Loading...Here’s a Gospel story about Jesus and a leper. Does it sound familiar?
And behold, a leper approached him and said, “Teacher Jesus, while I was traveling with some lepers and eating with them at the inn, I myself contracted leprosy. If, then, you are willing, I will be made clean.” Then the Lord said to him, “I am willing: be clean.” Immediately the leprosy left him. Jesus said to him, “Go, show yourself to the priests and make an offering for your cleansing as Moses commanded; and sin no more….”
This may sound like the Bible, but it’s not. This is one of the stories found in a document known to scholars as Papyrus Egerton 2. This papyrus consists of four small pieces of papyrus manuscript, written on front and back (so it comes from a codex, not a scroll). It contains four different stories:
(1) an exhortation by Jesus for his Jewish opponents to “search the Scriptures” (in terms similar to John 5:39-47 and 10:31-39);
(2) a foiled attempt to stone and then arrest Jesus (cf. John 10:31f) and then his healing of the leper cited above (similar to Mark 1:40-44);
(3) the question of whether it is right to pay tribute to the ruling authorities (as for example in Mark 12:13-17); and
(4) a highly fragmentary account that cannot be satisfactorily reconstructed – i.e., the scrap of manuscript has too many holes in it – that appears to be about some kind of amazing miracle Jesus did by sowing seed on the Jordan River (this story is unlike anything
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!
Is it known which Gospels or related writings contemporary with all four Evangelists, from Mark to John, were rejected by the Church,even if we have no complete copies of them?
I understand that by the time the Gospels were canonised there were already various Gnostic gospels,which the Church found unacceptable.
I don’t mean those, which were written after John. Though I wonder what might have been historically true in those rejected Gnostic Gospels.
Have you written about the canonisation process? Or is there a video?
We don’t have any of the other writings by Christians written at the time. The “heretical” documents that are outright rejected by later Christians appear to date after the NT Gospels; there were some books that were written at the time that weren’t rejected but that simply were not considered Scripture, such as 1 Clement and the Didache. The earliest non-canonical Gospels are probably the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter. Both very interesting. I’ve written about the canon a lot over the years — my first academic article was on the topic; my next trade book (after the one I’m doing on Jesus’ ethics) will be on it, as well, probalby, as my next academic book.
Bart, i understand the number 666 (or 616) in Revelation was the number value of the letters in Nero’s name as spelled in Hebrew. Revelation was written in Greek for those who could read or understand that language. Question: Why would the author (John) have assumed that readers of Greek would have figured out that 666 stood for a name spelled in Hebrew?
It’s part of the mystificatoin. “Let the one with understanding figure it out” (13:18). The whole book is kinda like that: filled with puzzles that have to be interpreted. He doesn’t want it to come easy. And we don’t know what he was assuming, or what they already knew, or what he had earlier taught them, unfortunately. I wish we did!
Trying to get this question discussed in past with no success.
In John 11 he discusses the story of Jesus raising his friend Lazarus from the dead. The church recognizes this story as giving tribute to god for his greatness in performing miracles. I read it somewhat differently. It is Jesus who takes it upon himself to raise his friend from the dead 4 days after he died but it is not god (the father ) who wanted this done but Jesus acting independently. God is angered by the hubris of Jesus and he must be punished. The punishment is defined in the following chapter where the story of the crucifixion takes place. Jesus was punished and crucified for HIS sins and not as an offering to by god to give his only begotten son to absolve humanity of their sins. This story relates to the old testament story where Moses hit the rock to draw water instead of talking to the rock as god commanded. For this transgression god told Mosses he could no enter the promised land. Any thoughts on my interpretation which would undermine the basis of the Catholic and Jesus based religious beliefs? Also, this explains Christ crying out “Lord why have you forsaken me” as he didn’t comprehend he was being punished.
That’s an interesting interpretation. I’d say some of the problems would be that: nothing in ch. 11 suggests God is not behind the act (notice Jesus’ prayer to God; he certainly doesn’t think he’s acting without divine authorizatoin); ch. 12 doesn’t narrate the crucifixion of Jesus; Jesus is quite clear in chs. 13-17 that he and God are completely on each other’s side and in and with and for each other; and in John’s Gospel Jesus doesn’t cry out, My God my God why have you forsaken me.
Larry Hurtado wrote a book years ago that runs on these lines “Destroyer of the God’s”. His study has the opinion that Christians were questioned about the scriptures in their possession by Roman soldiers. Something like ‘your Christian writings or your life’. Perhaps that us another way short stories and phases were reproduced ‘from memory’.
Yes, he is referring to something that happened during one of the later persecutions, when copies of the Scriptures were to be turned over to be destroyed. We have an interesting account that purports to be by an eyewitness called the “Scillitan martyrs” that desribes just such an event.
A few days ago, you posted on the blog the syllabus for one of your graduate courses. On the podcast this week, you mentioned you are teaching an undergraduate class on Christianity in the 2d and 3d centuries. I would be interested in the syllabus for this class if you don’t mind posting it.
Good idea. Will do.
Excellent post. You’re spot on in raising the questions you do. And the premise that there were many gospels floating around, and that some were made that didn’t consult the 4, is the most logical conclusion.
Are there any noncanonical gospels that are as long as the 4 canonical ones, and that cover as much of Jesus’s life as they do? If not, is that likely because what we have of them is incomplete?
I ask this because it’s been my impression that Mark-Matthew-Luke-John cover more of Jesus’s life (less so in John’s case) and are, shall we say, heftier than the ones that didn’t make it in.
There are some that are longish, but not as long. The Gospel of Peter and others that we have only in fragments MAY have been as long. Most of the fuller ones we have outside the NT are either mainly collections of sayings, just about the passion, or about the birth narratives.
Speaking of the content of the NT, why does the Bible omit Jesus’ twenties? I asked Jacob of History Valley what Jesus was doing twenties and he said believes Jesus was a zealot in his 20s, out in the desert with John the Baptist. And he added that he probably wasn’t a pacifist zealot. Do your books cover this? Is Reza Aslan’s book Zealot worthwhile?
Thanks,
Greg
It actually omits everything from his infancy narrative to his baptism, except for the one story in Luke when he was twelve. The Gospel writers are interested in his ministry, death, and resurrection, and that’s about it. Nothing suggests he was a zealot in his 20s. If he lived a life like others of his time and place, he would have been a peasant in Nazareth eaking out an existence. You can look up “Reza” in a word search on the blog and you’ll see a long threat that I devoted ot his book years ago.
It actually omits everything from his infancy narrative to his baptism, except for the one story in Luke when he was twelve. The Gospel writers are interested in his ministry, death, and resurrection, and that’s about it. Nothing suggests he was a zealot in his 20s. If he lived a life like others of his time and place, he would have been a peasant in Nazareth eaking out an existence. You can look up “Reza” in a word search on the blog and you’ll see a long threat that I devoted ot his book years ago.
Hi Dr Ehrman not really related to the post but how can people know certain letters like 1 and 2 Peter (which I think are the two most people suspect but could be wrong) wre forgeries when say if they are we have no other writings of Peter to go off of like I get with Paul if there are some letters that are similar in style and then there’s one that’s completely different this is going to raise eyebrows but am just a bit confused when it gets to letters from authors of which we have no other genuine (if their claims are right) writings to compare and base this claim off?
It’s a great question. I talk about it at length in my both my books on forgery. Several factors have to be taken into account. For one thing, were they written by the same author? If not (almost all experts agree not) then one of them is necessarily a forgery. But both may be and for me probably are. One key reason is that they are both written in high level Greek by someones (two different someones) who was well trained in Greek composition and rhetoric. That doesn’t match Peter, the uneducated lower class Aramaic speaking fisherman from Galilee (who is called “illiterate” in Acts 4:13). The book of 2 Peter in particular presupposes a time period long after Peter’s death, when the expectation of the end had dimmed. And it relied on the book of Jude for its main chapter — unlike for an apostle who actually knew Jesus and didn’t need any help with it…. Those are some of the issues.
If Peter was illiterate, wouldn’t it make sense that he would dictate the contents rather than writing himself, and therefore the scribe might well “tidy things up”, so to speak? I just mean that the supposition he was illiterate, doesn’t seem that strong an argument to doubt his authorship (the other arguments might be stronger).
The problem is that being able to *dictate* rhetorically effective language (especially in a foreign language) requires just as much training as being able to write in it. I talk about this and related options in my book Forged, if you’d like to see what the fuller issues are (there’s a somewhat more extensive treatment in my book Forgery and Counterforery).
Thanks for the reply. I’ll check the book out!
Regarding the leper story, I was struck by the last words: “… and sin no more.” That’s how Jesus dismisses the “woman caught in adultery” in John 7:53-8:11 after saving her from being stoned. We now know this is a later, pseudepigraphical interpolation, but I wonder if the phrase “…and sin no more” was something Jesus was known to have said on occasion that got passed down in an oral tradition or something? Beyond this, though, what “sin” is Jesus referring to? Something specific, like associating with the other lepers? Or just admonishing the guy to live a better life more generally? I know in ancient times, people believed leprosy (whatever they meant by that) was some kind of divine punishment for a terrible sin one had committed, but Jesus in the canonical Gospels doesn’t ever imply that as far as I know. Thoughts?
Yes, it appears to be rooted in the idea that disease comes as a divine punishment. Horrible view of things…. It’s not clear if it’s in the Gospels in places or not. When they bring the paralyzed man to Jesus in Mark 2, he doesn’t heal him but says “your sins are forgiven.” Seems odd unless there’s a connection between his ailment and his sins.
Forgive me if this is a dumb question but hasn’t it always been this messy? Like as you said, Luke mentions other sources. And since the 19th century we’ve known about the Q source and a strong (strong but obfuscating) oral tradition. I guess I’m having trouble understanding how it’s “even more messy than what was already inscrutably messy”.
I’ll be posting on this. It is messy indeed, but most peole (even top level scholars) have a pretty simplistic view of it (from my perspective.)