(13 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...Among the non-canonical (apocryphal) Gospels are three that are usually grouped together and called “Jewish-Christian Gospels.” These are very tricky texts to deal with. We don’t have any manuscripts of them – even small fragments. They come to us, instead, in isolated quotations of church fathers such as Origen, Didymus the Blind, Jerome, and Epiphanius. These (orthodox) church fathers sometimes quoted or referred to one or the other of the Gospels in order to relate what it said; and sometimes it was in order to attack what it said. There are all sorts of questions raised about the no-longer-surviving Gospels in these quotations.
A good part of the problem is that some of these fathers – especially Jerome, on whom we depend for most of our information for two of the three Gospels – quite obviously confused things, or were confused themselves in what they had to say, since what they have to say about these Gospels doesn’t add up and in the end doesn’t make sense. On this every scholar who works on these things agrees.
The fathers virtually all believed or assumed that the various Jewish-Christian Gospels were in fact only one Gospel not three (some scholars think there were only two), that it was called something like “the Gospel According to the Hebrews,” that it had been written originally in Aramaic (or Hebrew), and that it was in fact an altered version of the canonical Gospel of Matthew, in use among a sect of Jewish Christians (i.e., those who thought that one should keep the Jewish law as well as believe in Jesus as the Messiah). Much of that simply can’t be true – especially that
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!
altered version of the canonical Gospel of Matthew so what date do we think these other gospel was written?
What language did god above speak in did others hear the voice?
if Jesus was gods son, or part of Trinity all in one, divine already. why would god need to say I’m pleased, your my beloved son, wasn’t he already divine and gods son, was god not pleased with Jesus in heaven or before baptized. wouldn’t a god have something more profound to say.
These gospels are usually assigned ot the second century. The doctrine of the Trinity was not formulated until later than this, and not everyone agreed on how Jesus was God.
Professor Ehrman, do historians know if the verse in Luke “today I have begotten thee” changed to “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.” before or after the Council of Nicaea?
It would have been before, some time in the (probably mid) 2nd century
In a recent rereading of Mark, it appeared to me that usually/always Jesus’s followers did not refer to him as Son of God. The demons Jesus cast out referred to him as Son of God, as did God himself at Jesus’s baptism and transfiguration, (and I think the Centurion at the crucifixion). His followers referred to him as Son of Man-among other things like Messiah.
I didn’t nail this down-just a strong impression. Am I correct?
Is this a literary device to show that “supernatural” beings know that Jesus is Son of God but that humans do not?
And do some of the son of man references simply mean that Jesus’s followers perceived him to be just human and not necessarily the figure from the book of Daniel?
Yes, I have an entire course online that explains all this. You can see it at bartehrman.com/sources (called “the Unknown Jesus”) And in my textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction….
So this one obviously was dependent on our canonical gospels. What about the other ones, is there indication that they were independent and as early as the canonical gospels?
The fact that it was deemed necessary to harmonize the gospels in this way provides insight into conflicts inthe early church and the desire to resolve these conflicts to create a single dogma. The timing suggests it is part of the Romanization of the church to provide a strong (authoritarian?) social institution. To me, this is as much politics as religion.
Dear Bart,
On the subject of Epiphanius (I have an on-topic question!) – what do you make of Lightfoot’s argument that a Roman Bishop succession list of Hegesippus can be recovered from Epiphanius (27.6.7), on the basis that Epiphanius refers to a previous catalogue (although no catalogue can be found) and it is best understood that he accidentally quotes Hegesippus without removing the reference to the catalogue?
Lightfoot argues that this appears to be referencing an ancient list of bishops as they only go up to Hegesippus’ time, and he uses the name Cletus instead of Anacletus, which seems to be the preferred name (Anacletus) only after Hegesippus’ time.
I’d be really grateful to read your thoughts on the matter.
Lightfoot was exceedingly knowledgable and perceptive. But in many cases I think he makes an argument that can’t really be evaluated one way or the others since it is so speculative without supporting evidence. I don’t think the use of the name Cletus proves much of anything. How many people over the decades mentioned this figure and how many of them said Cletus instead of Anacletus? We have no idea, only a few writings from a few people.
Many thanks for this response.
I’ve been listening to your podcast with Megan for a while, and I’ve been meaning to tell you how much I appreciate them. That’s some top-drawer, accessible, and gold-standard product you’re giving us. Many thanks!
In your podcast on Paul as the founder of Christianity, you question in almost an incidental remark at the 27m mark that Paul may not have been thought of as important in his own day. You also mentioned that Paul had more enemies than friends, which I think is a really important point.
Have you written about this before? If not, I would be really interested in reading your thoughts on this, as you seem to have a good angle on Paul that I think many of us would appreciate.
I’ve talked about it a bit in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene. In that book I devote six chapters to each figure, discussing what we can know about them historically and in legend.
Bart, who are some of your favorite of the early Church fathers to read? I think people who stop at the Bible are really missing out on some great pieces of writing in the early Christian era.
Among my favorites are Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Justin, TErtullian, and Origen. But not because I agree with them!
Would you be willing to expand on this point: “Much of that simply can’t be true – especially that it (or all of them) were originally written in Aramaic as a version of Matthew.” Why couldn’t one of these Jewish Christian gospels have been written in Aramaic as a sort of version of Matthew or a harmony of the three synoptic gospels?
Ah, yes, I don’t think I expressed myself clearly! Can you imagine? One of the three, The Gospel of the Nazareans, often is taken as an edited version of Matthew composed in Aramaic. When I spoke of it as a “version of Matthew” I meant an Aramaic versoin that then was used by the author who produced Matthew from it (not a book produced from Matthew). There’s nothing to suggest that Matthew started out as an Aramaic Gospel that was later revised into our Greek version. See what I mean?
Thank you yes, that makes total sense!
What is the meaning of ” the *right* version”? Isn’t it a question of chronology? Mark wrote first. The other synoptics changed/added/elaborated as they saw fit based on Mark and perhaps according to additional sources they had which Mark didn’t.Isn’t then the ” earliest” version the right one, one supported by the earliest manuscripts, which unfortunately we don’t have? Or is the chronology still debated? Is it possible that Matthew and/or Luke had an earlier version of this event than Mark did?
Ah, in this context by “right” I simply mean: if you have three version of what someone said, which one records what he said? I.e. which is “right” in what it reports. I’m asking the question rhetorically, of course, since I don’t think there was really a voice from heaven. But the early Christians did. And if they did, they which of the three recorded optoins was the “eright” one of what it actually said. And yes, it’s technically possible that one of the others had an earlier version, but given the verbatim agreements among the accounts otherwise for the passage, it is usually thought that Matt and Luke simply changed Mark in light of their interests, etc.
I looked in the Peshitta – Aramaic/English- and found that Luke doesn’t have ” today I have begotten you”. It reads basically like Mark and Matthew ” you are my beloved son, in you I am pleased”. Why would this happen?
” Today I have begotten you” always sounded strange to me. Not only it seems to deny the pre-existence of Jesus, confuse Mary’s becoming with child, a child begotten by the same God who is now changing the time of the begetting, but it is also too graphic an expression to have been said by the God of Israel. That Father God didn’t impregnate, though he paternalistically called, for example, the people Israel as his first born. And some individuals were said to be ” of God”, using the same “ben” as in “son”. “Ben” is both a noun and a preposition.
I don’t even know how one would say ” I have begotten you” in Hebrew, or Aramaic for that matter.
But never mind my intuitions. Why is that singular sentence not in the Luke of the Peshitta?
That’s the reading as well in most Greek manuscripts. The Peshitta is a 6th c. or so translation of the Greek (based on Greek mss) into Syriac (not the first Syriac translation, but the one that became standard more or less). So the translator was simply using a Greek text that had the voice saying it that way. I have a long discussion of why that wording is *NOT* what Luke originally wrote, but it was created by later scribes who didn’t appreciate the adoptionistic overtones of “today I have begotten you.” If you look up Luke 3:22 on the blog there’ll be some posts on it. ‘I have begotten you” is a rendering of Psalm 2:7 (in Hebrew)
Reading Psalm 2:7 clarifies things a bit. In Hebrew, God says ” today I gave birth to you”.In this sense, the baptism can be seen as a “second birth”, “being born again”, which then would not contradict Jesus’ assumed pre-existence or Mary’s divine impregnation.
Still, the Psalm refers to David as God’s Messiah and as a sort of “adopted” son, since David was not born ” a son of God”(surely not THE son of God) but becomes one only from that moment.
Codex Bezae or Justin Martyr also provide background , but how reliable can they be on this issue?
Yes “begotten” is the term used by translators to refer to the father’s role in the birth of the child. The child is birthed by the mother but begotten by the father. Ps. 2 is a reference to an Israelite king who has been anointed and “made” the “son of God” at his coronation ceremony.
From reading just the gospels and Paul (and not Revelation) and from my early Catholic education, I’ve always had the impression that the second coming would be sudden and short – maybe a few days at most.
But Revelation stretches it into an enormous amount of time.
Does Revelation contradict the Gospels and Paul in this respect?
I’ve read your Armageddon but don’t recall that being discussed – even after recently skimming likely places where it might be discussed.
It depends on what you mean as the “second coming.” The big difference between Paul and parts of the Gospels is that Christ will return suddenly, any time now, with no prolonged series of events happening first. In other parts of the Gospels (Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse in matthew 24, e.g.,) Revelation is all about the extended sequence of events that has to happen first.
Professor, why did Latin supplant Greek as the holy language of Christianity, when the New Testament is written entirely in Greek? I recognize that this change was probably related to the Roman Empire’s adoption of Christianity and the Pope’s presence in the Roman capital. But that doesn’t seem like a sufficient explanation by itself. After all, Pali and Sanskrit remained the holy languages of Buddhism even after India ceased to be the capitol (so to say) of Buddhism. Arabic remained the holy language of Islam even when the Caliphate was not located in Arabia. So why didn’t the Roman clergy all learn Greek and use Greek for their liturgical purposes? (I suppose that the probably did so in the later Byzantine Empire, or am I wrong in supposing that?)
It’s purely a matter of geography. The Roman empire was split into East (Greek speaking) and West (Latin speaking), and since Rome became the center of the church, and the church grew especailly strong in the West, the people there spoke Latin, not English. And so the Roman church (to become the Roman Catholic Church) was Latin based instead of Greek.
Professor Ehrman,
[Sorry if too off topic, or answered in another post, I’m brand new here but have long loved listening to you and your work.]
I recently listened to Professor Metzger on YouTube say that although he thought the pericope adulterae not original to John, he nonetheless thought it true . I understand Eusebius might have attributed it to the Gospel of the Hebrews (or others to the Gospel of Peter?). Do we have a sense when it was added, and whether that might mean early Christians saw some truth in non-canonical gospels? I wondered whether the Gospel of Peter might be the most likely, given Serapion found it basically good(?).
Ray
Yes, as you probalby know, Metzger was my Doktorvater, and this was indeed his view. It wasn’t originally in John but it probably happened. My sense is that he was so familiar from the story from childhood that he simply couldn’t imagine it not happening. The first manuscript it appears in is Codex Bezae in the early fifth century. And yes, numerous early Christians thought numerous other Gospels contained truth: that’s why they were written, circulated, and cherished: Peter, Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Mary, th eGospel of Judas etc. etc.