We still need that "OSP Out Of Context" video that's actually a funny out-of-context video instead of a best-of retrospective. Admittedly, that's a pretty hard thing to accomplish with content as good as OSP's...
each of the gospels were clearly written for a different audience. Mathew wants us to know Jesus the Jew, Mark mostly is about action and power (good for converting Romans, who admired both), Luke writes his in a bit of a historical context to a new believer, and John really wants us to know Jesus was also God.
Adfing to that Blue's implication that the gospels of Mark and Luke are subtly antisemitic comes across as uninformed. While Matthew is very much written to a jewish audience Mark and Luke were an invitation (and explanation) to the gentiles. At a time when Jerusalem was infamous for being very hostile to different cultures. The message is though our origins are Jewish we don't care about your identity - we care that your heart is in the right place and we have something to offer everyone if you want to "come and see"
I think the implication is not that the Gospels are antisemitic per se, but some of their passages were used for a while in order to justify antisemitism. Because while I can't give an example from the top of my head, I'm pretty sure it did happen at some point.
@@siraaron4462 That's still antisemitism for the sake of appeasing people who didn't like the contemporary Jews though. Being Jewish is still framed as wrong, immoral, or generally bad. They just rise above their Jewish inferiority and immorality through the power of Jesus! Now they probably to set their whole religiion against every Jewish person and start a system of persecution, but that's still what they wrote.
Yes, they were all written with different purposes in mind. The synoptics to the Romans, Jews, and Gentiles, and the Gospel of John was theological correction.
Speaking as a Catholic, I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim the Old Testament was written by God Himself. Rather, it was written over a period of centuries or millennia by various human authors who were inspired by God. A subtle but important distinction, and I suspect much more in line with the Jewish view than suggested. Christianity has never been shy about the origins of the first half of its sacred scripture, and the early Church fiercely opposed arguments that the OT should be cut on account of its Jewish origins.
As fellow Catholic, I agree. Many priests that I've met actually encourage people visit synagogues during their service (granted that you speak to the Rabbi beforehand) so as to further understand our spiritual origins.
Yeah, that’s a really weird mistake to make. I have to assume Blue either grew up in some very strange denomination or did really poor research, as every major Protestant denomination I know of also acknowledges the writing of the OT in time (the language of “inspired by God” is only slightly stronger than the language used to refer to the writing of weekly sermons).
Speaking as a Protestant, I agree. "All Scripture is given by *inspiration* of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3 verse 16.
Agnostic coming in for a landing. I don't remember the priests I grew up with denying where the OT was written. But there were the familiar undertones saying anyone who didn't get the next installment were doomed. But to be fair, that came from the Archdiocese clergy who studied in Europe and not the local clergy who grew up around the corner
Can confirm from an Anglican background. The Bible might be divinely inspired, by it was very much written by men. Even historically, 'the word of god =/= literally God's direct words, transcribed by him or otherwise".
As a practicing Catholic, it was very fascinating to see the Gospels being analyzed from a pure scholarly perspective. Thanks again, Blue! Keep up the great work!
Blue never actually says he identifies as atheist. He simply said he's not here to preach to us. Also there are plenty of atheist perspectives on the internet - some try to be objective but just as many are unfairly biased.
Its not an Aetheistic persepctive of the Bible, its just a historical piecing together of the timeline for the books. OSP is not trying to analize the existance of God or anything, they're just talking about the book itself and how it came to be.
It's not an atheist perspective. It's a scholarly one. Aside from the Gospels' authorship (which, let's be honest, it never made sense that they're 100% written by their respective namesakes), none of what he said contradicts Christian belief, and indeed, plenty of religious scholars are themselves religious. It's a matter of compartmentalizing one's faith and the historical facts. Sometimes, examining facts can even help you evaluate your faith and even deepen it. I certainly appreciate Christ's message the more I learn about the historical context!
“I am a cartoon” I keep forgetting that this is canonically true, and that Blue and “Blue” technically have a “Stephen Colbert” (of the Colbert Report era) situation going on (although not nearly to that degree). My favorite was when Blue was discussing this on the OSPod and was like “I’m not so flat in person as onscreen Blue - I’m not just all about domes. I like arches just as much!”
This used to be commonly understood as part of youtube's ecosystem: everyone is a character. Often times based on themselves, but distinctly not themselves. It's like the WWE, people generally don't break kayfabe, everyone is exaggerating. I'm still a little surprised there are both people who don't grasp that and creators who willingly try to tell you they're defying that. Though, maybe that's part of their kayfabe.
@@legateelizabetheveryone is always playing a character. It would be weird if you behaved the same way around your coworkers as you did with your kids
@@12jswilson that's not "being a character", that's using different language register. You don't become a different person around different people I hope. If you do, you might want to look into disassociation and related stuff...
Speaking as a "Christian", I'm happy that this comment section (at the time of me writing this) is a civil one especially when it comes to this sort of topic. Love the substitute word you chose. Feels mystifying. Also, like someone mentioned I don't think most Christians see the scriptures as being from God. Inspired by God, sure but not directly from God. Maybe it's more popular in the more fundamentalist groups because I've never heard of that take before until like a few months ago before this video.
@@kingofcards9 because I know there are some christians who may not view me as a christian for not seeing the scriptures as being from God directly and I do have a more progressive view of the faith which may also make them not see me as a christian so I just put "" there because it depends on whether I fit in with what they mean by Christian.
@@KnightsofGaming2016 if it makes you feel better,as far as I'm concerned, as long as you believe the basics of Christianity (as set out by the Nicean creed) you're basically a christian regardless of denomination.
It is really nice to see! There's is such a variety of Christians that discourse could be quite interesting. Not to mention non- Christians who just want to talk about history and literature! Until the gatekeepers get here.
@@KnightsofGaming2016 Going to be honest I think only fundamentalists and niche sects think that scripture is directly from The Lord, and fundametalists and niche sects are notorious for not being well accepted and oftentimes easy to pull apart when you start questioning. Everyone else has a consensus that scripture was written by human writers who were guided by The Lord. Edit: Even fundamentalists and niche sects have people who'd agree on that too.
KJV is rightfully controversial but there are worse translations and if nothing else KJV has played the biggest role in the history and culture of Christianity today.
@@siraaron4462 KJV is mostly just influential amongst English speakers not all of Christianity. Also its influence combined with its inaccuracy is the problem, yes there are some translation that are worse but they don't have the influence that KJV has so few people care about them.
It sounds pretty. That is really why I read it. Though I tend to refer to the nkjv most of thr time. Though I love the history of mis translations. There is one statue of Moses that has horn nubs because of the word for halo being turned into horns and I love it
@@siraaron4462 Most of its problems are due to its age. The language is outdated and means different things today. Older sources have been found, and scholarship has improved. That makes it a lot better than those which are flawed in concept. And it does have the advantage of indicating added words in italics. That said, a version today that focused on sounding good when read aloud and was more poetic on appropriate places would be very welcome. As would just be one that keeps the KJV mostly intact but updates the language. The NKJV doesn't quite pull this off, as it updates too much.
My dad was a preacher-turned-teacher who had 90 credit hours in his Master's theology courses. I'm quite sure he would've loved this video, and it would've sparked hours of conversation from him that I would've loved to have listened to. Too bad it came out eight months and one week too late for that. Rest in Peace, Dad. Gone far too soon.
@Blue, please tell Indigo that in the last podcast when Ziggy came into the room and did sleepy eye blinks at her that Ziggy wasn't tired, just doing the cat equivalent of a hug or saying "I love you". I heard her comment and thought maybe she didn't know that fun fact! You can also slow blink back at them and affirm it, it's so cute if you have a cat that will do blinks back and forth.
I love Blue’s spicy take at the end. Just for those who don’t understand, the KJV is a cornerstone of English-language literature, as important as the works of Shakespeare in cementing the modern English language. It’s a beautiful, interesting read. However, it leaves a lot to be desired as a translation of the Bible. It generally favors pretty imagery and nice rhyming turns of phrase over accurate translation of the text as written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. There are a whole host of newer, more accurate translations out there, but they aren’t as pretty as the KJV. Worse, there are a whole bunch of Christian groups out there, often of the right-wing conservative type, who insist that scripture is the only source for Christian faith and that the KJV is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible. This is frustrating because it ignores a whole lot of oral traditions that arose first and all the translation flaws in the KJV, some of which heavily affect doctrine. So dismissing the KJV is Blue mocking those groups.
Yeah the KJV had an important role in the history of Christianity and is still the most widely circulated globally but isn't necessarily the best translation out there if you want to understand the intention of the original authors.
Speaking of effy translations, the Jehova's Witnesses justify their bullshit through by using their own translation of the Bible. When I heard that, I chuckled since I live in the one place where that can't work.
I guess at this point you can consider the King James Version as the "Baby's first Bible". It's the best known, widest spread, and defiantly most quoted version/translation of the bible, so it'll most likely be the first one someone reads. And it is pretty interesting. But once you start studying the bible to any degree in any field, you'll find better and more interesting versions/translations. Also, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I just wanted to say that we use the KJV because, like you said, it is the most widely known translation of the bible. We aren't afraid to dip into other translations, but I know I will always come back to the KJV because it's "comfy" (If you know what I mean).
The KJV also has a more direct problem: When it was written, the translators didn't have access to some of the best manuscripts of the Greek. The "Textus Receptus", despite the grandiose name, was mostly just one set of random late manuscripts copied a bunch in Western Europe because they lucked into it for the early printing press. Modern translations have access to much older, and thus presumably closer to Roman-era, versions of the books with less scribal meddling, mistakes, etc.
@@ΣτελιοςΠεππαςi finally got to hear a Jh’s view point of the early works. And i almost want to look through it just to go “ohhhhh this is a special type of heresy.”
As someone who is a Christian and a big fan of your videos, you did a really good job Blue. I feel you captured what makes the Gospels so lovely yet so different. There were very small aspects of this I raised my eyebrow at but overall you did a solid job of being respectful and informative. I’m curious to hear more of your thoughts on this video in the podcast. Also the KJV dig at the end made me laugh so hard.
I too was impressed! Looking at the gospels as mostly historically based art works [sort of like Shakespeare or Homer] is a take I rarely see in non-religious people. And I think it allows a level of appreciation that is often missing from other talks about the Gospels by agnostics or atheists.
I like how he didn't make the factual basis of the work a limitation on its effectiveness as a source of wisdom and morality. If we could all talk about religion on this level, and we could find a consensus on various elements of epistemology, we might just be able to replace religious wars with vigorous debate
Bro, Blue has never said that he's not christian, and based on how he has talked about it in his various Christianity-focused videos, I would hazard a guess that he is a christian
I don't know his Religion, because I only watch his videos and haven't really looked into his personal life, but I highly recommend Religion for Breakfast!
As a Christian pastor, and someone who deals with apologetics, I find this video refreshing. I don't agree with 100%, but that's a ridiculous expectation anyway. However, with all the Dan Brown and Jesus Seminar acolytes out there, it is good to hear someone who is not sympathetic, but still is willing to put in the actual work of research. Great job.
I have to ask. What is a jesus seminar acolyte? I feel I’ve avoided a weird cult and thats not what i do when it comes to christian offshoots and weird little branches.
@@samuelstarrick8487 the Jesus Seminar was a group of highly critical scholars that met together in the 1990s. They voted on every line Jesus ever uttered regarding whether it was actually uttered by him. It would be like a group of art critics voting on every dot of a Monet regarding how likely it was that Monet brushed it, all with the presumption that he didn't paint most of it.
Dan Brown writes Isekai branded Wish fulfillment fanfasies for men in their forties with lots of trivial knowledge experiencing a midlife crisis, and it is a bit of a shame how books helped colour the religious discourse.
Don't get salty that your books are just books written by men. Apologetics is not history or religious study, it's propaganda. As a pagan former fundie christian, I hop you step on lego barefoot for the next week
"As written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." As soon as he said that, my brain immediately went into a Sunday School jingle/mnemonic of the rest of the books of the New Testament.
Mine instantly went to Blazing Saddles. "We will now read from Matthew, Mark, Luke--" (bundle of dynamite crashes through window) "and, *duck!"* *KABOOM!!!* 😀
I went to a prayer. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Blessed be this bed that I lie on. Four angels to my bed, Four angels 'round my head. One to watch and one to pray, And two to bear my soul away.
As someone who grew up in Episcopalian christianity, I was always curious about the wider history of the religion, especially in days that the bible recounts. Also, I should not be surprised, given all the imagery and naming in the NGE that is biblical in nature, that the show's actual name "Evangelion", is an actual religious term.
Very much. The clue is in that it's basically called the new (neo) genesis, since it's based on Lilith and the angels sent after her. The twist is making humans her children rather than Eve's. I know that's a massive oversimplification but it's been a while and I'd have to find some old videos to get the details.
Evangelion is most defintely a religious reference. In the same way as the setting for Seven Deadly Sins is a reference to Britain and King Arthur. Through a glass, darkly.
@@pattheplanter Now that's a series I haven't thought about for a while. I just read ahead and finished the manga after the studio change. Thanks for reminding me to check out the movie and sequel series. Hope I still enjoy it after a few years away.
NGE's use of biblical terms and imagery is more an example of appropriation, since the creators admitted they used them because Christianity is rather obscure in Japan (so it seems exotic) and that, had they known it would be internationally successful, they would have used a different religion/mythology. Personally, I love that they chose Christianity. You see Western works appropriate Eastern religions and myths ALL THE TIME without considering the theological implications. It's only fair the East should be allowed to appropriate us back. Also, even though it wasn't intended, people can definitely interpret Christian themes in NGE. There's absolutely something Gnostic going on with Human Instrumentality.
I’m an episcopal priest and I say well done indeed! I dare say if yall decide to do more Bible stuff any of my colleagues would be delighted to share their knowledge.
Love that “The Great Undefined Mist” almost reads as an alternative to “The Cloud of Unknowing,” the title of a 14th c. Catholic text on the why and how of silent meditation in a Christian context. So that’s fun!
OVATION! Man, I was really excited when I clicked this one. I attended a "Christian college" (read: at least half funded by the Southern Baptists; but it was the only school I got a full ride at, so...) Anyway, Christian college, which meant *required* to take 2 semesters of "Religion 101" - basically a formalized study of the Old and New Testaments. I got the BEST professor, though: a man who tackled the texts as an archaeologist, and at times was just about as cool as Indiana Jones. He had such lively humor and insisted that we always learned about the context of the events depicted AND some of the context of "how come this is in the Bible but not this other letter from Paul," and other such historical goodies. I was never a fan of history at ALL until Dr. Browning, but he made me see how cool it is, even with the narrower focus of "just the Holy Land," as it were. And you delivered and THEN some, and it's making me so happy! I most especially love that you addressed who the writers of the gospels were, and that you touched on things like the specifics of whether Jesus' lineage was discussed or not - topics that were on the test in Doc Browning's classes, you bet! And fun to think about too - not only because such details tell us who WROTE these stories down, but TO WHOM they were speaking. Generally it'd be the Jews who cared about whether Jesus was a descendant of King David, but making the point of Jesus as "universal" had to have been pretty reassuring and appealing for the non-Jewish listeners/readers. Though now I kind of want to go hunt up the various apocryphal books just for a good time. "Jesus the Dragon Prince" sounds quite fun!
A small correction: Christianity does not attribute the Old Testament to God directly, but indirectly. It was not written by God, but inspired by God, which means that God was the root cause behind the writings and influenced the writer to only speak truth. But that inspiration was still filtered through the human writers who created the books. God was basically a real-time editor, bequeathing ideas on the writers that sounded quite good and worthy of writing, but how they expressed those ideas were left up to them. EDIT: As some have clarified in the replies, this does not mean that every statement is true when taken literally, just that they all contain truth. In some cases this is literal, such as the existence of Adam and Eve, but others are metaphorical or allegorical, such as the six days of creation or Christ's parables. Disputes on which statements are to be taken literally and which statements are metaphors is one of the main reasons for the many denominations within Christianity.
Your "clarification" applies only to certain denominations. To the Catholic Church the entire bible is pretty much considered "verbatim dei" you can look it up in the vatican webpage, same goes for a fair amount of protestant denominations, specially the fundamentalists ones, but it isn't limited to them. So your clarification only applies to certain groups, not Christianity as a whole.
This was a really good video. I think my favorite parts about the Gospels is that, based on who theyre attributed to, they are also surmised to be written for a very specific audience in mind. For instance, the one tracing Jesus back to King David is a gospel explicitly for the Jewish people, who were still waiting for the messiah to free them from Roman occupation. This is why so much of it is also based on showing how Jesus checked all the boxes the previous prophets set out for him to fulfill. (Fun fact too, its surmised this is also why Judas betrayed Jesus. It wasn't just a random act of betrayal from a surprisingly untrustworthy follower or something. Judas was in the theological camp of believing the promised messiah was supposed to be a hero, like the Judges of old, like a King David who took down Goliath, who would lead them in battle and smite the Romans for their oppression...not this bearded guy going around healing the sick, poor, and even saying to forgive tax collectors, prostitutes, and even roman centurions.) I think my only small nitpick with the video, and this may just be me coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, is that Christians dont necessarily say the Old Testament was just written by God outright. Much like the New Testament, we assume it was divine inspiration, but still written by humans all the same. Still though, fantastic vid, Id love if more theological history got dissected like this. Like the early 'church fathers'. My favorite is still St. Augustine, I think, who put off becoming a priest and even prayed to God that He "-give me chastity and continence, but not yet!", dude was a 'party animal' and didnt want to stop, until he just decided he was finally done, and became one of the most influential people in later church theology and philosophy. 😂 Just full on, "hey. I KNOW you're calling me to be a priest, I get that....but like, give me two more years tops. Please?" 😂
@@rafaelsegalla7698All I can think of is that Futurama clip that goes “Did he at least d*e painlessly? …To shreds, you say! How’s his wife holding up? …To shreds, you say. GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE!!!”
@@rafaelsegalla7698 For the English title, Neon Genesis Evangelion means "good news (Gospel) of the new beginning or creation," as you said. For the Japanese title, Shin Seiki Evangelion means "new century good news(Gospel)."
Great vid man! And this is coming from a Christian, so don't worry. As an someone interested in apologetics and owns a study a Bible, I love seeing other peoples perspectives and interpretations. 1:23 -The idea of scripture being God-breathed doesn't mean God literally penned it. We recognize that people wrote it, but were guided divinely. Not a possession situation where God literally takes over, but God guided. One might say, inspired by God. God ensured that what he wanted was written and codified. 5:39 -A common misconception is when the authors write things like "Jesus was rejected by the Jews" they mean the Jews as a whole. This would be weird considering the people writing these books would have Jews. Multiple Jews at the time followed and accepted Christ. When they say "rejected by the Jews", they mean those Jews who did not accept Christ, including the Pharisees. After all, since Jesus was willing to associate with Gentiles and Samaritans, and the Messiah prophecy was especially important for the Jews, distinguishing between those Jews who did and did not accept was important. Unfortunately, as you said, this fundamental misunderstanding had terrible consequences.
I think it's safe to say that "the Jews" as a group, as a whole, did not accept that "Jesus Christ" (as he became known; I can't be bothered to find what they would have considered his real name; you know who I'm talking about) was the Jewish Messiah. Some did, but most did not. This, of course, has _absolutely no bearing whatsoever_ on how we should treat the literal and intellectual descendants of either group. Just to be clear.
@@jameshart2622definitely agree with your last point. As for your first point, if a Jew followed Christ(I think the Talmudics call him Yeshua?), they would cease to be Jewish and be labeled Christian.(even though Christs death and resurrection are a continuation and fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and mosaic law). Furthermore, the New Covenant kind of tore down barriers between Jews and Gentiles. so while a Jew who follows Christ is still ethnically jewish, this doesn’t mean as much to their identity. They would be Christians first, ethnic groups second. it’s not so much that Jews didn’t buy what Christ was freely giving, it’s that when they did, they would cease to be Jews as we understand it today. If they were martyred, they would be known as “Christian martyrs” not “Jews who were martyred for believing in Jesus.” I don’t know for certain, but I believe that when Jews converted, they ceased to be Jews(the ethno-religious group, emphasis on the religious bit)and would thus not be counted amongst them. Through this statistical quirk it could give the idea that most of the Jews didn’t end up following Christ. Which would sadden me, as those who prayed for the messiah and kept the mosaic laws in preparation missed that particular bus. Just to cap off my mucho texto comment, our theological differences should in no way should be used to deprive Jewish people of the dignity inherent to all human life. God still has a plan for them.
@@shibasaurus322 I'm not as picky on the distinction between Jew and Christian, but identity is always a touchy subject. My main point is that regardless of how you count it, most Jews didn't "convert" in _any_ way, so the _group_ didn't accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. It's always tricky when you deal with groups because there are always and forever exceptions (especially in this case, since Christianity definitely started as part of Judaism), but this seems about as safe as statements like this can get. Treating this as some deep moral flaw of the people who were alive then, let alone their literal and intellectual descendants, is a serious mistake, though. Big time.
I mean Judaism is still a thriving religion. I just meant to explain that the authors, were not trying to say that literally the entire Jewish race was responsible for Jesus' crucifixion. The Bible makes clear that since it was for the sins of everyone, everyone is culpable. In other words, Paul for example, would be weird to blame the Jewish race seeing as himself was Jewish, and once a very zealous religious Jew at that. Also, what do you mean by "you know who I'm talking about"? Christ was a title, not a last name, and Jesus was essential the name Joshua back then. That is what they would have considered his name.@@jameshart2622
Not wanting to poke holes here, but how do you know the intent of the author who wrote the lines about jews? Like, are there original translations where this is explained differently? Or is this more of a "well it would be internally inconsistent if he meant that so we interprete it more favourable" kind of deal?
2:43 This is honestly so funny and insane! I can just imagine a storyteller telling this to other Christians. “Hey, wanna hear about the time Little Jesus tamed a cave of ENORMOUS F*CK YOU DRAGONS?!” “I’m sorry, what?”
@@CaptainvonDore The devil has frequently been depicted as a dragon in Christian lore and Saint George, the patron Saint of England was a Dragon Slayer
I DO understand why it didn't make the cut for the Bible... but at the same time... as a Christian, I feel like I've been *robbed* by not having this story in my life. Like... WHAT?! 🤣 So I HAD to look it up and find a translation to read! Here you go! _Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother, and stood on His feet before the dragons; and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired. Then was fulfilled that which was said by David the prophet, saying: Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons; ye dragons, and all ye deeps [9] And the young child Jesus, walking before them, commanded them to hurt no man._ - Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Chapter 18 According to another translation, he was only 2 years old... I love this so much.
Thank you, Blue, for this awesome video. I am a pastor who has a bachelors degree in Biblical studies, and I can genuinely say that this video is both incredibly accurate and amazingly respectful to the source material. Thank you for your insights! OSP keeps finding ways to be the best channel out there!
What I love about this channel is that the stories and beliefs that are analyzed are treated with respect. Like Blue said, just because you don't believe that the stories are true doesn't mean there isn't beauty or meaning there. EDIT: I feel like I should point out that in Judaism (at least in Rabbinic Literature and Orthodox thought) the Five Books of Moses are considered to be of divine origin, while the rest of the Tanach/ Old Testament was written by various human authors and with varying levels of divine insight.
Honestly, "the King James version isn't a valid translation" isn't even a spicy take. There were a series of booklets in my church library about various mythical beings and what precedent they had in the Bible (I found out what the pituitary gland is from the booklet on giants), and roughly half of the booklet on dragons was "but these ones only exist in the King James version so they're probably fake".
If Jesus lived until ~30 AD and the book of John was written ~95 AD, then we're looking at about 65 years after the life of Christ. Calling that a "century" is a bit of a stretch.
As a christian i am so thankful to see such a professional and frankly beautiful video on the New Testament and it’s authors, it’s really refreshing to see a non christian perspective that isn’t completely derogatory of our beliefs and teachings. Thank you for teaching your viewers responsibly, and God bless
Okay but "Jesus Christ, the Dragon Prince" is my new dragon cleric/sorcerer/bard D&D character idea now, thanks. Also YES SCREW THE KING JAMES VERSION. This thing caused so many issues for CENTURIES!
I find it hilarious how a lot of the more problematic sects say it's the only valid/real/good one, when we can tell for a fact it was edited and changed from the rest of the translations to be more pro-monarchy. XD
As a Christian, when I woke up to this as the first video in my feed, I was worried that this video might go wrong in one of the five million ways talking about religion can go wrong. After watching this video I found that I should have had more faith and trust in OSP and Blue specifically to handle the topic. This is a good video that to the best of my knowledge accurately states the history, shared the memes, and doesn’t start any of the theological trash fire debates in the comments sections that stress out every normal human who reads/hears it. Thank you Blue for your hard work!
Oh this is a NEW new video. Happy holidays! I love the history of religion, and I appreciate your retelling of the beginnings of Christianity and this dive into the gospels!
I swear Blue is like one of 3 internet people who can talk about the historical development of Christianity and not condescendingly try to make me feel like an idiot for believing it
@@cheese50Blue has a philosophy degree and is a popular voice in history education. We should hold him to a high standard at least on getting demonstrable facts wrong. Just because some people see his videos as not too serious doesn’t void the criticisms we should be leveling at his analysis.
Another fun fact: We know that Matthew was originally written in Greek because he appeals to Isaiah and a line that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. The "virgin" aspect only appears in the Septuagint (Greek version), whereas the Hebrew simply says that a young woman will give birth. Appealing to the prophecy only makes sense in Greek. (The line in Isaiah also wasn't in future tense because he was talking about Hezekiah, but that's a different set of fun facts.)
I’ve seen memes that said “The Bible is the only book whose author is present when you read it,” so I don’t think the claim that Christians believe God wrote the Bible is *completely* unwarranted; though I think a majority of Christians (especially in the non-Evangelical crowd) believe the Old Testament was more divinely inspired than directly written by the almighty themself
As a Catholic, I love learning about these aspects of our faith from a historical angle. The names of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are imprinted on the mind by the time you receive your first communion. One thing that is taught is that while each book is similar they are not the same and not wrong. It is the different perspectives of man- our priest used the analogy of the older members at a family union recounting a tale from their teen years. Everyone will remember things differently and find importance in different things. It's not wrong but human. It's the Gossip of the Lord- meant for teaching of faith and morality, not our history, and that's where it draws it's power. Similar thoughts are spoken on the old Testament these days. The idea that anything in the Bible is a direct word of God is being phased out with the understanding of language translation and human bias on different editions led to most of us not knowing the original script. The only thing that is meant to be directly the word of God is the Ten Commandments.
As a Catholic, this is really fun to watch you analyze. Especially since it was one of the big topics in Catholic school. Like, you really did hit on most of the big points. One thing that you might be interested in is that we were taught that the gospels were included because they centered the death and resurrection.
Ive got beef with the King James Version only because it’s goofy how many people take it as THE divinely-inspired work. It’s a classic case of people elevating they’re own stuff just because theyre myopic. Like… sure honey, God made the definitive version of the Bible come out 1600 years after the original Manga. However, you gotta give props that the King James Version is a beautifully written reinterpretation of the source texts. Psalms in the KJV hit different than any of the more literal translations.
It's especially weird because we know for a fact that it was edited to be more pro-monarchy. How can the one edited many centuries later with political intent be "The only valid one"?! XD
I may be a theologian, but I'm also a writer, and so I am always delighted when I hear a historian and writer's take on the literary merit and tradition of something that is close to my heart. I always tell my students that the bible as we know it is not one book, but a library of poetry, narrative, history, music, and legal argumentation with its own oral history parallel to it. It is a breathing, enlightening window into the world and its people as it was, and we ought to be careful to read it as such before we make any sweeping arguments about what it says to us in the current day. The gospels are a microcosm of that very complicated history, and I'm glad you gave it the thoughtful approach you have given here.
It is always so interesting to learn about the history of religions, especially since it is kind of a pain in the keister to find sources that aren’t irreconcilably biased. Godspeed cartoon history man.
There's something of understated aesthetic charm in the little pictures given on the covers of the cartoon illustrations of the texts being discussed in OSP's videos - the one give to The New Testament is particularly cool. Surely someone has to publish an edition of the NT with that cover.
"I am a cartoon, not a priest." I'm a priest's kid and several sermons on the theme of "Don't leave your brains in the back of the church," also stressed that some Christian traditions PREDATE scripture ...
Thank you. I have been trying to understand the Bible and particularly the gospels from a historical perspective, but I can't always put the theology of John into easily understandable words. I don't really want to spend decades sifting through the theology, so these summaries are helpful.
This video hits me at a fascinating intersection in my life. I’ve been a fan of the channel in a while, and I’m also participating in theology and biblical studies classes last and this year. Fascinating to see an examination of the Gospels from a purely secular perspective. Really looking forward to the podcast episode on this one! And also, I think it would be neat to see a collab between Blue and the Bible Project channel, who often looks at the Bible as a work of literature, among other things. Not sure what they’d talk about, but I think it would be neat.
I had no idea those four were associated with such clear symbols - bull, raven, angel, lion - and THAT'S what ACTUAL PICTURES of architecture and art can really bring to the discussion table!
How Blue ended the video reminded of a conversation i once had where someone asked me that if i hated religion so much why did i know/want to learn so much about it and i told him "i dont hate religion, religion is how we get mythologies and cool stories, what i do hate is organized religious institutions that exploit and subvert those stories to their own ends"
I find it impressive Blue managed to tell a compelling history while still being funny yet respectful. As a Christian I approve! and I’d love to hear more theology content like this since regular Christian practice often overlooks history in favor of the raw theology Either way great job as always 👍
I was like "yeah, this is pretty normal OSP stuff," and then i heard "every translation is valid expect the KJV," and I was just like "I have never been so offended By something i agree with do fully."
I actually took classes about this stuff in college for my humanities cluster. It's nice to see something I actually know about, and even nicer to see my memory is pretty good
Small correction at 04:13 if it hasn’t been mention already, but I think you confused the John the Evangelist with John the Baptist, the latter being considered Jesus’ cousin, not the former (though looking it up, there were some traditions that believed them to be cousins). Great video!
Came looking for this comment. John the Gospel writer is one of the sons of Zebedee, not the son of Zachariah and Elizabeth aka Jesus’ cousin John the Baptist.
As a Catholic who is a sucker for going into the weeds of theologies both in and out of my religion, I am happy at the respect and love given to this topic and the different perspective on it!
Christians generally don't believe that God himself wrote the Old Testament, Blue. At least in my entire experience, Christianity hasn't shied away from the fact that it was written by the Jews, but inspired by God.
What "divinely inspired" actually means changes a lot depending on who you're talking to. Many Christians believe that god was "whispering" to the biblical authors and they perfectly copied down everything they heard. Which is tantamount to god writing the whole thing himself.
@@AraumCthe first truly important asheknazi rabbi that he and his daughters added context for the Talmud and his commentary that became core part of the Talmud (also bunch of rabbinical dynasties trace themselves to him and he had winery has his day job)
@@AraumC Rashi (with help from his daughters) combined traditional interpretations of biblical texts and his own insights to write a commentary verse by verse for the entirety of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and the entirety of the Talmud. His commentary is so essential to understanding the text that any Book of Talmud comes with his commentary.
Great video Blue! I think you summed up the history of the text very well👍 I've been following The Bible Project for the past couple of years, and they do some great deep dives into the ancient words, symbolism, and parallels of scripture. It's really fascinating stuff. I would like to know why Paul writes the way he does. The guy used very few breaks/periods in his sentences!😅
I'm a non-denominational protestant currently going to school for ministry (to become a pastor). This video was super interesting to watch! That being said there were a few small things I wanted to point out! 1. (0:09) Jesus' ministry lasted until between 27 or 36 A.D. depending on which scholar you ask. 2. () Most Christians you talk to won't say that God Himself wrote the Hebrew Bible. It was actually created from a larger body of oral tradition, Jewish/Israelite culture and history, and poetry! God instead guided these authors and this culture to create them in a sort of co-authorship. This is called inspiration and it's one of the criteria for being able to have a book be in the Bible. 3. I like that you mentioned oral story telling when talking about how the apostles would have preached to their specific audience. 4. I also find it fascinating how the synoptic gospels reference each other! If you analyze them each carefully you'll see that this was intentional because they were all contemporaries who knew each other for decades. They also have variations within the similarities because each gospel was written to a different kind of group! Matthew to the Jewish population, Mark to the Gentiles, Luke to a Roman aristocrat named Theophilus! 5. Also yes, being able to put a name to each book in the Bible is challenging/undoable. Some authors intentionally made themselves anonymous and others were compiled over decades by different people (psalms for instance). Generally speaking each gospel is attributed to the person who likely orated it or wrote it down. 6. The early books that didn't quite make the cut for the Bible are actually pretty hilarious. They equate to a sort of Jesus fanfiction for lack of a better word. Thanks for making this super interesting video! It's refreshing to see a non-christian talk about the Bible with genuine interest! Keep up the good work, love the videos!
As a Catholic, I’m delighted in seeing a description of the sacred scriptures by a (assuming) non-christian creator who isn’t treating it as neither overly mystic, nor dismissively stupid. Some inaccuracies in how the Church would describe it themselves, but overall great content. Laudat.
As a Catholic I thank you very much for this! Fun fact: Matthew wrote to Jewish people, which is why he connected to David. Luke wrote to gentiles (Rome/Greeks), so he focused on the facts Mark wrote to gentiles as well, which is why he is so similar to Luke in the factual aspect. John wrote to be the ending to each of the four Gospels. His writing is very spiritual and therefore is for the more “experienced” people in the faith.
@@nohbuddy1 but they did write it to someone you can even see this by just reading the first few verse of the book of luke when he adress “Theophilus” (Luke 1:3) specifically. there are evidence to suggest that the gospels were written around the time of the apostles and none of them were written after 100 AD, (see The Four Gospels: Some Comparative Overview Charts by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D. and articles by Jimmy Akin). Also if these gospels were not written by these people why would the "author" uses relativevly unknown name like luke or mark? matthew and John i get but even matthew doesn't have much talk about him even in the gospels
@@nohbuddy1 bro mark and luke weren't apostles i don't know where you get your knowledge of early christian history from but those 2 aren't part of the 12 apostles, read my comment carefully
@@nohbuddy1 I don’t know what scholars you’re talking about. Catholic and secular historians alike agree on how the Evangelists wrote to different groups. It’s obvious to see if you read the Gospels, which I’m guessing is something you haven’t done.
"JESUS CHRIST THE DRAGON PRINCE!" I don't know why but that rolls off the tongue wonderfully and that sounds like such a kick-ass title for a rock album.
Hey Blue, thanks for all the videos over the years! I’m currently sitting in an apartment in Florence, finishing off my semester with my crazy ass roommates. I never would have come here if it weren’t for your videos, and I wouldn’t have had nearly as fun of a time if I didn’t have all the history. So thanks for everything man.
Speaking as a child of God (aka a Christian), I find it interesting that you find the gospels and how they came to be beautiful without believing them to be the word of God. Just shows that although people have many different beliefs and worldviews, we can all come together to appreciate something in one way or another.
I'm a bit surprised Blue didn't go into Luke-Acts more. As the writer writes in the third person for most of it until part way through Acts where he switches to first person implying he met up with Paul, thought he was cool, and followed him around for a bit. This, and Luke's note at the start about essentially being a researcher in my mind sets it apart from the other three gospels more than the content themselves and it is noted that the quality of the Greek in these books is higher than the others and he probably could have had his own video.
Yep the gospels were written anonymously and gospel simply means good news. And of course there's more than just four gospels something like 50 that we know about.
As a Christian, thank you for handling our material with care, Blue! I have watched a shocking lot of these videos that just go "yeah these inconsistencies MUST invalidate the faith and its followers are STUPID" which like-- cmon man. Like you said: you don't have to believe it to find it beautiful!
LOVED this video! As a christian myself it was a beautiful look at a sacred text as art that I hope to see with other sacred texts in the future. It also made me want a Prince of Egypt style movie about the works of tbe Apostles.
Thanks, Blue. I'm not at all religious, but I know quite a bit about the history of the Bible. I was pleased to find some details that I had not heard before. I'm aware of several apocryphal gospels, like the Gospel of Peter, but I did not know about the cave full of Dragons. So cool. If had seen a video on this topic created by someone else, I might have skipped it, thinking would likely just be a rehash of things I already knew. In this case, since I always enjoy your and Red's videos, I went ahead and gave it a watch. I'm so glad I did. New things about an old topic are so satisfying to find.
The idea of the gospels not being meant as a linear "true" report but rather an artistic collection and retelling was so hard to wrap my mind around after growing up in Sunday school, it almost felt heretic. Amd even years after understanding the idea, I found it a little hard to put into words. But you summoned that up so beautifully and at the same time respectfully, thank you so much!
Luke himself does not appear in any of the gospels. He was a follower of Paul during his journeys around the Mediterranean. Speaking of Luke, in chapter 1 of his gospel, he writes that he did set out to write a historical account. Maybe the others didn't but based on internal evidence, the author of The Gospel of Luke (I say Luke but whatever) is setting out to clarify the historical record.
As a Christian, I found this very interesting! Thanks for handling this so respectfully. I love the story about Jesus and the dragon den. Earlier this year, I heard a New Testament professor at Wheaton College (a Christian college) say that all the scholars agree the four canonical Gospels are authentically culturally Jewish, while a lot of the weird non-canonical stuff has some obvious Greek influences. Jesus behaving like a trickster god and striking dead the neighborhood kids? Jesus going to the border with Egypt and tangling with dragons? Yeah, those stories sound way more like stuff Greek heroes would do rather than Jewish prophets.
"Authentic Judaism" itself changed during the Hellenistic era and was influenced by Greek philosophy and traditions, though. The Letter of Aristeas is one famous work from ~100 BC that argues that Judaism lives up to Greek standards great and the two are compatible, say. Most notably, it seems like old-Jewish beliefs generally saw death as permanent (e.g. the spirit leaving the body), while the Greeks favored immortality of spirit a la Platonist ideals. But we see Jews talking about resurrection by the 2nd century BC (see 2 Maccabees) and Josephus & Acts says it was still a debate during the first century. Paul specifically tries to bridge the gap by talking about how the coming resurrection will be bodily (favoring classical Jewish ideas) but it'll be, like, purified super-bodies without sin (favoring Greek ideas). Basically, Judaism in the first century itself had Greek influences. And while it's true we have quite a bit of apocrypha obviously influenced by Greek thought, we also have some apocrypha that is deeply Jewish as well. The Testament of Adam, while a Christian work, is hypothesized to have originally been a Jewish work that had some prophecies of Jesus thrown in, say. We also know of some lost Gospels of the Ebionites that were even more Jewish than Matthew. I suppose you did say "a lot", just... it wasn't like the "most Jewish" stuff always "won". That would be weird, given that the early Church seems to have been way more successful in recruiting Greeks than it was in recruiting Jews.
@@Snow_Fire_Flame Not to mention the four Gospels themselves also show Greek influences (their bring, you know, _written in Ancient Greek's Koine dialect_ notwithstanding xD): specifically gJohn, which speaks of Big J as being pre-existent, that he is the flesh and blood incarnation of the _Logos,_ an earlier Greek/Judeo-Hellenic philosophical concept expounded upon in detail by one Philo Judaeas of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew who was himself a contemporary of St. Paul, who was... _also_ a Hellenized Jew 😂, born and raised in Anatolia. That the _Logos_ is the first of all beings, as it is through His word by which the Big Man Upstairs gives assent to and brings things into being (this _Logos_ seems to also be of YHWH's divine essence if gJohn is anything to go by?), the concept is I believe best encapsulated in such phrases as “Put your money where your mouth is; I give you my word: Practice what you preach: They're all bark, no bite.”
As someone who was wondering if you would ever cover Christianity or even modern religion, I like how you handled it purely from a scholarly perspective without going into faith. Good job.
As someone of the Orthodox Christian faith I just wanted to say thank you for this video. It was respectful while maintaining academic rigor and is truly food for thought
“Jesus Christ the Dragon Prince”
The Dragon Prince has gotten very strange in the later seasons it seems
WRONG! It's Jesus Christ the Spaghetti Monster.
@@andywellsglobaldomination I thought it was Jesus Christ Superstar. 🤔
@@BennyLlama39 Jesus lives in all of us, so all above examples are true.
Let's not even begin with Jesus I. Jojo's bizarre adventure
@@linkolek Maybe you missed the 11th Commandment-- Keep thy religion to thyself. I mean, you don't see me shoving Satanism in everyone's face.
"I am a cartoon, not a priest"
That's another one going into the classic OSP quote book! XD
you know what they actually sold a quote book I would buy it
@@kathrynblakeley9823i second this! I want that book
I want a no-context OSP quote calander
The very best is paraphrased as:
"It doesn't take a lot of elephants to have a scary amount of elephant on the battle field"
We still need that "OSP Out Of Context" video that's actually a funny out-of-context video instead of a best-of retrospective. Admittedly, that's a pretty hard thing to accomplish with content as good as OSP's...
each of the gospels were clearly written for a different audience. Mathew wants us to know Jesus the Jew, Mark mostly is about action and power (good for converting Romans, who admired both), Luke writes his in a bit of a historical context to a new believer, and John really wants us to know Jesus was also God.
One of these is not like the other.
Adfing to that Blue's implication that the gospels of Mark and Luke are subtly antisemitic comes across as uninformed. While Matthew is very much written to a jewish audience Mark and Luke were an invitation (and explanation) to the gentiles. At a time when Jerusalem was infamous for being very hostile to different cultures. The message is though our origins are Jewish we don't care about your identity - we care that your heart is in the right place and we have something to offer everyone if you want to "come and see"
I think the implication is not that the Gospels are antisemitic per se, but some of their passages were used for a while in order to justify antisemitism. Because while I can't give an example from the top of my head, I'm pretty sure it did happen at some point.
@@siraaron4462 That's still antisemitism for the sake of appeasing people who didn't like the contemporary Jews though.
Being Jewish is still framed as wrong, immoral, or generally bad. They just rise above their Jewish inferiority and immorality through the power of Jesus!
Now they probably to set their whole religiion against every Jewish person and start a system of persecution, but that's still what they wrote.
Yes, they were all written with different purposes in mind. The synoptics to the Romans, Jews, and Gentiles, and the Gospel of John was theological correction.
Speaking as a Catholic, I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim the Old Testament was written by God Himself. Rather, it was written over a period of centuries or millennia by various human authors who were inspired by God. A subtle but important distinction, and I suspect much more in line with the Jewish view than suggested. Christianity has never been shy about the origins of the first half of its sacred scripture, and the early Church fiercely opposed arguments that the OT should be cut on account of its Jewish origins.
As fellow Catholic, I agree. Many priests that I've met actually encourage people visit synagogues during their service (granted that you speak to the Rabbi beforehand) so as to further understand our spiritual origins.
Yeah, that’s a really weird mistake to make. I have to assume Blue either grew up in some very strange denomination or did really poor research, as every major Protestant denomination I know of also acknowledges the writing of the OT in time (the language of “inspired by God” is only slightly stronger than the language used to refer to the writing of weekly sermons).
Speaking as a Protestant, I agree. "All Scripture is given by *inspiration* of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3 verse 16.
Agnostic coming in for a landing. I don't remember the priests I grew up with denying where the OT was written. But there were the familiar undertones saying anyone who didn't get the next installment were doomed. But to be fair, that came from the Archdiocese clergy who studied in Europe and not the local clergy who grew up around the corner
Can confirm from an Anglican background. The Bible might be divinely inspired, by it was very much written by men. Even historically, 'the word of god =/= literally God's direct words, transcribed by him or otherwise".
“I’m a cartoon, not a priest.”
Then, who will preach the word of OSP?! The holy word of chaos and domes?!
Sounds more like Red's domain. She is the story teller.
@@denverarnold6210 Red would be the writer of the Sarcastic Gospels.
The Book of Red ♥️ - a compendium of myths
The Book of Blue 💙 - a treatise on domes and history
The gOSPel? Wait. El is the god Yahweh was based on.
And of lemons. You can't forget the lemons.
As a practicing Catholic, it was very fascinating to see the Gospels being analyzed from a pure scholarly perspective. Thanks again, Blue! Keep up the great work!
You should read James Tabor
Blue never actually says he identifies as atheist. He simply said he's not here to preach to us.
Also there are plenty of atheist perspectives on the internet - some try to be objective but just as many are unfairly biased.
Its not an Aetheistic persepctive of the Bible, its just a historical piecing together of the timeline for the books. OSP is not trying to analize the existance of God or anything, they're just talking about the book itself and how it came to be.
It's not an atheist perspective. It's a scholarly one. Aside from the Gospels' authorship (which, let's be honest, it never made sense that they're 100% written by their respective namesakes), none of what he said contradicts Christian belief, and indeed, plenty of religious scholars are themselves religious. It's a matter of compartmentalizing one's faith and the historical facts. Sometimes, examining facts can even help you evaluate your faith and even deepen it. I certainly appreciate Christ's message the more I learn about the historical context!
@@blank7062it's not historical piecing either, its more like an educated guess.
"They're literature, meant to be experienced individually, epic poems explaining why Jesus mattered to people"
Perfection
“I am a cartoon” I keep forgetting that this is canonically true, and that Blue and “Blue” technically have a “Stephen Colbert” (of the Colbert Report era) situation going on (although not nearly to that degree).
My favorite was when Blue was discussing this on the OSPod and was like “I’m not so flat in person as onscreen Blue - I’m not just all about domes. I like arches just as much!”
This used to be commonly understood as part of youtube's ecosystem: everyone is a character. Often times based on themselves, but distinctly not themselves. It's like the WWE, people generally don't break kayfabe, everyone is exaggerating. I'm still a little surprised there are both people who don't grasp that and creators who willingly try to tell you they're defying that. Though, maybe that's part of their kayfabe.
Arches are just 2D domes!
@@legateelizabetheveryone is always playing a character. It would be weird if you behaved the same way around your coworkers as you did with your kids
@@12jswilson that's not "being a character", that's using different language register. You don't become a different person around different people I hope. If you do, you might want to look into disassociation and related stuff...
Jesus of House Targaryen was never a concept I'd thought of before now
I feel like not including that was a serious mistake. Because what can possibly be cooler than being a god riding a dragon?
I am now trying to find the English Translation FR.
But there is one they fear. This one they named in their own tongue Dovahkiin, DRAGONBORN !!!
That made me SNORT
Bejesys Targaryen, Son of God, King of Kings
"I am a cartoon, not a priest"
preach cartoon man
And this is why I love this channel
Or don't I guess that's the point.
Except who was that guy with the sword in Macbeth 🤔
Ironic how you're encouraging him to "preach" considering that's what priests do!😂
He can't preach. He is a cartoon, NOT a priest.
Edit:Why did I write that he is NOT a 'preach'?
Speaking as a "Christian", I'm happy that this comment section (at the time of me writing this) is a civil one especially when it comes to this sort of topic. Love the substitute word you chose. Feels mystifying. Also, like someone mentioned I don't think most Christians see the scriptures as being from God. Inspired by God, sure but not directly from God. Maybe it's more popular in the more fundamentalist groups because I've never heard of that take before until like a few months ago before this video.
Why did you put "" marks.
@@kingofcards9 because I know there are some christians who may not view me as a christian for not seeing the scriptures as being from God directly and I do have a more progressive view of the faith which may also make them not see me as a christian so I just put "" there because it depends on whether I fit in with what they mean by Christian.
@@KnightsofGaming2016 if it makes you feel better,as far as I'm concerned, as long as you believe the basics of Christianity (as set out by the Nicean creed) you're basically a christian regardless of denomination.
It is really nice to see! There's is such a variety of Christians that discourse could be quite interesting. Not to mention non- Christians who just want to talk about history and literature!
Until the gatekeepers get here.
@@KnightsofGaming2016 Going to be honest I think only fundamentalists and niche sects think that scripture is directly from The Lord, and fundametalists and niche sects are notorious for not being well accepted and oftentimes easy to pull apart when you start questioning. Everyone else has a consensus that scripture was written by human writers who were guided by The Lord.
Edit: Even fundamentalists and niche sects have people who'd agree on that too.
'Every translation is fine - except for the King James version'
lol, you just made my day!
KJV is rightfully controversial but there are worse translations and if nothing else KJV has played the biggest role in the history and culture of Christianity today.
Same here!
@@siraaron4462 KJV is mostly just influential amongst English speakers not all of Christianity. Also its influence combined with its inaccuracy is the problem, yes there are some translation that are worse but they don't have the influence that KJV has so few people care about them.
It sounds pretty. That is really why I read it. Though I tend to refer to the nkjv most of thr time. Though I love the history of mis translations. There is one statue of Moses that has horn nubs because of the word for halo being turned into horns and I love it
@@siraaron4462 Most of its problems are due to its age. The language is outdated and means different things today. Older sources have been found, and scholarship has improved.
That makes it a lot better than those which are flawed in concept. And it does have the advantage of indicating added words in italics.
That said, a version today that focused on sounding good when read aloud and was more poetic on appropriate places would be very welcome. As would just be one that keeps the KJV mostly intact but updates the language. The NKJV doesn't quite pull this off, as it updates too much.
My dad was a preacher-turned-teacher who had 90 credit hours in his Master's theology courses. I'm quite sure he would've loved this video, and it would've sparked hours of conversation from him that I would've loved to have listened to. Too bad it came out eight months and one week too late for that.
Rest in Peace, Dad. Gone far too soon.
@Blue, please tell Indigo that in the last podcast when Ziggy came into the room and did sleepy eye blinks at her that Ziggy wasn't tired, just doing the cat equivalent of a hug or saying "I love you". I heard her comment and thought maybe she didn't know that fun fact! You can also slow blink back at them and affirm it, it's so cute if you have a cat that will do blinks back and forth.
I love Blue’s spicy take at the end. Just for those who don’t understand, the KJV is a cornerstone of English-language literature, as important as the works of Shakespeare in cementing the modern English language. It’s a beautiful, interesting read. However, it leaves a lot to be desired as a translation of the Bible. It generally favors pretty imagery and nice rhyming turns of phrase over accurate translation of the text as written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. There are a whole host of newer, more accurate translations out there, but they aren’t as pretty as the KJV.
Worse, there are a whole bunch of Christian groups out there, often of the right-wing conservative type, who insist that scripture is the only source for Christian faith and that the KJV is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible. This is frustrating because it ignores a whole lot of oral traditions that arose first and all the translation flaws in the KJV, some of which heavily affect doctrine. So dismissing the KJV is Blue mocking those groups.
Yeah the KJV had an important role in the history of Christianity and is still the most widely circulated globally but isn't necessarily the best translation out there if you want to understand the intention of the original authors.
Speaking of effy translations, the Jehova's Witnesses justify their bullshit through by using their own translation of the Bible.
When I heard that, I chuckled since I live in the one place where that can't work.
I guess at this point you can consider the King James Version as the "Baby's first Bible". It's the best known, widest spread, and defiantly most quoted version/translation of the bible, so it'll most likely be the first one someone reads. And it is pretty interesting. But once you start studying the bible to any degree in any field, you'll find better and more interesting versions/translations.
Also, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I just wanted to say that we use the KJV because, like you said, it is the most widely known translation of the bible. We aren't afraid to dip into other translations, but I know I will always come back to the KJV because it's "comfy" (If you know what I mean).
The KJV also has a more direct problem: When it was written, the translators didn't have access to some of the best manuscripts of the Greek. The "Textus Receptus", despite the grandiose name, was mostly just one set of random late manuscripts copied a bunch in Western Europe because they lucked into it for the early printing press. Modern translations have access to much older, and thus presumably closer to Roman-era, versions of the books with less scribal meddling, mistakes, etc.
@@ΣτελιοςΠεππαςi finally got to hear a Jh’s view point of the early works. And i almost want to look through it just to go “ohhhhh this is a special type of heresy.”
As someone who is a Christian and a big fan of your videos, you did a really good job Blue. I feel you captured what makes the Gospels so lovely yet so different. There were very small aspects of this I raised my eyebrow at but overall you did a solid job of being respectful and informative. I’m curious to hear more of your thoughts on this video in the podcast. Also the KJV dig at the end made me laugh so hard.
I too was impressed! Looking at the gospels as mostly historically based art works [sort of like Shakespeare or Homer] is a take I rarely see in non-religious people. And I think it allows a level of appreciation that is often missing from other talks about the Gospels by agnostics or atheists.
I like how he didn't make the factual basis of the work a limitation on its effectiveness as a source of wisdom and morality.
If we could all talk about religion on this level, and we could find a consensus on various elements of epistemology, we might just be able to replace religious wars with vigorous debate
I've never seen someone who isn't very religious talk about the gospels this respectfully. Very cool
I agree, it’s refreshing
Never? Where are you looking? There is a whole field of scholarship dedicated to studying Christian history agnostically.
Bro, Blue has never said that he's not christian, and based on how he has talked about it in his various Christianity-focused videos, I would hazard a guess that he is a christian
@@newsaxonyproductions7871I think he's said at some point that he is agnostic.
I don't know his Religion, because I only watch his videos and haven't really looked into his personal life, but I highly recommend Religion for Breakfast!
As a Christian pastor, and someone who deals with apologetics, I find this video refreshing. I don't agree with 100%, but that's a ridiculous expectation anyway. However, with all the Dan Brown and Jesus Seminar acolytes out there, it is good to hear someone who is not sympathetic, but still is willing to put in the actual work of research. Great job.
I have to ask. What is a jesus seminar acolyte? I feel I’ve avoided a weird cult and thats not what i do when it comes to christian offshoots and weird little branches.
@@samuelstarrick8487 the Jesus Seminar was a group of highly critical scholars that met together in the 1990s. They voted on every line Jesus ever uttered regarding whether it was actually uttered by him.
It would be like a group of art critics voting on every dot of a Monet regarding how likely it was that Monet brushed it, all with the presumption that he didn't paint most of it.
Dan Brown writes Isekai branded Wish fulfillment fanfasies for men in their forties with lots of trivial knowledge experiencing a midlife crisis, and it is a bit of a shame how books helped colour the religious discourse.
Don't get salty that your books are just books written by men. Apologetics is not history or religious study, it's propaganda. As a pagan former fundie christian, I hop you step on lego barefoot for the next week
"As written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
As soon as he said that, my brain immediately went into a Sunday School jingle/mnemonic of the rest of the books of the New Testament.
Damn it, now I'm doing it.
Mine instantly went to Blazing Saddles. "We will now read from Matthew, Mark, Luke--" (bundle of dynamite crashes through window) "and, *duck!"* *KABOOM!!!* 😀
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and R-R-Romans
Same here.
I went to a prayer.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
Blessed be this bed that I lie on.
Four angels to my bed,
Four angels 'round my head.
One to watch and one to pray,
And two to bear my soul away.
As someone who grew up in Episcopalian christianity, I was always curious about the wider history of the religion, especially in days that the bible recounts. Also, I should not be surprised, given all the imagery and naming in the NGE that is biblical in nature, that the show's actual name "Evangelion", is an actual religious term.
Very much. The clue is in that it's basically called the new (neo) genesis, since it's based on Lilith and the angels sent after her. The twist is making humans her children rather than Eve's. I know that's a massive oversimplification but it's been a while and I'd have to find some old videos to get the details.
Evangelion is most defintely a religious reference. In the same way as the setting for Seven Deadly Sins is a reference to Britain and King Arthur. Through a glass, darkly.
@@pattheplanter Now that's a series I haven't thought about for a while. I just read ahead and finished the manga after the studio change. Thanks for reminding me to check out the movie and sequel series. Hope I still enjoy it after a few years away.
How could "evangelion" not be religious? It's derived from evangelical.
NGE's use of biblical terms and imagery is more an example of appropriation, since the creators admitted they used them because Christianity is rather obscure in Japan (so it seems exotic) and that, had they known it would be internationally successful, they would have used a different religion/mythology.
Personally, I love that they chose Christianity. You see Western works appropriate Eastern religions and myths ALL THE TIME without considering the theological implications. It's only fair the East should be allowed to appropriate us back. Also, even though it wasn't intended, people can definitely interpret Christian themes in NGE. There's absolutely something Gnostic going on with Human Instrumentality.
I am neither a priest nor a cartoon but I do have a degree in Bible and honestly this video was mostly well done. I could nitpick but not bad
I’m an episcopal priest and I say well done indeed!
I dare say if yall decide to do more Bible stuff any of my colleagues would be delighted to share their knowledge.
"Degree in Bible" is my new way of labeling seminary students, thanks!
@curiousKuro16 glad to help! But seriously that is what my degree was. It's almost as generic as "religion"
@jesseyancy1160 right there with you man. Mine is just "writing". I could be an Egyptian scribe for all that explains
Love that “The Great Undefined Mist” almost reads as an alternative to “The Cloud of Unknowing,” the title of a 14th c. Catholic text on the why and how of silent meditation in a Christian context. So that’s fun!
OVATION!
Man, I was really excited when I clicked this one. I attended a "Christian college" (read: at least half funded by the Southern Baptists; but it was the only school I got a full ride at, so...)
Anyway, Christian college, which meant *required* to take 2 semesters of "Religion 101" - basically a formalized study of the Old and New Testaments. I got the BEST professor, though: a man who tackled the texts as an archaeologist, and at times was just about as cool as Indiana Jones. He had such lively humor and insisted that we always learned about the context of the events depicted AND some of the context of "how come this is in the Bible but not this other letter from Paul," and other such historical goodies. I was never a fan of history at ALL until Dr. Browning, but he made me see how cool it is, even with the narrower focus of "just the Holy Land," as it were.
And you delivered and THEN some, and it's making me so happy! I most especially love that you addressed who the writers of the gospels were, and that you touched on things like the specifics of whether Jesus' lineage was discussed or not - topics that were on the test in Doc Browning's classes, you bet! And fun to think about too - not only because such details tell us who WROTE these stories down, but TO WHOM they were speaking. Generally it'd be the Jews who cared about whether Jesus was a descendant of King David, but making the point of Jesus as "universal" had to have been pretty reassuring and appealing for the non-Jewish listeners/readers.
Though now I kind of want to go hunt up the various apocryphal books just for a good time. "Jesus the Dragon Prince" sounds quite fun!
A small correction: Christianity does not attribute the Old Testament to God directly, but indirectly. It was not written by God, but inspired by God, which means that God was the root cause behind the writings and influenced the writer to only speak truth. But that inspiration was still filtered through the human writers who created the books. God was basically a real-time editor, bequeathing ideas on the writers that sounded quite good and worthy of writing, but how they expressed those ideas were left up to them.
EDIT:
As some have clarified in the replies, this does not mean that every statement is true when taken literally, just that they all contain truth. In some cases this is literal, such as the existence of Adam and Eve, but others are metaphorical or allegorical, such as the six days of creation or Christ's parables.
Disputes on which statements are to be taken literally and which statements are metaphors is one of the main reasons for the many denominations within Christianity.
Exactly. That's why we are always taught that there were two authors: the divine author (God) and the human author.
Also, in my experience Christianity teaches that the same divine inspiration led the writers of the New Testament.
Your "clarification" applies only to certain denominations. To the Catholic Church the entire bible is pretty much considered "verbatim dei" you can look it up in the vatican webpage, same goes for a fair amount of protestant denominations, specially the fundamentalists ones, but it isn't limited to them.
So your clarification only applies to certain groups, not Christianity as a whole.
@@HARV1991 Yeah, my fundamentalist evangelical upbringing was pretty heavy on the "written by God" angle.
It's okay, I got better.
That is not what most Christians are taught, and you know it.
This was a really good video. I think my favorite parts about the Gospels is that, based on who theyre attributed to, they are also surmised to be written for a very specific audience in mind.
For instance, the one tracing Jesus back to King David is a gospel explicitly for the Jewish people, who were still waiting for the messiah to free them from Roman occupation. This is why so much of it is also based on showing how Jesus checked all the boxes the previous prophets set out for him to fulfill. (Fun fact too, its surmised this is also why Judas betrayed Jesus. It wasn't just a random act of betrayal from a surprisingly untrustworthy follower or something. Judas was in the theological camp of believing the promised messiah was supposed to be a hero, like the Judges of old, like a King David who took down Goliath, who would lead them in battle and smite the Romans for their oppression...not this bearded guy going around healing the sick, poor, and even saying to forgive tax collectors, prostitutes, and even roman centurions.)
I think my only small nitpick with the video, and this may just be me coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, is that Christians dont necessarily say the Old Testament was just written by God outright. Much like the New Testament, we assume it was divine inspiration, but still written by humans all the same.
Still though, fantastic vid, Id love if more theological history got dissected like this. Like the early 'church fathers'. My favorite is still St. Augustine, I think, who put off becoming a priest and even prayed to God that He "-give me chastity and continence, but not yet!", dude was a 'party animal' and didnt want to stop, until he just decided he was finally done, and became one of the most influential people in later church theology and philosophy. 😂
Just full on, "hey. I KNOW you're calling me to be a priest, I get that....but like, give me two more years tops. Please?" 😂
"I am a cartoon, not a priest." -Blue, 2023
I'm sorry, evangelion means "good news"? Shinji would like a word with someone.
If you read the title literally, it's a spoiler of how the story ends: "Good news of a new creation" or new beginning
@@rafaelsegalla7698All I can think of is that Futurama clip that goes “Did he at least d*e painlessly? …To shreds, you say! How’s his wife holding up? …To shreds, you say. GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE!!!”
@@rafaelsegalla7698
For the English title, Neon Genesis Evangelion means "good news (Gospel) of the new beginning or creation," as you said.
For the Japanese title, Shin Seiki Evangelion means "new century good news(Gospel)."
Great vid man! And this is coming from a Christian, so don't worry. As an someone interested in apologetics and owns a study a Bible, I love seeing other peoples perspectives and interpretations.
1:23 -The idea of scripture being God-breathed doesn't mean God literally penned it. We recognize that people wrote it, but were guided divinely. Not a possession situation where God literally takes over, but God guided. One might say, inspired by God. God ensured that what he wanted was written and codified.
5:39 -A common misconception is when the authors write things like "Jesus was rejected by the Jews" they mean the Jews as a whole. This would be weird considering the people writing these books would have Jews. Multiple Jews at the time followed and accepted Christ. When they say "rejected by the Jews", they mean those Jews who did not accept Christ, including the Pharisees. After all, since Jesus was willing to associate with Gentiles and Samaritans, and the Messiah prophecy was especially important for the Jews, distinguishing between those Jews who did and did not accept was important. Unfortunately, as you said, this fundamental misunderstanding had terrible consequences.
I think it's safe to say that "the Jews" as a group, as a whole, did not accept that "Jesus Christ" (as he became known; I can't be bothered to find what they would have considered his real name; you know who I'm talking about) was the Jewish Messiah. Some did, but most did not.
This, of course, has _absolutely no bearing whatsoever_ on how we should treat the literal and intellectual descendants of either group. Just to be clear.
@@jameshart2622definitely agree with your last point.
As for your first point, if a Jew followed Christ(I think the Talmudics call him Yeshua?), they would cease to be Jewish and be labeled Christian.(even though Christs death and resurrection are a continuation and fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and mosaic law).
Furthermore, the New Covenant kind of tore down barriers between Jews and Gentiles. so while a Jew who follows Christ is still ethnically jewish, this doesn’t mean as much to their identity. They would be Christians first, ethnic groups second. it’s not so much that Jews didn’t buy what Christ was freely giving, it’s that when they did, they would cease to be Jews as we understand it today. If they were martyred, they would be known as “Christian martyrs” not “Jews who were martyred for believing in Jesus.”
I don’t know for certain, but I believe that when Jews converted, they ceased to be Jews(the ethno-religious group, emphasis on the religious bit)and would thus not be counted amongst them. Through this statistical quirk it could give the idea that most of the Jews didn’t end up following Christ. Which would sadden me, as those who prayed for the messiah and kept the mosaic laws in preparation missed that particular bus.
Just to cap off my mucho texto comment, our theological differences should in no way should be used to deprive Jewish people of the dignity inherent to all human life. God still has a plan for them.
@@shibasaurus322 I'm not as picky on the distinction between Jew and Christian, but identity is always a touchy subject. My main point is that regardless of how you count it, most Jews didn't "convert" in _any_ way, so the _group_ didn't accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
It's always tricky when you deal with groups because there are always and forever exceptions (especially in this case, since Christianity definitely started as part of Judaism), but this seems about as safe as statements like this can get.
Treating this as some deep moral flaw of the people who were alive then, let alone their literal and intellectual descendants, is a serious mistake, though. Big time.
I mean Judaism is still a thriving religion. I just meant to explain that the authors, were not trying to say that literally the entire Jewish race was responsible for Jesus' crucifixion. The Bible makes clear that since it was for the sins of everyone, everyone is culpable. In other words, Paul for example, would be weird to blame the Jewish race seeing as himself was Jewish, and once a very zealous religious Jew at that.
Also, what do you mean by "you know who I'm talking about"? Christ was a title, not a last name, and Jesus was essential the name Joshua back then. That is what they would have considered his name.@@jameshart2622
Not wanting to poke holes here, but how do you know the intent of the author who wrote the lines about jews? Like, are there original translations where this is explained differently? Or is this more of a "well it would be internally inconsistent if he meant that so we interprete it more favourable" kind of deal?
Calling the Bible “the hit novelization” is my new favorite thing
The Book of Mormon is fan fiction.
All the Christian stuff is fanfic of the jewish stuff@@ocularpatdown
“I am a cartoon, not a priest” needs to be on a tshirt asap
I would literally go back to seminary just to have the inverse shirt made in OSP style “im a priest not a cartoon”
2:43 This is honestly so funny and insane! I can just imagine a storyteller telling this to other Christians.
“Hey, wanna hear about the time Little Jesus tamed a cave of ENORMOUS F*CK YOU DRAGONS?!”
“I’m sorry, what?”
And of course it got branded Heretical, on account of being too metal. I want more stories about Baby Jesus and his dragon pals
HONESTLY? That is like some insane "so-bad-it's-good" OP Isekai Shounen protagonist stuff.
Do dragons exist in Christianity? Genuinely curious.
@@CaptainvonDore The devil has frequently been depicted as a dragon in Christian lore and Saint George, the patron Saint of England was a Dragon Slayer
I DO understand why it didn't make the cut for the Bible... but at the same time... as a Christian, I feel like I've been *robbed* by not having this story in my life. Like... WHAT?! 🤣
So I HAD to look it up and find a translation to read! Here you go!
_Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother, and stood on His feet before the dragons; and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired. Then was fulfilled that which was said by David the prophet, saying: Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons; ye dragons, and all ye deeps [9] And the young child Jesus, walking before them, commanded them to hurt no man._ - Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Chapter 18
According to another translation, he was only 2 years old... I love this so much.
Thank you, Blue, for this awesome video. I am a pastor who has a bachelors degree in Biblical studies, and I can genuinely say that this video is both incredibly accurate and amazingly respectful to the source material. Thank you for your insights! OSP keeps finding ways to be the best channel out there!
What I love about this channel is that the stories and beliefs that are analyzed are treated with respect. Like Blue said, just because you don't believe that the stories are true doesn't mean there isn't beauty or meaning there.
EDIT: I feel like I should point out that in Judaism (at least in Rabbinic Literature and Orthodox thought) the Five Books of Moses are considered to be of divine origin, while the rest of the Tanach/ Old Testament was written by various human authors and with varying levels of divine insight.
I have an exam for my "Bible as literature" class in 5 days. This video could not have come at a better time!
Honestly, "the King James version isn't a valid translation" isn't even a spicy take. There were a series of booklets in my church library about various mythical beings and what precedent they had in the Bible (I found out what the pituitary gland is from the booklet on giants), and roughly half of the booklet on dragons was "but these ones only exist in the King James version so they're probably fake".
If Jesus lived until ~30 AD and the book of John was written ~95 AD, then we're looking at about 65 years after the life of Christ. Calling that a "century" is a bit of a stretch.
As a christian i am so thankful to see such a professional and frankly beautiful video on the New Testament and it’s authors, it’s really refreshing to see a non christian perspective that isn’t completely derogatory of our beliefs and teachings. Thank you for teaching your viewers responsibly, and God bless
Okay but "Jesus Christ, the Dragon Prince" is my new dragon cleric/sorcerer/bard D&D character idea now, thanks.
Also YES SCREW THE KING JAMES VERSION. This thing caused so many issues for CENTURIES!
I find it hilarious how a lot of the more problematic sects say it's the only valid/real/good one, when we can tell for a fact it was edited and changed from the rest of the translations to be more pro-monarchy. XD
I guess it's one of those "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" kind of deals.
As a Christian, when I woke up to this as the first video in my feed, I was worried that this video might go wrong in one of the five million ways talking about religion can go wrong. After watching this video I found that I should have had more faith and trust in OSP and Blue specifically to handle the topic.
This is a good video that to the best of my knowledge accurately states the history, shared the memes, and doesn’t start any of the theological trash fire debates in the comments sections that stress out every normal human who reads/hears it.
Thank you Blue for your hard work!
Oh this is a NEW new video. Happy holidays! I love the history of religion, and I appreciate your retelling of the beginnings of Christianity and this dive into the gospels!
And here I thought their names were John, Paul, George, and Ringo.
That's the Sister act Timeline as written by St Deloris.
@@lucie4185 Ah, I see now. Is this the timeline that rains butterscotch pudding?
Ikr?
@@lucie4185 I could have sworn it was St. Umber.
As far as I'm concerned, they are! 😂
Blue! You're amazing! Always making our days better 🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
Thank you for being so respectful, thanks and much love from an Eastern Orthodox Christian and history nerd! ☦❤
I swear Blue is like one of 3 internet people who can talk about the historical development of Christianity and not condescendingly try to make me feel like an idiot for believing it
There were a couple uninformed takes but I do appreciate the emphasis on pluralism
@@siraaron4462my man is a cartoon, not a priest. Cut him some slack lmao
Agreed. And that counts the Christian TH-camrs talking about history.
For discussions around religion on the internet, that is sadly true.
@@cheese50Blue has a philosophy degree and is a popular voice in history education. We should hold him to a high standard at least on getting demonstrable facts wrong. Just because some people see his videos as not too serious doesn’t void the criticisms we should be leveling at his analysis.
Fun fact: for the most part, Paul's letters are arranged from largest to smallest. Also, Hebrew wasn't written by Paul.
Hebrews also doesn't claim to be written by pual.
Yes, but historically it has often been attributed to him, so it gets lumped in with the rest of Paul's letters anyways
Hebrews may or may not have been written by Paul; plenty of scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have debated this for centuries
@@RobertGrifThe general consensus is that it wasn't, and personally I found the evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of that consensus.
Another fun fact: We know that Matthew was originally written in Greek because he appeals to Isaiah and a line that the Messiah will be born of a virgin. The "virgin" aspect only appears in the Septuagint (Greek version), whereas the Hebrew simply says that a young woman will give birth. Appealing to the prophecy only makes sense in Greek. (The line in Isaiah also wasn't in future tense because he was talking about Hezekiah, but that's a different set of fun facts.)
I’ve seen memes that said “The Bible is the only book whose author is present when you read it,” so I don’t think the claim that Christians believe God wrote the Bible is *completely* unwarranted; though I think a majority of Christians (especially in the non-Evangelical crowd) believe the Old Testament was more divinely inspired than directly written by the almighty themself
As a Catholic, I love learning about these aspects of our faith from a historical angle. The names of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are imprinted on the mind by the time you receive your first communion. One thing that is taught is that while each book is similar they are not the same and not wrong. It is the different perspectives of man- our priest used the analogy of the older members at a family union recounting a tale from their teen years. Everyone will remember things differently and find importance in different things. It's not wrong but human. It's the Gossip of the Lord- meant for teaching of faith and morality, not our history, and that's where it draws it's power. Similar thoughts are spoken on the old Testament these days. The idea that anything in the Bible is a direct word of God is being phased out with the understanding of language translation and human bias on different editions led to most of us not knowing the original script. The only thing that is meant to be directly the word of God is the Ten Commandments.
As a Catholic, this is really fun to watch you analyze. Especially since it was one of the big topics in Catholic school. Like, you really did hit on most of the big points. One thing that you might be interested in is that we were taught that the gospels were included because they centered the death and resurrection.
Dragon Prince Jesus?
Your podcast's editor is going to need that fanart on her desk by Monday.
Ive got beef with the King James Version only because it’s goofy how many people take it as THE divinely-inspired work. It’s a classic case of people elevating they’re own stuff just because theyre myopic. Like… sure honey, God made the definitive version of the Bible come out 1600 years after the original Manga.
However, you gotta give props that the King James Version is a beautifully written reinterpretation of the source texts. Psalms in the KJV hit different than any of the more literal translations.
It's especially weird because we know for a fact that it was edited to be more pro-monarchy.
How can the one edited many centuries later with political intent be "The only valid one"?! XD
I may be a theologian, but I'm also a writer, and so I am always delighted when I hear a historian and writer's take on the literary merit and tradition of something that is close to my heart. I always tell my students that the bible as we know it is not one book, but a library of poetry, narrative, history, music, and legal argumentation with its own oral history parallel to it. It is a breathing, enlightening window into the world and its people as it was, and we ought to be careful to read it as such before we make any sweeping arguments about what it says to us in the current day. The gospels are a microcosm of that very complicated history, and I'm glad you gave it the thoughtful approach you have given here.
Thank you for your respect of the Christian faith, may the peace of God be with you.
It is always so interesting to learn about the history of religions, especially since it is kind of a pain in the keister to find sources that aren’t irreconcilably biased. Godspeed cartoon history man.
There's something of understated aesthetic charm in the little pictures given on the covers of the cartoon illustrations of the texts being discussed in OSP's videos - the one give to The New Testament is particularly cool. Surely someone has to publish an edition of the NT with that cover.
Love this! Tremendous fan of the way you approach the Gospels as a sacred text, with equal parts reverence and humor.
"I am a cartoon, not a priest."
I'm a priest's kid and several sermons on the theme of "Don't leave your brains in the back of the church," also stressed that some Christian traditions PREDATE scripture ...
Thank you. I have been trying to understand the Bible and particularly the gospels from a historical perspective, but I can't always put the theology of John into easily understandable words. I don't really want to spend decades sifting through the theology, so these summaries are helpful.
This video hits me at a fascinating intersection in my life. I’ve been a fan of the channel in a while, and I’m also participating in theology and biblical studies classes last and this year. Fascinating to see an examination of the Gospels from a purely secular perspective.
Really looking forward to the podcast episode on this one! And also, I think it would be neat to see a collab between Blue and the Bible Project channel, who often looks at the Bible as a work of literature, among other things. Not sure what they’d talk about, but I think it would be neat.
I had no idea those four were associated with such clear symbols - bull, raven, angel, lion - and THAT'S what ACTUAL PICTURES of architecture and art can really bring to the discussion table!
How Blue ended the video reminded of a conversation i once had where someone asked me that if i hated religion so much why did i know/want to learn so much about it and i told him "i dont hate religion, religion is how we get mythologies and cool stories, what i do hate is organized religious institutions that exploit and subvert those stories to their own ends"
I find it impressive Blue managed to tell a compelling history while still being funny yet respectful.
As a Christian I approve! and I’d love to hear more theology content like this since regular Christian practice often overlooks history in favor of the raw theology
Either way great job as always 👍
I was like "yeah, this is pretty normal OSP stuff," and then i heard "every translation is valid expect the KJV," and I was just like "I have never been so offended
By something i agree with do fully."
Idk it's very ...poetic.
Some fab translations sound better than the original material
Jesus Christ the Dragon Prince is an adaptation I DEFINITELY want to read
"I am a cartoon, not a priest"
But are a preachy cartoon who could be a demigod of history
Happy Feast of the Immaculate Conception! Happy Hanukkah as well!
Christians admit the old testament was writin by people just that the people were divinely inspired.
I actually took classes about this stuff in college for my humanities cluster. It's nice to see something I actually know about, and even nicer to see my memory is pretty good
Small correction at 04:13 if it hasn’t been mention already, but I think you confused the John the Evangelist with John the Baptist, the latter being considered Jesus’ cousin, not the former (though looking it up, there were some traditions that believed them to be cousins). Great video!
Came looking for this comment. John the Gospel writer is one of the sons of Zebedee, not the son of Zachariah and Elizabeth aka Jesus’ cousin John the Baptist.
As a Catholic who is a sucker for going into the weeds of theologies both in and out of my religion, I am happy at the respect and love given to this topic and the different perspective on it!
Christians generally don't believe that God himself wrote the Old Testament, Blue. At least in my entire experience, Christianity hasn't shied away from the fact that it was written by the Jews, but inspired by God.
What "divinely inspired" actually means changes a lot depending on who you're talking to. Many Christians believe that god was "whispering" to the biblical authors and they perfectly copied down everything they heard. Which is tantamount to god writing the whole thing himself.
Can You do Rashi? He's probably the most well known Jewish commentator on the Torah, both Oral and Written.
I'd definitely be down for learning about whoever he is, especially from Blue
He is probably with Maimonides in the top 5 most important rabbis for Judaism
@@AraumCthe first truly important asheknazi rabbi that he and his daughters added context for the Talmud and his commentary that became core part of the Talmud (also bunch of rabbinical dynasties trace themselves to him and he had winery has his day job)
@@AraumC Rashi (with help from his daughters) combined traditional interpretations of biblical texts and his own insights to write a commentary verse by verse for the entirety of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and the entirety of the Talmud. His commentary is so essential to understanding the text that any Book of Talmud comes with his commentary.
Great video Blue! I think you summed up the history of the text very well👍 I've been following The Bible Project for the past couple of years, and they do some great deep dives into the ancient words, symbolism, and parallels of scripture. It's really fascinating stuff. I would like to know why Paul writes the way he does. The guy used very few breaks/periods in his sentences!😅
3:38 'The Cruel Angel's Thesis' starts playing in my head.
Love the history makers series. The only people who talk about people that talk about people are the future people who will talk about people
It's my birthday today :)
Happy birthday 🎂🎈 hope you have a great day today and have fun!!
Happy birthday, stranger!
Happy birthday!
happy birthday
Happy Birthday!
I'm a non-denominational protestant currently going to school for ministry (to become a pastor). This video was super interesting to watch! That being said there were a few small things I wanted to point out!
1. (0:09) Jesus' ministry lasted until between 27 or 36 A.D. depending on which scholar you ask.
2. () Most Christians you talk to won't say that God Himself wrote the Hebrew Bible. It was actually created from a larger body of oral tradition, Jewish/Israelite culture and history, and poetry! God instead guided these authors and this culture to create them in a sort of co-authorship. This is called inspiration and it's one of the criteria for being able to have a book be in the Bible.
3. I like that you mentioned oral story telling when talking about how the apostles would have preached to their specific audience.
4. I also find it fascinating how the synoptic gospels reference each other! If you analyze them each carefully you'll see that this was intentional because they were all contemporaries who knew each other for decades. They also have variations within the similarities because each gospel was written to a different kind of group! Matthew to the Jewish population, Mark to the Gentiles, Luke to a Roman aristocrat named Theophilus!
5. Also yes, being able to put a name to each book in the Bible is challenging/undoable. Some authors intentionally made themselves anonymous and others were compiled over decades by different people (psalms for instance). Generally speaking each gospel is attributed to the person who likely orated it or wrote it down.
6. The early books that didn't quite make the cut for the Bible are actually pretty hilarious. They equate to a sort of Jesus fanfiction for lack of a better word.
Thanks for making this super interesting video! It's refreshing to see a non-christian talk about the Bible with genuine interest! Keep up the good work, love the videos!
As a Catholic, I’m delighted in seeing a description of the sacred scriptures by a (assuming) non-christian creator who isn’t treating it as neither overly mystic, nor dismissively stupid. Some inaccuracies in how the Church would describe it themselves, but overall great content. Laudat.
As a Catholic I thank you very much for this!
Fun fact:
Matthew wrote to Jewish people, which is why he connected to David.
Luke wrote to gentiles (Rome/Greeks), so he focused on the facts
Mark wrote to gentiles as well, which is why he is so similar to Luke in the factual aspect.
John wrote to be the ending to each of the four Gospels. His writing is very spiritual and therefore is for the more “experienced” people in the faith.
@@nohbuddy1we don't know that
@@nohbuddy1 They mean that each gospel tradition had a specific audience in mind, and tailored the message to suit.
@@nohbuddy1 but they did write it to someone you can even see this by just reading the first few verse of the book of luke when he adress “Theophilus” (Luke 1:3) specifically. there are evidence to suggest that the gospels were written around the time of the apostles and none of them were written after 100 AD, (see The Four Gospels: Some Comparative Overview Charts by Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D. and articles by Jimmy Akin). Also if these gospels were not written by these people why would the "author" uses relativevly unknown name like luke or mark? matthew and John i get but even matthew doesn't have much talk about him even in the gospels
@@nohbuddy1 bro mark and luke weren't apostles i don't know where you get your knowledge of early christian history from but those 2 aren't part of the 12 apostles, read my comment carefully
@@nohbuddy1 I don’t know what scholars you’re talking about. Catholic and secular historians alike agree on how the Evangelists wrote to different groups. It’s obvious to see if you read the Gospels, which I’m guessing is something you haven’t done.
"JESUS CHRIST THE DRAGON PRINCE!"
I don't know why but that rolls off the tongue wonderfully and that sounds like such a kick-ass title for a rock album.
3:37 Professor Farnsworth: Evangelion, everyone!
This was the classiest way it could have been done, bravo.
Yes, it can be quite beautiful, can't it? This time of year, I find it a delight to bask in the splendours of Christian art, especially old music.
Me too!
Hey Blue, thanks for all the videos over the years! I’m currently sitting in an apartment in Florence, finishing off my semester with my crazy ass roommates. I never would have come here if it weren’t for your videos, and I wouldn’t have had nearly as fun of a time if I didn’t have all the history. So thanks for everything man.
Speaking as a child of God (aka a Christian), I find it interesting that you find the gospels and how they came to be beautiful without believing them to be the word of God. Just shows that although people have many different beliefs and worldviews, we can all come together to appreciate something in one way or another.
I'm a bit surprised Blue didn't go into Luke-Acts more. As the writer writes in the third person for most of it until part way through Acts where he switches to first person implying he met up with Paul, thought he was cool, and followed him around for a bit. This, and Luke's note at the start about essentially being a researcher in my mind sets it apart from the other three gospels more than the content themselves and it is noted that the quality of the Greek in these books is higher than the others and he probably could have had his own video.
Is it me, or is it really funny that a Christmas video dropped on Chanukah?
"And I don't have to find those stories true, to find that history beautiful"
Amen, unironically.
Yep the gospels were written anonymously and gospel simply means good news. And of course there's more than just four gospels something like 50 that we know about.
As a Christian, thank you for handling our material with care, Blue! I have watched a shocking lot of these videos that just go "yeah these inconsistencies MUST invalidate the faith and its followers are STUPID" which like-- cmon man. Like you said: you don't have to believe it to find it beautiful!
as orthodox christian, hearing "Jesus Christ the Dragon Prince" sent me flying cackling, my god (full intended) this is an amazing video
Ah a fellow orthodox
LOVED this video! As a christian myself it was a beautiful look at a sacred text as art that I hope to see with other sacred texts in the future. It also made me want a Prince of Egypt style movie about the works of tbe Apostles.
Ah, an OSP video is the best Birthday present. 😊🎉
Happy birthday!! 🥳🎊🎉
Thanks, Blue. I'm not at all religious, but I know quite a bit about the history of the Bible. I was pleased to find some details that I had not heard before. I'm aware of several apocryphal gospels, like the Gospel of Peter, but I did not know about the cave full of Dragons. So cool.
If had seen a video on this topic created by someone else, I might have skipped it, thinking would likely just be a rehash of things I already knew. In this case, since I always enjoy your and Red's videos, I went ahead and gave it a watch. I'm so glad I did. New things about an old topic are so satisfying to find.
My favourite gospel is definitely Matthew - the way it constructs the parallels to the life of Moses makes me so excited whenever I spot a reference
For me it's John because I consider a whole lot of the poetry in John to be simply divine.
The idea of the gospels not being meant as a linear "true" report but rather an artistic collection and retelling was so hard to wrap my mind around after growing up in Sunday school, it almost felt heretic. Amd even years after understanding the idea, I found it a little hard to put into words. But you summoned that up so beautifully and at the same time respectfully, thank you so much!
Luke himself does not appear in any of the gospels. He was a follower of Paul during his journeys around the Mediterranean. Speaking of Luke, in chapter 1 of his gospel, he writes that he did set out to write a historical account. Maybe the others didn't but based on internal evidence, the author of The Gospel of Luke (I say Luke but whatever) is setting out to clarify the historical record.
Very good video! I appreciate how respectful Blue was of these works' importance to Christianity 😊 Great work Blue!
As a Christian, I found this very interesting! Thanks for handling this so respectfully.
I love the story about Jesus and the dragon den. Earlier this year, I heard a New Testament professor at Wheaton College (a Christian college) say that all the scholars agree the four canonical Gospels are authentically culturally Jewish, while a lot of the weird non-canonical stuff has some obvious Greek influences. Jesus behaving like a trickster god and striking dead the neighborhood kids? Jesus going to the border with Egypt and tangling with dragons? Yeah, those stories sound way more like stuff Greek heroes would do rather than Jewish prophets.
"Authentic Judaism" itself changed during the Hellenistic era and was influenced by Greek philosophy and traditions, though. The Letter of Aristeas is one famous work from ~100 BC that argues that Judaism lives up to Greek standards great and the two are compatible, say. Most notably, it seems like old-Jewish beliefs generally saw death as permanent (e.g. the spirit leaving the body), while the Greeks favored immortality of spirit a la Platonist ideals. But we see Jews talking about resurrection by the 2nd century BC (see 2 Maccabees) and Josephus & Acts says it was still a debate during the first century. Paul specifically tries to bridge the gap by talking about how the coming resurrection will be bodily (favoring classical Jewish ideas) but it'll be, like, purified super-bodies without sin (favoring Greek ideas). Basically, Judaism in the first century itself had Greek influences.
And while it's true we have quite a bit of apocrypha obviously influenced by Greek thought, we also have some apocrypha that is deeply Jewish as well. The Testament of Adam, while a Christian work, is hypothesized to have originally been a Jewish work that had some prophecies of Jesus thrown in, say. We also know of some lost Gospels of the Ebionites that were even more Jewish than Matthew. I suppose you did say "a lot", just... it wasn't like the "most Jewish" stuff always "won". That would be weird, given that the early Church seems to have been way more successful in recruiting Greeks than it was in recruiting Jews.
@@Snow_Fire_Flame That’s really interesting, thanks.
@@Snow_Fire_Flame
Not to mention the four Gospels themselves also show Greek influences (their bring, you know, _written in Ancient Greek's Koine dialect_ notwithstanding xD): specifically gJohn, which speaks of Big J as being pre-existent, that he is the flesh and blood incarnation of the _Logos,_ an earlier Greek/Judeo-Hellenic philosophical concept expounded upon in detail by one Philo Judaeas of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew who was himself a contemporary of St. Paul, who was... _also_ a Hellenized Jew 😂, born and raised in Anatolia.
That the _Logos_ is the first of all beings, as it is through His word by which the Big Man Upstairs gives assent to and brings things into being (this _Logos_ seems to also be of YHWH's divine essence if gJohn is anything to go by?), the concept is I believe best encapsulated in such phrases as “Put your money where your mouth is; I give you my word: Practice what you preach: They're all bark, no bite.”
As someone who was wondering if you would ever cover Christianity or even modern religion, I like how you handled it purely from a scholarly perspective without going into faith. Good job.
I absolutely love looking into the historiography of the Bible. You nailed your target audience dead on the bullseye here.
What audience might that be?
As someone of the Orthodox Christian faith I just wanted to say thank you for this video. It was respectful while maintaining academic rigor and is truly food for thought