Loading...I have recently been asked about how we know we have the originals of the books of the Bible. By that, the questioner meant both how do we know the words we think the authors wrote were actually the words he wrote and how do we know the books we have are in the shape they were when they were written — that is, is it possible chapters or passages have been added here or there or that several books were combined into one book even before scribes started copying what we have today?
I’ve decided to deal with BOTH issue in a series of posts, and I’ve realized that many years ago I dealt with both issues very briefly TOGETHER in a single post, based on a question I received way back then when the world was younger. So I’ll begin my thread with that post:
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!
In re your discussion with James Tabor the other night: can you recommend a scholarly book that looks at Biblical prophecies from a critical perspective, perhaps prophecies that failed, or prophecies of Jesus that aren’t really such, and so on? I know there are popular books noting failed prophecies, and apologists find everything to be perfect, but I’m wondering about scholars who tackle this subject.
I’m not sure which book he/I was referring to . Off hand I can’t thing of a book that goes passage by passage through the commonly used texts, though each passage is dealt with extensively in commentaries (On Daniel, Revelation, etc.). But there are tons of books about how modern day prophets misuse the Bible; and the awful consequences that come. For Daniel I’d suggest John Collins commentary in the Hermeneia and for Revelation Craig Koesters in the Anchor Bible commentary series. Neither deals with modern prophecy claims at any length, since these are academic books, but they do show what the texts actually mean based on careful study/analysis.
This is great – it definitely answered some questions that had been floating around in the back of my head already recently.
On an unrelated note, I understand you helped on the NRSV translation committee and were asked by Dr. Bruce Metzger himself. What are your thoughts on the NRSVue translation?
It looks fine to me, but I haven’t worked through it carefully. One of my oldest friends in the field Mike Holmes directed it, and I knew a bunch of translators, who are all very fine scholars. It was more of a tinkering than a serious revision. And the National Council of Churches reversed some of their decisions for fear of how they would be received by the person in the pew, even though they (the NCC) did not have bibical translation experts guiding their judgments….
still have that question
crossan says that sejanus’ boy pilate would have just left standing orders to crucify anyone raising cain in jerusalem at passover and that was it…so all this malarkey about a trial is just baloney?…and since none of jesus’ fellow travelers were not rounded up they were not considered dangerous?…
all this pilate and jesus stuff just so much stage play? for the readers after the fact?…
and what happened to pilate after Tiberius just got tired of Sejanus?
I get so confused
I too wonder if there was anything like a trial. I do think Pilate would have had to order the execution, but it may well be there wsa no interrogatoin. If the leaders said Jesus is a trouble maker calling himself king, Pilate may well simply have sent him off to be crucified. There was no need for due justice or a fear of not doing what was “right”
Hi Bart,
I gathered here that you are confident (not certain but confident) that John 1:1 is authentic.
But is it really?
I am fascinated in the exploration of the possibility that the original author of John didn’t write John 1:1-34, and these verses were just added after him.
I really wanted to research and write about this subject, but it would require long time studying John and this isn’t easy. But here is an opportunity to discuss the “methodology” and to assess the possibility.
1# Let us list all verses in John that “John” regarded Jesus to be submissive to God.
2# Let us list all verses in John where Jesus wasn’t acting as a divine being. For example, verses were Jesus was in fear, tired, in pain, etc.
—–>
—–>
3# Let us list all verses that it might be interpreted that “John” regard Jesus to be divine, but the context around these verses doesn’t support this interpretation. For example: the verse: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) could be interpreted that “John” regarded Jesus to be divine, but the context in the verses 10:22-39 doesn’t support this interpretation, therefore, this verse could be interpreted differently. Therefore, this verse would belong in this list (i.e. 3#).
4# Let us list all verses that it is clear from its content and context that “John” regarded Jesus to be divine. For example: John 1:1-34.
####
Now … If it turns out that the number of verses in 1 & 2 is much larger than 4# (and probably it is), then couldn’t we conclude that the verses in 4# are contradictory to the general context of John’s Gospel?
If this was the case, then would this provide us with a valid and legitimate reason to say that the verses in 4# are probably not authentic, and they were probably added later to the work of the original author?
John is full of different views of things, lots of things; often that is attributed to the author’s use of varying sources; often it is seen instead as a subtle use of paradox and deep thinking on a topic. But htere is no evidence that these varying passages were added *after* what we now have was put into circulation.
John is full of different views of things, lots of things; often that is attributed to the author’s use of varying sources; often it is seen instead as a subtle use of paradox and deep thinking on a topic. But htere is no evidence that these varying passages were added *after* what we now have was put into circulation.
Yes, I don’t know any NT scholar (or of any NT scholar) who thinks John 1:1 is not authentic. The prologue, 1:1-18 is indeed widely seen as a pre-existing poetic celebration of the Word made flesh, and it was written by a different hand from 1:19 and after. But it was almost certainly a part of the Gospel as it came from the author’s hand, and I don’t know of any reason to doubt it.
My approach is based on two arguments:
# There are evidences that some verses have been added to the work of early Christians. So, this is a recognized phenomenon.
# A verse that is clearly opposite to the “dominant-context” (views, values) of the book could probably be an addition. This follows the same common-sense in regard to a chapter that has a clearly different writing-style to the dominant style of the book.
So, if we can show that the verses in 1&2 do overwhelm the verses in 4# then we could conclude that the verses in 1&2 represent the dominant-context, therefore, having a good probability that the verses in 4# were added later.
If the above was considered, then we will have a new John, because Scholars were very influenced by the verses in 4#.
Let us first show an example for neutralizing a verse in 3#:
In John 20:28: “Thomas answered him, My Lord and my God!”. The surrounding verses do belong to 2# (injury marks are not expected on a divine being). Thomas reaction could just have been a shock reaction. For example, someone after an accident would scream: My God, My God,, and this is just a shock reaction.
——>
——>
[Credit to Ahmed Deedat for this interpretation], and there are many verses in 3# that can be neutralized.
Now … It does seem that the verses in John regarding the submission of Jesus (list 1#) are much clearer than the Synoptics. For example: John 5:30.
This raises the question: would the author of John 5:30 be the same author of John 1:1?
It doesn’t feel like that. However, feeling doesn’t bring a punch in the discussion arena, it just provides the fuel for the research. But my argument in this arena is the approach that I have discussed before.
Due to my interest to follow some specific researches, I have “quickly” collected many verses of the bible in different categories, and although this document does need adjustment/revision, but still, it is useful as-is.
In Chapter-2, there is a quick collection to the verses that regarded Jesus to be submissive to God, and you might see there that the submission of Jesus in John is much more clearer than the Synoptics. This would raise many questions similar to the above.
The Dcoument:
https://omr-mhmd.yolasite.com/resources/63-Notes%20-OT-NT-28.pdf
[If this link didn’t work (due to revision), then check article 63# in the site: https://omr-mhmd.yolasite.com]
one other question beyond the Sejanus Pilate deal and whether in fact Pilate was actually at some trial?
Farm Hold Tapes with Heisenberg…Han Bethe says you can basically trust what they were saying re Nazi Nukes but his friend Robert R Wilson says BS…after the War and they were just trying to cover their rear ends…looks like quite a bit of this argument over something in the Bible is the same…depends on one’s point of view, except some points of view such a Ehrman Crossan and others probably is better considering the gymnastics and languages they must know to discern “truth” through all the rubble of ancient codex and writings?
I”m not exactly sure what you’re asking! But yes, it certainly helps in historical investigation to know the relevant languages well and understand systems of communication.
Hi bart
Some christians often say that jesus could have not thrown into a mass grave because it could have been the emporers birth day but the emporers birth day was 16 november. If jesus was crusified on the passover (Nissan 15) how could he die on the emporers birthday?
Yeah, they’re makin’ stuff up, and getting confused by a passage in Philo. See here: https://ehrmanblog.org/alleged-proof-that-crucified-jews-were-allowed-decent-burials/
In the Old Testament the Book of Zechariah predicts the Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a lowly donkey. How do we know that Jesus, as a Jew familiar with the Old Testament, didn’t get himself a donkey and stage the whole thing to make himself appear as the Messiah, as a message to his followers and a jab at the High Priests?
We don’t.