I grew up Jehovah's Witness. They make you answer a bunch of Bible questions in three separate visits with elders and then you have to commit to it verbally to be identified as a JW, not a Christian. For several decades these only occur at large conventions in a pool where a dude in a tee shirt dunks you but i remember when i was a little kid Dad baptizing a married couple in a bath tub back in the 70s. Shortly before Dad's death he told me he regretted bringing people into that faith.
So sorry for your loss. I hope your Dad had a chance to experience real truth and freedom for a period of time before his death. JW’s are a horrid religion. Shameful how they ruin families.
The Internet appears to have been pretty devastating for Jehovah's Witnesses (thanks to Jehovah🎉). The practice of shunning has them ineligible to receive State religious funding in Norway. Lessons: Make sure you read and interpret Scripture correctly. Don't keep throwing out Armageddon dates that never happen. 😢 😮
@@breadman5048 He probably woke up later in life and realized he spent most of his life promoting a Real Estate company disguised as a religion instead of doing what we are here on earth to do. Which is whatever makes that person happy. I think it’s to express our unique personality and our unique talents to create joy for ourselves which then positively effects joy to anyone in which we come in contact
Of course I’m no scholar but just to clear something up…..if John The Baptist’s construct of baptism was to wash away/forgive sin (as opposed to cleansing ritual impurity) and Jesus was baptised by John to begin his ministry….. does this mean that Jesus saw himself as a “sinner”/as having committed “sin”? (Irrespective of how John The Baptist saw him). How does this square with “Christian” doctrine that Jesus was incapable of sin? Sorry for asking….maybe I’m missing something 😐
While John’s baptism was for repentance, Jesus’ baptism had a different significance. It was an act of obedience to God’s will and a way to set an example for His followers. Jesus stated that His baptism was necessary to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15)1. This means that Jesus was identifying with humanity and fulfilling God’s plan. Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of His public ministry. It was a significant event that included the affirmation of His identity as the Son of God, with the Holy Spirit descending upon Him and God’s voice declaring, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17)
After Jesus was baptized, He went out into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil and did not sin. So I think you can take it that He did not get baptized in order to absolve sins and that there was another reason.
The short answer is that the doctrine came later. Since it makes no sense in and of itself, you can hardly expect it to jibe with earlier accounts, especially not with those rooted in historical fact.
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near". John, Jesus and Jesus' disciples all proclaimed this. Jesus taught the kingdom of god is within you and little children already have it. So the way (repent of pride) to the truth (found in the stillness for the perculation of memories long forgotten to forgive) and the life. Released from trauma and resentment. The truth sets you free. Weep and then laugh. Taking the narrow way to find the source of symptoms manifesting as problems. And a caviat. The world that imprints identity, hates the free. Saved Jesus. So good enough for me.
Damn it Bart! You better RECORD All four of those Cruise lectures and post them on UA-cam for us!!! Those sound so cool!!! Please please record them????? And post them????? Please????
"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the interior and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “ Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” “No,” they answered, “ we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” “Into what, then, were you baptized?” Paul asked. “The baptism of John,” they replied. Paul explained: “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” Acts 19:1-4 This usually overlooked but very important passage indicates at least two things (probably more) 1)Either John himself or disciples of John and/or Jesus spread the word long before Paul did and 2) Paul always and everywhere considered himself in competition with the actual disciples and family of Jesus.
Acts is more often these days being put in the middle 2nd century for origination. It retcons various beliefs, including beliefs about Paul, into the 1st century. Acts contradicts Paul's own letters, and so I think this is a problem which cannot easily be resolved, if at all. The author(s) of Acts is likely being influenced by the emerging Catholic system in Rome and is setting up an anti-Ebionite or anti-Mandaean polemic.
@@TheDanEdwards Thanks for the reply but I don't think it's that late. As many scholars have said, it could really be called Acts of Paul, so heavily Pauline in nature is it.
@@ji8044 The New Testament provides several passages that outline the roles of the disciples and Paul in ministering to different groups: Acts 13:46-47: Paul and Barnabas declare, "It was necessary that we first preach the word of God to you Jews. But since you have rejected it and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we will offer it to the Gentiles. For the Lord gave us this command when he said, ‘I have made you a light to the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the farthest corners of the earth’". Galatians 2:7-9: Paul writes about an agreement with the other apostles: "On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles), just as Peter had been to the circumcised (Jews). For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles". With the disciples primarily focusing on the Jewish population and Paul taking on the mission to the Gentiles, I fail to see how Paul or the disciples considered themselves in some competition. As for hearing only about the baptism of repentance by John means nothing in itself, except they were people looking to God and just didn't get the latest news yet.
The differences between JtB's baptism ritual and the Tevilah in a mikveh lead me to think that, possibly, he was an early practitioner of Mandaean belief. Certainly the modern Mandaean claim is that JtB was one of them. It is also notable that JtB seemed to conduct his preaching in the Decapolis and not in Israel hence his imprisonment and death Galilee or Perea. Also of interest is that Mandaeans use the Darfash (aka Drabsha), a cross of olive branches draped in a linen cloth.
John the Baptist is also mentioned in Flavious Josephus. So we aren't JUST relying on the gospels for his historicity. Now, like with everything, it was Christian monks preserving this stuff, so always a possibility that they could have added it. They have shown a willingness to modify Josephus elsewhere. But for what it's worth, it's there.
*”Josephus would have mentioned it”* Did He mention that 40 years prior to destruction of temple the doors would open by themselves, numerous mysterious occurrences as well as GOD not approving of the sacrifices?
Josephus was writing about stories and claims he heard going around - since he was born in 37AD, and was writing in the early 90's AD, he couldn't have been an eyewitness to any of it. This is a common problem with all extrabiblical writing about biblical claims - Josephus, at least, being among the earliest
Imagine an expert devoting their time to producing you free content to watch only to promote a conference on the same subject that you're interested in. Worst of all, they promoted it on their own channel! How dare they!
I still want to know more about from WHAT, specifically, John (and Jesus) taught people should repent . In the context of their day, what sins was John calling out? Individual sins, as we might assume today, or communal sins, as was often more common in the prophets.
@@jcfretts yes it would be interesting to have details on that question ! One might think for ex. that, given the multiple competing branches of judaism in that period, who accused each other of betraying the right path, John the Baptist was addressing those he thought to be deviant and asked them to repent from their errors and join his movement.
May have meant any failure to remain observant, kosher, etc. Greek influences may have led to a stronger emphasis on personal morality making its way into Judaism. This would set the stage for the more individualist faith of Christianity. I am just speculating though.
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, I am curious about Acts 18:24-26 when a man "knew only the baptism of John" and was set straight by others concerning this. Here are the verses: 24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
1:55 _Reading *Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals*...not light reading at all._ I concur. 😅 I had waited until the night before an exam to read it... Even skimming it, it was a beast, for such a slim volume... _...Wanders off to see if I still have it..._ [EDIT] While I didn't see the copy of it I read in college, I do have *The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche,* which includes it. I'll keep that in mind for the next nonfiction book I choose to read. Mostly, these days, I have been reading and cross referencing *Dungeons & Dragons* modules to make for a better game experience for my players. Currently, our group has been alternating between *_Curse of Strahd_* ( _when another couple is available_ ), *_Rime of the Frost Maiden_* ( *_which intersects with Tyranny of Dragons, Storm King's Thunder, and Tomb of Annihilation_* ), and a hombrew *_Star Wars: Saga Edition_* campaign.
Dang Bart and Megan, you guys are so fortunate to be married and able to work together on such fascinating work! I'm very jealous, but very happy for you! I'm also happy to have a new source for ancient history of the near east
I'm thrilled to hear Bart is revisiting 'The Genealogy of Morals' by Nietzsche! It's truly one of his most captivating books. I was so engrossed in it that I finished it in just one day! Would love to hear Bart’s insights on the concept of the Ascetic Priest.
An important question too is whether Jesus outlived John, as Josephus has John's death in the last year of Pilate and Tiberius, 36 CE. If Jesus was killed early in Pilate's term, as people often think, he wouldn't have lived to hear about it, as depicted in the gospels.
@NSBarnett Aside from it challenging inerrency because Jesus reacts to the news of the death of John in the gospels, it's at least of minor interest if Jesus was born under Herod the Great before 4 BCE and died after John the Baptist in 36 CE, because then he died at least at age 40, contrary to all church traditions. Theologically, there's juicier stuff about John's and Jesus's differences, but I haven't seen this point raised before.
@NSBarnett In terms of when Jesus was crucified, I'm not really sure. I think several incidents and stories were ultimately combined to give us the Jesus traditions, and that includes a Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" story about an unnamed Samaritan man leading a religious group, whom Pilate executed in 36 CE. This is what finally got the infamous Pilate fired. Then when Pilate was headed on a boat to a trial with the emperor "based on the accusations of the Jews" (much like Paul in Acts) the emperor suddenly died and Pilate basically got to retire and live in peace (similar to Paul's retirement in Rome at the end of Acts). I know that's not directly related, but I think it shows how the gospel writers were taking inspiration from Josephus and folk history and playing with it in midrashic style. Unfortunately, that means most of the certanties are lost. We want solid corroboration, but we usually find suspiciously similar stories about other figures. A solid timeline would be nice to have, though.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 I just read Josephus work "Antiquities of the Jews". It has no mention of the date of John the Baptists death but it does have the order from Herod Antipas in the fortress of Machaerus. Scholarly opinion has John the Baptist's death in 29-30 CE, which seemingly is corroborated with Jesus hearing the news and withdrawing to a solitary place, likely to grieve his death. If the events of Matthew 11:11 come later, then Jesus is giving a post mortem accolade to John the Baptist by saying "Truly, I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist...."
Just purchased my NINT ticket for 2024! I am very exited even if I can’t attend in person (I live in South Africa). Thank you for all that you do Dr. Ehrman. I have learned a great deal from your courses.
In theory, if. Jesus believed, that He was completely without sin, there would be no reason For HIM to be baptized at all, unless it was to set an example for others. Whether He really believed that is another question.
Yeah this one was very long, and it is kind of conversome sometimes trying to navigate the ads and just watch the videos. But I mean... at least he is not promoting energy drinks or something hahaha
Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist who died. A Greek known as James the brother of Jesus attended his funeral at which there was a St Elmo's fire event, causing the Greek to recognize divine attention. He compiled a collection of their teachings, known as the Sayings Gospel, which was published at someone's great expense. The notion took on its own momentum in Roman imperial politics.
That question about shunning: The Message (followers of William Branham, small but insidious) use it as a death curse, particularly for “rebellious” teens. They have a high death rate of people prayed over in this way.
Topic suggestion; Luke 19:27 (perhaps with parable) in comparison with Matthew 5:44 In comparison with John 19:15. Thank you 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' Luke 19:27
Did Hamlet actually love Ophelia, or was Horatio the only true pure love in his life? Historical and geographical sources show there really was a university in Wittenberg where the school fellows met, and there is an actual Denmark to this day. And why are there so many deaths in Act V?
It's also pretty weird that Jesus was supposedly a disciple of John the Baptist, but as John 4:2 points out, Jesus never baptizes anyone. It's his disciples that do that. Maybe it was later authors who liked the idea that John the Baptist and Jesus were BFFs, even though they had different theologies, practices, and maybe didn't even meet each other.
Many Christian phrases were borrowed from previous gurus. One example is the golden rule which was originally stated by Confucius 1000 years before Jesus
The description of the heavens splitting open, and a dove flying down, and a voice from heaven exclaining God's approval, whether or not combined with the fact that Josephus clearly stating that John the Baptist started his career after Jesus finished his (unless the TF is a forgery), is clear enough to me that the whole event was mythical, a fiction. As Pontius Pilate would have said to Jesus at his trial, "Listen. Strange men standing in streams handing out doves is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the Senate, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!...."
I don't know about that, I mean like he said, josephus and the biblical accounts do agree roughly on the death of john the baptist and that he was a preacher that baptized people, so that are two (likely) independent sources agreeing in some important facts of the character. As far as I know they disagree on the date of the death of john the baptist, the gospels claim he died before jesus, josephus after jesus, or at least jews complaint about john the baptist execution after jesus' death. I don't think josephus makes any mention of when john started preaching. Of course it is possible that since john the baptist was famous and jesus was famous, that they did like a fictional crossover when writting the gospels lol. But I don't think one can discard it easily. I mean it is perhaps the second most attested event in the bible, after the crucifixion itself that we think is historical. So at least it was a very popular well known story in early christianity. I don't know. of course there is merit in saying it didn't happen. I just don't think we can discard it so easily.
@@diegog1853 The fact that Josephus didn't mention that John the Baptist beginning preaching before Jesus showed up or any interaction between the two leads me to believe that JtB started preaching after the Romans had Jesus deleted.
How do you reconcile your views on Judas's betrayal being because of disappointment with Jesus not bringing about the Davidic monarchy, with your view that the pacifist Jesus traditions which survive are closer to the truth than the anti-Roman traditions are? Is your view that the historical Judas betrayed Jesus because Jesus was too peaceful or thinking too magically instead of militarily for Judas? And as I hinted at, I think the pacifist stuff is what survived the Jewish Roman wars and Nero, Hadrian, etc., so that selection pressure should be kept in mind. More of it in the surviving Hellenized literature doesn't necessarily mean closer to the real Jesus, in this context.
So. What it sounds like, to me, is that Jesus was part of John's crew and, when John gets arrested and executed, he takes over as cult leader. Obviously, he wants to set himself apart and so he and his followers come up with an elaborate back-story that ends up forming the origin story in the gospels, with John as the subordinate. Maybe.
I didn’t count, but I have noticed more and more advertising, more monitization, more click bait, and less and less significant content. It’s the corrupting effect of UA-cam and “social media” fame in general.
Why are (religious) Americans so obsessed with Jesus and the gospels? They are only 4 out of the 66 or 73 books (P or C) of the canon. I have been trying to find an answer but, so far, no one can explain it. Most Christians in the rest of the world talk about the entire NT (The OT is usually too uncomfortable) and talk about 'God' more than Jesus. I have not encountered this phenomenon anywhere else so far. Is it because it's easier to sell? PS: I'm a well traveled European, living in the US since 2021 (just for context).
I lived in a nominally atheist country prior to the Great Covid War... The Christianity there is mostly NT bar Revelation and not too much emphasis on OT
In Matthew I totally got that the centurion recognizes Jesus as the son of god, but in Mark I always read it as a mocking tone, just like the witnesses thinking Jesus was calling for Elijah
I think it was Robert M. Price who afaik first suggested this by having the Centurion say and then think, "Surely this man is the son of a god!" _(And I am Julius Caesar!)_
@@EdwardM-t8p it just seems without the earthquake and etc in Matthew and the temple curtain not in visual range, what would give the centurion a reason to not mock Jesus’ circumstances. Would almost lean Matthaean priority, due to the quote not making much sense in mark, but Matthew could’ve also taken issue with it and added the embellishments to give it more sense
@@Pr0t0typeSky Given that scholars have determined that Mark or Marcion was first, I'm confident that Matthew had serious issues with Mark's account of the Centurion's exclamation. There are other places in Mark that were causes of embarrassment for Matthew and Luke, too.
Bart does a great service by emphasizing that Jesus was almost certainly baptized by John. I wish, however, that he had mentioned the best evidence for Jesus being a follower (and disciple) of John the Baptist (i.e., a practitioner of the baptism of John), which is that John 4:1-2 states that: "When the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard about the greater crowds coming to him than to John to be baptized and to become his disciples-(though Jesus himself didn’t baptize them, but his disciples did)- 3 he left Judea and returned to the province of Galilee."
Jesus is quoted as referring to the incident of Jonah being in the whales belly for 3 days as similar to his coming crucifixion and being dead for 3 days. Its sayings like this that make me believe the whole book is just mythology
It's a mix of myth and history. The job of historians is to critically examine the text and try to determine which parts are likely historical and which parts are mythical. (An inexact science, but there are methodologies historians use for these things.) The Gospels were written after the death of Jesus and thus many of the quotes attributed to him may be inaccurate/fabricated.
@@magicdog9523 Which quotes would we possibly see inaccuracies? Are there any hints or flat out ridiculousness that we can easily point toward? Or did you simply read Bart Ehrman's book?
Respectfully, Bart, I think its fallacious to assume that later authors making apologetics for Mark makes the events significantly more likely to be true. Mark could have been appropriating and appealing to the J. the B. movement with fiction that opened up theological plotholes layer authors addressed. For example, think about the Davidic covenant. These promises supposedly from God's lips failed, which leads Ezekiel & others to explain how these Promised Land predictions were all still true in a way... but those later apologetics don't affirm the reality of the event where God said this stuff, because the apologetics can be about the tradition, not the reality.
Excellent, thank you for the upload. I was wondering if Bart could address the resemblance of Jesus to Dionysus. I've been hearing a lot about it in my atheist circles recently, and I'm hesitant to weigh in on the topic. I'm not a scholar or an academic. I'm a layman, and I don't know enough about it to feel comfortable saying anything. Scholarly input would be greatly appreciated.
I’m also a layman, but to me it seems that at the very least it’s something worth looking at. I think it’s pretty much a guarantee that the Greek authors were aware of the Dionysian myths and the occasional similarities were probably not entirely coincidence, but I doubt they were entirely intentional either. Myths tend to get mixed and matched, and a new guy on the scene is pretty likely to pick up a couple things from the big guys
Here's a brief comparison between Jesus and Dionysus. Context: - Jesus: Jesus of Nazareth is a central figure in Christianity, understood to be the Son of God, the Messiah. His life and teachings are documented in the New Testament. - Dionysus: Dionysus is a Greek god associated with wine, fertility, and ritual madness. He is a figure from ancient Greek mythology. Similarities: - Miracles: Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), while Dionysus is known for turning water into wine in various myths. - Divine Birth: Jesus is understood to be born of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, while Dionysus is said to be born from Zeus and the mortal Semele. - Resurrection: Jesus' resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian belief, while Dionysus is sometimes depicted as dying and being reborn over and over, as are other Greek and Egyption Gods. Differences: - Theological Context: The theological context, story content and purpose of Jesus and Dionysus are quite different. Jesus' life and resurrection are central to Christian salvation, while Dionysus' myths are more focused on themes of nature, fertility, and human experience. - Historical Evidence: Jesus is considered a historical figure with documented evidence of his existence, while Dionysus is a mythological figure without historical evidence and few records. Not to forget that the Old Testament is a historical record of the present Israelite nation, of which the Mishnah and Talmud agree. Scholarly Views: - Most scholars agree that while there are some superficial similarities, the core narratives and purposes of Jesus and Dionysus are very distinct. The similarities are often seen as part of a broader cultural context rather than direct borrowing or copying. While there are some minor parallels between Jesus and Dionysus, the differences in their narrative, purpose, and historical context is significant. We need to approach these comparisons with a correct understanding of both figures.
It is said that Jesus have siblings. Are these siblings belong to his apostles or they only have the same name? Coz when Christ named the apostles, it was not mention there that he has a brother or anyone that is son of Joseph and Mary. Thanks Bart
Per the _Religion for Breakfast_ channel, Jesus' name in Aramaic is "Yeshu' ". What is "John" in Aramaic? "Mary"? "Joseph"? --------- PS: Ms Lewis makes her hair and her eyeglass frames look wonderful. Great pairing.
My question is, if Jesus was sinless why did he get Baptized? If it was needed before the impending judgement, why did Jesus do it? He obviously didn’t need it.
@@Justin_Beaver564 Yea, the Romans tended to be pretty heavy handed in dealing with those stirring up problems…Pilate is often portrayed as being hesitant to use force (in the case of Jesus) but he was eventually recalled to Rome because his brutality was considered excessive. If you’re too brutal for the Romans, you’re off the charts!
I'm not sure that question about Jesus and radical inclusion was about whether he supported violence against the Romans. I think it was about his attitude towards Gentiles and their relationship to God.
I came to think about the Mandeans, who used to babtize new believers in Iraq. I don't rememberif it was Eufrat or Tigris. The Iraqi war treated them really badly. - There are many differences to John the Babtist. But the babtizing pattern is the same.
Yeshua/Joshua was influenced by the political, religious, cultural atmosphere of his time. For decades the national apocalyptic outlook of a variety of minor but loud sects excited the populace. The books of Daniel and Enoch in particular represent this movement. Their emphasis and special interpretation of the messianic ‘Son of Man’ concept became internalized in Yeshua.
When you get done to the nitty gritty, how did Paul know that the James he met was the brother of Jesus? Let's say Peter introduced him as "This is James, brother of the Lord". How did Peter know this James was the brother of Jesus? Some guy came up to Peter and said: I'm the brother of that dead guy you followed; I'd like to join you [i.e. join this beats-working lifestyle where women support you]. In an Agatha Christie novel, anyone who appears on the scene claiming to be someone from the past has to be very strongly doubted.
If you accept Paul at his word, then one simply says that _Paul believed_ James to be the brother. Of course there is always the possibility that Paul was deceived, if one looks at his letters as otherwise properly representing a real person Paul. "Paul" is once again coming under increased scrutiny by scholars, and I propose that the generation of critical scholars after Ehrman (that is, those who are just now earning their doctorates) will portray Paul somewhat differently than the scholars of Ehrman's generation.
I mean... if you believe jesus and peter are historical figures, and that peter was a disciple of jesus, perhaps even the main disciple. Then yeah... what is so strange about him knowing jesus' family? or jesus introducing james to Peter as his brother? I don't know it just seems much more of a stretch to me that this is a hoax. Since to Paul this are just mundane details. I think it is much more believable to say that john the baptist was likely never a relative of jesus and that this whole thing was made up by Luke to strenghten the virtue of both characters.
The Jesus of the gospel narratives a literary figure. His words are not his own but the narrator's, spoken in a language not his own but rather that of his literary creator's intended audience - Greek.
I am only aware of Annapolis Sailing School and the sailboats they use to teach sailing. The Rainbow 24. It would be out of the ordinary for you, Bart, to take your family to the Annapolis Sailing School, but it would be an immersive activity. I imagine that you have the means. No religion, no reading ( except for that associated with learning to sail ), nothing cerebral ( unless learning the nomenclature, learning how to rig the sails, how to get away from the dock, how to read the winds are considered cerebral). Being at the mercy of the wind or lack there of. Obviously there are sailing schools closer to you. If you did decide to take your family and go, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts. Jesus, from what I know, didn’t know how to sail. He was just a passenger.
John the Baptist converted Jesus to a Hellenistic sect of Judaism. He was aware that Jesus was of the royal line and Jesus knew that John was preaching this new moral philosophy. He may have been a portrayal of Ananias or Eleazar.
JB a real historical figure as in Josephus. JC is not however, being a fiction based on replacing JB with someone more gentile-amenable. The original Testamonium Flavium referred to JB not JC. The character of Anubis in the story directly after it is actually John the Baptist as both lived in the desert. JB sect Sethian Gnostic as the Mandaean Gnostics, their descendents, still are.
That's a strange title. Im not watching it anymore. So far I have no knowledge of any writing where John said he was the Christ. Im no bible scholar but I read thatJohn said that he was not the Christ.
You might THINK that penguins 🐧 have nothing to do with the Bible! But, I was brought up as a Creationist. Isn't there a big problem for some Creationists in explaining how the penguins waddled all the way from Mt. Ararat to Antarctica? How did Noah get the penguins on the Ark? These are problems that I remember wrestling with when I was a Creationist a long time ago. Bart could make reference to that, on his trip to Antarctica. lol 😆
The John the Baptist birth story is scary! No one will ever convince me that he wasn't kidnapped violently as a baby. Something horrible happened to his father Zachariah in the temple! I don't believe Elizabeth was knocked up by God any more than Mary, but I do think that's an indication they were knocked up by the same powerful person. Intentionally. Closer to brothers (Mary and Elizabeth being cousins). And we get the whole Herod on a baby rampage story but wouldn't John have been a babe too? You think we'll ever find text about John the Baptist childhood? That would be awesome. Great show! Thanks so much!
@@sparrowthesissy2186 I honestly as a child thought that was John the Baptist story. He was kidnapped from his family and, I don't know, raised in the forest by wolves or something 🤣. I was a kid with an imagination. But even as an adult I read that story and it's super suspicious - I don't blame child me for not getting it. That story doesn't add up. (Also not any type of scholar, just a fan.)
@hinikki8747 Luke 1 ends by saying John grew up in the wilderness, and earlier it says his parents Zechariah and Elizabeth were too old to conceive (a very common Bible trope)... I guess I can see how, as a kid, you would have understood it as John being abandoned by his real parents at the temple or kidnapped by Elizabeth, and then raised by wolves. The text doesn't say that, but I can see why a kid might imagine it that way. Makes it more interesting, tbh.
One traditional answer to this is that Jesus was baptized to identify with us. He came to be one of us, and “ate and drank with sinners.” In mainline Protestantism, baptism has more to do with identity than anything else. A child is recognized as part of God’s family and given a name. It is an affirmation of “prevenient grace,” God’s grace that comes before anything we might do to deserve God’s favor. In contrast, in traditions that have “believers’ baptism” it can be purely (or mostly) just a baptism of repentance, so pretty much the same as John’s baptism.
I grew up Jehovahs Witness and we were told our baptism was a "symbol of dedication" and that's what Jesus did, he left his carpentry work and began his ministry after dedicating himself to God's will and set the example. Usually JWs will talk about this in reference to the practice of infant baptism with the sprinkling of water and how the church got it all wrong after the apostles died and we've apostate. It's really very confusing.
Jesus came as the "second Adam" (1 Cor 15:45-47). I think it was probably in recognition of the sin problem of everybody else that He was representing that He submitted to baptism.
*Evidence of baptism?* The rewrites are evidence that the authors believed, or thought that most of their readers would *believe* that John had baptized Jesus. We don’t know that the Gospel of John is independent. He could have gotten it indirectly from the other gospels - people who read them and spread the belief. There had been plenty of time for that. John the Baptizer’s statements about Jesus seem to contradict the lack of belief in Jesus and persecution by the Jewish caricature-props: if JtB had been preaching to all of Judea and glorifying Jesus, I would expect that most Judeans would have welcomed Jesus openly.
You should know that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah as Matthew 17v13 tells us: The fulfillment of the prophecy that Elijah would rise from the dead and make the way of the Messiah straight. Jesus wasn't being tricky and He wouldn't try to deceive His disciples into thinking John was Elijah risen from the dead if he wasn't. NOW we know why the baby inside Elizabeth "leapt for joy" at the coming of Mary to tell her the Angel of the Lord told her she was going to bear the Messiah: That was Elijah inside her, yet to be born and named John. And now we can understand what Jesus was telling Nicodemus about being "BORN AGAIN". Nicodemus was a good man, but the time for the Kingdom of God was not arrived yet, but soon it will be. Perhaps Nicodemus has been born again and is here now, soon to see the Kingdom of God. No, we have no evidence that Jesus "joined" John's movement. What we do have is John's own testimony that he had come to make the way for the Messiah, that he was Jesus' servant, that Jesus was his Master. Again, more evidence that John was the reincarnation of Elijah.
But that is a theological interpretation right? to say that a person is the reincarnation of another person. It is not something historians do, they deal with history not theology. If anything seeing john as elijah is something concerned more with the evolution of how christians saw john the baptist in early christianity, and not so much with the history who this apocalyptic preacher was in ancient palestine.
I don’t follow you. Are you suggesting that this is somehow an unusual view? I’ve heard it all my life. Even it were unusual, however, since Ehrman just said it, you still wouldn’t be “a voice of one crying in the wilderness”.
I'm the frame of apocalyptic Judaism, the baptism is not so rare. Just using simple logic. Since mikvahs were use for ritual impurity and according to Torah, you cannot go inside the tent of meeting or even close to the Mishkan if you were ritually impure, because of the Presence of GOD. Well, they were looking forward to end of times when everyone will be in the presence of GOD so to the regular repentance, make sense, to add the mikvah to wash away ritual impurity to be in HIS presence. Also GOD promise if we repent HE will covert sins from red stained to pure white. And by repentance HE meant accomplishing the law, and doing what HE said since the time of Moshe. And about the rule that says that only priests can use the mikvah, well in the Korach revolt, Korach quote GOD when he say HE said we are a nation of priests and kings.
*”Josephus would have mentioned it”* Did He mention that 40 years prior to destruction of temple the doors would open by themselves, numerous mysterious occurrences as well as GOD not approving of the sacrifices?
No. But he clarified in Antiquities XVIII that lunatics like Jesus were zealots, followers of a fourth philosophy founded by Judas of Gamala and responsible for the misery of the jews.
@@toviaskryptonitelll976 Unlike you, I already have a working brain and did also read the Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus. You clearly didn't. The entire book XVIII is all about explaining the misery of the jews, from Judas the Galilean leading to the Jewish War, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. According to Josephus, there was only one relevant jewish sect or movement besides the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which he called the fourth philosophy and which had been founded by Judas of Gamala and a Pharisee named Zadok. That's already clarified in the introduction and chapter 1 of the book, while Jesus appears at best only briefly in chapter 3, right after other zealots too had conflicts with Pilate and offered their lives. Josephus clearly identified them with zealots and distinguished them from normal jews particularly by their views and their willingness to either kill or die themselves for their beliefs. You can hardly deny that Jesus too was willing to die for his religious agenda. And other known groups of assumed "christians" were not even known to Josephus by the end of the 1st century. Christians were just any people who believed in a jewish messiah, which didn't depend on a Jesus at all, because the Septuaginta had already translated in BCE literally any use of "Maschiach" by just anyone to "Christos" in Greek. I guess you just didn't know that. Even Simon Bar Kokhba was glorified by his own followers as Christ and Romans even of the 2nd century like Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus didn't even know or ever mention the name Jesus yet.
The son of God in heaven has a brother James who shares his DNA. Hey, I am James, I am related to god, to his son & to the holly spirit. Imagine the greco-roman mythologists laughing.
I grew up Jehovah's Witness. They make you answer a bunch of Bible questions in three separate visits with elders and then you have to commit to it verbally to be identified as a JW, not a Christian. For several decades these only occur at large conventions in a pool where a dude in a tee shirt dunks you but i remember when i was a little kid Dad baptizing a married couple in a bath tub back in the 70s. Shortly before Dad's death he told me he regretted bringing people into that faith.
So sorry for your loss. I hope your Dad had a chance to experience real truth and freedom for a period of time before his death. JW’s are a horrid religion. Shameful how they ruin families.
The Internet appears to have been pretty devastating for Jehovah's Witnesses (thanks to Jehovah🎉).
The practice of shunning has them ineligible to receive State religious funding in Norway.
Lessons: Make sure you read and interpret Scripture correctly. Don't keep throwing out Armageddon dates that never happen. 😢 😮
why did he regret it
@@breadman5048 because that cult ruins lives. I was very much that my family respected my decision to quit. 99.5% of JWs that leave get shunned.
@@breadman5048 He probably woke up later in life and realized he spent most of his life promoting a Real Estate company disguised as a religion instead of doing what we are here on earth to do. Which is whatever makes that person happy. I think it’s to express our unique personality and our unique talents to create joy for ourselves which then positively effects joy to anyone in which we come in contact
Great video as always. I've learned so much from Bart! Keep em coming!
"I read fiction every day" Well he is a New Testament scholar. I kid!
Even in fiction there is truths and wisdom. Which is what I'm interested in.
@@thomasdequincey5811 Just don't confine yourself to reading only the Bible & other "holy" books.
Not to pull a JP, but depends what you mean by fiction
@@thomasdequincey5811"truths" is an interesting word lol
lol
What a terrific series this is!
Of course I’m no scholar but just to clear something up…..if John The Baptist’s construct of baptism was to wash away/forgive sin (as opposed to cleansing ritual impurity) and Jesus was baptised by John to begin his ministry….. does this mean that Jesus saw himself as a “sinner”/as having committed “sin”? (Irrespective of how John The Baptist saw him). How does this square with “Christian” doctrine that Jesus was incapable of sin? Sorry for asking….maybe I’m missing something 😐
Great question!
While John’s baptism was for repentance, Jesus’ baptism had a different significance. It was an act of obedience to God’s will and a way to set an example for His followers. Jesus stated that His baptism was necessary to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15)1. This means that Jesus was identifying with humanity and fulfilling God’s plan.
Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of His public ministry. It was a significant event that included the affirmation of His identity as the Son of God, with the Holy Spirit descending upon Him and God’s voice declaring, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17)
After Jesus was baptized, He went out into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil and did not sin. So I think you can take it that He did not get baptized in order to absolve sins and that there was another reason.
The short answer is that the doctrine came later. Since it makes no sense in and of itself, you can hardly expect it to jibe with earlier accounts, especially not with those rooted in historical fact.
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near".
John, Jesus and Jesus' disciples all proclaimed this.
Jesus taught the kingdom of god is within you and little children already have it.
So the way (repent of pride) to the truth (found in the stillness for the perculation of memories long forgotten to forgive) and the life. Released from trauma and resentment. The truth sets you free. Weep and then laugh. Taking the narrow way to find the source of symptoms manifesting as problems.
And a caviat. The world that imprints identity, hates the free.
Saved Jesus. So good enough for me.
Bart has my respect. Because he is so well versed in the subjects he speaks about. Can give answers to questions with authoritative knowledge.
Damn it Bart! You better RECORD All four of those Cruise lectures and post them on UA-cam for us!!! Those sound so cool!!! Please please record them????? And post them????? Please????
Good idea
"While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the interior and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “ Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” “No,” they answered, “ we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” “Into what, then, were you baptized?” Paul asked. “The baptism of John,” they replied. Paul explained: “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” Acts 19:1-4
This usually overlooked but very important passage indicates at least two things (probably more) 1)Either John himself or disciples of John and/or Jesus spread the word long before Paul did and 2) Paul always and everywhere considered himself in competition with the actual disciples and family of Jesus.
Acts is more often these days being put in the middle 2nd century for origination. It retcons various beliefs, including beliefs about Paul, into the 1st century. Acts contradicts Paul's own letters, and so I think this is a problem which cannot easily be resolved, if at all. The author(s) of Acts is likely being influenced by the emerging Catholic system in Rome and is setting up an anti-Ebionite or anti-Mandaean polemic.
@@TheDanEdwards Thanks for the reply but I don't think it's that late. As many scholars have said, it could really be called Acts of Paul, so heavily Pauline in nature is it.
@@ji8044 The New Testament provides several passages that outline the roles of the disciples and Paul in ministering to different groups:
Acts 13:46-47:
Paul and Barnabas declare, "It was necessary that we first preach the word of God to you Jews. But since you have rejected it and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we will offer it to the Gentiles. For the Lord gave us this command when he said, ‘I have made you a light to the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the farthest corners of the earth’".
Galatians 2:7-9:
Paul writes about an agreement with the other apostles: "On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised (Gentiles), just as Peter had been to the circumcised (Jews). For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles".
With the disciples primarily focusing on the Jewish population and Paul taking on the mission to the Gentiles, I fail to see how Paul or the disciples considered themselves in some competition.
As for hearing only about the baptism of repentance by John means nothing in itself, except they were people looking to God and just didn't get the latest news yet.
EDITOR MESSED UP, POINT AND LAUGH !!
(just kidding editor, thank you for the work you do)
Oops 😬
Indeed. It's only when you see a little mistake that you realise how flawless they've been for ages! We learn to take their work for granted!
The differences between JtB's baptism ritual and the Tevilah in a mikveh lead me to think that, possibly, he was an early practitioner of Mandaean belief. Certainly the modern Mandaean claim is that JtB was one of them. It is also notable that JtB seemed to conduct his preaching in the Decapolis and not in Israel hence his imprisonment and death Galilee or Perea. Also of interest is that Mandaeans use the Darfash (aka Drabsha), a cross of olive branches draped in a linen cloth.
This makes sense
John the Baptist is also mentioned in Flavious Josephus. So we aren't JUST relying on the gospels for his historicity. Now, like with everything, it was Christian monks preserving this stuff, so always a possibility that they could have added it. They have shown a willingness to modify Josephus elsewhere. But for what it's worth, it's there.
*”Josephus would have mentioned it”* Did He mention that 40 years prior to destruction of temple the doors would open by themselves, numerous mysterious occurrences as well as GOD not approving of the sacrifices?
Josephus was writing about stories and claims he heard going around - since he was born in 37AD, and was writing in the early 90's AD, he couldn't have been an eyewitness to any of it. This is a common problem with all extrabiblical writing about biblical claims - Josephus, at least, being among the earliest
I've enjoyed these conversations, but come on, a 10 minute advertisement/self-promo? It's their right, but it's in bad taste for this listener.
I don't know about the course, but the website memberships are all donated to charities.
Imagine an expert devoting their time to producing you free content to watch only to promote a conference on the same subject that you're interested in. Worst of all, they promoted it on their own channel! How dare they!
I am looking forward to meeting Bart on an upcoming cruise.
Will Al Pacino be there
@@gamerknown Al Pacino?
@bestself2438 - I hope you had fun and always keep learning.
I still want to know more about from WHAT, specifically, John (and Jesus) taught people should repent . In the context of their day, what sins was John calling out? Individual sins, as we might assume today, or communal sins, as was often more common in the prophets.
@@jcfretts yes it would be interesting to have details on that question ! One might think for ex. that, given the multiple competing branches of judaism in that period, who accused each other of betraying the right path, John the Baptist was addressing those he thought to be deviant and asked them to repent from their errors and join his movement.
May have meant any failure to remain observant, kosher, etc. Greek influences may have led to a stronger emphasis on personal morality making its way into Judaism. This would set the stage for the more individualist faith of Christianity.
I am just speculating though.
Is there any mention of John the Baptist in apocryphal writings?
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, I am curious about Acts 18:24-26 when a man "knew only the baptism of John" and was set straight by others concerning this. Here are the verses:
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Another great discussion 👍
Bart nerding out over his fiction loves is priceless! 😄
JUSTICE FOR BIBLICALLY ACCURATE PENGUINS!
Bart Ehrman: World Heavyweight Champion of Infectious Laughter
1:55 _Reading *Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals*...not light reading at all._
I concur. 😅
I had waited until the night before an exam to read it... Even skimming it, it was a beast, for such a slim volume...
_...Wanders off to see if I still have it..._
[EDIT] While I didn't see the copy of it I read in college, I do have *The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche,* which includes it.
I'll keep that in mind for the next nonfiction book I choose to read. Mostly, these days, I have been reading and cross referencing *Dungeons & Dragons* modules to make for a better game experience for my players.
Currently, our group has been alternating between *_Curse of Strahd_* ( _when another couple is available_ ), *_Rime of the Frost Maiden_* ( *_which intersects with Tyranny of Dragons, Storm King's Thunder, and Tomb of Annihilation_* ), and a hombrew *_Star Wars: Saga Edition_* campaign.
Dang Bart and Megan, you guys are so fortunate to be married and able to work together on such fascinating work! I'm very jealous, but very happy for you! I'm also happy to have a new source for ancient history of the near east
They aren't married to each other!
@keithsmith3678 ah, oops!
I'm thrilled to hear Bart is revisiting 'The Genealogy of Morals' by Nietzsche! It's truly one of his most captivating books. I was so engrossed in it that I finished it in just one day! Would love to hear Bart’s insights on the concept of the Ascetic Priest.
What an amazing conference! I wish I could go so so badly!!!! Oh!!! 😢😢😢😢😢
An important question too is whether Jesus outlived John, as Josephus has John's death in the last year of Pilate and Tiberius, 36 CE. If Jesus was killed early in Pilate's term, as people often think, he wouldn't have lived to hear about it, as depicted in the gospels.
What exactly do you say the importance of this is, sparrow?
@NSBarnett Aside from it challenging inerrency because Jesus reacts to the news of the death of John in the gospels, it's at least of minor interest if Jesus was born under Herod the Great before 4 BCE and died after John the Baptist in 36 CE, because then he died at least at age 40, contrary to all church traditions. Theologically, there's juicier stuff about John's and Jesus's differences, but I haven't seen this point raised before.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 I see, thanks. So what do you think happened, and when?
@NSBarnett In terms of when Jesus was crucified, I'm not really sure. I think several incidents and stories were ultimately combined to give us the Jesus traditions, and that includes a Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" story about an unnamed Samaritan man leading a religious group, whom Pilate executed in 36 CE. This is what finally got the infamous Pilate fired. Then when Pilate was headed on a boat to a trial with the emperor "based on the accusations of the Jews" (much like Paul in Acts) the emperor suddenly died and Pilate basically got to retire and live in peace (similar to Paul's retirement in Rome at the end of Acts). I know that's not directly related, but I think it shows how the gospel writers were taking inspiration from Josephus and folk history and playing with it in midrashic style. Unfortunately, that means most of the certanties are lost. We want solid corroboration, but we usually find suspiciously similar stories about other figures. A solid timeline would be nice to have, though.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 I just read Josephus work "Antiquities of the Jews".
It has no mention of the date of John the Baptists death but it does have the order from Herod Antipas in the fortress of Machaerus.
Scholarly opinion has John the Baptist's death in 29-30 CE, which seemingly is corroborated with Jesus hearing the news and withdrawing to a solitary place, likely to grieve his death.
If the events of Matthew 11:11 come later, then Jesus is giving a post mortem accolade to John the Baptist by saying "Truly, I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist...."
"Very brief break"
**Is 10 minutes long**
Just purchased my NINT ticket for 2024! I am very exited even if I can’t attend in person (I live in South Africa).
Thank you for all that you do Dr. Ehrman. I have learned a great deal from your courses.
"Penguins in the bible." That would be a short lecture.
See: the State
I'm sure with several layers of metaphor and obscure Greek dialects you can find them if you search hard enough.
A lecture on the _Biblical_ animal characters would be fun.
Jesus to John the Baptist: "Bro let me see your homework".
In theory, if. Jesus believed, that He was completely without sin, there would be no reason For HIM to be baptized at all, unless it was to set an example for others.
Whether He really believed that is another question.
Always a good listen - still I’m not keen on the long, long stretch of ads and promotions in this episode 🙁🙏
Yeah this one was very long, and it is kind of conversome sometimes trying to navigate the ads and just watch the videos. But I mean... at least he is not promoting energy drinks or something hahaha
That's what a fast forward button/cursor is for :-)
just skip though it
Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist who died. A Greek known as James the brother of Jesus attended his funeral at which there was a St Elmo's fire event, causing the Greek to recognize divine attention. He compiled a collection of their teachings, known as the Sayings Gospel, which was published at someone's great expense. The notion took on its own momentum in Roman imperial politics.
That question about shunning: The Message (followers of William Branham, small but insidious) use it as a death curse, particularly for “rebellious” teens. They have a high death rate of people prayed over in this way.
No mention of the mandaeans?
3:35- Hmm, whom should I read for Aristotelian philosophy? Got Galt?
I read very recently that Josephus spent three years as a young man with an ascetic very much like John. His name was Banus. Any thoughts on him Bart?
Topic suggestion; Luke 19:27 (perhaps with parable) in comparison with Matthew 5:44
In comparison with John 19:15.
Thank you
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' Luke 19:27
So happy to hear that Bart likes Iris Murdoch!
Good to hear that Bart is an Iris Murdoch fan.
That struck me too.
Did Hamlet actually love Ophelia, or was Horatio the only true pure love in his life? Historical and geographical sources show there really was a university in Wittenberg where the school fellows met, and there is an actual Denmark to this day. And why are there so many deaths in Act V?
It's also pretty weird that Jesus was supposedly a disciple of John the Baptist, but as John 4:2 points out, Jesus never baptizes anyone. It's his disciples that do that. Maybe it was later authors who liked the idea that John the Baptist and Jesus were BFFs, even though they had different theologies, practices, and maybe didn't even meet each other.
Many Christian phrases were borrowed from previous gurus. One example is the golden rule which was originally stated by Confucius 1000 years before Jesus
It’s also in Vedanta.
And it's very likely Confucius borrowed it from someone earlier
...I would presume that variants of "The Golden Rule" were being taught- & practiced by Modern Humans 10,000 years before Confucius...
Minor correction: more like 500 BC.
Are you suggesting Christians borrowed from Confucius? Do we have evidence of the cultural interaction?
The description of the heavens splitting open, and a dove flying down, and a voice from heaven exclaining God's approval, whether or not combined with the fact that Josephus clearly stating that John the Baptist started his career after Jesus finished his (unless the TF is a forgery), is clear enough to me that the whole event was mythical, a fiction.
As Pontius Pilate would have said to Jesus at his trial, "Listen. Strange men standing in streams handing out doves is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the Senate, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!...."
I don't know about that, I mean like he said, josephus and the biblical accounts do agree roughly on the death of john the baptist and that he was a preacher that baptized people, so that are two (likely) independent sources agreeing in some important facts of the character.
As far as I know they disagree on the date of the death of john the baptist, the gospels claim he died before jesus, josephus after jesus, or at least jews complaint about john the baptist execution after jesus' death. I don't think josephus makes any mention of when john started preaching.
Of course it is possible that since john the baptist was famous and jesus was famous, that they did like a fictional crossover when writting the gospels lol.
But I don't think one can discard it easily. I mean it is perhaps the second most attested event in the bible, after the crucifixion itself that we think is historical. So at least it was a very popular well known story in early christianity. I don't know. of course there is merit in saying it didn't happen. I just don't think we can discard it so easily.
@@diegog1853 The fact that Josephus didn't mention that John the Baptist beginning preaching before Jesus showed up or any interaction between the two leads me to believe that JtB started preaching after the Romans had Jesus deleted.
How do you reconcile your views on Judas's betrayal being because of disappointment with Jesus not bringing about the Davidic monarchy, with your view that the pacifist Jesus traditions which survive are closer to the truth than the anti-Roman traditions are?
Is your view that the historical Judas betrayed Jesus because Jesus was too peaceful or thinking too magically instead of militarily for Judas? And as I hinted at, I think the pacifist stuff is what survived the Jewish Roman wars and Nero, Hadrian, etc., so that selection pressure should be kept in mind. More of it in the surviving Hellenized literature doesn't necessarily mean closer to the real Jesus, in this context.
So. What it sounds like, to me, is that Jesus was part of John's crew and, when John gets arrested and executed, he takes over as cult leader. Obviously, he wants to set himself apart and so he and his followers come up with an elaborate back-story that ends up forming the origin story in the gospels, with John as the subordinate. Maybe.
Were there ten minutes of advertising in this video
Just over, Reuben.
I didn’t count, but I have noticed more and more advertising, more monitization, more click bait, and less and less significant content. It’s the corrupting effect of UA-cam and “social media” fame in general.
Do you think they should make no money from all the time they take to produce the content?
Why are (religious) Americans so obsessed with Jesus and the gospels? They are only 4 out of the 66 or 73 books (P or C) of the canon. I have been trying to find an answer but, so far, no one can explain it. Most Christians in the rest of the world talk about the entire NT (The OT is usually too uncomfortable) and talk about 'God' more than Jesus. I have not encountered this phenomenon anywhere else so far. Is it because it's easier to sell?
PS: I'm a well traveled European, living in the US since 2021 (just for context).
I lived in a nominally atheist country prior to the Great Covid War... The Christianity there is mostly NT bar Revelation and not too much emphasis on OT
In Matthew I totally got that the centurion recognizes Jesus as the son of god, but in Mark I always read it as a mocking tone, just like the witnesses thinking Jesus was calling for Elijah
I think it was Robert M. Price who afaik first suggested this by having the Centurion say and then think, "Surely this man is the son of a god!" _(And I am Julius Caesar!)_
@@EdwardM-t8p it just seems without the earthquake and etc in Matthew and the temple curtain not in visual range, what would give the centurion a reason to not mock Jesus’ circumstances. Would almost lean Matthaean priority, due to the quote not making much sense in mark, but Matthew could’ve also taken issue with it and added the embellishments to give it more sense
@@Pr0t0typeSky Given that scholars have determined that Mark or Marcion was first, I'm confident that Matthew had serious issues with Mark's account of the Centurion's exclamation. There are other places in Mark that were causes of embarrassment for Matthew and Luke, too.
Uh oh, the editor forgot to put in the intro
They put it in but in the wrong place. Oops
Bart does a great service by emphasizing that Jesus was almost certainly baptized by John. I wish, however, that he had mentioned the best evidence for Jesus being a follower (and disciple) of John the Baptist (i.e., a practitioner of the baptism of John), which is that John 4:1-2 states that:
"When the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard about the greater crowds coming to him than to John to be baptized and to become his disciples-(though Jesus himself didn’t baptize them, but his disciples did)- 3 he left Judea and returned to the province of Galilee."
Jesus is quoted as referring to the incident of Jonah being in the whales belly for 3 days as similar to his coming crucifixion and being dead for 3 days. Its sayings like this that make me believe the whole book is just mythology
An analogy?
Whatever happened to “THREE days”? Small numerals are for arithmetical equations only. In prose they need to be spelled.
@@jeffburns4219 What? A man of literature? On UA-cam? No way! 😉👍
It's a mix of myth and history. The job of historians is to critically examine the text and try to determine which parts are likely historical and which parts are mythical. (An inexact science, but there are methodologies historians use for these things.) The Gospels were written after the death of Jesus and thus many of the quotes attributed to him may be inaccurate/fabricated.
@@magicdog9523 Which quotes would we possibly see inaccuracies? Are there any hints or flat out ridiculousness that we can easily point toward?
Or did you simply read Bart Ehrman's book?
Respectfully, Bart, I think its fallacious to assume that later authors making apologetics for Mark makes the events significantly more likely to be true. Mark could have been appropriating and appealing to the J. the B. movement with fiction that opened up theological plotholes layer authors addressed.
For example, think about the Davidic covenant. These promises supposedly from God's lips failed, which leads Ezekiel & others to explain how these Promised Land predictions were all still true in a way... but those later apologetics don't affirm the reality of the event where God said this stuff, because the apologetics can be about the tradition, not the reality.
48:00 so the centurion at the crucifixion was also in the sanctuary of the synagogue at the same time to see the curtain rip…
@Bart D. Ehrman
As posited by Dr Ehrman concerning Paul, how does Bart D. Ehrman see himself?
Excellent, thank you for the upload. I was wondering if Bart could address the resemblance of Jesus to Dionysus. I've been hearing a lot about it in my atheist circles recently, and I'm hesitant to weigh in on the topic. I'm not a scholar or an academic. I'm a layman, and I don't know enough about it to feel comfortable saying anything. Scholarly input would be greatly appreciated.
Apollonius of Tyana is a much more apt comparison. Dionysus was the god of wine and not really a good one to one comparison for Jesus.
On a side note: BEST SCREEN NAME EVER! Noice!
I’m also a layman, but to me it seems that at the very least it’s something worth looking at. I think it’s pretty much a guarantee that the Greek authors were aware of the Dionysian myths and the occasional similarities were probably not entirely coincidence, but I doubt they were entirely intentional either. Myths tend to get mixed and matched, and a new guy on the scene is pretty likely to pick up a couple things from the big guys
Here's a brief comparison between Jesus and Dionysus.
Context:
- Jesus: Jesus of Nazareth is a central figure in Christianity, understood to be the Son of God, the Messiah. His life and teachings are documented in the New Testament.
- Dionysus: Dionysus is a Greek god associated with wine, fertility, and ritual madness. He is a figure from ancient Greek mythology.
Similarities:
- Miracles: Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), while Dionysus is known for turning water into wine in various myths.
- Divine Birth: Jesus is understood to be born of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, while Dionysus is said to be born from Zeus and the mortal Semele.
- Resurrection: Jesus' resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian belief, while Dionysus is sometimes depicted as dying and being reborn over and over, as are other Greek and Egyption Gods.
Differences:
- Theological Context: The theological context, story content and purpose of Jesus and Dionysus are quite different. Jesus' life and resurrection are central to Christian salvation, while Dionysus' myths are more focused on themes of nature, fertility, and human experience.
- Historical Evidence: Jesus is considered a historical figure with documented evidence of his existence, while Dionysus is a mythological figure without historical evidence and few records. Not to forget that the Old Testament is a historical record of the present Israelite nation, of which the Mishnah and Talmud agree.
Scholarly Views:
- Most scholars agree that while there are some superficial similarities, the core narratives and purposes of Jesus and Dionysus are very distinct. The similarities are often seen as part of a broader cultural context rather than direct borrowing or copying.
While there are some minor parallels between Jesus and Dionysus, the differences in their narrative, purpose, and historical context is significant. We need to approach these comparisons with a correct understanding of both figures.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus interesting. But, did you get this from ChatGPT? Because it's similar to when I asked it the same question.
It is said that Jesus have siblings. Are these siblings belong to his apostles or they only have the same name? Coz when Christ named the apostles, it was not mention there that he has a brother or anyone that is son of Joseph and Mary. Thanks Bart
Per the _Religion for Breakfast_ channel, Jesus' name in Aramaic is "Yeshu' ". What is "John" in Aramaic? "Mary"? "Joseph"?
---------
PS: Ms Lewis makes her hair and her eyeglass frames look wonderful. Great pairing.
Isn't it Yeshua?
@@JasonBuckman In Hebrew yes, not Aramaic
Interesting, thank you
I never comment on Megan's wonderful glasses, which are all wonderful, these are particularly wonderful. I love the color of the frames.
My question is, if Jesus was sinless why did he get Baptized? If it was needed before the impending judgement, why did Jesus do it? He obviously didn’t need it.
I love your new glasses! I love how you accessorise your hair and glasses! Wow!
Please make an episode about Holy Spirit
John's baptism wasn't one time single baptism. Mandeans, disciples of John, baptizing themselves everyday
Maybe Jesus just took over the leadership of John the Baptist’s tribe after John was locked up…myths and legends always add details after the fact.
That's a possibility given the fact that in the Gospels they even mention that some of Jesus' Apostles were previous followers of John the Baptist.
I suspect Jesus took over after John was executed which would also explain why Jesus was also executed as a potential rebel in the same way
@@Justin_Beaver564 The only report is that John was executed by Antipas AFTER Jesus' putative death.
@@Justin_Beaver564 Yea, the Romans tended to be pretty heavy handed in dealing with those stirring up problems…Pilate is often portrayed as being hesitant to use force (in the case of Jesus) but he was eventually recalled to Rome because his brutality was considered excessive. If you’re too brutal for the Romans, you’re off the charts!
I'm not sure that question about Jesus and radical inclusion was about whether he supported violence against the Romans. I think it was about his attitude towards Gentiles and their relationship to God.
The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come.
why not discuss what happened to jc during the 18 years he disappeared... 12- 30 y o?
I came to think about the Mandeans, who used to babtize new believers in Iraq. I don't rememberif it was Eufrat or Tigris. The Iraqi war treated them really badly. - There are many differences to John the Babtist. But the babtizing pattern is the same.
Are there any conferences in Germany. That would be wonderful.
8:00 Qumran is not in Israel
I love Thomas Hardy novels.
There needs to be a second one on this topic. You didn't even get to the head chopping and the king thinking Jesus was John come back to life.
Yeshua/Joshua was influenced by the political, religious, cultural atmosphere of his time. For decades the national apocalyptic outlook of a variety of minor but loud sects excited the populace. The books of Daniel and Enoch in particular represent this movement. Their emphasis and special interpretation of the messianic ‘Son of Man’ concept became internalized in Yeshua.
When you get done to the nitty gritty, how did Paul know that the James he met was the brother of Jesus? Let's say Peter introduced him as "This is James, brother of the Lord". How did Peter know this James was the brother of Jesus? Some guy came up to Peter and said: I'm the brother of that dead guy you followed; I'd like to join you [i.e. join this beats-working lifestyle where women support you].
In an Agatha Christie novel, anyone who appears on the scene claiming to be someone from the past has to be very strongly doubted.
If you accept Paul at his word, then one simply says that _Paul believed_ James to be the brother. Of course there is always the possibility that Paul was deceived, if one looks at his letters as otherwise properly representing a real person Paul. "Paul" is once again coming under increased scrutiny by scholars, and I propose that the generation of critical scholars after Ehrman (that is, those who are just now earning their doctorates) will portray Paul somewhat differently than the scholars of Ehrman's generation.
I mean... if you believe jesus and peter are historical figures, and that peter was a disciple of jesus, perhaps even the main disciple. Then yeah... what is so strange about him knowing jesus' family? or jesus introducing james to Peter as his brother?
I don't know it just seems much more of a stretch to me that this is a hoax. Since to Paul this are just mundane details.
I think it is much more believable to say that john the baptist was likely never a relative of jesus and that this whole thing was made up by Luke to strenghten the virtue of both characters.
The Jesus of the gospel narratives a literary figure. His words are not his own but the narrator's, spoken in a language not his own but rather that of his literary creator's intended audience - Greek.
10 MINUTE COMMERCIAL ??? REally???
Sorry I meant to have that shortened for the podcast!
You can always skip it.
Hey, they have to make a living.
Use ReVanced or browser addons already
@@TheLucanicLordHello, such youtubers earn $180 a month on avg, they don't earn anything from putting these videos out, other than your feedback.
minor correction for Bart…the plural of mikveh is mikva’ot not mikvot.
As far as I know the format of this podcast, having a cohost who interviews the expert, is unique. I think this format should be copied.
I am only aware of Annapolis Sailing School and the sailboats they use to teach sailing. The Rainbow 24. It would be out of the ordinary for you, Bart, to take your family to the Annapolis Sailing School, but it would be an immersive activity. I imagine that you have the means. No religion, no reading ( except for that associated with learning to sail ), nothing cerebral ( unless learning the nomenclature, learning how to rig the sails, how to get away from the dock, how to read the winds are considered cerebral). Being at the mercy of the wind or lack there of. Obviously there are sailing schools closer to you. If you did decide to take your family and go, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts. Jesus, from what I know, didn’t know how to sail. He was just a passenger.
Guys, I think I am going to move. Thank for this tip.
John the Baptist converted Jesus to a Hellenistic sect of Judaism. He was aware that Jesus was of the royal line and Jesus knew that John was preaching this new moral philosophy. He may have been a portrayal of Ananias or Eleazar.
JB a real historical figure as in Josephus. JC is not however, being a fiction based on replacing JB with someone more gentile-amenable. The original Testamonium Flavium referred to JB not JC. The character of Anubis in the story directly after it is actually John the Baptist as both lived in the desert.
JB sect Sethian Gnostic as the Mandaean Gnostics, their descendents, still are.
I wonder if this is how the ritual of wudu began in Islam before prayer. John the Baptist is an important figure in Islam as well
That's a strange title. Im not watching it anymore. So far I have no knowledge of any writing where John said he was the Christ. Im no bible scholar but I read thatJohn said that he was not the Christ.
Hold up, there will be a hot tub discussion .
You might THINK that penguins 🐧 have nothing to do with the Bible! But, I was brought up as a Creationist. Isn't there a big problem for some Creationists in explaining how the penguins waddled all the way from Mt. Ararat to Antarctica? How did Noah get the penguins on the Ark? These are problems that I remember wrestling with when I was a Creationist a long time ago. Bart could make reference to that, on his trip to Antarctica. lol 😆
The John the Baptist birth story is scary! No one will ever convince me that he wasn't kidnapped violently as a baby. Something horrible happened to his father Zachariah in the temple! I don't believe Elizabeth was knocked up by God any more than Mary, but I do think that's an indication they were knocked up by the same powerful person. Intentionally. Closer to brothers (Mary and Elizabeth being cousins).
And we get the whole Herod on a baby rampage story but wouldn't John have been a babe too? You think we'll ever find text about John the Baptist childhood? That would be awesome.
Great show! Thanks so much!
Interesting point about Luke having a baby John coinciding with baby Jesus. Strong potential discrepancy between early Luke and Matthew 2.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 I honestly as a child thought that was John the Baptist story. He was kidnapped from his family and, I don't know, raised in the forest by wolves or something 🤣. I was a kid with an imagination. But even as an adult I read that story and it's super suspicious - I don't blame child me for not getting it. That story doesn't add up. (Also not any type of scholar, just a fan.)
@hinikki8747 Luke 1 ends by saying John grew up in the wilderness, and earlier it says his parents Zechariah and Elizabeth were too old to conceive (a very common Bible trope)... I guess I can see how, as a kid, you would have understood it as John being abandoned by his real parents at the temple or kidnapped by Elizabeth, and then raised by wolves. The text doesn't say that, but I can see why a kid might imagine it that way. Makes it more interesting, tbh.
Oh dear, I would have loved to know more about penguins in the Bible..
"Everything that consoles is fake." -- Iris Murdoch
So Jesus was a sinner as any normal person? Otherwise why would he needed to be baptised?
One traditional answer to this is that Jesus was baptized to identify with us. He came to be one of us, and “ate and drank with sinners.” In mainline Protestantism, baptism has more to do with identity than anything else. A child is recognized as part of God’s family and given a name. It is an affirmation of “prevenient grace,” God’s grace that comes before anything we might do to deserve God’s favor. In contrast, in traditions that have “believers’ baptism” it can be purely (or mostly) just a baptism of repentance, so pretty much the same as John’s baptism.
I grew up Jehovahs Witness and we were told our baptism was a "symbol of dedication" and that's what Jesus did, he left his carpentry work and began his ministry after dedicating himself to God's will and set the example. Usually JWs will talk about this in reference to the practice of infant baptism with the sprinkling of water and how the church got it all wrong after the apostles died and we've apostate. It's really very confusing.
Jesus came as the "second Adam" (1 Cor 15:45-47). I think it was probably in recognition of the sin problem of everybody else that He was representing that He submitted to baptism.
So you aren't interested in discussing in good faith?
*Evidence of baptism?*
The rewrites are evidence that the authors believed, or thought that most of their readers would *believe* that John had baptized Jesus. We don’t know that the Gospel of John is independent. He could have gotten it indirectly from the other gospels - people who read them and spread the belief. There had been plenty of time for that.
John the Baptizer’s statements about Jesus seem to contradict the lack of belief in Jesus and persecution by the Jewish caricature-props: if JtB had been preaching to all of Judea and glorifying Jesus, I would expect that most Judeans would have welcomed Jesus openly.
And did those feet in ancient time walk upon England's mountains green? - No!
You should know that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of the prophet Elijah as Matthew 17v13 tells us: The fulfillment of the prophecy that Elijah would rise from the dead and make the way of the Messiah straight. Jesus wasn't being tricky and He wouldn't try to deceive His disciples into thinking John was Elijah risen from the dead if he wasn't.
NOW we know why the baby inside Elizabeth "leapt for joy" at the coming of Mary to tell her the Angel of the Lord told her she was going to bear the Messiah: That was Elijah inside her, yet to be born and named John.
And now we can understand what Jesus was telling Nicodemus about being "BORN AGAIN". Nicodemus was a good man, but the time for the Kingdom of God was not arrived yet, but soon it will be. Perhaps Nicodemus has been born again and is here now, soon to see the Kingdom of God.
No, we have no evidence that Jesus "joined" John's movement. What we do have is John's own testimony that he had come to make the way for the Messiah, that he was Jesus' servant, that Jesus was his Master. Again, more evidence that John was the reincarnation of Elijah.
But that is a theological interpretation right? to say that a person is the reincarnation of another person. It is not something historians do, they deal with history not theology.
If anything seeing john as elijah is something concerned more with the evolution of how christians saw john the baptist in early christianity, and not so much with the history who this apocalyptic preacher was in ancient palestine.
Bart seems not want to deal with the book of John he dances around it. Dabbles in it does not let the cat out of the bag
still waiting for the end time I guess
As the voice of one crying in the wilderness, I think, yes, Jesus was directly influenced by John the Baptist.
I don’t follow you. Are you suggesting that this is somehow an unusual view? I’ve heard it all my life. Even it were unusual, however, since Ehrman just said it, you still wouldn’t be “a voice of one crying in the wilderness”.
I'm the frame of apocalyptic Judaism, the baptism is not so rare. Just using simple logic. Since mikvahs were use for ritual impurity and according to Torah, you cannot go inside the tent of meeting or even close to the Mishkan if you were ritually impure, because of the Presence of GOD. Well, they were looking forward to end of times when everyone will be in the presence of GOD so to the regular repentance, make sense, to add the mikvah to wash away ritual impurity to be in HIS presence. Also GOD promise if we repent HE will covert sins from red stained to pure white. And by repentance HE meant accomplishing the law, and doing what HE said since the time of Moshe. And about the rule that says that only priests can use the mikvah, well in the Korach revolt, Korach quote GOD when he say HE said we are a nation of priests and kings.
49:00
*”Josephus would have mentioned it”* Did He mention that 40 years prior to destruction of temple the doors would open by themselves, numerous mysterious occurrences as well as GOD not approving of the sacrifices?
No. But he clarified in Antiquities XVIII that lunatics like Jesus were zealots, followers of a fourth philosophy founded by Judas of Gamala and responsible for the misery of the jews.
@@reinercelsus8299 “he clarified” No he didn’t mention Jesus being a zealot. Go get a brain scan to “Clarify” if there’s something in there
@@toviaskryptonitelll976 Unlike you, I already have a working brain and did also read the Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus. You clearly didn't. The entire book XVIII is all about explaining the misery of the jews, from Judas the Galilean leading to the Jewish War, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. According to Josephus, there was only one relevant jewish sect or movement besides the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which he called the fourth philosophy and which had been founded by Judas of Gamala and a Pharisee named Zadok. That's already clarified in the introduction and chapter 1 of the book, while Jesus appears at best only briefly in chapter 3, right after other zealots too had conflicts with Pilate and offered their lives. Josephus clearly identified them with zealots and distinguished them from normal jews particularly by their views and their willingness to either kill or die themselves for their beliefs. You can hardly deny that Jesus too was willing to die for his religious agenda. And other known groups of assumed "christians" were not even known to Josephus by the end of the 1st century. Christians were just any people who believed in a jewish messiah, which didn't depend on a Jesus at all, because the Septuaginta had already translated in BCE literally any use of "Maschiach" by just anyone to "Christos" in Greek. I guess you just didn't know that. Even Simon Bar Kokhba was glorified by his own followers as Christ and Romans even of the 2nd century like Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus didn't even know or ever mention the name Jesus yet.
The son of God in heaven has a brother James who shares his DNA. Hey, I am James, I am related to god, to his son & to the holly spirit. Imagine the greco-roman mythologists laughing.
How can jesus be forgiven/cleansed of his sins by getting baptised-he is god!