It's crazy how many core Christian beliefs seem to be the results of word play or translation errors. The diversity of early Christianity is an incredibly interesting topic that Bart has covered very well elsewhere.
It was about the first book no photo copiers most people couldn't read waiting would have not helped as without the Christian culture no photo copiers would exist etc
@@davidevans3223 Photocopiers in their current form may not have existed but the printing press would have, it was invented in China. As for photocopiers though, they came from scientific advancement in Europe. And do you know what culture caused the scientific explosion in Europe? It wasn't Christianity, it was the printing press as well as Graeco-Roman scripts being obtained in Europe because of trade between the Islamic Caliphates and European countries. Christianity had nothing to do with it. In fact, scientific advancement in Europe had halted once Christianity became the dominant religion, and the churches continued to oppress and prevent scientific progress long after scientific advancement was restarted by Graeco-Roman culture.
@@moth5799 you're wrong the church didn't hold anything back lot's of older advanced civilisations didn't make it pyramids around the world etc the simple fact is no bible no free world and free thinking advanced science cause and effect or determinism Google it it's not my opinion it's science. As for China they stayed primative the bible was copied by hand buy the few who could write
@@jaraman1267 Bi Sheng made the first progress towards creating a printing press in the late 10th / early 11th century. Wang Chen made further advancements in the late 13th century and created what could recognisably be called a printing press, along with the world's first mass produced book. Gutenberg's contributions were very important too, yes, and made the printing press even better. But it was not "purely a Christian invention". Christianity had nothing to do with it. Gutenberg was only able to create such an amazing machine because of Graeco-Roman values, not the primitive, Jewish values that destroy society. Europe is built off *Rome.* We were the greatest continent in the world because of Rome until Christianity destroyed it. America is the same. It became the greatest nation to ever grace this earth through the Graeco-Roman values of the founding fathers. What is the architecture of the Capitol and the White House based off? Not gothic churches, but *Roman* architecture. Christianity is a disease and we need a strong leader to re-implement Nero's policies so that we can avoid the defeat that Rome faced.
While I appreciate some of the information from this this effort, the exchange doesn’t whet one’s appetite for “nothing but the truth, the whole truth” here on this issue. Both are not stretching their horizons seriously enough to gain a satisfactory answer. It’s apparent neither have tapped into videos, books, commentaries, and a circuit of appearances and debates by the following: Rabbi Tovia Singer (Tanakh Talk, Let’s Get Biblical, Outreach Judaism); Rabbi Michael Skobac (Jews for Judaism, A Rabbi Cross-Examines Christianity); and Rabbi Yisroel C. Blumenthal (1000 Verses a project of Judaism Resources). My observation is those three (so far in my findings on my journey) provide a Hebrew/Jewish Bible (Tanakh) scriptural base for citation in bolstering their informative material.
Dr. Ehrman, as an ex-protestant, is a historian that takes the sola scriptura doctrine to its ultimate scholar and rational consequence, and that's why I like him. He's saying something very similar that Catholics have been saying for millenia: the Gospels are not the ONLY source for devotion.
Sola scriptura only makes sense if you trust the people who have kept and copied the scripture for a millennium before protestantism was formed. That is, you kinda have to worship the church too.
1. The NT writers apply passages about Israel to Jesus not because they misunderstand the passage, but because they believe Jesus must fulfill Israel's history and destiny. This is not a "misunderstanding," but an applied understanding in light of their messianic definition. 2. Matthew isn't denying the original context of Isaiah 7. Like most handling of prophecy in the NT (and Second Temple Judaism) they believe a text can have multiple fulfillments, and usually understand future fulfillments to be bigger than the original. Isaiah 7 carries over into Matthew quite well because before Jesus was older than a paidion Herod died, just like the disbanding of the kings in Isaiah 7. I feel confident Ehrman has heard these things before, but it is beyond the scope of his interest to engage them. Or then again perhaps not. Ehrman is sometimes accused of having a head full of twentieth century scholarship on the Gospels (hence his dated notion that Jesus could not speak Greek).
I just finished this guys great courses plus and immediately started his book on heaven and hell. I’m 90% of the way through it and you happened to interview him. Very interesting perspective given his personal experience.
Bart Ehrman is amazing. One thing here got under my skin a little. At around 7:05 you say "the New Testament is written in Greek, the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, which means that the New Testament writers were reading a Greek translation of the Old Testament when they wrote the New Testament." Maybe they were reading a Greek translation. Seems likely since the statement goes uncorrected. But it's certainly possible that they were fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, just like the guy sitting across from you, and didn't need a Greek translation of the Old Testament.
The New Testament was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, and the Jewish historian Josephus states in his book that writing or learning Greek was an abomination for a Hebrew.
@@That_one_introvert. Some of the books were, not all of ‘em. Some were written in Greek. But it’s idiotic to think that John (a Jew!) was not fluent in Hebrew and was reading the Old Testament in Greek! 😂 It’s more than obvious he was fluent in both, as he wrote his Gospel in perfect Greek! And don’t even start about his Gospel been written by someone else, 300 years later or some similar rubbish … Erhman is a plain eejit.
You do realize John isnt his actual name right? No one living in that time wouldve been named matthew, mark, luke and john at least in that region. Jesus's name isnt even Jesus. @danielculpepper9258
he fact that the Old Testament does not have a direct, explicit prophecy about Nazareth does not invalidate Matthew’s claim. Prophecy in the Old Testament often takes the form of broader themes or principles, not always exact predictions. The fulfillment of prophecy can include events that align with broader patterns or characteristics predicted in Scripture, even if the fulfillment is not a one-to-one match. Matthew’s Gospel is not attempting to point to a single, exact prophecy about Nazareth. Instead, he is showing that Jesus’ life fulfills the larger narrative of the Messiah’s humble and unexpected nature. In fact, many prophecies about the Messiah are not about specific locations but about His character and mission. For example, the Messiah was prophesied to come from humble beginnings (Isaiah 53:3), and the rejection of the Messiah (as seen in John 1:46) is part of the fulfillment of this broader prophetic theme.
Bart said Isaiah 9 but he meant Isaiah 11. Nevertheless, he left out that "Nazareth" is named after Isaiah 11 and was founded by settlers from Judea (David territory) and this is why Matthew makes the connection. It's not a "misunderstanding," but a recognition that the town's name is rooted in that very Isaianic text. Please Bart, give the whole story!
To Bart Ehrman's credit he does give existing explanations regarding his Matthew example. To my understanding, which has also been determined by scholars, Matthew was writing to Jews, which is obvious due to the over arching saying, "to fulfill what was written." Matthew is also using (sparingly) word play that was part of 1st century Judah, which to Bart's credit he just explained. By his own explanation it does not mean that it is an error, unless you have an agenda of your own. There is a tendency to complicate simple things. The overwhelming quotes of Matthew saying, "to fulfill what was written" are easily found in the OT. This example is a exception rather than the rule. Why not say that? Why try to build a tower who's foundation is an exception, which by the way has an very viable explanation? One thing I find interesting about Bart Ehrman are his credentials. Beginning with his story that he was a saved fundamentalist Christian who went to academia so that he could know the "inerrant" word of God in its original language and lost his faith. As I hear Bart (in my opinion) he lost it because he keep the fundamentalist "word for word literal" meaning of the Greek. I do not worship at the altar of academia. Bob Dylan's lyric comes to mind: Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift. Look out kid, you're gonna get hit By losers, cheaters, six-time users Hanging 'round the theaters Girl by the whirlpool's looking for a new fool Don't follow leaders, a-watch the parking meters For me, anyone who's credentials begin with "I used to be, but now I'm not" places self-importance or self magnification on the person rather than the subject. Who cares if you used to be? Who are you? Jesus, now there's a person worth listening to, He changed the world in an unfathomable way. A change that is so profound that for some, it becomes easier to believe that Jesus didn't exist, in spite of the fact that we are living in that change. A change that manifested, in order to "fulfill what was written." Unto such people, the saying is true, "like father like son" meaning they do the same to Jesus as they did to his Father. I do not believe or disbelieve because of Bart Ehrman. His lack of faith has no bearing on the subject, except to fulfill what was written. He has his 20 years of schooling and he deserves the "day shift." BTAIM, he seems to have vestigial fundamental tendencies, that is, he is taking any and all original greek, according to its inerrant literal meaning. As if no one ever used word play. This in spite if the fact that the Bible is full of metaphor and word play.
Solid comment. I agree. I feel like this video is an echo chamber, because it amplifies the “errors” that really aren’t errors and makes them seem like Christianity is silly. Like yeah… I guess all of us Christian’s are just idiots! Lol.
@@jadehart2257 Christianity is silly, and errors are errors. But it's easier to attack Ehrman than it is to defend contradictory nonsense, which is why you two clowns have targeted Ehrman. And the fact that Ehrman went to seminary as an evangelical Christian instead of as an atheist with confirmation bias is relevant to anybody who is isn't a Christian apologist looking to discredit him.
@@jadehart2257 You are correct. One thing I have noticed that is used against us, is the constant attempt to shame us into looking like we have no brains. They love to worship at the altar of academia. ln spite of the fact that Bart, a renowned scholar, says that Jesus is a real historical person, there are myriads of other so called Phd scholars that say Jesus is a myth or made up by the Romans. What is it? They can't agree. Then they have the gall to point out how many denominations there are. Too much irony. Thanks for reading my comment.
There is a huge difference between Nazarite and Nazarene. 😂 the first comes from the oath, the second comes from a location and it has also nothing to with the Hebrew word of branch. It has also no connection to the word in pslam 22 6. Isaiah 11 1 also doesnt say he will be called like that. The author says NAZARENE. There is no such prophecy at all
And the unknown author did not write for Jews but for Gentiles. Jewish Christians had their own gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. And simple Jews spoke Aramaic. The Scripture was read in Hebrew. The author even explained the Reader the meaning of "Eli eli". You don't have to explain a Jew his own language. But you have to explain it to a Gentile.
I got “saved” largely by reading Strobel’s “Case For Christ” in highschool (2002), and my confidence in the gospels and Christianity grew from reading other apologetic works from CS Lewis, McDowell, GK Chesterton, Alister McGrath, Habermas, etc. Over the following decade, I started to pile up more questions than answers when it came to my faith, due to a growing understanding of philosophy, science, and history, but it wasn’t really until I read Ehrman’s “Forged” and “How Jesus Became God” that I considered myself truly unable to believe anymore.
@@moth5799 He offers answers through a historical lens and seemingly ONLY through a historical lens, then proceeds to fill in the inevitable resulting gaps with confusion, scepticism and lack of wisdom. The Bible must be looked at comprehensively through the multiple necessary lenses (Eph. 3:10, 3:18-20), the most important of these being revelation from God himself.
@@ColthroneSo....historical and rational ignorance then. You're literally saying this whole christian god thing doesn't work unless you turn a blind eye to historical evidence and layer on your mind a healthy dose of emotional pleading and self-delusion. I mean....you're absolutely correct. It's just not the flex you think it is.
An important thing to consider is there were a number of prophesies that ancient Jewish people believed in, but were not recorded in scriptural records. Rather, we know about these obscure prophecies because of targums. For example: Jews believed that when the Messiah was to come, one of the signs is that the mana would return. So, when Jesus multiplies the bread in John chapter 6, the people and Jesus talk about the mana sent from heaven, but it seems out of place unless we know about this prophesy that doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. There are other prophecies too--like the blood of the Messiah falling on Adam's skull bringing Adam back to life. The reason Golgotha is called "The place of the skull" is because Jews thought that Adam's skull was buried there. So, when Jesus is crucified on Golgotha, you'll see in Orthodox Christian crucifixion iconography a skull at the base of the cross with some of Jesus' blood dripping on it. Orthodox Christianity is the original Christianity of the middle east, so it is not surprising lot of this information has been preserved in middle eastern Christian tradition, even though it has been lost in the west. A good example of a non-fundamentalist Christian worldview. As a side note, ancient commentators mentioned that it was either Matthew or Mark (I forget which one) that the events that took place were considered true events (by the author and Christians), but they were written out of order, and arrange in a purposeful way to make a certain point to its intended audience. This was even known by the Christian audience of that time, who were not necessarily bothered, or required a real time, chronological account of the events.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 You're welcome, and I appreciate that people are taking the time to read my comments. As an Orthodox Christian myself, I find it kind of hard to get people to listen to me. I hear all kinds of speculation, debates, and discussions but there are so many other pieces that are known outside of the normal discourse that are really relevant to the conversation. Even here in this discussion they speculate about Jesus being called a Nazarene. The thing we don't understand about names and places, is that there is often specific meanings to those names. For example: Bethlehem in Arabic is Bayt La-hiem, which either means (literally) House of Bread, or House of Meat (depending on the translation, but both are equally true translations). My guess (because I'm not fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic) is that Nazareth has a name-meaning associated with the Messiah that is not obvious to us English speakers. Another good example is the "Show bread" mentioned from time to time in the temple. The name 'show bread' is actually 'Bread of the Face' in the original Hebrew. It has a much deeper theological meaning that is lost, because Moses would break bread and offer it as a sacrifice to God, which has its connection in the later interpretations of the Last Supper and the Eucharist/Communion practices of early Christians.
@@danielcripe25 Thanks again for response. I actually appreciate the Orthodox Christianity although I know little about it. And I agree with you that many names and places that are mentioned in religious texts ( Judaism and Christianity etc ) probably did have specific meanings in the Ancient Near East which we are unaware of today. I tried to study biblical Greek but understanding it alluded me. I think language and culture often hold the key to understanding certain phrases and words. Peace of God to you..
Ha ha I just realized why Bart is doing this interview in person with you. For anyone who watches or listens to Bart's "Misquoting Jesus" podcast, you will know he is vacationing in the UK with his wife and her family over the summer. Looking forward to the full interview!
This relates to my favorite challenge for Christians: Read or skim through Matthew. Every time it says something like, "this was done to fulfill what was said by the prophets", go back to the Old Testament and read the original passage, in it's full context. It's guaranteed to make any fundamentalist _very_ uncomfortable, at the very least.
No, it does not make us uncomfortable. Prophecies has to be very vague and unclear to keep the outsiders in blindness. Jews for example, cannot believe Jesus is their Messiah because the prophecies about Him are that vague and unclear, yet every born-again Christian knows to the core of their being that those prophecies are about Jesus. This is how it has to be.
@@MaisyDaisy24 When God reveals Himself to you with such clarity, to the core of your being, so that after the incident you are less certain that your own parents existed than the fact that God exists.
I felt relieved to hear Bart Erhman talk about the idea of the bible being completely accurate and literal being a weird modern phenomenon. I still go to church but the sermons are hard to get through sometimes. Especially when the pastor is talking about events and stories from the bible as if they actually happened and the people in the bible stories are actually real. And it just comes across as crazy to me.
" we don't have the original, we have copies of copies of copies made centuries later. These copies contain numerous errors. 1000s of mistakes, 10s of thousand mistakes hundred of thousands of mistakes." ~Bart Ehrman. "If God had the power to give us his word of salvation, why didn't he have the power to preserve his word?" ~Bart Ehrman.
@@elmo4672 yeah pretty much. I go maybe once a month, I'm in a men's group that plays basketball on Mondays, and I join when they do community service stuff. Maybe I'll find a more secular outlet for that stuff but I'm happy where I'm at for now.
@@elmo4672 I'm in a similar boat as @jahcode6132. One can be a Christian without subscribing to all the faith claims. There's even a term for it -- Liberal Christianity. Think of it as people who believe in God and are drawn to the ethical teachings of Jesus. Community can be a strong reason as well.
Matthew uses the word Nazarene in reference to a person who is “despised and rejected.” In the first century, Nazareth was a small town about 55 miles north of Jerusalem, and it had a negative reputation among the Jews. Galilee was generally looked down upon by Judeans, and Nazareth of Galilee was especially despised (see John 1:46). If this was Matthew’s emphasis, the prophecies Matthew had in mind could include these two passages concerning the Messiah
@Alex O'Connor, the proper reading to these so-called 'Errors' is "So What?" None of his claims make one iota of difference to the overwhelming truth of the New Testament. One of his common tripes is about who went to the Tomb on Resurrection morning. If i tell you my wife and i went to an nfl game and someone else tells you they went there too, can you conclude there were only 3 spectators in the stands? No, you cannot.
@@eprd313 He is dead wrong when he says, "if they meant virgin, they would have used bethulah instead of almah" , for bethulah at that time could also mean simply "young girl", it only attained the exclusive meaning "virgin" hundreds of years later. This shows how utterly ignorant he is without any credibility as an old testament scholar whatsoever. BTW, what actually happened here is that the translators of the Greek Septuagint text, who were jewish learned elders themselves, far before christianity ever existed knew what "almah" wanted to convey, that is why they translated it as "parthenos" (virgin). that is the most natural and simplest explanation. He is also dead wrong when he says "someone made something up" immediately after say "yeah its a mistranslation". making something up usually involves the intention to deceive.
@@qwertyvypez of course it’s made up. It’s stories, myth. At best a few sections of it may be rooted in some historical truth but with the largest portion of PR sprinkled over them for good measure. Various people came up with it over periods of time, it didn’t just beam down from the heavens - the idea that it did is nonsense.
This will blow your mind: for the field of study that doesn't matter. It's about who came up with it at which time for which reason. And that is the interesting part of it.
@@qwertyvypez yeah, something is accurate because there are historical reference Certainly the part of resurrection or the virgin mary is completely made up
You deal with that by looking for the same word in other passages and what was the context in which it was said. The word can't mean one thing in a verse but has a different meaning in another. The same word Almah (עַלמָה) is used in all these verses: Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 68:25, Exodus 2:8, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, Song of Solomon 6:8 Almah (עַלְמָה 'almā, plural: עֲלָמוֹת 'ălāmōṯ), which means MAID or YOUNG WOMAN and does not have any sexual connotation. Proof of this is in Bereshit (Genesis) 24:16, where bethulah (בְּתוּלָ֕ה) means "virgin.” The answer to Is 7:14 is found in Is 8:3 where it shows that Isaiah is the father and the "virgin" is his wife also prophetess.
I've always understood the Nazarine thing to be a play on words. In that time, there was a saying that nothing good comes from Nazareth. Saying someone was a nazarine is like saying they are nothing, or worthless. The OT does prophecy that the Messiah would be treated this way. This is why Matthew uses the plural "prophets," rather than the singular, indicating he is not referencing a specific verse, but rather a general teaching. Secondly, he doesn't specifically say the Scriptures, as Alex characterizes it, here. He says "prophets." This generally refers to the Scriptures, but is not exclusive to it. As such, we are merely assuming Matthew means some verse in the OT, but he doesn't actually say that. The fact that, in that very same chapter, when he makes similar statements he directly quotes the passage he is referencing, but doesn't here, shows that he is not necessarily citing Scripture, but something else. Lastly, writing in the first century, primarily to a Jewish audience (which is why he references the OT so much), and suddenly making up a random prophecy is pretty crazy and unlikely. He would have known his audience knew the Scriptures and knew enough about messianic prophecy that making up something like this would have immediately been noticed and rejected by his target audience. Think about it: he points to other examples of fulfilled prophecy and cites the actual passages fulfilled. What would he gain by adding the nazarine prophecy? Absolutely nothing. Adding this prophecy adds nothing to his argument, and takes away from it if false. As such, it is a reasonable assumption that his audience knew what prophecy he was referring to, but not us. Similar to the star of bethlehem followed by the wise men. Clearly, there were other messianic prophecies running around at that time, not necessarily limited to the OT. Insisting that this was simply made up is not charitable in any way to the text, and only results from trying to show that the Bible is false. We wouldn't reach that conclusion in any other text, rather we would first give it the benefit of the doubt. Only after other options are rejected can we conclude its made up or something like that.
100% agree. What the bible 'says' and 'doesn't say' is equally important when studying the texts. Coming to conclusions before weighing things up properly is disingenuous.
I think you have a lot of misconceptions about the times in which these were written. Matthew wasn't "writing for a Jewish audience" in a literal sense. He was a figure that commanded respect in these matters, and hearing about such a prophecy from him wouldn't spontaneously create fact-checkers who would correct him. His scholarship would go unquestioned because that is the culture of the time.
@@revlarmilion9574 It is pretty much scholarly consensus that he was, in fact, writing primarily to a jewish audience. He was also writing in the first century, in and around the very people that were enemies of Christ and christians. There is internal evidence that Jews were running around refuting Paul. What makes you think they wouldn't refute someone claiming that their prophets said something completely made up? The author of matthew, as well as most first-century christians, were all Jews. So, yes, they would have been familiar with the OT and would have noticed something completely fabricated like this.
Prophets = OT PROPHETS etc Otherwise you admit that the author of Matthew believed in a different canon like the author of Jude who quotes the book of Enoch or Paul who quoted apokrypha
And the author of Matthew didn't write to Hebrews. He wrote in Greek and even explained things like Eli, Eli... Jews at that time for sure didn't need a translation or explanation for their mother language
There are only three instances in the old testament where the word, 'almah,' (a young maiden or virgin) is used to describe someone _specifically._ In Genesis24:43 it's used to describe Rebekah, Issac's wife, but more importantly she is also described as a virgin earlier on in the chapter(Genesis24:16). It's also used to describe Miriam, Moses's sister in Exodus2:8, it is believed Moses's sister was young at the time and also a virgin. People have debated who the young maiden/virgin may have been in Isaiah7:14, some say Isaiah's wife and other's say Hezekiah's mother Abijah. One of the reason's people believe it is a Messianic prophecy is that the prophetic name given to the child(Immanuel) literally means, 'God is with us.' Which is literally what happened if Christ is God incarnate, secondly Hezekiah's mother's name (Abijah) in Hebrew means, 'God is my Father,' which ofcourse is literally the case concerning Jesus in relation to the Godhead. Therefore I've no idea what Bart Ehrman is talking about if he thinks those verses in Isaiah don't have Messianic connotations in relation to christianity.
@@Sean-lv6fx that’s your opinion by preference, not a professional opinion or a widely supported one either, Erhman IS considered top tier within the field and respected for his unbiased and critical work… typically only hated on by butt hurt theists, who haven’t got a clue when it comes to critical scholarship or exegesis. I bet you think he’s pretending to be able to read Hebrew and Aramaic… purely because you don’t like the truth of the meanings.
Within Reason may be my favorite podcast these days. Itll continue to get the recognition it deserves and honestly i think you may reach 1M subs within the next 12 months. I will stand by that prediction
The OT references scriptures that no longer exist so it's perfectly possible that Matthew was referring to a scripture that never made it into the OT. He never mentioned a particular prophet so he was referring to many prophets.
You have to respect his great knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Ehrman doesn't speak to simply reiterate his own convictions/opinion. Instead, he comes with a massive, life-long immersion (he quotes chapter and verse from memory!) in the comparative Biblical writings. He then makes a scholarly contrast of the nuances of these writings relevant to essential religious concepts. That's why I pay attention to what he is saying.
1. The Hebrew word is (Nazer) which means branch. Which was what the messianic king was referred too (Zechariah 3; 6; Isaiah 11:1-3; Jeremiah 23:1-6). Pretty simple when you know Hebrew Bart.
dw02 But, even if very ancient, even the original texts, could be recovered or reconstructed, the ambiguity of the definitive text would not be at an end.Even though many historical questions would be answered, our interest in the history of the text would not cease. Theologically, there would be no resolution of the central problem.the heart of the matter is that the definitive text is not essential to Christianity,bc the presence of the Spirit is not limited to the inspiration of the written word.We have already approached this from the point of view of a false distinction between Scripture and tradition.Examining it in the present context, one is struck by the fact that a belief in single authoritative texts accords to the Spirit a large role in the formation of Scripture, and almost none at all in the growth of th they will open the new elevated rail here in Oahu june 30
The Gospels are damned if they're too similar and damned if they're too unique. If they're too similar, skeptics say the writers are just copying each other and are therefore not independent. If they're too unique, then skeptics say that their claims can't be corroborated and thus they must've been making things up.
It would all have been so much easier if we had just followed Marion's canon 😂. Then surely every atheist believer would become a Christian because there are no more contradictions 😊.
@@still_functionalDifferent perspectives don't create different facts. You may not have all the same facts from different perspectives, but different perspectives doesn't mean two contradictory accounts of the same event can both be true.
This just blew my mind open! WOW! Thank you!!! I was lied to in Catholic school. Just read those passages and yeh, it makes way more sense. I was given extra information to fill in their blanks from the priests. Thank you for this!
As a Christian (Quaker UK) he is absolutely spot on. The Jesus parable shows him as a homeless militant outsider who championied simplicity and emptiness. Very Zen.
One thing I've wondered, since the time when I was a faithful young Christian, was why the central character of Christianity was named "Jesus" when the supposed prophecy of Isaiah clearly states that he shall be called "Emmanuel". Why are they not worshipping "Emmanuel Christ"?
Because he wasn't named Emmanuel. Now considering that prophecy wasn't fulfilled by Jesus, and he never stood in the temple and declared peace well living, clearly shows he didn't fulfill the Jewish prophecies that's why they have to have them come back.😢
I do appreciate greatly Prof. Ehrman's point about how not all Christians are fundamentalists. I get so weary of those who criticize Christians and Christianity and lump us all with the fundamentalists and white evangelicals. Many of us devout adherents find them to be far more damaging to the faith than any outside forces could be.
My first year in the seminary I learned that the New Testament gospels weren't written first hand & the earliest written document maybe 70 years later. If you just Google bible contradictions it's an eye opener not to mention God acts like a jealous crazy father. Starting with Genesis 1 & 2 they contradict each other. Needless to say my faith was broken based on my first seminary scripture history class 🙄
Most mainstream historians agree that the earliest new testament writings were Paul's letters and they were not written 70 years later. The important date is 70 CE because that's when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. Since the gospels predict that, scholars think they must be written after that date. This is however only inferred from the text. There is no reason to think this theory is valid since the gospels don't seem to have any real life knowledge of how the temple was destroyed or any other details about the war. Another explanation is that it's just the usual warning prophecy and it's pure coincidence. There is no "proof" either way when the gospels were written. What people fail to understand is that it's all just interpretations of the texts. There are parts of new testament "prophecy" that make absolutely no sense if they were "invented" after the fact to make it seem it was real "predictions" like the claim that Jesus will return in the lifetime of the apostles and "before they finished preaching to all cities in Israel" the "kingdom of God" will arrive when in fact the Christian community fled from Jerusalem before these things even happened.
That's why Billy Graham wouldn't join his friend and fellow evangelist Charles Templeton at Princeton Seminary. He was afraid of what he might read and there was too much money and fame ahead of him as an evangelist.
@@mooshei8165 I agree. I'd be very surprised if more than half of pastors who have attended a seminary and studied the Bible are actually believers. I think it's a profession to most of them, and it attracts people with big egos who like to be entertainers and authority figures.
I think there is another possibility that Bart Erhman did not mention is that Matthew makes many parallels to OT figures as well as seeking to show Jesus fulfilling many OT prophecies. I think it is possible that Matthew was making a parallel to Jesus being as a liberator/judge like Samson; albeit, a better version.
I have had demonic experiences (more than half a dozen) over a period of several years and my heart truly breaks for all atheists out there. My experiences were absolutely horrifying and it wasn't until I got on my knees and cried out to Jesus Christ to save me that these attacks stopped.
@@germanboy14 Don't care what other religions claim. I know what I experienced and there was nothing rational or logical about it. And the only name that stopped the attacks was Jesus Christ.
If you have had demonic experiences, you should worry about yourself more than you worry about those of us who don't need to believe in fairy tales to get through life.
@@Don-md6wn My experiences happened many years ago so I am not worried about myself. And saying I worry about you is an overstatement. I pray for you, but your decision is yours.
Makes sense. You observed something that seemed supernatural, tested out words of protection, it worked, and you therefore apply that observation to your life and adjust your beliefs to it. Whatever get us to through this thing called life, is Ok with me. Have a good one ppl.
I’m not a scholar, I’m a Christian that loves to study Gods word and gain all the knowledge of him that I can without being taught another mans interpretation of scripture. Matthew never quotes an old testament passage by a particular prophet because he say’s spoken by the PROPHETS (plural) branch. Isaiah 11:1, 4:2 Jeremiah 23:5-6, Zechariah 3:8 Hebrew Greek English Netzorit Nazareth Nazareth Netzer Anthos Branch Natzrati (notzri) Nazorais or Nazarenous Nazarene Netzarit (Nazareth) means city of the branch
One key thing that I don't think is stressed enough in this interview is that the problem with where Matthew takes the "virgin birth prophecy" from does not mean that he took the story from the OT and put it in his gospe. In my opinion it is all more likely that Mathew heard stories about Mary's alleged virgin birth or he thought that it's a fitting birth for a son of a God and then he "found" a passage in the OT that would prove his narrative right. In other words, I think he only "found" the prophecy in the OT once he had an idea about the birth narrative in his head.
It may not have even been his own invention. We're told in the Gospels that Jesus himself, after his resurrection, showed his followers the passages in the Old Testament allegedly dealing with his death and resurrection. Even if Jesus himself didn't actually do that (which of course would require him to have actually risen from the dead), I think many of these reinterpretations of the Old Testament happened very early on as the early Christians were trying to figure out why this happened to the person they thought was the Messiah. Many of these explanations were probably circling in oral traditions before Matthew was written, though he may have come up with some of his own too, of course.
2:08 isaiah chapter 9 verse 1 says nothing about David, what is he talking about? verse 7 talks about David but here it says "he will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom" and nothing about David's roots
Or maybe it is not a play on words referring to the branch but an allusion to the Nazareth as a despised village and Jesus' association to the village as a Nazarene. It fits how Nazareth is characterized in the New Testament. And it fits the predictions of the Old Testament that the Messiah would be despised:" He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." In which case it is not an error.
Alex, you should have Dr. Michael Brown, a Christian Ancient Hebrew scholar, to discuss these passages from a Christian perspective.He’s considered one of if not the foremost Christian voices on this topics. I think you may find he has some satisfactory answers.
Dr. Bart Ehrman is an American professor of religious studies and a leading expert on the life and times of the Jesus character and an acclaimed New Testament authority. I’ll have to check out Dr. Brown and see how his studies align.
@@paddlefar9175 Dr. Brown holds a Ph.D in Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University, which admittedly seems equally if not more relevant to these kinds of questions than Bart’s credentials, though I don’t think credentials should be looked at above arguments.
@@CollinBoSmith The Bible was originally written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek ( NT) so Dr. Ehrman would be in the better position to understand and translate the meaning of the original text of the Bible, than Brown would be.
@@CollinBoSmith He’s a dinosaur in his thinking. He believes that by a person being Gay, there is something wrong with that person and that society should take a stand against gay activism and not support their right to be who they are.
@@paddlefar9175 PaddleFar, Hebrew falls under “near eastern languages” and is Browns expertise. Seeing as how ehrmans appealing more to the Old Testament Hebrew in this video it seems Brown would be in a better position, but I’m willing to say they both bring needed expertise to the table.
The quote in Matthew 2:23 just says it was spoken “by the prophets”. It doesn’t say that it was any of the prophets in the Old Testament writings as there were many more prophets in the Old Testament. So the argument about him being a Nazarene not being in the text doesn’t mean any more than if someone says “The presidents said the cost of capital was too high in this company.” You couldn’t tell whether they were talking about presidents of companies, USA, or something else. Matthew’s quote of Isaiah isn’t in error. This whole thing is really a stretch.
Matthew 2-23 is not quoting a passage from the OT that says the Messiah will be called a Nazarene, rather it is saying in more general terms that the prophecies (many) will be fulfilled by this child who happens to be a Nazarene. In other words, the Nazarene will fulfill the prophecies because he is the Messiah, not because the prophecies said the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.
It's easy to nitpick the problematic passages, and apply ONE interpretation and say "AHA, GOTCHA!" For the first statement in this video, at least they do mention that there are explanations which are viable, but for the one about the Virgin birth, I wonder why he didn't do that and just says "you didn't read the OT in context." Well, I'm sure the scholars did, and not exposing their view is a neat way of tricking your audience to think that all other explanations are out of context. A quick search reveals the answers if anyone is interested to know, not just clap for one interpretation that could easily be influenced by confirmation bias, or I guess anchoring bias because Matthew must be wrong somewhere. Keep in mind, there is no reason for Matthew to lie in this way, his audience knew their scriptures by heart, so deception by misinterpretation due to out-of-context translation must be ruled out.
I really wish the seminarians Bert mentioned studying with would communicate their rational approach to the Bible to the members of the religions in question. They *know* it's not to be taken entirely literally, but that idea is never a part of religious instruction. Really interesting guest.
It is a part of religious instruction is many churches and denominations, especially those with seminary-trained pastors, and was the case throughout historical Christianity.
@@charlesatty Are you referring to Fox News? Because i would agree. Let's add CNN, MSNBC and NBC while we're at it. All of these media outlets are heavily pushing an agenda and can't be trusted as impartial.
The title here seems a bit disingenuous. The video is more like "Bart Ehrman Exposes How NT Authors Reinterpret the OT." I guess that doesn't get clicks though. Poetic license is not the same thing as error.
Ehrman is reaching to say that it is a translation error in 9:10. The verse starts with a future tense. "Lord shall give you a sign" or "Lord will give you a sign" are both acceptible translations in English. Only then does the bible go on to say "a young woman is pregnant" in present tense. By way of grammatical construction, it is still valid to interpret the verse as being totally in the future through the starting phrase. Many Jewish sources also translated the verse in English as totally being in the future. What Matthew is claiming at the same time is that these unclear grammatical constructions were revealed through Jesus. This is reinforced by how there is no verse in the Old Testament confirming that Isaiah's sign was fulfilled.
I think Bart Ehrman made everything up 😂 I will believe Bart if he shows me his tickets from the Time Machine. I love to see people so certain, about things you could never be certain about.
Actually everything he writes and talks about is based on real, concrete evidence. Evidence, something many people either do not understand or do not care about if it contradicts their personal superstitious beliefs.
@@eprd313 Yes, actually. Exactly like Christians. But we Christians admit to having faith, not certainty. We look at all available evidence, including our own experiences, then we place our faith in the probability of that evidence being true. This is exactly how a court of law works. A judge and jury are not present when a crime is committed. They look at the presented evidence and from that they make a decision. The judge and jury can't be certain of anything because they weren't there during the offence taking place. But they don't need to be certain. They just need to believe beyond reasonable doubt. This is the Christian way. Look at evidence for Jesus' teaching and his resurrection and base your faith on that. Certainty is not our way. Faith in the evidence of Christ is.
I'm 66. Raised Catholic. I've known lots of priests and I get lots of chuckles and shrugs when discussing theological stuff. I don't think most of them buy into it. Lol.
I just figured that when Matthew said that Jesus would be called a Nazarene that he was just confusing that with some OT passage about a Nazirite. I was probably young when I thought that, since I never was any sort of fundamentalist, though I read the Bible a lot when I was growing up. Even our little church in a mill village had pastors who were educated at Duke or Emory seminaries, and weren’t shy about sharing their knowledge.
As an atheist, I say, tongue in cheek only, thank god for Bart D. Erhman! He is the most level-headed of public intellectuals, and he properly confines his honorable pronouncements to his credentialed specialty.
Their favorite enabler of their sin. So they can use his credentials as a fallacy in attempt to say look this 40 year biblical scholar says it, it must be fact! Give me a break. Jesus predicted his death 3 times in the Gospel mark. Bart Ehrman: “its clear Jesus is completely shocked during his persecution“ Jesus meets with disciples numerous times and appears to 500 eye witnesses. Thomas recalls physically touching his wounds after resurrection. Bart Ehrman: “it’s possible it could have been his twin Brother” LAUGHABLE argument’s.
@@Scotty_cooks I agree… it’s really sad. TBH I think Alex himself is much smarter than this guy Bart. I’m genuinely so unimpressed and I hardly ever say that. So I’m shocked that this comment section loves him. After this video I had my own reasons why I didn’t find it compelling, and then I went to Matthew and re read it again, and genuinely I have no idea what Bart is talking about. The book of Matthew is not at all similar to how he described and apparently disproved it. Im so sad these people live in an echo chamber.
@@jadehart2257 Yes i do agree Alex is most likely more intelligent than bart. However being intelligent a-lot of times usually comes equipped with a decent amount of pride. Even the smartest person who ever lived couldn’t even understand 1% of the universe. Thats only Gods creation not God himself. Yet people reject him on the basis of lack of understanding him which to me is in itself very baffling. It is very sad I really wish i could take part in helping everyone get saved. However it was written broad is the path to destruction many will enter it. We can take solace in the fact that God will always do what is truly righteous and he knows better than all. He knew the outcome before anything was created.
@@jadehart2257 Amen 🙏 “Better is open rebuke than hidden love” “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.” Im only on here to refute their arguments in attempt to get them to reconsider their rigid way of thinking. I’m more concerned with their eternal security than their feelings being hurt. They don’t truly know whats at stake.
For all his posturing on "errors in the scripture" Mr Ehrman himself is on record as admitting that none of these errors significantly change any doctrine in the scripture, and that the vast majority of them are clerical/typographical in nature. I encourage anyone who questions the consistently of scripture to compare this book to many other books written in history that are just accepted to be true. When it comes to earliest manuscripts, the time between the earliest manuscripts and copies, and the total number of copies that existed at the earliest point of copying, the Bible (especially the New Testament in particular) dwarfs nearly every book in history with the exception of the Quran (which benefitted from being written after a point when book copying became much more prevalent than it was at the time of the Bible, hundreds to thousands of years later. This is in comparison to examples such as the writings of Julius ceaser, Homer's writings, and Hindu and Buddhist scripture for example. The bottom line is that if anyone who considers themselves an intellectual wants to question the authenticity of the bible based on the metrics that historians use to determine authenticity, then we cannot accept any other historical book from before the age when books became a commonplace thing in our world... when they were easy to produce and when more and more people became able to read them (not necessarily as late as the creation of the printing press)
About "NZR" and Matthew 2:23. Bart misrepresents the view that this is a reference to the Hebrew word for root from Isaiah. No one argues it is a mistranslation, people merely argue that it is an allusion to "the root of Jesse" verse. Nobody claims it is a mistranslation.
Only discovered Alex O’Connor’s channel a couple of weeks ago, what I’ve seen so far is high quality. Bart D. Ehrman books on New Testament Scholarship and early Christianity are highly accessible to the non specialist reader. I have been informed and entertained while reading his books during the last 20 years. I am planning to start a degree course in New Testament studies this October, Bart has inspired me to attempt this.
I was raised a Christian, and continued as such for around 35 years. Then circumstances challenged me to dig into the reasons for my faith. Those reasons were found wanting. Bart Erman was one of the people who helped me with my deconversion. His books and online discussions were invaluable. That was 15 years ago.
I think the most telling part of the New Testament is the part where Jesus is presented to the High Priests of the Temple in Jerusalem, the most learned men among the Hebrew tribes, and the men most aware of what was written in the Old Testament. Pious, scholarly men who would welcome a savoir sent by their God. And in the end they declared Jesus a fraud. All that gets written well after the fact in the Gospels pumping up Jesus and (especially in Mark) trying to make ever little aspect of Jesus fit in with Old Testament Prophecy should seen against the backdrop of this. In the moment Jesus did not impress them, they saw no prophet.
In the new testament it says this was done to fulfill what it said in Zacharias 12:10 they will mourn the one they pierced. Go back to 200 BC in the Septuagint and it says MOCKED 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have MOCKED, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved , and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn . Not only that but look at the context 8 And it shall come to pass in that day, the Lord shall defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and the weak one among them in that day shall be as David, and the house of David as the house of God, as the angel of the Lord before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have MOCKED, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved , and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn. How many nations today are against so called israel?
We can easily make errors when we read too quickly and we all have issues with bias. Being biased is not necessarily a problem if that bias is reasonable but when it is unreasonable then it becomes a problem. Often I have seen Dr Erhman make mistakes relating to so called errors, not always though, sometimes he provides us with a challenge, The first point is a good example. The nazarene instance is not a direct quote from a prophet as it is in the other instances, those other instances are words by a prophet (singular). The nazarene instance is by the prophets (plural) so it can be looked upon as summary of things said about him. The meaning to be take is that he is of lowly estate, from an insignificant place in a derogatory sense like a gyspy or from the sticks in the modern sense. As Nathanael says in Johns gospel, "can anything good come out of nazareth"
it was Ehrman who was in erfror - a popular FALSE TEACHER - 2 Timothy 4:3 - For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions
Something to note about Matthew is that whenever he was quoting a direct Prophecy from the old testament ,he quoted the prophecy and the prophet or used the singular word prophet if he doesn't name the prophet Matthew 2:5-6, 15 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the PROPHET And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the PROPHET saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the PROPHET, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. (THIS IS A QUOTATION FROM HOSEA 11:1). In Matthew 2:23 ,he used the Plural word "PROPHETS" not "PROPHET like when he was quoting a specific old testament Verse from a specific prophet Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the PROPHETS, He shall be called a Nazarene. Matthew was not claiming that a specific old testament quote of a certain prophet would be found in the old testament of Jesus being called a Nazarene, he was claiming that the uninamous testimony of the prophets indicates that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, Jesus being called a Nazarene speaks of his identity since people's identity was commonly determined from where they come from John 1:46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see. Nathaniel thought of Nazareth as a place where no good would come from Being called a Nazarene was equal to being despised since nothing good could come out of Nazareth so it was believed. The prophets spoke of the Messiah being despised, whether Matthew meant all the prophets it is not clear but he undoubtedly meant that more than one prophet spoke of the Messiah being a lowly and despised person like the Nazarenes were, the only way Jesus could fulfill this was to be part of a city of a people who were despised. The Name Nazarene carried the connotation of a despised person As intelligent as Bart Ehrman appears to be,his quest to disprove the accuracy of the Bible has blinded him from learning the spiritual truths expounded in it. Give the Bible the benefit of doubt before accusing it of error
Benefit of doubt 😂 We did that and that's why we reject it. The bible is wrong historically scientifically and morally. You'd benefit from doubting it.
@@jameswright...Thank you for your reply James. I am sure you must have read my response to Bart Ehrman 's claim of Matthew being in error and that goes for any other alleged error in the Bible, there is always a good answer if you are willing to search for it . As far I am concerned,I have read through the Bible and have not seen any historical or scientific error. Can you cite a historical ,scientific and moral error in the Bible ? I will be waiting
I think it would be really good if a cartoon version of Bart Ehrman visits the Simpsons on their show. . He could even go to that church where they all fall asleep listening to sermons about hellfire. You could also have him talking with Homer's Christian neighbour
Actually, there is a verse in Judges 13:5 where it says "he shall be called a Nazirite" (Nazarene and Nazirite are the same word in Hebrew/Aramaic). Matthew is quoting from the narrative of Samson, alluding that Samson's life is a prophetic foreshadowing of the Messiah. These agnostic/skeptic guys need to go back to the theology classroom. Every undergraduate student in my class knows this. :)
1. The Septuagint is OLDER than the Hebrew bible. He may imply that it was translated by Christians but it was translated by Jews prior to Christ. The Septuagint as we have it today was finished about 100-200 years before Christ. The Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text) that we use was only assembled about 400 AD and the Christian church maintains that the Jews edited and removed messianic prophecies that Jesus had fulfilled. 2. The 'will be called a Nazarene' is only a slight change in pronunciation to the prophecy in the Septuagint that implies the messiah will be a "nazareus", a type of flower. Nazareth is named for this flower, I believe. It's only a small leap to think they may have changed the word "nazareus" to "nazar-" something that means root.
Okay so I’m an undercover atheist in a fundamentalist Christian school and in my mandatory Apologetics class we watched this video yesterday, constructed independent rebuttals for homework, and then when over the video (without rewatching it in class) today. I’m rewatching this now and I’m realizing that my teacher HEAVILY misrepresented Dr. Erhman here. He often used quotes from Alex and said Dr. Erhman was the one to say it, left out key details of Dr. Erhman’s explanations, presented Dr. Erhman’s explanations for the first mistranslation as if they were his own to claim that the Bible is still inerrant and that Matthew didn’t make a mistake, encouraged my classmates to have a distrustful attitude towards scholars and professionals (essentially saying that a PhD means nothing because if you just read the Bible with a fundamentalist perspective you will be able to rebut this stuff if you don’t let yourself be intimidated), presented Dr. Erhman’s reluctance to make definite claims on topics still under debate in his scientific field as if the fact that the field isn’t yet at a consensus means that Dr. Erhman isn’t to be trusted at all, and sometimes outright lied about the contents of the video. I corrected my teacher as much as I could during and after class alike, and my classmates do view me as a credible source (I know this because my classmates I don’t know very well have told me things to that effect), so hopefully my classmates don’t go on believing the bullshit our teacher pulled. It is comforting to know that the only rebuttal fundamentalists have against scholars and non-fundamentalists like Dr. Erhman and his colleagues is to misrepresent and lie about the opposition, although it is absolutely infuriating to experience firsthand. EDIT: I’m realizing that he didn’t even cover the second half of the video in class, only the first. For now it seems that the other tactic they have is to just ignore the experts entirely, although he may have just gone over the first half today so he could go more in depth and tackle the second half tomorrow. EDIT 2: I’m just now remembering that he also said that Dr. Bart Erhman, *a New Testament PhD scholar,* didn’t actually understand the passages he was talking about. The disrespect for my teacher *who did not go to college for any experience in biblical scholarship* to claim that Dr. Erhman doesn’t know what he’s talking about is utterly baffling to me.
Dear Alex, please bring on potcast dr. Brant Pitre, maybe You’ll undarstand better how catholics read the Bible, and why they call in “God inspired” word. Catholics do count on human subjectivity. Tnx
Jesus being from Nazareth is also the indication that Jesus would be the "despised One." Hence, Nathaniel said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? (John 1:46) Even King David wrote some 900yrs before Jesus showed up on the scene. That Jesus would be despised and rejected by men and even crucified. ( Psalm 22:6; 16) Now, atheists consider how in the world could King David actually predict factual history about 900yrs before it factually and historically happened? Either God was with him, or he was a genius. My bet is God was with him, and the Bible is legit, and the Bible is the Word of God!
Bart is right. Alma = young woman . Betula = virgin (both used many times correctly in the bible) The new testament blunders by using the improper translation of virgin, of a prophecy that was already fulfilled. God wouldnt make such imprecise mistakes, especially regarding such a significant event
Has anyone ever noticed that New Testament quotations of verses from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are almost always misquoted, out of context or sometimes not found in the Old Testament. It has plagued me for 15 years and no one has any answers. If anyone out there knows what is going on and why the problem exists, please let me know. I can read and speak Hebrew and am familiar with Greek so the information I need is not surface information from someone who just wants me to believe what they do. I need concrete information with in-depth explanations and manuscript documentation.
I can't exactly give you concrete answers or documents, but I know there are missing books of the old testament that may have had different prophesies in them that are now lost to time, and it is my understanding that many of the books of the new testament were written decades after the events happened. There were no printing presses or word for word copies and translations at that time, so it's almost to be expected that stories were modified or altered over time. They literally had a different Bible at that time, with more books and different stories than we have today in say the KJV English bible.
Matthew's incorrect translation of the prophecy of a savior is not something I was aware of. So a huge thanks to you for bringing it to my attention. I've always felt that the connections between the new and old testaments were estranged from each other and this alone is the strongest possible argument that the entire new testament was scrapped together, in order for a circle to fit into a triangular hole.
The thing is this.. The Bible (both "Old" and "New" Testaments) was only compiled and edited in the 16th century. It is known that it was heavily debated which books should be included or ommitted. But it's less well known that there was furious debate over what order the books should be placed in. Many argued that the Gospels should be at the start of the Bible. And all the "Old Testament" characters only came AFTER Christ. When it was decided to place Christ late in the book, any references to Christ in the "Old Testsment" either became "prophecies", or were deliberately obscured. Likewise bs references to "fulfilling prophecies" were placed into the "New Testament". If you put the Word/Christ In The Beginning(as it is actually stated), then the Pauline Epistles, and only then start the "Old Testament", everything becomes clear. But, everything is inverted. And it turns into a big mess of nothing. Oh yeah, there is no "BCE". Recorded History began with the coming of Christ. In the Beginning was the Word. "Before Abraham was, I am". It's right there, but people can't see it.
Favorite guest so far
It's crazy how many core Christian beliefs seem to be the results of word play or translation errors. The diversity of early Christianity is an incredibly interesting topic that Bart has covered very well elsewhere.
It was about the first book no photo copiers most people couldn't read waiting would have not helped as without the Christian culture no photo copiers would exist etc
@@davidevans3223 Photocopiers in their current form may not have existed but the printing press would have, it was invented in China.
As for photocopiers though, they came from scientific advancement in Europe. And do you know what culture caused the scientific explosion in Europe? It wasn't Christianity, it was the printing press as well as Graeco-Roman scripts being obtained in Europe because of trade between the Islamic Caliphates and European countries. Christianity had nothing to do with it. In fact, scientific advancement in Europe had halted once Christianity became the dominant religion, and the churches continued to oppress and prevent scientific progress long after scientific advancement was restarted by Graeco-Roman culture.
@@moth5799 you're wrong the church didn't hold anything back lot's of older advanced civilisations didn't make it pyramids around the world etc the simple fact is no bible no free world and free thinking advanced science cause and effect or determinism Google it it's not my opinion it's science.
As for China they stayed primative the bible was copied by hand buy the few who could write
@@moth5799 China was later than the bible
@@jaraman1267 Bi Sheng made the first progress towards creating a printing press in the late 10th / early 11th century. Wang Chen made further advancements in the late 13th century and created what could recognisably be called a printing press, along with the world's first mass produced book. Gutenberg's contributions were very important too, yes, and made the printing press even better. But it was not "purely a Christian invention". Christianity had nothing to do with it. Gutenberg was only able to create such an amazing machine because of Graeco-Roman values, not the primitive, Jewish values that destroy society.
Europe is built off *Rome.* We were the greatest continent in the world because of Rome until Christianity destroyed it. America is the same. It became the greatest nation to ever grace this earth through the Graeco-Roman values of the founding fathers. What is the architecture of the Capitol and the White House based off? Not gothic churches, but *Roman* architecture. Christianity is a disease and we need a strong leader to re-implement Nero's policies so that we can avoid the defeat that Rome faced.
This is great, Alex. Thanks for posting shorter clips from the whole podcast.
I always enjoy listening to Bart Ehrman. Thanks Alex.
More Bart Ehrman, please! He's one of my favorite people to listen to.
A fellow Chapel Hill-ian!
He has his own youtube series. He has a new episode every week
While I appreciate some of the information from this this effort, the exchange doesn’t whet one’s appetite for “nothing but the truth, the whole truth” here on this issue. Both are not stretching their horizons seriously enough to gain a satisfactory answer. It’s apparent neither have tapped into videos, books, commentaries, and a circuit of appearances and debates by the following: Rabbi Tovia Singer (Tanakh Talk, Let’s Get Biblical, Outreach Judaism); Rabbi Michael Skobac (Jews for Judaism, A Rabbi Cross-Examines Christianity); and Rabbi Yisroel C. Blumenthal (1000 Verses a project of Judaism Resources). My observation is those three (so far in my findings on my journey) provide a Hebrew/Jewish Bible (Tanakh) scriptural base for citation in bolstering their informative material.
@@deevine1818 crap
@@zapkvr0101 yup, I know. I'll take all I can get! :)
Dr. Ehrman, as an ex-protestant, is a historian that takes the sola scriptura doctrine to its ultimate scholar and rational consequence, and that's why I like him. He's saying something very similar that Catholics have been saying for millenia: the Gospels are not the ONLY source for devotion.
Sola scriptura only makes sense if you trust the people who have kept and copied the scripture for a millennium before protestantism was formed. That is, you kinda have to worship the church too.
1. The NT writers apply passages about Israel to Jesus not because they misunderstand the passage, but because they believe Jesus must fulfill Israel's history and destiny. This is not a "misunderstanding," but an applied understanding in light of their messianic definition.
2. Matthew isn't denying the original context of Isaiah 7. Like most handling of prophecy in the NT (and Second Temple Judaism) they believe a text can have multiple fulfillments, and usually understand future fulfillments to be bigger than the original. Isaiah 7 carries over into Matthew quite well because before Jesus was older than a paidion Herod died, just like the disbanding of the kings in Isaiah 7.
I feel confident Ehrman has heard these things before, but it is beyond the scope of his interest to engage them. Or then again perhaps not. Ehrman is sometimes accused of having a head full of twentieth century scholarship on the Gospels (hence his dated notion that Jesus could not speak Greek).
What a stimulating, intellectual conversation. Thank you, gentlemen.
I'm so excited for the full episode. Great job getting Dr. Ehrman on the podcast.
It's not that hard to get him on a podcast. He has lectures & books to promote.
I just finished this guys great courses plus and immediately started his book on heaven and hell. I’m 90% of the way through it and you happened to interview him. Very interesting perspective given his personal experience.
Bart Ehrman is amazing.
One thing here got under my skin a little. At around 7:05 you say "the New Testament is written in Greek, the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, which means that the New Testament writers were reading a Greek translation of the Old Testament when they wrote the New Testament."
Maybe they were reading a Greek translation. Seems likely since the statement goes uncorrected. But it's certainly possible that they were fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, just like the guy sitting across from you, and didn't need a Greek translation of the Old Testament.
The New Testament was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, and the Jewish historian Josephus states in his book that writing or learning Greek was an abomination for a Hebrew.
@@That_one_introvert. Some of the books were, not all of ‘em. Some were written in Greek.
But it’s idiotic to think that John (a Jew!) was not fluent in Hebrew and was reading the Old Testament in Greek! 😂 It’s more than obvious he was fluent in both, as he wrote his Gospel in perfect Greek! And don’t even start about his Gospel been written by someone else, 300 years later or some similar rubbish …
Erhman is a plain eejit.
ALL were written in Greek@@danielculpepper9258
You do realize John isnt his actual name right? No one living in that time wouldve been named matthew, mark, luke and john at least in that region. Jesus's name isnt even Jesus. @danielculpepper9258
he fact that the Old Testament does not have a direct, explicit prophecy about Nazareth does not invalidate Matthew’s claim. Prophecy in the Old Testament often takes the form of broader themes or principles, not always exact predictions. The fulfillment of prophecy can include events that align with broader patterns or characteristics predicted in Scripture, even if the fulfillment is not a one-to-one match.
Matthew’s Gospel is not attempting to point to a single, exact prophecy about Nazareth. Instead, he is showing that Jesus’ life fulfills the larger narrative of the Messiah’s humble and unexpected nature. In fact, many prophecies about the Messiah are not about specific locations but about His character and mission. For example, the Messiah was prophesied to come from humble beginnings (Isaiah 53:3), and the rejection of the Messiah (as seen in John 1:46) is part of the fulfillment of this broader prophetic theme.
I would like to express my gratitude, Alex, for this interview.
Bart!! Awesome combo of thinkers, thanks Alex!! I’ve been a fan of Bart for a long time and he has answered many questions for me!
Bart said Isaiah 9 but he meant Isaiah 11. Nevertheless, he left out that "Nazareth" is named after Isaiah 11 and was founded by settlers from Judea (David territory) and this is why Matthew makes the connection. It's not a "misunderstanding," but a recognition that the town's name is rooted in that very Isaianic text. Please Bart, give the whole story!
He'd lose money if he did that
This. In labouring to prove an inaccuracy in the gospel, Bart ignores the significance of the town's name itself.
@@seanedgar9681 It is disappointing to the extent that I'm thinking about making a video on this issue.
There was no Nazareth in the first century. It's a fictional town that was created long after Jesus
@@arriuscalpurniuspiso That was the opinion of scholarship like 100 years ago. No one believes that now, including Ehrman.
To Bart Ehrman's credit he does give existing explanations regarding his Matthew example. To my understanding, which has also been determined by scholars, Matthew was writing to Jews, which is obvious due to the over arching saying, "to fulfill what was written." Matthew is also using (sparingly) word play that was part of 1st century Judah, which to Bart's credit he just explained. By his own explanation it does not mean that it is an error, unless you have an agenda of your own. There is a tendency to complicate simple things. The overwhelming quotes of Matthew saying, "to fulfill what was written" are easily found in the OT. This example is a exception rather than the rule. Why not say that? Why try to build a tower who's foundation is an exception, which by the way has an very viable explanation?
One thing I find interesting about Bart Ehrman are his credentials. Beginning with his story that he was a saved fundamentalist Christian who went to academia so that he could know the "inerrant" word of God in its original language and lost his faith. As I hear Bart (in my opinion) he lost it because he keep the fundamentalist "word for word literal" meaning of the Greek. I do not worship at the altar of academia. Bob Dylan's lyric comes to mind:
Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift.
Look out kid, you're gonna get hit
By losers, cheaters, six-time users
Hanging 'round the theaters
Girl by the whirlpool's looking for a new fool
Don't follow leaders, a-watch the parking meters
For me, anyone who's credentials begin with "I used to be, but now I'm not" places self-importance or self magnification on the person rather than the subject. Who cares if you used to be? Who are you? Jesus, now there's a person worth listening to, He changed the world in an unfathomable way. A change that is so profound that for some, it becomes easier to believe that Jesus didn't exist, in spite of the fact that we are living in that change. A change that manifested, in order to "fulfill what was written." Unto such people, the saying is true, "like father like son" meaning they do the same to Jesus as they did to his Father.
I do not believe or disbelieve because of Bart Ehrman. His lack of faith has no bearing on the subject, except to fulfill what was written. He has his 20 years of schooling and he deserves the "day shift." BTAIM, he seems to have vestigial fundamental tendencies, that is, he is taking any and all original greek, according to its inerrant literal meaning. As if no one ever used word play. This in spite if the fact that the Bible is full of metaphor and word play.
Solid comment. I agree. I feel like this video is an echo chamber, because it amplifies the “errors” that really aren’t errors and makes them seem like Christianity is silly. Like yeah… I guess all of us Christian’s are just idiots! Lol.
@@jadehart2257 Christianity is silly, and errors are errors. But it's easier to attack Ehrman than it is to defend contradictory nonsense, which is why you two clowns have targeted Ehrman. And the fact that Ehrman went to seminary as an evangelical Christian instead of as an atheist with confirmation bias is relevant to anybody who is isn't a Christian apologist looking to discredit him.
@@jadehart2257 You are correct. One thing I have noticed that is used against us, is the constant attempt to shame us into looking like we have no brains.
They love to worship at the altar of academia. ln spite of the fact that Bart, a renowned scholar, says that Jesus is a real historical person, there are myriads of other so called Phd scholars that say Jesus is a myth or made up by the Romans. What is it? They can't agree. Then they have the gall to point out how many denominations there are. Too much irony.
Thanks for reading my comment.
There is a huge difference between Nazarite and Nazarene. 😂 the first comes from the oath, the second comes from a location and it has also nothing to with the Hebrew word of branch. It has also no connection to the word in pslam 22 6. Isaiah 11 1 also doesnt say he will be called like that. The author says NAZARENE. There is no such prophecy at all
And the unknown author did not write for Jews but for Gentiles. Jewish Christians had their own gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. And simple Jews spoke Aramaic. The Scripture was read in Hebrew. The author even explained the Reader the meaning of "Eli eli". You don't have to explain a Jew his own language. But you have to explain it to a Gentile.
I got “saved” largely by reading Strobel’s “Case For Christ” in highschool (2002), and my confidence in the gospels and Christianity grew from reading other apologetic works from CS Lewis, McDowell, GK Chesterton, Alister McGrath, Habermas, etc.
Over the following decade, I started to pile up more questions than answers when it came to my faith, due to a growing understanding of philosophy, science, and history, but it wasn’t really until I read Ehrman’s “Forged” and “How Jesus Became God” that I considered myself truly unable to believe anymore.
Seek and you shall find. Bart does not offer answers, only confusion, scepticism and lack of wisdom.
@@Colthrone Bart offers more answers than any fundamentalist scholars do. He looks at the bible through a historical lens, not a rose tinted one.
@@Colthrone Hah! Oh the irony.
@@moth5799 He offers answers through a historical lens and seemingly ONLY through a historical lens, then proceeds to fill in the inevitable resulting gaps with confusion, scepticism and lack of wisdom. The Bible must be looked at comprehensively through the multiple necessary lenses (Eph. 3:10, 3:18-20), the most important of these being revelation from God himself.
@@ColthroneSo....historical and rational ignorance then. You're literally saying this whole christian god thing doesn't work unless you turn a blind eye to historical evidence and layer on your mind a healthy dose of emotional pleading and self-delusion.
I mean....you're absolutely correct. It's just not the flex you think it is.
An important thing to consider is there were a number of prophesies that ancient Jewish people believed in, but were not recorded in scriptural records. Rather, we know about these obscure prophecies because of targums. For example: Jews believed that when the Messiah was to come, one of the signs is that the mana would return. So, when Jesus multiplies the bread in John chapter 6, the people and Jesus talk about the mana sent from heaven, but it seems out of place unless we know about this prophesy that doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible. There are other prophecies too--like the blood of the Messiah falling on Adam's skull bringing Adam back to life. The reason Golgotha is called "The place of the skull" is because Jews thought that Adam's skull was buried there. So, when Jesus is crucified on Golgotha, you'll see in Orthodox Christian crucifixion iconography a skull at the base of the cross with some of Jesus' blood dripping on it. Orthodox Christianity is the original Christianity of the middle east, so it is not surprising lot of this information has been preserved in middle eastern Christian tradition, even though it has been lost in the west. A good example of a non-fundamentalist Christian worldview.
As a side note, ancient commentators mentioned that it was either Matthew or Mark (I forget which one) that the events that took place were considered true events (by the author and Christians), but they were written out of order, and arrange in a purposeful way to make a certain point to its intended audience. This was even known by the Christian audience of that time, who were not necessarily bothered, or required a real time, chronological account of the events.
I appreciate the information because I was not aware of some of the things you mentioned. I'm a Christian believer in Florida.
God bless....
@@johnbrzykcy3076 You're welcome, and I appreciate that people are taking the time to read my comments. As an Orthodox Christian myself, I find it kind of hard to get people to listen to me. I hear all kinds of speculation, debates, and discussions but there are so many other pieces that are known outside of the normal discourse that are really relevant to the conversation. Even here in this discussion they speculate about Jesus being called a Nazarene. The thing we don't understand about names and places, is that there is often specific meanings to those names. For example: Bethlehem in Arabic is Bayt La-hiem, which either means (literally) House of Bread, or House of Meat (depending on the translation, but both are equally true translations). My guess (because I'm not fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic) is that Nazareth has a name-meaning associated with the Messiah that is not obvious to us English speakers. Another good example is the "Show bread" mentioned from time to time in the temple. The name 'show bread' is actually 'Bread of the Face' in the original Hebrew. It has a much deeper theological meaning that is lost, because Moses would break bread and offer it as a sacrifice to God, which has its connection in the later interpretations of the Last Supper and the Eucharist/Communion practices of early Christians.
@@danielcripe25 Thanks again for response. I actually appreciate the Orthodox Christianity although I know little about it.
And I agree with you that many names and places that are mentioned in religious texts ( Judaism and Christianity etc ) probably did have specific meanings in the Ancient Near East which we are unaware of today.
I tried to study biblical Greek but understanding it alluded me. I think language and culture often hold the key to understanding certain phrases and words.
Peace of God to you..
Ha ha I just realized why Bart is doing this interview in person with you. For anyone who watches or listens to Bart's "Misquoting Jesus" podcast, you will know he is vacationing in the UK with his wife and her family over the summer. Looking forward to the full interview!
indeed , had dinner with him and 6 others last week. He's really engaging/learned.
This relates to my favorite challenge for Christians: Read or skim through Matthew. Every time it says something like, "this was done to fulfill what was said by the prophets", go back to the Old Testament and read the original passage, in it's full context. It's guaranteed to make any fundamentalist _very_ uncomfortable, at the very least.
No, it does not make us uncomfortable. Prophecies has to be very vague and unclear to keep the outsiders in blindness. Jews for example, cannot believe Jesus is their Messiah because the prophecies about Him are that vague and unclear, yet every born-again Christian knows to the core of their being that those prophecies are about Jesus. This is how it has to be.
@@nikokapanen82 "Knowing to the core" is not evidence. It is pretending to know something you don't know.
@@MaisyDaisy24
When God reveals Himself to you with such clarity, to the core of your being, so that after the incident you are less certain that your own parents existed than the fact that God exists.
@@nikokapanen82If only claiming it would make it so....
@sharpienate Keep denying the existence of God. You want your evidence? Fine then. Wait for it, you will see it :)
I felt relieved to hear Bart Erhman talk about the idea of the bible being completely accurate and literal being a weird modern phenomenon. I still go to church but the sermons are hard to get through sometimes. Especially when the pastor is talking about events and stories from the bible as if they actually happened and the people in the bible stories are actually real. And it just comes across as crazy to me.
" we don't have the original, we have copies of copies of copies made centuries later. These copies contain numerous errors. 1000s of mistakes, 10s of thousand mistakes hundred of thousands of mistakes."
~Bart Ehrman.
"If God had the power to give us his word of salvation, why didn't he have the power to preserve his word?"
~Bart Ehrman.
So you basically go to Church for the "community" aspect of it?
@@elmo4672 yeah pretty much. I go maybe once a month, I'm in a men's group that plays basketball on Mondays, and I join when they do community service stuff. Maybe I'll find a more secular outlet for that stuff but I'm happy where I'm at for now.
@@jahcode6132 Ah I see.. are the people in the Church aware of your difference in stance/beliefs? Hope you're not endlessly proselytized in that case.
@@elmo4672 I'm in a similar boat as @jahcode6132. One can be a Christian without subscribing to all the faith claims. There's even a term for it -- Liberal Christianity. Think of it as people who believe in God and are drawn to the ethical teachings of Jesus. Community can be a strong reason as well.
Matthew uses the word Nazarene in reference to a person who is “despised and rejected.” In the first century, Nazareth was a small town about 55 miles north of Jerusalem, and it had a negative reputation among the Jews. Galilee was generally looked down upon by Judeans, and Nazareth of Galilee was especially despised (see John 1:46). If this was Matthew’s emphasis, the prophecies Matthew had in mind could include these two passages concerning the Messiah
Loving the consistent uploads❤
@Alex O'Connor, the proper reading to these so-called 'Errors' is "So What?"
None of his claims make one iota of difference to the overwhelming truth of the New Testament.
One of his common tripes is about who went to the Tomb on Resurrection morning.
If i tell you my wife and i went to an nfl game and someone else tells you they went there too, can you conclude there were only 3 spectators in the stands?
No, you cannot.
You a Christian yet you're lying. Stop
@@baonemogomotsi7138substantiate your assertion.
Bart Ehrman is a BEAST! Thank you so much for bring him to the show!
He is a beast indeed.
A nefarious beast.
@@voxpopuli8132is he lying?
@@eprd313 he is wrong.
@@voxpopuli8132 what lie did he say? It's not a difficult question.
@@eprd313 He is dead wrong when he says, "if they meant virgin, they would have used bethulah instead of almah" , for bethulah at that time could also mean simply "young girl", it only attained the exclusive meaning "virgin" hundreds of years later. This shows how utterly ignorant he is without any credibility as an old testament scholar whatsoever.
BTW, what actually happened here is that the translators of the Greek Septuagint text, who were jewish learned elders themselves, far before christianity ever existed knew what "almah" wanted to convey, that is why they translated it as "parthenos" (virgin). that is the most natural and simplest explanation.
He is also dead wrong when he says "someone made something up" immediately after say "yeah its a mistranslation". making something up usually involves the intention to deceive.
This will blow your mind : someone came up with the whole thing.
Thats just not true, no biblical scholar including Bart Ehrman would say that. Yes some things are made up but not all of it
@@qwertyvypez of course it’s made up. It’s stories, myth. At best a few sections of it may be rooted in some historical truth but with the largest portion of PR sprinkled over them for good measure. Various people came up with it over periods of time, it didn’t just beam down from the heavens - the idea that it did is nonsense.
This will blow your mind: for the field of study that doesn't matter. It's about who came up with it at which time for which reason. And that is the interesting part of it.
@@qwertyvypez yeah, something is accurate because there are historical reference
Certainly the part of resurrection or the virgin mary is completely made up
Some parts aren't made up, for example (some of) the accounts of the Persian kings are accurate (though things like "Darius the Mede" likely aren't)
Looking forward to the full episode!
You deal with that by looking for the same word in other passages and what was the context in which it was said. The word can't mean one thing in a verse but has a different meaning in another.
The same word Almah (עַלמָה) is used in all these verses: Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 68:25, Exodus 2:8, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, Song of Solomon 6:8
Almah (עַלְמָה 'almā, plural: עֲלָמוֹת 'ălāmōṯ), which means MAID or YOUNG WOMAN and does not have any sexual connotation. Proof of this is in Bereshit (Genesis) 24:16, where bethulah (בְּתוּלָ֕ה) means "virgin.”
The answer to Is 7:14 is found in Is 8:3 where it shows that Isaiah is the father and the "virgin" is his wife also prophetess.
I've always understood the Nazarine thing to be a play on words. In that time, there was a saying that nothing good comes from Nazareth. Saying someone was a nazarine is like saying they are nothing, or worthless. The OT does prophecy that the Messiah would be treated this way. This is why Matthew uses the plural "prophets," rather than the singular, indicating he is not referencing a specific verse, but rather a general teaching.
Secondly, he doesn't specifically say the Scriptures, as Alex characterizes it, here. He says "prophets." This generally refers to the Scriptures, but is not exclusive to it. As such, we are merely assuming Matthew means some verse in the OT, but he doesn't actually say that. The fact that, in that very same chapter, when he makes similar statements he directly quotes the passage he is referencing, but doesn't here, shows that he is not necessarily citing Scripture, but something else.
Lastly, writing in the first century, primarily to a Jewish audience (which is why he references the OT so much), and suddenly making up a random prophecy is pretty crazy and unlikely. He would have known his audience knew the Scriptures and knew enough about messianic prophecy that making up something like this would have immediately been noticed and rejected by his target audience. Think about it: he points to other examples of fulfilled prophecy and cites the actual passages fulfilled. What would he gain by adding the nazarine prophecy? Absolutely nothing. Adding this prophecy adds nothing to his argument, and takes away from it if false. As such, it is a reasonable assumption that his audience knew what prophecy he was referring to, but not us. Similar to the star of bethlehem followed by the wise men. Clearly, there were other messianic prophecies running around at that time, not necessarily limited to the OT.
Insisting that this was simply made up is not charitable in any way to the text, and only results from trying to show that the Bible is false. We wouldn't reach that conclusion in any other text, rather we would first give it the benefit of the doubt. Only after other options are rejected can we conclude its made up or something like that.
100% agree. What the bible 'says' and 'doesn't say' is equally important when studying the texts. Coming to conclusions before weighing things up properly is disingenuous.
I think you have a lot of misconceptions about the times in which these were written. Matthew wasn't "writing for a Jewish audience" in a literal sense. He was a figure that commanded respect in these matters, and hearing about such a prophecy from him wouldn't spontaneously create fact-checkers who would correct him. His scholarship would go unquestioned because that is the culture of the time.
@@revlarmilion9574 It is pretty much scholarly consensus that he was, in fact, writing primarily to a jewish audience. He was also writing in the first century, in and around the very people that were enemies of Christ and christians. There is internal evidence that Jews were running around refuting Paul. What makes you think they wouldn't refute someone claiming that their prophets said something completely made up? The author of matthew, as well as most first-century christians, were all Jews. So, yes, they would have been familiar with the OT and would have noticed something completely fabricated like this.
Prophets = OT PROPHETS etc Otherwise you admit that the author of Matthew believed in a different canon like the author of Jude who quotes the book of Enoch or Paul who quoted apokrypha
And the author of Matthew didn't write to Hebrews. He wrote in Greek and even explained things like Eli, Eli... Jews at that time for sure didn't need a translation or explanation for their mother language
There are only three instances in the old testament where the word, 'almah,' (a young maiden or virgin) is used to describe someone _specifically._ In Genesis24:43 it's used to describe Rebekah, Issac's wife, but more importantly she is also described as a virgin earlier on in the chapter(Genesis24:16).
It's also used to describe Miriam, Moses's sister in Exodus2:8, it is believed Moses's sister was young at the time and also a virgin. People have debated who the young maiden/virgin may have been in Isaiah7:14, some say Isaiah's wife and other's say Hezekiah's mother Abijah.
One of the reason's people believe it is a Messianic prophecy is that the prophetic name given to the child(Immanuel) literally means, 'God is with us.' Which is literally what happened if Christ is God incarnate, secondly Hezekiah's mother's name (Abijah) in Hebrew means, 'God is my Father,' which ofcourse is literally the case concerning Jesus in relation to the Godhead.
Therefore I've no idea what Bart Ehrman is talking about if he thinks those verses in Isaiah don't have Messianic connotations in relation to christianity.
Are you a top tier biblical scholar?
@@norswil8763 - No, but neither is Bart Ehrman.
@@Sean-lv6fx that’s your opinion by preference, not a professional opinion or a widely supported one either, Erhman IS considered top tier within the field and respected for his unbiased and critical work… typically only hated on by butt hurt theists, who haven’t got a clue when it comes to critical scholarship or exegesis. I bet you think he’s pretending to be able to read Hebrew and Aramaic… purely because you don’t like the truth of the meanings.
Within Reason may be my favorite podcast these days. Itll continue to get the recognition it deserves and honestly i think you may reach 1M subs within the next 12 months. I will stand by that prediction
The OT references scriptures that no longer exist so it's perfectly possible that Matthew was referring to a scripture that never made it into the OT. He never mentioned a particular prophet so he was referring to many prophets.
My favorite New Testament scholar! It’s always a pleasure to listen to Dr. Ehrman.
You have to respect his great knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Ehrman doesn't speak to simply reiterate his own convictions/opinion. Instead, he comes with a massive, life-long immersion (he quotes chapter and verse from memory!) in the comparative Biblical writings. He then makes a scholarly contrast of the nuances of these writings relevant to essential religious concepts. That's why I pay attention to what he is saying.
FASCINNATING about the Isaiah passage! Just WOW! Thanks.
1. The Hebrew word is (Nazer) which means branch. Which was what the messianic king was referred too (Zechariah 3; 6; Isaiah 11:1-3; Jeremiah 23:1-6). Pretty simple when you know Hebrew Bart.
Right!
Yes! Love Ehrman, love Alex, this is going to be awesome!
dw02 But, even if very ancient, even the original texts, could be recovered or reconstructed, the ambiguity of the definitive text would not be at an end.Even though many historical questions would be answered, our interest in the history of the text would not cease. Theologically, there would be no resolution of the central problem.the heart of the matter is that the definitive text is not essential to Christianity,bc the presence of the Spirit is not limited to the inspiration of the written word.We have already approached this from the point of view of a false distinction between Scripture and tradition.Examining it in the present context, one is struck by the fact that a belief in single authoritative texts accords to the Spirit a large role in the formation of Scripture, and almost none at all in the growth of th
they will open the new elevated rail here in Oahu june 30
The Gospels are damned if they're too similar and damned if they're too unique. If they're too similar, skeptics say the writers are just copying each other and are therefore not independent. If they're too unique, then skeptics say that their claims can't be corroborated and thus they must've been making things up.
its not that hard to write something with the same facts from a different perspective
@@still_functional I agree. The 4 Gospels do appear to have different perspectives.
It would all have been so much easier if we had just followed Marion's canon 😂. Then surely every atheist believer would become a Christian because there are no more contradictions 😊.
@@still_functionalDifferent perspectives don't create different facts. You may not have all the same facts from different perspectives, but different perspectives doesn't mean two contradictory accounts of the same event can both be true.
@@Don-md6wn that's exactly what i'm saying lol
Have you considered having Tom Holland (historian) on the podcast? I would love to watch that!
he did spider man right?!
@@armandooliveira3712yes, and also a famous historian
can one of them start using their middle initial to avoid confusion? (assuming either one of them has a middle name)
He wrote Psycho 2😂
Heck yes! Two of my favorite intellectuals.
This just blew my mind open! WOW! Thank you!!! I was lied to in Catholic school. Just read those passages and yeh, it makes way more sense. I was given extra information to fill in their blanks from the priests. Thank you for this!
As a Christian (Quaker UK) he is absolutely spot on. The Jesus parable shows him as a homeless militant outsider who championied simplicity and emptiness. Very Zen.
We love Bart! Looking forward to this episode.
One thing I've wondered, since the time when I was a faithful young Christian, was why the central character of Christianity was named "Jesus" when the supposed prophecy of Isaiah clearly states that he shall be called "Emmanuel". Why are they not worshipping "Emmanuel Christ"?
Because he wasn't named Emmanuel. Now considering that prophecy wasn't fulfilled by Jesus, and he never stood in the temple and declared peace well living, clearly shows he didn't fulfill the Jewish prophecies that's why they have to have them come back.😢
Can’t lie, this actually encouraged my faith 😂
I do appreciate greatly Prof. Ehrman's point about how not all Christians are fundamentalists. I get so weary of those who criticize Christians and Christianity and lump us all with the fundamentalists and white evangelicals. Many of us devout adherents find them to be far more damaging to the faith than any outside forces could be.
My first year in the seminary I learned that the New Testament gospels weren't written first hand & the earliest written document maybe 70 years later. If you just Google bible contradictions it's an eye opener not to mention God acts like a jealous crazy father. Starting with Genesis 1 & 2 they contradict each other. Needless to say my faith was broken based on my first seminary scripture history class 🙄
It is to your credit that scripture history class made you think. That is an unfortunately rare response.
Most mainstream historians agree that the earliest new testament writings were Paul's letters and they were not written 70 years later.
The important date is 70 CE because that's when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. Since the gospels predict that, scholars think they must be written after that date. This is however only inferred from the text. There is no reason to think this theory is valid since the gospels don't seem to have any real life knowledge of how the temple was destroyed or any other details about the war. Another explanation is that it's just the usual warning prophecy and it's pure coincidence. There is no "proof" either way when the gospels were written. What people fail to understand is that it's all just interpretations of the texts.
There are parts of new testament "prophecy" that make absolutely no sense if they were "invented" after the fact to make it seem it was real "predictions" like the claim that Jesus will return in the lifetime of the apostles and "before they finished preaching to all cities in Israel" the "kingdom of God" will arrive when in fact the Christian community fled from Jerusalem before these things even happened.
That's why Billy Graham wouldn't join his friend and fellow evangelist Charles Templeton at Princeton Seminary. He was afraid of what he might read and there was too much money and fame ahead of him as an evangelist.
@@Don-md6wnor most goes to study it. Find the truth and then come out lying.
@@mooshei8165 I agree. I'd be very surprised if more than half of pastors who have attended a seminary and studied the Bible are actually believers. I think it's a profession to most of them, and it attracts people with big egos who like to be entertainers and authority figures.
I think there is another possibility that Bart Erhman did not mention is that Matthew makes many parallels to OT figures as well as seeking to show Jesus fulfilling many OT prophecies. I think it is possible that Matthew was making a parallel to Jesus being as a liberator/judge like Samson; albeit, a better version.
I have had demonic experiences (more than half a dozen) over a period of several years and my heart truly breaks for all atheists out there. My experiences were absolutely horrifying and it wasn't until I got on my knees and cried out to Jesus Christ to save me that these attacks stopped.
Do you realise that in every religion we find people claiming the exact thing ?😂 come with objective arguments or now Hinduism is true too
@@germanboy14 Don't care what other religions claim. I know what I experienced and there was nothing rational or logical about it. And the only name that stopped the attacks was Jesus Christ.
If you have had demonic experiences, you should worry about yourself more than you worry about those of us who don't need to believe in fairy tales to get through life.
@@Don-md6wn My experiences happened many years ago so I am not worried about myself. And saying I worry about you is an overstatement. I pray for you, but your decision is yours.
Makes sense. You observed something that seemed supernatural, tested out words of protection, it worked, and you therefore apply that observation to your life and adjust your beliefs to it. Whatever get us to through this thing called life, is Ok with me. Have a good one ppl.
I’m not a scholar, I’m a Christian that loves to study Gods word and gain all the knowledge of him that I can without being taught another mans interpretation of scripture.
Matthew never quotes an old testament passage by a particular prophet because he say’s spoken by the PROPHETS (plural) branch. Isaiah 11:1, 4:2
Jeremiah 23:5-6, Zechariah 3:8
Hebrew Greek English
Netzorit Nazareth Nazareth
Netzer Anthos Branch
Natzrati (notzri) Nazorais or Nazarenous Nazarene
Netzarit (Nazareth) means city of the branch
One key thing that I don't think is stressed enough in this interview is that the problem with where Matthew takes the "virgin birth prophecy" from does not mean that he took the story from the OT and put it in his gospe. In my opinion it is all more likely that Mathew heard stories about Mary's alleged virgin birth or he thought that it's a fitting birth for a son of a God and then he "found" a passage in the OT that would prove his narrative right. In other words, I think he only "found" the prophecy in the OT once he had an idea about the birth narrative in his head.
It may not have even been his own invention. We're told in the Gospels that Jesus himself, after his resurrection, showed his followers the passages in the Old Testament allegedly dealing with his death and resurrection. Even if Jesus himself didn't actually do that (which of course would require him to have actually risen from the dead), I think many of these reinterpretations of the Old Testament happened very early on as the early Christians were trying to figure out why this happened to the person they thought was the Messiah. Many of these explanations were probably circling in oral traditions before Matthew was written, though he may have come up with some of his own too, of course.
You mean a human performed some post hoc rationalization about an irrational belief they felt emotionally and culturally tied to?! Shocking....
Corruption because Gentiles had no clue about the Ot
5:05 Am I the only one kinda weirded by how big Ehrman's hands look, like when he's talking and the palms are facing us? Now you can't unsee it haha
You're on a roll lately Alex! AND I LOVE IT! Blessings.
Who from?
2:08 isaiah chapter 9 verse 1 says nothing about David, what is he talking about?
verse 7 talks about David but here it says "he will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom" and nothing about David's roots
the fandom of this fantasy franchise is quite passionate so they usually don't like to hear about these plot errors 😶
Or maybe it is not a play on words referring to the branch but an allusion to the Nazareth as a despised village and Jesus' association to the village as a Nazarene. It fits how Nazareth is characterized in the New Testament. And it fits the predictions of the Old Testament that the Messiah would be despised:" He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." In which case it is not an error.
Alex, you should have Dr. Michael Brown, a Christian Ancient Hebrew scholar, to discuss these passages from a Christian perspective.He’s considered one of if not the foremost Christian voices on this topics. I think you may find he has some satisfactory answers.
Dr. Bart Ehrman is an American professor of religious studies and a leading expert on the life and times of the Jesus character and an acclaimed New Testament authority.
I’ll have to check out Dr. Brown and see how his studies align.
@@paddlefar9175 Dr. Brown holds a Ph.D in Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University, which admittedly seems equally if not more relevant to these kinds of questions than Bart’s credentials, though I don’t think credentials should be looked at above arguments.
@@CollinBoSmith The Bible was originally written in Hebrew (OT) and Greek ( NT) so Dr. Ehrman would be in the better position to understand and translate the meaning of the original text of the Bible, than Brown would be.
@@CollinBoSmith He’s a dinosaur in his thinking. He believes that by a person being Gay, there is something wrong with that person and that society should take a stand against gay activism and not support their right to be who they are.
@@paddlefar9175 PaddleFar, Hebrew falls under “near eastern languages” and is Browns expertise. Seeing as how ehrmans appealing more to the Old Testament Hebrew in this video it seems Brown would be in a better position, but I’m willing to say they both bring needed expertise to the table.
The quote in Matthew 2:23 just says it was spoken “by the prophets”. It doesn’t say that it was any of the prophets in the Old Testament writings as there were many more prophets in the Old Testament. So the argument about him being a Nazarene not being in the text doesn’t mean any more than if someone says “The presidents said the cost of capital was too high in this company.” You couldn’t tell whether they were talking about presidents of companies, USA, or something else.
Matthew’s quote of Isaiah isn’t in error. This whole thing is really a stretch.
Bart has enormous hands.
And a brain to match
Matthew 2-23 is not quoting a passage from the OT that says the Messiah will be called a Nazarene, rather it is saying in more general terms that the prophecies (many) will be fulfilled by this child who happens to be a Nazarene. In other words, the Nazarene will fulfill the prophecies because he is the Messiah, not because the prophecies said the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.
It's easy to nitpick the problematic passages, and apply ONE interpretation and say "AHA, GOTCHA!"
For the first statement in this video, at least they do mention that there are explanations which are viable, but for the one about the Virgin birth, I wonder why he didn't do that and just says "you didn't read the OT in context." Well, I'm sure the scholars did, and not exposing their view is a neat way of tricking your audience to think that all other explanations are out of context.
A quick search reveals the answers if anyone is interested to know, not just clap for one interpretation that could easily be influenced by confirmation bias, or I guess anchoring bias because Matthew must be wrong somewhere. Keep in mind, there is no reason for Matthew to lie in this way, his audience knew their scriptures by heart, so deception by misinterpretation due to out-of-context translation must be ruled out.
YES!! I've been hoping you two would collab at some point!!
Bart Ehrman is a great mind, a genius. Love him.
I really wish the seminarians Bert mentioned studying with would communicate their rational approach to the Bible to the members of the religions in question. They *know* it's not to be taken entirely literally, but that idea is never a part of religious instruction.
Really interesting guest.
It is a part of religious instruction is many churches and denominations, especially those with seminary-trained pastors, and was the case throughout historical Christianity.
Kinda like fox talking heads, knowing and saying different than what they tell the lemmings.
@@charlesatty Are you referring to Fox News? Because i would agree. Let's add CNN, MSNBC and NBC while we're at it. All of these media outlets are heavily pushing an agenda and can't be trusted as impartial.
The title here seems a bit disingenuous. The video is more like "Bart Ehrman Exposes How NT Authors Reinterpret the OT." I guess that doesn't get clicks though. Poetic license is not the same thing as error.
Ehrman is reaching to say that it is a translation error in 9:10. The verse starts with a future tense. "Lord shall give you a sign" or "Lord will give you a sign" are both acceptible translations in English. Only then does the bible go on to say "a young woman is pregnant" in present tense. By way of grammatical construction, it is still valid to interpret the verse as being totally in the future through the starting phrase. Many Jewish sources also translated the verse in English as totally being in the future.
What Matthew is claiming at the same time is that these unclear grammatical constructions were revealed through Jesus. This is reinforced by how there is no verse in the Old Testament confirming that Isaiah's sign was fulfilled.
I think Bart Ehrman made everything up 😂 I will believe Bart if he shows me his tickets from the Time Machine.
I love to see people so certain, about things you could never be certain about.
Actually everything he writes and talks about is based on real, concrete evidence. Evidence, something many people either do not understand or do not care about if it contradicts their personal superstitious beliefs.
Like christians?
@@eprd313 Yes, actually. Exactly like Christians. But we Christians admit to having faith, not certainty. We look at all available evidence, including our own experiences, then we place our faith in the probability of that evidence being true. This is exactly how a court of law works. A judge and jury are not present when a crime is committed. They look at the presented evidence and from that they make a decision. The judge and jury can't be certain of anything because they weren't there during the offence taking place. But they don't need to be certain. They just need to believe beyond reasonable doubt. This is the Christian way. Look at evidence for Jesus' teaching and his resurrection and base your faith on that. Certainty is not our way. Faith in the evidence of Christ is.
I'm 66. Raised Catholic. I've known lots of priests and I get lots of chuckles and shrugs when discussing theological stuff. I don't think most of them buy into it. Lol.
Yeah they're probably just there for the boys
His book ‘Misquoting Jesus’ is very good and highly recommended (by me, at least)
Thanks Alex and Bart - excellent video.
More such interviews with Bart and others, please! 😁👍
I specifically asked for this interview a month back ❤❤❤❤Thanks
Bart Ehrman is a boss.
Only if you never read even the most basic introduction to the new testament.
I just figured that when Matthew said that Jesus would be called a Nazarene that he was just confusing that with some OT passage about a Nazirite. I was probably young when I thought that, since I never was any sort of fundamentalist, though I read the Bible a lot when I was growing up. Even our little church in a mill village had pastors who were educated at Duke or Emory seminaries, and weren’t shy about sharing their knowledge.
As an atheist, I say, tongue in cheek only, thank god for Bart D. Erhman!
He is the most level-headed of public intellectuals, and he properly confines his honorable pronouncements to his credentialed specialty.
Everyone: wow! I love Bart! My favorite New Testament scholar!
Well that explains a lot of why you guys are so misled…
Their favorite enabler of their sin. So they can use his credentials as a fallacy in attempt to say look this 40 year biblical scholar says it, it must be fact! Give me a break.
Jesus predicted his death 3 times in the Gospel mark.
Bart Ehrman: “its clear Jesus is completely shocked during his persecution“
Jesus meets with disciples numerous times and appears to 500 eye witnesses. Thomas recalls physically touching his wounds after resurrection.
Bart Ehrman: “it’s possible it could have been his twin Brother”
LAUGHABLE argument’s.
@@Scotty_cooks I agree… it’s really sad. TBH I think Alex himself is much smarter than this guy Bart. I’m genuinely so unimpressed and I hardly ever say that. So I’m shocked that this comment section loves him. After this video I had my own reasons why I didn’t find it compelling, and then I went to Matthew and re read it again, and genuinely I have no idea what Bart is talking about. The book of Matthew is not at all similar to how he described and apparently disproved it. Im so sad these people live in an echo chamber.
@@jadehart2257 Yes i do agree Alex is most likely more intelligent than bart. However being intelligent a-lot of times usually comes equipped with a decent amount of pride. Even the smartest person who ever lived couldn’t even understand 1% of the universe. Thats only Gods creation not God himself. Yet people reject him on the basis of lack of understanding him which to me is in itself very baffling.
It is very sad I really wish i could take part in helping everyone get saved. However it was written broad is the path to destruction many will enter it. We can take solace in the fact that God will always do what is truly righteous and he knows better than all. He knew the outcome before anything was created.
@@Scotty_cooks “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”
@@jadehart2257 Amen 🙏
“Better is open rebuke
than hidden love”
“Wounds from a friend can be trusted,
but an enemy multiplies kisses.”
Im only on here to refute their arguments in attempt to get them to reconsider their rigid way of thinking. I’m more concerned with their eternal security than their feelings being hurt. They don’t truly know whats at stake.
For all his posturing on "errors in the scripture" Mr Ehrman himself is on record as admitting that none of these errors significantly change any doctrine in the scripture, and that the vast majority of them are clerical/typographical in nature.
I encourage anyone who questions the consistently of scripture to compare this book to many other books written in history that are just accepted to be true. When it comes to earliest manuscripts, the time between the earliest manuscripts and copies, and the total number of copies that existed at the earliest point of copying, the Bible (especially the New Testament in particular) dwarfs nearly every book in history with the exception of the Quran (which benefitted from being written after a point when book copying became much more prevalent than it was at the time of the Bible, hundreds to thousands of years later. This is in comparison to examples such as the writings of Julius ceaser, Homer's writings, and Hindu and Buddhist scripture for example.
The bottom line is that if anyone who considers themselves an intellectual wants to question the authenticity of the bible based on the metrics that historians use to determine authenticity, then we cannot accept any other historical book from before the age when books became a commonplace thing in our world... when they were easy to produce and when more and more people became able to read them (not necessarily as late as the creation of the printing press)
This dude is a badass for handing a big L to William Craig, along with Sean Carroll and Shelly Kagan.
About "NZR" and Matthew 2:23. Bart misrepresents the view that this is a reference to the Hebrew word for root from Isaiah. No one argues it is a mistranslation, people merely argue that it is an allusion to "the root of Jesse" verse. Nobody claims it is a mistranslation.
Bullshit. Matthew was a chronic liar. Matthew 21.1 is proof enough, a fudge of Zechariah 9.9
Only discovered Alex O’Connor’s channel a couple of weeks ago, what I’ve seen so far is high quality.
Bart D. Ehrman books on New Testament Scholarship and early Christianity are highly accessible to the non specialist reader.
I have been informed and entertained while reading his books during the last 20 years.
I am planning to start a degree course in New Testament studies this October, Bart has inspired me to attempt this.
I was raised a Christian, and continued as such for around 35 years. Then circumstances challenged me to dig into the reasons for my faith. Those reasons were found wanting. Bart Erman was one of the people who helped me with my deconversion. His books and online discussions were invaluable. That was 15 years ago.
I think the most telling part of the New Testament is the part where Jesus is presented to the High Priests of the Temple in Jerusalem, the most learned men among the Hebrew tribes, and the men most aware of what was written in the Old Testament. Pious, scholarly men who would welcome a savoir sent by their God. And in the end they declared Jesus a fraud.
All that gets written well after the fact in the Gospels pumping up Jesus and (especially in Mark) trying to make ever little aspect of Jesus fit in with Old Testament Prophecy should seen against the backdrop of this. In the moment Jesus did not impress them, they saw no prophet.
In the new testament it says this was done to fulfill what it said in Zacharias 12:10 they will mourn the one they pierced. Go back to 200 BC in the Septuagint and it says MOCKED
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have MOCKED, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved , and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn .
Not only that but look at the context
8 And it shall come to pass in that day, the Lord shall defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and the weak one among them in that day shall be as David, and the house of David as the house of God, as the angel of the Lord before them.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and compassion: and they shall look upon me, because they have MOCKED, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved , and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn.
How many nations today are against so called israel?
Oh man I can't wait for the full podcast
We can easily make errors when we read too quickly and we all have issues with bias. Being biased is not necessarily a problem if that bias is reasonable but when it is unreasonable then it becomes a problem. Often I have seen Dr Erhman make mistakes relating to so called errors, not always though, sometimes he provides us with a challenge, The first point is a good example. The nazarene instance is not a direct quote from a prophet as it is in the other instances, those other instances are words by a prophet (singular). The nazarene instance is by the prophets (plural) so it can be looked upon as summary of things said about him. The meaning to be take is that he is of lowly estate, from an insignificant place in a derogatory sense like a gyspy or from the sticks in the modern sense. As Nathanael says in Johns gospel, "can anything good come out of nazareth"
it was Ehrman who was in erfror - a popular FALSE TEACHER - 2 Timothy 4:3 - For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions
Super weird for someone as highly trained as Ehrman to be seemingly unaware of how typological interpretation works.
Something to note about Matthew is that whenever he was quoting a direct Prophecy from the old testament ,he quoted the prophecy and the prophet or used the singular word prophet if he doesn't name the prophet
Matthew 2:5-6, 15 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the PROPHET
And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Matthew 1:22-23 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the PROPHET saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the PROPHET, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
(THIS IS A QUOTATION FROM HOSEA 11:1).
In Matthew 2:23 ,he used the Plural word "PROPHETS" not "PROPHET like when he was quoting a specific old testament Verse from a specific prophet
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the PROPHETS, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Matthew was not claiming that a specific old testament quote of a certain prophet would be found in the old testament of Jesus being called a Nazarene, he was claiming that the uninamous testimony of the prophets indicates that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, Jesus being called a Nazarene speaks of his identity since people's identity was commonly determined from where they come from
John 1:46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
Nathaniel thought of Nazareth as a place where no good would come from
Being called a Nazarene was equal to being despised since nothing good could come out of Nazareth so it was believed. The prophets spoke of the Messiah being despised, whether Matthew meant all the prophets it is not clear but he undoubtedly meant that more than one prophet spoke of the Messiah being a lowly and despised person like the Nazarenes were, the only way Jesus could fulfill this was to be part of a city of a people who were despised. The Name Nazarene carried the connotation of a despised person
As intelligent as Bart Ehrman appears to be,his quest to disprove the accuracy of the Bible has blinded him from learning the spiritual truths expounded in it.
Give the Bible the benefit of doubt before accusing it of error
Benefit of doubt 😂
We did that and that's why we reject it.
The bible is wrong historically scientifically and morally.
You'd benefit from doubting it.
@@jameswright...Thank you for your reply James. I am sure you must have read my response to Bart Ehrman 's claim of Matthew being in error and that goes for any other alleged error in the Bible, there is always a good answer if you are willing to search for it .
As far I am concerned,I have read through the Bible and have not seen any historical or scientific error. Can you cite a historical ,scientific and moral error in the Bible ? I will be waiting
I think it would be really good if a cartoon version of Bart Ehrman visits the Simpsons on their show. . He could even go to that church where they all fall asleep listening to sermons about hellfire. You could also have him talking with Homer's Christian neighbour
Actually, there is a verse in Judges 13:5 where it says "he shall be called a Nazirite" (Nazarene and Nazirite are the same word in Hebrew/Aramaic). Matthew is quoting from the narrative of Samson, alluding that Samson's life is a prophetic foreshadowing of the Messiah. These agnostic/skeptic guys need to go back to the theology classroom. Every undergraduate student in my class knows this. :)
@1:50 Could it be that part was later omitted in the OT?
1. The Septuagint is OLDER than the Hebrew bible. He may imply that it was translated by Christians but it was translated by Jews prior to Christ.
The Septuagint as we have it today was finished about 100-200 years before Christ. The Hebrew Bible (Masoretic Text) that we use was only assembled about 400 AD and the Christian church maintains that the Jews edited and removed messianic prophecies that Jesus had fulfilled.
2. The 'will be called a Nazarene' is only a slight change in pronunciation to the prophecy in the Septuagint that implies the messiah will be a "nazareus", a type of flower. Nazareth is named for this flower, I believe. It's only a small leap to think they may have changed the word "nazareus" to "nazar-" something that means root.
Okay so I’m an undercover atheist in a fundamentalist Christian school and in my mandatory Apologetics class we watched this video yesterday, constructed independent rebuttals for homework, and then when over the video (without rewatching it in class) today. I’m rewatching this now and I’m realizing that my teacher HEAVILY misrepresented Dr. Erhman here. He often used quotes from Alex and said Dr. Erhman was the one to say it, left out key details of Dr. Erhman’s explanations, presented Dr. Erhman’s explanations for the first mistranslation as if they were his own to claim that the Bible is still inerrant and that Matthew didn’t make a mistake, encouraged my classmates to have a distrustful attitude towards scholars and professionals (essentially saying that a PhD means nothing because if you just read the Bible with a fundamentalist perspective you will be able to rebut this stuff if you don’t let yourself be intimidated), presented Dr. Erhman’s reluctance to make definite claims on topics still under debate in his scientific field as if the fact that the field isn’t yet at a consensus means that Dr. Erhman isn’t to be trusted at all, and sometimes outright lied about the contents of the video. I corrected my teacher as much as I could during and after class alike, and my classmates do view me as a credible source (I know this because my classmates I don’t know very well have told me things to that effect), so hopefully my classmates don’t go on believing the bullshit our teacher pulled. It is comforting to know that the only rebuttal fundamentalists have against scholars and non-fundamentalists like Dr. Erhman and his colleagues is to misrepresent and lie about the opposition, although it is absolutely infuriating to experience firsthand.
EDIT: I’m realizing that he didn’t even cover the second half of the video in class, only the first. For now it seems that the other tactic they have is to just ignore the experts entirely, although he may have just gone over the first half today so he could go more in depth and tackle the second half tomorrow.
EDIT 2: I’m just now remembering that he also said that Dr. Bart Erhman, *a New Testament PhD scholar,* didn’t actually understand the passages he was talking about. The disrespect for my teacher *who did not go to college for any experience in biblical scholarship* to claim that Dr. Erhman doesn’t know what he’s talking about is utterly baffling to me.
Dear Alex, please bring on potcast dr. Brant Pitre, maybe You’ll undarstand better how catholics read the Bible, and why they call in “God inspired” word.
Catholics do count on human subjectivity.
Tnx
Jesus being from Nazareth is also the indication that Jesus would be the "despised One." Hence, Nathaniel said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? (John 1:46)
Even King David wrote some 900yrs before Jesus showed up on the scene. That Jesus would be despised and rejected by men and even crucified. ( Psalm 22:6; 16)
Now, atheists consider how in the world could King David actually predict factual history about 900yrs before it factually and historically happened?
Either God was with him, or he was a genius.
My bet is God was with him, and the Bible is legit, and the Bible is the Word of God!
It's actually not Hosea 7:14 but Jesaja 7:14....
Bart is right. Alma = young woman . Betula = virgin (both used many times correctly in the bible)
The new testament blunders by using the improper translation of virgin, of a prophecy that was already fulfilled. God wouldnt make such imprecise mistakes, especially regarding such a significant event
Didn't get the link onscreen while mobile, will seek.
Has anyone ever noticed that New Testament quotations of verses from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are almost always misquoted, out of context or sometimes not found in the Old Testament. It has plagued me for 15 years and no one has any answers. If anyone out there knows what is going on and why the problem exists, please let me know. I can read and speak Hebrew and am familiar with Greek so the information I need is not surface information from someone who just wants me to believe what they do. I need concrete information with in-depth explanations and manuscript documentation.
I can't exactly give you concrete answers or documents, but I know there are missing books of the old testament that may have had different prophesies in them that are now lost to time, and it is my understanding that many of the books of the new testament were written decades after the events happened. There were no printing presses or word for word copies and translations at that time, so it's almost to be expected that stories were modified or altered over time.
They literally had a different Bible at that time, with more books and different stories than we have today in say the KJV English bible.
Matthew's incorrect translation of the prophecy of a savior is not something I was aware of. So a huge thanks to you for bringing it to my attention. I've always felt that the connections between the new and old testaments were estranged from each other and this alone is the strongest possible argument that the entire new testament was scrapped together, in order for a circle to fit into a triangular hole.
Will you look for other perspectives on the matter and see how, for instance, someone like William Lane Craig would respond to this?
Hell yeah I’ve been wanting to hear this!
The thing is this..
The Bible (both "Old" and "New" Testaments) was only compiled and edited in the 16th century.
It is known that it was heavily debated which books should be included or ommitted.
But it's less well known that there was furious debate over what order the books should be placed in. Many argued that the Gospels should be at the start of the Bible. And all the "Old Testament" characters only came AFTER Christ.
When it was decided to place Christ late in the book, any references to Christ in the "Old Testsment" either became "prophecies", or were deliberately obscured.
Likewise bs references to "fulfilling prophecies" were placed into the "New Testament".
If you put the Word/Christ In The Beginning(as it is actually stated), then the Pauline Epistles, and only then start the "Old Testament", everything becomes clear.
But, everything is inverted. And it turns into a big mess of nothing.
Oh yeah, there is no "BCE". Recorded History began with the coming of Christ. In the Beginning was the Word.
"Before Abraham was, I am".
It's right there, but people can't see it.