Loading...Many people who think about how the Gospels circulated in early Christianity have a pretty simple — or rather, overly simplified (in my view) — understanding of how it all worked. I include among those “many people” a number of Gospel experts. In fact, including a lot of the top experts. The issue is this: what earlier accounts of the life, sayings, deeds, death, and resurrection were in circulation and used in the production of later accounts (say at the end of the first and into the second century). I’ll talk about it here with reference to Papyrus Egerton 2, about which I’ve only said a few things.
Scholars have traditionally thought of the four canonical Gospels as THE Gospels that were available, so that when a new Gospel like the Unknown Gospel in Papyrus Egerton 2 appeared the question always was: WHICH of the canonical Gospels was the author familiar with (and which did he use). I challenged that view in my earlier post. We shouldn’t think that there were basically FOUR, and everything else was dependent more or less on the four. There were lots floating around all at the same time. The four became THE four only by the end of the second century at the earliest.
But I’m still wrestling with how to imagine the situation at the end of the first and beginning of the second century. For some years now I’ve imagined two scenarios, and I’m not sure which is better.
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!
Perhaps this is off-topic, but did Jews of Jesus’ time generally believe that the messiah would overthrow Roman power? Did they generally believe that the messiah had to be killed? Did the author of Mark believe that he had to be killed? How could these two beliefs co-exist? Aren’t they incompatible?
I should repost on this, but there were various views of who the messiah would be — a warrior king? a mighty priest? a cosmic judge? — but in every case he was a figure of grandeur and power, not someone who would be killed. Mark claims he did have to be killed. If you wat to see a full explanation, check out my online course on Mark.
Prof. Ehrman,
You’ve mentioned the many Jesuses of the Gospels and that’s how we get “Capitalist Jesus,” “Marxist Jesus,” “Environmental Jesus,” or whatever. I believe in one of your books (or it might have been the podcast recently) you reference how “Jesus” is a product of the reader’s times, what was going on during the reader’s life, prevailing issues of the day, etc. Do you think this first scenario you describe here of the Gospels being “malleable” – or at the very least more malleable than the versions we have in the Bible – supports this idea? And if so, what does that mean, historically and theologically, as far as knowing the actual words of Jesus?
Regards,
Anthony
Yup, the malleability of the Gospels helps demonstrate the point, and historically that makes it very difficult indeed to know what Jesus said and did. I give a full explanatoin of the problem in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Fascinating that in this first scenario you propose, the historic purpose precedes divine canonization. Therefore ,the very many existing accounts, all of which could have been seen as truthful and divinely revealed,were mostly demoted, and only a minimal amount of very similar accounts ,were chosen as divine by named humans.
Is it as intriguing as I see it or was this process always the case,the common order of things? For example, was the Pentateuch also first written as history,as the remembered annals of the people and canonized much later ( as divine revelation to Moses)?
Yup, the recognition that a work was “divinely inspired” almost always follows its composition and circulation for other purposes. (Hebrew Bible and New Testament both)
Dr Ehrman,
How likely is it that stories were appropriated from pagan religions by the gospel writers in the early years?
Lots of the Gospel stories reflect Greek and Roman tales of both mythical and historical figures.
(Unrelated question for Dr. Ehrman) Given the counter-cultural identity developed throughout New Testament, and the frequent subversion of (what the texts presume to be) popularly held interpretations of imagery, iconography and social structures; could an over emphasis on the new testaments syncretistic traits overlook the rhetorical use of Hellenistic/Latin theurgical/theological beliefs? There seems to be so many overt parallels between the representation of Genius of familia as in the imperial cult and The Holy Spirit of the New Testament that I was wondering if you were aware of any scholarship or discussions on how the parallels emphasize the distinctions between the counter-cultural identity developed in the texts against narratively framed mainstream institutions such as the Imperial Cult, Roman Religio, the temple cult in Jerusalem, and synagogue .
I’m finding it hard to answer the question in the abstract — it would depend on what aspects of counter-cultural identity and which subversions and syncretistic traits and theurgical/theological beliefs you have in mind. I don’t know of any scholarhip offhand that draws out the connectoin with family “geniuses” and imperial cult with the Holy Spirit.
I want to know how the guy who invented John got it to be so famous so quickly. For whatever reasons christians figured out they wanted to pick some and emphasize those.
I’m not sure how famous he became, since we don’t know who he was….
no doubt who it was in specific was a mystery but his work seems to have gained pretty quick and widespread acceptance. perhaps the reason is that it got Jesus to spell out what the churches in general had adopted? that Jesus was God incarnate in the flesh.
Who published the Gospels may be as important? Copies were expensive to make and ship, whether underground or the business of selling to libraries across the known world. One or two publishers and fakes making expanded second editions and competing with the Pauline presses. Celsus gives us one view.
Publishing in the ancient world was very different today: there wasn’t any mass productoin or sales to libraries. A book was “published” as soon as it was given to someone else and then copied….
This reminds me of you recently writing that the authors of Matthew and Luke did not view the Gospel of Mark as being the inerrant, perfect Word of God are they would not have added stuff to Mark. And if these authors did not see it that way, then why should we see it that way? I found this to be a very good argument and appreciate it a lot.
re: Scenario One
Many of early (pre-200 CE) Christian written works read more like a bishop’s sermon transcript (or sermon template) than a ‘revised’ gospel offering. With a mostly de-centralized model of oral and written transmission, there are many possibilities for ‘non-authoritative’ (but local-Bishop-approved) statements. Except for a few instances, we don’t seem to know who had which copies of what gospel or who had retained which sets of oral-traditions before writing their sermon/gospel. Historically, it seems that usage of OT material was creatively used to drive home points, so it seems logical that, if interpretations were made from a non-authoritative sources, a Bishop’s customized (locally authoritative) teaching would be accepted (until the inevitable heresy spitballs start brewing.) Using this scenario, we can see that these teaching liberties became progressively more problematic moving towards the 4th century. Did the writer of John’s gospel truly consider his writing to be ‘authoritative’?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “authoritative.” My sense is that all the early Christian writers thought their writings were true
and correct, and needed to be accepted as such.
Does the Greek word that was translated as “many” in Luke have a deeper use? That is, in use does it often imply several, dozens, a large amount, etc.?
It’s the simple Greek word for “many” POLLOI, which has come into English when we use the phrase HOI POLLOI (the masses of people). It generally means something like “lots of…”
Dr Ehrman,
Off topic, but posting since I may be the only subscriber also listening to Lord of Spirits podcast on Orthodox Christian Ancient Faith Radio, hosted by Fathers Andrew Stephen Damick and Stephen De Young. The latter holds a doctorate in biblical studies from Amridge University. He also occasionally refers to you as “friend of the show Bart Ehrman…” The episodes are long and I’m behind, but in the August 10, 2023 episode, “His Glorious Appearing”,
https://ancientfaithministries.page.link/ieWcD3ytG9cdCYsg9 about the 2nd Coming, at 88 min., the hosts take issues with your “less than nuanced” arguments regarding the Son of Man, and actually ask you to call into the show some day to discuss the matter. So https://www.ancientfaith.com/radio: 2nd and 4th Thursdays 7p ET: 855-237-2346. Ignore or take note as you wish!
Well, I’ve had scholars often disagree with my views on the Son of Man, but I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone describe them as unnuanced. They usually say they are overly nuanced!
Follow up: I acknowledge that the Lord of Spirits hosts seem to know their stuff, but I also find their smugness a bit annoying.
I”m afraid I’m not familiar with Amridge University.
Finally in a place where I can reply. Had never heard of Amridge either. Did a brief check online, so FYI from their website: “Amridge University Online is a Private, Non-profit Christian Distance Learning University, offering Undergraduate, Graduate, and Doctoral Degree Programs 100% online to accommodate the schedule of working adults. Accredited by SACSCOC [Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges].” Amridge is located in Montgomery, AL. So, accredited, I guess, but not exactly Princeton …
Interesting. But giving doctorates online? All right then. I wonder what it entails.
The deeper reason for my query is this:
We consider Josephus,for example,as a historian.No one can say that he wrote “Gospels”.Josephus is trusted as having written facts, events that “truly” happened. Josephus is also put to the test at times,but whatever disagreement may be found in his interpretation of those allegedly historic facts does not throw the confidence in him off balance.
We don’t demand that every fact Josephus tells be proven by archaeology,for example.
Yet many demand such “imprescindible” archeological proof for just about everything the HB tells,thus ignoring the mountain of other types of evidence and rejecting the core of the Jewish People’s history,nationhood and religion.
Similarly,and far from the way we approach “canonized” historians like Josephus,we seem to be extremely suspicious of the historic value of the Gospels.We tread through them with the a priori notion that these are basically religious texts,biased by faith, agendas,apologetics and imaginative storytelling.
So the question is:
how are such large amounts of the Gospels’ testimony *not* history?What is the key difference between Josephus (and others)and most of the Gospels?Apart from clearly metaphysical claims-things one could never rationally accept-and once we apply the strictest probability or likelihood yardstick,what is the reason the Gospels are still *not History*,whilst Josephus is?
Josephus, of course, is highly biased in his reporting and so is taken with a grain of salt in many of his accounts. The problems are especially evident when you compare what he says about an event in the Jew Wars with what he says about the same event in Antiquities. A large part of the problem is that he is writing Jewish history to explain things for Romans and that affects how he tells things. There is considerable scholarshipo on Josephus that tries to evaluate his biases and accuracy.
Writing cements all sorts of things that are true and later taken as fact but that are, in fact, infused with the intelligence level, gender, and opinion of the writer. Truth in these circumstances are anything but truth at all. Most of the “facts” about the Christian religion were by men who weren’t even contemporaries of Jesus. They didn’t even know him and they turned his beautiful egalitarian ideas into hell on earth for many. I wonder everyday what Jesus actually thinks.
Something I have thought/wondered seriously about for some time – is it possible that “the disciple Jesus loved” mentioned in John is Mary Magdalene rather than John (as many assume), or another male disciple and that the writer of the gospel altered the context so as not to show Jesus’ involvement in an earthly romantic relationship, which would change the image of Jesus the writer wanted to create? (I don’t know about marriage – I know you don’t believe Jesus was married, even though it would have been unusual in those times for a young man not to be. We are told that at least Peter was married (reference to his mother-in-law) and women accompanied Jesus and the disciples. Were these wives/girlfriends/???)
Yes, that is sometimes proposed. It seems unlike to have been Mary since the disciple is always referred to with a masculine pronoun and is said to have been Mary’s son in the crucifixion scene. Others have proposed Lazarus and … others. The most common explanations are that it’s to be thoght of as John the son of Zebedee, some other known disciple (unnamed), or a fictional character invented by the author as the ideal disciple.