Are The Gospels History? | Bart D. Ehrman PhD

Are The Gospels History? | Bart D. Ehrman PhD

We know most Christian apologist want to argue that the gospels are solid historical accounts of what really happened with Jesus. The camps are split between minimal facts arguments and maximal facts. I'm a skeptic trying to pull my skeptic friends in from be too dismissive of the Gospels having some historical data we can ascertain. You will want to sign up for Bart's course to get a better grasp of this issue.

==================================

Sign up for the 7 hour resurrection debate between Dr's Bart Ehrman & Mike Licona here

Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's Christmas Webinar here:

==================================

Please consider helping support MythVision's work by joining the Patreon or a one time donation through my links below.

Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9

#Gospels #BartEhrman #mythvision

[MythVisionPodcast]

Sign up for Bart Ehrman's course "The Unknown Gospels" here 👉

[moonshoes]

They offer no evidence for supernatural claims. Which is what really matters.

[soonerarrow]

Derrek... Your fearless, enthusiastic, tenacious and obvious honest broker approach to counter-apologetics has breathed new life into non-belief here on YouTube. Your amazingly consistent ability to corral scholars onto your channel for the last two years have provided your subscribers information we may not have ever heard or seen.

The scholars themselves are now consistently making appearances on other channels, which then grows their channels.

Well done, my highly interesting and most favored YouTube Creator-God! Well done!

[richardbradley]

Love the enthusiasm both of you have for the subject.

[mohangotame]

Hello mythvision why are you not disclosing that 7 hours debete between bart and mike

[maatjusticia]

Whenever I see Ehrman talking about the historicity of Jesus I immediately think of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He's a walking contradiction. 🙄

[UDCTANG]

What I gathered is, #JESUSISSTILLAMYTH.

[あれくす]

Quite insightful. Enjoyed this speaker. I appreciate his real attempt to be as unbiased and honest as he can with this material given his unbelief and avowed atheism. There's something to be said about that.

[davidbennett]

So we can be confident Jesus really said something found in the gospels because we are guessing if Jesus lived he would have said something like an apocaplyptic prophet? And he says of the 12, there's no way a later story teller would come up with a story that includes Judas in the revelation? "After Jesus' death" everyone knew Judas betrayed Jesus? Everyone? or did Mark make that up and after mark wrote others picked it up? To me he continues to make extremely tenuous connections and then calls just declares there's a high degree of probability that it happened that way. Where's the evaluation? If Mark wasn't writing a history of some sort, then why assume the story in it is probably good history based on other assumptions only found in Mark or the 3 other gospels? This is just terrible logic.

[jakejerrison]

Please interview Mark S. Smith! A fine scholar on the early history of Yahweh!

[travis]

Interesting stuff. I'm not sure I agree with Dr Ehrman's assessment of the quote about the 12 disciples and the 12 tribes. The gospel authors were schooled in story creation. They knew about plot twists. Also I think he attributes these ancient religious writers a certain intellectual honesty that even modern religious writers don't have. Would they have just made stuff up? Absolutely. I don't see why not. That said I will not hesitate to watch future content with Dr Ehrman. I always learn something.

[kevinconanbankens]

I am a Farmer Christian myself. Really enjoy the mythvision channel.

Always great topics.
👍❤️👍

[dezukaful]

Derek, please set up a bart and carrier debate.
It is long overdue

[GoldenEmperorManifest]

I'm sure there was something compelling here but I didn't see it. While I don't think most of us deny there are nuggets of historic evidence for a variety of things in most mythological writings including the gospels, the question is about the accounts of Jesus in general. This is not sufficient evidence to prove Jesus existed or said any of these things and at least 2 of the Gospels are nearly duplications of an original which may be have been mostly duplicated from an original Q document although it's questionable.

The "Where there's smoke there's fire" approach is to me, not a valid scholarly argument for historicity.

Said simply, this comes off as a very weak, non scholarly argument. Sorry if that's too insulting to one of your guests but I'd suggest going back to the drawing board.

[andresvillarreal]

Apart from the two extreme positions, there are a lot of intermediate positions in this discussion. Many historians give accurate information about Cesar Augustus, for example, and also report that he became a god. They are not in the extreme "historian" position but they are not in the "neutral" position either. And Dickens wrote fiction that has important historic value. But he is not in the "neutral" position either. He is in essence a very good novelist. In the case of Jesus and the Bible, almost all of the references to Jesus are probably or possibly fictional, so the Bible is not "neutral" either, it is more to the side of fiction.

[shira]

Dr Ehrman a favorite. I am in process of watching all his videos. Myth Vision is the best!!

[baarbacoa]

Thomas Jefferson took a similar approach in creating the "Jefferson Bible."

[Dan]

There’s an embarrassing lack of evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus that if you judged your belief by that alone you’d become an atheist.

[grumpylibrarian]

I have to push back on Dr. Ehrman's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:23.

His intrepretation of παρεδίδετο (paredideto) is certainly close enough for horse shoes and hand grenades. I would use "was delivered' to match the roots of παρέλαβον (parelabon) "received" and παρέδωκα (paredōka) "delivered" in the same verse. This was translated into 'quoniam Dominus Jesus in qua nocte tradebatur, ' or 'since the Lord Jesus was delivered in that night' in the vulgate. But the original Greek doesn't say who or what was delivered, with a literal "that the lord Jesus in the night in which () was delivered, ". This is a common construct when the object can be assumed from context, but we have two objects here: Jesus and the *message*. I would suggest that this passage is not referring to a literal dinner, and therefore there was no referential night in which Jesus was delivered. It was the MESSAGE that was delivered: Jesus showed Paul his actions in this vision, and Paul is saying "in the night it was delivered" for emphasis and alliteration with the two other παρε- (pare-) words in this sentence.

To understand why this was NOT a literal dinner, you need to read the whole passage. (This usually destroys proof-texting.) This is at least verses 17-34, and feel free to keep reading around it.

Paul chides the Corinthians for, in verse 21 regarding them eating the lord's supper, that " for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk." This sounds like they're being rude and selfish eaters, but other verses suggest that this is the fault of the people who are STARVING, not the fault of the pigs at the table:

Verse 22: "Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in?" Sounds like he's chastising them for being pigs so far. "Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing?" ... Huh? Still sounds like he's chastising the pigs, but "those who have nothing" is a strange way to describe those who can't reach the food due to the eating machines. "What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!" ... Sounds like they expect Paul to be *proud* of them for being little piggies?

Verse 19: "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval." This is REALLY weird for describing a dinner. God's approval is demonstrated by gut-busting?

Verse 34: "Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment." Now he's chastising the people who couldn't REACH the food. So in verse 22, he wasn't yelling at the piggies. He was yelling at the waifs!

Now you can read verses 27-32 in a sensible context:

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.
32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.


So THIS IS NOT A LITERAL MEAL. It is a metaphor for coming together to seek Jesus, some people coming away having received much, and some who should be ashamed because they came away with nothing. Paul's telling people to continually seek Jesus, and not just when they come together, or they'll be judged by their inability to receive Jesus's gifts.

This was NEVER a reference to an actual event. Mark either took this directly for his mystery fiction novel he was writing, or this was transformed over legendary development into Mark's story. If this was legendary development BEFORE Paul wrote this story, then Paul is LYING HIS ASS OFF, because he specifically asserts in verse 23 that he received this story directly from Jesus.

[theprocess]

I watch Mike Winger's channel I literally just finished watching one of his videos thought I needed a break so came here and then...(1408 "I was out! I was out!")