Can the New Testament Possibly Be True?

Wondrium allows you to stream 8,000+ hours of lectures and documentaries in the areas of history, religion, and science, including several courses by Dr. Ehrman. *Sign up for a free trial at bartehrman.com/wondrium.
Visit www.bartehrman.com/courses/ to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
----------------------------
Many people say that the New Testament cannot be true because we don’t know exactly what the authors originally wrote, or because there are contradictions in it, or because some of the books were not written by their alleged authors, or because there are historical mistakes. But even if these things are true, does that mean the New Testament cannot be true - on some level?
Bart and Megan discuss:
Why is the question of the "truth" of the New Testament important?
If it is "true," in what sense?
Is truth in fiction the same as truth in nonfiction?
Does the fact that we don't know who wrote the gospels impact their "truth"?
If a book of the bible is a forgery, does that make it necessarily untrue?
The question of authorship versus veracity is complicated.
If one part of a writing is verifiably true, does mean it's all true?
What kind of questions do historians try to verify?
What criteria do historians use to determine genre (what is history, what is poetry, etc.)?
The Gospels are biographies, but are not trying to tell an objective, chronological story.
Ancient writers were interested in getting at the essence of a person, rather than the particular historical details of his life.
If people read the Gospels as history rather than as they were intended, they miss the message of the writer.
The Book of Revelation is a particular genre, not meant as prophetic literature.
Paul's Epistles ARE meant to be read as factual.
Some people read the bible like a ouija board; some cherry-pick it like a jigsaw puzzle.
Is the response of the modern reader a kind of truth? Can it lead to bad interpretations?
Listeners Questions:
If a scribe changes a text, is that divinely inspired?
When did Christians start believing the scriptures were inerrant?
Does Paul think men & women are equal when he says "in Christ, there is no male or female..."?
First Corinthians 15:29 talks about baptizing the dead. Did Paul intend people to do this?
*Advertising Disclaimer: We are an affiliate partner for Wondrium, so if you sign up for a paid plan with them, we will earn a commission. This in no way affects your price and you’ll be supporting our show, so we thank you.

[@finnguy9096]

When I first started following Bart, I was going through deconversion and appreciated him, because of the facts about the NT that he provides in an easy to understand form. Now I find my appreciation for him has grown, because he treats other people's convictions with respect. He promotes thinking about sacred writings in philosophical ways even if you don't subscribe to fundamentalism. That has been thought provoking. I want to grow as a person so that I could have such a nuanced view.

[@ounkwon6442]

@Joseph a believer of Bart?

[@ounkwon6442]

@Joseph 'a believer in God'? What do you refer to? To yourself? What does it mean by 'believe in God'? What God? Which God? Whose God? God of Jews? God of Catholics? of Mormons? of Muslims? God of Asbury revivals in full swing now?🙃

[@ounkwon6442]

@Joseph I'm from Mars . Anyone can (and should) appreciate any atheist's argument, including Bart much more so. Have you heard rabbi Tovia Singer? I do appreciate him very much. He challenges Christians. Esp. Christians of wrong doctrines, e.g. Trinity God, Virgin Birth, God Jesus, Jesus Messiah (he is not, he is Christian Christ, which is different from Jewish Messiah).

[@sethflores1680]

@Joseph I'm a Christian and listening to differing ideas don't frighten me. But I do think it's the other way around. If a conservative Christian speaks at a liberal university, then guess what? That's right - his speech is stifled or gets shouted down. Now, if a liberal shows up at a conservative university to speak, he/she is shown respect, and allow to be heard. So now who is afraid of differing ideas? Christians have passed through the fire - we know what it's like to be ostracized or hated. The words of Jesus are fulfilled by the actions of men.

[@basedgamerguy818]

​@@sethflores1680it's because they don't have serious ideas to express. They just want to go back to how things were. People don't have any interest in going back to the past.

[@lamalama9717]

Regardless of the actual content or his views, Bart brings such an infectious nerdy enthusiasm for his subject.

[@halgilley8940]

I watched several debates between James White and Bart Ehrman but one stood out among the others. Both men are exceptionally talented in their fields with many years experience. The debate I am mentioning is one where Bart Ehrman specifically asks James White if he knows worldly scholars and reads them one by one, James White replies, he does not know of them. The people on that list were highly respected biblical scholars. James White currently only surrounds himself with inner Circle Sycophants.

[@hannahstraining7476]

I'm an English professor, and Bart's explanation of "genre" as a contract between author and audience is brilliant. I'm going to steal that from him. In my discipline, "genre" is usually defined as a set of literary conventions. There are genres and sub-genres and sub-sub genres and hybrid genres and genre-bending genres, but in all cases, the "genre" tells the reader/audience (think film genres here as well) what to expect and how to make meaning of the text. I remember reading in one of Bart's books that in antiquity, narrative texts tended to be a blend of history, myth, fiction and poetry. No one in antiquity would have read (or heard) the gospels as literal, factual history in the modern sense. Even the miracles credited to Jesus were standard, "generic" acts. Religious leaders performed miracles in the same way that our modern-day superheroes have super powers; miracles and super powers are part of their respective genres. But we don't really love superheroes because of their super powers. We love them because they fight the bad guys, help the people, and make the world a better place. The idea that they can fly, or levitate things, or have super-human strength is really just a metaphor for their super goodness.

[@Larry30102]

As a Christian (now deconverted), I basically used the Bible in a devotional style. For me that was gods word to me. I was naive and thought the history was 100% correct, so I just didn’t pay that much attention to facts and history, or any context it held. Bart I feel hold the right approach to the Bible and history. Thanks for everything.

[@adampatrick4917]

Such a great channel! I’ve listened to so many videos that I’ve noticed I can “hear” Dr. Ehrman’s voice and inflection when I read his books. 😂

[@adolphsanchez1429]

He echoes my feelings regarding Christmas. I'm an atheist but find religious texts fascinating in terms of the origins of the myths they contain and how they evolved over time. Unlike many atheists, I believe Jesus (whether that was his name or not) was a historical individual. We know there was a lost "Q" gospel which contained the teachings of Jesus. I believe, as many scholars do, that aspects of Jesus' biography, especially the supernatural elements such as the virgin birth, turning water into wine, the resurrection, etc. were added to these preexisting teachings. You can see how the gospels which were written at different times, contain contradictions while using elements from both the "Q" gospel and those borrowed from the previous gospel. Jesus' teachings are great, but it's the insanity of "original sin" and the idea that Jesus "died for your sins" that make his followers so delusional as they ignore Jesus' example while becoming obsessed with his "divinity" and the reward of Heaven by accepting Jesus as their "lord and savior."

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

*_"We know there was a lost "Q" gospel which contained the teachings of Jesus."_* How cool would it be is someone found a complete copy of that, hidden in an ancient cave, written on lead leaves and sealed inside a granite jar? {:o:O:}

[@jordanferguson7425]

Small correction. We do not know there was a "Q" gospel, we suppose it based on evidence. There is a difference

[@basedgamerguy818]

​@@thevulture5750believing an old collection of books are divine is supposing

[@travisdiveley1652]

They've been BAMBOOZLED with partial TRUTH. Heaven is Offered, but Jesus Christ Said It Will Cost Us. Relationships and Covenants are Two-way. REPENTANCE isn't a One-time thing either. We can't live like the Devil and also get into the Dance! Those people are believing A Myth- Lie and potential Disaster. The Only time you get rewarded for BAD , is if you and your colleagues are EVIL and Wicked.!

[@J_Z913]

Another amazing episode. Definitely made my Christmas shopping much more enjoyable. 😄 Keep it up and safe travels!

[@dynamic9016]

Love listening to Dr. Bart Ehrman.

[@davidbarrett590]

Well I did not think that I would be getting cooking tips from you two!! More seriously, this discussion of the relative meaning of truth was fascinating.

[@chadgarber]

Great video. I enjoyed it. I would love a video going deeper into the origins of the doctrine of "Inerrancy of the Bible". Like are there early periods that show hints of this doctrine, and how it developed, etc.

[@CharlesPayet]

Agreed. It would be interesting to learn how far back that extends.

[@amth3400]

Topic start at 3:51

[@grannykiminalaska]

I'm really enjoying these. Thank you for doing them

[@Lfppfs]

Another enlightening episode, thank you Bart and Megan!

[@pipsosborn9356]

Truly enlightening session! Thank you Pippa, South Africa

[@vinegar10able]

It reminds me of performing music. You have to understand the style and context in which it was originally composed, but also understand you are quoting (performing) it in a different context to a modern audience.

[@mojoman2001]

Reading sheet music does involve interpretation. As does reading any meaningful text. The trick is recognizing that it is not precisely identical every time you read or perform it. Nor does everyone in the audience take the same meaning away from it. Everyone probably takes something different. Uniformity of meaning is a falsity among individuals and even within the same individual over time.

[@paulokas69]

The gospel writers wanted to put the Old Testament in Jesus. For example, when Jesus walks on water, in Mark 6, this is a depiction of Genesis 1"And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" As the miracles of the multiplication of bread, in the Old Testament Elijah had multiplied flour and oil to save a widow and her son from starvation and Elisha multiplied 20 barley loaves so as to feed 100, with some even left over. But in the Gospel, Jesus multiplies 5 barley loaves and feeds 5,000, leaving 12 baskets left over.

[@garysherwood8902]

Can’t wait to watch this new episode. Love Dr. Erhman and your great interviews. Both of you look so nice too….. cool glasses for the doc…. Great hair for the host….. have a great holidays…. Stay warm.

[@chipnewtonguitarmusic546]

I suffer from insomnia and usually I find myself listening to Megan and Bart around 3:30am every night. I listen to each podcast twice once during the day and once at night when I can't sleep. They have such calming voices and I feel like they are familiar friends now lol

[@MaxGoof]

"Today we're talking about the truth..." I actually laughed out loud because that's quite a loaded premise. I have enjoyed the entire series and look forward to the rest to come. Dr. Ehrman, I've read every book of yours that I have been able to get my hands on. Thank you for your work and dedication to challenging the status quo and driving people to examine what they believe and why.

[@plotinuswashere]

​@@thevulture5750 you can't handle the truth

[@plotinuswashere]

@@thevulture5750 I was just quoting jack nicholson 🥴

[@plotinuswashere]

@@thevulture5750 sorry, not interested

[@Phoenix-lc7jv]

What an interesting discussion. I learned about the concept of “truth” and history.

[@davidk7529]

There’s another story like the loaves and two fishes one… It’s called Stone Soup. Though presented as a fable and thus not likely to have _literally_ happened, it is _physically more likely_ according to our common knowledge of physical phenomena. The more important difference, though, is that when we tell the Stone Soup story, we make the intended point unavoidably clear by acknowledging that it is a fable designed specifically for that purpose, while even giving direct hints at what was actually happening (spoiler: not a miracle!). As soon as we start attaching assumptions of literal events, we get distracted and gradually pull away from the originally intended fundamental truth of the story… which is exactly the same for both of these *fables.*

[@SadisticSenpai61]

Mom always collects grease. I think she mostly uses it to make gravy, but probably other stuff as well. She's got a mug she keeps on the stove that's dedicated to it. Meanwhile, not having to bother with grease is a large part of the reason why I decided when I moved out that I wasn't going to cook meat - I didn't want to deal with the hassle. I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian, but I do not like cooking meat.

[@Dragoon803]

Thank you both for this. As a former Christian I have been on a personal journey of discovery trying to see if religion has some benefit that's worth keeping or if I should cast it aside all together. Would humans as a whole be better off without religion? Should I become an Anti-theist or stay Agnostic? The discussion on different kinds of truth was very enlightening and gives me a lot to think about. I now realize that I will need to use these different perspectives on truth in order to reach my goal. Thank you for helping me along my way.

[@Mighty_Deeds]

Have you considered Islam? That’s the religion…

[@mugikuyu9403]

I think specific religions can be cast aside but religious thinking cannot. Even people who are atheists and materialists hold religious views and I’d point to the transgender movement as being essentially a religious movement that’s mainly composed of atheists and liberal Christian’s.

[@mugikuyu9403]

@@Mighty_Deeds Islam is truly one of the religions of the time. I’d recommend we all stay away from Islam. In 1440 years Islamic civilisation has achieved nothing of import to humanity.

[@jackfrosterton4135]

@@mugikuyu9403 And neuroscientists, if what you're describing as a 'movement' is just the legitimacy of the biological phenomenon. (search some questions on google scholar to follow up)

[@mugikuyu9403]

@@jackfrosterton4135 There’s as much evidence for a ‘gender identity’ as there is a soul, and that’s to say there’s zero evidence. In fact, the only way a person could be born in the ‘wrong’ body is if there is such a thing as an immaterial soul and a ‘male soul’ happens to go into a ‘female body’ or vice versa. If you are a materialist then the notion that anyone could be born in the wrong body is ridiculous in its face. Do you know what anorexia nervosa is? It’s very very real. It often affects young women and basically makes someone who is thin view themselves as being fat or overweight. This mismatch between one’s perception of themselves and the reality of who they are leads to severe weight loss that can lead to death. It is a very dangerous disease and we obviously have loads and loads of evidence that it exists, but the fact that anorexia nervosa exists and can kill people does not mean that a person who is otherwise a normal weight is overweight simply because they perceive themselves to be so. Likewise, even if a trans person perceives themselves to have been born in the wrong body it doesn’t mean that they were. I’m willing to accept that someone can view themselves as female even though they are male, but I will never ever be willing to pretend that their wrong perception of themself therefore dictates the actual reality, and this is the fundamental issue with the trans movement. What I don’t understand is why the LGB community have decided that they will tie themselves to the T when being homosexual and being trans are so ver very different to each other. But I suppose that’s where the moral crusade comes in. And, I repeat, there’s zero evidence whatsoever for someone being assigned the wrong gender at birth. That’s not even how any of it works. It’s crazy to me that otherwise rational atheistic materialists have bought into such nonsensical religious dogmas simply because this new religion clothes itself in the garb of civil rights and fights for the supposedly oppressed and their innate right to self-delusion. Interestingly we do have evidence from brain scans that the brains of homosexual and heterosexual people are different, and we even have some evidence that men and women have somewhat different brain sizes, but we have zero evidence of an inherently ‘female’ brain or an inherently ‘male’ brain.

[@aaronlogan_music]

Loving this podcast!

[@kilemockett6070]

Such a great episode!!! Thank you for this! ❤

[@MichaelYoder1961]

Great episode and Merry Christmas!

[@Loenthall88]

A very good discussion. Thank you.

[@edwardroberts7712]

I always get so much from these conversations. One thing stood out about the way old texts are read and interpreted (and I apologize if this is politically offensive to anyone): How the US Constitution is interpreted by the "strict constructionists" compared to how the country, world, people, and technology have changed even in the two centuries since it was written. In this discussion it's millennia.

[@davethebrahman9870]

What is the point of a Constitution that is simply reinterpreted according to current views of correct principles? It isn’t what the States signed ul to. There is a procedure in the Constitution for abolishing its provisions; judicial activism merely gets around the proper method for revision by forced interpretation of Constitutional principles.

[@kaneinkansas]

@@davethebrahman9870 It depends upon who is doing the activism, no? For instance, in Citizen's United the court found that in politics, money=speech and therefor cannot be regulated. But it is clear, that the framers who wrote the constitution were struggling with the age old problem: "what to do about the psychopath?" who attempts to concentrate power unto themselves? One of their answers was to divide the government up into branches, and to place checks and balances upon those branches. The Preamble of the Constitution lays out the general intent of the constitution (establish Justice, domestic peace, defense, promote overall Welfare, and secure freedom/liberty) but beyond that, in its clear by the architecture of the constitution they were concerned with the concentration of power. One does not need to obtain a PhD to understand and know certain truths. As the declaration of independence says, some truths are self evident. Almost any idiot on two legs knows that money = power. In the context of politics, in the context where one of the main purposes of the constitution is to check the concentration of power, and to note that money is, obviously, a form of power; it is against the stated and implied purpose of the constitution to not regulate money in politics. On the other hand, do we really need to amend the constitution to say that where it refers to a right of men/man, it also applies equally to women? Or do we need to pass an amendment that says all rights granted to men are also granted to women as well?

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@kaneinkansas Yes, I think your example is a good one, the decision involves a linguistic contortion not found in the original frame. I’m not sure about ‘psychopaths’ being the reason for reciprocal restraint between the branches; I would rather see it as related to the Enlightenment principle ‘Power corrupts’

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@kaneinkansas With regard to your point about the natural and implicit meanings to be ‘discovered’ within the document, such may indeed exist, but I don’t think the examples given are apposite. ‘All men’ in the 18th century could mean either ‘all adult males’ or ‘all humans’, so it really isn’t a stretch to include women, and requires no particular hermeneutic innovation. On the other hand, the claim that money equals power simply doesn’t reflect the original intention of the authors. Money may well usually lead to power, but ir is also a form of fungible property. Had the authors of the Constitution intended to limit property rights in order to restrain power, they no doubt would have done so openly. So I would say that judicial activism along this line is unconstitutional. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the constitution couldn’t be amended to widen power over property, merely that it is a political issue to be agitated other than by the courts.

[@panaceatexas317]

@@kaneinkansas think the other main way the founders set out to limit power, rather from a singular “psychopath” or the corruption by power itself, was a minimal federal government. Originally the states were supposed to be in control of most things within themselves. Also that the presidency was only supposed to be the leader of the armed forces. Congress was supposed to make all the decisions. When it comes to money corrupting. I think what most of the founders would have had the biggest issue with was a national bank. Especially one that can print fiat money almost endlessly, assume large debt on the nations behalf to buy voting blocks and cause inflation with in the money supply while doing it. I’m not even sure what the constitution says about the government’s ability to do this.

[@aj7009]

Enjoying your Channel's improvement 👍

[@Hamann9631]

Near the end Bart gave an accurate description of the baptisms for the dead of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thank you, Bart.

[@juannifer32]

When it comes to someone saying they are inspired by God then who wrote scripture definitely matters and then of course we need to know if this person is known to be a liar. They could have their own agenda. People pushed agenda in the name of God or called themselves God very often. So knowing who writes words of God and says it's from God it's important to know the authorship.

[@danielp2937]

I don't think it's that interesting to inquire whether the writers of the texts were "liars" or "making things up". In my imagining the writers were working within the traditions and trying to do something, I'm thinking about Crossan's ideas about prophecy historicised, and innovations in the texts as acts of creation. I wish we knew more about the writers.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@danielp2937 Non-Christian point to illustrate how things do matter: think of Mohammed as author of the Quran. Does it matter?

[@CK-dz8fo]

Wau! always happy to hear Dr. Ehrman's lecture! I am not a believer, but I'd love to learn about the historian Jesus and the truth of the Bible. Dr. Ehrman is an amazing scholar!

[@MrScotchpie]

Dr. Ehrman is fantastic. I'm reading about the historical Jesus in the book by Dr. Tabor, who I think is a friend of Bart and filled in for him due to his recent family sadness a few weeks ago. Its called The Jesus Dynasty. Fascinating read. Speculative but based on evidence and reason.

[@ANCIENTWARRI0R]

@@MrScotchpie If you like that book you might like Dr. Tabor’s other book called Paul and Jesus.

[@DragovianMythiX]

Since you like Ehrman's lectures, I won't need to tell you about the Bible. However, in case you didn't yet, also check out Judaism and Islam. The former rejects Jesus, while the latter embraces Jesus.

[@nasonguy]

I would recommend you check out the Bible Project here on youtube. It is a Christian channel and project, but they really bring to light a lot of the beauty, nuance, and truth of the Bible.

[@Nexus-jg7ev]

@@nasonguy By truth I assume you mean the moral truths of the stories that it contains? Or do you mean the literal truth of these stories as accurate historical accounts?

[@3000waterman]

Paused at 21:00 This is SO much more interesting because this clever girl can offer extra snippets of information, and form questions. With Tabor we're just given a monologue.

[@AfroRU6246]

Hahaha

[@giuseppemannino5204]

thank you dott Bart ehrman,✌️

[@lostfan5054]

I would like Bart to maybe do a video about the different denominations of Christians. Like, what's the diff between Presbyterian, Episcopal, Pentecostal, Methodist, Baptist, etc...

[@machintelligence]

Proposed title: “The Joy of Sects “

[@chrisgibson5267]

@@machintelligence We are not worthy.

[@ianwassink7664]

That would be interesting but it’s not his area of scholarship unless it’s a question on how did such and such theological idea grow and develop, get first mentioned, etc.?

[@cygnustsp]

@@r0ky_M interestingly, Bart says that JEHOVAH's Witnesses got a lot right about very early Christian beliefs. I quit that cult because it's corrupt but it's hard to argue that Jesus or Paul believed the Trinity or immortality of the soul.

[@cygnustsp]

@@r0ky_M yes he did. Watchtower had used him as an example of honest Bible researchers in the past, before they showed up of course. Trinity defenders are pretty cute in that their definition of God wraps up all the inconsistencies. I think there's very little defense for the immortality of the soul anywhere to be found in Christianity.

[@Purwapada]

great. Hope Bart has a great time coming over to the UK for Christmas

[@SerOuroboros]

Yo your handle on here is so cool. How did you get your name to look like that on KZbin?

[@Purwapada]

@@SerOuroboros thanks! It's called purwapada, and is from the javanese script called hanacaraka

[@fangkailim]

Just finished hearing this podcast. When Bart mentioned about how are people supposed to read the Bible, just like how you’re gonna read a genre, does it mean it’s best to actually read a Bible as a parable genre? Where we don’t really care about historical truth but read it for the moral truth? Even when reading Bible for the moral truth, some stories are just too horrible to use it as a “moral of the story”.

[@user-user-user-user.]

Between Nietzsche and Erhman I am not sure how anyone remains a full-on Christian anymore.

[@bankhead1682]

🤣🤣🤣🤣 Youre special, bless your heart.

[@juannifer32]

They remain full on Christians because since they desire for Christianity to be true they don't care about if it's not the truth it's only about what they desire to be true.

[@bankhead1682]

@@juannifer32 Actually the opposite is true, Athiests hold on to it being untrue to justify their sins. Check Ehrman/White debate and watch how Ehrmans points fall flat when challenged. It takes as much faith to follow a man as dogmas.

[@Glasstable2011]

@@bankhead1682 faith doesn’t sound like a very accurate method for finding truth then does it? So it’s strange that the bible repeatedly demands that Christian’s have faith

[@Hoireabard]

Bart grew up in an oppressive and heretical sect. He is rebellious against his poor understanding of Christianity rather than the real thing.

[@bruceblosser384]

The interviewer is the best interviewer I have ever seen!!!

[@andrewsandilands8974]

Understanding what is being said ie the intended meaning is (obviously) the basic purpose for reading anything. Applying this to the NT, and particularly The letters of Paul is so challenging for me that I have more or less given up trying. I’ve heard so many differing and competing arguments, and as I’m not in any sense an expert in these matters, I’m left feeling that the whole Bible is written in a code for which I don’t have the key. No wonder people find literalism a more satisfying way of reading it. Hearing Bart (who’s presentations I always find fascinating) talk about ancient writers wanting their readers to extract the “true meaning” of the text, without getting bogged down with questions such as “did the magi actually give the infant Jesus their gifts?”, or “how many women went to the tomb after the crucifixion ?”, makes me question what exactly is the message we are supposed to extract, and is that message still relevant to living in 21st century UK? This is made more confusing because the message doesn’t seem to be consistent throughout. As a non-believer reading the NT I am not “persuaded” to become a believer, so it falls in its attempt to convert me, but we are constantly reminded by our Western Society that Jesus’ teachings contain important lessons, regardless of our faith. It would be interesting to discuss what these lessons actually are, and how specific they are to the the NT. The teachings of Jesus must surely be the most important thing for Christians to understand, and for non-Christians to admire. However, after 50 years of exposure to the NT, it’s still not clear to me what Jesus taught, and what he intended by it ….. not to mention if his teachings can be transferred to the modern sphere. If one is not a believer, then one is not attempting to get into God’s good books, and much of what remains of the moral teachings appear pretty commonplace. I’d love for Bart to talk on this subject. Good work by the way. ❤

[@youngknowledgeseeker]

I get you buddy. We are 2000 years removed from the time they are written, some of us live on whole other continents different from where they written geographically, and we rely on translators to just to read them. Their are experts to help us understand the context behind this literature and letters but if you're a layman you don't know where to start or who to learn from. Paul in particular is a doozy. I do think that some things in the New Testament are easy to understand, but other parts of it, or trying to understand authors in their entirety is hard. I know this sounds typical, but I posted some links to my ex-professors exegesis of some parts of the New Testament. His specialities revolve around Paul and Revelation mainly, he did his dissertation on the historical setting Revelation was written in and the background it forms for Revelation. It's not preaching but more academic, and it's meant to just be shared information that you either find persuasive or not. It's not his own ideas, or based on any denominational beliefs, but is what you'll hear in a lot of modern critical scholarship. I hope you check out the Romans one, it was really nice to finally understand just what Paul is talking about. Understanding the probable genre of the gospels and making educated guesses on their authors and purpose - kzbin.info/aero/PLPK-75GXTyC0_V4MfjfTlcvT7dyx98Bsn Exegeting Romans - kzbin.info/aero/PLPK-75GXTyC3TUrm69So2kNODca3nMXIH New Perspectivee on Paul - kzbin.info/aero/PLPK-75GXTyC0SwHrB8dBzsftkVpRKjImY Galatians - kzbin.info/aero/PLPK-75GXTyC2HFRgVUGTo96Ck9MNq9tWm Revelation - kzbin.info/aero/PLPK-75GXTyC2jP2BDNNatEIFWm-9csuKM Christology in the 1st century - kzbin.info/aero/PLPK-75GXTyC3cIKys-Q2A_2FjRHxSAwje (Only watch the ones with Dustin Smith) PS - In the New Testaments defense, the communities they were written too were either educated Jews who grew up with scripture or they were God-fearing Gentiles currently learning in synagogue. They weren't just completely clueless and foreign Gentiles like us who came in knowing 0 about Judaism or Christianity. Plus these were alrready probably established Christian communities.

[@wilfredmancy]

"so it fails in it's attempt to convert me" to believing that Jesus is my hope of salvation from mortality and how that happens. Yes that is a big investment alright and could be an investment into nothingness. Pauls' message is explaining how that happens, i.e., the hope that Gods' union with us through spirit will ultimately bring us to being resurrected, like Christ, immortal. An idea that might be better off left alone, unless you think you have nothing to loose and maybe something to gain.

[@andrewsandilands8974]

@@youngknowledgeseeker thanks, I’ll look at those links. Your postscript makes an interesting point.

[@andrewsandilands8974]

@@youngknowledgeseeker it’s interesting to try to imagine Paul’s conversion of Jews and gentiles in Asia Minor and elsewhere. What did he say to convince them? After all, he had no gospels that we know of, he never even met Jesus, again, that we know of. All he had were his own convictions. The people he converted had most probably never heard of Jesus, and it’s interesting that Paul rarely reflects on Jesus’s life in his letters. A life that was cut short many years earlier. What exactly did his converts believe? And why/how did they make that leap of faith? To me, when I read the 4 gospels, written after Paul’s letters, and Paul’s epistles, they almost seem like they are talking about 2 different things. It has always struck me as weird that Jesus, the great teacher, failed to persuade many outside his immediate group, except by doing miracles (if you believe the miracles actually happened) and yet Paul wanders all over seemingly converting people Willy nilly. Looking at the whole thing (the NT) with a dispassionate eye, it just doesn’t hang together. There is no unified message. The miracles just highlight how nonsensical it all is. If he did them, why didn’t everyone believe him? If he could do them, why didn’t he do them for the Jewish leaders In Jerusalem? Why didn’t he evade the Roman guards? Because being crucified was part of the plan? What kind of a weird plan is that? As a supernatural man/god, he seems to have done a fairly half arsed job. What, actually, was he trying to do? It seems to me that in reality, he was a Jewish teacher, popular with the masses who spoke out against the occupation of Israel by the Romans, and the state of the established Jewish religion and religious hierarchy. He didn’t come to found a new religion. He wasn’t the only one to do this, but somehow (thanks mostly to Paul) his story and message got twisted out of all recognition. Was Paul sincere in his belief? Was he insane? He was a devout Jew, and yet he turned his back on Judaism. He fought against the Jewish leaders In Jerusalem (James etc). He was supposed to persecute the new Jewish sect of Jesus followers because they were blasphemous, but he ended up being totally blasphemous himself. Even Jesus didn’t teach what he did. All, apparently, because he had visions. He must have been a really weird bloke.

[@andrewsandilands8974]

@@wilfredmancy yes, I get your point, but you could say the same of any religion. If anything, on face value, Buddhism makes a better pitch for my time. Why should I choose Christianity, when so much of it makes no sense?

[@ericjohnson6665]

Good analysis of the different kinds of truth... factual vs. conceptual. Books of fiction are certainly more fun and interesting when they contain nuggets of truth in them. E.g., JK Rowling had Dumbledore telling Harry, in the first book, "it's not your abilities that make you who you are, it's your choices." We all know there's no Dumbledore in real life, but we do know our choices determine who we become. Often times we read novels in order to glean those kernels of truth they contain. The Bible is a more complex entity. As an historical document, it suffers from all the shortcomings Bart identifies. But then, that's not what's most important with regard to the Bible. There is a much larger truth contained therein. however muddy: "Is there a God?" That's followed closely by "what should be our approach to God?" Should we fear him, love him, ignore him, what? The Bible unhelpfully covers all those bases, being the polyglot collection of writings that it is. The authors of the books in the Bible largely used the carrot and stick approach to relating to God. Do it, or else suffer dire consequences. And that approach was largely effective in that day and age. But civilization has moved on from there, and that approach has run its course. Now when people read the Bible, we're a bit more sophisticated than people were back then. For one thing, we like consistency. All too often, especially in the Old Testament, God is depicted in anthropomorphic forms. Human emotional shortcomings are projected onto the image of God. Eww! Nowadays we expect a more sophisticated being if we're going to take any interest at all. According to a relatively recent divine revelation, our approach to God ought to be one of loving friendship, and very intimate. We are encouraged to share our inner life with God. (I have been, and it's fantastic!) Now, this version of God is devoid of all the pettiness found in the Bible. It portrays God as a magnificent being, one truly worthy of worship and adoration. And it says it's not our Divine Father-friend (ODFF) who judges us, it's the Ancients of Days, which makes being intimate with ODFF a lot easier. 😊 As for proof of God's existence? It affirms that there will never be material evidence for a non-material being. I know, folks like to have some assurance that a belief in God is warranted, but such proof is unavailable. Only experience with relating to ODFF can we ever get any proof at all. It is a leap of faith. (And like Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade, there is a disguised foot bridge across the chasm over to the spiritual side. It's called a Thought Adjuster.) www.urantiabook.org/001-The-Universal-Father/#ubf-paperTitle

[@ericjohnson6665]

@@r0ky_M - what would limit that ability? We have free will, our laws are based on that being a given. We’re free to pursue maturity and perfection or not. If we pursue perfection, we get as long as we need to achieve it.

[@ericjohnson6665]

@@r0ky_M - well, it’s a good thing I’m not wedded to scripture then. After all, it’s really the author’s opinion, the idea that the Bible was written by God was a sales ploy. The tales of the matchless Moses is an interesting one, for another time. As for Jesus doing the Father’s will, that was one of the main reasons our Paradise Creator Son, Michael of Nebadon, incarnated on our planet, to model for us what being dedicated to doing the Father’s will looks like. He voluntarily chose (as in, used his free will) to do the will of our Divine Father-friend (ODFF), not just in death, but more especially in his teachings about ODFF. It’s not that God demanded a sacrifice of someone pure (a thoroughly disgusting idea), it was because ODFF wanted his Son to experience and know the entire breadth of the human experience, thus increasing his compassion for all of us. And it worked. Christians ever since have taken comfort in knowing that their affliction are generally not as bad as what the Master had to endure. That has bolstered the courage of countless Christian to live their lives as sons/daughters of God, and spread the gospel of a loving God. You’re free to believe there is no free will, but in doing so,you violate your own belief.

[@tanned06]

Sometimes a theological question is meant for a specific purpose that entirely eludes historical analysis.

[@anthonyschmieder3174]

Great episode. Fascinating discussion.

[@raphaelrossi6339]

The thing I don't really understand is that when Einstein writes E=MC^2, he is trying to state a scientific truth. And when Dicken's writes a novel, he is trying to write a fictionalized story that elucidates a deeper truth in humanity. You don't really question either, as science can later be proven untrue and novels were never meant to be any statement on an absolute verifiable or deniable truth. The question I have is when people write a story that contains things that are obviously not true, and as important as saying this is central to our existence, then why are they writing that? If they are trying to get you to believe something, then why do they want you to believe something that is patently untrue? I understand there might have been an original non-fictional person that inspired the story of Santa Claus, yet another possibility is the whole thing is a purposeful attempt to control your average person and for ulterior purposes based on only the writer's imagination on what others might believe given what they know others have believed in other religions of the time. And if this is the case, then wouldn't it be possible the whole story is untrue in its historical sense? Just asking.

[@mattr.1887]

Great question. Yes, I think this is possible. The gospels were among the LAST of the New Testament books to be written. Even though they are placed at the BEGINNING of the New Testament in every Bible! It seems Christianity developed first, THEN Jesus' biography came along. Of course, this doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other. But neither does "the Bible told me so".

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

The obvious point you seem to be missing is that whether “the whole story is untrue in its historical sense” does not hinge upon whether “the whole thing is a purposeful attempt to control your average person, etc.” Parents are constantly trying to control their children, but that doesn’t mean they are also constantly lying to them. The intention does not determine the veracity. Only the veracity determines the veracity.

[@josephposenecker9741]

I think you’re also wrongfully claiming the deeper truth told in stories are un verifiable or provable. That’s what clinical Psychology is or sociology, ethics, government, ect. There’s objective truths taught in books full of deep wisdom. They can be tested and proven.

[@B1ackC3t]

Or, this person is just trying to convey his godly message and truth. But people don't like it and started to modifies it to fit their desires.. or some wealth.. mostly wealth..

[@ianwassink7664]

Every written piece has an argument be it an equation, novel, letter to the church in Corinth, etc. The argument is not invalid simply because we don’t know the author or the author uses a false name or purports to be someone else. Bart’s interested in regardless of author, what are we to make of this argument, written piece, etc. and how does it contribute to the understanding of early Christianity(ies)? And so forth…

[@jseymourguenther6527]

Reminds me of a Tommy Lee Jones line in No Country for Old Men: is it a true story? “Well, it’s true that it’s a story!”

[@johnwilliamcarlson]

Wow! Great discussion.

[@albionicamerican8806]

The story about the resurrection of Lazarus is clearly fictional. We never hear about this character again, and he's not mentioned in the other New Testament writings. Also consider the logical problem of Lazarus' resurrection versus Hebrews 9:27. If Lazarus was historical, and if Jesus raised him from the dead supernaturally, then what became of Lazarus? If he died again, then his example contradicts Hebrews 9:27 because he would have to die *_twice._* And if he hasn't died, then we have to postulate that in the year 2022 Lazarus in his deathless body is still wondering the earth, like he's a character from _Highlander_ or something.

[@duetopersonalreasonsaaaaaa]

The Highlander comparison made me actually LOL

[@russellmiles2861]

well in Luke for sure; but John not so much. Which more suggest that the Gospels are mythical works But we can just ask Lazarus' as Jesus intimates he is immortal. I wonder where he hangs out. I assume Aotearoa, or Finland

[@CharlesPayet]

32:05 this point about how Christians use verses in the Bible as a jigsaw puzzle, or how they interpret verses in isolation, usually without context, really struck me. It’s been a long time since I left Christianity, so I’d kind of forgotten what it was like during college Bible studies, etc. But Bart really brought back those memories.

[@stephen_pfrimmer]

W James describes belief as moving from sense to conception, from root to flower. Even he was only describing what so many already knew perhaps even before Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. James names some of our problems vicious intellectualism.

[@emilywilson9632]

I love Charles Dickens books, especially the ones that are lesser known. My favorite is David Copperfield. Dickens novels have some very dark themes in them, even "a Christmas Carol" does, but I can tolerate them because there is always some sort of redemption.

[@stewartthorpe2533]

Praise to the Internet! New Erhman video!

[@philbrenman2507]

I like how you make the distinction between where we find truth. There are clearly places in the Bible where the truth has been misrepresented. For example, the statement that Scritpure is the divinely inspired Word of God from Genisis to Exodus is not true. However, what is it about the book that keeps calling us back is that there are certain statements and lessons behind the stories that resonate with us at a deeper and more profound level.

[@jaclynrichmond1049]

It threw me off when he said Christians didn't believe the Bible was the entrant word of God until centuries afer its origin, but then it dawned on me they are still doing it in the thousands of denominations

[@quinnsine1650]

Will you guys be doing episodes on each of the gospels?

[@annestephens9631]

Another grand video - much appreciated.

[@gsr4535]

I suppose my problem with Christianity and really all other religions is, what's the point? If one believes in God, one will live forever as a disembodied consciousness in another dimension/realm? Or one will be resurrected even though our bodies decompose in the ground, in a newly created but exactly the same new body, which our consciousness will occupy? What does one do for eternity? Work? Hobbies? Eat, drink,sex? Baseball? No? Eternity is a long, long time. What does one do to fill up that time? I don't get it. 🤔

[@br1qbat]

Well, in the Christian tradition, you worship god throughout your mortal life, sidelined occasionally by earthly distractions, so you can die and get to live forever, worshipping god forever with no distractions. As an atheist ex-Catholic, that sounds incredibly boring and I cannot fathom why such a transcendent god would demand and apparently require such unending praise. For what purpose?

[@duetopersonalreasonsaaaaaa]

@Patrick Keene my Christian mother claims that eternity in heaven will be the best thing because apparently they're so filled with god's love that they can't feel anything but extreme happiness and desire to constantly praise him. Yeesh. Sounds creepy and controlling af.

[@russellmiles2861]

I think we can observe that this is a grey area. While I am confident, we might rule out the Bugs Bunner escalator view of Heavan and hell; we otherwise have no idea. Personal I think an eternity of conscientious would-be Hell.

[@mattr.1887]

Former Christian here. So don't get me wrong. But I would think a powerful God could surely tweak heaven to make it both eternal AND fun. Example: Islamic heaven (ha ha). Seriously though...you would need at least a little bit of pain. If you had the COMPLETE ABSENCE of it, then I would think the good stuff would eventually lose its appeal. Maybe I'm wrong tho.

[@MaroshBRuNo]

@@mattr.1887 You are not wrong. You just stated the meaning of life. To experience something else than eternal bliss. After few thousand years at home we are begging for something else, for some pain and suffering and to not have every wish fullfiled instantly. So when we return home we are able to enjoy it even more and longer. Its the only way of making something perfect (Heaven) even Better. 😇

[@therealzilch]

Brilliant as usual. The discussion of levels of truth is, of course, widely applicable, even outside religion. Back when I spent a lot of time debating with fundamentalists, these issues came up all the time. cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott

[@danielhopkins296]

The question shouldn't be " what are you looking for", rather " what can it tell us and what it can't "

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

Every great lie contains an element of truth. Does it tell you how to live, or teach you how to live?

[@wilfredmancy]

The purpose of a lie is to divert some one from the truth. With the intention to deceive. An untruth is not necessarily a lie, it could be simply an unknowing, an idea that isn't grounded in truth because the truth isn't known. We do believe some things because of the witness of other people though. The danger of high voltage electricity is an example for me, I simply believe what I have been told in that area. So we are are in some areas left wondering, "what is truth"? Because life is short and we may want to make a decision about how we want to be, we have to come to some conclusions about what truth is, to stabilise our own psyche, in peace.

[@Mubarak386]

If you looking for the truth, you will find it in Islam, the great nation God promised to Abraham will be from Ismaeal's descendants. Jesus told Jews that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to other people. Jesus means Islam by other people.

[@danielp2937]

@@Mubarak386 What do you think about Islamic countries that kill people that don't agree you'll find it in Islam? Do you think that's right?

[@wilfredmancy]

@@Mubarak386 I can understand people wanting to be good, that is to be like God and having a great zeal for that, but I think one needs to be careful and not reason oneself into a false position. I see nothing in the Covenant with Abraham or Israel to make me think that the promises made wont be fulfilled. That the promise of the whole world being blessed in Abraham comes through Israel. To suggest that, that promise is diverted through Ishmael has no credibility from the Bible at all. One either believes the deliverer of Israel is yet to come or that he has already come in Jesus. There is no other proposition in the Bible. Why the descendants of Ishmael aren't content with their own allotment and promises and rejoice in that, rather than trying to steal someone else's crown, totally eludes me. You may feel that you are more righteous than Israel and Christianity, but that doesn't divert God from his intentions and purposes, clearly laid out. If you are virtuous, rejoice in that, virtue is its own reward and has its benefits, but you cant buy God by your good works, we were created for that purpose. That is God in us working himself in us, that is Gods gift to us. Life and righteousness is Gods gift to us, which we can destroy, but cant earn, it is a gift. I plead with you to not elevate yourself above God and be satisfied with what God has allotted/given you.

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

@@wilfredmancy deception controls, truth teaches.

[@pig5267]

I have an utmost respect for vegetarian or vegan atheists. Looking forward to the discussion about the KJB in the next episode!

[@russellmcdonald7777]

What kind of genre are the gospels? Are they and other ancient writings of this type a mixture of genres? Would they be narrative and historical? Would they just be classified as religious? Is it uniquely a modern doing that we separate genres much more distinctly now?

[@KingdomCome641]

Does "sola scriptura" also profess scriptural inerrancy? If inerrancy was a later development then what is the interplay between Sola Scriptura and scriptural inerrancy?

[@stevesmith7268]

Neil Peart of Rush said it best '"Truth is after all a moving target Hairs to split, and pieces that don't fit. How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."

[@krioni86sa]

RIP Neil Peart

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

This This, I think, completely-and dangerously-misrepresents what Ehrman is trying to say here. It’s not so much that truth is elusive as that there are different kinds of truth. Because a poem is true in a different sense from a newspaper story doesn’t mean that truth cannot be gleaned-or even that it can be gleaned only with difficulty.

[@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi]

Only dictators and fascists and Putins say there is no truth. There is truth, it can be found often with hard work or is self evident as in that all men and women are equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[@PopeLando]

Can't say I was as happy with this episode as others. It's just a discussion on the nature of truth, and doesn't address the truth or fictionality of any individual Gospel story as I'd hoped.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

They're all true, but some of it actually happened. This is what we call mythohistory. The Takeaway is that any story written is true, but that doesn't mean it actually happened in reality. It'll always be true that Gandolf was friends with Frodo, there's no denying this, yet it isn't factual that it happened in real life.

[@edwardroberts7712]

There are many more videos (and Dr. Ehrman's courses) which provide what you are looking for.

[@TheSeaDevilsband]

was thinking the same, love the show so far but there are other places I'd rather go for a philosophical discussion about truth.

[@TheSeaDevilsband]

​@@dustinellerbe4125 That's not what most people mean by true though.. I don't think it's necessarily a given that it's "true that Gandalf was friends with Frodo" how can it be true that two people who don't exist are friends? It's certainly true to say that "JRR Tolkien wrote of a fictional friendship between characters Gandalf + Frodo". I would guess most people understand true to mean not just internally consistent within a possibly fictional universe, but actually corresponding to empirical reality or as you say that it "happened in real life". "True" is an acceptable synonym for "happened in real life", in which case your point is just a quirk of language that true can mean "happened in real life" but also "internally consistent" - fudging the two together is not a clever insight it's just an obfuscation.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

@TheSeaDevilsband I distinguish between truth and fact. It's a fact of reality that I exist and have children. It's true that Clifford the big red dog had a young boy as a friend. That's the difference I'm trying to point out. Myth/legend is something that will always be true in the story itself. It doesn't mean it corresponds with reality. Just like the biblical texts. The biblical are "true" and some of it actually happened.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

I think a better analogy would be the gospel of luke and an old (Screen of death) core dump. By the fact you are looking at core dump means that you are not looking at the way things should have been, in addition what you see in the dump was not actually in the core, its a representation, its processed through bios and interrupts. The gospel of luke, pretty much the same thing. Luke knows of these conflicts and he/she is harmonizing them. Jesus died, he needs to make some sense of it. Hes got various conflicting sources, he needs to find a way of including them without making them seem to be in conflict (he generally does this by spatially separating them in thd text) So luke is basically spewing accounts he knows about in a way his audiance can make sense of it (Just like you can read the blue/black screen of death core dump. If things we running well for christians, if Mark was complete, then luke would not need to write. He feels the need to fix things that others saw a problem.

[@rolfjacobson833]

great once again!

[@raycaster4398]

No

[@TheAureliac]

4:52 in and they haven't begun to address the question. Save yourselves at least that much of this. Edit: at 23:58 Ehrman is hinting that the facts don't really matter as much as the feelings or lessons. So thus far, the gist is that it's a series of good stories and if they have resonance for you, enjoy them. At over 35:00, Ehrman says the New Testament should be read as an entire book, not a series of tidbits from which to pick and choose, and it should be considered in the context of its time and place of origin. These two are now promoting a tour and I've had it with this chat. While I enjoy Ehrman's lectures and books, this has not been at all thought-provoking or enlightening.

[@Juadan_Rodriguez]

What the author meant and the historical context are important to Christians. Christians don't just cherry-pick.

[@brianandrews9428]

Bart spoke of "God inspiring a book". But all the ancient holy scriptures now contained within the book we call "The Bible" were originally written as separate scrolls, and only much later compiled together as a book. Each scroll was written separately by very different men, for very different audiences. The authors probably felt that they were inspired by God, but it was left to the priests and community leaders of their own and later times to decide whether their writings were truly jnspired. There is no evidence that God Himself spoke audibly out of Heaven to any particular community or body of priests and told them that any particular scripture was genuinely inspired by Him. The collection of scriptures within what we call the Bible was compiled by the Church of Rome whose priests declared that they alone had the divine mandate to decide which scriptures were inspired and would be declared to be Holy Scriptures. Should we accept their decisions?

[@charleselliott2234]

Can the New Testament Possibly Be True? No

[@dux657]

*no everything it says

[@johntorres2565]

I mean, some of it COULD be. Is it all true? Certainly not.

[@lcor2009]

And you know this why?

[@johntorres2565]

@@lcor2009 because it’s a bunch of supernatural things and it was written decades after the events? No eyewitnesses wrote about it either.

[@charleselliott2234]

@@lcor2009 There are too many contradictions between the timelines and the details to make them true. If one thing is said and placed at a certain time in one gospel and occurred at another time in another gospel with or at a different place, both things can't be true, and that is what we call "untrue." Examples include but are not an entire list: Matthew 1:16 versus Luke 3:23, or Matthew 2:1 versus Luke 2:2-3 there are many other examples, do some research.

[@tmstani23]

It's also important to know if it was historically true because many of the claims in the bible, of miracles and other such things, are historical facts. If those events didn't happen then it casts doubt on whether the books are divinely inspired. Why would God lie about historical events? And would a God who lies about its capabilities be worth trusting in and calling all Good?

[@duetopersonalreasonsaaaaaa]

Very good point!

[@Mubarak386]

God never lie People lie and change the word of God. Saving God word in previous holy books was responsibility of people but part of the by the time success to change God's word. In Islam as last religion, God promised to save his words the holy Qur’an. Qur’an does not have any contradiction as what you see in Bible.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

That’s a very silly argument. Consider the converse: What if he absolutely all of the history could be shown to be precisely accurate? Would that validate the miracles? Of course not. The miracles did not happen; the history may or may not have happened, precisely or approximately. Certainly-and very obviously-a work that cites miracles is to be treated with more circumspection than one that does not, mutatis mutandis, but here we begin.a priori with a work known to contain miracles.

[@tmstani23]

@@jeffryphillipsburns I think you missed the primary assumption in my argument. If all the miracles could be proven true historically that would certainly give the bible and god more credibility. I didn't say if all the other historical things were true but the miracles unproven, as you said above. Though if that were the case the bible would still be made more credible than it is with all the historical inaccuracies it does contain. And you're correct claims of miracles at all is highly dubious and definitely reduces its credibility. Unless they could be proven.

[@joekirbyjr]

@@tmstani23 in Jesus day, miracle workers were a dime a dozen. There was a miracle worker on every street corner! Thus the term “false prophets” and “false miracle workers” as termed by even the Apostle Paul himself. Also, historical facts are most often given by the writer based on the agenda at hand. As was stated earlier, where in the New Testament does it state that the gospels were “God breathed” or “given by the hand of God”? Even the narrative of the birth of Jesus is called into question in the writer of Luke’s account. The first two chapters were obviously added at a later date. Go to chapter three and a whole new narrative begins… one that is almost exactly like that of the Gospel of Mark. Just saying…

[@russellmiles2861]

I wish to challenge Bart's assertion that historian even in modern era are seeking to reveal facts or evidence. This is complex so Ill use an example. My brother-law likes to read about accomplished military leaders. This is a popular genre. He recently brought a biography of the esteemed and brilliant USN Admiral William "Bull" Halsey. To broaden his perspective I gave him my autobiography of US General William Dean Sr. who was captured in early stages of Korean War. I was not suggesting Gen Dean was better case study. But his autobiography is certainly very self reflective. This includes an account of confirming a court martial of two solders convicted of capital offense. I can imagine this is a duty leaders wont to dwell on. What I wanted to illustrate that such accounts are completely absent from almost all biographies of military leaders. Yet, the function of selected and dismissing subordinates, discipling troops is a key function of any commander. The strategies and formations, battles are rarely the most complex task. Admiral Halsey was renowned for delegating such task and pacing himself for the next task, even next war. So a good study. Anyway, we rarely read unsavory tales; modern historians rightly focus on the mythical. That is where we define ourselves and learn lessons. I contend that Bart is quite wrong is claiming facts have ever been that important in history.

[@dorothysatterfield3699]

If the "historians" you're reading focus on the mythical, then they're not historians and you are not reading history.

[@Kainis80]

The only value that myths have to history, is as a window to what people believed at the time of that myth being told. These beliefs influenced what they actually did. What they actually did, and the context of it, is what is important to those who study history.

[@russellmiles2861]

@@dorothysatterfield3699 all historians deal in myth. It is how we define who we are.

[@dorothysatterfield3699]

@@russellmiles2861 Apparently, all the "historians" you read deal in myth. If those are the only historians you know, then it's understandable that you believe all historians deal in myth. Frankly, it sounds to me like what you're actually reading is lets-feel-good-about-ourselves propaganda.

[@alyssabeale1095]

THANK YOU! He lost me at that very moment

[@TankUni]

Why would Herodotus's report of an inscription on the Great Pyramid, giving the time and resources it took to build the structure, be untrue? The details he gave might have been incorrect or mistaking a list of offerings made to the deceased king, but as the limestone cladding has been stripped away, any such written detail has been lost. It doesn't mean it didn't exist when Herodotus visited.

[@dorsetone8142]

Why does Megan have to conduct every interview? Can't we have a variety of interviewers with different styles and perspectives to interview Bart..

[@Kyeudo]

Because this is a regular podcast put on by both Megan and Bart. It's like asking why a KZbinr is always on his own channel or why Alfred Hitchcock is always in all his films.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

@@Kyeudo Hitchcock doesn’t act in any of his films. The only common denominator is that he always directs. Just so, the common denominator here could be that Ehrman is always interviewed. He need not not be interviewed by the same moderator, and I agree that it would be better if he were not.

[@Kyeudo]

@@jeffryphillipsburns ["Hitchcock doesn’t act in any of his films."] Alfred Hitchcock has a cameo appearance in 40 of his films. Spotting him is something of a game to fans of his work. ["He need not not be interviewed by the same moderator,"] Except that this podcast is in collaboration with Megan, who is part of the Digital Hammurabi team. My guess? Megan provides most of the technical knowhow and also an understanding of how to turn a body of academic knowledge into an entertaining podcast.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

A collaboration is an agreement between two or more people who have variant talents. Talents generally compliment each other as to be able to construct. Megan is able to run the technical stuff of video making and act as a host. Thats why she is on every video. Plus she is quiet pretty and a damn good story teller.

[@pdyt2009]

Instead of goose fat, I use Avocado Oil. It allows a higher temperature (the benefit of goose fat) for roasties. 500 F is easy.

[@geico1975]

Thinking about the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Trent, etc... If church leaders and scholars today or in the future came together again to debate on Jesus and his humanity and divinity, what would Christianity look like going forward if they took out the divinity and left Jesus 100 percent man and his humanity only? Of course, this is just a hypothetical question, but I do not believe it to be an impossibility. I may never see it, but who knows 250-years from now for example.

[@russellmiles2861]

If I might observe; the wise folk at Nicene through in the Paulean clause "according to scripture." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean; but I suspect that was the idea.

[@mattr.1887]

Half of them would probably be wearing pride flags.

[@Nexus-jg7ev]

Well, Christianity is, above all, founded on the belief that Jesus is the Messiah, not so much on him being God. The reason his followers came to believe he was made divine was that he was exalted to Heaven. They believed that the exaltation made him divine, they apparently (if you carefully read the Book of Acts) did not believe he was God before the resurrection. And even after he was exalted, they did not believe that he was equal in divinity as Yawheh.

[@sciologist]

Megan, Abram was from Ur of the Chaldeans and the name of the god of the Abramic religions is YHVH EloHYiM, Who do you think was Abram's god in Sumerian texts and literature?

[@TheZinmo]

If you want goosefat, try kosher stores. But of course, you get those in NY, not so likely in the US south.

[@artawhirler]

I'm like Megan - I save bacon grease in a jar too. For years, I thought bacon grease was one of the Four Food Groups.

[@carlosrivera1058]

Isn't it something else that they were smiling and happy when they reminisce about their Christmas gatherings and then go long-faced somber when they get to the topic of the New Testament and confess their unbelief?

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@tedgrant2]

Spinach doesn't actually make you strong, hysterically. It's an example of a mirthological symbolistic metaphor. But I believe spinach is good in a spiralling sense.

[@simoncoss3321]

Dickens' Dombey and Son is underrated

[@Magik1369]

I appreciate the clarity and scholarship that Bart brings to this subject matter. My view...If Jesus existed in history, then he was an enlightened Master or Sage like Buddha, Krishna and other living symbols of the Higher Self. The Self archetype is Universal. So much of what is attributable to Jesus rings true at a deep level. However, the contradictions, forgeries, half truths, magical thinking, dogma, and creed make it impossible to accept the Gospels at face value from the rational level of consciousness; unless one rejects their own self and mind to maintain the literal belief. From a higher individuative-reflective or universalizing stage of faith (James Fowler) or from the integral consciousness, parts of the teaching make sense and have deep meaning. I am an ex Christian and after de-conversion I was agnostic for awhile, until I experienced a Kundalini Awakening...a direct encounter with the Divine. This experience mirrors the mythology of the cross and resurrection and also the flames of Spirit descending on the apostles in the book of Acts. Now I am trying to integrate my old Christian beliefs (which still exist in the unconscious) and find myself attracted to the esoteric Jesus as portrayed in the Gospel of Thomas and other Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts. These writings really speak to me and I don't care if they are historical or not. The words have meaning and that is what counts. I think a literal interpretation of scripture deeply impoverishes it and ruins faith. Peace. Sorry for such a long post. Enjoy your channel immensely. Thanks!

[@rimmersbryggeri]

The real question is could the people in the 1st century even possibly have believed the gospels were true? OR was it not really meant to beliieved as if it were true (to the people that were actually educated in the subtleties of the faith.)

[@mattr.1887]

Most of them lived and died without even having read a gospel. We have the entire Bible, and still a whole world of debates. Imagine the differences and competing theologies they had back then. And remember it was all JUDAISM at first...not Christianity!

[@rimmersbryggeri]

@@mattr.1887 Im not sure about that.I think it might have been Phoenecian religion deification of hannibal that was later approriated by Jews in northern africa and other phoenecian colonies to be finally codified in palestine. I think the gospel source isprobably an anthology of these belliefs that was collected by some cult like the Nag Hamadi people who were into preserving the stories of the related tribes.

[@sigmarecovery699]

I have been on a journey…..it would seem that I am on a quest to find God. The thought which makes my head spin the most is what if God doesn’t want to be found by everyone? Perhaps God has many faces and that face may change depending on who is listening or who he may be addressing through hints and whispers. I was raised Catholic, Jesuit educated, I have been pouring over the Bible recently, studying it. However, I also began listening to an audiobook version of the Quran recently. A few months ago, I even began pouring over a book regarding Norse Mythology and also find Sufism intriguing. Perhaps I am just an Omnist, as I see some value within most religions. The thought which I continually entertain is….could God be obscuring himself? Deliberately creating confusion and doubt as a means of training the faithful? It has been postulated that within complex mathematics the language of God may be found. However, if God wishes to remain hidden, he would remain unseen. If God didn’t want to be found by everyone, this would hint at some form of predestination, yet I would assume that God would view time differently than us. Perhaps God would view past, present, and future simultaneously or God sees an infinite number of futures depending on the choices we make or could make within the present. “All I know is that I know nothing”. Alas, I am a man with a limited intellect pondering on the whims and motivations of a being that if it exists, would possess an infinite and immeasurable intellect Honestly, I think God would find my curiosity humorous.

[@qaiskarwani7028]

As a Muslim myself, we believe that God does want to be found, and uses various avenues to get you to connect with God… or in some cases reconnect, for the people that believe but had lost their way. Whether that’s with a significant event that’s happened in life, meeting a certain person that opens your eyes to God, or just as simple as leaving an empty space within oneself, so that individual feels like they need to search to fill in this space. More times than not, eventually finding god through these avenues. Then obviously you are presented with the idea of God, then comes the idea of free will, whether you choose to accept or reject this idea and that is down to the individual

[@sigmarecovery699]

@@qaiskarwani7028 I did not know that about Muslims. Thank you for sharing. At some point, my plan is to read the Quran. Mashallah

[@mdlahey3874]

Of course it can... As you begin to deal with at the start of this video, first you need to determine what you mean by "truth". That is a demanding chore, worthy of its own video or series thereof. As to whether ancient writers regarded "imitative" authorship claims as "lies", surely that depended on whether or not they were taking a polemical stance vis-à-vis the author in question. In Sanskrit literature, the name of a celebrated author might be added to a work by a relative unknown as an homage to the famous writer, and was accepted as such, not as an attempted plagiarism.

[@exoplanet11]

3:40 Isn't saving bacon grease in a jar prohibited in Leviticus? :)

[@milonguerobill]

When someone says "the truth on different levels" the truth goes out the window.

[@mojoman2001]

When someone does not recognize different levels of truth, then one misses so very much of reality and lives in a small-minded fantasy. Instead of a larger minded fantasy.

[@riluna3695]

There's a right way and a wrong way to use the phrase, and I think you're referring to the wrong way while Bart is talking about the right way. If you have something you believe is true, and then you find something that's _definitely_ true that forces your belief to be in some way wrong, falling back on statements like "everyone has their own truth" in order to keep believing that your original belief is how reality actually works is incredibly dangerous and leads to countless problems for you and for others. This is the wrong kind of "different levels of truth". The kind that exists solely to defend your beliefs and protect you from the terrifying prospect of learning that you may have been mistaken about something deeply important to you. I agree with you that reliance on this kind of thinking pushes real and proper truth RIGHT out the window, and allows people to live in worlds utterly divorced from reality. What Bart is saying in this video, however, is that a sentence like "Is this story true?" is a question that's too vague to properly answer. There are several things someone might mean when they ask that. The most obvious, intuitive one is "did the events in this story happen in real life precisely as described?", but there are other meanings as well, and it's those that he goes over in the video. Thinking in these terms broadens your understanding of what the "truth" is, without ever sacrificing actual reality. It can also help prevent awkward conversational problems when you and a person you're talking to happen to be referring to two different versions of the word "true" without realizing it.

[@milonguerobill]

@@riluna3695 If something is not true it's false.

[@riluna3695]

@@milonguerobill You're correct. Are you saying Bart is wrong in what he says in the video? I'm not clear if that's the point you're trying to make or not. If it isn't, then I'm pretty sure we agree with each other.

[@juanfrarodriguezmartinez5679]

Lo del aceite de oliva es maravilloso. Vivo en Jaén, provincia de mayor producción mundial de aceite de oliva. Feliz Navidad a todos.

[@jupru220]

I was drawn to this video because of the title - "Can the New Testament Possibly Be True?" Since this title seeks a "yes" or "no" answer, I guess I feel that I was lured into a rabbit hole that led me further and further into its depths without ever providing a solid answer. That's okay - I chomped on some other interesting tidbits of theory. On a funny note, at about 35:16, Professor Ehrman says, "...and so, God inspired books - I just think people should read them as books." Did God inspire books? "Books" as we know them today didn't exist when most of the ancient Bible writings were written. Most ancient writings were written on scrolls or tablets of various materials. (I've heard that Socrates often caught students writing test answers on their togas, but that could be rumor ... at best, isolated instances of ancient writing technique.) Does this mean that we should read them as tablets or scrolls? Just ribbing you, Dr. Ehrman. My humble advice for those seeking God in spirit and truth is to read the scriptures with prayer and true seeking of God and his will (in contrast to one's own will). Always remember that tares have been planted amongst the good seed. It takes God's guidance to find the straight and narrow path, which may have many thorns, brambles, and pitfalls throughout the journey.

[@AfroRU6246]

So true

[@williamcarter7977]

You do not have to be a Christian to celebrate Christmas. I agree that there are lessons in the Bible. I do agree that there can be truth in fiction. Aesop's Fables. Uncle Tom's Cabin. Even Harry Potter books. Different Levels of Truth. Facts and Values.

[@johnrangi4830]

I prefer to know the historical truth, but I also like to know the meaning behind the story. I don't consider the meaning behind the story to be true but it's still nice to know.

[@jeffwoodcock6702]

So far in my admittedly quite "thin" readings of the OT & some of the NT, I have encountered nothing in the text that informs modern day civilizations (and probably no historical ones either) on ways or methods whereby the general "lot" of most human beings can be "improved." (I have found more valuable information for this pursuit in the revelations offered in the various books expounding "Murphy's Law.") Unless the definition of improvement is interpreted to mean obsesssion with obedience and constant supplication to an invisable entity. Something akin perhaps to the nirvanna in which some populations live while under the control of the Taliban. This would seem to likely have some commonality with a society controlled by a ruling class consisting mostly of hard core 24/7 Bible-thumpers.

[@eddiemartin1671]

Great 👍

[@VaughanMcCue]

The Amateur Exegete prompted me to come for another fantastic feast founded on folly. It was worth the visit and almost as good as imaginary turkey.

[@txikitofandango]

Truth comes out in the telling of the joke: In the Gospel of Thomas, they ask Jesus, can Mary Magdalene be one of us, since she's a woman? And Jesus answers, if you don't like women, I'll turn them into men. ... How else can that be read other than as a rebuke to the very question? The New Testament and other gospels are full of people asking Jesus dumb questions and him trolling them. That's a truth

[@blustar1856]

How do we really know that historically and reasonably accurate writings that were written within years or decades of the early Jesus 'movement' were not destroyed - and sometimes the authors - by those determined to push their own narratives. Clearly a contemporary principle active as we speak.