I assume you disagree with Dr. Ehrman on his Forgeries book where he defends the hypothesis that it was considered dishonest and was not an acceptable practice? Thanks?Again, like nearly all scholars, yes. Many of the Epistles were attributed to people who didn’t write them. This was a common practice in the Greco-Roman world, and they did not view it as problematic or dishonest like we do today.
What of Peter linking himself to Mark in his epistle.Traditionally Mark was supposedly a companion of Peter. There are some historical problems with
3) the link of Mark to Peter is only found in later tradition, and can’t be dated earlier than the second century - several first century sources (including the Gospel of Mark itself!) make no mention of it.
This is piquing my curiosity.As a number of historians have pointed out, there is no actual historical evidence that he made it to Rome, or of how he died.
I thought Raymond Brown was censured by the Vatican. I heard that a lot of his works contained serious errors.
@Margaret_Ann, could you be thinking of Dan Brown?No, he wasn’t. He was in fact praised by […]
His books all bear the imprimatur, […]
The Written Word of God, (The Bible) is a record of Salvation History.History is based on textual evidence, not tradition, faith, or belief.
We can be surprising at times!I didn’t know historians could be so pugilistic!
I think one of the most important areas of research in the past generation has been the “Jewishness” of Jesus and the first couple of generations of Christianity. Because of this, we have also come to understand the development of the different streams of beliefs in the first century. The next decade or so will really see a lot more of this research coming, and more of it will cross into the mainstream media and popular history.Are there any current debates or topics that you consider to be especially important from a research or scholarly perspective?
It still hasn’t been published, or properly peer reviewed as far as I know. Unfortunately the fragment has still only been seen by the archaeologists who found it and possibly some preservationists working on it. If it does in fact turn out to be a first century copy of Mark, it will be quite the find! It could help show how quickly the gospel moved through the Mediterranean. There’s no indication, however, that it will contain any new historical information.A few years back I heard something about an Egyptian funeral mask that was made using the Gospel of Mark. Has the text been published and did it reveal anything? and was it first century?
Yeah, I don’t know where he gets that. Pseudonymous book, letters, poems, etc. were extremely common in the Greco-Roman world, and I don’t see any evidence that the practice was considered problematic.I assume you disagree with Dr. Ehrman on his Forgeries book where he defends the hypothesis that it was considered dishonest and was not an acceptable practice?
There are two problems with this as evidence that the author of Mark’s Gospel was a companion of Peter. First, we don’t know if this Mark wrote the Gospel - there are many historians who think the identification of Mark as the author actually comes from this line (i.e. second century Christians came to identify the anonymous gospel with a known figure of importance to Peter). Second, the authenticity of the letter as being written by Peter remains uncertain.What of Peter linking himself to Mark in his epistle.
1 Pet 5:13 • ‘The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.’
There is no doubt that the tradition of Peter being in Rome is early, and I fully expect he was there, but the historical evidence is lacking to me. As I’ve written above, I’d say historians are about evenly split on this. Looking at what I wrote now, I should have been clearer about that. My apologies.From what I recall from my own classes in Church History (in a Protestant seminary, no less), I thought there was a solid case, supported by early traditions like the famous Gaius quote consigned by Eusebius in CH II,25 or the testimony of emperor Julian about his tomb being a secret place for worship, for Peter to have been martyred and buried in Rome ?
Bones were in fact found under the Vatican (which was built on an ancient cemetery). We can’t unfortunately determine whose bones they are - though are frequently believed to be Peter’s. As far as I know, there aren’t any inscriptions that identify the owner of the bones - but I’m not an archaeologist so I haven’t explored the evidence there in any detail.Do I remember correctly that the bones considered as his relics, found in the Vatican ossuary, could be his, as they are said to have belonged to a man in his sixties from the right period, and that if Guarducci is to be trusted, there is a case for the inscriptions on the memorial to identify him ?
Not much. I use it as a starting point. Some historians give it great weight - James Dunn is one - but most find it to be problematic. Oral tradition, while it can be useful in many circumstances, can change over time much more easily than written tradition. And we can see how rapidly written traditions change in just a century or two by comparing gospel manuscripts! I’m especially skeptical of oral traditions that arise centuries after the events are said to have occurred - there is just too much time for pious myths to have formed.I guess the question underlying all this is, what worth and weight do you ascribe to (oral) tradition from a historical point of view ?
I agree with you. I can’t tell you how many sermons I have sat through in which the priest, pastor, preacher, or whomever, goes on at great length about how there is no non-canonical information about Jesus. That’s just completely wrong.I know this may be an uncomfortable question. When I first started learning about the Critical Historical method, I was quite upset that I had been lied to. I know many others that have felt the same and still others that just refuse to give it any credit. This is all knowledge that should not be locked up in ivory towers. People should be given all the knowledge available and allowed to decide. I thank you for your coming on here to do just that!
I’m in the History Department, although I do a lot of work with people in Theology and the interdisciplinary Religious Studies Departments.What department are you part of at your college or university?
That’s pretty similar to what out Religious Studies people do, and I’m pleased that yours is as diverse from a disciplinary perspective.If you are in RS department, how does that compare to your program?
I am fascinated by all of the gospels - canonical and non-canonical. I think the recent emphasis on Gnostic influences in early Christianity have taught us a lot about the diversity of beliefs in the first few centuries.Also, what are your thoughts on the Gnostic Gospels from a historical perspective?
They are, unfortunately, all of unknown authorship. It’s highly unlikely they were written by anyone close to Jesus, because they all date to the early second century at the earliest. In fact, as far as we can tell, they are all based on the canonical gospels. They sometimes fill in blanks (Secret Mark for example), or expand on parts of significant interest (Gospel of Peter), but there is little chance that they contain any new genuine historical information about Jesus or his ministry.Were they written by disciples and if so how can we explain the gaps and contradictions from them to the other Gospels?