Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman

If Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, then why isn't mainstream, modern Christianity an apocalyptic religion? Was the move away from apocalypticism deliberate, and are modern doomsday preachers actually closer to preaching Jesus' message than other churches?

Most scholars write books and articles for other scholars, using jargon and presupposing knowledge available only to experts trained in their discipline. But some scholars write books designed for popular audiences about their fields of expertise. Can non-scholars write books like that? Should they try? Why do most scholars choose not to do so? Are there pitfalls in trying to communicate complex knowledge in simple terms? Is it possible to do so without "dumbing it down"? And why do so many academics look down on fellow-scholars who try to do so?

One of the most intriguing non-canonical Gospels to be discovered in modern times is the Gospel of Peter. Unlike the New Testament Gospels, which were written anonymously (only later to be given the titles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), this Gospel actually claims to be written by an apostle, Jesus' own right-hand man, Peter. The account we have is only fragmentary, an alternative version of Jesus' trial, death, and resurrection. And what an account it is, involving an actual record of Jesus emerging from his tomb at his resurrection, as tall as a mountain, followed, from the tomb by a walking-talking cross. What is this fascinating account really all about, and why did someone write it, falsely claiming to be the disciple Peter?

In this episode we consider the issue from several angles, not by assuming that outsiders are necessarily "objective" (is *anyone* objective?) but by thinking through the complications of the matter.

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.