Did Scribes Change Luke's Theology?

[@chadgarber]

I love that Bart said he wrote a book arguing one way but then later wondered if he took the wrong side. Sign of a true researcher.

[@Bronco541]

Truth. Where as somenpeople see that as sign of weakness or incompetence actually its a sign of wisdom and courage.

[@scripturaltruth7636]

he took the wrong side for real

[@chrisyoung5929]

​@@scripturaltruth7636And your evidence for this comment is? Dr Erman has the honesty to say "we don't" but here is what we think is most likely and why. So again I ask how do you 'know'?

[@scripturaltruth7636]

@@chrisyoung5929 I am speaking of his decision to not believe in the Son of FATHER

[@chrisyoung5929]

​​@@scripturaltruth7636 understand that, my question is what evidence do you bring for this diety? Having read the Bible and the horrendous list of actions by the diety in those stories, why do you want it to be true?

Now, THIS is the kind of podcast/lecture/information that I LOVE: exposing discrepancies in the Bible but more importantly explaining WHY and the MOTIVATIONS behind these discrepancies as well, all backed up by historical facts! Thank you very much Dr. Ehrman for sharing this knowledge with us, and Megan for hosting this podcast so beautifully.

[@GuyNamedSean]

Nothing in this is disrespectful either, in fact you can tell it comes from a deep love and fascination with the topic. That really comes off in each episode and every guest spot or lecture I've seen from Bart elsewhere.

[@eurech]

After a long day of work at the nursing home, time to sit down and listen to this lecture. Thanks Megan and Bart.

[@andybeans5790]

They always release episodes just before I finish too 😊

[@Nocturnalux]

That’s a grueling and truly absolutely needed job. Those who work at nursing houses and the like are unsung heroes.

[@mistressofstones]

I thank you for every moment you show kindness to your residents 😊

[@k.c.8658]

These are so interesting. Thanks you.

[@patricksee10]

Yeah you deserve the truth, not Barts click bait speculations

[@erichodge567]

41:00 I have always wondered about the discrepancy between the Ascension accounts in Luke and in Acts. The timeline in Luke makes it very clear that Jesus ascends on the day of his resurrection, while Acts is just as clear that happens forty days later. It's nice to know that Bart is just as confused as I am.

[@germanboy14]

It was for sure added by a later scribe/author

[@stefanowohsdioghasdhisdg4806]

@@germanboy14 nah bro that's a retcon. Luke wanted to write a sequel and was like "Ehhhh, let's just have Jesus hang around a bit longer to really set things up. Nobody will notice."

[@danaharper9708]

Bart makes New Testament minutiae fascinating. Megan is an outstanding host and interviewer. Top class!

[@johnpetkos5686]

It has been at least 4 hours since the last time I watched a Bart Ehrman KZbin video! I started my day by rewatching the one with Alex 'O Connor that came fresh yesterday, and after that I rewatched (for the 10th maybe time) the debate with Robert Price. Thank God for this notification and new clip! Phew!

[@phoebeflanders]

Funny! Suggestion: read "Zorba the Greek". You'll see why. :)

[@erevhaqets7613]

Thank you Bart! An absolutely FASCINATING take on forgiveness vs atonement. I never even considered it as a factor, but it's key to everything I've been trying to figure out.

[@Pooneil1984]

These technical episodes are my favorite of this series. Thanks and please do more.

[@termination9353]

- Jesus had a son via Mary Magdalene John 19:25-27 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother[Mary], and his mother's sister[in-law], Mary the wife of Cleophas[mother Mary's brother], and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by[Mary Magdalene], whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy [grand]son! [in Mary Mag's womb/pregnant.] 27 Then saith he to the disciple[Mary Mag], Behold thy mother[in-law/Jesus' mother Mary]! And from that hour that disciple[Mary Mag] took her[Jesus' mother] unto his[Jesus'] own home [The home of Jesus and his now pregnant wife Mary Magdalenein a midwifing arrangement.]

[@Pooneil1984]

@@termination9353 ????

[@danaharper9708]

@@termination9353 Way too much of a stretch. People are always trying to link romance between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It's not there. The shadowy _disciple who Jesus loved_ is a mystery. John's Gospel has all kinds of shadowy characters who are not really named. Everyone assumes they all represent John the Gospel author. I'm not convinced.

[@termination9353]

@@danaharper9708 You are a Gospel illiterate. What would you know. 2000 years and you people still haven't figured who this disciple is..... but it just COULDN'T be Mary Mag. You don't know what this passage is telling us...... but it can't be Mary Mag...... my Chrystal Ball tells me it's not Mary Magdalene but my ball won't tell me who. I'll just go through life not knowing half of what the Gospel says, and still call myself a Christian.

[@termination9353]

@@danaharper9708 Next time I wonder about anything I won’t THINK about it I’ll do the pagan idolatry thing and consult Dana’s crystal ball.

[@phoebeflanders]

What I enjoy about Bart is his fascination with the scholarship, without the blinders of faith. He's more human than his critics!

[@marcomoreno6748]

He is also more lost than his critics.... I will pray for Dr Erhman and "Meg"

[@fogsmart]

@@marcomoreno6748who’s lost though? You think he’s “lost” b/c he’s now an agnostic; then there’s you, lost to the coercive narrative of constrictive intellectual malfeasance foisted on the gullible by a manipulative theological conclusion. Shame on you for not deconstructing from your fables and brainwashing. At least Bart is intellectually honest.

[@chrisyoung5929]

​@@marcomoreno6748And while you pray we will think for you.

[@chrisyoung5929]

​@@marcomoreno6748The Christian idea of prayer is quite interesting. The Bible lays out how it is supposed to work, but it fails so what point do you see in prayer?

[@justjukka]

​@@chrisyoung5929wrong framing, I think. The bible lays out how to pray, and yet services mince words left, right, and center. Christians will believe in the power of prayer, so I ask why Matthew 6:5 is often ignored.

[@keithkeller6509]

Always find Dr. Ehrman’s explanations fascinating. Since he repeatedly notes that the author’s of the Gospels are anonymous and could not have been written by their namesakes, I always find it troubling when he refers to a Gospel’s author as Mark, Luke, Mathew or John. Seems like the author should be referred to as the “author of Mark, the “author of Luke”, etc.

[@lewkor1529]

I think he does that for convenience's sake. He can't keep saying "the gospel as traditionally reported to have been originally circulated based on writings allegedly from the version of stories supposedly gathered by a person named Mark" . That would be a mouthful and too convoluted. There is NO evidence a guy named Mark wrote any of the stories attributed to him by Christians a century or so later. If I am not mistaken, most scholars agree that the oldest Greek versions say "narrative according to the traditions of Mark" and NOT "the author of this narrative is Mark"

[@keithkeller1282]

@@lewkor1529 Or he could refer to the author of Mark, as “the author of Mark.” Or if referring to the book, “the book of Mark.”. 🙂

[@Farmfield]

It's just shorthand, so The Gospel According To Mark is just Mark, so when referring to content he's leaving out the "according to" for purely practical reasons. When he talks about a specific gospel, he often just says "the author". Imo Ehrman is quite good at being consistent on how he talks about the gospels and the authors. Sadly he's less consistent in his view on how you can rely on them for anything beyond textual analysis.

[@gilraen789]

This discussion, more than any other, has made me excited about the importance of textual criticism. Fascinating!

[@termination9353]

- There never was multiple Gospels by multiple authors. The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.

[@bloodgrss]

You are delusional, but why must you share it with us? Too bad Dan Brown beat you to writing a book about such fiction/delutons.

[@TheDanEdwards]

​@@termination9353 You repeat that over and over but not matter how many times you repeat it all it sounds like is an invention by you. If you want to defend your ideas then write them up in a paper and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.

[@enumaelish6751]

​@@termination9353You keep posting this nonsense over and over. Are you thick? Do you have problems learning? *United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Gospel of John:* "Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. *Jn 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work.* The prologue (Jn 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (Jn 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. *Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form* are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (Jn 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (Jn 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament." *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*

[@termination9353]

@@TheDanEdwards already done that. So Iink Harmonized Gospel en mi About Tab. Sorry you can’t comprehend. Guess I’m looking for conversation with someone with half a brain. Not you.

[@DJMarcO138]

It's always a great day when a new Bart/Megan video is up!!! As an ex Catholic who has been intrigued with the world's religions, I always learn so much from these. Thanks Bart and Megan!

[@stewartthorpe2533]

I never noticed before the slight but actually significant differences in Luke over others when it comes to social and moral ethics!! 😮

[@clearskybluewaters]

Variant in Luke 2:48: One variant occurs in Luke 2:48, where Mary finds Jesus in the temple and says, "Your father and I have been looking all over for you." Some scribes changed the wording to omit calling Joseph the father, altering the dynamics of the dialogue. Variants in the Last Supper scene: The Last Supper scene in Luke contains variants. Specifically, the language referring to Jesus' body being broken for the disciples and his blood being shed for them is missing in some ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts.

[@penlight5289]

Great Job Prof Bart Erhman and Megan Lewis . These videos are super excellent . Thanks again

[@gmsnightmare4328]

Man this is so deep. It’s crazy to think we all once believed the bible was divinely inspired

[@DJMarcO138]

Not all of us, but I get what you mean, lol.

[@NAZMli]

He's talking about written stuff, look up Jeremiah 8:8, bible already talks about lying scribes. Divine revelation was oral and it got lost as soon as the oral tradition died and got replaced with a written one.

[@shaduck06]

St Paul said the OT was divinely inspired!

[@NAZMli]

@@shaduck06 yes what was being recited, but as soon as the oral tradition was lost, you don't have the divinely inspired recitation handed down from the prophets. All you have is what was written down by scribes. Oral tradition has the whole community as witnesses who are mostly illiterate while written work has very select few witnesses.

[@enumaelish6751]

​@@NAZMliThere was no divine revelation. Authors were speaking for their imaginary god. From a Biblical scholar: "So for example, when we read carefully what Yahweh says in the book of Leviticus, namely that the Aaronids (the sons of Aaron only), are high priests contrary to the Levites, that they alone are Yahweh’s mediators and the Levites are reduced to mere ministers of the Aaronids, that only through sacrifice can one atone for sins and not confession as preached by the Levites, or more precisely the Levite’s Yahweh, etc., *it can be no coincidence that in these laws and commandments,* ***which are placed on the mouth of Yahweh,*** *that Yahweh himself is presented advocating and legitimating the very views and beliefs of the specific priestly guild writing the text, and,* ***contrary*** *to the views and beliefs of their rivals, the Levites and the Levite’s Yahweh!* We will examine this more closely when we get to the contradictions in these books. But in short, this was the function of ancient literature, and we are allowing these ancient texts to speak for themselves. *In this particular case, the Levites and Aaronids wrote specific texts that each advocated their religious beliefs, views, and their position as high priests* ***by writing these sentiments directly into the mouth of their god!*** But just studying the Bible alone, scientifically, affords us the occasion *to see that many of these so-called words of Yahweh are* ***actually the very words of the texts’ authors.*** When we see numerous texts employing this ancient literary technique, and moreover, ***presenting Yahweh as the spokesperson for their own views and agenda,*** *and* ***contrary*** *to Yahweh’s other words in other texts written by other authors employing the same technique,* how can one conclude otherwise. In other words, when in the composite text that we now call the Bible we find: Yahweh declaring that only Aaronids can officiate as his priests and Yahweh declaring that all Levites can officiate as high priest; Yahweh declaring that sin is atoned through confession and Yahweh declaring that sin is only expiated through the sacrificial cult, no exceptions; Yahweh declaring that he gave laws and commandments at Sinai and Yahweh declaring that he only gave the Ten Commandments at Sinai; Yahweh commanding to exterminate all the Canaanites without pity and Yahweh declaring to tolerate them and live in their midst; Yahweh declaring that the wilderness generation were disloyal and rebellious and Yahweh declaring that they were a paradigm of loyalty and faith; Yahweh declaring that he may be offered sacrifices at any altar and Yahweh declaring that there is only one altar where sacrifices are to be offered up; Yahweh declaring that the people saw him at Sinai and Yahweh declaring that they only heard his voice; Yahweh declaring that circumcision is an eternal covenant and keeping the land depends on observing this very commandment and Yahweh declaring the Mosaic laws as the covenant and keeping the land is dependent on keeping these laws; Yahweh declaring that he dwells in the midst of the people and Yahweh declaring that he only resides in heaven; Yahweh commanding Passover to be celebrated by all at Jerusalem and Yahweh commanding it to be celebrated at each person’s home; Yahweh commanding that animals for consumption must be ritually sacrificed and Yahweh commanding that they don’t have to be sacrificed ritually, etc. ***one must conclude that Yahweh is being used by these authors, each with their own contrary views and beliefs as a spokesperson for each of these authors’ agendas.*** These are all the personal, and competing, views, theological beliefs, and religious systems of our biblical authors. And this is only the tip of the iceberg." *"Studying the Bible"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@dadkingcoffey8333]

Bart is a absolute jewel to our age ..I'm a Christian but find so much useful knowledge form him

[@Venaloid]

31:36 - So in Luke's view, why does Jesus have to die if it's not for atonement?

[@davidkeller6156]

If Jesus went off by himself to pray, how would anyone know what went on? Did someone spy on him? Did he come out and say, “Wow, your not going to believe what happened to me. I was actually sweating blood!”? I have a lot of questions like this. Like how would anyone know what went on between Jesus and Pilate? Obviously none of his followers would have been privy to that. What about his forty days in the wilderness? Who witnessed that to write about it? I always liked the sermon on the mount, but who was there taking notes for Matthew to write about it 50 years later?

[@stevearmstrong6758]

Good questions. There are many passages in the NT where you can ask the same question- how did the author know this? It would be like me writing out the last thoughts a friend had before he died - I would really just have to guess. As for the Sermon on the Mount, I’m betting that Jesus tended to recycle his best lines and stories in all the stops he made - much like the traveling evangelist (or salesmen) do today. What’s recorded in Matthew is probably collected bits and pieces from multiple sources vs a single person’s recollection. And some of the sources were probably written (the Q theory) and some were just in the oral tradition. Just my opinions of course.

[@germanboy14]

The answer I get is that its Gods word, because the authors didn't witness those things themselves and therefore got divine revelations. But then I respond: How can God make mistakes and contradict himself. Its obviously all a developed story with many purposes like to silence critics. The bodily resurrection account for example lacks in Mark, Paul doesn't even mention an empty tomb and scholars like James Tabor argue that the resurrection of Jesus understood by Paul (who is the only eyewitness we have) was only a spiritual. This was a big problem for the early Church and they came up with the post resurrection story. So basically: we can't trust the NT.

[@lawsonj39]

As an atheist, I've gotten interested enough in Ehrman's scholarship pointing to the differences between the various gospels' theologies that I'm considering buying a study Bible. But I'm not sure whether a study Bible includes information about early versions of the text, which is such a crucial element of Bart's interpretive strategy. Does anyone know whether study Bibles deal with earlier versions? If not, what other sources might I consult without having to painstakingly compare all the different versions?

[@declankelly9829]

just keep listening to everything Bart says on KZbin. U don't need a Study Bible. He will eventually cover any point that bothers u. He gets around to everything! And yes... listen to a few other guys on You Tube too... but watch out for the Fundies... they are often disguised as scholars.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Too often the Study Bibles are written from a faith based point of view. I think the only good one is the Oxford Annotated Bible but even then it might not note that early manuscripts did not have such-and-such but it should have the various readings or words included.

[@TJ-vh2ps]

The distinction between atonement and forgiveness is fascinating! The change over time has very interesting doctrinal ramifications.

[@terryfox9344]

Thank you. This helps me understand Luke. I still have many questions, so I will continue my search for answers.

[@kingdomharbingerministries]

Great discussion.

[@calvinrollins4957]

I hate when I'm so early there's not enough comments to read while I listen

[@secretgoldfish931]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@Rusty-Shackleford69do you troll because you feel insecure intelligently?

[@rschreck]

@@secretgoldfish931They troll because they have a secret crush on Megan ❤️

[@danielgibson8799]

39:30-39:38 In the same way the protoevangelium of jacob describes the physical details of Mary’s birth to combat gnosticism and marcionism that verse in “Luke” describes the physical suffering of a flesh-and-blood person.

[@edgarsnake2857]

I've read the Bible cover to cover three times and I've read countless portions over the years. Many thanks to Megan and Bart for detailing some of the controversies I've noticed from my very first reading of the Gospels. I love the 'detective' angle of the analyses.

[@tiger-t3u]

Always fascinating to hear what probably really happened in contrast to the familiar narratives we’ve all been brainwashed with since childhood. Thanks Bart for doing this important work!

[@bdwon]

You make a good point about shedding the brainwashing. But where is the evidence about "what really happened"? I think that the work Ehrman and other textual critics have done calls upon us to decide for ourselves to decide what we think happened based upon what we believe.

[@termination9353]

- The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.

[@tiger-t3u]

@@termination9353 I guess you’ve figured it all out for yourself. You must have tremendous amount of evidence for your claims 😅 People are storytellers and the resurrection of Jesus is one of those made up stories (fairy tales) that has been circulating. That’s the main message I take from Bart’s podcasts. Why invent an even more crazy narrative as you have done?

[@termination9353]

@@tiger-t3u Well I don't believe it to be a fairytale. Regardless even a fairytale says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. This story being truth or fiction aside... the story the Gospel narrative relates is not what The Church that claims to represent it says it relates. Starting with scripture John 21:24 "This is the disciple[whom Jesus loved/ Lazarus] which testifieth of these things, AND WROTE THESE THINGS: and we[Apostles] know that his testimony is true." John 11:5 Now Jesus LOVED Martha, and her sister, and LAZARUS John 11:3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him{Jesus], saying, Lord, behold, HE[Lazarus] WHOM THOU LOVEST is sick.. John11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he[Jesus] LOVED him[Lazarus]!

[@tiger-t3u]

@@termination9353 I consider myself an agnostic with regards to a god in general, although I think his existence is highly unlikely. We simply cannot say with absolute certainty that what we see around us (nature) was not made through the intention of a creator. I consider myself an atheist, however, with regards to the more specific belief in an all powerful, all loving god, as Christianity postulates. That hypothesis cannot convincingly be reconciled with reality, the amount of unnecessary pain throughout human existence. The fairy tale character is certainly true for the resurrection, all the miracles and any divine intervention. All the aforementioned is the stuff of human invention created by people who had not the slightest idea how the universe works. Most historians (including myself) agree that there was probably a man called Jesus who was crucified and died. That’s where any plausible historical evidence ends and the fiction (fairy tale) starts.

[@germanboy14]

Bart is great. I dont agree on everything with him but he is a hero when it comes to biblical scholarship.

[@trails3597]

Great discussion on some important theology. Mark says atonement, ie some form of restitution while Luke is about forgiveness. The last supper must of been very stressful for the apostles. So it may not be surprising to get some differences in recollection.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

I wish Bart dealt with Marcion's gospel of Paul and Steve Mason's 5 points of placing canonical luke in the second century.

[@onejohn2.26]

You realize that mercy and was called a heretic in the son of Satan?

[@Darisiabgal7573]

@@onejohn2.26 Mercy sakes alive! 100 years after he was dead.

[@enumaelish6751]

According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. His pantheon in Ugarit is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. "When El was young, he came across two beautiful Goddesses washing their clothes in the Sea. They were Athirat (Asherah) and the Goddess Rahmaya, and, after buttering them up by cooking a meal for them, he asked them to choose between being his daughters or wives. They choose the latter and became the mothers of the Gods Shachar "Dawn" and Shalim "Dusk"." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"* (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.

[@HkFinn83]

I appreciate the effort but you should write a blog maybe? I’ve no idea what you’re even taking about, but you might find a better audience/people to interact with in a blog on a specific topic.

[@pinball1970]

Great content as usual. You are good people too, very clear talking about your kids. Impressive human beings!

[@sailorbychoice1]

14:50 The way I heard it in Catholic Catechism classes in the _Original Story;_ The group brought the woman accused of adultery before him. Jesus said to the crowd of men, _"Let the one without sin cast the first stone."_ Whereupon one by one the men in the crowd dropped their stones and walked away. Then one large lone rock sailed through the air and struck the woman in the temple and she fell down dead. Jesus then turned and angrily yelled, _"Mom, What did I say about following me around while I'm working?"_

[@stevearmstrong6758]

That’s funny - over a few heads I’m sure but funny.

[@onejohn2.26]

Not funny at all

[@michaelfuller34]

Hmm read that joke in one of Bart’s books. 😂

[@timcarbone007]

Love your talks. I find them so captivating

[@a.t.6322]

This was a very satisfying discussion. Textual variants are Dr. Ehrman’s forte.

[@danhaverland4140]

As a born and raised Jehovahs Witness. Indoctrinated in one teaching. It is so great to here these logical bible reviews.

[@stephanieparker1250]

I could listen to Bart preach for hours.. 🤗

[@davidkatz341]

This episode really is fascinating. I've heard Dr Ehrman explain why the first two chapters of Luke were not original and that the original text began in chapter 3. But that would dovetail perfectly with the good doctor's explanation about how references to Joseph as the father of Jesus were removed. So a fair deduction would be that originally Luke did not believe in the virgin birth and in fact believed that the father of Jesus was Joseph. Later on, the Virgin birth narrative of chapter 1 and 2 was added. That would require that any reference to Joseph as father had to be expunged. You're right Dr Herman this is like an episode of Columbo..

[@EZeasyET]

Ehrmans laugh is infectious. So great

[@linpin1843]

I would like to know how widespread the ability to read and write was during the writing of the gospels. I'm not even sure the disciples could read or write except for Mathew. That is one reason why I hesitate when thinking of the gospels actually being written by the apostles or disciples.

[@v.sandrone4268]

An illiterate person would dictate a text by using a scribe if they needed something written down.

[@konstantinoskazantzis3893]

Thank you Magen and Bart for the life giving massage I say this because I rise as a child in a Greek family in Greece in a Jehovah’s Witness religion my grandmother got baptism in j/w religion in1924 I am third generation in the religion I spent 60 years of my life with many many ?? That no one can give me answers that did not make cense to me when I ask the Elders of Jworg they missed understanding me eventually desfelowship and call me apostasy attitude now the last 10 years family friends shunned I thank you dr Burt for your hard work to make life better for people like me see the light at the end of my waste life with the JWORG relationship as they told me at the last elders meting the read me a scripture from Corinthians they are handing me to satin likely from Burt happening to have a debate and I fell in his strong arms and wake me up by his logical knowledge being from Greece I understood historical arguments made sense from the start I use you wealth of information knowledge to help for those help themselves I referred tham to your channel I am free from nonsense now and smaller things Do mater thank you I don’t believe in Satan but if the Elders of Jehovahs w say you are I am honest the lucky ex Greek Jehovah’s Witness ever lived ❤ 😂 thank you Σας Ευχάριστο από την ❤❤❤❤

[@rayhollinghead1600]

Regarding the forgiveness versus atonement: Forgiveness is atonement. Using the example of 1,000 dollars being forgiven, when you forgive that money, then it is you who are paying for it. The 1,000 dollars is still gone. Someone has to pay it, i.e. "atone". By forgiving the other person, you are the one who pays by accepting that you lost 1,000 dollars. This is also a problem governments don't seem to understand. They say, "we'll just forgive your debts." What does that mean? That means they are going to make someone else pay for it. The debt doesn't magically disappear just because you forgive. Someone always has to make atonement. In order for God to forgive someone, he had to place that debt onto someone else. Jesus was the someone else.

[@kauffner]

The UBS committee labeled Luke 22:19-20 as {B}, or “almost certain,” according to Metzger. It isn't the only atonement passage in Luke-Acts anyway. What about Acts 20:28? If atonement is your reason to think a passage isn't original, that's no reason at all.

[@karlemmrich]

Another great episode!

[@syedasimali668]

Why not do an episode on the lost years of Jesus? It would be interesting to know what he had been doing during his youth and where he was.

[@FretnesButke]

He may well already has. I know he's touched on it under a show on "The Acrocrypha".

[@bdwon]

At about the 50 minute mark, Ehrman argues that annual trips to the Jerusalem temple would have been beyond the financial means of the Holy Family in the Galilee. I trust that his intuition is correct, if the Holy Family were farmers or farm workers. But the NT makes a point about them that Joseph was a carpenter, not a peasant. Moreover, recent archeological work in the area establishes that there was a posh recreational area nearby where Romans went on holiday. The article I read about that archeological research suggested the craftsmen like Joseph might have been employed there and thereby relatively well-off and able to make annual trips to Jerusalem.

[@ulrichwurzer3962]

It's a stretch to call Joseph a carpenter. The word used in the gospels in the original Greek is "téktōn" which can be translated as carpenter but has a lot of other meanings, any kind of manual laborer could be called a téktōn. Nazareth at the time of Jesus had only a couple hundred inhabitants, which makes it very unlikely that it supported a proper carpenter.

[@ddavidjeremy]

Bart is " just a Textual Critic" is among the dumbest things William Lane Craig has ever said. (And thats saying something)

[@RobotProctor]

I think it would be great to reference chapters/books of yours that are dedicated to these topics. Its a plug for you, plus we could read them afterwards and have this conversation to go on to better understand what we're reading. EDIT: at the end they say "Misquoting Jesus" and "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"

[@VJacquette]

I know that the autographs don't exist, but I'd love to read a version of the Bible that is actually based on what the experts believe to be most original. Is there such a thing? For example, I've long been told that NRSV is the best version, but even it still has things like Luke's 2-cup Eucharist.

[@Amazing_Mark]

Excellent episode. 👍

[@ofthetree]

If Paul knew Jesus brother James, why didn't he ask him about his life and stories and write about it?

[@stevemuhlberger]

I've been going thru your Misquoting Jesus Q%As and as a (retired) (historian-- (ancient, medieval ) I very much enjoy the scholarly argumentation. Having taught the early church it occurred to me the reason there was so much theological conflict among the various Christian groups because all of them wanted to claim the brand "Jesus." In this theory, there were some key religious ideas with wide appeal: the end of this world, the appearance of the Son of Man or God, the coming of the Kingdom of God, etc. At a very early date, this complex of ideas got associated with Jesus of Nazareth and the battle for control of Brand Jesus was on. This is not a rigorous analysis, but it might be something that gives modern stt students something to chew on, and why people cared about such odd ideas and symbols.

[@danielgibson8799]

15:34-15:42 This isn’t quite under those parameters, but i think “Luke” 2:48 and “Luke” 3:23 contradict each other and couldn’t have been written by the same writer. “Matthew” 1:18, “Mark” 6:3, “Luke” 3:23 and “John” 8:41 all state or imply that opponents used Mary and her birth of Jesus to deride him and his followers. “Luke” 1-2 reads like a mid second century orthodox apologetic combatting these implications by claiming Jesus was a legitimate child who was held in high esteem by the establishment. P.S./Edit: “Luke” 1-2, etc. doesn’t predate justin martyr by very much. Around a decade probably.

[@dpichney]

The discussion of the childhood of Jesus reminded me of a lecture in Great Courses on gospels and other writings that that were excluded from the New Testament. In one in particular, Jesus is shown, as a child ,first discovering his supernatural powers in much the same way as Superman as a boy is depicted in films and comic books discovering his super strength and other powers. In the case of Jesus, these writings depicted him as becoming angry or frustrated with a playmate or a village adult and stricking them dead.! It is so bad, that the villagers come to Mary and Joseph and say basically, if you can't control you're kid, we are going to exile you from the village!

[@travis1240]

"there has to be some kind of oral tradition" because its either that or someone would have had to have written it down immediately. This ignores a rather glaring and obvious third possiblity - that many of these stories just come from elsewhere. Could be stories about someone else or could be the author's imagination. I mean the point of the gospels was never to write history - it was to make theological points. This is driven home by the video we just watched about Luke and scribal changes. I'm not saying that it's impossible there is some oral tradition involved, i just think it is pretty minimal.

[@tiger-t3u]

That third possibility could simply be called rumor. In what world do theists live that they wouldn’t take sth like that into account. We just need to look at the Covid-19 pandemic. How easy was it in 2019 to spread rumors like conspiracy theories about vaccines? I mean if people couldn’t agree on facts in 2019, should we simply assume that rumors couldn’t have been spread 2000 years ago, when most people couldn’t read and write and were much less educated than we are today? And if people wanted to add more “credibility” to their stories they could have simply invented that Jesus appeared to 500 eyewitnesses. Yet believers consider those “500 eyewitnesses” as definite proof for the truth of the gospels.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@tiger-t3u What's the difference between rumor and oral tradition? Believers might claim stories of 500 eyewitnesses are definite proof, but scholars generally don't. Many believers don't even think it was oral tradition, but accept traditional authorship and think the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses.

[@tiger-t3u]

@@jeffmacdonald9863I agree. Believers believe anything they want to believe. They don’t ask for evidence. A god who hides and operates in secret is indistinguishable from an imposter or scammer who preys on the gullible population.

[@zivotatodorovic2139]

27:36 is for me the proof that Gospel of Luke is our best version of Q but was redacted many times and this knew Marcion. Also he knew which letters of Paul were originally written by Paul. Priority of the Gospel of Marcion. Matthias Klinghardt's hypothesis of a chronological priority of the gospel of Marcion applied to the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Marc, Luke)

[@TheVaughan5]

Question - how do scholars arrive at an approximate date for the writing of the original gospels?

[@macroman52]

They have a range of about 80 years and they choose the date they like. As opposed to an engineer or a scientist who proceeds by assuming the worst number for their own case.

[@WareWolf831]

The idea of Home Alone Jesus in the temple is hilarious.

[@karenhunt7035]

A question: I've long been troubled by premises of textual criticism (eg prefer hardest passage) because it seems to systematically sift texts in favor of making them look as strange as possible. Same for identifying which quotes in the New Testament are "really" by Jesus (prefer the ones that the early church would hate the most). I understand the need for this - it's not like there's a better set of criteria lying around offering better results - but here's the question: How much work is put into trying to double back and say "ok, this perfectly reasonable saying might well have been one of his anyway", or "this weird text is too weird - I bet the scribe needed to get up and drink some coffee and try again", or does all argument stop when the weirder choice has been identified?

[@scambammer6102]

there's a lot more to textual criticism than inferences from embarrassment.

[@karenhunt7035]

@@scambammer6102 Yes, but a surprisingly large piece of it is. That said, I do appreciate the preferences for the oldest texts and widest attestation - there's real science behind that part of textual criticism. By contrast, the guessing as to which statements were actually made by Jesus seems ... entirely embarrassment-based. (well, ok, starting by throwing out everything claimed in the Gospel of John can't be too far wrong, it's obviously not Q-based)

[@scambammer6102]

@@karenhunt7035 I agree that inferences from embarrassment are overused, particular in relation to Jesus' alleged words. Fact is, we don't know what the Gospel writers would have found embarrassing, and if those passages were really embarrassing, they would have been removed. Also, the genre of sacred texts is generally not concerned with historical accuracy.

[@petervanvelzen1950]

On the question wether the writers were basing their Gospel on oral tradion or on Written sources, we can be sure they might have had plenty of written sources, but they mainly based there story on the Septuagint.

[@WoundedEgo]

Great stuff. I don't share the opinion of the majority of modern scholars that Mark was written first. I think John was written first, and Mark took issue with a great many things. The oldest extant Christian manuscript is from John's passion narrative.

[@dpichney]

I should have listened till the very end of the podcast before writing my previous comment because Bart refers to this infancy gospel of Jesus in discussing oral tradition.

[@johnnysprocketz]

less filler, more technical language, thanks!

[@chriswoodford4331]

Bart is the best because he found interest in the bits others ignored.

[@slik00silk84]

It seem to me that one can think that the author of Luke may have written parts of his gospel referring to Joseph as father before he wrote the parts about the immaculate conception and virgin birth. . . and never realized the contradictions so caused. It is also possible that someone other than the original author added those parts.

[@dwitede]

Very good. One of Erhman's best. Another difference between the Synoptics is Jesus' baptism. Matthew and Mark say it was by John the Baptist; Luke hints it was not by John (his imprisonment is reported, then the baptism is reported). This is a discrepancy that one thinks a scribe would have mulled over. Are there copies of Luke's Gospel that puts John at the baptism of Jesus? It seems strange for Luke to leave John out of the baptism account if John was there.

[@edward1412]

I guess you’re a bit confused because of Luke 3:1-20 which talks about John (the Baptist) preparing the way for Jesus which includes him being locked up. However, the next verses which are verses 21 and 22 talk about Jesus’ baptism. If you read Luke 3:1-20, you would realised that it was John (the Baptist) who was baptising people (verse 12), so when you read the latter verse (21) which states that Jesus also got baptised when ALL the PEOPLE were baptising, it simply meant it was John who baptised all these people, including Jesus before he was imprisoned. Luke simply wanted to concentrate on John the Baptist from verse 1-20 and concentrate on Jesus from verse 21 and this is why I believe he didn’t include Jesus’ baptising before verse 21. He was simply reporting it AFTER the fact as it was time to concentrate on Jesus.

[@edward1412]

By reading all the Gospels, what I find is that, John baptised Jesus, after this Jesus went to the wilderness for 40 days, He returned to find out that John has been imprisoned or He saw John again before he eventually was imprisoned, and this was when He began His ministry. John the Baptist came to prepare the way for Jesus so immediately Jesus realised that John has been imprisoned, this was when Jesus decided to start His ministry, thus immediately went to the Sea of Galilee to look for Peter, Andrew, James and John. Jesus already knew who these people were so He went there specifically for them to start His ministry.

[@dwitede]

​@@edward1412 Erhman has an axiom (which I agree with) that we don't fill in the gaps of one writing with another. That brings the illusion of clarity, but never actual clarity. We can get one brick wall to look like another by filling in every gap with mortar and then plastering it over, but that's not fair to the author, and not honest. There is one story but there are three story-tellers, who did not get it wrong but did not get it precisely the way we would prefer either. Luke said it the way he wanted. Making him say what one of the other writers said is not allowed. Luke did not say John the Baptist baptized Jesus. We should find out why, not spackle it over. Luke also does not have Jesus saying "this is my blood" at the Last Supper--at least not in the best source documents. Interpolations have plagued the Scriptures from the beginning, and now the modern translations insert their own, and readers of modern translations insist on adding even more. If you truly believe "every jot and tittle", then you must also believe that every jot and tittle that was *not* written was not written! We are NOT allowed to change the Word of God because we want it to say what we believe. Luke 3:21 says "when all the people were baptized" and then says "and when Jesus also had been baptized", which means we cannot include Jesus in the "all" because Luke specifically marks him out separately by saying "also". Yes, I believe Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, because of Matthew and Mark. But I also believe Luke did not say it, probably on purpose. I don't know why, but I care why. I will not say it doesn't matter, and I certainly will not add my own interpolations. The Word of God has suffered enough. We should allow it to stand.

[@dwitede]

@@edward1412 Oh my. You're pretty new to this huh? I assume you're referring to the Synoptic Gospels. John the author does not have John the Baptist baptizing Jesus and does not have Jesus spending 40 days in the wilderness. John's 6 or 7 day account (depending on what "the third day" means in 2:1) does not allow for a 40-day wilderness Temptation. John the author also does not have Andrew, Simon, James, and John called from the nets on the Sea of Galilee. Nevertheless, in the Synoptics it largely as you say, except none of them say Jesus went to Galilee because he knew these four men would be there, and Luke does not say when John the Baptist was imprisoned. No problem. Back to the point: Ehrman is asked whether copyists and scribes changed Luke's Gospel over the years. The answer is yes. Certainly. And also Matthew and Mark and John. We make it worse when we insist they all say the same thing. Sanding off the rough spots will not return the Word of God to its original clarity. Some say they cannot believe in God because his Word has discrepancies. Not a problem. Everyone will stand before the Judge and answer for what they have done, not for what they have believed about God. Paul told Timothy to avoid disputing over words (1 Tim 6:4) because it comes to no good. Yes, Bible study is good and Bible college is good, and even seminary, to a point. The "point" is then stopping and actually doing something. My suggestion: do all those, then stop studying the Word and start doing the Word. Everyone knows that the engineer and surgeon learn 95% of their jobs by doing it. You can get your BA and MA and PhD (three if you like) and still not know, because you haven't done it. I'm never getting on an airplane designed by someone with a PhD but no experience making airplanes. Jesus called not one seminary student or professor as a disciple. Most of the job is learned on the job, and a forever-student will never learn the other 95%.

[@Valdagast]

Now I want a 'Home Alone' style movie with Jesus protecting the temples from thieves.

[@paulrussell4338]

Such a pity that the other major religions do not have people like this man with the courage to speak the truth.

[@blairmcian]

Dr. Ehrman talks about Luke writing this and Luke writing that, but I thought that the attributions of the four canonical Gospels are considered to be a late, and therefore questionable, development. If so, it seems that it should be noted from time to time since that should affect the reliability of the factual claims in that book of the Bible.

[@jamesmason5664]

Bart & Megan my Super Heros! Thank you guys for making this research Interesting and attractive to all layman who needs and wants the Real Truth on Ancient Myths! Extremely Enlightening and informative, Pulling back the Curtain on Religious rhetoric. Bravo guys, always relevant; Knowledge every Christian ✝️ should know!!!🙏😇🧘‍♂️💚💪😎👍

[@jd-gw4gr]

sound bit 29:00 dr ehrman states " when luke copied mark'..." what does dr. ehrman mean by luke copied mark? i wasn't aware the the Gospel of Luke was a copy of Mark's Gospel.

[@rschreck]

88% of Mark is duplicated in Luke. In fact Luke’s retelling is about 50% word-for-word identical to Mark’s.

[@jd-gw4gr]

@@rschreck yes, which can simply mean that Luke had access to more materials or knowledge or personal testimony or more of something the mark yes or no?

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@jd-gw4gr If Mark was written first and there's good evidence that it was and Luke uses the same wording as Mark for about 50% of his Gospel, it's pretty clear that Luke copied Mark. He expanded on Mark, using other sources, some of which he shared with Matthew, but it doesn't make sense to get the same wording otherwise.

[@jd-gw4gr]

@@jeffmacdonald9863 yes but you are making an assumption that mark was written first, which it would seem that way and can you tell me why 50% of the Gospels would not have similar writings? or if as you say the Gospel of Luke was a 50% copy what is the point you are making?

[@NookCrannyTrips]

A lot of eye-opener information. One can still remain faithful but based on facts and deeper understanding on what they believe in.

[@nadzach]

Luke, לוק, is the gospel of the "latter" part of multiple portions of grace. These lessons taught to the 12 would have dealt with the 3rd part of the trinity which is the holy spirit. "Be ye holy." Holiness fills the mind with the word of God. It is a quickening of the mind. We are called to love God with all our heart, soul and mind. On the way of life, מערה is the most distant beginning, the quickening of the heart. With mark, we are established in the way. Matthew, מאת or with theo, μετθεου, we begin the second leg of our journey, the quickening of the soul. With this commitment and confession wee accept the will of the father as our will. This enables us to change our actions. Luke takes us into the holy of holies. The gospels are not meant to be copies of one another. Having luke faith will carry us further in a storm. Luke faith attributes us with three times the light of mark faith. Mark gave us authority. Matthew gave us power. Luke gives us might. (There is no Q.)

[@longcastle4863]

Another excellent one. Thank you 👍

[@KiriG68]

enjoyed it but...Who was Luke? Did he write the original version of the gospel in Aramaic or Greek? could he have knowledge of the Greek language and to what extent? has his apparent knowledge of the classical Greek literal texts affected the way he writes and presents the events, as compared to the other evangelists?...all questions that Megan could have asked.

[@WickedFelina]

In re the stoning of the adulteress - After learning that this story was inerted, I asked around about it. One minister said it was. Then, I asked a priest. He said that it was thought to have been but we discovered it was not. He mentioned by name a very old copy of the New Testament (I believe he said in Egypt) where it was in the text. Later copies the story had been removed. It is believed that it was removed because 1) it may make the people think adultery is okay; and 2) at the time of the writing it may have been thought to "problematic" for Jesus to have forgiven a woman. I know you are the EXPERT of EXPERTS however, this detailed account was believable. Why would the church have made this story up? Women have been sidelined from the beginning, and it IS an easy absolution where she doesn't need to go to confession, receive absolution and perform penance for such a BIG commandment to break? I say check it out! It does sound like it belongs in Jesus's teachings and ways.

[@scambammer6102]

you think bart hasn't "checked it out"?

[@setapartone9311]

I don't believe that story because Messiah was perfect in Torah and he never sinned. If the narrative is true that means Yahusha sinned.

[@jd-gw4gr]

sound bit 30:03 i looked in the received text, KJB, in Luke 23 there is no mention of the curtain tearing. what is dr. ehrman saying? Luke's Gospel does not mention the tearing of the curtain at all before or after Christ death.

[@rschreck]

Luke 23:45

[@jd-gw4gr]

@@rschreck thank you for the clarification as dr. ehrman was not quoting from the Gospel of Luke but simply stating his inference to what luke would say.

[@sogoma7797]

Where do we send questions?

[@Nick-Nasti]

Ehrman is amazing. Am I the only one who’d love to see what an original Bible would look like with insertions, deletions and plagiarisms? Also remove all of the clear fables like any tales of Jesus’ birth and youth.

[@stevearmstrong6758]

Yea, I was on a quest to try get as close to the original Gospel as possible but after several years of reading I think it’s a futile effort. I don’t think there every was a set initial version of the Gospel but instead many competing narratives from the beginning and each of these changed over time as new stories were added and no doubt some stories removed. Marcus Borg’s book, The Evolution of the Word, was an interesting read and got me looking more chronologically. I’d like to be able to compare gospel narratives from the thirties and early forties when people were looking for Jesus’ immediate return to the narratives we have that are post 70 AD when much was added to explain the delay.

[@nickmansfield1]

1:01:57 This statement by Bart best illustrates his inability to comprehend specific vital aspects of Biblical literature despite his obvious scholastic abilities and his importance as a commentator on the NT.

[@bradleyhowell4155]

True.

[@randytrout1241]

If you were to read 4 different books about Woodstock from 4 different authors that attended the 3-day concert, would all 3 be identical or would some have different experiences? Why should 4 separate accounts be expected to be the same? Also, I would expect to have even more variations of the copies after a few hundred years of handwritten copies. I see no reason to reject the whole narrative based on some human error.

[@richardredmond1463]

There's excellent harmony between each of the gospels, and between the gospels and Paul, and between Paul and the other letter writers. Much ado about nothing as Shakespeare mentioned.

[@integrationalpolytheism]

55:35 there's another possibility which Dr Ehrman refuses to consider or acknowledge. Maybe yhr authors, either of the gospels we have or of earlier documents, made up th narrative out of whole cloth. Maybe it started off as eg a sayings collection and authors started to tackle on messianic stuff from the tanakh and mimetic additions from Greek tradition. Maybe the entire thing spun up organically as a writing project, in response to and designed to influence the political scenario following or even running up ro, the jewish war. I think Dr Ehtman won't admit this possibility simply because when you think about it we don't actually need a historical Jesus for this literary project yo have happened, and he is ideologically wedded to the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman denies the resurrection, but the historical Jesus issue seems to be the hill he's prepared to die on.

[@syedasimali668]

The Quranic observation of the scribes is that "they dislocate the word from its place."(مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ)

[@NoWay1969]

Is Luke originally a Marcionite gospel? Does the lack of an atonement component make it more likely to have come from a Marcionite source?

[@ThroneofDavid8]

Bart, tell us about the Ethiopian Bible.

[@hermione3muller674]

Are there any other free courses?

[@kihntagious]

ooh great hair!! I love this idea of how things change over time.

[@1234567mrbob]

I can't help but to think of someone saying, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".

[@mikewilson858]

This quite interesting. I had long ignored Luke because it was a late and derivative and I assumed, conformal to Christian tradition of the Pauline school. But if Luke disregards Jesus dying as atonement for sin, it is in fact a theology more in line with the earliest Christianity. For certain Jesus wasn’t preaching he was dying for sin, and that doesn’t seem to be a part of Q. It may not have been Paul’s innovation but I don’t think it was bed rock to the 11 apostles in the months after Jesus died. He may have been part of a tradition that didn’t think that was part of the equation.

[@edward1412]

Luke 24:44-47 “He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” “Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

[@Theslavedrivers]

Gets properly interesting from 15:20 onwards ...

[@danblackwelder5995]

Is this question for me? I would say every person’s theology changes over time including Luke. It could be possible for some scribe to intentionally insert his own changing religious doctrinal view into a manuscript. Someone might notice and call him out, unless there is a conspiracy. #peter’schangingviews

[@andybeans5790]

I hope you guys can splice up some footage of your respective stays in the UK when you get back 😊

[@JesusCsus]

Why do you assume "it was written" some many years after the fact as opposed to "compiled " x number of years after the fact? Seems odd they would write the gospels as an after thought and explains why some things were added.

[@edvaneckert2348]

How about Marcions redaction and ground building work in the 2nd century. I recently heared that his collection and selection is the proto-gospel all 4 gospels derive from. Wouldnt it make sense?

[@pfylis]

Interesting! Thank you!

[@jg90049]

I am interested in the importance of the Temple in the Gospels, since each of them was written after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

[@billyhw5492]

Were the Gospels written before or after the time they claim Jesus to have said he would return?

[@jg90049]

@@billyhw5492 Much later, if I read your question right. Scholarly thinking is that Mark dates from 70 or shortly therafter; Matthew and Luke date from around 80, and John is at least a decade later. The crucifixion took place in 32-33.

[@billyhw5492]

@@jg90049 Why would the Gospels record Jesus' failed prophesy of his return if they were written after he failed to return when he said he would?

[@scambammer6102]

@@billyhw5492 because the gospel writers didn't care if their story was factual or even logical. The gospels are full of impossible events.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@billyhw5492 Which failed prophecy of his return? When did he say he would return? The references I can think of aren't that specific.

[@bobstine3785]

How long did manuscripts from the early Roman Empire typically last?

[@michaelhebert60]

Can you point me to similar texltual research concerning the Koran?

[@stiopruryd4879]

Are we talking about Luke’s father Anakin?