I love how Dr. Goodacre presents his material. It’s so clear and easy to grasp. And he always has those little insights that I don’t seem to get from other NT scholars. Thanks for sharing this.
One of the things that is so interesting (and brilliant) about Dr. Goodacre's method is the way he draws out the implications of both the said and the unsaid. For example, at 18:15, he brings up the invaluable passage in 1Cor, chapter 15, in which the apostle Paul mentions the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to his brother James, an account which is entirely absent from the four canonical Gospels. Dr. Goodacre points out not only how important it is that Paul mentions the appearance to James, but also how significant it is that the Evangelists left it out, given that James was not initially a believer in Jesus as Messiah. Surely the Evangelists would have wanted to use such a story to bolster belief in the resurrection, so why didn't they? Good question...
Precisely!! The underlying assumption throughout this presentation is that Paul is openly, honestly and accurately reporting history. i.e. that Paul is writing history, not apologetics. Wow!! So, for example, instead of (accurately) saying Paul claimed that over 500 saw the risen Jesus he (rashly) says that over 500 believed they saw the risen Jesus. Can he not see that a human flaw is that people invent and/or twist the truth when trying to persuade? It is an astounding assumption that what Paul writes is reliable history. Equivalent to taking Joseph Smith or any other cult leader or follower as reporting history without bias or apologetic distortion. Dr Goodacre seems to have grown in capability for appropriate scepticism subsequently. For example, he says (appropriately) that whether or not Q is an accurate answer in reality to the synoptic problem, historians cannot reasonably conclude this given the current absence of adequate supporting evidence for this imagined document.
Yep. It's pretty easy to read Paul and come to the conclusion he is what in 2023 would be called a Bullshit artist. You read Paul and you realize other Apostles don't have that much use for Paul, other than the money he brings in. He almost sounds like a modern Televangelist who is good at raising money, but not particularly conversant with Jesus' teachings.
The evidence is in the text itself: "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received (...)" Paul is clearly treating his statement as common knowledge.
"15:8. And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time." But Paul never saw Jesus Christ in the flesh. The fact that all this "seeing" was just hallucinating by all the people he mentioned cannot be ruled out.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Of course I've heard of the Old Testament. But it seems to me Christians play so fast and loose with their terms it like trying to nail down who exactly were the disciples.
3:54 Dr.G should say " the earliest account of A resurrection, not THE resurrection. You can't assume that Paul & Mark are talking about the exact same event. They might be but you have to prove it not assume it. The evidence tends to suggest they are not talking about the same event and only a rusted on Christian would assume they are.
But aren’t the gospels saying there are two different tombs? One that was not his but was available to put him until the sabbaths were over. After which the intention would have been to move him?
Does the Old Testament mention the virgin birth, the star, the Magi, etc.? Does the Zend (remnants) Avesta? YES There were Mithraeums throughout the Roman world at the time of Jesus; everywhere there was a stationed Legion. The Zoroastrian subcult of Mithras was their religion. Did Paul know this? Of course he did.
12:30 Yes as far as we can tell from the evidence. It's not just confined to seeing the resurrected Jesus either. As far as you can tell every pre war apostle only had 2 sources for information about Jesus: revelation & scripture.
And the possibilities Goodacre puts forward exclude the possibility that Paul was making things up in order to influence people. Does he not see that people lie to gain power, influence and/or wealth?
@@canwelook yes very possibly but understand it is a moot point because Paul only has visions & scripture as his sources. It doesn't really matter if the visions were real or lies, he did gain control by using them. As for scripture, his interpretations are wildly off the mark of their original intent but in the process of pesher he was not the only person guilty of that.
5:47 Paul appears to be claiming 500 people had a vision of a resurrected Jesus like he did! He is NOT claiming he knows 500 people, who a few years back saw a physically resurrected Jesus within 40 odd days of his death on earth.
@@ghostriders_1 Yes. There is no reason any reasonable person should accept any claim without proper and sufficient evidence... of which in this case there is none. Especially when the claim is unable to be tested. Especially when the claim defies nature and reason. And especially when the claim is made by someone with a clear apologetic agenda... like Paul.
“Why *and was buried”?* Various reasons come to mind: There could have been disagreements over the nature of the Resurrection and whether Jesus was buried would be a factor in that argument. It could be a matter of Jewish honor regarding buried bodies, I.e. Deuteronomy 21:22-23 - someone hung on a pole (tree?) is cursed by Elohim and must be buried soon. This doesn’t refer exactly to Jesus’ situation, and all adherents follow Bible verses selectively, but the passage gives a sense of the requirement that people be buried. The mere fact of Jesus being buried would not solve the missing body issue for people who didn’t believe the claim of Resurrection. Jesus could have been buried somewhere else. If Paul had written, “and was buried in the location that was supposed,” then Goodacre would have a case. IIRC, there is a passage which could be inferred to mean Jesus was buried hurriedly in one place, then moved to another.
28:45 Complete rubbish. He ended it with the women not telling anyone as an explanation for why his audience had never heard the story before. “Eureka! Now the story can be told! Here it is!” The other gospel writers just got even bolder & claimed lots of people knew about it & joined the cult, “And so should you!”
Or the skeptical idea that Mark finished with the women telling no one about the empty tomb, because NOBODY had heard of this before. Mark just made it up (deducing, from 1 Cor 15, there must have been an empty tomb, just as Dr Goodacre did here) andMark is anticipating the question "Why have I never heard this before?"
Exactly. What would lead a proper historian to believe the Romans would have allowed a man punished by the tetrarch for treason to be removed from the crucifix and be properly buried in contravention to normal Roman practice? In my opinion, Mark WAS following Paul's Christology, some aspects of which got carried forward into subsequent gospels but which Matthew and Luke edited to display Jesus as a law abiding Jew rather than as a leader overthrowing the law.
A trait of biblical scholars generally is that they gullibly treat authors as writing history the authors believe to be true. And they fail to even consider the possibility that people can write fiction/myth - invent and distort. Have they never read social media?
@@charlespolk5221 A “proper historian” would treat the claim as entirely plausible and investigate how crucial a missing body would be to a belief in a singular bodily resurrection among 1st century Jews
I really wish more people, including Dr. Goodacre, would read the work of Walter Schmithals entitled, "Paul & the Gnostics." I also wish they'd stop talking in terms of "apostles" and start seeing each of these individuals as having been a Jewish Shliach (Emissary), who were appointed and "sent forth" with letters authorizing them to do "thus and such." As Schmithals points out, the reason Paul constantly prefaced his letters with assurances that he was in fact an Emissary of the Divine, who was "sent forth" by the historical Yeshu(a) himself, is because various proto-Gnostics were saying that Paul was *merely* an Emissary of men, who'd been given letters by the leadership of the Believers in Jerusalem, which was the truth (cf. Acts 15:22-26), while they were claiming to be Divinely appointed "spiritual" Apostles, who were superior to Paul in every way, because they'd received their authority directly from the proto-Gnostic Pleroma, from which their version of Jesus had descended, as some sort of holographic projection from on high, and who only appeared to suffer in the flesh, etc. That's why belief in the historical Yeshu(a) as having been a flesh and blood creature, born of the seed of David after the manner of the flesh, who suffered martyrdom, and had been physically resurrected became of paramount importance to these early Believers, because it distinguished them from the various proto-Gnostics who had a totally different take on Jesus as having been some sort of Star Trek holodeck character, if you will.
You said "I also wish they'd stop talking in terms of "apostles" and start seeing each of these individuals as having been a Jewish Shliach (Emissary), who were appointed and "sent forth" with letters authorizing them to do "thus and such."" I fail to see your argument since the title apostle means the same thing, (Strongs: apostolos: "a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ." Regardless of what the Gnostics believed about Yeshu(a) or the original apostles Paul was commissioned by the apostles in Jerusalem by the authority of Christ. Shilach meaning one "who is sent out to promulgate Judaism and Hasidism in locations around the world" and the apostles to promulgate the message of Christ around the world. Why would we prefer Shilach over apostle?
Apotheosis is the glorification of a subject to divine level and most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre. In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature.
What scrptures was Pauls speaking of snce hs writtings was some of the earliest recorded. No scriptures occurred until hundreds of years later. The scriptures known before that were the old Testament which had no story of a messiah that died for everyones sins, was crucified and then resurrected. Without any collective accepted scriptures what was he talking about?
Since this lecture is hosted by Bibical Archaeology, relevant evidence from that field ought not to be ignored, but that seems to be the case in this lecture. In my experience BAR has a severe prejudice against the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.
In my opinion, the gospels ignore James, and Paul doesn't, because Paul is earlier and denying James' authority would be seen as absurd, although Paul surely plays him and Peter down as "so called pillars of the Church". In the end, Paul's brand of Christianity won and his "rivals" were swept aside. Jesus's family, that would be seen as a natural leadership to the movement, was shown in the Gospel of Mark as people who thought Jesus was a madman.
500 and the women Goodacre thinks Paul knew about 500 people seeing Jesus risen, but didn’t know about women seeing him? On the other hand, claims of women seeing Jesus risen wouldn’t be written for 25-30 years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. In the original Mark, no women are described as having seen Jesus risen, and readers are (I infer) left to assume that Paul’s version is accurate, the disciples having failed to understand Jesus and show up for the Resurrection.
13:24 Absolute nonsense. “Body” means a human body. You absolutely are splitting hairs & making up excuses. Paul first claimed a physical resurrection of Jesus & believers, & then, when people pushed back, pivoted to a spiritual resurrection.
First of all, one has to provide evidence that there is greater than 50% probability the Jesus even existed. Then one can ask, "Who was Jesus?" Considering the quality of the source material, one cannot just assume out of hand a historical Jesus.
Who says one has to provide evidence “that there is greater than 50% probability that Jesus even existed”? What evidence do you have to support that claim? And who is ultimately determining that such a criteria is satisfied?
Indeed, not withstanding the obvious unlikelihood of the claim itself, how would the size be estimated at 500 and how could Paul claim to know most of them were still alive. That would be a challenge even Paul had facebook friends.
10:11 Paul takes authority from having had revelations from Jesus Christ just like Cephas did before him. These revelations were used to justify the reinterpretation of Jewish scripture, both men did it. Presumably Cephas learnt about the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus just the way Paul said he did, by reading it in (according to) scripture. No mention of eye witness testimony at all. Despite their claims to the contrary the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus is NOT prefigured in Jewish scripture.
Bart ehrman is the answer .. anything that seems to break natures law aka miracle is in the bounds of faith alone . Faith cant be argued against . one must strive to know and not believe.
4:48 Cor. 15 reads; Jesus appeared to Peter, then to the twelve, then to the five hundred, then to James, then to Paul. But Paul is adamant that Jesus can only be seen in visions. So Cor. 15 lists people who we logically can conclude he believed had visions of the resurrected Jesus. Not sure how this is a mystery, this kinda stuff is well documented in religious cults. You can visit a church today when people think they are possessed by the holy spirit and talk in tongues...
"According to the scriptures" What scriptures? The gospels hadn't been written yet. So the old testament told Paul that Jesus was buried. What kind of ridiculous evidence is this?
The early christians read Jesus into the old testament and reinterpreted it to be secretly prophesying the coming of Jesus. This isn't a fringe thought. It's well known and why christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the old testament. They had to badly distort the meaning of the jewish scripture to make it work but people do that all the time today with the New Testament. There are tons of examples today of the same phenomenon so it's really not hard to imagine. Paul thought he had cracked a secret coded message from the Old Testament and they probably merged that with other Jewish Angelology of the time. They also seem to have been a vision based cult which can be dreams or things you see after fasting and chanting for days. Tons of modern examples of this too it's not a hard thing to follow. It came from a weird mixture of background beliefs about angels, demons, and the cosmos mixed with visions and poorly reinterpreting the scriptures of Judaism (mistranslated into Greek at that). It's dumb but it's literally what happened. Tovia Singer does a good job explaining how Paul mangled Jewish scripture into their message. Look it up.
The reason why Mark 16 ends at verse 8 is because that is the end of the eye witness testimony of the Roman guard mount at the tomb contained in what we now refer to as Quelle when Cornelius composed the Gospel of Mark. Cornelius composed the Gospel of Mark as an abstract of the Roman intelligence archive he had available after he debriefed Peter in the pericope recorded in Asts 10. At that moment, the contours of Quelle were defined by the εὐθὺς apparatus in the Greek version that indicates the eye witness testimony collected by the Roman spy networks before Resurrection, generally, and before Jesus was arrested and remanded to Pilate, in particular, ECCEPT for Acts 10:16, which was peter's confession to Cornelius in 40 CE. This is where Hegel comes in handy. The critical historic method that has been the dominant method of analysis since Columbia University was occupied by the SDS in 1968 is designed to de-harmonize any narrative to search out contradiction and inconsistencies in the flow of events. It is dialectical Marxism and the great sin of Post Modern Historic Deconstruction is to harmonize the Gospels The issue is, How do you de-harmonize the LOGOS? This is whey Hegel's Historic Gestalt comes into play: all these Gospels are happening at the same time around Jesus and you cannot de-Harmonize Jesus. Everything that happens in the Gospel of Mark before Mark 15 is what Cornelius is able to add from Quelle with the harmonizing of Peter's testimony in Acts 10. We learn from Matthew, Luke and a little from John that a Roman guard was set at the tomb, but at the moment that the women show up at the tomb, we don't know anything that is going to happen in Mark 16:9 - 20, That is all stuff that happens afterwords. What we know at Mark 16 is that the women start out at what is called :Begin Morning Nautical Twilight", which is the false dawn that occurs when the sun bets within 13 degrees of the horizon and light begins to reflect forward of it's appearance above the horizon. The False dawn. The women get to the tomb just as the sun is beginning to come up and the Roman soldiers are recovering from the swoon the Holy Spirit put them into in order to give them the vision of the Resurrection, Now, assuming Mary, Mother of Jesus is one of the women with Mary Magdalene, my guess is that the young man in the tomb is the same young man who she encountered when she was made pregnant by the Spirit of God and put this whole soap opera into motion and that freaked her out. And then, the Roman soldiers began to rise out of the ground mist like saints rising from the their graves and that freaked them all out and they left without saying a word to the soldiers, because they didn't know they were just soldiers. That's what they were afraid of. And what is added after that is in the same syntax as the Gospel of John, which was composed by John Mark, who was the Beloved Disciple and the publisher of the Gospel of Mark or by his scribes after he was dead. But the Gospel of Mark ends where Quelle runs out of eye witness testimony that Cornelius can send back up his chain of command in Rome. And if you employ Hegel's critical literary method instead of the critical historical method of Marx and the Students for a Democratic Society of the 60s, this becomes apparent. And, just for the record, it probably was 616 instead of 666, boing back to Genesis 41 and DaVinci's Last Supper. It's a biblical numerological trope.
You are thinking of the accont in Acts of the Apostles, a late and wholly unreliable source. Paul himself says he saw the risen Jesus last of all but he is only talking about a vision (halloucination). As far as we can tell that is the only way Paul thought any one could see the risen Jesus. As a witness he is a wash!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Good question. Implication being that the vision isn't really there, right? The real problem with Paul's blinding light is that it is only reported in Acts not in Paul's authentic letters. Acts is considered by historians to be late & wholly unreliable.So thr blinding is just late church legend not evidence of anything. Go and read the 7 authentic letters of Paul and you will notice something that is truly remarkable. Paul never refers to anyone ever being a disciple of Jesus, a disciple being a companion of the teacher on earth. Paul doesn't even use the word. He never alludes to anyone one seeing, hearing, being with or relaying eye witness testimony about an earthly Jesus. Paul never quotes Jesus or calls him a teacher or mentions one parable. He never uses the words or deeds of an earthly Jesus to solve church disputes or to give authority to his theology. This is improbable.
“He appeared to Cephas, then the twelve, then 500 all at once, then James then me” And don’t forget my great uncle Leo. This is clearly made up, not because who it includes, but because who it doesn’t include. Makes himself sound like a second hand car salesman.
@@Pam-bx2mmJoseph Smith saw the resurrected Jesus just like Paul! And he was a martyr too! He even had golden plates that people saw and swore witness to! See the problem?
The *claim of the 500* is not a “later” embellishment, but it may be a contemporary lie. He made the claim in such a way that it was unfalsifiable without a survey of almost everyone over, say, 35 who had been in the area at the time and even then pious lies and faulty memories would skew the results.
Paul has a chronology for sure but he makes no distinction between his halloucination of the risen Jesus and anybody else's vision! Outside of the symbolic trio of death, burial & resurrection Paul confirms absolutely nothing of Mark's account. This is because Paul is relating a cosmic event in the sub lunar realm and Mark is writing fiction based on Paul's revelations. I love the way historians miss the elephant in the tomb! How did Paul & his earliest followers know all this about Jesus? According to scripture! No eyewitness testimony, no oral tradition & no disciples. Paul is telling Goodacre Jesus was never on earth and Goodacre is not listening.....or is that thinking.
@davidjanbaz7728 I said nothing of the kind. The blindness is only in Acts, which is not to be trusted. Paul has nothing to say about it in his 7 authentic epistles. As far as I'm concerned it didn't happen so it was caused by anything.
Fuck off mythshitshion bot. I would rather stick needles in my eyes than watch one of autistic podcasts that shit channel presents. I would rather walk on pointing nails than having to watch it. Abomination to God.
These intellectual types drive me nuts, because of all their ramblings that nobody understands, yet still steers the general understanding of society and morality. They scare the heck out of me. Especially if they are right. Who pays these guys? Is this craziness coming out of my taxes?
I love how Dr. Goodacre presents his material. It’s so clear and easy to grasp. And he always has those little insights that I don’t seem to get from other NT scholars. Thanks for sharing this.
One of the most fluent presentations of the early resurrection accounts I've ever seen!
One of the things that is so interesting (and brilliant) about Dr. Goodacre's method is the way he draws out the implications of both the said and the unsaid. For example, at 18:15, he brings up the invaluable passage in 1Cor, chapter 15, in which the apostle Paul mentions the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to his brother James, an account which is entirely absent from the four canonical Gospels. Dr. Goodacre points out not only how important it is that Paul mentions the appearance to James, but also how significant it is that the Evangelists left it out, given that James was not initially a believer in Jesus as Messiah. Surely the Evangelists would have wanted to use such a story to bolster belief in the resurrection, so why didn't they? Good question...
Dr Goodacre is one of my favorites for sure.
Brilliant lecture. I’m left wanting more!!!!
That was a great exposition of the Easter story, with all the complications left in. Brilliant piece of work.
"I saw the risen Jesus".
"No, you didn't".
It's hard to resolve a dispute like that.
Trust me bro
Excellent presentation
I think the title Who was Jesus is misleading. The speech is about Resurrection.
Thank you
"This isn't just Paul making stuff up, this is Paul repeating what other people have said"
Please show your evidence for this Dr. Goodacre
Precisely!! The underlying assumption throughout this presentation is that Paul is openly, honestly and accurately reporting history. i.e. that Paul is writing history, not apologetics. Wow!!
So, for example, instead of (accurately) saying Paul claimed that over 500 saw the risen Jesus he (rashly) says that over 500 believed they saw the risen Jesus. Can he not see that a human flaw is that people invent and/or twist the truth when trying to persuade?
It is an astounding assumption that what Paul writes is reliable history. Equivalent to taking Joseph Smith or any other cult leader or follower as reporting history without bias or apologetic distortion.
Dr Goodacre seems to have grown in capability for appropriate scepticism subsequently. For example, he says (appropriately) that whether or not Q is an accurate answer in reality to the synoptic problem, historians cannot reasonably conclude this given the current absence of adequate supporting evidence for this imagined document.
Yep. It's pretty easy to read Paul and come to the conclusion he is what in 2023 would be called a Bullshit artist. You read Paul and you realize other Apostles don't have that much use for Paul, other than the money he brings in. He almost sounds like a modern Televangelist who is good at raising money, but not particularly conversant with Jesus' teachings.
The simplest and most plausible explanation is, Paul suffered from a very vivid hallucination.
The evidence is in the text itself: "For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received (...)"
Paul is clearly treating his statement as common knowledge.
"15:8. And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time." But Paul never saw Jesus Christ in the flesh. The fact that all this "seeing" was just hallucinating by all the people he mentioned cannot be ruled out.
so brilliant
You can't just leave us like that, Dr. Goodacre.
Brilliant!
It would be useful if the BAS released all of its lectures at full length on TH-cam instead of just snippets which ate infuriating.
Is the follow up lecture online? I find it really fascinating
I want to invite him over for dinner!!!!
If Corinthians is the first document historically in the NT what are the "scriptures" referred to by Paul in Cor. 15:3?
Prophets.
You can find all the texts in Handel's Messiah.
@@alanpennie8013 A concert piece written in the 1700's is not exactly what I'm looking for.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Of course I've heard of the Old Testament. But it seems to me Christians play so fast and loose with their terms it like trying to nail down who exactly were the disciples.
Fascinating
3:54 Dr.G should say " the earliest account of A resurrection, not THE resurrection. You can't assume that Paul & Mark are talking about the exact same event. They might be but you have to prove it not assume it. The evidence tends to suggest they are not talking about the same event and only a rusted on Christian would assume they are.
@@davidjanbaz7728 From you ...that is a compliment, no argument, just insult.
But aren’t the gospels saying there are two different tombs? One that was not his but was available to put him until the sabbaths were over. After which the intention would have been to move him?
What's his thoughts on T20?
GO YOU 'R's!!!
Does the Old Testament mention the virgin birth, the star, the Magi, etc.? Does the Zend (remnants) Avesta? YES
There were Mithraeums throughout the Roman world at the time of Jesus; everywhere there was a stationed Legion. The Zoroastrian subcult of Mithras was their religion.
Did Paul know this? Of course he did.
12:30 Yes as far as we can tell from the evidence. It's not just confined to seeing the resurrected Jesus either. As far as you can tell every pre war apostle only had 2 sources for information about Jesus: revelation & scripture.
And the possibilities Goodacre puts forward exclude the possibility that Paul was making things up in order to influence people.
Does he not see that people lie to gain power, influence and/or wealth?
@@canwelook yes very possibly but understand it is a moot point because Paul only has visions & scripture as his sources. It doesn't really matter if the visions were real or lies, he did gain control by using them. As for scripture, his interpretations are wildly off the mark of their original intent but in the process of pesher he was not the only person guilty of that.
@@davidjanbaz7728 strong on insult, weak on argument.
Possible reasons Mark didn't do any more work on his Gospel:
He got a girlfriend.
He got a job.
Lockdown was lifted.
🤣🤣🤣
Maybe he ran out of paper.
5:47 Paul appears to be claiming 500 people had a vision of a resurrected Jesus like he did! He is NOT claiming he knows 500 people, who a few years back saw a physically resurrected Jesus within 40 odd days of his death on earth.
Yes.
And Paul's claimed sighting was AFTER the claimed ascension. The second coming has come and gone.
@@canwelook have you read the claim that the original word was not 500 but pentecost? Apparently the two words are very similar in koine Greek.
@@ghostriders_1 Yes. There is no reason any reasonable person should accept any claim without proper and sufficient evidence... of which in this case there is none. Especially when the claim is unable to be tested. Especially when the claim defies nature and reason. And especially when the claim is made by someone with a clear apologetic agenda... like Paul.
I need the name of the song at the beginning.
“Why *and was buried”?*
Various reasons come to mind:
There could have been disagreements over the nature of the Resurrection and whether Jesus was buried would be a factor in that argument.
It could be a matter of Jewish honor regarding buried bodies, I.e. Deuteronomy 21:22-23 - someone hung on a pole (tree?) is cursed by Elohim and must be buried soon. This doesn’t refer exactly to Jesus’ situation, and all adherents follow Bible verses selectively, but the passage gives a sense of the requirement that people be buried.
The mere fact of Jesus being buried would not solve the missing body issue for people who didn’t believe the claim of Resurrection. Jesus could have been buried somewhere else. If Paul had written, “and was buried in the location that was supposed,” then Goodacre would have a case.
IIRC, there is a passage which could be inferred to mean Jesus was buried hurriedly in one place, then moved to another.
28:45 Complete rubbish. He ended it with the women not telling anyone as an explanation for why his audience had never heard the story before. “Eureka! Now the story can be told! Here it is!” The other gospel writers just got even bolder & claimed lots of people knew about it & joined the cult, “And so should you!”
i think i figured it ~~~~the writers are writing in the known Greek language at the time Apotheosis is characteristic
Or the skeptical idea that Mark finished with the women telling no one about the empty tomb, because NOBODY had heard of this before. Mark just made it up (deducing, from 1 Cor 15, there must have been an empty tomb, just as Dr Goodacre did here) andMark is anticipating the question "Why have I never heard this before?"
Exactly. What would lead a proper historian to believe the Romans would have allowed a man punished by the tetrarch for treason to be removed from the crucifix and be properly buried in contravention to normal Roman practice? In my opinion, Mark WAS following Paul's Christology, some aspects of which got carried forward into subsequent gospels but which Matthew and Luke edited to display Jesus as a law abiding Jew rather than as a leader overthrowing the law.
A trait of biblical scholars generally is that they gullibly treat authors as writing history the authors believe to be true.
And they fail to even consider the possibility that people can write fiction/myth - invent and distort. Have they never read social media?
@@chrissober24 So a what? A miracle?
@@canwelook Yes, it's a big problem.
@@charlespolk5221 A “proper historian” would treat the claim as entirely plausible and investigate how crucial a missing body would be to a belief in a singular bodily resurrection among 1st century Jews
I really wish more people, including Dr. Goodacre, would read the work of Walter Schmithals entitled, "Paul & the Gnostics." I also wish they'd stop talking in terms of "apostles" and start seeing each of these individuals as having been a Jewish Shliach (Emissary), who were appointed and "sent forth" with letters authorizing them to do "thus and such." As Schmithals points out, the reason Paul constantly prefaced his letters with assurances that he was in fact an Emissary of the Divine, who was "sent forth" by the historical Yeshu(a) himself, is because various proto-Gnostics were saying that Paul was *merely* an Emissary of men, who'd been given letters by the leadership of the Believers in Jerusalem, which was the truth (cf. Acts 15:22-26), while they were claiming to be Divinely appointed "spiritual" Apostles, who were superior to Paul in every way, because they'd received their authority directly from the proto-Gnostic Pleroma, from which their version of Jesus had descended, as some sort of holographic projection from on high, and who only appeared to suffer in the flesh, etc. That's why belief in the historical Yeshu(a) as having been a flesh and blood creature, born of the seed of David after the manner of the flesh, who suffered martyrdom, and had been physically resurrected became of paramount importance to these early Believers, because it distinguished them from the various proto-Gnostics who had a totally different take on Jesus as having been some sort of Star Trek holodeck character, if you will.
You said "I also wish they'd stop talking in terms of "apostles" and start seeing each of these individuals as having been a Jewish Shliach (Emissary), who were appointed and "sent forth" with letters authorizing them to do "thus and such."" I fail to see your argument since the title apostle means the same thing, (Strongs: apostolos: "a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ." Regardless of what the Gnostics believed about Yeshu(a) or the original apostles Paul was commissioned by the apostles in Jerusalem by the authority of Christ. Shilach meaning one "who is sent out to promulgate Judaism and Hasidism in locations around the world" and the apostles to promulgate the message of Christ around the world. Why would we prefer Shilach over apostle?
"Follow the money, and all the questions will answer themselves." Josephus, "Wars," 6.6.2, solves the so called "mystery of Christ."
Apotheosis is the glorification of a subject to divine level and most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre. In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature.
What scrptures was Pauls speaking of snce hs writtings was some of the earliest recorded. No scriptures occurred until hundreds of years later. The scriptures known before that were the old Testament which had no story of a messiah that died for everyones sins, was crucified and then resurrected. Without any collective accepted scriptures what was he talking about?
Maybe the rising after 3 days is a reference to Hosea 6:2 or to Winter solstice or both
Paul and the others often misconstrued the Hebrew Bible.
Either way it appears that Paul believed you could have a meatbox even in the sub lunar realm.
Since this lecture is hosted by Bibical Archaeology, relevant evidence from that field ought not to be ignored, but that seems to be the case in this lecture. In my experience BAR has a severe prejudice against the authenticity of the Turin Shroud.
In my opinion, the gospels ignore James, and Paul doesn't, because Paul is earlier and denying James' authority would be seen as absurd, although Paul surely plays him and Peter down as "so called pillars of the Church". In the end, Paul's brand of Christianity won and his "rivals" were swept aside. Jesus's family, that would be seen as a natural leadership to the movement, was shown in the Gospel of Mark as people who thought Jesus was a madman.
500 and the women
Goodacre thinks Paul knew about 500 people seeing Jesus risen, but didn’t know about women seeing him?
On the other hand, claims of women seeing Jesus risen wouldn’t be written for 25-30 years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
In the original Mark, no women are described as having seen Jesus risen, and readers are (I infer) left to assume that Paul’s version is accurate, the disciples having failed to understand Jesus and show up for the Resurrection.
It sounds like Paul is lying. “And last of all he appeared to me” yeah right.
So he appeared
13:24 Absolute nonsense. “Body” means a human body. You absolutely are splitting hairs & making up excuses. Paul first claimed a physical resurrection of Jesus & believers, & then, when people pushed back, pivoted to a spiritual resurrection.
First of all, one has to provide evidence that there is greater than 50% probability the Jesus even existed. Then one can ask, "Who was Jesus?" Considering the quality of the source material, one cannot just assume out of hand a historical Jesus.
Who says one has to provide evidence “that there is greater than 50% probability that Jesus even existed”?
What evidence do you have to support that claim? And who is ultimately determining that such a criteria is satisfied?
15:47 This has to be James the brother of Jesus, wtf! If your gonna make assertions like this please back it up with evidence!
if Jesus had put on the gardener's clothes that'd be an interesting allusion to the fig leaves of Adam and Eve
So there's a story about 500 witnesses. How do we know that it's true?
Indeed, not withstanding the obvious unlikelihood of the claim itself, how would the size be estimated at 500 and how could Paul claim to know most of them were still alive. That would be a challenge even Paul had facebook friends.
That is exactly my same question? It’s interesting how easily he and other scholars breeze past that point.
eeeerrrrrmmm cannibis
@@coniferviveur3788 he knew that as he was given knowledge by the Holy Spirit
@@dave6148 Sure - so all you have to do now to back up that claim is prove that the holy spirit whatever that may be actually exists.. Over to you.
10:11 Paul takes authority from having had revelations from Jesus Christ just like Cephas did before him. These revelations were used to justify the reinterpretation of Jewish scripture, both men did it. Presumably Cephas learnt about the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus just the way Paul said he did, by reading it in (according to) scripture. No mention of eye witness testimony at all. Despite their claims to the contrary the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus is NOT prefigured in Jewish scripture.
Ultimate Cliffhanger. And the tomb was empty...dum dum deeerrrrrr!!!! Mystery wrapped in an enigma disguising a remarkable apocalyptic hippy.
13:07 Trained historian commits possibiliter fallacy!
Bart ehrman is the answer .. anything that seems to break natures law aka miracle is in the bounds of faith alone . Faith cant be argued against . one must strive to know and not believe.
4:48 Cor. 15 reads; Jesus appeared to Peter, then to the twelve, then to the five hundred, then to James, then to Paul.
But Paul is adamant that Jesus can only be seen in visions. So Cor. 15 lists people who we logically can conclude he believed had visions of the resurrected Jesus.
Not sure how this is a mystery, this kinda stuff is well documented in religious cults. You can visit a church today when people think they are possessed by the holy spirit and talk in tongues...
"According to the scriptures"
What scriptures? The gospels hadn't been written yet. So the old testament told Paul that Jesus was buried. What kind of ridiculous evidence is this?
The early christians read Jesus into the old testament and reinterpreted it to be secretly prophesying the coming of Jesus. This isn't a fringe thought. It's well known and why christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the old testament. They had to badly distort the meaning of the jewish scripture to make it work but people do that all the time today with the New Testament. There are tons of examples today of the same phenomenon so it's really not hard to imagine. Paul thought he had cracked a secret coded message from the Old Testament and they probably merged that with other Jewish Angelology of the time.
They also seem to have been a vision based cult which can be dreams or things you see after fasting and chanting for days. Tons of modern examples of this too it's not a hard thing to follow. It came from a weird mixture of background beliefs about angels, demons, and the cosmos mixed with visions and poorly reinterpreting the scriptures of Judaism (mistranslated into Greek at that). It's dumb but it's literally what happened. Tovia Singer does a good job explaining how Paul mangled Jewish scripture into their message. Look it up.
The reason why Mark 16 ends at verse 8 is because that is the end of the eye witness testimony of the Roman guard mount at the tomb contained in what we now refer to as Quelle when Cornelius composed the Gospel of Mark. Cornelius composed the Gospel of Mark as an abstract of the Roman intelligence archive he had available after he debriefed Peter in the pericope recorded in Asts 10. At that moment, the contours of Quelle were defined by the εὐθὺς apparatus in the Greek version that indicates the eye witness testimony collected by the Roman spy networks before Resurrection, generally, and before Jesus was arrested and remanded to Pilate, in particular, ECCEPT for Acts 10:16, which was peter's confession to Cornelius in 40 CE.
This is where Hegel comes in handy. The critical historic method that has been the dominant method of analysis since Columbia University was occupied by the SDS in 1968 is designed to de-harmonize any narrative to search out contradiction and inconsistencies in the flow of events. It is dialectical Marxism and the great sin of Post Modern Historic Deconstruction is to harmonize the Gospels
The issue is, How do you de-harmonize the LOGOS? This is whey Hegel's Historic Gestalt comes into play: all these Gospels are happening at the same time around Jesus and you cannot de-Harmonize Jesus.
Everything that happens in the Gospel of Mark before Mark 15 is what Cornelius is able to add from Quelle with the harmonizing of Peter's testimony in Acts 10. We learn from Matthew, Luke and a little from John that a Roman guard was set at the tomb, but at the moment that the women show up at the tomb, we don't know anything that is going to happen in Mark 16:9 - 20, That is all stuff that happens afterwords.
What we know at Mark 16 is that the women start out at what is called :Begin Morning Nautical Twilight", which is the false dawn that occurs when the sun bets within 13 degrees of the horizon and light begins to reflect forward of it's appearance above the horizon. The False dawn. The women get to the tomb just as the sun is beginning to come up and the Roman soldiers are recovering from the swoon the Holy Spirit put them into in order to give them the vision of the Resurrection,
Now, assuming Mary, Mother of Jesus is one of the women with Mary Magdalene, my guess is that the young man in the tomb is the same young man who she encountered when she was made pregnant by the Spirit of God and put this whole soap opera into motion and that freaked her out. And then, the Roman soldiers began to rise out of the ground mist like saints rising from the their graves and that freaked them all out and they left without saying a word to the soldiers, because they didn't know they were just soldiers. That's what they were afraid of. And what is added after that is in the same syntax as the Gospel of John, which was composed by John Mark, who was the Beloved Disciple and the publisher of the Gospel of Mark or by his scribes after he was dead.
But the Gospel of Mark ends where Quelle runs out of eye witness testimony that Cornelius can send back up his chain of command in Rome. And if you employ Hegel's critical literary method instead of the critical historical method of Marx and the Students for a Democratic Society of the 60s, this becomes apparent.
And, just for the record, it probably was 616 instead of 666, boing back to Genesis 41 and DaVinci's Last Supper. It's a biblical numerological trope.
Kanye west?
Jesus sent 70 out to preach
Technically...
It was the marys and salomes who started christianity...
hold on, did Paul see Jesus? I thought he was blinded?
You are thinking of the accont in Acts of the Apostles, a late and wholly unreliable source. Paul himself says he saw the risen Jesus last of all but he is only talking about a vision (halloucination). As far as we can tell that is the only way Paul thought any one could see the risen Jesus. As a witness he is a wash!
@@ghostriders_1 Paul was blinded by God's Glory but was able to see Jesus at the Father's Right hand.
How can a vision blind U ?
@@davidjanbaz7728 Good question. Implication being that the vision isn't really there, right? The real problem with Paul's blinding light is that it is only reported in Acts not in Paul's authentic letters. Acts is considered by historians to be late & wholly unreliable.So thr blinding is just late church legend not evidence of anything.
Go and read the 7 authentic letters of Paul and you will notice something that is truly remarkable. Paul never refers to anyone ever being a disciple of Jesus, a disciple being a companion of the teacher on earth. Paul doesn't even use the word. He never alludes to anyone one seeing, hearing, being with or relaying eye witness testimony about an earthly Jesus. Paul never quotes Jesus or calls him a teacher or mentions one parable. He never uses the words or deeds of an earthly Jesus to solve church disputes or to give authority to his theology. This is improbable.
@@davidjanbaz7728
If when you open your eyes all you see is the glory of heaven you're not likely to be able to see anything mundane.
“He appeared to Cephas, then the twelve, then 500 all at once, then James then me”
And don’t forget my great uncle Leo.
This is clearly made up, not because who it includes, but because who it doesn’t include.
Makes himself sound like a second hand car salesman.
You think Paul was the only person who thought he saw a resurrected Jesus?? Get over yourself dude
@@Jd-808 Who were the others?
If Paul lied about it he paid a high price for his lie. He was beheaded for his faith.
@@Pam-bx2mmJoseph Smith saw the resurrected Jesus just like Paul! And he was a martyr too! He even had golden plates that people saw and swore witness to! See the problem?
The *claim of the 500* is not a “later” embellishment, but it may be a contemporary lie. He made the claim in such a way that it was unfalsifiable without a survey of almost everyone over, say, 35 who had been in the area at the time and even then pious lies and faulty memories would skew the results.
Paul has a chronology for sure but he makes no distinction between his halloucination of the risen Jesus and anybody else's vision! Outside of the symbolic trio of death, burial & resurrection Paul confirms absolutely nothing of Mark's account. This is because Paul is relating a cosmic event in the sub lunar realm and Mark is writing fiction based on Paul's revelations. I love the way historians miss the elephant in the tomb! How did Paul & his earliest followers know all this about Jesus? According to scripture! No eyewitness testimony, no oral tradition & no disciples. Paul is telling Goodacre Jesus was never on earth and Goodacre is not listening.....or is that thinking.
U seem really confused!
@@davidjanbaz7728 I am not confused the evidence is right there in Paul's authentic letters.
@davidjanbaz7728 I said nothing of the kind. The blindness is only in Acts, which is not to be trusted. Paul has nothing to say about it in his 7 authentic epistles. As far as I'm concerned it didn't happen so it was caused by anything.
Absolute nonsense, good lecture. Just saw Dr Goodacre on Mythvision the other day
Haha you a mythicist then
Fuck off mythshitshion bot. I would rather stick needles in my eyes than watch one of autistic podcasts that shit channel presents. I would rather walk on pointing nails than having to watch it. Abomination to God.
@@catholicorthodoxperson6979 The truth hurts. Take your blinkers off
Love Dr Goodacre but he has to stop eating them pies!
These intellectual types drive me nuts, because of all their ramblings that nobody understands, yet still steers the general understanding of society and morality. They scare the heck out of me. Especially if they are right. Who pays these guys? Is this craziness coming out of my taxes?
Okay, he's making sense. Now I feel guilty.
"These intellectual types drive me nuts"
Isn't that a quote from George Bush?