(18 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...I recently had a very interesting interview for a podcast called “Global Skeptics.” We had only about 20 minutes and so we agreed to do it rapid-fire. This was one of the best Bam-Bam-Bam interviews I’ve ever done — great and wide-ranging questions from a variety of perspectives. Here it is!
Wow, that was rapid fire! I found the barrage of Muslim questions particularly interesting. I see a similar trend from time to time in the forums. There seems to be some subset of modern Muslims who feel, quite inexplicably, that if they can poke holes in Christianity, then there will be a wave of converts to Islam. What they fail to see is that the Quran is less credible on every detail related to Jesus than the Bible is, so the points attempted do not work in their favor. And a lot of it, again, comes back to false concepts of inerrancy.
Yes, I’ve noticed the exact same thing! It’s sadly amusing, but also very revealing in how they (at least this “subset”) view religion more generally, i.e., viewing modern biblical scholarship as a sort of internal means of destroying the Christian faith, underscoring the idea of defeating one’s religious foes as the primary goal rather than converting them.
You can see this dynamic in the comment sections of Paul Williams’s YT channel Blogging Theology. It comes to the fore quite clearly when Paul interviews western bibilical scholars like Dale Martin, Bart Ehrman, Steve Mason, James Tabor et al.
Paul of course is a convert from Christianity to Islam. So he’s very popular within the Muslim YT community.
Great interview – thanks for sharing!
What sort of love is meant-and perhaps not meant-by love of God in the the first part of the “Great Commandment”? To what degree (eg, Luke’s version) is it meant to be the same as the second part: “love your neighbor as yourself”?
It means devoting oneself totally to God, just as one should be devoted to one’s neighbor.
Wouldn’t one difference between love of God and neighbor be that one can act for the good of the neighbor but that it’s not clear how one can act for the good of God? Does God “need” anything from us in order to be perfectly happy? Is there anything we can “do” for the good of God?
Maybe we imagine that God wants to be worshipped (ie, appreciated, thanked, praised, respected). Maybe God is in some sense happier when his “children” are happier as a result of people being devoted to the good of the neighbor. Maybe that could be thought of as acting for the good of God.
It seems to me like the clearest way to look at it is that being devoted to God means serving God, doing what s/he wants us to do. And the main way to serve God, is to serve the neighbor because that is the main thing God wants us to do.
Is that a reasonable interpretation of the Great Commandment?
Probably so. But Jesus does separate them into two commandments, and loving God would also mean worshiping him properly and giving him his due.
Here’s how I would formulate the Great and New Commandments:
Love God —
especially by loving one’s neighbor and oneself
as God loves all of us
Do you think its just a coincidence that in each of the synoptics Jesus says the words ego eimi three times?
with the below being referenced in each case in all three,
God revealing name to Moses / God being a father Mt 22, Mk 14, Lk 22
Jesus being Messiah / Jesus referring to his own name Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21
Jesus being mistaken for a ghost/spirit Mt 14, Mk 6, Lk 24
It would be a pretty big coincidence nonetheless.
I”m not sure what you’re suggesting. Matthew and Luke, of course, used Mark as one of their sources, so it’s not odd they would retain his wording, since they often do otherwise.
That matthew/Mark/Luke all have Jesus say the name of god three times in their gospels.
Matthew for instance has Jesus quote the passage from exodus “I am the God of Abraham …”, has Jesus claim the divine name “many will come in my name saying I AM the messiah” and “fear not I AM” in a passage where Jesus is mistaken for a ghost. He finishes his gospel with “In the name of the father the son and the holy ghost”
Luke leaves out two of these but replaces them with new instances. “I am” in answer to the question “are you god’s son?”, “many will come in my name saying I AM”, and a passage after the resurrection where the disciples are filled with fear thinking they saw a Spirit – but Jesus says touch me I AM.
Mark follows the same pattern but not-identical to either Matthew or Luke.
Isn’t that too much of a coincidence to be unintentional?
The phrase I am is only rarely used as the name of God. Never in the Synoptics, and in John probably only 8:58. It is used as well by others besides Jesus — for example when the man born blind is asked by the Pharisees if he is the one Jesus healed, he says “Ego Eimi.” (“I am). It’s just a way of saying “yes” or “giving a self-predicate” (I am a man; I am hungry, etc.)
But it *can* be used to mean the name of god is the point and we can ask if the synoptics show any signs of using it that way.
So when Mark and Luke both have “many will come in my name claiming ego eimi” and “you will be hated by all because of my name but the one who endures to the end will be saved/save your lives” I think its pretty clear thats how theyre using it.
When Luke removes the story of Jesus walking on water, but adds a new post resurrection account of the disciples being frightened thinking they see a spirit and Jesus again tells them ego eimi, I think its too big a coincidence to be unintentional.
Yes, it can. Just as KURIOS can mean God, your husband, your human master, or your employer. The only way to know which it means is to consider the context carefully.
The context in Matthew/Mark/Luke is the end of days or the day of the lord where those who are hated because of the name of Jesus, but who stand firm to the end, will be the ones who are saved.
Its the same sense that John is using it
John 1:12 “he gave authority to become children of God to all who believed in his name” John 8:24 “you will die in your sins unless you believe that ego eimi”
Mark and Luke “many will come in my name claiming ego eimi” and “you will be hated by all because of my name but the one who endures to the end will be saved/will save your lives”
Fascinating interview! The first questions all had to do with the Quran and Jesus. I’ve read some about its origins and am wondering whether there is any serious scholarship into its origins etc. If so, would having one of these scholars do a post or two on the blog be interesting? Not exactly about early Christianity, but similar in some ways.
There is a lot of scholarship, but almost all of it by devoted Muslim scholars. There are some who have applied rigorous historical criticism to it, but I’m not aware of their work being published yet.
Great podcast! It would be fascinating to read an account of the development of fundamentalism-with its emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible-and the differences between it and traditional Christianity. Any suggestions?
Based on the way I was raised, I reflexively see the Bible as being primarily a bunch of moral commands, along with the negative consequences of disobedience. What might be a better-or at least different-basic perspective, eg, a disclosure from God or discovery by humanity of God’s love for humanity. Or maybe just the encounter between God and humanity.
Since you were asked about Adolf von Harnack in this interview, in the realm of other old-timey scholars… ever consider doing a post on M. R. James? Kinda curious how the heck a medievalist ended up involved in scholarship on the Apocalypse of Peter & other apocryphal writings of antiquity, and what modern scholars like yourself think of how well his work holds up.
Good idea. He was an amazing scholar. You may not know this, but his most famous writings were ghost stories. Really. He was a brilliant analyst of the Christian apocrypha, one of the best ever. I deal with his work a lot in my forthcoming book Journeys to Heaven and Hell.
Now that’s interesting. I am familiar with James’ ghost stories but had no idea he was a Bible scholar. Yet another reason to look forward to Journeys!
You have said (if I recall correctly) that the idea of Biblical inerrancy was not a common one until the 1800’s. Is there any good historical account that you would recommend that examines how that idea became widespread?
I really like the book by Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalistm.
I have a question about the criterion that you use for determining authenticity of words attributed to Jesus that says that if the gospel writers attribute words to Jesus that were contrary to the views of the gospel authors’ own views, the words are probably authentic. That criterion really only works in one direction right?
I mean, if a Jesus quote in a gospel says something dissimilar from the author’s theology, then we can assume that the quote is likely authentic. But if Jesus said something that the gospel author would agree with, that would not be very strong evidence of the quote’s inauthenticity, would it? If it were, you would end up with a sort of perverse rule by which Jesus could never say anything that would be consistent with the views of the gospel author.
That’s right — the criterion determines what probably *is* authentic; it can’t decide what is not. It may cast doubts on things, but it is really only a *positive* criterion (suggesting what is authentic).
Wow — this was true rapid fire! I found the choice of questions interesting and really fun to watch! I actually LOLed when you answered with Peter, Paul and Mary to the crucifixion witness question.
Dr. Ehrman,
I know you’re a serious NT scholar and don’t have the time (or probably the patience) to deal with allegations regarding YouTubers, but I would think twice about going on Canadian Catholic’s channel. He’s known for being abusive and horrible towards others on YouTube, and there are some very serious, credible allegations, including doxxing and even rape, that have been made involving him. I’d be happy to send the documentation to your team to review.
Bart, in this interview you state that you became more grateful for the life you’ve had once you identified as agnostic – can you explain how and why ?
Thank you.
Because I don’t think this life is a dress rehearsal for something else. This is all there is, and so I veyr much want to live it to its fullest and enjoy it as much as I can.
I see. Thanks Bart.
This comment of yours strikes me as what Paul states in Romans 2:7. In my research about you personally, I see a persistance in doing “good” in you. Doing good is what gives you the “fullest” of life and provides you enjoyment. In other words you “shine” the “love” that Jesus gives as his 2nd most emportant commandment. I see this same “love” all over the world from people regardless of whether or not they profess a God, or what God they profess. In Acts 17:16-33 Paul just references the “appointed one” (Christ) and afterlife. But it is interesting that it was afterlife which was rejected. The only thing really separating me from you, is the seeking of afterlife (refer to your recent post). What I see in the creation is the rejeneration of all that has been created. Nothing comes to a dead end. We may not comprehend all of it, and I cannot really comprehend what afterlife would actually be. But there is clearly evidence of continuence after supposed death of anything.
Bart, have you read The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims by Mustafa Akyol? If so, what do think of his connecting Islam to Jewish Christianity? Do you recommend any scholarly books on historical Jewish Christianity?
No, I haven’t