Ehrman's Cambridge Lecture on Forged
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- Bart Ehrman visits Google Cambridge located in Cambridge, MA on April 7, 2011 to discuss his new book at that time called Forged. In my talk I explain how ancient writers sometimes falsely claimed to be a famous person in order to encourage people to read their books. This practice of "literary forgery" was relatively common in the ancient world, but it was also widely condemned. In my book I focus on instances of this practice in early Christianity -- some of them appearing within the New Testament.
Program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/...
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman and Talks at Google. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman and Talks at Google is strictly prohibited.
As a Christian I still listen to bart
Ehrman , he has done a lot of study and is a man who seeks truth. Every human being at one time or another has questioned things, people who don't question things get on my nerves. But if we are open and honest God will lead us into all truth.
5:45 for when he actually starts after his infamous intro
Thx dude
Friday night! Kids traveled with their mum, and I´m sitting here with a glas of red wine...all by myself, listening to this great lecture by Bart Ehrman.
What a great and intellectually engaging way to spend my alone-time!
Yep! Love kicking back with a good lecture.
Well it was an interesting lecture definitely but the only objection he had to the authenticty of 1 and 2 Peter was that Peter was illiterate, but this is stupid af simply becuz Bart Erhman denies that a scribe could have wrote for him, but in another debate he says quote 'Every person who wrote epistles in the ancient world dictated them to scribes', his words, yet a contradicting double view
Have you guys seen Gospel of John it is an outstanding movie
Bart speaks with authority because he has done the hard work over the years to thoroughly research what he speaks about and he speaks with an integrity which is transparent in his tone and and body language.
That is an excellent observation! Most people who disagree with Bart Ehrman are entitled to their OPINION, which is like those people who speak of Chemistry who have never taken a course in Chemistry. Their opinion doesn't carry any "authority", doesn't mean shit.
I heard a woman give a dissertation on why ethanol (common drinking alcohol) is a sugar. She made an intellectual fool of herself because I have a (university) background in Chemistry and knew she was 100 percent wrong. She is entitled to her opinion, but her opinion is BS!
+Bart D. Ehrman
An excellent video thanks a million for sharing it online.
I am truly addicted to this mans lectures.swing thru Ohio it would be great to see you in person once we are allowed outside again..
I too am addicted to Bart’s lecture. I don’t know why I became so interested and fascinated with the New Testament. I actually want to do the comparative analysis of how each gospel presents the same story, like the crucifixion. If I could go to UNC Chappell Hill and take his class I would, but that ship has sailed haha. Now I’m listening to his debate videos. I also like Harris and Carrier. I would love to see a debate between Ehrman and Carrier on the historicity of Jesus. I have listened to so much that I have repeated lectures several times. Total addiction!
I'm always happy to see a new video from you Dr. Ehrman!
***** I believe in God and I believe in God sent down prophets. Dr. Ehrman is an agnostic and he is not an atheist and Dr. Ehrman does not believe Bible as God's words and he never said that God does not exists.If you believe that God does not exist that is your free will of choice.
***** _"Bible has many errors and inconsistencies. These errors have been introduced into Christianity"_
Yes true.
_"from there into Islam."_
Your pure nonsense, Quran does not have single line from the Bible.
I sense you are Hindu and whereas I reject Hinduism.
***** _"Quran has certainly taken information from the Bible"_
I will send you USD $100,00 to your PayPal account, if you can bring me a verse from the Quran that is identical to Bible.
Sorry, no offense. I cannot entertain you.
You don't know Bible nor do you know the Quran or Islam.
You stick with your Hinduism leave the monotheistic religion to Jews, Christians and Muslims.
***** If you are a believing Christians, I will engage you in debate online, however you are an atheist, you are not the person of my interest.
I will still hold your $100.00 reward, if you can produce it. Produce an identical verse from the Quran and Bible.
*****
_"Muhammad borrowed stories from the Bible and changed them to suit his own agenda."_
If Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) had borrowed stories from the Bible, he would have borrowed all garbage that are found in the Bible and how come there is no garbage in the Quran, like those found in the Bible such as blasphemy?
_"He did not copy it verse by verse because his knowledge was only from hearsay."_
If Prophet Mohammed had been informed by people then naturally Quran narratives would have been inline with narratives found in Bible, whereas Quran narratives differ in many accounts.
Example Synoptic Gospels, are very much identical in narratives style and some case they are similar word for word.
However as far as monotheism is concerned, Quran core believes are inline with core believe of the Bible, such as there is only one God and God send down prophets, as a matter of fact Islam five pillars are inline with what many prophets practiced themselves, because Quran came from the same God of Abraham.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels
_"This is why Quran makes several errors in mentioning Old and New Testaments."_
The OT and NT are corrupted by men and it has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt the corrupted state of the Bible, whereas Quran accurately states this corrupted state of Bible in 1400 years ago and academic like Dr. Ehrman and youtube site are educating the rest of the World on this subject.
Therefore Quran is accurate in its position about the Bible and Bible' erroneous state but not other way around.
But you can believe whatever you want to believe, sky is the limit.
If you are believing Christians I will engaging you even further, since you are atheist you are not worth of my time.
If i hear about the Armadillo Grill one more time...............
Love you though.....
tomas ronan have you guys seen Gospel of John it is an out standing movie
tomas ronan I thought the same. I watch his lectures all the time & it seems that he opens every lecture with the same opening.
I wonder if anyone took his class just to pass the pop quiz so they could go to armadillo with Bart
On RUclips we get to enjoy many of his lectures. Most live audiences have never seen Bart before and always seem to enjoy this anecdote. I have never heard anyone heckle him for being repetitious.
🤣
Dr. Ehrman-you’re the man! Thanks for all your work to educate us all about these topics.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Bart. You did the digging but we all share the treasure!
I am addicted to Bart’s lectures. I don’t know why I became so interested and fascinated with the New Testament. I actually want to do the comparative analysis of how each gospel presents the same story, like the crucifixion. If I could go to UNC Chappell Hill and take his class I would, but that ship has sailed haha. Now I’m listening to his debate videos. I also like Harris and Carrier. I would love to see a debate between Ehrman and Carrier on the historicity of Jesus. I have listened to so much that I have repeated lectures several times. Total addiction!
I am so glad that Professor Ehrman is becoming more well-known. The glut of biblical illiteracy in this country is pretty widespread. At last more and more biblical scholars are coming out of the closet. It is a comfort in one’s knowledge acquired and discussed in the ivory towers and the halls of academia.
The state of the global culture today demands we start being honest about Christianity, the Bible and Jesus. And also just as honest about Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and other world faiths.
I think our survival as a species depends upon it.
What a great set of questions! Dr. Ehrman always gives time for questions after his lectures, and those questions are often predictable, redundant, or ill-informed. (He's usually very patient, to his credit.) But these questions are great!
As a believer it's so enlightening hearing the opposing side from atheists and agnostic.
You're almost there.
Continue thinking for yourself, never let the stories and verses pounded into your head as a child intimidate you (if that is indeed the case for you). Don't be afraid to think and question, even conclusions you come to later, nothing is sacred, no thought, no idea is beyond scrutiny. That's the foundation of critical thinking, and that is the best advice I can give you as a former dedicated evangelical christian. Don't be intimidated! and remember, _how_ you think is far more important than _what_ you think!
+The baconized
Nahh atheist will either have to admit something came from nothing or just ignore life's biggest questions... I'd rather not pursue ignorance
+almost atheist lol, your nickname is funny as fuck
almost atheist Ignorance, wow. Actually, atheism is lacking belief in god(s). It has nothing to do with believing "something came from nothing". So much for ignorance.
If I had a penny every time I heard that. Have you considered that the Universe may in fact be eternal, in one way, shape, or form? Why does "something" even have to come from "nothing"? Is it even possible for "nothing" to exist? How do you even define "nothing"? For if "nothing" exists, then isn't that at least "something"?
Are you familiar with Brian Greene and the Multiverse Hypothesis which is gaining credibility? I would also point you towards the findings of Steven Hawking and Alan Guth, who have presented models of the origin of the universe - as currently governed by Newtonian mechanics - as either eternal or unbounded. Guth considers the quantum realm which preceded the Big Bang as "very likely eternal", which means there never was "nothing" to get "something" from.
You're almost there, Mr. Almost Atheist.
This is actually a great lecture to recommend to others. It contains a lot of interesting info that you may have heard Bart talk about in other places, except all packed into an efficient talk. And the questions at the end were good too (usually all the nutjobs come out of the woodwork when it's question time).
Here is the correct spelling of "Pseudepigrapha"....
Seems to me that God would know when figs are in season. I think you have to know that if your running for Messiah.
It was for the sake of the disciples Jesus did that.
Thanks Dr. Erhman!!
I always learn something new from each of you lectures.
great lecture. i enjoy bart because he doesnt believe the fairy tales of the bible, but yet appreciates the astounding literary work it really is. im so tired of hearing atheists/agnostics slam the bible as something written by desert primitives. it's a really interesting set of mythologies, one i enjoy reading as much as those included in homers work. some of the literary elements included in the bible are quite refined, indicating it wasnt written by primitives, but rather by well educated, intelligent greeks.
one question for you bart:
what's the deal with "the sons of thunder". is this a reference to some of homer's works? interested to hear what this means, as ive never gotten a clear answer from an actual scholar.
Some scholars believe it is. I'd love to hear Bart's take. "Sons of Zebedee" also might be a direct reference to Zeus (God of Thunder) and the Dioscuri. They share so many similar characteristics that it's hard to discount Homeric influence.
This and other Homeric parallels are the subject of "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" by Dennis R. MacDonald.
@OTO TAKE None, it's based on evidence and exhaustively repeated test.
@OTO TAKE It is funny how even critics of science such as yourself use the phrase "religion" as an insult against atheistic folks. Ever thought about that? ;-)
The old testament was written/edited about the same time as Homer's works. Some parts much earlier. Homer is better.
How many books in New Testament? That's a trick Question. Protestant has 27, yes. But the Eastern Orthodox New testament has 32, Syrian Orthodox 28, and Ethiopian Orthodox has 34.
+Jason C.
no, all christians have *the same New Testament Canon*.
there are *27 books* in the Eastern Orthodox Church's New Testament Canon.
Godly Mathew Obviously.
Jason C. There was only one son of Mary Jesus. He only received one book of revelation from God in the oral form. It got lost after son of Mary Jesus departure. Then Greek and Roman historians came and started to write bible with their own understanding, , personal input, social demand political pressure many years after son of Mary Jesus left in the foreign language other than the language of Jesus. When there is no original and written by foreigner in foreign language about son of Mary Jesus can no way be gospel of Jesus hence has no divine value.
I hope you come to indonesia and as lecture. thanks
I would like to quote a future hypothetical event to illustrate our present sutuation.
Suppose a century later, there is a human catastrophe that wipes out most of their historical records. Another century later, the trend of martial arts become popular again. Writters then, decide to write about Bruce Lee, the once most popular martial art icon 2 centuries ago. Due to the lack of historical evidence, they could only tell from very limited fragments of information that he once practised both eastern and western forms martial art. Authors have to conform with the limited information and research on various martial arts before they have sufficient substance to pen their books. Some decided to add superman elements to their story by saying that he could virtually jump from building to buliding, knock opponents out with a stare or so forth.
Another 200 years passed, scholars like Dr. Erhman of the future starts to contest the supernatural claims. He established the fact that Bruce Lee once existed and is a very reputable martial artist. However, based on other sources of historical evidences suggest that no human of our era can actually fly.
The future generation then (4 centures later), can never verify whether Bruce Lee could fly due to the distortion of information 2 centuries earlier.
Why did the person who forged the book of Peter write it in a language that Peter would not have studied, if he’d had the privilege of formal education?
I suspect that there is every possibility that Peter was highly educated & bilingual. He founded & ran the sect, he would've solved disputes by reading scripture & writing edicts. Paul never denigrates Peter for being an illiterate Hick even in intense disputes. I suspect that Peter the illiterate fisherman was an invention of Mark, a fiction to serve his Jesus theology, the first will be last, blessed are the poor etc. I am also willing to wager that any NT writing that predates Mark will contain no description of Peter as an illiterate fisherman, 1 Clement, Hebrews etc. Further to this I think that 1 Peter may well be a genuine letter despite what Bart says about it.
If you don't believe God can inspire men of God to write, preserve His Words, then you have to disbelieve the whole idea of Christianity. How can it be if God can create this whole universe, create all creatures, give life, soul, but had no control over the preservation of His Words, and allow it to be corrupted. If God can preserve the OT thru more than 1000 years, He can preserve the NT as well.
Meaning, fundamentalists as defending the concept of the "Holy Spirit" as having what appears to be inconsistent variation of language types, language preferences, etc.
A friend gave me a book back in 1990 by Roberts Liardon about spirituality. After reading it I thought how much more Robert could have enjoyed in life if he didn't make up fantastic stories to sell to believers. But then again his last name is Liar Don so all that money he made and continues to make to this day justifies it in his mind, I'm sure. Hearing Bart tell about the forgeries and the stories that didn't make the cut is enlightening to say the least...people made it up then and still do today.
B. Ehrman is an amazing scholar, he is also controversial but always entertaining
Great vid, keep up the good work Dr Ehrman
How come the disciples of Jesus who were all Jews, write the gospels in ancient Greek !? Isn't that just a little bit suspicious ? The new testament is a Flavian Roman fiction: Jesus never existed !!
So glad I found this channel...quite interesting.
He has shamed me into actually reading the Bible. I can’t claim to be Christian, agnostic or atheist, only ignorant. I can do something about that. I do enjoy his lectures.
Hey Mr. Erham, I was wondering if you could make a video or record a lecture in your class about why only 7 of the Pauline epistles are attributed to Paul. That would be awesome!
He gives a solid enough case for most novice readers in his book The New Testament: Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
Impressive lecture by Bart Ehrman. Delivered in way that made it very interesting. I must admit I'd not looked at his work before and that was probably a mistake. I've got some catching up to do.
Excellent presentation.
Has anyone studied exactly what Jesus of The Gospels wants us to do with our lives apart from loving one another ? Did Jesus ever have a sense of humour or smile ? A God that knows we are living in a deceptive world full of evil people that are ruled by Satan would indeed send himself among us as a warning in human form. Life had never really been funny has it ? Yet, there seems to be such hope and beauty among all this evil around us, that you have to ask the question : Should we reject this world or should we embrace it ? Christians seem to be being told to do both!
It is indeed a hard path to follow, but on some profound level we know it to be true . We’ve known about this path before Jesus came into the world . Our minds can’t help but deviate from it ; but the heart knows the truth .
Are people eating during the lecture?!?
Who have seen Gospel of John it is an outstanding movie
I totally love it
So the bible is fake??,in what should I believe im.confused
Todor Dimov believe in nothing but be willing and eager to study everything that interests you. You were born divine, sovereign and free to live your life according to your moral tenets . Be nice, love everything good, help those who you can, hug trees, feed stray cats and dogs, walk barefoot on grass, meditate and sun gaze. You don’t have to believe in anything, it’s a trap to make you stop searching and learning.
Peter was someone that probably got a SCRIBE.
You need to start giving different questions from the quiz in your intros. I’ve gotten the three you normally give right, but I want to know if I can get the rest of them.
So many problems men...errors, contradictions, ungodly ideas, plus forgery.
Was the giant Jesus from the resurrection story in the Gospel of Peter the same 900 foot Jesus that Oral Roberts saw in the field telling him to raise money?
There was a postal system in the 1st century Roman Empire, as we know from the Vindolandia finds. OTOH, it's hard to see how a forger could have used it.
how do they know for sure that later on in Peter's life, he learned how to write? there is no evidence that Peter did NOT write the epistles.
however, acts chap 4 is pretty daming
It would be nice to be able to prove anything about Peter
Bart I think it's about time you went somewhere else apart form the Armadillo Grill. - Or at least got a new opening line. (still love you though)
It is not true that no no one dictated a book he doesn;t even consider that possibility for Peter.
1 Pete claims wrotten thorugh secretary"Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this short letter to encourage you and to testify that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it (1 Peter 5:12). Ehrman says no one ever did that Paul ised a copiest "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord (Romans 16:2)."
1 john 5:7-8 admitted insertion verifies on face value what he says. Erasmus and Luther knew scriptures were changed greek and hebrew both. Shalom
"Near the end of the book, the author tells his readers that they should not read books that claim to be written by apostles but aren't...He's doing it because his reader won't suspect him of doing what he condemns"
That's exactly what I believe the authors of the New Testament to be doing when they denounce, and instruct their readers to denounce, claims as to anyone but "Jesus" being "the Christ".
BTW, it has become clear to me with study that the book of Revelation is almost certainly a Gnostic or proto Gnostic pagan denunciation of the Creator, Whom Christians believe to be their God and the father of "Jesus". Gnosticism claims that the Creator is associated with seven rulers, each described according to the appearance of his head or face, and this corresponds directly to Revelation, as does the description of one of the Beasts as having seven heads in and of itself, corresponding to the Gnostic depiction of Iao/Iupiter who is, of course, associated with Rome. Next comes the Beast with the horns like a lamb, this being an apt description of Iupiter Ammon. Then there's the end times king who rules over the nations, and the end times prophet who calls down fire from heaven, with the Tanakh containing multiple references to David and Elijah returning during the end times.
I believe that the Roman Empire created both Gnosticism and Christianity to establish compliance with Roman law and simultaneous denunciation of Jewish law, and of the concept of the temple system being indispensable, along with the Jewish authorities in general, while making it clear that such obfuscation absolutely did not apply to the law of the Romans, the violation of which meant damning oneself according to the epistle to the Romans.
Gnosticism portrays the Roman Empire as having been established by "Ialdabaoth", the Gnostic caricature and vilification of the Jewish God, upon whom Gnosticism blames all the problems in the world (whereas the fact of the matter is that all worldly problems can be traced eventually to the very Left Hand Path pagan establishment of which Gnosticism is part and parcel and its hell bent insistence on rebelling against the natural order and thus the God Who is portrayed as having created it), with the intent of the Romans in propagating such a belief, I contend, being to cause the adherents to Gnosticism to concede that they have no hope of successfully vanquishing the Romans, and the "evil false god" Ialdabaoth would simply give rise to another force to "enslave" them if they were to do so, not to mention there being, as far as I understand Gnostic teachings, no means of mortal escape from the psychic realm ruled over by Ialdabaoth. Thus they were to resort to "looking inward" for "enlightenment" to "escape the material realm" in death, which is, "coincidentally", essentially EXACTLY the same as what Siddhartha Gautama, a member of a high caste of Hindu society, went out among the poor and propagated, just as in an earlier century members of the high castes of the Hindus created the concept of "karmic debt" to prevent a brewing revolution which might have resulted in their extermination at the hands of the peasants.
Of course they justified lying to make their clams more palatable. The whole thing was man made. No basis in fact.
It is so sad, it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that authors of the Bible were men and entire Christian world blindly giving these ordinary men an equal place like a real prophet did.
If God would send books through ordinary men, what is the need for prophecies for the coming of other great prophets, just ordinary men would do the job equally.
Bart Erhman's only argument against the authenticity of 1 and 2 Peter is that the historical Peter was illiterate and he couldn't have got a scribe to write for him, But using his own words quote 'Every person who wrote epistles in the ancient world dictated them to scribes'. So his only argument against Peter he himself says was possible Peter could have gotten a scribe
"Why would someone lie?" - is Bart Ehrman's rhetorical question. "We won't know the exact answer." Now, my question is, why would someone argue such a ridiculous and superficial way, obviously not knowing the Bible enough - of what he is supposed to be an expert of. (See my arguments about that below: he does not know that Paul dictated his letters, or that a person's style and way of thinking often changes during his lifetime.) He calls some letters from Peter and Paul forgeries - although he is something that seems to be false... An impostor rather than a serious scholar?
Bart, you are being spurious here. There are multiple verses in the Bible (including in 1 Peter) where it points to Scribes being used to write for the author. Paul even calls out specifically in many letters when he is writing in his "own hand", suggesting that sometimes he is not and employing a scribe for dictation.
There is a vast amount of evidence that the early church had access to learned and wealthy believers: Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea. Many think that "most excellent Theophilus" might even point to 1 of 2 likely priests named Theophilus (wealthy, again). I'm not sure what your beef is.
Lying for Jesus, what about the commandant,”Thou shell not lie ”? These forgers must have known they are lying and the consequences of doing so, but they do it anyway. How do they justify this? Were these authors true believers or were they selfserving opportunists with there own agenda, ie power and control over the faithful. Thank you Dr Ehrman, I would love to audit your course.
Quit using the pop quiz intro to all your lectures, eh?
Anthony L 😅😅😅😅
Eh?..are u Canadian?
Any writer or poet or other author (eg. a philosopher) can change his way of thinking or his style during a lifetime. They often do. But the argument against the authenticity of Paul's six letters is that their style and the way of thinking in them is different from those in his other seven letters. So he should have remained a rigid copy of his earlier self during his lfife, shouldn't he? Anybody else is allowed to change except him... This is a ridiculous argument.
Maybe it's me, but isn't "Jesus Christ" a TITLE?
JESUS in GREEK means "Crowned Savior" Emaniac69.
Whatever, 69. Over Rated Fictional Character like Thor. No, U are not gonna Meet him.
+Pablo113 The meaning certainly isn't "crowned saviour" in Greek - and what do you actually mean by "in Greek"? "Ιησούς" or "Jesus" are just transcriptions of an Aramaic name and have got no meaning of their own.
The meaning of the Aramaic name (including its Hebrew variants) is not certain. Mt 1,21 suggests that the meaning is "Savior", but that's not very plausible to me, as it was a very common name, and the Jews might have considered it blasphemic to give their child a name, which quite inevitably would have been associated with "messiah". The meaning, however, might be "God saves" and then it would follow a typical pattern of Jewish names ("God" + a verb), possibly adopted from ancient Egypt.
👍
26:56 Unless he dictated it to a scribe.
27:38 Didn't Luke scribe Paul's epistles?
In a chapter of Galatians, Paul says that he is writing the letter.
I am the size of your Chrysler building
the fact is most ancient religious writings cannot stand the examination of this level of the prudence,either.Like the sutra of Buddhism, quran, the confucian writings.We can not deny their values. It is important to have an open-mind attitude towards our cultural roots.
In my living so sorry for terror with our future" George of all security&
Step right up and see Giant Jesus and his famous walking, talking cross.
Two shekels adults, one shekel for kids.
Compare Mark 5:39-40 ( where they all LAUGHED at Jesus when he said a girl who appeared "dead" was merely "ASLEEP" ) with John 11:11-13 ( where an ancient non-Jewish editor with an "axe to grind" tried to put words in Jesus mouth by saying that what Jesus really meant when he said "asleep" was the person was DEAD. [ Duh! ].
Get it now, Reverend? [ A little "bull" sure goes a long, long way! ]
To tell the truth is another thing and not to go by it is another thing. It will be good if professor Bart E. Can study another scripture so that we find another knowledge of comparison
The discussion about Peter is a good example of how Ehrman is caught by his dogged insistence that the entirely fictional characters of the New Testament reflect reality rather than fiction. Stylistic reasons alone prove that 2 Peter is indeed a 2nd century forgery, but It is quite possible (contrary to Ehrman's own belief) that the real Peter did write 1 Peter, or at least chapters 1 to 4, ending at verse 11. Ehrman argues against this because, he says, "Peter couldn't read" - but it is only the fairy tale Gospels which present the fictional picture of Peter as a fisherman who spoke Aramaic in a peasant dialect which showed he was from Galilee - as well as the fairy tale book of Acts which Ehrman also relies on to support the notion that Peter was "illiterate". That character is as mythical as the Jesus whom Ehrman insists actually existed as a historical person.The writer of Mark's Gospel simply took the real apostles of early Christianity (Peter, James and John) and wove them into his story about a fictional Jesus, making Peter into a simple fisherman. But the real apostles of early Christianity, including Peter, may well have been able to read and write. Paul knew the real Peter, and certainly speaks about him (though he disagrees with him) as if he were a rabbi who could read the Scriptures like himself. Once Ehrman finally gets round to accepting that the Gospels (and Jesus) are entirely fictional, he will not be so certain that the real Peter could not have written the first Epistle in his name.
He cannot. Bart Ehrman´s professional life has a New Testament scholar - a field which is highly dependent on christian funding - forces him to not adhere to such a view, even if in private he adheres to a mythicist view of the New Testament, or at least, some agnosticism in regards to the existence of an historical Jesus or the disciples, as they are described in the New Testament. Christians that fund the field can accept atheist/agnostic scholars who believe that there are discrepancies in the Bible, but if some non-religious scholar in the field would claim that Jesus is a mythical figure or that there is at least a possability that he didn´t exist (that is, agnosticism about of his existence), that is basically the same as saying that christianity is based on a lie, which is going against the main belief that is the core of their religion - that is crossing the line and would be the end of a career of a scholar like Ehrman due to the lack of funding.
Say, woe to those who write their own scripture and say this is from Allah (God).
Quran 2 79
He’s going on like Peter and the Apostles really existed. Show me the evidence.
Treat me the dinner! Show me the real Bible!
Your just an average person merko just as me and the domain of this comment post. Don't claim that you know the bible is false nor it never existed or there's no original bible. Don't get puffed up and try to come as if you know when you see this.
Evaluating the Truth of the New Testament.
The New Testament writers learned an important lesson from the Hebrew Scriptures. They learned about truth and lies.
How does the OT define Truth and Lies?
Here are some examples.
Abraham lied to Pharaoh when he said Sarah was his sister.
Genesis 12:18 (New American Standard Bible)
Then Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?
Later Abraham used the same lie on Abimelech.
Genesis 20:2 (New American Standard Bible)
Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister " So Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
Isaac also used the same lie.
Genesis 26:7 (New American Standard Bible)
When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, "She is my sister," for he was afraid to say, "my wife," thinking, "the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful."
Jacob lied to Isaac when he tricks his father into giving him the blessing for Esau.
Genesis 27:20 (New American Standard Bible)
Isaac said to his son, "How is it that you have it so quickly, my son?" And he said, "Because the LORD your God caused it to happen to me."
It was really a lamb that he was eating rather than wild game.
Genesis 27:24 (New American Standard Bible)
And he said, "Are you really my son Esau?" And he said, "I am."
But it was really Jacob lying and disguising his skin with the lamb’s hide.
There are numerous lies. If you are well read in the OT you know them.
The Hebrew Midwives lied.
Rahab the Harlot lied.
David lied numerous times.
Jehu lied
Moses lied.
The point is that all these lies were never punished, they were usually rewarded, and God never complained about these liars and their lies. The lies were always justified because they fit into God’s plan. God was not offended.
The lesson that the NT writers learned, IMO, is that a lie is justified if it promotes their theology. God will not be offended by their lies.
God doesn't mind a lie as long as it's for a good cause.
Take that into consideration when you evaluate the truthfulness of the New Testament.
***** I'll agree that the NT is a fable.
Hey folks....You Christian folks...Here is a question for you.
Who owns the church you attend every week?
Does anyone give you an accounting of how much money was taken in and how much was spent? Do you get to decide how the church's money is spent?
Is it really YOUR church? Do you own your church?
Have Christians noticed that Ben Carson is a seventh day Adventist? Carson's beliefs are at odds with traditional Christian beliefs.
Stuart Shepherd. Learn to read original Hebrew not english european versions of Tanakh. You point seems to infer sages in Torah were liars? Weird
Nt is a false book designed to easily convert gentiles to Christianity. Full of errors contradiction s. I now only follow Tanakh.Shalom
What's It All About
God is love
God is here
God is there
God is everywhere
Believe this to be real
For so it is
And you will feel
The All that Is
There is always doubt
Dragging fear through
Ragged furrows
Of mistrust and hate
Across our fertile minds
Yet this is illusion
So what is real?
What's it all about?
Love is God
Love is here
Love is there
Love is everywhere
Charles Baker III Did you watch the video Charles??????
The god of the Tanahk is an unknown being, BlackBox_114, that some Rabbinical scholars said was "angelic" (whatever that means).
Yes, I watched the video, LukeColt.
cool man, good luck with that :)
Thank you! :)
My pleasure & thank you~
Are you going to listen to the guy for whom everything is possible, ha ha, another story teller ´supposé,’it’s possible ´, I think’, ha ha, you are fraud Bart Ehrman
gospel of Peter is anti jew or anti semitic as DR. Ehrman says. So that means jew was writing anti jew gospel. Can we call that jew anti semitic or anti jew. Or this stands only for non jews talking about Israel and Jews. Noam Chomsky. is he anti semit.
God wrote the bible through his prophets and will make those that disobey his beautiful and kind words suffer pain for eternity. Jesus is God and the Son of God - if you don't truly believe this you will not be saved. Jesus was a born again Christian who lived out a long 2nd life in Argentina until he died again and sent himself to heaven.
PrivateSi Not a lost sheep, I trust the g d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Don't need to be "saved" from anything. Trinity is false, nowhere to be found in the jewish scriptures. "Jesus" does not qualify as the jewish messiah. Your lack of knowledge of Hebrew has you misled and deceived.
Delusional....
Is there anyone else on RUclips as the same caliber as Bart Ehrman that is a scholar of the Bible that has more recent videos?
Dr. Shabir Ally is a good source to listen to who describes the history of the Bible.
It appears Dr. Ehrman has stopped uploading recent videos of his talks.
+Inayet Hadi The problem with Shabir Ally is that he lies. He lies frequently, contradicts himself and is dead-set on trying to prove Islam (even though Islam is complete nonsense).
+Inayet Hadi Try Robert M. Price. The Bible Geek podcast.
+Urban Chaos 2.0 What about Richar Carrier?
+Urban Chaos 2.0 how do you know that islam is non sense, did you read the quran?
Rolster 20 Yes. And it's nonsense. It's an incoherent book which isn't even compiled in chronological order. In fact, it isn't compiled in ANY order. The koran is filled with sentences that have no beginning or no end, sentences which rhyme for NO REASON other than the act of rhyming (even if it makes the sentences make zero sense), and factual/scientific errors ALL OVER THE PLACE. It's a very stupid book. For example, the koran claims that sperm is made between a man's rib and backbone. Lol
I would like to quote a future hypothetical event to illustrate our present sutuation.
Suppose a century later, there is a human catastrophe that wipes out most of their historical records. Another century later, the trend of martial arts become popular again. Writters then, decide to write about Bruce Lee, the once most popular martial art icon 2 centuries ago. Due to the lack of historical evidence, they could only tell from very limited fragments of information that he once practised both eastern and western forms martial art. Authors have to conform with the limited information and research on various martial arts before they have sufficient substance to pen their books. Some decided to add superman elements to their story by saying that he could virtually jump from building to buliding, knock opponents out with a stare or so forth.
Another 200 years passed, scholars like Dr. Erhman of the future starts to contest the supernatural claims. He established the fact that Bruce Lee once existed and is a very reputable martial artist. However, based on other sources of historical evidences suggest that no human of our era can actually fly.
The future generation then (4 centures later), can never verify whether Bruce Lee could fly due to the distortion of information 2 centuries earlier.
Bart Ehrman claims that Peter was illitarate. Yes, Acts 4 writes so. But his letters were supposedly written decades later (as the scene in Acts 4 happened shortly after Jesus' resurrection.) And during that time he really could learn writing. Why not? After all, as a leader in the early church, he could see it as important. And even if he could not (we cannot tell), he could dictate his two letters to anyone - like Paul also dictated his letters (Romans 16, 22) even if he could write (Col 4, 18; 2 Thess 3, 17). So Bahrt Ehrman's argument against Peter being the author of 1 Peter is simply wrong. And he said "we had no examples in the ancient world" to a letter being written down by someone else. What an expert of the Bible - who forgets about Paul's letters being dictated... (facepalm)
i love your findings but i only have question is it not possible that for example Peter told his story to someone who could write this done and that its also maybe done for others.
Ehrman answers this in his books. It is possible yes, but there is no indication in history that such practise ever existed. According to him atleast.
To me it was taught, that the Gospel Mathew is, although written second, on first place, because it was written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.
George Costanza sure knows a lot about the Bible