(12 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...On December 20 I had a very interesting interview on the Podcast called Blogging Theology (Blogging Theology – Exploring Life, the Universe and Everything with a former Christian, now Muslim Paul Williams, who, as it turns out, is highly knowledgeable about the Bible, early Christianity, and the scholarship connected with them.. This is the kind of interview I really enjoy: an astute questioner with the right queries that get to the heart of important issues.
Here it is. I hope you enjoy it!
I read Dever’s book Has Archeology Buried the Bible and found it fascinating and informative. Thanks for the heads up.
I watched this on Paul Williams’ youtube channel last week and thought it was an interesting and good conversation. I also saw that you later engaged a Muslim doctor on theodicy on the same channel. The comments section was pretty brutal toward you on that second podcast, but most of the commenters were Williams’ Muslim followers so I wasn’t really surprised. My question, though, is whether the debate with this doctor was the one you referred to in “Bart Behaving Badly.”
YEah, that was the one. I lost my cool a bit, as I do when I hear “answers” to why there is suffering that strike me as facile.
Thankyou Prof Ehrman, this is very good. And yes, having a smart & well-informed interviewer makes all the difference. Re the gospel story where Jesus is asked “Good teacher, what must I do . . .” & then “Why do you call me good? . . .” I always understood it not to be a denial from Jesus but his attempt to present the enquirer with a bigger choice he has to make which must precede the other choice he has to make regarding his desire for eternal life vs desire for riches. So Jesus is saying to him “Are you acknowledging that I am or have the authority of God? If Yes then you really have no excuse for not following the advice I am about to give”. It always made sense to me, & still does although now no longer a Christian. What do you reckon?
I don’t read it that way myelf. Jesus seems to be rebuking the man for claming too much. At least that’s how I imagine anyone would read the story if the person being questioned was not named Jesus.
For what it’s worth, even some of Williams’ followers opined that Dr. Brown was not really qualified to debate you on this topic. Some of them mentioned a specific Muslim philosopher who they claim is more expert on the topic. Did you know that Williams had Dr. Brown on his podcast again a few days later to “reply” to your points? In any event, the whole thing strikes me as a believer’s attempt to maintain the belief system rather than an honest attempt to address difficult topics. As you have said in many previous debates with Christian apologists, “How many of you are here just to see me get creamed?”
Yes, Paul gave me the chance to reply to Brown’s later defense of his views, but I didn’t want to get more deeply involved. I wasn’t sure there was much point.
Interesting interview.
You’re doubtless aware that Muslim apologists have made great use of your videos attempting to bolster their ideology that the New Testament was corrupted in order to explain the contradictions between the NT and the Quran. I can’t help but wonder if they are quite so enthusiastic when the same historical-critical apparatus is turned towards the Quran and their own traditions?
Yeah, I should think not…
Speaking for myself here, I am in fact more or less okay with the stuff Marijin van Putten and Shady Hekmat Nasser are coming out with. The tldr being Quran is an oral form so there are some aspects (clearly most according to the scholarship of marijin) that came straight from the mouth of the Messenger and some that are from early Muslims.
e.g. “yakdhiboon” vs “yukadhiboon” in one verse, where one was probably from the Prophet and another from an early companion and we simply don’t know for sure.
There are no shortage of early narrations explaining why this is the case and we have a solid tradition going back as early as Ibn Jarir at Tabari probably EARLIER about those debates over wordings.
After all of it, it still comes out stellar when compared to the “New Testament.” So it’s no lie that we ARE particularly grateful to Ehrman for doing a lot of our work for us. In fact, in a lot of the most important ways, he’s probably done or at least sealed the deal on ALL of the work we needed done.
My guess is a few muslims will apostatize when critical scholarship spreads, most won’t.
This might be a longshot, but since you’ve linked other UNC events before… you ever consider doing a collaboration / interview / joint post / podcast / etc. with Bret Deveraux, a fellow UNC person who also runs an active blog that is pretty neat? Wouldn’t shock me if there was decent overlap between the two blog audiences anyway, since Classics / Roman History is Early Christianity adjacent: the Roman-Judean War, Paul’s Roman citizenship, religious policy in the late Roman Empire, etc.
If you haven’t seen his blog at all, here’s a sample recentish post:
https://acoup.blog/2021/06/11/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-i-beginnings-and-legends/
Interesting idea!
Some interesting discussion there. I notice you nail your colours to the mast in showing that you are not persuaded by Richard Fellows on Galatians . . .
I particularly enjoyed hearing Dr. Erhman engage in theological discussion. Hearing Dr. Erhman’s hermeneutical and exegetical training come out is incredibly refreshing.
One might think that he had read at least some of your books, or listened to your lectures.
Regarding the final comments about “Forgery and Counterforgery”:
I bought this a few years ago, read through it and enjoyed it. Really can’t understand the relative lack of interest from the public. I will say it’s not the page-turner Bart’s trade books are…a bit of a slog at times, but that’s what a non-scholar like me should expect from a scholarly publication.
Not as much of a slog reading it as writing it….
Hi Bart, quick question. You’re such a knowledgeable and entertaining podcast guest — have you ever thought of hosting your own podcast on the NT topics that fascinate you? Frankly, I don’t understand how you have time to do all the things that you already do, but I know it would be a hit.
(BTW, I sent an email along these lines to your UNC account if you have time to check it out. Thanks!)
Dave Roos
Sorry — I did get your email and I jsut can’t reply to questions I get there because of the volume. Wish I could! Sigh…
But thanks so much for the suggestion. As it turn out, I’ve been thinking about doing a podcast lately and have been in conversations about it. I might start getting serious about it soon. Thanks!
Bart
At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess (Philippians 2nd Chapter 10th verse) is a reference to Isaiah 45th Chapter 23rd verse which is speaking of Yahweh.
So in Philippians, Jesus’s name has the power of God.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Where were the knees of the Idumean rebels bowing to Jesus commanding them to hear the high priest Jesus of Gamala who faulted them for coming to assist wicked men against the high priests? Jesus of Gamala claimed: I am not betraying Jerusalem to the Romans. Yes, I preferred peace over the rebels attacking Legion 12 Fulminata, but now, we cannot surrender: we must die for what the rebels have done for freedom that Jerusalem would only be under God, not under Roman Empire then under God.
The gospels writers wanted Jesus to be a new Moses? Well, now we know even Moses did not deliver that because Labaya, the historical King Saul was a vassal king of Egypt telling Amarna pharoahs, “I am your servant. I fall at your feet [Egyptian] king [pharaoh] my lord.”
So, no, Moses was not a precedent for liberation from a super power, empire.
That’s right. Yahweh bestowed a level of equality on Jesus.
I see that “Forgery and Counterforgery” is unavailable through Barnes and Noble. I suppose that’s a good sign! Can’t wait to read it!
Thanks for sharing. In the very beginning of the video you mention that there is a big movement right now that Luke is actually written later, in the 120’s. Can you explain more on that? What are the reasons for thinking that Luke was written later? Is this view becoming more popular and accepted by critical scholars, or is it a minority view?
Yes, it’s an increasingly popular view. The basic reason scholars are moving that direction is taht they’re becoming convinced that when Acts mentinons events also discussed by Josephus, it appears (or might appear) that Luke is *dependent* on Josephus’s account. I don’t buy it, but frankly I haven’t dug deeply enough into the issue, and need to do so.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
In my 2015 YouTube video “New Conclusions and Perspectives on Christianity (2016 Forward), my findings then were that Luke and Matthew were written 80-85 C.E. and Acts (with its original and Hellenist apostles part and its Paul part) was written 80-150 C.E.
Two Problems:
1a) possibly Luke was written in 80 and Acts was not written until 125 to 150 CE,
1b) author/s of Luke have more time to be familiar with Mark and Matthew as opposed to writing independently, but no evidence of being familiar with John
1c) the author/s of Luke did not need 45 years to write the sequel of Acts which strengthens the argument for same author/s for Luke and Acts
2a) the Synoptic Gospels are all no longer composed before 90 C.E.
2b) Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s is not written about by the author/s of Luke until 90 years later
2c) Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark.
Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s is not written about by the author/s of Luke until 90 years later and Matthew can use Q and finish that gospel 80-85 CE but Luke has to stew with Q for 40-45 more years ? ? ? !
I watched this one a few weeks ago. Certainly a little drier and more “nerdy” than some of your other YT videos. Paul Williams did give some of your books a pretty good plug.
Williams seems like a nice guy, but his jump from fervent Christian to fervent Muslim does worry me a little. Seems like the type of fellow that is desperately searching for certainty, and as they say, “he who seeks finds.” I’m not really a fan of the idea that you go into the world and only find “what is there.” I’m pretty convinced that it is the mind that guides the eyes, not the other way around. But I digress.
Bart,
Toward the end when you guys started talking about Albert Schweitzer, historical Jesus, Dale Allison
you mentioned “The Jesus I think is historical is not the one I would want” is that primarily because of his apocalyptic views/mindset and the inherent problems and issues that come with that be it 2000 years ago or today?
Thanks!
Yes, if I had to be design a Jesus he would be a good progressive live and let live liberal like me!
That was a very enjoyable and informative listen.
You were using a good microphone. Always nice.
Hello Professor,
I just finished reading The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Whew! Tough for a common layperson like myself but I did learn a lot and understood more than I thought I would.
One question I don’t think I’ve ever seen you discuss on the blog: how have computers and digitalization of texts had an impact on textual criticism? And what might the future impact be on the field? I suppose that might need a blog post just to answer. Thanks!
Yes, the full answer would take a book. But there is an enormous amount of work being done, both digitizing manuscripts (Daniel Wallace’s project), collating them electronically, analyzing them, and showing how they can establish the oldest form of the text (requiring computational programs unthought of 20 years ago). Unfortunately, since I’m no longer working in that area, I am not abreast on all the specific developments.
Hello Bart. You have mentioned on many occasions that back in the days after Jesus there were in fact many Christianities, sometimes with very different beliefs.
1. Is that not also the case today ? There are at the top of the hierarchy the three main denominations (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) and each of those three has many sub denominations.
2. Is it not inevitable that such diversity will always be the case, given a) human nature, and b) the very nature of the source material (i.e scripture) ?
Thank you
1. Yes, indeed! 2. Yup, I think so. The reason for emphasizing it is that so many people imagine earliest Christianity as a monolith that became diversified only later when heretics started showing up. My view is that that’s’ wrong.
Thank you Bart. The fact that a world renowned Biblical scholar is prepared to share their time and knowledge answering questions from the great unwashed is a wonderful thing. I feel very blessed to be able to read all the posts on here and get to ask questions as well.
Fantastic stuff. Sorry if this all sounds a little gushing.
Wonderful interview and this seems like a very interesting podcast; I also appreciated your collegial comments about Dale Allison. Out of curiosity I viewed his own interview on the podcast next. He raised a point about how he’s always been perplexed that there’s a small bit of higher Christology in Matthew and Luke (possibly Q) that “shouldn’t” be there, specifically Son/ Father language located in Mark 11:27 and Luke 10:22. Prof. Allison humbly indicates that he really could never explain its presence and I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this. Since I know you’re pressed for time and cannot go digging for it, if you’d like to see the brief exchange in his video it’s here at the 34:48 point and is only about a minute long:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNm0D0I5gdQ
Any thoughts on the presence of this higher Christology that seems out of place would be very appreciated. And as always thanks for the marvelous blog and your openness to field questions from amateurs like myself.
Yeah, it’s a strange phenomenon that I’ve never fully explained either. It’s often called the “Johannine Lighningbolt” because it seems to be a blast right out of the pages of the fourth Gospel.
Thanks for the response!
In the interview, Paul Williams asked you about the evidences for dating the NT texts. You obviously had to skip over this. May you point me in the direction of some of your blogs and/or books that summarise these evidences; especially in light of the range of dates considered by various scholars.
You might look up (as a word search) Dates of the Gospels on the blog for starters.
I appreciate this man a lot. The older folks are just miles ahead more measured, careful and thorough at these things than the younger folks in the Islamic scene.
Early in the video there is a discussion of the verse where Jesus says “only God is good”. This is a verse that fundamentalists and evangelicals often take very seriously, interpreting it to mean that all creation is utterly depraved after the Fall and that the refrain of Genesis, “God saw that it was good”, no longer applies. By contrast, more liberal Christians see the remark of Jesus as very contextual, rather than a blanket declaration that everything is bad.
I wonder if you can say anything about the history of the notion that “only God is good”: how that notion has been understood down the centuries, in Christianity and maybe even before, if there are earlier Jewish antecedents to Jesus’ remark.
It was normally interpreted in reference to human beings in this passage. The man has called Jesus good, and Jesus replies that only God is good. In its context Jesus is saying that no one should call him, as a human, good. The context is not referring to creation or “original sin” or the “fall of Adam” or any of these other theological topics.