Loading...It is the Weekly Readers’ Mailbag time. Today I take on three very interesting and unusually diverse questions: where we got chapters and verses from in the New Testament; how we know that earliest Christians (before Paul) understood Jesus’ death to be a sacrifice for sins; and whether I get upset that my work is used by Muslims in order to discount Christianity. These are hot topics!
QUESTION: When did scribes start dividing NT manuscripts into chapters and verses? As I understand it, early manuscripts did not even have punctuation marks. A related question is: did early Christians always read these texts/books, either by themselves or to a congregation, from beginning to end in one sitting? I imagine it would be very difficult to find specific passages without chapters and verses.
RESPONSE: Ah, this is an important question, and one many people have never raised; moreover, those who have raised it often have no way of knowing how to answer it. As to chapters and verses, here is what I have to say on the matter in my textbook on the New Testament (which just came out in the new 6th edition!):
**************************************************************************************
Given the fact that ancient manuscripts did not use punctuation, paragraph divisions, or even spaces to separate words, it will come as no surprise to learn that the chapter and verse divisions found in modern translations of the New Testament are not…
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It costs less than 50 cents a week, and every penny goes to important charities dealing with poverty.
Excellent comments about the purpose of your scholarship, Dr. Ehrman! I could not agree more with how the information should be used!
I wasn’t aware that Muslims were using any scholarship of any kind to prop up their views of Jesus. I think it would be nice if some documentation of this were presented, rather than an unsubstantiated statement.
But since present-day Muslims believe, as Muhammad taught, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he performed genuine miracles (that no other prophet of Islam performed, including Muhammad), and that he wasn’t actually crucified, but rather his enemies were made to believe that he was, while he was taken directly into heaven (maybe the most confusing and intriguing thing Muhammad ever said, though stiff competition there), I fail to see how anything Bart has ever written about Jesus would support their views, other than him saying that Jesus did not believe himself to be God, or God’s begotten son, and that, of course, is the overwhelming scholarly consensus, and not something Bart bears any unique responsibility for propagating. He’s gone out of his way to emphasize Jewishness of Jesus, which is something many Muslims (not all, I’m sure) would rather not acknowledge, much as many present-day Christians would rather not acknowledge it.
And can I just ask–why does EVERYTHING have to be about Muslims these days? I mean, I know they’re a quarter of the world’s population, but seems to me most of them are minding their own business, and are not particularly involved in a unified campaign of world domination–to the extent they are fighting, it seems to mainly be among themselves. Christian insecurity regarding Muslims is nothing new (the rise of a new monotheistic evangelizing religion bent on expanding its sphere of influence must have come as a shock to Christians back when they first heard about it–how could God have allowed this to happen?), but it’s just very odd that people who have, in many cases, never met a Muslim in their entire lives, or know a single person who has been harmed by a Muslim, are obsessing about militant Islam to such an extent.
I saw a man being interviewed at the Trump rally in Vermont yesterday, and he was saying he doesn’t want the government taking his guns because he’ll need them to fight ISIS–in Vermont. No doubt, ISIS will be brandishing copies of Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God when they arrive. Ehrman Akbar! 😉
You know, it belatedly occurs to me that Muhammad probably didn’t want to believe Jesus had actually been killed by his enemies (even if he was resurrected afterwards) because he was seeing the Old and New Testaments as a continuity, and in the Old Testament, prophets are not killed. Jesus was a great prophet, and therefore Allah would not allow him to be harmed. He had to be victorious over his enemies, the pagans and unconverted Jews, even as Muhammad was (as he saw it).
Jesus, by contrast, had been witness to the murder of his teacher John the Baptist, who Jesus would have considered a prophet (at the very least). This would have altered Jesus’ view of what was possible–God clearly would allow his prophets to be killed, or John would been saved somehow. Muhammad also talks a lot about John, holds him in only slightly lower regard than Jesus, but has little or nothing to say about John’s execution, because again, it’s a flaw in the pattern, a violation of his own beliefs about what Allah will permit.
The first Christians witnessed Jesus’ death themselves, and knew it was no illusion. This is, I would suggest, a way in which Christianity differs from both Judaism and Islam. The belief that God may allow his most important servants to be killed by evil men–but only as part of a larger plan. But since Jesus had known of John’s death, would unquestionably have been shocked and horrified by it, wouldn’t that apply to him as well?
Yeah, I bring this up too much, I know.
LOL! Yes, that is the first thing ISIS does when it trains new recruits: hands them copies of “How Jesus Became God!” and threatens each recruit with 30 lashes if they don’t read it. 🙂
“In order to facilitate the reading of these books—especially in public—scribes did begin to make chapter-like divisions as early as the fourth century.”
Has anyone cataloged these very early chapter-like divisions? Years ago I read a thesis of a student who manually listed the various chapter and paragraph divisions found in early manuscripts for one particular book of the NT as part of the history of the analysis of how the the text, before presenting his own approach to the structure. It was fascinating to see how ancient structuring approaches affected long-standing interpretive views of a text.
I don’t know of any full study, although there are excellent studies of individual manuscripts.
“verse divisions … sometimes [] occur right in the middle of a sentence.”
This occurs very frequently in Paul’s letters because of his relatively long and complex sentences. I tell people who try to read Paul’s Greek that the first task is to work out where a sentence begins and ends. It is rarely the same as in various English translations. Germans find this task a little easier.
Stanley Hauerwas was one of my teachers in college. A very great and profound wit!
Dr. Ehrman, I had a recent conversation with a friend from Germany regarding “CIA” and he made a comment that left me curious. From his experience, he believes that Western Europeans “know much more (about the history of Christianity) than Americans and care much less.” When I shared a few of the questions from the beginning of the semester undergraduate pop quiz you have recounted in several of your lectures, he laughed and responded that if you gave that quiz to undergraduates in Germany, you would be buying a lot of steak dinners. In general, when you lecture/debate/travel, do you find the same level of interest in your research as domestically? Are there areas of the world that you find to be particularly well-informed on the history of early Christianity?
Absolutely! If I were teaching Germans, I would change my quiz!! (Western Europe tends to know more and believe less; America to believe more and know less)
That makes sense. It seems to be an inverse proportion regarding knowledge/belief for many when it comes to religious faith. My German friend believes the U.S. is traveling along the same path towards secularism, but is 20-30 years behind the rest of Western Europe.
Just this past weekend at a Humanist meetup I made a passing comment about German princes during the Protestant Reformation having political motivations for converting (and their territory with them) away from Catholicism. A German was in attendance and he gave us a pretty clear view of what exactly those princes gained (spoiler: mostly church lands).
Dr. Ehrman, I submitted the last question, and I can assure you that Islamic apologists use your research to discredit Christian beliefs about Jesus and to support Islamic beliefs about Jesus, particularly, that the NT is not a reliable witness to Jesus’ life and works, and, presumably, that the Qur’an is a reliable witness to Jesus’ life and works. If you do a search for your name on YouTube you might be shocked to see how many Islamic channels come up.
yes, I have no problem believing they do!
Well, as long as you’re aware of it. Said Muslim apologists conveniently ignore that you’re an atheist, however, which is somewhat amusing.
The arguments Dr. Ehrman uses are good, so it does not matter *in the slightest* whether he is an atheist, a liberal Christian, or a believer in the Great Pumpkin.
Dr. Ehrman provides good arguments, and so Muslims buy and promote his books. It’s a good deal for everyone, except for the Christian missionaries who find themselves unable to bash Islam the way they want.
Galatians 1:11-12
For I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin. For I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it (παρέλαβον), but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:1-3
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received (παρελάβετε), in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you, unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received (παρέλαβον): that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.
My understanding of koine is very limited. But I’m aware that some scholars have pointed out that Paul uses the same word “παρέλαβον” in both Galatians 1 and 1 Corinthians 15 to describe his receiving. It does not specifically say in 1 Corinthians that he received it from men before him. Even though he supposedly uses the formula for what is usually used for taking about the passing on of oral traditions, could it not be that he is still talking about his personal revelation?
It’s possible. But the “receiving and giving” language, in *tandem* is paralleled in other sources in reference specifically not to divien revelations but oral traditions.
The problem with the hypothesis that it was information from other Christians which caused Paul’s conversion is that the time available is unreasonably short. His personal revelation seems to have involved some extraordinary traumatic event.
Is it possible that he was almost struck by lightning on the Golan Heights on his way to Damascus, which caused him to conclude that he had received a message directly from Jesus, who was therefore in heaven?
The idea that Christ died for our sins would then be Paul’s subsequent explanation for Jesus allowing himself to be crucified.
If Paul could come up with that idea in, say, the year 33, there’s no reason to think that someone else could not have come up with the idea in, say 30. IMHO.
In that case, Paul’s conversion would have been unreasonably rapid for an ordinary transition.
Thanks for clearing up the question about why/where verses start. I always figured they sometimes started in the middle of a sentence because it was done based on the Greek words in a single line!
Another very interesting Friday mailbag, especially question #3. Although I have for decades struggled to try to be a liberal Christian often the liberal position is more aggravating to me than the conservative position because the liberals will hold onto the theology even if the historical basis for that theology has now been disputed so that the theology essentially becomes one having its core meaning derived from literary stories. At least, in contrast, the conservative position reasonably follows if one starts with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. I think the liberal position takes considerably more work to make sense of it because the historical core is now built on “shifting sand.” Maybe, the golden rule is enough, but if one leaves out the Resurrection, the divinity of Christ, heaven and hell, and the atonement is that still Christianity? If, on the other hand, one keeps that theology without a historical foundation for it is that really honest?
Say, I wish I’d asked this question when I remembered more details…I didn’t think it would keep nagging at me.
Someone asked you about an archaeological discovery (a “Stone”?) that’s been taken to show an earlier-than-generally-accepted date for some “belief.” You said the “Stone”(?) is undoubtedly genuine, but a key part of the…”inscription(?)”…is illegible, so it can’t be taken as proof of that dating.
What was that all about? I’ve realized I’m still curious, despite the discovery’s having turned out not to be “important.”
It’s the Gabriel Stone if you want to google it.
Well, when I taught at a Bible College in Toronto, Canada, I had an interesting experience that touches on your response to the question concerning Muslims and their approach to the New Testament. This was in 1977 or so, long before you published anything about historical and theological discrepancies in the New Testament. I had a long conversation with a number of Muslims about Christianity and the New Testament. There was one gentleman, in particular, who was well aware of many of the critical problems that you discuss in your books. He went through a number of them one at a time, and asked me if I could explain why the discrepancies existed. He mentioned the differences in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, then he went through the differences in the trial and crucifixion narratives. I couldn’t really respond to any of the questions he posed, because I had not really prepared a response, since I always understood that the NT was a single volume and was perfectly consistent internally. You could say that a Muslim introduced me to the New Testament. I found out that the 27 writings in the NT were far more interesting and complex than I had ever imagined!
Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that many Muslims were well-aware of the critical problems in the New Testament long long before you published anything. They can read it as well as anyone, and, because they see the documents from a different perspective than most Christians, see things in the texts that we Christians often are predisposed to ignore.
Regarding the comment on Islam: maybe you could see if you could have some guest columns from historians who study other religions and their texts. Could be interesting with a comparative perspective.
Prof Ehrman
I just finished Martin Goodman’s “The Ruling Class of Judaea” based on your recommendation in response to a post a while back. Totally absorbing. However Prof Goodman’s discussion occasionally presupposed a certain level of knowledge about the history of the period which I will admit I do not have. And it was occasionally difficult to keep all the players sorted out. (One encounters a surfeit of Jesuses!)
So…if I may, can you recommend a book, one you assign your students perhaps, that covers the history of the first Jewish revolt? Is there a standard text?
Thanks!
The books that I assign my students on Judaism in the period are Shaye Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, and E. P. Sanders, Judaism Practice and Belief.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
I’ve read Cohen’s Maccabees to Mishnah. It’s a good overview of the period.
Thank you for the balanced response to the questioner who asked about Muslims using your work!
*Everyone* in interfaith dialogue uses scholarly work that they feel supports their views, whether the scholars who produced that work like it or not; Christian debaters, for example, do not hesitate to refer to the work of those scholars in Islamic studies who question traditional Islamic views!
Professor Ehrman,
Can I ask if you have a view on the origins of Sunday observance in Christianity? Can you recommend any scholarly books or articles on the matter?
Thanks!
I’m afraid I don’t know of any! (They may well exist, but nothing comes to mind)
Hello,
I am interested in the early Christian understanding of the virgin birth and Mary. Do you think it derived it from the the “Emmanuel” passage in Isaiah?
I talk about that on the blog; just search for Virgin Birth and see if that helps
Thank you.
Regarding the belief that Jesus’s death was a sacrifice for others, Amy-Jill Levine, Professor of New Testament & Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt, said at a lecture I attended that there was a Jewish belief in Jesus’s time that the death of a righteous/good man wasn’t in vain but would bring blessings upon the community. She thought that perhaps that’s where the idea of His death being a sacrifice on behalf of others came from. What are your thoughts on that?
Yup, you find that view in the Maccabean literature, and it does seem that the Christians are picking up on it.
I belong to a life-long learning group at Saginaw Valley State University, the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute. One of the classes offered has been viewing and discussing your lectures for Great Courses on How Jesus became God. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I read your blog and that you answer some questions. My fellow students have requested that I ask you this question. “How do you know that the Gospels were originally written in Greek?” They understand that the early manuscripts are all in Greek but have posed the possibility that these could be translations from another language such as Aramaic.
Ah, good question. I’ll add it to my Readers Mailbag (since it takes more than a sentence to explain)