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?

Bart has never held back from opposing Christian fundamentalism (and every other religious fundamentalism), even though he was once a fundamentalist himself. And many fundamentalists consider (and call) him the spawn of the Devil for his attempts to expose the flaws of fundamentalist thinking, in part because he understands the view from the inside. But Bart has never publicly talked about how being a fundamentalist had a serious upside and played a positive role in his life, affecting everything that came after in some extraordinarily helpful ways. In this episode he spills the beans on how being a fundamentalist proved, in some ways, to be a good thing. (Even if he doesn't advise going there!)

In our previous episodes on "literary forgery" in early Christianity, we have never yet talked about the elephant in the room. Why are there so many in the New Testament? In this episode we will not be going over the old ground of what forgery is (an author falsely claiming to be a famous person) or how it was justified in the ancient world, even among writers who urge high ethical standards (!). We are instead interested in the startling scholarly claim that of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, only eight of them were probably written by the person to whom they are attributed. In some cases the attributions are made by later readers (the author of Mark does not claim to be Mark); but in many cases the authors themselves make the false claim (2 Peter claims to be written by Peter). We might understand how one or two books like this managed to get into the Christian New Testament. But nineteen?

The question has been around for millenia. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent, why do people suffer? The answer seem obvious to many (most?) people. It's because of free will. It's because of sin. Its because of the devil or other evil powers. It's because God is testing us. It's to make us appreciate the good. It is to make goodness possible. It will all be resolved in the afterlife. It's a mystery that only God can answer. Pick your answer. There other options are out there! But is any of them ultimately satisfying? Do they really explain the problem? If not, where does that leave us? Is belief in an all-powerful, loving God possible?

Almost everyone assumes that Jesus' disciple, John the Son of Zebedee, wrote the Gospel of John. But is there any compelling reason to think so? In this episode we look into many of the issues that most people have never thought about. Most, for example, do not realize that the author of this book never mentions John, let alone calls himself John. There is a person called "The Disciple Jesus loved" (mentioned in none of the other Gospels). But who is he? Why would anyone think he is John? Is it possible he's not a real person at all? Is, as often claimed, the author claiming that it is he himself? (Bart will explain: No.) Apart from that, is it even possible that the historical John -- an Aramaic-speaking peasant called "illiterate" in the NT itself (Acts 4;13) -- could have written such a magnificent book? Could he possibly have used a secretary. If not ... who did write the book? Tune in and see!

Mary is definitely the more famous of Jesus' mortal parents…but what about Joseph? Few people have asked about him but he is obviously a significant part of the Christmas story. But what can we know about him? Why are the writers of the New Testament virtually silent about him? What we can infer about his life and the role he played in Jesus' life? In this episode we discuss what we can know historically about the "father" of Jesus and we explore some of the legends that sprung up about him as found in non-canonical Gospels of the early centuries. 

The Proto-Gospel of James, a kind of "Gospel Before the Gospels," was one of the most influential non-canonical writings throughout the Middle Ages. The narrative does not focus on the life of Jesus but on the supernatural birth, young life, betrothal, and pregnancy of his mother Mary. From this Gospel come many traditions that remain important in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions (Joseph was an old many; Mary was a perpetual virgin; Jesus' "brothers" were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage); and the accounts it presents -- the miraculous birth of Mary, her upbringing in the temple, the details of her giving birth, and, well, a postpartum inspection to make sure she was a virgin -- are fascinating to readers of any religious or non-religious persuasion. But what's it really all about? In this special episode, Bart interviews an expert on the Proto-Gospel, Christopher Frilingos, Professor at Michigan State University, in order to find out.

Many people of faith think, and strongly believe, that without an almighty, sovereign being over this world life would (and can!) have no meaning: it's just a matter of chance and circumstance with no ultimate end, no goal, nor purpose, no meaning. Bart had that view for years, and feared that leaving the faith would lead to a purposeless, meaningless, chaotic, anarchic existence. As it turns out, that didn't happen. But why? In this episode we explore the possibilities of meaning in a world without God.

Almost anyone who knows anything about Christianity knows that Jesus was born of a virgin. But was he? This miraculous event is found in only two passages of the entire New Testament (in Matthew and Luke). Did the other New Testament authors know about it? If so, why didn't they mention it? If not, how could they not? And where did the idea of a virgin birth even come from? If it is not a major concern for the twenty-five other books of the New Testament, why did it come to be so important in the Christian tradition -- so much so that many people today assume that anyone who does not believe in it cannot be a Christian?  In this episode we deal with these and other intriguing issues highly relevant to the Christmas season.

For a religion that claims to view their god as the most powerful, supreme being in the universe, some Christians have an interesting habit of placing restrictions on what he can and can’t do. God can’t make a world without suffering, he has to inspire a collection of written texts (that have no mistakes in them), and he certainly can’t be sympathetic to anyone who practices other religion. But where do these limitations come from, and what purpose do they serve? In short: who says?

For over five centuries (going back to Martin Luther!) many readers of the New Testament have maintained that the letter of James flat-out contradicts the teachings of Paul, that a person is made right with God only by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. James insists that a person is not justified by faith alone, but by doing good works; but Paul argues with equal passion that a person is justified by faith in Christ and not by doing works of the law. So... aren't these views at direct odds? Bart's views may seem surprising....

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is one of the most intriguing and peculiar non-canonical accounts of Jesus' life from outside the New Testament. The New Testament itself provides only one story about Jesus as a boy (as a twelve-year old, in Luke 2); this later account contains intriguing stories of the mischievous Son of God from ages 5-12. Is he an uncontrollable supernatural being who hasn't yet learned to control his power? Or a Savior already confronting the evils of the world? Or a prime example of a resident family problem?  In this special episode Bart interviews Christopher Frilingos, professor of Early Christianity at Michigan State, an expert in the non-canonical Gospels with an unusual theory about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Nearly everyone today assumes that Jesus could read and write. But is that historically plausible? There is only one story in the New Testament where Jesus is shown to be able to read (Luke 4) and he is never said to be able to write (except in the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery that was added by scribes only later John 7-8). In this episode we consider the literacy rates of antiquity (very low!), and discuss who could learn to read and then write, how they were educated, and whether it is likely that an impoverished dayworker from a poor family in a remote backwater of the empire was one of them.

As far back as we have literary reports -- beginning with the Epic of Gilgamesh, our earliest surviving narrative, written centuries before the oldest accounts of the Bible -- humans have feared death more than almost anything. Many people fear the process of dying; others fear facing eternal torment; yet others fear the void, the idea of non-existence. In this episode we talk about ancient reflections on death and about why some stalwart souls insisted that in fact there was nothing to fear. 

We start learning about the Christian movement with the letters of Paul, around the year 60, about 30 years after Jesus' death. But what was happening during its very first year? The book of Acts, written decades after Paul, describes key events, but can we rely on its account as historical? If not, what can we infer from our various sources? What was actually happening in those years? Were thousands of people converting? Was the religion taking over the world? Was it declared illegal by the state? Or... ?

For our 52nd episode -- our one-year anniversary! -- we will be having a live Q&A with Bart. Questioners have submitted questions, some out of the many have been chosen, Megan will host the event, and questioners will ask their questions live, to hear Bart's responses! A special time of celebration as we (also) reflect on our Year One!

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

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

The New Testament writings were produced decades after Jesus' death, but long before that people were passing along stories about Jesus and devising poems and creeds about their new-found faith. What do scholars know about these Christian traditions that were being passed along and preserved by word of mouth in the years before we had written texts. Scholars call them "oral traditions." How do we know such things existed, and can we be certain that they were passed along reliably before there were Christian writings?

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

Many Christians think that a non-Christian simply can't understand the New Testament fully, since they don't agree with it's major teachings. But could an argument be made for the opposite case, that those with a vested in interested in the New Testament as a book inspired by God cannot get beyond their theological assumptions to understand what the text is really saying?  It seems like an odd question, but can committed Christians really study their own Scriptures honestly?  In this episode we consider the issue from several angles, not by assuming that outsiders are necessarily "objective" (is *anyone* objective?) but by thinking through the complications of the matter.

The genius of Luke’s Gospel is frequently overlooked by those who simply breeze through it or assume it is saying the same thing as Matthew and Mark. In fact, it is strikingly different. What especially matters are not so much the contradictions one finds, but the larger picture. Luke has radically edited Mark’s account in places to create a new portrait of Jesus. In this episode we see how he did it and what the end result is. Among other things, when you look carefully at the details of Luke’s account, you find that, unlike the other Gospels, here Jesus does not suffer during his passion and his death does not bring an atonement for sins. These are not minor differences. Why would Luke change the story so significantly? 

The Christian faith is rooted in the belief that Jesus died for the sins of the world and was then raised from the dead. But is this what Jesus himself preached during his public ministry? In the Gospels Jesus certainly predicts his coming death, on numerous occasions. But are those saying historical? How would scholars know? What is the evidence both ways? And if Jesus did not anticipate, let alone predict, his death, does that completely undermine the Christian faith?

Even though millions of people read the Bible, few know what experts who have devoted their lives to historical scholarship on it have to say or, even more important, why they say it. In this episode we talk about how scholarship on the New Testament has developed over the centuries, decades, and recent years, how critical scholarship actually works to make better *sense* of the NT and opens up important ways of interpreting the text, and whether and how this kind of academic approach to the NT can or should affect a person's faith commitments.

Christianity started out with a handful of followers in 30 CE - Jesus' remaining disciples and a few female supporters. But within 300 years there were some 2-3 million Christians in the world, including the emperor of Rome. How did *that* happen? How did an offshoot of Judaism come to take over the world, to the extent that it eventually became the religion of the West for centuries, down to the modern age? The answers are not actually what most people would suspect, and in this episode we lay them out.

The idea of the Trinity - that God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different from each other and are all God, but there is only ONE God, is a central tenant of Christianity. But most Christians don't actually know what the doctrine really says, let alone where it came from (is it in the Bible?). In this episode we explain the factors that led to the formulation of the doctrine and see why it became so important to Christian thinking. But does it matter that the math doesn't work? (The three are one!) Or that it can doesn't make logical sense?

The conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity is often pointed to as a turning point in the history of the religion - but would Christianity have continued on its upward trajectory without this conversion? Was Constantine’s conversion one of genuine religious conviction, or was it motivated by something else? Has his conversion been co-opted and over-emphasized by later Christian authors?

The New Testament is often studied in isolation, separated from other ancient writings. How did this division come about, and what do we lose by looking at it as something different? Dr. Robyn Walsh talks about what can be gained from placing the New Testament back into the canon of Classical Literature.

Many Jews and Christians today are uncomfortable with the views of slavery in the Bible; the practice is simply assumed, it is normally condoned, and it is never condemned. Even so, some Christian apologists argue that the Bible actively disapproves of slavery and was instrumental in opposing it in the modern era. But is that right? In this episode I interview one of the premier experts on the question, Dr. Josh Bowen, who has written two books on the matter; in our discussion he explains what the Bible really says about slavery and how we can put it's statements, assumptions, and laws in its own context instead of thinking that it fits comfortably in ours. To Order Josh Bowen's Book Click Here

Readers of the Bible are familiar with the stories of creation in Genesis 1-2, but far less familiar with similar tales from much earlier times in the world surrounding Israel. In this special edition of the podcast Bart interviews Joseph Lam, an expert on the languages, religions, and cultures of the Ancient Near East (and Bart's colleague at UNC), who has just produced a Wondrium Course on the Creation Stories in the Ancient World. Among other things they talk about the reasons for thinking Genesis contains two very different creation stories (side by side) and how other older stories from Mesopotamia appear to have influenced the author(s) of Genesis.

Biblical scholars who approach the Bible from a historical perspective are often accused of working hard to deconvert the faithful. Is that true? Do undergraduates widely abandon their faith once they learn the historical realities behind it? Are professors and authors generally interested in urging their students and readers to abandon their religion? And is there any positive result for faith that can come from understanding historical scholarship? Is it crucial to faith to understand the Bible, or just an unnecessary add-on?

By far the most mysterious, intriguing, and widely-interesting ancient "heresy" was Gnosticism. But what exactly is it and why does it matter? In this episode we consider the basic ideas that lay behind the Gnostic religions and explore just how radically different they are from the views that came to be regarded as orthodox. How could these religions be considered Christian if they didn't think Jesus' death mattered? How could they consider the God of the Old Testament to be a lower level and inferior divinity, and this material universe to be a cosmic disaster? Did Gnostics have their own Scriptures? Did they use the books that later became the New Testament? If so, why didn't they just admit their views were wrong? We will address these and other issues in this exploration of the highly unusual world of Christian Gnosticism.

Lots of informed readers know that scribes changed their texts of the New Testament -- but do the changes really matter for anything? In this episode we take the unusual approach of looking at textual changes in just one book of the New Testament, the Gospel of Luke, to see how slight (and not so slight) variations in the text can have an enormous impact on understanding the author's message -- involving such things as the virgin birth, the understanding of whether Jesus' death brought an atonement, whether he was fully human. 

Should the administrators of universities, their alumni, or their boards of trustees have any say in what teachers teach -- for example, in classes about religion? Should they be able to control the classroom in any way? What about the argument that university professors are brainwashing their students to follow their liberal agenda, while hiding behind “academic freedom”? Does the U.S. system of tenure allow professors to say whatever they want, safe in the knowledge that they can never be fired? What IS tenure anyway, and why does it matter? These are some of the key issues we'll be addressing in this discussion of academic freedom and tenure.

One of the central tenets of many denominations of modern Christianity is that Jesus is God. The Nicene Creed describes him as “of one being with the Father”...but just how old is this idea? If you asked Jesus’ disciples if he was a human or God, would they have affirmed his divinity, or accused you of blasphemy? And if Jesus was divine, then was he considered to be God made flesh, a human who was turned into a divinity, a "super-human" with some divine features…or what?

Scholars have long argued that the Gospel of John -- named after Jesus' disciple John the Son of Zebedee -- was in fact written by someone else. Only later in Christian tradition was it ascribed to John. In that view, the author himself is not a "forger" -- that is, he did not claim to be a famous person knowing he was someone else. The book was *anonymous*: the author never names himself and so can't be blamed for later readers mistaking his identity. But in fact *is* there evidence that the author wanted his readers to think he was one of Jesus' closest disciples, and that he left hints for them in the book. If so -- and if he wasn't who he intimated he was -- isn't John a forgery?

Many people do not realize just how infrequently Paul mentions the sayings of Jesus himself. And scholars can't agree why he doesn't quote Jesus more. Did Paul not know what Jesus taught? How could he not know? Did he think it wasn't important? Wasn't relevant? Was misleading? Moreover, if we compare what Jesus taught with what Paul taught -- are we even dealing with the same religion. These are some of most important issues confronting a historical understanding of the New Testament and early Christianity.

It has long been said among historical scholars that Christianity is not the religion *of* Jesus but the religion *about* him. In this view, Jesus was a Jewish preacher who urged his fellow Jews to repent of their sins and turn back to God by observing what he demanded of them, so they could enter the coming Kingdom. But Christians did not think repentance and obedience could bring salvation at all. It was the death and resurrection of Jesus that mattered. Moreover, it is often said that Paul was the one who transformed Jesus' gospel about the coming Kingdom into a gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection. Is that true? Wouldn't that mean that Paul and Jesus had different religions? And if so, then isn't Paul, rather than Jesus, the Founder of Christianity?

The Gospel of John is one of the most puzzling books of the New Testament, especially when it comes to understanding its view of Jews and Judaism. On one hand, Jesus is clearly described as a Jew who understands and teaches the law of Moses and who keeps Jewish customs and festivals. On the other hand, the Gospel condemns Jews, makes them guilty for the execution of Jesus, and even declares that their "father" is not Abraham, let alone God, but the Devil. How can one book so fully embrace Judaism and yet condemn it. And importantly, is this kind of vitriolic opposition to Jews and Judaism appropriately called "anti-semitism"? The answer will surprise many listeners.

One of the claims consistently made by Christian apologists is that the apostles who declared that they themselves had seen Jesus after he had been raised from the dead MUST have been telling the truth -- since they all died for their belief. Someone may die for the truth, but who would die for a lie? And ALL of them? That seems completely implausible. Therefore the disciples really were witnesses to the resurrection. In this episode we consider this claim by examining its unquestioned assumption: is it actually *true* that the apostles were all martyred for their faith? How do we know? How *could* we know? In fact, what do we know about martyrdom within Christianity at all in the first two centuries? How often did it occur? And were Christians martyred for saying that Jesus was raised from the dead? In this episode Bart discusses what we can know about early Christian martyrdom -- what sources of information we have and whether they are reliable, issues never even broached by the apologists who raise the issue in the first place.

Historical scholars for over a century have maintained that Jesus predicted that the end of history as we know it was to come in his own generation. Conservative Christians -- laypeople and scholars alike -- have insisted that this is a complete mis-portrayal of Jesus. And many people -- possibly most? -- believe that if Jesus really did preach this message, not only was he obviously wrong but also Christianity cannot possibly be true. A Jesus who was *demonstrably* mistaken about a central element of his preaching could not be a prophet of God, let alone the Savior of the world. In this episode we consider the issue and its implication: did Jesus proclaim the imminent end of the world? If so, can Christian faith even be possible, let alone reasonable?

In this episode Bart interviews Ukrainian theologian Mikhail Abakumov, in exile in Poland and involved with humanitarian efforts dealing with other refugees, about how the book of Revelation is interpreted by conservative Ukrainian Christians, who believe that "the prophecies are now being fulfilled." That, of course, has long been the view of American evangelicals and fundamentalists, but standard Ukrainian understandings of what the "signs" are and where they are leading to (and America's role in the coming End) are radically different from what anyone would expect over here. This is fascinating material, coming from someone deeply affected by the Russian invasion and intimately familiar with the religious response of the Ukrainian church.

The (considerable) vitriol directed against Bart by theologically conservative Christians is (easily) matched by what he gets from critics on the opposite end of the spectrum --"mythicists" who insist not only that the New Testament is filled with legendary material but that Jesus himself was, literally, a myth: he never existed. In this episode Bart will explain why -- whatever else you might want to say about Jesus of Nazareth -- historians of all stripes do not doubt that at the least Jesus was a first-century Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans. Are the mythicists -- intent on disproving Christianity -- simply shooting themselves in the foot by taking their skepticism too far?

The Gospel of Mark is completely underrated by most modern readers, who typically consider it a condensed version of Matthew or Luke -- a nuts-and-bolts no-nonsense account of what Jesus said and did with no literary flair. Oh boy are THEY ever wrong. In this episode Bart explains why Mark is not only his favorite Gospel but also his favorite book of the Bible, a book with subtleties, nuances, and intricacies from start to end that most people simply never see and that make all the difference for understanding its message. This is a brilliant account of Jesus' life, one of the most intriguing books to come to us from early Christianity.

Most people think that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Others say she was Jesus' closest disciple (and the Gospels have covered it up). Yet others go even further to suggest they had an intimate relationship -- or even were married! Is any of that possible? If possible, is it true? In this episode we look at what we can actually know about Mary Magdalene and her relationship with Jesus. 

A person’s reasons for deconversion from Christianity to agnosticism or atheism is something that many christens speculate wildly about, misunderstand, or simply refuse to believe, but those reasons can be varied and complex. In this episode, Bart talks to Megan about why he de-converted, how he found meaning after religion, and why he does what he does.

One of the few ways people today actually appeal to the Old Testament is to condemn same-sex sexual relations (while they ignore much of everything else it says).   Such people usually take it as obvious that the New Testament condemns them as well. But DOES the Bible condemn homosexuality? As it turns this a lively debate among biblical scholars, and the dominant view among critical scholars is not at all what you might expect. Their reasons for holding this view is even less widely known.   In this episode I interview biblical scholar Jeffrey Siker (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) long time professor of New Testament  (who is also an ordained Presbyterian minister) who explains why in fact the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality.

Revelation is the least read and most misunderstood book of the New Testament. Many readers wonder why it is in there at all. In this episode we consider the debates about Revelation in the early Church, seeing why numerous church leaders found it offensive (for reasons modern readers would not expect) and why eventually it came to be included in the canon anyway.

In this episode we consider the portrayal of God in the book of Revelation. Is he a God of love who seeks what is best for those he created? Or at least for those who seek to obey him? Does the book of Revelation provide hope for those who are unjustly suffering now? Or is God instead portrayed as a God of wrath and vengeance who shows no mercy on his enemies? If so, is this the God of love and forgiveness preached by Jesus himself? Would Jesus recognize John of Patmos as one of his followers?

It is surprising that many scholars say that Revelation is not a violent book and was never meant to be. In their judgment, the controlling image of the narrative is Christ as the innocent "lamb who was slain," a non-violent Son of God who experienced violence inflicted by others. The book then teaches that non-violence is the way to eternal glory, and those who practice violence on earth will, in the end, experience what they themselves promote. Is that a plausible reading of the book? In this episode I argue that in fact it is precisely wrong, and that Revelation explicitly portrays a violent Christ who wreaks blood vengeance. Is that the Christ of the Gospels?

Does the Book of Revelation predict the end of the world? The book has been used repeatedly over the years and centuries to predict (and in some cases, re-predict) the end of the world. Yet here we still are. Maybe the problem is not that doomsday-readers of Revelation get this or that detail wrong (and so miscaluculate the date) but that book was never meant to be a blueprint for what would happen in our future. In this episode we look at how historians understand the book as a "revelation" meant for its own time, not as guidepost for what lies ahead of us now, 2000 years later.

One of the greatest archaeological discoveries of modern time was a cache of Christian books that seem very strange indeed to anyone accustomed to the books of the New Testament -- including the most famous non-canonical Gospel of all, the Gospel of Thomas. In this interview I discuss with New Testament scholar the intriguing characteristics of this book that claims to present the truth of Jesus' "secret teachings" that alone can bring eternal life.

Christianity started out as a tiny sect of Jewish followers of Jesus, but within 400 years it was the dominant religion of the Roman world and a major political force. It had a rough start, however; Romans did not accept this new movement with open arms. But was Christianity an illegal religion? Did the followers of Jesus have to hide in the catacombs? Did the emperors consider it a threat to the social order? In this episode we talk about the early reception of Christianity, in particular the persecutions, in order to explode many of the myths one hears about the new faith in its early days.

You think Christianity is diverse today? Fundamentalists? Roman Catholics? Mormons? Methodists? Branch Davidians? Episcopalians? Russian Orthodox? And on and on? In fact, the wide varieties of Christian today pale in comparison with what you could find in antiquity, with beliefs that virtually defy belief. How could people with views that seem so far beyond the pale (that there were many gods? That the Creator was evil? That Christ never died?) call themselves Christian and claim they were following the teachings of Jesus? That's what we discuss in today's podcast.

Most readers completely overlook Matthew's portrayal of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who fulfills the Jewish Law AND insists that his followers do so as well. (What? Jesus' followers have to KEEP the Law of Moses?) But Matthew conveys the message loud and clear in some passages and with brilliant ingenuity in others, including some that are widely familiar but not widely understood. Think: the magi.

If there is one thing most people are certain of about the Bible, it is that it describes how after people die they will be rewarded with heaven or tormented in hell. But does it? As it turns out ... well, you'll be surprised by what the Bible actually says. And once your surprise fades, you'll probably want to know: where do the Christian ideas of the afterlife come from?

There are hundreds of Bible translations available – but why so many and why are they different? When a biblical scholar decides to do a translation, which manuscripts do they choose to use, how to they know what the ancient words meant, and do religious considerations get in the way of accurate translations. Are there places where no one can agree on what the original text says? Jennifer Knust is a prominent New Testament scholar who helped lead the committee that recently produced an updated edition of the New Revised Standard Version. Here she discusses with Bart the problems and pitfalls of biblical translation.

What's wrong with the King James Version? Anything? Why don't we *all* use it? The KJV is the best known and arguably most elegant, aesthetically pleasing, and significant piece of English literature ever. But there are problems with it for anyone wanting to know what the biblical authors actually said. Some of the problems are today rather amusing, many are serious, and all are worth knowing about.

Many people say that the New Testament cannot be true because we don’t know exactly what the authors originally wrote, or because there are contradictions in it, or because some of the books were not written by their alleged authors, or because there are historical mistakes. But even if these things are true, does that mean the New Testament cannot be true – on some level?

Dive into the exciting belief of apocalypticism in ancient Jewish times. What is it? Why is it in the New Testament? And what was its purpose?

What does the New Testament actually say about women's roles in the early church?  Has the church acted consistently with the examples and guidelines offered in New Testament?

Special guest, Dr. James Tabor, offers a historical "revealing" of the apostle Paul.  Through careful examination of Paul's authentic or “undisputed” letters, his disputed or “Deutero-Pauline” epistles, and the book of Acts, Dr. Tabor peels back the layers to get to the historical Paul's life, beliefs, and personality.

While our four gospels eventually were named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, did you know they're actually anonymously written? So, who actually wrote the gospels? And when were they written? Do we know where the writers were when they were written? And much more!

What is considered forgery in ancient times? Do we find examples in the New Testament? And is it an acceptable practice to write in the name of someone else "for the greater good?"

There are 27 books in the New Testament Canon. How were they chosen? We have other non-canonical gospels, epistles, and apocalypses that didn't make it in. So why these 27? And why were the others left out? For more information, visit https://www.bartehrman.com

From simple misspelling mistakes to intentional changes, find out how the manuscripts of the New Testament got copied over the centuries and whether the copy mistakes affect any major Christian theology. For more information, visit https://www.bartehrman.com

How Dr. Ehrman's view of the Bible changed after studying the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. For more information, visit https://www.bartehrman.com

In each new episode, my host Megan Lewis and I will discuss just about everything you can imagine about the New Testament and the early years of Christianity. Issues connected with the historical Jesus The mysterious book of Revelation The non-canonical gospels Early Christian groups such as the Gnostics In the podcast, I'll explain New Testament and early Christian scholarship in layperson's terms so that you could learn what the issues are, see what the scholars have argued, and allow you then to make up your own mind. Please follow the show on your favorite app so you don't miss out. You can also enjoy the show in video format by subscribing to my YouTube channel, which you can find by visiting bartehrman.com/youtube. I hope you tune in!