The Genius of the Gospel of Luke
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ย. 2023
- Visit www.bartehrman.com/courses/ to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
The genius of Luke’s Gospel is frequently overlooked by those who simply breeze through it or assume it is saying the same thing as Matthew and Mark. In fact, it is strikingly different. What especially matters are not so much the contradictions one finds, but the larger picture. Luke has radically edited Mark’s account in places to create a new portrait of Jesus. In this episode we see how he did it and what the end result is. Among other things, when you look carefully at the details of Luke’s account, you find that, unlike the other Gospels, here Jesus does not suffer during his passion and his death does not bring an atonement for sins. These are not minor differences. Why would Luke change the story so significantly?
This week, Bart addresses:
-What do we know about who wrote Luke and when?
-In broad terms, how does it relate to the other Gospels?
-Mark depicts Jesus as the son of God who has to die for the sins of others, but that no one recognizes him and Matthew portrays him as a distinctly Jewish Messiah come in fulfilment of the Jewish Scriptures. Does Luke agree with these views, or is it completely different?
-Do we have examples of Luke’s concern with Gentiles?
-Why would Luke make a passion without suffering?
-How can we explain Luke’s removal of atonement?
-How does Luke combine all of these different features to support his own theological message?
-What does this say about how we ought to read the Gospels? Should we take them all as parts of the same story, or as different stories?
![[FULL EP.69] #เอิร์นจิรวรรณ เปิดบ้านหมื่นล้านทุกมุม ครั้งแรก! l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_J4_nw8c64o/mqdefault.jpg)
My decades of bible classes were complely wasted in revealing the subtlety of the New Testament. This one video has more insights than all those classes and in church readings.
Poon - Well stated!
well there mmust have been a reason you kept going for descades
@@tawan20082008 I was attending church and classes were part of the Sunday routine.
Isn't it mind-blowing how these truths about the Gospels are hiding in plain sight?
todays truth is tomorrows myth
These two are such a great pairing. I hope they keep this up for a long long time.
Guys I'm a reformed christian and I love to listening n taking course of Bart Erhman is really inspiration
Interesting. Most Christians call Bart Ehrman the devil for his scholarship.
@@KaijuOfTheOpera Well, maybe some American evangelical christians. I as an European Lutheran like to listen to his lectures. I may disagree with some of his conclusions but a lot of times he enlightens things that even I was not aware of. The worst thing that you can do as a person is to close yourself in a bubble and only listen to things that confirm your prejudices and opinions.
@@vault13dweller15Yes, many American Evangelical Christians have a very different perspective from most other Christians. Because they are the largest grouping of Christians in the United States, many Evangelicals think of themselves as “just Christians” and believe that all Christians are similar (or should be similar) to Evangelicals, believing and doing the same things. Too many non-Christians in the U.S. go along with this Evangelical presumption. In fact, there are many Christians in the U.S. who differ quite a bit from Evangelicals in their beliefs and actions, and worldwide fewer than one in five Christians can be categorized as an Evangelical. All of that is just preamble to the observation that many Christians have a very different response than that of American Evangelicals to the scholarship of Bart Ehrman.
@@KaijuOfTheOpera well at many points I agree with Dr Bart because he is objectives seeing from historical perspective , but it didn't affect my faith u know Bart said it is better to be a knowledgeable christian than an ignorant one
Christians are cool!
Well, some...........
Thanks for staying on topic and being concise. 30-40 minutes is just right to give us novices some new ideas and keep it interesting.
Oh, I could go all day XD
Too short it should be two hours
Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said “Never put off to tomorrow what you can put off to the day after tomorrow.”? A wise man.
Was hee aa Cristian too ?
Unlikely ... as he liked the truth...
@@fukpoeslaw3613
We have the same attitude in Kentucky, minus the sense of urgency.
He also said, "In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
“The Bible has noble poetry in it… and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies.” - Mark Twain
As usual a great deal of information. For almost 70 years the only information I had about following Jesus was from the church. Thanks to the internet and to research and study by various scholars and experts there is more information available to actually to be more informed in your spiritual journey. Ultimately we are all trying to be good custodians of creation during our short time here. We can take different paths, but the ultimate goal is to realize we are all one in creation and are a small part of a big picture, so big, that our minds cannot comprehend it. The only way to have heaven on earth is by respecting each other and cooperate with each other so that we can ultimately live in harmony just as what “God” or nature intended.
I've been waiting for this since he talked about Matthew and Mark
Same here. Can't wait until they do John.
I think Luke was staring right at Matthew the whole time he was writing Luke, and the reason they disagree so strongly is precisely because Luke was appalled at how wrong Matthew was about stuff and wanted to "fix" it to reflect his own ideas. I think that's the same reason we have Matthew. And John, for that matter.
That would certainly explain the loss of "Q." Perhaps more probable. Hard to recover through the "orthodox" veneer we are looking through.
yes he was bro. but they don't want to see it...
@@alwilliams5177ah yes, the source that never was.
they are copying and changing each others stories.
I personally believe matthew was last among the synoptics, one example of why follows:
mark 8:11 mentions the sign of jonah but doesn't describe the sign of jonah (i call this broad jonah)
Luke 11:29 mentions the sign of jonah and identifies the specific sign (i call this specific jonah)
Matthew, knowing both stories needs to include them both and does so. In matthew 12:39 we get specific jonah (with typical matthean improvements) and matthew 16:1 begins broad jonah.
There are other reasons but this is my personal favorite. Matthew is the most complete story and the inclusion of Luke and mark can be seen as matthews bibliography
Bart always makes me feel like I am back in Seminary!
I sure love this guy hes been digging for the truth for a long time. The wealth of insight and wisdom is just what i look for in a teacher of the word. Im all ears and on the edge of my seat when he speaks. The main stream preacher that went to bible college will for the most of them not dig deep enough to grasp the truth outside of the box . Thnx Bart.
That eloquent recitation of the Passion story from 2 different perspectives was brilliant analysis. Literally stopped me in my tracks. Whether you are a believer or not, that comparison should make you stop and consider.
Yeah, that's remarkable that the two gospel authors saw/portrayed Jesus so differently.
So Mark says the Bill is Paid, but Luke follows up with conditions. Luke is a party pooper.
This was great. Can’t wait for the genius of the gospel of John!
Tarot - While I greatly appreciate Bart - and his many contributions - I do take issue with his reading of John....
The idea of Jesus somehow suddenly becoming a "divine" person simply is NOT in that gospel UNLESS one has already been indoctrinated to see that - as Bart had in his upbringing...
The focus needs to be on the clearly stated hermeneutic - παροιμια
Professor Steve Mason gives an excellent presentation of the Josephus connection to Luke/Acts on MythVision, highly recommended to any fellow NT geeks or Christians interested in the history.
he is fantastic. much more knowledge then Ehrman
Fascinating and educational! Thank you so much! ❤️
Today you answer your question "Why bother?" But the next day you forget the answer.
Dr. Levine came to our Royal Poinciana Chapel in Palm Beach, FL several years ago and spoke about the the parable of the Good Samaritan and it was absolutely informative and eye opening! Also, she seemed to say in so many words tht she was no longer a believer and I questioned her about that. She said that she stays involved with her orthodox Jewish religion primarily to be part of a community of like minded people with a shared history and culture.
To be a Christian you must believe certain things, but to be a Jew you only need to follow God's laws (aka celebrate certain festivals, avoid certain foods, etc.), so it is much more normal for people who no longer (or never did) believe to remain part of Jewish communities.
Full of new insights - thank you!
Time to drop whatever I was doing………❤
I just schedule my lunch for when this is released! 😊
A new video, a new funky glasses competition :-) I would love the wave glasses to come back
Thank you very much, that was very interesting!
Round glasses both instead of squared 😔 but still the greatest podcast out there!! 😅 well done Bart, Meg and the team!
I know, I wear glasses too and I find myself staring at both of theirs, alternately. I used to like seeing Vi La.Bianca's eyewear too, particularly a pair that were IMAX sized.
I just replaced my glasses. I could not find ones like my old ones. It is the curse of style. Having said that, check out her glasses in the video on New Testament scholarship. I just love 'em.
Thank you.
Thanks Dr Ehrman, and thanks Megan!!!!
Bart Ehrman is a teacher/human whom I would have needed 20 y ago, but still has intellectual importance regarding his expertise. I'm still glad that these episodes are available to the (wider) public now today. Thank you, really.
(P.s.: Megan is a hottie... :) )
I have a habit of looking at the background of TH-cam videos just to see what people choose to show. Sometimes the background shows a TH-cam award, models, or art. When I look at Bart's background there are a few hundred books, but what stands out is many of the volumes have a small white label on the lower portion of the spines of those books. The only place I have seen those labels is in libraries, which typically put a Dewey Decimal code that is used with the card files to ease locating volumes. So my question is, Bart, have you engaged in a years-long theft of library books or did you just check the books out and just never return them?? Did you buy them at used bookstores which often have such volumes when you were a poor undergraduate unable to afford the books from the publishers? Is there some library bereft of theological books, not knowing whence they have gone? Are there wanted posters with your picture posted in various libraries? Are you being pursued by dozens of reference librarians intent on recovering their missing volumes? :-)
Ha! I didn't notice the white labels, but you're right. I imagine you know this already, Michael, but the background is fake. It's pasted in. You can see the wiggly lines around Bart's head; that's the giveaway.
@@Arven8 Damn - Bart stole a fake background? Just kidding.
I happy Bart is giving nods to the later dating to Luke/Acts and the Ferrer hypothesis.
Great episode. 👍👍👍
Brilliant. Thank you!
Whatever you make of his analysis, in one aspect he is surely right. Nobody should put forward strong arguments without having read each of the gospels as independent accounts "according to" the authors. I think it's logically incumbent on Christians to accept the gospels as they are written because the Holy Spirit would surely have worked through believing scholars to correct and reword the text if that was necessary. As an atheist agnostic, this presumably gives Bart more agency and freedom of thought as the question of divine guidance doesn't arise. If he's right, that is...
The writers of the New Testament had no idea that they were writing holy scripture---something that would lead to people arguing and killing, burning at stake, striping of civil rights the people who believed the "wrong" way.
Hi everyone ☺, what is the web site for the conference on the 23rd & 24th?? I can't catch the bit after www.?? Is it anticonference?? 🤔
That was an amazing Video! Thank you Dr Ehrman so much for all your great work.
The best video about this is called "The Gospel of Luke [The Alternative Facts gospel]" by @NonStampCollector 😂
He's got an awesome channel, i'll have to check that out next.
I've been on his channel since you posted this. OMG (pun not intended) he is hilarious and equally brilliant. TY for the suggestion.
Hello there how are you doing today,dott Bart explain the Bible very well I think is awesome teacher
The other problem is Jesus Christ telling the 1 Criminal, "to day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43
This contradicts the teaching that Jesus Christ descended into Hades to free all the people who had died before his Gospel. 1 Peter 3:18-20.
Thank you
28:40 I'm curious if Bart has come across David Graeber's book on debt and how religious arguments in the ancient world got wrapped up in periodic debt crises, especially regarding debt-pawns and debt forgiveness and how those arguments tend to be framed in the language of market transaction even as they seem to decry those financial relationships.
7:25 That’s kinda interesting. If we combine the point about Luke referencing Josephus (thus Luke being relatively late) with this idea, is it possible then that Luke is trying to syncretize Paul’s “gospel” with the Matthew/Mark theology and the Johannine theology? If so, should we maybe credit the author of Luke with creating the foundation of Christian orthodoxy as it has come down to us?
Gospel of Luke is underrated ngl
I praise Yah he revealed much of this to men and reveals new things every day about the writings.
Re the evolution of the name "James" in English: The claim that the English name is borrowed from a French dialect (possibly the Norman one but more likely a southern one somehow) is plausible, but even in France before the modern era, various dialects used different versions of the name. I have seen graphic references on medieval buildings in the south of France to "St-Jame", but in the north and west (including where my family came from in the 1660s) the standard French version is "Jacques" (from which the English "Jack" variant of the name presumably came).
This is consistent with the sometimes random changes over time across the linguistic continuum of the Latin-speaking West in words that once were the same but experienced different nips and tucks as you gradually travelled through communities speaking increasingly divergent forms of Vulgar Latin.
Hence the changing of the "b" to an "m" (Iacobus to Iacomus) then most dialects shifting from an "i" (or "y") sound to a soft "j" sound (as in the Italian Giacomo). Then in the south of France, the "c" was dropped ("Jame"), while further north they dropped the "m" instead ("Jacques"). In the Iberian peninsula, the Calatans stuck with "Jaime" (with a soft j sound) while the Castillians shifted that sound to that of an aspirated "h").
To complicate matters more, the most typical Castillian and Portuguese version of the name nowadays is "Diego" or "Iago" (as in "Santiago"), rather than "Jaime".
In short, "James" is the name that has had just about the most contorted evolutionary history of any name passed down from Hebrew to the Western European languages...
Correction: In Portuguese the most common versions of the name are Diogo (with Diego being a less common substitute in Brazil but not in Portugal) and Tiago, which arose from a process of prothetic epenthesis peculiar to Iberian Vulgar Latin whereby the T in "Santo" or Sant' was reinterpreted to become part of "Iago". Sant'Iago therefore became rendered as Tiago in Portuguese and Galician.
I also have wondered how Jakob (Yakob) in the Hebrew scriptures became James in English, when it was Yakob (Iakob) Greek. Thanks for the clarification,
Yakov>Jacobus (j is still y sound in latin)> Jacomus (vernacular Latin)> Jacmes (old french)> James (pronounced Jamus in Scots English)> James (modern English pronunciation). This is why in English there is Jacob, which is the original English form (alongside possibly jack) and James came from Scotland then.
In Spanish it's yakov>Iacobus>?>sant (saint) Iago> San tiago (Spanish loses the t in sant, but people keep pronouncing it and end up associating it with the beginning of Iago)> Diego
@@jayasuryangoral-maanyan3901thank you for writing that out!
16:00 - I suppose I could just check it myself, but is this the only place where gLuke moves a section of gMark out of the markan order? Or does this happen a lot?
Could you please do a "the genius of the Acts of Thomas" as well?
Acts of Thomas isn’t a work of genius
The second we think we can wrap our human sized minds around the works of God who uttered the world into existence is when we fall into the pit of deception. No diploma, certificate, or level of intellect will ever allow us to truly understand how God works. If it were that easy, it wouldn’t take faith the size of a mustard seed. Have faith, my brothers and sisters and pray for it to be bold and unshakeable. Prophecy is being fulfilled each day we arise - please, do not be asleep as He comes like a thief in the night for His church. Love you all and I pray for conviction from the Holy Spirit within you - lean on Him and not your own understanding. Your hearts will deceive you but His word will guide you to His heart that is eternal.
At around the 23:40 mark Dr Ehrman seems to make a big deal of how Mark and Luke reverse the event when Jesus dies and the temple curtain ripping in half.
Simple resolution. It was a simultaneous event.
14:30 - that's an interesting point to notice, however surely it doesn't take much thought to realise that anybody who is descended from Abraham must also be descended from Adam, so he must be descended from Adam in both lines, even if it doesn't explicitly say so.
No one will say it, but the question on everyone's mind is, what's in Bart's glass?
'James' entered English in about 1200 from French, ultimately from the late Latin Jacomus (the b had softened to m) - compare Spanish Jaime and Italian Giacomo.
One day, I will get to the bottom of my to-do list…
But not this day!!!
Mutual feels all around 😔
Thank you, Professor Ehrman!
You're welcome! - Social Media Team
So, how many pairs of glasses do you have exactly?
Is call getting old sir .
But I do love the way you do what you do .
Was hoping to get something on the view some scholars have advanced that there’s internal evidence in Luke suggesting a woman author (or at least, an author conspicuously much more interested in women & their concerns & perspectives than any other gospel).
Isn't it possible that in Luke it can only be concluded due to a translation error that Jesus breathed his last after the temple veil was torn in two?
I've heard of this before. Is it possible the Greek illiterate primary source of Luke and Josephus had the same Greek compiler/transcriptionist.
My birthday is also on September the 24th
If I were still religious I would see that as a sign that god wants me to attend your online conference
Its just that the price is a bit too steep...
Bart !
Hugs!
I want the gospel of Mathew and Mark.
Please!
Thank you very much.
Megan, hugs!
🤗
He did these earlier
You mentioned that some scholars see references to Josephus in the Book of Acts- are there any scholrs who think that Theophilus was Josephus? It's something I have been pondering for a while but I'm not a scholar.
43:15 and that's also showing that every single human being is descended directly from God, then, in the same way that Jesus is, and that seems to be compatible with the gospel of John, and maybe with Paul as well?
Wasn’t Josephus the court historian for Titus? (71-81). So couldn’t Luke /Acts have received an earlier influence ?
Is the author of first two chapters of Luke same or they were added later?
Reminds me of Tommy Tiernan's "I like Luke".
You guys are both so awesome, i love you both so much. Bart your dedication to increasing your knowledge and the knowledge of others is utterly inspiring. Megan if you need that american green card i will marry you today... or tomorrow.
Does that innocence message cone across as strong in the gospel of marcion?
This is from the perspective of a layman, but it seems incomprehensible, if not disingenuous, that Ehrman refuses to acknowledge the "Eloi, Eloi..." utterance is clearly a deliberate quotation of Psalm 22. To conjecture that Jesus is in despair in Mark is an unwarranted eisegesis...
Hello everyone. I need some quick help if you guys can illuminate something for me? I am trying to find something Bart and other biblical scholars have referenced before But can not find. I was having a debate with someone and when we went to pull it up in the bible and it wasn't there. I am trying to find the section of Mark where Jesus asks the disciples, "who do you say that I am?", and when Peter respond he is the son of god - Jesus rebukes him and says "get thee behind me satan". This is the part that when read parallel with Matthew Jesus priases Peter and gives him the keys to the kindom ro church as it where.
I've heard Bart talking about this multiple times. Explaining that in the first gospel of Mark, Peter is rebuked then Matthew changes it to give him the keys. I've gone back and watched several of his Mark lectures/interviews and he doesn't reference what version of the gospel that's in or which translation. Was it just in first and second century fragments and changed early on? So my friend is Catholic and we used her bible but when we opend it to the part I thought it should be in, it wasn't there. I tried an online KJV version and didn't see it there either. Can you guys help me find where this comes from an a source I can use to show that this is accurate ? Many thanks 🙏🙏🙏
I’ve got a Gideon with me right now. It’s Mark 8 v33, it defo quotes Jesus saying to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan!”
Yeah I saw that he does it after Jesus says he has to suffer and all that. I was thinking that the rebuke part was moved in the Catholic version. Everytime I've heard Bart talk about this he (to my recolection which may be off) seems to imply that the rebuke comes directly after Peter says he's the messiah. I think he's stated this as a direct comparison of how in Matthew he's immediately given the keys to the kingdom. @@secretgoldfish931
@bishopknight
Mark's version: Mark 8:27-33
Matthew's version: Matthew 13:13-15 [17-19] 20-23.
Matthew has added in verses 17-19 which do not appear in Mark.
Luke's version: 9:18-22.
In all three synoptics, after telling his disciples to keep his identity quiet, Jesus then immediately starts telling them that he is going to have to die.
In Mark, when Jesus starts saying the Son of Man must die, Peter rebukes Jesus and then Jesus rebukes Peter with "Get behind me, Satan!"
Only Matthew adds in the part where Jesus highly praises Peter (13;17-19) but this is followed by Peter's objection to Jesus saying he must die: "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you!" whereupon Jesus says, "Get behind me, Satan!"
Luke omits Peter's objection and Jesus' harsh words to Peter. .
My Hero Bart Ehrman
I have very limited familiarity with this material but it seems that Luke could be seen as anti-Jewish (by emphasising the Jews rejection of him etc.) but also theologically in line with orthodox Jewish teachings in terms of rejecting (or at least downplaying) the notion of atonement (human sacrifice). Is this a fair statement?
Although it's in Acts; why did Luke write the story of Ananias and Sapphira? What is this story really about?
I would think one reason is simply to show that God was involved and active in the church, keeping that close of an eye on things so to speak. It was reminiscent of the Exodus wandering, when God was leading the Israelites and sometimes directly confronting harmful subterfuge in the community.
Keep in mind that one of Luke's agenda's is to show the active action and movement of the Holy Spirit throughout his gosepl and Acts until finally the spirit is working in Rome itself.
we listen to him or read his writings to know if there could be reality in his findings.
Difference in transfer of divine presence? 🤯❤️
In Luke's account of the garden scene:
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Not in Mark or Matthew, Jesus is certainly in agony in Luke
Reasonable point - frankly, Bart should have addressed this text since it does not fit with the rest of the Lukan narrative - or what he is distilling out of it.
HOWEVER, I believe he does address this elsewhere - and identifies that it may be a textual issue... I do not recall the details - but would love to find out how Bart addresses this obvious text.
@@greglogan7706
Any good study Bible makes clear that Luke 22:43-44 may not have been part of Luke's original text. Verse 43 seems to indicate that Jesus was suffering less, being comforted by an angel, but verse 44 makes it sound as if he is suffering more.
Jesus' agony. most strongly emphasized in Mark and in Matthew, is toned down in what was probably the original text of Luke. And in John,'s version of the Gethsemane scenet, Jesus does not seem to suffer at all but seems in complete control. Rather than Jesus throwing himself to the ground, it is those who come to arrest him who draw back and fall down. Moreover, Jesus seems to give his disciples permission to leave him rather than flee, and assures Peter that he is entirely willing "to drink the cup the Father has given me."
Also, John 12:27-28 reads like an attempt to assure readers that Jesus, though troubled, was never really wavering in his willinginess to fulfill his Father's will by dying.
I didn't know that, thanks for pointing it out. Isn't the "Father forgive them" line a textual variant also? If this line were not original it would work against this theory.
@@jarrettalyssaneville1122
Actually reviewing the manuscript Authority it's really obvious that there was no sweating as great drops of blood that simply was not in the original text
@@greglogan7706 I was not aware of that textual variant, thank you
Some scholar interpret Jesus' saying to Pilates, "Thou saidst so", Vulgate "Dixisti", as "Sez you".
At around the 28:00 mark Dr Ehrman also doesn’t quite understand forgiveness and atonement by giving an example of someone just forgiving a debt that is owed to them.
Not that simple. The person who forgave the debt owed to them was also the same person who paid the price of that debt.
I’ve started saying “the Gospel *attributed* to ___” rather than the antiquated “Gospel *according* to ___”
Thank you, Bart! I finally understand why I was raised to believe that God forgave my sins, but still had to make Jesus pay for them. When I became an atheist and really considered it, I understood that having someone else pay my fine, so to speak, isn’t the same thing as having the fine forgiven, and thought it ridiculous that forgiveness could require a blood sacrifice. Now I know it’s because they were trying to harmonize two different and incompatible views of how Jesus saves.
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
That's quite a statement there, Matt12:7, ascribed to the lips of Jesus.
The sermon on the Mount is, at most pulpits, read thru a Romanish lense. But one should deal with Mat5-7 on its own. Bart Ehrman is right to recommend that.
Jesus says, "forgive and you shall be forgiven. Judge not and you shall not be judged." That's a different message than that one pushed by mainline christianity.
I don't mean this to incite debate, only thought.
have a nice day
3:04-3:18 i disagree. i recently have been listening to M. David Litwa and he makes a pretty good case that Acts, “Luke” 1-2, 3:23-38, etc. are forged by a later writer (justin martyr? polycarp?). Also, when compared to the epistle of the apostles the acts of the apostles seems to share much of the same (or similar) material.
P.S.: That makes the case against Q a bit easier as you could just toss out “Luke’s” genealogy.
Where does Litwa make the case that those sections are later? I have seen him say this & I think it’s fascinating but I have not seen his actual arguments.
Ah, as an exploring evangelical, another hit of my delightful guilty little pleasure. 😈
Was Bart in front of a green screen? The way his hands kept losing fingers was very distracting for me.
Wow embarrassingly did not realize until now that I had been mispronouncing "Philemon" xD xD
Hmm. Interesting. So Mark talks about redemption, whereas Luke doesn't. On the other hand, Lyke was pals with Paul who did believe in redemption. ???
This really groovy. It is the cat's meow
Why Bart leaves out the reference to ps 22?
Perhaps leaving it out fits his own view that Jesus was desperate at the end of his death. 🤷♂️
Also, the no-atonement in Luke is a highly debated topic by academic scholars.
Viewers should remember we are listing to Bart’s view, not necessarily the view that’s supported by all scholars.
It occurs to me that in Mark's narrative of Jesus's death, the centurion believes that Jesus was the son of God because at that moment the curtain in the Temple rips. How in the world would the centurion, who was far from the Temple watching Jesus die -- and presumably not himself a Jew -- know that? Why would the Temple curtain even matter to the centurion?
(In fact, no one would know it was "at the same moment", because at the time people had none of our modern clocks, and the best that could be said was "around midday" or "a couple of hours before sunset" or something like that. But set that aside, because I expect there would still have been the concept of "at the same time"; it's just that "the same time" was much looser than it is for us.)
Also, why would the centurion speak of "God" (the Jewish god) rather than "a god," one of the multiple gods (and goddesses) worshiped by the Romans?
That whole account seems peculiar to me.
I think modern have a footnote that say "surely he was the son of a god. " General meaning.
According to this interpretation of Luke's Passion narrative, it seems like Luke was a Stoic or at least influenced by Stoicism.
I would interpret, in a purely speculative way, Mark (being read soon after the destruction of the temple) as saying that the temple has become irrelevant (the ripped curtain = God has left the building) and that Jesus is the new temple. The centurion is doing God's work in recognizing Jesus and also in tearing down their now useless temple (he just did, didn't he?). The audience of Luke probably didn't have much of a relationship with the temple.
I think a lot of us dedicated ourselves to God so we read the Bible and we seen the lies spewed by the church then we sought out further knowledge and we found the history of the text and some laid down their faith and others take everything with a grain of salt. I don’t think the NY can be understood without knowing what the Torah says. I thinks it’s the foundation and everything that contradicts the Torah is something added. I think Paul a lot talks about sacrifice and refers it as law because it is. They acknowledged the curtain was torn but think they can enter. It didn’t mean that. It mean the priesthood and the phone north were removed from this earth. And our high priest is in the heavenly tabernacle. The place they couldn’t go. There’s really a lot to unpack but I think knowledge of the Torah gives insight to the NT
14:20 they have Levite names in it
I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I wish there was more of a natural conversation between the two. Obviously the questions are very good, but it shows that they were written in advance and they are just going through them all. I think a bit more of flexibility and natural conversation would greatly improve the podcast. Otherwise the thing just becomes a lecture dressed as an interview. What happens when we go from one planned interview question to the other is that all the little human interjections, comments, and little tangents disappear. I hope I'm not being rude to point this out, I really love the podcast.
@abdrenestre
Seemed pretty obvious Bart had not heard the question about James' name ahead of time.
I thimk part of it is editing: the editor cuts out any hesitation, pause or tangent it seems.
I appreciate Megan's preparation and the quality of the questions she asks. Bart doesn't know the questions, so his answers are spontaneous, not scripted in advance. I understand what you're saying -- sometimes, it would be nice to hear a little spontaneous follow-up questions from Megan, but I think she prefers to stick to her pre-planned questions for the most part.
@@Arven8 I'm glad not everyone has the same impression, but I have a very strong impression that Bart comes up with a topic and a number of interesting and relevant questions in advanced. He's always like "I'm so glad you asked that, indeed there was a controversy...". The responses aren't scripted, he just knows the answers and can talk about them comfortably. This seems like a reasonable way to do a podcast, by the way, but the format kind of sucks the life and spontaneity out of the conversation.
Agreed needs to be more spontaneity
14:47 to show who inherited the world
There is no way the author of acts wrote Luke… Luke explicitly ends with Jesus ascending into heaven immediately, while acts talks about Jesus being on earth for 40 days, and then ascending
Authors write books all the time where each book tells a slightly different version of some event(s). Authorial agency means the author is creating as needed to tell their story.
@@TheDanEdwards Sure, but Bart is asserting (like most biblical scholars do) that the author of Luke and Acts are the same person… but they tell absolutely different depictions of the ascension
I have yet to hear a compelling argument for why that is… why the same person write 2 completely different things about the same subject
@@Thoughtpologetics Consider this scenario: an author writes a book, finds that people are willing to buy it. Given the reception, said author thinks writing a sequel sounds like a good idea, so does it. This I propose is what happened. A guy sees the other gospels selling, decides to do those other authors one better (see the intro to Luke.) Finding success, he later decides to write a sequel (Acts), but now he has the books of Josephus in front of him so feels he can write his story (Acts) to fit into the Josephus-universe.
@@TheDanEdwards I mean sure… but that is a lot of speculation. And given that books were very expensive, like the town of Nazareth was reported to have certain text only in the temple… I’d doubt it… it could be just as plausible it was written by someone else, and I think it was
@thoughtpologetics
The introductions to Luke and to Acts establish that the two have the same author. While Luke sums up the entire Easter experience by making it sound like everything took place in one day, including the ascension (much as Matthew sums it all up in a mountain apperance of Jesus). In Acts, the author makes it clear that the appearances, culminating in Jesus' ascension, took place over a longer period of time. (Some copyists, disturbed by this discrepancy, simply deleted "and was carried up to heaven" from Luke 24:51.)
Off topic, but what did Mark's centurion see in Jesus that indicated that Jesus was the son of God?
I cannot be the first person to ask: "Theophilus" - "God-lover" - could it simply mean "Christian" or "believer" and thus be adressed to the general believing public?
I wonder if part of the difference in suffering between Mark and Luke is their respective Christologies? The god-like you think Jesus is, the less sense it makes for him to be really suffering and especially to be despairing or confused. "why have you forsaken me?" doesn't fit well if you believe that Jesus knew he was going to die from the start.
If I were an atheist talking about the crucifixion scene in Marc, I would argue it was written specifically to fit Psalm 22. The whole scenario in Mark’s crucifixion simply fits too tightly to fit with Psalm 22, which Jesus is clearly quoting with “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me.” To ignore the fact this is an intentional reference to Psalm 22 - it’s the very first line of Psalm 22, for goodness sake - is bad scholarship.
Note on G-Lk: translation should read: Lk 23:43 "I’m telling you today - that with me you will be in the Paradise". They did not go to paradise on that day of their death!
Maybe I'm gonna become a Cristian myself, but I don't know how to do that cause I can't believe all the supernatural stuff. Can I become a Cristian without believing all the impossible stuff ?
No.
I would prefer to say that I'm a "Jeshuan." A Jeshuan is anyone who is intrigued by Jeshua (Yeshua) of Nazareth, and employs modern scholarship in trying to figure out what he really said and did.
A Jeshuan might or might not believe in Jesus in some supernatural sense.
I love the accent of Megan ❤
Dear D. Ehrman I’d like to talk with you . Thnx
Dr. Ehrman doesn't comment on the videos, he might not have the time to read them so your best bet is to find his contact information on his site.