The first church father to name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the four Gospels in the New Testament is Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in Gaul (i.e., the ancient forerunner of Lyon, France), in his five-volume work, “Against Heresies” in 180 CE. He spent significant time in Rome itself before his appointment in Gaul, and he considered the Roman church to be the center of Christendom at his time, but there are no Roman authors before him who say anything about it. The important teacher / philosopher Justin (who acquired the epithet “Martyr”), from whom we have three surviving writings about Jesus, Scripture, and the truth of Christianity, quotes the Gospels but never indicates who wrote them.
There is another (apparent) witness
“1985 CE” – is that 185 CE?
We should always consider the possiblity of scribal errors in the text.
Irenaeus sure lived and wrote a long time! 1985CE! I am sure that is a typo but it caught my attention!
He was on a mediterranean diet.
1985 ce?
Scribal corruption.
“Against Heresies” in 1985 C.E. ??
A scribal corruption of the text!
Vague question: What’s your personal impression of the scholarly consensus on Laodiceans? Do others buy Speyer / your theory about it maybe being a simple “replacement” of a lost Marcionite Laodiceans? Have you gotten angry scholarly critiques of why you’re wrong?
I ask because I was recently reading Philip L. Tite’s write-up on the Epistle to the Laodiceans (in 2022 “Early New Testament Apocrypha”, p. 384). He definitely doesn’t agree with you, but he also says nobody else does, either. He calls your theory “a variant of the Marcionite hypothesis” (i.e. Harnack’s) and that “nearly every scholar today rejects the Marcionite hypothesis in any form”, i.e. packing you & Speyer up with Harnack. I think he might be misreading you a tad.
I didn’t recall that Speyer had that view? Did he? I thought I came up with it! But I don’t see how it’s a variant of Harnack’s theory since I set it forth precisely to refute Harnack’s theory! If you read my treatment in Forgery and Counterforgery you’ll see the full argument. I wonder if he actually read my discussion.
I’m going off Forgery & Counterforgery here, too – you do credit it to Speyer there in your section on Laodiceans, although write “he did not explicate it in any detail.” I don’t know German so certainly haven’t read the original!
And yes, I think Tite either misunderstood you or is doing some rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Basically he’s saying everyone rejects Harnack, so therefore everyone rejects you too (hence the “in any form” comment – I think it’s aimed at you since he mentions you two sentences earlier as a “variant”, and more generally talks about how scholarship has moved past these old, dated views). It doesn’t make a lot of sense since if your theory is true, the Latin Epistle was trying to “lay low” and act like a normal Pauline writing, not necessarily be a direct denunciation of Marcionism. Ergo not having Marcionite theology isn’t inconsistent. (Granted, it doesn’t really make for a strong positive argument either, but that’s just a fact about true things sometimes, they’re don’t always have strong indications.)
Not trying to start an academic fight, just curious! Thanks for the input.
OK, thanks. Yeah, I just think it’s very odd to write my view off as aligned wiht the view that I”m attacking….
Prof. Ehrman,
The Hebrew Bible creation myth refers to Elohim and uses language such as Let us make Man, and Man has eaten of the Tree of Knowledge and like us, knows good from evil.
With Abraham coming from Ur in Sumer and Sumerian creation and flood myths predating Hebrew Bible creation and flood myths, should you, other historians, and students of history identify the Elohim, the plurality of Powerful Ones (gods in plurality) as follows?
1. An
2. Enlil
3. Enki
4. Ninhursag
5. Inanna
6. Utu, the sun-god
7. Ptah, the Ancient Egyptian god who created by speaking things into existence (John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word…)
Thank you,
Steve Campbell, author of
Historical Accuracy
If these anonymous writings were the gospels in circulation, how did later compilers know about “apostolic authors” characteristics such that they could divine clues about authorship? Were there stories about, say, a fellow Luke who was a physician and companion of Paul?
1985?
Scribal error.
I’m wondering how someone got into the graduate program at Princeton Theological without knowing Latin!
Virtually no one knew Latin!
It’s also intriguing to me that the Muratorian Fragment seems to have the 4 Gospels in the Vulgate order, not the so-called Western order that was probably earlier. P45 was probably Western order, even tho Kenyon published the plates in the Vulgate order. This makes me wonder if Mur Frag originates later than II cent. It’s just hard to pinpoint when and where this derives. Wish we had the beginning of the statement with words presumably about Matt and Mark because the story about John is a whole independent tradition. Those early traditions are always fascinating stories and data.
I’m not sure the different orderings of the Gospels were chronologically determined as much as regionally (a scribe/author who has one order or another can’t be dated based on the sequence). But there are serious scholars who think it should be dated to the fourth century.
Yes, mostly Geoffrey Hahneman and Albert Sundberg on IV cent eastern dating. Crazy story. 20 or 25 years ago, I was teaching a survey class on NT. I offhandedly mentioned the Muratorian Fragment and that a couple of scholars date it to IV century, and I mentioned the names of Hahneman and Sundberg. After class, a young female student approached me with a somewhat stunned look still on her face. Albert Sundberg was her grandfather! She couldn’t believe her professor knew about her grandfather’s work. I think I was probably as surprised as she was. 🙂 He now lived in retirement not far away, and she asked if I would I like to meet him! And of course, I did. We had lunch. Sharp fellow even in latter years then. He studied under Krister Stendahl. A few years later, Albert passed away, and his family let me peruse his library for any books I wanted before they donated them. Great family.
Ah, interesting. I guess Clare Rothschild has a book on the MF arguing that it’s a fourth century forgery meant to *look* like a second-century text. She’s very smart and knows a heckuva lot, but for some reason I don’t usually find her views convincing….
I’m curious: how much or has any research been done on Latin and Greek liturgical texts to try and identify any possible lingering 2nd or 1st Century elements? — Similar to identifying early Christologies such as Philippians 2:6-11? Or like finding strands of Neanderthal DNA in the modern human genome? For example, sections of the Wisdom of Solomon are regularly read as part of Greek Orthodox Vespers services commemorating a Saint. Could this be an echo of ancient practice and a clue as to why Wisdom showed up where it did in the Muratorian Fragment?
The short answer is “a whole lot.” The follow-up response is “But I don’t know much of anythig about it” I don’t, think though that much later liturgical materials tend to draw on apocryphal accounts; apocrypha almost always tend to be read and known more in the earlier than the later periods.
“There is another (apparent) witness…”
Dear Bart!
This is not the truth! The truth is that it is not about Jesus! I can prove it!
I am quoting from a chapter of a letter. Listen!
“Paul the Apostle (not from men, not through man, but from Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead);” Galatians 1:1
“I wonder that you are so quick to pursue a different gospel than the one who called you by the grace of Christ.” Galatians 1:6
Here are these two poems. One talks about Jesus Christ, the other about Christ!
Which is the real poem? Because two verses cannot call Jesus Christ and then Christ. How do you decide? Which one is the real one?
Do you decide that he said Jesus first?
Christianity was not an ethical religion!
The New Testament is much better understood by reading Christ than Jesus Christ.
I quote two verses:
“Look only at the things in front of you! If someone thought that he was the Anointed (Christ’s), then he should start from himself and think that just as he is the Anointed (Christ’s), so are we.” (2 Corinthians 10:7)
“…to rank ourselves among or compare ourselves to those who recommend themselves. Moreover, because they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves to themselves, they lack discernment.” (2 Corinthians 10:12)
“What you imagined does not exist!” Platform 2.
So: What you didn’t imagine exists! What you didn’t imagine exists!
This verse is correct if we exclude the word Jesus.
“Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.” 1 John 2:22
It says: Who is the liar, if not the one who denies the Christ? This is the antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
G’day Professor Ehrman
In your course on ‘who wrote the gospels’, you spend a short time talking about Iraneus, referred to as the ‘Bishop of Lyon’. I was curious, given this is so early in Christianity, just what a title like Bishop means then. Like in the middle ages through to even the 20th century, a Bishop is huge figure, being the religious leader of tens of thousands of people (in the middle ages in some cases the political leader also to a certain extent) but in 180 I am assuming its nothing like that. However, given he is Bishop not Priest, presumably that means he has Priest below him and he is the religious leader of mulitple congregations, so wondering if scholars have any idea just what size is the group the Bishop of Lyon would (for want of a better word) reign over at this time? Are we talking 3 priests and about 40 Christians, or are we already at a couple of thousand Christians in Lyon this early in the Christian story?
Thanks as always for taking the time to answer what I fear you think are stupid questions, it is very much appreciated, thankyou
This would have been in he 180s, and at that point the bishop was the ultimate leader of the church in a city, which normally wold have had a number of house churches whose individual leaders would report to the bishop; he also would have been the spiritual leader of churches in nearby towns and villages. We can’t tell how many Christians we’d be talking about. A few hundred I’d suppose?
And nope haven’t had a stupid question yet, though I have given some stupic answers.
🙏