Please consider joining MythVision Patreon to help me in continuing doing this work! 💯 www.patreon.com/mythvision -💥Get early access to 100's of videos not made public -💥Ask questions for scholars I interview and potentially have a video recording from the scholars -💥Private message me
@@geraldpolmateer3255 I read many of his publications & compared his conclusions with the conclusions agreed upon by the consensus of scholars in various fields of historical studies. I also study evidence while also evaluating observations & most of the time information from Prof. Ehrman is consistent, logical, & reasonably accurate with reality.
@@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar When I studied physics in the first course I took we were presented with the difference between precise and accurate. All of the clocks in a building can be precisely set at the same time and all could be inaccurate. Ehrman should know about historical research, if he has studied research methods. Historical events are one time events and cannot be proven by the scientific method. For something to be science/experimental research it must be repeatable. In fact they cannot be proven than other by historical research. If you have read his works and have no way of evaluating what he writes, then he would seem consistent. Let me give an example. I taught at the university in a professional program that was one of the top programs in the U.S. We would laugh at some of the consensus among textbooks written by those who did not have any professional experience. They were consistent but consistently had errors. Consensus can be a dangerous way to do research because if each of the "scholars" all read each others books then they will all agree. That is the reason why you should read books what disagree and listen to debates among some of the best. View the video in which he debates Dan Wallace ruclips.net/video/WRHjZCKRIu4/видео.html Take a look at ruclips.net/video/ns35f93WTuw/видео.html
@@geraldpolmateer3255 it sounds like you did a google search on what "consensus" means. You seem to have a misunderstanding of how consensus scholarship works & I'm not convinced you're aware of how peer review works either. Falsifiability is imperative for ALL claims, whether scientific or historical. It's the method for arriving at the claim, assertion, or conclusion that can be repeated - not necessarily the past event itself. LOL R U seriously recommending the debate where Dan Wallace falsely speaks about the "earliest dated Mark manuscript"? That turned out to not be so early at all, by 1 or 2 CENTURIES! (Papyrus 137).
I love the part where Dr. Erham is asked to "Blink twice if he is secretly a Mythicist" and he opens his eyes even more widely. 🤣 He has a great sense of humor.
This was pretty awkward sometimes, I can see the pain on Bart's face when random weird fan ideas and apologists criticizing Bart's work are brought up.
This was incredible!! This was also VERY frightening! At 16:14 in, with the question on what happened when the "son of god" didn't return and then when Jesus didn't return based on the book When Prophecy Fails. In America anyway, this is repeating itself! When an unnamed former president didn't get reinstated by Jan 6, then not by Jan 20, now the date is August. What's happening, a cognitive dissonance and you would think the group would get smaller, it's not, it's getting bigger!!
They missed Thanksgiving also. As I understand it, Trump is now supposed to be back in the White House by Christmas 2021. I suggest they aim for July 4th, 2023. That will give them lots of time for financial grift from their gullible cult members.
Dr. Heiser doesn't even acknowledge the Documentary Hypothesis. I've interviewed with him in the past on his book Demons. Asking him for contradictions is like asking catholics for evidence that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin. They cannot permit contradictions as Evangelical Christians.
@@MythVisionPodcast Actually, Dr. Heiser has addressed the Documentary Hypothesis and finds it to be flawed in its logic. Your immediate dismissal of the suggestion to ask Dr. Heiser to address the contradictions that Dr. Ehrman claims occurs in the New Testament, is disturbing. If you truly are seeking knowledge, wisdom, and understanding in the Biblical scriptures then you will need to reach out to Dr. Heiser and those like him that can provide a well-balanced approach to studying the Biblical scriptures.
I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. Dr. Heiser rejects the DH with no real reason to do so. I have seen his rejection. He also rejects contradictions anywhere in the bible. I would be interested in seeing Dr. Heiser have a discussion or debate with other critical scholars who can take him to task on the DH.
Congratulations on getting Prof Ehrman on your channel, Derek. He’s such a knowledgeable man and a great speaker. Always worth listening to. However, his comparison between mythicism and Fox News and between historicity and evolution are quite absurd. The data are nowhere near that good. I really can’t believe that he has read Dr Carrier’s book on the historicity of Jesus. It may be wrong, but it’s rigorous and strongly argued, and to dismiss it as “bollocks” is just not good enough. I have read Prof Ehrman’s book on the subject and I’ve seen his debate with Dr Price and I found the arguments for historicity far from overwhelming.
The number of serious credible scholars that entertain mythicism is equivalent to the number of credible biologists that entertain creation/intelligent design (less than 1%). His analogy is not absurd.
No, of course not. The evidence for evolution really is overwhelming. If Ehrman thinks the argument for Jesus historicity is overwhelming then all I can say is that he must be very easily overwhelmed.
I still think Richard Carrier makes way more sense because: 1. The ONLY record of a historical Jesus is the New Testament. Even Philo does not write about him, although he does write about other NT characters, such as John the Baptist. 2. The New Testament gets so many things wrong that it can't be trusted. So, where is the evidence Bart Ehrman was referring to? He never gave any.
professor Ehrman is a brilliant Bible scholar and very influential among conservative evangelical Christians who are having doubts about the inerrancy and reliability of the Bible. but his view that there was a historical person behind the legendary Christ of the Gospels is seriously questioned by equally brilliant Bible scholars who think that Jesus is purely mythical or fictional. and even if the professor is correct regarding this issue, it would be very difficult for a non-historian like me to judge which of the conflicting portraits of the historical Jesus presented by the Bible experts is the most accurate one.
Dr Ehrmans explains the differences in the spectrum of the ancient practice of slavery vs US slavery. There are very important distinctions, but i think what gets lost in these arguments is the essential critique. These arguments get framed in terms of moral relativism and the historical context of the practice. This is a fine discussion relative to mankinds moral and ethical evolution over time. But the salient critique is how a timeless omnipotent god can co-sign the idea of slavery in any form or at any time, yet still be identified with "the good". Men are a product of thier time and is ethically judged according to the social norms of the time and place in which he lived. God is supposed to exist outside of time, so would not be subject to the same human limitations and fluctuating moral understanding of right vs wrong. God is not entitled to the same excuse as thomas jefferson.
Saul of Tarsus, was rejected, and refuted in his life time...he admits that all in Asia turned away from him and abandoned him...he was only revived later by Marcion, and then he, and his epistles, were "reformed", i.e. used, by non-Jewish "orthodox" Christians to fight and defeat the heretic movements back then, today grouped together as Gnostics and Gnosticism.
I enjoy Bart Ehrman nowadays, he is comfortable, no longer defending anything. He is clever, agnostic atheist, you can't touch that. Certainly he is challenged by his students, comes with the position. The Tom Brady, Wynton Marsalis of New Testament scholarship, been there done that, love or hate them they are set for life.
HI Derek, I was a non-religious state educated 19yo when I first spoke to a religious person. The following week I bought a Bible to read by myself and later joined a church. I have found that so many sites like yours and commentators on forums don't really know what the Bible says, they assume the Bible says things which it doesn't, they are not comprehending what they are reading like what we learned in school if they do read it. When I try show what the Bible says I get insulted and mocked and avoidance of good points that I have made. Not many actually want to learn or make sure they are not looking at or fighting straw men etc. I was so surprised when I read the Bible from what it really says I didn't know were there. So I am asking if your channel could be a fair channel and not one that knocks down straw men. I give some comment on the above video now. btw even a lot of Christians have wrong ideas: I have found by just reading Genesis Chapter 1 that earth is the land above the water level around seas, not the planet and that heaven is where the winged fowl fly, ie the atmosphere not the universe or where God's throne is. God did make the universe by His word, but a long time before the Genesis event. btw again: if an author is thinking about writing a novel like 'Oliver Twist' in his mind he would see what his characters look like and hear how the spoke and then imagine them being down in a coal mine etc. When he stops to have lunch he thinks about lunch and immediately all the Oliver Twist characters cease to exist, until he finishes lunch. This is like it is with God and creation. The Bible says 'in Him we live and move and have our being.' The good thing is that God never loses His attention for us neither is too busy to care for us. If you read through the Gospels you can see that there were far more people than 20 who were actually believers of Jesus. For example, Jesus sent out 70 guys on a campaign. Not all of His believers would have been walking around with Him. In regards to when Jesus would return the prophecies of Daniel were well known among genuine believers and those described specified events up to about 1500 years later on, but the actual time of His return has no publicly announced date and would occur after the last prophecy. So what Bart is saying is way off the mark. Something else he discussed is to do with other guys claiming to be divine etc, but who were not much like Jesus otherwise. Don't leave out Lucifer/Satan. Satan would discredit or counterfeit what the Scriptures say, using dupes. The problem is you and Bart probably think Satan and his demons don't exist. However, if you are publicly criticizing/mocking the Bible then you must include them and God's angels and of course God Himself otherwise what you are doing is just a propaganda piece for some agenda you have. Why don't you do a fair examination of evolution and Darwin in particular? Darwin's faith in evolution was entirely based on his ignorance of what the Bible said, not on what he saw in nature. It is show up Richard Dawkins' ignorance in his rant against the Old Testament. There are organisations with a vested interest in discrediting the Bible, mainly due to the desire for total control of everyone in a tyrant sense.
@Jacob sounds like the formal mainline churches you are talking about. You shouldn't let them get between you and God. Abraham and Moses talked face to face with God in His angelic manifestation like a friend with a friend. That is the religion you would like. Talk to Him now.
I assume you can fluently speak ancient Greek and Hebrew and were able to go back to the earliest surviving scrolls, as Bart Ehrman has. Or did you get all your beliefs from some Protestant Bible thumping preacher? This channel has Biblical scholars. This is a different world from the preachers who indoctrinate you each Sunday.
@@willchristie2650 You remind me of this Scripture... John 7:47-49 [47]Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? [48]Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? [49]But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. Apparently you don't believe what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth. John 16:13
I love Bart's work, but I think his assertion then American slavery had everything to do with race is ignorant of history. Africa was a cheap source of slave labor, and racial views were imported after in order to justify it not the reason.
I do go to church and since listening to your channel I notice most church services have nothing to do with Historicity of Jesus we actually use the bible as allegory. Then we eat and talk about each other😉
I am an atheist but I have friends who are Christian. They do not deny science and they see the bible stories as purely allegorical. The problem is with the American Christian Evangelical movement (and I include JWs, Mormons and others ), which is extremist religious dogma spouted by rich auld white men parading around as pastors for profit.
Bart like many people seem to simply not accept certain reported witness events in relation to what happened, whether supernatural or not. And change the reported accounts to change the narrative of what was reported to suit their view and position. He dismisses the reported account that Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb. By doing this, he removes the empty tomb report which in due course takes away the reported resurrection of Jesus. He says his not out to do this, but that's what it does. He just says in his opinion the body of Jesus was left on the cross and eventually buried in a unknown grave, because in other cases that's what happened. However, in the case of Jesus that's not what was reported and for reasons given. He removes the apologetics of a resurrected Jesus, and places doubt literally on the following events that are reported thereafter, and the witnessed ascension of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Because of his personal opinion, which are the very essence of the Christian faith and the divinity of Jesus. It's also hypocritical of him because he'll use reported events that suit his narrative and others that don't fit his theories. He doesn't have any evidence that Jesus was buried in an unknown grave, and there is nothing anywhere reported that this occurred, other than Jesus is placed in a tomb. Furthermore, the preaching of a resurrected Jesus was spreading quickly after his execution, which was a threat to the stability for both Roman and Jewish authorities. If Jesus was buried in a grave by the authorities, then the Jewish leaders and Roman rulers could have easily put an end to Jesus as the messiah. To stop this idea of a resurrected messiah which had serious complications for the Roman leaders and Jewish authorities who ordered his execution. Simply would have exhumed the body of Jesus, and presented the dead body of Jesus to the people, and lay the preaching of the resurrected Jesus as messiah to rest, and it would be finished. The only information we have is Jesus was taken down and placed in a tomb, because it was the Sabbath for Jews. Bart just thinks that's what happened because that's what fits his narrative of Jesus not being the incarnate God and messiah. And when he makes those unsupported claims, not only does it change the essence of Jesus and his divinity as the incarnate God, it also fits into how Muslims and others simply dismiss reported events by making unsupported claims. And by doing so, likewise it takes away the incarnate God Jesus in the flesh. There are others like Bart that do the same thing, just change the narrative to suit their views. An example is Paul’s declaration of Jesus when he was on the road to Damascus, and his conversion to Christ. Those same people simply dismiss what Paul wrote about his conversion to Jesus Christ, and say he had a seizure on the road to Damascus, and thought he spoke to Jesus. Again, there's nothing to base that view at all, just unsupported opinion. On the contrary, when one reads the words of Paul, it's clear he was of sound mind and knew exactly what had happened, that being the resurrected Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Paul was a Roman Citizen and well educated, nowhere can you find Paul having seizures of any sort anywhere, and it’s ludicrous to think that. And this is what Bart Ehrman does, the same thing happens when you dismiss Pauls experience as a seizure with nothing to support it, you change the narrative of Paul to suit your opinion. Just like Bart and others do, saying Jesus was buried in a unknown grave. Just his opinion as he states himself, that's just one example of Barts view on the reported events. Also Bart makes scripturally wrong assumptions for example when he mentioned the Ten Commandments - “though shall have no other gods ". He claims of pre-supposed other gods in existence. Yes, there were Mythical Pagan Gods like "sun gods" and all sorts. Ancient Egyptian deities are the gods and goddesses worshipped in ancient Egypt, and there are many of them. Those other pagan gods did not appear in the flesh and present miraculous miracles like Jesus did before real people. The command was given to praise the ONE and only TRUE God of the bible. Not pagan sun gods. And in time, this same God of the commandments revealed himself in the flesh in Jesus, that's the difference between God of the bible and the pagan gods (no other gods), mentioned in the Ten Commandments. God that gave the commandments to Moses is the same God in Christ Jesus. All other pagan gods from that time have fallen, except the God of the bible. And that rule still stands today with other made up Gods currently circulating. So even though Bart says his intention is not to disprove God of the bible, he does so indirectly, whether intentionally or not. And so does this by changing parts of the biblical narrative with no support to suit his theories. So one can contend his examination and beliefs are somewhat problematic, and present an unsubstantiated point of view.
@James Barlow Yup! I just came to know about this things by reading and listening to biblical scholars like ehrman. it was never taught in sunday schools and you never hear these things from a pastor who most surely know these things
Poor McLatchie, he is beyond rediculous at this point. He won't abandon his Christianity though, it doesn't seem like facts mean anything to the man. He prefers his fantasies and his imaginary friend.
I’ve watched a lot of content with Dr. Ehrman, he looks like he had more fun doing this interview than most of the content I’ve seen him do interview wise
@@yacouvbanou6886 Audible.com - I have them too, and they're excellent. Audible has not only his "The Great Courses" lectures (of which there are many!) but also several of his audiobooks.
According to Richard Carrier, Ehrman IS lazy and sloppy. At the very least, it seems like he goes out of his way to avoid offending Christians, which takes away a few points for me. Wish we could get that debate!
Couldn't agree more Blaine. If Ehrman's so comfortable in his certitude, then why does he continually refuse to debate Carrier? I find Ehrman's criticisms of Carrier and the mythicists to be most inadequate: it was ad hominem, so he effectively played the man and not the ball. To paraphrase: "Carrier's published articles, but so what?" Plus he cites the "thousands" of NT scholars who agree with him, but they're all those who rely, like him, on their continued tenure by giving NO ground to the mythicist position. Hmmm, if it walks like a duck...
I think you're going to like this. "In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast ... 'To physics and metaphysics.' Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy-truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World.
@Dharma Defender I think “any” is misleading. You might think the evidence for Jesus is poor, but there is some. You may view the gospels as terrible history, but it’s still a piece of evidence even if it sucks.
@Dharma Defender if you think they aren’t evidence at all then you just have an unrealistic standard for what “evidence” is. Historians do not use that standard
I could not agree more with your statement.. when I heard him say that,all I could hear in my head was his own voice saying we have no documentation for Jesus in the first century,nor the second century.. and he continued on like that... He’s probably thinking that if xtian apologists get wind of this, at least they can’t use it...as they would be the last ones to lend support for evolution..
Great interview! Bart is so personable, articulate and has a fun sense of humour. He makes very complex aspects of the Bible easy to understand for non-scholars. Great get, Derek! Let's hope you can make this happen again sometime
MYTHVISION is one of the BEST content channels available! Amazing knowledge resource here! Thank you MythVision. I hope this channel continues to grow & popularize :)
@Meighan Dacey I agree with you. I enjoy most of Ehrman's work bot I do think that he has a blidn spot on this area (most of us have). I like your argument with the docetists - good point.
@Meighan Dacey the evidence we have actually leans more towards a physical Jesus than him being a myth, Jesus being a complete fabrication and not a historical figure is far less likely than him being an actual person who amassed a following and was executed by Pilate.
@Meighan Dacey said: "1) the gospels are myth; put another way, they are the claim, NOT the proof. So they can't be used as historical documents" No, the CLAIM is that there was a Historical Jesus as an explaination for the origin of Christianity - i.e. that there was an actual 1st century Jew named Jesus who started a movement, who was executed, and whose followers emerged into what we now identify as Christianity. The Gospels can be used as evidence to support this claim. The Historical Jesus is not necessarily synonymous with the Christ of Christian faith. Ehrman doesn't say the Gospels alone "prove" that there was a Historical Jesus. They are one piece of a larger puzzle. Meighan said: "2) does the fact that Moses' story is told full in Exodus qualify as evidence for the existence of a historical Moses??" Exodus could well be used as evidence for the existence of a Historical Moses. You're confusing "evidence" with "proof", I believe. Evidence is merely the artifacts that one brings to the table to support one's claim. Meighan said: "3) what about the fact that there were people living AT THE TIME (or shortly after, much closer to the source than Dr Ehrman is) who were Docetists?! Where they "kooks" too??" It is debatable whether Docetists existed during the time of Jesus. And Docetists didn't dispute the existence of a Historical Jesus. They believed there was a guy whom (hypothetically) a video camera could have captured. Docetists disputed the claim that Jesus was truly flesh and bone, believing instead that he was some kind of phantasm. Docetism is not the same as Mythicism.
@Meighan Dacey Yeah.. I mean, I'm just a layperson as well, but I think he drew some remarkably strange parallels here. I don't readily accept that the evidence for a historical Jesus is strong at all. If you applied the same standard of evidence to a modern claim, you'd never take it very seriously, I suspect. Using the new testament as a source is a problem given the obvious bias in those books, the fact that they're written by anonymous authors for the most part, much later, and seem to be copies of one another. You have sources like Paul, but he isn't what I'd call a credible source given his hallucinations about Jesus. He did claim to meet some of the original disciples of Jesus, like James for example. Maybe he did, and maybe they claimed to have really met Jesus, or even been his brother. Definitely possible. But we have people today who lie about even quite mundane things to try to impress people, so I'm honestly not sure why that'd be a good source, and why we would trust the people he talked to, even if we did trust him - the incredibly guilt ridden sudden convert who hallucinates divine visitations. The first extra-biblical source I know of that people tend to lean on to support a historical Jesus, is Josephus, but he was not an eye witness, or necessarily talked to eye witnesses. He makes a couple of off-hand remarks about Jesus, and we know that at least one of the two remarks he makes is obviously a forgery, at least in part. How can we be certain he even mentioned Jesus at all, and how do we know his information is any better than that of Paul, or James or any of the disciples - whom I don't really trust either. Put another way: Should I believe the alien known as J-Rod exists, because Dan Burisch says he does, and says he's met him - and we know Dan Burisch exists? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Yet somehow, because these are ancient accounts, we suddenly have to say it's a dead certainty that Jesus existed, even though the evidence is about as strong for Jesus as it is for J-Rod. Maybe Bart thinks it's unreasonable skepticism to not blindly trust the word of random 1st century cultists, but I don't think it's very convincing. Sorry, not sorry. The evidence boils down to unsubstantiated rumors from untrustworthy people. Now, maybe there was a historical Jesus. I'm not saying there wasn't. I'm saying I don't think the evidence is strong enough to say there definitely was. If ancient history scholars claim it is so strong, then convince me it's more than just random rumors. I'd want archaeological evidence - verifiable artifacts - ideally his remains. Failing that, I could settle for a "yeah he probably existed" if we had some roman or jewish or otherwise either neutral or hostile sources that make a note of him from when he was alive. It's often said we have more evidence for Jesus than we do for any other figure from ancient history - to which I say: Go tell that to tut ankh amun's corpse. We can go look at it if you like.
The thing that perplexes me about mythicism is that I've never heard anyone put forward a clear hypothesis of who created the myth, how, and why. All I've heard is nonsense like "Roman mind control."
This is one of my favorite videos that you've put out,although I like a lot of what Dr.Bob has to say.I'm not settled on the whole"mithysist"thing,but I tend to think that the jury is gonna be out, on the right or wrong of the subject for a long time,so I tend to agree with Bart on that.But I like his style of delivery.He seems to have the knack of being able to break things down into the language of the common people and make it palatable for us non-scholars.I learn a lot from listening to him.
I am sorry but telling me that the entirety of New Testament scholarship disagrees with the mythicist position is meaningless since the vast majority of bible scholars are believers. Even those who disagree with a literal interpretation of the bible tend to still work within an accepted church framework. Guess who pays for most biblical academics??
Don’t be a mythicist, “they’ll” make fun of you. How much ridicule did Thomas Thompson endure before his views on Moses became mainstream scholarship? Edit: To be clear, I don’t believe Jesus as myth will ever be mainstream. I am historicity agnostic myself. However, the point stands that ridicule is not sufficient reason to never question the consensus.
Why is why Ehrman has never ridiculed that position and debated it more than once, with quite clear reasons. I personally an atheist, am convinced a man called Jesus existed. I have not seen a compelling story it is a myth.
@@JamieStapletonplus I’m perfectly fine with a semantic challenge here, but when he says “crazy”, “bullocks” and compares mythicists to evolution deniers…I consider that ridicule. His one debate with Price was picking some low hanging fruit IMO. I’ve read Did Jesus Exist and How Jesus Became God, Ehrman never truly interacts with the best version of the arguments, which is what good critical thinking entails we do. I’m otherwise a fan of Ehrman’s work, but I wonder if he has some blinders on with this subject. The evidence is poor either way. The argument pretty much rests on the authentic letters of Paul. Mix in a whole load of speculation, and Paul can get you to lean historicist or mythicist. There just isn’t a smoking gun, and I think both sides of the argument would do well to speak in terms of probability rather than certainty. My two cents.
Wonder how much his "job" influences his opinion on mythicism. As for the "overwhelming" evidence he has never presented any and he seems to use it to end discussion.
@@paulrichards6894 at this point and with what sources are available (the bible) it's like proving the story of Adam and Eve. No one is arguing against the existence of "some couple hanging out in a garden", many of those existed. But that's not what historicity means. Not to me anyway.
For what I have gathered is that the main points were: 1. Paul met with people who met Jesus, and possibly his brother James. 2. James being the brother is corroborated by Josephus. To me, this is not overwhelming evidence, especially given the timeline of the written records. But, this is a common criterion for historians to accept someone was real in history. This makes sense giving that all you need is a person to spread rumors around, observed in cargo cults (a naval officer), Mormons (J smith), Scientology (L Ron Hubbard), etc. So yeah a crazy guy named Jesus who had a mini cult, and stories around him exaggerated. Caveat: I still think mythicist have a good argument, and it saddened me that Erhman laughed it off.
He does not convince on the mythicism question with an argumentum ad populum (appeal to majority). I wonder if he also believes the Jewish patriarchs were historical figures just because that was the consensus view some forty or fifty years ago, and for all of nearly two thousand years before then, _believed by thousands of scholars._ Carrier does not say unequivocally that Jesus never existed. He tilts towards that conclusion because the figure has been so heavily mythologized (he ranks higher on Raglan's _hero scale_ than Hercules), there is no real contemporaneous evidence showing he existed and the earliest writings we do have are Paul's, which speak of him as a revelatory figure. I have read more Carrier & Price than Ehrman, but I did read his Did Jesus Exist? Read it for yourself and decide. Either way, great interview! he is an awesome scholar from whom I've learned a lot and look forward to reading more of his books. Thank you to Dr. Ehrman for coming on Mythvision. I hope to see some more in the future.
It's impossible to ride 2 at once. He rode the colt. U guys, as christians, need to focus on aiding those suffering from racism and poverty instead of focusing on this minor crap.
All who listen to this man have a heart that hopes that God is not real and the Word of God is made up. My friends, God is real, and Gods Word will come to pass, 100%!!! Contradictions are just lacking wisdom to what the Lord is truly saying! Pray and stop speaking on your own understanding!
A couple of years ago a Mormon friend explained that, when Jesus says that "this generation shall not pass away before the coming of the Son Of Man' and "some of you still standing.......", that there are still people alive from Jesus' crowd; i.e., there are ~ 2000 year old people somewhere on earth. I learned in Mormon seminary in high school (I was raised Mormon but am currently atheist) that the Mormons -not to be outdone -have a tale of The Three Nephites who are also ~ 2000 years old anxiously waiting for the Second Coming.
I tried to point the "Who went to his tomb" thing to my fundamentalist friends and he argued basically putting them together into one gospel that they all went, but that some were omitted from others. He never understood the point that the all knowing God 'told' 'Mark' something different happened in the other gospels. It's so sad trying to change their mind
You should have told Bart that Mcclatchie was the guy who rage quit in a debate with Matt Dillahunty where he was getting his rearend handed to him. I’ll bet Bart would know who he is then. 😂😂😂
Hey,Derek! Where do you get the time to do all this work you do with your channel? I swear,you must be the hardest working guy in this format on RUclips.Maybe Suris comes close to the output you produce-but I'm not sure.Anyhow,you impress the hell out of me!
@@falsosprofetashunter4182Jesus being the supposed Messiah of the Jews and making a point that the Kingdom of God is near and telling his apostles that they should be vigilant as it would happen in their lifetime. Jesus dying for anyone isn't Messianic prophecy, not his interesting parables, and the miracles mean nothing if he didn't bring the whole earth to worship God when he was alive the first time. That's believed in Judaism. That all will understand and turn to God and not over thousands of years of conversion either.
@@ivetterodríguez-j4k After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:11-12
Romans 16:17-18 New King James Version (NKJV) Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
@@rochesterjohnny7555 and “Christ” is a title, not a name. Many people were given that title in those days. Bart also mentions Paul’s letters, but from what I’ve read, there’s not not much indication of a terrestrial Jesus there. As Price says “there may have been a historical Jesus, but there isn’t any longer.
Compared to the clarity and strength of all the other great works also imperfectly copied by hand by monks over millennia? I still read Aristotle and Plato and don't worry much about mistakes monks might have made patiently copying such great works by hand. Orthodox Christians are not beholden to sola fide and sola scriptura heresies in the first place. Ponder that.
@@MGHarris I wish these historicists would just give one solid source or what logic they are using instead of that they all agree. So far all the sources that I have been told about don't hold up well to scrutiny(Josphus, Tacitus etc). I think the real answer is that we don't (can't) know. I still give ~70% chance that of part of the amalgamation of characters (Moses, Elisha etc.) was based on a real person. But that leaves a healthy 30% chance that it is complete mythical characters (like Moses).
Poor show. There was a time restraint, and, rather than cut down on the number of questions asked, the producers decided to ask all the questions they had and didn't afford Bart the opportunity to adequately answer them. This was a poor decision and ruined the show for me. I don't know what the producers were thinking about.
I believe that Jesus is Lord and he rose from the dead and hes coming again. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. The idea of an inerrant Bible is RIDICULOUS. This should not be an article of faith any more than an infallible pope!
Great to see this exchange between a great teacher and an eager student. Excellent job handling the tech and keeping up an intense pace while keeping the depth.
Ok so again another acronym . Testament is territory empire sovereign territory alliance metal empire nation territory. (Lengthy isn't it). Divinity is dynasty imperial Rome imperial nation imperial territory queen. Jesus is the system of government and the seperation of powers in government and the three arms of government . All words are acronyms .so Jesus is justice executive senate under sovereign and was created in Israel adopted by Rome in 79ad and used even today by many countries as government system. Oh virgin is v is for Rome so Rome imperial royal grand imperial nation. Gospels are Grand order sovereign preatorian empire Legion. Lucian means Legion under Centurion imperial alliance nation Two more examples from this lucifer Means Legion under Centurion imperial forces empire Rome. This word is a later edition to Devil which is dynasty empire Rome imperial Legion. Which actually means the military forces was too small and they lost the war or were beaten to death.
The New Testament is very questionable. Because Originally written in Greek ❌ Jesus story was pretty much a copy of heru ❌ Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John stories do not match ❌
Bart like many people seem to simply not accept certain reported witness events in relation to what happened, whether supernatural or not. And change the reported accounts to change the narrative of what was reported to suit their view and position. He dismisses the reported account that Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb. By doing this, he removes the empty tomb report which in due course takes away the reported resurrection of Jesus. He says his not out to do this, but that's what it does. He just says in his opinion the body of Jesus was left on the cross and eventually buried in a unknown grave, because in other cases that's what happened. However, in the case of Jesus that's not what was reported and for reasons given. He removes the apologetics of a resurrected Jesus, and places doubt literally on the following events that are reported thereafter, and the witnessed ascension of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Because of his personal opinion of no tomb burial. It's also hypocritical of him because he'll use reported events that suit his narrative and others that don't fit his theories. He doesn't have any evidence that Jesus was buried in an unknown grave, and there is nothing anywhere reported that this occurred, other than Jesus was placed in a tomb. Furthermore, the preaching of a resurrected Jesus was spreading quickly after his execution, which was a threat to the stability for both Roman and Jewish authorities. If Jesus was buried in a grave by the authorities, then the Jewish leaders and Roman rulers could have easily put an end to Jesus as the messiah. To stop this idea of a resurrected messiah which had serious complications for the Roman leaders and Jewish authorities who ordered his execution. They could of simply have exhumed the body of Jesus, and presented the dead body of Jesus to the people, and lay the preaching of the resurrected Jesus as messiah to rest, and it would be finished. The only information we have is Jesus was taken down and placed in a tomb, because it was the Sabbath for Jews. Bart chooses to believe Jesus was buried in a grave because that's what fits his narrative of Jesus not being the incarnate God and messiah. And when he makes those unsupported claims, not only does it change the essence of Jesus and his divinity as the incarnate God. Its also what Muslims and others do that dismiss reported events by making unsupported claims to suit there narrative. And by doing so, likewise it takes away the incarnate God Jesus in the flesh. There are others like Bart that do the same thing, just change the narrative to suit their views. An example is Paul’s declaration of Jesus when he was on the road to Damascus, and his conversion to Christ. Those same people simply dismiss what Paul wrote about his conversion to Jesus Christ, and say he had a seizure on the road to Damascus, and thought he spoke to Jesus. Again, there's nothing to support that view at all, just unsupported opinions. On the contrary, when one reads the words of Paul, it's clear he was of sound mind and knew exactly what had happened, that being the resurrected Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Paul was a Roman Citizen and well educated, nowhere can you find Paul having seizures of any sort anywhere, and it’s ludicrous to think that. And this is what Bart Ehrman does, the same thing happens when you dismiss Pauls experience as a seizure with nothing to support it, you change the narrative of Paul to suit your opinion. Just like Bart and others do, saying Jesus was buried in a unknown grave. Just his opinion as he states himself, that's just one example of Barts view on the reported events and there are others. Also Bart makes scripturally wrong assumptions for example when he speaks of the Ten Commandments - “though shall have no other gods ". He claims of pre-supposed other gods in existence. Yes, there were Mythical Pagan Gods like "sun gods" and all sorts. Ancient Egyptian deities are the gods and goddesses worshipped in ancient Egypt, and there are many of them. Those other pagan gods did not appear in the flesh and present miraculous miracles like Jesus did before real people. So the commandment was given to praise the ONE and only TRUE God of the bible. Not pagan sun gods etc. And in time, this same God of the commandments revealed himself in the flesh in Jesus, that's the difference between God of the bible and the pagan gods (no other gods) mentioned in the Ten Commandments. People had created so many gods, it even progressed to the point many of those gods were at war with each other. So the commandment was given ONE GOD without any confusion. The ONE GOD that gave those commandments to Moses is the same GOD in Christ Jesus. All other pagan gods from that time have fallen, except the God of the bible. And that rule still stands today with other made up gods currently circulating. So even though Bart says his intention is not to disprove God of the bible, he does so indirectly, whether intentionally or not. And so does this by changing parts of the biblical narrative with no support to suit his theories. So one can contend his examination and beliefs are somewhat problematic, and present an unsubstantiated point of view.
@tom todd The quran says that Jesus was a prophet just as you say. The quran also says that a prophet can not lie, because they are sent by God, otherwise if they did lie then that would prove they were not of God and are a false prophet. Jesus said that he was God in the flesh and came down from heaven, he also said he was the son of God. Jesus also said that he is the only messiah and anyone who comes after him should not be believed. So if Jesus is a prophet from God, and the quran says he is a prophet and he must be believed. Then how can you say Jesus was just a prophet ? He said he was "GOD" in the flesh ! He said he came to earth from "Heaven". So if the quran says Jesus was just a man and prophet, that means the quran is contradicting itself. Because its says YOU MUST believe what prophets from God say. But with Jesus who came 750 years before Mohammad, you don't believe the words he said that he was GOD in the flesh. Instead you chose to believe Mohammad who was born 750 years after Jesus, claiming he was just a prophet. So according to the quran, because Jesus was a prophet from God born 750 years before Mohammod was born, you must believe Jesus is God, otherwise you go against the teachings of the quran.
@tom todd The problem with Muslims and like many others, is they don't understand what the Trinity is. It's not 3 separate gods, the Trinity is still one God. Christians believe in one God not three. Here's a site I came across called - www.doesgodexistandbeyond.com - if you read it all, it will help you understand why Jesus is God in the flesh. There's also a topic on manuscript history which explains and shows earlier manuscripts before the 16th century, and why those verses of Jesus claiming his divinity as God on earth, are actually what he said. As I said, your information comes 750 years after Jesus, that's why you have a different story to what really happened.
I wish you would have gotten Erhman to say that l he isn’t a mythicist but he also does not believe that the miracles of the Bible are historically supported. Because Christians always conflate the two 1. Atheists agree Christ existed 2. Empty tomb 3. Therefore christ is god, on your knees Sinner!
I predict that when Ehrman is retired he will conclude his own findings that Jesus never existed. Till then, he has a career to protect. Thank you Derek for your hustle and please keep “fighting the good fight”.
@@historicalbiblicalresearch8440 He says Jesus was just another cult leader and was put in a common ground burial. What's careful about that? I mean...
@@marshallferron Bart says: there was a guy, the guy was an ordinary guy, a cult leader (crook or crazy), the guy was put on a cross, then his body was dumpted in a common burial ground. So not myth based, but really not the messiah either.
With all due respect to Dr. Ehrman, while someone called Jesus, or whatever his actual name was, actually existed, the Jesus of the Bible never did. It was based on myths. I exist but if someone 20 years after I die says I was conceived by a god impregnating my mother and some stories about me ascending to heaven, then that me never existed and is derived from myths. So if 99% of the biblical Jesus is false, then for all intents and purposes, he never existed.
As for scribes changing texts intentionally, on numerous occasions I’ve changed a joke told to me in order to make it funnier. Isn’t everyone guilty of that?
This was hands down one of the best if not THE BEST dissection of the new testament and apologetics I've ever seen. You're extremely bright, well worded, and genuinely likable. Just a home run. Subbed and will be coming back. Thanks.
I stumbled upon this informative channel. And addicted to know more about the bible story. Also started to read Voltaire which Dr. Ehrman had mentioned.
I completely don't understand the women visiting the tomb contradiction, and it hurts Erhman's credibility going down this track. If I go to the store and run in to Lucy and Sam, and then tell a story ..."I ran into Sam at the store..." I'm not contradicting myself when I say to someone else, "I ran into Sam and Lucy..." I'm just providing different details. None of the grammar or content does anything to show a contradiction. It's only possibly a contradiction. That ani't good enough.
Ehrman is just insufferably arrogant and elitist and many of his "arguments" nothing but straw men (especially appeals to authority). I can't stand listening to him.
From memory Carrier believes there is only a one in three chance Jesus ever existed, so he does not completely rule out his existence. And the Jesus, if he did exist , probably differed significantly from the character presented in the gospels.
Bart Ehrman is amazing. He's not only a scholar with few equals, a big part of his magic and talent is that he phrases and explains things which even the most simple lay person can understand and relate to. I also very much admire the fact that (like me), he really has no interest in destroying or belittling someone's faith structure, he's just interested in the facts (and is superlative at seeing the weaknesses in apologists arguments and expertly poking holes through them.) I've watched many hours of his lectures and debates and could happily watch hours more.
"he phrases and explains things which even the most simple lay person can understand and relate to" I think it is because he uses simple criteria for his narratives. It's simple and shallow with no depth whatsoever. If you actually read his books you would easily find contradictions and logical errors. Just people do not read critically and only takes in what they want to see and hear. One serious error he makes is that he think his narrative is absolutely plausible while some other narratives are implausible. I would agree if he had enough evidence but he only has limited materials that he claims forged or manipulated in the first place. He would be a great scholar if he stayed as a historian but he is turning his belief system into some form of proven truth. That doesn't seem right and that is where he fails.
Satan destroys those he infests with demons by their vain pride, instead of praying for wisdom from God, they destroy themselves by pride and vain glory
„Mythicists don’t have any evidence” but isn’t that the point that there isn’t any evidence? Comparing historicism to the theory of evolution made me instantly become a mythicist. Was on the fence before. Historicist have so little evidence and yet are so confident, so they definitely are biased.
@@paulrichards6894 I mean yes, he may have existed. But the default position should be doubt. And that guy just compared Jesus (almost no evidence) to evolution (unbelievable amounts of evidence). This tells me that he is talking out of his ass and the mythicists are probably on to something, if he is like most of his colleagues
for me it makes more sense he was just made up....all other dying and rising gods at the same time were made up so what's different with Jesus...add in he never even made a ripple in the society of the time.......if he did exist then he did so little no one thought it was worthy to write about...............in the 1970s Moses was first doubted as a real person.....people said it is impossible that moses wasn't a real person.......only biblical literalists think he existed now.............but these people believe in talking snakes zombies and humans living inside a fish
A couple of weeks ago while arguing with me about the historicity a Christian went to the go-to evidence almost every Christian goes to.....Bart Ehrman says he existed and he is the greatest biblical historian alive...............then when you point out Ehrman thinks Moses never existed............they always reply in the same thread that Bart Ehrman doesn't know what he is talking about... it's so funny
I like Bart Ehrman. The only problem I have with him is that he is very charismatic. And therefore he is able to bring things and opinions that are very dubious in his field as facts. He seems to be the kind of scholar that is not really adaptive to new information. What he learned in university when he was younger he just accepts as absolute truths. He is still using Feldman's old argument about Josephus for example, where atleast the core of the FT about Jesus is authentic. Feldman himself however revised his opinion in the 2000s after a comparison of texts and came to the conclusion that it was most likely Eusebius that wrote all of it because of phrasing of sentences and the usage of certain words. It was certainly not written in the 1st or 2nd century. When confronted on his blog about this he said he didn't know about that but still hangs on to Feldman's old theory, which Feldman himself said was wrong. And not explaining why. Yet in other posts he said he regarded Feldman as the world's foremost Josephus expert. So I lost a lot of trust in his objectivity towards certain conclusions he makes. Him, Carrier, Price agree by far on most things. Yet he always seems to make a strange turn coming to his conclusion of historicity. Like he agrees everything is forged, we have nothing from Jesus' time, but somehow he comes to the conclusion that Jesus was for certain a real living man. And that is where his charism comes into play to cover up very iffy "evidence" for his position.
No offense, but you are a total dumbass. The question is not about evidence. Sure we do not have direct evidence of Jesus. But we have writings that are fairly clearly from Paul, who knew (and wrote letters to) various people who claimed to know Jesus. This is basic logic called "Occam’s razor": the simplest explanation is usually right. You really think an entire community of people were hallucinating/deliberately lying over the person of Jesus? No. Far more likely is that Jesus existed as a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, as there were many at the time.
@@tripp8833 Yet we have no evidence those people actually existed. Paul clearly did not know about any of the gospels. And how 'miraculous' that a few random letters from Paul survived among all the forged ones. But not a single mention, inscription, or letter from any other source.
@@mver191 You would really need a far reaching conspiracy theory to claim that everything was forged, or that Paul was lying when he mentioned the apostles, and/or that the apostles were lying when they constructed the “myth” of Jesus. Think ...
Ehrman was inaccurate on the racism in slavery. Biblical slavery laws were both sexist and racist. Ehrman neglected to state that the were two distinct types of slavery in the bible - with the difference totally determined by race - Israelite v non-Israelite. And the biblical laws gave far better treatment to the Israelite slaves.
Please consider joining MythVision Patreon to help me in continuing doing this work! 💯
www.patreon.com/mythvision
-💥Get early access to 100's of videos not made public
-💥Ask questions for scholars I interview and potentially have a video recording from the scholars
-💥Private message me
Psalm 118:8. Trust no man. Only God. That simple.
Don't always agree but always enjoy listening to Dr Ehrman, can't wait to watch this one
BART EHRMAN is such a plentiful fountain of useful & factual information. WOW! I love this!
How did you evaluate that?
@@geraldpolmateer3255 I read many of his publications & compared his conclusions with the conclusions agreed upon by the consensus of scholars in various fields of historical studies. I also study evidence while also evaluating observations & most of the time information from Prof. Ehrman is consistent, logical, & reasonably accurate with reality.
@@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar When I studied physics in the first course I took we were presented with the difference between precise and accurate. All of the clocks in a building can be precisely set at the same time and all could be inaccurate.
Ehrman should know about historical research, if he has studied research methods. Historical events are one time events and cannot be proven by the scientific method. For something to be science/experimental research it must be repeatable. In fact they cannot be proven than other by historical research.
If you have read his works and have no way of evaluating what he writes, then he would seem consistent. Let me give an example. I taught at the university in a professional program that was one of the top programs in the U.S. We would laugh at some of the consensus among textbooks written by those who did not have any professional experience. They were consistent but consistently had errors. Consensus can be a dangerous way to do research because if each of the "scholars" all read each others books then they will all agree. That is the reason why you should read books what disagree and listen to debates among some of the best.
View the video in which he debates Dan Wallace ruclips.net/video/WRHjZCKRIu4/видео.html
Take a look at ruclips.net/video/ns35f93WTuw/видео.html
@@geraldpolmateer3255 it sounds like you did a google search on what "consensus" means. You seem to have a misunderstanding of how consensus scholarship works & I'm not convinced you're aware of how peer review works either. Falsifiability is imperative for ALL claims, whether scientific or historical. It's the method for arriving at the claim, assertion, or conclusion that can be repeated - not necessarily the past event itself. LOL R U seriously recommending the debate where Dan Wallace falsely speaks about the "earliest dated Mark manuscript"? That turned out to not be so early at all, by 1 or 2 CENTURIES! (Papyrus 137).
@@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar When did you study textual criticism and the Coherence Based Genealogical Method?
The breadth of opinion is the greatest asset of this channel. Keep going!
I love the part where Dr. Erham is asked to "Blink twice if he is secretly a Mythicist" and he opens his eyes even more widely. 🤣 He has a great sense of humor.
He fuckin blinked twice and kept doing it 🤔 Bart Ehrman is crypto mythicist confirmed 😎
He did blink twice though!
/blink
/blink
This was pretty awkward sometimes, I can see the pain on Bart's face when random weird fan ideas and apologists criticizing Bart's work are brought up.
he aslo laughs about it
Oh man.. My favorite scholar at all times.. The Legend 👑
Thanks for giving your time Dr. Erhman. I think its wonderful when expert shares their knowledge.
Dr. Bart Ehrman is such a great guy, seeing the frustration on his face at 45:57 is just painful.
Well done on the illustrations! Kuddos to Steven Nelson.
I’ve been waiting so long for this conversation!
This was incredible!! This was also VERY frightening! At 16:14 in, with the question on what happened when the "son of god" didn't return and then when Jesus didn't return based on the book When Prophecy Fails. In America anyway, this is repeating itself! When an unnamed former president didn't get reinstated by Jan 6, then not by Jan 20, now the date is August. What's happening, a cognitive dissonance and you would think the group would get smaller, it's not, it's getting bigger!!
They missed Thanksgiving also. As I understand it, Trump is now supposed to be back in the White House by Christmas 2021. I suggest they aim for July 4th, 2023. That will give them lots of time for financial grift from their gullible cult members.
Don't venture into politics.Stayon the subject matter.
@@gylnnteichmann4985Comment police
You need to have Dr. Michael Heiser on to address the issues Dr. Ehrman brought up about contradictions to the Old and New Testament.
Dr. Heiser doesn't even acknowledge the Documentary Hypothesis. I've interviewed with him in the past on his book Demons. Asking him for contradictions is like asking catholics for evidence that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin. They cannot permit contradictions as Evangelical Christians.
@@MythVisionPodcast Actually, Dr. Heiser has addressed the Documentary Hypothesis and finds it to be flawed in its logic.
Your immediate dismissal of the suggestion to ask Dr. Heiser to address the contradictions that Dr. Ehrman claims occurs in the New Testament, is disturbing.
If you truly are seeking knowledge, wisdom, and understanding in the Biblical scriptures then you will need to reach out to Dr. Heiser and those like him that can provide a well-balanced approach to studying the Biblical scriptures.
I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. Dr. Heiser rejects the DH with no real reason to do so. I have seen his rejection. He also rejects contradictions anywhere in the bible.
I would be interested in seeing Dr. Heiser have a discussion or debate with other critical scholars who can take him to task on the DH.
Thank you sooo much for this, Derek....Amazing just amazing!
"that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."
- St. Paul, Rom 3:19.
Congratulations on getting Prof Ehrman on your channel, Derek. He’s such a knowledgeable man and a great speaker. Always worth listening to.
However, his comparison between mythicism and Fox News and between historicity and evolution are quite absurd. The data are nowhere near that good. I really can’t believe that he has read Dr Carrier’s book on the historicity of Jesus. It may be wrong, but it’s rigorous and strongly argued, and to dismiss it as “bollocks” is just not good enough. I have read Prof Ehrman’s book on the subject and I’ve seen his debate with Dr Price and I found the arguments for historicity far from overwhelming.
The number of serious credible scholars that entertain mythicism is equivalent to the number of credible biologists that entertain creation/intelligent design (less than 1%). His analogy is not absurd.
I’d rather these things were argued from the evidence. An argument from consensus is a logical fallacy.
@@richardhunt809 yeah, no one's arguing from consensus, it's an analogy. I hope you don't think the entire argument for evolution is from consensus.
No, of course not. The evidence for evolution really is overwhelming. If Ehrman thinks the argument for Jesus historicity is overwhelming then all I can say is that he must be very easily overwhelmed.
@@richardhunt809 well, him and everyone else who does this for a living
I still think Richard Carrier makes way more sense because:
1. The ONLY record of a historical Jesus is the New Testament. Even Philo does not write about him, although he does write about other NT characters, such as John the Baptist.
2. The New Testament gets so many things wrong that it can't be trusted.
So, where is the evidence Bart Ehrman was referring to? He never gave any.
Rabbi Tovia Singer says: That sounds like slavery to me! Making people forget what they had before! Who comes up with this stuff?!
professor Ehrman is a brilliant Bible scholar and very influential among conservative evangelical Christians who are having doubts about the inerrancy and reliability of the Bible. but his view that there was a historical person behind the legendary Christ of the Gospels is seriously questioned by equally brilliant Bible scholars who think that Jesus is purely mythical or fictional. and even if the professor is correct regarding this issue, it would be very difficult for a non-historian like me to judge which of the conflicting portraits of the historical Jesus presented by the Bible experts is the most accurate one.
A true legend in biblical scholarship...
Dr Ehrmans explains the differences in the spectrum of the ancient practice of slavery vs US slavery. There are very important distinctions, but i think what gets lost in these arguments is the essential critique. These arguments get framed in terms of moral relativism and the historical context of the practice. This is a fine discussion relative to mankinds moral and ethical evolution over time. But the salient critique is how a timeless omnipotent god can co-sign the idea of slavery in any form or at any time, yet still be identified with "the good". Men are a product of thier time and is ethically judged according to the social norms of the time and place in which he lived. God is supposed to exist outside of time, so would not be subject to the same human limitations and fluctuating moral understanding of right vs wrong. God is not entitled to the same excuse as thomas jefferson.
Great episode!
Bart Ehrmen is one of the greatest bible scholars out there
about 30 minutes in: "The evidence is so overwhelming" might be the hyperbole of the year. 'People are laughing' isn't a good argument.
It’s so overwhelming that he can’t even list any of it
Saul of Tarsus, was rejected, and refuted in his life time...he admits that all in Asia turned away from him and abandoned him...he was only revived later by Marcion, and then he, and his epistles, were "reformed", i.e. used, by non-Jewish "orthodox" Christians to fight and defeat the heretic movements back then, today grouped together as Gnostics and Gnosticism.
I enjoy Bart Ehrman nowadays, he is comfortable, no longer defending anything. He is clever, agnostic atheist, you can't touch that. Certainly he is challenged by his students, comes with the position. The Tom Brady, Wynton Marsalis of New Testament scholarship, been there done that, love or hate them they are set for life.
HI Derek, I was a non-religious state educated 19yo when I first spoke to a religious person. The following week I bought a Bible to read by myself and later joined a church. I have found that so many sites like yours and commentators on forums don't really know what the Bible says, they assume the Bible says things which it doesn't, they are not comprehending what they are reading like what we learned in school if they do read it. When I try show what the Bible says I get insulted and mocked and avoidance of good points that I have made. Not many actually want to learn or make sure they are not looking at or fighting straw men etc. I was so surprised when I read the Bible from what it really says I didn't know were there. So I am asking if your channel could be a fair channel and not one that knocks down straw men. I give some comment on the above video now.
btw even a lot of Christians have wrong ideas: I have found by just reading Genesis Chapter 1 that earth is the land above the water level around seas, not the planet and that heaven is where the winged fowl fly, ie the atmosphere not the universe or where God's throne is. God did make the universe by His word, but a long time before the Genesis event.
btw again: if an author is thinking about writing a novel like 'Oliver Twist' in his mind he would see what his characters look like and hear how the spoke and then imagine them being down in a coal mine etc. When he stops to have lunch he thinks about lunch and immediately all the Oliver Twist characters cease to exist, until he finishes lunch. This is like it is with God and creation. The Bible says 'in Him we live and move and have our being.' The good thing is that God never loses His attention for us neither is too busy to care for us.
If you read through the Gospels you can see that there were far more people than 20 who were actually believers of Jesus. For example, Jesus sent out 70 guys on a campaign. Not all of His believers would have been walking around with Him. In regards to when Jesus would return the prophecies of Daniel were well known among genuine believers and those described specified events up to about 1500 years later on, but the actual time of His return has no publicly announced date and would occur after the last prophecy. So what Bart is saying is way off the mark. Something else he discussed is to do with other guys claiming to be divine etc, but who were not much like Jesus otherwise. Don't leave out Lucifer/Satan. Satan would discredit or counterfeit what the Scriptures say, using dupes. The problem is you and Bart probably think Satan and his demons don't exist. However, if you are publicly criticizing/mocking the Bible then you must include them and God's angels and of course God Himself otherwise what you are doing is just a propaganda piece for some agenda you have. Why don't you do a fair examination of evolution and Darwin in particular? Darwin's faith in evolution was entirely based on his ignorance of what the Bible said, not on what he saw in nature. It is show up Richard Dawkins' ignorance in his rant against the Old Testament. There are organisations with a vested interest in discrediting the Bible, mainly due to the desire for total control of everyone in a tyrant sense.
@Jacob sounds like the formal mainline churches you are talking about. You shouldn't let them get between you and God. Abraham and Moses talked face to face with God in His angelic manifestation like a friend with a friend. That is the religion you would like. Talk to Him now.
I assume you can fluently speak ancient Greek and Hebrew and were able to go back to the earliest surviving scrolls, as Bart Ehrman has. Or did you get all your beliefs from some Protestant Bible thumping preacher? This channel has Biblical scholars. This is a different world from the preachers who indoctrinate you each Sunday.
@@willchristie2650 You remind me of this Scripture... John 7:47-49
[47]Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?
[48]Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?
[49]But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.
Apparently you don't believe what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth. John 16:13
It's hilarious how Ehrman can't refute Carrier, so he just resorts to ad hominem attacks. It gives me secondhand embarrassment.
The difference is almost all professors are Christians or former Christians.
Barts arguments against mythicism are flimsy. I would like to see him respond to actually legitimate evidence.
Great show
I love Bart's work, but I think his assertion then American slavery had everything to do with race is ignorant of history. Africa was a cheap source of slave labor, and racial views were imported after in order to justify it not the reason.
I do go to church and since listening to your channel I notice most church services have nothing to do with Historicity of Jesus we actually use the bible as allegory. Then we eat and talk about each other😉
is everything in the bible that we now know is not true called allegory by your church...i thought people just ignored science??
I am an atheist but I have friends who are Christian. They do not deny science and they see the bible stories as purely allegorical. The problem is with the American Christian Evangelical movement (and I include JWs, Mormons and others ), which is extremist religious dogma spouted by rich auld white men parading around as pastors for profit.
@@outlawJosieFox steven furtick a preacher though admittedly is young is worth 55 million dollars
Bart like many people seem to simply not accept certain reported witness events in relation to what happened, whether supernatural or not. And change the reported accounts to change the narrative of what was reported to suit their view and position. He dismisses the reported account that Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb. By doing this, he removes the empty tomb report which in due course takes away the reported resurrection of Jesus. He says his not out to do this, but that's what it does. He just says in his opinion the body of Jesus was left on the cross and eventually buried in a unknown grave, because in other cases that's what happened. However, in the case of Jesus that's not what was reported and for reasons given. He removes the apologetics of a resurrected Jesus, and places doubt literally on the following events that are reported thereafter, and the witnessed ascension of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Because of his personal opinion, which are the very essence of the Christian faith and the divinity of Jesus.
It's also hypocritical of him because he'll use reported events that suit his narrative and others that don't fit his theories. He doesn't have any evidence that Jesus was buried in an unknown grave, and there is nothing anywhere reported that this occurred, other than Jesus is placed in a tomb.
Furthermore, the preaching of a resurrected Jesus was spreading quickly after his execution, which was a threat to the stability for both Roman and Jewish authorities. If Jesus was buried in a grave by the authorities, then the Jewish leaders and Roman rulers could have easily put an end to Jesus as the messiah. To stop this idea of a resurrected messiah which had serious complications for the Roman leaders and Jewish authorities who ordered his execution. Simply would have exhumed the body of Jesus, and presented the dead body of Jesus to the people, and lay the preaching of the resurrected Jesus as messiah to rest, and it would be finished. The only information we have is Jesus was taken down and placed in a tomb, because it was the Sabbath for Jews. Bart just thinks that's what happened because that's what fits his narrative of Jesus not being the incarnate God and messiah. And when he makes those unsupported claims, not only does it change the essence of Jesus and his divinity as the incarnate God, it also fits into how Muslims and others simply dismiss reported events by making unsupported claims. And by doing so, likewise it takes away the incarnate God Jesus in the flesh.
There are others like Bart that do the same thing, just change the narrative to suit their views. An example is Paul’s declaration of Jesus when he was on the road to Damascus, and his conversion to Christ. Those same people simply dismiss what Paul wrote about his conversion to Jesus Christ, and say he had a seizure on the road to Damascus, and thought he spoke to Jesus. Again, there's nothing to base that view at all, just unsupported opinion. On the contrary, when one reads the words of Paul, it's clear he was of sound mind and knew exactly what had happened, that being the resurrected Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Paul was a Roman Citizen and well educated, nowhere can you find Paul having seizures of any sort anywhere, and it’s ludicrous to think that. And this is what Bart Ehrman does, the same thing happens when you dismiss Pauls experience as a seizure with nothing to support it, you change the narrative of Paul to suit your opinion. Just like Bart and others do, saying Jesus was buried in a unknown grave. Just his opinion as he states himself, that's just one example of Barts view on the reported events.
Also Bart makes scripturally wrong assumptions for example when he mentioned the Ten Commandments - “though shall have no other gods ". He claims of pre-supposed other gods in existence. Yes, there were Mythical Pagan Gods like "sun gods" and all sorts. Ancient Egyptian deities are the gods and goddesses worshipped in ancient Egypt, and there are many of them. Those other pagan gods did not appear in the flesh and present miraculous miracles like Jesus did before real people.
The command was given to praise the ONE and only TRUE God of the bible. Not pagan sun gods. And in time, this same God of the commandments revealed himself in the flesh in Jesus, that's the difference between God of the bible and the pagan gods (no other gods), mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
God that gave the commandments to Moses is the same God in Christ Jesus. All other pagan gods from that time have fallen, except the God of the bible. And that rule still stands today with other made up Gods currently circulating.
So even though Bart says his intention is not to disprove God of the bible, he does so indirectly, whether intentionally or not. And so does this by changing parts of the biblical narrative with no support to suit his theories.
So one can contend his examination and beliefs are somewhat problematic, and present an unsubstantiated point of view.
@@carlwebstern5065 you don't prove the bible by using the bible
Noah gets blackout drunk and then his son sees him naked so Noah curses him. That’s incredible.
His daughters get raped.
I'm pretty sure Ham made fun of him but I'm not sure what the point was besides family drama. I mean, family drama is most of Genesis.
@@ivetterodríguez-j4k It is riffing on the Adam and Eve narrative where they realise they're naked and cover themselves IMO
Great achievement acquiring an interview with Ehrman. He's such a busy guy that it's a milestone for your hard work with this channel.
Totally Agree.. Congrats Derek 👍👍
Derek took three showers after, I heard it through the grapevine... The things one does to make a channel successful, kudos to him!
money talks
@James Barlow
Yes!
This things are known in the biblical scholarly world for almost 200 yrs.. yet i wonder why it doesnt reach the pews
@James Barlow
Yup! I just came to know about this things by reading and listening to biblical scholars like ehrman. it was never taught in sunday schools and you never hear these things from a pastor who most surely know these things
As an Englishman I was taken aback to hear Bart say “bollocks”, I was extremely amused.
did he say his wife was english??..i am sure he did
@@paulrichards6894 He did. She is. That's why Bart is on the radio show Unbelievable a lot, since they frequently go to UK to visit her family.
Bart's wife Sarah a Shakespeare scholar.
I heard him say somewhere that the Shakespeare fakes are as bad as fake bible books
@@anarchorepublican5954 Can I ask you a question? What does Mythicism refer to (here)?
@@anarchorepublican5954 So mythicism about Christianity, is saying Jesus never existed? That he's a myth?
The irony of McLatchie misquoting Ehrman and effectively proving Ehrman's whole point
Poor McLatchie, he is beyond rediculous at this point. He won't abandon his Christianity though, it doesn't seem like facts mean anything to the man. He prefers his fantasies and his imaginary friend.
Love Ehrman. I think he should at least have an open discussion with Carrier.
I’ve watched a lot of content with Dr. Ehrman, he looks like he had more fun doing this interview than most of the content I’ve seen him do interview wise
Next time he will pay to show up.
N I have watched a lot of content about lela star, Luna star and Rachel Starr
I've bought all of Ehrman's great courses on Audible. I've listened to all except one so far 🙂
He's a brilliant teacher and orator.
Hi @Joël, please where did you buy those courses? I am really interested. Thanks
@@yacouvbanou6886 Audible.com - I have them too, and they're excellent. Audible has not only his "The Great Courses" lectures (of which there are many!) but also several of his audiobooks.
@@ftumschk thanks very appreciate
According to Richard Carrier, Ehrman IS lazy and sloppy. At the very least, it seems like he goes out of his way to avoid offending Christians, which takes away a few points for me. Wish we could get that debate!
Couldn't agree more Blaine. If Ehrman's so comfortable in his certitude, then why does he continually refuse to debate Carrier?
I find Ehrman's criticisms of Carrier and the mythicists to be most inadequate: it was ad hominem, so he effectively played the man and not the ball. To paraphrase: "Carrier's published articles, but so what?"
Plus he cites the "thousands" of NT scholars who agree with him, but they're all those who rely, like him, on their continued tenure by giving NO ground to the mythicist position. Hmmm, if it walks like a duck...
Richard Carrier is not credited in the academic field in biblical studies. Dr Ehrman is and is more qualified
@@andrewburgess8695 Only 2 out of thousands of scholar's believe Carrier last I looked
If there is a god, why do we have to debate it?
@@timothygibney159 Dr Ehrman is not credited is the field of history, Dr Carrier is and is more qualified
You’re such an informed and excellent interviewer, Derek. A great discussion many people should hear.
I think you're going to like this.
"In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast ... 'To physics and metaphysics.' Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy-truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory."
- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World.
I gotta agree with you on that Anthony. It's not just that he is informed, but Derek has a genuine interest and passion for learning.
He’s amazing
One of my top 3 live streams📖🧙♂️📓
ayo we have various types of evidence, for biblical events, if anyone is interested
the evidence for historisity is no way comparable to the evidence for evolution. him saying that is wrong.
@Dharma Defender he’s saying there’s a ton of evidence for both haha
@Dharma Defender I think “any” is misleading. You might think the evidence for Jesus is poor, but there is some. You may view the gospels as terrible history, but it’s still a piece of evidence even if it sucks.
@Dharma Defender if you think they aren’t evidence at all then you just have an unrealistic standard for what “evidence” is. Historians do not use that standard
@Dharma Defender ask a historian, I am not sure of their exact definition.
I could not agree more with your statement.. when I heard him say that,all I could hear in my head was his own voice saying we have no documentation for Jesus in the first century,nor the second century.. and he continued on like that... He’s probably thinking that if xtian apologists get wind of this, at least they can’t use it...as they would be the last ones to lend support for evolution..
You mad man! You did it!!
Thank you bro!!!!
Fantastic job of keeping the conversation flowing while fitting so many questions in.
Great interview! Bart is so personable, articulate and has a fun sense of humour. He makes very complex aspects of the Bible easy to understand for non-scholars. Great get, Derek! Let's hope you can make this happen again sometime
MYTHVISION is one of the BEST content channels available! Amazing knowledge resource here! Thank you MythVision. I hope this channel continues to grow & popularize :)
Try blogging theology on youtube.
Even better.
Overwhelming evidence? Where? Otherwise a great interview. It's great to see all these intelligent and passionate people with diverse views.
@Meighan Dacey I agree with you. I enjoy most of Ehrman's work bot I do think that he has a blidn spot on this area (most of us have). I like your argument with the docetists - good point.
@Meighan Dacey the evidence we have actually leans more towards a physical Jesus than him being a myth, Jesus being a complete fabrication and not a historical figure is far less likely than him being an actual person who amassed a following and was executed by Pilate.
@Meighan Dacey said: "1) the gospels are myth; put another way, they are the claim, NOT the proof. So they can't be used as historical documents"
No, the CLAIM is that there was a Historical Jesus as an explaination for the origin of Christianity - i.e. that there was an actual 1st century Jew named Jesus who started a movement, who was executed, and whose followers emerged into what we now identify as Christianity. The Gospels can be used as evidence to support this claim. The Historical Jesus is not necessarily synonymous with the Christ of Christian faith. Ehrman doesn't say the Gospels alone "prove" that there was a Historical Jesus. They are one piece of a larger puzzle.
Meighan said: "2) does the fact that Moses' story is told full in Exodus qualify as evidence for the existence of a historical Moses??"
Exodus could well be used as evidence for the existence of a Historical Moses. You're confusing "evidence" with "proof", I believe. Evidence is merely the artifacts that one brings to the table to support one's claim.
Meighan said: "3) what about the fact that there were people living AT THE TIME (or shortly after, much closer to the source than Dr Ehrman is) who were Docetists?! Where they "kooks" too??"
It is debatable whether Docetists existed during the time of Jesus. And Docetists didn't dispute the existence of a Historical Jesus. They believed there was a guy whom (hypothetically) a video camera could have captured. Docetists disputed the claim that Jesus was truly flesh and bone, believing instead that he was some kind of phantasm. Docetism is not the same as Mythicism.
@Meighan Dacey Yeah.. I mean, I'm just a layperson as well, but I think he drew some remarkably strange parallels here. I don't readily accept that the evidence for a historical Jesus is strong at all. If you applied the same standard of evidence to a modern claim, you'd never take it very seriously, I suspect.
Using the new testament as a source is a problem given the obvious bias in those books, the fact that they're written by anonymous authors for the most part, much later, and seem to be copies of one another. You have sources like Paul, but he isn't what I'd call a credible source given his hallucinations about Jesus. He did claim to meet some of the original disciples of Jesus, like James for example. Maybe he did, and maybe they claimed to have really met Jesus, or even been his brother. Definitely possible. But we have people today who lie about even quite mundane things to try to impress people, so I'm honestly not sure why that'd be a good source, and why we would trust the people he talked to, even if we did trust him - the incredibly guilt ridden sudden convert who hallucinates divine visitations.
The first extra-biblical source I know of that people tend to lean on to support a historical Jesus, is Josephus, but he was not an eye witness, or necessarily talked to eye witnesses. He makes a couple of off-hand remarks about Jesus, and we know that at least one of the two remarks he makes is obviously a forgery, at least in part. How can we be certain he even mentioned Jesus at all, and how do we know his information is any better than that of Paul, or James or any of the disciples - whom I don't really trust either.
Put another way: Should I believe the alien known as J-Rod exists, because Dan Burisch says he does, and says he's met him - and we know Dan Burisch exists? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Yet somehow, because these are ancient accounts, we suddenly have to say it's a dead certainty that Jesus existed, even though the evidence is about as strong for Jesus as it is for J-Rod.
Maybe Bart thinks it's unreasonable skepticism to not blindly trust the word of random 1st century cultists, but I don't think it's very convincing. Sorry, not sorry. The evidence boils down to unsubstantiated rumors from untrustworthy people.
Now, maybe there was a historical Jesus. I'm not saying there wasn't. I'm saying I don't think the evidence is strong enough to say there definitely was. If ancient history scholars claim it is so strong, then convince me it's more than just random rumors. I'd want archaeological evidence - verifiable artifacts - ideally his remains. Failing that, I could settle for a "yeah he probably existed" if we had some roman or jewish or otherwise either neutral or hostile sources that make a note of him from when he was alive.
It's often said we have more evidence for Jesus than we do for any other figure from ancient history - to which I say: Go tell that to tut ankh amun's corpse. We can go look at it if you like.
oh i sooo recommend to all you guys the works of Richard Carrier.
What a waste of time. Erhman is laughable charging for that drivel abd bailing out on the minute.
Yeah i see how he's worth a couple mil, charges thousands for a couple hours of waffle
The thing that perplexes me about mythicism is that I've never heard anyone put forward a clear hypothesis of who created the myth, how, and why. All I've heard is nonsense like "Roman mind control."
Paul of tarsus. He introduced the trinity from mythology. Look up mithras the sun God.
This is one of my favorite videos that you've put out,although I like a lot of what Dr.Bob has to say.I'm not settled on the whole"mithysist"thing,but I tend to think that the jury is gonna be out, on the right or wrong of the subject for a long time,so I tend to agree with Bart on that.But I like his style of delivery.He seems to have the knack of being able to break things down into the language of the common people and make it palatable for us non-scholars.I learn a lot from listening to him.
I am sorry but telling me that the entirety of New Testament scholarship disagrees with the mythicist position is meaningless since the vast majority of bible scholars are believers. Even those who disagree with a literal interpretation of the bible tend to still work within an accepted church framework. Guess who pays for most biblical academics??
Don’t be a mythicist, “they’ll” make fun of you. How much ridicule did Thomas Thompson endure before his views on Moses became mainstream scholarship?
Edit: To be clear, I don’t believe Jesus as myth will ever be mainstream. I am historicity agnostic myself. However, the point stands that ridicule is not sufficient reason to never question the consensus.
Why is why Ehrman has never ridiculed that position and debated it more than once, with quite clear reasons. I personally an atheist, am convinced a man called Jesus existed. I have not seen a compelling story it is a myth.
@@JamieStapletonplus I’m perfectly fine with a semantic challenge here, but when he says “crazy”, “bullocks” and compares mythicists to evolution deniers…I consider that ridicule. His one debate with Price was picking some low hanging fruit IMO. I’ve read Did Jesus Exist and How Jesus Became God, Ehrman never truly interacts with the best version of the arguments, which is what good critical thinking entails we do. I’m otherwise a fan of Ehrman’s work, but I wonder if he has some blinders on with this subject.
The evidence is poor either way. The argument pretty much rests on the authentic letters of Paul. Mix in a whole load of speculation, and Paul can get you to lean historicist or mythicist. There just isn’t a smoking gun, and I think both sides of the argument would do well to speak in terms of probability rather than certainty. My two cents.
@@kofw72 well said!
Almost identical stories of the story of Christ go way back 100s of years before Christ was even born .
A great interviewer asks the questions and lets the subject speak without interrupting. You’ve accomplished that.
"The evidence is so overwhelming"... but I'll never show you what that evidence is in peer review.
dont think there is any evidence for jesus.....outside the bible.....jesus may have existed but there is plenty of doubt
Wonder how much his "job" influences his opinion on mythicism. As for the "overwhelming" evidence he has never presented any and he seems to use it to end discussion.
Yeah, this guy just made the best arguments for mythicism
@@paulrichards6894 at this point and with what sources are available (the bible) it's like proving the story of Adam and Eve. No one is arguing against the existence of "some couple hanging out in a garden", many of those existed. But that's not what historicity means. Not to me anyway.
For what I have gathered is that the main points were: 1. Paul met with people who met Jesus, and possibly his brother James. 2. James being the brother is corroborated by Josephus.
To me, this is not overwhelming evidence, especially given the timeline of the written records. But, this is a common criterion for historians to accept someone was real in history.
This makes sense giving that all you need is a person to spread rumors around, observed in cargo cults (a naval officer), Mormons (J smith), Scientology (L Ron Hubbard), etc. So yeah a crazy guy named Jesus who had a mini cult, and stories around him exaggerated.
Caveat: I still think mythicist have a good argument, and it saddened me that Erhman laughed it off.
He does not convince on the mythicism question with an argumentum ad populum (appeal to majority). I wonder if he also believes the Jewish patriarchs were historical figures just because that was the consensus view some forty or fifty years ago, and for all of nearly two thousand years before then, _believed by thousands of scholars._ Carrier does not say unequivocally that Jesus never existed. He tilts towards that conclusion because the figure has been so heavily mythologized (he ranks higher on Raglan's _hero scale_ than Hercules), there is no real contemporaneous evidence showing he existed and the earliest writings we do have are Paul's, which speak of him as a revelatory figure. I have read more Carrier & Price than Ehrman, but I did read his Did Jesus Exist? Read it for yourself and decide. Either way, great interview! he is an awesome scholar from whom I've learned a lot and look forward to reading more of his books. Thank you to Dr. Ehrman for coming on Mythvision. I hope to see some more in the future.
It's impossible to ride 2 at once. He rode the colt. U guys, as christians, need to focus on aiding those suffering from racism and poverty instead of focusing on this minor crap.
I love that you informed him about what was being said about him by the apologist and gave him the opportunity to address it.
All who listen to this man have a heart that hopes that God is not real and the Word of God is made up. My friends, God is real, and Gods Word will come to pass, 100%!!! Contradictions are just lacking wisdom to what the Lord is truly saying! Pray and stop speaking on your own understanding!
I am surprised that skepticism for Secret Gospel of Mark is just a minority position among scholars, at least according to Bart Ehrman.
Man, not sure if Bart Ehrman knew that doing a Mythvision interview was this much work. Great stuff.
A couple of years ago a Mormon friend explained that, when Jesus says that "this generation shall not pass away before the coming of the Son Of Man' and "some of you still standing.......", that there are still people alive from Jesus' crowd; i.e., there are ~ 2000 year old people somewhere on earth. I learned in Mormon seminary in high school (I was raised Mormon but am currently atheist) that the Mormons -not to be outdone -have a tale of The Three Nephites who are also ~ 2000 years old anxiously waiting for the Second Coming.
I tried to point the "Who went to his tomb" thing to my fundamentalist friends and he argued basically putting them together into one gospel that they all went, but that some were omitted from others. He never understood the point that the all knowing God 'told' 'Mark' something different happened in the other gospels. It's so sad trying to change their mind
Read up my most recent explanation in the comment section
The tomb thing is easily explained
You should have told Bart that Mcclatchie was the guy who rage quit in a debate with Matt Dillahunty where he was getting his rearend handed to him. I’ll bet Bart would know who he is then. 😂😂😂
Hey,Derek! Where do you get the time to do all this work you do with your channel? I swear,you must be the hardest working guy in this format on RUclips.Maybe Suris comes close to the output you produce-but I'm not sure.Anyhow,you impress the hell out of me!
Thank you! 😊
@@MythVisionPodcast Only Words of Mouth ..
Not a single Evidence ..
I do challenge anyone to show me one single contradiction on the Bible ..
@@falsosprofetashunter4182Jesus being the supposed Messiah of the Jews and making a point that the Kingdom of God is near and telling his apostles that they should be vigilant as it would happen in their lifetime.
Jesus dying for anyone isn't Messianic prophecy, not his interesting parables, and the miracles mean nothing if he didn't bring the whole earth to worship God when he was alive the first time. That's believed in Judaism. That all will understand and turn to God and not over thousands of years of conversion either.
@@ivetterodríguez-j4k After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Isaiah 53:11-12
@@falsosprofetashunter4182that doesn’t talk about the messiah. Read it in its full context.
Romans 16:17-18 New King James Version (NKJV)
Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
Bart is great. He still insists that haysus was an historical figure even though all of his work makes that seem highly unlikely.
He claims so much evidence for historicity? All I heard of is one line in Josephus about James the Brother of Christ
@@rochesterjohnny7555 and “Christ” is a title, not a name. Many people were given that title in those days. Bart also mentions Paul’s letters, but from what I’ve read, there’s not not much indication of a terrestrial Jesus there. As Price says “there may have been a historical Jesus, but there isn’t any longer.
It turns me away when he bashes mythicist. It makes him sound mad and unscholarly.
@@ronnielong6587 - derek, who i thought agreed with that POV at least some, did not challenge his guest.
Did he cave?
@@brandonguzman2757 No point in challenging him on it. Better to pursue more fruitful lines of questions.
I agree that mythicism isn't about attacking Christianity. The ambiguity and weakness of the sources does that anyway.
Compared to the clarity and strength of all the other great works also imperfectly copied by hand by monks over millennia? I still read Aristotle and Plato and don't worry much about mistakes monks might have made patiently copying such great works by hand. Orthodox Christians are not beholden to sola fide and sola scriptura heresies in the first place. Ponder that.
@@scottmcloughlin4371 Aristotle and Plato don't directly compare to supernatural, mythologized beings like Jesus, who is more analogous to Hercules.
Good ol' Bart. 'Lots of evidence' for historicity and 'all the cool kids are historicists'. The two rock solid academic arguments for historicity!
@@MGHarris I wish these historicists would just give one solid source or what logic they are using instead of that they all agree. So far all the sources that I have been told about don't hold up well to scrutiny(Josphus, Tacitus etc). I think the real answer is that we don't (can't) know. I still give ~70% chance that of part of the amalgamation of characters (Moses, Elisha etc.) was based on a real person. But that leaves a healthy 30% chance that it is complete mythical characters (like Moses).
Poor show. There was a time restraint, and, rather than cut down on the number of questions asked, the producers decided to ask all the questions they had and didn't afford Bart the opportunity to adequately answer them. This was a poor decision and ruined the show for me. I don't know what the producers were thinking about.
Modern christians shark-jump the horrible parts of Jewish law.
I believe that Jesus is Lord and he rose from the dead and hes coming again. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. The idea of an inerrant Bible is RIDICULOUS. This should not be an article of faith any more than an infallible pope!
Great to see this exchange between a great teacher and an eager student. Excellent job handling the tech and keeping up an intense pace while keeping the depth.
Ok so again another acronym . Testament is territory empire sovereign territory alliance metal empire nation territory. (Lengthy isn't it).
Divinity is dynasty imperial Rome imperial nation imperial territory queen.
Jesus is the system of government and the seperation of powers in government and the three arms of government . All words are acronyms .so Jesus is justice executive senate under sovereign and was created in Israel adopted by Rome in 79ad and used even today by many countries as government system.
Oh virgin is v is for Rome so Rome imperial royal grand imperial nation.
Gospels are Grand order sovereign preatorian empire Legion.
Lucian means Legion under Centurion imperial alliance nation
Two more examples from this lucifer
Means Legion under Centurion imperial forces empire Rome. This word is a later edition to
Devil which is dynasty empire Rome imperial Legion. Which actually means the military forces was too small and they lost the war or were beaten to death.
The New Testament is very questionable. Because
Originally written in Greek ❌
Jesus story was pretty much a copy of heru ❌
Mark, Luke, Matthew, & John stories do not match ❌
I have everything Ehrman has written. Big fan. Thank you for this.
@tom todd
good one!!! 😆
@tom todd you left one ridiculous belief to go to another silly belief.
Bart like many people seem to simply not accept certain reported witness events in relation to what happened, whether supernatural or not. And change the reported accounts to change the narrative of what was reported to suit their view and position. He dismisses the reported account that Jesus was taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb. By doing this, he removes the empty tomb report which in due course takes away the reported resurrection of Jesus. He says his not out to do this, but that's what it does. He just says in his opinion the body of Jesus was left on the cross and eventually buried in a unknown grave, because in other cases that's what happened. However, in the case of Jesus that's not what was reported and for reasons given. He removes the apologetics of a resurrected Jesus, and places doubt literally on the following events that are reported thereafter, and the witnessed ascension of the resurrected Jesus Christ. Because of his personal opinion of no tomb burial.
It's also hypocritical of him because he'll use reported events that suit his narrative and others that don't fit his theories. He doesn't have any evidence that Jesus was buried in an unknown grave, and there is nothing anywhere reported that this occurred, other than Jesus was placed in a tomb.
Furthermore, the preaching of a resurrected Jesus was spreading quickly after his execution, which was a threat to the stability for both Roman and Jewish authorities. If Jesus was buried in a grave by the authorities, then the Jewish leaders and Roman rulers could have easily put an end to Jesus as the messiah. To stop this idea of a resurrected messiah which had serious complications for the Roman leaders and Jewish authorities who ordered his execution. They could of simply have exhumed the body of Jesus, and presented the dead body of Jesus to the people, and lay the preaching of the resurrected Jesus as messiah to rest, and it would be finished.
The only information we have is Jesus was taken down and placed in a tomb, because it was the Sabbath for Jews. Bart chooses to believe Jesus was buried in a grave because that's what fits his narrative of Jesus not being the incarnate God and messiah. And when he makes those unsupported claims, not only does it change the essence of Jesus and his divinity as the incarnate God. Its also what Muslims and others do that dismiss reported events by making unsupported claims to suit there narrative. And by doing so, likewise it takes away the incarnate God Jesus in the flesh.
There are others like Bart that do the same thing, just change the narrative to suit their views. An example is Paul’s declaration of Jesus when he was on the road to Damascus, and his conversion to Christ. Those same people simply dismiss what Paul wrote about his conversion to Jesus Christ, and say he had a seizure on the road to Damascus, and thought he spoke to Jesus. Again, there's nothing to support that view at all, just unsupported opinions. On the contrary, when one reads the words of Paul, it's clear he was of sound mind and knew exactly what had happened, that being the resurrected Jesus appeared and spoke to him. Paul was a Roman Citizen and well educated, nowhere can you find Paul having seizures of any sort anywhere, and it’s ludicrous to think that. And this is what Bart Ehrman does, the same thing happens when you dismiss Pauls experience as a seizure with nothing to support it, you change the narrative of Paul to suit your opinion. Just like Bart and others do, saying Jesus was buried in a unknown grave. Just his opinion as he states himself, that's just one example of Barts view on the reported events and there are others.
Also Bart makes scripturally wrong assumptions for example when he speaks of the Ten Commandments - “though shall have no other gods ". He claims of pre-supposed other gods in existence. Yes, there were Mythical Pagan Gods like "sun gods" and all sorts. Ancient Egyptian deities are the gods and goddesses worshipped in ancient Egypt, and there are many of them. Those other pagan gods did not appear in the flesh and present miraculous miracles like Jesus did before real people.
So the commandment was given to praise the ONE and only TRUE God of the bible. Not pagan sun gods etc. And in time, this same God of the commandments revealed himself in the flesh in Jesus, that's the difference between God of the bible and the pagan gods (no other gods) mentioned in the Ten Commandments. People had created so many gods, it even progressed to the point many of those gods were at war with each other. So the commandment was given ONE GOD without any confusion.
The ONE GOD that gave those commandments to Moses is the same GOD in Christ Jesus. All other pagan gods from that time have fallen, except the God of the bible. And that rule still stands today with other made up gods currently circulating.
So even though Bart says his intention is not to disprove God of the bible, he does so indirectly, whether intentionally or not. And so does this by changing parts of the biblical narrative with no support to suit his theories.
So one can contend his examination and beliefs are somewhat problematic, and present an unsubstantiated point of view.
@tom todd The quran says that Jesus was a prophet just as you say. The quran also says that a prophet can not lie, because they are sent by God, otherwise if they did lie then that would prove they were not of God and are a false prophet. Jesus said that he was God in the flesh and came down from heaven, he also said he was the son of God. Jesus also said that he is the only messiah and anyone who comes after him should not be believed. So if Jesus is a prophet from God, and the quran says he is a prophet and he must be believed. Then how can you say Jesus was just a prophet ? He said he was "GOD" in the flesh ! He said he came to earth from "Heaven". So if the quran says Jesus was just a man and prophet, that means the quran is contradicting itself. Because its says YOU MUST believe what prophets from God say. But with Jesus who came 750 years before Mohammad, you don't believe the words he said that he was GOD in the flesh. Instead you chose to believe Mohammad who was born 750 years after Jesus, claiming he was just a prophet. So according to the quran, because Jesus was a prophet from God born 750 years before Mohammod was born, you must believe Jesus is God, otherwise you go against the teachings of the quran.
@tom todd The problem with Muslims and like many others, is they don't understand what the Trinity is. It's not 3 separate gods, the Trinity is still one God. Christians believe in one God not three. Here's a site I came across called - www.doesgodexistandbeyond.com - if you read it all, it will help you understand why Jesus is God in the flesh. There's also a topic on manuscript history which explains and shows earlier manuscripts before the 16th century, and why those verses of Jesus claiming his divinity as God on earth, are actually what he said. As I said, your information comes 750 years after Jesus, that's why you have a different story to what really happened.
I wish you would have gotten Erhman to say that l he isn’t a mythicist but he also does not believe that the miracles of the Bible are historically supported. Because Christians always conflate the two
1. Atheists agree Christ existed
2. Empty tomb
3. Therefore christ is god, on your knees Sinner!
I predict that when Ehrman is retired he will conclude his own findings that Jesus never existed. Till then, he has a career to protect. Thank you Derek for your hustle and please keep “fighting the good fight”.
Bart says Jesus was just a cult leader who was executed and thrown in a common ground burial. What more do you need from him?!
I believe his family are still Christian and he has a prestigious post in a religious college so he has to step carefully to saybthe least.
@@historicalbiblicalresearch8440 He says Jesus was just another cult leader and was put in a common ground burial. What's careful about that? I mean...
I don't think he would speak so harshly of mythicists if he secretly agreed with them
@@marshallferron Bart says: there was a guy, the guy was an ordinary guy, a cult leader (crook or crazy), the guy was put on a cross, then his body was dumpted in a common burial ground. So not myth based, but really not the messiah either.
With all due respect to Dr. Ehrman, while someone called Jesus, or whatever his actual name was, actually existed, the Jesus of the Bible never did. It was based on myths.
I exist but if someone 20 years after I die says I was conceived by a god impregnating my mother and some stories about me ascending to heaven, then that me never existed and is derived from myths.
So if 99% of the biblical Jesus is false, then for all intents and purposes, he never existed.
Bart 'brother of jesus' Ehrman... ugh... Destined for the graveyard of academia...
As for scribes changing texts intentionally, on numerous occasions I’ve changed a joke told to me in order to make it funnier. Isn’t everyone guilty of that?
it is very exciting have the chance to meet professor Ehrman in MYTHVISION channel. i read many Dr.Erhman 's book including lost THE christianities.
Too many damn RUclips commercials. Couldn't follow the conversation...
TRY VIMEO!!!
This was hands down one of the best if not THE BEST dissection of the new testament and apologetics I've ever seen. You're extremely bright, well worded, and genuinely likable. Just a home run. Subbed and will be coming back. Thanks.
I stumbled upon this informative channel. And addicted to know more about the bible story. Also started to read Voltaire which Dr. Ehrman had mentioned.
I completely don't understand the women visiting the tomb contradiction, and it hurts Erhman's credibility going down this track. If I go to the store and run in to Lucy and Sam, and then tell a story ..."I ran into Sam at the store..." I'm not contradicting myself when I say to someone else, "I ran into Sam and Lucy..." I'm just providing different details. None of the grammar or content does anything to show a contradiction. It's only possibly a contradiction. That ani't good enough.
Fantastic interview! 👏
I really enjoy Dr. Erhman's Books & Lecture videos.
His new "Heaven & Hell" book is also a super intriguing read!
Ehrman is just insufferably arrogant and elitist and many of his "arguments" nothing but straw men (especially appeals to authority). I can't stand listening to him.
Derek starting to bring in the heavy hitters, well done my man and great show.
From memory Carrier believes there is only a one in three chance Jesus ever existed, so he does not completely rule out his existence. And the Jesus, if he did exist , probably differed significantly from the character presented in the gospels.
Bart Ehrman is amazing. He's not only a scholar with few equals, a big part of his magic and talent is that he phrases and explains things which even the most simple lay person can understand and relate to. I also very much admire the fact that (like me), he really has no interest in destroying or belittling someone's faith structure, he's just interested in the facts (and is superlative at seeing the weaknesses in apologists arguments and expertly poking holes through them.) I've watched many hours of his lectures and debates and could happily watch hours more.
"he phrases and explains things which even the most simple lay person can understand and relate to" I think it is because he uses simple criteria for his narratives. It's simple and shallow with no depth whatsoever. If you actually read his books you would easily find contradictions and logical errors. Just people do not read critically and only takes in what they want to see and hear. One serious error he makes is that he think his narrative is absolutely plausible while some other narratives are implausible. I would agree if he had enough evidence but he only has limited materials that he claims forged or manipulated in the first place. He would be a great scholar if he stayed as a historian but he is turning his belief system into some form of proven truth. That doesn't seem right and that is where he fails.
The fact that the word christianity isn't even in the bible should raise a few eyebrows
Shhh..... dont tell them lol
Let them linger and simmer in ridicullusness stew lol
Apolloniuses mother was pregnated by a god but she’s nothing like Mary? Come on Bart.
Every second greek woman was impregnated by Zeus...
Satan destroys those he infests with demons by their vain pride, instead of praying for wisdom from God, they destroy themselves by pride and vain glory
YES!!!
I don't see why the historical Jesus couldn't be simply a composite of multiple real preachers some of whom were historical.
„Mythicists don’t have any evidence” but isn’t that the point that there isn’t any evidence?
Comparing historicism to the theory of evolution made me instantly become a mythicist. Was on the fence before.
Historicist have so little evidence and yet are so confident, so they definitely are biased.
jesus may have existed but there is plenty of doubt
@@paulrichards6894 I mean yes, he may have existed. But the default position should be doubt.
And that guy just compared Jesus (almost no evidence) to evolution (unbelievable amounts of evidence).
This tells me that he is talking out of his ass and the mythicists are probably on to something, if he is like most of his colleagues
Maybe historical jesus existed, but biblical/devine jesus is a myth. Once you believe that don't you become a myrhicist.
for me it makes more sense he was just made up....all other dying and rising gods at the same time were made up so what's different with Jesus...add in he never even made a ripple in the society of the time.......if he did exist then he did so little no one thought it was worthy to write about...............in the 1970s Moses was first doubted as a real person.....people said it is impossible that moses wasn't a real person.......only biblical literalists think he existed now.............but these people believe in talking snakes zombies and humans living inside a fish
A couple of weeks ago while arguing with me about the historicity a Christian went to the go-to evidence almost every Christian goes to.....Bart Ehrman says he existed and he is the greatest biblical historian alive...............then when you point out Ehrman thinks Moses never existed............they always reply in the same thread that Bart Ehrman doesn't know what he is talking about... it's so funny
He is wrong. The evidence for a historical Jesus is almost none.
Even Richard carrier gives it 1/3 chance. And carrier is the biggest skeptic out there. I think your bias is showing
I like Bart Ehrman. The only problem I have with him is that he is very charismatic. And therefore he is able to bring things and opinions that are very dubious in his field as facts.
He seems to be the kind of scholar that is not really adaptive to new information. What he learned in university when he was younger he just accepts as absolute truths. He is still using Feldman's old argument about Josephus for example, where atleast the core of the FT about Jesus is authentic. Feldman himself however revised his opinion in the 2000s after a comparison of texts and came to the conclusion that it was most likely Eusebius that wrote all of it because of phrasing of sentences and the usage of certain words. It was certainly not written in the 1st or 2nd century.
When confronted on his blog about this he said he didn't know about that but still hangs on to Feldman's old theory, which Feldman himself said was wrong. And not explaining why. Yet in other posts he said he regarded Feldman as the world's foremost Josephus expert. So I lost a lot of trust in his objectivity towards certain conclusions he makes.
Him, Carrier, Price agree by far on most things. Yet he always seems to make a strange turn coming to his conclusion of historicity. Like he agrees everything is forged, we have nothing from Jesus' time, but somehow he comes to the conclusion that Jesus was for certain a real living man. And that is where his charism comes into play to cover up very iffy "evidence" for his position.
No offense, but you are a total dumbass. The question is not about evidence. Sure we do not have direct evidence of Jesus. But we have writings that are fairly clearly from Paul, who knew (and wrote letters to) various people who claimed to know Jesus. This is basic logic called "Occam’s razor": the simplest explanation is usually right. You really think an entire community of people were hallucinating/deliberately lying over the person of Jesus? No. Far more likely is that Jesus existed as a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, as there were many at the time.
@@tripp8833 Yet we have no evidence those people actually existed. Paul clearly did not know about any of the gospels. And how 'miraculous' that a few random letters from Paul survived among all the forged ones. But not a single mention, inscription, or letter from any other source.
@@mver191 You would really need a far reaching conspiracy theory to claim that everything was forged, or that Paul was lying when he mentioned the apostles, and/or that the apostles were lying when they constructed the “myth” of Jesus.
Think ...
Ehrman was inaccurate on the racism in slavery. Biblical slavery laws were both sexist and racist.
Ehrman neglected to state that the were two distinct types of slavery in the bible - with the difference totally determined by race - Israelite v non-Israelite. And the biblical laws gave far better treatment to the Israelite slaves.