(15 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...I return now to the thread I had been working on before devoting the last few posts to the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. If you recall, some time ago I indicated that I had become a bit obsessed with a rather interesting if largely unasked question, of why the Apocalypse of Peter did not make it into the New Testament but the book of 2 Peter did.
When I started on that thread, I thought it would take three or four posts, but as I got into it I realized that more and more background information was needed – and it turned into a rather longish thread, not only about what the Apocalypse of Peter is about (the first Christian account we have of a guided tour of heaven and hell, given to the apostle Peter himself, where he sees the glories of heaven for the saints and, in far more graphic detail, the torments of hell for the sinners) – but also about how we got the New Testament at all, that is, how, when, and why certain books were chosen to be included and others not. There is a lot more to be said about the process of canon, but I’ve said enough for now for this thread.
Throughout the thread I’ve been dancing around the central question it started with because even to begin answering it requires all sorts of background information. Now I want to start addressing it head on. Here’s the issue at heart:
- There are a lot of books from early Christianity that claim to be written by Jesus’ closest disciple, Simon Peter: 1 Peter, 2 Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Preaching of Peter, the Letter of Peter to James, and so on.The rest of this post is for blog members only. If you don’t belong yet, there are still eight shopping days before Christmas. Treat yourself! Your entire membership fee goes to charity, so why not?
When searching for your scholarly books, is it always the case that I can identify such a text by publisher? Oxford, SBL,etc. are the scholarly works, while those by Harper and Simon and Schuster are geared towards the general reader?
Yup, that’s a rule of thumb. The problem is that I published a bunch of books for general readers with Oxford!
This sounds awesome!
Not relevant to this post, but can we make requests? I would like to know the difference between Matthew’s and Paul’s view of the Law (assuming there is a difference).
Yup, very big point of disagreement. I’ll add it to my list of things to post on down the line!
Hi Prof Ehrman, off topic but what is the source of the legend that Igantius knew John? Doing some reading the first mention of this claim seems to be the Martrydom of Ignatius which is first attested in c500AD? Can you shed any light on the matter?
That’s a good question; I was going to say Irenaeus, who makes the point about Polycarp and John. But now I’m not so sure. The Martyrdom of Ignatius is a second century work.
Don’t think it’s in irenaeus, would be interested to know
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/31/shoe-in/
It’s shoo, not shoe.
Ha! I’ve made that mistake before on the blog! Corrected now!
Bart, I don’t understand how the church went about deciding which books would made up the New Testament canon. Could you provide some background on how they managed to come to a consensus on such an important issue? Was it discussed and debated in any of the church councils? Was the final decision made by Bishops and Popes? Was there any input by ordinary lay Christians? What was the process? Can you PLEASE shed some light on the matter????? Thank you.
Today’s post is a start. (I talk about it on the blog elsewhere. Search for “canon”)
Has anyone compiled a list of the lists? That is, tried to account for all the lists early Christians composed of which books were to be considered sacred writings, with associated dates? It would be interesting to see all that laid out in one reference source.
Yup, there are a lot of studies doing this kind of thing. The classic study is by Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. Filled with valuable information like this.
Do you think 2 Peter 3:1 “Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you” is referring to 1 Peter?
Also do you think the writer of 2 Peter wrote it and then sent it hoping the receiver would be convinced it was authentic or do you think they held on to it and showed it around claiming it had been sent by peter years earlier.
1. Yes; 2. Unfortunately we don’t know how he did it (or how the other authors of “Petrine” works did.
1 Peter ends saying the letter will be delivered by Silas which if it was a forgery probably means it wasn’t sent
It was a common technique among forgers to include fictitious information about how the book was written and put in circulation.
Hi – off topic question if thats ok –
Matthew 24:17 has “Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house” and the parallel in Mark 13:15 has “Let no one on the housetop go down nor (μηδὲ) enter the house to take anything out.”
Matthew’s Jesus warns people to flee Jerusalem without gethering any of their possissions, Mark however seems to misunderstand the meaning here and almost comically has Jesus warn those standing on the housetops to remain on them when the end-times come.
Do you think the best explanation here is that Mark is editing Matthew’s text and making it worse?
Matthew appears to be clarifying an ambiguous statement in mark.
Its not ambiguous in Mark, its a miscomprehension. He’s clearly not the original author of the line and edits it in a way that makes no sense.
Why would Mark edit something to make it worse? who knows, but he does edit it.
The original version is probably the same as what is in Matthew.
Taken in isolation this verse points to Matthew being prior to Mark.
brenmcg: “Why would Mark edit something to make it worse? who knows, but he does edit it.”
He wouldn’t. If you cannot come up with a rationale for Mark changing the text, then there’s no reason for thinking his text is secondary. If this were a text-critical discussion, Mark’s text would be lectio difficilior, but not impossible or incomprehensible. Both Mark and Matthew have in mind an ancient house in which the roof was accessed by an external staircase or ladder, which one had to descend in order to enter the house from the roof. The δε in Mark’s μηδε should be understood as a simple connective and not be translated as ‘or’ since one would indeed need to descend in order to flee. Matthew has smoothed out Mark’s pleonastic phrasing and syntax.
*If you cannot come up with a rationale for Mark changing the text …*
I can come with a rationale – Mark is doing what most plagiarists do and making a small edit to a text they are copying which he thinks wont affect the meaning; nobody likes being a mere copyist. Mark also does this elsewhere in his gospel. Unfortunately for Mark he has made a glaring error here with this edit, demonstrating a misundertanding of the original concept and changing the meaning to something ridiculous.
The μηδὲ in 13:15 should be translated as it always is in the rest of Mark and the rest of the new testament – “nor” “neither”. The translation shouldn’t be changed only when it causes problems for a preferred theory.
One does indeed need to descend in order to flee but Mark’s use of μηδὲ shows he didnt get it – he wasn’t the original author and he has edited some original text to make it worse.
But if we have single example of Mark editing an original text to make it worse then half the evidence for Markan priority should simply evaporate.
brenmcg: “I can come with a rationale – Mark is doing what most plagiarists do and making a small edit to a text they are copying which he thinks wont affect the meaning; nobody likes being a mere copyist. Mark also does this elsewhere in his gospel. Unfortunately for Mark he has made a glaring error here with this edit, demonstrating a misundertanding of the original concept and changing the meaning to something ridiculous.”
This is a nonsense explanation. There is no glaring error in Mark’s text, just a typical pleonastic stylistic trait of Mark. Check out Frans Neirynck’s Duality in Mark.
“The μηδὲ in 13:15 should be translated as it always is in the rest of Mark and the rest of the new testament – “nor” “neither”. The translation shouldn’t be changed only when it causes problems for a preferred theory.”
It would be stupid to slavishly translate such particles in the same way everywhere they appear. You are showing your ignorance both of Greek and of good translation practice. This connective sense of μηδέ and δέ is perfectly legitimate and can be found easily elsewhere in Mark and other books of the NT.
“One does indeed need to descend in order to flee but Mark’s use of μηδὲ shows he didnt get it – he wasn’t the original author and he has edited some original text to make it worse.”
Only if one assumes Mark’s knowledge of Greek is as bad as your own.
“But if we have single example of Mark editing an original text to make it worse then half the evidence for Markan priority should simply evaporate.”
Why assume Mark is making a text worse? Pure assumption on your part.
I’m afraid it’s hard to argue about the meaning of a foreign language without being able to read it…
*It would be stupid to slavishly translate such particles the same way everywhere they appear … This connective sense of μηδὲ and δὲ is perfectly legitimate and can be found easily anywhere in Mark and other books of the NT*
There are 5 examples of Mark using μηδὲ in addition to 13:15 – 2:2, 3:20, 6:11, 8:26, 12:24
And two senses in which it is used – “not/nor” eg 6:11 “And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you” and “not even” eg 3:20 “…and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat”.
Either sense used for 13:15 shows the secondary nature of Mark.
“Let no one on the housetop go down nor enter the house to take anything out.”
“Let no one on the housetop go down not even enter the house to take anything out.”
The actions of “going down” and “entering the house” shouldn’t be distinguished – they are a single action in Matthew.
I’m not sure how it being used as a connective would change that – I’m not sure how you want to translate it?
*Why assume Mark is making a text worse? Pure assumption on your part*
I’m not assuming Mark is making a text worse, I’m assuming the KJV NIV and RSV are correct translations. From that I’m concluding Mark is making an error when editing Matthew and making the text worse.
Ps – I appreciate the replies! happy christmas!
Bart *I’m afraid it’s hard to argue about the meaning of a foreign language without being able to read it …*
If I was just arguing for my own esoteric translation I’d agree with you, but I’m using the translations like KJV NIV and RSV.
“And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house”
“Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out.”
“let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away”
All of which show the secondary nature of Mark.
Thanks for the replies – Happy Christmas!
Yes, it’s best to use a range of English translations, but I would not include the KJV among those you choose. Lots of other good, modern ones. Even so, it’s hard to explain the nuances of the Greek to someone who doesn’t know the language.
brencmg: “Ps – I appreciate the replies! happy christmas!”
You’re welcome and Merry Christmas to you too. In order to help you better understand the issues involved in your attempts to learn Greek and not confuse this noble endeavor with trying to oppose the great majority of NT scholarship on the priority of Mark, I have started a thread here: https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-new-testament-gospels/brenmcg-why-would-mark-edit-something-to-make-it-worse-robert-he-wouldnt/#p7055
It will be much easier for me to help you in a dedicated thread.
I’m really glad you’re completing this thread – I can’t wait to read the conclusions you come to.
What’s your sense over how many (%) of critical scholars hold that 1 Peter was genuine?
I really don’t know! The majority I should think, but I have no data on it.
I know you disagree with this, but let’s say at least 1 Peter was written by Peter. What’s the ratio of forgeries written in his name (we know of) vs. books written by him? So it should be “X : 1”
We don’t know how many Petrine books were in circulation. But of the ones that survive, if 1 Peter is the only one that is authentic, then it would be something like 5:1 or so?
Well, you wrote:
” 1 Peter, 2 Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Preaching of Peter, the Letter of Peter to James, and so on.”
I thought the “so on” is a definite number of other books we know of. So these 6 books is it?
Yeah, I was just covering myself: was doing it from memory and couldn’t remember off the top of my head any others….
A quick aside concerning item#9 above (”… [scholarship] about the [poosible] relationship of 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter”)
Could you suggest a pointer/reference for any possibly interested parties?
The article on “2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,” in Richard Bauckham’s book The Fate of the Dead.
I dont think the nuances of greek are the issue – “neither go down nor enter his house” is a possible translation and the one most used by translators. The majority translation of mark 13:15 causes a problem for markan priority.
It causes no problem whatsoever for Markan priority. The difficulties some have had translating it point precisely to the greater likelihood that is is original and that Matthew has improved upon it.
As for some of your other questions, see this thread: https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-new-testament-gospels/brenmcg-why-would-mark-edit-something-to-make-it-worse-robert-he-wouldnt/
Speaking of Jesus’ death and resurrection, the Apostle Peter explains that Christ was “put to death in the flesh (SARX), but made alive in the Spirit (PNEUMA).” -1 Peter 3:18 (Interlinear Bible) Or in other words, Peter taught that when Jesus’ flesh body died… he was resurrected “in the Spirit”— in a spirit body.
And, as you know, in 1Corinthians 15 Paul said that when Jesus, the “last Adam”, died he was resurrected as “a life giving spirit”. Neither Peter nor Paul ever said that Jesus’ or anyone else’s resurrection was physical or in the flesh.
In 2 Peter he endorses the writings of Paul. (differences in literary style between the two letters may be attributed to the use of a secretary.) Peter & Paul both lived in Rome together at the end of their lives and considering that Peter refers to Paul as “my friend and brother” it certainly would presume frequent interaction. If Paul lived the last two years of his life in a rented house in Rome, it’s not unlikely that Peter may have sometimes stayed in Paul’s house with him.
In the flesh, no. Physical, absolutely yes. That’s Paul’s major emphasis in 1 Corinthians 15. Christ is raised in a spiritual *body*. That means the body that was resurrected (a real body) was made of “pneuma” (= spirit) not of “sarx” (= flesh). Pneuma is a more highly refined form of matter than sarx. But they are both kinds of matter.
In 2 Cor 5 Paul explains resurrection in even more detail. He says that you have to leave your body behind before you can go to heaven… presumably in your new “spirit body”. When an individual dies their body is “changed” into a “heavenly body” that is not physical or tangible. Flesh, blood & bone bodies can’t go to heaven.
When Jesus died he became a “life giving spirit”. Jesus died in the flesh & was raised in the spirit.
It’s a much debated passage, as it turns out. I’ll be talking about it in my forthcoming book on the afterlife (I have a chapter on Paul’s views).
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Why is the apostle Peter called Simon Bar-Jonah?
Someone thinks that this might come from “bariona” meaning “fugitive” or “outlaw” in Aramaic. What’s your take on this?
Thanks
Simon is his name (Peter is a nickname “Rock”); “Bar Jonah” means “son of Jonah” (his father’s name). This is how people with common names were identified since they didn’t have last names (unless they were aristocrats)
So the etymology of Peter’s name (fugitive and outlaw) is completely wrong and bogus?
I’m not sure what you meae. The etymology of the name Peter is not “fugitive and outlaw” but “rock.”
I was referring to “Bariona” not “Cephas” in Aramaic or “Petros” in Greek.
Someone thinks that “Bariona” means “fugitive/outlaw” in Aramaic and not “son of Jonah”.
So, is that translation completely bogus?
Ah. I don’t have an ARamaic dictionary with me, but this is clearly wrong. Bar is the Aramaic word for “Son”. Jona is the name Jonas. It means “Son of Jonas.” It was a common way of describing a person “son of…” disabledupes{52985adb74726bc281abf7d260c6553e}disabledupes
Dr. Ehrman: This is a bit off topic but would you agree the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of “Linus” directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. In Roman Catholicism, he is considered the 2nd Pope. The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Timothy 4:21. Would you agree that Paul and Irenaeus are talking/writing about the same person?
I don’t think Paul wrote 2 Timothy, and there isn’t any evidence that Paul knew someone named Linus as the head of the church in Rome. Later authors such as Eusebius, of course, got their “information” about such things from predecessors, and often these predecessors had different views. Here’s a bit of what I say about the matter in my book Forgery and Counterforgery.
************************
The orthodox concern for a unified Pauline-Petrine front in the leadership of Rome is found in a
different way, later, in Eusebius, who indicates (contra Irenaeus) that Linus was called to be the bishop of the church only after Paul and Peter had been martyred (H.E. 3.2). Moreover, for Eusebius, Linus was the first bishop after Peter, and Clement the third (no reference to Anecletus; H.E. 3.4). Eusebius does not indicate who ordained Linus or Clement, but he does note that Clement was Paul’s companion and co-worker, with reference, again, to Phil. 4:3.
Yet more interesting, from about the time of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, the Apostolic Constitutions indicates that the first bishop of Rome was Linus, who was ordained by Paul, and that the second was Clement, ordained by Peter (7.46). Does this reflect an early conflict found among factions in Rome, where some claimed that Paul was the one responsible for establishing the line of bishops and others claiming that it was Peter? Were there divisions in Rome comparable to what are earlier attested for Corinth (“I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas” 1 Cor. 1:12)? If so, it is no mystery which side of the debate eventually won out, as the less than conciliatory view represented in the forged Epistula Clementis became dominant: Peter founded the church and appointed his own successor, thus beginning the Roman apostolic line traced back to the chief disciple himself.
At every point, however, there were conciliatory voices, which cannot, however, agree among themselves about how to effect the conciliation: for some, both apostles appointed Linus; for others, Peter appointed Clement, Paul’s companion; for others Paul appointed the first successor and Peter the second. Conciliation between the two apostles is found in other literature as well, including the forged pro-Pauline documents we have considered so far and the even more famous letter of 1 Clement, falsely attributed, not by accident, to Clement of Rome, but in fact written by the Roman church precisely to the church of Corinth, earlier divided along apostolic lines (1 Cor. 1:12), in which Peter and Paul are jointly portrayed as the two great apostles of the earlier generation (1 Clement 5).
Hi, Dr. Ehrman!
I stumbled upon Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata Book 6 – http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book6.html. There I saw interesting citation of Peter’s teachings:
***
Whence also Peter, in his Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says: “But we, unrolling the books of the prophets which we possess, who name Jesus Christ, partly in parables, partly in enigmas, partly expressly and in so many words, find His coming and death, and cross, and all the rest of the tortures which the Jews inflicted on Him, and His resurrection and assumption to heaven previous to the capture of Jerusalem. As it is written, These things are all that He behoves to suffer, and what should be after Him. Recognising them, therefore, we have believed in God in consequence of what is written respecting Him.”
***
Isn’t this a clear proof that the disciples started looking into the OT in order to find anything that could explain the death and resurrection of the Messiah?
P.S.
Could you please advise me where to read reliable translations of all early christian writings that we have? Is the website which I mentioned above good enough? Is there some kind of scholar level digital library with all the writings in their original language + translation?
I just want to clarify in case there is some ambiguity in my question:
What I meant is that the disciples didn’t understand why “the Messiah” died and desperately tried to find anything in the Hebrew scriptures that can explain it
I think that may have been the case, yes; more likely, in my view, is that they realized it must have something to do with a sacrifice and tried to find passages of scripture to back their view up.
I would’t say it’s clear proof about what the apostles themselves were doing. Clement is quoting a now lost legendary work about Peter which does not show signs of being historically reliable about the actual real life Peter (just the opposite: it clearly is not historical). And yes, that website will give you access to a lot of materials. YOu may want a full book on early Christian apocrypha, as well, (of which The Preaching of Peter would have been one, for example Schneemelchers, Apocryphal New Testament.