Loading...In my previous post I showed why the vocabulary of the Pastoral epistles and the kinds of problems they address suggest that they were written after Paul’s time, by a follower who was using his name. As I indicated there, of particular importance for establishing they do not come directly from Paul is the way in which “false teachings” are attacked in the Pastorals, for the author’s basic orientation appears to be very much like what we find developing in second-century proto-orthodox circles.
In some ways, to understand this different orientation we have to think about how it is that one kind of Christianity came to be dominant within the rising religion. Christianity of the second and third centuries (long after Paul) was widely diversified, with all sorts of teachers teaching all sorts of things (with numerous questions unresolved: how many gods are there? Was Christ human? Divine? Both somehow? How? What books are Scriptural authority? How should the church be organized? Etc. etc.). But out of that wild diversity one Christian movement of the early ended up becoming dominant. How did it happen that from all the variety that we have seen within early Christianity, only one form of Christianity emerged, from which the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches of today all derive?
The story is far too long to narrate in full here, interesting as it is. For our purposes, it is enough to indicate that the group that I’ve called the proto-orthodox was successful in countering the claims of other groups, and therefore in attracting more converts to its own perspectives, by forming a unified front that claimed a threefold authorization for its understanding of the religion.
Excerpted from my textbook on the New Testament:
This unified front involved (a) developing a rigorous administrative hierarchy that protected and conveyed the truth of the religion (eventuating, e.g., in the papacy), (b) insisting that all true Christians profess a set body of doctrines promoted by these leaders (the Christian creeds), and (c) appealing to a set of authoritative books of Scripture as bearers of these inspired doctrinal truths (the “New” Testament; see chapter 1). Or, to put the matter in its simplest and most alliterative terms, the proto-orthodox won these conflicts by insisting on the validity of the clergy, the creed, and the canon.
These forms of authorization were not in place during Paul’s day. They are in the process of development, however, in the Pastoral epistles. That shows these books are probably from after his time. We look at them now in turn.
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!
Thanks for the Greek lessons. I’m red-headed. What would red-headed stepchild be in Greek?
This was really interesting and informative as was last night’s video. I have ordered Dr. Frederiksen’s book.
Ha! I’m afraid I’m not able to give a translation for you!
Hi Bart, I have a question about the SBL study bible. It is a thoroughly revised edition of the Harpercollins study bible with the nrsvue. It is updated with with the latest scholarship and findings. Have you looked at it and if so , what is your opinion?
I’ve looked at it but not carefully. I have a rather churlish reason. The pages are so crazily thin that I refuse to buy it until they make a decent edition of it. 🙂 That’s bad, huh?
Dr. Ehrman, I must apologize up front for asking an off topic and probably stupid question. As you may know, I had little interest in the Bible or the serious study of Christianity until I read your excellent book Jesus Interrupted. That was several years ago, and I thought I had grasped the basics by now. But today I am gob-smacked by what I just discovered online in numerous places:
“In the original Greek of the Gospel of Mark, the resurrection of Jesus is described as occurring early on the first Sabbath, not the first day of the week (Sunday) as is commonly translated. The Greek text uses the phrase “πρωι πρωτη σαββατου” (prōi prōtē sabbatou), which translates literally to “early, first of the sabbaths” or “early on the first Sabbath”.
So, I have to ask, does the gospel of Mark, in the original Greek, have Jesus resurrected on a sabbath day (and so a Sunday resurrection is a mistranslation)?
Yes, it’s a Sunday morning in Mark. The word “sabbath” in the NT can mean not only the 7th day of the week but the word “week” itself. In this case it means “early on the first day of the week”
It’s easy to be gob-smacked by what people say on the Internet.
How are the pastorals “far removed from what we find in the letters of Paul, but closely aligned with what we find in proto-orthodox authors of the second century” if phillipians already talks about bishops and decans? What is the difference to tertullian and irenaus?
Good questoin. Philippians doesn’t actually talk about bishops and deacons: it mentions them (i.e. uses the words) but doesn’t say what they are or what they do. The situation is clearly different from the Pastorals where there are functions and requirements for a church hierarchical structure, much more like what you find in Ignatius around 110, in rather serious contrast with Paul in the 60s. This can be seen in a number of ways. In the church of Philippi there appear to be a number of “overseers,” that is, people who are looking out for the congregation. The term “overseer” is usually translated “bishop” — but here it is not referred to as an “office.” It’s some kind of groyup — but we’re not told what they do or who they are. In the Pastorals, by contrast, as in Ignatius, a church has one single bishop, not a group, and it is a definite office. This is “the” leader of the church. In Philippians Paul does not tell “the bishop” to get his people in order; the entire church is addressed to deal with its problems (just as in Corinth, Thessalonica, etc.); there’s no one there to appeal to as the solitary leader. So the “overseers” and “ministers” (that’s the word translated “deacons” — somewhagt misleadingly since it simply refers to people who help out others in the church) in Philippi may be the beginnings of church offices; but they don’t seem at all like what we eventually get some years later starting with the Pastorals and then heading to Ignatius.
Is there any evidence of any reply or response to any of Paul’s letters?
There was no official decision made by a major council until Trent in the 16th century. There were small regional synods that approved of the 27, including especially the Synod of Hippo in 393, but their views / decisions were not binding on the entire church, just their region.
“What happens, however, when everyone feels Spirit-led but not everyone agrees on where the Spirit leads?
I know for a fact, the HS never answered my prayers or led me. In fact 1988, Billy Graham on Larry King was wishing for thAT PROMISE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMUhnCJln1A
last decade my sister asked me of the HS: & I responded: usually what you hear from the Preacher.
20 some years ago, I felt some strange never felt before demon leaving my face while in deep prayer. Was that the exorcist?
in Seattle at a Christmas 1986 at a Maranatha [Campus ministry] weekend, truly we all witnessed “exorcisms” or convulsions; oddly I was the only attendee who the 3 prophets didn’t prophesies over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maranatha_Campus_Ministries
BTW I never got it right speaking in tongues despite 20 years of practice.
If so then I doubt my life turns for the worst & there would be the 2nd coming!