Loading...Among the interesting questions I’ve received recently from blog readers, two strike me as especially key for understanding how scholars make the claims they do; one of the questions challenges whether I have grounds to make one of the claims I do! Good questions. Some grounds (say, of coffee) are better than others. Here are the questions and my responses.
******************************
QUESTION
What is the process to assign a year to a text? For example, when you say that the earliest text of Matthew that we still have comes from 375 CE where do you get that date? Do the authors of the texts write the year? Thanks!
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!
On Luke 17:21, I note that in the many English translations at https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke%2017%3A21 , there’s no clear winner among “inside”, “within”, “among”, “in the midst of” etc.
Even though I don’t know Greek, I always suspected that “within” here really meant something like “among,” exactly for the reason you give: the object of the preposition is plural: “you.” (One thing I do like about the King James Version is that you can tell at a glance whether a given second person pronoun is singular or plural.)
Like the South, where I live, y’all….
Although only slightly related, I have often wondered how to die on Friday and rise on Sunday could ever be counted as 3 days. I realize the Jewish days end at sundown. Matthew, Mark and Luke place the death at the 6th hour. John states the sentencing by Pilate at the 6th hour with the crucifixion to follow and not necessarily on Friday. The women visited the tomb early morning on Sunday, the day after the Sabbath, with one day in between.
1. What is the significance of the 6th hour. How is that 3 days? It looks like 2 days.
2. I realize the prophesy was to destroy the temple and raise it up in 3 days. Is this the reason the Jesus is said to arise after 3 days?
We were always told in my student days that “Jews counted any part of a day as a full day,” but I don’t kno that that’s true. It appears that originally followers of Jesus was raised “on the third day” (which would work if he died on a Friday afternoon but arose on a Sunday morning) but that for some reason — maybe because of the connection with Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights — the sayings shifted so that it was “three days” even though the story continued to suggest something more like 36 hours. The prophecy of the temple came into being only after Christians were saying “three days.”
It’s definitely “on the third day” in the Nicene Creed — καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς
Latin: et resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas
English: On the third day He rose again, in fulfillment of the Scriptures.
Even in the much shorter Apostles’ Creed that we learned in my Presbyterian Sunday school, it’s “the third day”:
On the third day, he arose again from the dead.
I questioned this for almost 30 years- this was not 3 nights! or 2 + any more.
. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. https://biblehub.com/matthew/12-40.htm
In drawings Jonah is depicted thrown overboard in the dark & on the beach in the morning facing Ninevah …
Bart’s book “Misquoting Jesus” is for sale on Amazon for $1.99 (the Kindle version).
Over 3,000 reviews with an average rating of 4.5. I think Bart says this is one of his most popular books.
If you don’t already own it, here it is at a great price.
(I have no connection to Bart except that I like to read his work.)
Dr. Ehrman,
Do we need a thin, muscular man dying and dead on a cross as an icon?
He resurrects and does not have an appearance greater than when he was alive–no concert/sermon of 5,000 and one?
What? A resurrected Jesus appears to a paltry 500? 500/5000 = 10% of his draw when he was alive, why not 5,500 or 10,000 with something even greater than The Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes? He resurrected and must have something sermonize. Jesus couldn’t fill a Temple festival or a Temple courtyard which brought tens if not hundreds of thousands to the Temple.
Did we learn about Early Christianity that Jewish Apocalypticism failed and we do not need another faith to give Christianity a nod?
The only thing Christianity really accomplished was making agape love higher than eros? You have left me with the conclusion that Jesus and Early Christianity did not promise us an afterlife of heaven. Basically, you’re saying, if you think Jesus is saving your soul to heaven, that is an error.
A failed apocalyptic prophet that’s been dragging us on for thousands of years is the goal?
Steefen
Bart wrote:n”So, to interpret the word, you first learn what the word usually means, often means, sometimes means, and occasionally means.”
Along a similar line, Bart has explained how “Jew” is short for Judean, someone from Judea as opposed to a Galilean from Galilee. Could this have had any influence on the birth narratives making Jesus’ birthplace Bethlehem in Judea instead of Nazareth in Galilee, making Jesus technically a Judean, not a Galilean, and therefore a more “proper” Jew?
From my uneducated point of view, among makes less sense than within, even speaking to a group of pharisees. If the kingdom of God is an enlightened state of mind or profound understanding, or a spark of the divine, he would be including all of humanity including the pharisees. What would be the meaning to say it’s not here or there but it is among you?
Really enjoyed that translation explanation – it clarified this example very well in a way that’s accessible to us lay people.
This question I asked and the “grounds” I stand on are still the same today, in that factuality speaking nowhere before the 1850’s can you ever find anywhere the word ἐντός ever being used in any other way than to mean “inside.” Luke 17:21 is a very particular verse that a “general” approach to translation does not adequately serve it”s definition of the proper meaning. The English language that didn’t even exist at the time of Lukes writing does not re-define or change the meaning of passages, nor dose a very popular bible and commentary by John Darby change the meaning of the New Testament either. This is not a theological or religious view. It is a fact, that know-one on this planet who has this view has yet so far been able to demonstrate otherwise, but rather instead use vague, contextual stacking, theological biases that prove nothing as an answer. This is just like the “generation” argument in Matt 24 where all of the sudden generation means something other than just that. I still challenge Prof. Erhman and anyone else to find ANY proof that supports this “midst” view in Luke 17:21.
I’ve already shown that this is not true (entos is used of people who are “within” the walls of a city, as one example, going back to Homer, but that doesn’t mean they are stuck in there with the rocks and mortar). I understand that you don’t think so, and you’ve made your strong case, so I’d suggest we move on to other topics.
I see you have looked into this issue further, and I am glad to receive your view. But this is the first time you have ever shared with ME this or any other example like it pertaining to the word ENTOS. I know you have a-lot of members though. If I would have heard of this earlier I would have taken it into account as (I) though exhaustive research have never found anything definitive to suggest ENTOS had any other meaning to anything external like you are suggesting. This is not a religious or theological view of mine Bart it is a fact based on evidence which is all I care about. And in your reference to (Homer’s Illiad, yes?) I don’t find at all your explanation to be convincing towards your view at all, but rather mine. ENTOS “inside” but you are claiming Luke 17:21 is “in the midst” which is EN MESOS as demonstrated by the author before and after Chapter 17.? Are you saying Homer is referring specifically to the inside of the actual wall, and not inside of the walls of the city as Homer is describing ? Is this a new revelation?
Nope, I mentioned it before. But it don’t signify. If you know Greek, just look it up in Lidell-scott and you’ll see a number of instances more or less like this.
Please provide a date of the article, I would like to read this reply. In the original eighth edition (1901) the Lidell-Scott nowhere mentions ἐντός with any such reference as to “among” or “midst” nothing exterior. So if a later addition of the same publisher has an additional or different description of the word ἐντός, where did it originate from, and why is this translation completely missing from all of it’s previous editions? Which brings us back to my previous question of people that hold this view of ἐντός as being “among” or “in the midst” or anything exterior that is completely void of any explanation or reference as to what work are the citing. So far the only answer to this question is Darby‘s Bible and commentary. It is the only work that can be pointed to for over 1800 years that would explain where this “among” reference in Luke 17:21 came from. There are no manuscripts, commentaries, bibles or works anywhere, in any language that I have found pre-1850’s that would reflect this type of translation. I have asked you, and numerous others to site just one reference to a pre-Darby work, and no-one can.
You’d be amazed how many linguistic views have been established by schgolars that were not around before teh 1830s.
I don’t have a dated list of my reply to comments, but I suppose you could find it by looking it up.
More amazed than a bible scholar and professr of the New Testament that holds a view in the bible that perpetuates a narrative with no real actual evidence that they dare point too, and then touting it as a fact to everyone who asks by giving loose types of substitutive, general facts not specific to the actual topic as an answer, and excuse to reinterpret a passage in the bible, all the while masking the fact that it is actually indeed a part of a made up bible story by some “manipulative nutcase” who is none other than John Darby.
And I keep a record of all your answers since I joined in order to refer to them later if I need too. You have never responded with anything that has, nor have you yourself ever cited any such work to support your view of the word ἐντός meaning and/or been used in a way to describe anything other than “inside.” Which basically encapsulates our whole exchange on this topic of Luke 17:21.
I’ve mentioned HOmer’s “entos” the walls twice. Let’s move on to another topic now.
I did move on to another topic Bart until, you decided to publish this post in the manner that you did. I know what you’re doing, and your reason for posting it, and you knew what you were doing by doing so. You have now officially brought up Homers’s “inside the walls” argument. An argument that so far two Greek Classist’s do not agree at all with you on, in relation to your “exterior” view of the word ἐντός in Luke 17:21. They did however again mention that Homer does here demonstrate how the “in your hearts” statement to a crowd (plural) does not change the meaning of ἐντός from an interior to an exterior one, as you claim is happening in Luke 17:21 and, indeed is something that happens frequently around this period of Greek. So, if you ever have something else to add I am always searching to verify (but still have not found) sufficient support of what you, and many many others who are making this “among” claim of in Luke 17:21, so until then, let’s move on.
‘@Kenneth: I’m an ESL person and, to be honest, I don’t see any too much of a difference if entos were to be translated as “within [y’all]” or “inside you [, my man]”. I’m really curious of why do you think this difference matters so much or what are the implications if it’s one or the other. More blatantly put, why is your cult against this translation and why do you believe Bart is part of a conspiracy of muddying the waters around this word?
I believe that ancient people believed in a sort of a necessary communal practice of the religion and communal salvation… the idea of a rogue lone wolf I believe it’s modern and recent and might be just in Protestantism (Orthodoxy still emphasizes salvation in group). In my opinion, the translation “within you all” was made simply to push the [correct] idea that Jesus was referring to access the “heavenly kingdom” as a group of people, as a society, organized as a Church, and not by yourself, alone and separated of the other members of the club; as it would have been conveyed if it were translated “is within yourself”, implying individualism in salvation.
It matters because it is a difference between the kingdom being a mystical entity resideing inside us or the manifestation of God’s kingdom specifically in the life and ministry of Jesus. Those are very different things.
Bart just said it well. My issue is not “within” or “inside” they are both the same. The issue is the greek word ENTOS and peoples use of it being external instead of internal. Bart takes the position focused on Jesus. The problem with this view is that the passage and word ENTOS does not facilitate this position. Just the word itself and its history of its use is a big problem for someone with this position. Which is the view for most of America, yet the probability of it being possible is almost non existent. Which is why I am so mystified by Barts position on it given the evidence against it. And this all before we even get the John Dardy issue associated with it. It would be nice to have a conversation about it to discuss the issue more in-depth, but the facts are that what we are dealing with here in Luke 17 and Barts, and the others that take on this external view of it is a “literally impossibly” of ENTOS and the rest of the words that construct the sentence, according to the people that I hire (classicists) to conduct research.
I don’t know what kind of people you’re hiring, but I’d suggest you ask them to look up the word in Liddel-Scott-Jones and how it is used going back to Homer.
One of the three is at the uni. of Athens. So I don’t know if they ever consult with such a book given they have their own libraries. Nor do I tell anyone how to do their jobs. I ask them a question, and they give me their answer. When I did ask about “among” (after their answers) the only possibility one gave me, where it (might be possible) is from Arrian, but in homeric, classical and later greek (e.g. Plutarch) ENTOS (the opposite of EKTOS) in every instance is understood in word and the context it’s in, to mean “inside.” Of all the 3 + another (that I don’t pay) have all stated out of the countless usages of ENTOS 99+% of the time it is used to mean “inside.”
I personally feel that the way it is used 8 times in the LXX and 2 times in the NT is evidence enough. I have stated here that before that the Liddell – Scott 8th edition of 1901 has no such reference of what you’re claiming. Its only the recent edition that reflects “it”, BUT it gives no reference to any material that it is sighting.
Look up Homer yourself and see.
‘@c.kennethbauer: I just don’t understand what you are trying to say. I’m curious about this. Can you please translate the verse, not literally, but semantically, how you would translate entos, and then, opposed to it, how you think Bart would’ve translate it? And why do you think Bart translates it as such (what’s his agenda). Explain it to me like I’m a 6 years old. I understand everything what Bart says, but I don’t understand you.
I have a better way to resolve this issue. Why don’t you Bart, demonstrate that the writers of Luke in this chapter and verse (17:21) ever had access to or were even aware of the reference of Homers use of ENTOS that you are claiming. So let’s go back in time 2000 years to this scenario, “ I am the writer of Luke and I’m writing verse 21 of chapter 17 and instead of using a reference from the LXX something we’re all aware of, and common to us. Let’s instead use some subjective vague definition from the work of a Pagan who existed 800 some odd years ago to define what we are trying to convey to other jews and the people living amongst them instead of the LXX. Something everyone knows about and is familiar with. Does that sound like a possible scenario to Bart? Why don’t we start with the LXX. Which of the ENTOS usages out of eight do you think suggests is defining something, anything external, rather than internal? Because this is the type of theory you are going to have to prop-up in order to just begin to make your argument valid.
Luke knew the range of teh meanings of ENTOS because he was a Greek speaker and there was a range of meanings of ENTOS in Greek. THe context is always determinative, as for every word in every language.
Let’s just agree that you don’t believe me and instead of repeating the same argument over and again move on to some other topic.
So you are avoiding presenting any supporting evidence “on the range of meanings” of ἐντὸς from the OT as well that would support your view in Luke 17, for some unverifiable claim about the author of Luke.
It is not that I disagree with your view “on the range of meanings” of ἐντὸς. It is that no-one that I have come across so far who is an expert the field of classical greek and literature spanning from the Archaic period to the Byzantine era that agrees in any way with your opinion on ἐντὸς. All that was said about your view is, “Only someone pushing a theological position would take such a view of this word here.”
And most importantly, I was talking to other blog members (these last two occasions) when you decided to chime into this Luke conversation. So your “move on to another topic” evasion tactic in order to silence me and distract from factual information (from people who are actually qualified to give such an answer) doesn’t work very well. Don’t get upset with me because you choose to take on a theological view containing a word that contradicts the view itself.
Excellent post, on a related note I’ve been pondering the common teachings around divorce and many Christians saying it can only happen if sexual immortality occurs, citing Mark 10. While I completely disagree with that take, it mostly got me thinking on if we are understanding the original Greek term properly, or translating it to English correctly? It appears we have inserted adultery for “moicheia (μοιχεία) ” and from my limited understanding the original Greek seems to insinuate something other than just cheating on your spouse?
Mark 10:11-12 actually says that anyone who divorces his wife and then remarries commits adultry, and if the woman divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery. It is Matthew’s version (19:9) that adds an exceptoin clause, to the first instance: any man that divorces his wife except for adultery and marries another commits adultery. Luke has Mark’s version but when it comes to the woman, she commits adultery simply by divorcing, without getting remarried. The verb MOICHAO does normally mean to commit an act of infidelity by having sex with someone other than your spouse.
A very interesting and informative post, Professor. You covered a lot of ground and did it well.
I really don’t understand why it was a big deal whether woman woe head coverings in church or not. I know when I was old enough to notice things like that in the fifties, they were still doing it. That rule went the way of that proscribing birth control pills.
I suppose for religious and cultural reasons, just as in some Islamic countries today.
Prof. Ehrman,
Does the full text of 1 Cor. 15:1-11 appear legible in the earliest manuscript of 1 Cor.?
Are you asking if the ink is faded? I believe the earliest ms of 1 Cor. is P46 which does have 15:1-11. You could actually look it up on line to check it out!
Hi Bart, If I may, I have a random question. What do you think is the date of the Parables of Enoch?
For example, George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam (2016), 1 Enoch 2, proposed a date between 40 BCE and the early decades of the first century. But some say earlier, and some say later.
I take Nickelsburg and especially VanderKam as canonical authorities! 🙂 I have no independent views of the matter, but I really do trust thier judgment.