Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:01]
HomeServe Announcer
A burst pipe, a dead water heater, the AC calling it quits. Who do you call? HomeServe is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast savings compared to renewal price void in Florida.
- [00:31]
Megan Lewis
As an apocalypticist, Jesus was anticipating the end of the political system he was living under. But was he also trying to hasten that end by plotting the violent overthrow of the Roman state? Does Jesus outburst in the temple and eviction of the moneylenders indicate a willingness to embrace violence in order to enact change? And why were his companions armed if they weren't expecting violence? Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman joins me to answer all of these questions and more.
- [01:02]
Podcast Host Megan Lewis
Welcome to Ms. Quoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman, the only show where a six time New York Times best selling author and world renowned Bible scholar uncovers the many fascinating little known facts about the New Testament, the historical Jesus and the rise of Christianity. I'm your host, Megan Lewis. Lets begin.
- [01:25]
Megan Lewis
Welcome back everybody to Miss Quoting Jesus. Today we're going to be talking about whether or not Jesus supported the violent overthrow of the state. I also have a couple of announcements with information about the annual conference that we host, new insights in the New Testament, information about Dr. Joel Baden's course on the Hebrew Bible which is exploring the literature of ancient Israel. And we also also have audience questions. But before any of that stuff, Bart, how are you today?
- [01:51]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Yeah, no, I'm doing great. I'm, I'm, you know, here in London and I'm actually next week I'm planning to take an entire week off. I'm going on a meditation retreat which is by myself, not like some person telling me how to meditate. It's like I'm going, I'm renting a cabin in the Cotswolds and I'm just going to meditate and hike and read by myself for a week. I think, oh my God, how could it, how good could that be?
- [02:17]
Megan Lewis
That sounds delightful.
- [02:19]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
You know, I don't even have 29 kids running around. It's just like, just me and Sarah and like, you know, people. But I was like, I need a people break. So yeah, so that's good. So yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, I probably, I hope that isn't rubbing things in. How Are you doing with.
- [02:35]
Megan Lewis
I, I would also like a meditation break and a week by myself, but doing well, thank you. Very well. All the children are at summer camps this week, so I have little pockets here and there where I am by myself. And I'm managing to get some of my own recording work done, which is tricky to do with, with a house full of small children because even when they try, they are not very quiet.
- [03:01]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Right, right.
- [03:02]
Megan Lewis
Which is a problem for recording things. But no, everyone is. Well, thank you.
- [03:07]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
One day they too will be off at camp.
- [03:09]
Megan Lewis
Yes, yes. I hate. I've been told that. So. Okay.
- [03:13]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Good luck.
- [03:14]
Megan Lewis
Okay. We, as I've said, are going to be talking about whether Jesus supported, was working for or even interested in the violent overthrow of the Roman state. And I wanted to start by asking when this idea was first kind of floated or discussed by academics.
- [03:31]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Right. You know, it's, it's a question a lot of people seem to ask today, at least they ask me. But, and most people don't realize this is, this is, this goes back as far as you have been Biblical real scholarship, historical critical scholarship on the, on the New Testament. The, the first, the first person who ever, who actually ever wrote a book on the historical Jesus that did not accept the Gospels as being, you know, divinely inspired and telling the full truth kind of thing. That was in the. Is in the 1770s, Herman Samuel Ramars wrote the first book about Jesus from a historical point of view. And he argued that Jesus actually contrary to how he's portrayed in the Gospels, was a revol. Missionary and that he believed in overthrowing the Roman, the Roman Empire and that his disciples were on board with that and that when they went to Jerusalem the last week of his life, they were hoping that the coup would happen. And it turned out the disciples were massively disappointed because instead Jesus got arrested and crucified. And then they, they decided they kind of liked all this, this missionary work they were doing. People were providing them with funds and they were just preaching and, you know, and so they invented, they stole the body from the tomb and invented Christianity. So it, so the very first time that you have a book about the historical Jesus from this, from a historical perspective argues this, argues this view.
- [04:54]
Megan Lewis
I didn't actually realize it was such a, or an idea that went back quite so far into biblical scholarship. Is it one that is still like, still has academic currency or is it largely been discounted by academics?
- [05:10]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Well, you know, there are disputes about everything about the historical Jesus and there certainly are scholars who think that Jesus probably Did support a revolution. I would say it's a minority view. Some years ago now, Reza Aslan wrote his book called Zealot. He, Reza is a, is a very interesting figure with wide ranging interests and abilities. And this was a book on Jesus. He's not, he's not a Christian, he's Muslim. But this is the first time that a book about Jesus to my knowledge, became the number one bestseller on the New York Times bestseller list. And it, it was, you know, so it was really widely read. And his argument was that Jesus was, was a zealot, that he, I mean, not necessarily the technical term of zealot that you find in Josephus and stuff, but he wanted to overthrow the, the Romans, to take back the land. And that was his principal thing. I don't, you know, I don't know whether Razor knows the history of that view. You know, he doesn't mention Raimaris or other people who've had that view. You know, it reads like he's kind of coming, coming up with it, but I don't know if he knows it or not. But so that, that convinced a lot of people outside of scholarship that, oh, maybe he was trying to overthrow the empire.
- [06:24]
Megan Lewis
What are some of the passages or events in the New Testament that people use to try and make this argument?
- [06:31]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Well, there, you know, there are a number of passages where it seems like Jesus either engages in violence or, or promotes violence or says that there will be violence or, you know, that maybe his disciples were armed in the garden of Gethsemane. And if so, then they obviously were, you know, armed for a reason. And if they were his followers and he was supporting, you know, armed resistance. So there, you know, there are definitely passages you can turn to that would, that would suggest that maybe something like that's going on. And you know, the reality is that Romans crucified him as an insurrectionist. You know, I mean, they, they crucified people who were threatening Rome. Not, it's not that they were afraid of the threat. I mean, they don't think this itinerant preacher is going to overthrow the empire, but if somebody threatens Rome, you'd crucify them. And so those are, those are the kinds of things that people would point to in some. Obviously go into detail and discussing those items.
- [07:24]
Megan Lewis
So when I was doing some research for this episode, I found a couple of, a couple of instances of people saying that no, Jesus doesn't act violently himself towards the state, which I think is probably quite sensible of him. I would not necessarily have acted violently towards the Roman state either. But he shows a willingness to use violence to achieve his goals. And a couple of those examples, the one that I mentioned in my introduction, his overthrowing of the money lenders temple. Money lenders temple, money lenders, tables in the temple, and then also the casting out the, the, the demons from the swine. Do you think that that kind of argument can be made to show like violent tendencies or a willingness to use violence, or do you think that's a little bit tenuous?
- [08:13]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Well, I, I'd say there are a lot of people who are violent who are not trying to overthrow the government, first of all. And so, you know, most people, there are a lot of people who are violent, but they're not like, you know, trying to bomb the White House or something, you know. And so, so I don't think that even if somebody shows violent tendencies that shows that they were trying to overthrow a government. But aside from that, that's just kind of a little, that's kind of an aside point. I think that there are incidents in that Jesus engages in that it could be read as violence. I mean, violence certainly. But just to take the issue in the temple, the question is what he's doing and why he's doing it. And for probably the last 30 years or so, a lot of scholars, maybe most scholars have been convinced by what was argued by Ed Sanders, EP Sanders, Oxford professor who ended up teaching at Duke, who in his book on Jesus and Judaism argued that's actually what's going on in this episode is that Jesus does go into the temple and he does overturn some tables of people who are exchanging money and drives out people who are selling sacrificial animals. But it's because this is a kind of a, an act, acted parable, you could call it that. It's, it's meant to be a symbolic act because Jesus in the Gospels repeatedly indicates that God is soon going to intervene on the day of Judgment and he's going to destroy his enemies. And Jesus includes among God's enemies the Jewish leaders who are running the temple. And he repeatedly predicts that the temple will be destroyed. This is, you know, this doesn't make him the son of God, that he knew the temple was going to be destroyed. There were lots of people who were saying the temple is going to be destroyed. It was just kind of, you know, people thought that, you know, the Romans are going to come in at some point and wipe us out. But. And Jesus said that. But what he's doing in the temple incident is he's illustrating it, and it's like, it's a foreshadow he's showing, you know, you need to change your ways because this is what's going to happen. So it certainly is violent, but it's violence against a religious system that he disagrees with. It's not a violence against the Roman Empire. And that's a huge difference.
- [10:29]
Megan Lewis
Now, when he was arrested by the Roman authorities, some of his followers were armed. He does say in that section, to put their swords away. But does the fact that they were armed mean that they were preparing for some kind of violent action, or was it relatively normal for people to walk around with swords?
- [10:47]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Yeah, well, it's actually kind of debated how many people were carrying weapons with them, but, you know, swords. Yeah. So this is the, this is the, the basic issue that we almost always deal with on the, on the podcast about whether what the Gospels report as having happened is something that actually happened. Because we know that there are a lot of things in the Gospels that are reported that did not happen. There are some things that probably they're reported that probably did happen. And so, you know, historians have to figure out which is, which is it likely that the Gospels report correctly that Jesus disciples had swords in the garden? And so the first thing to do when you're trying to come up with that, trying to figure it out, is to look to see what the, the episodes actually say. So the deal is, is that in Matthew, Mark and Luke, one of Jesus followers has a sword and some. And, and lops. He lops off the ear of one of the people coming to arrest Jesus. In the Gospel of John, the person doing it is Peter, the Apostle Peter. And in these accounts, Jesus says something like, you know, put away the sword for the one who lives by the sword dies by the sword. So would you indicate. He's indicating. He's actually going against the idea that you should be using violence. And so that's the episode. And then the question scholars have to ask, you know, did it happen or not?
- [12:24]
Megan Lewis
So do scholars think that happened or, or maybe not?
- [12:28]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Well, some people do and some don't. So let me tell you what very unhelpful answer. Yeah. So I'll tell you, I'll tell you the, the best argument on either side. Then I'll tell you my opinion about it. On the side that it probably did happen is the idea that it doesn't seem to be a story that Jesus followers would want to invent after his death because his followers wanted to be on the good side of Rome and they didn't want, they would not have invented a story in which Jesus seems to be the head of a group that made up a violent insurrectionists. And so it's, since it's not a story that Christians would want to invent later, that means it's more likely to have happened. That's applying this, we have this criterion that we've talked about before that people debate and get confused by. It's called, when historians use the, it's called the criterion of dissimilarity. If you've got a story that is really not something that is similar to what Christians would want to say about Jesus that you've got evidence for, then, you know, if they didn't make it up, it probably happened. And so that's, that's, this, that's probably the strongest argument, I think, that, that, that it happened. Whether that shows Jesus was a revolutionary or not is a different question. Because if his followers are armed, that's one thing. But the whole point of the story is Jesus says put the sword away because the one who lives by the sword dies by the sword. That shows that he's not an insurrectionist. So, so, yeah, so even if the, even if it's, even if it was wrath that his followers had sword, a sword doesn't show, necessarily show that he was an insurrectionist.
- [14:10]
Megan Lewis
All right, we're going to take a very brief break and then we're going to be back to look at a couple of passages of what Jesus actually says about violence and peace. So please stay tuned.
- [14:21]
Goldbelly Advertiser
All right, listen up. The only gift that any dad wants on Father's Day is Gold Belly. Gold Belly ships the most iconic foods from the best restaurants across the country straight to his door for free. Let him kick back and chow down on award winning barbecue from Texas, Epic deep dish pizza from Chicago or colossal pastrami sandwiches from New York. Make dad feel like an absolute legend this Father's Day and go to goldbelly.com to get 20% off your first order with promo code DAD. That's 20% off@goldbelly.com code DAD.
- [14:53]
Podcast Host Megan Lewis
How well do we really know the gospels that shaped Christianity? The New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the cornerstones of our understanding of Jesus. But how reliable are they as historical documents in the unknown? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Join Bible scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman as he takes you on an illuminating journey through these ancient texts. Across eight captivating lectures, you'll explore the origins, authorship and historical accuracy of the Gospels in an online course. Are these accounts based on eyewitness testimony? Or are they a mix of history, myth and legend? What do historians say that most readers miss? This course is an opportunity to dive deep into the stories that have defined a faith, questioning their origins and understanding their impact. Ready to uncover the truth behind the gospels? Visit bart ehrman.com gospels to learn more or sign up today. Use discount code mjpodcast at checkout for a special offer.
- [16:01]
Megan Lewis
Welcome back everyone. To Misquoting Jesus. We are talking about whether or not Jesus wanted to violently overthrow the Roman state. And right before the break, Barthes was explaining that just because Jesus followers might have had swords doesn't necessarily mean he himself was a violent insurrectionist. So Bart, what's the counter to that argument?
- [16:21]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
So, so, you know, so, so that bit of it, you know, that even if they had the swords, you know, that doesn't mean Jesus was violent. That, that's a very important point. Other important point I want to stress again is that the question is, you know, do we know this actually happened or not? And, and so there's a, I think there are good arguments against this episode being historical. One argument that we might get into in a little bit is that we can also see other things that Jesus teaches and we can establish whether he's basically non violent or violent in his teachings. And so, so presumably something that happened is live, coincides with things that he's talking about. So we'll, we'll get to that in a minute. But a really good argument against this not being a historical episode where the, the, the, the soldiers come in, they, they're trying to arrest Jesus and the disciples, one of them pulls out a sword and they fight and you know, cut off an ear of one of, one of them. One of the really good arguments against that happening is that if that did happen, that his soul, his followers are armed and defending him with arms. You can't explain why they weren't arrested. They weren't arrested. Well, they're the ones doing the violence. So how can you imagine an insurrectionist being arrested and his followers fighting off the, the, you know, the soldiers and then, then just letting them go free? What, that doesn't make any sense. And so, so it, so that's, that's the argument that it didn't happen. And so the story came about, the story came about in some other way other than it being historical. Then you have to figure out, well, why would you, if it didn't happen, why would somebody come up with the story then?
- [18:06]
Megan Lewis
Why would they come up with that particular story? Especially the Cutting off of an ear, that's very specific.
- [18:13]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Yeah, cutting off the ear is pretty specific. And one of the Gospels, Jesus heals the guy, of course, because it shows that he's like, you know, he's the one who can heal. Even he loves his enemies. And so he. And so why would you come up with this story? So one of the interesting findings of scholarship that's been around for a long time, and I was just thinking today, maybe we should do an entire episode on this because it's kind of an interesting phenomenon that you have in the Gospels. You have a number of really impressive one liners of Jesus where like, he delivers this one liner that's a real stunter that has no reply to it. And so like a famous one is where Jesus says, Sabbath was made for humans, not human for the Sabbath. And therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath. It ends an episode. These one liners often end episodes. And what scholars have said for a century now is that we probably have stories that were built around the one liner. Like you get the one liner for Jesus and you invent this narrative that kind of explains the one liner that puts it in his in some kind of context. And there are instances of this happening today where, like, where somebody will tell the story with this one liner. Everybody knows, but they build a story. So, like, it's kind of a clever story. I think, I think that this is something that probably Jesus said that, that the one who lives by the sword dies by the sword, meaning you, you know, it's, you're going to get killed, you're not going to accomplish your goal, and it's better not to take up the sword. And my view is that this narrative was invented to provide a setting for the saying. So it's not just an isolated saying, you know, just, you know, unrelated to anything. It's actually Jesus telling his own followers, don't take up the sword, even if you're tempted to. And it's set within the context of his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. So I don't think, I don't think it happened. I think there's a plausible reason for thinking that, that in fact it's a one liner that has had the story invented to, to set the context for it.
- [20:12]
Megan Lewis
That kind of stands in contrast to something else that Jesus said. It's in, in Matthew 10:34 and also Luke 12:51. Do you not think I've come to bring peace to the earth? I've not come to bring peace, but a sword And Luke phrases it slightly differently. That seems very different to what you just said. How do you, how do those two things get reconciled?
- [20:38]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Well, once again, did Jesus say that I did not come to bring peace, but a sword? My students get really frustrated because every time they quote a verse, I say, well, yeah, okay, did Jes to say it, you know. And how do you know? Well, you go through the historical process, you know, without assuming any conclusions. You try to figure out, is this something he said or not. In this particular case, came not to bring peace, but a sword. It's, it's in a context where it's being pointed out that Jesus sets brother against brother, father against son, mother against daughter, you know, brother against brother. It's like, you know, people within a family unit are being. Are at each other's throats because of Jesus. And Jesus then has this ending, one liner again, came not to bring peace, but a sword. That the most plausible context for that is a situation where you've got followers of Jesus within family units who are at odds with those who don't accept Jesus. That starts happening in early Christianity. We find out, you know, we start hearing about that in our earliest author, Paul, where you'll have married people, one believer, one. Not you. You start having these Christian communities where the Christians call one another brother and sister and mother and father when they have other brothers. They have actual brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers, but they're dividing. It's dividing Christian families and households. And this becomes a really big theme throughout the second, third, fourth centuries. But it begins in the first century. So I think the saying about I came not to bring peace, but a sword is explaining why it is. We thought, you know, you know, I'm believing in Jesus. I thought this was going to make it life peaceful, but it's, it's ruining my family there. And so you have Jesus. Yes. I didn't come to bring peace. I came to bring a sword to explain it so that I don't think it's a historical saying. I think again, it's, it's generated because of a later Christian context.
- [22:32]
Megan Lewis
Okay, I see. So the, the comment in the Garden of Gethsemane is likely historical. And speaking about physical acts of violence, don't, don't bring swords just because then you're going to die. But the. I come not to bring peace, but a sword is probably a later invention, and that's speaking more to interpersonal relationships and family units rather than the overthrow of the state.
- [22:57]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
That's right. If you just read it in the Context. That's the context that it's given in. So I think that, I think that summary is right.
- [23:04]
Megan Lewis
I wanted to turn now to the severity of Jesus sentencing. We've talked about this before. Crucifixion is not a light slap on the wrists. It's. It is or was administered to people who were found guilty of very serious crimes, including insurrection. Would it not make sense for Jesus to have been plotting some kind of overthrow, given how severe his sentencing was?
- [23:31]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Yeah, you know, I think that the, I think it's, I think historically it is absolutely the case that the Romans killed Jesus, crucified Jesus for calling himself the King of the Jews. The reason I think that that's virtually certain is because, for one thing, they had to have some reason to execute him. You know, I, I tell my, my students when I'm teaching a class on the historical Jesus at an undergraduate class here at Chapel Hill, I, I tell them, look, if you read a book on Jesus and it describes everything about his life, you've got to ask, does what it says about what his mission was, what he was trying to, what he was preaching, what he stood for, does that make sense of his death? Because he gets executed for calling himself the King of the Jews, and he doesn't get, you know, if his entire ministry. For example, suppose you understand Jesus as this, this loving rabbi who is interpreting the law of Moses to say, you need to love one another, and that's all that matters, is that you love one another, you know, and even love your enemies. If that's, if that's what he's preaching. Why do the Romans kill him? Do they kill everybody who preaches a message of love? No, you can't say to love your enemies. We're your. We don't want you to love us. We're going to kill you if you try to love us. You know what? It doesn't make any sense. And so when you look at how Jesus life is being portrayed, it's got to make sense of the death sentence. And so, as we've talked about before, Jesus, in my view, was preaching that the kingdom of God was soon to come, that the age he was living in was evil, that four powers of evil were in control of the world, and that God had allowed a certain amount of time for evil to run rampant on the earth. But the time was up and the time has been fulfilled. As Jesus said, the kingdom of God is near. He's expecting the kingdom of God to arrive. He also expects that the God will appoint a king over that kingdom and that king will have rulers under him. And he tells the twelve disciples that those twelve will be twelve rulers in the kingdom. And I think Jesus expected that he would be the figure ruling in the kingdom. God was going to appoint him to be the future king. His disciples knew that. And I think one of them told that to the authorities, told them that he's saying he's the future king of Israel, he's the future king of the Jews, he's the future king of the coming kingdom. And that guy reported to Pilate. And Pilate did what anybody did. Anybody who claimed to be the future king of Israel or any other place that Rome was controlling, he had him executed. And so the charge was insurrection for calling himself King of the Jews. It was absolutely true that he was calling himself that, but it wasn't true in the sense that Pilate naturally interpreted it. Pilate didn't know about apocalyptic Jewish. I assume he didn't know about apocalyptic Jewish theology, and he certainly didn't. If somebody calls themselves a king, Pilate knows what that means, so he crucifies him. But Jesus didn't mean it like that. So it's not that Jesus was going to try to, like, take up the sword and like, lead the Jewish armies against the city of Rome. And that wasn't going to happen. He thought God was going to intervene, just as other Jews thought. Like the people wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes, and other Jews thought that was going to happen. The difference is Jesus thought he'd be appointed the king. They found out about it, so they killed him.
- [26:52]
Megan Lewis
So would Pilate have been assuming that someone going around calling himself the king of the Jews or the future king of the Jews would probably also be plotting against the Roman states?
- [27:05]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Well, if, I mean, if, you know, if. If you're a politician type, there's no other way to take and become a king. Somebody else is ruler now. And so, you know, they didn't have elections. So he's not saying, you know, I'll be the next one elected instead of Caesar Augustus. They didn't have elections. The way you gained power was by wiping out the people who are currently in power. And so it was the only way to interpret it. Unless you were. Had this kind of unusual theological view that somehow there'd be some supernatural overthrow of the forces of evil that, you know, you get that within apocalyptic Judaism, but Romans don't think that way. And so, yes, Pilate absolutely just, you know, he wouldn't have even. It wouldn't have even been an issue for him. It's just like somebody's claiming to be the king, crucify him. You know, it's just like the trial might have taken 20 seconds or something. It's just like, you know what he's saying that really crucify him. And so I do think that's probably what it was.
- [28:01]
Megan Lewis
So if Jesus is not actually plotting the violent overthrow of the state, this is kind of an assumption made by Pontius Pilate because of the King of the Jews terminology. What exactly was Jesus preaching in terms of violence versus pacifism?
- [28:19]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Well, I'll tell you, you know, I don't think there's much question that Jesus, Jesus probably didn't. Jesus was not fond of Roman rule. So I'll just say, hey, you know, he thought the God, that it was evil and God was going to take over. But, you know, when you read through the Gospels, it's pretty clear Jesus doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about Roman rule. I mean, this passage about do we, should we pay taxes to Caesar or not? And where Jesus says, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and the things to God, the things that are God, you know, we use the Roman currency. They want their currency, give them their currency. That isn't what you should be worried about. So he's not worried about political systems. And so I don't think that he was. I don't think he was political in that sense or trying to interest in a political overthrow. He thought God would do it. But the other thing is that as an apocalyptic Jew, there certainly were Jewish apocalyptic thinkers who believed that God's hand needed to be forced or that you needed to cooperate in the bringing in of the kingdom of God, which meant going to war against the enemy. I mean, there probably were people like that, but there are other apocalyptic Jews who thought, no, God's going to do this. This is God's plan. It's God's timing. God's going to do it. And Jesus appears to me to be one of those who thought there would be a violent end to the Roman Empire. But it's only something that the Almighty Lord of the universe can do and that God's going to do it and he's going to do it without our help. He's just going to do it. And so Jesus in fact, did not preach violence. The thing about the, you know, I said, you know, you have these few passages and we've talked about, talked about some of the key ones about Jesus seeming to be promoting violence. But you look at the passage where he doesn't. And it's like it's all over the place. It's throughout his teachings. It's not just like one of these side issues that he occasionally says. It's the core of his teaching that you treat others as you want them to treat you, even if they're your enemy. Loving your neighbor as yourself means loving your enemy as yourself. And so the teaching of love one another and love the outsider and love those that everyone else hates and not good enough just to love those who love you. This stuff, this is at the very center of his teaching. I think at the core of his teaching was a pacifist message that, that and that the. These other passages are easily explained as coming into Christianity from a later period for other reasons.
- [30:45]
Megan Lewis
I did have a final question, but your answer has completely obliterated it. I'm going to say it just for, just so people know where I was going with this interview, but I think we are all going to know the answer by the time I finish the talking. Do you think that these examples of violence and violent language could possibly be the only remaining examples of Jesus original message? And that the statements about peace were added by later writers trying to make Christianity more palatable to the state and.
- [31:11]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Well, that's a resounding no, no. Well, yeah, but it's, it's, it needs to be re. Emphasized. I think, I think it's good, good to end with it because it is thought by, by some people who write books about Jesus and some people who go on social media about Jesus and some about Jesus. Not, not very many to my, to my knowledge. I don't think offhand of the, of the people that one would think of as kind of the leading scholars on the historical Jesus today in Europe or the United States. I can't. I'm sure somebody thinks that he was a violent, he was a revolutionary trying to overthrow the state. But, but I know names come to mind. I know names of lots and lots who don't think that. And so, so the reason for it is important because you, you. It's important to understand what Jesus essential message was. And his message is not violent overthrow of the Romans. His essential message is that God is soon going to intervene. You need to get ready for it because there'll be a massive destruction. And his enemies are not just Romans, there are a lot of Jews who are God's enemies too. And if you're not on God's side, you need to repent and return to God. If you do, you'll enter into this glorious kingdom that's coming. That's his message. And it is a pacifist message, I think. So I think that these violent things come in part to illustrate that message and in part to show that even though God's going to bring this kingdom soon, there's going to be a lot of division before then and that following Jesus is going to be divisive. It's not going to solve all the problems of unity that we have.
- [32:45]
Megan Lewis
Thank you so much. We are out of time for this week. We're going to go on and look at some upcoming announcements or upcoming events rather. And we've got listeners questions right at the end.
- [32:58]
Podcast Segment Host
Welcome to our upcoming highlights and events segment where we catch up on bart's courses, community updates and all the latest news from the Biblical Studies Academy and beyond.
- [33:14]
Megan Lewis
All right, everyone, we have two announcements this week. The first is the new insights in the New Testament Conference 2025. Five. It's not a number. 2025, goodness me. Which is coming September 26th to the 28th. So it's a three day event this year with eight featured speakers on Saturday and Sunday. We have the keynote on Friday night from Dr. Elaine Pagels. The theme this year is the historical Jesus. So all of our presenters will be bringing you the newest insights into Jesus of Nazareth. Other featured presenters are Mark Goodacre, Helen Bond, Paula Fredrickson and Joel Marcus. As with the last two years, we've got lots of extra events as well as the main presentations, including some attendee mixes. There are two round table panels and a hot topic debate. But I am very excited about this. I'm going to be hosting, so I'm going to be there listening to all of the fascinating things people have to say. What are you especially looking forward to?
- [34:13]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Oh God, this one's going to be good. The last, the last two have been great. We've, we've had about 3,000 people come to these last ones and it's just so much fun. And this one, they just get better and better. So this time we're going to have, you know, we're going to have a keynote from, from Elaine Pagels. I mean, you know, she, and she's just published a book on the historical Jesus that's been getting good reviews. And you know, she's, she's like the top of the line in this field. And so, so that's going to be great. And that's even before the conference is the night before. So it's in September, you know, it's the evening before, whatever that is. September 26th and then, then we've got eight, we've got eight speakers, all of them like well known experts on the historical Jesus, all doing different topics, each giving a 50 minute lecture, each of them with a Q A and, and, and I'm, I'm one of the, there are eight, I'm one, I'm one of them. And then, and then these other events are happening. This one's going to be, this one's going to be spectacular I think.
- [35:10]
Megan Lewis
And we get a lot of questions about the historicity of Jesus and it's something that is spoken about so much online. I think it's going to be really, really excellent to have so many experts in one place really giving cutting edge research. I'm, I'm so excited about it.
- [35:26]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Yeah. You know if you, when you think about historical Jesus, if you like, if you read anything like related scholar, you think you know Dale Allison, Amy Jo Levine, Paula Fredericks, I mean like we have all these people. So like this is going to be good.
- [35:39]
Megan Lewis
We are also today announcing or re announcing. We spoke about it last week but I didn't have all the details to hand that Dr. Joel Baden of Yale Yale University has a new brand new semester long course coming as well. It's called the Hebrew Bible Exploring the literature of ancient Israel. There are 28 in depth lectures and you will uncover how this sprawling, beautiful and often contradictory collection came together. One scroll, one editor and one theological agenda at a time. So why are there two creation stories in Genesis? What is the historical debate behind the Exodus and why Leviticus might be the most misunderstood book in the entire Bible. This is going to be really fantastic. It comes, it's starting September 2nd. Early bird pricing is available at bartiman.com the Hebrew Bible and you can always use the code mjpodcast for a special discount. And I'm going to be interviewing Dr. Baden in a couple of weeks time as well. So you'll get a bit of a sneak preview of what the course will be like. And while I'm here because I didn't give you the registration details for the new insights in the New Testament, you can get early bird pricing for that as well@bart ehrman.com Nint those web addresses again for Dr. Joel Baden's course that's bartiman.com forward/the Hebrew Bible for new insights in the New Testament conference that is Bart ehrman.com forward/n I N T and you can use your MJ podcast discount code on both of those. Now we have some excellent listeners questions.
- [37:18]
Podcast Segment Host
Now it's time for questions from listeners where Bart answers real questions submitted by misquoting Jesus fans. If you'd like to submit a question for future segments, Please visit bart erman.com Ask Bart.
- [37:37]
Megan Lewis
Okay, Bart, this first one is a little bit on the more personal side. Do you have any advice for those who are wrestling with deconversion?
- [37:48]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Yeah, well, it's very, very difficult. I mean it's and it completely depends on personal circumstances for in terms of what the advice should be, I think the best thing is for people to follow the truth as they see it leads them and to even though it's scary to if you think something is true, then it's true. You know, when I, when I, when I had this experience, I just had to keep reminding myself that St. Augustine said something like all truth, God's truth. And if it's true, it's true. So you shouldn't be afraid of the truth. You should also be honest with yourself and with other people. Honesty is really good. And yeah, you should find people to talk to about it. A lot of people on my blog, a lot of people in the Biblical Studies Academy are people who have either gone through that or kind of wrestling with faith issues. Not all of them. A lot of them are very committed Christians. But so if you can find community, that really helps a lot.
- [38:52]
Megan Lewis
I just want to echo the need for community there. I know that my husband deconverted years ago, but he finds a lot of comfort and reassurance in his own community of friends who are in many cases biblical experts who have likewise deconverted. And I think having someone who understands where you've come from and where you currently are is really, really valuable. Valuable. All right, second question later. Christian history has many examples of sectarian violence. Is there evidence of proto orthodox violence against the other Christian sects such as the Gnostics, in order to gain supremacy within the Roman Empire?
- [39:34]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Yeah, it's a good question. And so it depends what you mean by violence. If you mean physical violence where there are actually like beating people up and stuff, you know, it that may have happened, wouldn't be surprising if it happened. People are people. But almost all of our evidence deals with rhetorical violence and attack, verbal attacks on people. We don't have a lot of good evidence for things like, yeah, physical violence against Gnostics or even book burnings and stuff, you know, there's few mentions of that, but it's not usually how false literature was dealt with. And so I don't think there's a lot of good evidence of that until Christianity takes over the empire. When the, when Christianity takes over the empire, there starts being legislation passed, especially by Theodosius the First at the end of the 4th century, who made it, made it illegal to be a, to be a heretic. Heretic, not to hold to the orthodox point of view. And that could, and choosing to ignore that legislation could lead to, to violent activity against you by the government.
- [40:51]
Megan Lewis
Was the historical Jesus main mission and audience the lost sheep of Israel? Or as some scholars suggest, did he intend his mission to be to the Gentiles?
- [41:01]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Well, I think it's clear that his mission was to Jews. I don't think there's any good evidence that he went anywhere else and he understood that he was. That God was going to intervene to fulfill the Jewish scriptures and that Israel would become a sovereign state. I think Jesus, even though I don't think he was out preaching to Gentiles, I don't think his mission was to Gentiles. He may have encountered some now and then, but I doubt if he did much up in rural Galilee, but maybe he did, but he did teach. I think that even Gentiles could enter into this coming kingdom. Kingdom. And that entering the kingdom was not a matter of being Jewish and it wasn't a matter of being, you know, believing in him. That wasn't his message at all. The message was that if people treat well those who are in need, they're doing what God wants, and those who do God, what God wants will enter into God's kingdom when it comes. And so it wasn't a mission to the Gentiles as a mission to Jews, but it had implications for the whole world.
- [42:01]
Megan Lewis
World. Thank you so much, Bart. AUDIENCE as always, thank you for your amazing questions. Now, before we finish for the week, Bart, would you mind just summarizing what we spoke about?
- [42:12]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
What we're dealing with is really interesting question about whether Jesus supported violence against the state or not. And there are people who have argued that since the beginning of historical Jesus scholarship until recent days, and many people still think that, but I was trying to show why. I think that that's probably wrong. And it's. I don't think Jesus was in support of a viol overthrow the Romans. He thought God would violently overthrow them, but he did not teach the taking up of the sword. And I think that's the more common scholarly view today.
- [42:42]
Megan Lewis
Audience, thank you for listening. I hope you enjoyed the show. If you did, please remember to subscribe to the podcast to make sure you don't miss future episodes. You can use the code mjpodcast for a discount on all of Bart's courses over at www.bartehrman.com. that includes tickets or registration for the New Insights in the New Testament Conference. You can find those@bart erman.com/n I n t miss quoting Jesus will be back next week, but what are we talking about next time?
- [43:12]
Dr. Bart Ehrman
Next time we're talking about Paul's understanding of salvation. You think that's a simple topic, right? How does a person get right with God? What's Paul say? It's got like an easy answer, right? Yeah. No. Wrong. As you'll see.
- [43:27]
Megan Lewis
We wish. Thank you all and goodbye.
- [43:35]
Podcast Host Megan Lewis
This has been an episode of Ms.
- [43:37]
Megan Lewis
Quoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman. We'll be back with a new episode
- [43:40]
Podcast Host Megan Lewis
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.