Dr. Ehrman always strikes me as much more of an "ex-evangelical" than as an atheist/agnostic or anything else. He knows a lot more about the Bible than most people - myself included, and it seems that he thinks this knowledge more or less directly translates into expertise on Christianity, about which he seems to not know that much, and could even be said to be misguided. Kudos to RfB for nudging him on this vis a vis the role of syncretism in the Church! It would be truly sad if we lived in a world, as he described, where those who insisted on an orthodoxy with the most inflexible, least dynamic boundaries were destined to always emerge victorious - not only for Christians, but for all people. What he is describing is a world pre-destined for authoritarian totalitarianism.
Ehrman is a liar. All his contentions aren’t really detrimental to the Christian faith. Watch Jimmy Akins debate with Ehrman if you want to see him get destroyed
@@marioicon I have never had doubts about Christianity, Islam, and all other religions, but it is very interesting to listen to extremely knowledgeable scholars on those subjects. Especially if they were once members of those religions.
This was perfect. I have tried to articulate this to many of my fellow friends of the faith and yet, this video summed it all up in a wonderful stream of answers. Thanks for making this video!
Thanks and good job to both of you. I have followed you and Dr. Bart for awhile.I enjoyed this exchanged between you both very much and it was very interesting.
Careful with that. He's very biased in his approach. I'd suggest studying the books he has his theories from. Stuff like Albert Schweitzer, "The quest of the historical Jesus" or David Friedrich Strauß "The Life of Jesus" or Rudolf Bultmann. So you first have a solid foundation on which to build. Remember that Ehrman is an ex-evangelical who still thinks along those lines.
@@MrSeedi76 "Remember that Ehrman is an ex-evangelical who still thinks along those lines." Do you have examples of it affecting his thinking? I've heard things that contradict that idea. Thanks for those other references, though.
My experience was the opposite. As a Ph.D student of Religion, I was already familiar with Dr. Ehrman's work, and was excited when they mentioned him on EarBiscuits
I'm wondering how many total works would there be if we compiled every possible New Testament writing (those considered canon, those for teaching, and the "spurious" ones too). I'm also wondering how many works we've lost over the centuries that could be considered for the canon.
The closest making the cut were mentioned in the video. 1-2 Clement, Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. The level below that would have been the Acts of Paul, Revelation of Peter (some local churches preferred this over the Revelation of John) and the Didache. The almost entirely lost Gospel of the Hebrews/Ebionites was also held as authoritative by some communities but we're not sure if it was one document with several names or several competing Jewish-Christian gospels. The Protoevangelium of James was incredibly popular but I'm not sure anyone took it to be scripture. As for the *very* spurious, they're too numerous to list. Just look at the table of contents for J. K. Elliott's Apocryphal New Testament to get a feel for how many parascriptural documents were in circulation in the early church, and none of this even touches on the litany of Gnostic Christian writings
@@jeffmacdonald9863there might be a compilation of all these texts. There is one in German called "Das Neue Testament und frühchristliche Schriften" by Klaus Berger which compiles all of the texts that we have discovered including all of the canonical texts, too, in one book. Not sure there is something similar in English though.
It is worth remembering that Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" is primarily based on the controversial 1982 "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln.
Wow, I could have listened to an hour-long interview easy, this is fantastic :D the first time I've become so engrossed in an interview that I lost track of time for ages!
As somebody who has only ever researched ancient Christianity, I feel like this would be the right channel to talk about the diasporas of Christianity, including the gospels and letters I’ve never heard of, in a chronological order
I was surprised by the lack of mention of the Council of Rome in 382. It ratified the same canon, both Old and New Testaments, as the Council of Trent a thousand years later. Not only was it not mentioned, but Dr Ehrman stated the canon was not finalized till Trent, which is clearly not the case.
The problem with that is that this synod was a local affair by the bishop of Rome and not universal. It was not the end point of canon building, it was one step in a long process, and other books remained canonical or disputed in other parts of Christendom.
@@varana However, the North African Synods were all sent to the Bishop of Rome for Approval. So the North African Churches from what is modern Libya and Tunisia were in agreement with Rome. In addition, Pope Innocent in 405 AD wrote a Letter to the Catholic Bishops in Gaul (Modern France) confirming the same 73 book Canon that the Catholic Church has today. So we have by the early 5th century, a uniform Canon in the Latin Church from North Africa all the way to Gaul (France) all in agreement with the Church of Rome.
Interesting how the exclusivenesss parallels how certain political movement seems to grow due to exclusion, because to follow one that excludes removes competition.
Please consider a video about Bible translations. I have had the NIV for a long time. But, I am wondering now if there is a more accurate translation. I've heard some about NET translation and would love to have your opinion.
Unfortunately, both speakers here missed the most obvious causes of canonization: Canons are Imperial collections! Pharoah Ptolemy ordered the translation of the Torah into greek and it was soon followed other Jewish scriptures which became the Septuagent. Constantine ordered multiple copies of the Bible for the Empire. Up until 1959 the head of the Ethiopian Church was the Coptic Pope/Patriarch of Alexandria. He does not recognize Enoch and Jubilees as scriptures but Emporer Haile Selassi ordered them to be included in Ethiopian Bibles. The Chinese Buddhist canon was collected by order of their Emperor. The Dalai Lamas ordered the collection of the Tibetan canon. The Islamic Caliphs ordered the collection of the Quran and then the hadiths.
Yup, the nature of these religions is inherently imperialistic. These theocracies used the power of both the state to spread their faith. Their whole doctrine revolves around the conformity of the masses, and the hedging out of other believes. It's almost comical in a way how people want to give these faiths a pass for their 'moral merits' when the history of their diffusion among our species has been anything but that.
@@Magus_Union christianity is exist before constantine, before constantine they were prosecuted so doubt there is any central figure who decide which book is canon. And even after constantine he didnt become christian himself and roman didnt turn into christianity yet it only didnt prosecuted them and treat christianity just like any other religion under roman empire
Ptolemy II didn't mandate a specific canon (it was most likely only the Torah that was translated by the 72), and in fact Jews held to a loose canon up until the time of Christ. Scholars like Boyarin suggest that the canon was set after the destruction of the Temple at the council of Yavneh. Constantine didn't have anything to do with canonizing any specific texts; the fact that he had bibles made is completely immaterial to your point. Uthman didn't "collect" the Qur'an, he ordered the standardization of qira'at. MSS like the San'a' palimpsest prove that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an was virtually identical in terms of its content, although the order of surahs is different, and there are of course minor variations.
Islam has always been subject to both internal and external Orientalist criticism. You can see this by the questionable mention of Uthman(Ra) in the introduction.
Well, we need to be clear what we're talking about: *among scholars* and in academia, these criticisms have been going on forever. It is true that general criticism is politically charged, but we'd also be being dishonest is we didn't recognize that along with the militant Muslims who lash out at this stuff, there are also some pretty militant anti-Muslim groups out there as well.
@@saberswordsmen1they haven’t though really have they, not in the mainstream. Scholars who have tried to crticise Islam and the Qur’an etc have faced death threats, attacks, and had to go into hinding! Also, we’re not talking about anti-Muslim groups, what’s that got to do with anything? This isn’t a sympathy discussion. It’s to do with allowing free and open criticism of all religions, including Islam.
@@mannya3248 I bring it up because it's part of what has made nuanced discussion difficult. Because we've had some pretty strong anti Muslim bigotry since 9/11, some people will dismiss even good faith criticism of Islam as being from a position of bigotry. When most of the discussion you hear takes place in that context, it's understandable to be suspicious of one that brings them up. It isn't about a pity party, it's about how both groups have acted to undermine the possibility of nuanced discussion by adding the baggage of their own politics. I honestly don't know what you mean by "in the mainstream". Academics and scholars aren't rock stars, they're rarely paid any attention by the mainstream. Bart and Reza Aslan are the only two I can think of with any note in the last 10-20 years. Who do you feel was sleeping on that job? I guess Reza certainly has room to criticize, but he's hardly representative of anything wider.
hey! ive been watching your videos and i would really like to know more about the inca religion, because not many are known about them and i think you are the perfect guy to discuss this about, so can you make a video about the inca? no pressure just curiosity
Canonization was likely simply a function of which books ended where the environment favored producing copies and distributing them. Christianity spreading from the heart of the Roman empire is directly tied to this. What books ended up in the cannon likely has little to do with the content, and much more to do with whatever had already been copied the most, which was a result of the environment where those books found themselves.
We don't have "anything" written by Paul's "enemies"? Well, late though they undoubtedly are, what about the [Pseudo-] Clementine "Homilies" and "Recognitions," and maybe the remote possibility that they may preserve older materials and/or echoes of an older tradition? And what about the canonical "Epistle of James" and "Epistle of Jude"?
Simple, the Catholic Church produced the canon just naturally by tradition, since the second century it was pretty much built already, some councils and synods talked about them, but the tradition was enough and so strong, that the Church never bothered to make an official canon until XVI century, when protestantism came to disrupt tradition. Same books were always used and accepted since second century.
One thing I'm curious about is whether the people writing apocrypha were knowingly lying or whether writing in someone else's voice was seen differently back then.
It was seen differently. Also, the gospel authors had no concept of writing a "contradiction free" text. Or take Paul's letters - he doesn't think along the lines of modern logic (which in itself presupposes quite a few things you need to hold true before being able to apply classical logic). I've rarely seen anything in theology (I studied theology myself) that addressed these problems of "mindset" except for the German catholic theologian Georg Koepgen in "Die Gnosis des Christentums" ("The Gnosis of Christianity") which ended up on the catholic index of forbidden books but was later rehabilitated. Maybe the most important theological book I ever read, despite the fact that I'm not catholic. Unfortunately there probably is no English translation.
Exclusivity isn't really that scary I would think. Truth is exclusive. Any scientist to say that flat earthers "just have their own truth, no big deal," is gonna be pretty rare. Right is right. Christians believed themselves to be right.
I mean it shouldnt really be that outlandish of a concept? You are likely already part of an incredibly exclusionary griup (a nation state). Most religions are extremely inclusive in comparison to most citizenships.
In those days, the whole family would adhere to one sect, so an expansionist leader merely needed to forbid his followers to marry the children of his opponents. That succeeded in making most small sects go extinct. With the death of the nuclear family, that ploy fails.
@@capnbarky2682that's not a suitable analogy. Citizenship is a matter of law, religion is a metter of belief. Your citizenship does not exclude other people, is just about you. But when you impose your beliefs onto other people you expand those beliefs, you can not expand your own citizenship to other people.
Can you please specifically do Judaism debunking? Specifically regarding claims of the exodus, Moses, Mount Sinai and that the holy land was promised to them by God, and they therefore have a right to it. It would be interesting to see! Thank you!
Finally, a real discussion based on history and scholarship, and not based on Christian sects and denominations arguing that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and cannot be questioned, and which must be followed literally.
most "Christians" don't properly practice their religion, let alone understand their religions history, geography, and culture; most "Christians" simply identify with their religion, and identification won't get you far.
Why do you say “finally” as if this is some new phenomenon? You must be looking in the wrong place if you haven’t seen scholarly discussions of this before
Read David Friedrich Strauß "The Life of Jesus" or Albert Schweitzer "The quest of the historical Jesus" and you'll find about 90 % of the theories Ehrman espouses.
Hippocrates too. Many works attributed to him are now regarded as "School of ..." and some are not from his school at all. Galen wrote so much that he did not need fanfiction writers.
Marcion was never in the picture , when all along we owe him the idea of a separate canon for christians and thus making way for the first new testament canon
Listening to Christian preachers on social media, you'd think that the Scriptures created the Church rather than vice versa with the Church(es) creating the Scriptures. 📜📖⛪️
It's a simple fact as there was no church yet when the old testament was written. And the gospels and letters were written by people who thought the world will end within their lifetime. They had no concept of a church that would endure 2000 years.
I believe other keys Christian used to have is that they were accepting of a wide variety of people, postulated every men were equal and had an emphasis on the poor. Without this the exclusion of other religions would likely not succeed. The other thing, and we mostly due to Paul, is the rejection of any expensive or difficult to follow practice (like sacrifices, peregrination or flagellation ) but you can do many of them, if you feel like it (sacrificing not for example ) and still be a Christian.
If I understand - even saying that pre-christian deities were "worshiped" in the same sense that we'd use for the Judeo-Christian god undersells just how fundamentally different pre-Christian religious practice was. I don't think one "worshipped Apollo" as much as one might bargain with Poseidon to protect them while sailing, or beseech Artemis to protect a newborn child. And if you went to a faraway place where other gods were felt to have more influence, well then _those_ gods would be the ones you'd bargain with. A certain amounts of syncretism would also blur the lines between which gods were considered distinct, and all these perceived domains and regional influences would morph over time as well. Applying a Judeo-Christian concept of worship towards Apollo tends towards as sort of D&D-ified version of "pagan" worship. -- This channel has of course covered aspects of this before! Of course, this a reasonable thing to gloss over a bit when it's not the focus of the video : ) Much thanks to Dr. Ehrman and @ReligionForBreakfast for sharing this interview with us!
Except the ancients, the various societies of the ancient Mediterranean, DID worship their deities the same as we do know, I mean, what do you _think_ a rank-and-file Christian is doing exactly that they're praying to the Big Man Upstairs such that they're, well, _making a request of their deity,_ beseeching them and/or their associative powers in supplication such that they (the Christian in this case) achieve a specific result/are given something? We (I'm speaking of the Abrahamics here) compose and sing songs of praise to the god, we've houses of worship at sites such as are reputed to be places that were, for lack of a better word, "touched" by the god/by associates and/or descendants of the god here on earth, St. Peter's Basilica as lies over the site of the saint's tomb; the Church of the Holy Sepulcher; the various sites shrines(?) in Shi'a Islam dedicated to companions and/or blood relations of the Prophet Mohammed such that they lie over the sites of their birth/tomb, etc. The ancients prayed to their gods, made libations and other such offerings to them that they believed them to be very real forces acting upon the word, just as we Abrahamics do, so _yes,_ they "worshipped" them. To argue otherwise I would say is just this needlessly trite playing at semantics, unnecessary hand-rigging, a way to mark Christians and/or if not the other Abrahamics as *special,* that they're not _like_ the other theistic religions, as is encapsulated in the age-old “It's not a ReLiGiOn, it's a RElaTiOnShip WiTh GaWwwwwd.”, like, you and _every other theistic religion,_ that you seek to further cultivate a relationship with your god through the enactment of rituals and/or sacrificial offerings, you're not special. T_T
Roman Catholics do just that when they pray to a saint related to their concern of the moment. Many visit a particular shrine more often than they would go to mass to pray to Big Daddy or the Virgin Mary. That may not be what priests and theologians do, however.
Erhman has very strong ex Protestant fundie viewpoint, doesn't seem to have much understanding of eastern or Oriental Orthodox phronema or intellectual history, like apoktostasis in Gregory of Nyssa or Isaac the Syrian
Yeah, he might have lost the faith but he never deconstructed. He still thinks fundamentalist evangelical Christianity is 'true Christianity', and he barely mentions Catholic or Orthodox viewpointswhen discussing early Church history.
@@KrytoRift the interpretations of the people listed who were closer to the source in time and culture kind of make his interpretations look one dimensional by comparison.
@@HH-pv9ex I agree, Nicea dealt with Arianism in 325 AD when Emperor Constantine was around. Constantinople added the additional Creedal statements regarding the Holy Spirit, but the Council of Constantinople was not given ecumenical status till Chalcedon in 451 AD.
@@HH-pv9ex Yes, the Ethiopian Orthodox have and 81 book Canon, the largest Canon of any Apostolic Church. The other Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Syro-Malabar) do not hold to the same canon as the Ethiopian and Eritrean, yet they are in full Communion with each other.
After Rome destroyed the Temple with prayer, good deeds and Torah study. It was Christians who continued the sacrificial system with Jesus being sacrificed on the Cross.
So the Council of Laodicea in AD 363 which canonized all the books of the current New Testament except for the Apocalypse was meaningless. Numerous councils refined the various councils, but the East settled things much sooner than the West.
The way Dr. Ehrman describes the compilation of the New Testament sounds very much like the way in which Chinese restaurants put together menus in America: a loose confederation of owners sharing with one another items that work or didn't work.
Napoleon Bonarparte was the Emperor of France. He desired Islamic rule in the West: “I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries, and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Quran, which alone are true, and which alone can lead men to happiness.” (Bonaparte et l’Islam, d’Après les Documents Français et Arabes, Christian Cherfils, Ed., Paris, France, 1914, pp. 105-125. Original References: Correspondance de Napoléon Ier. Tome 5) ......
The reason that the bible needs to be canonised is (as mentioned) - Authority. Every mainstream religion has a core as their authority The catholics have the pope, Muslims have the Koran, Christians have the bible, cults have their prophet etc I've challenged the divinity of the bible but no Christian will consider it. The bible is the Divine Authority from God. Without that belief there's no Authority to unite behind 😢
These things are not learned in sunday crhistian school, youre let to believe that the church always existed like how it is now, and I bet most christians do not learn how heterogenic, different it was, and the process that took to form the religion. It definitely makes it look a lot more man made.
Fyi in terms of oldest manuscripts, Qur'an there's no vatiant, the later tradition are the sources saying there's variant and some creating this Qur'an based on tradition. Dr shoemaker are not authrotitataive and expert on the manuscript, shoemaker belong to other school, one should consult linguist and those whom analyze the manuscripts, such as professor Marijn van Puten, Angelika neuwirth and many others 😊
I had no idea about the standardization of the Quran. It always seemed like one of those texts that people believe simply came down from heaven fully formed.
@@kylewilliams8114 Christians historically have never believed that the Bible literally came down from heaven as a single book like Muslims believe about the Qur'an.
I'm afraid the brief mention of The Quran here missed information from the "unaltered Quran" school of thought and repeated unproven Orientalist claims.
After I have read the Quran, I realized that all what humanity needs is this heavenly law. “The legislation of Quran will spread all over the world, because it agrees with the mind, logic and wisdom.” - Leo Tolstoy .
![The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k2Z37xdpGpI/mqdefault.jpg)
Register for Dr. Ehrman's course here! "The BIble and the Quran:" religionforbreakfast--ehrman.thrivecart.com/bibleandquran/
is it a sponsor?
You should def do something with all the Christian and especially Islamic references in Dune 2
Dr. Ehrman always strikes me as much more of an "ex-evangelical" than as an atheist/agnostic or anything else. He knows a lot more about the Bible than most people - myself included, and it seems that he thinks this knowledge more or less directly translates into expertise on Christianity, about which he seems to not know that much, and could even be said to be misguided.
Kudos to RfB for nudging him on this vis a vis the role of syncretism in the Church!
It would be truly sad if we lived in a world, as he described, where those who insisted on an orthodoxy with the most inflexible, least dynamic boundaries were destined to always emerge victorious - not only for Christians, but for all people. What he is describing is a world pre-destined for authoritarian totalitarianism.
What about the 50 Constantine Bibles? Lost to time, but wouldn't the pressure of that canon count as an early canon?
The Amazing Qur'an by. Dr. Gary Miller 👍
Finally, the Bible/Religion Studies Extended Universe Collab we’ve been waiting for has landed!! 😄
Derek from Mythvision is the Nick Fury of this Universe.
@@arnulfo267lmao that is pretty accurate
@@arnulfo267 Perfect analogy
They've made videos together before, on Andrew's second channel
So who is the Thanos of this universe?
My two favorite scholars together 🤯
Oh you love scholar that confirm your doubts😉
@@marioicon Oh you love making pointless remarks with emojis 😉
Ehrman is a liar. All his contentions aren’t really detrimental to the Christian faith. Watch Jimmy Akins debate with Ehrman if you want to see him get destroyed
@@HangrySaturn🦃
@@marioicon I have never had doubts about Christianity, Islam, and all other religions, but it is very interesting to listen to extremely knowledgeable scholars on those subjects. Especially if they were once members of those religions.
Right on! This is an interview that I’ve been hoping for for a while.
コーランと聖書を比較するのは興味をそそられます。宗教は論じるのが難しい面もありますが、学問的なアプローチは見てて楽しいです。動画を上げてくれて有難うございます
The Amazing Qur'an by Dr. Gary Miller 👍
This was perfect. I have tried to articulate this to many of my fellow friends of the faith and yet, this video summed it all up in a wonderful stream of answers. Thanks for making this video!
Thanks and good job to both of you. I have followed you and Dr. Bart for awhile.I enjoyed this exchanged between you both very much and it was very interesting.
I've been binging Dr. Ehrman's videos for the past few weeks. Glad to see him here again :)
Careful with that. He's very biased in his approach. I'd suggest studying the books he has his theories from. Stuff like Albert Schweitzer, "The quest of the historical Jesus" or David Friedrich Strauß "The Life of Jesus" or Rudolf Bultmann. So you first have a solid foundation on which to build. Remember that Ehrman is an ex-evangelical who still thinks along those lines.
@@MrSeedi76 "Remember that Ehrman is an ex-evangelical who still thinks along those lines." Do you have examples of it affecting his thinking? I've heard things that contradict that idea.
Thanks for those other references, though.
such a cool interview! first heard about Dr. Ehrman from the Ear Biscuits episodes on deconstruction and have been fascinated by his work ever since
My experience was the opposite. As a Ph.D student of Religion, I was already familiar with Dr. Ehrman's work, and was excited when they mentioned him on EarBiscuits
Two of my favorite religion/scripture scholars! Thank you!!
I'm wondering how many total works would there be if we compiled every possible New Testament writing (those considered canon, those for teaching, and the "spurious" ones too).
I'm also wondering how many works we've lost over the centuries that could be considered for the canon.
The closest making the cut were mentioned in the video. 1-2 Clement, Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. The level below that would have been the Acts of Paul, Revelation of Peter (some local churches preferred this over the Revelation of John) and the Didache. The almost entirely lost Gospel of the Hebrews/Ebionites was also held as authoritative by some communities but we're not sure if it was one document with several names or several competing Jewish-Christian gospels. The Protoevangelium of James was incredibly popular but I'm not sure anyone took it to be scripture. As for the *very* spurious, they're too numerous to list. Just look at the table of contents for J. K. Elliott's Apocryphal New Testament to get a feel for how many parascriptural documents were in circulation in the early church, and none of this even touches on the litany of Gnostic Christian writings
@@chris_wick Now I'm imagining a Canon formed out of the most spurious texts, rather than ones we know. And what Christianity might have looked like.
@Koopyspappynobody's worshipping written word. We worship Jesus who's the word of God but we only know about Him through scripture.
@@jeffmacdonald9863there might be a compilation of all these texts. There is one in German called "Das Neue Testament und frühchristliche Schriften" by Klaus Berger which compiles all of the texts that we have discovered including all of the canonical texts, too, in one book. Not sure there is something similar in English though.
It is worth remembering that Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" is primarily based on the controversial 1982 "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln.
Terrific video! Two of my favorite religious scholars, together on one episode!
I hope the course gets put on youtube one day!
Awesome awesome conversation
Two of my favorite podcasters.
Dr. Brakke was on my undergrad thesis defense committee. Terrific scholar!
/Undergrad/ thesis defense? A thesis to get a B.A.?
Wow, I could have listened to an hour-long interview easy, this is fantastic :D the first time I've become so engrossed in an interview that I lost track of time for ages!
For more information on how the Biblical canon formed, read Dan Brown's The Davinci Code.
I'm being sarcastic.
As somebody who has only ever researched ancient Christianity, I feel like this would be the right channel to talk about the diasporas of Christianity, including the gospels and letters I’ve never heard of, in a chronological order
Wonderful interview. I so enjoy both of your channels! ❤❤
Please do more like this! Would love to hear his thoughts on the influence of the Book of Enoch in the Old Testament 🔥
There is no book of Enoch in the old testament. Do you mean the influence of the Enochic literature on the newer testament?
He’s done videos of Enoch in the past, def worth the watch :)
Check out Esoterica!
I was surprised by the lack of mention of the Council of Rome in 382. It ratified the same canon, both Old and New Testaments, as the Council of Trent a thousand years later. Not only was it not mentioned, but Dr Ehrman stated the canon was not finalized till Trent, which is clearly not the case.
Also at Hippo 393, Carthage 397, 419 and Florence 15th century.
The problem with that is that this synod was a local affair by the bishop of Rome and not universal. It was not the end point of canon building, it was one step in a long process, and other books remained canonical or disputed in other parts of Christendom.
@@varana However, the North African Synods were all sent to the Bishop of Rome for Approval. So the North African Churches from what is modern Libya and Tunisia were in agreement with Rome. In addition, Pope Innocent in 405 AD wrote a Letter to the Catholic Bishops in Gaul (Modern France) confirming the same 73 book Canon that the Catholic Church has today. So we have by the early 5th century, a uniform Canon in the Latin Church from North Africa all the way to Gaul (France) all in agreement with the Church of Rome.
@varana I would suggest that setting a canon for the Latin Vulgate was, nevertheless, tremendously important.
@@jennygriesbaum068 the library
Love this format! Interviews are great
Its crazy to me how tight knit this community is, within the first days of a new ehrman post the true fans poke up.
Fascinating, thank you.
Interesting how the exclusivenesss parallels how certain political movement seems to grow due to exclusion, because to follow one that excludes removes competition.
Please consider a video about Bible translations. I have had the NIV for a long time. But, I am wondering now if there is a more accurate translation. I've heard some about NET translation and would love to have your opinion.
Unfortunately, both speakers here missed the most obvious causes of canonization: Canons are Imperial collections! Pharoah Ptolemy ordered the translation of the Torah into greek and it was soon followed other Jewish scriptures which became the Septuagent. Constantine ordered multiple copies of the Bible for the Empire. Up until 1959 the head of the Ethiopian Church was the Coptic Pope/Patriarch of Alexandria. He does not recognize Enoch and Jubilees as scriptures but Emporer Haile Selassi ordered them to be included in Ethiopian Bibles. The Chinese Buddhist canon was collected by order of their Emperor. The Dalai Lamas ordered the collection of the Tibetan canon. The Islamic Caliphs ordered the collection of the Quran and then the hadiths.
Yup, the nature of these religions is inherently imperialistic. These theocracies used the power of both the state to spread their faith. Their whole doctrine revolves around the conformity of the masses, and the hedging out of other believes. It's almost comical in a way how people want to give these faiths a pass for their 'moral merits' when the history of their diffusion among our species has been anything but that.
@@Magus_Union christianity is exist before constantine, before constantine they were prosecuted so doubt there is any central figure who decide which book is canon. And even after constantine he didnt become christian himself and roman didnt turn into christianity yet it only didnt prosecuted them and treat christianity just like any other religion under roman empire
Ptolemy II didn't mandate a specific canon (it was most likely only the Torah that was translated by the 72), and in fact Jews held to a loose canon up until the time of Christ. Scholars like Boyarin suggest that the canon was set after the destruction of the Temple at the council of Yavneh. Constantine didn't have anything to do with canonizing any specific texts; the fact that he had bibles made is completely immaterial to your point. Uthman didn't "collect" the Qur'an, he ordered the standardization of qira'at. MSS like the San'a' palimpsest prove that the pre-Uthmanic Qur'an was virtually identical in terms of its content, although the order of surahs is different, and there are of course minor variations.
The Podcast by ",Let's Talk Religion" is equally of high value
Glad people are extending the criticism to the Qur’an and Islam now as well. All religions should be subject to criticism and investigation
Islam has always been subject to both internal and external Orientalist criticism.
You can see this by the questionable mention of Uthman(Ra) in the introduction.
@@bristolrovers27 no it hasn’t 😂, people have been threatened with death for trying to criticise it! Don’t be dishonest
Well, we need to be clear what we're talking about: *among scholars* and in academia, these criticisms have been going on forever.
It is true that general criticism is politically charged, but we'd also be being dishonest is we didn't recognize that along with the militant Muslims who lash out at this stuff, there are also some pretty militant anti-Muslim groups out there as well.
@@saberswordsmen1they haven’t though really have they, not in the mainstream. Scholars who have tried to crticise Islam and the Qur’an etc have faced death threats, attacks, and had to go into hinding! Also, we’re not talking about anti-Muslim groups, what’s that got to do with anything? This isn’t a sympathy discussion. It’s to do with allowing free and open criticism of all religions, including Islam.
@@mannya3248 I bring it up because it's part of what has made nuanced discussion difficult. Because we've had some pretty strong anti Muslim bigotry since 9/11, some people will dismiss even good faith criticism of Islam as being from a position of bigotry. When most of the discussion you hear takes place in that context, it's understandable to be suspicious of one that brings them up.
It isn't about a pity party, it's about how both groups have acted to undermine the possibility of nuanced discussion by adding the baggage of their own politics.
I honestly don't know what you mean by "in the mainstream". Academics and scholars aren't rock stars, they're rarely paid any attention by the mainstream. Bart and Reza Aslan are the only two I can think of with any note in the last 10-20 years. Who do you feel was sleeping on that job? I guess Reza certainly has room to criticize, but he's hardly representative of anything wider.
hey! ive been watching your videos and i would really like to know more about the inca religion, because not many are known about them and i think you are the perfect guy to discuss this about, so can you make a video about the inca? no pressure just curiosity
Canonization was likely simply a function of which books ended where the environment favored producing copies and distributing them. Christianity spreading from the heart of the Roman empire is directly tied to this. What books ended up in the cannon likely has little to do with the content, and much more to do with whatever had already been copied the most, which was a result of the environment where those books found themselves.
Thanks Andrew, thanks Bart. As always, enlightening.
love anything Bart!!
Very interesting conversation. That I'm watching while wearing an Abrasax shirt.
We don't have "anything" written by Paul's "enemies"? Well, late though they undoubtedly are, what about the [Pseudo-] Clementine "Homilies" and "Recognitions," and maybe the remote possibility that they may preserve older materials and/or echoes of an older tradition? And what about the canonical "Epistle of James" and "Epistle of Jude"?
Absolutely fascinating, as always 👏 👍 👌
Fantastic crossover y'all!
Simple, the Catholic Church produced the canon just naturally by tradition, since the second century it was pretty much built already, some councils and synods talked about them, but the tradition was enough and so strong, that the Church never bothered to make an official canon until XVI century, when protestantism came to disrupt tradition. Same books were always used and accepted since second century.
I wasn't sure if I would like this. But, I gave it a shot because you have such a good track record of interesting content. I found it fascinating!
I’m subscribed but I haven’t been shown one of your videos in AGES
Same here. Very strange.
Fascinating
One thing I'm curious about is whether the people writing apocrypha were knowingly lying or whether writing in someone else's voice was seen differently back then.
It was seen differently. Also, the gospel authors had no concept of writing a "contradiction free" text. Or take Paul's letters - he doesn't think along the lines of modern logic (which in itself presupposes quite a few things you need to hold true before being able to apply classical logic). I've rarely seen anything in theology (I studied theology myself) that addressed these problems of "mindset" except for the German catholic theologian Georg Koepgen in "Die Gnosis des Christentums" ("The Gnosis of Christianity") which ended up on the catholic index of forbidden books but was later rehabilitated. Maybe the most important theological book I ever read, despite the fact that I'm not catholic. Unfortunately there probably is no English translation.
Today's historical fiction puts words into past people's mouths all the time. I am not sure how I feel about that either.
The idea of the exclusivist groups growing while the more inclusive groups are shrinking is terrifying to me.
Exclusivity isn't really that scary I would think. Truth is exclusive. Any scientist to say that flat earthers "just have their own truth, no big deal," is gonna be pretty rare. Right is right. Christians believed themselves to be right.
I mean it shouldnt really be that outlandish of a concept? You are likely already part of an incredibly exclusionary griup (a nation state). Most religions are extremely inclusive in comparison to most citizenships.
In those days, the whole family would adhere to one sect, so an expansionist leader merely needed to forbid his followers to marry the children of his opponents. That succeeded in making most small sects go extinct. With the death of the nuclear family, that ploy fails.
@@capnbarky2682that's not a suitable analogy. Citizenship is a matter of law, religion is a metter of belief.
Your citizenship does not exclude other people, is just about you. But when you impose your beliefs onto other people you expand those beliefs, you can not expand your own citizenship to other people.
@@luis_sa78 i wasn't making an analogy
Can you please specifically do Judaism debunking? Specifically regarding claims of the exodus, Moses, Mount Sinai and that the holy land was promised to them by God, and they therefore have a right to it. It would be interesting to see! Thank you!
Hahahaha. Yeah that'd go down well.
Didn't recognise your name til you mentioned your book on St Didymus the Blind, which I have a copy of.
Fascinating. I learned a lot.
Finally, a real discussion based on history and scholarship, and not based on Christian sects and denominations arguing that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and cannot be questioned, and which must be followed literally.
It's refreshing indeed but that's been apart of Christian History from the beginning.
most "Christians" don't properly practice their religion, let alone understand their religions history, geography, and culture; most "Christians" simply identify with their religion, and identification won't get you far.
Why do you say “finally” as if this is some new phenomenon? You must be looking in the wrong place if you haven’t seen scholarly discussions of this before
These conversations have been around for some time. Great that the algorithm and this channel in specific, has brought them to your attention! 🎉
Read David Friedrich Strauß "The Life of Jesus" or Albert Schweitzer "The quest of the historical Jesus" and you'll find about 90 % of the theories Ehrman espouses.
I would argue that Platonism had a cannon too in some ways as did the other philosophical schools
Hippocrates too. Many works attributed to him are now regarded as "School of ..." and some are not from his school at all. Galen wrote so much that he did not need fanfiction writers.
When considering the idea of ""Authority"" one must look at the question of addressing real human issues. As one does this one gains ""authority"".
Awesome!
Thanks for this video.
Marcion was never in the picture , when all along we owe him the idea of a separate canon for christians and thus making way for the first new testament canon
I signed up for this. I am SO CURIOUS about up-to-date Qur'anic studies.
Id really love a video on the tradition of removing shoes in places of worship
Why people CHOSE to leave all those gods and pagan believe for just one God of Christianity?
Christianity offers better things.
Well, a lot of them were forced under threat by state or military power, a tradition which continued into modern history with Western colonialism.
Lovely chat!
Excellent!! 100%
Listening to Christian preachers on social media, you'd think that the Scriptures created the Church rather than vice versa with the Church(es) creating the Scriptures. 📜📖⛪️
This is because they are taking the concept of Sola Scriptura to its most extreme.
It's a simple fact as there was no church yet when the old testament was written. And the gospels and letters were written by people who thought the world will end within their lifetime. They had no concept of a church that would endure 2000 years.
And again, the church didn't "create" the bible, just collected the most copied letters, that were surculating.
Yaayyy this is gonna be good!!!
Bart says "canon text of Didymus the Blind" but he just referenced passages from those, he didn't specify that they were canon.
I want an animated series based on the new testament apocryphal texts.
I believe other keys Christian used to have is that they were accepting of a wide variety of people, postulated every men were equal and had an emphasis on the poor. Without this the exclusion of other religions would likely not succeed. The other thing, and we mostly due to Paul, is the rejection of any expensive or difficult to follow practice (like sacrifices, peregrination or flagellation ) but you can do many of them, if you feel like it (sacrificing not for example ) and still be a Christian.
Dang I'm early. Watching now
Wish you had Dr. Javad T Hashmi on the panel as well, with a discussion on Islam
FINALLY!!!
That was truly fascinating, thanks for sharing.
Very good
If I understand - even saying that pre-christian deities were "worshiped" in the same sense that we'd use for the Judeo-Christian god undersells just how fundamentally different pre-Christian religious practice was. I don't think one "worshipped Apollo" as much as one might bargain with Poseidon to protect them while sailing, or beseech Artemis to protect a newborn child. And if you went to a faraway place where other gods were felt to have more influence, well then _those_ gods would be the ones you'd bargain with. A certain amounts of syncretism would also blur the lines between which gods were considered distinct, and all these perceived domains and regional influences would morph over time as well. Applying a Judeo-Christian concept of worship towards Apollo tends towards as sort of D&D-ified version of "pagan" worship. -- This channel has of course covered aspects of this before!
Of course, this a reasonable thing to gloss over a bit when it's not the focus of the video : ) Much thanks to Dr. Ehrman and @ReligionForBreakfast for sharing this interview with us!
The goal of placation is also a characteristic of the Abrahamic religions. A covenant is literally a bargain/agreement.
Except the ancients, the various societies of the ancient Mediterranean, DID worship their deities the same as we do know, I mean, what do you _think_ a rank-and-file Christian is doing exactly that they're praying to the Big Man Upstairs such that they're, well, _making a request of their deity,_ beseeching them and/or their associative powers in supplication such that they (the Christian in this case) achieve a specific result/are given something? We (I'm speaking of the Abrahamics here) compose and sing songs of praise to the god, we've houses of worship at sites such as are reputed to be places that were, for lack of a better word, "touched" by the god/by associates and/or descendants of the god here on earth, St. Peter's Basilica as lies over the site of the saint's tomb; the Church of the Holy Sepulcher; the various sites shrines(?) in Shi'a Islam dedicated to companions and/or blood relations of the Prophet Mohammed such that they lie over the sites of their birth/tomb, etc. The ancients prayed to their gods, made libations and other such offerings to them that they believed them to be very real forces acting upon the word, just as we Abrahamics do, so _yes,_ they "worshipped" them.
To argue otherwise I would say is just this needlessly trite playing at semantics, unnecessary hand-rigging, a way to mark Christians and/or if not the other Abrahamics as *special,* that they're not _like_ the other theistic religions, as is encapsulated in the age-old “It's not a ReLiGiOn, it's a RElaTiOnShip WiTh GaWwwwwd.”, like, you and _every other theistic religion,_ that you seek to further cultivate a relationship with your god through the enactment of rituals and/or sacrificial offerings, you're not special. T_T
It seems a bit strange to say this when ancient civilizations devoted demonstrably large amounts of public resources to worshipping their pantheons.
Roman Catholics do just that when they pray to a saint related to their concern of the moment. Many visit a particular shrine more often than they would go to mass to pray to Big Daddy or the Virgin Mary. That may not be what priests and theologians do, however.
@@faithlesshound5621Catholics wouldn't have their saint venerations without Africa; nor would they have their prayers without India.
😃 Thank you, Dr. Bart and Dr. Andrew! 😃👏👏👏👏👏
Erhman has very strong ex Protestant fundie viewpoint, doesn't seem to have much understanding of eastern or Oriental Orthodox phronema or intellectual history, like apoktostasis in Gregory of Nyssa or Isaac the Syrian
Yeah, he might have lost the faith but he never deconstructed. He still thinks fundamentalist evangelical Christianity is 'true Christianity', and he barely mentions Catholic or Orthodox viewpointswhen discussing early Church history.
He also has not much of a concept of mainstream Lutheran Protestantism.
I mean he's usually talking about early christian thought. Orthodox wasn't really a thing then yet
@@KrytoRift the interpretations of the people listed who were closer to the source in time and culture kind of make his interpretations look one dimensional by comparison.
@@Roman-Pregolin not sure I follow your reasoning. How else do you do it? Basing it off of 2000 yrs of reinterpretation?
LIke and comment for Bart and YT algorithm :)
I was always taught that it was at the time of Constantine that the biblical Cannon was decided on
Not correct. The Council of Nicea in 325 dealt with Arianism (Christological issue) and issued the Nicene Creed as the Dogmatic rule of Faith.
@@HH-pv9ex I agree, Nicea dealt with Arianism in 325 AD when Emperor Constantine was around. Constantinople added the additional Creedal statements regarding the Holy Spirit, but the Council of Constantinople was not given ecumenical status till Chalcedon in 451 AD.
@@HH-pv9ex Yes, the Ethiopian Orthodox have and 81 book Canon, the largest Canon of any Apostolic Church. The other Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Syro-Malabar) do not hold to the same canon as the Ethiopian and Eritrean, yet they are in full Communion with each other.
Great interview - God doesnt punish people; people punish themselves - Sin and Hell is a personal choice.
The gates of Hell are locked from the inside
Awesome, fascinating interview.
Modern day Christians taught me long ago that no one misunderstands ancient Jewish myths more than modern day Christians.
Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. when the Catholic Church first wrote the official canon for the Pope at his request.
After Rome destroyed the Temple with prayer, good deeds and Torah study. It was Christians who continued the sacrificial system with Jesus being sacrificed on the Cross.
I'd like to see erhman vs David Bentley Hart
They wouldn’t disagree in this area.
So the Council of Laodicea in AD 363 which canonized all the books of the current New Testament except for the Apocalypse was meaningless. Numerous councils refined the various councils, but the East settled things much sooner than the West.
The shirt you're wearing in this video is great
Woot!
18:00
Synod of Rome 382 AD
Synod of Hippo 393 AD
Synod of Carthage 397 AD
Weird… all confirmed a canon Old and New Testament.
The way Dr. Ehrman describes the compilation of the New Testament sounds very much like the way in which Chinese restaurants put together menus in America: a loose confederation of owners sharing with one another items that work or didn't work.
Myth literalism is one of the more frustrating legacies of monotheism.
It’s still an anchor around the neck of the study of the time period.
Napoleon Bonarparte was the Emperor of France. He desired Islamic rule in the West:
“I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries, and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of the Quran, which alone are true, and which alone can lead men to happiness.”
(Bonaparte et l’Islam, d’Après les Documents Français et Arabes, Christian Cherfils, Ed., Paris, France, 1914, pp. 105-125. Original References: Correspondance de Napoléon Ier. Tome 5)
......
The reason that the bible needs to be canonised is (as mentioned) - Authority.
Every mainstream religion has a core as their authority The catholics have the pope, Muslims have the Koran, Christians have the bible, cults have their prophet etc
I've challenged the divinity of the bible but no Christian will consider it. The bible is the Divine Authority from God. Without that belief there's no Authority to unite behind 😢
Catholics are Christians, you silly
Humanity deceives itself into thinking humans write books which contains the words of gods. Never trust a god who can't write his own book.
@@ANDROLOMA how can you tell if God wrote a book or not?
@@Kangaroo-Bob Easy. If there are mistakes, it's man-made. What good is a mistaken god?
@@ANDROLOMA the biggest error that I find with Christians is that they believe the bible is God
These things are not learned in sunday crhistian school, youre let to believe that the church always existed like how it is now, and I bet most christians do not learn how heterogenic, different it was, and the process that took to form the religion.
It definitely makes it look a lot more man made.
Funny how even today, what is cannon is a big deal.
Sure, canon is a big deal!
Why don’t we have The Gospel of Thomas in our Bibles? Right:)
It should be😂
Fyi in terms of oldest manuscripts, Qur'an there's no vatiant, the later tradition are the sources saying there's variant and some creating this Qur'an based on tradition. Dr shoemaker are not authrotitataive and expert on the manuscript, shoemaker belong to other school, one should consult linguist and those whom analyze the manuscripts, such as professor Marijn van Puten, Angelika neuwirth and many others 😊
I have read ehrmann‘s book and found it very interesting
All gods, all religions, all "holy" texts are the creations of man.
I had no idea about the standardization of the Quran. It always seemed like one of those texts that people believe simply came down from heaven fully formed.
Depends who you ask. Some believe the Bible is also fully divine. Scholars within both religions challenge that narrative.
@@kylewilliams8114 Christians historically have never believed that the Bible literally came down from heaven as a single book like Muslims believe about the Qur'an.
We in the West have nothing to do with the Quran hence our lack of awareness around it's Canonical issues
I'm afraid the brief mention of The Quran here missed information from the "unaltered Quran" school of thought and repeated unproven Orientalist claims.
Quran preservation is simply astonishing
@@h3w45 show me a single early preserved quran with whole 114 surah? Can you?
After I have read the Quran, I realized that all what humanity needs is this heavenly law. “The legislation of Quran will spread all over the world, because it agrees with the mind, logic and wisdom.” - Leo Tolstoy
.
That’s a nice thought but sadly unprovable as being a “heavenly law”.
Nice theory. I initially intended to call your statement fallacious, but because I am feeling funny today, I will call it fellatious instead.
Wow
I think Enoch should have been canonized, for sure.
I'd trust Luke Timothy Johnson on the topic more than Ehrman.