Bart Ehrman AMA on the Gospel of Matthew - For r/AcademicBiblical on Reddit
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 มี.ค. 2024
- This is an AMA (Ask Me Anything) Dr. Bart Ehrman did for the AcademicBiblical Subreddit on March 7th, 2024. You can find all the questions and time stamps of Dr. Ehrman's answers at / ama_with_dr_bart_ehrma...
To learn more about the Gospel of Matthew, please see Dr. Ehrman's newest 8-lecture course about the gospel along with two Q&A sessions at: bartehrman.com/matthew
The opening few seconds of Dr Ehrman glaring into the camera provides a hilarious contrast to the transformation into Bart the very funny and incredibly personable public educator 😂
Like the skilled athlete focusing right before the big event. Then it’s go get ‘em.
I was in sales and you would go into a room of people sitting to meet buyers and everyone was frowning or had no personality in their faces. Then the buyer arrived and they got up smiling and full of expression. In the beginning I thought these guys are going from the real ‘them’ to a ‘sales mode.’ Later after getting to know them I realized they were just concentrating on the meeting to come.
The joke about intensifying the law of circumcision was grade A Bart 😂
Hearing Ehrman say AMA, and subreddit are for some reason amusing. Thanks for doing this.
Didn't get a chance to put my question in, but I really appreciate you taking the time to do this. Generous as always, Dr. Ehrman.
He truly is.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman. I appreciate all you have taught me.
I absolutely love listening to Barty E. speak his knowledged words on such interesting subjects!!!
Great format, great content. I have learned so much from Dr. E. Especially about how little I knew about the Bible despite having been a nominal Christian for 35 years. I just didn't THINK about the Bible until I started listening to Dr. E.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman
I learned a lot from this and was impressed by the really excellent questions. I hope Prof. Ehrman does more AMAs. I'd also like to hear him lecture on the unique changes made in each of the synoptic gospels such as Pontius Pilate washing his hands and the crowds calling for their own punishment in Matthew or Luke removing Christ saying he came to redeem all humankind.
7:45 The way Bart said . . "And this is asked by Burrito Little Donkey" 💀
Burrito.
It's the best timeline when you have a noted academic come into contact with something as depraved as Reddit usernames and takes them seriously.
@@senko_muratovic thank you, spelld it rite now
Thank you and I did learn a few things, so it was also enjoyable.
Fantastic format for an educational video!
im binge watching online content on biblical studies, and i cant stop
(just wanted to have the same urge to do the same with content on my field of research but ok
So relate to this!!! 😂😂😂
Biblical studies is one of the ultimate scholarly rabbit holes you can find yourself in
I can relate... Been there done that. I am thankful to Dr. Ehrman for continuing to be actively creating content like this. At one point, I had watched every scholarly video available by Bart on TH-cam. Now, I have to try to keep up!
Same here
Timestamps for all questions.
2:31 Why does the author of Matthew have Jesus say truly ‘I tell you there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the son of man coming in his kingdom?’ Why would he say that if Matthew was written long enough after Jesus's death and the earlier generation would have been dead or dying out by then?
4:03 Why does Matthew open with a reference to Jesus the Messiah the Son of David but later in his gospel go on to preserve the scene from Mark where Jesus says that the Messiah can't be the son of David?
7:26 I've heard the gospel of Matthew is thought to be particularly Jewish compared to the other synoptic gospels. How accurate is that character characterization? Are there specific elements that make people argue against or in favor of this?
10:39 The gospel of Matthew begins with the genealogy of Jesus, tracing the lineage of Joseph. Given that Joseph wasn't actually the biological father of Jesus as the Gospel Matthew acknowledges, isn't this genealogy a bit of a moot point? Would the readers of Matthew have been bothered by the fact that the genealogy of Jesus is not strictly biological?
13:00 I understand you strongly support the standard theory of Markian priority but I'm interested in whether you've explored the so-called multi-source theory for the synoptic problem. It’s been most recently argued by Delbert Burkett in his publication “Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark”
16:01 If one were to dispense with Q and maintain Markian priority, does Matthew's use of Luke (as advanced by the supporters of the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis) actually make the best sense of the material in Mark without Q?
20:46 Was the Gospel of Matthew written by a Pauline Christian or was it influenced by Paul's letters?
22:48 John baptizing Jesus has been mentioned by you and others as somewhat embarrassing. Given the chance to rewrite Mark, why would Matthew have left it in?
24:45 Do you have any controversial takes on Matthew?
26:12 What do you think of Dale Allison's take in his book “The Resurrection of Jesus”, that Matthew thought the people coming out of their tombs was something Matthew thought happened, although not historical? Do you agree or disagree?
27:36 Mark has the thematic idea of Jesus being a ransom for sins, whereas Luke lacks that idea. Does the gospel of Matthew showcase a similar concept?
29:08 I'm wondering if you could speak to the state of the field on positions relating to the authorship of Matthew and the Didache? Do you believe they were written by the same author community and which do you think came first?
30:42 Why does the gospel of Matthew regard Isaiah 7:14 to be a prophecy referring to the Messiah at all?
33:51 F.C. Burkett argued that the line in Matthew chapter 1 verse 2 that says Joseph did not know her until she brought forth her firstborn son is an early interpolation into the text to support the Virgin birth that originally wasn't there.
36:22 We always used to hear that in Jewish reckoning any part of a day counted as a full 24-hour day. But I don’t know if that’s true or not. My sense is that originally the followers of Jesus said it happened on the third day in fulfillment of Hosea 6:2, but later when Jonah got brought into the picture they started saying three days and three nights, even though technically that doesn’t at all work, since really there was only one full day and night (Saturday).
38:40 As per Papius, Matthew appears to be a logia of the Lord in the Jewish Aramaic language but by all accounts, our Matthew doesn't appear to be a translation due to the use of Greek. Was there some kind of Proto Matthew or saying's gospel in Hebrew circulating?
41:15 Were the Magi of Matthew 2 intended to be from the Parthian Empire where the term originated or were they intended to be from some other region like Idumea, Perea, or Nabatea?
41:59 What's one meaning that many people see in Matthew today but would have been unheard of or eccentric a few generations ago?
45:32 In some manuscripts of Matthew 27:16 and Matthew 27:17, Barabbas is referred to as 'Jesus Barabbas', with some good internal and external reasons for thinking that this is the original. Since there doesn't seem to be an obvious literary reason for doubling up the names like this, is this an indication that Barabbas is likely to have been a historical figure or that this part of the trial was a historical event?
49:53 I was wondering what you think the origin of the guard at the tomb story is. It's been noted that it looks like it's the result of a series of apologetics and polemics. Do you think that this is the result of real back-and-forths between Christians and their opponents about the empty tomb?
52:49 Jesus's last words in Matthew 27:46 always struck me as odd. Quoting from Hart's NT translation: And around the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”-that is, “My God, my God, why did you forsake me?” In your view, is this likely an actual utterance by the historical Jesus?
57:54 In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus appears to preach a message of salvation via doing good works for others. Is this an accurate assessment? Are there any verses where Jesus preaches a message of salvation via faith alone, like he does in the gospel of John?
1:00:35 Concerning the birth narrative, is there any evidence that the flight to and from Egypt are rooted in an earlier tradition that Matthew was drawing on, or was it entirely his invention?
1:02:46 Why does Jesus say in Matthew 15:24 that he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? This is not a universal gathering of humanity. It’s quite the opposite.
1:04:57 What was the great commission in Matthew 28, a later addition to the gospel of Matthew? If so, was the purpose to spread the gospel, or to establish the doctrine of Trinity?
Thank you
Thanks for doing this! I love how Bart makes such an effort to disseminate this information for the general public.
This was fantastic. Thank you Bart.
A lot to learn. Thank you
Thank you
Thank you.
Thank youyou
let’s get more of these please !
Thanku ❤
Thanks, I have had some of the same questions when reading Matthew.
This is awesome! Thank you so much Professor! I'm an hour late and missed the chance to ask you so I'll ask now and hope you read it in the comments. What are pharasees and Sadducees? What role did they really play in the crucifixion of Christ?
Seems like the story of Barabbas in an analogy for the ancient Jewish tradition of a scapegoat. Ancient Jews would sacrifice one goat and let the other goat go free to carry off the sins (the scapegoat). Jesus was the sacrifice and Barabbas was the scapegoat. Seems like this would be a useful story device when trying to convert Jews to Christianity. It might not be anti-Semitic but rather courting Jews by speaking directly to them in analogies they would certainly understand. But I do not think I have ever heard anyone give this explanation.
From Wikipedia: When the scapegoat was selected on Yom Kippur to symbolically carry the people's sins to the desert, a crimson cord was tied around its horns.[46] While the practical purpose of this cord was to distinguish the scapegoat from the goat which was to be slaughtered, it also symbolized the sin which the scapegoat was carrying away
Yes! I've thought the exact same thing myself! By having "Jesus, Son of God," on the one hand, and "Jesus, Son of the Father," on the other, alarm bells are going off that these two men have something in common. They are very different, but also have, almost an ontological connection to each other. And considering how filled with meaning Jesus' death on the cross is supposed to be (and even by Matthew's time, undoubtedly), creating Barabbas as an Azazel figure highlights even more Jesus' role as sacrificial lamb who takes away the sins of the world. We know Barabbas is Azazel because he's being released in what's possibly a non-historical ritual of letting a prisoner go; and just as Azazel carries the burdens of the Jews and is released to the wilderness, Barabbas is himself filled with sin, being an insurrectionist.
It all points towards Jesus Barabbas as being a stand-in for Azazel, to highlight Jesus as the perfect and unblemished sacrifice.
👍
Can we get an AMA on The Bible and women- feminism and women empowerment"
Lol what 😂
😂
Hello my beautiful divine soul Bart!
First:
I love you very much!
🙏 👑 🤗
An question:
Mathew 28:19 , real or fake ?!
Thank you very much.
Erwin.
❤
Regarding that Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani is in Mark, the most Jewish Gospel, could have any relation with Psalm 21?
❤❤❤
Putting guards at the tomb reflects Matthew's recognition of Mark's source material in the Book of Jesus (Joshua). Jesus Nun puts guards on the cave where the king of Jerusalem was hiding and rolls rocks in front of the cave. Then Jesus Nun comes back, kills the king of Jerusalem, hangs him on a tree, takes him down by sunset, puts his body in a cave, and rolls large rocks in front of the cave that remain until this day...
Perhaps pre-bible, there was a strong oral tradition of the words credited to Q. Certain sayings may have been more common and more remembered than others🤷
Excellent video. Is there a book that walks the reader through Matthew explaining key passages, that you would recommend?
I know Bart recommends the Harper Collins Study Bible when it comes to learning what modern scholarship says about the bible, in a mostly verse-by-verse footnote format
Looking at the Gospels as a whole, is there a single path to salvation? I would have said belief in Jesus was enough but I am hearing other answers from Dr. E.
The argument for the Q-Source is very interesting. It is absolutely puzzling why Matthew and Luke would copy Mark verbatim and keep the order, but change the sayings around unless they were copying from another source.
However, Q is thought to be a set of sayings about Jesus, so there's some material shared between Matthew and Luke that are neither found in Mark, nor in the Q-Source, so you would need to hypothesize at least one more source for the remaining material they share in common.
As an example you have the birth narrative - now, both of them put Jesus in Bethlehem, but the argument here is they did it independently, or relied on some other source for this?
Sure, you have lots of disagreement about why he would be born in Bethlehem, and what happened later, and we know the Bethlehem thing is an attempt at saying he fulfilled the messianic prophecy. So it is possible they both arrived at that without knowing about one another. Likewise for the presence of the differing genealogy.
However, if they both drew from the same Q-source, you still need to explain why they decided to implement the sayings in different orders from one another, and why they only differ in one saying they picked that is unique to each, otherwise they're all the same.
The Q-hypothesis must then posit that both had access to the same list of sayings, and did some editorial choices about when to insert which saying, sort of a-la-carte from a larger collection of sayings, and happened to get them almost a 1:1 match, but in differing orders. Or you would have to assume the Q source had been bastardized by someone else copying in the wrong order, maybe adding some of their own sayings and Matthew and Luke were both given unique copies of Q they faithfully pulled from and injected into the Mark stuff, and bookended it all with their own birth and resurrection narrative for good measure, and they both wanted him to be the messiah, so that's why there's a lot in common, but not everything.
Both explanations seem like they require a lot of assumptions. Q adds extra steps to try to explain away something that is unlikely but not impossible, and you're still left having to embellish the hypothesis somewhat to make it work.
I don’t think it requires quite as many embellishments as you seem to. I think something like the Bethlehem birth could very easily be attributed to just the oral tradition “Jesus was born in Bethlehem to fulfill the scriptures” that explains why they both knew the story but had quite different tellings of it, the story changed a bit across different places and times.
As to why they use the sayings in different orders, I imagine it’s just part of their stylistic choices because sayings don’t really need any chronology to them, so you can place them wherever you want in the story.
And why they use almost the exact same sayings, maybe Q was didn’t have a lot of sayings or not many that were good/Jesus-y. Also I think it’s likely there was a significant oral tradition regarding the sayings of Jesus, as sayings lend quite well to being said, so there were probably plenty of popular sayings floating around orally, and if they both had Q, they would think something like “oh people are always telling a saying like this and here’s a written version, I’ll include it.” So if you have a list of say 20 sayings that you want to include in your story and a dozen of them everyone knows, you’ll probably use those dozen that everyone is familiar with.
I won’t deny that my explanation requires some embellishment and imagination, but I think it’s all very reasonable and is a simple explanation that doesn’t require there to be a bunch of different sources or intermediate steps
Someone used Matthew 6:9.16 The Lord's Prayer placed on the Marble slab. Is Matthew simply a random job or placed there for purpose?
49:45 I sometimes wonder if this story was included as a warning against all the other Messiahim (Or what is the plural of Messiah?) at the time, of which some like the Sicarii ignited serious uprisings during the time the Gospel of Matthew is thought to be written, as described for instance in Josephus' Judean War.
Starting off with the Geneology that has Joseph/Jesus having a direct link with King David, but then say Mary was pregnant without interference by Joseph is trying to have it both ways
How can Jesus be if the line of David or Abraham if he wasn’t sired by a human but by god directly?
One interesting point about the end of Matthew is that supposedly Jesus commissioned them to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and yet in Acts the disciples Baptize in the name of Jesus. One answer is that the name of all three is, in fact, Jesus but more likely Acts depicts the real thing. An excellent resource on the supposed trinity can be found in "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbon showing the politics, the treachery and even a poisoning happening before the odd 331 AD pronouncement.
I don't know why Matthew (and Luke) retained the section from Mark where Jesus questions Psalm 110 in regards to the messiah being in the line of David. But the passage makes a lot more sense in Mark, where the titles are "christ/messiah" and "son of David" are used only sparingly and usually ambiguously. For Mark, it's part of the mystery of who exactly Jesus was, and a great literary device. The terms are applied to him by others a handful of random times throughout the story, and he ignores or downplays them, to only much later in the story embrace the "messiah" label. He briefly foreshadows it by speaking passively of "because you bear name of christ" when told of other casting out demons in his name, but the climax of the story comes when the high priest reverses Jesus's question to Peter: "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" (This was the answer Peter gave to "who do you say that I am?" back in chapter 8, but Jesus admonished him to tell no one.) To which Jesus responds "I am," embraces YHWH's declaration from Exodus 3, and misquotes Daniel 7:13. He finally accepts the "messiah" and "son of god" labels, and like in any good Greek tragedy, gets killed for it.
Matthew on the other hand was rather hamfisted with his whole presentation, calling Jesus "the messiah" many times throughout the book by the narrator, John the Baptist, and eventually Jesus himself in casual conversation. He provides an explicit genealogy to demonstrate Jesus being a descendant of David, and has many people call him "son of David" throughout the book. He even botches references within corresponding pericopes. For example, Mark has Jesus warn of false messiahs at the destruction of the temple, where Matthew combines this with an earlier claim by Jesus of "many will come in my name" and produces "many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah!’" losing all subtlety. Matthew also has Jesus warning of "the sign of your coming and of the end of the age" in this passage, while Mark has Jesus discussing "the sign that all these things [destruction of the temple] are about to be accomplished." Matthew doesn't get Mark's literary genius at all, and is completely destroying the story just to get a few of his own points into it.
Maybe Matthew was using a Plato-like device here, exactly as Ehrman describes. But I don't think Matthew was smart enough to do that. He more likely misunderstood Mark here just as he does all throughout his gospel.
♥
42:00 I have to say the scene in Matthew where all the Jews condemn themselves seems as ludicrous as the scenes in "Life of Brian" in which the crowds all reply to Brian in unison. eg. "We're all individuals"
I love when Bart shares his knowledge.. im still find debate on Jesus being GOD when it says there is but one GOD, and one Lord Jesus Christ (I'm paraphrasing Corinthians 8).. not sure how they are both the same if it divides them saying they are 2 different things. Please don't be offended, I'm sure Bart would have that answer.
3 days has a Greek concept hidden within that I think may explain its existence... Just as "Athena Parthenos", the perpetually Virgin goddess of Wisdom & War, her temple the "Parthenon" as protectress of Athens, where in 508 B.C. the common people of Athens rose up in rebellion against an usurper & his "spartan" allies, were holed up on the Acropolis (before the Parthenon was built), and it took 3 days or actually as Thucydides described it, "On the morning of the 3rd Day", it took 3 days to climb the steep sides of the Acropolis, and drive the Spartans out... After which, these Athenian citizens were given the Vote, and the first Democracy was instituted! 508 B.C.
Extraordinary events! And perhaps infiltrated, incorporated, and traditionalized into eastern narratives in ways we cannot even imagine!
Even as the middle east retold/ wrote stories like Esther, the only OT book with a female heroine's name, but at the same time, perhaps before, the Athenians created in their young Democracy, a female heroine of far superior qualities, not a persian concubine to an eastern king, but an individual in her own right, who stands by her convictions to her death, inspiring revolutionaries who fight the system, usually at their own peril, ANTIGONE.
Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge, lectures, debates, & discussions online for free, Dr. Bart! Knowledge in any field is required if we are to have any understanding at all, especially in light of the horrors going on today! And perhaps the first century was equally horrific and full of divisions as today! People searched for stories, examples, anything, if only to restore order...
Which tells us what. Human nature has not changed one iota, in millenia!
But for a deep dive into age-old symbols, the beginning of ALL myths & religions, is a fascinating theory involving plasma science and ancient symbols: EDEN & its 4 rivers, may have been IN THE SKIES! Atlantis, too!
On YT: "SYMBOLS OF AN ALIEN SKY, by The Thunderbolts Project.
Sacred mountains, serpents, dragons, and more, explained as never before! It will revolutionize academics, theology, the sciences, and HISTORY! PREHISTORY gave us ALL the stories: our job now is to "Know ourselves", what kind of creatures are we, and how do we organize ourselves, peacefully & as fairly as possible.
Enter, that maze! How do we get out, lol!
first thing to do here, is like, then ask
*”Coming soon” does not explain* Matthew 26:57-64, where Jesus tells Caiaphas that Caiaphas will see the son of man at the right hand of God, etc. Caiaphas died a few years after this supposed meeting, about 36 CE.
The question I have for all these Jesus Seminar fantasy writers is how they explain Tertullian's citation of the Roman archives regarding Pilate's missing euangelion to Tiberius in Book V of his Apology> It is obviously the source of the Gospel of Peter and was written before Saul had his vision of Jesus on the Road to Damascus.
The Gospel of Matthew obviously had access to the Gospel of Mark by the time he and Paul began writing after the Jerusalem Council, in 48 CE, The fantasy that the Gospel of Mark is derivative of Pauline Theology is a Jesus Seminar wet dream, .
Son of David means in the lineage of David; Jesus likely didn’t say anything in the Bible so we might ask what the writers meant by such words
28:43
十 the Christians and all those Cross bearers?
I thought Pilat freed Bwawdwick.
Thanks for making Jesus real.
Thanks for making him more myth than man.
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz read history
@@niquezelensky78 many times that view are debunked. Read the Bible again
@@josuejumalon I literally have a BA in history, and an MA and PhD in the history of ideas. I literally teach the subject for a living. Unlike you, who lives by antiquated dogmas inherited from countless generations past, I actually study and teach about how those ideas were formed across history.
Jose, big fail there pal. You walked into that one bonehead.
@niquezelensky78 hahaha. Still struggling to understand this part of the Bible. It's been explained that this is the just judgment of God to a very sinful nation, even after many warnings given.
The Dead Sea Scrolls talk about the coming of two different messiahs. Why couldn’t the gospels simply be taken a historical fiction stories that used the character of Jesus as a metaphor that represented the messianic movement representing the priestly messiah? The virgin birth, baptism, miracles and teachings, betrayal, death and resurrection all seem to fit the dying and rising hero/god, that writers of the time used as a literary device that was allegorical for transitions. It seems to me that the birth represents the onset of the messianic movements that began in early first century Palestine that culminated and were the ultimate cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (the body of Christ). The Exodus account seems to follow the same typological pattern with Joshua (Jesus) leading God’s chosen people into the promised land to become a nation with a temple to worship him. The story of Jesus seems to be the retelling of the story of the Israelites transitioning from one state of being into another. The Jesus Barrabas represented the militant faction of the messianic movement that was said to have a war like messiah from the line of David, which is clear in Matthew that he’s not a physical descendant of David, but rather a spiritual (priestly) messiah. The fact that both Jesus’ were crucified shows that both were physically destroyed, but because the Jesus movement was a spiritual one, continued onward transitioning into rabbinical Judaism. It also seems to me that the writer of Matthew may very well be a Jew, but a Hellenized pro-Roman Jew living outside of Palestine that is using the story to help other Hellenized Jews understand what happened and how they can continue to live in harmony within the Roman Empire.
And also, being Jewish isn’t passed from mother to offspring instead of through the father?
It is but but the line of David was apparently passed through the male line. And the genealogies seem to reflect that.
I don't think that anyone knows what "Jesus" said or taught. All we have are the letters of "Paul" and the four _anonymously authored_ gospels, each of which never even claims to have met "Jesus". That's not much to hang a halo on.
I think you’re right. Paul gets what Jesus thought and said from visions that probably weren’t real and the gospels are clear myth.
I think the worst thing Dr. Erhman does is when he suggests that plausible things in the gospel are things that Jesus probably really said and did without any evidence besides that it’s in the gospel and there’s nothing to prove it false
I wonder if Matthew didn't realize Jesus died so long ago. Maybe he thought it was only 20 or 30 years. He didn't know he was living in year 80 AD or whenever it was.
Bart do you prefer beef or chickeen
Pork and shellfish.😊
@@mr.c2485 Very detestable from the Levitical point of view. I too enjoy bacon.
@@bigunfunny2322 Makes sense to avoid shellfish if you live in an extremely hot climate with no access to refrigeration. Likely people got sick from eating it at a disproportionate rate, and it became interpreted as a "god doesn't like it when we eat these things" phenomenon.
About pork, it could be something similar, but I think it's perhaps because pork and human meat are apparently quite similar. I know cannibals call humans "long pig" and firefighters sometimes develop an aversion to roast pork and crackling because of stuff they've experienced on the job. There's very good reason to think early judaism had a cannibalistic tradition, as we see it brought up as something you shouldn't do a bit later, indicating it was a response to something that was happening. There's also evidence they did human sacrifice, in the form of burnt offerings. So that's a potential link to when it would have been an issue.
@Lleanlleawrg perhaps, but the average Israelite wouldn't have ever had access to shellfish due to them being hill nomads, versus Philistines and coastal Canaanites likePhonecians who had a constant supply. It would make sense that these dietary laws would be put in place as a cultural measure to separate Israelites from other Canaanite groups.
Pigs aren't efficient to keep for hill nomads, they take forever to grow, need a constant source of water or else they'll cool off in their feces, and had generally become unpopular from the 16th century BCE onwards due to them being perceived as lower class, filthy, and no longer a symbol for masculinity. The cannibal idea is pretty cool. Another thing to consider is early Judaism (moreover Yahwism) most likely did conduct human sacrifices, but these took the form of combat sacrifices instead of alter sacrifices. They're seen among southern Canaanites like Moabites and Midianites and are referred to as "cherem."" This is where a city would be consecrated for their deity and all human/animal life in it for destruction. But I don't find much backing up Israelite cannibalism, unlike alter sacrifices seen in northern Canaanite societies (granted the evidence for those is also circumstantial).
@Mikejjj what kind of fish I like salmon
the genealogy of Jesus is one of the reasons that the Jewish people do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah because to not say that he must be a descendant of David
The Virgin birth Doctrine is very questionable and just lends to more confusion
There's also the problem they contradict each other in Luke and Matthew.
They don't agree on Joseph's father or which son of David is in Jesus's bloodline. At least one of them is incorrect.
"Son of David" introduces the Absalom section of the synoptics. "Son of David" heals a blind man, readers, look at what I am doing now. Absalom enters Jerusalem triumphant. David forgives traitors at the waters of the Jordan. Absalom's two main advisors die by hanging and gutting, the only two to die in such ways except Judas dying both ways in two different gospels. Psalms 110 (how can he be the son of David) is the most cited chapter of the OT cited in the NT. Footstools and Melchizedek (Adonizedek) are both from Jesus (Nun)'s conquest of the king of Jerusalem by hanging him on a tree, taking him down by sunset, and throwing his body in a cave and rolling large stones in front of said cave. Prior to Jesus killing the king of Jerusalem, he has the princes of Israel step on the neck of the king of Jerusalem. The author of Matthew, here quoting Mark, is making references to past literature to build a Jesus out of thin air.
I so miss ABC subReddit!
You lost me at Footstools.
The Lord says to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies your footstool.”
2 The Lord sends out from Zion
your mighty scepter.
Rule in the midst of your foes.
3 Your people will offer themselves willingly
on the day you lead your forces
on the holy mountains.[a]
From the womb of the morning,
like dew, your youth[b] will come to you.
4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”[c]@@lawsonj39
There are only two places where leaders do the ceremonial stepping on the necks of the vanquished, which would qualify as making your enemies your footstool. The fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, and the killing of the king of Jerusalem by Jesus (Joshua) son of Nun. (Both of these provide a lot of fodder to create the story of Jesus of Nazareth, IMHO this is because the central theme of the gospels was the warnings to prevent the fall of Jerusalem using a mashup of OT Jesuses.
Maybe… Q was marcions gospel😂😮
I appreciate the intellectual humility but lets be real bro just said "I don't know" to most of these questions
That's a Chinese symbol for 10
Dr Ehrman, the whole question of Jesus being written as born in Bethlehem in two contradicting and clearly nonsensical stories, to fulfill the prophecy (which someone born in Nazareth) as the messiah being descendant from David...
... While at the same time some gospels say Mary was a Virgin and son of god. Like literary.
It's there a clear evolution of this?
Like... First written gospel Jesus is Nazarene and not son of god, just the messiah.
Second he is from Bethlehem
Third another Bethlehem story and Jesus more divine
Fourth forgets about Jesus fulfillment of Jewish scriptures, he is fully divine, son of god
23:44 Jesus said to me, that he did this in order to prove John's wrong. Mathiew wrote it to show the same and to attract Johns headless followers. Christians will never understand this.
People are wrong to suppose that Joseph could not have been the biological father of Jesus or that (as a virgin) Mary could not have given birth to Joseph’s biological son. Have the doubters never heard of in vitro fertilization?
AMA MEANS TO LOVE IN SPANISH SO THE TITLE OF THE VIDEO ACTUALLY MEANS: LOVE THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 😂😂😂!!
Actually, the verb “to love” in Spanish is “amar”, not AMA 😂.
3:35
But you did yourself say once that the gospels weren't written earlier because no one thought to write them down, since the end of days was coming.
So then, why would the author write it down so many years later, presumably when the end times are even MORE imminent than ever before - since the generation is about to pass...?
I'd guess because there would now be multiple generations of younger people who weren't alive when Jesus was and needed to be told what he said
to keep the law UNTIL ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED! verse 18 Did Jesus accomplish his task, yes
Oh contrare. If Jesus conquered sin and death, why does it depend on us for it to take effect? Is god codependent?
If he simply provided a “way out” then why doesn’t he do it again for us after OUR deaths? That would be a true sacrifice.
It WILL take effect regardless, but not until 'after' the prophesied tribulation breaks out which is not His doing, but ours. It is God's ultimate plan to rescue us from our own mess. Jesus is the immortal heir apparent and will rule on this earth. @@mr.c2485
"Did Jesus accomplish his task, yes "
No he didn't. He hasn't returned to judge the living and the dead yet. We're still here.
And he never will come back either by the way. He was just some guy who started what to me looks like it was a gay cult.
@@Lleanlleawrgyou're mistaken, Jesus himself said he accomplished everything.
Jesus fulfilled the law = Saving fulfills the law.
We're not under law, we're under saving, not causing destruction, covers infinite laws.
@@mariaandreaspashi1931 Well, what he actually is quoted as saying in Mark 5 is:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
So you see, he tells us that he came to fulfill the law, but he also says that's not happened yet.
Given that he was an apocalyptic preacher who thought the world was ending soon in his lifetime, the fulfillment he's talking about is when the world ends. Thus, he said that you should obey these old laws until the end of the world, or else you'll be denied entry to heaven.
Fortunately I don't believe we should follow those old laws, or Jesus either for that matter. This is a problem for religious people, not for me.
52:44
christianity is the only religion i know of where god himself temporarily becomes an atheist because of how horrible it is to be a human. jesus asks why god has forsaken him. god himself feels separated from god and so atheism itself becomes a part of divinity.
is it possible that Matthew did not copy from anyone but wrote the book of Matthew based on what he witnessed happened as he was with Jesus during his ministry?
Matthew could have been alluding to the TRANSFIGURATION which was only 6 days after he spoke, found in the very next verse!
Probably not though. There are no angels. He doesn't reward everyone according to their deeds. And none of he disciples had died (only some would live to see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom). He's clearly talking about Judgment day.
Jesus uses undulation of speech, he was prepping them for the vision...ie: verse 12&13 @@ryanrevland4333
Definitely not the transfiguration. That was a preview of what was soon to come. The Day of the Lord. Wrath would be let loose on those who didn't repent and accept Jesus as messiah.
exactly, a preview of what was to come, what is yet to come@@dustinellerbe4125
Bart "Woefully Ignorant" Ehrman. Thanks IP!!
IP really is hilariously silly 😂
Bart says that he doesn't know why Jesus intensifies the law, but he knows that this is a part of Jesus' PUBLIC teaching and that Jesus tells us the context of his public teachings in Mark. 4.
That context is that his teachings are intended to deceive people about the urgent need to repent and obey the law, because the day of judgement is coming, 'within their lifetime'.
He says he can't publicly teach the truth about that, because they will then repent.
Unlike Paul, Jesus said the only route to salvation was repentance and obedience. Not, as Paul insists, believing that he had come here as a celestial whipping boy to pay the price for our sins.
Now that we have the context of his public preaching, we can see that he intensifies the law to raise the bar so high people won't even bother to try and earn salvation.
Christians take these, 'teachings' to mean that Jesus was so holy and above the human condition that he was inspiring the crowd to up their game, but he tells the disciples it is actually to discourage people from repenting.
We know that Jesus himself didn't meet this lofty standard. When he started trashing the temple he was in a fit of rage.
Why Jesus didn't want the great unwashed in his shiny new Kingdom on Earth is not explained. However, it's not too difficult to guess that he was looking forward to an easy gig as the ruler of a kingdom of the righteous and the law abiding.
That wouldn't be the case if sinful people snuck in under the wire by repenting at the last minute, because they knew that God was coming to throw them in the fire some day soon.
The fact that he was happy to look these men, women and children in the eye, all while believing he was tricking them into a literal death by flame, gives us an insight into the real character of the man.
He was a self centred narcissist, devoid of empathy for the human condition.
When he was hanging on that cross, he cried out, 'My God, why have you humiliated me?'.
He'd been telling his disciples that he was going to be crowned the King of the Jews. Now they were watching him die by the most humiliating method the Romans could devise.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. 🙄
Talk about poetic justice ...
That's pretty much my take on it too. I've thought of him as a narcissistic manchild for a while now, and it shines through very clearly in the gospel of Mark, if you know anything about the psychology of narcissism, and about cult mechanics.
If you're a Christian, I can understand not seeing it, because you're wearing rose-tinted goggles and you make excuses for him.
But as a non-Christian, you don't accept that he was anything very special, just some guy, and then you have to explain the things he supposedly said and did some other way.
For me, the best framework for understanding his alleged words and actions is to focus on the gospel of Mark and exclude everything else, because they were later fanfic works trying to shoehorn him into some narrative they wanted to tell.
When you look at Jesus as he appears in the gospel of Mark, and you don't grant him any special status beyond just being some guy, and you don't allow for miracles to be real, because that'd be magic, and as an adult I don't believe in magic..
Well, you're kinda left with this man who decided one day he was the most special boy ever, and decided to surround himself with people - originally random fishermen he convinced to join him - and starts building a cult centered around himself. He shows anger, confusion and other very human attributes we'd expect to see.
It's not until the later Matthew and Luke, and especially John where we get to see the more idealized versions of Jesus, and even those are not remotely convincing to me.
I am a MYTHICIST.
Matthew's antagonism toward jews who chose not to follow Jesus reminds me of the antipathy Luther displayed toward Jews after they did not accept his own teachings.
How about Annika I a don’t really know what you don’t telling the truth brother what really going on?
Bart, WTF are you saying that Jesus doesn't amplify circumcision in Matthew?! It's in Mt 19:12!
Jesus did give the Jewish leaders a woefully hard time during his ministry, but he gave his own disciples at least an equally hard time. How about, are you still so dull, or you of little faith, or get behind me Satan, and there’s plenty more, all directed against his own disciples, so I don’t think he could be called anti Jewish, maybe just anti ignorance.
Is it that Jesus got a bad headache and nearly died in hospital for 3 days?
Why should I believe Dr. Bart Erhman, the man who himself has lost his faith?
You should not necessarily believe him . he may be an honest man, but how would you know that?
And even an honest man can be wrong about things .
But unless you’re willing to learn all those languages and do several years of scholarship I don’t think you have much reason to doubt him. There is no question that he knows his Bible probably far better than you do
@robertunderwood1011 Yes, but for many prominent biblical scholars, critical scholarship has provoked no crisis of faith. It seems to me that accumulation of knowledge does not nessecarely lead to atheism. One of the examples is, for instance, N.T.Wright.
Hello Doc. It struck me as Obtuse that Jesus used a Plato puzzle trick on a guy who he knows if he doesn't figure it out, since the consolation prize is a huge lake of fire where he will burn for ever and can't even die. I find the ice cold nature of these loving gods astounding. Gods, what Joker's they are.
It's not the gospel of Matthew. It's the gospel according to Matthew, huge difference.
Pedantry my love, it’s not just a thing around your neck.
@ThroneofDavid Oh really?
What's the difference?
@@davidantonacci9525
About 50 years.
@@mr.c2485I don't get it?
@@davidantonacci9525
The original gospel wasn’t written by Matthew. 50 years later the “gospel according to Matthew” was copied by another author who probably wasn’t Matthew himself. This author simply referred to Matthew in his translation which was written in Greek which Matthew didn’t speak or write. Matthew, mark, luke, and probably John we’re All illiterate. There is some talk of them using scribes to help write their books, but these guys were fisherman. They could hardly afford to pay a scribe even if a scribe agreed to help them write their accounts, which scholars doubt they would. What we think are the “big four” today were nobodies back then.
Jesus (Judas) performed no miracles, no resurrections, prophesied nothing, no revelations, not even rapture, But he could read and write & the Bible holds the receipts.
I find it odd that many of our trusted Christian church leaders,both true blue & lipstick varieties, are quick to assert Christ’s illiteracy while attributing all sorts of magical nonsense to his name. How you gonna elevate this guy to god-tier status, yet preach he can’t read? Of course God reads, reads great!writes great too! Jesus according to Christians is the real deal, the whole Enchilda, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha & the Omega, yet also according to them he can’t write Alpha or Omega. That’s crazy thinking, blasphemy even, all the best stuff in the Bible was written by Jesus.
Receipts?
Jesus Christ (Didymus Judas Thomas) authored The Gospel of Thomas.
Read here the opening lines of The Gospel of Thomas (Leloup Translation)…
“These are the words of the Secret. They were revealed by the Living Yeshua. Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down.”
Note the unusual use of the word “revealed” here in place of common language you’ll find of “said/spoken”.
The unusual doubling of the Twin generic descriptor, sandwiching the common Judas name.
Didymus = Twin (Greek) Judas = Name Thomas = Twin (Aramaic)
Judas, according to the Bible, was a brother & devoted servant of Jesus Christ (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55; Jude 1). His twin (Acts of Thomas). The spiritual (divine) Christ paired to the physical (human) Judas. Jesus WAS Judas. In the Gospel of Thomas there were no miracles, no resurrections. Jesus predicted no future events, he was no prophet, no revelations or rapture. All prophesy attributed (falsely) to Jesus was culled from the Hebrew OT and retrofitted as Roman propaganda to co-opt, conflate & corrupt Judaism w/ the upstart Jesus’ movement, neatly consolidating control of both under Rome, effectively killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
So how then did Jesus know Judas would betray him? Simple, he (Jesus/Judas) turned himself in & cut a deal with Pilate to fake crucifixion avoiding further unrest in the Jewish population (exactly what you would hope for & expect from a Jesus). The deal was after the crucifix fake-out Jesus would bounce & so he did becoming St.Thomas/St.Jude traveling far & wide, converting about a billion more ppl to Christianity before dying in his 100s.
A few additional odds & ends that support this info above (greatly abridged for time).
1. NT Jude 1:1 identifying Judas as a brother to James but a “servant” of Jesus.
2. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas (apostle of Jesus), Ch. 216 - Judas takes on appearance of Jesus, later crucified in Jesus’ place.
3. St. Jude is most often depicted wearing a giant medallion around his neck with the life-sized head of Jesus on it, that’s 2000 yrs before modern rappers made this a thing & fashionable. They literally got Jude walking around, spreading Christ’s word “wearing the face of Jesus”. The truth hidden in plain sight.
4. In sharp contrast to the synoptic Gospels’ liberal use of the sayings in Thomas’ Gospel, chopping them up and sprinkling them about freely, The Gospel of John contains far fewer examples of overlapping content with The Gospel of Thomas. This drop off due to the fact of John being authored in direct opposition to Thomas. A point by point takedown and smear campaign (e.g., “Doubting Thomas”, Faith trumps Knowledge) targeting Thomas to discredit and flush out the remaining followers of early Christ movements, movements still having legs and remaining popular despite the introduction and heavy promotion of the 3 synoptic Gospels being widely disseminated across all Roman territories. John’s underlying agenda accounts for the dramatic shift in tone, structure & narrative, making a clean break from messaging of synoptic Gospels. John was a hit piece against early Christians/Gnostics, Rome couldn’t just steal it, they had to kill it.
Every book in the New Testament was written before the war between the Jews and the Romans began in 67 AD because after the war in Jerusalem, things were never the same again..
Incorrect. Only the letters were written prior to 70. Possibly Mark but unlikely.
Revelation was certainly not before 70 AD
@onejohn2.26. You don't know that for sure.
@ryanrevland4333 So you're saying Matthew Luke and John witnessed a destroyed temple in Jerusalem and wrote absolutely nothing about it.
@@LivingSoul1 no one knows anything for sure just as you don't know for sure that they were written before the destruction of the second temple
however if you look online you can see what the scholars say about when the different books were written
Paul is the false Apostles spoken of in Revelation 2:2
Why do crazy people always care so much about what is mentioned in revelation?
no u are
@@Greyz174
do some research before you post ignorance
@@onejohn2.26. :0
All he had to do was pretend to have a vision and took over the whole movement
May Lord and saviour Jesus Christ guide bart ehrman to return to Christianity.
Or he'll go to hell for infinite years? Cmon bruh. That's an obvious hustle.
Why bother discussing drivel?
Because a lot of mankind takes it seriously and commits actions based upon it, even causing unnecessary harm because of it. Same reason for why ought we discuss mental illness. Because it greatly effects a lot of people. Until a problem is solved and wiped out, it will always warrant discussion. This is how life is, its full of problems to address.
Dr. Bartman made a significant mistake saying that Abraham, peace be upon him, was the father of the Jews. The Quran, which came from God almighty, which is "the last Testament" is saying that Abraham was Not a Jew or Christian, he was a "submitter" which is the meaning of what a Muslim is stating the following: ﴿مَا كَانَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّا وَلَا نَصْرَانِيًّا وَلَٰكِن كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُّسْلِمًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ﴾
[ آل عمران: 67]
English - Sahih International3:67 Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists.
He’s talking about what is believed by the people writing in this tradition. In reality Abraham is probably a mythical figure, which is what I presume Dr. Ehrman would say if you asked him what was historically true, as opposed to what was the contemporary view.
maybe the Quran made a mistake
@@Greyz174 It made many...
@@bloodgrss oh no !!
@@Greyz174 oh yes !!
❤
23:04
36:15