Loading summary
Transcript44 lines
- [00:01]
Grow Therapy Announcer
Everyone talks about summer like it's supposed to be carefree. But if this season brings up money, stress, body stress, family stress, or social stress, that's real too. Grow Therapy can help with that. Whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th, grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. They connect you with thousands of independent licensed therapists across the US Offering both virtual and in person visits, nights and weekends. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And if something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. There are no subscriptions, no long term commitments. You just pay per session. Grow helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans, including Medicaid in some states. Sessions average about $21 with insurance and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Visit growththerapy.com booknow to get started. That's growththerapy.com booknow growththerapy.com booknow availability and coverage by state and insurance plan Atheists
- [01:24]
Megan Lewis
often accuse people of religious faith of uncritically accepting a bunch of myths. But do atheists do the same? How closely do people actually examine their dearly held views and beliefs, regardless of their religious persuasions? Today, we're talking about myths that atheists believe. We also have our bonus segment at the end, which this week is listeners questions. I'm going to be asking Bart, among other things, whether Satan is unique to early Christians or if the concept has roots in Judaism. Welcome to the Misquoting Jesus podcast with Bart Ehrman. Now, Bart, this episode kind of flips the usual script where you're going to be poking a bit at some atheist beliefs. As an atheist and someone with atheist friends, do you think that atheists can fall into the same kind of overconfidence trap about unanswered scientific questions that many fundamentalists fall into about religion?
- [02:18]
Bart Ehrman
Yes, I think many do. I think, you know, I didn't realize this so much until I wrote my book Did Jesus Exist? Where I got a lot of pushback from mythicists, people who don't believe Jesus exists, and who were almost all the ones who contacted me, I suppose most generally were atheists. And I just, I just became, I became really interested in kind of the unquestioned assumptions they had when they're attacking Christians. Unquestioned assumptions occurred to me. That's, that's pretty interesting. And so you're right, I mean, I'm an atheist, so I do, I do not believe there's a greater power in the universe of any kind, a supernatural force. And I don't insist other people agree with me at all. And I like to be critical of my views and to kind of question them. And it occurs to me there, there are, there are myths that I believe, depending on how you define myth.
- [03:19]
Megan Lewis
That is an excellent lead into my next question. Long term listeners are going to know the answer to this one, I think. But, but when we're talking about myth in this context, what does that word actually mean?
- [03:32]
Bart Ehrman
I bet people don't know. I was talking with a graduate student about a month ago about a course they were taking on myth. And I asked them about it. Apparently the whole course was designed trying to figure out what the word meant graduate the grad level. And so let me, let me tell you what I mean, what I'm meaning by it. For long I've known that people in the modern world use the term myth simply to refer to something that's not true. You know, oh, that's a myth meaning it's not true. In the circle of religious studies, the academic study of religious studies, the term myth has much deeper, a much deeper meaning than, or multiple meanings. But it doesn't just mean something that's not true within, within New Testament scholarship circles, the term myth became popularized in the, in the early 19th century when David Friedrich Strauss wrote his book where he on the Historical Jesus, where he argued that the stories about Jesus in the Gospels were not historical events, they were, they were myths. And he didn't mean what people think he means by that. He didn't mean they're not true. He actually meant that the myths are true, but they're true things. They're stories that are trying to convey truth even though the stories didn't happen. So they're stories that didn't happen that convey truth. And most of my students can't get their minds around that one. But that's what he meant by, by it. And so it's not a question of truth and falsehood, it was a question of historicity for him. And a lot of people in religious studies do talk about myth as a thing. I. But it doesn't have to mean something like a false story about a divine being intervening in history. I think many people think of it like that it's got involved like God getting involved, and it doesn't have to be that.
- [05:40]
Megan Lewis
So the term doesn't necessitate any Kind of supernatural entity or activity or event.
- [05:48]
Bart Ehrman
Yeah, it doesn't have to. So when I'm using the term myth, I, I'll tell you what I mean by it. I'll give you. And I don't have like a precise definition, but it's something like this, that it's a myth is a, a story that we tell ourselves that explains who we are and explains about the world. That is something that we cannot empirically verify. It's something that's not empirically verifiable that nonetheless we base our understanding of the world and ourselves on. That can be a myth about, like God created the world in six days, which I think is. It's a myth. It didn't happen. But, but it's a myth also in the sense that people with that understanding of where the world came from, it shapes how they understand the world if they have that as their starting point.
- [06:46]
Megan Lewis
So in your experience, what do atheists mean, or most atheists mean when they use the term myth?
- [06:53]
Bart Ehrman
Most atheists think that it means it's just something that believers have that believers think that there's a God who's active in the world and that's all just a myth. And I, you know, that that can be right. I mean, it is, it is a myth, but it's not the definition of myth. It's one kind of myth. So it's a religious myth. But I think there are atheist myths as well, things that people heartily believe or they just assume to be true. And it's, they, they can't empirically demonstrate, but they, they assume that they're true and they provide meaning to their lives and their way, and they, they form how they understand the world they live in.
- [07:32]
Megan Lewis
So you mentioned an example of a Christian myth being that God created the world. If we're looking at myths that atheists believe and try and get an analogous example, would the Big Bang fit in this category?
- [07:47]
Bart Ehrman
Yeah, I think it does. So, but people need to understand. I'm not saying that it's, I'm not saying that it didn't happen. So it's false when I say it's a myth. So the Big Bang, I absolutely believe in the Big Bang, you know, but how can I empirically demonstrate it? Now, scientists, of course, physicists can show that, that this is probably how things started, but they can't explain it. They try to, of course, different. You know, you'll, you can buy, you know, 20 books on astrophysics and get the 20 explanations for. But, but the basic concept of it is, is Accepted and understood. But what's accepted and understood is what happens in the milli, milli milliseconds after, you know, when it happened. But you can't answer things like how did it happen? You know, why did it happen? You know, you, you can't, you can't get beyond, you can't actually grasp the moment itself, just what happens the moments after it. And so you can't really explain it. And so although people try. But you can't empirically prove that any of these theories is right because there's nothing to prove. Right. You can't, you know, it's like, it's like saying, you know, what was happening before the Big Bang? Nothing was happening before the Big Bang. That's when time started. Well, how did the laws of physics affect the Big Bang? They didn't affect the Big Bang. The laws of physics came out of the Big Bang. Then how did it happen? We have no, there's no way to know. At least we don't think there. Now, it may be, you know, it may be that we'll figure it out. I mean, theoretically, you know, I'm not saying that theoretically it's impossible to figure it out, although you could make a case that in, in this instance it will be theoretically impossible to figure out because you're talking about something that began time, space and laws of physics. Right. And I, I am clearly not a scientist, but what I'm saying is that you, that when people want what caused it, well, there's no explanation for it. Whereas empirical demonstration means you have an explanation for why something happens. Right? You don't have an explanation for that.
- [09:58]
Megan Lewis
So you mentioned in your explanation of what a myth is, in the way that we're using the term, that it helps with things like identity formation and kind of forming what you believe and how you view the world. How, if we're looking at the Big Bang, how does a belief in that myth help to shape or form an atheist self identity?
- [10:21]
Bart Ehrman
Well, absolutely central to my self identity, you know, when I believed that God created the world in six days and I thought the humans, for example, were the pinnacle of existence and that that was God given and that God gave humans domination over the earth and that over other animals and that man was created before woman and a woman's created as a. When I was a fundamentalist, you, this is the kind of stuff I thought, it shaped how I thought about my relationship to the world, relationship to other living beings, relationship to women, I mean, just affected everything. If I believe in a Big Bang, which I do. Even though I don't have an explanation for how it happened or why it happened. It means that what I think of as, as true is all descended from this, this moment that we can't isolate where everything came into existence and that all of our existence is a matter, is a result of the Big Bang, not a divine intervention of some kind. So it basically means that, I think it's all, you know, it's, it's all time, matter, space, laws of physics. And that's all there is. You know, I mean, there, you could probably multiply that list, but there, there isn't something outside of this material world. It's all, it's all, it's all made up of matter on some level and time and space and, you know, and all that. So it affects how I think about the world and things, how I affect how I think about my existence. It's why I don't think there's an existence after my existence for me. I don't think that I'll live on. I think my, you know, when I die, my cells will each individually die, all 3.7 trillion of them. And all the molecules within them, they don't die because they're not alive, but the molecules will disperse and go somewhere else. And that eventually in some trillions of years, we. It's not just that I won't exist, but this, this world won't exist and add enough trillions of years and there won't be any matter at all. It's my, I mean, look, I. Again, I am not a scientist, but I accept the view that the law of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, means that in trillions and trillions of years, you have isolated molecules scattered around that aren't going together, forming planets and humans anymore. Well, that changes how I think about the world, obviously, and, and what I think about the past, present and future and how I think about what matters. You know, what matters in a world where eventually there won't be matter? And how does it matter if there won't be matter? It leads to all sorts of interesting things, but it's premised on something that I can't empirically explain.
- [13:14]
Megan Lewis
So if we kind of stick with this very early, not as early as the Big Bang, but very early in the history of the world and the universe. How about the beginnings of life? If you're an evangelical fundamentalist, you likely believe Adam and Eve were sculpted out of dirt by God and then had life breathed into them. Atheists have a very different understanding in is that still also a mythical belief?
- [13:44]
Bart Ehrman
Well, I think it is. And again I, I need to apologize to scientists out there listening to this and people who really are experts because
- [13:52]
Megan Lewis
those yelling at their, at their radio or their tv, you idiot.
- [13:56]
Bart Ehrman
Don't you know, you know, and so I've read, you know, look, I've read a ton of books, but like I am not a scientist and so, so I think, I think the beginning of life is the second thing is another thing, it's another myth. It's. I absolutely believe that life emerged out of non life. I absolutely have no idea how it happened. And I know there are lots of people who say they do know how it happened. So I, I get that. But they, they can't. The evidence that they don't really know the evidence is that they can't, it can't be empirically demonstrated because if they could be, they would all agree to it. Right? You can empirically demonstrate laws of physics. You cannot empirically demonstrate where life came from. You can come up with interesting suggestions and, and people will argue for their, their suggestions, but it, it's a real. Boy, it's a real mind boggler. You know, if I'm made up of molecules, this, this microphone is made up of molecules and I am alive. And this microphone might seem alive because you can, it's doing something, but it's not, it doesn't have life the way I have life or the way. And so, and there are all different kinds of forms of life, you know, and so it's, and you know, it ain't just plants and animals. The way we learned in third grade is there are other kinds, you know, there are kinds of life. And how do you explain that? I mean it's a real mind, it's a real puzzler. I think it absolutely happened. I think life came out of non life. And I, you know, I have no, I have no reasoned opinion about whether it happened only once in the history of the universe or the multiverse or if it happened millions of times or what. But I do think it, it did happen in our case. And I don't, I don't think we can show why or how. But again, so it's a, so it's, it's something I cannot empirically demonstrate to my knowledge at least. And, but nonetheless it has a huge effect on the way I look at the world and the way I live.
- [16:11]
Megan Lewis
Thank you. This is, I'm absolutely fascinated. I've never thought about any of these concept as, as myth before, so I'm very much enjoying the conversation. We have a brief announcement and then we're going to get right back into it because I, I have more questions. But before all of that, we have a reminder for you about something fun that we're doing this month. We've never done it and it is about to disappear all through June. We are running a special promotion that we're calling Bart's Picks. These are a handful of Bart's favorite courses, not his holiday snaps that we've created at PATHS in Biblical Studies for this month only. You can get them for whatever you want to pay. Absolutely. Whatever. Seriously, you decide the price. Maybe it's $100, maybe it's 10, maybe it's $1. It is completely up to you. Some people did ask after the last episode if this was a joke. It's not. It's not. April. This is a real promotion. There is one catch, though. It ends in just one week. So if you've been curious about our courses but haven't jumped in yet, the timing wasn't right or you weren't sure they were, this is definitely your window. If you have taken one of our courses before, this is a really good chance to just grab another one that you've had your eye on. I'm not going to tell you what the courses are. You'll have to go and see what Bart picked. You can head over to Bart ehrman.com courses before the end of June to take a look. And once it's gone, it's gone. So please go have a look and have fun learning some new things, as I am indeed having fun learning new things today. Talking about myths that atheists believe from an atheist We've gone through the Big Bang, the beginnings of life. So the third on my list is the the whole idea of consciousness. You've said that obviously we're made up of lots of cells and those cells are made up of molecules. So are rocks. And we have consciousness and rocks don't. Is that. That would be a similar mythology.
- [18:11]
Bart Ehrman
Yeah, I think so. Because, I mean, look, okay, I mean, for one thing, we don't know if rocks have consciousness. We're pretty sure they don't. Although some people. Some people will argue they do. I don't know what that means, but there are people who argue that. I mean, I know what I think I know what they mean, but I don't really know what they mean. I think. So it's one thing, okay, it's one thing to say that everything started, you know, with a big bang. It's another thing to say that somehow life emerged out of that. Life came out of non life with, you know, and of course, the scientists have explanations for how. How that works with, you know, you know, proteins, amino acids and all of that. But how does. How does something that can regenerate itself and that. That can grow, that. That is alive in some. How does it become conscious of its own existence? It's one thing to say that, you know, algae formed or that bacteria came into existence, or even the, you know, rose bushes exist. How does consciousness come about? This, of course, is a. All of these are hugely debated topics. I think there's been a lot of interest over the last 20 years, especially 30 years, in the consciousness issue, because there. There are all sorts of books written about it by. Not just by physicists, but by philosophers and people who know a lot, who do not agree with each other. And so there are all sorts of theories of it which shows, again, that it's not something that. That is empirically demonstrable to this. If, you know, it's not like a chemistry experiment where if you do it a hundred times, you come up with the same results. So you say, okay, that'll be the result the next time. When you're talking about the big bang or the appearance of life or the appearance of consciousness, there's no experiment so far that you could do that will convince everybody that's how it happened. And so we don't know really how consciousness emerged, even though people have interesting theories about it, but we certainly believe it did. And we believe that we are conscious. We believe most of us believe we have free will. I'm actually personally not confident that we have free will. It sure feels like I have free will. I mean, absolutely seems like it does, but I don't know where it could have come from or where it does come from, just as I don't know where consciousness come from. You know, I've got 100 billion neurons in my head, or 80 to 100 billion I probably have on the lower side of that. And they. And they're, you know, they're cells. And their cells are made up of molecules, and the molecules are made up of atoms, and the atoms have, you know, subatomic particles in them. And it's like that all the way down. There's nothing else. So when I. When I have my. When I have a meditation session, I. I meditate most mornings. I just as a, you know, just as a daily practice. And I often try to figure it out. Is. Is there something else in me other than these molecules that make up my neurons and I, you know, and I, I meditate, meditate on it and I try to figure out what is like some, you know, is it the man behind the curtain somehow? I mean, so when, when I decide to lift my index finger back and forth. Who's deciding? There are some neurons deciding. But who's telling the neurons to do it? I don't know, but I am. I'm, you know, I feel like I am. I think I'm conscious. I don't, you know, I don't think the picture on my wall is conscious. Where did it come from? And what does it even mean? And how does it work? I have no idea. But I absolutely believe it's true. Okay, I don't, I don't. I'm not saying I believe it's true that we have free will because I don't know if we have. I do think we have conscious. I, I'm pretty sure I have consciousness and I feel like I have free will. But all of these are mysteries to me. And so since I can't explain them empirically or demonstrate, I can't prove it really. I mean, of course, Descartes trying to prove it, right? Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. Somehow he got from that to a theory about God. I don't know how that worked. But, but he, but he, But I don't think we can demonstrate these things. And yet it makes a big difference to me to think that I am a conscious being with free will. It affects how I live, how I think.
- [22:59]
Megan Lewis
It's a very different outlook. I mean, leaving aside the religion question, a conscious person, person with free will, believing yourself to be a conscious person with free will is very different to. We take a pop culture reference. Think about the, the people in the Matrix. It's like worlds apart. Same experience, same lived experience, but. But worlds apart with very different self identities.
- [23:26]
Bart Ehrman
Well, that's right. Yeah. And I rewatched the Matrix recently because I was thinking about all of this and thinking, man, I just wanted to watch movies that kind of felt. Play with this idea a little bit. And it is really interesting. Of course, it's the old theory that you could, you could just, you know, you may not be, you know, so in the Matrix, of course, you're just, you're not what you think you are. This world doesn't really exist. It's been implanted in your brain by a superior power. And, and yes, technically, that's possible. It's possible. So
- [23:57]
Megan Lewis
I suspect this episode is going to make some people Bristle a little bit. Why do you think that people get so defensive when their sincerely held beliefs, religious or otherwise, are described as myths?
- [24:15]
Bart Ehrman
I think, I think this time it'll. It'll be a different group that bristle. People are always bristling at this episode. I guess most people really bristle. Don't watch us. But. But. Well, I think we have. I think the word myth itself is a problematic term. So the word myth itself comes from a Greek word, muthos, which simply means a tale or a story that often it is thought of as a fictional account that is meant to convey some kind of truth. Kind of like I was saying David Friedrich Strauss had. So like Plato, Plato differentiates mythos from logos. Logos is more like rationality, things you can demonstrate reasonably. And mythos is something more like a tale that can illustrate the truth that you establish through logos. And so maybe that's a helpful way to look at it. But it doesn't mean that the mythos, it could be fictional, but it could be based on some kind of truth. And so I get it that people, you know, don't want to think that they believe in myths. They believe only in facts. I just believe in facts. Well, I think your belief that you believe only in facts is a myth. I, I think, I think you're telling yourself a myth if you think you only believe in facts because it's not, it's just not true. You believe all sorts of things that you can't empirically demonstrate. And so, so it depends what you mean by fact as well. So I think philosophers, I think scientists, I think many atheists would bristle at this idea that these are myths. But if you mean by myth what I mean by myth, that they are, they are ideas or events or narratives that we tell ourselves, that we accept that we cannot empirically demonstrate, but nonetheless have a major impact on how we think about our world and live in our world and understand ourselves. That then, yeah, okay, those are myths.
- [26:23]
Megan Lewis
Do you think it's possible for humans to not have some kind of belief in a myth?
- [26:30]
Bart Ehrman
No, I don't. I don't. Because the only way not to have belief in a myth is to have empirical verification for everything. You think. And you can't. And I think humans are made. You know, for a long time there have been scholars who have talked about humans as being creatures of narrative, that we are narrative creatures, that we tell stories to ourselves and that we live our lives by telling stories. And it's, it's absolutely true. I mean, we tell stories about our Childhood child stories about our parents, stories about our family and things that are, that are. We tell them not because they are factual. We tell them because we have a reason to tell them somehow they're important for us to tell them. And humans always have had stories to tell that helped them understand their lives and put them, their lives in context, understand where they came from and such. And so we live lives of story and you know, anytime we just explain what happened in your day to a spouse or to a loved one or someone else, you just, you're telling a story. So I think it's kind of like that, that we live humans just the way we're made. We, we tell stories. And I think myths are the kind. Is one kind of story that we tell. They aren't historical stories in the fact that like they could be verified in some way. They are stories that provide meaning for our existence that cannot be verified. I think everybody does it. I don't think there's any way around it if you're going to be a human being.
- [28:03]
Megan Lewis
And just to go back to something that you said earlier, just because we're classing anything as a myth doesn't therefore mean it is untrue or, or made up it, or doesn't even contain some kind of truth that is, is helpful to the people who, who hold to those myths.
- [28:22]
Bart Ehrman
That's right. And it's so hard for people to get their mind around that they just kind of reject it out of hand. But I, I think that that's absolutely true and it just, it's a different way of thinking about things. Like, you know, when my kids were, when they were like mid teenagers, we'd be watching a movie and they'd say, dad, is, is this a true story? And I'd say, yes. They'd say, no, no, no. Did it happen? So, yeah, no, it didn't happen.
- [28:46]
Megan Lewis
Clarify the question.
- [28:49]
Bart Ehrman
What are you talking about then? Well, no, it conveys truth, man. So when I read novels, I don't read, I don't read David Copperfield because I want to find out what actually happened in the life of this guy named David Cop. I rename because it's a strange story that, that informs my life and my way of thinking about the world. And it's, it's true on that level. And myths, myths are like that, only they're kind of deeper and more profound and more basic. They are like the essence of how we, they stand at the very essence of what we think about the world and our place in it. And yeah, so, but People. People will bristle because of that, because they don't like the term myth. Well, okay, give me a better one. People will be giving me better ones, but I'm telling you, they aren't better. I just. Preparation.
- [29:38]
Megan Lewis
Oh, thank you, Bart. Those were all of my questions. Is there anything that you want to reiterate or elaborate on before we move on?
- [29:46]
Bart Ehrman
I think one of the. One thing I appreciate about this view that we all believe in myths of some sort, is that for me, at least, it makes me a little bit more generous to people I disagree with on fundamental issues, because it's not that I can empirically prove that my viewpoints about the world are right and that others are wrong. I mean, certainly I. You know, it is. It is, I think, scientifically demonstrable that a big bang is way more probable than the creation of the world in six days some 4,000 years ago. I mean, I think it's just like. Or 4,000 B.C. it's like. Yeah. So I. I do believe that. But there. There are all sorts of things that we just. We accept on faith. You know, I accept. I accept the big bang on faith because the people I trust have more or less demonstrated it, I think, whereas I don't think that anybody's demonstrated that the world is created in six days by. By Yahweh. I just, you know, I don't think so. I do. I do have empirical grounds, but there are lots of things at the very heart of what I think that are not demonstrable, but I think that they probably are right. And I base my life on them. And I think everybody does that.
- [31:03]
Megan Lewis
That's all for today's interview. Thank you so much, Bart. We are going to move on to this week's bonus segment, which is listeners Q and A. And we are actually starting with a question about fiction, which I think is quite fitting for today's topic. What responsibility do writers of fiction have in depicting the past? To use the Da Vinci Code as an example, some of the inaccuracies are just unnecessary mistakes. But can we blame Dan Brown if people believe the things he wrote about Jesus but never actually claimed were true?
- [31:36]
Bart Ehrman
The problem with the Da Vinci Code is that Dan Brown starts with a page by indicating that the narrative and the characters were fictional, but the historical information was accurate. And he was just. He was either. He was either lying. I don't think he was lying. I think he just didn't know. You know, I wrote a book on fact and fiction in the Da Vinci Code where I just went through the Historical claims, one by one basically just showed man that just ain't true. And he didn't know. Apparently he didn't know. I mean, he had all sorts of stuff in there. So I'm not talking about the plot or the. But I mean just things he said about the Council of Nicaea or Constantine or Mary Magdalene or Jesus, the Gospels. Like he just didn't know. Or if he did know, then he was lying. So, so there's that. Fiction writers have no real obligation to the truth as long the historical facts, so long as they point out that they're talking about, they're giving fiction if they're writing historical fiction. In other words, if they're claiming, like if they're writing an account of Abraham Lincoln, I don't know that they have an obligation. But I think, I think my views, morally, they're obligated to get the facts right. But that's just, that's just my opinion. The thing about the, about fiction is the same with every genre. Every different kind of genre of writing is that the way a genre works is that the author has an unspoken agreement, a contract with the reader, that they both know how this genre works and the author will follow the rules for the genre and the reader will accept the rules of the genre and will interpret in light of the rules of the genre. Now, when somebody writes of some kind of genre, genre breaking work, then you understand that he's breaking the rules of the genre. So that's okay too. But. But it's an agreement. It's an unspoken agreement, and it's not legal and it's, you know, it's just the way it is. So fiction writers can, you know, write in any genre they want as long as I think. I think they have the obligation to somehow let the readers know what, what the rules are that they're following.
- [33:41]
Megan Lewis
In a previous episode, you mentioned that if Jesus were to come back today, he would be utterly shocked to discover that many of his followers are eating bread and drinking wine or juice as a representative of his body and his blood. While there is only one gospel in which Jesus says, do this in remembrance of me, he does still break bread and proclaim that it is his. It is his body in multiple gospels, as well as the cup being his blood. Why then would continuing this ceremonial ritual be so surprising to him?
- [34:11]
Bart Ehrman
Because it didn't happen. I mean, so it's in the gospels. I'm saying historically, Jesus did not have, in my view that Jesus did not institute the Lord's Supper, that that's a Later, that's later Christians trying, who are commemorating his, his death. They get together every week, they have a meal, they break bread and they say this is, this is like Jesus body that was broken for. They take, they drink the wine. This is like the blood that he spilled for us. And they retroject that back on Jesus. I don't, I don't personally think that Jesus really said these things at the Last Supper. And so that's why I don't think, I think he'd be really surprised that this has become the basis of so much of Christian worship. Thank you.
- [34:58]
Megan Lewis
Most of us understand that Satan as the concept exists in Christianity today differs greatly from the Satan of the Hebrew Bible and of modern Judaism. But Satan of the the New Testament was also different from the Satan of the Hebrew Bible. Does the New Testament Satan reflect a widespread understanding of the figure in first century Judaism or is this understanding unique to early Christians?
- [35:24]
Bart Ehrman
So it's within apocalyptic Judaism. Starting as I've said before, a couple hundred years before Jesus, there started being this idea within Judaism that there are forces of good and evil in the world. And the idea that there's a head of the forces of evil just as there's a head of the forces of good. The, the forces of evil are headed by some figure that goes under a variety of names. Satan, the Devil, Beelzebub, Beelzebul, the Prince of the power of the air. There's, I mean there, there are different kinds of names that attach to this figure. He's generally understood to be the leader of the forces of evil. And that, that starts out within Judaism. And so what there's no, you know, I don't know the first time in Jewish tradition that the name Satan is applied or where, when it's first thought that this might be the figure talked about, you know, like in Second Chronicles or Job. I don't know the answer to that. But, but the idea of the Satan figure is, is comes out of Jewish apocalyptic scripture circles.
- [36:31]
Megan Lewis
Thank you very much. Last question for the day. What do you think is the most likely explanation for the numerous parallels and significant commonalities between Luke, Acts and Josephus works? The Jewish war, particularly the antiquities of the Jews. Was Luke familiar with Josephus work? Was Josephus familiar with Luke's or were they both drawing from a common tradition?
- [36:56]
Bart Ehrman
So I got really, you know, this has been floating around for 20 or 30 years that, that you have these connections between Josephus and Luke acts that are hard to explain unless one used the other. And the common explanation among New Testament scholars is that the author of Luke Acts knew the writings of Josephus. That would suggest that this author was writing toward the end of the. Toward the beginning of the first century. So I got really interested in this question about a year or two ago. I've heard of floating around. I was always kind of dubious of it. I decided to read the major scholarship on the issue, which I did carefully. The scholars who produced the scholarship are very fine scholars. People like Steve Mason, who's an expert on Josephus, Richard Purvos, scholar on Luke Axe. I read their arguments. I read them carefully. I looked up the evidence, and I concluded that the evidence is very, very thin. There's very, in my opinion, there's not enough there to make any such claims that, that there's dependence one way or the other. We're not talking something like the similarities between Matthew and Mark or even the similarities between John and Luke. We're talking about interesting similarities that are few and far between. And the best examples are a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. So I'm not opposed to the idea at all. If it is true that there is dependence, it almost certainly would have to be that Luke knew the writings of Josephus. Josephus was not writing gospel, was not reading gospels, Christian gospel. He just wasn't. But it is theoretically possible that Luke did, in which case you date him to around the year 120 or so. Okay, so I'm not opposed to that in principle. I have no problem with Luke being written in the year 120 or the book of Acts in the year 120. I just. I just don't find the evidence convincing.
- [38:54]
Megan Lewis
Thank you very much, Bart. AUDIENCE thank you all for your questions. Now, Bart, before we finish for the week, could you remind us what we spoke about today?
- [39:02]
Bart Ehrman
Well, this is a little different. We're talking about myths that atheists believe in. And you isolated three of them. You know, we're. And I think they are myths. They're myths in the sense that they are very important ideas or events or narratives that shape somebody's way of understanding the world, their life, even though there's. There's no way to empirically verify them. We talked about, you know, the big bang and the appearance of life and the appearance of consciousness. And I think that all three of those are myths in that sense, and I think they're true through myths, and I think they're myths that atheists believe.
- [39:43]
Megan Lewis
AUDIENCE thank you all for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show. If you did, please subscribe to the podcast to make sure you don't miss future episodes. Remember that you can use the Code MJ podcast for a discount on all of Bart's courses over at www.bartehrman.com. misquoting Jesus will be back next week, but what are we talking about next time?
- [40:02]
Bart Ehrman
Well, next time we're talking about whether we have the original Gospel of John or not, or whether we have a Gospel of John that was changed significantly by scribes. I won't tell you the answer till then.
- [40:14]
Megan Lewis
Make sure you join us then. Thank you all and goodbye. This has been an episode of Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman. We'll be back with a new episode next Tuesday, so please be sure to subscribe to our show for free on your favorite podcast listening app or on Bart Ehrman's YouTube channel so you don't miss out. From Bart Ehrman and myself, Megan Lewis, thank you for joining us.