(7 votes, average: 4.14 out of 5)
Loading...Among the questions I have received from readers recently have been a couple that deal with a crucial issue connected with both the canonical and apocryphal Gospels. How much of these accounts was simply “made up” – so they are interesting legends, perhaps, but not historical? And what sources of information did the authors have for their accounts? And is there some way to know the authors were reliable investigators and/or that their sources were accurate (think… the Gospel of Luke!)
QUESTION (about made-up stories in the Gospels):
Do you think some early Christians simply invented such stories, like the boy bitten by an asp and Jesus healing him, or did they evolve over time?
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!
Bart, just received your new book and started into it. I realize now that I’m a Cynical Epicurean Stoic! Looking forward to the rest of it…
HA! They all have something to say for them. But I ain’t becomin’ a follower of Diogenes any time soon….
Since Paul’s letters were written first, is there a possibility that the Gospels were written with them as source material and that some of the stories were written to flesh out, provide some background, to things Paul said and claimed about Jesus?
It’s possible, yes. But as with any hypothetical possibility, one has to see if there is any *evidence* for it. My view is that there is very little indeed, especially in terms of fleshing out what Paul says, since he doesn’t mentoin the vast majority of the things the Gospels tlak about, even in passing.
@ajhuff @BDEhrman I recommend “Q or not Q?: The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels” by Bartosz Adamczewski. Fascinating argument that “the Synoptic Gospels are results of systematic, sequential, hypertextual reworking of the contents of the Pauline letters.”
Worth the read for sure!
Dr. Ehrman, I have a question about Jewish apocalyptic thinking in antiquity: Apocalypticists thought that God’s Kingdom would come and that the dead would be resurrected and judged by God depending on how they had behaved during their earlier lifetime. But what about infants and children who had died very young and who had therefore not really done much of anything in their short lives? How would babies and young children be treated during the resurrection and judgment?
I don’t know! I don’t think I’ve read any discussions of it….
Why do you think Jesus was opposed to divorce?
Culturally for pretty much the same reason pretty much everyone else did — the family unit was important to preserve (ultimately for the sake of producing children, though they rarely wouldn’t put it that way; but for a society to survive, there needs to be the next generation). Religiously it was based on his view of the Hebrwe Bible, that men and women came to be of “one flesh” when married, and that act of God wsa not to be reversed.
As you know, Mosaic law permits men to divorce their wives with a simple statement. So, it could be argued that the view of marriage as a family unit that needs to be preserved for children, etc., is much more the result of the Christian religion prohibiting divorce and not reflective of how marriage and divorce was viewed in the time of Jesus. Perhaps it was fairly common for men to divorce their wives, for younger women for example, resulting in the wife and children going into poverty. If that is true, then the opposition to divorce is, basically, an opposition to poverty. Jesus wants to forbid divorce because he doesn’t want the women and children to be left out in the cold.
In other words, if there were alimony laws in the time of Jesus, perhaps Jesus wouldn’t have opposed divorce at all. Since Joseph disappears in the gospel stories, perhaps he divorced Mary and Jesus himself observed the enormous pain that caused Mary and his siblings. Maybe Joseph divorced Mary, forcing Jesus to support Mary and his siblings. Maybe that underlies the opposition to divorce. Jesus called Yahweh his real father instead of Joseph. What do you think?
Most of the time when women were divorced they were taken back into their father’s household. And the law, of course, applied to women (who were not allowed to divorce either) as well as men. If there was a concern for poverty of the one who was divorced, I don’t inow of any record of it. But it’s an interesting theory.
Yeah, that partially resolves an issue for the women and children. My AI query on this gave:
“While only husbands typically initiated divorce by providing a document, a woman returning to her father’s home or remarrying was common; however, she often lost her marital property settlement, causing potential poverty or social stigma.” and “Vulnerability: Divorced women were often stigmatized and, without the protection of a husband, faced immediate social and economic challenges.”
so that’s why opposition to divorce could be based on financial issues as well as the intense emotional pain that goes along with a divorce.
Although the Gospel of John is generally considered the last of the four Gospels to have been written, I sometimes wonder whether John may have preserved certain historical details that are not found in Mark. For example, the Gospel of John contains some remarkably precise references to locations, as well as vivid details such as those in John 18:15 and 19:13, which give the impression that the author may have been familiar with specific historical circumstances not reflected in the Synoptic accounts.
At the same time, although I have not yet read Dr. Goodacre’s book and my understanding may therefore be incomplete, I sometimes notice passages that appear to echo Mark—for example John 2:14 (which may seem to intensify Mark’s account), John 5:8 in relation to Mark 2:9, and John 6:1–13. These parallels make me wonder whether the author of John might have known Mark and intentionally reworked or reshaped certain expressions or narrative elements.(I (I studied this in some book I read before, which I don’t remember)
Do you think it is plausible that the author of John both preserved independent historical memories and, at the same time, was familiar with Mark’s Gospel and consciously reinterpreted parts of it?
Yes, I think John has a good deal of independence from the other Gospels and that it, like every other source for the sayings of Jesus, needs to be taken with the utmost seriouslyness.
Two sources that have similar views in places does not mean that one knew the other. think about three different accounts of yesterday’s news in three different newspapers. They will have similarities, almost always; but it doesn’t mean one reporter borrowed from another.
in my biblically utterly right days [before Ehrman 15 years ago]: I believed Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation after all his closest friends [other chosen apostles & James died] & was fairly delusional & in deep pain [physically].
I now ask where was/is the Comforter [as functioning Acts 9:31]
Also thanks for clarifying each of the Gospels were written for a community!
I’m not sure what you’re asking? Do you mean why wasn’t John inspired by the Holy Spirit? Depends whom you ask!
i thought John the apostle was delusional, because being the last alive of the 12. he conjured up the book of Revelation. thank you for accurately realigning the nt scholarship!
Is it possible that the Gospel of John, in its present form, has undergone substantial editorial additions by someone other than the original author? When I read passages such as the long monologues of Jesus during the Last Supper, as well as the statement in John 21:24, I sometimes have the impression that certain sections may have been added or shaped at a later stage.
In other words, could it be that the state of the Gospel of John as we know it today reflects a process in which later editors expanded or supplemented an earlier core text? If so, might it be somewhat analogous—at least conceptually—to a situation in which the Gospel of Mark had disappeared and only the Gospel of Luke had survived, leaving us with a text that already incorporated earlier traditions but whose editorial history we can only partially reconstruct?
Too many questions, Sorry!
Yes, ch. 21 is almost always considered a later additoin to the Gospel by critial scholars, and some think it went through multiple editions.
Shouldn’t the term be “hapax legomenon” since you use the singular article “a”?
English is a second language for me. My primary language is Southern. You should have seen Mr. Small try for three years to teach me German in a Connecticut prep school.
Keep up the good work.
Yes, that’s the singular
When did the belief first develop that the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is the actual Word of God?
The first time on record is in the writings of Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresies, circa 185 CE.
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 2nd Peter 3:15,16 (ESV).
“As they do the other scriptures” implies that Paul’s writings were considered scripture. Even though 2nd Peter is questioned as to its authenticity, it is included in Athanasius’ Bibles from 350ish AD. Also, all 13 epistles of Paul are attributed to Paul in the Muratorian Canon 170ish AD.
Internal evidence shows a belief that the New Testament was written, prophetically, driven, moved(phero) inspired(Theopneustos) by God, Just as a ship is driven by a hurricane(Acts 27:13-16). I believe this is why Irenaeus held the view that the New Testament is scripture (IMHO).
As to the Old Testament being scripture at the time of Jesus? John5:39,1st Thessalonians2:13, Hebrews4:12, 2nd Peter 2:21, 2nd Timothy3:16, Romans10:17…..etc. Jesus and the apostles quoted the Old Testament as authoritative.
Thank you. As a child growing up in a Southern Baptist church, Sunday School teachers insisted the Bible was dictated by God and it’s word was absolute. By about age eleven I was doubing that and as a teenager rejected the idea entirely. I’ve never really known when the idea changed from the Gospels being “memoirs,” let’s say, to the word of God which was not to be questioned. I may have missed it in one of Bart’s lectures, but I can’t recall the idea being explicitly addressed.
It’s best to let Bart speak for himself to ensure we understand his work correctly, but he addresses your question about “memoirs” and named gospel authors. In his book “Forged”(pg.225). Dr. Ehrman claims that the gospels were simply anonymous “memoirs,” and cites Justin Martyr. He claims the gospels weren’t given names until Irenaeus(Against Heresies,Bk.III,1:1,175-180CE)implying the naming originated with Irenaeus.
However, there is evidence to the contrary. The same Justin Martyr said,“the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us….”(Justin,1st Apology,66)135-140CE. Justin claimed the gospels were written by the apostles! Before Justin we have Papias; a contemporary of Polycarp and Ignatius(107CE). In his work “Oracles of the Lord,”Bk.VI, he names Matthew, Mark and John as those who wrote the gospel accounts that are attributed to them and bear their names, 70-80 years before Irenaeus. This didn’t originate with Papias either, it existed prior. The “memoirs” of the apostles were always considered gospels according to….
If we’re talking about inerrancy in the New Testament, I would agree with Dr.Ehrman that it is incorrect the way it is taught in evangelical circles. However, It doesn’t mean we can’t know the facts of the stories.
I don’t think Justin’s claim that the apostles wrote memoirs indicates that he had particular authorial names attached ot the ones he knew. Papias never mentions John. The big issue is whether the books he thought were written by Matthew and Mark are the books that 60 years later or so started to be called Matthew and LUke.
I don’t *think* I’m incorrect about how inerrancy is viewed in evangelical circles. As you know, I was a committed evangelical for years, and I certainly know a LOT of evangelicals today and talk with them (or debate them!) about their views. what do you think I’m getting wrong? (Evangelicals, of course, do not have a solitary view of inerrancy, and never have, ut multiple kinds of views, though with important similarities) disabledupes{35a987043105f5f6312f589ae3a0464b}disabledupes
There is a concept in the Catholic faith called “Divine Inspiration”. It posits the writer is simply the tool of G-d for the conveyance of a message. You either believe it or you don’t. If you do you are not troubled by apparent contradictions or loose ends because you are vested in the message as a whole. However, if you are not a believer you will never achieve satisfaction.
Re the word order in Luke 1:3, fwiw my guess–my stylistic hunch, if you will– is that he means ἀκριβῶς (precisely, exactly) and καθεξῆς (methodically) to be taken with the following infinitive, γρᾶψαι (to write): “It seemed good to me, having examined all [the accounts], to write precisely and methodically to you, most excellent Theophilus.”
It also seems clear to me that Luke is making a distinction between those who have undertaken to draw up/arrange/regularize a narrative of the events (1:1), and the eyewitnesses mentioned in 1:2 who delivered the accounts of those events “to us”, “from the beginning.” Luke doesn’t say “many eyewitnesses have attempted to regularize the narrative” (i.e., harmonize their accounts with others’ accounts); instead, he says, “many have attempted to regularize the narrative of the events that has happened, as those events have been described to us by eyewitnesses from the beginning” (I’m paraphrasing, obviously). In short, the “many” and the “eyewitnesses” are not the same people.
I’m inclined to think the ἀκριβῶς is going with παρηκολουθηκότι … πᾶσιν (he has followed all things closely/carefully/accurately) instead of γρᾶψαι — but I’m not sure there’s a definitive answer. But I completely agree that the “many” are those who have written earlier accounts, and NOT the eyewitnesses.
Gentlemen.
Do we agree on these points?
1. The many are not the eyewitnesses mentioned
2. The many compiled their narrative from the mouth of eyewitnesses
3. παρηκολουθηκότι (parēkolouthēkoti) Having investigated….
a. This indicates Luke’s thorough researching of the life of Jesus, and that he traced the events accurately, which ultimately originated with eyewitnesses. Luke doesn’t claim to have spoken with the eyewitnesses directly, but might have at some point.
b. Paired with pasin and akribos emphasizes a precise, comprehensive investigation.
4. “many have attempted to regularize the narrative of the events that have happened, as those events have been described to us by eyewitnesses from the beginning”
5. The reason for Luke writing was so Theophilus could know the exact truth concerning what he had heard about the death, burial, resurrection, teaching and events related to Jesus…. For certainty with reliability ἀσφάλεια (asphaleia).
6. Luke’s account corroborates the other three gospels, the rest of the New Testament and the creeds, that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried, and most importantly, that Jesus rose from the dead.
7. Luke’s account corroborates with the most ancient of churches, their traditions, and Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers.
I usually can answer only two questions at a time at most, but I’ll go through these quickly seriatim, IN CAPS.
Do we agree on these points? (ABOUT LUKE 1:1-4)
1. The many are not the eyewitnesses mentioned. YES.
2. The many compiled their narrative from the mouth of eyewitnesses. NO, HE DOESN’T SAY THE MANY PREDECESSORS PERSONALLY CONSULTED EYEWITNESSES
3. παρηκολουθηκότι (parēkolouthēkoti) Having investigated…. YES
a. This indicates Luke’s thorough researching of the life of Jesus, and that he traced the events accurately, which ultimately originated with eyewitnesses. NO. IT SAYS THAT LUKE CLAIMS THIS, NOT THAT HE DID IT. Luke doesn’t claim to have spoken with the eyewitnesses directly, but might have at some point. HE MIGHT HAVE, BUT SINCE HE DOESN’T INDICATE HE DID, IN A STATEMENT TRYING TO ESTABLISH HIS CREDENTIALS, IT SEEMS NLIKELY
b. Paired with pasin and akribos emphasizes a precise, comprehensive investigation. IT IS LUKE’S CLAIM THAT HE DID, YES.
4. “many have attempted to regularize the narrative of the events that have happened, as those events have been described to us by eyewitnesses from the beginning” REGULARIZE??? NO.
5. The reason for Luke writing was so Theophilus could know the exact truth concerning what he had heard about the death, burial, resurrection, teaching and events related to Jesus…. For certainty with reliability ἀσφάλεια (asphaleia). WE DON’T KNOW HIS REASONS FOR HIS WORDS, ONYLY HIS WORDS
6. Luke’s account corroborates the other three gospels, the rest of the New Testament and the creeds, that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried, and most importantly, that Jesus rose from the dead. YES.
7. Luke’s account corroborates with the most ancient of churches, their traditions, and Apostolic and Ante-Nicene Fathers. ON THESE FOUR POINTS, YES.
MAIN POINTS TO STRESS: IT IS FAR EASIER TO SHOW THAT AN AUTHOR CLAIMS TO BE ACCURATE THAN TO SHOW THAT S/HE IS ACCURATE. EVERY HISTORIAN IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY CLAIMS TO BE ACCURATE. THAT IS NEVER TAKEN AS PROOF THAT S/HE IS.
2. The many compiled their narrative from the mouth of eyewitnesses. NO, HE DOESN’T SAY THE MANY PREDECESSORS PERSONALLY CONSULTED EYEWITNESSES
Let me rephrase; Luke 1:2, …an account of the things….were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses NIV. ….just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses….NASB.
Ultimately, Luke’s account originated with eyewitnesses.
5. The reason for Luke writing was so Theophilus could know the exact truth concerning what he had heard about the death, burial, resurrection, teaching and events related to Jesus…. For certainty with reliability ἀσφάλεια (asphaleia). WE DON’T KNOW HIS REASONS FOR HIS WORDS, ONYLY HIS WORDS
Let me rephrase; Luke 1:3,4 …I too decided to write an orderly account for you…. so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. NIV …. it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence…. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
He clearly with no ambiguity states the reason for his writing.
Did I miss something?
Yes. Ultimately your own knowledge of what Jesus said and did originated with eyewitnesses as well.
Yes, you missed the fact that a person’s stated reasons are not necessarily his or her reasons. I may be typing this now for the “reason” that I’m trying to answer your question out of an honest urge to let you know what I htink is true.. But maybe there are other reasons. Maybe I’m trying to raise more money for the blog. Maybe I feel obligated to answer and am doing so quickly so I can get to lunch. Maybe I’m trying to alleviate my guilt by not answering questions on the blog days ago. Maybe I’m doing it to show off my knowledge. Maybe I’m trying to challenge views of others to get people to think. Maybe I’m doing it to prove I’m always right. Maybe ONE of these is in fact THE MAIN reason, rather than the one I say….
” events that has” — Yikes! Events that *have* happened, obviously. I got called away before proofreading carefully and by the time I got back the editing window had closed . . .
Ha!
Bart, I’ve mentioned L. Michael White (Univ. of Texas) previously. I mention here again because in his book ‘Scripting Jesus’ he stresses each gospel was written for a specific community, which explains the emphasis of each gospel, what the community already knew and how they understood what was read to them – yes, the gospels were written to be read out loud to a specific community. This view also explains many of the differences among the gospels. I find much value in his methodology and conclusions, including much that applies to this topic discussion.
Bart, do you know of his work and is it accepted among historical scholars?
Thanks.
Yes, I’ve known Mike for many years and he is a good scholar. I completely agree that the Gospels were each written for a specific community. The problem for interpretatoin is that we have very little idea where these communities were and, in fact, lmost no information about them at all except from what we can discern from the Gospels themselves. Unfortunately, that ends up requiring a lot of educated guesswork.
Prof. Ehrman:
Just finished Gospels Before The Books (2018) by Matthew Larsen of Yale. He has a perspective that was new to me, essentially that Mark was not a set-piece “book” but rather a constantly evolving collection of notes, stories, and sayings (possibly organized thematically like you would a recipe collection) with perhaps multiple authors. So what we call “Mark” is just a snapshot in time of that work in progress and/or a rough draft of the same book that we call “Matthew” by the same author(s). Thus, Luke had the older collection (“Mark”) and complained about its organization when writing something different.
I was wondering whether this was well-received by “academia” in general and by you in particular?
Thanks!
Matthew is a very smart fellow, and his dissertation advisor (Dale Martin) talked to me about the dissertatoin while he was writing it. Dale loved it. I actually don’t know how well it has been received by the broader scholarly audience. I do think that few Gospel scholars think Matthew was a more finished form of Mark produced by the same author.
Hi Bart, you said in an earlier post(same thread) BDEhrman April 10, 2026 at 6:52 pm
“I don’t *think* I’m incorrect about how inerrancy is viewed in evangelical circles. As you know, I was a committed evangelical for years, and I certainly know a LOT of evangelicals today and talk with them (or debate them!) about their views. what do you think I’m getting wrong?”
I don’t think you’re getting something wrong, I’ve repeatedly stated that I agree with you and think your best work is on the subject of inerrancy. I find the apologist’s answers to be unsatisfactory on a number of points. I agree with you. Where we might see things differently is that I see evidence of both divine and human origin, but not inerrant. This guy named….. what was his name? Oh ya, Bart Ehrman convinced me that there are many discrepancies and contradictions in the New Testament. I hope that clears up any misconception I may have caused. : )
This is also in response to BDEhrman April 10, 2026 at 6:52 pm Questions on the accuracy
Bart, you said, Justin doesn’t mention the apostle-gospel writers by name.
“The Apostles delivered unto us from their Gospels…”-Justin.
Which apostles was he speaking about? Which ones wrote the gospels that were “delivered?”
If nine of the apostles didn’t write a Gospel account then which apostles does that leave? John, Matthew, and Peter/Mark. Then these are the apostles who Justin is referring to “by name” without stating their individual names directly. They’re inferred, implied.
Bart, you said, Papias never mentions John.
Actually Papias said he was more interested “in what John or Matthew had to say” because he considered it “more profitable than what he could obtain from their books.” I’m pretty sure these are the words of Papias not Irenaeus, Eusebius or Jerome’s commentary.(from fragment #1)
Did I miss something?
That’s right. Justihn does not tell us the names of the apostles that produced the Gospels he says were written by apostles. We eon’t know if nine of the apostles didn’t write Gospels. And Justin doesn’t say that. Nor does he say there were four Gospels. He names only one Gospel, the Gospel of Peter.
Papias is not referring to texts written by John or Matthew. His entire point is that he learned what they said by talking to people who knew the followers of the apostles, and he explicitly says he preferred that source of informatoin to written accounts.
That’s right. Justihn does not tell us the names of the apostles that produced the Gospels he says were written by apostles. We eon’t know if nine of the apostles didn’t write Gospels. And Justin doesn’t say that. Nor does he say there were four Gospels. He names only one Gospel, the Gospel of Peter.
Papias is not referring to texts written by John or Matthew. His entire point is that he learned what they said by talking to people who knew the followers of the apostles, and he explicitly says he preferred that source of informatoin to written accounts.
That’s right. Justihn does not tell us the names of the apostles that produced Gospels. Nor does he say there were four of them and that nine others did not write Gospels. He names the author of only one Gospel, Peter. (he never calls a Gospel Matthew, mark, luke, or john)
Papias is not referring to texts written by John or Matthew. His entire point is that he learned what they said by talking to people who knew the followers of the apostles, and he explicitly says he preferred that source of informatoin to written accounts.