Here is the second of three posts on my first book-length study — my dissertation on a particular aspect of how we can determine what the original words of the New Testament were and how they came to be changed over time. The dissertation was directed by Bruce Metzger, and it dealt more directly with the rather technical issue of the Gospel quotations of the fourth-century church father Didymus the Blind.
When I first started thinking about how to write up this second post, I remembered one of my clearest pieces of advice that I ever gave to myself, many years ago now, based, already then, on substantial experience. Never , ever, EVER ask a graduate student what s/he is writing the dissertation on. They invariably will tell you, and it will take a half hour, and your eyes will glaze over in 30 seconds. So just don’t do it. With that principle in mind, I think I had better not go into all the ins and outs of the dissertation. I’ll just go into some of them. 🙂
Ahh, Misquoting Jesus. That was the book that got me hooked on you. It’s still on my shelves.
I was reading an on-line article on John Bahcall yesterday. He was a renown astrophysicist born in Shreveport in 1934. I mention that as I am five years younger and grew up there. He started out at LSU and transferred to Cal-Berkely, where he discovered physics. The article said he was the national debate champ, which reminded me of you. He never received a Nobel, but a colleague did. He deserved one. A truly great scientist and a good man.
BTW, this week’s Misquoting Jesus was tremendously interesting to me. Keep up the good work! I look forward to it every Tuesday.
Have you revised your conclusions about the subject since you initially finished your degree and published the book? Have you continued to study the subject, or perhaps engaged in any scholarly debate that encouraged you to reexamine the work, or alter your conclusions? I am considering purchasing the book and I just wondered if your conclusions then are still valid in your view.
Are you talking about my first book Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels? No, I haven’t continued working in that area; in fact I haven’t even worked with Greek manuscripts at a hard-core systematical level more broadly for over thirty years. My book Misquoting Jesus, though, is one I’ve thought about, talked about, and written about perennially, and I completely stand by that one.
Yes, sorry I was not specific, I did mean the work on Didymus the Blind from your thesis. I am interested in the scholarly process in the sort of detail that you describe here and would have written about and used in that study. I asked the question because I am interested to know if the publication generated any scholarly debate for you back in the day or since. I like how you are always pretty objective in describing scholarly positions that differ from your own. I thought maybe there had been some of that back and forth on the Didymus book.
If you don’t read Greek it wouldn’t be of much use. The methods I developed were used by subsequent scholars working on Patristic citatoins of the NT, but now the field has moved on to other approaches and has developed other interests. I think that’s too bad, but dinosaurs always do….
Thank you Dr Ehrman. This is a fascinating post. I think you should write a popular book based on your original Didymus (scholarly) work. I’d buy a copy (but then I buy all your popular books 🙂). On a more serious note, would computers/AI make it much easier now to do the laborious research work you had to do, eg. cross referencing Didymus’s Gospel quotes?
I can’t BEGIN to tell you how much easier it would be. I had to do all the numerical calculations — thousands of them — more or less by hand, without spreadsheets. Incredibly painstaking. AI — it’s nowhere near ready for that kind of thing. But at the rate it’s being developedm maybe next thursday….
Hi bart
Some cristians say that daniel 9 predicts the death of jesus but even if you take the starting date of the 490 year 444 bce it still does not add up. What do you think how does it influence the hile ressurecrion story?
Christians who use aniel (not just ch. 9) for this kind of purpose always have to play with the numbers rather seriously; but whoever gives you the calculatoin usually explains their rationale. As they’ve been doing for a couple hundred years.
Hi why do you think we have found so few artifqcts of yahweh (i think only one picture survived.
It was against Torah to make an image of him. (It’s in the Ten commandments, as you will sson see by visiting the Lousisiana classroom nearest you!)
How difficult is it to date the Septuagint. Hebrew to Greek, the date seems elusive.
The way to do it is to see when Greek-speaking Jewish authors appear to be familiar with a Greek translation of the OT. It must be sometime in the second c. BCE. But part of the bigger problem is that there was not *a* Septuagint. There were lots of Greek translations in veraious times and places that eventually came to be more or less standardized.
It’s easy to make generalizations. It’s harder to delve deep into the weeds. It’s harder still to come up with actually useful and valid generalizations based on all that weeds work. I know how to make generalizations. I have some experience with the weeds. But that third part is pretty much beyond my ADHD addled and now aging mind. Thanks again for doing what you do!
Dr Ehrman, apocalypse of Peter and apocalypse of paul both portray hell as run by angels measuring our gods justice. When did the change happen to the current popular image of hell being run by devils and Satan rather than by agents of god? Would there be any support for that current view in the biblical material?
These “angels” eventually came to be seen as “bad angels,” that is, demons You find the “Devil” ad his henchmen responsible for torments in hell by the time of the Descent into Hades narrative of the Gospel of Nicodemus, possibly 6th c. I’m not sure when the idea i first kicked in though. (The Apocalypse of Paul is getting his info rom the ApocPeter, with additional traditions. )
Altruism is a nessasary component of our evolutionary heritage, we need to cooperate if we expect to survive. I can’t see how what Jesus said would have had any impact on it other then to remind people of the importance of working together.
I’ll be trying to show that altruism toward *strangers* is precisely not in our evolutionary heritage — only altruism to those close to us. That can be seen, among other things, most clearly in the study of our close primate relatives.
Professor, you noted “people who have PhD’s get frustrated with people who want to claim to be “experts” in a field….”
I would like to hear your view on authors like Charles Mann (1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus) who are careful Journalist reporting on others work (with citations ad nauseum) popularizing conclusions lay readers are otherwise unaware of… such as the possibility pre Columbian American civilization populations reached 100 million only to be virtually wiped out by European diseases.
Thanx in advance
I certainly think non-experts can summarize and explain the work of experts, and if they do so accurately they are doing all of us a real service.
I would say that for literalist Christians who view the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Gospels (and in particular the Book of Revelation( as purely historical/futuristical records, textual criticism is incredibly valuable, but often or at least potentially provocative.
Personally, I do not believe that the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Book of Revelation should be read soley as historical, futuristic, or literal texts. In my view, these pre-Descartian literary (NT and the Revelation) works obviously used various techniques to convey their messages in great extant. These include (for the Greeks):
Plasmata: The inclusion of fictional or imagintive elements within a narrative that are presented as real but are understood to be fictional. This technique, known by the Greeks, helped to add depth and engage the audience.
Muthoi: Mythological tales that convey deeper truths or cultural values through fantastical narratives. These stories were not meant to be taken literally but were designed to impart important moral and cultural lessons.
I suspect or at least are fairlly convinced that these techniques (perhaps even some paralell stories, symbols) were likely used in Jewish literature even before the conceptualization of the Pardes system, which outlines different levels of understanding a text: Peshat (literal), Remez (allegorical), Derash (comparative), and Sod (mystical).
Personally, by recognizing these methods, we can appreciate the rich, multi-layered nature of these ancient texts and their capacity to convey complex messages through a blend of history, fiction, and myth.
Hi Bart. In chapter 8 of heaven and hell, you mention that Jesus subscribed to apocalyptic view: “He taught that the Day of Judgment was soon to come, when God would destroy all that is evil and raise the dead”.
Then Jesus says that God is one that can annihilate both soul and body. What makes me confused is how this notion is in contrast to what Jews believed(you say that they are in contrast), because jews believed in resurrection, as you say, Jesus also believed in resurrection, so to me, it seems to me that logic is broken here, this is because just because god can annihilate body and soul, that doesn’t mean this is not a resurrection view of jews, because jews also believed that wicked people mightn’t have been brought back to life(or if yes, they would be destructed anyways), so Jesus’s words(matthew 10:28) still seems to be aligning well with jews’s resurrection view, why do you say they are in contrast ?
I’m not sure I understand your question, but yes, I do think Jesus agreed with the doctrine of the resurrection AND that he thought God could destroy body and soul. He was to do that at the resurrection, for those who were not on his side.
In chapter 8, you say that jesus believed in resurrection/apocalyptic view(which I agree as well). Then in chapter 8, on page 159, you say that this view is in contrast to what jesus believed. Here is your words: “This stands in contrast to those Jews who could expect a future resurrection.”. I am asking why you see that these 2 views are in constrast, because my logic is that jews also believed a future resurrection, and also jesus believed as well, so they don’t seem in contrast at all to me.
sorry I’m not sure what the “This” in the quotation refers to. I’m onthe road and don’t have the book to refer to.
Hi, Bart,
How do you respond to people saying that Jesus died on April 3rd and that NASA proves the supernatural element that on that day there was an eclipse (the darkness)?
It’s completely bogus.
Hi Bart. Reading your amazing book – heaven and hell. It’s easy to confirm that Jesus subscribed to apocalyptic view, though this view shouldn’t mean on its own that Jesus also believed in resurrection, but it’s still easy to confirm that he did really believe that. See Luke 14:14, John 5:28, Mark 12:18. What
I am wondering is in today’s world, people(even highly educated ones) read the bible and still doesn’t believe in apocalyptic/resurrection view – how can you read the bible(especially those chapters I mentioned) and still not believe that on judgement day, resurrection wouldn’t happen and in contrast, our souls would immediatelly go to heaven/hell ? I am asking this because maybe those people that don’t subscribe to apocalyptic view and still say that they’re christians, maybe they see something in the book that I don’t see ?
What arguments do they have not to adhere to apocalyptic/resurrection view and still go for heaven/hell/soul idea ? Why do these people say that they are christians and believe completely different thing than what Jesus said ? Are they actually interpreting those chapters differently(not a resurrection, but souls going into hell/heaven) and if so, how ? Thank you.
Are you asking about my personal beliefs? I don’t believe in the resurrection OR in heaven and hell. And the vast majority of Christians assume that Jesus DID talk about heaven and hell. My point is that they are wrong about that.
Hi Bart. I know your personal beliefs, have been following you for a long time. What I am asking you is that by reading Jesus’s words – especially Luke 14:14, John 5:28, Mark 12:18 chapters, one can easily see that Jesus believed in apocalyptic/resurrection view. I am curious what you think about how these people miss this chapters and still go with heaven/hell interpretation ? Jesus clearly says in these chapters that he believes in resurrection/apocalyptic, how can people interpret them as heaven/hell ? I just don’t get it and wanted to hear your opinion why they miss this detail. It’s so interesting.
Amost everyone who assumes that a text will say a certain thing will either skip over the parts that say something else or interpret them in light of what they are already assuming. The classic case of this I alwyas is Mark 4:11-12. I ask my students to read it and explain it, and they ALWAYS say it shows that Jesus told parables to make his teachings easier to understand and accept. Normally they have to read it 3-4 times before someone will say, Wait a second, it’s saying that he told parables so they would NOT understand them.
Hi Bart,
I am rather new to this blog and found most of it’s content very interesting. I appreciate your work here.
Recently I have been reading resurrection accounts in our 4 gospels. The contradictions in it, I trust that you know all about all those contradictions. However, when I listed all different accounts of empty tombs, I found something rather interesting. I found that in Matthew, women arrived at tomb and find an angle, the angle roll away the stone and the tomb was already empty, while in all other accounts, women just find the tomb and the the stone has already moved away when they found it. Is it Matthew suggesting that the resurrection is not bodily, since Jesus left the tomb without open the tomb?
I also noticed that in all other accounts, they have the disciples touch Jesus to make sure he has a body.In Matthew we have none of that, Jesus simply talked to disciples. The only indication that Jesus has a bodily resurrection in Matthew is when he revealed to women at the tomb and women “clasped his feet” . Is my observation in anyway true?
Yes, those are among the contradictions There are more! And more differences that aren’t actually at odds with each other. But I don’t tihnk Matthew is indicating a non-physical resurrection, since that would not require the stone to be rolled away at all!
It amazes me when scholars are discussing the Resurrection and the disappearance of Jesus’s body from the tomb, that no one seems to bring up the distinct possibility that his family or his followers, wanting to keep his beloved body, pushed back the stone and took it – maybe back to Nazareth – to be buried at home, the way that most families did and still do. Why is that?
There have been scholars since the 18th century who have suggested the disciples stole the body from the tomb — it was the theory of the very first critical study of the historical Jesus (by Hermann Samuel Reimarus in teh 1770’s). His family is normally not invoked because the Gospels indicate in several places that his brothers did not believe in him.
What do you make of the Virgin Birth Narrative of Amenhotep 111, the Egyptian Pharoah, on the walls of the Luxor Temple, created to certify his Divinity? Is it a precursor to the Birth Narrative of Jesus thousands of years later?
You’ll need to remind me what it says. Does it say that his mother conceived without ever having sex with a human or a God? The precise wording is very important in a case like this.
In the temple of Amun at the site of Luxor appears a series of scenes depicting the divine birth of the king/pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty. The first scene shows the God Taht (Thoth) hailing the Virgin Queen, Mut-em-ua, and announcing to her that she is to give birth to the coming Son (Amenhotep III).
Kneph (“the Egyptian Holy Spirit”) descends and impregnates the virgin by holding the “ankh”, symbol of life, to her head, mouth, nostrils. Her belly is now swollen and enlarged with the life from God. The virgin is pictured as conceiving through the Spirit.
In the next scene the mother is seated on the midwife’s stool, and the child is supported by the hands of one of the nurses. We find that the mother, Queen Mut-em-ua, the future mother of Amenhotep III, is seated on the mid-wife’s stool, and the newborn child is supported in the hands of one of the nurses.
The fourth scene is that of the Adoration. Here the child is enthroned and adored by Amun, the hidden Holy Spirit behind all creation, and three men who give gifts with the right hand and eternal life with the left hands (holding again Ankhs).
Previous comment is in response to your request for the wording of the birth narratives on the Temple of Luxor.
See previous comment regarding Temple at Luxor birth narrative.
Hello Bart,
Are my replies not going through?
I don’t know. I answer everything I get, but I can only do so 2-4 days of the week. I keep asking the powers of the universe to grant us all more time, but for some reason I’m not getting a response either….
Good, I thought there was computer glitch. Answering your request:
In the temple of Amun at the site of Luxor appears a series of scenes depicting the divine birth of the king/pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty. The first scene shows the God Taht (Thoth) hailing the Virgin Queen, Mut-em-ua, and announcing to her that she is to give birth to the coming Son (Amenhotep III).
Kneph (“the Egyptian Holy Spirit”) descends and impregnates the virgin by holding the “ankh”, symbol of life, to her head, mouth, nostrils. Her belly is now swollen and enlarged with the life from God. The virgin is pictured as conceiving through the Spirit.
In the next scene we find that the mother, Queen Mut-em-ua, the mother of Amenhotep III, is seated on the mid-wife’s stool, and the newborn child is supported in the hands of one of the nurses.
The fourth scene is that of the Adoration. Here the child is enthroned and adored by Amun, the hidden Holy Spirit behind all creation, and three men who give gifts with the right hand and eternal life with the left hands (holding again Ankhs).