Recently, the radio show "Unbelievable" aired a debate between noted New Testament scholars Bart Ehrman and Richard Bauckham. The debate centered around Ehrman's new book "Jesus Before the Gospels" where Ehrman contends that the stories about Jesus were circulated, altered, and invented by the followers of Jesus before they were written down. Bauckham, provides a counter-argument, where, in his book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," he has argued that the Gospels were written within "living memory" of those eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry and these Gospels are based upon this testimony.
During this spirited discussion Ehrman mentions the second century Church figure Justin Martyr (140's CE) who makes reference throughout his writings to the "memoirs of the apostles." In regard to this, at 48:43, Ehrman states that "he doesn't call them by our Gospels. . . the only memoir he names is the memoirs of Peter. . . he's talking about the Gospel of Peter."
The reference that Ehrman is referring to is Justin Martyr's comments in his Dialogue with Trypho;
“And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder. . ." (Dia. 106; ANF)
Justin is referring to the memoirs of Peter and he is loosely quoting an incident recorded in this "memoir." That Jesus changed the name of an apostle to Peter and the names of two others to "Boanerges." In all of the Gospels, this account can only be found in the Gospel of Mark at 3:16-17;
"He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);" (ESV)
No where in the Gospel of Peter is this account of the naming of Peter and the sons of Zebedee mentioned (Hill, 133-134). Therefore, contrary to Ehrman's claims, Justin Martyr can only be referring to the Gospel of Mark and here he connects it to Peter, independently verifying Papias' famous comments on the origins of Mark's Gospel;
"And the Elder used to say this: 'Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them." (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39; Holmes, 569)
Here are at least two independent sources, one from the late first century (Papias) and one from mid second century (Justin Martyr) that point to a common understanding in the early Church; that the Gospel of Mark was sourced in the testimony of the apostle Peter.
____________________
Hill, C. E. Who Chose the Gospels: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
I'm not so sure they are independent sources. Justin is not specific in attributing this 'memoir' (clearly Mark) to Peter. The AUTOU could possibly refer to Jesus (as in fact the translation you cite does). Or, we take it as referring to Peter because of the other evidence (like Papias). So I'm not sure it is completely independent.
ReplyDeleteThank you Dr Head for reading the post and for your comments. The statement by Justin Martyr is vague on this point. It is clear at least that Ehrman was referring to this point in Justin's dialogue to claim that Justin was referring to the memoirs of Peter as the Gospel of Peter when it is clear that Justin cannot be referring to the Gospel of Peter at all.
ReplyDeleteTwo of the biggest assumptions that many Christians make regarding the truth claims of Christianity is that, one, eyewitnesses wrote the four gospels. The problem is, however, that the majority of scholars today do not believe this is true. The second big assumption many Christians make is that it would have been impossible for whoever wrote these four books to have invented details in their books, especially in regards to the Empty Tomb and the Resurrection appearances, due to the fact that eyewitnesses to these events would have still been alive when the gospels were written and distributed.
ReplyDeleteBut consider this, dear Reader: Most scholars date the writing of the first gospel, Mark, as circa 70 AD. Who of the eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus and the alleged events after his death were still alive in 70 AD? That is four decades after Jesus' death. During that time period, tens of thousands of people living in Palestine were killed in the Jewish-Roman wars of the mid and late 60's, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem.
How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus in circa 30 AD was still alive when the first gospel was written and distributed in circa 70 AD? How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus ever had the opportunity to read the Gospel of Mark and proof read it for accuracy?
I challenge Christians to list the name of even ONE eyewitness to the death of Jesus who was still alive in 70 AD along with the evidence to support your claim.
If you can't list any names, dear Christian, how can you be sure that details such as the Empty Tomb, the detailed resurrection appearances, and the Ascension ever really occurred? How can you be sure that these details were not simply theological hyperbole...or...the exaggerations and embellishments of superstitious, first century, mostly uneducated people, who had retold these stories thousands of times, between thousands of people, from one language to another, from one country to another, over a period of many decades?
Thank you for your engagement with the post Gary. I will give you two eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry that were alive at least into the 90s CE. They were mentioned by Papias, the apostle John, and Aristion. (Eusebius, Hist. ecl. 3.39)
DeleteHello, Gary. I'm glad to see a skeptic reading this post. There are some skeptics that would not even bother to look at any arguments we make, or anything we write. It's good to see you interacting. I am a scholar, by the way, and would differ on a number of points. First I would date the Gospel of Mark at least a decade earlier.
DeleteSkeptics place it in AD 70 due to their presuppositions about rather Jesus could prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13). There is a great deal of discussion could be made, but I think there is good reasons that the author of Mark was unaware of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Irenaeus said that Mark had written his Gospel while Peter was preaching in Rome. Since all scholars date Peter's martyrdom to AD 65 (including Bart Ehrman), this would mean that Peter had to be preaching in Rome before AD 65, thus Mark was written before the year AD 65!
Again, thank you for the chance to reply to your post!
The majority of scholars date the Gospel of Acts between circa 65 CE and 75 CE. So it is certainly possible that Mark was written PRIOR to the destruction of the Temple.
DeleteBut what about the fact that nearly all scholars reject the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels? Even most Roman Catholic scholars (who believe in the supernatural, miracles, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus) doubt the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. How do you explain that?
Hi Timothy,
ReplyDeleteDoes Papias himself claim to be the disciple of John the Apostle or is this simply an unsubstantiated claim made by someone living several centuries later (Eusebius)? Do you have evidence that Aristion was an eyewitness to the death of Jesus and the alleged events after his death? If so, could you share that evidence with me to review?
Please read this:
according to Irenaeus, Papias, like Polycarp was a disciple of John.
Although Papias' original work entitled Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord is no longer extant, Eusebius (c260-c340) preserved some excerpts from this work in his History of the Church. In one excerpt there is a revealing passage from Papias own work about his actual relationship with John:
History of the Church 3:39:4
[Papias Wrote] "...If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,-what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice." [Italics mine-PT]
It is important to note what Papias is saying here. [6]
•Papias got his information about the apostles second hand ("any one came, who had been a follower of the elders"). He never claimed to know the apostle John.
•He used "said" in past tense with respect to the apostles (including John)-implying that the apostles had already died.
•There were two Johns mentioned. One was obviously the apostle John while the other was a mysterious "Presbyter John" which was placed outside the circle of apostles by Papias.
•With this "Presbyter John" and one Aristion, Papias used the present tense ("say")- meaning that they were still alive when at the time of writing.
Some apologists have tried to argue that the Presbyter John could still be the same apostle John referred to earlier in the same passage. This is highly improbable. We have noted that he was described in the present tense, while the apostle John was described together with the other apostles in the past tense. Secondly the Presbyter was named after Aristion, someone who was obviously not one of the apostles; implying that the Presbyter was at best the equal of Aristion and very likely his inferior when it came to the teachings of Christ. It is unlikely Papias would have described the apostle John this way.[7]
The two Johns, one of whom was still alive, and whose teaching could have been "heard", second hand, by Papias is very likely the root of Irenaeus' confusion. Papias heard the teachings of the Presbyter John, not the apostle John, son of Zebedee. Recall that Irenaeus himself said in his letter to Florinus (see above) that he was "a child" (Greek : pais) when he was taught by Polycarp. It is highly probable that Polycarp (like Papias) told him that he had heard "John and the rest of the followers of the Lord are saying", meaning the Presbyter John which the young boy Irenaeus mistook for the apostle John. [8]
Thank you for your reply Gary. Of course, one is free to discount the evidence of Papias. Either way one takes it, here are two witnesses to Jesus' ministry that lived into the 90s.
DeleteThank you again for reading the blog and for interacting in the comments here, I appreciate it.
Wrong, Timothy.
DeleteThe person who claimed that Papias was a disciple of John the Apostle who lived over TWO HUNDRED years after Papias! Papias never once claims to have been the disciple of John the Apostle. In fact, Papias clearly states that he never once met ANY of the eyewitnesses.
And upon what evidence do you claim that Aristion witnessed the death of Jesus and the alleged events after his death? Again, Eusebius? That would be like me stating that I know as FACT what someone living in 1816 did.
That's is ridiculous.
That is hearsay.
This is why I left a message for you, Timothy. You are following an ancient superstition whose "evidence" is based on second hand information (hearsay) from the second, third, and fourth centuries.
Abandon superstitions, friend, and embrace the real world absent ghosts, gouls, and ancient gods.
Thank you again, Gary, for your comments.
DeleteNewsflash: The majority of New Testament scholars no longer believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels.
ReplyDeletehttps://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
Thank you once again for your comments.
DeleteNewsflash: New Testament Scholar Craig Keener wrote’ “Today almost all scholars acknowledge that Luke and Acts share the same author. Although there are differences of language between the two works, these differences by themselves do not require distinct authors, and the similarities are compelling.
DeleteBeyond this general agreement, a majority of (but not nearly all) scholars agree that Luke was a gentile, writing for a largely Gentile, (or, perhaps more accurately, mixed Gentile and Jewish) Dispora audience. A much smaller number, though probably still the majority, argue that the author was at least a short-term companion of Paul.” (Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 1: Introduction and 1:1-247, Volume 1)
New Testament scholar Mick Licona writes, “The authorship of Matthew’s Gospel is a wooly matter. Few of today’s scholars think Matthew wrote it. The reason is Papias from whom comes our earliest report pertaining to the authorship of Matthew and Mark likewise tells us that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect. The problem is that even prominent evangelical New Testament scholars, such a s D. A. Carson, Doug Moo, and Dan Wallace, who have a particular expertise in the Greek language, have concluded that Matthew ’s Gospel is not written in translation Greek. In other words, the Gospel of Matthew in our Ne w Testament was probably not initially written in Hebrew or Aramaic, then subsequently translated into Greek. But if Papias was mistaken on that matter, should we trust him on the matter of Matthew writing the Gospel?
A solution in which we can have great confidence eludes us. However, there are possibilities. Papias actually wrote, “So Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew dialect and each person interpreted them as best he could” (Fragments of Papias 3:16, Holmes numbering ). The Greek term Papias uses for “oracles” is ta logia or “the teachings.” Perhaps Matthew wrote a smaller treatment than the Gospel attributed to him in which he included a number of Jesus’ teachings, and this was subsequently translated into Greek and combined with other sources, such as Mark’s Gospel. Perhaps all of this was done with Matthew ’s knowledge, review, and approval. We can only speculate. However, given the unanimous attribution of the early church of that Gospel to Matthew, it seems more likely that Matthew played some part in what has come down to us to day as the Gospel of Matthew.” (What are the Primary Sources for Jesus’ Resurrection?)
New Testament scholars Mike Licona has estimated that over the past 50 years, a slight majority of critical scholars agree with the traditional authorship; that is, someone called Mark or John Mark wrote what he remember the apostle Peter said. ( Are the Gospels “Historically reliable”? A focused comparison of Suetonius’s Life of Augustus and the Gospel of Mark )
New Testament Scholar Mick Licona writes, “There is no scholarly agreement today on the identification of the author of John’s Gospel. Almost all of the early church tradition attributed its authorship to John the son of Zebedee, who was one of Jesus’ three closest disciples. Although most of today’s New Testament scholars reject that tradition, they still think the Beloved Disciple mentioned in John’s Gospel was the eyewitness source of much of the information contained in John. Many think him to be one of Jesus’ minor disciples; others continue to maintain that the author was in fact John the son of Zebedee.” (What are the Primary Sources for Jesus’ Resurrection?)
In Justin Martyr's ‘First Apology’, chapter 35, he refers to a moment during Jesus' Passion in which his naysayers tauntingly ask him to judge them. This moment is unattested to in the canonical gospels, yet is attested to in the Gospel of Peter.
ReplyDeleteMartyr:
And as the prophet spoke, they tormented [Jesus], and set him on the judgment-seat, and said, “Judge us”...
Gospel of Peter:
And they clothed him with purple and sat him on a chair of judgment, saying “Judge justly, King of Israel”...
So Martyr not only describes a memoir under the name of Peter, but he shows awareness of stories seemingly unique to it. It's simply much easier to assume that Martyr accepted the Gospel of Peter. Ehrman is right.
It is also unfair to say "No where in the Gospel of Peter is this account of the naming of Peter and the sons of Zebedee mentioned" because the portion in which the account would have occurred simply didn't survive. Our sole fragment of the Gospel of Peter starts halfway through Jesus's trial under Pilate. We don't know whether it did or did not include those earlier moments. There's every possibility it did.
Hello Anonymous! I am sorry, but that is special pleading. We have to work off the evidence we have, not be concerned with the evidence that we don't.
DeleteRemember though the gospel of Peter presents itself as a memoir of Peter while the gospel of Mark does not and we know for a fact that Justin was using the gospel of Peter as a source. So when Justin refers to a "memoir" of Peter he is most likely referring to the gospel of Peter.
DeleteWhich facts show Justin was using the Gospel of Peter?
DeleteWell I was referring to the fact that Justin mentions an event during the passion that that only found in the gospel of Peter. It is possible I guess that Justin somehow got this information independently but this seems unlikely to me. To me the most likely explanation is that he read the gospel of Peter and that's where he got that information.
DeleteThese alleged references to the Gospel of Peter are disputed by leading scholars such as Paul Foster of the University of Edinburgh. See his Chapter "The Relationship Between the Writings of Justin Martyr and the So-Called Gospel of Peter" pages 104-112 in "Justin Martyr and His Worlds" edits by Sara Parvis and Paul Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007).
DeleteTo Anonymous above,
ReplyDeleteI have all of the works you have described on my computer. The Gospel of Peter's reference appears to not be a true parallel to the Justin Martyr reference. In addition to that, Justin was interpreting prophecy in light of what happened to Jesus, and to make matters worse there is no mention of the "memoirs of Peter."
So, if he was referencing the gospel of Peter, which seems highly improbable, he does not claim that the memoirs of Peter in the reference. Remember, Bart Ehrman's claim was that Justin Martyr's reference to the memoirs of Peter was referring to the gospel of Peter. There is nothing in the texts you had cited to indicate that Justin thought that the memoirs of Peter was referring to the gospel of Peter. All the references that have found, particularly in Justin's "Dialogue of Tryphy" (which is what both Bart Ehrman and Richard Buchman was referring to in the debate), that refer to the "memoirs of Peter" also cite from it, and they are all citations from the Gospel of Mark. I have checked the Arkham Fragment, and there is no mention of any of the citations that Justin is referring to. Remember, whenever Justin mentioned the "memoirs of Peter" he had also cited from it. This gives us something to check.
Also, keep in mind, claiming something is true without evidence is special pleading. If Bart Ehrman asserts that Justin is referring to the gospel of Peter then the burden of proof is on him. To add grease to the wound, the evidence indicates that Justin is referring to the gospel of Mark.
What unknown wrote above is evidence. You dismissed it so haphazardly. He Erhman doesn't only view justin quoting from the gospel because he said the memoirs of Peter, he stated else where there are traditions in it the aren't in Mark.
ReplyDeleteThe above was a solid example of something Justin said thats in the gospel of Peter but not Mark, so it is evidence.
Ok I asked Ehrman about this on his blog. This was my original question:
ReplyDelete"Hello Dr. Ehrman! I apologize if you’ve already answered this but I was listening to one of your debates (the one with Richard Bauckham in 2016) and in it you mention that the only gospel Justin Martyr names is the “memoir” of Peter and you said that Justin was referring to the gospel of Peter. I’m assuming you were talking about Dialogue with Trypho 106 where Justin writes:
“And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder. . .”
From what I understand the event Justin describes here is only found in the gospel of Mark (Mark 3:16-17) but it is possible it was also in the gospel of Peter since we currently don’t have a complete copy of it. So my question is this: What makes you think Justin was referring to the gospel of Peter here when it looks like (at first glance) he was referring to the gospel of Mark?
Thanks"
And this was his reply:
"The Greek actually says “his memoirs.” Normally that would be a genitive of origins or source, describing the one who produced the memoirs. If you change the name you’ll see what I mean: if Justin has said “As once happened to the apostle Matthew, as is written in his Gospel.” The main reason readers (and translators!) have wanted to suggest that Justin is NOT referring to the Gospel of Peter is that they simply can’t believe he’d quote a book that didn’t come to be in the NT. But that *does* seem to be the implication of what he says. Supporting evidence comes from the fact that that when Justin refers to events of Jesus’ passion, he sometimes does so using phrases that are now found only in the Gospel of Peter, not in the accounts of the other four. There’s some terrific scholarship on this question, but unfortunately the best is found only in German!"
Thanks for commiting and posting this here.
DeleteThis is hardly settled that Justin makes reference to the Gospel of Peter. Leading scholars disagree that these are clear allusions to the So-Called Gospel of Peter. See my comment about for a reference to Paul Foster's scholarship on the issue.
Delete