Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman

Most of us think of early Christian monks moving into the desert to escape the chaos and noise of civilization to lead the quiet contemplative life. In a fascinating study by Kim Haines-Eitzen we learn that in fact the desert was and is unexpectedly filled with sound. Based on her high-tech own recordings in some of the major deserts of the world, Haines-Eitzen, professor of Early Christianity at Cornell, considers the importance of sound and the possibilities of silence, not just for the ancients but for those of us seeking quiet in our own lives. Here she explains to Bart her findings, based on her new book (which includes access to her stunning recordings), The Sonorous Desert: What Deep Listening Taught Early Christian Monks -- and What It Can Teach Us.

Many modern Christians view the Bible as the inspired, inerrant word of God. Is that what its own authors thought? Did the author of Matthew, for example, think the Gospel of Mark was infallible? If so, why did he change it? In this episode we look at the views of the Gospel writers about the inerrancy of other Gospels -- even those also found in the New Testament. 

Many modern Christians think Christians are inherently more moral than non-believers. Non-Christians, as a rule, don't think so. What about in the ancient world? Why is it that the most widely attested view among ancient pagans was the opposite, that Christians were dangerously immoral reprobates? Why weren't they seen as stalwart proponents of family values?

Did Jesus himself think or talk about his imminent sufferings—did he predict his own brutal end, or have those parts been creatively interpreted by later authors to fit a theological agenda? This episode offers a chance to uncover the layers of historical, religious, and philosophical complexities surrounding these ancient texts.

In this episode Bart interviews Jill Hicks-Keeton about her sure-to-be controversial book, recently released: The Good Book: How White Evangelicals Save the Bible to Save Themselves. We are all familiar with the disturbing parts of the Bible, with it's divinely sanctioned violence from the destruction of Jericho in the Old Testament to the destruction of the world in the New, from the passages that justify slavery to the patriarchal views of ancient Israel and the writings in the name of Paul. How have evangelicals tried to salvage these disturbing passages in order to make them not just tame but "good" for readers today? Listen to this interview and hear Prof. Hicks-Keeton explain.

All the Gospels agree that on the day Jesus was crucified, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body and took it from the cross to bury in a tomb. What almost no one realizes is that this would have been unprecedented, so far as we know, in the Roman world, where part of the humiliation of crucifixion was for the corpse to be left on the cross to decompose and be ravaged by scavenging birds for days before being disposed of.  Did the Romans make an exception for Jesus? Is that plausible? Or is the story of his burial by Joseph a later legend? This is obviously an issue of enormous significance. If Jesus was not buried that afternoon, how could he have emerged from the tomb "on the third day"? 

The Gospels agree that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus, even if they don't agree on why he did it. But is their view about *what* he did plausible? That he told the authorities where they could find Jesus without any crowds around? There are, in fact, reasons for thinking that Judas did something far more sinister, that he revealed a key teaching of Jesus gave to his closest followers but he did not proclaim in public. Did Judas reveal a secret teaching that led to Jesus' crucifixion?

Many people have a rough idea about the story of Job, the incredibly wealthy and righteous man whom God allows "the Satan" (who is not the Devil, btw) to deprive of all he has (including killing his ten children) and plague with horrible pain, in order to see if he will stay righteous. Most readers don't realize, however, that the vast majority of the book comes from a different author who has a completely different view of why people suffer. In this episode we talk about what both authors have to say and discuss honestly and forthrightly whether either view of suffering is at all convincing; in addition, we talk about why the views of God in this book can be so disturbing.

Most people think that everyone has a soul that is resident in the body. The vast majority of Christians believe the soul lives on after the body dies. But ironically the vast majority of people -- even devoted readers of the Bible -- have never noticed what the biblical writers actually say about it. In this episode we look at views of the soul found in the Hebrew Bible, the teachings of Jesus, and the rest of the New Testament. Is it the standard Christian view? Do the biblical writers think the soul can live on without the body? If not, what would salvation and eternal life be? Tune in to find out!

This week Bart will be interviewing New Testament scholar and public intellectual Candida Moss, on her new book, God's Ghostwriters: Enslaved Christians and the Making of the Bible. In the book, Dr. Moss (Professor in the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham) maintains that parts of the Bible may have been written by slaves (Mark, possibly); or co-authored by them (enslaved secretaries of Paul?); or copied by them (in our surviving manuscripts). No one has broached the topic of "How We Got the Bible" from this perspective before, and the episode provides a lively discussion of numerous issues of real significance.

In an absolutely shocking turn of events, Bart has learned of a first-century Gospel that will overturn everything scholars think they know about Jesus, showing that he was a charlatan exposed by the Roman government for duping the Jewish crowds by sophisticated works of magic. The Gospel, set to be published this week by the NY Times, details how Jesus deliberately faked his famous miracles in an effort to seek fame and fortune. How did he go from magician-for-hire to Son of God, and was the crucifixion a tragic illusion gone wrong? Join us this week on Misquoting Jesus to find out more.

Jesus' closest disciple was Simon, whom henicknamed "Peter" -- that is "The Rock." But in the Gospels and the writings of Paul, Peter is fickle, clumsy, and unreliable, less like a rock than shifting sand. After the New Testament we have numerous writings both about and allegedly by him. In looking over all these records, what can we say about the one on whom Jesus allegedly "built his church"? Is it possible to separate out the history from the legend? The fact from the fiction? And why didn't the Gospel writers do a bit more to improve his reputation?

Jesus' followers have always called him the "messiah," from the earliest days of the religion -- so much so that "Christ" (the Greek word for Messiah) became his second name. But most Jews, both then and now, rejected the claim, pointing out that Jesus in fact was nothing like the messiah. Do they have a point? If so, why did Jesus' early followers call him that? Did they begin thinking so during his lifetime? Is it what Jesus himself claimed? How would we know? Tune in to the episode and find out!

Every Christian fundamentalist on the planet, of course, claims that they follow Jesus. Avidly. But do they? Why do so many seem to overlook or ignore many of Jesus' key teachings? Surely they know what he said about loving the enemy and the foreigner? Why do they claim that Jesus said things he never, actually, talked about (many of the most pressing social questions fundamentalists are keen on)? Is being a fundamentalist these days less about believing the "fundamental" doctrines of the faith and more about having the correct social and political views? What would Jesus make of Falwell and his Followers?

Some evangelical preachers claim that Jesus is walking all over the pages of the Old Testament. The Old Testament, of course, doesn't say so. But believing Christians all the way in antiquity claimed that the Jewish Scriptures not only predict Jesus but also portray him, as a person involved with the creation of the world and the history of Israel. Where would they get such an idea? And how do they find Jesus as an active figure in the very first book of the Old Testament, from Adam and Eve to the flood of Noah to the story of Joseph, and lots of places in between? Are they just makin' stuff up, or is there a logic behind it all?

In this special episode Bart interviews one of the world's leading archaeologists of ancient Israel, Jodi Magness, whose discoveries are regularly covered in National Geographic. The interview is a prelude to an interesting four-lecture remote course Jodi is giving on March 2-3, called "Archaeology in the Time of Jesus" (available at bartehrman.com/timeofJesus). In the interview Bart and Jodi talk about what archaeologists really do (as opposed to what's in the popular imagination) and how the findings of archaeology can provide fresh information about Jesus' life and death, including issues connected with the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jesus' upbringing in Galilee, and his crucifixion and burial in Jerusalem. 

The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were both allegedly written by a companion of Paul, Luke "the gentile physician." But the books never name their author. So why Luke? Are are there any good grounds for naming him in particular? Or any grounds at all? Were the books probably written by a doctor? Was he probably a gentile? *Was* there a Luke? If picking his name was just guess-work -- would it affect how we interpret the books or understand their reliability?

Paul's apparently overnight change from ruthlessly persecuting Christianity to rigorously promoting it is almost certainly the most significant conversion in history: more significant than Augustine's, and even Constantine's. Without Paul's conversion, Christianity as we know it may well have never even happened. But what actually happened? The New Testament describes Paul's experience on several occasions: but can the accounts be trusted? Are they even consistent with each other? If we want to understand such a world-shattering experience, do we need to invoke the supernatural? Are there other plausible explanations? And is it right to call the event a "conversion" in the sense that Paul turned from one religion (Judaism) to another (Christianity)? These are all key issues for understanding a pivotal point in early Christian history, one that eventually would have enormous ramifications for the history of the west.

Next to Jesus, Paul is the most important figure in the history of Christianity, but as is well known, before he was a zealous apostle he was an equally zealous antagonist. What was that all about? Why would a Jew in the Roman world outside Israel even care if a small group of Jews were claiming that Jesus was the messiah who brought salvation? Wouldn't he just write them off as another bunch of crazies? What about their claims did he find so offensive that he had to take them on? And when he took them on, what did he actually do? Was he murdering them? Sending them off to prison? On what authority? Can the NT be right that he was authorized by Jewish authorities? Was he just beating up people he didn't like? These are important questions because the answers can help explain the transformation of Christianity into a world religion. In this episode, we try to figure it all out!

Many listeners have read a relatively new kind of thriller -- about a mysterious discovery of a long-lost Gospel and the protagonist's attempt to make it public, while being hounded in harrowing scenes by political or ecclesiastical forces of darkness (the Nazis! The Vatican!). In this episodes Bart interviews the first scholar to discuss this genre, who in fact coined its name, in a book just now coming out, Andrew Jacobs, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard.  The backstory is fascinating and illuminating: these books started to appear during the Cold War, in the context of the increasingly serious questioning of authority, imperialism, and colonialism, and just when biblical scholars were themselves publicizing new finds that called into question the traditional truths of Christianity. This context raises all kinds of questions. Why the sudden passion for Gospel conspiracy? And are academic scholars dealing with real-life discoveries themselves "objective" observers, or are they too caught up in the ideologies behind these novels?