(7 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...It has just occurred to me (duh) that some blog readers who are enjoying these “In a Nutshell” posts on the books of the New Testament may like to see a more extended exposition of the various issues I address, and I’ve devoted entire lectures courses for some of these books (and will be doing more). You might be interested in them.
One of the first I did was on the Gospel of Matthew, an eight-lecture course (50 minutes or so each; with two Q&A’s; and additional materials provided). You can find it here. https://courses.bartehrman.com/matthew Blog members get a discount with the code Blog5.
Whether you want to get the course or not, I thought it would be valuable to explain what I cover there, lecture by lecture. And so here is a summary!
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!
“… just occurred to me (duh)” happens to me almost every time I read or listen to something you said.
Matthew the “Jewish” Gospel, the Epistle of James the Jewish book in the canon, and the Didache together confirm the Jewish origins of the religion known as Christianity. I would like more about this history.
Do you mean the history of how Christianity emerged out of Judaism? I suppose most any book on the history of ealriest Christianity would cover that You might check out the recent one by Paula Fredriksen, Ancient Christianities.
Yes, I’m very interested in these lectures.
From 1 PETER
12 Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this
short letter to encourage you and to testify that this is the true grace of God.
Stand fast in it. 13 Your sister church [34] in Babylon, chosen together with
you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another
with a kiss of love.
Peace to all of you who are in Christ.
Please answer the off-topic question.
A friend assures me that this means that Peter as the first Pope and his son Mark send greetings from the church in Rome. Supposedly, Babylon was a synonym for Rome to the Christians of that time?
What is the true meaning of these verses?
Thank you!
The term “Babylon” came to be applied to Rome after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, precisely because Babylon was the first to destroy Jerusalem, wipe out much of its population, and destroy the temple (and Rome was the second). It gets called this in the book of Revelation distinctively. That means that 1 Peter was almost certainly written after 70 CE. Peter would have been dead by then; usually he is thought to have died around 64 CE. So it was not actually written by Peter. (I talk about this in my book Forged.) The author is using the name Peter to provide special authority for his book, even though it was put in circulation long after his day.
Thank you !
When I read Matthew, I get a sense that the emphasis of author is trying to prove to, I guess Jewish readers in particular, by providing something that Jesus did then bringing something up in what we refer to as the Old Testament and connecting the two for the readers in an effort to prove to them that Jesus was their messiah.
I am sorry but This is very hard for me to explain properly, but even the Greek that is used, is the same exact Greek words used in the LXX. There just seems to be this emphasis of using Old Testament stories comparing them to what Jesus did in an effort to convince his contemporary Jewish audience of Jesus being the Messiah. ?Almost like an updated version of the Septuagint that includes the Messiah? Am I reading into this sense incorrectly?
Matthew is definitely using Scripture to show Jesus really is the messiah as predicted by the prophets, and he often does apply scriptures to the messiah that were not taken by most Jews as messianic (“out of Egypt I have called my son” e.g.). It’s not clear to me that Matthew is trying to convince Jews of this; on the contrary, I’m pretty sure he was writing for his own Christian community, preaching to the choir as it were.
Dear Dr Ehrman:
I saw my 2 2nd aunts today & unlike when I swathed in the past I could talk credibly that I know the scriptures & what is wrong with their prudishness.
One aunt who I last saw in HK 9.5years ago, knows in my 2.5h daily devotional how impt you are to that.
Thank you!
“Slaughter of the Egypt”? I think you meant, “slaughter of the innocents.”
Ah, another scribal corruption of the text.
Dr. Ehrman, I searched for your posts on the synoptic gospels. That seemed reasonable to me. If any place we have an attempt to see what the man Jesus actually said, was, and did, isn’t it there? Isn’t it reasonable to think it’s there?
Would it not be odd if I wanted to study the thoughts and findings and suggestions of the man Albert einstein, and no one was interested in those writings as evidenced by mountains of words about him, but not of him, his words, his writings?
That’s how it seems to me. I find christians, and I suppose even you, preoccupied with everything that other people write about jesus, 63 books etc etc etc… but disinterested in what he actually had to say my Lk jn.
Am I completely wrong in this? How could I be wrong when 99.9999% of the writings including yours are about everything except his 3 books, synoptic gospels?
Is it not fair to infer from this that no one really takes him seriously, as a person, singilularly brilliant thinker, leader? The way people take Einstein seriously? I think it is fair. Please help me understand if you think I am incorrect.
Ty. James
I can see why it might look that way, but yes, I think you’re wrong about that. There are two major fields of interest when it comes to studying the portrayals of Jesus in each of the Synoptics: 1) What they author is trying to say about Jesus (what their unique perspectives are) and 2) What Jesus really said and did. The first is a literary questio and the second is a historical question. Some scholars pursue just one of these tasks or the other, but I for one am deeply interested in both. And as it turns out, they can not be completely isolated from each other. You can’t decide what Jesus actually said without evaluating the sources that indicate what he said, both in relation to one another and in relation to historical criteria designed to separate fact from fiction. You can’t take Einstein seriously if you think he said things he never said or think he never said things that in fact he did say. That involves analyziing our sources of information.
You can find my discussion of what Jesus really said and did based on an analysis of our surviving sources in my books Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium and Jesus Before the Gospels.
disabledupes{1770f33f3399e13e0d7fe5efac6997a7}disabledupes
Dear Dr Ehrman
Regarding Matthews Gospel, I merely wished to ask your opinion on the topic of the Temptation and Crucifixion Narratives of Matthew, particularly regarding the possibility of conscious mirroring of the two narratives.
It is theorized that Matthew 4:6 and Matthew 27:40 act as mirrors of each other, with Satan’s call for the Son of God to leap from the Temple to show his power echoed by the enemies of Jesus at the scene of the Passion, in which they mockingly call for the Jesus to descend from the Cross to display his claimed authority as Messiah/Son of God.
It seems, to my untutored view, that Matthew may be developing the limited Markan Temptation narrative in order to connect the words of Satan in the desert to the bystanders of the Crucifixion. If I may ask, do you believe that this is a genuine connection/mirroring in the narrative of the Gospel, or am I perhaps reading too much into the text ? Once again, I am very sorry and thank you for all of your wonderful work.
Yours Sincerely
Tobias Bellhouse
Interesting idea. I’m not sure I”ve heard it before. You do get that mirroring phenomenon sometimes, e.g., Mark 1:10 and 15:38-39 (made particularly evident, in this case, with the word “schizo” — “ripping” — not common and found only in these two places in Mark, both involving a rip in a divine element and a voice declaring Jesus the son of God. YOur idea does seem plausible to me at first glance.
I believe that Craig Keener and R. T. France indicate a similar interpretation of these passages in their commentaries upon Matthew.
Similar to mine? It’s a miracle!