Was Luke Written by Luke? And Why Should We Care?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лют 2024
- Visit www.bartehrman.com/courses/ to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were both allegedly written by a companion of Paul, Luke "the gentile physician." But the books never name their author. So why Luke? Are are there any good grounds for naming him in particular? Or any grounds at all? Were the books probably written by a doctor? Was he probably a gentile? Was there a Luke? If picking his name was just guesswork -- would it affect how we interpret the books or understand their reliability?
-Readers have long thought that the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were written by the same person, Luke, a gentile physician who was a traveling companion of Paul. Do the books claim to be written by that person?
-Why would anonymous books later be named by Christian readers?
-Why would anyone choose Luke in particular to be the author of these books
-Why is Luke specifically identified, instead of another travelling companion?
-Who first identified Luke as the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts?
-Why has this attribution persisted?
-Is there any reason to think that the author actually was a medical doctor?
-What are some problems with this attribution?
-Why do scholars think that Luke and Acts were written by the same author?
-What was the author trying to achieve with these two books?
-If Luke is unlikely to be the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, do the books give us any insight into who may have written them?
-Do the genres of the books offer any insight into this question?
-Would you say that Luke and Acts are better works of literature than some of the other books of the canonical NT?
Can I just say thank you for making these podcasts and all this knowledge readily available? I was taught that the Bible was inerrant and that the gospels were written by the disciples. I've known that's not true for a long time now. And that inspired this thirst for bible history. I can't seem to get enough. So thank you!
Same.
Me too, but remember that it is a lot of speculation in most cases we only have the Bible to go by. Most of it comes from interpretation in historical context which i believe is the correct approach. I'm even sceptical of the dating because they are only going by what they found but it doesn't mean manuscripts didn't exist before we are talking about 2000 years ago I believe most of it would survive.
No one needs an inerrant text to believe the things written therein (See Daniel Wallace's view). What's the real issue? Although Luke-Acts is technically anonymous, there are several indications within the text to support the tradition that Luke is the author. Among the more helpful data found in the text is that the author was not an apostle (Acts 1:2), but he was present at many of the events he narrates (1:1).
This points to authenticity in that why would a forger or really late-date writer use someone who is not an eyewitness to Jesus? He could have used a fake Nathaniel for example. It is like using women's testimony to the resurrection! It points to authenticity.
Same here
The FIRST edition of the bible was written by an estimated 300 scribes under direction of Constantine, the Great, who ordered 50 books with which to control the newly formed christian churches in the Eastern Roman Empire, whose members became Constantine's personal army. Today's bible is the result of 12,637 re-writes and editions.
Most videos I watch at 1.5x speed. Music and Bart Ehrman content gets the normal speed respect.
1.5x only???
@@MultiCappie 🤣🤣Yeppers
Then... Stop making a race to consume so much content and just... Do something useful. Like seriously why are you wasting your time?
“Use the Force, Luke”
One of the things I love about this podcast is the informality between Megan and Bart (especially the catch up at the beginning). AND - I'd love to see Bart do a collab with Josh about the Old Testament. I think that would be fascinating. Thanks all.
And I on the other hand would welcome a time indication of when the chit chat about mothers in law and what not is over and the real reason for coming here begins. So unnecessary and cringeworthy pretend-friendlyness in the beginning...
@@hakonberg8003yes. Amen. I guess that's for the morning talk show type of crowd. They seem to like it.
Right, how dare we be real human beings with a genuine interest in each other!!!! 😂
Luke! I'm your father!
I'm still waiting for the Lost Gospel of Obi-Wan Kenobi.
"Luke. I am your author."
"Noooooo! That's impossible! Bart Ehrman and general scholarly consensus told me the truth! They told me you were anonymous!"
You were my brother, Luke. I loved you.
Misquoting Vader. The line is “no, I am your father”.
(Common mistake due to the Winnie Mandela Effect)
@@paulonius42 Good one
I want Bart to do a serious investigation on the scholarship done on Marcion and his connection with Luke.
I came here to say this! The casual dropping of Luke in the 80s doesn't even interact with the Marcion "problem" for Lukan priority.
Get Mark Bilby on to show the evidence for Marcion priority.
This is the first time I've heard someone explain how these writings were attributed to Luke the gentile physician.
Thanks!
Thanks guys, love the show!
@40:15
I very much appreciate this scholarly response to the question concerning the understanding of the Greek word "stauros."
Thank you for your insight 👍
I’m curious why early church fathers thought Luke could have direct knowledge of Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection if he was a companion of Paul, who himself never knew Jesus?
Ehrman in this episode says that two gospels were chosen written by those with alleged direct access and two written by alleged companions of Jesus’s important apostles. That seems to me fairly balanced. (Unfortunately it turns out that none of the New Testament authors had direct access. Were these “church fathers” genuinely deceived of just disingenuous? That strikes me as a more interesting question.)
@@jeffryphillipsburnsit was advantageous for the church fathers to claim that these gospels were written by apostles to push their proto orthodox view.
Because Luke was an intelligent, well-educated man with means who did his homework well. He got in touch with as many of the Apostles and Disciples as he could, and also with the Virgin Mary, and learnt as much as he could from them and then distilled what he had learnt really well. He was a first-hand witness to the way in which the Holy Spirit guided the first-generation Christians in building up the Church.
@@RADECMONEBALWhy do you think Luke ‘got in touch with the virgin Mary’?
@@benstillman5080 because he's brainwashed.
Thank you, Bart, for these wonderful podcasts! Could you do an episode on so-called "oral tradition," especially in Orthodox Christianity? I was raised Orthodox, and in that church much importance is placed on the so-called "Three Pillars" -- scripture, apostolic (oral) tradition, and the teachings of the apostles' successors. This is a tacit acknowledgement that most apostolic teaching did not make it into the Bible, and yet was cherished by early Christians in the form of oral tradition. Irenaeus himself stressed the three pillars. In that context, it's unlikely that he would have just made up the Luke attribution out of whole cloth; there's a high probability that it was based on an oral tradition, whether factually true or not. If Irenaeus is writing in the mid to late 2nd century, then the life of Christ was no more distant to him than the Civil War is to us. 2nd and 3rd-hand memories were still available, at least enough to form a consensus about what happened. What can you tell us about the oral traditions that preceded and co-existed with scripture, and the process whereby they came to be accepted? Thanks again for your great work!
_["If Irenaeus is writing in the mid to late 2nd century, then the life of Christ was no more distant to him than the Civil War is to us."]_
Except that the level of technology is vastly different. The Civil War was conducted at a time when the telegraph and the newspaper existed and when literacy was far more common than in the ancient world. We can find the writings of individual soldiers in journals. We can get a day by day recounting through old newspapers. We have the time and equipment to go explore old battlefields and military camps for artifacts, from old rifle balls to broken belt buckles.
@@Kyeudo Yes, indeed, and this is the very reason that oral tradition was cherished as a pillar of the ancient church's teaching. We moderns tend to underestimate the devices employed by the illiterate ancients to remember things. "Natural" memory (memory reinforced by mnemonic techniques) was far more robust in antiquity than it is today. Minstrels and storytellers recited Homer verbatim for centuries before the Illiad was ever written down. Buddhists didn't record the sutras in written form for 200 years after the Buddha's death. Your point is valid and well taken, but makes the study of oral tradition in the early church more, not less, important. I'd love to hear what Bart has to say about it.
I would challenge your assertion that Homer was cited "verbatim". The notion of "citing" is a consequence of writing, I have never heard a scholar claim oral transmission is at all concerned with concepts of "word for word" repetition or citation@@mindfulskills
@@cuteguywill Thanks. Point taken. Which once again reinforces the importance of oral tradition, and explains the emphasis placed upon it by the first Christians.
That's the first time I've seen a commercial interrupted by another commercial.
there are blockers
Nice work guys ! ❤❤
Thank you two!
Bart you taught me so much, and Megan you helped me so much, thanks both of you
Thanks for sharing.
Great podcast….i signed up for the new course. 🎉
Yayyyy my fav part of the week! Love you guys . Thx for your hard work guys .
Appreciate the reference to Cadbury's work!
Man, I start watching and Megan is like “I’ve been building custom library shelves while parenting 5? kids and running multiple UA-cam channels while presumably staying on top of academic pursuits and keeping the house from falling apart.”
My weeks have been significantly less busy and I’m still exhausted more often than not!
I think you’re on the right track when you describe Luke-Acts as ancient literature. I am inclined to believe that Luke-Acts was written first and foremost for ‘Luke’s’ patron, an actual person whom he refers to as ‘Theophilus’, rather than for any particular Jesus group or community. Apparently ‘Luke’ thought of Jesus, Peter and Paul as legendary heroic characters and was quite taken with what he had heard about them, and so set out to produce a great Hellenic heroic novel for his patron, ‘better than all the others’ as he boasts, a two-part story with Volume One featuring Jesus and ending in his tragic death, but with a miraculous twist that points forward to Part Two, a triumph with the spread of his movement expanding across the empire, ending with Paul boldly proclaiming the Gospel at the heart of the Roman Empire. I think the immediate appeal of the story would have been with the urban elite who read Greco-Roman literature and were always hungry for more, then obviously trickled down into the various Jesus communities where it was even more popular and began drawing the Hellenes into these communities, with its fantastical tales of royal lineage, the constant interactions of mortals with the Divine, miraculous deeds, voyages of adventure, shipwrecks, healings, raisings from the dead, miraculous escapes from mortal danger, etc. Luke-Acts would have been welcomed in the Jesus groups as an ‘historical’ perspective on Jesus and Paul, even though so much of what Luke wrote was the stuff of legend, meant to heighten the drama and make the story popular amongst Greco-Roman literature of the time, rather than a strict narration of the history of the early Jesus Movement. This is probably why he does not sync with Paul on similar events- he is using artistic licence to enhance his tale, so it doesn’t matter to him when, nor how many times Paul went to Jerusalem, for example.
I would also expect that this author wrote all manner of this type of literature in his time and that Luke-Acts was no isolated tale in his literary corpus.
So while we are greatly enriched in our faith by Luke-Acts and it forms a critical part of our Scriptures, the reading of history, theology, Christology or ‘salvation history’ into this work might just be surmise based on ‘spurious familiarity.’
Bart and Megan, if you haven’t already ordered those rolling Library ladders, I can recommend one of the older manufacturers of them in New York City, the Putnam Rolling Ladder Co., which has been in business since the early 1900s. (Happy customer from years ago. I don’t make anything from this recommendation. And sorry if this seems like a commercial endorsement.)
Will we ever get to see a picture of the bookshelves/library when it’s all done? I would LOVE to have a proper library!!!
Interesting as always. I'd love a talk on how the gospels were influenced by Paul. Matthew for example seems to refute Paul in parts but need an expert take on this.
As I understand it, the gospels are essentially Paul vs Peter/James. Luke tries to blend the two sides.
@@Nick-Nasti Love Bart's take on it.
Will the course on archaeology have subtitles for the video?
audio level on the advertisement is WAY TOO LOUD compared to the rest of the podcast
When I worked in a hardware store, we had one of those rolling ladders on a rail for small tools and drill bits in overstock. I used to love the idea of library ladders, but now I'm over it. If you can't put it within arm's reach from the floor, you probably don't need it.
I’m guessing you’re blessed in the height department. Speaking as a vertically challenged person, I find this concept highly amusing.
@@melanieahrens6739 Hardly! My height is on par with Malcolm and Angus Young. I've actually removed a shelf from my closet because it was on no use to me at that height.
Would love to see some episodes with Bart and Islamic scholars discussing the relationship between Islam and Christianity in regards to being exclusivist, and consequently so evangelistic. What biblical sources did the authors of the Quran have access to? Are similarities in the texts responsible for such strong textual fundamentalism in both religions, or is that more of a case of “convergent evolution?” Admittedly, this starting to sound more like a book than a podcast episode…
I haven't heard anyone make the argument that there are multiple authors of the Qur'an. My impression is it is very uniform in style. The only two options I've heard of are that it was God's word directly revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) or that Muhammad composed it himself. If there is a scholarly claim out there for multiple authors I would be very interested to learn more about it.
@@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaighthere are at least 30 different korans, you all know it that the child was 9 years old
So even though I was born into a Muslim house hold & taught whatever parents could or other folks etc.
I eventually had to do it own my own to what I believed & why as a “Muslim”.
At the same time, studying Christianity & Judaism.
What I’ve found is that compilation of gospels and books of Bible were basically Open transmission which means No one really paid closed attention into preserving it word by word letter in its original & by random people etc
In Contrast to compilation of the Qur’an as it turns out it’s a “Controlled Transmission” which means that those who wrote or even memorized had to go through a procedure to be qualified to Teach to others after memorizing it etc
And it turns out, it’s a tradition that has been among the Muslims regarding complete memorizing of the Qur’an as it was being revealed & when it was done.
Till this day it continues, so for anyone to change whether due to hate or greed to sell the word of god or misinform it became impossible.
So this was truly fascinating to know that people of Muslim faith truly are dedicated to what they believe.
There are books that you guys can read that’ll give deep info how Qur’an was compiled, how it occurred, who were the people, how it was preserved & passed down, revealed in 7 different dialects (since not all arabs spoke in the same dialect) etc.
Very interesting, be open minded; great information.
I would really like to know when and how the holy day of the week was changed from Saturday to Sunday. When did this become mainstream?
This is purty darned good. I really love Bart's learned high falutin English, a lot better than Mark's Huck Finn Greek
The question about the stake being a cross or not, sounds like a question a Jehovah’s Witness would ask. 😂
The Zakariah part of Luke was a possible later addition. It was not there in the initial one. You can verify that by seeing the Marcion version. Luke Ch 1 & 2 came later
Are you guys gonna do similar episodes on Mark, John, and Matthew?
They have, I think. Check out his channel. I heard the ones on Mark and Matthew.
@@dmann1115 Thx
Thank you for answering my question (Judas discrepancy)! Both options give me a lot to think about, and I do lean toward the first one you mentioned. I've really gotten back into researching Biblical topics in the past year, and Judas is a particular fascination of mine. Isn't it odd that the account of Judas' death are so contradictory, and yet his part in the Last Supper is much less so (although there are some)? His motives are different in each gospel as well. I am no mythicist when it comes to Jesus, but I'm starting to wonder if it was necessary to invent Judas!
@leoyohansen6811 There's a lot there you are stating with more confidence than I think is warranted. But I do not think Judas would be the gospels' personification of the Jews. The gospels have the Jews right there in their story, no personification needed! However, Judas does become a focus of antisemitic ire down the centuries as a stand-in. But I don't see that happening in the actual texts. If Judas is not a real person, I'd be more inclined to see him as an example of Messianic Jews who abandoned the Jewish Jesus community before, during, and after the first Jewish revolt against Rome. There may be other possibilities, though.
@@JosephNobles Even if Judas is a real person who betrayed Jesus, the likelihood is that he took his 30 pieces of silver and vanished out of history, with the death stories being later inventions.
I think the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was made up just as the empty tomb was also made up.
I would LOVE you to make something comparing and contrasting the apparent motivations of the different authors of the new testament!!
You talk about them each having their own apparent motivations all the time and it seems you often use the "I don't want to get too far into the weeds" about that topic...
Please 🙏 go into those weeds!! It is the most enlightening and interesting part of your depth of knowledge for me personally when you explain the intent, based on context and understanding of the original language and culture
And then juxtapose that with the intent of other authors.
...
Since I have been listening to you do exactly this, I have found a much deeper understanding of the scriptures. I feel a vast confusion that I could not reconcile before melt away.
I don't believe in God, in the traditional sense.
I do, however, believe that the ancient scriptures contain worthwhile messages.
Your knowledge helps those messages become clear and I thank you
For any project, like building bookcases or writing a paper, estimate the amount of time you think it will take, then double the estimate and up the units by one. For example, 1 hour -> 2 days. Works well for busy people with multiple responsibilities
Thanks I used this to time my 30 minute naps -> 61 hour slumbers.
Thanks I used this to time my 30 minute naps -> 61 hour slumbers.
I don’t know anything about oral tradition in Middle East in the of early Christianity. But, isn’t it possible that there were an oral in some way associated with Luke. And then when it was written down decades later the Luke association stuck. And later he was “promoted” to author, or maybe better to “originator”.
I am disappointed to not hear Ehrman come out conclusively on how much Acts is based upon Josephus. Anyone know a good source for settling this question?
Hey it's Chris Huntley writing on Bart's account. I'll add that topic to the episode ideas list and see if Bart bites!
@@bartdehrman
Here is something that I will like you to add:
@Bart D Ehrman
Dr Bart Ehrman, you are making yourself a very tidy sum with your misquote of Jesus and the Bible in general.
The author is clear.
Luke 1:1
A declaration/narration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
It seems however, like you, Dr Bart, have the franchise, on what can be said and believed, about the Bible.
● Why then, Dr Bart, are you so wrong on all your speculations.
You stated that Paul is incorrect when he wrote that Jesus was seen by the twelve.
1 Corinthians 15:5
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
Jesus was seen: of twelve.
You see, Jesus was also seen, apart from the eleven, who were named, by this man who was not given a name as were the twelve.
John 9:26,27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, woman, behold thy son!
27 then said he to the disciple, behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his home.
● This disciple is referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved.
The gospels glorify this disciple.
Mark 10:21
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, one thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasures in heaven: and come take up the cross, and follow me.
John 21:20,21
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Whom Paul also speaks of: thus identifying the one who was added to the eleven.
2 Corinthians 8:18
And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the church.
● this shows that the gospels were written before Paul wrote second Corinthians.
● Judas was named: but, he was not counted.
John 17:12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
● The disciple was not named: but, he is counted.
John 20:2
Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
John 21:7
Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
● The disciple is even identified as being a part of the authorship of the Bible.
John 21:24
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Do you really believe that this man will have waited more than 50 years to have his account written down??
Who are the "we" who are eyewitnesses to his account.
●● Learn to read the Bible Dr Ehrman.
You showed that you had no understanding, of what the Bible says, when you wrote those 30/thirty or so pages many years ago.
It is sad that your teacher then, could not correct you.
Now, all these years later, after collecting, on false pretense, peoples money, while hiding openly behind your giggle, you still have not shown that you have an understanding of what the Bible says.
What is presented above being a case in point.
Thank you so much.@@bartdehrman
@Bart D Ehrman
What is the logic to your work??
The "we" passages in Acts do not need to be deceptive. The author might be using it in a "team" sense. Like "we crushed the Red Sox yesterday" said by a fan.
It is a bit weird that it's only specific sections though. If, to extend your analogy, someone wrote a book on baseball and only used "we" about his team when talking about one season, you wonder if he had some specific connection that season.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 100% Another non-deception hypothesis is that since "Luke" is relying on sources, these sections may represent sources written in the first person. (This does not mean they were eyewitnesses any more than the "we" passages themselves mean "Luke" was an eyewitness.) It is odd that "Luke" (who is generally a careful editor) would miss this. However, this is not a conclusive problem. There are several plausible reasons: mistakes happen or maybe he thought his sources were eyewitnesses or maybe he felt especially identified with them.
It is called the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.
I kinda lost the man on why the writer of Luke wasnt an eye witness of paul or knew paul. What mistakes did he had in his writing?
I wonder why the announcer says "real questions?" Would we otherwise expect fake questions? What makes a question "real?" Is that a question that you already know the answer to? That line should be removed.
I'm curious what Bart makes of speculation by some scholars that Luke may have been written by a woman, given its disproportionate interest in female characters and matters of special concern to women. Obviously we can't know with any certainty, but I found some of the arguments along those lines interesting and somewhat plausible.
“Father, I am your Luke”
-“Luke, I am your father”-
Appreciate the video. I always enjoy getting to hear the other viewpoints of Biblical authorship, but I’ve got some questions regarding the evidence presented against Lucan authorship. First why does Acts teaching that Jews don’t have to keep the old law necessitate a gentile author? After all Paul, who was the second greatest contributor to the New Testament other than Luke, wrote extensively about how the Jews didn’t have to keep the old law? It would seem just as plausible that a Jewish convert to Christianity wrote Luke/Acts as a Gentile. Secondly if the author of Luke/Acts wasn’t a traveling companion of the apostle Paul why does he insert himself into the story beginning in Acts 16:10? If he’s trying to give his work more credibility wouldn’t he have had himself with Paul from the outset of his ministry? Thirdly, if Luke’s name was later attached to these works, where did this belief originate from? Additionally, Bart stated in the video the church wouldn’t have accepted anything without authoritative roots, so if these gospels were anonymous until the mid to late 2nd century how were the people who attached these names able to convince the rest of the church that Luke actually wrote Luke/Acts? After all the church rejected other books such as the gospel of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the epistle of the Laodiceans, and the epistle to the Alexandrians as forgeries.
In Romans 6, does Paul say that once you've been baptized you don't have to sin anymore? Because that's a testable prediction.
A rank and file Christian Pastor would say that you don't "sin" in the context of whether you're saved. As if your sin is no longer "sin" because they deflect off you because of the "blood of Jesus".
15:40
so the other gospels are filled with “ medical terminology “ like Luke ?
i want to know thanks interesting
Not only did Luke write the eponymous book but also Acts and Hebrews.
Any evidence?
So maybe I missed it in the video, but do they think the same person actually wrote both Luke and acts... Or did the rider of acts try to imitate Luke?
They mentioned it in the video. Most scholars think they were written by the same person. A minority of scholars believe they weren’t.
Editor please normalize Megan's and Bart's audio levels, and especially the ones from the ads in-between. They always wake up all of my neighbors.
so no one likes the Thecla as Authoress Theory ?
Bart, I knew you were gonna become a non-Christian. You were going down the same track I was but you are educated. I just have an education in Bible studies didn’t go any further than that.
Britt enjoying this episode, I’ve always wondered why you have always maintained that. It’s something we can assume, that Luke wrote both the gospel and Acts. It seems to one of a few things about which there is some certainty. And yet these two books have a diverging account of what happened immediately after the resurrection, don’t they?
How come Roman Emperors have names that kinda sound Latin Caesar, Octavian, Augustus, Nero. But disciples and gospels writers sound a tad Germanic.
Matthew for the jews
Mark for the romans
Luke for the greeks
John for everyone else.
The names of the alleged gospel writers are translation of translations of translations of the original Hebrew/Aramaic names. This applies not only to the alleged gospel writers, but to all Jews in the Bible. For example, Johns original name is Yochanan, but after being translated from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English.
Just because it’s Israel, doesn’t mean they understand all that God is telling them.
If a single book seemingly authored by a disciple shows up, it might sound appealing. If 20 books show up and they all have different theologies, the natural impulse is to not believe any of them, and doubt anyone who professes to be them.
The very fact that none of the four gospels we have claim to be of the people we assign them to shows you that this sort of anonymity ended up being a much better strategy, exactly because people ask "why would they do that?". It's the sort of higher-order problem resolution that's unlikely to be used in the first forged book, but gets increasingly likely as authors evolve to address the issues with the forgeries that people have failed to push.
This same sort of evolution can be seen on the text itself. Many things, such as Jesus knowing about Judas betrayal and the increasing number of people who seem to see Jesus after the resurrection, seem to have been added in direct response to effective criticism that Jesus wouldn't have been caught unaware if he had been God and that the few people who saw him were not trustworthy. Or maybe some people don't like that they have to let go of Jewish law, so they add in a story about Jesus saying that you have to follow the old testament.
The reason the books we have are from from 70-120 CE is that it took sometime until there were books that addressed this sort of powerful criticism that made Christianity not really believable.
Was Theophilus (= lover of God) a real person or is it just a way of addressing the reader?
Luke’s use of “most excellent” in Acts (applied to the procurator Felix in 23:26 and 24:2; to his successor Festus in 26:25) suggests that Theophilus was a Roman official, or at least a person of some significant social standing. It Was a common Greek name. It makes no sense to call believers "most excellent" like Felix and Festus
Source? or is that just your own head canon?@@John.Flower.Productions
@@John.Flower.Productions believers are not called "most excellent" like Felix or Festus and Theophilus was a common Greek name and is not the same as "God fearer"= righteous Gentile. So certainly an individual.
@@RomanPhilosopher he is wrong. Righteous gentiles are called "God-fearers', not God-lovers. And certainly not "most excellent God lovers"🤦♀️ Theophilus is certainly a normal individual, like Festus and Felix who are called most excellent by the same author
@@JopJio unless Bill and Ted wrote it
But who was Theophilus? Presumably an educated person who could read who was interested in the subject matter who was no already aware of it but would have been familiar with the things contextually alluded to.
Luke’s use of “most excellent” in Acts (applied to the procurator Felix in 23:26 and 24:2; to his successor Festus in 26:25) suggests that Theophilus was a Roman official, or at least a person of some significant social standing.
@@John.Flower.Productions believers are not called "most excellent" like Felix or Festus and Theophilus was a common Greek name and is not the same as "God fearers"= righteous Gentile. Again: Those Gentiles are not called God lovers, but God fearers. So its certainly an individual.
@@JopJio Unless Bill and Ted went back in time and wrote Luke / Acts.
Okay, Justin Martyr quotes Luke and refers to it among the "memoirs of the apostles" by 150 A.D. We're just 100 years (which, when Bart says it he makes that sound like a long time but it is not a long time) from Matthew, Mark, and John (say scholars other than Dr. Ehrman). Certainly, this book didn't show up randomly. Someone, I would say at least ten people knew who wrote this book at the time it was written. Especially, the first recipients. That's a better clue than what is being suggested. Luke is a memoir of an Apostle, at least.
For sure, the Bible has the title for the third Gospel as KATA LOUKAN.
Colossians 4:14 references Luke as a physician. So, he appears to be a likely candidate for authorship, in that the “we” passages in the literary conventions of the time would probably be to claim personal knowledge, companionship with Paul at those points.
The third Gospel texts and book of Acts contain not only medical terms, which to be sure was also often commonly used by upper class non physicians, but also reflected Greek healing god Asklepios and Bacchus-Dionysos tropes that would have been expected of those having such a medical educational background.
The ascription of KATA LOUKAN to the third Gospel is in all the extent manuscripts that we have found. They appear to reflect a common view of their authorship, as they were maintained by the scribes who were also the library custodians of those documents.
While many scholars believe that the four Gospels lacked written attribution at first, there is no proof that they were ever received as anonymous by those in the early church.
Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a companion of John along with Papias writes:
“Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded the Gospel in a book.” (Against Heresies 3.1.1)
The second century Muratorian Canon states:
“The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. . . . Luke, ‘the’ physician, after the ascension of Christ when Paul had taken him as a companion of his traveling…”
Early Christian literature is replete with references to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authors of Gospels, and there is never any sense that the Gospels were anonymous or written by others. The most likely conclusion to be drawn is that the attributions of authorship are original.
Interesting. According to scholars, no verbatim quotes or unambiguous citations from the canonical gospels as we have them appear anywhere in Justin’s extant works. Which specific verses did he quote?
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111
_["that would have been expected of those having such a medical educational background."]_
Most "doctors" at the time wouldn't have been able to write. Their "education" was mostly hands-on experience.
_["The ascription of KATA LOUKAN to the third Gospel is in all the extent manuscripts that we have found."]_
The earliest manuscript we have for Luke dates to at least a hundred years after the original. That the attribution to Luke had become commonplace by that time is not surprising.
_["While many scholars believe that the four Gospels lacked written attribution at first, there is no proof that they were ever received as anonymous by those in the early church."]_
Except that the first references to Luke as the author of the text is Irenaeus writing at least fifty years after the original authorship date. If the attribution had been original to the text, it should have showed up in the earlier writings of the church fathers. Further, the authentic letters of Paul contradict Acts on a number of points, making it unlikely that the author of Luke/Acts was a close companion of Paul. If he had been a close companion, he would have either been an eyewitness to the events directly or heard Paul relate them firsthand.
_["The second century Muratorian Canon states:"]_
As I mentioned earlier, that the attribution had become common a hundred years after the book's authorship is not surprising. It says nothing about whether it was original to the work.
_["Early Christian literature is replete with references to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authors of Gospels"]_
"Early" meaning in this case "at least fifty years after the works were actually written", with no references to the authors in the interim.
_["and there is never any sense that the Gospels were anonymous or written by others."]_
People who believed that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses never mentioned they might be written by someone else? Such shock. Much surprise.
_["The most likely conclusion to be drawn is that the attributions of authorship are original."]_
Except for all the evidence against such a claim. All the purported authors would have been illiterate. Two, at least, would have been Aramaic-speakers, not Greek. The gospels attributed to Matthew and John show no signs of first-person narrative or eyewitness knowledge. The gospels were written so much later than the events they depict that most living witnesses to the events would be dead, given first century life expectancies. Then there's the fabricated elements, such as the bizarre census, the massacre of male children, and Joseph of Arimathea. I'm sure an actual scholar could go further.
@@Kyeudo Where did you get the idea that doctors in the first century were illiterate?
The medical field was a technical specialty and involved studying lots of texts. Take for example Claudius Galen of Pergamo Galen, in the second century.
He used the designation "therapeutae" to secure from Marcus Aurelius exception from military service.
Galen at 16 began studies at the prestigious local sanctuary or Asclepieum dedicated to Asclepius, god of medicine, as a therapeute for four years.
I highly doubt you can prove a low literacy rate for any part of the Roman Empire in the first couple of centuries. Most of the books written during that period have been destroyed and or used for fuel. As a case in point, the second century physician Galen wrote over 500 books. Where are they now?
@@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111
_["Where did you get the idea that doctors in the first century were illiterate?"]_
Most people who were not in the upper class were illiterate.
_["The medical field was a technical specialty and involved studying lots of texts."]_
Nope. Most doctors learned what passed for medicine via apprenticeships.
_["Take for example Claudius Galen of Pergamo Galen, in the second century."]_
Oh, look, the son of a wealthy aristocrat. Did it ever occur to you that such a person was atypical?
_["Galen at 16 began studies at the prestigious local sanctuary or Asclepieum dedicated to Asclepius, god of medicine, as a therapeute for four years."]_
And Therapeutae was not synonymous with "doctor". The Therapeutae were part of the staff at temples of Asclepius and, like most priests, not from the lower classes. They were not the only doctors.
_["I highly doubt you can prove a low literacy rate for any part of the Roman Empire in the first couple of centuries."]_
Do a little work sometime. Experts have placed the literacy rate at no higher than ten percent, with many estimates placing it lower. Some are as low as 3.3%.
I keep wondering about Jews/non-Jews. The way Paul talks about these 'gentiles' seems to include a previous knowledge of the law and that these 'gentiles' were once in the loop. They were 'estranged' and 'removed' and had to be 'reconciled'. He even quotes Torah for them, like they should know about these things; or at least have these things 'written on their hearts', as was said about old Israel. So isn't it logical to assume these 'gentiles' were descendants of those who were once part of the covenant, but completely lost all of the customs and were not circumcised anymore. Paul didn't want to burden them with the customs, but just wanted them back. I really think the gospel wasn't meant to go to the whole of mankind... I mean, it did, but was this really what Paul intended?
Paul is the turning point for Christianity. His revelation that followers no longer needed to follow Jewish law made Christianity palatable. Paul became famous. This was despite what Peter believed and Jesus said.
It would be hilarious if Bart became a carpenter. Full circle to Jesus since he has inadvertently destroyed Christianity
Totally...😅...
Hey,I’m a handyman! I still read actual books. All of Barts books!
You mean like those old paper and cardboard thingys with pages and writing on? I’ve recently tried kindle. It sucks!
44:14
Megan is careful not to say that her husband has some weird and personal book filing system that she is just going along with.
Truly Bart makes it seem that the Christian faith is not of much value.
I love Bart's chuckle! BTW, does he know his last name means "honest man" or "honorable man" in German? So true.
I'm lead to wonder why we should care what one goat hearder said to another two milenia ago. Let alone allowing it to be a life guide.
where did the bbok of mormon come from
Joseph smith pulling it out his ass to form a cult within a cult.
@@jameswright...
It's a little more complicated than that. What evidence we have is that the Book of Mormon is the combination of plagiarism of several other works stitched together with pieces of sermons from popular preachers and some contributions from Smith and his assistants, crafted with the end goal of Christianizing the native Americans and justifying the colonization of America by Europeans.
some joker ...
The delusional mind of a con man.
This quick, excellent breakdown by Aron Ra will answer your question:
ua-cam.com/video/L-NFtqMOjNs/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
Sometimes Bart sounds eerlie like Barney Fife.
_"Out source"_ to put shelves up? LOL! 🤣
You mean _"Get a man in"_ ?
Never forget your roots! You'll be getting water form the faucet and walking on the side walk next!
{:o:O:}
At this rate, in 2 years' time we will be looking forward to video titles like: Can we be really sure that Christ had any disciples, except for Paul? And should we really care?
Doubting if Theophilus would have a medical doctor write his history of Christianity =/= doubting the existence of Andrew, Thomas, John, Judas, Peter, et al
Not bad, good start for a beginner. But to you need to prove that Paul made up Peter and John too and that he wrote the Gospels attributed to Mark and Matthew too. For an A+ you need to prove that Paul hadn't persecuted any Christians because.... there hadn't been any to start off with ....yes, not even Jesus, ....before Paul made the whole thing up. Keep going! You can do it!!
Am I the only one that thinks of the cartoon version of Bart every time he talks or laughs?
Paulogia has quite the impact on perceptions.
yes you are
What about proposition that author of Luke and Acts was a woman? (John Hamer Centre Place)
What about proposiotion that author of Luke and Acts was a woman (source: John Hamer from Centre Place).
Luke was not written by Luke but by another man of that name.
I find the topics very interesting and Bart's books well written. However I find all the chitter-chatter and giggling on this site to be unbearable.
Sorry about that
I was hoping to hear why everybody just accepts that the two books have the same author.
Its like accepting that ephesians or hebrews or collosians is written by Paul.
Why does nobody ever talk about the evidence for or against Acts being pseudepigraphical, just putting itself across as the same author?
21:30 "there's good reason for it" should be Dr Ehrman's official catchphrase, and yet he never seems to actually give these good reasons somehow. The reasons given here are the same as what we would hear from the faithful about why the fake letters of Paul are actually genuinely written by Paul.
Also who are the scholars that doubt it? I've yet to hear of one. It would be interesting to hear if they have some good reasons to put forward.
Bart mentions several reasons: similarity in writing style, in vocabulary, and in themes. I think he also mentioned their theological similarity. The shared authority is not certain, but as these things go, I find the evidence compelling.
@@be1tube everybody seems to, and yet I've never heard a GOOD reason for why.
I'm not making the case either way, by the way, it's just frustrating that Dr Ehrman is so good at articulating the consensus and yet not very good at all at actually adding anything compelling to back it up.
By the way I don't think he mentioned theological similarity, and I don't think they do have a theological similarity actually. He did say they both have a gentile focus though, which is a sociopolitical similarity of a sort.
The reasons he cited and you listed are just as good for arguing that Colossians was written by Paul, and yet he asserts (without reasons, really) that Paul didn't write Colossians. So what's the difference? Let's hear THOSE reasons!
@@integrationalpolytheism The problem with a lot of those reasons is that you really have to go into the weeds, as he'd say. Dig into the technical analysis of the Greek vocabulary and writing style, which is stuff that would go way over the head of a general audience.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 yeah, fair enough. I'm interested at that level so I suppose my frustration just comes from spending my time hearing the same more general stuff without ever really getting into the detail. It's just a hobby for me, though my interest level has got quite deep over the last couple of years.
Common era 😂
the gospel of luke is clearly an expansion of the Evangelion. I fully expected this lecture to be at least half about that, but nothing. Kinda strange in my opinion, especially given the title of this video.
I guarantee you that Bart doesn't know who the gospel message began with.
idk what that means or why anyone would care
@@jimjim292 Why would you care?
The textual evidence is that Luke and Acts were written by the same guy, that he was a travelling companion of Paul and that he had access to eye witnesses of Jesus. Identifying this author as Luke the Physician was the opinion of the early church fathers who talked about it and since they were better placed to know than we are (there being no new evidence to the contrary) remains the best option. It's reasonably straight forward from the point of view of textual criticism.
Wow random poster on the internet, you have totally convinced me! I will ignore the opinion of world renowned scholars who have worked on this question their entire lives because you have told me that the answer is reasonably straight forward! Wow!
@@jimjim292 If you dig a little deeper, it's mostly just Bart, so that's a sum total of one scholar who doesn't need evidence to say it ain't so. The wikipaedia article relating to it currently says : The view that Luke-Acts was written by the physician Luke was virtually unanimous in the early Christian church. The Papyrus Bodmer XIV, which is the oldest known manuscript containing the ending of the gospel (dating to around 200 AD), uses the subscription 'The Gospel According to Luke'. 🙂
@@richardredmond1463wrong.
Is there any point to these types of discussions? Who does it edify? Who does it build up? Does it bring any glory to God? Even the very premise for your argument is countered when you cast some doubt as to the authorship of Colossians even though THE AUTHOR IDENTIFIES HIMSELF BY NAME! So saying the author of Luke didn't do so is a moot point because even if he did, you folks WILL STILL find a reason to doubt its authorship.
More and more, I am appreciating why the Lord overemphasized the coming of the Spirit. It is his (the Spirit's) continuous and perfect work that brings illumination which leads to ALL truth. Because it has pleased God to work through earthen vessels who are weak and imperfect, those who are 'blind and spiritually dead' will only see the errors and conflicts BUT those who have his Spirit will see 'Truth'.
I thought you are an atheist now Dr. Bart... You may want to find another discipline to pursue.
Very asinine comment. If you value knowledge, education, critical thought, if you value truth then these discussions are precious.
Who cares if it glorifies some god or not? Not important.
@@marcomoreno6748 Aha... you made this easy. I was wondering if you are a Christian but your last statement is quite revealing. Since you do not care about God, please by all means, pursue this kind of knowledge to your heart's content (though I struggle to see it's use to you).
You were not my intended audience.
@@emetdara2999
_["Is there any point to these types of discussions?"]_
It helps us get closer to the truth.
_["Who does it edify? Who does it build up?"]_
Those that desire to believe true things and not false things.
_["Does it bring any glory to God?"]_
No. It generally shows the Christian version of god to be an idiot.
_["Even the very premise for your argument is countered when you cast some doubt as to the authorship of Colossians even though THE AUTHOR IDENTIFIES HIMSELF BY NAME!"]_
So we should believe that the Gospel According to Peter was written by Peter? How about the Gospel of Thomas? Was that written by Thomas? Or is it just like any other book, where anyone can write whatever name they want on paper?
_[" It is his (the Spirit's) continuous and perfect work that brings illumination which leads to ALL truth."]_
Then why is it that the more we discover, the more we learn that Christian faith claims are wrong or immoral?
_["You were not my intended audience."]_
We know. Your intended audience is the ignorant faithful, who you want to remain ignorant rather than questioning the veracity of the biblical texts. You are literally trying to preach against truth and understanding.
@@Kyeudo I appreciate the way you typed your response. It makes it easy to read and follow your points. Permit me to employ the same format.
_["It helps us get closer to the truth"]_
The way you understand Truth is vastly different from the way I see it.
_["No. It generally shows the Christian version of god to be an idiot."]_
This is a non-answer. The purpose of the Bible is to reveal the personage of God. This is what it means to bring Him glory. Using it for any other purpose is totally missing the mark.
_["So we should believe that the Gospel According to Peter was written by Peter? How about the Gospel of Thomas? Was that written by Thomas? Or is it just like any other book, where anyone can write whatever name they want on paper?"]_
I suspect you don't use the same standard for writers like Plato and Aristotle whose works are much older than those of New Testament writers yet you expect me to see your criticism as fair. Rather, I see it for what it really is, a _malicious_ mischaracterization of Christian works.
_["Then why is it that the more we discover, the more we learn that Christian faith claims are wrong or immoral?"]_
This is because you are NOT searching for Truth - contrary to what you claimed earlier. You are really searching for evidence to substantiate your unbelief.
_["We know. Your intended audience is the ignorant faithful, who you want to remain ignorant rather than questioning the veracity of the biblical texts. You are literally trying to preach against truth and understanding."]_
If you know, why bother me. Continue in your truth. One can't force anyone to see the Light.
@@emetdara2999
_["Permit me to employ the same format."]_
I wish more people would.
_["The way you understand Truth is vastly different from the way I see it. "]_
Truth is that which comports with reality as adjudicated by predictive power. If your definition of truth differs, your truth is lies.
_["The purpose of the Bible is to reveal the personage of God. "]_
Then it does that poorly, as billions of Bible-believers somehow believe that the Bible's version of god is moral.
_["This is what it means to bring Him glory."]_
The Christian version of god needs reviled almost as much as the Muslim version.
_["I suspect you don't use the same standard for writers like Plato and Aristotle whose works are much older than those of New Testament writers yet you expect me to see your criticism as fair."]_
Nope. Same standards. We just have far better evidence for Plato and Aristotle actually authoring the works we associate with them than we do for illiterate Aramaic-speaking peasants authoring sophisticated Greek theology.
_["Rather, I see it for what it really is, a malicious mischaracterization of Christian works."]_
Apparently you can't grasp that you yourself doubt the veracity of works with particular claimed authorships and therefore understand that the purported author of a work isn't necessarily the actual author of the work.
_["This is because you are NOT searching for Truth - contrary to what you claimed earlier."]_
The truth is what the facts are. The facts are that the Christian conception of god is logically contradictory and that the purported acts of this god that can be put to the test can be shown to have never happened. The facts are that the Bible endorses genocide, slavery, the mistreatment of women, racism, and the worst kinds of injustice throughout its whole length.
_["You are really searching for evidence to substantiate your unbelief."]_
I don't have to substantiate my unbelief. Unbelief is the default state. Belief occurs after evidence has been presented sufficient to convince someone of the claim. Finding out that claimed evidence is actually faulty can return someone to unbelief.
However, with regard to the Christian god, I do actually have beliefs. The Christian version of god does not exist. It is trivial to demonstrate this. If some god does exist, it is not the Christian god. Your own Bible is enough to demonstrate that the Christian version of god is internally contradictory.
_["If you know, why bother me."]_
Specifically to make sure you fail. I want less ignorance, not more.
_["One can't force anyone to see the Light."]_
As you so clearly demonstrate.
(Time 37:45) This is not a complicated issue, nor is there a contradiction within Luke's Gospel. This man who wrote Greek so well (as we're saying) was not such a stupid to contradict himself (if he made it up) and not so much a liar to make it up in the first place and then there can be no contradiction because it is the truth. So: Immediately after Jesus tells several of his apostles that they will not taste death before seeing the Kingdom of God is the Transfiguration. They saw the Kingdom of God eight days later. The criminal on the cross is an entirely separate issue and he was saved because he believed. That's the point. All he had to do was believe and he went to Heaven with Jesus that day. And lastly, the question is so confused. He asked why the criminal got to go to heaven right away but the others had to wait decades. Firstly, that is grammatically and logically untrue. Also, that's not what happened because they waited eight days and by the time this other guy was getting crucified, they had already seen Jesus standing with Moses and Elijah. Even more to the point, everyone knows you don't want to be in a hurry to go to heaven because the main way is to die. I really do think most misunderstandings of the bible are reading comprehension issues.
_["This is not a complicated issue, nor is there a contradiction within Luke's Gospel. "]_
Luke claims a census that never happened. Quirinius did conduct a census, but it wouldn't have sent anyone traveling anywhere except their current home.
None of it is true. It’s fantasy fiction.
why is it called "archaeology in the time of Jesus" and not "archaeology of the time of Jesus"? Too confusing for this bear.
You’ve gotta call the author something, might as well be Luke. Somebody else besides “Luke” wrote the first hand passages in the Acts of the Apostles although maybe that’s the actual Luke. Who was that?
So my non academic feeling of it, even after watching this, was that it was likely either written by luke or by someone later who had access to writings by luke.
It was definitely written by Luke. As was Acts.
@@RADECMONEBAL I don't think I'd go so far as to say definite - but I do think it has probably the strongest case of the 4 gospels for being written by its traditionally attributed author
great podcast, but the comments are purely garbage from a dumping ground
Pretty typical. Because Bart's channel is a meeting point between atheist and Christian audiences, it attracts all sorts of preachers and conspiracy nuts.
You should see them before we delete / block 👀 - Social Media Team
I'm renaming Acts to Luke 2: Electric Boogaloo. Not better than the original, though, unlike Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo.
@@fumanpoo4725 Yes, and the Sanhedrin got served.
I'm still looking forward to some affirmative videos about what we can be sure of, because there are many atheists that say there isn't any historical evidence that Jesus even existed, for example... it would be a bit more intellectually honest to also build a positive case for Christianity, not just to throw rocks at it. Just saying...
There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. People told and repeated tales. Later, various unconnected people wrote some of it down. Eventually some religious leaders gathered up the stories they liked into one book.
These are facts.
26:35 are there "good reasons" why christians think Paul wrote Colossians? Dr Ehrman would obviously say no, and yet his reasoning given five minutes earlier for why Acts is the same author as gLuke is IDENTICAL to what christians say to justify the authorship of Colossians being Paul. Same themes, similar style, claims to be the same author... in fact the case for Colossians being written by Paul seems stronger than the case for Acts being written by the author of gLuke, going by the "good reasons" given in this video.
Ehrman has an extended discussion of Colossians in his book Forgery and Counterforgery. As he explains there with a fairly meticulous analysis drawn from Walter Bujard's study, the "style" of Colossians in the original Greek is radically different from that of the authentic Pauline epistles; it's just that not all of the differences are as evident in English translation, because Greek has many variations in word order, tense, and grammatical construction that don't map neatly on to English. Moreover while the broad "themes" may be in some sense similar, the substantive theological views, and use of terminology, are at odds with Paul in several critical respects. So while Christians might offer identical justifications in the case of Luke/Acts and Paul/Colossians, the trouble is that the justification is correct in the first case, but very wrong in the second case.
@@normative so far so good, though I am not sure why those would also be wrong for Luke/Acts. It's a genuine area of interest for me.
I confess to not having read many of Ehrman's books, though I have listened to many hours of him speaking he does make the point, quite reasonably, as do many others, that you can't get all of what someone is saying in their book just by hearing a lecture.
I'm sure the good reasons are there somewhere, from somebody, but nobody ever seems to say them or to give that reference.
My two starting points, you see, are that gLuke seems to me to be a social message, with the kingdom of god being essentially a state of being that men can bring into the world by their activity. Acts doesn't agree with that. It is far more about god proving that Christianity is right and the Jews are wrong, and that you have to obey god, and also basically either changing, or possibly also introducing, the focus on Paul which would become central to Christianity. In short, the theology is totally different imho so to hear everybody else say the opposite makes me wonder if I have a screw loose or what obvious thing I have missed!
And the second is that Acts is factually incompatible with gLuke, suggesting different authors, for example a close reading of the end of gLuke will reveal that Jesus withdrew from the disciples on the third day following his crucifixion, however Acts claims that he stayed with them for forty days and then was taken up on a cloud. Both passages reek of metaphor and traditional meaning, and this is clearly supposed to be loud and clear to the reader, but as accounts of literal history, they aren't compatible. Acts doesn't even agree with itself, since Paul's Damascus road experience is related in different and incompatible ways, suggesting more than one original author.
Anyway, thanks for that informative reply.
I have always loved these podcasts. However, Bart is beginning to really become more giggly than he has in the past, and it's really becoming annoying and distracting.
Found that much info on Luke’s gospels was left out of the discussion….the nativity narratives in Luke could have only come from Mary, primarily because she was the last person alive who was at the birth. Stories about a young Jesus could have only come from a close family member. Some how that was left out to support Bart’s premise that Luke did not write his gospel.
Or they could be complete fabrications from early first century as the gentiles worked to make their new God more like their old pagan gods
Bold of you to assume those stories weren’t just oral tradition or invented by the author.
Maybe im a boomer, but I like the lectures more than these "podcasts.". I wanted to learn about Luke, but im listening to someone talking about bookshelves. 😢
I do think they spend a bit too much bantering at the start of these. I usually skip to about 5 minutes in.
shut up boomer
(Time 46:30) Again, a reading comprehension issue, so let's look at this question again.[ Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.]
It doesn't say God killed Ananias. It says he dropped dead. Why is this important to answer the question about the "Old Testament vs. New Testament God?" Because the message of the Gospels and of Jesus is that your heart will be the judge for God gave you a heart (mind really, but we understand) capable of this. Ananias died of guilt and heartbreak. So did his wife. There is no contradiction. What is not written is as important as what is. Otherwise, there would be different words. Luke doesn't deserve this type of treatment from us for all his hard work.
_[" Ananias died of guilt and heartbreak. So did his wife."]_
That's not a thing that can actually happen.
@@Kyeudoyou can die of a broken heart. People have been known to suffer heart attacks from intense grief. Doesn’t make the comment you’re replying to any less inane though.
Not a reading comprehension issue. It's just that nobody cares about your gibberish.
Not that it's a problem if Luke is a Gentile, but any Jew who read Isaiah (1:11 and elsewhere) would know that it was God's plan to include Gentiles in his kingdom and that the Jews' practice of the Law had become detestable to him. Let's stop being surprised about it, even if Matthew didn't quite get it.
@Bart D Ehrman
Dr Bart Ehrman, you are making yourself a very tidy sum with your misquote of Jesus and the Bible in general.
The author is clear.
Luke 1:1
A declaration/narration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
It seems however, like you, Dr Bart, have the franchise, on what can be said and believed, about the Bible.
● Why then, Dr Bart, are you so wrong on all your speculations.
You stated that Paul is incorrect when he wrote that Jesus was seen by the twelve.
1 Corinthians 15:5
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
Jesus was seen: of twelve.
You see, Jesus was also seen, apart from the eleven, who were named, by this man who was not given a name as were the twelve.
John 9:26,27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, woman, behold thy son!
27 then said he to the disciple, behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his home.
● This disciple is referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved.
The gospels glorify this disciple.
Mark 10:21
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, one thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasures in heaven: and come take up the cross, and follow me.
John 21:20,21
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Whom Paul also speaks of: thus identifying the one who was added to the eleven.
2 Corinthians 8:18
And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the church.
● this shows that the gospels were written before Paul wrote second Corinthians.
● Judas was named: but, he was not counted.
John 17:12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
● The disciple was not named: but, he is counted.
John 20:2
Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
John 21:7
Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
● The disciple is even identified as being a part of the authorship of the Bible.
John 21:24
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Do you really believe that this man will have waited more than 50 years to have his account written down??
Who are the "we" who are eyewitnesses to his account.
●● Learn to read the Bible Dr Ehrman.
You showed that you had no understanding, of what the Bible says, when you wrote those 30/thirty or so pages many years ago.
It is sad that your teacher then, could not correct you.
Now, all these years later, after collecting, on false pretense, peoples money, while hiding openly behind your giggle, you still have not shown that you have an understanding of what the Bible says.
What is presented above being a case in point.
_["Learn to read the Bible Dr Ehrman."]_
Take your own advice. You insert the "beloved disciple" as an additional member of the Twelve when the text has that disciple as part of the Twelve. You've got the gospels in an impossible dating sequence. You are overly credulous of claims made by old books.
@@Kyeudo
The text tells us that the disciple whom Jesus loved was at the last supper: it tells us that he was at the foot of the cross: it tells us that he went to the empty tomb with Peter: it tells us that he was the one who told a naked Peter that it is Jesus who is on the shore: it tells us that the disciple whom Jesus loved is the "young ruler": The Young Ruler was not given a name among the twelve.
● Jesus established the disciple whom he loved as the one who makes up the twelve. "Judas" was named but not counted. The beloved disciple was not named: but, he was counted.
● Before Jesus went to the tomb, Jesus directed him.
John 19:26-27,35
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
[27] Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
[35] And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
After Jesus arose from the tomb, Jesus directed him.
John 21:22,24
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
[24] This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
● Jesus did not only have 12/twelve disciples.
Mark 14:13,16
And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.
He sent two of his disciples into the city.
[16] And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
They went and made things ready for the supper.
Mark 14:17
And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
The two did not return to Him: yet when he came to the supper he brought the twelve.
[You've got the gospels in an impossible dating sequence. You are overly credulous of claims made by old books.]
Old books contain recorded information: as long as they have the means by which their content can be authenticated, they can be trusted.
Bart Ehrman cannot provide an eyewitness account of any time in the past: and, he has shown that he cannot correctly read an eyewitness account that is presented of a time in the past.
Why should professor Ehrman be trusted above Old Books.
Learn to Read!
@@allanwilliams2079
_["The text tells us that the disciple whom Jesus loved was at the last supper: it tells us that he was at the foot of the cross: it tells us that he went to the empty tomb with Peter: it tells us that he was the one who told a naked Peter that it is Jesus who is on the shore: it tells us that the disciple whom Jesus loved is the "young ruler": The Young Ruler was not given a name among the twelve. "]_
You are so close and then you hare off into left field. The "young ruler" isn't mentioned in John, only in the other three canonical gospels. The text is saying that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is part of the Twelve, but not naming him because the text isn't actually written by anyone who knew the real Jesus. It wants the reader to believe that an eyewitness from the Twelve assisted in writing the gospel so that others will take it seriously, but is doing so in a way that invites the reader to fill in the details and makes it harder to falsify.
_["Before Jesus went to the tomb, Jesus directed him."]_
Compare and contrast all the different crucifixion narratives. You'll find that they all contradict each other as to which events happened. Apologists will do the "each doesn't actually record all the events that took place", but that's a theological tap dance that doesn't last under scrutiny. You can't even get the four gospels to all agree on what day Jesus was crucified.
_["After Jesus arose from the tomb, Jesus directed him."]_
Same problem with the tomb narratives. All four are fabricated. Jesus would have been left to rot for days before being disposed of with the remains of other criminals, either in a mass grave or by cremation. Each narrative can't get straight whether the tomb was open or closed when the women arrived, how many women there were, or how many angels there were. Only one mentions guards.
_["Old books contain recorded information: as long as they have the means by which their content can be authenticated, they can be trusted. "]_
And whenever we try to authenticate information from the Bible, we find the Bible is usually wrong. The creation stories, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, The Ten Plagues of Egypt, the conquest of Canaan, the entire book of Daniel, the entire book of Ester, the virgin birth narratives, half the purported letters of Paul, etc. are all false.
_["Bart Ehrman cannot provide an eyewitness account of any time in the past: and, he has shown that he cannot correctly read an eyewitness account that is presented of a time in the past."]_
That you don't like his reading of your favorite piece of fiction doesn't mean that he reads it incorrectly. His reading accords with that of most scholars, including large swathes of Christian scholars.
_["Learn to Read!"]_
Again, take your own advice first.
@@Kyeudo
You are so close and then you hare off into left field. The "young ruler" isn't mentioned in John, only in the other three canonical gospels. The text is saying that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is part of the Twelve, but not naming him because the text isn't actually written by anyone who knew the real Jesus.
● I have not hared off into left field.
It is established, in Mark 10, that the young ruler is the disciple whom Jesus loved: therefore, "the young ruler", need not, to be mentioned everywhere, in all the gospels: however, whenever, or wherever, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is mentioned, it can only be referring "to the young ruler".
[Thus, the gospel of John is referring to "the young ruler" when it mentions "the disciple whom Jesus loved".]
All four gospels contain the witness statements which represent the case for who Jesus is.
It is therefore stupid to think that all of the writers did not know the real Jesus.
[They are the first to have written about Jesus: if they never knew him, who then are the ones who knew the real Jesus??]
@@Kyeudo
"It wants the reader to believe that an eyewitness from the Twelve assisted in writing the gospel so that others will take it seriously, but is doing so in a way that invites the reader to fill in the details and makes it harder to falsify".
● the thought above, which is expressed by you, is evidence of what comes from a brain that feeds on nonsense.
Bart, respectfully, I think you make too many assumptions that the author *cannot* have been written by Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. Just because it wasn’t “identified” for 100 years, doesn’t mean this couldn’t have just been common knowledge amongst the early Christians. Further, there is good evidence that a writing such as this (which would have been written on a scroll) would have been labeled with something called a “scroll tag” to identify the author, so it would not have been “anonymous” as you claim.
Papias didn't know about GLuke or Acts and even contradicts Acts by saying that Judas died in a different way. The first who mentioned that Acts and GLuke were written by Luke is Ireneus if i am not wrong. So over about 150 years after Jesus. Acts also contradicts Paul many times. E.g. Paul says to eat what you want, Acts 15 has 3 food laws, which Paul not once mentioned and as I said contradicts. And the information that a Luke was a physician and follower of Paul, comes from a letter which wasnt even written by Paul.
So basically Christians have to prove that Acts and GLuke were written by this Luke, a follower of Paul. I mean the author of GLuke openly admits using other sources and copies and changes GMark and maybe GMat too and does not identify himself and he speaks of many writings before him and doesn't even seem to know Paul's letters
On top of that GLuke is anonymous, there is no "would have been labeled with a scroll tag". Otherwise show us the original tag of the author. The author would have identified himself in the text otherwise.
It may have been written by Luke, but the point is that we have no good reason to believe it was.
Plus, the conflicts with Paul's own accounts of his travels doesn't seem to jive with how Acts describes them.
All this doesn't mean that Luke DIDN'T write it. But it does mean that we have no good reason to believe he did. That's all.
Can we be really sure that the Megan that appears in these videos is a real person and not just an AI character? And should we really care? I guess we will never know...
Where did he say that it *cannot* have been written by Luke?
We should care because Gods Word is important and will not return void and all is inspired by THE HOLY GHOST
no