Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman

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.