I’ve recently answered some queries from readers and thought that the questions were too good not to post for all to see. They are all on different topics, but interesting ones, and they required different lengths of answer. Here they are, four of them, a blog Q&A.
Question One:
I am writing a blog about how Christians defend biblical inerrancy and I came across an on-line article with this quote.
“You have searched the Scriptures, which are true and given by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them.” —Clement of Rome, letter to the Corinthians, first century
Two questions: Was there really a Pope in the first century? What kind of “scripture” could he possibly be referring to in the last decade of the first century?
Good stuff, professor,
Why are the designations BC (Before Christ, English) and AD (Anno Domini, Latin). Wish I knew…
Maybe ante christum sounds too much like anti christ? Coram Domino would have worked though.
Okay, here’s a question I’ve been sort of waiting for an appropriate moment to raise. So here goes:
Many evangelical Christians distinguish between ceremonial, civil, and moral laws, when it comes to the Law (Torah). My question is, how valid is that?
Did ancient Israelites think in terms of such categories? Such that, if pressed, one could discount a ceremonial or civil law, but not a moral law?
Here’s a common “fer instance.” God said not to eat pork or shellfish, or wear clothes that mix wool and linen. He also said to keep the Sabbath holy (however interpreted).
Many evangelicals eat pork and shellfish, and wear mixed-fiber fabrics, and even go to work on Sundays. (Sunday/Sabbath is another topic, but then they often work on Saturdays too, so there’s that.)
So why is it now okay to breach those rules, but not other rules (like how to treat slaves, or stone unruly kids)? Sometimes they try to boil it down to just the Ten Commandments, but even that brings up the Sabbath thing… ?
(And of course they try to make such rules universal/full time when it suits them, such as the whole anti-gay “lay with a man” thing.)
Yup, that’s a modern, Christian set of distinctions. I think you could argue that some of the NT authors (Paul/matthew) implicitly distinguished between what we would call ethical and cultic laws (though not between civil and ethical). But it’s only because Christians insisted gentiles did not have to be circumcised and keep kosher and sacrifice etc. to follow Jesus but were to follow the laws of how to relate to one another. I don’t know of any Jews who made those kinds of distinictions. The law was the law. But maybe someone else on the blog knows of ancient instances outside of Xty.
BC vs AD – good question. Or, as a well-known scholar said, “an interesting random question.”
When did BC become common? When was English used for bible commentary?
I wonder if AD was common when “everyone” [who cared about religion] spoke Latin and the New Testament was their main focus, and BC was used when common people became concerned about the historicity of the Hebrew bible. (If scholars were talking about it, I’d expect the abbreviation to be from German. Or maybe it is? What’s the German word for before?)
I’m just rambling out of sheer ignorance.
Bart, is there a way to change my default to “Notify me of replies to my comments”? Right now I have to remember to change it before I post anything.
I don’t know. Zap a query to Help and see.
How about presenting us with another Greek lesson today.
I did raise my thoughts previously (in your post dated May 8, 2024) about the possibility that John 1:1-34 were inserted later to the original document. However, this thought is very resent, but the trigger for it started long time ago from John 8:58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am”.
There is something odd in this verse, and I do remember that I raised this matter in one of my first questions here in the blog about 2 years ago.
I think that there is here a grammatical error in English and I assume it is based on a grammatical error in Greek (surprisingly, the verse in the Arabic-Gospel is almost like: before Abraham was, I was,,, because “am” has no direct translation).
Now … the standard interpretation here is that Jesus is presenting himself as being Yahweh (or at least equal to him). However, there are serious problems for this interpretation:
1# This verse was probably written about 100AD, and I don’t think that anyone at that time regarded Jesus to be Yahweh or equal to him. These ideas needed another century to appear.
—–>
—–>
Therefore, this current interpretation cannot be the one intended by the original author.
2# There is a jumping logic here: If we say {A is B, B is C, therefore A is C} then this is a straight-forward logic. But if we say {A is B therefore A is C} then there is a jump in this logic.
So, the first premise in the interpretation is that “I am” refers to Yahweh, so how we went from this premise to the conclusion that Jesus claiming to be Yahweh!
3# The context of this verse (John 8:21-59) doesn’t suggest that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh or claiming to be equal to him.
####
This verse is a true puzzle. However, this verse also presented me with a possibility that its original author was sincere, meaning that he recorded what he heard without altering or modifications, otherwise he would have altered this verse to be (at least) grammatically right. But he heard it this way, and he recorded it as-is.
So, my question here …. are there other verses in John with “puzzling” grammatical errors? Are they many or few? And if they were just few, then can we have a list for them?
Jesus definitely does not claim to be Yahweh in this verse. The verb is plural “are” one. There are two of them. They may be equal (in some way) but they are NOT identical.
But the question wasn’t answered: Are there other verses in the Gospel of John with “puzzling” grammatical errors? Are they many or few? And if they were just few, then can we have a list for them?
#####
With the above question in mind, I have reached a simple but very interesting realization that I wasn’t aware off until the previous comment few days ago: the linking verb “am” (in “I am”) has no direct translation in Arabic.
This is really interesting. However, I am going now to explore things on a very thin ice: I understand Arabic and English (and my English is obviously limited) and I want to explore the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages. So, I am going to present the following two assumptions that I hope you can confirm or reject:
1# Greek and English are both Indo-Europeans, therefore, there is a direct translation for the linking verb “am” between them.
2# Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic have no direct translation for the English linking verb “am”.
If both of the above assumptions are valid, then let us start:
—–>
I’m afraid I’m lost in your thread of comments. I don’t know of grammatical erros in the Gospel of John, at least none is coming to mind. I’m not sure why you’re saying Hebrew has no word for “I am.” There is certainly a verb for “to be” that can be conjugated in the first person singular. Are you saying there is no present tense?
—–>
Suppose I said: I am Omar. The best translation to Arabic is: Ana Omar,, which literally translated back as: I Omar.
If someone asked me: Are you Omar, and I answered: Yes I am,, then the best translation would be: Na-a’m, Ana Howa,, which is literally translated back as: Yes, I he,, therefore, the proper reverse translation would be: Yes, I am him.
Based on the above, I don’t think I am able to present any Arabic sentence that can faithfully be translated to English as: Before Abraham was I am.
Now … Jesus spoke Aramaic, but Hebrew is close enough. So, can you present a sentence in Hebrew that can faithfully and only be translated to English as: Before Abraham was I am?
Now … If this Hebrew sentence can be translated in different ways, then the angle of “Yahweh” here is no longer valid.
Sorry for this confusion, and in this comment, I will just present my conclusion:
I am assuming that Greek is similar to English because both are Indo-European languages. I am also assuming that Aramiac, Hebrew and Arabic are similar as they are all Semitic languages.
If this was the case, then “there” is no direct Arabic translation for the English linking verb “am” (in ‘I am”). To clarify: there is a direct translation for the color “red”, which is “ah’mar”, but no direct translation for “am”. Even the word “to be” doesn’t have a direct translation: it is two words and the best translation is one word, which is “Ya-koon”.
The conclusion here is that: there is no Arabic sentence that can have only one translation as: “Before Abraham was, I am”, And I think this conclusion is valid for the Aramiac language.
If this was the case then it is totally invalid to interpret “I am” in the Greek verse to mean Yahweh; because the verse “I am” is just an “indirect” translation to an unknown Aramiac saying that is attributed to Jesus, and this saying could have many other translations.
Care to do some literary criticism?
Let’s say that Christianity had not become a world religion but that we still had all the writings that make up what we now call the New Testament, although not considered scripture, and judged only by their literary merit.
1. Give a couple examples of books you think would now be obscure, of interest only to the specialist.
2. Give a couple of examples of books that would now be considered fine enough literature that they might be of interest to a non-specialist.
3. Is there anything in the NT, judging by literary merit alone, on the level of the best of the OT?
Thanks!
For literary afficianadose you mean? Then 1. All of them; 2. None of them; 3. Most of them
I get a kick out of people using Rev. 3:20 to suggest the Sinner’s Prayer because in the passage Jesus is knocking on the door of the CHURCH of Laodicea asking the CHRISTIANS to let Him back in! He’s not appealing to nonbelievers!
Right!!
the phrase “recieve Jesus” was taken from John 1: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Don’t know about “into your heart” part 🙂
Love this – please do more!
Since you brought up random questions, it inspired me to ask you one myself regarding an ostensibly random verse in Matthew: what are your thoughts on 27:19? It seems to me like a too random verse, and that’s why I think there must be some interesting background with respect to Pilate’s wife that I am not aware of.
It is usually thought to be emphasizing Matthew’s point that everyone knew Jesus didn’t deserve to be killed and that Pilate — who knew his innocence — was driven to condemn him because of hte Jews. It’s another bit to show that he did’t want to do it.
This doesn’t quite answer your query but, my research (aka googling) suggests that Dionysus Exiguus in the 6th century coined “anno domini nostri Jesu Christi” which was shortened to “anno domini”, then in the 8th century St Bede came up with “ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus”, but seemingly, as that is a bit of a mouthful, it was subsequently translated into English as “before christ”. I suppose it could easily have been AI?
I guess so!
This doesn’t quite answer your query but, my research (aka googling) suggests that Dionysus Exiguus in the 6th century coined “anno domini nostri Jesu Christi” which was shortened to “anno domini”, then in the 8th century St Bede came up with “ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus”, but seemingly, as that is a bit of a mouthful, it was subsequently translated into English as “before christ”. I suppose it could easily have been AI?
In Mark, Jesus is brought before a council consisting of the high priest, all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes, and they all condemn him to death. Would anybody on this council have an apocalyptic theology? I ask this because Mark says Joseph of Arimathea was on this council and it says he was “waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God” implying that he had an apocalyptic theology. If the council was entirely Sadducean in its theology, then I’d expect none of them to have an apocalyptic theology.
It’s usually thought that council was made up mainly (entirely?) of Saduccees, who famously were not apocapyticists..
In looking through the Wikipedia page on the different meanings of the word `logos’ it seems that popular Christianity has the wrong exegesis of John’s gospel. For example, the Christian world interprets John 14’s “No one comes to the father except through me” to mean that only Christians are, or can be, saved or allowed into heaven, or avoid hell. But if, for example, logos means the ordering principle by which anything happens then “No one comes to the father…” can’t mean what the Christian world thinks it means. That meaning of logos says that the ability to think, walk, speak, brushing one’s teeth, etc., all happen through the logos. Under that meaning we could say “No one can brush their teeth except through me” and it would be wrong to interpret that to mean that only Christians can brush their teeth. John 14 could mean that everyone has access to the father through the logos. Suddenly all the “I am” statements make sense, like “I am the vine, and you are the branches…without me you can do nothing”. Bart, what do you think of all this and what meaning of logos do you think applies in John’s gospel?
Logos is a very complicated term with lots of different nuances in Greek philosophical discourse, not a word that means one thing to all authors everywhere, wehther philosophically trained or not. I’m afraid it’s not the kind of thing you can get a grasp of on a Wikipedia page. There are entire volumes written on what John means by it, including the question of whether we should think of Stoic (or other philosophical) influence, or Septuagintal. I do think there was some phiulosophical influence on John — esp. Stoic — but that many of the resonances go back to the “word” God spoke in Genesis 1. etc.disabledupes{93ee8cc36434bf9f85ded008d471c386}disabledupes
But none of the meanings of logos support the popular interpretation of John 14:6 to mean only Christians have access to “heaven” or “salvation”. Do you know of any? I had something different in mind. Imagine somebody writing a story where the laws of physics incarnate into a body and live as a person. What things would the writer of such a story have such a person say? Probably things like “only through me do the stars shine” and “it is only through me that a pot of water boils on a hot stove”. The writer(s) of John’s gospel had to use a notion of logos which refers to the ordering principle by which anything happens to put the kinds of words into the mouth of Jesus that they do. This ordering principle “became flesh”. Many (most?) of the sayings John attributes to Jesus only makes sense if Jesus thought of himself as a Greek logos in a human body. And that is the giveaway that John’s gospel is attributing lots of words to Jesus that he did not say. Jesus didn’t think he was a logos in a body even if others apply the logos notion to Genesis 1.
I’m not sure what you mean? John 14:6 doesn’t use the term logos. One of the odd features of John’s Gospel is that the use of “Logos” to refer specifically to Christ himself is only in the prologue (1:1-18)
The prologue is the key to the whole gospel. The logos is the mechanism by which anything happens, including “coming to the father”. The statements John attributes to Jesus make sense if Jesus is the logos speaking to people. In 14:6, the logos is saying that it is the mechanism by which people “come to the father”. My question was, do you know of any meaning of the term “logos” that would imply heaven, or salvation is only available to Christians? The logos is saying, in 14:6, that it is the route to the father and, as far as I can tell, that route is open to everyone, including non-Christians.
The world logos doesn’t have any inherent sense that involves heaven or salvation in any sense. It’s kind of like asking what view of salvatoin is implied by the word “reason” or “logic” or “meaning.” It would only have some association if used in contexts dealing with the issues.
Thanks, that was my understanding, and I just wanted to make sure of it. That confirms that my original comment above (that popular Christianity has the wrong exegesis of John’s gospel — especially in 14:6) is basically correct. Christians cannot claim that 14:6 means only Christians go to heaven or attain salvation, not only for the reasons you mention but John’s gospel isn’t about salvation or heaven at all. Rather, it’s about acquiring immortality via the logos.
“and (in Greek) adding what is otherwise a preposition to it at its beginning to provide a different meaning, nuance, or emphasis.”
Along this line, why is “g” silent in “gnostic” but pronounced in “agnostic”? Is it because “a” is a preposition? Or would the classical or koine Greeks have pronounced it, and we have just Anglicized it for English speakers?
Well, it was supposed to be. But somehow the video file got corrupted and we can’t retrieve it. Erg….
Bart – Please correct me if I am wrong. Jesus preached only to Jews. He came to seek the lost sheep of Israel He directed his disciples not to preach etc. to the gentiles. The kingdom of God was for Jews alone.Non Jews unworthy to receive his teaching. Non Jews were regarded to be like dogs and swine.No sermons, preaching or teaching to gentiles.Never taught his disciples to interact with gentiles.Jesus wanted only Jews in his grouping. Is this view erroneous?
His ministry was almost certainly to Jews, yes. But he clearly thought that gentiles who lived as the God of Israel demanded by careing for those in need would enter into the kingdom, whereas many Jews would be left out. Think: Matthew 25:31-46, which is probalby authentic.
AD was Dionysius Exiguus and BC was Bede of Northumbria.
YOu sure? Did Old English use the words “Before Christ”?
AD — After Death …
Right! Then we’re missing 30 years in our calendar!
Will the new insights to the new Testament class that was held in September be made available as a class to purchase for those of us who weren’t able to attend the one in September?
Oh yes. Just go to my webside http://www.bartehrman.com/courses
I have read secular historical accounts of early Christians (0 – 200) written by people who lived in that period that said they could not understand how the followers of Christ were giving up their material belongings to a community and living together in harmony. Some of these secular historians said it made no sense to them but they admired them for their commitment. The Polska Briacy were also recorded by historians of that time as being similar.
I don’t believer there are any such accounts, are there?
I thought I remember reading them. But I have tried to find some. The Polish Brethren are easily found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Brethren
I have visited the museum in Poland of this group. Many of their buildings are still standing. It may be that I read the accounts at the museum there.
dear Dr Ehrman:
I used a different part of my brain in this post. Usually I try to figure the blog if I know anything on the subject & how or if I can relate.
here I used 3 ai’s to give me like wikipedia answers to clarify:
1) What were the Biblical scriptures during the time of Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians in the first century?
2) Who is carrying Moses or St. Peter’s seat so to speak in 2024 USA, Christianity or Judaism?
b. we know the corrupt history of the Roman Catholic church- like Pharisaic
c. 2024: so who is the spiritual leader of the jews
thanks!
1. The Old Testament; 2. I don’t understand the question. Are you asking who is “the” head of the Jewish faith? There is none and never has been.
Thanks Dr Ehrman:
I was mixing Christianity domination with/ or over Judaism as many faiths put the biblical anthology as one 66book narrative than each book on its own as it ought to be.
but I am responding to Omar’s last comment:
“Lost in translation”- most folks use their own native languages and not in Aramaic or Hebrew.
And another commentator brought up languages in different families.
Thanks!
Bart: I request your expert opinion as to whether John’s Gospel may have originally ended with John 20:18 for the following two reasons. First, in verse 17 Jesus reportedly told Mary Magdalene to go tell his disciples “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God and your God” (KJV). Then in the next verse (20:18) we learn Mary Magdalene then went to Jesus’ disciples and told them she had seen the Lord and that he had spoken these things to her. Second, if we then read verse 19 et. seq. we find that Jesus in fact did not ascend as he had told Mary Magdalene he was doing but instead appeared thrice the last one being on the shores of the Sea of Galilee with only seven disciples and without any mention of his ascension. As an old attorney, I submit that something is rotten in Denmark (or should I say Galilee) inasmuch as these verses following John 20:18 end up impeaching what has preceded them and leaves Jesus un-ascended. But we find in Matthew that the author left this same Jesus stranded (and un-ascended) on a Galilean mountain with eleven disciples.
Dr. Ehrman,
Could the salutation, “Most Excellent Theophilus,” in the intro to Luke/Acts be referring to anyone who is a “god lover” (i.e. Theo-phile) rather than an actual person by that name? I’m sure I’m not the first to point out this obvious etymological similarity.
Yes, that’s been my view for many years; the book is written to Christians who are either beloved of God or those who love God, or both.
Heard again you talk about Judas Iscariot dying and the connection of the two stories with “the field of blood”. These stories make me think that within these two accounts there are actually three explanations for the name field of blood. 1) It was bought with the blood money 2) Judas spilled his intestines on the ground on it. 3) The priests bought the potter´s field. Potters often use red clay and therefore a piece of land having red clay in it might well, generally, be called “the field of blood”. Suppose there really was such a field, or at least a known reference to such a field, both accounts of Judas might well have been created around this kind of an idea. So the name of the field was first and the accounts got their inspiration from the name. Anything of interest in this thought?
Yes, I think there was a field of red clay used by potters, and in some way or another it wsa connected with Judas’s death… But I’m not sure how.
Why no answer to my question above pertaining to John 20:18?
Not sure. Must have missed it. Try again?