4 TIMES Matthew FLUBBED the Old Testament (feat. Bart Ehrman)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- Christian folklore suggests the author of Matthew was a careful study of the Old Testament. Dr Bart Ehrman joins me today to discuss four times that does not appear to be the case... as well as address apologetic excuses posed by Dr Timothy McGrew, Dr James White, Dr Michael Brown and @InspiringPhilosophy
===
SIGN UP FOR "Genius of Matthew" COURSE at www.tinyurl.com...
Use promo code PAULOGIA for $10 off!!
===
CHRISTIAN SOURCE VIDEOS
"How Not to Read the Gospels" by Dr. Timothy McGrew • "How Not to Read the G...
Did Jesus Ride Two Donkeys? Supposed Biblical Error #20 • Did Jesus Ride Two Don...
Objection 5.3: The prophets never said the Messiah would be called a Nazarene • Objection 5.3: The pro...
Objection 5.4: Matthew quotes Zechariah and attributes it to Jeremiah • Objection 5.4: Matthew...
Jesus a Nazarene? - Bible Contradiction #6 • Jesus a Nazarene? - Bi...
Did The Gospel Of Matthew Misquote Jeremiah? • Did The Gospel Of Matt...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
=== SIGN UP FOR "Genius of Matthew" COURSE at www.tinyurl.com/BartMatthew Use promo code PAULOGIA for $10 off!! ===
Always fun seeing the "inerrancy" on display. Even more fun seeing apologists saying "nuh uh".
'-The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
Yeah right. And now over to the not anecdotal evidence...
@@patriklindholm7576 you mean the minimal facts that keeps getting more and more minimal as it gets torn apart?
"... minus the genealogies..."
Oh, how our standards have fallen.
You need some sort of mnemonic for that.
Apologists calling Bart dishonest is the ultimate example of projection.
But but but
well he can be sometimes… the only problem is people on here are too insular to read scholars who disagree with them. Bart was extremely dishonest in his book Misquoting Jesus where he had the audacity to claim that he “researched oral tradition for 2 years”.
You might be wondering then, how many NT Specialists on Oral Tradition did he cite in his book? *Zero*. He has copped rigorous critique from specialists in the field for his failure to understand *anything* about Oral tradition. Ehrman is fine in the realm of textual tradition, but all his other popular works are idiosyncratic and his citations are absolutely awful. The problem is his fanbase are people like Paulogia stans who are academically illiterate and have no way to understand when somebody is making claims that misunderstand research and are flatly incorrect. That’s why everybody here should be getting their academic sources *straight* from the source of an academic journal itself, and not from UA-cam counter-apologetics that is built on hyperbole and sensationalism.
And here you are 🤣
@@elanordeal2457modern religions are nothing more than thousands of years of bad Fan-Fic writing.
Just thousands of years, of humans creating their own nonsense claims to justify interpreting the Bible the way they want to. Christians used to openly own slaves and used Biblical passages to maintain that ownership. Then, a different group re-interpreted different parts of the Bible to justify their claims that Christians shouldn't own slaves.
They were called heathens and atheists by other Christians from that time period. In modern times, we have Christian groups that have completely discarded any anti-homosexual or anti-trans parts of the Bible.
So far, absolutely no Theist has ever come up with a Method of Correct Biblical Interpretation; and as such, it's actually impossible to determine which interpretation of the Bible is "correct"
The ones that are Truly Lying, are the ones that claim they have the "correct" interpretation, it's impossible for any of them to substantiate their assertion that their interpretation is "correct".
He is so dishonest but paulogia eats everything he says up because of confirmation bias.
how do you guys watch this stuff it drives me nuts how much theologians talk without actually saying anything meaningful. Kudos to you champs.
Dunno if this helps or if it's how they do it with the full videos, but when I'm exposed to the churchy BS I sometimes need to stop and pace around my house angrily explaining why what I just heard from a theist is the stupidest shit imaginable as if I'm doing a presentation to a bunch of people with the intelligence of a five year old and the attitude or someone who forgot to their their mood stabilizers for fifteen years.
I was _just_ doing it while making myself some sandwiches, in fact... shit makes me so angry and frustrated it's the only way to vent. And I'm still shaking a bit. You gotta have a coping mechanism when dealing with The Dumb(tm).
@@EdwardHowton This is my exact way of dealing with the kind of stupidity that has become so normalised in religious circles. I sometimes write down my objections in my phone's note app, but I also just argue with the walls for at least 20 minutes when I hear something EXTRA braindead. I just finished The Problem of Pain and I had an hour-long argument that any outside viewer would expect was with my pesto. It helps so much, though.
I rebut Christianity with the Hebrew scriptures, and then I rebut the Torah with science and logic.
I was an apologist making the same arguments until I sat down and analyzed the texts myself in an academic context - intending to have scholarship bolster my claim. Yea… So here we are. Lol
I take a Ritalin beforehand.
Love Bart and signed up for the course when he and Megan announced it in their Misquoting Jesus podcast. And Paul is always interesting and informative. Good job men.
I'm so glad that Dr. Bart Ehrman continues to be willing to give his time to share his knowledge and experience with Paul's community. Paul always finds a good framework for this knowledge sharing, making these videos excellent every time.
3:58 Let's suppose they are correct that the last "them" in "They brought out the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them" is indeed the cloaks. This doesn't actually seem unreasonable to me as a possibility.
But in this case: what were the cloaks he sat on themselves sitting on? Both the donkey and the colt. At best we have Jesus sitting side-saddle on the donkey while a couple of disciples pull on the donkey and colt such that they remain parallel in order for the cloaks to not fall off the colt.
Personally, I don't think this is significantly less silly of an image.
Cloaks, wrnikle free on the donkey and colt. Jesus riding on a pyramid of disciples. They were the first them after all... and it would make sense to remove expensive cloaks before doing disciple formation stunts.
@@gracesprocket7340 Never mind, this is now the only possible interpretation. I will never get this image out of my head, and I don't want it to.
It's just blankets on donkeys on blankets on donkeys. The earth is actually sitting on either 1 or 2 blankets which themselves are sitting on a superposition of two donkeys, which are sitting on either 1 or 2 blankets...
-'There never was multiple Gospels by multiple authors. The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
@@termination9353
Now it all makes sense.
"In perpetuity" means forever, without a break in between, so even if today there was still a descendant of David as king, the prophesy failed because it was interrupted. Christians take the phrase "counting the hits and ignoring the misses" to a whole other level.
Yeah the problem with the apologetics -- whether Jewish or Christian -- is that they're bending over backward to make God not violate his promises that they essentially make God a liar by omission:
"Oh, when I said Abraham's progeny would rule all the way to the Euphrates, I didn't mean this time. Obviously they only ruled a fraction of that, but I never said they wouldn't rule it all EVENTUALLY!"
"Oh, when I said forever, I meant there would be a gap of several thousand years."
"Oh, when I said I would be your God forever and would not let you come to ruin, I obviously didn't mean between the years of 1936-1945."
"Oh, when I said I would restore Israel, I didn't mean RIGHT NOW."
"Oh, when I said the descendant of David would rule, I meant my own son who may or may not also just be me, depending on how you read it."
"Oh, when my Messiah said that I'd come soon to set the world to rights, he obviously doesn't understand that a thousand years are like a day to me. I mean, I'm omniscient, so I would never make a mistake describing duration, but you know, no one knows except the Father, am I right?"
It's pretty clear Yahweh breaks his promises. Arguing he doesn't means you think he's a weasel who never promises anything in clear, plain language, and you're the sucker for believing he actually means what he says. Well in that case, why should I believe in his clear, plain promise that I will have eternal life if I believe in his son? Maybe that too is meant to be interpreted in some weird way where I end up a potted plant in some public restroom in New Jersualem.
If God can't be trusted to say what he actually means, God can't be trusted at all.
@@UryvichkLive how this makes God sound like just a, Sellie Fae, like Taranus.
@@Uryvichk : Quote of the Century: "If God can't be trusted to say what he actually means, God can't be trusted at all." Indeed, why follow anyone who doesn't say what they mean or mean what they say? A just, loving, wise, and benevolent God would never have put his thoughts to paper, where it would get butchered in translation, while yielding to creative interpretations, and artistic license. Then again, the written word could get lost, stolen, damaged, edited, corrupted, or weaponized. This just isn't something a benevolent God would do. If a just, loving, wise, and benevolent God wishes to introduce himself to mankind, and communicate with us, he would ensconce his name in the heavens, write his message across the skies, and place the truth in the hearts and minds of all people everywhere. Anything less than this is religious fiction and priest-craft.
@@UryvichkDepending on how well this hypothetical potted plant is cared for (light conditions, soil type, watering frequency, etc), I don’t think that would be the worst existence. Bring on the god that makes me a potted plant in a restroom of New Jerusalem, I say.
How to think like an apologist: There were 3 blankets, and 2 of the 3 he placed on the donkey, and the other one he placed on the foal. Then he sat on them (the 2 blankets, but he sat on just the donkey.) Easy peasy harmoneasy!
An apologist would also assert knowledge of the color, size, fabric, and dry/no-dry-clean instructions of said blankets and claim THAT as supporting evidence as well.
I love how Dr. Ehrman’s little persona guy is drawn because it looks like he is permanently stuck doing a :3 face lol
True that
@18:07 My idea for why Matthew references Jeremiah for a citation of a prophecy in Zechariah is that maybe the writer was reading from a scroll of excerpted prophecies which contained bits from both Jeremiah and Zechariah. To be clear, I certainly agree with Prof. Ehrman that he would NOT have been reading from a scroll containing Jeremiah as well as the minor prophets-that document would be too big.
We actually have examples of what I am getting at from Qumran of smaller scrolls which contain a variety of different, smaller text-fragments. I.e., 4Q37 contains Deut 5-6, 10-12; Exod 13; and Deut 32 in that order. In a situation like this, none of the individual prophecies would be referenced, so if a reader recognises Jeremiah, but not Zechariah, it is totally plausible that he will also mistake Zech 11:12-13 as a prophecy of Jeremiah.
There's another text in Matt 21:5 where he cites Isa 62:11, but this is the only instance in Matthew where he does not identify an Isaiah quotation as belonging to Isaiah. My thought is that the writer is reading from a scroll containing only the second-half of Isaiah, or perhaps only Third Isaiah, which is anonymous.
It's just incredible how many times christian apologists just... make stuff up about ancient times, and speak of it with so much confidence as if it was self-evident historical truth.
Taking a single verse from a passage written 60 years later to say that an insult was common. Making up that people quoted scripture by the name of someone in the same scroll even if it is not the name of the actual author they want to quote.
Like... instead of just saying: I don't know why it says that. Or: Yeah... that maybe is a mistake from the author.
They will invent a bunch of israelite lore like some fantasy author and say confidently that this is likely what happened.
JK Rowling syndrome is only a modern iteration of the "nu-uh" knee jerk reaction to even the most mild of criticism.
It's so wild. And I always try to remember that one of the earliest human writings we have is essentially someone writing a negative Yelp review, with just as much vile and vinegar and clever insults as a modern rando from the internet going off on Ubereats xD
We really haven't changed much.
Can you give an actual example?
@@ACE-pm3gh What do you mean an actual example? I mentioned two of the ones given in the video. did you watch the video? One is saying that nazarene was a common insult and the other one was saying that people quoted manuscripts by the first name in the manuscript and not the actual author.... Which by all accounts seem to be just made up historical details made to fit some christian narrative.
@@diegog1853he‘s a xtian ignore him he didn‘t watch the video
@@aazhie lmaaao I was also gonna bring up JK Rowling
Inspiring Philosophy manages to somehow mangle “plausibility” far worse than any other apologist.
4:49 if we are gonna be loose with our interpretation, the third option is that Jesus sat on the disciplines, i.e., the nominal 'they' in that sentence
@perfectblindguy Jesus...😂😂😂
Entire book! Congrats. Going into my senior year of HS I had started to memorize John - it was the book we were quizzing on in '95-96. Met my wife in bible quiz, she went to a "competing" church.
Christian apologists concentrate on what is possible, not what is probable... I'm thankful that scholars like Bart are more concerned with the latter
Often what the concentrate on is what is not impossible, because their case is just that weak.
New to the channel glad I stumbled across it. New to not believing in god, really find these breakdowns of Christian views helpful, just signed up to Bart's blog aswell. Thanks for the well thought out honest content.
Hi. That's how I felt when I first watched Paulogia about 4 years ago.
Welcome and congratulations- you are in for a treat! Paulogia’s old series on the Case for Christmas is a ‘do not miss’, as is the one on The Beginning- can’t remember the title of that series but it was amazing.I spent months watching his old videos, they are immensely helpful for those deconstructing as no stone is left unturned.
Check out History Valley for extremely good scholarly content relating to the Bible. Also Dan McClellan for entertaining concise biblical scholarly content, should the more academic, dry content be too much. Just for a start, of course.
Also I recommend Bible translator Mauro Biglino! Sending you good wishes for the deconstruction trail ahead of you. 🙏🏼
@@hardwork8395 History Valley is another good one, I discovered that channel because I follow Dr.Kipp Davis’s work. ❤️
Bart's bubbly personality always brighten my day and thank you for having him on again, Paul. Great work as always.
"Bart's bubbly personality"
It's why I always laugh when I hear an apologist trying to ad hominem Bart by calling him "angry" and "miserable". Dude is seriously the most happy person I've seen. It's obvious the apologists audience is people who would never actually watch anything with Bart, and just blindly accept the attacks.
Because apologetics is NEVER about converting skeptics, it's about reassuring believers and trying to stop the hemorrhaging.
@@Nymaz "I'm not angry, you're angry!" Yep, sounds about right. I think apologists make it worse and make people doubt even more. If they're so secure in their dogmas then why go through the mental gymnastics to justify it? Food for thought.
Be well.
@Nymaz agreed! He has the most saint like personality of people I have encountered on UA-cam. I feel like he is nearly always delighted to talk with people about things he has learned, and even him talking about his past as a very enthusiastic Christian just seems very upbeat, even when he's discussing how he had to go through the tough deconversion and questioning his beliefs
There are two people reading the scriptures and giving their interpretation and thoughts here, Bart is doing an objectively, and Tim is doing it with his God glasses on, his brain is in the gear of "defend the gospel or I might suffer" so I'm thinking, just right out of the gate, Bart just might be doing this more honestly haha.
1:57 Young Paulogia looks like he was confident & ready to challenge the world. I personally don’t think much has changed there, except improved info.💕
22:30 - - I've never understood the idea that Jerusalem was 'destroyed' by God for the "Betrayal of the Messiah". Wasn't the whole idea of the death of Jesus is that it was the way God planned to forgive Mankind it's sins? If God planned the whole thing why would he be angry at the Jews for fulfilling His plan?
I mean other than the fact the God of the Bible could be an absolute dick at most times.
Also, as far as we know, crucifying one guy 40 years earlier had basically nothing at all to do with the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the result of OTHER messianic rebellions and a breakdown of Roman relations with their hand-picked Jewish authorities. Sure, one can CLAIM that was God's punishment for betraying the messiah, but that's basically like saying hurricanes are a punishment for premarital sex; even if it were true, there is no causal link to prove that the two things are related.
Also kind of weird for God to wait 40 years to punish Judea for rejecting the messiah. Like what, was he busy? Was this not all that important a thing for him to deal with right away? Your son gets crucified and you have to hold off until sociopolitical tensions get bad enough?
Yep same with Judas, Jesus even predicts the betrayal but he goes ahead with it anyway and commits suicide afterwards even though he just saved all of mankind. But the Romans thay actually crucified Jesus get away scott free
The *hardening Pharaoh's heart* business.
But in Matthew's time people had to find a providential explanation for the destruction of Jerusalem.
The same sort of problem Lincoln was addressing in The Second Inaugural.
The funny thing is, Jerusalem was destroyed because of... completely different reasons. The major Jewish revolt against the oppressive Roman government, aka the first Roman-Jewish war?
I’ve listened to a handful of endorsements for Ehrman’s latest course on Matthew but this is the one that sold me. Why oh why wasn’t it aired while I could still claim the multiple discounts?
Sadly, the interview was after the course recording. HOWEVER, the fine folks over at Bart Ehrman's team have heard you and are offering you (and anyone reading) a $10-off promo code PAULOGIA that matches the early bird special. Thank you!
@@Paulogiathat’s awesome!
Lev 10 projecting thought an memory ❤all are allowed level 1
I really enjoyed this, can’t wait to review it.
I love the dialogue between you guys! This is what scholarship (or online pseudo-scholarship at least) is about!
Kenner saying "could be the garments" is an appeal to possibility. IP likes to appeal to possibility when it suits him, but when people appeal to other possibilities he says "we're interested in what's more probable." LOL!
Tim said Jesus sat on the clothes, not multiple animals, but the clothes were spread on multiple animals
Also, if this is synonymous parallelism, the colt line *echoes* the donkey line, meaning that there was just *one* animal.
Apparently, I'm not a fan of Hebrew poetry; I despise redundancy because it makes me suspicious that the author is padding the length of his composition.
Na na na na, na na na nah, hey, hey, ....
This explanation is still confusing. So he was on the clothes as they were stretched between two animals? Or he was on one of the garments on one of the animals?
Look, stop trying to think about it.
@@swolejeezy2603he was clearly standing up, with one foot on each animal, like a circus performer. It's quite obvious when you think about it.....
@@Forest_Fifer No, no, he was clearly lounging across them 👏like 👏a 👏queeeeen.
“Bart Ehrmann’s Shenanigans” is our new band name. I called it!
In a university southwest of Seoul, Korea, my EFL teacher colleagues and i agreed that "Cackling Ajummas" ["ajumma", roughly meaning "aunt" or "auntie", is a widely used term for any married woman in general] was among the best of the band names we had formulated. Credit given where due, though--- "Bart Ehrman's Shenanigans" really rocks!^^
We can always count on IP to dig up fringe scholarship and present it as the mainstream consensus.
How is he popular?
@@GameTimeWhyI used to listen to his stuff when a Christian and it sure made mythicism seem foolish. Little did I know then that not every nonbeliever was a mythicist
@@GameTimeWhyI don’t understand it either. He’s so unbelievably bad at theology, history, and philosophy.
@@CharlesPayet yeah. I didn't know if him when i was a Christian but i think i would have avoided him when i was.
my favourite IP moment is when he went on a tiktok live to have debates, gets destroyed by a philosophy teacher and then says he got “ambushed”
One need go no further than the birth narratives. Matthew and Luke are totally different. Traditional Christianity have long combined the two into one narrative, but once one really reads the original texts literally, there can be no doubt. Matthew and Luke contradict. If the birth narrative was so very important, why the contradiction?
My fundamentalist brother firmly believes matthew is going with patrilineal genealogy while luke is going matrilineal...through Mary. When I pointed out that they would both have the same ancestors multiple times....he just accepted that jews were an incestuous bunch....
@@MidlifeCrisis82 Your fundamentalist brother probably believes the bible should be taken literally. As such, then we all are the product of incest. I mean...who did Cain and Seth marry? Once past the flood, what about the next generation from Noah. Their sons would have had to marry their sisters. And don't even get me started on Lot's daughters.
Same with the stories at the empty tomb. There's no way to square them. Hell, one says that the women fled "and told NO ONE." Um... soooooo...
@@FakingANerve he reconciles this by claiming multiple visits to a tomb that day.....the mental gymnastics, man.
Maybe Luke and Matthew are talking about two different itinerant preachers.
4:55 Yeah I heard this one, not surprising since McGrew's good friend Erik Manning also uses this explanation. But the 2 of them are basically assuming that that's what Matthew meant when he could just have easily have meant the animals, not the cloaks. The passage is problematic in the way it is written as to be able to have more than 1 meaning. Neither of these 2 maximalists seem to realize that this shows that Matthew is not quite the scholar they make him out to be.
Also this is the basic "you're reading the Bible wrong, it's not Matthew's fault for writing in such an ambiguous way he's a scholar he can't be wrong, YOU'RE wrong" line.
5:16 Yes common sense, good way to avoid the actual issue altogether.
7:20 Synonymous parallelism, that's the word I was looking for and this is what I got too from reading Zechariah's passage, the "donkey" and the "colt, the foal of a donkey" likely aren't referring to 2 separate animals but rather the same animal using synonymous parallelism. Matthew obviously did NOT get this.
13:26 Joke's on Isaiah then because unless it can be shown that Mary's lineage is that branch (and we have no info on her lineage), Jesus can't be shown to be of David's genealogy as he's not directly descended from his foster father Joseph according to Christians themselves. That also makes it HILLARIOUS that both Luke and Matthew include Joseph's lineage (differing lineages at that) as a way to prove that Jesus was of David's descent when he clearly isn't descended from Joseph! The lineages in both books are basically utterly useless, and no neither depict Mary's lineage unless you're saying she is Joseph's sister or cousin as both gospels say clearly that these are the lineages of Joseph.
13:59 And Matthew being creative means it's more likely he made that story up about how Jesus became is a Nazarene. A story that clashes irrevocably with Luke's account of Jesus' early years.
22:30 No he didn't. Well yeah he did but that was all part of God's plan! He got punished for going along with God's plan? Bummer. The chief priests were also following God's plan too.
25:46 I don't understand why apologists are so concerned with the gospel authors not being wrong. They were human after all, chalking it up to a mistake on their part wouldn't really hurt any existing narrative. Though I guess for the inerrantists, that would open the door for question about where else mistakes were made and they can't have that can of worms opened.
28:20 Should not his middle name begin with an H?
Also, it doesn't matter what Mary's lineage was, tribal identity has to come down from the father to son. Your heritage comes from the mother, but the lineage can only come from the father per Hebrew scriptures.
Yes, "Harold" be thy name.
@@dirtypickle77 Yup, but Jesus's father is himself, not Joseph. So Joseph's lineage is irrelevant to him.
@DeludedOne ya, I was just saying the Hebrew scriptures say he has to be from the line of David by the flesh.
23:07 Wait ... we have MORE guilt because Jesus was crucified?! Wasn't the whole crucifiction plan in the first place intended to remove our guilt?
Don't think too hard about it.
Assuming that interpretation is valid, maybe Matthew meant “we” as in the Jewish people, thus including himself if we assume he’s Jewish? Of course that would have frightening implications on Jewish converts to Christianity in light of Matthew 27:25.
NO. Obviously being aware that the crucifixion took place makes one deeply aware of how guilty s/he is for sinning and making the sacrifice of the Cross necessary.
@@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh Or ... OR ... and bear with me here ... none of this has any bearing on reality. 🤔
@@GapWim Shit. You might be onto something here.
As Robert Alter has pointed out, the parallelism of Hebrew poetry isn't typically strict parallelism. The 2nd line (or hemistich) typically is something later in time than the first, or something more specific, or some kind of intensification. The poetry is dynamic, not static. "Rejoice greatly, daughter Zion / Shout, Daughter Jerusalem" (more specific). "Lowly and riding on a donkey / on a colt, the foal of a donkey" (more intense). Taking this poetic structure into account, the meaning is that the victorious king will be humble, indeed super-duper humble.
I always hear the aria from Handel's Messiah when I read about *The Daughter of Sion*.
So does that mean Matthew was simply following the Hebrew parallelism?
@@elanordeal2457 No, the reverse. Matthew didn't understand that the poem meant, "A donkey, namely a foal" and thought it meant two separate animals.
@@geckofeet I swear I saw an academic paper that argued that parallelism wasn’t actually a thing till much, much later after the whole Hebrew Bible was written… even then, Matthew deliberately structures his gospel to make everything in doubles, just like how Luke always structures his gospel to have Jesus always in Jerusalem. It’s an intentional literary style that non-literary specialists like Ehrman miss.
@@elanordeal2457 Oh, that doesn't make any sense to me. Everything I've ever read about Biblical Hebrew poetry puts parallelism right at the top of its defining characteristics (google for 'Hebrew Poetry Parallelism' for a huge list of refs). To cite only one, pulled at random from off my shelf, namely The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, the article on Hebrew Prosody and Poetics / Biblical, says "Parallelism is commonly included in discussions of biblical pros[ody] because of the constitutive role it clearly plays in the rhythm of biblical verse" and it continues that way for three long paragraphs. Or just pick up a bible. The idea that parallelism isn't there in the poetry is kind of hopeless, I think. Also, the notion that Matthew deliberately structures things in doubles is also strange, have never seen this mentioned anywhere and I don't see it in the gospel myself. So, if you could provide a citation, or at least more details, that would be good. Finally, Ehrman started out as an English major and would be unlikely to miss something like Matthew's weird doublings if they existed, especially since he's well read in the secondary literature.
Paulogia, ugh, they really need their confirmation. They know the petty stuff, but ignore the big stuff. Bart seems to give esteem, like professional respect to the original authors. 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
15:31 who the hell says "Southern Hillbilly?" This guy really has to stretch, even when making a loose relationship between a supposed Jewish insult with an insult we supposedly use today... Anyone ever heard the phrase "Southern Hillbilly" before IP just dropped it?
He admitted in his response that the argument he made about this was BS.
In the business with the double donkey ride, Matthew really does screw up the passage in Zechariah 9. What the passage actually says is that the victorious king will come riding in, not on a donkey, but a baby donkey, because not only is he humble, he is really humble.
Oh well!
There was no Google in Matthew's time so I think he gets a pass.
Men, big men, came to the king, tears in their eyes, and said "SIRRRR!!! You are the most humble king. No king can humble like you humble!!"
Wait. Shit. Wrong channel.
@@FakingANerve Now you've made me spit my whiskey all over my screen. Shame on you!
Poor baby donkey.
Always love seeing Bart on here! He is the goat!
I love hearing his laugh.
Wait, there's a goat as well as the donkey and the foal? 2 was bad enough....
@@Forest_Fifer Goat as in greatest of all time
@@vadim666er
The joke
...
...
You.
😉
The two animals of Matthew 21 is still my favorite, because every backflip apologists do to make Matthew somehow be right means Mark, Luke, and John, who all say Jesus only had a colt, are wrong.
Even if Matthew doesn’t contradict Zechariah and there is a plausible reading that keeps Jesus from trick riding, Matthew directly contradicts the other three gospels. So which is it, apologists? Is Matthew wrong (yes), or are Mark, Luke, and John wrong?
Matthew['s anonymous author] and Paul [the apostle, not our Paul] being just plain bad at Hebrew theology gets funnier and funnier the more I learn about Hebrew theology.
It is pretty hilarious. It's almost like the author, who wrote in a completely different language than the Hebrew texts, couldn't actually read them, because, *drum roll* ... he wasn't actually there for any of this shit. He was _not_ an eyewitness to the stories he wrote down.
Paulogia, as a believer, I greatly appreciate these videos you produce to help us think through what is thaught in church versus what the bible teaches. Keep up the great videos. Im also impressed that you memorized the book of Mathew. Cheers.
P.s. I think Jesus' english name would be Joshua Davidson.
I suppose it would.
We should watch out for anyone called that because it may be Jesus under cover.
Interesting episode. Love the Biblical history analysis.
Do you find these " apologist " misleading, almost dishonest ??
most apologists are intellectually dishonest most of the time. it's a requirement of the job
I find them hypocritically dishonest.
Bunch of Sophists
Love your content & presentations
I really like these two interacting 😊
I’d love to discuss Isaiah 7 with you. My position on Isaiah 7 is capable of keeping Isaiah seven in its historical context, while also applying verse 14 to the Messiah and it’s not flubbed.
I simply love this channel, and this episode in particular. Bart and you are a couple of my favorites. You both provide so much information that help me continue my search for the truth. I look forward to starting Bart's course. As I get closer to retirement, I plan to have Bart and you continue to look for ways to fill a small portion of my limited free time.
I do have one small question that I cannot answer, "How is it that the early "Christians" - whomever they were, - adopted Jesus as their Messiah of all things"? Were the gentiles were looking for a "Jewish Messiah", and would ancient Jews have accepted a criminal Messiah that was crucified.
So, how does the conversion conversation go once Paul starts his ministry? Perhaps as follow:
Paul to gentile - "Hey, do you want to live forever?"
Gentile - Where?
Paul - With the god of the Jew's.
Gentile - You mean the god of those guys you are trying to kill?
Paul - I'm not anymore. The Jew's Messiah, Jesus, wants me to stop killing Christians, and to offer eternal life only to those willing to be Christians and follow him.
Gentile - Jesus? The guy they crucified a while back? You talked to him? Are you taking magic berries? He does not sound like a Jewish Messiah to me.
Paul - Yes, he died, but he came back from the dead and I talked to him. He offered me eternal life if I would work for him.
Gentile - There are sure a lot of people coming back to life now a days. I am not sure I need eternal life? What would I have to do?
Paul - All you have to do is believe God gave us Jesus to forgive our sins. If you believe this, you will get ever lasting life.
Gentile - Wait, I thought Jesus was sent as the Jewish Messiah, for the protection of the Jews, to help the Jews save the world from wars. See the theme?
Paul - Jesus changed the plan and told me all about it.
Gentile - did he tell anyone else about the new plan? It seems like a big change to only discuss with a guy killing his followers, and not the guys that followed him. Why should I believe you?
Paul - Well, it seems the Romans are cooling off on killing Christians, but still have a hard on against Jews. Oh, and did I mention "eternal life"?
I can only believe Paul pretty much stopped talking with "Jews in high places". Would he have been able to convince everyday Jews that Jesus was the Messiah? The Christianity Story seems like a fable as created by Paul and a few of his weirdo buddies. What am I missing?
One interesting detail about the House of David maintaining the throne forever is that for like 1700 years after the Babylonian exile, there still was a line of so called "Exilarchs" in Mesopotamia who claimed descend from Jeconiah (and thus David).
They weren't of much significance geopolitically (just a figure head for the local Jewish community) but it's still an interest alternate take on how David's line was maintained through two very different branches.
2:07 looking good, brother!
Do you have a Mohawk in the right image?
24:23 that was one seriously convoluted argument from Brown. Yeesh.
Yes, Bart is being "dishonest" by saying what the text actually says. How dastardly! I mean, *maybe* the story about the donkey and the colt meant that they put two blankets in a layer across both animals' backs and then Jesus sat on top of both blankets on the back of just the donkey, and therefore he didn't mean to be sitting on both animals! You don't know! It could be! Why is Ehrman so dishonest that he doesn't consider this convoluted explanation for why the story could possibly make slightly more sense in terms of being a literal fulfillment of prophecy?
Woah it looks like you are a patron in the roll call during credits!
That last point has me a bit confused. How do you call someone's name Immanuel without using the name Immanuel to identify that person? Matthew says that his name would be called Immanuel by his mother, but there's no record she ever used that name to identify him, so it still seems to me that this would be a clearly missed "fulfillment."
They're using the meaning of the name sort of "in the text." Like if your name was "Patience" or "temperance", someone could reference what your name means vs using it as an actual name. It's a little confusing to modern people but the Bible uses name meanings a lot in the stories themselves, like the name Israel
@@yallimsorry5983 Yeah, but in this case it's like your name was Patience or Temperance, and they said "This fulfills the prophecy that says her name will be Charity." It just doesn't line up.
I'll trust Bart's words & knowledge over ANY of those apologists/theologians. 💯
I don't often leave comments, but I've been curious to ask for a while now, how do you manage to get such high profile and distinguished scholars and experts on your show? It makes me kinda jealous, bth. lol. I'd love to talk to Bart Ehrman! Actually, I did meet him once, several years ago. We only spoke for about two minutes, but I got a photo of myself with Bart. It was an important moment for me, as Bart Ehrman is one of my favourite academics, and his books helped me out a lot when I was going through my deconversion from religion years ago. I owe Bart a great deal. - Andrew
In all fairness, the hypothetical prophecy referring to the messiah being a Nazarene could be from some lost Scripture that was commonly known of in the day, but had fallen out of favor before the Bible was officially compiled.
That's the trouble with apologetics: it all falls apart when you focus on what is and ignore what "could be".
Even if you accept that them refers to the garments, Matthew still wheels out two donkeys, where the OT text only mentions one.
Numbers chapter 6 helps shed light on Nazarene. Also why Jesus said to Mary about not touching him since he hasn’t ascended to the Father. Why Jesus said about not eating the fruit of the vine until he comes back. Why the two didn’t recognize him on the road to Emmaus. Since Jesus Christ took a vow and fulfilled it.
13:45
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
2 Timothy 3:16 KJV
The whole book has context. Also defines its context.
Do these apologists realize that the more they attack Dr. Ehrman for what (they say) he says, the more people look into what he ACTUALLY says?
I think they assume that people do the same with this as they tend to do with their other beliefs. That is believe what they're told & don't actually look at the source fully.
I find it extremely hard to understand why 'god' can write such a bad book so that it requires interpretation; only in the religious vein of text do we need hand holding to understand
8:00 - Trying to tease out whether the "them" referred to here is the donkeys or the garments is ridiculous when the garments are on the donkeys. If he's riding on garments that are on a donkey, by the transitive property of riding, he is riding the donkey. If those garments are on more than one donkey at once, as described, he's riding more than one donkey at once.
As an aside, at c. 2:40 in the video, is that not a shot of the striking architectural work that is the tower of the Canadian Bible College formerly on the corner of 4th Avenue and Lewvan Drive in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada? I currently live only a few hundred metres away from that site, which has (lamentably) since been torn down.
Unless all the branches of the C.B.C. across the land have the same tower.~
It is. That's where I went to Bible College.
Oh no!
That's sad to read.
Bottom line, Bible is wrong even in reference to itself.
Two coats, two donkeys, one coat each or both on one and then switch asses partway? Who cares, it seems clear that Matty just shoved this gem in to fulfill a "prophesy", in the same way as all biblical prophesies get fulfilled - they make it up.
So if Matthew could just make stuff up, why trust anything he wrote?
He's no different from any other early christian writer. You can't trust any of them.
It's insane how these apologists are dishonest.
James White and Michael Brown have debated several times although not about this particular issue.
I enjoy watching experts politely calling each other idiots. Especially in areas about which I know almost nothing. But the one thing that most can agree on is that god is a terrible communicator. Why would anyone have to deal with multiple languages, translations, pick verses for here and there etc and etc just to understand a god that supposedly wants us to understand.
OMG C&MA bible quizzing was a huge part of my life growing up! My sisters were good enough to make it to Internationals multiple time, and I always thought something was wrong with me because I was never able to memorize whole books like that.
I went to most internationals from 1988 - 2006... perhaps I ran into them?
@@Paulogia That's the right time period! I think it would have been 1998-2003ish. We were in the South Atlantic District.
In Zechariah, there is a man named is "Jesus" (i.e. Joshua), and god calls him "the branch". Except Zechariah was written 500 years before the gospels. Matthew stole it directly from Zechariah.
It does make this Jeremiah/Zechariah confusion rather mysterious, though they do have very similar names.
🏈🏈🏈🏈 Matthew unable to recover.
Great video, Paul!
Interesting. I am not familiar with Discount Geraldo Rivera.
13:10 "David was supposed to have a descendent on the throne in perpetuity"
So, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (and therefore Dan Brown) was right! (:
When Matthew was quoting from old testament by saying “ To Fulfill this…” He had alot in his mind that his critics who argue that he FLUBBED the Old testament don’t understand because Matthew is Smarter and GENIUS than them.
As Bart Ehrman says
"My stance is that when somebody like Matthew, who really is BRIGHT in my course, I talk about some things you just wouldn’t notice unless you look really, really close or unless somebody tells you “Matthew got in there” and usually, it shows some kind of cleverness, not stupidity. My thumb rule is when somebody is smart and they say stuff you don’t understand, it might be because they are smarter than you."
- Dr. Bart Ehrman
9:30 in hebrew, the words for a male or female donkey are quite different, not fe/male forms of the same word.
I'm surprised that Bart didn't bring up the idea that people were referring to Jesus being a "Nazarite", a person consecrated to Yahweh either from birth such as Samson or Samuel, or for a limited time per Numbers 6:1-21. Is it possible that Matthew didn't get the reference and thought that being called a Nazarite, implied he came from somewhere called Nazareth? Maybe once people started hearing Matthew's tale, a town was formed so that people could say they came from Jesus' home town. This caused Matthew and also Luke to come up with both their silly mutually contradictory origin stories so that Jesus could come from both a place called Nazareth and the City of David, Bethlehem.
Why is Matthew given the label "first gospel" since it quotes Mark? Thanks, peace 💚
I think it's first in English translations of the Bible. Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, then John.
I think it comes from Papias, an unreliable source
Its first gospel because it the one that been put first in the New Testament by the editors.
@@danielkirienko1701 The question I have that comes from your comment, which I agree with your assessment, would be why is Matthew always listed first? When I was a child I learned that the gospels began with Matthew. But the more I learned about the first four books of the Bible, the less sense that order made. Because Mark is included, almost word for word, in both Matthew and Luke, and the consensus among the scholars who study this subject is that Mark was written a decade or so before Matthew, I don't understand why Matthew is called the first gospel. Is this an instance where church traditions are given precedent over the scholarly consensus? I don't really have any stake in the outcome of my questions, because I'm not a believer in the doctrine of the Bible myself. But I find this topic interesting in itself, and with the Christian religion becoming more involved in this country's politics, both in endorsing candidates for elected office, and in trying to pass laws that are explicitly based on a particular interpretation of scripture, I want to learn the structure behind the reasoning of those who are trying to make our society conform to their rules. This group is essentially trying to overturn our society, and then create a new government that's based on the Bible, to make this country a theocracy despite the founder's explicit rejection of that concept.
My apologies for this lengthy text, but I truly appreciate this opportunity to talk about this subject, and explore the implications of how people might act in following their thoughts. Thanks, peace 💚
@@mattm8870 Thanks for your reply. Would you know what is the reason for this choice made by the editors? It seems I have an almost endless supply of questions about this topic. If you're interested in exchanging thoughts on this topic with me, I would appreciate the discussion. If you're not interested, then I thank you for your time. Peace 💚
I love Bart. They’re always coming for him 😂. He’s just doing his job. In no way does he try to sway anyone to leave their faith. He’s just showing the evidence and they cannot stand it. He just comes on here and defends himself from all the haters and I’m here for it. Bart Ehrman is a class act.
This is a bait click Paul-O, Bart is ALWAYS awesome!!
Genuine scholar who doesn’t suck at shenanigans!!
(Had to look up THAT spelling!!)
We have to jump through like 40 hoops to make a even tentative connection between the supposed Old testament prophecies and the gospel accounts. Of course if you just cut out the verses that you want from the greater text, it's easy to make it sound sort of like a predictive text about Jesus, but when you read the whole passage it doesn't seem to be talking about Jesus at all, and has entire sections that clearly have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
Why is Judas so hated, wasn't he part of the plan?
Christian interpretations of the bible remind me of Ben Kenobi. What they are saying is “true from a certain point of you.”
For general information, please consult Joseph Farah's "Jesus in Every Book in the Old Testament"...
If Matthew was written by sources outside mainstream Judaism, it would have to not be precise.
Paul quoting O.T. as a person steeped in Greco-Roman culture also gives lots of interpretational leeway.
Il never understand why people act like it was is that killed Jesus, or betrayed him
1. I wasn’t alive
2. It was Gods plan , that’s why he was here to be killed , we were carrying out his plan
You showed CBC Bible College in Regina. Some decent memories from there when I was a believer. Does this mean that's where you went to bible college?
it is!
Amazing! I relate so well to your story given my Mennonite background, and this detail just makes it more three dimensional.
Why is Matthew the first gospel when Mark was written earlier?
Tradition etc but hsitorians and scholars disagree
Personally I think we need to take in to account that Nazarene could be in part a corruption of Nazarite/Nāzīr as it makes sense for the messiah to be prophesied to a Nazarite or maybe Matthew or someone else wanted to link Nazarite, Branch and Nazareth and invented Nazarene or it some kind of word play.
Great video!
What's the point of having the revealed word of God if you need a Little Orphan Annie decoder pin to understand it?
Maybe mathew is citing a piece of a lost unknown document. Enoch was cited by Jude after all. It could be a part of one of the many fragmentary apocalyptic texts that doesn’t survive in what we have of them.
10:14 if Matthew isn't making the mistake, then you're basically saying that Jesus made the mistake. Is that the apologetic they are going for??
Well, the dude doesn't know which seed is the smallest, so I guess it's possible.
@Uryvichk You'd think he'd be more familiar with the Hebrew scriptures, God or not.
A question from a life long atheist and non American. What is the benefit of going to a bible college?
How long until we have the first apologist personally attacking Bart for something that they cant demonstrate but have been told is true by one of their talking heads?
“The Hebrew word for branch is netzer and netzer has the same three letters as Nazareth so Jesus _was_ therefore actually a branch…”
lol even by the standards of theorycrafting FN@F lore, that’s a stretch.
Maybe that's why he got so upset at the fig tree, he thought it was letting the family down...
@Paulogia time for another Inception style video as Inspiring Philosophy responded (in my opinion badly).
I think you'll find that it makes perfect sense if you read it while standing on your head.
His middle name was Harold as in "Harold be thy name".
And “Hark! The Harold angels sing”
@@scienceexplains302 Jesus had his own backup doo-wop singers!
that's an old family joke of ours
that's an old family joke of ours
@@scienceexplains302: As Sally Brown (younger sister to Charlie Brown) from the Peanuts gang exclaims at her school Christmas pageant, "Hockey Stick!". Of course, Sally is mortified when she realizes there is NO hockey stick. Ironically, however, at the school there is a boy named Harold Angel...
Coming from the stump indicates the tree has been cut down. This would indicate that Jesus was not a descendent but just had vague connections to the line.
Thank you.
I can smell an inspiring philosophy response within a week
And we know what that smell is... 😏
he released one yesterday
Could M 2 22 23 be based on a quote from Enoch.
Nice episode
1:48 Wow. That really is impressive