Loading...On and off of the past few months I’ve posted on which books from early Christianity — from the time of the New Testament! — I’d love to get my grubby paws on. Here is a related question I received. What are the chances?
QUESTION: What do you think are the odds that a really startling discovery like Q or an early Paul letter is still out there and likely to be discovered?
RESPONSE: This is a really great question, and like many really great questions, there is no really great answer. It is, of course, impossible to come up with any actual “odds.” The best we can say is “pretty slim indeed.” But let me put some flesh on the bare bones of that answer.
The first thing to say is that there are indeed instances in which a modern discovery has been made of a book that we had reason to suspect at one time existed. But that very rarely happens. In virtually every case that it *has* happened, it is not a document that has been hypothesized by scholars (e.g., Q, the source thought by many scholars for the sayings found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark; or, say, Paul’s letter to the Christian church of Laodicea). It is a document that is actually named in an ancient source.
And so, for example, the fourth-century church father Eusebius tells an intriguing story about
Some interesting stuff here. You would never guess how one of the “apostolic fathers” one day showed up in a fish shop. Join the blog and you can read on! Click here for membership options
Mr. Ehrman, in “How Jesus Became God”, I love a certain part before the end of a chapter, where you conjuncture about what a Gospel written in 31 CE would narrate.
I would like to ask you what do you think Jesus’s reaction would be, if he read our current New Testament?
Astonishment.
“I can read!!”
🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
As always I enjoy reading your blogs. I’ve also completed a number of your “Great Courses” lectures and several of your books. Yesterday was my 27th year wedding anniversary. My wife knows how much I enjoy your work and bought me your college textbook as a gift. I’m a practicing physician and your work/writing has been a needed distraction from a very stressful year. Thank you.
Fantastic. Happy anniversary!
Thank you for another fascinating post Professor Ehrman. If I was to inherit two billion dollars and give half to you to search for lost books where would you start? How would you know where to look?
I suppose the only plausible answer is to fund digs in places in Egypt that have not been excavated, and look for the trash heaps. But let’s do this. Give me the billion and we’ll figure the other part out later….
> But let’s do this. Give me the billion and we’ll figure the other part out later….
I’m entirely ready to lend my awesome analytical capabilities to this endeavor pour le sport. Travel and related expenses included, of course. Plus subsequent publication rights and similar.
Alternatively Bart, you might sponsor a thorough cataloguing and conservation of manuscript libraries in rural churches of Ethiopia.
Tricky of course, given the current security situation there. But it is astonishing how much of our current knowledge of Jewish and Christian Greek texts of the New Testament period is dependent on the labours of Ethiopian scholars and translators of the 4th and 5th centuries. As for instance; ‘The Parables of Enoch’ and ‘The Apocalypse of Peter’.
Not much more than a decade ago, a 14th century Ethiopic manuscript came to light, including a collection of synodical and canonical texts, translated from compendium compiled in Greek in Alexandria in the early 4th century; and including an Aksumite Ethiopic translation of “The Apostolic Tradition’ (sometimes ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome). The Greek original of this work has not survived; so previously the best text had been thought to be a Latin version from a 5th century manuscript. The newly discovered Ethiopic manuscript is much later – but the tranlation from the Greek is considered generally considered better.
But to hunt early Christian and Jewish texts; you might be advised to brush-up your Ge’ez.
I thought about learning Ge’ez a couple of years ago since I was going to work on the Apocalypse of Peter, and bought a grammar. I have friends who say it’s not difficult. But, well, I decided maybe my time could be better spent on other things. Like improving the languages I’m *already* supposed to know…
Thanks for an interesting post. Given that Q hasn’t showed up and is not mentioned in ancient sources, do you think that any of the alternative hypotheses proposed for the synoptic problem are plausible? For example, that Luke knew Matthew?
They are certainly plausible. But I think they are more highly problematic than the assumption there was a Q.
The book that we should be looking for is the Gospel of Jesus Christ authored by Jesus Christ. The others were just the author’s opinion which may not be true. Do you agree that the book of God must come only from recognized prophets of God.
I don’t have any opinions about theological debates concerning what comes from God and what doesn’t, since I don’t believe there is a God.
What about related documents? Do we have or can we hope to find Roman court documents from 1st Century Palestine? (Assuming that the Romans had court documents.)
I’d love to get a better feel for how plausible the picture of Jesus’ trial in Mark 15 is. For one thing, given that Jesus was being accused, probably rightly, of seditious teachings that easily could have led to insurrection against Rome, I have a hard time believing that Pilate ever considered the possibility of releasing him.
We have some accounts of trials from the Roman world and the speeches given at them (think Cicero), but no stenographic records. Nothing at all from Israel. They would not have kept any. There is a large scholarship on the account of Jesus’ trial, as you might imagine.
O julgamento de Jesus é texto teológico ou histórico?
Do you mean the trial itself? There are clear theological elements to the recorded trials, especially in John; but he was almost certainly condemned to be crucified by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. I doubt if there was a formal “trial” though. Pilate probably just heard he was calling himself the future king and either asked him about it or just sent him off to be crucified.
One of my hopes is the discovery of written disputes about female clergy in the Early Church that corresponds to the ancient paintings of female clergy in the Early Church. I guess it’s possible that all the paintings are merely in honor of Mary, but I doubt that.
Jim, I found early church writings like the Didache quite misogynistic in general..check out Chapter 3. if you’re busy walking around with your face downcast so men aren’t tempted to have sex with you…well, let’s just say that might make being a clergyperson difficult.
Now I like to think (and other folks who are better scholars than I am, do think) that all this wouldn’t have been written if the women hadn’t been being uppity. It sure would be interesting to find.. Julia(some Roman woman)’s Response to Chapter 3 of the Didache…
What sort of paintings are you thinking of?
@Leovigild June 12, 2021 at 2:56 pm,
Sorry, I didn’t include the reference. I’m talking about “Mary and Early Christian Women: Hidden Leadership” by Ally Kateusz (2019). Also, a grant provided a free Kindle version (https://www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3).
I hope researchers discover written records about this art that could indicate if this art describes female clergy in the Early Church or if it is merely in honor of Mary.
Bart, Have you written about this book?
Kateusz’s book? No I haven’t.
Bart, May I digress since you are well-read in known Early Christian literature?
Do you know of any examples of Early Christian literature that condemn Christian female priests or female bishops?
I ask because that would imply that there were some Christian female priests or female bishops before they were no longer permitted. And if that is the case, then it could offer interdisciplinary support for Kateusz’s proposition that the Early Christian artwork depicted Christian female priests and female bishops.
Nothing come to mind. Probably because bishops and priests were institutions that arose after women were no longer given places of leadership in the church, so there was nothing to condemn.
Bart (June 16, 2021 at 3:12 pm),
I see I asked the wrong question, and you recently mentioned how many are blissfully ignorant of Early Church history, mea culpa, LOL.
Apart from reading various church fathers, I haven’t read church history in over 3 decades, but I notice that the New Testament indicates no difference in rank between epískopos (overseer or bishop) and presbyteros (elder) while that distinction of rank must be post-New Testament.
I also barely know the history of clergy vestments, except that they were once ordinary clothes, if I am correct.
If I correctly understand you, your answer implies that there were female clergy in the Early Church. Is that correct? I want to read up on this historical point?
I don’t think the term “clergy” works for most of the first century — until we get, say, to the Pastoral epistles. By that time, women had been excluded from leadership roles in the church, or at least the churches associated with the author of these letters. In decades earlier, in the days of Paul, we do know of women apostles, deacons, missionaries, and so on. But there were not clerical offices to be inhabited yet. There is some question about where and for how long women continued in leadership roles, but none that we know of were episkopoi (Pliny does mention female deacons, who were also slaves)
Dr. Ehrman,
Are there any written records from the famous council meetings,like Nicaea?
We have the written accounts of what they decided, and some references to it by people who were there, but no detailed records of the day to day activities.
What about early copies of the LXX pre-Christian meddling? Do we have anything closer to the original, pre-Aquila? Or additional fragments from Symmachus? I would be curious to hear your thoughts on Jeromes suppression of supposed heretical Ebionite translations. I think clearly Epiphanus thought he was a Samaritan, but how much was his translation suppressed?
Part of the problem is that there wasn’t an “original” Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. There were various translations done in different times and places. And I”m not sure what you’re referring to with Jerome and Ebionite translations.
Mustn’t rule out technological advances. No one would have dreamed it possible to read damaged unrollable scrolls before tomography. Similarly, DNA allows reconstituting zillions of jumbled parchment fragments. Lidar has discovered lost cities, etc. So basically, you never know what’s next. But something will be next IMHO.
“I don’t have any opinions about theological debates concerning what comes from God and what doesn’t, since I don’t believe there is a God.”
Please may I know what kind of concrete and truthful evidence that you may need or must able to view to convince you that there is surely a powerful creator which we called God? Thank you Prof.
None. I don’t think you can provide “proof” for anything that resides outside our world. It’s a matter of faith, not proof.
> I don’t think you can provide “proof” for anything that resides outside our world.
I’m an easier sell than you. There are any number of things (*) that, if not ironclad proof, would at least give me serious reason to reset my Bayesian priors on the God question. Trouble is, none of them are in evidence, at least that I can tell.
(*) E.g., a sphere of solid U-235 1-meter in diameter floating two meters off the floor of the Sistine Chapel with inlaid golden characters reading “I am that I am” in the language of whoever viewed it.
Do you think that a single manuscript discovery could really completely revolutionize our views of early Christianity? I realize there’s a lot we still don’t know but at this point don’t we have enough to be fairly sure about the gist of it all?
Depends what it was. If it was Jesus’ diary it might make an impact, e.g…..
I am not sure what you mean by ‘the gist of it all”. History isn’t a series of events, it is the questions we ask about those events, and the answers we produce. I am certain there are many, many supremely interesting questions and answers that we haven’t thought of.
I’m no scholar, but I find this topic fascinating.
What else is hidden somewhere in a tomb in Egypt? (Or in a fish and chip shop?)
Surely, there must be a reasonable chance that copies of the writings of Marcion were stashed away somewhere near the Black Sea and are waiting to be discovered. His works must have been copied many times for use in his churches for hundreds of years. Who knows? Maybe Dan Brown will write a book about it one day.
Thank you for your excellent blog, Mr Ehrman.
The “Didache” and the “Odes of Solomon” are also examples of early Christian texts that we knew of from references to them, and that were later discovered as manuscripts.
So what are the top three books that we know existed but don’t currently have, ranked based on how interesting they would be? I guess there are gnostic texts that we would love to find?
I’d love to see any three other letters of Paul!
There are thousands of charred scrolls in the remains of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Modern technology is on the verge of being able “read” these scrolls…perhaps a letter from Paul…perhaps the earliest version of Mark…Matthew…Luke. Perhaps a fleeting reference to events in Palestine. One can hope!
Unrelated question:
Dr. Bart – I usually avoid debates you engage in when they’re with people like Dinesh D’Souza because life is short, but I watched this one because Peter Williams seemed to be a serious scholar.
You had some kind things to say about one of his books but you disagreed with him, I thought, on all the important matters.
Is he serious and is he worth reading?
https://youtu.be/foLI3KGbMnk
He’s a serious scholar but his expertise is really in Syriac manuscripts and the reconstruction of ancient texts, not on the Gospels and the historical Jesus. I don’t find his book on the Gospels helpful.
Dr Bart if Jesus is not god and bible is false also not innerant does it make Islam true ? Because Islam is literally the last resort of Abrahamic religion
I think you lost me? Isn’t that like saying that if this shirt is not brown, therefore it must be green? Or if this place is not Australia therefore it must be France? Why would something not being one thing mean it is something else?
No I mean in sense that three of them actually one line from Abraham but somehow they have different name or concept about god does it mean actually if truth is found it was like domino effect for abrahamic religion that was wrong like this forgery and historical error that happen in Torah and NT while Quran is saying indeed Jews and Christian made up. Their book and said Quran is last revelation
Sorry, I can’t understand what you’re saying.
Does it confirm what Quran said? Because until now no one could tackle the Quran and Muslim preacher always preach openly without hide anything
We are not going to debate which religion is “truer” or “better” on the blog.
When Jesus said “if you don’t believe earthly thing that I said how you gonna Belive the heavenly thing”or something like that isn’t it confirm that when we can verified bible is not perfect and full of variant contradiction how we gonna believe that he ressurect and also god that did not been told in the Bible
I”m not sure I follow your logic. That verse does not show one way or the other whether the Bible is perfect, and if the Bible has contradictions it has no bearing on the question of whether Jesus was raised from the dead. (Seriously: no bearing at all! If a newspaper account describes last year’s election but makes inaccurate statements about it, that has no bearing on whether the election happened or not)
Luke tells us that there were already “many” (Luke 1:1) gospels circulating by the time he sat down to write. Except for Mark and Matthew, they’ve all been lost. (“Many” minus 2 is still “many”) We’d love to find one of those, wouldn’t we?
I’d very much love to. Usually Q is counted as one of them as well; and I doubt that Luke knew about Matthew, so it wouldn’t be included among his “many”
Also how important the innerancy of the Bible because bible itself said scripture is god breathed and god did not lie , and his word cannot changed etc and yet when people found mistake they pass the argument to since jesus ressurect then it’s doesn’t matter if bible have error or not, why they lied?
Lying refers to saying something that the speaker knows and believes not to be true. There are lots of mistakes people make that convey false information but they don’t know it is false. They could be wrong without lying.
Dr Bart so the evidence we have now about the Bible did they lean toward untruthfulness about Christianity or truthfulness of Christianity I mean all those error contradiction forgery and innerancy and end with resssurection so we end up in this religion is truth or this religion is defective
They were leaning toward truth, of course. Whether they were accurate is another question — the same question we have to ask of everyone, including ourselves.
I don’t want to worship the wrong god, dr Bart Jesus is not god right ? I’m gonna searching for truth since I belive in god
I’m afraid we don’t deal with matters of personal belief on the blog in the sense of which God is right or wrong. We are interested here in the historical study of early Christianity, not in which religion is “true.”