(8 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...There’s no way to put a precise date on the canonical process, but it is worth nothing that the formation of the canon was a long, drawn-out process. Here are some thoughts on some of the key issues of the late second century drawn again from my book Lost Christianities (Oxford University Press).
******************************
Justin Martyr of Rome was one of the most productive proto-orthodox authors of the second century (martyred around 165 CE). Still preserved are two “apologies” that he wrote – intellectual defenses of the faith against its pagan detractors – and a piece called the “Dialogue with Trypho,” in which he tries to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, largely by appealing to a Christian interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures. Others of his works were lost, though, including
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 Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus, Martin Hengel draws attention to a statement Justin Martyr makes in his Dialogue with Trypho (103), where Justin writes:
“For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them…”
Hengel observes that Justin’s use of the plural “apostles” implies that at least two of the memoirs known to him were attributed to apostles themselves. Likewise, the plural phrase “those who followed them” indicates that at least two additional memoirs were understood to have been written by followers or companions of the apostles.
Although Justin never specifies the exact number of memoirs in his possession, Hengel concludes that Justin appears to presuppose a collection consisting of at least two apostolic and two post-apostolic works… an arrangement that aligns neatly with the traditional understanding of the four canonical Gospels.
What do you think about Hengel’s logic here? Would you agree that it at least demonstrates that Justin wasn’t working with a single spliced-together gospel harmony?
I think it’s a stretch. It does show that Justin knew there were various Gospel accounts floating around, and that some of them were allegedly written by apostles. But I don’t think it gets us to *four* accounts, two by apostles and two not. That would be imposing a meaning on what Justin says, rather than admitting he doesn’t actually say it.
Do all the other gospels and apocalypses classified as heretical or gnostic by the Orthodox have a common theme of that the Second Coming was not a future, literal, and historical event?
Not at all. Most of the non-canonical Gospels don’t talk about the issue. disabledupes{ae5aab6d3c8729695821ade208470de2}disabledupes
Can we assume that Pauline churches and Matthean churches would have been somewhat antagonistic? Yet there they sit side by side in our Bibles.
It sure seems that way.
In that case, why would the anti-Pauline Gospel of Matthew make such extensive use of the Pauline Mark?
Good question. I’ll offer a very speculative answer: it’s possible the author of Matthew either liked the atonement doctrine already found in Mark, without knowing much else about, or accepting other parts of Pauline Christology; that one is saved through faith and grace, not by following the Law (which is very important to Matthew, at least insofar as it pertains to Jesus’ Jewish followers), or that his understanding of Paul’s gospel was only second-hand and that he didn’t have knowledge of what’s actually in the letters…or simply didn’t make the connection that Paul is getting at when he takes atonement to its logical conclusion: it is faith in the atonement not law-keeping that is important to salvation. He seems to miss that point in Matthew 25:31-46 for instance. it’s like he wants it both ways.
Professor Ehrman, can you please do a blog on something like : “Were all 4 gospels Pauline or no?” ?
Basically, I would love to know how much the gospel writers were influence by Paul’s theology. I know you have taught that Paul was the first Christian writer, and the NT’s oldest parts are written by Paul, but I still don’t know what conclusions to make. For one thing, I’m not sure that the gospel writers read Paul’s stuff or heard about Paul’s theology. It would be great to read what you have to say
Thanks. Good idea.
It’s hard to tell what extent an atonement theology exists in Mark, since its soteriology seems different from Paul’s. In Mark, there is the martyrdom mandate (only those who endure to the end shall be saved), the mutilation mandate (if you sin with a body part, chop it off to avoid damnation), the persecution mandate (submit to persecution or be damned 13:9-20), the unforgivable blasphemies mandate, and a willingness to abandon your family (10:28-31). None of these requirements are in Paul’s soteriology and Luke’s soteriology is anti-atonement. Mark 10:45 and 14:22-24 (Jesus’ death as a ransom and the last supper) can be interpreted as a Pauline atonement or not. Does “give his life a ransom for many” and “blood of the covenant which is poured out for many” refer to an atonement or a martyrdom that serves others and a good cause? Is the last supper a symbolic commemorative meal? Could “ransom for many” only refer to Jesus liberating people from Hades when he descends there after his death? How one answers these questions determines how Pauline Mark is and to what extent Mark embraces an atonement theology.
I came across an interesting article on Facebook (https://cutt.ly/dtcC1Rke) stating that an AI analysis confirms Josephus’ writings on Jesus were not later additions. Could you comment on whether you are aware that this is serious research or just someone’s clickbait?
AI is just chunking out discussions fed into it.
I think you have jumped to a premature conclusion. The article stated “Dr. T. C. Schmidt used artificial intelligence to analyze Josephus’ Greek writing style across his entire body of surviving work—over 400,000 words. By comparing vocabulary, phrasing, and literary structure, the AI examined whether the disputed section about Jesus matches Josephus’ normal writing patterns.” Apparently Dr. Schmidt has written what seems to be a scholarly book on the subject (https://cutt.ly/3tc9ekTQ) and this article was a summary of part of that book describing his AI work. I’m guessing you are unaware of his recent book but I wonder if you have heard of Dr Schmidt as being a researcher in the field?
Yes, I know him and had him give a talk at our conference New Insights Into the New Testament last September. My view is the wide consensus among experts, that it is virtually impossible to imagine that the non-Christian Josephus declared that Jesus was the Jewish messiah who was raised from the dead in fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures. We have Josephus’s autobiography and many volumes of his other writings, and almost everyone agrees there is no way that is what he thought.disabledupes{d14d108152ea23a328692a6d4e71a779}disabledupes
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think that there were other written gospels in the first century? Luke 1:1 suggests that this was the case. I am thinking that the other gospels if they existed did not get significant followings so they were not copied and preserved for future generations.
I absolutely think so. And I agree about why they weren’t preserved: simply weren’t copied, like most literature from antiquity.
A group whom I identify as the “Q” Community wrote the Gospel of Matthew. According to Acts 1:1, Luke had completed the Gospel of Luke before beginning to write ACTS. Luke, a trusting and gullible Gentile in Judea, interviewed mostly Jews from the “Q” Community. That fact is a clue that something strange is happening, because Jews do not socialize with Gentiles The “Q” Community of Jews have socialized with Gentiles for 200 years since the Seleucid ruler attempted to eliminate the Jewish religion in Judea. (The “Q” Community emerged from its parent community after the death of Jesus.) The “Q” Community fabricated the Bethlehem Nativity narrative, the Return of Jesus, and many alleged miracles. A member of the “Q” Community, “John of Patmos”, wrote Revelation. Authors from the “Q” Community wrote the pseudepigraphal forgeries of 2nd Timothy, 1st & 2nd Thessalonians, 2nd Peter, Jude, and the addendum to 1st Peter. The “Q” Community became the ancient Gnostic Christians. The “other” pseudepigraphal forgers were students of Aristotle in the city of Corinth. They wrote 1st Timothy, Titus, 45% of 1st Corinthians, and EPH 5:22-24. Then the Council of Nicea added its own forged insertions.