Loading...This Sunday, March 14, I will be giving TWO live Zoom lectures (not one) for anyone who wants to come. They will be recorded for my undergraduate course on the New Testament and there will be a 30-minute Q & A to follow the second one. Please NOTE the time; the first is at 2:00 p.m., second at 3:15 p.m. EST. When I say “lectures” with one of the two I’m using the term loosely, as you’ll see below.
There is no charge per se, but I would like to ask for a donation to the blog in exchange, if you can see your way clear to do it. If not, that’s fine – we all have our circumstances! But one of the main reasons I’m doing these lectures is to raise money for the Food Bank of North Carolina; as with all food banks right now, it is in desperate need. Your donation is completely tax deductible.
Here is the info you need:
- Time: Sunday, March 14, 2:00 pm and 3:15 (EST)
- The Lectures will last about 50 minutes, with Q&A to follow the second.
- First Lecture: Is the book of Acts Historically Reliable?
- Yeah, this is not a lecture. It’s a debate. I’m having the debate with myself. Literally. The students in the class will each be involved in a formal debate on a controversial topic; the debates are structured, with one side arguing for a resolution (Affirmative) the other against (Negative), with set speeches, refutations, and cross examinations. In this lecture, I’m showing how it can be done. By debating my self on the topic. The Affirmative side will argue Acts is reliable; the Negative that it is not. And I will be giving all the speeches. Possibly with passion. Maybe along the lines of SNL point-counterpoint. 🙂Second Lecture: The Deeds of the Apocalyptic Jesus
- In earlier lectures I tried to show that Jesus was an apocalypticist and explained what his overarching message appears to have been. In this lecture I will talk about the activities he engaged in that can be established as highly probable (e.g., the baptism, the choosing of the twelve, the cleansing of the Temple) , and show how they too too can best be understood within an apocalyptic framework.
- Yeah, this is not a lecture. It’s a debate. I’m having the debate with myself. Literally. The students in the class will each be involved in a formal debate on a controversial topic; the debates are structured, with one side arguing for a resolution (Affirmative) the other against (Negative), with set speeches, refutations, and cross examinations. In this lecture, I’m showing how it can be done. By debating my self on the topic. The Affirmative side will argue Acts is reliable; the Negative that it is not. And I will be giving all the speeches. Possibly with passion. Maybe along the lines of SNL point-counterpoint. 🙂Second Lecture: The Deeds of the Apocalyptic Jesus
- First Lecture: Is the book of Acts Historically Reliable?
- Come and find out! As you know, these lectures are meant to raise money for those in need (see below). Can you donate a bit? My suggested minimum donation is $10 for one of the lectures and $15 for both together (there is no maximum donation!).
- Three participants will be allowed to ask the questions at the end. These will be the three highest donors.
- In weeks past we have had a number of people donate $100; to be among the top three, you’ll probably need to go to about that level. Whatever you donate, if anything, is completely up to you. And everyone, donor or not, is absolutely welcome to hear the Q&A. The last few weeks we have heard some terrific questions. On these two I expect some toughees. Bring ’em on!
In case you wondered, I have no plans to make these lectures generally available. The recordings will be for my class only.
If you want to attend, all you need do is respond by letting us know, here: Register for my Sunday Lectures
Everyone who responds by 11:00 am on Sunday morning will receive a Zoom link by noon, via email from [email protected].
If you have any questions about how it will work, let me know.
Hello Professor Ehrman,
I am just posting the question I emailed you since you asked me to for the benefit of everyone. Recently I heard one of your old Lectures on the letters of Paul. You mentioned how scholars believe some of the letters traditionally ascribed to Paul were probably forged in his name. One of the ways you said scholars come to this conclusion is by writing style analysis. Some letters differ in writing style from those we are confident Paul wrote. But how would this be an adequate criterion if we do not have the original writings of Paul? These letters were copied many times over throughout the ages. Wouldn’t that affect the style of writing? Moreover, Paul’s letters were supposedly dictated by a scribe, so what if he used more than one scribe? Wouldn’t that explain why a letter would differ in writing style? I am just confused about this and would appreciate it if you could help me out here.
Yes, it’s a great question. And you’re completely right, it is not an adequate criterion. It is *part* of a larger argument that has numerous components. There are lots of passages in Paul’s letters that do not conform to his writing style; but nothing else about the passages make them seem unPauline. IN those cases we say, well, he changed his style for hte occasion, or he’s quoting someone else, or …whatever. Because it looks like he really did write it. Other times the writing style is different, the vocabulary itself is different, the theology is different — not just different, but virtually the opposite of what Paul says elsewhere, the presupposed historical context is different (appears to be from a later period), etc. etc. If many factors point in the same direction, then that’s a much better argument. The argumnet for style itelf, though, can be very strong. That would take a long time to explain and would involve a deep knowledge of how language works in general, and Greek in particular. As to copying practices, those would not affect the issue (scribes never rewrote books at the sentence level) and the idea that he used a secretary is complicated — but I explain why it doestn’ explain the problems in my books on forgery; and on the blog! Do a word search for “secretary” and you’ll see why.
Thanks a lot, Professor. I did buy the book Forgery, but I got the one for scholars, and boy, was that a mistake, it felt like I was reading a different language lol. I’ll be sure to get the popular version. Thanks again.
No question here, just a quick comment to say Thank You for doing these lectures. Living in California, it’s been quite a while since I’ve been able to see Professor Ehrman live.
Though we can find lectures and debates on YouTube, and I own several of his Great Courses videos, there is still something special about being ‘in the moment.’ As he mentioned in the last lecture, his opinions on some of these issues evolve over time.
Please consider continuing this format even after the pandemic subsides (assuming we can reach herd immunity). As unruly and careless as the technical challenges and some of the participants are, it’s still a rewarding, enriching experience.
Thanks again!
rats, I didn’t realise the clocks had gone forward in the US today so missed the first hour of the Acts lecture
do any blog articles have an overview of this debate you had with yourself?
I do talk about the historicity of Acts on the blog on occasion, but I never argue the Affirmative side, since I think it is implausible…. But hey, I made the best argument I could!
What is your opinion of this book?
“The Bible with and without Jesus ”
by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler
My guess is you will have high praise!
What do you think about getting guest posts on the Bog?
Of course is you don’t like the book ….
DrBooker
Yup, two extremely high level scholars.