I like the Emo Philips joke: "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked him to forgive me."
Yeah except that isnt the way God forgives. You need to make your victim whole again in order to be forgiven. If you misunderstand the concept I suppose a cheap laugh will get you through. The jews never even apologised for the massacre of the midionites. Steal a bike and say youre doing gods work. And forget about the apology
@@zapkvr _"The jews never even apologised for the massacre of the midionites"_ In the old testament Samson, with God's help, murders 30 men just so he can steal their clothes to pay off a gambling debt! How do you 'apologize' for Gods aiding and abetting the sins of murder and theft to pay off the _sin_ of gambling?
My favorite fundamentalist action on Inerrancy comes from the Editors of the NIV. According to them, the Bible is so inerrant, that they changed the Bible multiple times, to make sure it is inerrant.
@@endofscene No, they clearly made changes of fact, not clarity. They changed King Jehoiachin's age from 8 to 18. That has absolutely nothing to do with clarity. That's just one of the many changes they made There were clear and obvious changes to the text because the actual text is riddled with inconsistencies. The fundamentalist position has not now, nor has it ever, held any water.
I believe that is why the NIV isn’t recommended by Bart or other historical biblical scholars - it harmonizes some of the differences that are in the manuscripts.
@@dancahill9585 Yea, I think their position is that since they know what God meant to say they want to take out any ambiguities or conflicts that might cause anyone to question inerrancy since it’s a given that the Bible is inerrant…but they will argue that they aren’t using circular reasoning (I can’t use the word “logic” in this context)…
Inerrancy at 12:56. One of the reasons why Christians see the Bible the way they do is many denominations falling under the "evangelical" umbrella teach their followers the Bible is "complete". This means there are no changes, no false authorship, no text left out of what we have in 2024, and certainly no missing books. Yet modern scholarship tells us the Bible does mention missing books by name. It does have questionable authorship (some of the books attributed to Paul, the four gospels, and others), and has inconsistencies.
The gospels are anonymous, not "questionable", only who people later attributed them. The pastorals might be fictional letters by unknown authors (think screwtape). It's only because they were later thought authentic that we now think of them as questionable. But 2 Thes is highly questionable. It contradicts 1 Thes, and Jesus did not appear and destroy Titus when when he desecrated the Temple after the rebellion (he went on to become emperor!). I think this derived from a misunderstanding of the Olivet Discourse.
Holy crap!!! I fell down a wiki-rabbit hole earlier today at work and was reading about Origenism!!! What a coincidence!! Thanks for explaining better than Wikipedia, and keep up the good work!
@@grit1679 you're right, the algorithm feeds us what we're looking for. But I listen to this every Tuesday and it was kinda cool that I just happened to be reading over this that morning and Dr Bart talked about it a few hours later.
At the height of the inerrancy fight in the SBC, I was in a Baptist seminary and had a friend who attended a ‘moderate’ Baptist church. His pastor was on the reconciliation committee which was meeting at Glorieta. On one call from his pastor, the ‘inerrancy’ group had retired to a room to agree on a definition. There was a long discussion and argument, and they couldn’t agree among themselves!
As a curious agnostic, I have enjoyed Bart’s approach to exploring the phenomenon of Christianity more than any other scholar’s. He and Megan are a great team. And Megan’s eyeglasses are wonderful. I wonder how many pairs she has.
Thank you Megan, thank you Dr Ehrman. Really enjoy this series. Inerrancy is such a fascinating topic. Biblical contradictions are numerous and pronounced
I really like the comment from Bart at @13.00 how inerrancy was created to give people a foundation. In my own expansion on this, I think it's driven by human nature. When we are born we are very vulnerable and we look to our parent for everything. They in essence become our inerrant guide and we feel secure.. As we grow up we begin to learn that our parents are NOT inerrant, and a measure of insecurity sets in and instead of becoming secure within ourselves we turn to look for other sources as an inerrant guide. Sometimes that get projected on to a religious figure, a politician, a pop star.. etc. . Within the Evangelical community.. that need for the inerrant guide gets projected on to the Biblical text. True security is to become secure within yourself and not rely on external sources.
First and Second Timothy were both written by the apostle Paul. The first letter was written in Macedonia between 61-64 C.E. The second letter was written in Rome in 65 C.E.
First, Paul did not write 1st Timothy. Second, NONE of the authors of any of the texts that have been compiled into what we now know as the Bible were writing "the Bible"
@@byrondickens Yea, most modern scholars consider the pastoral epistles to have been written after Paul's death, although "a small and declining number of scholars still argue for Pauline authorship.”
@sunnyjohnson992 There is no evidence for what you have stated, apart from church folklore. On the contrary, most independent scholarship points out the obvious differences from the accepted Pauline texts.
Wikipedia: "The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is a written statement of belief formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference convened by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy] and held in Chicago in October 1978. The statement was designed to defend the position of biblical inerrancy against a trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture." My comment: The arrogance of this statement alone would discredit the Bible and it's evangelical supporters, in my view. The claim that "scripture in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact", is useless, since we don't have the original manuscripts. Do these people even think?
Also the fact that almost none of them can read the originals or would encourage other Christians to do so. Learning Hebrew and Greek to read the OT and NT exposed waaaaaay too many lies and misunderstandings
Article X: "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."
It's hilarious to think that God took the time to make sure the Bible was inerrant in its original form, but didn't insure every copy was accurate. You'd think it would have been equally easy to do.
The fact that Mattiew and Luke took the writing of Mark and changed it…is biblical proof that the gospel writers themselves at least didn’t believe in inerrancy…
Wow! Even though I’ve recognized for a long time that the Bible cannot be inerrant, I’d never previously considered the evidence that the authors of Matthew and Luke changing the narrative/content of Mark is proof positive that *they* didn’t consider it to be inerrant. Scripture is a conversation, and it isn’t static or univocal.
there's instances of malleability of scripture in the Bible itself. the ten commandments in deuteronomy vary from exodus. the septuagint is often quoted in the new testament which differs from the hebrew, often because the hebrew we have today is a much later version.
@AaronGardner98 - There are many more contradictions that Professor Ehrman has spoken about in his other podcasts and in the various debates that you can find on UA-cam. He instructs his students to read the various books side by side. He says they are often shocked and amazed to see all the differences they never noticed before.
@@NovaSaber That's the crux of the question. In the end, what is in the Bible and what is not in the Bible is something decided by people, not God. The Bible can't be inerrant based in this fact alone.
My hands down favourite moment is from 8:40 where Bart explains that the scripture used to assert the hegemony of infallibility or Sola Scriptura, 2Timothy 3.16, comes from a letter which has itself got dubious provenance, which is itself a forgery!
With verses like Jeremiah 8:8 and chapter 2:8, I don't see how the idea of inerrancy can still stand. Jeremiah 7:22 and Amos 5:25 (among others) are in direct opposition of the greater chunk of Leviticus. I'm sure people can dump a zillion other minor micro contractions, but some of these are major, and undeniable. Constantly saying "but it's inerrant" while admitting inconsistencies, is a form of cognitive dissonance playing out in slow motion. Over time the glue of inerrancy will melt away... a glue, according to Bart, that's only been set for barely 100 years. Man its crazy how quickly a concept can sweep a generation and folk think its been one way for ever and ever amen...
Bart as an atheist I agree with you, the Bible does inspire a lot of people to be and do good. It's not always being used for the right purposes and can lead people to do the wrong thing, but that can be said about next to anything if we take a close look at history. Thank you very much for your opinion.
Yeah I think that has a lot to do with how one is raised. It always frustrates me when people say the U.S. is a Christian nation or that western values are "Christian", ignoring the much more obvious Roman, Greek, Eastern/Asiatic, Slavic, etc influences. So called "Christian" values are not unique or exclusive to the cult.
"..the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; hey either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengithen or shorten, as they please." Oriqen, Commentary Ofl Matthew, Book 15 (~250CE)
@@nathanaelsmith3553 I like how he has a sort of symmetry between the sparse hair on the top of his head and the sparseness of his beard. You could paint a mouth on his forehead, and turn his head upside-down and no-one would ever notice.
The BEST "word of God" would be God just appearing and talking to us. God could make it so that there was no error, perfectly clear to everyone, perfectly convincing to everyone - and he could do it all without violating free will.
What, exactly, are "scriptures", anyway? The word seems to mean "things that are written down". Does that not include my shopping list from last week? Why is my shopping list from last week not Scripture? Or is it? Is the Pope's shopping list scripture? If we discovered Paul's shopping list, would it be scripture. Why is Moses's shopping list for the tabernacle considered scripture?
If Origen thought that the scriptures inconsistency was Gods way to get us to find deeper meaning then wouldn't that mean God deliberately lies in order for us to find deeper meaning?
That's a very literal way of analysis and places importance on historical accuracy. If I change a novel or a poem, I am not lying, and I am not making an error. If you accept that historical accuracy is unimportant and the artistic meaning is the real meaning... There is no lying or error in a work of art.
@@mojoman2001 Well in that case, I'll make the claim that I am God, and you should accept that because I'm going for a deeper meaning and am being artistic. My money is going on that if it talks like a lie and quacks like a lie, then it's a lie.
I can accept your claim to be god as a hypothetical, if I choose. Or, I could choose to accept it as a factual assertion, and evaulate it for factual accuracy. Or, I could do both, appreciate the hypothetical while having done the research to know that it is not factually accurate. Storytelling is an art, and all art is open to interpretation by the audience. Shakespeare's Henry V is not a lie. The Bible can only contain lies if the reader contends that the statements are included to establish the historical truth of the matter asserted. If the statements are included to make you think deeply, as Origen seems to have said, then they are not lies. They are thought exercises. A hypothetical cannot be a lie. A fable cannot be a lie. A myth cannot be a lie. The Bible contains some accurate historical statements and some (wildly!) inaccurate ones. It contains so many whoppers that to think that it is all historically accurate is self-delusional, and so, highly unlikely what the authors intended. But, the inaccuracies do not have to be lies, as opposed to mistakes or artistic license. Are Aesop's Fables true? It doesn't matter. All that matters is that we enjoy reading them and draw lessons from them.
@@mojoman2001 So there is no point trying to argue something objectively if it is subjective. Yet, that's still what so many people who argue for the existence of God so often claim that they are doing.
@markadams7046 -- The majority of people are below average at logic, itself. Logical reasoning ability is just that, an ability which people possess in different degrees. Most people also see no benefit in critically examining the dominant religion into which they were born, and think it is better to defend it with whatever meager evidence and ability they have. Churches are carefully choreographed to avoid critical thought and discussion. Anyone who asks too many questions will very quickly find himself unwelcome. It's part of social darwinism. Religions which do otherwise do not survive. Just like leopards evolved with spots. I suppose the gazelle might complain about the leopard's spots, but they are a feature, not a glitch.
I’ve never thought about not needing the Bible. There were Christian’s before there was a New Testament… it’s more so about what we hear. God that was good! God Bless you, Blake!
@AnnStephens196, I'm curious what you can tell us about Christians before there was a New Testament. Are you just talking about people like Paul & the other apostles who wrote it? Or are you talking about a messianic movement that preceded the birth of Jesus? I have heard it said that Socrates might have believed in Jesus, even though he died over 300+ years before Jesus was born. I would like to know more about pre-Jesus ideas of the coming messiah.
@@RightOnBro72 oh, I was referring to the common era, after Jesus’ death. The writings of Paul wouldn’t have made a much impact during his day because he was only writing to a few communities and most people weren’t literate during his time. The Jesus movement was mostly done by word of mouth rather than reading a letter from an apostle. And the term messiah as we know it today had a completely different meaning to those who practiced Judaism. I’ve never heard of Socrates believing in Jesus. I would’ve thought he would’ve practiced Polytheism.
One could not believe in Jesus before Jesus was born. The could believe that a Messiah would come. The Jews do not believe the Messiah has come yet. The N.T. is mostly a compilation of letters written by Paul & his followers. Paul.was never part of the 12 and i believe he is an imposter. Some writungs were written by a few of the 12, such as John and Revelation. These writings were not compiled into the N.T. until the 300 CE. Over time verses were added here & there by the reactors or translators. There is still truth to be found in the bible, but it's not an inerrant compilation.
@@bettymccorkle788 Scholars do not hold that John was written by John and the John of Revelation is a different John to the one attributed to the gospel of John.
You're wrong! She saves some of her budget for hair colouring. I find it flattering that she makes the effort for the viewers & always look forward to any changes she makes with both.
Plus dying her hair. Sometimes, I wonder if it's always pink, but then I realize this has nothing to do with what I'm watching Bart Erhman's video for -- I just want to hear him laugh.
Hey, what about Megan's glasses, hair, attractive personality & incisive questions? He has the knowldge & she extracts it for us (with a huge amount of her own knowledge).
I would _LOVE_ to go on that Antarctica trip with Dr Ehrman! I bet he laughs all the way, especially now that it has been established that there were Penguins mentioned in the _Bible_ . ^_^
Of all the Ehrman talks I would say this is the most important one for me in that it delves into the history of the concept of inerrancy. I need to delve deeper into this topic. If anyone knows of an academic book on this topic that is not apologetics but more neutral...please let me know. Thanks in advance.
As a Christian, you can also see the Bible as the word of man about God. In this case, the Bible does not have to be infallible or inerrant. As a Christian, you are then free of all problems except one: you have to decide for yourself what you believe about God.
Megan,Bart l have a question for both of you, help me to understand when the Bible was called the word of God for the first time?.You guys do an excellent job. Thanks.
1 Thessalonians 2:13: “Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the WORD OF GOD, which is also at work in you believers.”
@@SDJ992-q9tit says right there that the word of god was something they heard, not read. There’s also no indication that the author thought that letter was the word of god, even though it’s now collected in what we consider the Bible
@CarlosTorres-cb5fb, you may want to check out Genesis 15:4 as well as Psalms 18:30 & 33:4 where the phrase "word of the LORD (YHVH)" or "the LORD's word" is used many times in the Old Testament. Also, the Hebrew name for the book of Deuteronomy is "Devarim" which is generally translated as "Commandments," but which literally means "Words."
@CarlosTorres-cb5fb .. I don't believe the Bible ever mentions the Bible being "The Word of God. The Word of God is used to reference the Messiah in the Old Testament. The New Testament books refer to the Old Testament as "Scripture" and never to letters or books from the New Testament (which was not part of Scripture/ the Bible when they were written - as the canon of the bible was not being discussed at that time, or agreed for nearly 300 years afterwards). Indeed, the New Testament writting refers to passing on what you have learnt through tradition or letter.... not just through Scripture /the Bible.
@@SDJ992-q9t Not true. No Bible, nor any collection that included the New Testament, existed until the 180s CE and even then it wasn't universally agreed upon until about 300 years later. When any of the NT authors mention "scripture" they meant the Jewish Tanakh.
It is a common point of understanding in, I believe, many religions that one reaches a point at which one understands that ""God is breathing you"" and all ego is gone.
The issue doesn't arise for Catholics who have never accepted the Bible as inerrant. Inspired yes, inerrant no. First, they should know because they themselves wrote and collated parts of it. Second, because they are fully aware of the difficulties of Bible translations from the antiquity of Hebrew and the Septuagint, to the Latin of Vulgate, and countless modern translations. Third, because they know about inconsistencies and contradictions both in the "Old" and the "New" testament. When Paul had his presumed vision on the Road to Damascus did his companions see the light but heard nothing, or did they hear the voice but saw nothing. The Acts states the former in one place, then the latter in another. And how were Eve and Adam created? According to one verse, both were made of mud at the same time, according to another, Eve was made out of Adam's rib some time after Adam had been made by fiat, just to keep him company. And what a bad company it proved to be!
Quite the life going. The guy is all over, giving lectures, doing interviews, teaching college, writing books. Telling people there religion is wrong. Amazing.
The concept of spiritual interpretation enabled individuals to apply any interpretation they fancied to any biblical text, and even apply different interpretations of the same text to different situations. Pretty much as we have today where Christian apologists can bring up a text and interpretation for every situation and every point of view to argue that black is really white and/or every shade of grey in between.
Please, please talk about the impact of second temple's destruction to Christianity. I'm always curious why the first gospel was written during or just after this event.
I'm not kidding. When I was a kid in the 60's for me the "Great Pumpkin" explained everything. Like why Sunday mass said one thing and the people at Sunday mass practiced something totally different. The answer was? They were not "sincere" enough in the judgment of a ten year old. Of course the priest and the Nuns used every form of correction still available by law after the inquisition was long over to "save my soul", but it never took. I would spend a large part of my life trying on different religions looking for"the truth" as if I was in a Thom McAn's. Forty years later I found it. Sparky Schulz was right all along. The Great Pumpkin did not exist and even if it did those who run religious businesses would never bother being sincere enough, because that is not where buried treasure or power is. It's in selling fear or safety for at least 10% reoccurring, plus gifts...drives...Merch...projects... .
@simonbattle0001, the Great Pumpkin is definitely real. He comes on TV every year, just like Jesus. I'm just wondering why there are no deities for President's Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day (now Indigenous People's Day -- maybe it's the Great Spirit?,) and New Year's Eve. One thing we all waited for though was for the Great Pumpkin to rise on Halloween.
Im mormon and grew up being taught about the revealed truth being what a consensus would be if they were all in a room together. Which presupposes different prophets and revelators disagree on the fine details. I also.was told that the bible had interconnected mesh of symbols and archtypes and therefore was far from literal in every sense of the word. Rather it was a metaphore or an allegory coloaring things we see with thi gs we dont see that are the unseen reasons for existance. That we see what we see because it teaches of that which we.dont see. And also that this way of thinking was the hebrew mentality and therefore we can strip out wvery vestige of greek idea or philosophy if we understood this thought process, which is more conductive to personal revelation.
@@GeeThevenin you are of course correct ... must have been fun for folk to have quotes from a book they didn't have. But theologians are tricky like that. Would have messed with them with a copy turned up in 1800s.
It seems that most of the believers mentioned in the New Testament before it was written, were having a spiritual experience in relation to Christ and God. They were having spiritual, mind-opening, eye-opening experiences. No book is needed for this.
At 28:00 - 29:00, it can't possibly work to have Jairus' daughter die and be revived twice, because the interruption by the woman with the flow of blood is reported in each gospel - and I'm confident that even the European theologian would not have expected anyone to believe that there were TWO women with a flow of blood for 12 years who each happened to interrupt Jesus at the same stage of the process!
Why would an ominpotent, all-wise God pass on essential information using literature, written in languages that only a tiny fraction of the world's population understands.
Megan and Bart. Your subject matter is always interesting, but this one strikes me as more relevant to one's understanding of "the gospel" than usual. As you comment about Martin Luther and the importance of the literal meaning, this only hearkens back to what Jewish authors had said in the Babylonian Talmud, "“A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning.” (Shabbat 63a; Yev. 11b, 24a). There is too the PARDES concept of interpreting scripture, or: Peshat (פְּשָׁט) -Is the "surface,” "straight," or the literal (direct) meaning. Remez (רֶמֶז) - Refers to "hints" or the deep (allegoric- hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense. Derash (דְּרַשׁ) - Is from the Hebrew darash - "inquire" ("seek") - the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences. Sod (סוֹד) - Is the "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation. This was put forth by a kabbalist, Moses De Leon. I believe the bible is multilevel in nature, and simply reading only the literal is a fast-food meal and not the feast it can be. Peace, Shalom, Salam
10:12 that's because no one who wrote "sctipture" believed they were writing material that would end up in a book called the bible. I doubt they were concerned with errors. Because of the doctrine many redactions have taken place to rectify contradictions.
I was in college we didn't have computers books pencils pens papers and teachers that used 40-dollar words dictionary was a must.no doze because of the monotone speaker.Bart is different because he can reach even the dummies in class which is the mark of teacher excellence. articulates well explains well takes teaching to a level for not only scholars but a huge audience and keeps it interesting hits the points most folks are thinking.a remarkable rare talent ..10 stars
i don't think the gospel writers thought what they were writing was inerrant. Firstly, first century story telling wasn't about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth the way we understand it today. The gospels were arranged, things were left out or included in order to make a particular point to a particular group of people. Additionally, i think it was unlikely that people would have remembered Jesus' long speeches word for word, so the writers would have taken the gist or main point of the speech and written what would have been said using the appropriate rhetoric for the occasion and time.
Especially John's gospel. The Synoptics have Jesus talking in small discrete snippets, just what you would expect if he were teaching an illiterate audience who had to memorize his words. In John's gospel however, was Jesus dictating to a scribe? If you accept a later date for John, that was 50-60 years after his ministry. Nobody could remember the detail found in his farewell speech after that length of time.
@alanhilder1883, that seems to be a quote form Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench Gang" from 1975. Others seem to point it to Charles M. Schulz, although I can't find that quote. However, I'm certain I heard Tom Baker say it in an episode of "Dr. Who" in the 70s, so it might even precede Edward Abbey's. The only line better than that is when Prince Humperdink says, "Unless I am wrong, and I am never wrong..."
The whole 'Zeus cult' thing from the Q & A stuck out to me. Since there was no overarching authority to oversee a uniform worship or practice, this would lead to a diversity of opinion in such matters. which is exactly what happened with gentiles Christianity, a greco-romanized form of Judaism. That is, until Constantine and his bishops got involved...
One part that got me that I've still yet to have anyone give me a logical answer to has to do with the math in the Exodus story. If you look at Moses's genealogy and take into account who was born when and how long they were in Egypt for, the number of years does not add up correctly. I've asked numerous people to try and explain the math, including one person who had a Masters in mathematics, and all of them say the math does not add up the way the Bible says it should.
Sometimes, I want fundamentalists to memorize Ibn Rushd's "Decisive Treatise" and "Incoherence of the Incoherence", where he argues, that there are three classes of verses in Holy Scripture: i) clear and evident ii) clear message, but can interpreted iii) verses where it is not clear if they are meant literally or metaphorically. And thus, no one should be censured for his own interpetation of Holy Scripture.
Interesting to see how these beliefs are shaped by local culture. I'm from a country that doesn't speak English (Brazil) and although the evangelical movement here is highly influenced by the USA, there is no belief in "inerrancy", mainly because there is no word for it here... The thought that the bible is the infalible word of God exists, but without the explicit message that it has to be inerrant, it ends up not being such a big problem to recognize the inconsistencies that the Bible has
Another reason could be that evangelicalism here did not arise in a context of widespread skeptical and scientific thought, so the need to assert that the Bible is inerrant may not have been so necessary.
The Christian Bible is nothing but a muddle of Contradictions. What is your favourite Mine is that there is no list of 10 Commandments in the Bible, despite this being said in the Bible.
I like how writers are pretending to be Paul and then church people centuries later are claiming that these fake Pauline letters are the inerrant word of God 😅😅
At 21:45: any evidence about whether or not biblical authors thought their writings were inerrant. A straightforward reading would suggest that Paul distinguishes the level of authority in what he says, as for instance 1 Cor. 7: 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband; 1 Cor. 7: 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. Of course, Biblical literalists have work-arounds, but you have to be pretty motivated to believe that Paul is not distinguishing degrees of inspiration. There are other passages where Paul recounts how he has got hold of a bit of the tradition;* if you are confident you are writing the precise words of God, you don't cite sources. * I should look up the passages, but it's late at night here.
Question. If biblical inerrancy is a modern invention, how was both Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliff both believers in that concept? Not questioning you, simply confused.
The claim that biblical inerrancy is a modern invention typically refers to the formalization of the doctrine as we understand it today, particularly in response to modernist challenges during the 19th and 20th centuries. While figures like Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliffe held views that are compatible with biblical inerrancy, their understanding of the concept was framed within the theological and philosophical context of their times, which differs from the formalized doctrines of inerrancy developed later.
Looking up the history of the Protestant reformation on how Martin Luther picked and chose which books would go into the modern 66 books of the Bible should encourage people to be more nuanced on scripture
The thing is if people actually read the Bible by themselves and actually see what pastor Jenkins told them was actually wrong they would question their faith. Most people are comfortable believing lies instead of the true 🤦🏾♂️
This is kind of puzzling because Bart points out a small contradiction or variation in the bible, She then says that sounds minor it don't really change the picture of Jesus or change the bible story are there any more contradictions that are big ? Bart points out that (John) has jesus cricified the next day to drive a theological point. How does this change the Pic of Jesus or the bible ? Bart still believes Jesus got crucified so I'm not sure how that small variation changes the main point that Jesus was crucified.
Thanks for this; don't know if it was in response to requests and comments of readers; but I have argued since my days of studying Theology and The Bible that nowhere does it claim inerrancy; nor does the Bible claim god can do anything imaginable; or never is wrong. I know it is not your area of expertise; but God repenting of destroying the earth and nonhuman animals in Noah's Flood; and "repenting" (King James ) also after killing Israelites at Sinai might be an interesting discussion with an OT expert.
On inspiration and theopneustos (God breathed): I'd be curious to know what Bart's thoughts are on the book "The Invention of the Inspired Text" by John C. Poirier. While I haven't read it myself I'm told it makes the case for God breathed at that time better understood as "life-giving", rather than God inspired. A view later put forth by Origen.
I just try and treat people right and even that may depend on what the person feels is right.. I guess a person is most "innocent" the first few moments after birth till pick a time when the right and wrong concept is understood.
I wonder if Bart Ehrman has someone he's "Ehrman training" to carry on his legacy after he's gone. I know there's the students he teaches, but they aren't The Bart Ehrman. Is there someone who is at the top of his class's?
I like to compare inerrancy to a rubber raft. If you poke a hole anywhere on the raft, the whole thing will eventually leak out all the air and it will sink. One "fly in the ointment" is all it takes to make the whole she-bang stink.
If the gospels must be inerrant then why did they keep four different ones instead of having a unified synoptic gospel? Its like they wanted the opposite
It seems like if you believe the Bible is inerrant because it is "God-breathed" then it would also follow that humans are "God-breathed"? Or maybe I'm missing something
This video stunned me- I think it was the first time I realised Christianity does not need an inerrant Bible- just creeds. That’s how it is passed on. I’d add to that that it needs no bible at all if a lectionary is used…. Which is put together by those powers that be. That way no one can ever tell if what they are being told has any basis in truth at all.
Yeah, it's hard to think of it that way, since we're so used to thinking of the Bible as the key to understanding Christianity. But it's not really and never has been. Obviously in the earliest years, the religion spread before the NT was written or the canon set, but even throughout history since then the religion as it exists in any of its myriad denominations is really passed on and understood by word of mouth. By teaching from parents and from priests, not worked out again from the Bible by every new Christian. The Bible is used as a reference to justify beliefs, but they're not learned from it directly. That said, the existence of such a text limits how theology can develop. Without some such static baseline, I suspect theology would have changed and diverged even more drastically over the millennia.
Bart you are Genius! Brilliant Marketing: Have a Gorgeous and Super-intelligent Brit Girl capture and reveal/illicit Profound and Brilliant Questions!!!!! GENIUS! Another reason why I respect you so much🙏💚Bart yr the Man ! Megan , you are Beautiful inside/Out....❤💖💝⚘️😊🙏💋
There were four classes of students in Jesus' final year. Mark is מערה/מערכהי, the lessons as taught to the newbies. These are "the other 70." This word is used in Solomon's passage on "the wsy of life," and the prophecy regarding this entrance into kingdom of God. It is used appropriately for "the preparation of the heart." We are called to "Seek my face." My heart answered, "Thy face I will seek." Our journey will take us from grace to grace. Quickening the heart is the first grace. We are to love the Lord ith heart, soul, mind, and strength. Every passage in the gospel proves the progression. Moses shows us the path through the courts toward the mercy seat, the throne of our king. Matthew, mat'theou is מאתו, God with us. These are the lessons taught that last year to the first 70 who are now in their second year. Jesus quickens our heart. Thev father who raised up Jesus from the dead quickens the soul. Matthew teaches us the will of God. We accept righteousness the same way we accepted salvation. With this change of heart we can best love the Lord with soul. Luke is the third or "latter" part. The word is לוק. The quickening is of the mind. Then we have "the begining of the response of Jah." These are taught to those closest to the Lord. This brings us into "the good part." We have journeyed from the marchlands, through the fields and into the garden. Here we have the ability to become "the sons of God." Look and see for yourrself. Here you will learn what inspiration means. The word of God breathes in your ear. I'd love to tell you more. (Please forgive typos. I'm old)
I like the Emo Philips joke: "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked him to forgive me."
Yeah except that isnt the way God forgives. You need to make your victim whole again in order to be forgiven. If you misunderstand the concept I suppose a cheap laugh will get you through. The jews never even apologised for the massacre of the midionites. Steal a bike and say youre doing gods work. And forget about the apology
@@zapkvr _"The jews never even apologised for the massacre of the midionites"_
In the old testament Samson, with God's help, murders 30 men just so he can steal their clothes to pay off a gambling debt!
How do you 'apologize' for Gods aiding and abetting the sins of murder and theft to pay off the _sin_ of gambling?
I'm from Italy & that's exactly how my people roll. 😎
Brilliant
@@cardcounter21 nor Amalek, or anyone really.
I love how Bart is always laughing, he is so genuinely interested in what he does and his joy just really comes through. It’s uplifting.
My favorite fundamentalist action on Inerrancy comes from the Editors of the NIV. According to them, the Bible is so inerrant, that they changed the Bible multiple times, to make sure it is inerrant.
It was already inerrant. They just made that more clear
@@endofscene No, they clearly made changes of fact, not clarity. They changed King Jehoiachin's age from 8 to 18. That has absolutely nothing to do with clarity. That's just one of the many changes they made
There were clear and obvious changes to the text because the actual text is riddled with inconsistencies.
The fundamentalist position has not now, nor has it ever, held any water.
I believe that is why the NIV isn’t recommended by Bart or other historical biblical scholars - it harmonizes some of the differences that are in the manuscripts.
@@stevearmstrong6758 It's a hilarious thing to do from a group that says the Bible is inerrant.
@@dancahill9585 Yea, I think their position is that since they know what God meant to say they want to take out any ambiguities or conflicts that might cause anyone to question inerrancy since it’s a given that the Bible is inerrant…but they will argue that they aren’t using circular reasoning (I can’t use the word “logic” in this context)…
This was a great program. I'm glad I signed up to be notified by email when these programs are available.
Inerrancy at 12:56. One of the reasons why Christians see the Bible the way they do is many denominations falling under the "evangelical" umbrella teach their followers the Bible is "complete". This means there are no changes, no false authorship, no text left out of what we have in 2024, and certainly no missing books. Yet modern scholarship tells us the Bible does mention missing books by name. It does have questionable authorship (some of the books attributed to Paul, the four gospels, and others), and has inconsistencies.
I would think one would have to clarify which Bible.King James most likely has the most errors and exclusions.
Don't forget that the elected Roman Catholic Pope becomes infallible upon his election. He could probably explain it better. 😂
The gospels are anonymous, not "questionable", only who people later attributed them. The pastorals might be fictional letters by unknown authors (think screwtape). It's only because they were later thought authentic that we now think of them as questionable.
But 2 Thes is highly questionable. It contradicts 1 Thes, and Jesus did not appear and destroy Titus when when he desecrated the Temple after the rebellion (he went on to become emperor!). I think this derived from a misunderstanding of the Olivet Discourse.
@@mojoman2001Good one.
Holy crap!!! I fell down a wiki-rabbit hole earlier today at work and was reading about Origenism!!! What a coincidence!! Thanks for explaining better than Wikipedia, and keep up the good work!
Let's not ascribe to coincidence what can be explained with computer programming.
@@grit1679 you're right, the algorithm feeds us what we're looking for. But I listen to this every Tuesday and it was kinda cool that I just happened to be reading over this that morning and Dr Bart talked about it a few hours later.
At the height of the inerrancy fight in the SBC, I was in a Baptist seminary and had a friend who attended a ‘moderate’ Baptist church. His pastor was on the reconciliation committee which was meeting at Glorieta. On one call from his pastor, the ‘inerrancy’ group had retired to a room to agree on a definition. There was a long discussion and argument, and they couldn’t agree among themselves!
We ❤ Bart ‘In’Ehrman
As a curious agnostic, I have enjoyed Bart’s approach to exploring the phenomenon of Christianity more than any other scholar’s. He and Megan are a great team. And Megan’s eyeglasses are wonderful. I wonder how many pairs she has.
Thank you Megan, thank you Dr Ehrman. Really enjoy this series. Inerrancy is such a fascinating topic. Biblical contradictions are numerous and pronounced
For it is written : Be thou like unto the penguin and righteousness shall follow you all the days of your life.
Be thou like the boy penguin unto his boyfriend penguin, and fabulousness shall be added to your righteousness. ✨✨
Yea, swimmingly!
Yet another excellent presentation. Thank you Bart!
Megan you inspire me! You’re just a vibrant and intelligent woman!💫🌻💫
Always enjoy listening.
I really like the comment from Bart at @13.00 how inerrancy was created to give people a foundation. In my own expansion on this, I think it's driven by human nature. When we are born we are very vulnerable and we look to our parent for everything. They in essence become our inerrant guide and we feel secure.. As we grow up we begin to learn that our parents are NOT inerrant, and a measure of insecurity sets in and instead of becoming secure within ourselves we turn to look for other sources as an inerrant guide. Sometimes that get projected on to a religious figure, a politician, a pop star.. etc. . Within the Evangelical community.. that need for the inerrant guide gets projected on to the Biblical text. True security is to become secure within yourself and not rely on external sources.
22:14 This is a question I have as well! When Paul is writing 1 Timothy for example, , it's he referring to his OWN LETTERS as scripture???
Did Paul even write Timothy? But regardless, it’s doubtful the author of 1 Timothy considered what he was writing to be scripture.
First and Second Timothy were both written by the apostle Paul. The first letter was written in Macedonia between 61-64 C.E. The second letter was written in Rome in 65 C.E.
First, Paul did not write 1st Timothy. Second, NONE of the authors of any of the texts that have been compiled into what we now know as the Bible were writing "the Bible"
@@byrondickens Yea, most modern scholars consider the pastoral epistles to have been written after Paul's death, although "a small and declining number of scholars still argue for Pauline authorship.”
@sunnyjohnson992 There is no evidence for what you have stated, apart from church folklore.
On the contrary, most independent scholarship points out the obvious differences from the accepted Pauline texts.
These would be great pub conversations! Love the Tuesday mini lectures! Much love!
Wikipedia:
"The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is a written statement of belief formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference convened by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy] and held in Chicago in October 1978. The statement was designed to defend the position of biblical inerrancy against a trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture."
My comment:
The arrogance of this statement alone would discredit the Bible and it's evangelical supporters, in my view.
The claim that "scripture in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact", is useless, since we don't have the original manuscripts.
Do these people even think?
Also the fact that almost none of them can read the originals or would encourage other Christians to do so. Learning Hebrew and Greek to read the OT and NT exposed waaaaaay too many lies and misunderstandings
@@kahlilbt and that we don't have any originals - just early copies that are not the same as each other....
Article X: "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."
It's hilarious to think that God took the time to make sure the Bible was inerrant in its original form, but didn't insure every copy was accurate. You'd think it would have been equally easy to do.
It's wild to me that anyone can claim the inerrancy of a document that no one has access to.
The fact that Mattiew and Luke took the writing of Mark and changed it…is biblical proof that the gospel writers themselves at least didn’t believe in inerrancy…
Thank you both as always! 🙏
Great stuff, as always!
Just came back from Greece and loved every minute. My favorite was Olympia.
Fascinating. Thank you so much, Megan and Bart - you tag team so well and it is so very informative.
Wow! Even though I’ve recognized for a long time that the Bible cannot be inerrant, I’d never previously considered the evidence that the authors of Matthew and Luke changing the narrative/content of Mark is proof positive that *they* didn’t consider it to be inerrant. Scripture is a conversation, and it isn’t static or univocal.
The authors of the individual books of the Bible didn't even know what was or wasn't "the Bible".
there's instances of malleability of scripture in the Bible itself. the ten commandments in deuteronomy vary from exodus. the septuagint is often quoted in the new testament which differs from the hebrew, often because the hebrew we have today is a much later version.
@AaronGardner98 - There are many more contradictions that Professor Ehrman has spoken about in his other podcasts and in the various debates that you can find on UA-cam. He instructs his students to read the various books side by side. He says they are often shocked and amazed to see all the differences they never noticed before.
There's no conversation going on in a group-think Catholic or Protestant church. Those carry out a carefully orchestrated avoidance of conversation.
@@NovaSaber That's the crux of the question. In the end, what is in the Bible and what is not in the Bible is something decided by people, not God. The Bible can't be inerrant based in this fact alone.
Quite possibly the best Bart video I have ever seen!
My hands down favourite moment is from 8:40 where Bart explains that the scripture used to assert the hegemony of infallibility or Sola Scriptura, 2Timothy 3.16, comes from a letter which has itself got dubious provenance, which is itself a forgery!
With verses like Jeremiah 8:8 and chapter 2:8, I don't see how the idea of inerrancy can still stand. Jeremiah 7:22 and Amos 5:25 (among others) are in direct opposition of the greater chunk of Leviticus. I'm sure people can dump a zillion other minor micro contractions, but some of these are major, and undeniable. Constantly saying "but it's inerrant" while admitting inconsistencies, is a form of cognitive dissonance playing out in slow motion.
Over time the glue of inerrancy will melt away... a glue, according to Bart, that's only been set for barely 100 years. Man its crazy how quickly a concept can sweep a generation and folk think its been one way for ever and ever amen...
I attended the first NINT, enjoyed it a lot. Looking forward to the second. Thank you.
Bart as an atheist I agree with you, the Bible does inspire a lot of people to be and do good.
It's not always being used for the right purposes and can lead people to do the wrong thing, but that can be said about next to anything if we take a close look at history.
Thank you very much for your opinion.
Yeah I think that has a lot to do with how one is raised.
It always frustrates me when people say the U.S. is a Christian nation or that western values are "Christian", ignoring the much more obvious Roman, Greek, Eastern/Asiatic, Slavic, etc influences. So called "Christian" values are not unique or exclusive to the cult.
@@whatwecalllife7034 I agree, it is influenced by many outside of Christianity.
The West had morals and values before anyone even heard of Christianity. Germania by Tacitus, Marcus Aurelius, Plato, Stoicism, etc.
"..the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,
either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity
of others; hey either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the
process of checking, they lengithen or shorten, as they please."
Oriqen, Commentary Ofl Matthew, Book 15 (~250CE)
I like Megan’s mad scientist look
She blinded me with science...
SCIENCE!
"where does she get those wonderful glasses"- said in joker 1989 voice
Love what Bart's done with his hair
@@justiispilipinas my wife isn't interested in the subject matter, but she always wants to see Megan's hair and glasses each week, lol
@@nathanaelsmith3553 I like how he has a sort of symmetry between the sparse hair on the top of his head and the sparseness of his beard. You could paint a mouth on his forehead, and turn his head upside-down and no-one would ever notice.
Megan’s swag go crazy, I’m not sure I’ve come across another personality that accessorizes as well as she does 👌🏿👌🏿👌🏿
Bart! Please come to Cyprus during your tour of Greece. St Paul came here and u should defo follow in his foot steps. x
19:25 ''Contradictions''---- Brilliant explanation *********************************************
The BEST "word of God" would be God just appearing and talking to us. God could make it so that there was no error, perfectly clear to everyone, perfectly convincing to everyone - and he could do it all without violating free will.
Admitting wrong based on evidence logic and reason make sense.
This was an excellent episode
What, exactly, are "scriptures", anyway? The word seems to mean "things that are written down". Does that not include my shopping list from last week? Why is my shopping list from last week not Scripture? Or is it? Is the Pope's shopping list scripture? If we discovered Paul's shopping list, would it be scripture. Why is Moses's shopping list for the tabernacle considered scripture?
Philemon has nothing theological in it.
If Origen thought that the scriptures inconsistency was Gods way to get us to find deeper meaning then wouldn't that mean God deliberately lies in order for us to find deeper meaning?
That's a very literal way of analysis and places importance on historical accuracy. If I change a novel or a poem, I am not lying, and I am not making an error. If you accept that historical accuracy is unimportant and the artistic meaning is the real meaning... There is no lying or error in a work of art.
@@mojoman2001 Well in that case, I'll make the claim that I am God, and you should accept that because I'm going for a deeper meaning and am being artistic. My money is going on that if it talks like a lie and quacks like a lie, then it's a lie.
I can accept your claim to be god as a hypothetical, if I choose. Or, I could choose to accept it as a factual assertion, and evaulate it for factual accuracy. Or, I could do both, appreciate the hypothetical while having done the research to know that it is not factually accurate.
Storytelling is an art, and all art is open to interpretation by the audience. Shakespeare's Henry V is not a lie.
The Bible can only contain lies if the reader contends that the statements are included to establish the historical truth of the matter asserted. If the statements are included to make you think deeply, as Origen seems to have said, then they are not lies. They are thought exercises. A hypothetical cannot be a lie. A fable cannot be a lie. A myth cannot be a lie.
The Bible contains some accurate historical statements and some (wildly!) inaccurate ones. It contains so many whoppers that to think that it is all historically accurate is self-delusional, and so, highly unlikely what the authors intended. But, the inaccuracies do not have to be lies, as opposed to mistakes or artistic license.
Are Aesop's Fables true? It doesn't matter. All that matters is that we enjoy reading them and draw lessons from them.
@@mojoman2001 So there is no point trying to argue something objectively if it is subjective. Yet, that's still what so many people who argue for the existence of God so often claim that they are doing.
@markadams7046 -- The majority of people are below average at logic, itself. Logical reasoning ability is just that, an ability which people possess in different degrees.
Most people also see no benefit in critically examining the dominant religion into which they were born, and think it is better to defend it with whatever meager evidence and ability they have.
Churches are carefully choreographed to avoid critical thought and discussion. Anyone who asks too many questions will very quickly find himself unwelcome. It's part of social darwinism. Religions which do otherwise do not survive. Just like leopards evolved with spots. I suppose the gazelle might complain about the leopard's spots, but they are a feature, not a glitch.
I saw a comment once on this channel that both Megan and Bart's glasses are the same size and I will always see Bart as a giant now
I’ve never thought about not needing the Bible. There were Christian’s before there was a New Testament… it’s more so about what we hear. God that was good! God Bless you, Blake!
@AnnStephens196, I'm curious what you can tell us about Christians before there was a New Testament. Are you just talking about people like Paul & the other apostles who wrote it? Or are you talking about a messianic movement that preceded the birth of Jesus? I have heard it said that Socrates might have believed in Jesus, even though he died over 300+ years before Jesus was born. I would like to know more about pre-Jesus ideas of the coming messiah.
@@RightOnBro72 oh, I was referring to the common era, after Jesus’ death. The writings of Paul wouldn’t have made a much impact during his day because he was only writing to a few communities and most people weren’t literate during his time. The Jesus movement was mostly done by word of mouth rather than reading a letter from an apostle. And the term messiah as we know it today had a completely different meaning to those who practiced Judaism. I’ve never heard of Socrates believing in Jesus. I would’ve thought he would’ve practiced Polytheism.
One could not believe in Jesus before Jesus was born. The could believe that a Messiah would come. The Jews do not believe the Messiah has come yet.
The N.T. is mostly a compilation of letters written by Paul & his followers. Paul.was never part of the 12 and i believe he is an imposter. Some writungs were written by a few of the 12, such as John and Revelation. These writings were not compiled into the N.T. until the 300 CE. Over time verses were added here & there by the reactors or translators. There is still truth to be found in the bible, but it's not an inerrant compilation.
@@bettymccorkle788 Scholars do not hold that John was written by John and the John of Revelation is a different John to the one attributed to the gospel of John.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman.
I am convinced that Megan Lewis spends her entire monthly budget on glasses every month. Always a new pair from what I can tell.
You're wrong! She saves some of her budget for hair colouring. I find it flattering that she makes the effort for the viewers & always look forward to any changes she makes with both.
Plus dying her hair. Sometimes, I wonder if it's always pink, but then I realize this has nothing to do with what I'm watching Bart Erhman's video for -- I just want to hear him laugh.
She has a number of pairs, but not an infinite number. ^_^ The haircoloring is another thing......!
I'm 99% here for the free Bart Ehrman lecture and 1% here for the free Bart Ehrman laugh. 😂👌
He be so tickled 😂
Hey, what about Megan's glasses, hair, attractive personality & incisive questions?
He has the knowldge & she extracts it for us (with a huge amount of her own knowledge).
I would _LOVE_ to go on that Antarctica trip with Dr Ehrman! I bet he laughs all the way, especially now that it has been established that there were Penguins mentioned in the _Bible_ . ^_^
It’s not free. You’re paying for it with the commercials, the ones Ehrman inserts as well as the ones UA-cam inserts.
Of all the Ehrman talks I would say this is the most important one for me in that it delves into the history of the concept of inerrancy. I need to delve deeper into this topic. If anyone knows of an academic book on this topic that is not apologetics but more neutral...please let me know. Thanks in advance.
As a Christian, you can also see the Bible as the word of man about God. In this case, the Bible does not have to be infallible or inerrant. As a Christian, you are then free of all problems except one: you have to decide for yourself what you believe about God.
Megan,Bart l have a question for both of you, help me to understand when the Bible was called the word of God for the first time?.You guys do an excellent job. Thanks.
1 Thessalonians 2:13: “Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the WORD OF GOD, which is also at work in you believers.”
@@SDJ992-q9tit says right there that the word of god was something they heard, not read. There’s also no indication that the author thought that letter was the word of god, even though it’s now collected in what we consider the Bible
@CarlosTorres-cb5fb, you may want to check out Genesis 15:4 as well as Psalms 18:30 & 33:4 where the phrase "word of the LORD (YHVH)" or "the LORD's word" is used many times in the Old Testament. Also, the Hebrew name for the book of Deuteronomy is "Devarim" which is generally translated as "Commandments," but which literally means "Words."
@CarlosTorres-cb5fb .. I don't believe the Bible ever mentions the Bible being "The Word of God.
The Word of God is used to reference the Messiah in the Old Testament.
The New Testament books refer to the Old Testament as "Scripture" and never to letters or books from the New Testament (which was not part of Scripture/ the Bible when they were written - as the canon of the bible was not being discussed at that time, or agreed for nearly 300 years afterwards).
Indeed, the New Testament writting refers to passing on what you have learnt through tradition or letter.... not just through Scripture /the Bible.
@@SDJ992-q9t Not true. No Bible, nor any collection that included the New Testament, existed until the 180s CE and even then it wasn't universally agreed upon until about 300 years later. When any of the NT authors mention "scripture" they meant the Jewish Tanakh.
Where will the cruise be announced?
Keep an eye on his blog at ehrmanblog.org - Social Media Team
It is a common point of understanding in, I believe, many religions that one reaches a point at which one understands that ""God is breathing you"" and all ego is gone.
The issue doesn't arise for Catholics who have never accepted the Bible as inerrant. Inspired yes, inerrant no. First, they should know because they themselves wrote and collated parts of it. Second, because they are fully aware of the difficulties of Bible translations from the antiquity of Hebrew and the Septuagint, to the Latin of Vulgate, and countless modern translations. Third, because they know about inconsistencies and contradictions both in the "Old" and the "New" testament. When Paul had his presumed vision on the Road to Damascus did his companions see the light but heard nothing, or did they hear the voice but saw nothing. The Acts states the former in one place, then the latter in another. And how were Eve and Adam created? According to one verse, both were made of mud at the same time, according to another, Eve was made out of Adam's rib some time after Adam had been made by fiat, just to keep him company. And what a bad company it proved to be!
Did Luke believe Mark was inspired? Could they both be inspired if Luke thought Mark wasn’t inspired?
@@ChadToney”Luke” thought Mark was imperfect and flawed so he or she had to rewrite it
Protestantism is bible thumping writ large, that is why I am Catholic NOT CHRISTIAN!
Catholics think that the Pope is inerrant, so they don't have a need for any inerrant books.
@@andreasvox8068 no, they believe the pope is infallible in very specific circumstances.
Quite the life going. The guy is all over, giving lectures, doing interviews, teaching college, writing books. Telling people there religion is wrong. Amazing.
Yes, the last NINT was excellent. I couldn’t take it all in at once so took it in over time from the recordings.
The concept of spiritual interpretation enabled individuals to apply any interpretation they fancied to any biblical text, and even apply different interpretations of the same text to different situations. Pretty much as we have today where Christian apologists can bring up a text and interpretation for every situation and every point of view to argue that black is really white and/or every shade of grey in between.
Please, please talk about the impact of second temple's destruction to Christianity. I'm always curious why the first gospel was written during or just after this event.
I'm not kidding. When I was a kid in the 60's for me the "Great Pumpkin" explained everything. Like why Sunday mass said one thing and the people at Sunday mass practiced something totally different. The answer was? They were not "sincere" enough in the judgment of a ten year old. Of course the priest and the Nuns used every form of correction still available by law after the inquisition was long over to "save my soul", but it never took. I would spend a large part of my life trying on different religions looking for"the truth" as if I was in a Thom McAn's. Forty years later I found it. Sparky Schulz was right all along. The Great Pumpkin did not exist and even if it did those who run religious businesses would never bother being sincere enough, because that is not where buried treasure or power is. It's in selling fear or safety for at least 10% reoccurring, plus gifts...drives...Merch...projects... .
@simonbattle0001, the Great Pumpkin is definitely real. He comes on TV every year, just like Jesus. I'm just wondering why there are no deities for President's Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day (now Indigenous People's Day -- maybe it's the Great Spirit?,) and New Year's Eve. One thing we all waited for though was for the Great Pumpkin to rise on Halloween.
Im mormon and grew up being taught about the revealed truth being what a consensus would be if they were all in a room together. Which presupposes different prophets and revelators disagree on the fine details. I also.was told that the bible had interconnected mesh of symbols and archtypes and therefore was far from literal in every sense of the word. Rather it was a metaphore or an allegory coloaring things we see with thi gs we dont see that are the unseen reasons for existance. That we see what we see because it teaches of that which we.dont see. And also that this way of thinking was the hebrew mentality and therefore we can strip out wvery vestige of greek idea or philosophy if we understood this thought process, which is more conductive to personal revelation.
Another problem is that the NT authors seemed to regard books like Enoch to be scripture. And the Septuagint rather than what later became canonized.
Nah, only the Ethiopian Orthodox include Enoch in their cannon.
@@russellmiles2861 gospel authors quote Enoch. I didn’t say it was in our Bible.
@@GeeThevenin you are of course correct ... must have been fun for folk to have quotes from a book they didn't have. But theologians are tricky like that. Would have messed with them with a copy turned up in 1800s.
There is an incredible Islamic museum near Keramicos Cemetery, down the hill and to the right of the Acropolis past the Agora.
It seems that most of the believers mentioned in the New Testament before it was written, were having a spiritual experience in relation to Christ and God. They were having spiritual, mind-opening, eye-opening experiences. No book is needed for this.
At 28:00 - 29:00, it can't possibly work to have Jairus' daughter die and be revived twice, because the interruption by the woman with the flow of blood is reported in each gospel - and I'm confident that even the European theologian would not have expected anyone to believe that there were TWO women with a flow of blood for 12 years who each happened to interrupt Jesus at the same stage of the process!
Don't be too sure.
Why would an ominpotent, all-wise God pass on essential information using literature, written in languages that only a tiny fraction of the world's population understands.
Oh, dear Jesus....
Good point.
Megan and Bart. Your subject matter is always interesting, but this one strikes me as more relevant to one's understanding of "the gospel" than usual.
As you comment about Martin Luther and the importance of the literal meaning, this only hearkens back to what Jewish authors had said in the Babylonian Talmud, "“A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning.” (Shabbat 63a; Yev. 11b, 24a). There is too the PARDES concept of interpreting scripture, or:
Peshat (פְּשָׁט) -Is the "surface,” "straight," or the literal (direct) meaning.
Remez (רֶמֶז) - Refers to "hints" or the deep (allegoric- hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) - Is from the Hebrew darash - "inquire" ("seek") - the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (סוֹד) - Is the "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
This was put forth by a kabbalist, Moses De Leon.
I believe the bible is multilevel in nature, and simply reading only the literal is a fast-food meal and not the feast it can be.
Peace, Shalom, Salam
Just a bit of technical feedback, Megan‘s audio has a Hum in it and I’m wondering if you’ve changed your microphone gain or tweaked some other setting
10:12 that's because no one who wrote "sctipture" believed they were writing material that would end up in a book called the bible. I doubt they were concerned with errors. Because of the doctrine many redactions have taken place to rectify contradictions.
Thank you.
I was in college we didn't have computers books pencils pens papers and teachers that used 40-dollar words dictionary was a must.no doze because of the monotone speaker.Bart is different because he can reach even the dummies in class which is the mark of teacher excellence. articulates well explains well takes teaching to a level for not only scholars but a huge audience and keeps it interesting hits the points most folks are thinking.a remarkable rare talent ..10 stars
Love barts books
i don't think the gospel writers thought what they were writing was inerrant. Firstly, first century story telling wasn't about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth the way we understand it today. The gospels were arranged, things were left out or included in order to make a particular point to a particular group of people. Additionally, i think it was unlikely that people would have remembered Jesus' long speeches word for word, so the writers would have taken the gist or main point of the speech and written what would have been said using the appropriate rhetoric for the occasion and time.
That's right. Bart has mentioned those points in earlier talks.
😅
Especially John's gospel. The Synoptics have Jesus talking in small discrete snippets, just what you would expect if he were teaching an illiterate audience who had to memorize his words. In John's gospel however, was Jesus dictating to a scribe? If you accept a later date for John, that was 50-60 years after his ministry. Nobody could remember the detail found in his farewell speech after that length of time.
Jesus doesn’t carry his cross in Mark, Matthew and Luke, Simon the Cyrenean did. In John Jesus carried his own cross
And John does this because his purpose is to highlight Jesus’ divinity.
Having someone else carry the cross kinda puts a dent in that.
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.
@alanhilder1883, that seems to be a quote form Edward Abbey's "The Monkey Wrench Gang" from 1975. Others seem to point it to Charles M. Schulz, although I can't find that quote. However, I'm certain I heard Tom Baker say it in an episode of "Dr. Who" in the 70s, so it might even precede Edward Abbey's. The only line better than that is when Prince Humperdink says, "Unless I am wrong, and I am never wrong..."
@@RightOnBro72 Don't know where I heard it but Dr Who was a favorite show.
The whole 'Zeus cult' thing from the Q & A stuck out to me. Since there was no overarching authority to oversee a uniform worship or practice, this would lead to a diversity of opinion in such matters. which is exactly what happened with gentiles Christianity, a greco-romanized form of Judaism. That is, until Constantine and his bishops got involved...
One part that got me that I've still yet to have anyone give me a logical answer to has to do with the math in the Exodus story. If you look at Moses's genealogy and take into account who was born when and how long they were in Egypt for, the number of years does not add up correctly. I've asked numerous people to try and explain the math, including one person who had a Masters in mathematics, and all of them say the math does not add up the way the Bible says it should.
Sometimes, I want fundamentalists to memorize Ibn Rushd's "Decisive Treatise" and "Incoherence of the Incoherence", where he argues, that there are three classes of verses in Holy Scripture: i) clear and evident ii) clear message, but can interpreted iii) verses where it is not clear if they are meant literally or metaphorically. And thus, no one should be censured for his own interpetation of Holy Scripture.
That leaves any scripture open for some real whacko to interprtate the 'truth".
@@robertdargan1113 That's the whole point. Ibn Rushd basically invented religious freedom, and with it freedom of speech.
Interesting to see how these beliefs are shaped by local culture. I'm from a country that doesn't speak English (Brazil) and although the evangelical movement here is highly influenced by the USA, there is no belief in "inerrancy", mainly because there is no word for it here... The thought that the bible is the infalible word of God exists, but without the explicit message that it has to be inerrant, it ends up not being such a big problem to recognize the inconsistencies that the Bible has
Another reason could be that evangelicalism here did not arise in a context of widespread skeptical and scientific thought, so the need to assert that the Bible is inerrant may not have been so necessary.
The inerrancy of the Bible rests upon the inerrancy of the people making that determination.
Dr Ehrman, when you come to Greece, will you pass from Athens? and maybe speak at some event?
His itinery has probably already been set for quite a while. Maybe his website mentions something about a lecture in Athens?
The Christian Bible is nothing but a muddle of Contradictions.
What is your favourite
Mine is that there is no list of 10 Commandments in the Bible, despite this being said in the Bible.
I like how writers are pretending to be Paul and then church people centuries later are claiming that these fake Pauline letters are the inerrant word of God 😅😅
At 21:45: any evidence about whether or not biblical authors thought their writings were inerrant. A straightforward reading would suggest that Paul distinguishes the level of authority in what he says, as for instance 1 Cor. 7: 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband; 1 Cor. 7: 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.
Of course, Biblical literalists have work-arounds, but you have to be pretty motivated to believe that Paul is not distinguishing degrees of inspiration. There are other passages where Paul recounts how he has got hold of a bit of the tradition;* if you are confident you are writing the precise words of God, you don't cite sources.
* I should look up the passages, but it's late at night here.
Did Delphi residents call the tip line and identify the man by name in the Bridge Guy video?
Question. If biblical inerrancy is a modern invention, how was both Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliff both believers in that concept? Not questioning you, simply confused.
The claim that biblical inerrancy is a modern invention typically refers to the formalization of the doctrine as we understand it today, particularly in response to modernist challenges during the 19th and 20th centuries. While figures like Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliffe held views that are compatible with biblical inerrancy, their understanding of the concept was framed within the theological and philosophical context of their times, which differs from the formalized doctrines of inerrancy developed later.
thank you
Looking up the history of the Protestant reformation on how Martin Luther picked and chose which books would go into the modern 66 books of the Bible should encourage people to be more nuanced on scripture
The thing is if people actually read the Bible by themselves and actually see what pastor Jenkins told them was actually wrong they would question their faith. Most people are comfortable believing lies instead of the true 🤦🏾♂️
What time EDT is this podcast broadcast live?
Never as far as I know
Dr Ehrmen mentioned that by the time this episode aired, he would be on his way to Greece.
This is kind of puzzling because Bart points out a small contradiction or variation in the bible, She then says that sounds minor it don't really change the picture of Jesus or change the bible story are there any more contradictions that are big ? Bart points out that (John) has jesus cricified the next day to drive a theological point. How does this change the Pic of Jesus or the bible ? Bart still believes Jesus got crucified so I'm not sure how that small variation changes the main point that Jesus was crucified.
Thanks for this; don't know if it was in response to requests and comments of readers; but I have argued since my days of studying Theology and The Bible that nowhere does it claim inerrancy; nor does the Bible claim god can do anything imaginable; or never is wrong.
I know it is not your area of expertise; but God repenting of destroying the earth and nonhuman animals in Noah's Flood; and "repenting" (King James ) also after killing Israelites at Sinai might be an interesting discussion with an OT expert.
On inspiration and theopneustos (God breathed):
I'd be curious to know what Bart's thoughts are on the book "The Invention of the Inspired Text" by John C. Poirier.
While I haven't read it myself I'm told it makes the case for God breathed at that time better understood as "life-giving", rather than God inspired. A view later put forth by Origen.
Megan - Where do you get your glasses? I need a pair. 🙂
How about the OT versus that equate Yahweh as Satan? Kind of important. 1 Chronicles 21:1 vs 2 Samuel 24:1
When I contradict myself, I tell the truth
I just try and treat people right and even that may depend on what the person feels is right.. I guess a person is most "innocent" the first few moments after birth till pick a time when the right and wrong concept is understood.
Its an amazing fact that someone can make his living fighting (dogmatic) religion. This could only happen in the modern day
Go annd see the island of Delos, where Apollo and Artemis were born
I wonder if Bart Ehrman has someone he's "Ehrman training" to carry on his legacy after he's gone. I know there's the students he teaches, but they aren't The Bart Ehrman. Is there someone who is at the top of his class's?
I like to compare inerrancy to a rubber raft. If you poke a hole anywhere on the raft, the whole thing will eventually leak out all the air and it will sink. One "fly in the ointment" is all it takes to make the whole she-bang stink.
If the gospels must be inerrant then why did they keep four different ones instead of having a unified synoptic gospel?
Its like they wanted the opposite
It seems like if you believe the Bible is inerrant because it is "God-breathed" then it would also follow that humans are "God-breathed"? Or maybe I'm missing something
This video stunned me- I think it was the first time I realised Christianity does not need an inerrant Bible- just creeds. That’s how it is passed on. I’d add to that that it needs no bible at all if a lectionary is used…. Which is put together by those powers that be. That way no one can ever tell if what they are being told has any basis in truth at all.
Yeah, it's hard to think of it that way, since we're so used to thinking of the Bible as the key to understanding Christianity. But it's not really and never has been. Obviously in the earliest years, the religion spread before the NT was written or the canon set, but even throughout history since then the religion as it exists in any of its myriad denominations is really passed on and understood by word of mouth. By teaching from parents and from priests, not worked out again from the Bible by every new Christian. The Bible is used as a reference to justify beliefs, but they're not learned from it directly.
That said, the existence of such a text limits how theology can develop. Without some such static baseline, I suspect theology would have changed and diverged even more drastically over the millennia.
How do you know the creeds are true if you cant cross check them with any reliable source from the first century?
Bart you are Genius! Brilliant Marketing: Have a Gorgeous and Super-intelligent Brit Girl capture and reveal/illicit Profound and Brilliant Questions!!!!! GENIUS! Another reason why I respect you so much🙏💚Bart yr the Man ! Megan , you are Beautiful inside/Out....❤💖💝⚘️😊🙏💋
Did you know there's an ancient theater of Dionysus an hour or so walk from Nazareth.
There were four classes of students in Jesus' final year. Mark is מערה/מערכהי, the lessons as taught to the newbies. These are "the other 70." This word is used in Solomon's passage on "the wsy of life," and the prophecy regarding this entrance into kingdom of God. It is used appropriately for "the preparation of the heart." We are called to "Seek my face." My heart answered, "Thy face I will seek." Our journey will take us from grace to grace. Quickening the heart is the first grace. We are to love the Lord ith heart, soul, mind, and strength. Every passage in the gospel proves the progression. Moses shows us the path through the courts toward the mercy seat, the throne of our king. Matthew, mat'theou is מאתו, God with us. These are the lessons taught that last year to the first 70 who are now in their second year. Jesus quickens our heart. Thev father who raised up Jesus from the dead quickens the soul. Matthew teaches us the will of God. We accept righteousness the same way we accepted salvation. With this change of heart we can best love the Lord with soul. Luke is the third or "latter" part. The word is לוק. The quickening is of the mind. Then we have "the begining of the response of Jah." These are taught to those closest to the Lord. This brings us into "the good part." We have journeyed from the marchlands, through the fields and into the garden. Here we have the ability to become "the sons of God." Look and see for yourrself. Here you will learn what inspiration means. The word of God breathes in your ear. I'd love to tell you more. (Please forgive typos. I'm old)