In this thread I’ve been talking about how I conceived of my New Testament textbook, some 20 years ago now, as a rigorously historical introduction. I’ve been stressing that one of the ways it is historical is that it takes seriously the Greco-Roman milieu out of which it arose, and that one of the key implications is that one needs to read the NT books in light of the ancient genres which they employ. My argument in the book (and in general!) is that if you misunderstand how the ancient genre works, you will misunderstand the book. The Gospels, I argue, are written as Greco-Roman biographies. Here is an excerpt where I describe what that means and why it matters, again from the first edition of my textbook.
*********************************************************
We have numerous examples of Greco-Roman biographies, many of them written by some of the most famous authors of Roman antiquity, for instance, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus. One of the ways to understand how this genre “worked” is to contrast it with the way modern biographies do, following the principle that we can learn something only in light of what we already know. In all this we must constantly bear in mind that by their very nature literary genres are highly flexible: just think of all the different kinds of “novels” or “short stories” you have read.
Most modern biographies are chock-full of data: names and dates and places and events, all with a concern for factual accuracy. A modern biography, of course, can deal with the whole of a person’s life or with only a segment of it. But typically they are concerned with both public and private life, and with how the character both reacts to what happens and is changed by it. In other words, the inner life of a person, his or her psychological development based on events and experiences, is quite often a central component. In particular, the correct perception of the inner life with its undulations and transformations — sometimes discussed explicitly, but often subtly — is used to explain why the character behaves and reacts in certain ways. Thus modern biographies tend not only to inform, but also to explain. They can also be used to entertain, of course — since they are for the most part written to sell! — and often to propagandize as well, as when they concern political or religious figures.
Most ancient biographies were less concerned with…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE MISSING!!!
I’m really enjoying this thread! But…I just finished viewing the “How Jesus Became God” lectures, and I have three questions I want to ask – for your consideration whenever you can get to it. I’ll put them in three separate posts.
1. Jesus must have been very highly motivated to (presumably) hike all the way from Galilee to Judea to hear John the Baptist preach. Does it seem plausible that at the moment he was baptized, he might have had an actual hallucination that convinced him he was someone “special”? Probably not the Messiah – he may thought John was that – but “special” enough that after John’s death, he would have “realized” he himself was the Messiah?
I’d say that we don’t have, and never can have, reliable sources for what a person may or may not have hallucinated. (Especially if the person him or herself never writes about it)
2. About his “triumphal entry into Jerusalem”: I’m always puzzled that the *only* reason you cite for not believing it is that if it had really happened, the Romans would have arrested him right away. Do you believe that (a) a significant number of people in Jerusalem had heard of him, (b) they would have taken the claims about him seriously, given all the crackpot “saviors” who’d preceded him, and (c) they would not only have believed this person (whom they couldn’t recognize on sight) was coming at a certain time, but gotten themselves in the right place to meet him? I can’t believe any of that!
No, I don’t think anyone in Jerusalem had probably even heard of him before. But I also think if a wildly popular preacher *had* entered Jerusalem to the shouts of acclamation calling him the messiah, he would not have lasted for more than a couple of hours at most.
3. Here’s the biggie. I was struck by your pointing out that Paul says the “risen” Jesus had appeared to “the Twelve”…and saying Paul might never have learned of Judas’s betrayal. I’m wondering, did he write that before or after the time he spent with Peter and Jesus’s brother James?
Whatever the answer to that is, I’m remembering a theory I read about years ago…that there never was a “betrayal,” and the story was made up as part of assigning blame to the Jews (the name Yehudah/”Judas” being related to the word “Jew”). I know you think that’s impossible, on the ground that Christians wouldn’t have wanted to invent a story in which Jesus wasn’t revered even by all his disciples, and wouldn’t have known one of them was plotting against him. But don’t the Gospels portray him as *anticipating* the betrayal, and letting it happen for the sake of its “fulfilling prophecies”?
You indicate that *many* “legendary” incidents had become associated with the Passion narrative by the time the Gospels were written. Personally, I find it easier to reject the “Judas” story than the “empty tomb” story (with a non-miraculous explanation).
Yes, he was writing this after his time in Jerusalem (twice) with the disciples of Jesus.
I deal with the question of whether Judas was “made up” in my book The Secret Gospel of Judas Iscariot (where I argue that Judas was probalby a historical figure)
I’ll have to reread that chapter of your book. I remember being *very* interested in that book!
Haven’t had time to check your book yet. But it did occur to me that it’s plausible that Peter and James never told Paul about the betrayal – because they would have found it embarrassing, right? (In fact, might it be possible even James didn’t know? If we assume Peter and the other disciples knew about it because Judas really did accompany the men who arrested Jesus…)
Hi Bart,
Would the ancient biographer (and the readers for that matter) be conscientious about discerning between rumors/gossip and reliable oral information? Would Luke’s prologue be an evidence of some preoccupation with credibility?
Thanks!
Yes, some were highly conscious of just that, and tell us so (e.g., Plutarch). And yes, Luke does say that he wants to give an accurate account — whatever that means for him (he may not mean what we do today, when accuracy really is possible)
“They would not expect to see anything like what we might call “character development,” Dr. Bart
The poor peasants who followed jesus wouldn’t have a clue what to expect, would they? They were ignorant and clueless illiterate working guys.
Jesus couldn’t read, either. He was one of them! and he certainly never said a single word that is attributed to him in the n.t. What did he know? Nothing, really. He was a poor, uneducated, ignorant, illiterate working stiff. The jesus mentioned by Josephus was the one a bunch of freaks hallucinated into existence.
“Hank” was most likely responsible for writing john. He was an elite con-artist hoping to make a killing from the offerings he would require from all the peasants who would start attending church, after they bought all his nonsense. He was responsible for the whole project. Likely groomed saul/paul from childhood to craft this greatest of all con-jobs.
I am going to stop approving comments that are simply trying to be sarcastic. If you would like to read what scholars are saying, I’d be happy to hear your responses. But simply mocking them is not the same as engaging them.
Thanks, Bart. That policy sounds great! I look forward to reading both your blog posts and most of readers’ comments. Posts that are just sarcastic…I’m tired of reading them.
Thank you.
I’ve just ordered your textbook. I am interested in reading your approach.
Question bart on Malachi
Malachi 3:1 who’s is jesus referring to ?
John the Baptist ?
And
Malachi 2:17
Christ words in red
Zeus ( Jupiter?)
Where is the god of justice ?
English contemporary version
Something like
” you words worn out The Lord by saying
Lord likes evil and don’t care about justice
Are to completely different
Malachi 2:17 ?
Just blogging is all
Can you touch on this ?
Jesus is not speaking in Malachi: the prophet himself is. 3:1 refers either to some unknown prophet or, possibly, Elijah (see 4:5). The early Christians thought he was referring to John the Baptist; for some of them, he *was* Elijah, returned to earth.
Oh duh
That’s right
John the Baptist old testimate
And jesus new
Slip my mind sorry about that
And also
GOSPEL OF THOMAS
Line
29 2x then 30 2x plus word JESUS
First off line 29
John the Baptist was here
Jesus came here out if no where at age 30?
Is a wonder 🙂
(29) Jesus said, “If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty.”
(30) Jesus said, “Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him.”
” JESUS ”
The into of
Is but, came because body
A wonders bart
Am how
wealth it’s this,
Said flesh being sprit
Wonder spirit
Being the
Is if I at great
Made in said
Are they 🙂
There two (2?) jesus and john baptist ?
I him
BART AGAIN REAL QUICK
jesus there gods
Gods are one with jesus
Jesus with one Are
” gods look there’s jesus ”
John would say ?
BOOK OF THOMAS THE CONTENDER
1st 2
Paragraphs
Can you touch on this bart ?????
Doesn’t judas ,
Thomas ,
Dionysos I mean didymos all MEAN TWIN OF JESUS
so John the baptist 6 months older than jesus
That mean is Jesus’s came out of now where what would happen if john the baptist came back and hit 30 1/2 ?
John the Baptist
( john ) means something in different language ?
Jesus and John had special connection
When jesus heard the death of John the Baptist
He forgot all about his reason
And fled in boat by him self
Heading to John the Baptist
Can you say brother?
So with all this
One can suggest that book of Thomas contender is John the Baptist ?
Or no ?
Bart ?
Trying to picture in my mind
Bible versus that is 🙂
And a movie playing in my head as I read the bible
Just blogging is all
No, I don’t think anyone imagines tha tthomas was John the Baptist.
Me either
This seems to have answered my questions about Jesus in the wilderness. If there were no witnesses how was it reported. It seems to be a story to illustrate the character of Jesus, rather than history.
Off-topic question again! I’ve just started reading Jason BeDuhn’s book ‘The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon’. A few things: Have you read it? Thoughts? Main question: Do you consider the ‘Evangelion’ (i.e. proto-Luke) used by Marcion in his canon as a source like Q? Why or why not?
Yes, I wrote an endorsement for the book. No, I don’t think Marcion’s Gospel pre-existed Matthew and Luke, but was an edited version of Luke.
Ah, yeah – I see now you’re quoted on the back cover. Missed that. I’d love to hear your reasons why you think Marcion’s Evangelion is an edit as opposed to an earlier source that was incorporated into Luke (like Mark and Q). It seems like a coin toss to me – I don’t know how one would go about establishing a probability judgement on that. Either Marcion’s gospel is earlier and it was incorporated into what we now know of as Luke, or his is an edit of Luke. I’d love to read a post dedicated to this question.
I think this is what almost everyone thinks — but I do think that there are exceptions. E.g., I think that Marcion’s Gospel lacking the first two chapters was not because Marcion cut them out, but because that was the original version of Luke itself.
my school library has a book called “an introduction to the new testament by Raymond brown”, he’s a priest so i wanted to ask you if he was a trustworthy or unbiased source. they also have books by a guy called N.t wright, but he seems quite religious so i don’t know if i should read his stuff.
Yes, he was a fabulous scholar, one of the best interpreters of the NT in the 20th century. His Introduction is superb, but a bit long and ssometimes a bit complicated for some people.
Ancient readers knew how to read ancient biographies. They did not expect the bioi to contain chronological and historically accurate minutia…
2 questions please:
1. Considering that many have gone to great lengths to refute any questions about historicity in the gospels, harmonize them etc, and presumably these apologists are totally unaware of the genre of the Greco roman biography, when did the western reader lose touch which what these documents are? What year, for example, did someone first wonder did jesus cleanse the temple at the beginning or end of his ministry? John. H. Walton powerfully argues that the west lost the ability to understand the ANE after the fall of babylon. It seems as if we also lost the ability to understand Greco roman biographies at some point in the common era. When? Any guess?
2. When did we find it? I personally only learned about it this calendar year, although I have been seriously studying the Bible my adult life. When did this way of looking at the gospels resurface in scholarship? How long have you personally known to read them this way?
1. Mike Licona is an apologists who uses them at length, arguing — contrary to my view — that since the Gospels model themselves on these biographies, the errors in them are not really errors. But my sense is that the early Christian readers were not themselves interested in the genre issue, so it never came up until modern times. 2. I suppose scholars started studying the ancient biographies in teh Renaaissance, but I don’t really know the details.
Wow. I just saw one of your debates with Mr. Licona. A question (and i think i already know the answer):
Do you believe that the writer of Matthew INTENDED his ostensibly Jewish audience to think zombies literally walked the streets of Jerusalem on the occasion of Jesus’ death? Dr. Ehrman… you know he didn’t. Hello Daniel ch 12. He’s Jewish. Big time. Isaiah 34 Edom to this day to my knowledge doesn’t have any rivers of pitch and sulfur. Let him be Jewish – just as the O/T writers he was mimicking were.
An honest question, in sincerity, do you believe the canonical gospel writers intentionally mislead their audience about the character and persona of Jesus of Nazareth? I don’t think they did. I think all of them, most certainly wanted their audience to understand who he was and why he was significant, and they used the literary vehicle of the day that best communicated their own beliefs.
Touché though, mark vs. john – seder meal vs coincidental death as the lambs were slaughtered. It’s obvious. Is it sinister? Is it malicious misrepresentation on the part of the John writer? In your opinion, were the canonical gospel writers really that bad?
I don’t think Matthew’s audience was probably Jewish and I do think he really meant what he narrated. It’s no stranger than the other miracles, when you think about it.
I was just rewatching a Youtube video about Homer’s Iliad, which makes the point that the unifying theme of the Iliad is that it is the story not of Achilles per se, but of his rage and how he eventually grows beyond it. Obviously mythology and biography are distinct, but if character development as a theme existed _in some form_ in ancient prose, then clearly some nuance is needed in order to describe how it differs from character development as we understand it now. I’m sure such a nuanced account can quite easily be provided, for example a developmental leap forward that occurs abruptly as a climax can be contrasted with a gradual accumulative process, but the conclusion of the video prompted me to juxtapose it with what I remembered reading on the blog, and that made me think.
Oh yes, people can certainly change. Achilles changes all over the map in the Iliad — most crucially from wanting to live a long life rather than seek for glory on the battlefield to … just the opposite! My point is simply about how biographers portray children as embodying the personality traits they will have as adults…
Hi Bart
“The Gospels, I argue, are written as Greco-Roman biographies. ”
Is it still your view that the gospels that these book were written as biographies rather than as theological writings, with each author giving their own theological view as to the nature of Jesus/Christ?
Surely John is pure theology.
I don’t think of that as an either/or. When I say “Greco-Roman biographies” the term “Greco-Roman” is massively important. Biographies then were done quite differently from the way they are now, and the kind of disinterested work we look for today, with lots of names, dates, factual information, character development, life-indfluences, etc. simply weren’t how they worked then. They were always “interested” works, trying to promote some aspect of the character’s life for the reader. The Christian biographies of Jesus were certainly driven by theological interests, just as the biogrpahies of Plutarch were driven by his own ideological and ethical interestes.