PhD Candidate Jack Bull - your opening paragraph alone compelled me (like the spirit leads one into the desert) to becme a member of your patreon. Thank you, good sir, for such outstanding content
From what I've been able to piece together , Matthew was written in the early first century and in Hebrew , Luke used that Gospel to create his . It is possible that when the Greek version of Matthew was being translated that Marcion perverted it
Don't worry, I often read outside after a long walk or listen to podcasts and lectures during the walk. Also the term canon is interesting etymologically. In Arabic, qanun became the term for secular law but in catholicism, canon law is religious. If I'm not mistaken, it's also related to channel and canal.
55:43 I respect Jack's position on a physical Jesus. But I must point out that at the moment, the people who are proposing mythicism are on the receiving end of extreme criticism and even derision. Well known scholars have called them "conspiracy theorists" in public forums, and criticize them when it's clear that they haven't even read the relevant literature. So, I disagree that mythicism is an easy position to hold. They are receiving very much the same kind of treatment (except worse) that Jack describes himself as having received from others. 56:15 Jack says the _early_ Church fathers were cautious about describing Jesus because they didn't _yet_ have the Gospel material. That seems to me like putting the horse behind the cart. The people closest to Jesus in time should have had the most direct evidence of his existence, his ministry, the events surrounding him such as the crucifixion, etc. That people should have to wait for a generation or two to pass before they can know what happened _earlier_ just doesn't make much sense. It's like saying the person at the end of the game of telephone knows best what was said at the start.
I don't mean easy in that sense. I think it is always easier to poke holes in the past than to justify things. Ultimately, because none of us where there, it is always easy to say "well you can't know you were not there", making it difficult for the one defending the historical position to provide an adequate retort. I think animosity in academia has no place and the ad hominem arguments banded about are of no use in the question for the historical Jesus. I'm all about friendship me!
What percent of scholars are bound by a statement of faith ? What percent are following the current religious dogma based on their personal worldview ? What percent are unaffiliated with any religion ? ( not that religious scholars can’t conduct research objectively , it seems that often in this field of study that the “scientific method”is not followed, and the conclusion is often the starting point)
kens. etc: Yes, I agree. What percentage of scholars working today have been able to ditch the assumptions and conclusions of previous generations who were either Christians themselves or were working in a predominantly Christian culture? It is my hypothesis that this is Bart Ehrman's problem - ie he still accepts "Paul" as a reliable source because ... reasons.
Jack Bull, sharp as a tack. I like this guy. He represents the future of scholarship because things they are a changing and blowing in the wind... Jacob this was a BRILLIANT presentation which I've bookmarked. Really beautifully put together in a way that in one hour one can understand an evolution of "canon." Wouldn't it be cool to MAKE a NEW CANON with criteria that it was historically relatively accurate and that as someone once said to me last year, "you're a Jew that likes Jesus." A bit insulted until I realized it was true. A new "canon" in my mind (which is why I would need one of 100 votes) would 86 Paul 100%. He knew nothing of Judea. He might have been a Jew.... maybe... but he knew nothing of what Jesus taught, IMHO. A new canon would give people a chance to grow for a century before making yet another new one and on and on. JACOB< bring your guest back again and again. He, is, fabulous.
Why pass over Irenaeus, who describes a New Testament and Old Testament in the 2nd century, and lists virtually all of the works in the current Catholic canon?
" Regarding the New Testament canon, one finds in _Adversus Haereses_ quotations from all the books of the New Testament with the exception of: Philemon, II Peter, III John, and Jude He also considered these writings, not in the present New Testament, of value: I Clement , Shepherd of Hermas However, the following he considered heretical: Gospel of Truth For a summary of his opinions see the Cross Reference Table. Irenaeus was especially insistent that there are exactly 4 Gospels, and used numerological arguments surrounding the number 4, such as the 4 covenants, for support. " Looks like he did not LIST the books but you can infer from what he was quoting from what he regarded relevant.
22:15 I'm not a Christian. But if I was it is at this point that I would be getting very uncomfortable. We are 300 years past the death of Jesus and only now are the canonical texts I'm told are God-inspired beginning to be settled upon. The people making this decision are VERY far removed from the source, Jesus himself. In fact, the longer the separation in time the less confidence I can have that what I'm getting is Jesus rather than Eusebius or someone else. How can I not wonder whether real, God-inspired texts were thrown aside by these men 300 and 400 years later?
fepeerreview etc: Indeed. It's rather as if the Book of Mormon were finally (to be) settled in 2130 and the people of that time were to be considered legitimate enough to pronounce on what was "real" and what was not.
I'd like to hear Jack's opinion on the Gospel of the Hebrews and where it fits in. It's the one attested Gospel that we don't really have, it was also not considered heretical and even used by the early church fathers. Written in Aramaic and the fact that Mark retains some Aramaic phrases always makes me wonder which used which.The bit we do know, with Jesus coming down from heaven with the Holy Spirit as his mother seems like an interesting link to what's in Revelation.
@@dianastevenson131 it WAS translated even into Latin too but stopped being used after Christianity became Rome's state religion though it still existed as late as the 800's.
@@HistoryandReviews even Mark implies that,I think, given how the Church Fathers always contrasted what was in it to Matthew (though to me it also could be a proto-John), that it was so similar they just kept the Catholicized version we have now. Don't need to deal with those pesky things like the Holy Spirit being Jesus' mother (though I have to wonder if that was more of a translation error) and any bits they did like (like the Adulterous woman story) were stuck in the other Gospels. I get the feeling this might be the origin of the stuff now assigned to Q.
5 min in... and I'm somewhat lost on to what part of bible canon will be b discussed The video began on emphasizing the 27 books 27 27 27... That's not the entirely of canon but the nt works alone
It's so ridiculous that there's this tiny group of insane writings that people obsess over when there's so much other insane writings out there for people to obsess over... Maybe we should stop obsessing over ALL of it and throw it in the dumpster? We could be spending our time in such more productive and beautiful ways.
I don't like the idea of the New Testament Canon being chosen by a bunch of ignorant people who knew nothing of the Ugaritic Texts or the Tribe of Ephraim's Book of Joshua.
@@HistoryandReviews Is Yahweh in the Ugaritic texts? In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the sons of god are the sons of El. Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. Yam, also known as Ym and Yaw (YHW), is the Ugaritic god of rivers and the sea. Also known as Judge Nahar ("Judge River"), he is also one of the Elohim or sons of El, the name given to the Levantine pantheon. Others dispute the existence of the alternative names, claiming it is a mistranslation of a damaged tablet. Despite linguistic overlap, theologically this god is not a part of the later sub regional monotheistic theology, but rather is part of a broader Levantine polytheism. He is also known from Egyptian sources, which present him as an enemy of Set (at the time viewed as a heroic slayer of monsters and similar to Levantine and Anatolian weather gods). Yam is the deity of primordial chaos and represents the power of the sea, untamed and raging; he is seen as ruling storms and the disasters they wreak. The seven-headed dragon Lotan is associated closely with him and the serpent is frequently used to describe him. Despite his antagonistic role in myths, Ym was sometimes invoked in theophoric names, indicating some degree of cult, which sets him apart from another similar figure, Tiamat. As Ym's myth is generally believed to be older than the Enuma Elish, it's possible Tiamat was partially patterned after him. Of all the gods, despite being the champion of El, Ym holds special hostility against Baal Hadad, son of Dagon (or El). Ym is a deity of the sea and his palace is in the abyss associated with the depths, or Biblical tehwom, of the oceans. (This is not to be confused with the abode of Mot, the ruler of the netherworld.) In Ugaritic texts, Ym's special enemy Hadad is also known as the "king of heaven" and the "first born son" of El, whom ancient Greeks identified with their god Cronus, just as Baal was identified with Zeus, Yam with Poseidon and Mot with Hades. While Baal Hadad was the lead god in Ugarit, in the Baal cycle it is Ym who is favored by El, and he even briefly rules over the other gods. Baal only rises to power after vanquishing him with the help of his allies Kothar-wa-Khasis, Astarte and Anat. Yam's ultimate fate is unclear, as the text makes references to both death and captivity, and in later sections of the myth Baal talks about Yam as if he was still alive and a possible threat. While in the past researchers, especially those belonging to the myth-ritual tradition, interpreted the myths of Baal, Ym and Mot as a representation of the cycle of seasons and thus related to fertility rites, this view is challenged in more recent scholarship as incorrect or simplistic. His name comes from the Canaanite word Yam, meaning "Sea."
Yahwism: Uncountable Is the Yahweh and Leviathan in the Ugaritic texts? In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of the Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the sons of god are the sons of El. Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. Yam, also known as Ym and Yaw (YHW), is the Ugaritic god of rivers and the sea. Also known as Judge Nahar ("Judge River"), he is also one of the Elohim or sons of El, the name given to the Levantine pantheon. Others dispute the existence of the alternative names, claiming it is a mistranslation of a damaged tablet. Despite linguistic overlap, theologically this god is not a part of the later sub regional monotheistic theology, but rather is part of a broader Levantine polytheism. He is also known from Egyptian sources, which present him as an enemy of Set (at the time viewed as a heroic slayer of monsters and similar to Levantine and Anatolian weather gods). Yam is the deity of primordial chaos and represents the power of the sea, untamed and raging; he is seen as ruling storms and the disasters they wreak. The seven-headed dragon Lotan is associated closely with him and the serpent is frequently used to describe him. Despite his antagonistic role in myths, Ym was sometimes invoked in theophoric names, indicating some degree of cult, which sets him apart from another similar figure, Tiamat. As Ym's myth is generally believed to be older than the Enuma Elish, it's possible Tiamat was partially patterned after him. Of all the gods, despite being the champion of El, Ym holds special hostility against Baal Hadad, son of Dagon (or El). Ym is a deity of the sea and his palace is in the abyss associated with the depths, or Biblical tehwom, of the oceans. (This is not to be confused with the abode of Mot, the ruler of the netherworld.) In Ugaritic texts, Ym's special enemy Hadad is also known as the "king of heaven" and the "first born son" of El, whom ancient Greeks identified with their god Cronus, just as Baal was identified with Zeus, Yam with Poseidon and Mot with Hades. While Baal Hadad was the lead god in Ugarit, in the Baal cycle it is Ym who is favored by El, and he even briefly rules over the other gods. Baal only rises to power after vanquishing him with the help of his allies Kothar-wa-Khasis, Astarte and Anat. Yam's ultimate fate is unclear, as the text makes references to both death and captivity, and in later sections of the myth Baal talks about Yam as if he was still alive and a possible threat. While in the past researchers, especially those belonging to the myth-ritual tradition, interpreted the myths of Baal, Ym and Mot as a representation of the cycle of seasons and thus related to fertility rites, this view is challenged in more recent scholarship as incorrect or simplistic. His name comes from the Canaanite (Israelite) word Yam, meaning "Sea."
