Loading...I have been discussing views in the early church that asserted (or were claimed to assert) that Christ was not a divine being by nature, but was only “adopted” to be the Son of God, for example at his resurrection or, more commonly, at his baptism. Some such views were allegedly held by the Jewish-Christian Ebionites and by the Roman-gentile Theodotians. Whether these Christians actually held to such views is a bit difficult to say, since we don’t have any writings from their hands. But it is clear that they were *thought* to hold these views, and for my study of the changes made in the texts of the Bible by Christian scribes, that is all that matters. Scribes sometimes changed the text in light of “aberrant” views thought to be held by others. (Whether these others actually held such views or not.)
We have seen instances in previous posts of changes made in order to oppose “docetic” Christologies, which had just the opposite problem (in the eyes of the proto-orthodox): these held that Christ was so divine that he could not be human. Adoptionists on the other hand maintained that Christ was so human that he could not be divine. Scribes changed their texts of scripture sometimes in order to counter such views as well. Sometimes the same scribe might make not only anti-docetic changes (by stressing that Jesus was human) but also anti-adoptionist changes (by stressing that he was divine). The scribal alterations of the text are a very convoluted business!
In my book Orthodox Corruption of Scripture I devote an entire chapter to anti-adoptionistic changes of the text. In the following few posts I will discuss a couple of key instances.
One of the most intriguing textual changes in the Gospels occurs in…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It costs very little money, and every penny goes to charity!!
A highly speculative thought–I wonder if the words may have been actually spoken by the John the Baptist, if Jesus was one of John’s followers, perhaps his chosen successor, and then attributed to God by later Christians.
Interesting!
Dr. Ehrman, when you talk about “scribes” doing this or doing that, I’m sure some of us get the image of a lowly copiest tucked away deep inside a scriptorium, late at night, with only a single candle to illuminate his work. He stumbles across a word or line in the original text and thinks “well, that can’t be right” and procedes to correct it in his new copy. I’m curious, how do you picture the process happening in your head? Is it close to the aforementioned scenario?
Yeah, that’s pretty much how I imagine it.
To me, there’s no more revealing way to look at the changes in the way Jesus was perceived by early Christians than to look at the four versions of the story of his baptism in the order in which they were written. First he’s simply baptized by John, and he hears an inner voice (as many a person of a religious temperament having such a profound spiritual experience might hear). He’s just one more person out of many baptized by John. Later, when Herod hears about Jesus, he thinks it’s somehow John (who he beheaded) risen from the dead, creating a sense that Jesus and John have similar beliefs.
Then everybody hears the voice in Matthew–and John is appalled when Jesus comes to him, saying he should rather be baptized by Jesus (this is completely out of character for John, who never elsewhere depicted as lacking confidence in his ministry, and there is simply no reason for him to defer to the then-unknown Jesus this way). Matthew tells the story of John’s imprisonment and execution, and then has John send Jesus a message, asking if he is the one who was promised (that John had been preaching about earlier in the story, but not in Mark’s version), or will there be another. Then Jesus says no one born of woman is greater than John the Baptist.
Then in Luke we get the backstory–they’re cousins, and their births are both to some extent miraculous, and closely linked. We get a big introduction for John, and we’re told he predicts someone greater coming after him, and then we get the (rather brief) account of Jesus’ baptism, with its divergent account of God’s commentary on said baptism. We also get the later story of John’s imprisonment
Then in John there’s no baptism, John (who is treated as a rather inconsequential figure) sees Jesus and starts telling all his followers “Forget about me, this is the Promised One, let us all do him obeisance, he is far beyond any man!”
My questions are two–
1)Do you think part of this was due to a still-existing cult of John the Baptist that was competing with early Christianity for followers, and that Christian writers were trying to absorb or somehow co-opt?
2)Can you recommend a good book on the evolution of this story? It fascinates the hell out of me. I have not thus far seen you deal with it in great depth, though I have not read all your books, and I know you have touched on it.
1) Yes, I think probably so 2) My friend Joel Marcus is just now publishing a book on John the Baptist, and I imagine he will be dealing with all this there.
I will be looking for that book, thank you.
Thanks for the heads up. On your recommendation I searched out copies of Prof Marcus’ commentary on Mark. Wow! I thought I had read the gospel of Mark before. I guess not.
A question. In your new book are you going to discuss Mark’s possible sources for his gospel? If not could you pencil in that as a potential thread here on this site?
thanks
I don’t deal with it in the book, except to say that ultimately his stories rely on oral traditions.
I often wonder if John’s followers paved the way for the Jesus movement to spread so quickly. Or whether the popularity of John required the early movement to link Jesus with him in order to get a hearing. If John was widely respected and was predicting a big event, you had better make sure that you can claim to be that event!
It’s generally thought that Jesus was one of John’s followers, and continued his message and mission.
I don’t understand why the proto-orthodox following would be so adamant and steadfast about their views, which contradicts itself frequently. I understand that they were persecuted by almost everyone, but it seems like their doctrine was written in a reactive way without actually knowing what the truth is. So here we are, 2000 years later with a bunch of knee-jerk doctrine that has killed more people than any other cause.
Hi Bart,
Are the other Gospels changed as frequently as Luke seems to be? Is there any way to make redactional inferences to Mark since it was the first Gospel to be written?
Thanks, as always.
Yes, others are changed a lot too.
On Mark: are you asking if it is possible to do redaction criticism on Mark if we don’t actually have his source(s)? Some scholars have tried, but it’s very tricky! My friend Joel Marcus has written a (large) two-volume commentary that takes this approach (in the Anchor Bible Commentary series)
I get that Luke quoted the OT throughout his account, so it’s logical that he would have done so in this particular passage as well.
What I can’t understand is how he had such differing viewpoints from Paul about atonement and Christology. I thought they knew each other. Luke took the time to write about Paul but doesn’t know what Paul believed? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
My view is that he must not have known Paul. He was probably living a few decades later in one of Paul’s churches. It’d be like someone in a church today that was founded 30 years ago. The people in the church may think they are being true to their founder’s views, but things may have changed significantly, and they just don’t know it.
Is it possible that the Luke who knew Paul (if he knew Paul that is) was not the same Luke who authored Luke/Acts?
There’s really no reason to think that the person who wrote these books was named “Luke”
I’m curious about the geographic distribution of these second century church fathers.
The ones quoting “Today I have begotten you.”
Were they all writing from the same area or dispersed throughout the Roman Empire?
Dispersed! (Rome, Alexandria, North Africa) That’s in part what makes it interesting.
I have a question: we know that Mark is the source for both Matthew and Luke. So, why couldn’t Luke use Mark 1:11 in this case? Thank you!
He did indeed. But he changed it. (just as he changed Mark 1:10)
To copy Mark but then change what he said rather than just add to, like we see with the writers of Matthew and Luke, is strange for starters. Usually the other two gospels use Mark and then add to in order to make a specific point. Would you agree with that?
They not only add; they also omit and alter, extensively
Would this have been the only instance in which they change something as important as Christology or are there are times that significant things were changed; only wondering that if this was such a drastic difference in what was said from Mark that maybe that would be an indicator that it was most likely totally inaccurate and Mark’s more plausible to have been said.
Yes, my whole thread is about important christological changes by scribes.
All of what you have written about the corruption of scripture is quite interesting and you have a real gift for being very productive and another gift for explaining stuff clearly and concisely. You also, obviously, have put in an incredible about of work on this and other topics. I also like your point that the changes from a given scribe were somewhat haphazard and not always going in the same direction. Not surprisingly, however, I continue to keep struggling with the same two issues:
1. Were people in the first century intellectually sophisticated enough to really struggle with all of these nuances about the human/divine nature of Jesus? Weren’t they too unscientific and superstitious for such intellectually complicated matters?
2. Did scribes and authors really knowingly change texts to fit their views? I guess they did, but it still seems odd for people to knowingly change sacred writings even if there was not yet a canonized Bible.
Thanks
1. Yes indeed! 2. Yes indeed! I think it seems strange only to people who live in a culture where the very words of the Bible are touted as the Word of God.
DR Ehrman:
According to Paul, Jesus was declared the son of God by His resurrection from the dead.
Romans 1:4
4-who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
____________________________________________________________________________________________
According to 2 Peter 1:17, God spoke the words to the disciples when they were with him on the mountain…Peter claims to have heard the words, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased” audibly from the sky, i.e heaven.
17-For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18-and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
According to the gospel of John, John the baptist knew that Jesus was the son of God because God who had sent him to baptize told him beforehand that when he saw the spirit descending upon an individual in the form of a dove then he was to recognize that that was individual as God’s Son.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
John 1:29-33
29-The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
30-“This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’
31-“I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.”
32-John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.
33-“I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34“I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”
Doesn’t Hebrews 1:5 strongly suggest that the original text was “begotten you”? Paul argues that Jesus is above the angels because God never said to the angels that you are my son, today I have begotten you. Clearly Paul’s audience must have known that God had said that to Jesus. Nowhere else is it said, so the text must have been changed!
Interesting point. The problem is that the author of Hebrews shows no evidence of having read Luke’s Gospel, so he wouldn’t know what Luke’s version of the voice said.
“After me one
is coming who is
mightier than I, and I am
not fit to stoop down and
untie the thong of his
sandals. 8 I baptized
you with water; but he will
baptize you with the Holy
Spirit.”
john seems to be saying that after him there will be one mightier than him, but if john baptised jesus and then the holy spirit decended on jesus, how could jesus be mightier than john?
it seems obvious jesus is
1. dependant on john
2. and upon the holy spirit to decend on him.
3. john was fit to prepair jesus for baptism and baptise him.
4. jesus came to john.
can you explain what is going on here?
I don’t think it was a historical event — that is, that John said this or that the Spirit really descended on Jesus. The Gospls have John say that one greater than he is coming to explain why the greater was baptised by the lesser: now the Lesser ADMITS that the other is Greater. Problem solved.