Christianity One Year After Jesus
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ต.ค. 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.
We start learning about the Christian movement with the letters of Paul, around the year 60, about 30 years after Jesus' death. But what was happening during its very first year? The Book of Acts, written decades after Paul, describes key events, but can we rely on its account as historical? If not, what can we infer from our various sources? What was actually happening in those years? Were thousands of people converting? Was the religion taking over the world? Was it declared illegal by the state? Or... ?
This week, Megan asks Bart about:
-What sources, if any, do we have for the very earliest days of Christianity?
-When was the book of Acts written, and how reliable a witness does it provide for the first year after Jesus’ death?
-Did the disciples stay in Jerusalem following Jesus’ crucifixion, or return to their homes in Galilee?
-Would the conversion of Gentiles have started yet, or would the group have been predominantly Jewish, still?
-Do we know what the followers of Jesus may have said to convert others to their beliefs?
-One year on, how many Christians can we estimate there to have been?
-Do we know how many of the disciples came to believe in his resurrection, and how quickly that belief formed after his death?
-How plausible is it that the disciples would think that the man they had spent the last months or years with, and had watched die, was actually god?
-What do we know about the leadership of the group following Jesus’ death?
-Do we know what their relationship was like with groups of authority - both the Jewish leadership, and the Roman empire? Would they have been seen as a threat?
-How do you explain how a small group of illiterate, rural peasants could lay the groundwork for a religion that would ultimately take over the empire? Had this already started by the end of the first year?
This is why TH-cam was invented. These talks are very informative and genuinely engaging. I wish it had been around when I was in University in the seventies
TH-cam was invented so that TH-cam could make lots of money doing nothing and skirting the law. TH-cam encouraged users to post pirated material while disclaiming responsibility itself. Eventually many of the people being pirated,, particularly pop singers, changed their minds and started posting their own content because it had become too difficult (due to pirating) for most of them to make any significant income selling ,in the case of pop singer, recordings. They’re increasingly settling for TH-cam crumbs.
@@jeffryphillipsburns good and based
@@jeffryphillipsburnsnonsense
@@user-jq1mg2mz7owhat and what?
@@jeffryphillipsburns
😂got issues there my fellow ape😂
I recently heard it said that Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism were twin children born out of the catastrophe of the second temple destruction; I had no idea Judaism underwent major changes at the same time as Christianity was establishing itself.
Brilliant episode. Thanks!
BTW, you have the best introduction of any major channel i follow on TH-cam; the combination of of the music choice combined with Megan's voice over is superb.
Notice that Bart missed the 120 in Acts 1:15. Moreover, yes, they both sprouted around the same time. With Rabbinic Judaism first since the Pharisees and/or Rabbis (hence Rabbinic Judaism) took over the duties of the Sadducees (spiritual leaders) after the destruction of the second Temple. This gradual change happened since the times of Queen (Of Judea) Alexandra, who favored the Pharisees over the Sadducees. We must remember that Christians are people (like Jesus' disciples) who practiced an Essene/Messianic/Levitical kind of Judaism, and that Christianity is a religion that was formed by Gentiles who were just coming out of paganism and idolatry, and who rejected Moses' law because of Paul's teachings. The vast majority of Gentile church fathers adhered to Paul's teachings rather than Jesus' teachings (under the law).
The fist year after his death was AD 71.
The Temple lay in ruins, and the Jews had all been exiled from Jerusalem.
See ‘Jesus of E.dessa.
R
Do you have any scholar sources on how the destruction of the second temple impacted Christianity?
Ask and ye shall receive! I was endlessly scrolling through YT and I hit refresh and Behold; a new Misquoting Jesus episode! Just what I needed! Love thee show, keep up the good work !
Me to
But he is wrong when he says the NT is the closest thing we will know about Jesus he has to guess what Jesus said in the bible. The Quran is correct since it’s preserved.
@@Truth_Seeker1 Please share the writings of Jesus
I've been attending Christian churches ever since I was an infant and I've never once heard a careful, chronological discussion of the events reported in Matthew and Acts, the months immediately following the resurrection of Jesus.
Some things are better left a mystery
Early Christianity is truly a fascinating subject. It gives us so many questions of "what if"
great idea.. haven't heard a serious talk on this topic really.. can't wait for the next episode as well.. this is one of the few podcasts that i come back to every week.. keep up the good work!
Great discussion. Love these chats
With regard to the opening remarks: I started college at age 18. Due to financial constraints, I dropped out at 22. Then, at 35, I went back and finished. The difference in my attitude and performance from my teen experience to my mid-30's experience was like night and day. Certainly, students that study through the whole semester will do better than those that do not. But, I think the first group will also more likely have the attitude, interest and work ethic to do better than the second group.
I often think education is wasted on most of the young. They have no interest, no context, and they just want to enjoy life.
So you went 4 years and did not attain any degree??? I can see why you ran into financial
" constraints" although I think most people don't know what they want to do till they are about 25.
@@user-ut6ji8my2h I did earn a degree. I was not there just to earn a degree. I wanted an education.
One of the best uses of YT for sure!
Hello. I love these long videos/podcasts.
Only about twenty minutes or so of actual content. The rest is filler.
Thanks for watching, we're glad you're here! - Social Media Team
I just finished watching an awful episode of the Whatever podcast. My brain needs some real education after watching those panelists. That's why I'm here. Bart always has great insights into the Bible.
Bart's "Great Insight" is always skewed and simply wrong
@@Marabarra94 "assuming without any evidence what so ever..."
Like the Bible?
@@ciri151
Bart Ehrman can only be wrong like Bart Ehrman is.
Why don't you guys use your own brain and read the Bible.
The scholars are reading the same words which are accessible to you.
How can the scholars know more about the word than the one who has had the Bible compiled.
The Bible says this concerning the gospel.
Galatians 3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed.
Since the gospel was preached onto Abraham and he believed, believing in God never started with the Jews.
Believing Jesus Christ was never a Jewish sect.
Matthew 8:13
And Jesus said unto the centurion, go thy way; and as thou hast believed; so be it unto thee, and his servant was healed in the same hour.
John 4:39,41
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
41 And many more believed because of his own words.
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world .
John 12:19,20,21
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world is gone after him.
And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast.
21 The same came therefore to Phillip, which was of bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
● All the believers in the verses above, believed in Jesus, from the word which He spoke: even before he went to the cross.
They are not Jews. Their numbers exceed the 20 or so figure which professor Bart D Ehrman posits, as being the number of the followers of Christ, 40 days after his death and resurrection.
Bart Ehrman tells a story that the Bible does not: with the intent that he be accepted as more knowledgeable.
The Bible tells the world, to check its story: to not accept any additions to it nor any subtractions from it.
Anyone with a different story must therefore produce their source.
Have you ever asked professor Ehrman what or where is his source??
Great lecture and great host .... thank you to both 😂❤
I really appreciate all the work yall do to put this on. Personally, I only listen to the first half or so. I want to hear the content but don't really care about the "weekly schedule" stuff . But keep up the great work
bro, you’re being rude. I actually love the “weekly” stuff, since you mentioned it
Good Job both of you and thanks. Your work Doc and others have helped me very much, because the old saying will always be true and that is "knowledge is power." For awhile now I've known with absolute certainty, that book couldn't be trusted the most simplest things. Consequentially I could never trust the extraordinary.
Hi Bart, I enjoy your podcasts immensely. Although not a literal Christian believer, I appreciate the archetypal power, beauty and depth of the gospel stories. In this spirit I've enjoyed watching the TV drama "The Chosen", and wonder what your thoughts are on that program. For one thing, the Romans are ubiquitous throughout the drama, both in Rome and in Galilee. Matthew is collecting taxes in Capernaum on their behalf. I gather from things you say that this is totally wrong. Could you elucidate? "The Chosen" has become such a phenomenon that historical analysis of it might be a good subject for one of your episodes.
Such a good comment, I hope they address this. The problem with The Chosen is that it is an excellent vehicle for political propaganda to western audiences about the middle east. I would watch it with that in mind and ask if the creators have any agenda.
It is not totally wrong. Some of the Jews did collect taxes for the Romans, as clearly seen in the New Testament. And Roman soldiers did keep a watchful eye on the Jews, because of several rebellions.
Bart really opend my eyes to how little so called Christians actually know about their own religion. In my experience secular people tend to have a deeper understanding of the subject matter. And as an atheist i know more now then i ever did when I was a "believer" thank you you Bart and Megan
Um....so you didnt pay attention while you were a believer?
That's on you, not the church.
That’s because Christianity in the lest century has fostered an anti-intellectual atmosphere. There’s no objectivity when you take scripture at face value.
@@langreeves6419 Where was it said that he didn't pay attention? Maybe wait for a response before jumping to conclusions and writing off his experience.
@@feistypug1 he said so! Read the comment I'm responding to BEFORE responding to my response
@@langreeves641930,000 denominations but which is the Church?
Another great, thought provoking episode...regardless of what side of the fence you are on, those hardcore Christians really do everything they can, to make it all fit together..regardless of how ridiculous!
I remember Dr. Ehrman from a lecture about the Da Vinci Code entitles something like "It's a nice page turner for the beach - but why claim it's based on history?". Jokes apart it was a nice lecture - very informative and I also learned a new and very good joke. Nice to find the channel!
I found TdVC annoying. The symbol for Mary was both everywhere and a well-guarded secret 🙄
The “friend” betrays them by forcing them to do what they were already planning to do.
@@scienceexplains302 Well ... I never read the book and I only watched the film because someone wanted to watch it. The best think the book produced was Prof. Ehrman lectures that I have watched more than once.
I submitted this question a month or two ago, but it didn't get selected. I've been wondering for a while: who exactly did Paul persecute before he became a Christian? Paul was in the diaspora outside of Judea, and this happened within a few years of Jesus's death, so it's remarkable that there were even enough Christians there to be worth the effort of persecuting. Perhaps there just happened to be a pocket in the synagogue Paul attended? Regardless, I think there must have been some initial surge of people converting and spreading the gospel within the first few years, though not as dramatic as Acts describes.
We have very little to establish anything historical on the earliest followers & family of Jesus. Paul likely was intent on killing only Jewish Christians, the Ebionites & Nazarenes who totally opposed him & his message before & after his eledged visions.
great question, never thought of this.
I've always wondered this as well. Maybe we read more into his statement than was there in reality.
Maybe part of that statement was to imply that it was more widespread than it really was at that point in order to lend it more legitimacy to those whom Paul had converted.
@@nutyyyy That thought crossed my mind too. It seems like scholars tend to take Paul's version of events as truth simply because he's the earliest Christian author, but I think we need to consider that he may also exaggerate, misremember, or even lie sometimes. One of those options could certainly be the case for what he says about persecuting Christians.
@@montagdpPaul doesn't even get his own "Jesus vision" story to be consistent.
Reminds me of how neither Josh McDowell's or J Warner Wallace's "I used to be an atheist" stories are consistent per retelling, nor are they accurate to reality.
Fascinating. Very good.
Thank you.
Love this podcast! Love it! And I also love Megans hair. Keep up the good work!
Liberal “look at me” hair
What's wrong with having expressive hair? @@ramieal-hazar2438
Really like “The Triumph of Christianity” … Discussion of Constantine … council of Nicaea .. Alexandrian view.. Arian view etc Listened to this in audio ..
What a great topic.
I deeply admire Dr. Ehrman’s presence, patience, and respectful attitude toward those on the other side of the debate table. Debating true believers can be a flustering experience, but Dr. Ehrman always keeps his cool and his sense of humor.
You should check facts. The Bible is fiction, but Christians never check facts online.
Excellent.
16:54 I can’t recall Josephus writing about the number of converts. Assuming he is an objective source he surely would have mentioned “thousands” of Christian’s pre 70…
Thank you so much for covering a period in history few are willing to touch. Yet this period was vital to the creation of Christianity. Thanks for posting this video on TH-cam.
Dang! That was such a great intro.
I think it's likely that there was a split of the desciples right after Jesus' death. There would have been some staying in Jerusalem, some going to Galilee, and some just quiting the group.
Being written by the Jerusalem branch, Acts would have done anything to surpress this split but if the followings in Jerusalem and Galilee reunited later, we might see fragments in the gospels hinting at this second group.
Thank you :)
Not the first year after Jesus, but i am always struck by how far the Jesus movement had spread *before* Paul. The Antioch community, Apollos, Cephas' missionary work, the Rome community... Paul was a great writer but the seeds had already been planted.
And thats what Paul himselve said. One plants and another waters.
@@langreeves6419
_"And thats what Paul himselve said."_
And only Paul.
Jesus is a fictional character and Paul created Christianity in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophesy expired unfulfilled.
@@twitherspoon8954lol! Do some research!
@@twitherspoon8954you sound so certain! As dogmatic as the fundamentalist believers.
@@normanwolfe7639
Which of my assertions are you disputing?
What a great channel 🥂🥂🥂🥂👏👏
great again
I looooove this podcast because it teaches us to read between the lines
Question for Bart. If we hold that the four Gospels and Acts were written after 70 CE, why do none of the authors, whoever they are, not mention the destruction of the Temple? Or am I missing something in the writings that were influenced by the events surrounding the Jewish revolt at the time
Great question.
Matthew 24:2, Jesus "foretells" the destruction of the temple.
I can’t speak for Bart, but from what I’ve gathered whenever an ancient document prophesies an event that is known to have been historically accurate it is viewed with skepticism of the possibility that the document was written after the matter. For the book of Daniel for instance (if I have my information correct) the book prophesied the subsequent empires after Babylon. However the book tried to prophesy a contemporary event and got it wrong by stating that Antiochus would declare war on Egypt and die in Judah but it didn’t happen and he died elsewhere. These books also have anachronisms that give them away as from different time periods. I don’t know if there’s a different approach that academics use to hypothesize the dates of authorship, but maybe this helps understand some of the logic.
In the instance of the gospel there is much allusion to the destruction of the temple as a metaphor of Christ’s body. It may be this is what those academics refer to?
@@randyallen4200 I know he does in Mark and Luke do but not sure on Matthew and John. Catholic Bible apologists argue the point to show that Bart et al are wrong on the dating of the Gospels and Acts their point being they wrote prior to 70 so the Temple still stood. I will accept the post 70 authorship.but love the argument nonetheless Thanks for responding
.
Short ago I started collecting stuff for an essay about the days after the crucifiction. IMO the majority of deciples just gave up after the death of Jesus and went back to where they came from or where they saw their future, so they didn't emerge in Acts. Any objections or comments highly welcome.
A few years later Paul suggests only James, Peter and John were left running the Jerusalem church known to the proto-orthodox as “ebionites” - the poor.
Why the majority?
I’m interested in your thinking. Normally I argue with mythicists and the odd fundamentalist that pops up in these comment sections. I’m not out for an argument here, just curious about why you think that.
I think it’s certainly plausible that some of them could have, but there still must have been enough of a movement with leadership to attract more converts.
Ever hear about the UFO cult called The Seekers? How they coped when their predictions failed? I kind of think it might have a been a bit like this for the disciples.
I’m no longer a scholar (out of funding for school, alas) but a major part of listening to & reviewing lectures is asking questions, learning & never stop processing & THINKING.
Not checking Boble facts makes you look dumb. What up?
I STILL have nightmares where it's finals and I haven't studied or even gone to the class all semester - in spite of the fact that I never did that irl and that college was a long, long time ago. But that feeling of unpreparedness for something important is just the worst. Which I guess is one of the hooks of Christianity
Ehrman, “The Bible”, 2nd Ed., p 176, box 12.4
“It is safe to say that as Jewish traditions developed after the period of the Hebrew Bible, there was no one concept of who or what the messiah would be but a range of ideas held by different Jews anticipating a future anointed one to come and save the people from their distress and rule them in a good age to come.”
Agreed. There is a long (very long) list of scholars who support the idea that some Jews were already expecting a dying messiah prior to the advent of Christianity.
When Bart talks about becoming a divine being does that mean along the lines of Elijah and Moses? What was the view at the time of the role of a divine being? It must have been a special role since everyone else I gather was supposed to go to Sheol.
Bart (I’m using his first name because my IPad keeps miscorrecting the spelling of his surname-artificial stupidity) has discussed this question on TH-cam extensively- not necessarily in this series. I can’t remember exactly where, but if you google a bit you should be able to find it.
search up ehrman's lectures on here regarding his book "How Jesus Became God", he discusses a lot on the different strains of ideas on how mortals become deified in this time period. Suffice to say though, the likely evolution of how early christians saw jesus' divinity (as traced through the IRL development from Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) mirrors the three main ways ehrman identifies that era of people saw mortal->divinity transformations (at first they said he was revived and brought up to heaven, then they say that he was the son of a divine being, then they said he was always a divine being)
I would really like to hear Bart on Sapphira and Ananias and the role of money in the early church (Paul taking gentile funds back to Jerusalem etc. Reason for James to allow gentile conversion? ) . The Sapphira episode is v unnerving, more the god of the OT than NT? Yet it has the hallmarks of truth from what we know of modern day cults and sects and their attitude to adherents cash. Any comment?
Within the first five minutes of small talk Bart’s citing Paul’s epistles as a possible source for the historicity of the church immediately after Jesus’ ascension, which I find quite surprising, given the previous video stating that Paul didn’t know Christ. Now, they’re suddenly connected in both time and place. So, Paul may even have seen Christ in Jerusalem?
@preacherno - People misunderstand the collection of Paul's letter of which half are fraud with the apostle story. The apostle story with all its fantasy stories and miracles is just another fan fiction account. It is made up.
The mathematical approach to Christianity's growth is certainly interesting and valuable. It puts into perspective a number of issues that are otherwise hard to see.
However, the basic assumption here is steady growth and that is most likely wrong. We can assume that towards the end of those 300 years, growth slowed down considerably. This is something we see in a lot of other movements, religious or otherwise. The first adherents are likely to be very ardent proselytizers. Proselytizing actually is a way to deal with cognitive dissonances that arise from one's own sense of importance (I've found the way, I must show it to others/This is the most important thing in the world, everyone must know it...) compared to the relative unimportance of the movement. Convincing others to join in that period is probably the most potent cohesive for the group which would quickly disintegrate otherwise.
After the group has reached a greater size, this becomes less and less important. Now it's more about keeping together what you have, and you get to have your own bureaucracy that's busy with everyday things. With a hierarchy evolving, ordinary members won't be so keen on proselytizing themselves, as they did just did a generation or two ago. They may even be discouraged out of fear that in their ignorance compared to the group's bureaucracy they may come up with new heresies. So, most likely, growth rates will decline significantly over time.
Mind, there will still be growth if the group has overall appeal - Bart frequently argues that early Christians' charitable work gave the religion such an appeal for instance - and in areas where you're already strong and visible, people will come to you on their own, and in significant numbers. But you're more likely to experience a - still impressive - ten per cent growth rate per decade than 40 in that phase.
Which again means that growth must have been far greater early on than the model presented assumes.
Nice comment
Another factor - if the events portrayed in the gospels are based on an actual event and there is one character who can be traced as The Historical Jesus”, then the rumors by regular people not associated with the original followers, the third hand rumors, would mean that, a much larger number of people would be discussing ramifications of a new cult and this would contribute to the original disorganized nature of Christianity, not as a religion, but as a political movement - you don’t have to believe in a deified Christ until after Constantine declares it 400 years later.
Thoughts to ponder:;
•James as a leader; could be tribal. Claiming bloodline as Yuda and line of David?
•Was Luke's gospel and Acts not one volume to start? Could it be written for Paul's defense before Caesar?
•The original large group of followers; possibly the previous followers of John the Baptizer?
•Peter was sent to Gentiles (Cornelius). Luke ALWAYS speaks well of Centurions.
•Of course they stayed in Jerusalem. They thought His return was imminent. That's why everybody sold ****everything. It wouldn't be needed. And who were the 12 thrones to rule over the 12 tribes promised. They didn't ****want to be miles away. Empty throne; no glory; no good. Be prepared (early Boy Scouts)
•Mathew (Levi) as a Roman probate would be literate in many languages.
Totally enjoyable and informative session. Would recommend to interested listeners a very well done book by James Wood Jr. : LEAVING JESUS, revived edition.
Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty.
They have matching glasses today!
Although I disagree with Professor Ehrman on this topic, I give him great credit for even attempting to answer this question. The reason is there almost no sources of information and the sources that we do have contradict each other or are otherwise unreliable. IIRC some gospels say that the followers stayed in Jerusalem, while others say that they all returned to Galilee. It doesn't seem possible to travel to Galilee while staying in Jerusalem. Acts appears to have been written sometime between 85 and 100 CE. I question virtually everything in the first half of Acts, as there are multiple contradictions, and there is a clear change in authorship/writing style where the author switches from 3d person narrative to 1st person narrative. My guess is that the group tried to stay together either in Jerusalem or Galilee and gradually increased their number, but they looked like Jews who continued to follow the teachings of their departed teacher.
I've wondered if the failure of the Jewish revolt in 66 could have changed the religious landscape and given Christianity a boost
I would go as far as to say that without the revolt/war from 66-70 AD there probably wouldn't have been a Christianity the way we know it today. I think the New Testament should very much be read in the light of the cataclysmic events that unfolded in Judea and Galilee in those years. I just can't fit Paul the Apostle into this story because we know he preached and wrote in the years prior to the revolt.
Considering the fact that paper was not even produced in asia until the 8th century CE, and therefore everything we know about the first century is word of mouth and absolute conjecture, everything that Bart says happened is also conjecture, but its great to listen to him.
Writing was invented over 5,000 years ago. Early written records were made on stone, clay, papyrus, parchment and vellum. Much of what we know about the first century is from written records. Josephus wrote "The Jewish War" (which mentions Jesus) around 75 A.D.
@@gregleatherwood5218 Yes, Greg, I know. I was referring to everyday people recording what was happening in their times, not wealthy people that could afford scribes to chisel hieroglyphs into rocks and clay bricks. As far as facts about what actually happened, even today, if you ask 4 eye witnesses what happened in a given event, you will often get 4 different answers. Add to that the human tendency to embellish a story to make oneself more important, and you have a real problem getting to the truth. I'm talking actual truth, as in facts, not religious "Truth" Happy New Year!
@@user-ut6ji8my2h James, a Happy and Prosperous New Year to you as well! Your point is well taken that verifiable evidence for actual events in first century Judea/Palestine is probably impossible to obtain (outside the New Testament and Josephus' accounts). Best wishes!
it is amazing how thr is always more to know. _JC
I barely graduated high school, lord knows I flunked out of college damn near immediately but bart is a great teacher! If I had had teachers like him I may have made it farther than a semester lol
Please say a little more about the women who are mentioned at the end of Mark's gospel, (rather than just the 11). Women who owned their own homes (like Martha) may well have hosted worship. Akeptous mentioned by the table in the mosaic floor found recently in Megido prison for instance.
It seems to me that a great deal more could have been said about 1st century Christianity, such as: (1) What the Didache suggests about earliest Christianity, (2) The 1st C. schism between Jewish followers of the 12 Apostles and the numerous gentile followers of Paul, and (3) A description of the proto-Orthodox movement in the late first c., using works such as 1 Clement and the early "apostolic fathers."
Almost like you teach a whole course and write several books about early Christianity.
@@pauldaigle2344 I intended this to be constructive criticism, and didn't make an ad hominem attack. The 3 things I listed are considered standard topics in the study of 1st c. Christianity.
@@robinstevenson6690actually we know very little about 1st century Christianity outside of the NT so it’s hard to say/write anything beyond conjecture.
@@robinstevenson6690 I certainly agree with your first 2 points. The Didache is all too often ignored yet it might be the earliest remaining document we have. Jesus was a Jew & so were all his early followers, most striking is how the Orthodox dealt with these followers of the Way, declaring them heretics & by the 4th century banishment was deemed no longer sufficient, all non trinitarian elders along with their versions of gospel were burned at the stake. By the 6th century all the early Jewish sects in the Roman Empire were extinct, the early church fathers totally promoted their execution, a fact successfully hidden from history & never seemingly brought up in scholarly debate.
I agree with you on this, completely, and as a result of what the Orthodox did, we largely ended up with the "faith" of Paul, rather than that of Jesus (i.e., a faith "about Jesus," rather than of Jesus).@@some_old_guy1976
I believe in the New Testament. I believe translations has changed some of the wording because I see it in translations today, but I don’t dismiss the New Testament to be untrue. This is said outside of my experience with Jesus. The Bible doesn’t validate my experience with Jesus. I know he exists.
""Return good for evil done" One phrase that teaches all.
This does not make any sense.
Peter is certainly mentioned a lot in Acts. Also, in Acts there was the selectioon of Mathias to take the place of Judas among the Twelve.
There is pretty solid evidence that Luke was not written until after 160 CE. Justin Martyr quotes everything he could find about Jesus, but only mentions 2 verses from Luke both of which can also be found in the Infancy Gospel of James, which was written earlier.
There is a story about Philip in Acts--the one where he shares the Gospel with the Ethiopian Eunuch.
Yes, Acts… and all that, but… what about other sources from that time, i.e., the 30s CE, e.g., Roman, Greek, and Hebrew, perhaps even Egyptian, that would have mentioned Christians (or a sect that looks like Christians). What would be the oldest (but external) such document available to us today?
I don't think there are many surviving texts from 30s CE Judea. One of the reasons people jump all over Josephus' works (published around 75-100 CE) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (written between the 3rd Century BCE to the 1st Century CE) is it is some of the only surviving texts from that time in Judea.
@@dancahill9585 We have a ton of authors who were interested in the area, knew the area and wrote about the area. The fantasy claims of the unnamed fan fiction authors about a dead Arameic speaking preacher, dead people leaving the graves as Mathew wrote, earth quakes, and miracle stories were noticed by no one outside of the stories.
@@dancahill9585 We have a ton of authors who were interested in the area, knew the area, and wrote about the area. The fantasy claims of the unnamed fan fiction authors about a dead Arameic-speaking preacher, dead people leaving the graves as Mathew wrote, earthquakes, and miracle stories were noticed by no one outside of the stories.
@@TorianTammas I'd love to see the list of authors who lived in the area who were interested in the area, knew the area, and wrote about the area who were alive between 0 and 50 AD.
In the discussion around 23:30 Bart hedges on whether the disciples were "all in one accord" or not. Am I mistaken to recall that James thought Jesus and his message were for the Jews only and Peter was adamant about taking the message to the Gentiles? If that memory serves me correctly, (and wasn't there even a separation between them somewhere in Acts?), then it seems they were not in agreement over a very basic and substantial issue. If you happen to see this comment, Bart, would you kindly add your own comment on this?
I still think his message was for Jews only. As you can imagine I’m still pissed off.
I think the number of believers mentioned in Acts 1 seems credible enough: a company of 125 believers at the time of Jesus's death, plus the board of directors, the apostles.
Why did you delete your last video?
Watched a podcast with Dr Josh and he sang praisez of you Megan . So awesome . Five children and such a career, you must be an amazing woman. My deepest respects.
⛔ Could not find **Add a comment** button. Here is the entire summary:
```markdown
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎙 *Introduction and Podcast Overview*
- The podcast has been running for a year, exploring topics related to the New Testament, historical Jesus, and the rise of Christianity.
03:37 📚 *Early Christianity Sources and Challenges*
- The main source for the first 30 years of Christianity is the Book of Acts in the New Testament.
- Acts is dated to various periods, with some scholars suggesting a later date around 120 CE, raising questions about its reliability.
- Acts presents challenges with internal contradictions and discrepancies with other historical records.
09:18 🗺 *Disciples' Stay in Jerusalem or Return to Galilee?*
- Acts portrays the disciples staying in Jerusalem after Jesus' death, emphasizing a theological narrative.
- Other gospel accounts, like Matthew, suggest the disciples may have left Jerusalem and returned to Galilee, creating a historical discrepancy.
10:38 🌐 *Gentile Conversion in Early Christianity*
- Early Christianity likely remained a predominantly Jewish sect in its initial phase.
- The mission to Gentiles, as depicted in Acts, seems to have occurred later, with the focus initially on spreading the message within Jerusalem.
13:25 💬 *Early Christian Message to Jews*
- The core message to other Jews was centered around proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah.
- Early followers emphasized Jesus' resurrection as evidence of his Messianic role.
- Attempts to convince others faced challenges, given the conventional Jewish expectations of a triumphant Messiah.
16:05 📈 *Early Christian Community Size*
- Estimating the size of the early Christian community within the first year is challenging due to conflicting accounts and unreliable sources.
- Historical data suggests a small community, possibly 30-50 individuals, steadily converting others in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death.
17:56 🧑🤝🧑 *Apostles' Belief in Jesus' Resurrection*
- While the New Testament suggests all disciples believed in Jesus' resurrection, the lack of detailed accounts raises questions about individual conversions.
- The apostles likely came to believe in Jesus' exaltation and divinity shortly after his death.
19:30 🤔 *Plausibility of Disciples' Belief in Jesus' Divinity*
- The disciples' belief in Jesus' divinity stems from the immediate implications of his resurrection.
- Their understanding of Jesus as a Divine being likely emerged shortly after the resurrection, shaping the early Christian theology.
21:14 👥 *Leadership and Splintering in Early Christianity*
- Contrary to the perception of early Christian unity, there were likely diverse interpretations and groups within the first years.
- The Book of Acts presents a harmonized view, but historical evidence suggests the emergence of various Christian factions and non-orthodox groups over time.
21:28 🕊 *Early Unity and Divisions in the Jesus Movement*
- The early Jesus movement appears to have had a degree of unity, but divisions may have existed from the beginning.
- Hints suggest divisions among followers, and it's unclear how unified they were.
- Peter initially portrayed as the spokesperson, but James, Jesus' brother, later takes a leadership role.
22:52 🌐 *Dynamics Between Peter and James, and Splinter Groups*
- Shift in leadership from Peter to James, Jesus' brother, creates uncertainty about early dynamics.
- The gospels portray James as initially unsupportive of Jesus during his ministry, raising questions about tensions.
- Early indications of splinter groups or diverse views within the Jesus movement.
23:48 ⚖ *Jesus Movement's Interaction with Jewish Leadership and Roman Empire*
- In the book of Acts, the Jesus movement faces opposition from Jewish leaders similar to those who opposed Jesus.
- Initially, the small size of the movement likely kept them off the radar of both Jewish and Roman authorities.
- Paul's later experiences reveal opposition from both Jewish and Roman authorities.
26:32 🤝 *Formation of the Ragtag Jesus Movement*
- The early Jesus movement comprised illiterate, rural peasants, not influential or educated elites.
- Despite their humble beginnings, they managed to convert people and lay the groundwork for a significant religion.
- Success may have come from talking with other Jews initially, with the real shift occurring when the mission extended to Gentiles.
28:22 📚 *Bart's Weekly Update - Scribal Corruption of Scripture Course*
- Upcoming course on the scribal corruption of scripture, focusing on changes made by Christian scribes.
- Bart discusses the fascinating nature of manuscript differences and their impact on interpreting biblical texts.
- The course aims to provide new examples and explanations beyond what is covered in Bart's book, "Misquoting Jesus."
30:36 💬 *Motivations Behind Producing Gospels and Religious Materials*
- Early gospel authors likely wrote to convey their message rather than for personal gain.
- Later gospels attributed to well-known figures may have aimed to gain readership by associating with famous names.
- The complexity of human motivations involves a mix of faith, sincerity, and, in some cases, personal gain.
38:24 💡 *Impact of New Testament Manuscripts on Textual Criticism*
- Textual critics consider patterns in New Testament copying as a reference for understanding copyist errors in other ancient texts.
- While New Testament manuscripts are abundant, scholars don't privilege them over others but recognize commonalities in copying challenges.
- The proliferation of New Testament copies is due to medieval monks copying as a religious practice, influencing the manuscript landscape.
43:27 📜 *Intentional Changes in Manuscripts*
- Manuscripts copied for personal reasons may undergo intentional changes to align with the copier's views.
- Copyists of texts like Plato or Greek novels, with no personal stake, are less prone to intentional alterations.
44:38 🌐 *Summary and Availability*
- Discussion on the challenges of understanding the first year after Jesus' crucifixion with limited evidence.
- Suggestions to explore annotated Bibles, particularly those discussing the book of Acts, for more insights.
46:42 🎙 *Next Episode Preview: Fear of Death*
- The upcoming episode will delve into the universal theme of the fear of death and its impact on Christianity and beyond.
Made with HARPA AI
```
Dear Dr Ehrman can you share with us which is the first Christians denomination
The one about the woman taken in adultery is my favorite too. That's the one where Jesus says, "let him who did not get any cast the first stone." And when Jesus looks back up, no one is left.
I don’t think even the real Jesus said « Let he that isn’t getting any cast the first stone. » Although it would have been recognition that there were intel’s back then, too. More seriously, I think it’s a great story too! Bible scholars tell me it is a Bible forgery.
@@oldpossum57 And after he looks up and sees everyone else is gone, Jesus will not throw the first stone either, reminding us that although Jesus was without sin, he was also a man and unwilling to admit to being the only one who was not with her. 🤣 They say it was added in about 900 a.d., but that doesn't make it false. Too bad they didn't find any New Testament books with the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Scrolls proved the accuracy of the modern Torah, which was recovered about 500 years ago (in Moscow, I think).
“Intels” should read “incels “.
Jesus without sin? Rather violently lost his temper with the money changers. He could easily have reasoned with them, and have respected their decision to render a time-honoured service if they disagreed. Never to my knowledge compensated the owner of the Gaderene swine, or his swine herd, who probably got the sack. He went around, according to John, not Mark, claiming to be the Son of God. I’ve had a few students like that in 30 years, and put that down to being spoiled rotten. But in his case, I think he was defrauding his followers. Reminds me of some Canadian women recently convicted of defrauding people while pretending to be witches. @@crimony3054
@@oldpossum57 Yeah, I kinda saw that. But the modern Incels are something very different. Women today have better control of their reproductive choices. They live in a much, much safer world. And women have long preferred to marry "up" economically. Females have survived as barefoot and pregnant for millions of years. Now they're free. Should be interesting.
The video starts at 3:20...
You're welcome!
I appreciated your effort. Unfortunately I couldn’t find your comment in time. It was immediately buried by too many far less useful comments.
you guys just want to use the brilliant Dr Ehrman and the awesome Megan for their stellar knowledge , but you don’t want to be bothered with hearing them chit chat for a minute or 2 or 3? You don’t deserve their podcast. I would fully understand it if they see these lame comments of yours and decide to cancel the podcast because you don’t deserve it
In another podcast, you referred to mythicism authors and your discontent with their arguments. Is Richard Carrier among those with whom you disagree? Using a Bayesian analysis, he placed the probability of Jesus’ existence at 0.33, which in my mind is fairly substantial.
Bart has spoken on this matter before; he is well acquainted with expert statisticians (I suspect from his university), and after going over Carrier's analysis they told him Carrier was misusing/misunderstanding Bayesian analysis. As was another evangelical who misused Bayesian analysis to arrive at near certainty of Jesus's divine resurrection.
❤ this Podcast. Bart is the 🐐
As Muslim and ex- atheist I love learn more and more abot others religion and this channel help me a lot thank you Mr Ehrman for sharing this informations with is for free❤
Be strong and learn your religion very carefully I listen to scholars of other religions too but I always try to study Islam more.
Wow you went from atheist to muslim? Did you feel like you had too much freedom in your life and needed to be controlled?
David Wood could help.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr David Wood is liar all what he said I go check after him I find that it's wrong
@@lolislol523 Can you give me an example of something he said that is wrong?
Dig the Nathan Barley "geek pie" haircut!
Didn't do the research, but has Mr. Ehrman visited Israel and/or Italy and what was his thoughts.
Surely the conversion of Roman emperor Constantine was the point of the exponential rise in Christianity as it spread throughout the Roman empire.
Where did the opening theme music come from?
God
Great video as always. One thing I do not get, though, is why Bart thinks it's unbelievable to have 3000 conversions on the first day?
_["One thing I do not get though is why does Bart think it's unbelievable to have 3000 conversions on the first day?"]_
Because that's not consistent with the growth of other religions. Take Mormonism, for example. It grew quite quickly for a religion, but it didn't have three thousand members for years after it started.
"Go make disciples of all nations" can easily explain that?
@@chadgarber Not really. Evangelism has been part of many religions. They don't grow to 3000 people overnight.
@@Kyeudo I still just don't get it. There are many things in the Bible that are hard to believe but that is not one them (for me atleast).
@@chadgarber
You don't find it hard to believe that a house full of people suddenly have fires over their heads and start speaking in foreign languages, causing a large crowd of thousands of people to form, consisting of people from across the Ancient Near East. A guy then gets up in front of this incredibly multi-cultural crowd of people, preaches a mediocre sermon at them, and causes three thousand people all at once to convert?
Let's ditch all of the miraculous bits, because those definitely didn't happen, leaving just a sermon preached to thousands of people. Jerusalem's population at the time was somewhere around 70,000 people. A crowd of three thousand people in one place would be more than 4 percent of the whole population of the town all gathered together to hear a single preacher. This would be like a single preacher in modern Rome drawing a crowd of a hundred and twenty thousand people.
But this wasn't just a crowd of three thousand. Three thousand are just the number of people supposedly converted by this single sermon. This is a minority religious movement preaching a variant interpretation of Jewish scriptures to a crowd that supposedly was so cosmopolitan that it included people from Egypt and Rome, who wouldn't even care about the religious practices of the Jews.
Let's give our one preacher an absolutely absurd conversion rate of one out of three people in the crowd converting. This is now a crowd of at least 9 thousand people. That's a seventh of all Jerusalem's population gathered together to hear a single speaker. Just getting that level of interest is absurd.
And then we toss in that even a crowd of three thousand people is huge. If a crowd's density exceeds 2.5 square feet per person, the crowd is likely to start to asphyxiate people from the pressure of body on body, so our 3000 people would be packed cheek by jowl in a square about 85 feet on a side. To put that in a more visible metric, that's roughly three tennis courts, packed with people. Unless Peter is preaching from the center of the crowd (and maybe not even then), those in the back can't hear what he's saying. But a crowd doesn't pack that tightly together usually. The density is usually half that or less, so now we're talking half a football field. How is a single speaker reaching this many people without some form of megaphone?
Basically, the more information you pour in about the logistics of converting three thousand people overnight, the less it makes sense.
"The end of the world is nigh" is opposite to "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near".
One, is the teaching of St Paul; the other of John the Baptist. The outer Kingdom, vs the inner kingdom.
8 minutes of commercial time before it begins !!! use time to read comments !
dumb question. I know he says "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" (or whatever the other translations are). could it be that he's talking about humanity forsaking him? like a, "my god what have you done" when you see what the dog did while you were away? It would show how disconnected the people were if they thought he was talking about God as opposed to them. Also... for those that think that would be a sin... I don't think it would be "in vain" in that scenario.
I agree with Simcha Jacobovich. I think the early church spread through the Roman army. If Constantine actually converted, he did so to retain the loyalty of his army, in an already declining Roman Empire.
Begins 3:07.
As a self described Christian Rationalist cannot fathom the ignorant discourse around the work of the late Barbara Thiering. Her findings and conclusions are irrefutable and make way for a more truthful intelligent debate around both Christianity and Islam. The world needs to love more and hate less.
Desciples of Jesus Christ never think that Jesus died for their sins.
I wonder if the “misquoting” of Jesus on the cross to the effect that God is mocking Jesus, rather than forsaking him, references Sarah’s laughing at God when informed that she, at a super-advanced age, would bear a child….
Rather than surrounding himself with scribes, Jesus not only didn't write anything down himself, but hooked up with a bunch of illiterates! Then for the first century or more, the church is growing on word-of-mouth at best until someone gathers all the stories into one place. It's a miracle that such a disorganized beginning should ever get off the ground, let alone become as influential as it did.
How do you know all these claims you are making? Where is it said that his disciples were not taking notes when he travelled around preaching? Matthew and John were his disciples, and wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. By the way Mark is the same person as John. Only Luke was not an eyewitness and he does admit that.
@@JohnChapt3, you’re right. I don't know. Certainly stories were written down, but in stark contrast to the Torah, which was based on the written word, there was no evidence of formal recording of "the Word made flesh" until much later.
Bart Ehrman thinks the lack of evidence from the first few centuries weakens the argument for the Gospels. I think it does just the opposite.
@@JohnChapt3 where are you getting this nonsense from? And why don’t the other experts agree with you?
@@secretgoldfish931 Where are the other experts getting their nonsense from? And where is Bart getting his nonsense from?
@@JohnChapt3 do you know anything about how scholarly consensus is arrived at?
And why have you concluded that John and Mark are the same person?
Is it just me or is the sound out of sync when Megan talks? She’s in the UK? Is that why?
Yes. Everyone in the UK is out of sync. It’s cultural.
How did Peter and John write what they wrote if they were illiterate?
Or DID they write those books?
They weren’t! The New Interpreter’s Bible comments: “These terms are probably not to be taken literally as though Peter [and John] were unschooled and could not write or read. They simply recognize the profound difference in social class between those sitting in judgment and the apostles.”
Even a comma can make a big difference. For example: What is this thing called, love?
Here's what I'd like to know. A few years after the crucifixion, Ghost Jesus appears to Saul, who immediately sets about telling everyone what happened to him. So why did Mark come along 35 years later and write a story explaining why Jesus never appeared to _anyone_ after the crucifixion? 🤔
One word. "Why has God Reviled Me?" Jesus exxperiences being human, His creation. When events go wrong that is a common feeiling. Jesus must feel the same. So the two alternate translations are valid. Coupled with the Resurection and promised Second Coming it gives all hope.
24:12 "At normal times there were no roman authorities in Jerusalem". If you read Josephus you get a very different impression.
An interesting discussion. I thinks a very interesting topic since it’s one where a lot must have happened but we have so few sources.
One thing that has occurred to me over the years is that the sources suggest to me that Christianity did not hit the ground running right after the crucifixion. It seems likely that apostles went back to Galilee and went back to their lives. I was probably months long process of them trying to make sense of what happened and this would have taken place with a wider community of people that followed Jesus.
Numbers are hard to arrive at. I think there could be a disparity between people who show up to hear Jesus and people that would become Christians.
I don’t think it improbable that 1000s followed Jesus during his life but I suppose many would move on after his death and even among supporters many wouldn’t accept his resurrection or messiah status.
When Paul mentions 400 (500?) people that saw the resurrected Jesus at one time, that might. E accurate of a group that gathered for this occasion but there is no telling who stayed with the apostles ( or how many there would confirm Jesus appeared to the crowd.
Where are the tesminoies of 500😅
Megan changes her hair color and eyeglasses more often than I change my underwear :)
Washing those cosmetics chemicals down the sink is not good for the environment. They are not as biodegradable as detergents.
Bart Ehrman,
This account is wrong. Saul was converted 4 years after Savior was resurrected. The term Christian appeared in Acts 11:26. Do you know that Saul did not meet the apostles before him until after 3 years further?
It’s really funny for some reason to hear a biblical scholar refer to dates on the Gregorian calendar as “the common era”.
One great divide lies amid those pretending deeper sentience and those who accept a more prfound ignorance. Bart is always circumspect in his travels
*"Keep your faith and your candle, for the Sun is sure to Rise."*
Wishing you all a Wonderful Winter Solstice.
A traditional celebration dating back well over 5000 years ago where the Sun is literally rebirthed in the passageway of an ancient tomb.
"The Grand Passage Tomb." A World Heritage site. Witness the rebirth in person.
A celebration of life and renewal, peace and camaraderie with food, song, dance, drink and goodwill to man.
Happy Holidays.
Let the Sunshine In...
*Be Happy*
"Solstice Night by S J Tucker"
,
I don't think this was brought up but one advantage to help the religion spread was the story that Jesus had already been crucified already and then resurrected and rejoined God. This might not convincing to everyone but they weren't going to lose converts because their expected Messiah did not succeed. Once the argument that Jesus was a different kind of Messiah had been accepted there would not be loss of converts because promises didnt manifest.
It's likely there were proto-Christian groups all over the eastern part of the Roman Empire in the early 1st century; the Christian movement did not begin in Jerusalem and spread from that one point outward. Nor did it begin in Galilee. The groups that Paul referred to in his letters already existed before he arrived; probably long before he arrived. And they had never heard of a Jesus of Nazareth. These groups were soteriologically based: a Savior died and rose from the dead; have faith is this savior and you too will rise again. That message was very appealing to the Greeks and Romans.