Loading...I am pleased to announce that I have indeed decided to start a Podcast (NOTE: this will not be replacing the Bart Ehrman Blog Podcast; it is a completely different beast, in which I am interviewed, as opposed to the already important [!] podcast, on which volunteers read my posts to encourage listeners to join the blog). And here, before starting, I need some assistance (see below).
But first, let me give you a few of the details. It will be a weekly podcast, called Misquoting Jesus, with Bart Ehrman. It will cover many of the same sorts of things we do on the blog — NT, historical Jesus, writings and life of Paul, the rest of the NT, all aspects of early Christianity such as non-canonical Gospels, the role of women, heresy and orthodoxy, Christianization of the empire, persecution and martyrdom, Jewish-Christian relations, and on and on.
We will initially release several episodes (i.e. on the first day), and after that it will be one a week. It will always appear on a Tuesday, time TBD. The first episodes will be available in a couple of weeks. I’ll give you the exact dates as soon as I know.
I am very fortunate to have a first-class host who will be running the show and interviewing me, Lewis Megan, whom many of you will know already from her own podcast / YouTube channel / project, “Digital Hammurabi.” See Mesopotamian Civilization Facts | Digital Hammurabi
For most episodes of MQJ Megan will be interviewing me on a set topic. Each episode will also include another shorter segment, sometimes a Q&A (Listener’s Questions); sometimes a one-sided rant on one of my hobbyhorses (Bart’s Soapbox); sometimes a “Stump the Expert” trivia section (Outsmart Bart); and possibly other things.
Maybe once a month or so I will be myself interviewing another scholar on a topic. I’ve already set up the first one, with my friend, top NT scholar, occasional blog guest poster, and chair of the Dept. of Religion at cross-town rival Duke, Mark Goodacre. I’m not sure what the topic will be, but I *am* pretty sure it will be interesting.
The MQJ podcast will be available most anywhere you find your podcasts. It will not be connected with the blog, but with the Bart Ehrman Professional Services.
SO, here’s where I need some assistance! We will be recording our first sessions next week, starting Monday. We need some Questions for the Q&A’s. I anticipate being able to answer only 4-5 questions, depending on their complexity; I will be addressing only questions *related* to that particular topic. The questions I choose to answer will need to be short and to the point.
Here are the first few episodes we will be doing. Do you have any questions about any of these?
If you want to propose a question (ones I don’t address on the podcast I will consider blogging on: this will give me some fodder!), DO NOT do so in a comment on the blog. INSTEAD please send it to [email protected]. IMPORTANT: in the subject line of your email, put “Question for MQJ Podcast.” So, the opening topics, one per episode:
- Misquoting Jesus part 1 (autobiographical, Bart’s personal journey through faith and academia)
- Misquoting Jesus part 2 (textual criticism, who changed the NT and why)
- Canon (what is it, how was it formed and by who)
- Forgery
- Mark Goodacre interview (topic to be determined)
- What are the gospels?
- Women in the NT and early church
- Is the NT true? (factually, historically)
- Apocalypticism
I will be providing you with more information about the podcast soon. I’m very much looking forward to it: a new and exciting venture, to help spread scholarly understandings of the NT and early Christianity further afield among non-scholarly audiences!
Maybe this fits in under Apocalypticism, but I’d really like to understand more of Jesus’ backstory.
I.e., what was John the Baptist doing other than baptizing Jesus, how did he fit into the apocalyptic movement in Second Temple Judaism, how did that movement develop in the first century BCE, what other traces of it might be in existence, etc.
For John the Baptist, you might look at the book by Joel Marcus, John the Baptist in History and Theology. It’s the most recent, fullest, and best account.
Another way to be on your team!
What is your opinion on NT Wright, and have you read his book The Resurrection of the Son of God?
He is an erudite and famous NT scholar. I have read his book. We disagree on most things. 🙂
I don’t have any questions at the moment but I will definitely be listening to this new podcast! I might look it up on Spotify when it’s ready!
What is your current position on Q being “real”? Would you be willing to debate Mark on your podcast? (If your positions are different:)
I do think it existed; I think that’s the least problematic solution. I’ll probably have Mark on to explain his views, but I’m not going to go toe-to-toe with him on the podcast. It will be very, very civil!
I have a question about Apocalypticism:
John the Baptist and Jesus – they both were apocalyptic prophets.
Can historians say anything about which one had bigger impact and influence on local people during they own life time… Could John the Baptist have bigger impact and be more famous? Could Jesus’s followers made John the Baptist less important when they started to believe that Jesus was resurrected and became son of god? Thanks.
I’d say it’s impossible to say. John did appear to have a reasonably large following, and Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, says a lot more about him than about Jesus. That may be signficant. (It’s just hard for anyone today to think about the historical Jesus with out imagining hundreds and hundreds of people following him around!)
Dr. Ehrman,
I still dialogue with some who allege “spiritual resurrection.” Could a feasible and concise way of arguing for Jesus’ bodily resurrection be the fact (or at least the claim) that he was seen i.e. 1 Cor. 9:1 and 1 Cor. 15:5-8?
Yes, but of course someone would say they were seeing his spirit. (Like seeing a ghost)
Dr. Ehrman,
So in addition to the risen Jesus being seen in 1 Cor. 15:5-8, do you think it would be best to include in the argument the seed/plant analogy to make the case that they saw the risen Jesus in a transformed body, and not just his spirit/ghost? Is this the argument you would make or would you cite something else?
I think any one who reads 1 Corinthians 15 carefully will see that he is insisting on a future bodily resurrection because that’s how Jesus was raised. At some point you just have to say “If you don’t see this, I’m afraid I can’t help you much” (!)
You have written that there is no record of a world wide census at the time of Jesus birth. Is there any record of the killing of baby boys under two years of age after Jesus’ birth?
Nope. Zilch.
Bart, I think the issue a few years back with “early Mark” which was dated incorrectly would make a good subject for discussion on the podcast given the climate of debunked theories which keep resurfacing (Paluxy River anyone?).
Ah, good idea! Yeah, they called it “First-Century Mark.” Whoops.
I don’t know if this is the kind of “Question” you’re looking for, but there is a verse in the NT I believe may be an interpolation and would like your opinion on it. Would this be appropriate?
Yes. Send it in!
I’m not sure this is correct, but I think you and Mark Goodacre have different views about Q or whether Luke used Matthew, gospel source kind of things. I was listening to the NT review podcast I learned about on your blog. They had an episode on this. I believe the hosts are maybe doctoral students of Goodacres? Would like to hear more about how you come to different conclusions. Might be a worn out subject for you, but I’d be interested.
Yes, I think there was a Q source and Mark Goodacre does not. If you do a word search for the Synoptic Problem on the Blog, or Q Source, you will see some posts where I explain my views.
Also would be interested in discussion of both what seems to be a backgrounding of women after the first years of the church, and if there has been any work on the backgrounding of spiritual gifts, compared to the way Paul spoke of them as such a big part of the assembly, and what period that sort of “mystical” element was moved out of mainstream worship.
Talk about “charisma” and speaking in tongues, trances, ect. It’s not talked about much by scholars that I’ve seen, and I’ve looked very hard on your blog and was unable to find you discuss these things elsewhere. I think the freaky side of early Christian spirituality should be discussed more because of its obvious links to explaining the visionary appearances of Jesus, but it’s also very interesting! Where did they get these behaviors? Did other Jews practice speaking in tongues? Paul says he speaks in tongues “more than any of you”, which is funny because if we didn’t have the 1st letter to the Corinthians, we’d have no idea he did that!
I have a question regarding Pauls’s epistles. When they were first passed around the churches- were they considered scripture by the Christians of that time? It would seem to me that scribal additions would be less likely if the scribe knew he was copying scripture as opposed to just admonition from the 13th apostle. Although that’s a big deal as well.
Almost certaily not. They were simply letters that their teacher/religious leader sent them.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think that Paul would have been familiar with 2 Maccabees 7 ? Do you think this influenced his concept about resurrection?
No, there’s no evidence that he knew the Maccabean literature per se, but he would have known about Jewish martyr traditions; the views of resurrection that he has were common throughout apocalyptic Judaism.
Dr. Ehrman,
Would a valid question to ask those who take a spiritualist approach be: In a renewed Earth (that part he admits to), why would there be dead bones lying around?
Never thought of that…
Dr. Ehrman,
I thought of that myself as a viable argument to use, do you agree that it makes sense?
I’d have to dig a bit and think more about it.
Dr. Ehrman,
1) Do you think Paul had Ps. 15:2: “… nor give your holy one to see decomposition.” In mind when it came to his view of the resurrection?
2) What’s interesting is that the person I’m in a discussion with accepts this, yet doesn’t accept that Paul believed Jesus was raised physically/bodily. But do you agree that if you accept that verse as part of Paul’s concept of resurrection, it’s CLEAR that Paul had to believe in a grave-emptying type of resurrection or the body would have seen decomposition.
1. Are you asking if he knew the verse? Unless he quotes a verse, we can’t say; 2. I’d say it’s a hypothetical.
disabledupes{d0958f4c4f91d062cba6f47899673931}disabledupes
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you agree that the best evidence for Jesus’ historical death by crucifixion is its mentions in Paul’s undisputed letters? One scholar said Tacitus, saying that Paul doesn’t offer enough of a context historically. But do you agree that Paul certainly knows enough to call it a “folly” and a “stumbling block”?
I don’t think I would pick one piece of evidence and call it “best” or “decisive.” As with all complicated historical questions, it is a matter of the confluence of varioius pieces of evidence, all of which have more or less weight.
Dr. Ehrman,
I just wanted to thank you for your great podcast, you do every tuesday. It is really something I look forward to every week. Megan Lewis is a great choice as co-moderator and I like her very much. But I also think that the Episodes, when you interview someone, are really special, and you have a great talent as an interviewer.
Thanks! The podcast has been great to do!