About a week ago, out of the blue, I was contacted by the producer of James Carville’s podcast/youtube channel to do an interview. Most of you know him well — he’s one of the top political strategists of our time and an incredibly personable, affable, and funny guy. Unlike me on the blog, he is all ABOUT taking political sides. And I had no idea why he wanted to interview me or what we were going to talk about. Even his producer (when I asked him) didn’t really know! OK then.
So I went on, and had the time of my life. It’s was a terrifically fun interview, and no politics! Just a lot of key questions about everything from Jesus and the Gospels to the Council of Nicea and fun conversation. They’ve allowed us to put it on the blog, so here it is!
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
20 Comments
Leave A Comment
Fantastic!!!
Neither the Gospel of Thomas nor the Synoptics contain Thomas’ skepticism regarding the resurrection. Those are attestations that are needed.
QUESTION: Without multiple attestation, is Thomas’ skepticism not historical or is there more to this?
Second QUESTION:
The exact location of the Pentecost event in Acts 2 is actively debated by scholars, with strong arguments pointing to either the Temple Mount or a private house/Upper Room.
In Acts, Was the Pentecost Event in Jerusalem at the Temple or at a Private Upper Room?
What is the latest? How do you judge the scholarly debate?
I don’t think the passage in John about doubting Thomas is historical, no — if that’s your question.
In Acts 2 the event takes place in jerusalem outdoors. That’s why there so many Jews who hear the followers of Jesus preaching the Gospel in their own languages. (Thousands convert: that’s not possible in a private room….)
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing!
According to Paul’s letters and Acts, Paul had been a committed Pharisee before his experience of the risen Jesus. Since the Pharisees already believed in the resurrection of the dead, might Paul initially have understood his vision simply as evidence that the resurrection he already expected had somehow begun with Jesus?
If so, I assume Paul did not think of himself at that moment as “converting” to a new religion. What puzzles me is what caused the dramatic transformation of his Pharisaic worldview that followed. Normally, I might expect such a vision to reinforce his existing beliefs rather than lead him so far beyond them. In some respects, his theology also seems considerably removed from what we can reconstruct of the historical Jesus.
What was primarily responsible for this transformation—the vision itself, his rereading of Scripture, his apocalyptic expectations, his Gentile mission, or some combination of these?
I also wonder whether the Gentile mission eventually became not merely a means, but something central to Paul’s own identity, vocation, and perhaps even self-realization. In a broader sense, this may also have some relevance to people today who use religious faith as a framework for advancing ideas and goals that originate elsewhere.
Yes, that’s exactly right. Paul was an apocalypticist who believed in an imminent resurrection of the dead and he saw Jesus as the “first fruits of the resurrection” — confirmation that it wsa now starting. He definnitely did not see himself as being involved with (let alone starting) a new religion. And I agree with the rest you say. (I talk about it all in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, where I devote 6 chapters dealing with Paul’s views)
Nice: Bart freaking-Elvis Ehrman!
Ha! He’s a scream.
You could’ve taken this many different directions and I think you expertly chose the one most appropriate and interesting. Well done, thank you!
Really enjoyed the video. Thanks!
There is a brilliant 1993 documentary called The War Room that follows Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. Carville features majorly in it as the chief architect of that victory, “the Ragin’ Cajun”. Highly recommend!
I’m still “Waiting For Godot” to vanquish evil and the vile archons here on earth.
I totally agree with James about the obsession with sex. I grew up in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and they were also obsessed with sex and it caused a lot of problems. If they found out that someone had committed fornication they would disfellowship and shun them. Many got married too young to the wrong person because they were starved for sex. I got married at 22 and I was not financially ready for a family but we had a daughter 18 months later.
Wow, loved this interview, Bart!
Il y a une question que j’ai toujours voulu poser mais qui n’est jamais posée : L’institution de l’eucharistie par Paul dans 1 Corinthiens 11:23-26 :
¨En effet, j’ai reçu du Seigneur ce que je vous ai transmis. Le Seigneur Jésus, la nuit où il a été arrêté, a pris du pain. Après avoir remercié Dieu, il l’a rompu et a dit: [«Prenez, mangez.] Ceci est mon corps qui est [rompu] pour vous. Faites ceci en souvenir de moi.» De même, après le repas, il a pris la coupe et a dit: «Cette coupe est la nouvelle alliance en mon sang. Faites ceci en souvenir de moi toutes les fois que vous en boirez.» En effet, toutes les fois que vous mangez ce pain et que vous buvez cette coupe, vous annoncez la mort du Seigneur jusqu’à ce qu’il vienne.
Jesus était un Juif respectant la loi, comment a-t-il pu prononcer ces paroles qui, au minimum enfreignent absolument le Tabou du sang (Boire le sang de Jesus )
Apologies for responding in English. I can read your beautiful language, but you do not want to read my attempt to butcher it in writing. The meal that Paul was referring to was a commemorative meal, celebrated weekly probably, that was meant to recall what Jesus had done for his followers by dying for their sins, and to point out that Jesus himself had said that was why he had to be crucified. Paul does not appear to think that the cup was REALLY the blood of Jesus. For him, Jesus was almost certaily speaking metaphorically (unlike in the later theological tradition of transubstantiation, still endorsed in the Catholic community). The idea of “remembrance” is important to Paul, precisely because the Corinthians mode of commemoration (some eating all the food and drinking all the wine) runs precisely contrary to the point Jesus himself made. The other side of this is that I don’t think Jesus himself probalby said the words at his last meal, but they were attached to it only after his death. All these points have been and are disputed, of course.
Et deuxième question : au cours des divers procès et parutions de Jesus lors de son “jugement” On ne parle jamais de son intervention violente au temple (il utilise un fouet entre autre pour renverser les tables des vendeurs (autorisées)
Yes, good point. It appears that the source(s) Mark and other Gospel writers used for the “trial narratives” was not aware of the cleansing of the temple narrative. Otherwise, surely it would have been a central part of the investigation, at least in front of the Jewish authorities.
Sorry Dr. Ehrman, but in trying to be respectful of your achievements, this exchange with Carville was not edifying. I suggest that you engage on this blog with superior theologians who can and will provide strong opposition to many of your views. This only showed a deep lack of understanding by the interviewer. It became a cartoon as he says, “what is this preoccupation with sex” or something similar. Snooze time.
Sorry you didn’t enjoy it! The nice thing about podcasts (as I find repeatedly) is that it’s easy to turn them off if you don’t like them!