Can Christians Study the New Testament Honestly? 

My revelation was that people tell you to have "a personal relationship with God," but then get real mad when you make that relationship personal to you. Learning the history, context, and evolution of the Bible has been a personally fulfilling experience, and I've been inspired by or can appreciate ideas from different phases and versions of Christianity and their views of the world. It's such a better experience than just being spoonfed a one-note Christianity.

I am reading Bart's book "The Triumph of Christianity" (I am into chapter 2) and am fascinated by it wildly. I want to know more about Bart and thus ended up here. This is an excellent podcast. I really enjoyed it. Subscribed! Cheers from Malaysia!

Dr. Ehrman and scholars like him are such a breath of fresh air compared to what I was used to in fundamentalism, where the text could never be honestly evaluated because we were too busy trying to guard it (from both heretics and skeptics). Just being able to say something as simple as "Maybe Paul didn't really write this," removes a tremendous intellectual burden.

That bit about the holy spirit telling different things to different people - you've got me thinking of the holy spirit as a merry prankster!

As long as they aren't Fundamentalists. It's tough to study anything honestly when you have preconceived beliefs of the subject that you are committed to keeping. If your mind isn't open to go wherever the evidence leads, you can't study the subject honestly.

From Isaiah comes this phrase: " Come now, and let us reason together," There are times when our studies lead us to understandings that go against what we have been taught or a prior understanding. I like to think that as we learn more about God's word, we realize it is complex and requires reasoning and wisdom to apply. People, times, and circumstances may require love and, in others, tough love. That, I believe, is where too many people fail to understand what it means to image God. Your discussions are always insightful and thought-provoking. Thanks.

I'm always so excited for the videos you to make. Sometimes though I think to myself, "but I already think I know the answer to this! Darn, I wish this was on some weird arcane historical facts!" But every time I watch anyway, I'm always happy about it. Thank you both. You folks are so cool.

Thank you Megan and Bart for carving time out of your busy teaching schedules to continue with your podcast. You both are awesome. 👍🏼

I believe I did study the Bible honestly and for awhile found a way to work it out so I still was having what I thought of as a relationship with the God of Christianity. But eventually that belief faded because I just could not believe anymore that Jesus was God. I then tried just believing in a loving God who had my interest at heart, but that God I found could not stand up to the reality of the world and, most specifically, to the clear fact to me that I was going to die and that was it. No afterlife. So I realized I had this one life to live full stop. And I truly believe it was this simple acknowledgment that allowed me to live a much richer and rewarding life than I would have thinking my best life was going to occur after this one. Don’t get me wrong, pain and suffering has been a part of my life like everyone else and joy and pleasure and happiness too. But apart from all that I do not think I would ever have felt such a strong sense of meaning and purpose in existence if I had not let go of my belief in God and an afterlife.

Always a pleasure to listen to you two😊

I love that Bart is such a smart man but he cant figure out how to wear his headphones right lmao

One of the things that kept me a Christian for 2 more years was the phrase "by reason of faith..." which had me to suspend my logic because my logic directed me away from the religion, and to reason by faith had me to think logic was wrong. But faith was exhausting because it was impossible for me to totally believe everything the elders were saying.

Listening to both of you I soon find myself wishing I were younger and had the opportunity to attend the classes that you teach. As always thank you!

Great interview - fascinating, thanks. (Edinburgh's not in England, though!)

“When the honestly deceived learn the truth, they either quit being deceived or quit being honest.” ~ Unknown “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” ~ Thomas Paine A lifetime atheist, I was challenged to 'learn the truth' about Christianity in the early 1990s. I ended up with quite a passion for the subject, spurred on in part by the new opportunity to compare normative Christianity to its roots as contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library. I had a library card, and am a fast reader, so within a year or so I had read dozens, probably more than a hundred, books by so-called scholars of Christian and Judaic history. They weren't ALL biased - maybe one out of four made an honest effort to be honest. Two in four had stumbled on one uncomfortable truth or another, and just quit being honest rather than bear the contradictions. The other one in four never approached the truth, and I felt they were in the 'shrinks from inquiry' category. It's not a comfortable experience trying to find out the truth from people who tend so often to be liars, but ironically some of the best information came from dishonest sources.

Happy New Year!! Love the hair color Megan.

It occurred to me during the conversation about the importance of minimizing bias that the emphasis on maintaining faith in (most? all??) Christian traditions seems actually to PROMOTE bias (unquestionable certainty about one’s own religious beliefs) as a virtue.

I'm looking forward to the conference, although time zone differences will prevent me from watching it live. Unless I take a couple days off work and stay up all night. :)

Awesome. Always look forward to these!

Vowel shifts, etc. look at the change between Old English to Shakespeare's Early Modern English with Chaucer in between in a relatively short period of time. When I took classical Latin in college I learned the difference between how they would pronounce veni, vidi, vici (Wenee, weedee, weeckee) versus church Latin, with the difference in pronouncing Vs and Cs. A small thing, but a thing none the less. I can't imagine comparing one ancient language with a different ancient variation of the same language.

I REALLY appreciate this video. I have been trying to articulate he explains it's beautifully. Its difficult to explain this to fellow believers. Thorn in my side.

Outstanding interview. Kudos. Truth is Truth.

Hello Professor Ehrman. I found this to be a very wonderful discussion on this topic. It was frank, open an honest in my opinion. I thank you both for it. I'm working toward getting my ticket to the course. Thanks and good job.

Another great episode, and Megan's fashion is extra on point today - the way she contrasts her red orange hair with the green/yellow eye shadow - very nice touch!

absolutely must see the seminar but it starts at 7 am out here in Oregon. Maybe have to pick up the early lectures later

Always enjoy Bart and Meghan!

Non-theist new testament/early Christianities academics led me to Christ. I'm very grateful. I dont understand the point of fundsmentalism, it seems very much about tribalism and social control and nothing actually spiritual.

I liked the notion that God can inspire a myth or a meaningful story, a very interesting way to engage fundamentalist Christians. I've also heard it noted that a story can be highly meaningful while not being historical truth: a lot of things that are historically true have very little meaning; an accounting report can be 100% accurate, but of no further value. Yet there are a lot of stories that we all know are made up, but are incredibly meaningful and speak to historical human realities, stories like Robin Hood or A Christmas Carol.. Had Dickens lived in the first century AD it's quite possible his work would have made it into the Bible in some form.

I would love for Bart and Francesca Stavrakopoulou to do an interview for the podcast.

I found that seminary was quite challenging for my faith. And it wasn't because I attended some crazy liberal seminary - it was an evangelical (though not fundamentalist) seminary. I really had to shed many years of indoctrination that I had been taught by my youth group and even my pastor (yikes! ⚠️).

Im surprised they didnt talk about how some colleges make their professors and lecturers sign an agreement thay they will not deviate from.a fundamentalist, literal, inerrant interpretation of the bible. Good otherwise though.

What a terrific interview! Megan is a great interviewer and Dr. Ehrman is such a tremendous scholar. I first discovered his works 20-some years ago in some lectures I purchased from the Great Courses.

I love the part where Megan asks Bart to summarize =D

Love the series! One piece of advice though. Balance your microphones. Meghan always comes through much louder than Bart. I keep having to change my volume

I notice often for whatever reason that Dr. Ehrman's voice is not coming through as loudly as Megans. I'm an avid audio/recording hobbyist. Perhaps Dr. Erhman somehow needs to turn on auto leveling in the video program, or somehow turn his mic's input level up?

A related but perhaps complementary issue: How can one really trust the opinion of biblical experts who by definition operate in the shadow of their censors? Don't mean to be overly dramatic here, but a lot of conservative biblical scholars have formally agreed to some type of confessional arrangement with their affiliates (school, denomination, etc), and potentially face some form of theological censorship and/or critical scrutiny for expressing views and reaching conclusions that do not concord with that agreement. I know from experience that they often appear to be / are regarded as field experts -- and I know you can learn a lot from them. And of course there is a spectrum from "dogmatic"/ fundamentalist to "liberal," etc. But ultimately, how can you *really* trust the opinion of "experts" who otherwise have formal confessional agreements like that? [Joel/UNC]

How can one find a scholarly discussion of what the New Testament books themselves say, without any theological or interpretive framework applied to it? Very hard for an amateur to find such material in the flood of religious material.

At his arrest Jesus is quoted _"Am I leading a rebellion?"_ *(Mark 14:48) (Matthew 26:55) (Luke 22:52)* Any hint of rebellion would be reason for the Romans to crucify Jesus, let him rot on the cross, and then dump his corpse in a pit. That should have ended Jesus's small ministry right there. It didn't. Who's got thoughts?

It's tough . . . You have to put aside your worldview to truly look at it critically just like you would any other text. There are all these little excuses you make along the way, and it even affects some scholars.

24:00 great episode again. This is an interesting statement from Dr Ehrman, though. I left christianity because of historical research. When i learned that the original leader of the Jesus movement was James, but that christianity had been based on Paul and that James had basically been airbrushed out of christian history it shocked me, as a christian. How could god allow the original version of his religion to die out? How coukd the Pauline religion with all its historical problems (you know, the crusades, the inquisition etc) have been able to flourish if god is really in control? I later found out that's a weird way to leave christianity, but it is my true story, and it did come from a realisation about history. It's also funny to hear Dr Ehrman calling out arguments from consensus (and by implication from authority), and then go on to accuse mythicists of doing that, since those approaches are all I've ever heard him offer to counter the idea that Jesus didn't exist in history. "Nobody says that" (in the academy) he claims, when asked, as though that means anything even if it were the case. I mean, he did acknowledge earlier that even he has biases like everybody, so it's fair enough, in a way, but the cognitive dissonance on display is funny, when it's making itself evident as part of a piece about cognitive dissonance.

It seems to me that you can't answer this question without considering the opposite question - is it possible for critical scholars to study the New Testament honestly? The answer depends on how you approach the corpus of books that make up the Bible as a whole. People who take critical scholarship seriously need to do some historical research on the discipline itself. Underpinning the approach is a set of assumptions which are specifically secular, sceptical, and in opposition to orthodox Christianity. The whole movement started in the early 19thC with a group of nonconformists with agnostic/atheist leanings. The objective - if one reads their own writing on the subject - was to secularize the text to see what you can do with it if you remove its religious underpinnings. The other objective - which is pretty obvious if you understand the position of people in this position within the churches at the time - is to give them a chance of staying in a job when they no longer believed in God in the way a minister of the (whichever) church was supposed to. The movement was swiftly taken over by Deists and sceptics, at the same time the Unitarians began inflitrating some of the nonconformist churches. As a result the developments in the field became increasingly antagonistic towards orthodox Christianity, to the extent of calling pretty much everything within the Bible into question. As a result it existed as a fringe part of Biblcal scholarship in general, and viewed with suspicion from the majority of scholars. It is worth noting that the Unitarians quickly found that the Bible, when taken as a whole and at face value, is an orthodox document, in that it teaches trinitarian doctrine when taken as a whole and at face value.It was after this point that the practice of separating the books and only treating each as a separate source, rather than a unified corpus, began to take hold. Why? Well, if you're going to try to undermine the orthodox understanding of the Bible, then the last thing you can do is take it at face value and in context. So the Unitarians started using pick-n-mix isegesis as part of their method, and this was then injected into textual criticism as a way of achieving something which honest exegesis couldn't. This changed progressively after the First World War, when new groups of people found themselves in seminaries which adopted the new discipline. For the first time you had atheists teaching Christians how to read the Bible, along with the carrot of being able to continue study in this new field if you towed the party line. Many did, and increasingly the ranks of these disciples found themselves in positions of authority within various churches, most notably the Anglicans and Methodists. So if you want to wonder why the Anglican church is full of people with scant regard for the Gospel, a good place to start is to look at the attitude towards critical scholarship among the bishops. So what is the problem with critical scholarship? Well, it's downright dishonest for one thing. The NT texts presuppose the existence of God, and that Jesus is God. This is what the Unitarians discovered, and as a result there aren't many Biblical unitarians around these days. Yet these scholars are quick to indulge interpretations of individual passages which fly in the face of the intention and beliefs of their authors. Which means that the conclusions drawn are only based on personal skewing of the meanings of the texts. In addition, scholars feel happy to find as many reasons as they can to pit one text against the other, as though they disagree fundamentally. When challenged with reasonable interpretations which allow the texts to stand side by side, these challenges are met with accusations of bias and a "conservative" mindset. These skewed and arbitary conclusions are then presented as "facts", when they are, in fact, unprovable suppositions. Sadly, Dr Ehrman tends to indulge in this overstatement. But there are far worse perpetrators. So why are there Christians involved in this field? Well, the field has some merit technically. There are techniques which are useful in textual analysis when it comes to investigating the composition of ancient texts. Yet the underlying assumptions which need to be made in order to move from the techniques to some sort of recognizable conclusions about these texts are tortuous. So for example, the argument around the anonymity of the Gospel writers is based on an a priori rejection of the surrounding writings of the Church fathers, and it is a rejection which is entirely based on an insistence that anyone writing a text is anonymous unless they have signed their own name on the text itself. This then goes forward to the claim that we don't know who the Gospel writers were. Which is a lie. We can be certain who the Gospel writers were, with a degree of certainty which outstrips that of any other contemporary writer. What is actually the case is that those who make the claim that we don't know are looking to sow doubt on the information written by the Church fathers on the subject, for entirely spurious reasons. Or rather, on the basis that all religious people are not to be trusted. Now, in practical terms, what does this mean? Well, it means you believe the contemporary written evidence, which is that Mark wrote Mark, Matthew wrote Matthew, and so on, Or you claim that we don't for entirely spurious and biased reasons, which are tied up in the underlying prerequisites of the historical criticism doctrine. To all practical purposes, the former method makes sense, and the latter is cloud cuckoo land. But it gives meat to the rabid anti-Christian crowd, and as such it sells a lot of books. Which sadly is what a lot of this is about. The primary difference in the way the text is treated between the two camps is that Christians treat the New Testament holistically, and critical scholars largely don't. In addition, Christians look at the text to draw out meaning from them, whereas critical scholars look at the different books almost as though they are separate and barely related. Many of them, at the outright atheist end of the spectrum, also specifically look for analyses which they can use to refute and belittle the Christian understanding of the Bible as a whole. To help them, the discipline rejects anything supernatural from consideration, and this obviously suits their purpose. They can ignore key passages on that basis alone, even though it removes a lot of context and allows for interpretations which, when taken in context, make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Sadly for them, this analysis is increasingly proving futile, to the extent that the more ardent atheists in the discipline now regard historical criticism of the Bible as a failed project, and are instead agitating for direct criticism of the Bible for ethical, doctrinal and cultural reasons rather than historical. In short, critical historical analysis is fine as a technique, but the output from it cannot be realistically taken as anything other than unprovable and spurious theories. The thing is the technique, not the conclusions. In practical terms (as noted by Prof Dale Martin in particular), the historical method does not produce anything of practical use in the real world. Which is why he can be part of the discipline and remain a committed Christian with a living ministry in the Church. The trouble is that this is not reflected in the public statements and books of the secularists in the field, who present their conclusions as verifiable facts which can be trusted. On that basis we have to conclude that, at least among this sector of critical historians, the historians cannot be trusted to study the New Testament honestly.

One thing I know for sure I came across one “Religion” if you want to call them a “Religion” that can answer these questions. Who were the Hebrews ? Who’s Esau / Edom ? Are we still under the mosaic law ? Are we in the New Testament ? Has there been a new covenant ? What’s the difference in gentiles ? Can you find America in the bible ? When is the 2nd coming of jesus ? Did the 12 tribes of Israel really get spread across the world and if so who are they & what do they look like ? Who are the false prophets in the world ? Does God say the moons are the months ? If so why is there 13 but the world operates off 12 ? These are questions Christian’s can’t answer honestly or choose like they don’t matter.

I definitely find this material very interesting,I suppose I fancy myself a polymath I love to soak up knowledge and learning new languages and skills, have always been this way. I am an agnostic , military veteran and former private investigator/security consultant and work tangentially in the financial field these days. I have enjoyed this podcast immensely for some time now. I thank you for the knowledge.

When Dr. E gets animated or exasperated he sounds like Navin Johnson, Steve Martin’s character from The Jerk. “He *hates* these cans!”

Knowledge is power. Just not too much knowledge

I think there are so many cognitive biases and logical fallacies involved when anyone wants to study a holy book (of any kind). The trick is using critical thinking and just allowing the process in looking for what's true and what's not. Another great episode.

WRT: "All their scholarship proves they were right when they were twelve." Boy, I wish I was as sure of my worldview as I was at age 12 when I had it more or less all figured out!

1: love the show, keep doing what you're doing! 2: I feel this episode missed an opportunity to reverse the script. As Megan is a scholar and well versed in the tools of history and the views of secular bible scholars, I'd be very curious to hear how she holds on to her Christian identity.

The same argument can be made of academics who study Mormonism. Some believe you can't be a believer while others claim you can't be objective as a researcher of your own faith. I don't think good scholarship is tied to being a practicing Mormon. There has been great research done by both LDS and Non-LDS scholars. Currently most of the research chair positions in Mormon Studies are held by LDS church members. Patrick Mason at Utah State University is one of them. Claremont in California had a chair held by Richard Bushman at one time. Terryl Givens holds another chair.

Im a christian but im studying n taking bart erhman course Theres no problem at all

27:50 - Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland. It is not in England. In any way, and it never has been. As a long term resident of Edinburgh, i have noticed this on many an occasion. I find it to be consistently several hundred miles away from England, in fact. On another note, I'm thinking of studying in the USA, you know, somewhere like Ontario or Quebec.

The ones who think the Bible is inerrant show less faith in God

Yay, I was thinking that the conference was this past weekend and I missed it. I am interested (even though I am a Christian).

For assumptions and conclusions, Quran says: "And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all. "

The sign of an educated mind is the ability to hear a contradicting opinion without becoming angered.

I think many Religious Studies professors see a historical Jesus at best. Few academic religious scholars (outside of divinity schools) are believers. As an undergraduate there was one believer who was a New Testament scholar. She was a Reform Jew. Those courses were some of the best I took in the Religious Studies department.

When I heard that someone made a quip of having no familiarity with pre-Columbian American archaeology at a lecture about Anaximander and the arrow of time, the novum was an oblique reference to not being the Grand Chawhee from All Dogs Go To Heaven. We cannot have possibly been in a fictitious personal profile that one can make of someone from the Racing Form's description of the Preakness Stakes.

I was brought up to understand the Bible literally, but more recently I've also started thinking of it in allegorical, tropological and anagogical terms.

The whole Bible presents the notion of (God's) mercy as being the only true atonement for sin, rather than sacrifices or setting things right according to law or reason. We can argue over who wrote the Bible and apparent discrepancies in the text, but all of the stories lead to some version of God saying to an unrelenting judgmental world, "My grace is sufficient for you."

I don't know if Bart will read this but I'm just wondering if he is using the names, Matthew, Mark, Luke... for ease of speaking even though we know the gospels were written by anonymous authors. Perhaps he is referring to the books as opposed to the actual people. 🤷‍♂️

"All truth is God's truth." I was unaware of these words, but that sentiment led me to start reading other (non-KJV) versions because I wanted to know God better and have a broader understanding of the Bible. Once my husband found out that I was listening to an NKJV dramatization, and he freaked out a little because he thought I was listening to some Calvanist theology or something (for context, here are the verses) ¹ Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You. ² "As You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him." "Right there. 'As many as You have given Him.' They're teaching that only a certain few are destined to be saved." And me being well familiar with our church's doctrine and had a good idea of what the KJV said, I took out my KJV Bible (a little frustrated), turned to the same passage, and read it to him. ¹ These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: ² As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. To which he went, "Oh...Is that what it really says?" "That's what it really says." We had a brief conversation about it, he said, "If we read from the KJV, we don't have to worry about scholars changing the Bible" (which is what we were taught as fundies that biblical scholars do). I asked, "But isn't the Holy Spirit the one who leads us into all truth? Wouldn't God let us know what is true even if we did read another version?" He said, "They deliberately change the Bible to say something else. It's better to just stick with the truth." Oh the irony 😂 Edit: By the way, we're not together anymore. I left him and the cult 4 years ago. I'm also no longer a Christian (agnostic atheist).

"Doesn't make any sense to me." Matthew 11:25

I learned a lot of what Bart talks about in Catholic university religion class. In their Ethics class in the Philosophy department, a Catholic Priest taught a 100% secularly derived (a-theistic) system of ethics.

Thank you again. I was really excited that you addressed this question. Though I still feel that Bart dodged the big question. @23:50 Bart said 2 of his best friends are presbyterian ministers to study the bible critically yet continue to practise. (They may not believe everything other Christians believe but they still consider themselves Christians. It doesn't have to destroy a person's faith.) The big question is "what is a Christian". Many would assert assert belief in the atonement from Jesus' death. But then you might point to Luke and God's forgiveness for sins. Or a basic theism. What are the minimal criteria for being Christian? Like Bart, I jumped in with everything and was drawn to the Charismatic route - drawn by a strong desire for experience and 'proof' - "Taste and see that the Lord is good" bla bla. I wanted more than the reply to Thomas "Blessed are those you do not see yet believe". In the end I just found it nothing but empty words and warm feelings. I got burned out and have no time for belief in anything. Yet I call myself a follower of Jesus - broadly following his teachings but without any hang ups about his "deity" or messiahship. From what I understand of that shadowy historical Jesus, I'm as much a follower as many who call themselves "Christian" I did a BA course in Biblical and Intercultural Studies and sacrificed much for the faith before my ultimate disillusionment. But now I am on the outside because I can no longer play hypocrite. I can't be the agreeable diplomat yet I seek the truth in the sense of Augustine. So what is a Christian in the minds of these scholarly friends. Sorry for my lack of "agreeableness"! It's just a big issue. I really enjoy the podcasts. Thank you to all of you.

4:06 it starts

I never properly studied the bible but even just reading it seriously (and the NIV that translates out contradictions) made me notice the problems with it and it was significant in my deconversion. It's not that the bible has to be inerrant or that small things like whether Jesus said a particular quote is important, but when all the gospels, Christian orthodoxy, and the historical Jesus all disagree with each other and you realise the bible isn't a reliable source of what happened then what basis of belief do you have? Why would I believe Jesus was God and died for our sins if he didn't even think that? Why follow Christianity and not another religion or make up your own religion. It's a little flippant to say make your own religion but genuinely attempting to achieve a mystical experience and basing a new belief system on that seems more logical to me than just picking whatever religion is most popular around you. That's not to tell Christians off for believing in something I don't believe but just personally I disagree with Bart in that I think learning about the problems is in conflict with faith, while acknowledging many of the experts do manage to believe both things at once.

I'm impressed with how colourful Megan appears here. There's a whole galaxy of hues going on there.

I am what you might call a heretic. Which is, I don't literally believe in the bible, but I still consider myself a Christian. I read about how the bible was inaccurate when I was very young and lef the church. Recently, I just had a different approach to faith. I don't believe the bible is the word of God, or that Jesus literally was the son of God. However, I think there is something to the human experience of God that is important, and I like the idea of the Christian God - a forgiving, loving God who represents everything good. I believe that there is something approaching 'holiness', in the sense that if you walk that path in life, you and the people around you will flourish and approach something like heaven, which, in its simplest form, is being remembered positively after your death. And I think that there is a lot of wisdom in the old texts. For example, I don't think God will punish someone for committing adultery. But overall, I think statistics show quite clearly that most people who commit adultery are not happy, and that it leads to broken families, with less successful children, and more problems in society. That's not even just a Christian thing, most human societies have historically held similar views. I think Christian teachings have, historically, proven themselves to be very appealing and sustainable for the world. It is a naturally more egalitarian philosophy, and one that values mercy over brutality. Christians try to lead people to salvation, which ultimately is a way of leading them into a better life. It isn't about killing infidels. And, on top of that, you are to remind yourself that you are not God, you are not perfect, and that you need to be humble - not just in front of God, but in front of your fellow men. The juxtaposition of even a conceptual God who doesn't exist fully puts you in the place where you are more realistic about your own potential. And, the nature of God says that you need to be righteous in front of God. Some cultures value face more, and as long as someone doesn't find out what you did, it's okay, because social acceptance is the highest good. But Christianity teaches us that we need to have a clear conscience, and need to do what's right even when no-one is watching. Those things make it that I am an acting Christian. I don't believe in the literal gospel, but I kinda act as if I do, because I think it makes for a better world. Your podcast has been fascinating on an academic level, and I am happy to hear all the critique of the gospel. In the end, I guess you could call me a 'bad' Christian, but... I think that's the bridge between Christianity and rationality. In the end, here's the real suggestion I have - If God created the world, surely we can learn more about God by the rigorous and honest study of the world than we can of the ancient writings of humans. Even if they did hear the words of God, is it so strange to think that they might have introduced error? The universe does not lie. We can see just from observation what is real and what isn't, and what works and what doesn't. That should be the most important form of worship.

So... to be a critical scholar in the NT, you have to adopt the idea that Jesus' didn't say everything in the gospels. Got it.

Most Christians study the New Testament through their pastors eyes. Their intellect and reasoning shuts down in deferment to someone who know no better.

I'm not sure whether you said, agnostic, atheist or agnostic-atheist. If it's the latter then we should have a talk.

Can a young earther be a paleontologist? Can a Catholic be a gynecologist? Can a Christian be a mortician? Can someone who is not a philosopher be?

Yes, I study the not only New Testament but old testament too !

Another great show!

Thank you

@Bart D. Ehrman I heard you referenced on Relevant Radio this AM. I couldn't believe it. They were trying to refute and talk through/around how you've come across 200,000 - 400,000 anomalies in the New Testament. "...but they shouldn't worry." (Sometimes I get bored and need a laugh)

No...yes...no...yes..That's a very confused question. Unclear confusing etc. Authentic or honestly? a very subjective premise. I can't resist of course because Barts is so damn good.

I sincerely request Bart Ehrman to study the belief of the early Christians and the teachings of Jesus including the Aramaic Gospel called Gospel of the Nazirenes, later to be known as "The Gospel of the Holy Twelve," which declares that in order to achieve eternal life, "The Law" must be fully obeyed, meaning that Jesus indeed, had shown his unequivocal focus on Torah that must be obeyed. Torah of the Jews is not the Old Testament but it refers to Tanakh which is the canonical collection of Hebrew scriptures.

The idea that scholars should believe every idea that they explore seems completely anti-intellectual and unscholarly. One of the most important skills of the scholar is to be able to engage with ideas based on the evidence, not based on prior beliefs. Similarly scholars need to be able to deal with hypotheticals. Just because a scholar believes that only Paul's seven uncontested letters are genuine should not prevent them from exploring the implications of more than the seven being genuine. Any scholar worth their salt should be capable of working on ideas that don't align with their own personal opinions. There is no reason why a person whose personal belief in Biblical inerrancy cannot study the bible according to the methods and assumptions of the historical critical method. Just as those who believe in the historical critical method should be capable of study that assumes inerrancy.

The real question is, can people like Bart study the NT honestly and objectively, especially after his "deconversion"? I think we all know the real answer to that question. Bart has made so many mistakes in interpretation and understanding, that some have begun to call him "Bart Errorman." He makes such outlandish claims that scholars have to chide him after every popular book he puts out, and then Bart pretends no detractors exist, and that everyone is wrong and he's right regardless of the facts.

Why the “hi how are things “?

Really good points.

"Can Christians Study the New Testament Honestly?" To sum, yes, but at the cost of their faith being rendered moot

What does Dr. Ehrman think his old mentor, were he still living, think about his old pupil today? And could he argue Ehrman under the table?

I don't think Bart did as good a job as usual with his explanation about why its difficult to be a scholar in this field as a literalist. The part around the 30 minute mark to me seemed to miss the mark a bit for me. I understand what he means (serious scholarship expects more proof of certain claims than 'it is the bible') but I think he could have given better exampls.

Inspiringphilosophy recently did a video on regards to who wrote the gospels and he suggested Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John could have wrote them saying that many people who wrote things back in those days didn't put their name of the letter or what have you. He gave numerous examples too

What knoweth the things of man save the spirit that is in man ? Likewise then what knoweth the things of God save the Spirit of God “ The carnal mind cannot receive the things of God for it is st Emmitt with God” If no man can hear or understand a mans words if that man does not give his breath or life to his words how then can any man understand the word of God without the Holy Spirit? The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life!

It depends on the person, regardless if they are a Christian.

The discussion brings up an interesting aspect here - can one continue in the faith having known that the gospels are not historically reliable or that Genesis creations stories are a myth ? Bart says one can, and rightly so. In fact, the reason why he left the faith wasn't necessarily due to his scholarly findings but rather a philosophical one involving evil and suffering. In contrast, his PhD advisor was a believer despite sharing the same scholarly conclusions as Bart. But to continue in faith under such circumstances is very difficult for people with an analytical or empirical bent of thinking.

Cognitive dissonance describes the response to having a strongly held belief contradicted by clear evidence, the response being to believe even more strongly. See When Prophecy Fails, by Leon Festinger.

40:13 … another question could be as AI becomes more sophisticated will it be used more and more in scholarly translation of Bible texts? Or a published edition of the Bible, the New AI Revised Standard Version? 😆

Yes, many do, beginning with the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church too.

Small layout

Does Megan believe in getting children Baptised

Bruce M. Metzger is a prime example of someone that relies on cognitive dissonance in order to refute empirical evidence.

Im a born-again Beliver, who became so by the will of Eternal God and not by my own will (similar to Pauls conversion). Ive come to understand that what I now believe, may or may not be the most accurate or theologically correct. God will continue to sort that out for me in the time He permits me to live on this earth. I am now 82 yrs old, and I am looking forward to complete and accurate revelations, directly from Eternal God, when His appointed time for me on this earth ends. One thing that has already been revealed to me is, there is no future general Rapture. When a Believers dies, we are immediately transported into the presence of God (raptured), and clothed in our new glorified bodies, where we will be with God eternally. I look forward to these weekly vlogs by Bart and Megan, to aid in my Biblical understanding.

How can I take your Intro to Akkadian class?

Do other faiths have similar critical textural analysis?

Well turkeys do have a tendency to vote for christmas…

No, in the same way a Jew cannot honestly refute the Talmud, a Mormon the Book of Mormon and a Muslim the Quran. Torah is the only truth we have.