Loading...This week in my graduate seminar we discussed one of my favorite-of-all-time-non-canonical Gospels, the Gospel of Nicodemus. I am devoting an entire chapter to one of its episodes in the book I’m working on now (on “otherworldly journeys” in early Christianity), which describes Jesus’ “descent into Hades” between his death and resurrection, the most famous “Harrowing of Hell” narrative in the early Christian tradition (Jesus descends in order to save people who had died before his crucifixion).
I haven’t said much about the Gospel on the blog before. This is how I discuss and explain it in the book I co-produced with my colleague Zlatko Pleše, The Other Gospels. In later posts, I’ll give some excerpts from the account itself.
***************************************
Scholars have long debated whether any of the earliest Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and death were devoted exclusively to his passion. Source critics in the nineteenth century argued that there were (no longer surviving) written accounts behind the passion narratives of Mark and of John. More recently, some scholars have seen a distinctive passion narrative lying behind the Gospel of Peter (see Crossan, The Cross that Spoke). When we move into later periods of Christianity there can be no doubt about the matter. The Gospel of Nicodemus, also known as the Acts of Pilate, is preserved in multiple versions in the surviving manuscripts. But we have it as a complete text, from beginning to end, and it is a Gospel that deals exclusively with the events surrounding Jesus’ trial, death, and resurrection.
One of the complications of this writing is knowing even what to call it. Ancient Christian sources mention an account of Jesus’ passion told from the perspective of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. In our earliest reference (ca 160 CE), Justin Martyr refers to …
To read the rest of this post you’ll need to belong to the blog. Member benefits are terrific: you get five posts a week on topics connected with the New Testament and early Christianity, for less per month than a plain ole black coffee from Starbucks! The blog will perk you up more! So join!
Bart,
A very moving confession. You obviously are a very compassionate person.
Many Christians believe that God has a plan for all of us. Sometimes in order for that plan to be fulfilled there must be tragedy for someone. They cite the example of the tragedy of Joseph being sold into slavery. But then out of this tragedy he becomes an important official in the Pharaoh’s government. This in turn enables him to save his people from starvation. But this then leads to the enslavement of the Hebrews, ultimately leading to the emergence of Moses, the Passover, the parting of the sea, etc. Jesus must die a horrible death so that ….
A woman acquaintance of mine told me of the tragic death of her husband in his prime of life. But because of that tragedy she was led to a closer relationship with Jesus for which she is so thankful. Sort of reminds me of Job being compensated for the loss of his family by being given a new roster of children who are even more handsome and beautiful than his first children. Fine for Job perhaps but what about the tragic deaths of his first family?
They apparently could be replaced. Most people don’t even notice the problem….
What are the odds that this text was compiled from two or more completely disparate traditions or written accounts and stitched into a single one? I’m also curious as to how heavily its inclusion of the material from the long ending of Mark figured in scholars’ tentative dating of the work … There are some great resources regarding this by Izydorczyk on the ‘net, I’ll check out those too.
Yes, he’s the leading manuscript person on the text in the world, without a peer. What is usually thought is that the first sixteen chapters, dealing with Jesus trial and death and resurrection, were in circulation, and then the account of the Harrowing of Hell was added later to supplement the original
Are there any seams that indicate, as you say, “it may be that different portions of this work came into existence at different times.” Also, I’m guessing there might be a number of reasons why, considering its popularity, it was not made canonical: not early enough, not apostolic, too anti-Jewish. Is there any meat there?
Yes, the first 16 chapters probably circulated first, then the Harrowing of Hell was added on as a later supplement. By the time it was floating around, most everyone agreed already on the canon.
Who was Nicodemus? Was he in the original Gospels or is he a later construction?
He’s the figure famous from John 3, to whom Jesus said “you must be born again.” There is no earlier or contemporary evidence that he existed.
So Nicodemus was a Pharisee? Why would a Pharisee have a Greek name?
I’m not sure — never thought about it. But what about Pharisees in particular would prevent them from having a Greek name? Paul had a Greek name, e.g.. And in the NT, Peter is called Peter, not Cephas. I suppose the fact that the NT is in Greek means that names are typically given their Greek equivalents.
Since the Gospels, especially the 4th, have many areas of divergence but all share essentially the same Passion narrative, and even Paul’s limited writing about Jesus centers on the Passion, I tend to think the Passion narrative may have been the first written account of Jesus, with the teachings and miracle stories developing and being added in later. But I suppose it could have just been the primary oral account of Jesus. I think I know your answer, but in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul is recounting the Passion he says, that “Christ died for our sins according to the WRITINGS [Scriptures], and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the WRITINGS [Scriptures,]” I know that the word is typically translated “Scriptures” rather than the more literal “writings” but is there any chance Paul was actually referring to a written account of the Passion rather than to OT prophecies? (especially since the OT doesn’t mention the Christ dying or being raised on the 3rd day?)
Yeah, intersting idea. But almost certainly not. Paul uses the term of Scripture itself, and he certainly thought the death and resurreciton of jesus were predicted there (as he indicates elsewhere)
Hi, Bart.
What kind of bible software do you use? Could you suggest one?
I’m not satisfied with eSword and have a plan to buy BibleWorks, but sadly the company behind BibleWorks (https://www.bibleworks.com/) is out of business now.
I’m afraid I don’t use any. Logos is supposed to be good.
You have mentioned the “heresy hunter, Epiphanius.” In what way was he a heresy hunter, please? Did he just debate with others in order to counter their positions or did he seek out the heretics to destroy them in the way the Inquisition did?
He wrote an 80-chapter book called the Panarion (“The Medicine Chest”) that described 80 different heresies, summarized their views, and attacked them, with malice aforethought.
Dr. Erhman,
With your recent book about the development of the concept of hell, was the concept of hell shaped by Paul’s perspective of the need for atonement? I mean that i can see how jesus’ ressurection/ divination would lead disciples to see him as a messiah/prophet/king but Savior? Wouldn’t that have come later with the development of hell? Additionally, is the idea of atonement, that Jesus died for our sins, present in the pre-Pauline traditions or is it introduced by Paul in his ruminations about why Jesus needed to be hung on a tree?
Thanks in advance
Steve
No, I don’t think so. I argue in the book that Paul started thinking about a reward immedaitely after death, instead of at the resurrection, when he began to realize he might die before the end came.
I guess I’m trying to ascertain if it is possible to tease out when the concept of redemption from sin was first assigned to Jesus in his role of messiah, which role is so multifaceted, from your other writings could have been many things: a political redemption (redeeming Israel/nation as a king), a religious redemption (redeeming/restoring Israel as a lawgiver/prophet/Moses) or redeeming Israel by offering a perfect sacrifice as a Priest. Is it possible to see any development of these ideas? To see which came first?
My sense is that the earliest followers of Jesus during his life already wondered if he might be the messiah (in the political sense, the typical understadning. When he died, they realized not. When they came to believe he had been raised, they began to think he was a messiah in a difference sense than they had thought, as one who died for sins and was coming back to rule. That led him to be considered a “Savior Messiah” in a range of ways.
Prof. Ehrman,
Tertullian refers twice to a report made by Pilate to Tiberius. According to him, the Emperor was so moved by the report of the miracles and the resurrection, that he proposed the reception of Christ among the Roman gods. But the Senate refused (Apologeticum 5). In another place Tertullian says that the ‘whole story of Christ was reported to Caesar—at that time it was Tiberius—by Pilate, himself in his secret heart already a Christian’ (Apol. 21, 24).
What is your opinion? Is it an authentic report, which was later lost? Or later destroyed by the Romans, when Christianity begin to spread? Or an apocryphal text, floating among the early Christians? Or Tertullian is just lying us/fantasizing?
I’m afraid it’s completely bogus. But also completely interesting. If you’re interested, I”ve translated all the legendary materials related to Pilate and the emperor in my collection The Other Gospels.