Loading...For near fifty years now the “books that did not make it into the New Testament” have been a source of fascination, not just for scholars but for regular ol’ folk intrigued by the idea that there may have been alternative forms of Christianity, a wide range of seemingly bizarre beliefs and practices out there in the early centuries of the church.
In my previous post I gave the standard tale of how the most significant discovery of such books occurred in 1945 somewhere near the village of Nag Hammadi Egypt (and therefore called the Nag Hammadi library). The story I told has fallen into some disrepute over the past decade, for reasons we’ll see in the next post. Before dealing with that issue, however, it’s important to see what this library/collection of books actually is. Here is how I describe it in my textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press).
******************************
What was this ancient collection of books? The short answer is that it is the most significant collection of lost Christian writings to turn up in modern times. It included several Gospels about Jesus that had never before been seen by any Western scholar, books known to have existed in antiquity but lost for nearly 1500 years. The cache contained twelve leather-bound volumes, with pages of a thirteenth volume removed from its own, now lost, binding and tucked inside the cover of one of the others. The pages are made of papyrus. And the books are anthologies – collections of texts compiled and then
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!
Thanks,,,,I’ve loved this topic for a long time,,,,looking forward to the coming tread !
Dr. Ehrman,
What is the most thoughtful argument you’ve heard that The Gospel of Thomas may date to the first century? Related- how significant would that be in your opinion if it was composed, say, sometime around the time the canonical gospels were written?
In my view the best argument is that some of the sayings in Thomas that are also found in Matthew and Luke are shorter, more terse, more directly to the point — and it would make sense that they, in those forms, were the earliest forms of the sayings. Therefore Thomas could be earlier. I think that argument is completely flawed: shorter and more terse does NOT show that a form of the saying is earlier, and about half the sayings presuppose theological/ideological views that cannot be documented otherwise until the second century. If Thomas WAS composed at about the same time as the canonical Gospels, my opinion is that that would be HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT in showing how different first century Christianity was from what we’ve imagined, and on the personal level, I would LOVE IT! But, regrettably, I can’t see any way it’s possible.
“We know this because the spines of the leather bindings were strengthened with scrap paper, and some of the scrap paper came from receipts that are dated 341, 346, and 348 CE.”
Just curious. Since the BCE/CE year numbers were not adopted until the fifth century, what numbering system was actually used on these bindings that were later translated into “341, 346 and 348 CE”?
Ah, sorry not to get to ytour questoin promptly, but as it turns out, I answered it in the post I made today: https://ehrmanblog.org/interesting-questions-about-the-books-from-nag-hammadi/
I’m glad we are about to learn more from you about Nag Hammadi. I am knee deep in Egypt right now — I had *no* idea how influential it was. (Truth. I had to google this week to see if Egypt has a physical border with Israel.)
The Amarna letters calling Akhenatan god, the Temple of Onias, the resettlement of the Peloset, the Septuagint at Alexandria.
Yesterday, I found a 2016! academic paper on Thutmose, the Egyptian Overseer of the Borderlands/Viceroy of Cush – my candidate for Moses. With an improved translation “Overseer of Foreign Lands”, I was able to find another with that overseer position and learned they lived in the Land of Goshen [named in Exodus], so that might be the administrative seat
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44811128?read-now=1&seq=23#page_scan_tab_contents
That led me to learning that the Shasu of *YHW* — who, so far, we first find at Cush, might be a toponym for Judah. (Could it even possibly be an ancestor cult? That would be not uncommon for the ancient near east.)
Also found an Osiris statue (not Harpocrates) finally at Petra’s Temple of the Winged Lions (I wonder if the lion is syncretized Judah).
I’ll be be browsing your blogposts keyword Egypt, ty!
Great stuff! Looking forward to future posts. Why do you think more of these documents have not been found in the original Greek? Were they deliberately and actively suppressed by early church leaders?
I’d guess they simply weren’t copied by later copyists much and so just disappeared of their own accord.
I find it fascinating that the Nag Hammadi library could serve as a window into suppressed or alternative Christian beliefs and practices. These texts might not just expand our understanding of early Christianity but also challenge the institutionalized narratives. Do you think these documents have the potential to catalyze a reevaluation of modern Christian doctrine?
Yup, I think all early Christian writings should be considered as containing views that are worth .. considering. (It’s interesting that some Nag Hammadi writings — especially the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter — argue strenuously *against* the standard orthodox view of Christ and his death/resurrectoin)
It is said that later Church “fathers” set criteria for determining which books to consider scripture, including their ancient origins and the possibility they were written by apostles (or those who knew them). Plus, they had to adhere, more or less, to the emerging beliefs of orthodoxy.
And yet, we know from “Luke” that he knew of many writings that he ignores, evidently.
These Nag Hamadi books survived for a long time. Monks, etc. would only know that they were old texts, no reason to believe they were not by apostles.
What they lack is the adherence to the proto, soon to be, orthodox set of beliefs.
Is there any scholarly argument that some of the NH texts were around when Luke wrote? That they represent beliefs that Paul railed against in his letters?
How strong were the undercurrents of non-proto-orthodox Christian belief systems over time? I keep going back to Paul being alarmed at the beliefs circulating in his churches that were contrary to his ideas. That was very early!
It amazes me that these non-orthodox text survived and were considered sacred for such a long time. They had to have been considered precious to have been hidden.
You say here that there were six duplicates of the books in the collection. This of course allows immediate comparison of the books. Do they show copying errors like all other bible manuscripts, please?
Yup. And there are other copies of some of these books outside the Nag Hammadi library that are different in significant ways as well. (And the Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas found elsewhere have significant differences from the Coptic version at Nag Hammadi)
I found Elaine Pagels book “The Gnostic Gospels” very enlightening. For those who want additional information.