The genius of Luke’s Gospel is frequently overlooked by those who simply breeze through it or assume it is saying the same thing as Matthew and Mark. In fact, it is strikingly different. What especially matters are not so much the contradictions one finds, but the larger picture. Luke has radically edited Mark’s account in places to create a new portrait of Jesus. In this episode we see how he did it and what the end result is. Among other things, when you look carefully at the details of Luke’s account, you find that, unlike the other Gospels, here Jesus does not suffer during his passion and his death does not bring an atonement for sins. These are not minor differences. Why would Luke change the story so significantly? 

The Christian faith is rooted in the belief that Jesus died for the sins of the world and was then raised from the dead. But is this what Jesus himself preached during his public ministry? In the Gospels Jesus certainly predicts his coming death, on numerous occasions. But are those saying historical? How would scholars know? What is the evidence both ways? And if Jesus did not anticipate, let alone predict, his death, does that completely undermine the Christian faith?

Discussing Christianity's growth in the Roman world, the podcast explores the exclusivity and evangelism that set it apart from traditional beliefs. It challenges theories on Christianity's rise, revealing the controversial origins of the New Testament Gospels. A scholar presents connections between the Old Testament and Gospel of Matthew, while discussions touch upon authors' personal faith transitions and misconceptions about leaving the Christian faith. The episode dives into Christianity's triumph in the Roman world, attributing it to evangelistic efforts and belief in the supremacy of their God.

The conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity is often pointed to as a turning point in the history of the religion - but would Christianity have continued on its upward trajectory without this conversion? Was Constantine’s conversion one of genuine religious conviction, or was it motivated by something else? Has his conversion been co-opted and over-emphasized by later Christian authors?

The New Testament is often studied in isolation, separated from other ancient writings. How did this division come about, and what do we lose by looking at it as something different? Dr. Robyn Walsh talks about what can be gained from placing the New Testament back into the canon of Classical Literature.

In this episode I interview one of the premier experts on the question, Dr. Josh Bowen, who has written two books on the matter; in our discussion he explains what the Bible really says about slavery and how we can put it's statements, assumptions, and laws in its own context instead of thinking that it fits comfortably in ours.

In this special edition of the podcast Bart interviews Joseph Lam, an expert on the languages, religions, and cultures of the Ancient Near East (and Bart's colleague at UNC), who has just produced a Wondrium Course on the Creation Stories in the Ancient World. Among other things they talk about the reasons for thinking Genesis contains two very different creation stories (side by side) and how other older stories from Mesopotamia appear to have influenced the author(s) of Genesis.

Biblical scholars who approach the Bible from a historical perspective are often accused of working hard to deconvert the faithful. Is that true? Do undergraduates widely abandon their faith once they learn the historical realities behind it? Are professors and authors generally interested in urging their students and readers to abandon their religion? And is there any positive result for faith that can come from understanding historical scholarship? Is it crucial to faith to understand the Bible, or just an unnecessary add-on?