If we are talking about the earliest Christian writings — the subject of my previous three posts — we naturally want to know when decisions were made about WHEN church father settled on our 27-book canon of the New Testament. Many people — including tons of scholars — set a precise date: 367 CE, in the decision written by the famous theologian Athanasius of Alexandria.
Is that right?
My first academic publication addressed this question and answered: NO. Here’s how I have talked about the issue and my attempt to overturn the widely held view, from long ago!
******************************
My first semester in the PhD program at Princeton Theological Seminary I had a seminar on the “Canon of the New Testament” with Bruce Metzger. This was a class that focused on the questions surrounding how we ended up with the twenty-seven books in the New Testament. Who decided that it would be these twenty-seven books, and no others? What was motivating these people? What were the grounds for their decisions? And when did they make them?
Bart,
It seems that it was unlikely that ALL the canonical candidate manuscripts would have been conveniently available at any one place and time before the third century. At least Didymus could hear all of the works! Outside of the famous Library of Alexandria, is there any information that might indicate where these manuscripts might have been stored within the major Christian centers? I expect that these manuscripts were treated with much care and respect. For some strange/optimistic reason, I am envisioning a type of ‘ark of the covenant’ portable library used to store and protect these extremely valuable regional-owned manuscripts. This at least gives me hope that some archeological find of a regional ‘ark’ could still occur in this century.
My cynical view is that the bishops securely hoarded these works and that they were not interested in passing these manuscripts to anyone other than their successors.
I am new to your site, I wanted to ask you a question, unrelated to this blog. During one of your video discussions, you pointed out the differences between the teaching of Paul and Jesus. You mentioned Jesus taught to follow the commandments (with a discussion with a rich young man), however, Paul taught that one should find salivation and forgiveness of sin by believing on Jesus. However, keep in mind that Jesus had not yet suffered death by impalement, so as a Jew he taught the 10 Commandments, not any worship toward him. It was only after his sacrifice did he become the source of salvation, not beforehand. What if he decided not to endure this death on a cross? Might this be a valid reason for the differences between Paul and Jesus.
Thank you,
Richard Signarino
Yes, that is a common way to reconcile the two. The problem I’ve always had with it is that if Jesus was indeed right that if someone repented of their sins God would forgive them, then there would have been no need for him to die at all. God could have just kept on forgiving sins.
Of all the ancient documents that have been found to present day, that is the ones wrote by the apostolic and church fathers, have the scholars been able to read them all, or is there any still awaiting to be analized?
All of them have been read and analyzed intensely by many, many scholars.
1/2: Hi Professor Ehrman, before I get into my argument, I would like to note just how much I would like to be a student of yours, even though my current major at UGA in accounting. I have always been intrigued by your debate skills, and repeatedly watch your debates with William Lane Craig, Robert Price, and Mike Licona. (Sadly I did not get to watch your 8 hour long “chess” match with him though I will someday) even though I no longer am a stereotypical “conservative” Christian, I still would write papers in your class with theses arguing against some of the popular books you have written, such as “How Jesus Became God” and “Forged.”
My principle thesis is this: that Jesus was understood to be on an equal footing with the Father long before gJohn even existed. I think that Mike Licona has made fair points on Jesus being God in gMark: (e.g. Jesus’ calming of the storm, since only YHWH was in charge of the weather and the seas in the earlier chapters of the Gospel; and Jesus having divine powers to heal others without the help of the Father).
Thanks for your kind words.
I”d say being empowered by God to do things is not the same as being equal with God. Elijah could do things only God could do but it was not because he was God. Other Jewish miracle workers even in Jesus’ day — and down to modern times — were reputed to do amazing things with the weather, but were not seen as equal with God.
The list of NT books was not settled as a matter of faith for all Christians by 367, even if there were some letters from theological superstars. If it had been settled back in 367, it would not have been the important concern that it was at the Synod of Hippo (393 CE), and at the third and sixth Councils of Carthage (397 and 419).
Settling the matter of “which books” required the leadership of different Christian groups collectively recognizing and proclaiming a list of books as inspired and authoritative. The makeup of the NT wasn’t settled as a matter of faith for all Christians at least until groups of Reformers settled it for themselves in the 1500’s, and then the Catholic Church took a turn and officially settled it as a matter of faith for Catholics at the Council of Trent.
Imo, it ought to be remembered that no NT books (also no OT books) have any inherent authority. Any authority they have has to be conferred upon them by individuals or groups.
2/2: Further, I think the Pauline epistles bolster my argument, in that Phillippians 2:6-11 makes Christ equal with God, as Jesus is “bestowed the name that is above every other name”, a callback to (Is. 45:23).
Colossians also deserves some attention, as (even though you write in Forged against Pauline authorship), as it is quite clear in chapter 1:15-17 that Christ was “the firstborn of all creation” and by him “all things were made”.
Are not these verses proof that Pauline theology included within its creeds that Jesus was co-equal with the father, even despite the Trinity being hierarchical in nature, and that even the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be YHWH in human form?
In Summary, I believe the divinity of Jesus can be found very early, in our earliest epistles from Paul, and from our earliest Gospel, gMark, and that these examples ( though there are more to find within the NT) prove that there was more to Jesus Christ than being a mere magician or street performer.
P.S.: I pray that you receive this argument as you would any other scholar, that you would “grade” it like you would any other student. Thank you
Yes, Paul does indicate that Christ was made equal with God at the resurrection/exaltation. But that precisely shows that he was not equal with God before the resurrection (in Paul’s view). None of the authors of the NT speak of Christ as YHWH. John indicates they were in some ways “equal” — but that is again precisely not the same as saying they were “identical,” as most of our surviving early Church theologians — e.g., Tertullian emphatically — argued. When Jesus was praying, he wasn’t talking to himslelf.
Is it correct that these arguments about what was canon and what should be discarded as heresy were argued among the Western theologians / Bishops and, later, the Eastern Orthodox leaders? Where did the illiterate and far more populous common Christian stand on all of this?
What was the common Christian’s access to the arguments, and is there any evidence they gave a hoot about what the church leaders thought? What did they believe?
I am always reminded of my father, who rarely went to church after he was baptized. His belief was “once saved, always saved,” and he thought our pastor was spouting gibberish every Sunday.
I wonder if the average farmer and joiner in the first few centuries just wanted community and health services and believed whatever was required to obtain them.
I recollect a quote from a church father, though I can’t remember which, saying that the Shepherd of Hermas was an excellent book but quite recent and he knew the author. So perceived antiquity was also a criterion.
That’s in the Muratorian Fragment.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
recently I finish book “How Jesus became God” with great interest and made some remarks, which I would like to present here
1.You are coming to conslusion that only Jesus uniqueness which lead so big succes was ressurection (respectively that communities come to believe in Jesus resurection). I think it is questionable concernig fact that real Jesus ministry was apocalyptic and his teaching does not lead to ressurection expectation-therefore believability of resurection getting low and this fact alone probably could not ensure big succes.
Therefore I think that important role was played by significantly changed Jesus ministry by early authors (as Paul) by the putting (invented?) proclamation to Jesus lips and presenting his supernatural deeds as:
-I am the way…,nobody comes to father except..,who knows father knows me, who eat my body and drink my blood…and establishment ritual by last supper
-healing, (casting demons), Lazarus ressurection, water walking,food multiplying, water to wine trasmutation
That all these statements was believed by communitiies and contributed (with fact of resurection) to one of biggest world religion origin, means that relevant inventors, must be ingenious (at least as Jesus himself) !!
Thanks, Tomas
2.Your opinion for ressurection probability, namely statement that it can not
be historically proved but as well disproved. I think that important is, how is possible that these first whom was message of resurrection passed believe it without doubts (necessary for further spreading despite more plausible explanation (hallucination, moving the body, no really death)
Concerning kinds of raised body: matter, spiritual and matter-spiritual it could be interesting to discuss what is more “probable” if
-fully resscurection of mortal body (big change but to surelly existed form)
or
-transmuttation of mortal body to some form of spirit, i.e. not so material body (not so big change but to form which existence is not proved)
Argumentation on p.185 with D.Allison is questionable as I think for strong believers of fully bodily ressurection (a) is more crucial (after vision of Jesus) if tomb is really empty or not than for believers of other form of ressurection (b) as:
Empty tomb:
a-OK Jesus raised fully bodily
b-OK body was moved, or fully transmutted to spiritual body
Body in tomb
a-NOT OK! I had hallucination, Jesus did not raise, and so he was not messiah
b-OK matter body reamin while spiritual body escaped
Last century, buying lots of books from HongKong Christian book store on European & American Christian greats & their works.
The substance of books have much not with the translator accuracy, but the publishing house editor as that person adjusts the tone of the book to fit the message that best matches the publishing house.
The church I grew up in was utmost a publishing house: primarily translated Watchman Nee’s conferences &Witness Lee works, so I avoided that [having read many in my Freshman year of undergrad] when I began “to make my life right with Christ”.
So instead, I read watchman Nee books from an UK publisher translated notes by former English missionary to China. Talk about “lost in translation” who knows what Watchman Nee lectured during those years in between WW1 & WW2. We definitely were not feeling those tensions & lack the feeling of urgency & desperation during those unfAmiliar times.
Note 2) When I was teaching Business “Organizational Management” at a Junior College in Shanghai Fall, 2002. As for the students papers, how great were their translation software & how hard did those students spend trying to improve or worsen the translation for me not to suspect foul play.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
I allow myself to put below next remarks concerning book “How Jesus became God”:
I found some contradiction in the text:
a)first you state that disciples (at least some of them) was strong believers whose do not need see empty tomb to believe that fully bodily resurrected Jesus stood front of them and later you state that disciples does not believe in fully bodily resurrected Jesus and needs lot of proofs…
b) I think that “Statement that after dead Soul gone to heaven is common” is questionable
as major part of society believe for nothing after dead..
c) If you informing that in antique Rome was adopted son appreciated much more than birth son would not be for early christian writers much more advantageous keep point of view that Jesus was born as human and subsequently (by baptizing for example) adopted by God for his quality, merits, and so on?
with hope that you will find some time to read these remarks
best regards, Tomas
a. Yes, different passages say different things that cannot be reconciled. b. In America at least the majority of people still believe in heaven and hell. c. And adopted son may have been more valuable than a biologirclal son; but a person who was God was more valuable than both.
There is an interesting interview today. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/18/nx-s1-5151333/nationalist-christians-rally-to-repent-for-what-they-consider-to-be-the-nations-sins
These people have close to NO idea what it is to be a decent follower of Christ. The last administration set the attitude and many played out of anger and violence.
A few days ago, I spoke to a Shanghai “sister”, and she confirmed that the apostles and disciples and most of the prophets lived miserable lives. Why shouldn’t we- life in China is very tough!
A pastor at a San Francisco church of Taishan parent immigrants 1990: hell is our lives on earth [paraphrase]
I really wonder about predestination and being called out.
Thank you ,I understand,
ad b), yes I believe, Czech republic (where I am from) is one of most atheistical europe countries..
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
can I still ask you, how you explain yourself fact, message abour ressurection was widely accepted (believed) by them whom was first passed by disciples , despite that there is more plausible explanation (hallucination, moving the body, no really death etc.) ?
Thank you , Tomas Bruha
The vast majority of people did NOT believe it. Only a few did. Then a few more. Then a few more.
Dear Mr. Ehrman,
I allow myself still one remark concerning your book “How Jesus became God”:
He intrigued me term “Heavenly body”. It is quite interesting , If I understand well it means true matter body which is enable to interact with the other matter by superstition ways.. (although regarding to quantum mechanics is better to say by highly improbable way) and this lead me to thinking about lets to say “hallucinations probability level” as like this:
-no matter ghost body is quite probable
– matter body which is possible to touch is much more less probable
– matter body which can for example penetrated through walls very very low probable
Accor. this is possible postulating point of view that if some disciples claimed to percepted fully bodily Jesus(as for example possibility touching his wounds, eating etc) , who simultaneously
perform supernatural action ( as for example wall penetrating, levitation, disappearing and appearing)
It means that highly probably a) makes up their mind (lies) or b) saw reality. … What you think?
I”m afraid I’m having trouble following your questoin, especially at the end. The disciples would not have had our modern concept of materiality or afterlife, so a real body coming back to life with supernatural powers would not have seemed highly improbable to them. Theythought that such things did and would happen. If they said it happened, that wouldn’t mean either that they liked or saw reality. It could mean they mistakenly saw soomething that they didn’t, or imagined the whole thing, or dreamed it and took the dream as reality, or — or there are other explanations we could all think of….
Dear Mr. Ehrman, thank you very much
-concerning first question, I understand (so this spreading of belief could be something like exponencial process..)
-concerning second question, I just intended to say that if we take in account hallucination (or dreaming) it is
not so usually to have feeling of really matter body (can be touch) which afterwards for example penetrating through wall as perception of purely ghost body..
by another worlds, that they mistakenly saw something that they did not seems me much more probably than they mistakenly touch something , that was not
but I understand , that int hat times ws quite different concept of materiality…..
Thank you
Dear Mr. Ehrman, can I still ask you for your opinion concerning importance of proclamation and deeds of Jesus which was (most probably) invented by early Christian authors for sucessfull widespreading of christianity comparing to message about Jesus resurection?
Thank you!
I’m not quite sure what you want to know about them? I have a book where I discuss the issue, called “Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembrered, Changed, and INvented Their Stories of the Savior.”
Thank you, I just ordered this book. 🙂
Dear Mr. Ehrman, I just finisch your book “Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians…” which envoke in my mind some question (or food for though) concerning major issues as:
A) It is possible to reconstruct most probably reality of Jesus existence?
B) If yes ,is if is possible to within this detect extra ordinal features ( as major difference from life of other prophets ) which explain motivation of inventing (retelling and modifiying)
words, deeds and behavior of Jesus to pure reality as known from gospels which seems really unique (is possible for example to investigate who invented proclamationas “ I am this path right and life etc ) and was major reasons for so successful Christianity spreading.
I think that this proclamation and similar as “Nobody come to father except by me” , ritual “breed -body” and “Lords Prayer” must be deliberately invented as I can not imagine “social situation” or “present circumstances” which envoke generating of these proclamations as distorted memories.
Thank you for your potential attention for these remarks and wish you
happy a Xmass and lot of succes in n.y. 2025.
Tomas Bruha
Thanks for our questions. Those are some of the issues that I try to address directly in the book. If you’d like to see more discussion of the reality of Jesus’ existence, check out my book “Did Jesus Exist,” and for grounds for establishing what Jesus really taught, my book “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.”
Dear Mr. Ehrman, thank you for your answer and book reccomendation. I´ll try to get these books.
Thank you and best regards, Tomas Bruha