and an ordained and active Roman Catholic priest). As to books on why Catholics might consider themselves the one true church, I’m afriad I adon’t have anything to suggest , but possibly other blog members do.
1) Do any Pastoral Epistles borrow directly from Luke?
2) Do any Johnanine Epistles borrow from John?
3) Mendez suggests John in Revelation is named so only to appeal to the gospel. Do you agree?
In my opinion? 1. No 2. Yes. 3. No
Thank you!
I should have clarified for question 1, but might 1 Timothy 5:18 just be a coincidence that sounds like Luke 10:7?
Ah, sorry, I did misunderstood. No, 1 Timothy 5:18 is usually taken as a quotatoin of the words of Jesus being treated as on a part with “Scripture.” Usually it is thought that the author is referring to Luke, but it’s almost impossible to say since the saying may well have been widely known.
Why do you think in the Book of Mark that Jesus wanted people that he healed to keep that a secret?
Long story. Do a word search for “messianic secret” and you will find some blog posts devoted to it. The short version: my view is that Mark wanted to emphasize that no one could understand who Jesus really was because he was such an extremely different kind of messiah than anyone expected, and Jesus himself therefore tries to keep his identity and powers hidden from public view (to help explain why no one saw him for who he was)
Dr. Ehrman,
A scholar commented the following about a challenging verse. Is the professor correct here?
“[On Gal. 1:16 “in me”] … God is revealing his Son and the gospel through Paul, which also aligns well with the next statement about preaching Christ to the gentiles…”
I think so.
Dear Professor Ehrman,
You wrote: “I tell my students that the King James is the greatest literary translation of the Bible into English, ever.”
As a young man, after reading the Old Testament in Hebrew, I decided to try it in English. I had heard the King James was the standard, so I opened it at random before beginning. The first line I saw was: “God elevated horns to Israel.” I was shocked. I knew such a thing was not written in the Bible.
I checked the Hebrew: אלוהים הרים קרן לישראל — which means “God raised up the foundation of Israel.” The word keren (קרן) can mean horn, ray of light, or foundation. The King James translators chose the most misleading and, to me, offensive option. It made me wonder: is this mistranslation connected to the old notion that Jews have horns?
So I am astonished that you call it the greatest literary translation. I admire your scholarship and have learned much from your lectures; they even helped me with my forthcoming book, Steps to Heaven: On Morality, God, and the Soul. I would be grateful for your view: is this an isolated mistranslation, or are there others as serious?
I’m not saying it’s accurate. I’m saying it’s beautiful. There are tons of mistranslations in it, however, along with words and phrases that made sense in the early 17th century that no longer make sense today (or even worse: make a differnet sense). (Some of them are quite humorous)