What a discovery! Bart displays so much in depth knowledge and presents it a such a folksy, yet seious, manner. Sprinkle in that infectious, cackling laugh and the viewer is left wanting to hear and learn more and more. Megan is the perfect host, knowledgeable in her own right, but directing questions on topic to just draw out the best in Bart.
I studied ancient history as an undergrad, and wrote an MA thesis on the New Testament canon. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture blew my mind because I grew up in the church and had never seen a critical analysis before that.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
I appreciate Bart making me aware of the concept of gospel Harmony and encouraging me to read the gospels sure by side and compare them. It's bizarre to realize most people basically know the story of Jesus as a 5th gospel cobbled together from the 4 canonical ones
You could look up the Diatessaron by Tatian for an actual written 5th gospel, cobbled together from our canonical 4. The Diatessaron was long in use in the Syriac church.
Megan, I think you are a fine interviewer! You ask very good questions, and then you let Bart answer them. You get good information out and keep the conversation moving.
I don't know the interviewer but she's great (not just bc she reminds me of Kate Winslet). It's so delightful to hear Bart interviewed by someone as personable, clear, & intellectually nimble as Bart himself is. This was fantastic, thanks, & I'll look up more of Megan's work.
I still regret never knowing about Bart or his books when I was an undergrad and then dental student at UNC-CH in the ‘90s. I might have left Christianity much earlier. I didn’t know about him until after graduation & moving to Charlotte. At some point in the early 2000s, I got to hear him give a talk at a small church in Charlotte, but I still didn’t really understand who he was or the true scope of his work. I was already in the process of deconstruction though; reading Misquoting Jesus after that evening did speed it up. I’ve enjoyed many of his interviews, debates, podcasts, & lectures over the last 30 years.
I was a Christian for over 50 years. I would have left much sooner if I had come across certain people. There's nothing wrong with the teachings of Jesus once we decide what he actually said. Unfortunately the church and Rome needed a divine leader but as we know the feet of iron and clay will be destroyed.
I left Christianity LONG before Bart ever came on the scene. What broke it for me was reading, "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. THAT book, written over 200 years ago was WAY more influential on ME. Discovering Bart (he's my age) only confirmed by thoughts and beliefs but did it in a MUCH more modern context.
I came upon Elain Pagels's "The Gnostic Gospels" when I was in my early twenties. That book led me out of the darkness that I had wandered in for so long.
I was working on a client job building a software system in New York. Working insane hours. I took one night off and just wandered around. I ended up at a used bookstore in Greenwich village where they had Pagel’s book and I bought it for around a dollar. I had been reading lots of science fiction by P. K. Dick who at the end of his life was very influenced by Gnostic Christianity. Her book was fascinating and a nice diversion from Java and Oracle manuals and I’ve found the topic of the history of Jesus and early Christianity fascinating even though I’m an atheist.
By far the best podcast about early Christianity. The vast knowledge Bart display is outstanding even with seven days lead time for preparation not many Professors can come close to this insights . Excellent Bart I love this show and Thank you so much.
“ … even with seven days lead time for preparation …”, etc., only a few professors would be able express the ideas he expressed. First, I imagine that there are scores of professors who could have presented what Dr Ehrman presents with almost no notice at all save where and when to relate the history he does. Second, Dr Ehrman himself didn’t create what he created in seven days … curious number, that … , but one that took him scores of years with mastery of a haf dozen languages to create.
I started asking this question as a teenager in the mid/late 1970s. Nobody seemed to want to talk about it. The answer always came down to: "Certain men decided how everyone else should think."
Can we please get an episode with Dr E revisiting his dissertation? Would love him to react on his younger self's take, plus how he arrived at his subject, & how his relationship to that subject changed as his knowledge developed?
It would be interesting for a looking back episode James tabor did a few and that was enlightening It would be great to see those two as well discuss their developments from then and now in either a debate or a two parter where they exchange who interviews whom
What’s really funny about the canon being decided at Nicaea myth is I actually had one of my undergraduate professors in my religious studies program insist during class that that was the case, even after I tried to correct him on the point! In fairness his specialty was in the Hebrew Bible iirc, not early Christianity, but I thought it was wild how far up that misconception had gone 😂
The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.[4]
@@bobSeigar The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.[4] And of course, these 72 books were all included in the Gutenberg bibles with no fuss. It was only later that Luther took scissors to the canon
Loving this podcast, new content from Dr. Ehrman is always a pleasure, such a great combination of scholarly competence + charisma/communication skills.
My understanding is that there was an old Church father named Marcion whom the other Church fathers considered a heretic, and he made a sort of canon that was mostly similar to the one we know, except instead of four gospels there was only the Gospel of Marcion (made from other gospels) and only about half of the other New Testament books. So the canon we know was a response to Marcion's.
Yes, our canon was a response to Marcion and his much smaller canon. I was surprised that Ehrman never mentioned Marcion, or I missed that one time when he did. . . . Marcion is still considered a heretic today, because he claimed there were two gods: one god who created heaven and earth but who was also unmerciful, and another, superior god who sent his son Jesus to us, to show us salvation from this wretched world. The church rejected Marcion's new teaching, excommunicated him, and gave him back his money he had donated. . . . Marcion's canon was one gospel and many letters by Paul, but not Titus, Timothy, or Hebrew. The gospel was similar to Luke's gospel, according to church fathers who accused Marcion to have cut from Luke what he disliked. Within forty years, the church had its canon, includung the four gospels, all of Paul's letters, and other writings, which we are not sure about.
Just the theology is different. More jewes .even our old testament has the same teaching and using their theology it's a till there. Jewes teachings like many gods just jehova there god and not the god of all family's of jews. Translators just use the idea of god in place of many words. Rocky mountain. Is now god etc etc.
Thank you for what you are doing. As a Christian I appreciate how you are clarifying what the scriptures are really saying. I don't know if you realize it but you are doing the work of the Entity you claim to not believe in. Keep up the good work. God bless
Big fan of Bart and Megan but surprised no mention of Marcion of Sinope in discussions of the Canon as it is generally believed that it was in reaction to his writings that an Official canon was thought necessary!
I listened Dr Erhman speak at the Philadelphia public library many years ago. And he autographed my copy of "Misquoting Jesus" I remember asking him about Erasmus and he seemed shocked that I asked. I enjoyed listening to him speak. Very informative.
"French Archeologists were digging up graves." The difference between an archeologist and a grave robber that an archeologist has a college degree in how to fence the objects they steal.
This is easily my #1 podcast now. I went ahead and got my questions in over on the website. Hopefully I can stump you on the Outsmart Bart segment! I'm also a member of the blog, which everyone who's financially able should join. Good content for a good cause over there.
ask Bart this in the Outsmart Bart segment - The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@ryant32u How about the Gospel narrative itself source to start with John 21:24 "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true."
Given Matthew quoting near-verbatim most of Mark, is it possible that Matthew is a reconstruction of a lost document, with a later scribe using Mark to fill in the gaps? Or are there clear signs that what we have today is what Matthew was when written, and Matthew is merely an expanded copy of Mark?
i'm a BIG fan of Bart Ehrman. I would love to meet him and pick his brain someday. I love coming at antiquity from a historical and critical method instead of a theologic method.
Fascinating discussion as ever - I would be intrigued to hear you both discuss Mary Magdalene - her Gospel and her rehabilitation in the last century and the effect the patriarchy of the Christian Church on her reputation and importance to the ministry of Jesus.
So do I. I hope you appreciate the early Epicureans too, not the later ones. You know Stoics and Epicureans alike agreed "Moderation in all things, excess in none."
Fascinating discussion, as always. I've read several of Bart's books and watched a few of these videos. I am particularly fascinated by the notion of different passages (e.g. the story of the prostitute about to be stoned) not appearing until later versions of the new testament, as well as the many editing changes made along the way from the very beginning. Do you, Bart, or does anyone else reading this comment know of a publication that would document on a verse-by-verse basis the date of its authorship or inclusion? After having heard so much emphasis on "scriptural accuracy" in my church days, I'm wondering how much of the "faith" and its doctrines are actually tied to edits made centuries later, both pre-canon and post-canon. A similar fascination of mine is how American evangelicals are largely anti-Catholic (either publicly or privately), and yet the organization that became the Roman Catholic church was, to my knowledge, the exact vessel by which the faith was codified, heresy was defined, and the scriptures created/edited/preserved. Many evangelicals see Catholics as being in error, yet they accept their elided canon as the "true word of God." Ironic.
As a former European evangelical (from the Rhine region traditions), I can testify that these questions are not explored, and similar questions did certainly play a role in my deconversion
You can look at Wikipedia for Pericope Adulterae. It is included in relatively late manuscripts, from the 4th century, like the Codex Bezae. . . . The pericope could have been taken from the gospel of the Hebrews, according to Wikipedia. The latter gospel was deemed unorthodox and was actively censured in the 3th century - it could have been that the story was transferred to John (and in one manuscript even to Luke) to save it from being forgotten. . . . A view of the Catholic Church as evil is indeed incompatible with accepting the bible from them. On the other hand, the religious wars in Europe 1550-1650 saw a lot of cruelty on both sides, which explains the negative views of the "others". My own church, the Roman Catholic Church, was equally involved in demonization of the "others".
The definition of canon was quite new. Back in seminary I was taught that canon was the straw, or tube, that papyrus was made of. Being a tube gave way to cannon (for shooting), while writing the oral tradition made it final. So, kinda new, this definition. I’d ask my professor if he were still alive.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 I think you meant to cite John 21:25 but that’s just wishful thinking based on John stating that more had been written and could be written, if all was to be noted. Remember, when John write his texts as the last surviving apostle there where still more eye witnesses alive, so if we were to apply Occam’s Shaver we would rather think he’s pointing at oral tradition.
@@preacherno From the divergence of story-line from the Synoptic Gospels, I think it is fair to say that John did not rely on eyewitnesses. Furthermore, very few would have been alive by time the Gospel of John was written.
The way Canon is used in this context is from Greek, meaning rod, used to measure. The word cannon comes from Latin meaning reed or tube. So, your professor was sort of right, but should have been using the Greek root and not the Latin. (I had to look this up)
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them.
I wanted to ask Professor Ehrman, can you do a talk about the Church Fathers, please? Who were they? Were they all bishops? How were they chosen? Were there any theologians of the same period who are not called a Church Father? Did the Fathers have a part in choosing the NT canon? Thank you.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
I have been enjoying these programs. One thing that puzzles me is the origin of the (apparently erroneous) idea that the Council of Nicaea did in fact formalize the Canon, and even that there was a "vote" involved, because I had that very view of it since the 1980's, long before Dan Brown's books. I had to have read it somewhere...and I know it was prior to 1988.
the council of Nicaea was to determine the nature of Jesus. There were 2 opposing doctrines. Arius believed Jesus was divine but was created by God, making him a lesser being. Athanasius believed Jesus always existed, making him equal to God. Athanasius was the one who came up with the doctrine of the Trinity. Constantine didn't care which doctrine was chosen as long there was only one doctrine. Obviously, Athanasius won the day and Arius was labeled a heretic. All of Arius' writings were destroyed. Church fathers did quote some of Arius writings just to state Arius was a heretic and his teachings were counter to the "orthodox" teachings of the church.
@@noahbody9747 Thanks for that, it does clarify the work done at the Council. I am still wondering where the original story about the Council being held to vote on the authenticity of the books of the New Testament came from. Dan Brown may have helped spread this story, but he did not invent it.
@@jmiller1918 There appears some quote in the Synodicon Vetus about selecting the books. The Synodicon Vetus appeared in a 9th century manuscript. It states "placing them by the side of the divine table in the house of God, they prayed, entreating the Lord that the divinely inspired books might be found upon the table, and the spurious ones underneath; and it so happened." Whoever wrote this was obviously wrong since the books were voted on at the council of Trent in 1545. Dan Brown didn't do a thorough research or he didn't care. Fictional writers will often do what is good for the story, not necessarily have accurate history. There is a story about Jerome in the intro to the book of Judith about the council of Nicaea selecting the book of Judith as canon (which of course never happened). This bit of history is dismissed. Hope this helps.
@@noahbody9747 Thanks for the additional information. I admire your scholarship! I read a fair amount on Gnosticism back in the mid-'80s, possibly I acquired the notion of Nicaea being the moment of decision for Canonical v. non-Canonical from someone there. It's an error that Dan Brown found somewhere too.
The labour involved in copying a « book » let alone 29 books should not be underestimated. Making parchment is really hard. Making inks is a technology. Cutting quill pens. Copying accurately. Copying legibly.
This delighted me. And only Megan could get away with saying "... if you're familiar with the Old Testament ..." to the world's most famous Biblical scholar.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them. Friday 13th
cannon or canon? 😂 All old manuscripts of the Quran have been destroyed on the order of an early caliph, or they were otherwise lost, and only the standard version was allowed from then on. . . . But there has been ONE older manuscript discovered, as palimpsest, in a mosque in Sana, Yemen. Western researchers could take photos in the 1970s, before the manuscript was locked away again by new, conservative Muslim rulers. . . . You can find a description of the palimpsest online: IIRC a few verses were different and also the order of some surahs.
Bart loves to laugh and giggle a lot. Here’s a question he will struggle to answer: Knowing all you know now Bart, 1600+ years after the Canon and studying the Bible for 50+ years, and all the other scholarly studies that have been done, what changes/additions/deletions would you make? Doesn’t man’s understanding and knowledge in 2022 of the events back then warrant another “church council” akin to Nicaea?
Bart, you are moving forwards at the precise time, very happy.and glad that you have decided to kick ass lately, we missed you largely for some years...Now we can relax 1%, focus on more...and REVEAL much better, thanks for re-,invifogorating,
If the criteria is it has to be written by an apostle or close companion of one then how did books get in that were anonymous like Hebrews? Or the disputed letters of Paul? Or the gospels?
The Gospels were believed to have been written by the names associated with the titles (John Mark the companion of Peter, Luke the companion of Paul, Matthew the apostle, John the apostle) Hebrews was believed to have been written by Paul. The disputed letters of Paul weren’t disputed later on among churches and just accepted at face value as by Paul. Many in the church just accepted the traditions about authorship.
@@shemashekarshalom539 I know what is “believed” but that doesn’t make it true. The criteria to be included seems wrong to me since we don’t know who wrote most of the letters.
@@anthonyjames4319 you asked “how did the books get in”. Of course what is “true” can be different from what is believed. I am an atheist (ex-Protestant-Christian). I was making a historical observation on the assumption your question was a historical question. Augustine did have different criteria than the “apostle or close companion to an apostle” but he is in the 4th century. Many of the earlier Christians had criteria similar to what Ehrman lays out. If you are Christian and you are trying to figure out what criteria of canonicity you should use to figure out what books should be considered canonical I can suggest some books for you that discuss canon from a Christian perspective.
@@anthonyjames4319 a thumbnail sketch is something like this: 1) The more I learned about the world the easier it became to understand and explain the Bible and Christianity through purely natural causes. If it’s easier to explain Christianity through nature than to explain nature through Christianity it becomes difficult to maintain belief. 2) I realized just how bad the evidence for Jesus is. Dale Allison Jr.’s book Resurrection: Apologetics, Polemics, and History shows vividly how the historical evidence isn’t enough to believe Jesus rose from the dead. Those were the two big things that made me leave Christianity. Now that I’ve stepped outside of Christianity there is a lot of things about Christianity that I find problems with that were hard for me to see. I don’t personally see general theism as a viable option at the moment.
I love listening to Dr. Ehrman. I am wonderng if anyone knows if his mountain home is close to Hayesville, North Carolina. My great great grandparents are buried at Hayesville. 6 of their 13 children came to central Texas (where I live today) from Hayesville in the late 1800's.
The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.[4]
@nosuchthing8 That is 100% correct. It’s that simple. Protestants removed 7 books. Martin Luther wanted to remove 4 more NT books (James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelations) because these books contradicted his new heretical teachings
@@stantorren4400The creator is the Necessary Being. Life as we know could not have come from nothing. The big bang is merely a cause. The creator is the ultimate Cause.
@@fuadahmed7322 Also, a creator existing ≠ god existing. Saying something exists is that, saying this specific kind exists is a very different answer. For all we know, Korgull the exterminator is the creator
@@stantorren4400 That's a good question. For God to be created is impossible because it would lead to infinite regress and there would be no universe. How do you explain our complex universe and biological living organism without a Creator and Designer ?
Anti Paul was most of gnostic used Paul as their main text.so when gnostic ban Paul was called a heretic in some church fathers etc .like churches of other christ follower they adopted them in taking congecation by blending them in using their text with new theology or death.
Martin Luther did not entirely reject the Old Testament apocrypha. He called them "useful and good to read", and they continued to be quoted in the Lutheran church. But he rejected four books of the New Testament on theological grounds and left them in his bible only as kind of an appendix. This is why the order of the books in the New Testament in Lutheran bibles even now differs from others.
I find it amusing that a bunch of old men would get together and argue over what they wanted to decide their dogma would be to push on people based solely on their own biases and what they wanted it to be. If any of it was actually true, there would have been no questions to argue about. The idea that a god came down (from where in the cosmos they can't say) and spent a few years in a small area talking to people instead of writing anything down that couldn't possibly be questioned or misrepresented and spread it across the entire planet and providing some really valuable information like about germs and disease treatments, information about dinosaurs and how humans actually evolved and the vastness of the universe, it being fully of gazillion of galaxies and multi-gazillion solar systems in each galaxy and at least a diagram of a printing press. But what happened in reality is most likely a nutty, illiterate Jewish man who was convinced he was meant to tell people he knew the world was about to end.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 When such document can be produced and verified, then you can opine on it but as it stands now, you haven’t got any evidence that could be considered credible. In other words, I am not buying your bs.
@@rhondah1587 Here is the evidence from the Gospel itself John 21:24 "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true." John 11:5 Now Jesus LOVED Martha, and her sister, and LAZARUS John 11:3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him{Jesus], saying, Lord, behold, HE[Lazarus] WHOM THOU LOVEST is sick.. John11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he[Jesus] LOVED him[Lazarus]!
Which books and which version was not a discussion at the council because it was already decided before the council. I hope that part is obvious. 50 books cant be ordered if the book didn't already exist. How was this missed? Or was it intentional.
It's so refreshing to listen to a matter of fact discussion of the creating of a godman instead of cringing before a preacher threatening his followers with "god's holy word".
So emotional. Let's stick with the real facts: The NT 27 books all ut 3 were quoted by the earliest Christians. Hence, the later church did not confer any more authority then they already possessed. You don't like Jesus? That's on you.
I think for.some.specific topics it should be great to have visual support...for this video a table with all the bible compilations to give us a hint of what Bart is talking about
There are differences between the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Canons of Scripture. The Protestants leave out certain books and the Orthodox Canon has some books in the Old Testament that are in neither. You can verify all of it via Wikipedia and various websites. They are not all the same. "The canon of the Catholic Church was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382), the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), the Council of Carthage (AD 397)" - From WIkipedia. At this time the church was undivided and so there was no difference between Orthodox and Catholic. That split didn't come about for more than a thousand years after these councils set the canon.
Please please do an episode on Jehovah’s Witnesses! They brain was so many people and have twisted the Bible to fit their doctrines. I would love to know what Bart thinks about them.
I'm quite surprised at how Bart did not mention Marcion who was crucially instrumental in forcing the early church fathers to clarify the church's position with regards to authoritative scripture.
This is great. I love the content and the format. I’m also very happy to hear that Bart’s sound quality has improved. But I still wish that Megan had a better microphone. Keep up the good work.
WHY HAVE SO MANY AUTHORS HAVE WRITTEN GOSPELS, LETTERS, LEGENDARY SORIES ETC ABOUT JESUS' LIFE AND ACTIVITIES DURING THE FIRST CENTURY?DIDN'T SHOW THAT JESUS WAS REALLY EXISTED THAT TIME? PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION?.
@@prakashpetta6221 Dr. Ehrman has spoken and written on this point many times: he calls Jesus one of the two best attested Palestinian jews to live in the first century and says that the historical evidence for his life (five independent sources: Paul, the synoptics, John, Josephus, Tactitus) is as strong as we could possibly expect.
The New Testament books were those commonly recognised as authoritative, were most accepted by Christian leadership over a long period and which were doctrinally in harmony with the both the Old Testament and with each other. Not that there was never any contention about texts or disagreements but over time, it became apparent where the final lines should be drawn. The RC church still has its views in the apocrypha, but I think it's ok to be gracious and allow room for the conscience of others, even if you disagree.
Basically. There were a few books that were very contentious and either made it in, but were close to being excluded or came close to being left out but made it in, but the majority of texts were well agreed on long before the canon was formally settled.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 - it is so far only a hypothesis, not a consensus, but David Trobisch published his thesis in 2000 that there was one major edition of writings around 155CE that became our New Testament. The edition was published in response to Marcion and his canon of 1 gospel and 10 letters by Paul, and was maybe edited by Polycarp. If you're interested in the development of the canon, you might want to have a look on Trobisch' arguments.
What were the presuppositions of the people that chose the books in the bible? How did confirmation bias play a role in determining what was true and what was heresy? How were these “biblical truths” determined before the bible was put together? How could the bible confirm what the bible says before there was a bible? If the bible says that the bible is true and therefore it is true because the bible says so, what was true before there was a bible? How did we discover that truth without a modern day bible to compare it to?
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th
Have not the OT apocrypha been part of the pharisaic canon until the end of the second temple and the Bar Kokhba war? It is very understandable the jewish sages deleted the Macabbee-books out of their canon after the destruction of the ancient state of Israel, almost they also excluded the song of songs if not Rabbi Akiva would have spoken for it, but I would love to know if the LXX canon was the accepted canon of the jewish Bible during the time of the second temple?
To answer my question of "How did they decide what is Orthodoxy(correct thought) or Heterodoxy(wrong think)?" My professor said "Heterodoxy is your doxy and Orthodoxy is my doxy."
How do 2 blind men follow Jesus? How does a deaf man hear Jesus? Why do you all say Jesus 'resurrected' on Sunday morning when the Gospel says Jesus 'resurrected' on Friday from off the cross? What did Jesus write in the dust with his finger? What was Mary Magdalene's "special part that would not be taken from her"? Why does it say that the "disciple whom Jesus' loved outran Peter? Why did the people rumor that the disciple whom Jesus loved could never die? When the Pahrisees spoke of "less the second mistake be worse than the first" what 'mistake' are they talking about?
@@termination9353 @lostfan5054 The WHOLE mess is confusing and contradictory. Amazing anyone believes any of it. (Yet I did because my parents and reverends told me so!)
@@ellencooney5563 the Gospel straight up says Jesus resurrected from the cross "And came out of the graves after his[Jesus] RESURRECTION, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" Mat 27:53 John was not at the cross, Gospel says Apostles were all in hiding "for fear of the Jews." - It was Mary Mag that took Jesus mother to live in Jesus's home....Jesus had a son via Mary Magdalene John 19:25-27 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother[Mary], and his mother's sister[in-law], Mary the wife of Cleophas[mother Mary's brother], and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by[Mary Magdalene], whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy [grand]son! [in Mary Mag's womb/pregnant.] 27 Then saith he to the disciple[Mary Mag], Behold thy mother[in-law/Jesus' mother Mary]! And from that hour that disciple[Mary Mag] took her[Jesus' mother] unto his[Jesus'] own home [The home of Jesus and his now pregnant wife Mary Magdalenein a midwifing arrangement.]
Always interesting content on this channel. I only wish though that podcasters would coordinate their sound levels among all the speakers. To hear Bart I had to turn him up till Megan was blasting my eardrums to kingdom come. I say this in a friendly way as I love the podcast.
Megan Dear ! You are great , your laughter so sweet , you're polite & presentable & professional ...I like you 😘 Where as for Bart, I like your honesty, ... your informations & studies are mind enlightening ....we thought that the Bible is Holly & the word of the Almighty God to humen ..... Thanks a lot anyway ....
I thought the Douay-Rheims translation (use by the Roman Catholic Church and translated in 1611)) of the new testament had additional books that are not in the King James translation (translated in 1610 and originally used by most other Christian faiths)?
Love the podcast. Dr. Ehrman is a fountain of info. I would love to some day see him engage with Dr. Richard Carrier's work on the histricity of Jesus. I know Dr. Ehrman is quite solidly in the historical Jesus camp, but Dr. Carrier's peer reviewed work actually raises several intriguing points I'd like to see a response to. Please don't dismiss Carrier out of hand.
@@DarthGylcolious I can't find it. He debated Price, but I don't know of a Carrier/Ehrman debate. There are a couple Carrier videos where he responds to Ehrman's arguments.
I turned on this video to listen to it in the background while working. Bart is brilliant as always...when I finally took a break from my labors to actually look at the video I was shocked by the electric orange hair! 😆
You are young Bart and in the South. I have a picture of me reading the Book of Enoch in 1975. I read many other books which were not canon. The long closed 8th Street Book store in Manhattan had people recommending them as well as Wizard Book store on broadway. This is not a new discussion. Was Isaiah one or two books. These were all studied and discussed in the early seventies.
Great stuff! Just one thing : Megan's mic is WAY louder than Bart's. I have to keep on adjusting the volume as you go back and forth. Anyone else notice this?
Yes. It is odd because you can see sound absorbent material in her background. She needs a decent microphone and some audio equipment to help her set sound levels.
I really enjoyed the interview you did with him and was amazed at all he knew and could talk about. That's awful news. Just one more instance out of many where life is not fair at all.
@@termikesmike There are hundreds of millions of people that claim to have "personal visions", of Allah, Krishna, Jehovah, Vishnu, the Virgin Mary, Buddha, ect, ect, ect, The countless times I asked, begged & pleaded for God to "reveal himself" to me was met with only *deafening silence.* _If God is real, he can't be bothered to even try to convince me he exists,_ so what more can I do ? *Not, my choice.*
@@moodyrick8503 Luke never claimed to see God, or even meet Jesus …anyway I remember my ’state of Ecclesiastes’ and telling God “ So long, been good to know you “ but it’s time to put away the childish thinking, no more tooth fairies ,time for ‘ nothing but the truth ‘ ….so, what are you going to do for Eternity ? Why the heck is Ecclesiastes in the Bible !!!
@@termikesmike And how exactly did you "confirm" that these men were actually _"speaking for God"._ *(Faith = just trust me ?)* And how does _"what Luke did not see",_ help me at all ? I know you are trying to be sincere, but you have not given me anything. _Childish thinking ?_ Believing in _"magical beings"_ & _"super natural events"_ are common to all religions. *I can't tell the difference.* *Their claims are fake, but yours are real.* Thanks for trying, anyway, Mike. _Have a great day._
What a discovery! Bart displays so much in depth knowledge and presents it a such a folksy, yet seious, manner. Sprinkle in that infectious, cackling laugh and the viewer is left wanting to hear and learn more and more. Megan is the perfect host, knowledgeable in her own right, but directing questions on topic to just draw out the best in Bart.
I studied ancient history as an undergrad, and wrote an MA thesis on the New Testament canon. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture blew my mind because I grew up in the church and had never seen a critical analysis before that.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353cool story bro 😎
@@Mr.NiceUK Thanks.
@@termination9353That's nonsense
@@eamonbreathnach4613agreed, complete rubbish.
I appreciate Bart making me aware of the concept of gospel Harmony and encouraging me to read the gospels sure by side and compare them. It's bizarre to realize most people basically know the story of Jesus as a 5th gospel cobbled together from the 4 canonical ones
You could look up the Diatessaron by Tatian for an actual written 5th gospel, cobbled together from our canonical 4. The Diatessaron was long in use in the Syriac church.
Bart's laughter is just contagious, which along with his vast knowledge make for a great lecture. Kudos to Megan too for such a great job.
Megan, I think you are a fine interviewer!
You ask very good questions, and then you let Bart answer them.
You get good information out and keep the conversation moving.
Ditto...
She is a good as Bart allows ... not suggesting he would obstruct, but he definitely directs ... and it works fine for both I think.
With Bart you kind of have to. He knows so much that sometimes it can be overwhelming
I don't know the interviewer but she's great (not just bc she reminds me of Kate Winslet). It's so delightful to hear Bart interviewed by someone as personable, clear, & intellectually nimble as Bart himself is. This was fantastic, thanks, & I'll look up more of Megan's work.
@@JBL1222 Sounds quite interesting.. I should check it out.
Bart appears to be smitten with her. I don't blame him.
Yes because her appearnce is so important.
@@zapkvr who said that?
Isn’t she Dr Josh’s wife, and co-author of Digital Hamurabi?
I still regret never knowing about Bart or his books when I was an undergrad and then dental student at UNC-CH in the ‘90s. I might have left Christianity much earlier. I didn’t know about him until after graduation & moving to Charlotte. At some point in the early 2000s, I got to hear him give a talk at a small church in Charlotte, but I still didn’t really understand who he was or the true scope of his work. I was already in the process of deconstruction though; reading Misquoting Jesus after that evening did speed it up. I’ve enjoyed many of his interviews, debates, podcasts, & lectures over the last 30 years.
I was a Christian for over 50 years. I would have left much sooner if I had come across certain people. There's nothing wrong with the teachings of Jesus once we decide what he actually said. Unfortunately the church and Rome needed a divine leader but as we know the feet of iron and clay will be destroyed.
I left Christianity LONG before Bart ever came on the scene. What broke it for me was reading, "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. THAT book, written over 200 years ago was WAY more influential on ME. Discovering Bart (he's my age) only confirmed by thoughts and beliefs but did it in a MUCH more modern context.
And how do you know Bart is correct?
I came upon Elain Pagels's "The Gnostic Gospels" when I was in my early twenties. That book led me out of the darkness that I had wandered in for so long.
I was working on a client job building a software system in New York. Working insane hours. I took one night off and just wandered around. I ended up at a used bookstore in Greenwich village where they had Pagel’s book and I bought it for around a dollar. I had been reading lots of science fiction by P. K. Dick who at the end of his life was very influenced by Gnostic Christianity. Her book was fascinating and a nice diversion from Java and Oracle manuals and I’ve found the topic of the history of Jesus and early Christianity fascinating even though I’m an atheist.
By far the best podcast about early Christianity. The vast knowledge Bart display is outstanding even with seven days lead time for preparation not many Professors can come close to this insights . Excellent Bart I love this show and Thank you so much.
Not as early as would have thought. Early Christianity I would say is from the age of 30CE to 80CE
“ … even with seven days lead time for preparation …”, etc., only a few professors would be able express the ideas he expressed. First, I imagine that there are scores of professors who could have presented what Dr Ehrman presents with almost no notice at all save where and when to relate the history he does. Second, Dr Ehrman himself didn’t create what he created in seven days … curious number, that … , but one that took him scores of years with mastery of a haf dozen languages to create.
I started asking this question as a teenager in the mid/late 1970s. Nobody seemed to want to talk about it. The answer always came down to: "Certain men decided how everyone else should think."
I have listened your online lectures again again and again. .. I have been learning a lot thinking a lot. Thank you so much.
Can we please get an episode with Dr E revisiting his dissertation? Would love him to react on his younger self's take, plus how he arrived at his subject, & how his relationship to that subject changed as his knowledge developed?
Hi Pica, that's a great idea! Thanks
I 2nd that! Great idea!
@@fretnesbutke3233after a motion is seconded a vote is undertaken…🤚
It would be interesting for a looking back episode James tabor did a few and that was enlightening
It would be great to see those two as well discuss their developments from then and now in either a debate or a two parter where they exchange who interviews whom
What’s really funny about the canon being decided at Nicaea myth is I actually had one of my undergraduate professors in my religious studies program insist during class that that was the case, even after I tried to correct him on the point! In fairness his specialty was in the Hebrew Bible iirc, not early Christianity, but I thought it was wild how far up that misconception had gone 😂
It's a mistake by a fiction writer.
But it's really a minor mistake. The Canon was decided later at another council.
The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.[4]
@@nosuchthing8 Er, it isn't a minor point, it's an entire 100+ years.
Also, wrong council.
@@bobSeigar what I posted is from the Wikipedia page. Go get them to change it if you have issues.
Yeesh.
@@bobSeigar
The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.[4]
And of course, these 72 books were all included in the Gutenberg bibles with no fuss.
It was only later that Luther took scissors to the canon
Loving this podcast, new content from Dr. Ehrman is always a pleasure, such a great combination of scholarly competence + charisma/communication skills.
He's totally forgetting the writings of the early church fathers that cover everything up to about the year 400.
@@momijiyamanishi4548 um, no he is definitely not, he mentions them frequently when relevant
My understanding is that there was an old Church father named Marcion whom the other Church fathers considered a heretic, and he made a sort of canon that was mostly similar to the one we know, except instead of four gospels there was only the Gospel of Marcion (made from other gospels) and only about half of the other New Testament books. So the canon we know was a response to Marcion's.
The. Council of TRENT!!??!!! how did europe become center of middle eastern psychosis???
Yes, our canon was a response to Marcion and his much smaller canon. I was surprised that Ehrman never mentioned Marcion, or I missed that one time when he did.
. . . Marcion is still considered a heretic today, because he claimed there were two gods: one god who created heaven and earth but who was also unmerciful, and another, superior god who sent his son Jesus to us, to show us salvation from this wretched world. The church rejected Marcion's new teaching, excommunicated him, and gave him back his money he had donated.
. . . Marcion's canon was one gospel and many letters by Paul, but not Titus, Timothy, or Hebrew. The gospel was similar to Luke's gospel, according to church fathers who accused Marcion to have cut from Luke what he disliked. Within forty years, the church had its canon, includung the four gospels, all of Paul's letters, and other writings, which we are not sure about.
Just the theology is different. More jewes .even our old testament has the same teaching and using their theology it's a till there. Jewes teachings like many gods just jehova there god and not the god of all family's of jews. Translators just use the idea of god in place of many words. Rocky mountain. Is now god etc etc.
Loving the new stuff! Love ya Bart.
Thank you!
Thank you for what you are doing. As a Christian I appreciate how you are clarifying what the scriptures are really saying. I don't know if you realize it but you are doing the work of the Entity you claim to not believe in. Keep up the good work. God bless
Ditto
Read the quran before the curtain is closed. May God guide you
@abelincdlp
The truth shall set you free (from dogma)
I absolutely love this pod cast-and Barts brain and knowledge.
Agree .. Bart is so informed about this whole area and able to clearly make his points.
Big fan of Bart and Megan but surprised no mention of Marcion of Sinope in discussions of the Canon as it is generally believed that it was in reaction to his writings that an Official canon was thought necessary!
Marcion had such a minority view point that I don't think any of the proto-orthodox churches took him seriously.
I listened Dr Erhman speak at the Philadelphia public library many years ago. And he autographed my copy of "Misquoting Jesus" I remember asking him about Erasmus and he seemed shocked that I asked. I enjoyed listening to him speak. Very informative.
Really cool! "In Praise of Folly" is one of my favorites! I recall two of his proofs that Dame Folly rules the world was War,..and Marriage.
"French Archeologists were digging up graves." The difference between an archeologist and a grave robber that an archeologist has a college degree in how to fence the objects they steal.
This is easily my #1 podcast now. I went ahead and got my questions in over on the website. Hopefully I can stump you on the Outsmart Bart segment! I'm also a member of the blog, which everyone who's financially able should join. Good content for a good cause over there.
Hey JZ it's Chris writing for Bart. That's great to hear. We've put a lot of work into it. But DOUBT you can Outsmart the Bart!! Haha
@@bartdehrman Oh I doubt I can either, but it's at least worth a shot!
ask Bart this in the Outsmart Bart segment - The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 you have sources for those claims?
@@ryant32u How about the Gospel narrative itself source to start with John 21:24 "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true."
Given Matthew quoting near-verbatim most of Mark, is it possible that Matthew is a reconstruction of a lost document, with a later scribe using Mark to fill in the gaps? Or are there clear signs that what we have today is what Matthew was when written, and Matthew is merely an expanded copy of Mark?
i'm a BIG fan of Bart Ehrman. I would love to meet him and pick his brain someday. I love coming at antiquity from a historical and critical method instead of a theologic method.
Thanks Jason!
Yes Jason..history, brings method to the madness for me too, Thank goodess. 👌🏽
Agreed! I Love his lectures and explains (what we know) about the real history.
"Parablepsis occasioned by homeoteleuton" is always forever burned into my mind 😂
@@BalrogsHaveWings lol...$ditto! 😂💣💥
Megan is a talented interviewer.
Fascinating discussion as ever - I would be intrigued to hear you both discuss Mary Magdalene - her Gospel and her rehabilitation in the last century and the effect the patriarchy of the Christian Church on her reputation and importance to the ministry of Jesus.
I read The Shepherd of Hermas for a religion class at Pomona College in 1967.
I would love to read the book; The effect of Canonical mistakes on the influence and relevance of Christianity over time.
So much to learn from Prof. Erhman.
I'm definitely looking forward to Bart's take on Epictetus. I love the stoics.
So do I. I hope you appreciate the early Epicureans too, not the later ones. You know Stoics and Epicureans alike agreed "Moderation in all things, excess in none."
Wonder why it's Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and not starting with the first written, as in Mark, Mathew etc?
Fascinating discussion, as always. I've read several of Bart's books and watched a few of these videos. I am particularly fascinated by the notion of different passages (e.g. the story of the prostitute about to be stoned) not appearing until later versions of the new testament, as well as the many editing changes made along the way from the very beginning. Do you, Bart, or does anyone else reading this comment know of a publication that would document on a verse-by-verse basis the date of its authorship or inclusion? After having heard so much emphasis on "scriptural accuracy" in my church days, I'm wondering how much of the "faith" and its doctrines are actually tied to edits made centuries later, both pre-canon and post-canon.
A similar fascination of mine is how American evangelicals are largely anti-Catholic (either publicly or privately), and yet the organization that became the Roman Catholic church was, to my knowledge, the exact vessel by which the faith was codified, heresy was defined, and the scriptures created/edited/preserved. Many evangelicals see Catholics as being in error, yet they accept their elided canon as the "true word of God." Ironic.
I always think the same that you have brilliantly pointed out.
As a former European evangelical (from the Rhine region traditions), I can testify that these questions are not explored, and similar questions did certainly play a role in my deconversion
You can look at Wikipedia for Pericope Adulterae. It is included in relatively late manuscripts, from the 4th century, like the Codex Bezae.
. . . The pericope could have been taken from the gospel of the Hebrews, according to Wikipedia. The latter gospel was deemed unorthodox and was actively censured in the 3th century - it could have been that the story was transferred to John (and in one manuscript even to Luke) to save it from being forgotten.
. . . A view of the Catholic Church as evil is indeed incompatible with accepting the bible from them. On the other hand, the religious wars in Europe 1550-1650 saw a lot of cruelty on both sides, which explains the negative views of the "others". My own church, the Roman Catholic Church, was equally involved in demonization of the "others".
The definition of canon was quite new. Back in seminary I was taught that canon was the straw, or tube, that papyrus was made of. Being a tube gave way to cannon (for shooting), while writing the oral tradition made it final. So, kinda new, this definition. I’d ask my professor if he were still alive.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@Zhang ShiYing He needs many citations. I know of no one who teaches the above.
@@termination9353 I think you meant to cite John 21:25 but that’s just wishful thinking based on John stating that more had been written and could be written, if all was to be noted. Remember, when John write his texts as the last surviving apostle there where still more eye witnesses alive, so if we were to apply Occam’s Shaver we would rather think he’s pointing at oral tradition.
@@preacherno From the divergence of story-line from the Synoptic Gospels, I think it is fair to say that John did not rely on eyewitnesses. Furthermore, very few would have been alive by time the Gospel of John was written.
The way Canon is used in this context is from Greek, meaning rod, used to measure. The word cannon comes from Latin meaning reed or tube. So, your professor was sort of right, but should have been using the Greek root and not the Latin. (I had to look this up)
bart ehrman is the rock star of biblical historical scholarship
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them.
Do you have this same subject but for the Old Testament?
Excellent interview. Megan asked all the important questions. Bart answered in a way that all people can understand. Thank you.
16:41 If the gospels are anonymous how can we say they were written by apostles? A related question: were the apostles - or even Jesus - literate?
I wanted to ask Professor Ehrman, can you do a talk about the Church Fathers, please? Who were they? Were they all bishops? How were they chosen? Were there any theologians of the same period who are not called a Church Father? Did the Fathers have a part in choosing the NT canon? Thank you.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
You mentioned a letter of Peter that hated Paul and called him a threat. Is there any legitimacy to that one? Or what are your thoughts on it?
During gnostic times before orthodoxy Paul was thought to be the only true apostle.
I have been enjoying these programs. One thing that puzzles me is the origin of the (apparently erroneous) idea that the Council of Nicaea did in fact formalize the Canon, and even that there was a "vote" involved, because I had that very view of it since the 1980's, long before Dan Brown's books. I had to have read it somewhere...and I know it was prior to 1988.
the council of Nicaea was to determine the nature of Jesus. There were 2 opposing doctrines. Arius believed Jesus was divine but was created by God, making him a lesser being. Athanasius believed Jesus always existed, making him equal to God. Athanasius was the one who came up with the doctrine of the Trinity. Constantine didn't care which doctrine was chosen as long there was only one doctrine. Obviously, Athanasius won the day and Arius was labeled a heretic. All of Arius' writings were destroyed. Church fathers did quote some of Arius writings just to state Arius was a heretic and his teachings were counter to the "orthodox" teachings of the church.
@@noahbody9747 Thanks for that, it does clarify the work done at the Council. I am still wondering where the original story about the Council being held to vote on the authenticity of the books of the New Testament came from. Dan Brown may have helped spread this story, but he did not invent it.
@@jmiller1918 There appears some quote in the Synodicon Vetus about selecting the books. The Synodicon Vetus appeared in a 9th century manuscript. It states "placing them by the side of the divine table in the house of God, they prayed, entreating the Lord that the divinely inspired books might be found upon the table, and the spurious ones underneath; and it so happened." Whoever wrote this was obviously wrong since the books were voted on at the council of Trent in 1545. Dan Brown didn't do a thorough research or he didn't care. Fictional writers will often do what is good for the story, not necessarily have accurate history. There is a story about Jerome in the intro to the book of Judith about the council of Nicaea selecting the book of Judith as canon (which of course never happened). This bit of history is dismissed. Hope this helps.
@@noahbody9747 Thanks for the additional information. I admire your scholarship! I read a fair amount on Gnosticism back in the mid-'80s, possibly I acquired the notion of Nicaea being the moment of decision for Canonical v. non-Canonical from someone there. It's an error that Dan Brown found somewhere too.
@@jmiller1918 I just did a google search. I find the early church history fascinating. But I don't believe in any of its' doctrines.
The labour involved in copying a « book » let alone 29 books should not be underestimated. Making parchment is really hard. Making inks is a technology. Cutting quill pens. Copying accurately. Copying legibly.
Good point
I really like his style, and he has taught me so much.😊
This delighted me. And only Megan could get away with saying "... if you're familiar with the Old Testament ..." to the world's most famous Biblical scholar.
Very interesting information from Dr. Ehrman.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them. Friday 13th
What cannon was used in the creation of the Koran?
cannon or canon? 😂
All old manuscripts of the Quran have been destroyed on the order of an early caliph, or they were otherwise lost, and only the standard version was allowed from then on.
. . . But there has been ONE older manuscript discovered, as palimpsest, in a mosque in Sana, Yemen. Western researchers could take photos in the 1970s, before the manuscript was locked away again by new, conservative Muslim rulers.
. . . You can find a description of the palimpsest online: IIRC a few verses were different and also the order of some surahs.
Bart loves to laugh and giggle a lot. Here’s a question he will struggle to answer: Knowing all you know now Bart, 1600+ years after the Canon and studying the Bible for 50+ years, and all the other scholarly studies that have been done, what changes/additions/deletions would you make? Doesn’t man’s understanding and knowledge in 2022 of the events back then warrant another “church council” akin to Nicaea?
Does it? To what end? Will more rigorous scholarship and recent discoveries dislodge the myriad and entrenched sects from their positions?
There ARE revisions. Constantly. How many “editions” of just the ENGLISH versions (the KJV, IV, NIV, ASV, NEV…) SO FAR?
Another informative video. Well done, thank you both.
Megan, I love this collaboration!
Bart, you are moving forwards at the precise time, very happy.and glad that you have decided to kick ass lately, we missed you largely for some years...Now we can relax 1%, focus on more...and REVEAL much better, thanks for re-,invifogorating,
Thank you Bart!
If the criteria is it has to be written by an apostle or close companion of one then how did books get in that were anonymous like Hebrews? Or the disputed letters of Paul? Or the gospels?
The Gospels were believed to have been written by the names associated with the titles (John Mark the companion of Peter, Luke the companion of Paul, Matthew the apostle, John the apostle)
Hebrews was believed to have been written by Paul.
The disputed letters of Paul weren’t disputed later on among churches and just accepted at face value as by Paul.
Many in the church just accepted the traditions about authorship.
@@shemashekarshalom539 I know what is “believed” but that doesn’t make it true. The criteria to be included seems wrong to me since we don’t know who wrote most of the letters.
@@anthonyjames4319 you asked “how did the books get in”. Of course what is “true” can be different from what is believed.
I am an atheist (ex-Protestant-Christian). I was making a historical observation on the assumption your question was a historical question. Augustine did have different criteria than the “apostle or close companion to an apostle” but he is in the 4th century. Many of the earlier Christians had criteria similar to what Ehrman lays out.
If you are Christian and you are trying to figure out what criteria of canonicity you should use to figure out what books should be considered canonical I can suggest some books for you that discuss canon from a Christian perspective.
@@shemashekarshalom539 I am an ex-Christian as well. Why did you become an atheist?
@@anthonyjames4319 a thumbnail sketch is something like this:
1) The more I learned about the world the easier it became to understand and explain the Bible and Christianity through purely natural causes. If it’s easier to explain Christianity through nature than to explain nature through Christianity it becomes difficult to maintain belief.
2) I realized just how bad the evidence for Jesus is. Dale Allison Jr.’s book Resurrection: Apologetics, Polemics, and History shows vividly how the historical evidence isn’t enough to believe Jesus rose from the dead.
Those were the two big things that made me leave Christianity. Now that I’ve stepped outside of Christianity there is a lot of things about Christianity that I find problems with that were hard for me to see.
I don’t personally see general theism as a viable option at the moment.
Megan is perfect as The Interviewer and has a delightful soul and Mr. E is 👍🏻👌🏻 as always! Love this Podcast
The arguments of religon back in history reminds me of my arguments as a kid about if superman could beat the hulk. We made up all sorts of rules etc.
I love listening to Dr. Ehrman. I am wonderng if anyone knows if his mountain home is close to Hayesville, North Carolina. My great great grandparents are buried at Hayesville. 6 of their 13 children came to central Texas (where I live today) from Hayesville in the late 1800's.
The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books.[4]
@nosuchthing8 That is 100% correct. It’s that simple. Protestants removed 7 books. Martin Luther wanted to remove 4 more NT books (James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelations) because these books contradicted his new heretical teachings
Megan is so amazing. Well played Josh 🤣
There is a creator. Beyond that, it is a matter of human opinion.
You’re assuming we need a creator to exist
@@stantorren4400The creator is the Necessary Being. Life as we know could not have come from nothing. The big bang is merely a cause. The creator is the ultimate Cause.
@ If the universe needs a creator, why doesn’t the creator need a creator? Especially considering how infinitely more complex that creator is
@@fuadahmed7322 Also, a creator existing ≠ god existing. Saying something exists is that, saying this specific kind exists is a very different answer. For all we know, Korgull the exterminator is the creator
@@stantorren4400 That's a good question. For God to be created is impossible because it would lead to infinite regress and there would be no universe. How do you explain our complex universe and biological living organism without a Creator and Designer ?
I’d liked to hear more about those anti-Paul letters and texts
Anti Paul was most of gnostic used Paul as their main text.so when gnostic ban Paul was called a heretic in some church fathers etc .like churches of other christ follower they adopted them in taking congecation by blending them in using their text with new theology or death.
Martin Luther did not entirely reject the Old Testament apocrypha. He called them "useful and good to read", and they continued to be quoted in the Lutheran church. But he rejected four books of the New Testament on theological grounds and left them in his bible only as kind of an appendix. This is why the order of the books in the New Testament in Lutheran bibles even now differs from others.
Holy Bible in Greek was good and edifying. So yes it was good to read.
I find it amusing that a bunch of old men would get together and argue over what they wanted to decide their dogma would be to push on people based solely on their own biases and what they wanted it to be. If any of it was actually true, there would have been no questions to argue about. The idea that a god came down (from where in the cosmos they can't say) and spent a few years in a small area talking to people instead of writing anything down that couldn't possibly be questioned or misrepresented and spread it across the entire planet and providing some really valuable information like about germs and disease treatments, information about dinosaurs and how humans actually evolved and the vastness of the universe, it being fully of gazillion of galaxies and multi-gazillion solar systems in each galaxy and at least a diagram of a printing press. But what happened in reality is most likely a nutty, illiterate Jewish man who was convinced he was meant to tell people he knew the world was about to end.
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353 When such document can be produced and verified, then you can opine on it but as it stands now, you haven’t got any evidence that could be considered credible. In other words, I am not buying your bs.
@@rhondah1587 Here is the evidence from the Gospel itself John 21:24 "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true."
John 11:5
Now Jesus LOVED Martha, and her sister, and LAZARUS
John 11:3
Therefore his sisters sent unto him{Jesus], saying, Lord, behold, HE[Lazarus] WHOM THOU LOVEST is sick..
John11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he[Jesus] LOVED him[Lazarus]!
@@termination9353 LMAO You can't prove the bible by quoting it.
@@rhondah1587 I'm not proving the bible. I'm proving what the bible says contrary to the claims made by the church.
Which books and which version was not a discussion at the council because it was already decided before the council. I hope that part is obvious. 50 books cant be ordered if the book didn't already exist. How was this missed? Or was it intentional.
It's so refreshing to listen to a matter of fact discussion of the creating of a godman
instead of cringing before a preacher threatening his followers with "god's holy word".
So emotional. Let's stick with the real facts: The NT 27 books all ut 3 were quoted by the earliest Christians. Hence, the later church did not confer any more authority then they already possessed. You don't like Jesus? That's on you.
Perfectly directed discussion. Well paced, lots of grest insights. 🎉
Good show, as per usual! 👍
I think for.some.specific topics it should be great to have visual support...for this video a table with all the bible compilations to give us a hint of what Bart is talking about
Exactly hitting the nail on the right place
Very glad that you are expounding lately..
Thank you for yet another great discussion. Enjoying the podcast!!!!
Megan is perfect, soft yet though, imitating the divine character of mother Ayesha.
really enjoyable and interesting thanks!
There are differences between the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Canons of Scripture. The Protestants leave out certain books and the Orthodox Canon has some books in the Old Testament that are in neither. You can verify all of it via Wikipedia and various websites. They are not all the same. "The canon of the Catholic Church was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382), the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), the Council of Carthage (AD 397)" - From WIkipedia. At this time the church was undivided and so there was no difference between Orthodox and Catholic. That split didn't come about for more than a thousand years after these councils set the canon.
Please please do an episode on Jehovah’s Witnesses! They brain was so many people and have twisted the Bible to fit their doctrines. I would love to know what Bart thinks about them.
I'm quite surprised at how Bart did not mention Marcion who was crucially instrumental in forcing the early church fathers to clarify the church's position with regards to authoritative scripture.
Love this series but would prefer if you both had the same volume level.
Hi it's Chris writing for Bart. We're working on the sound quality and will be drastically improved beginning in Ep 6 and beyond. Thanks!
@@bartdehrman very delighted to hear that ❤
The amazing thing I find that is so extraordinary is the Catholic Church has had all these books t new library. 3000 years
thank you bart so well explained.
This is great. I love the content and the format.
I’m also very happy to hear that Bart’s sound quality has improved. But I still wish that Megan had a better microphone.
Keep up the good work.
Hi it's Chris writing for Bart. We're working on the sound quality and will be drastically improved beginning in Ep 6 and beyond. Thanks!
WHY HAVE SO MANY AUTHORS HAVE WRITTEN GOSPELS, LETTERS, LEGENDARY SORIES ETC ABOUT JESUS' LIFE AND ACTIVITIES DURING THE FIRST CENTURY?DIDN'T SHOW THAT JESUS WAS REALLY EXISTED THAT TIME? PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION?.
@@prakashpetta6221 Dr. Ehrman has spoken and written on this point many times: he calls Jesus one of the two best attested Palestinian jews to live in the first century and says that the historical evidence for his life (five independent sources: Paul, the synoptics, John, Josephus, Tactitus) is as strong as we could possibly expect.
@@prakashpetta6221 You can read the thorough evidence for the existence of Jesus in Bart's book Did Jesus Exist? Spoiler--yes.
The New Testament books were those commonly recognised as authoritative, were most accepted by Christian leadership over a long period and which were doctrinally in harmony with the both the Old Testament and with each other. Not that there was never any contention about texts or disagreements but over time, it became apparent where the final lines should be drawn. The RC church still has its views in the apocrypha, but I think it's ok to be gracious and allow room for the conscience of others, even if you disagree.
Basically. There were a few books that were very contentious and either made it in, but were close to being excluded or came close to being left out but made it in, but the majority of texts were well agreed on long before the canon was formally settled.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 - it is so far only a hypothesis, not a consensus, but David Trobisch published his thesis in 2000 that there was one major edition of writings around 155CE that became our New Testament. The edition was published in response to Marcion and his canon of 1 gospel and 10 letters by Paul, and was maybe edited by Polycarp. If you're interested in the development of the canon, you might want to have a look on Trobisch' arguments.
Grace? A New Testament concept? Only helpful is supported by Power and Love 🕊
Meghan is ½ of Digital Hammerabi channel. She and Dr. Josh have a ton of great videos over there.. Glad to see her elsewhere!
What were the presuppositions of the people that chose the books in the bible? How did confirmation bias play a role in determining what was true and what was heresy? How were these “biblical truths” determined before the bible was put together? How could the bible confirm what the bible says before there was a bible? If the bible says that the bible is true and therefore it is true because the bible says so, what was true before there was a bible? How did we discover that truth without a modern day bible to compare it to?
The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th
@Ventura
The Orthodox Church is that church.
@Ventura Good but that’s the church. The Orthodox Church. It still exists.
Well done 🎉
Have not the OT apocrypha been part of the pharisaic canon until the end of the second temple and the Bar Kokhba war? It is very understandable the jewish sages deleted the Macabbee-books out of their canon after the destruction of the ancient state of Israel, almost they also excluded the song of songs if not Rabbi Akiva would have spoken for it, but I would love to know if the LXX canon was the accepted canon of the jewish Bible during the time of the second temple?
To answer my question of "How did they decide what is Orthodoxy(correct thought) or Heterodoxy(wrong think)?" My professor said "Heterodoxy is your doxy and Orthodoxy is my doxy."
Bart is doing a good job
Bart, your podcasts are a regular part of my "diet" while I'm here in Thailand. I love your works.
I have so many questions for Dr. Ehrman. I wish I had a chance to ask! I'm so confused by the book of Acts!
How do 2 blind men follow Jesus? How does a deaf man hear Jesus? Why do you all say Jesus 'resurrected' on Sunday morning when the Gospel says Jesus 'resurrected' on Friday from off the cross? What did Jesus write in the dust with his finger? What was Mary Magdalene's "special part that would not be taken from her"? Why does it say that the "disciple whom Jesus' loved outran Peter? Why did the people rumor that the disciple whom Jesus loved could never die? When the Pahrisees spoke of "less the second mistake be worse than the first" what 'mistake' are they talking about?
Book of Acts shows Paul is a fraud.
@@termination9353
@lostfan5054
The WHOLE mess is confusing and contradictory. Amazing anyone believes any of it. (Yet I did because my parents and reverends told me so!)
@@termination9353 Jesus did not resurrect from the Cross but commended his Spirit to God and His mother Mary to John for love and care.
@@ellencooney5563 the Gospel straight up says Jesus resurrected from the cross "And came out of the graves after his[Jesus] RESURRECTION, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" Mat 27:53
John was not at the cross, Gospel says Apostles were all in hiding "for fear of the Jews." - It was Mary Mag that took Jesus mother to live in Jesus's home....Jesus had a son via Mary Magdalene John 19:25-27
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother[Mary], and his mother's sister[in-law], Mary the wife of Cleophas[mother Mary's brother], and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by[Mary Magdalene], whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy [grand]son! [in Mary Mag's womb/pregnant.]
27 Then saith he to the disciple[Mary Mag], Behold thy mother[in-law/Jesus' mother Mary]! And from that hour that disciple[Mary Mag] took her[Jesus' mother] unto his[Jesus'] own home [The home of Jesus and his now pregnant wife Mary Magdalenein a midwifing arrangement.]
Always interesting content on this channel. I only wish though that podcasters would coordinate their sound levels among all the speakers. To hear Bart I had to turn him up till Megan was blasting my eardrums to kingdom come. I say this in a friendly way as I love the podcast.
Megan Dear !
You are great , your laughter so sweet , you're polite & presentable & professional ...I like you 😘
Where as for Bart, I like your honesty, ... your informations & studies are mind enlightening ....we thought that the Bible is Holly & the word of the Almighty God to humen .....
Thanks a lot anyway ....
I thought the Douay-Rheims translation (use by the Roman Catholic Church and translated in 1611)) of the new testament had additional books that are not in the King James translation (translated in 1610 and originally used by most other Christian faiths)?
Love the podcast. Dr. Ehrman is a fountain of info. I would love to some day see him engage with Dr. Richard Carrier's work on the histricity of Jesus. I know Dr. Ehrman is quite solidly in the historical Jesus camp, but Dr. Carrier's peer reviewed work actually raises several intriguing points I'd like to see a response to. Please don't dismiss Carrier out of hand.
They have debated before, in fact the debate is on youtube. Dr. Ehrman wiped the floor with Carrrier in the debate.
@@DarthGylcolious I can't find it. He debated Price, but I don't know of a Carrier/Ehrman debate.
There are a couple Carrier videos where he responds to Ehrman's arguments.
Amazing. Thanks 😊 everyone
I turned on this video to listen to it in the background while working. Bart is brilliant as always...when I finally took a break from my labors to actually look at the video I was shocked by the electric orange hair! 😆
You are young Bart and in the South. I have a picture of me reading the Book of Enoch in 1975. I read many other books which were not canon. The long closed 8th Street Book store in Manhattan had people recommending them as well as Wizard Book store on broadway. This is not a new discussion. Was Isaiah one or two books. These were all studied and discussed in the early seventies.
Great stuff! Just one thing : Megan's mic is WAY louder than Bart's. I have to keep on adjusting the volume as you go back and forth. Anyone else notice this?
Yes. It is odd because you can see sound absorbent material in her background. She needs a decent microphone and some audio equipment to help her set sound levels.
This seems to be a common problem on podcasts.
Interesting about 2 Peter, as it is the modern Christian church: don't waste time waiting for Christ's return; and study the scriptures.
Yes, it is from a time when the church had lost its expectation of a near apocalypse. One reason to date 2 Peter late.
Plz balance the audio!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi it's Chris writing for Bart. We're working on the sound quality and will be drastically improved beginning in Ep 6 and beyond. Thanks!
@@bartdehrman tysm :)
I really enjoyed the interview you did with him and was amazed at all he knew and could talk about. That's awful news. Just one more instance out of many where life is not fair at all.
*Faith in Jesus;* = _"Faith in the words & writings of men, claiming to speak for Jesus."_
Should be ur personal meeting with the Holy Spirit = u don't even need to read ....
@@termikesmike There are hundreds of millions of people that claim to have "personal visions", of Allah, Krishna, Jehovah, Vishnu, the Virgin Mary, Buddha, ect, ect, ect,
The countless times I asked, begged & pleaded for God to "reveal himself" to me was met with only *deafening silence.*
_If God is real, he can't be bothered to even try to convince me he exists,_ so what more can I do ?
*Not, my choice.*
@@moodyrick8503 Luke never claimed to see God, or even meet Jesus …anyway
I remember my ’state of Ecclesiastes’ and telling God “ So long, been good to know you “ but it’s time to put away the childish thinking, no more tooth fairies ,time for
‘ nothing but the truth ‘ ….so, what are you going to do for Eternity ?
Why the heck is Ecclesiastes in the Bible !!!
@@termikesmike And how exactly did you "confirm" that these men were actually _"speaking for God"._
*(Faith = just trust me ?)*
And how does _"what Luke did not see",_ help me at all ?
I know you are trying to be sincere, but you have not given me anything.
_Childish thinking ?_
Believing in _"magical beings"_ & _"super natural events"_ are common to all religions.
*I can't tell the difference.*
*Their claims are fake, but yours are real.*
Thanks for trying, anyway, Mike.
_Have a great day._
5:20 fun fact "qanoon" means law in Farsi/Urdu. And I think Arabic as well
It would be so fascinating if we also knew the history of ancient Sumerian and Egyptian (etc.) religions in this depth!