Loading...I’ve been speaking about the importance of the differences of the Gospels. So far I’ve argued that these show that each Gospel has to be read for the message that *it* is trying to convey; no one should assume that the message of one Gospel is the message of another, that the portraits of Jesus are the same among all the Gospels, that none of the differences matter for much of anything because they can all be reconciled. That is to miss out on a real opportunity of determining the message of each of these authors. I think that’s important. These are important books. Whether you’re a Christian or not, no one can much doubt that the New Testament is the most important book, historically and culturally, in the history of Western Civilization. Knowing what it’s authors have to say really matters. And if you wear blinders when trying to interpret these books, you’ll simply see what you’re programed to see. And that’s not good.
In my last post I argued that one of the values of seeing the differences is specific to the Synoptic Gospels, that if Mark in fact was the source (one of the sources) for Matthew and Luke, then you can compare – very carefully, in minute detail, as well as in big ways – the changes that one of the later Gospels made in its source, and thereby come to know what the author thought was particularly important. This is redaction criticism, one of the methods that I teach my students.
Redaction criticism is only one of the methods that I use with the Gospels (and the other books of the NT) in my introductory class. Maybe I’ll devote a few posts to just this issue – some of the methods used to study these books.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, JOIN NOW. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
Hi Bart,
This is leading up to a question I’ve always wondered about.
Do we really know what the authors meant when they wrote their gospels? For example, if an author in the 1890’s wrote a historical record of some famous person in the 1800’s, and used the term, “he was gay”, he probably meant, that this person was lighthearted and happy. However, if another author, in the 1990’s wrote a historical record of this same person, and also used the term, “he was gay”, this author was probably making a comment about this persons sexual preference, rather than his lightheartedness. Two thousand years from now, if some archaeologist, finds, one of these 2 books, when they read it, and see the words, “he was gay”, will they know enough about our society to interpret this meaning correctly?
Do you think we really know, for example, when the gospels say something like, Jesus went into the wilderness for 40 days, what is the correct interpretation of that statement, as it was used in that society, 2,000 years ago?
John
Of course, in one sense we never know what *anyone* intends by a writing. Never, ever. But we can establish what someone probably meant. A serious historian — to use your example — can trace the use of the word “gay” in the English language (and any other word) to establish how it typically was used in 1890 vs. 1990. The same kind of historical linguistics can be used with Greek, since there is so much Greek that survives, from different periods.
” it occurred to me that I actually approached the four Gospels in four different ways, three of which were regularly talked about among scholars.”
It wasn’t clear to me here-did you mean that the fourth approach (the one not talked about by scholars) was the “literary historical” perspective then or something else?
No, the one not talked about is one I haven’t mentioned yet.
The best way to understand the gospels is to realize that 95 of them are made-up fairy tales. When you subtract all the miracles and other improbable happenings, only a few basic facts remain — e.g., Jesus was a self-righteous Jewish sect leader from Galilee, he recruited 12 illiterate disciples, he predicted God’s coming kingdom / judgment day, he went to Jerusalem where he was crucified and his followers thought he survived death when they couldn’t find his body.
Dear Bart,
I am really interested in this topic, and your future posts on it, as this is exactly where I am at in my own studies. So far, I have read about half of your textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (which I understand is about to come out in a new edition) and found it very helpful. I’d like to go deeper now with the Gospels, and would like to read an analysis of each one. You write that “Joel Marcus, has written arguably the most important and thorough commentary on Mark in modern times, a two-volume affair in the Anchor Bible Commentary series.” Is this the book you would recommend that the educated lay reader should read as their guide to Mark? If so, I will get it. Could you recommend books for Matthew, Luke and John? Thank you for writing on this topic for us.
Joel Marcus’s commentary assumes a lot of knowledge — but if you’re an advanced student of the NT, you could probably handle it. There are simpler, more basic introductions to Mark (such as the small book by Morna Hooker, The Message of Mark), if you’re at more of an entry level.
Thanks so much for helping me avoid what I probably would have found too advanced, and for the more accessible book recommendation. Can you recommend books similarly accessible books for Matthew, Luke and John?
You might check out the various books on different books of the NT called “What Are They Saying” (e.g., “What Are They Saying about Matthew” etc.)
Excellent, thank you.
I read that Mark was probably the first ever written gospel, biography of the good news, on Jesus. Is that a general scholarly census?
Well, it’s the earliest that still survives. Whether it was the first altogether is very hard to know.
Oh, bodice rippers, oh my!
I look forward to learning how ancient biographies differ from modern biographies.
Probably the best part of your New Testament textbook is how you illustrate the use of a different critical method with each gospel.
I’m really interested to see your next post on this subject
Hey Bart,
In scholarship there seems to be a hidden assumption for naturalism that miracles can’t really be known through history, but isn’t that less critical than the open-critical-historical method? The open-critical historical method says we should search for a naturalistic explanation, but if all naturalistic explanations fail we should be open to a supernatural one. Now I agree that miracles are improbable, but I think they can be found throughout history. I think if we hold to a Hume interpretation of history then we are being less critical in our research. The Open method says we should be critical of both the naturalistic explanations AND supernatural explanations. For example: The resurrection of Jesus is an improbable event because we really don’t have any events like it, but the belief in a killed and rising Messiah seems improbable as well. However, the resurrection isn’t completely absolutely unknowable because we can imagine what an event would be like. So the principle of analogy fails to access miracles accurately because it requires you to say the Resurrection is an absolute unknowable event. So is it really all that outlandish to say that this could have indeed been a supernatural explanation? I think we have no naturalistic theory that can explain the event, but that doesn’t mean the resurrection happened. I think if we can be open to miracles in history then I think the resurrection becomes quite plausible because of the circumstances the Christian movement started. What do you think Bart?
I completely disagree! Maybe I’ll devote some posts to it. But the reality is that historians never allow for miracles. If miracles *did* happen, there’s no way to demonstrate it historically. Read a lot of history — about Charlemagne, Napolean, the Civil War, Vietnam, anything at all — and see how often historians invoke miracle. They don’t. And there’s a reason for that! (Actually several reasons.) And it has nothing to do with the anti-supernatural biases of secular humanists….
DR Ehrman:
YOUR COMMENT:
These are important books. Whether you’re a Christian or not, no one can much doubt that the New Testament is the most important book, historically and culturally, in the history of Western Civilization. Knowing what it’s authors have to say really matters. And if you wear blinders when trying to interpret these books, you’ll simply see what you’re programed to see. And that’s not good.
MY COMMENT:
What matters to me is that these books are not historically accurate. They are not God’s message. God did not speak to these authors. God did not commission them to write these books. The authors of these books were not ‘eyewitnesses’. To me they are not important books. I don’t need to read them. They are apocryphal books similar to the gospel of Peter, The gospel of Thomas and The gospel of Mary, that should’ve never been included in the New Testament canon. I don’t need these books to believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. I have the writings of the apostles for that. It’s a waste of time to quote an unreliable source and form any theological doctrine based on falsehood. Do we use any of the other apocryphal books to form a theological point of view? Perhaps some do. I don’t. ~ Cheito
It occurs to me that lots and lots of things have been “important” to western civilization, but that does not mean they were good or beneficial in the long run, especially when it comes to religious writings of the distant past. It is, however, helpful to understand the authors’ intentions, if for no other reason than to dispel the superstitious, mind-numbing nonsense masquerading as history.
“And if you wear blinders when trying to interpret these books, you’ll simply see what you’re programed to see.”
Truer words have never been spoken.
Bart D. Erhman: …if Mark in fact was the source (one of the sources) for Matthew and Luke, then you can compare – very carefully, in minute detail, as well as in big ways – the changes that one of the later Gospels made in its source, and thereby come to know what the author thought was particularly important. This is redaction criticism, one of the methods that I teach my students.
Steefen: War of the Jews by Titus Flavius Josephus (born Joseph ben Matityahu) was a source for Mark.
Josephus records the removal of demons (wicked rebels) from Gadara by Vespasian.
Mark records the removal of demons from Gadara by Jesus.
Josephus records a rebel leader, John of Giscala, went through Gadara possessing the men and the young men with his rhetoric and threats gathering his legion of wicked rebels.
If you google John of Giscala, you find:
“John…went about among all the people, and persuaded them to go to war, by the hopes he gave them. He affirmed that the affairs of the Romans were in a weak condition, and extolled his own power. He also jested upon the ignorance of the unskillful, as if those Romans, although they should take to themselves wings, could never fly over the wall of Jerusalem, who found such great difficulties in taking the villages of Galilee, and had broken their engines of war against their walls. These harangues of John’s corrupted a great part of the young men, and puffed them up for the war.”
John of Giscala/Gischala is the mouthpiece of his “legion” of rebels. In Josephus, this John is worse than a member of the Sicarri. What is worse than a member of the Sicarri? Someone who is fierce, someone who cannot be tamed. In Matthew, the spokeperson of Legion, the possessed, is “exceeding fierce;” in Mark, no one could tame the spokesperson of Legion.
In the Gospel of Mark, of course, Jesus comes along to save the day.
In the War of the Jews, of course, Vespasian comes along to save the day.
How does this happen. Jesus sends them running. Vespasian sends his swine running. The swine in Jesus’s story drown. Many of the swine in Vespasian’s account are chased to their drowning.
Which came first? Did the Jesus account get written after the historical account of Vespasian chasing rebels? Some say the Gospel of Mark is not written before 70. Of course Vespasian and his demon chasing happens shortly before 70.
From the book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, we see the highly educated writer/s of the Gospel of Mark referenced great literature in the writing of the Gospel of Mark. Here, we see they referenced a place, an antagonist, and a protagonist from The War of the Jews.
As we study in order to judge if an exorcism of Jesus is historical, we must consider how the biblical account may be secularized. Today, you may not find everyone saying Jesus exorcised the demons of Gadara. You may find Jesus exorcising the demoniacs of Gadara. What is the difference? One is a demon the other is demon-like. Surely, Josephus has identified the Sicarri and one worse than a member of the Sicarri as demon-like.
What I’m sharing is, what is for me, the first plausible non-literal, and, somewhat, non-supernatural account of Jesus exorcising the demons of Gadara.
I want to prove my case further.
Exorcism in the bible is what a Catholic priest would say an exorcism is. For Josephus, the exorcism is converting a rebel against Rome to a non-rebel. (It seems Jesus of Gamala was a rebel, but later he gave a speech to the Idumeans saying we cannot win this war, please do not make this worse than it could be. Jesus of Gamala was killed by the Idumeans the next day.)
What happens to the man after Jesus got rid of the demons. Luke, not Mark records this:
Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.
Parallel #2. Jesus delivers a prophecy to Peter. What is to you what happens to John, the beloved? You are going to be carried off where you do not want to go. In Josephus, this prophecy is fulfilled by Titus. Titus carries Peter off and kills him. John of Gischala is not carried off. Like the formerly demon-possessed man, John is freed of his demons and goes on to tell of the goodness of Vespasian.
The gospels came out during a time from when Vespasian was the commander in chief over Jerusalem, to when Vespasian was emperor, to when Vespasian’s son was emperor. These victors needed gospels of a Pacifist Messiah. When Vespasian or Titus or the Roman Colleges that Oversaw Religion in the Roman Empire (so for one reason: their soldiers could pray to their enemies’ god to diffuse the opposition)–when Vespasian was reading the Gospel of Mark, and he got to the part about Jesus putting demons on the run, he reminisced.
hmm never knew mark was the most ( understood )
question do you know who is
mark 16:5
I’m not sure what you’re asking.
the guy sitting there in mark 16:5 ? who was that ?
He’s usually taken to be an angel, but it’s not definite.
Right ok ..
Just wondering if he was ever discovered
Who he was
Nope — there’s no further information to go on.
one of my favorites !
mark 14:32-42
could the author or let me say this should have the author put in verse 42 instead of betrayer should have said ” for the one that will hand me over is already there ?”
if thats the case
geez the author lol thats very important.
and the gospel of judas? we’ll its positive
and let me say
REV 5:2 thee young man? was any of his disciples a young man? who was the young man there that night? and 14:51-52 ( if any of his disciples was a thrusted by author and found it important enough to say and let it be for the authors to read ” young man ” please let me know
what do you scholars call them ? parallels or something?
debating with my self i guess
what do you think bart ?
What that story is all about is very much debated among scholars. Lots of options out there! I don’t have a strong opinion myself.
mark 16:5
mark 14:51-52
” the man in linen ” LOL
you thought thee vatican was the listening post of the earth
ha ! for god has eyes and ears everywhere lol
right ?
just debating with self? you read before you post i know this bart
i hope you approve.
for the kings and the queens of the earth and are more worried about their material dwellings
for i pray. me a believer in he. bart how much do i believe ?
for the so called rulers and kings and queens
GOD will rip their possessions by force from their very hands for their avoidance
and GOD will wake them up non – politely – or non – politely then they will remember
“GOD IS REAL AND THEY WILL SEE WHY SAINT GABRIEL IS CALLED THE MESSENGER”
Judaism –
Gabriel is interpreted by the Rabbanim to be the “man in linen” in the Book of Daniel and the Book of Ezekiel. In the Book of Daniel, he is responsible for interpreting Daniel’s visions. Gabriel’s main function in Daniel is that of revealer, a role he continues in later literature.[7] In the Book of Ezekiel, Gabriel is understood to be the angel that was sent to destroy Jerusalem. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Gabriel takes the form of a man, and stands at the left hand of God.[8] Simeon ben Lakish (Palestine, 3rd century) concluded that the angelic names of Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel came out of the Babylonian exile (Gen. Rab. 48:9).[7]
In Kabbalah, Gabriel is identified with the sephirot of Yesod. Gabriel also has a prominent role as one of God’s archangels in the Kabbalah literature. There, Gabriel is portrayed as working in concert with Michael as part of God’s court. Gabriel is not to be prayed to; because only God can answer prayers, and sends Gabriel as His agent.[8]
According to Jewish mythology, in the garden of Eden there is a tree of life or the “tree of souls”[9] that blossoms and produces new souls, which fall into the Guf, the Treasury of Souls. Gabriel reaches into the treasury and takes out the first soul that comes into his hand. Then Lailah, the Angel of Conception, watches over the embryo until it is born.[10]
I was never a fundamentalist. But a year ago I began an academic journey that helped me see the true beauty of metaphor in the gospels. Starting with your textbook I began collecting a reading list that never seems to stop growing–I wish I had done this decades ago. But today I had a truly emotional experience, and would ask for your guidance as to whether or not it was warranted.
I did a first read of Dennis MacDonald’s “The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark” (I read through a book once simply reading to get the flow of arguments, then a second time for study and note taking), and was floored. In it he shows how Mark imitated, adapted, and overtly changed essential elements of Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad to illustrate who Jesus was and how to follow his example. I found it absolutely compelling, but if one accepts Markan priority and John’s dependence on the synoptics the implications are indeed consequential. I’m reminded of Crossan critiquing the Catholic Church by saying they sent him on a journey, and although they might not like what he found they couldn’t tell him he didn’t find it.
My single question in its various manifestations:
1. Have you read it, and/or are you familiar with the argument?
2. How is the argument received by the academic community?
3. Will it upend form criticism of the gospels?
4. Am I making mountains out of mole hills? Or am I being hoodwinked?
P.S. I hope all finds you and yours well after (hurricane) Matthew came to visit . . .
1. Yes 2. People have found it interesting, but I’m not aware of many (any?) who have been convinced. 3. nope 4. I don’t think Mark was modeled on Homer. He has themes in common — but so do lots and lots of ancient writings.
Thanks much. It can be too easy to get overly excited about a new reading at my stage.
Im trying to begin to understand the work of scholars on the topic of the historical Jesus. 😊 f indeed (and I am beginning to agree) that the gospels are biois, a genre that does not place the same emphasis on particulars as we do, why are we to worry about things like what *exactly* did Pilate write on the sign? And on *exactly* which day in reference to the start of Passover was Jesus actually crucified on? It appears as if the gospel writers did not ask these questions, nor did their readers. Nor would they have thought of them as discrepancies. Why should we? And is it safe to say that those kinds of questions have nothing to do with faith in Jesus of Nazareth? 😊
Depends what kind of faith in Jesus you have….
Well… if indeed the writers never intended nor were expected to write “history” in our sense, what difference does it make if the John gospel and the Mark gospel record Jesus dying on different days, one on the 14th of Nissan (John) and Mark and posterity recording him dying later in the week? These discrepancies, if indeed they are discrepancies, are not points that the gospel authors or their intended audiences would have even attempted to reconcile. I seem to remember a book i read once… a noteworthy scholar as i recall, who spent no small about of time establishing this as a major problem as memory serves 😉
I PERSONALLY wish they WOULD have broken with the apparent literary constraints of their era and written a more chronologically organized account. They did not. It is what it is. These are ancient writings. We must let them exist in their ancient context. This is not a challenge to their inspiration.
Here’s a great question: who is the first writer of antiquity that TRULY wrote history in the modern sense? If Herotodus was their model, I’d say they put him to a blushing shame in that respect. 🙂
Yes, the discrepancy only matters if you think it is important that the Gospel writers were historically accurate in what they said about Jesus. If accuracy doesn’t matter, either does a discrepancy.
There weren’t *any* writers from antiquity who wrote history in the modern sense, more or less by definition.