(10 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I discussed the traditional view of when the Hebrew Bible became a fixed canon in stages, with the final decisions being made at the end of the first century CE at the “Council of Jamnia.”
Today scholars tend to present a somewhat fuzzier picture of when and why the canon came to be formed, although there do seem to be some fixed points.
It is widely held that the five books of the Torah were accepted by nearly all Jews as a set canon by the fifth century BCE, in the early post-exilic period. One piece of evidence comes from the Bible itself, in a post-exilic book, Ezra. The scribe Ezra himself is described as being “skilled in the Torah of Moses that the LORD the God of Israel had given” (Ezra 7:6). This suggests that it was widely known that there was a “Torah of Moses” and that the educated elite were sometimes being trained in understanding and interpreting it. The Torah is and always has been
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!
I assume you must be aware that the vast majority of the questions that you have spent your life researching have been quite fully (if dubiously) answered in the 1930s. For instance we are told by who, when and where all four gospels (including Q sources and a gospel which was lost) were authored and how each author got their information (https://cutt.ly/XthVJOZu). We are told how each apostle came to join Jesus’ band(https://cutt.ly/QthVXvkP), the complete list of female apostles(https://cutt.ly/NthVKIXx), how when and where each apostle died(https://cutt.ly/wthVKZa8) and why Judas decided to betray his master(https://cutt.ly/UthVK89C). We are told full passion, death, and resurrection details, all subsequent appearances and final ascension. We are also told heaps of other details: Bethlehem birth, wise men and star, flight to Egypt, return to Nazareth, Jerusalem visit as 12yo, Joseph’s death, what he got up to in the missing years, and very extensive details of his ministry years. Even if this is purely a work of fiction it makes incredibly interesting reading. How much more interesting it becomes (like when reading the DaVinci Code) trying to pick truth from fiction!
THese questions were batted around long before teh 1930s. Anyone fully conversant with the modern scholarly views on these and other questions is familiar with the study of the issues from the 16th century onward. It’s a pity more people aren’t aware of the history of the discourse and the older evidence and arguments used (it was and stll should be an essential part of PhD training) It’s a fascinating history.
Most scholarly deductions seem founded on the very dubious precept “being uneducated country folk they couldn’t even read and write Aramaic, much less Greek – thus all we have is telephone-game reports from Greek speakers not even living in Israel, on which we can cast any level of doubt we wish”. So I understand your unwillingness to consider, for instance, that Mark (boy of the family owning the “upper room” and the apostles chore-boy) was eye witness to many of events he writes about, and a close confidant of Peter. He was supposedly the lad with the loaves and fishes (https://cutt.ly/Gtke369Q), the only witness to Jesus “sweating blood” (https://cutt.ly/Etke3lFz), and the guy escaping naked from the Roman soldier (https://cutt.ly/4tke3LyT). I know some feeble reasons to doubt the book’s representations, but I was hoping to hear the best iron-clad, in-your-face proof of it’s fakeness. At present the grounds for most of your deductions seem far shakier and feebler than any reasons I can find to distrust the book’s possibly fictional narrative.
The question is not so much whether any hypothesis is possible (Mark is the lad who had the loaves and fish) but whether there is any reason to support it. That is, it’s a question of evidence. What is the most probable conclusion, and why. What would make us think so. If there is scant reason to think so, then … there is little reason to think so.
Indeed there is little reason to think so, and the best you can do in this case is to weigh the likelihood and plausibility of all suggestions from the same source, and if some are totally implausible then consider all related suggestions as very dubious. But supposing that the event basically happened, is it more likely that the apostles would solicit food from the crowd (as most sermons I have heard suggest) before checking their own supplies? Is it likely that they would have accepted the enthusiastic services of a boy from a well-off family supportive of their cause. Is it likely that such a boy helper would be put in charge of the picnic hamper. Is it likely that this boy, on coming of age, would not have ongoing relationship with the apostolic mission and end up writing an account of some things that he either saw himself or heard about first hand. This seems far more plausible than your scholarly suggestion that some unconnected stranger from a foreign Greek-speaking nation would have got interested enough in some Chinese whispers he had heard Nth-hand, to spend time and effort writing them down!
This Jan14 post disappeared and as it took me some time, I have reposted:
One area of contention between the UB and scholarship is that the UB indicates that Mark finished his gospel in 68CE (https://cutt.ly/jtkv817P) thus before the fall of Jerusalem. So evidence suggesting Mark’s gospel was written after 70CE would create tension.
The UB also asserts that Luke had a copy of the pseudoepigraphical Matthew to refer to (https://cutt.ly/vtkv4l5n), so any evidence that Luke did not have Matthew as a source creates tension.
The UB also asserts that the real Matthew (Levi) wrote a short sayings gospel in Aramaic (https://cutt.ly/Stkv77E2) which was a source for pseudoepigraphal Matthew. This gospel, after being significantly expanded by himself in 40CE (https://cutt.ly/Ctkv5diU), is very likely the Hebrew gospel well attested to by church fathers (eg Epiphanius, Origen, Jerome) and which persisted until destroyed by fire in the 5th century (https://cutt.ly/Ftkv5J4a). If this gospel is clearly scripted in Hebrew rather than Aramaic, this would be somewhat contradictory evidence – but maybe Aramaic to Hebrew is very simple and may have been done during copying?
Ancient people often spoke of Aramaic as Hebrew.
Another area of contention is that some content in Hebrews (in particular Heb 9:22, Heb 11:10, Heb 12:22-23) is specifically attributed to Paul while the book itself is attributed to multiple writers (“*one_of_the_writers* of the Book of Hebrews” https://cutt.ly/vtkH8vud). My guess is that the book was originally penned by Paul for non-Greek readers (ie Hebrews!) in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek by an expert – thus giving reason to doubt Pauline authorship, and the UB to attribute it to multiple writers. I wonder if you can offer any expert comments on the textual criticism supporting this hypothesis found here (https://cutt.ly/btkH8Z3z)? Do you know of any suggestion of multiple authors as opposed to say one author and one translator?
The UB also states (against modern scholarship) that Paul wrote Ephesians (in particular Eph 6:12 is quoted), so the strength of evidence denying this would weigh against the UB.
The UB also states that Peter did indeed write the epistle bearing his name, although it was later altered by a disciple of Paul. So I guess the presence of unspecified alterations makes it difficult to deduce anything from textual criticism of the contents.
Hebrews is stylistically and thematically consistent throughout and is almost certainly the work of a single author. It would not have been Paul, who wrote in a different style covering entirely different themes and in different ways. It was not an Aramaic composition; it is a Greek original, probably the highest level Greek of the entire New Testament.
Thanks for the information. I don’t think I’m interested enough to find out and weigh the reasons suggesting it was not an Aramaic/Hebrew composition requiring later translation by an expert Greek writer. But I will take an interest in its content to look for marks of Paul’s authorship (eg metaphors used, etc). Surely the thematic differences are easily explained by the fact that the letter is addressed to a completely different audience to his other letters! The fact that there is some clear textual evidence for an Aramaic original seems to keep the possibility open.
In my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction I discuss why scholars have almost uniformly argued it was not written by Paul.
I don’t know of any textual evidence of an Aramaic original.
First I should establish what Paul often means by his unique “Jesus’ blood” metaphor. Here is Paul’s line of reasoning in both Romans and Galations:
Rom 1:17 “righteous live by faith ——–Gal 3:11 “righteous live by faith”
Rom 3:20 “by law no one justified” ——Gal 3:11 “no one justified by law”
Rom 3:20 “law gives knowledge of sin” Gal 3:19 “law because trangressions”
Rom 3:9 “all are under sin” —————–Gal 3:22 “all are under sin”
Rom 3:25 “passed over aforetime” ——Gal 4:4 “when right time came”
Rom 3:25 “whom God put forward” —–Gal 4:4 “sent forth His son”
Rom 3:25 “faith in His blood” ————–Gal 4:4 “born of woman”
Clearly the same reasoning is being followed but when Romans mentions “blood”, Galations has no mention of “blood” or death, but instead has “born of woman”.
Thus it is clear that Paul used the “blood of Jesus” as a metaphor for Jesus’ “humanity” – being of one “blood” with us (Acts 17:36), “made like us, in every way” (Heb 2:17), being subject to the same hardships and emotions. This rarely noticed metaphor seems unique to Paul and wherever it appears, one can be reasonably confident of Paul’s authorship.
Now looking for this same metaphor appearing in Hebrews, shows it very convincingly indeed:
… the children share in *flesh* and *blood* (Heb 2:14).
… we have confidence to enter … by the *blood* of Jesus, (Heb 10:19)
… by the new and living way … that is, through his *flesh* (Heb 10:20)
I therefore conclude that the UB is correct in assigning authorship of Hebrews to Paul and, at least in this case, seems better informed than most scholars on the question.
But if you could comment on the Aramaic original evidence I pointed to here (https://cutt.ly/btkH8Z3z) that would be much appreciated as I cannot adequately judge it. I realise that Mr Trimm is a Hebrew primacy fanatic and not much interested in finding truth that doesn’t align with his prejudice.
I pointed a piece of evidence mentioned by a Mr Trimm which you did not comment on (https://cutt.ly/btkH8Z3z). Mr Trimm’s argument is based on a phrase (translated from Hebrew by Google) “according to the words of King Melchi-Tsadek” which is used six times in the letter to the Hebrews.
Five of those times it seems taken exactly from a Greek version of Psalms (Greek-to-Greek needing no change) suggesting that if there was a hypothetical translator, he must have gone to the trouble to discard possible original Aramaic quotes, and replace them from a Greek copy of Psalms.
However one of the times (Heb7:15) the wording suggests translation from an Aramaic version of Psalms – which seems difficult to explain if there was never an Aramaic original.
Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean. At first I thought you were saying that “Melchizedek” wsa given in two different forms (v. 15 different from the other occurrences); but it is the same each time: Μελχισέδεκ. So that can’t be it. so maybe you mean the wording of v. 15 in some other way? I’m not sure what Mr. Trimm could have in mind since we do not have an Aramaic version of the Psalms from the time Hebrews was written.
The Aramaic version of Psalms that Mr. Trimm refers to is the Peshitta which Wikipedia suggests was translated direct from the Hebrew and was available in the 1st century (“by or before the 2nd”). The Hebrew Psalm 110:4 lead-in phrase “according to the words of” is rendered in the Greek Septuagint as “after the arrangement of” but in the Peshitta (direct from Hebrew OT) as “after the likeness of”. Six times the phrase appears in the letter to the Hebrews it duplicates the Septuagint (“after the arrangement of”), but the other time 7:15 it follows the wording of the Peshitta “after the likeness of”. It does seem that whereas Heb 5:6, 7:17, 7:21 were direct quotes of Psalm 110, in the other four occurrences the phrase was used as part of the writers own composition. In three of these (5:10, 6:20, 7:11) the writer preferred the Septuagint wording but in 7:15 he preferred the Peshitta wording. Is there some good reason why he would create this wording from scratch, if it was not already suggested by an Aramaic Hebrews source which quoted the Peshitta?
No, I’m afraid that is not correct. The Peshitta was produced in the early fifth century. There was no Syriac or Aramaic version of the New Testament in the first century. If you want an authoritative discussion of the Syriac translations, see Bruce Metzger’s book on the Early Versions.
I was not referring to a New Testament Peshitta, but rather to an Old Testament Peshitta in which the phrase “after the likeness of” appears. Surely the OT Peshitta was available much earlier than the NT Peshitta.
But even if the OT Peshitta was not available at the time the Hebrews epistle was created, it must be the case that in going directly from Hebrew OT to Aramaic OT (rather than via Septuagint), the phrase “after the likeness of” must be a very suitable rendering of the Hebrew “according to the words of” and would presumably be the rendering chosen by someone (ie Paul) writing an original in Aramaic and attempting to quote directly from the Hebrew OT. On translation, this alternate phrase would then carry over into the Greek.
Is there any other more likely reason why such an alternate Aramaic related phrase would be used instead of the oft occurring Greek “after the arrangement of”?
I’m having trouble following you. When are you dating a Syria translation of the Hebrew Bible? And I’m a bit confused — or can’t remember — why you think a semitic phrase would have to have come to an author through ARamaic instead of the Hebrew Bible itself?
The determination of the original language of an ancient document is never made on the basis of a single phrase, but on an extensive overall evaluation. This is especially important became many passages of the NT have “semiticisms” in them, even though they were composed in Greek. There are extensive and compelling reasons that linguists who don’t have a horse in the race have long been convinced that the letter to the Hebrews was not composed in Aramaic or Hebrew, and yet many other reasons for being relatively certain it was not written by Paul.
Another assertion that the UB makes is that John Zebedee “inspired” or provided the material that went into the gospel bearing his name although he did not actually pen it himself. He had copies of the 3 synoptic gospels to refer to, but deliberately wrote his account to include material that the others had omitted. Interestingly it says the epistle known as “First John” was written by John himself (https://cutt.ly/htk5Qws0) as a *covering letter* for his gospel. I wonder if scholarship has considered this possibility and found evidence that it must be false?
Additionally the UB indicates that John created his gospel *after* writing Revelation. Since in his visions Jesus is described overwhelmingly (~24 times) as a Lamb rather than a Son, gives a reason why he twice put the “Lamb-of-God” title on the Baptist’s lips rather than what the Baptist would have said (and the UB asserts he said) “Son-of-God”. I think it is not possible that the Baptist could have imagined Jesus dying meekly as a lamb led to slaughter when he fully believed that Jesus was to be Israel’s Deliverer. (The Lamb-vs-dragon characterisation referring to character rather than sacrifice.)
There are no grounds for thinking 1 John was a cover letter for the Gospel, and scholars today are widely convinced that the same author did not write both books, and that neither of the authors was John the son of Zebedee.
Well in this case the scholars are obviously wrong, as is amply proven by the “blood” metaphor that John (and no one else) is so fond of, and that Christendom has still not understood. Check John’s gospel for the 4 times Jesus refers to drinking His blood (and eating His flesh – and suggested by other authors in His last supper symbolism).
Then in his epistle John writes “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin”. John here is speaking of *purifying* from sin – that is, removing the tendency to sin. Having one’s penalty paid by sacrifice does not equate to removing the tendency to re-offend, so that metaphor cannot be what Jesus or John had in mind.
Then the same metaphor occurs often in Revelation – the washing or cleansing by Jesus’ blood (Rev 1:5, Rev 7:14). I think it is *obvious* that these three works have been inspired by the same author and likely the *only* apostle to have eventually understood Jesus’ “drinking blood” metaphor.
Paul also has a favourite “Jesus’ blood” metaphor but it has a completely different meaning from John’s metaphor and this will likewise set his authorship apart from others.
Ancoient writers sometimes use “Hebrew” to refer to ARamaic.
This Urantia book (https://cutt.ly/MthVMTRE), if widely believed to be true, could potentially become the world’s next Bible. It is the only book that attempts to provide a coherent and scientific explanation of “Life, the Universe and Everything” that is concievably worthy of being inspired by a Creator. It would seem to be a far more worthy treatise to critically appraise than the fictional DaVinci Code you have already spent considerable effort on. Doubtless you are certain that a truly inspired document cannot exist because there is no discarnate intelligence to provide the inspiration. So here is an opportunity put aside this prejudice and give the Jesus section (1/3 of the book) a disinterested and thorough critical appraisal. With your lifetime of research into the exact material that it claims to provide, it should be easy to determine if it is a mid 20th century hoax or otherwise. Identifying just a few fatal flaws should be sufficient to prove beyond doubt that the book cannot have the inspiration it claims to have and save a lot of people from being suckered into a false cult. Now that you are officially retired, how about enjoying a challenge such as this?
I’ve read it and simply don’t find it very well informed. But I’m not inclined to spend much time showing the problems. It’s a bit of a rabbit hole. The Da Vinci Code was an easy target, and I chose it because it was influencing the views of many millions.
How is it not well informed? It contains ~1000 times more information than the NT! I’m very disappointed that you did not suggest even one good piece of evidence why the Jesus papers must be fake since they contradict so much of your scholarship. For instance your repeated assertion that “after his death, Jesus has 11 followers and a handful of women so maybe 20 people”. You neglect that John’s disciples would have switched to follow Jesus after John’s death. And then there were the ~70 second generation evangelists (Luke 10). These were all *full-time* evangelists (ie Billy Graham types – not the “one-visit-to-the-synagogue-on-sabbath” types). These together with a dozen women makes over a hundred full-time fully-funded evangelists together with who knows how many funding and logistics support people. This is not such an inconsequential movement as you suggest and the burgeoning size of its second generation enlargement seemed to be what influenced Jesus’ timing to exit the ministry and “depart to the father” (John 13:1). The painful exit path chosen seems discussed and decided (Luke 9:31) to best advance the mission He had initiated – and history has proven how enormously effective that choice was!
The movement’s large size is also evidenced by Jesus’ resurrection appearance to more than 500 (https://cutt.ly/vtkv6Q7G) in Galillee mentioned by Paul (1Cor15:16), (separate to appearing to 50 second generation evangelists in Philadelphia https://cutt.ly/ytkv6Cos). Another misconception of your scholarship is that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, based partially on his references to the “son of man”. Although clearly self-referential they are often misidentified with Daniel. However a far better match is found with 1Enoch (https://cutt.ly/ntkbqi8R) which being chosen by Himself for Himself (https://cutt.ly/5tkbqS5E) indicates his calling. The worst misconception however is the nature of the “Kingdom of God” (a bad name choice but coming from Daniel’s dream, via the Baptist’s mission, was necessarily adopted by Jesus). Many times Jesus indicates his mission as “I must preach the kingdom_of_God … because *for_this_purpose* I have been sent.” (Luke 4:43). Since his famous and torturous death seems also deliberately chosen (John 12:27) to further this message, and this same Gospel-of-the-Kingdom was to be continually preached long after Jesus’ exit (Matt 24:14), it seems rather important to concieve it correctly! I think scholarship (along with much of Christendom!) has badly misconstrued it, whereas the UB provides a pretty cogent description of Jesus’ intended concept (https://cutt.ly/StkbwoZp).
The reason I hoped you might critically address the Jesus papers is because I already tried and failed. I dipped into the book after discovering it on a university physics tearoom bookshelf and considered that while it might truly be channeled from invisible realms (it is easy to prove that such true sources exist – and aren’t they interesting!), it was probably deceitful and thus evil. On referring to it in this vein to others, I felt strong misgivings that I hadn’t given it a fair hearing and was maybe misrepresenting. One thing about a work that sets out to deceive is that in order to succeed, it must provide plenty of good information to convince the reader to swallow the deceit hidden amongst it, and I thought I would be able to gain from the good information while discarding the deceit. However in trying to find a few unassailable (to myself) reasons why it could not be what it claimed to be, I failed and instead was won over. So I was really hoping to see if someone like you, being so much more knowledgeable of NT history, could pick the deceit and not also be won over!
I do wish there were more hours in the day and nore days in the week. But alas, one can do only what one has time for. And often not even that…
I fully appreciate that and can only marvel at your prodigious output! But I hoped that retirement might allow you to explore one or two interesting rabbit holes, and was hoping to convince you that this particular hole is the most interesting one to checkout first as it relates so strongly to (and is critical of) your life’s work and spiritual journey, and has the potential to become timeless and eclipse all other religious texts. You might even find an answer to the problem of suffering, (that is if you don’t mind losing your excuse for atheism). If the book is what it claims to be, then that answer really should be there for the finding. Accepting it would come at a cost however as you would be shunned by atheists as well as Christians.
I think it is logical to assume that the UB must either be a mid-20th century fake or it must be “inspired” in some way to some degree. I have a book titled “A Life of Jesus” by Basil Mathews which tries to imaginatively knit all the gospel accounts together to create a coherent (and overly descriptive) story similar to the UB narrative. But comparing the two is simply night and day! It is very easy to pick faults in Mathews such as the contradicting accounts of Judas’ death for which Mathews picks one and discards the other, but the UB provides a coherent account supporting both (https://cutt.ly/ytk5E53p). Mathews doesn’t suggest which day the last supper was held on and puts a roast lamb on the table, whereas the UB provides the solution to your “which day” problem and has a bloodless passover meal as suggested in all last supper accounts (and Epiphanius complaint that in the Ebionites Hebrew Matthew Jesus refuses to eat the lamb). I am amazed that you don’t find the book interesting enough to even read carefully. Surely if it is fake it must contain some howlers?
Yes, I’d say you’ve mentioned a few!
I hardly think points I have mentioned could be considered “howlers” as contradictions are pretty much only against *guesses* of revisionists seeking significance. I think neglecting that Jesus’ band was obviously friendly with a well-off family who owned a two-story house in Jerusalem, that there were 70+ second generation apostles (one aspiring evangelist being the “rich young ruler”), and that Jesus did not promote an earthly kingdom, are far worse mistakes and approach howler status.
Surely to run a tax collecting business, one must be literate and numerate – so Matthew must have been able to write in Aramaic as the UB asserts. The apostles often travelled in boats – so someone in this rural area must have had a boat-building business. The UB asserts that this was Zebedee(https://cutt.ly/KtzYajU5) and that James and John both worked in the business (as did Jesus just before his baptism). So they must have both been literate and numerate.
Then there is the event after Pentecost in which many foreign visitors could understand the Galilean apostles speech (Acts 2:7). This is either a lie, or miraculous (which both UB and you deny), or some must have been able to speak Greek rather well.
Certaily in the modern day tax collectors need to be literate. Otherwise my IRS agent wouldn’t be able to understand what I was complaining about. But it was not that way in antiquity. The heads of the collection corporatoins would have had to read, but the tax collectors were mainly the guys you had to dish your money over to. They had to be able to recognize monetary units. The vast majority never went to school to learn to read, let alone to write, let alone to compose lengthy narratives.
I watched your debate with Licona on Gospel authorship. You both did great! It was refreshing to see an evangelical engage with you rather than simply get steamrolled😉
One moment that stood out-Mike said, “When the author speaks in third person, Bart is skeptical. When the author speaks in first person, Bart is skeptical,” it was a clever line and played well. But felt like a zinger to score points than a comment aimed at grappling with substance.
Cards-on-the-table: I disagree with you that “we” passages are deliberately deceptive. They don’t stand out as intentional self-insertion. They feel incidental.
We agree about Matthew. You made a strong point that it’s not*just*that Matthew9:9 is third person-it doesn’t read like a reference to himself! You make a stronger argument in your NTtextbook: if Matthew were written by an eyewitness, why depend so heavily on Mark?
You’ve said you find debates frustrating-I think this exchange highlights why. They’re entertaining/have some value but they’re about winning(against opponent/with audience)rather than discovering truth.
That’s one reason I enjoy your blog. Even when I disagree, I value the opportunity to think alongside you and engage evidence in pursuit of truth. Thanks for the work you do!
THAnks. ANd yup, that’s what the debates are all about….
If you’re interested in my full analysis of the we passages, I’d suggest you look at my long discussion in Forgery and Counterforgery.
This is a follow-up to my post regarding your debate with Licona. I may be misunderstanding your question, but during Q&A you asked whether there is evidence from the ancient world of someone having a narrative written for them rather than composing it themselves. The apparent implication was that it would be unlikely for the Gospel of Mark to have been written by someone else on the basis of Peter’s testimony, since such a practice supposedly didn’t occur in antiquity.
I think this line of reasoning works better against Pauline authorship of the disputed epistles (though I would push back by suggesting that the apostles viewed themselves as authoritative figures or lawgivers and the contested letters could plausibly reflect something like a “royal prescript,” in which ancient rulers relied on bureaucratic representatives to respond to issues arising within their domain-but I digress).
When it comes to the gospel narratives, however, doesn’t Luke’s prologue itself function as evidence for precisely this kind of practice? Luke explicitly states that he compiled his narrative from the accounts of eyewitnesses. Why wouldn’t this count as evidence of someone writing a narrative based on the testimony of external sources? Am I misunderstanding your point?
No, what Mike is arguing for is not someone knowing earlier accounts and then writing his own. He’s saying that someone who could not write explained what he wanted to be said and someone else composed the narrative for him. It’s more like what today we would call a ghost writer. IN this case it’s even more complicated, since he thinks that Peter related to Mrak what he knew about Jesus in ARamaic, and that Mark put it down exacly as Peter thought it, but in Greek. We know of nothing like that in the ancient world.
Wouldn’t you agree that while there may be no exact one-to-one parallel for ancient “ghostwriting” involving verbatim thought transfer across languages, there are well-attested practices that are functionally equivalent and make the Mark–Peter hypothesis at least plausible? For example, ancient courts regularly received oral testimony from non-elite (often illiterate) individuals, which was then mediated by scribes or advocates and preserved as polished, standardized written documents, frequently in a different language from the original speech. Roman Egypt alone provides a substantial corpus of witness statements, affidavits, and petitions written in Greek on behalf of individuals whose names, occupations, and social status strongly suggest limited literacy. A notable example is the hypomnēmata (memoranda or petitions), which were commonly spoken complaints rendered into formal legal Greek, sometimes translated from Egyptian or Aramaic.
Plus the presence of an Aramaic substratum in Mark strengthens this model, as it suggests that the underlying source material originated in Aramaic and was translated and shaped into Greek narrative form. While this does not prove Peter as the source, wouldn’t it undermine the claim that such a process would have been unknown or implausible in the ancient world?
No, I don’t see those as analogous. I can see why, if someone wanted for some other reason, to think that Mark took Peter’s Aramaic teachings and put them into a narrative in Greek that they represent “Peter’s” Gospel (instead of someone simply composing a Greek Gospel and others later claiming it was Peter’s), then certainly they would want to find analogies. But noe of tthis are analogous. (I’d be interested in knowing what polished, standardized legal testimonies that have been compiled and translated into a different language you have in mind? I’m not sure where you’re referring to). There also is no evidence of an Aramaic substratum in Mark, any more than a Latin substratum: Mark uses Aramaic and Latin words on several occasions. That’s not a narrative substratum. We have that phenomenon in LOTS of ancient texts, just as modern. Over the past half hour I’ve written several Greek words, but it doesn’t mean I was originally composing in Greek)
The so-called Dossier of Totoes (late 2nd century BCE) documents an Egyptian legal dispute involving a native Egyptian woman whose claims originated in Demotic-speaking, temple-based courts (the Laokritai). When her case required appeal to the Greek-speaking strategos, she relied on Totoes, a professional scribe and intermediary, to render her testimony into formal Greek petitions.
The resulting documents show that Totoes did more than mechanically transcribe her words. He translated Egyptian legal concepts into Greek juridical equivalents, reorganized complex familial histories into concise administrative narratives, and employed standard Greek petitionary language that framed the dispute in terms intelligible (and potentially persuasive) to Greek officials. In this way, oral and culturally embedded testimony was transformed into a polished legal instrument without any expectation of verbatim linguistic preservation.
This is not an appeal to modern ghostwriting, but to functional equivalence within ancient practices of mediated authorship. In the same way that Totoes mediated an Egyptian woman’s Demotic testimony into formal Greek, employing established legal terminology and rhetorical conventions, an author could have mediated Peter’s Aramaic account into a coherent Greek narrative biography.
Correction: Totoes may not have been the name of the scribe, but the Egyptian woman’s (Tatehathyris) legal guardian/kyrios- but regardless of the name of the scribe, the point still stands.
These articles on the formation of the Hebrew Bible have been fascinating!
Do you discuss anywhere why the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible were reconceptualized and remembered into the 39 books that we have in the Christian Bible? I’ve always wondered if there was a method to the arrangements of these books or if they were just put in their randomly but this all makes sense
I haven’t written about it at length, but there are certainly a lot of books about it. If you just look up CAnon of the Bible you’ll find a number of them.
“And so by the fifth century B.C.E., most Jews probably accepted the Torah as an authoritative group of texts connected principally with Moses.”
My understanding is that the scholarly view now is that Moses did not exist and that Genesis and Exodus are not literal history of the Jews but created history stories for the Jews.
But just like today where all the Christians that I know consider them to be the literal history of the Jews it seems that the majority of Jews in ancient times also considered them to be the literal history of the Jews.
Did the the educated elite Jews in the fifth century BCE believe that Moses was an actual historical person and that Genesis and Exodus represented the literal history of the Jews?
Yes, doubts about Moses and teh historical accuracy of the Pentateuch are developments only from the ENlightenment onward.
The Hebrew Bible and the Christian “Old” Testament are no the same thing. The Hebrew Bible ends with Chronicles II and the Christian “Old” Testament ends with Malichai. Maccabees and the Book of Esther are not included in the Hebrew Bible.
The Hebrew Bible and the Christian “Old” Testament are no the same thing. The Hebrew Bible ends with Chronicles II and the Christian “Old” Testament ends with Malichai. Maccabees and the Book of Esther are not included in the Hebrew Bible.
Esther is certainly part of teh Hebrew Bible. WHen people say that the Xn OT and the HB are the “same” the mean that they contain exactly the same books, not that they are numbered and ordered the same. ANd the Xn Bible does not include Maccabees, if you mean the OT accepted by PRotestants as well as Catholics and Orthodox.
Hello Bart. After finishing your excellent book on The New Testament (which I’m reading again because it is so full of fascinating insights) I want to get your opinion on some tools I have been using in my reading.
What do you think of the NET New Testament translations available on bible.org? I have downloaded the gospels and the very helpful color coded synopsis of all four gospels.
Are these in your opinion good options for comparing the gospels and getting good quality translation notes? Any other ideas would be appreciated.
Mike
I”m afraid I”ve never used them and so can’t say. Maybe other blog members can give their opinions
A fascinating book well worth reading: “Israel’s History and the History of Israel” by Mario Liverani. This scholarly book by an international authority takes an evidence-based approach in examining why and when the texts in the collection called the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament were created.
About Daniel, you said, “books that were in fact written later—such as Daniel—were mistakenly taken to be older, as we have seen.” I looked through your Hebrew Bible posts, but I didn’t see an explanation as to why Daniel was thought to be older. Did I miss something?
Daniel is ascribed to a Judean living in teh 6th century BCE, and so was always taken to have been written then. BUt even in teh ancient world, and most decidedly today, scholars have recognized that it was actually written four centuries later (mid second century BCE)
Hello Bart ehrman
Some historian claimed that the only spoaken language of the early christian chruch was koine greek, but the christians in jerusalem spoke aramaic and the christians in rome spoke latin hr cannot be right.
What direct evidence do we have that the boundaries of the Hebrew canon were still genuinely contested after 70 CE, rather than largely stabilised with later debates reflecting interpretation and ordering rather than inclusion or exclusion of books?
I think this is what I wrote: Most scholars agree that by the time of the destruction of the second Temple in 70 CE, most Jews accepted the final three-part canon of the Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim. From that time on, books could not be added and books could not be taken away.
Dr. Ehrman you wrote “This was a twenty-four-book canon that came to be attested widely in Jewish writings of the time…”
What are these wide-ranging attestations? I know of literally none from the period of 70 CE or before 100 that talk about a 24 book canon, except for 4 Ezra which could be from the 70s or could be later (possibly much later?). Closer to the end of the century I think we have Josephus mentioning 22 books
Yeah, I too was wondering what I meant by that (I was indicating before 70 CE, I think.) Certainly the three-fold division of “law, prophets, and writings” is inidcated, but the precise 24 books? Sorry — I’m away from my books and am not sure why I was saying that (I wrote it years ago and don’t recall what I was thinking or had read at the time.).