Loading...In the previous post I began to answer the question of which lost books of early Christianity I would most like to have discovered, by discussing the earliest writings of which we are familiar, the letters of Paul, most of which (presumably) have been lost. I would love for us to find some of them. I doubt if we ever will, but who knows?
I suppose we’d all love to have more letters from Paul, and not merely for sentimental reasons (it’s not that it “would be nice”). Paul is without a doubt the most important figure in the Christian tradition next to Jesus himself. His writings have served as a basis for Christian ethical and theological thought for centuries. And yet we know so little about what he thought and taught.
When people read Paul’s letters, they frequently neglect to realize that
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!
I also wonder if Paul’s other letters contained material that made later disciples uncomfortable, like maybe he was too liberal about the role of women in the church. But could it be this simple: the end was near (they thought) so no need to keep his letters for posterity?
Well, since the writer of 1 Timothy pretty much replaces Paul’s position on the role of women with misogynistic rules, I’d say it’s entirely possible that some of Paul’s letters were suppressed by misogynist church leaders.
Yes, I can see that possibility.
Wouldn’t the discovery of an authentic non-canonical letter from Paul raise theological issues? What would its status be as far as matters of the faith especially if it expressed points of view that differed from historical interpretation of the canonical letters? Prof Ehrman, do you know any professional theologians? Might be an interesting question to raise.
Yes, I know a lot of theologians. But neither they nor anyone else has any idea what Paul actually said in those lettrs, so there’s no way to know….
Well lack of evidence for alien life has not prevented theologians from speculating on its significance for the faith. I would be very surprised if no theologians have given thought to the implications of the discovery of previously unknown Pauline letters.
Professor Ehrman, if you had to choose between archaeologists finding two unknown undisputed letters of Paul or finding the Q document, what would your choice be?
Depends what was in the letters. 🙂
But I personally would receive more brownie points if it was Q.
Question: Bart, what do you personally find to be the most exciting recent findings or breakthroughs in New Testament Studies? Are there any new methods, scholarly inquiries, or research programs that you find particularly captivating?
For me the most exciting “new” thing is NT (and biblical scholars generally) taking their findings to the broader public. In terms of breakthroughs in scholarship, most of them in recent years have either been throw-backs to positions that were held before the current concensus or do not seem to have moved the field much.
Does this mean that New Testament Studies is turning into a “dead field” if new scholars aren’t producing scholarship that is moving the field? Is this an issue with the state of the field or just due to the fact that there are a limited number of sources and thus scholars have a kind of cap on knowledge production?
No, there’s a ton of scholarship digging deeper and exploring new areas. It’s just that there’s no seismic movements going on.
Imagine we were to discover irrefutable proof of one of Paul’s lost letters, and it included a detailed explanation of how Christians will one day judge angels after the arrival of the kingdom of heaven. Even if there were nothing in it that contradicts existing doctrine or sparks controversy it would certainly feel unfamiliar, even strange, to many Christians who haven’t spent much time thinking about the idea of believers presiding over angelic judgment.
How do you think the global church would react? Would the Catholic Church recognize and canonize the letter on account of its apostolic origin? Would new editions of the Bible be produced to include it? And would churches be willing to revise their statements of faith to incorporate this newly recovered teaching?
I guess in this particular point it wouldn’t throw a huge monkey wrench in things in light of 1 Corinthians 6:3: “Don’t you know that we will judge angels?”
What you are suggesting is something I have reflected on for many years. However, I am inclined to consider the possibility that it may be both coincidental and intentional. In particular, I find it difficult to account for why such a personal letter as Philemon was preserved as part of the canon. To what extent was this document regarded as having doctrinal significance by those involved in the process of canon formation?
Shinji@Tokyo
So far as we know, no one used it for any doctrinal reasons. As with other books of the Bible, it was seen to have other merits. It is very strange indeed, though, that they chose that one to include! It’s often thought that it is because it was seen as a companion piece with Colossians, with which it has many similarities.
Maybe it was selected for canonization after other letters by Paul became hard to find, so it was a shoo-in because it was “by Paul”.
Yeah, for me the hard thing is figuring out why the letters otherwise weren’t kept at all, apparently. Seems like SOME of them would have been.
The general vibe I get from his letters is that Paul only talked about Jesus in broad strokes when setting up new churches. I get that he was in a hurry to spread the word before the Kingdom of God arrived, but it seems to me he made the common mistake of assuming that some things were so self-evident that he didn’t need to explain them in great detail. There were probably gaps that the congregation would have had to fill in with bits of their non-Christian upbringing.
While they must have written letters to Paul asking for advice on these matters, they wouldn’t have included things that they were sure about, even if it wasn’t in line with what Paul actually believed (because how could they know?), or even what he had originally taught them. They might have had confused memories about what Paul actually said.
I’m starting to think the wild variety in early Christianity might have been even wilder.
James heard somehow about Peter sharing table fellowship with Paul in Antioch. The presumed letter’s recipient, James, might have first learned from the letter that Paul’s sacred meal was the body and blood of his recently martyred brother, Jesus. James was a Nazarite who did not drink wine. The sacred meal Paul taught was both a cruel barb to James and a teaching of apostasy. The two elements of the Eucharist violate kashrut as did the pork the Maccabees rose up against. Christians would have eaten the pork. In these two historical situations, we find Jewish factions allied with an imperial patron. Greek-aligned Jews lost to the Maccabees. Rome won big. The Jews allied with Rome also won. The defeated Seleucid-allied apostate Jews might have relocated to the capitol of their ally, Antioch. Scholars don’t seem to discuss this historical parallel or notice that there were also present both times enticement to violate Jewish dietary Law. Do you think Jews would have thought Paul was teaching apostasy because of the similarity of the Eucharist to the pork?
I don’t undersgand what the connectoin of the Eucharist to pork is. It was celebrated with bread and wine. They were commonly consumed together in Jewish circles. Still are!
The connection is that the bread and wine are said to represent the body and blood of Jesus, even if not actually transubstantiated. Blood is unclean in the Jewish diet, as is human flesh. There is a story that finesses the restriction of blood (the gospel story in which ‘the life’ is now given to humans) but there was not immediate broad acceptance of this brand new claim. The leaders at Jerusalem did not seem to accept it. They specifically forbade Paul from teaching his Eucharistic formula when they told Paul not to teach sexual immorality, eating meat sacrificed to idols, *blood* or *the strangled thing*. Those last two are the elements of Paul’s Eucharist (if the strangled thing is the body of Jesus who died of asphyxiation. If not, it is a repetition of the blood prohibition which is still one of the elements of Paul’s sacred meal). I am aware that apologists claim the Jerusalem Decree is really about circumcision, but it does not actually mention that. Paul’s Eucharistic meal (with the wine representing blood) is similar to pork for violating Jewish dietary law. (Model Jew Eleazar died a martyr rather that even pretending to eat pork.)
Ah, now I see what you meant. Thanks. The early Christians did not think they were eating the flesh and blood of Jesus. They were commemorating his ultimate sacrifice of shedding blood and broken body, and remembering what he underwent when they partook of their meal together. The idea that they were *actually* eating his body and blood came later than Paul. One could argue that there is something like that in the Gospel of John (ch. 6); but the doctrine of transubstantiation was much later.
I greatly appreciate this opportunity to interact with you, Dr Ehrman. My question was about how *other* Jews would receive Paul’s teaching.
…He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood.”
Not all Jews believed in resurrection but those who did had Eleazar as a model. Saying the bread *is* his body is ‘pretending’ that it is his body. Cannot even pretend! Better to die! A New Covenant is announced but traditional Jews who believed in resurrection were very attached to the Torah covenant. They were willing to die for it and did in large numbers in later decades.
I note the impossibility of Paul receiving accurate information from a person he never met (who was dead) and strongly suspect that Paul was teaching against the interests of the disciples. Torah-zealous Jews did not believe non-Jews needed to be circumcised but apologists claim the Jerusalem Decree dropped the (non)requirement that non-Jews be circumcised when what is actually lists is four active prohibitions, including both Eucharistic elements.
Prof. Ehrman,
Per 1 Cor. 15:11: “Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.” This statement emphasizes the unity and consistency of the apostolic message. The gospel message is the same whether it was preached by Paul or other apostles such as Peter who, like Paul, preached the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is this correct?
It’s correct that this is what Paul is claiming, yes. If you’re asking if the claim is true, there is no way to tell from the claim itself, which is all we have.
Prof. Ehrman,
Who are some of your all-time favorite scholars Pauline or otherwise from the past few centuries?
Some of my favorites: Albert Schweitzer, Walter Bauer, Nils Dahl, and E.P. Sanders.
I sometimes marvel at ALL the novels written about “lost teachings” and “hidden manuscripts” that would shake the “very foundations” of the church. On the other hand, I do sometimes wonder, if in the future, some significant finds were discovered and proved to be legitimate. I know … it would make a great book!! 😊
Would it not have been the case that most of Paul’s output would have dealt with far more mundane matters, such as collections of offerings and other sorts of logistical matters? The surviving 7, in some way or another, all seem to deal with “big questions” at some point in the text. Could it not have been the case that the others weren’t intentionally preserved not because they had things the early church fathers didn’t like, but simply because they were not considered to have enduring relevance like the other ones did?
I think part of the problem is tha thte 7 don’t always deal with big questoins. Philemon is the outstanding case in point. But since the letters to churches do deal with big issues, surely all of Paul’s churches had problems? Just these five?