Same.

Yeah! And he has a sense of humor, too!

Haha, Bart would be taking a break and looking for a cold beer about every 30 minutes 😂

Sorry we had a problem with the original video file

i cant download the podcast version for some reason. it always fails

you cant

I suppose the plastic bags themselves may last quite a long time, but I doubt the contents will. Try this experiment: Put an egg-salad sandwich in a ziplock bag. Don’t freeze it or refrigerate it. Leave it in your pantry for a year, then remove the sandwich and examine it carefully. In my opinion, future archeologists are, rather, going to very interested in the indestructible high E, B, and G strings from classical guitars. These will survive long after all other traces of our civilization have disappeared, and the archeologists won’t know what to make of them.

There is a video about it and how people were crucified on Pr James Tabor channel here on KZfaq.

Two nails. There is a complete nail through an ankle bone and there's the remnant or residue of a nail through a wrist.

Highly doubt it's from Jesus and if it was able to be tied back to Jesus that would completely destory Christianity as we know it but I highly doubt is from Jesus.

@@MegaAnimeforlife Er, no. The two nails found so far have come from a random Jewish guy (the ankle bone) and what may be the remains of Antigonus, last king of the Maccabees (the wrist). Nothing to do with Jesus.

If you're thinking of genizas, they aren't really garbage pits but special disposal areas for writing that contain the tetragrammaton or other ways of referring to God. The problem is that, because that's what they are, the contents of a geniza would be very heavily biased towards Jewish society and specifically Rabbinic Judaism's understanding of it. A better find would be a proper sealed library in the desert, something like the Library of Ashurbanipal but with papyri and parchment. Like a bigger version of Nag Hammadi.

I think I’ve watched everything from TGC/Wondrium that either of these two has done, plus who knows how many hours on KZfaq watching interviews and other taped lectures and talks of various kinds. Could listen to either of them all day 🙂

Maybe they were.

Tabor is quite fringe

@@TheRealDyscyples, I think Tabor would probably admit to that, but I wouldn’t discount his ideas.

Tabor has two sides. His academic side is very rigorous. His storymaker side isn't so much. It's kinda crazy when you start comparing his academic writings to his published articles on looser journals. Right now he's retired, so his storymaker side is more visible and he gets full airtime for his more fringe ideas.

😆 Take it from me she can be very animated in her lectures and speaking! ❤

Archeaology in Israel is somehow Zionist? Stop. As somehow who has supported the Palestinian cause for longer than you've been alive, stop. You're being absurd. Did being a social scientist in segregationist America mean one was endorsing segregation? Did being a physicist in fascist Germany imply one was a fascist?

Science is certainly more objective than other non-scientific disciplines, but I don't think you can measure objectivity as a binary. Objectivity is a goal for scientists, but they are all still humans that practice it as a discipline. While this may be seen as opening a line of attack for apologists or otherwise science-denying folks, it is actually the opposite - science allows for the opportunity to be wrong without your worldview falling apart, without embarrassment. Being wrong isn't a sign or corruption or evil influence, it signifies growth.

i think what she said is accurate. yes there are objective components, but interpretations are not objective. if there were only objective components then all debates would just be over which facts are true or exist, not over the best way to interpret the evidence

How could you ever rely on that for reliable info

@@thesoldiersside it would be a rough estimate at best but it was the only thing I could think of just an idea

So sorry you're having trouble. Please email support at support@bartehrman.com and we'll get this resolved. - Social Media Team

this podcast both helps me see that easier and makes me more interested in actually reading (some) of the bible and related texts

Yes, it's a bit immature of him to go on this "Mythicists don't like me" He's narrow-minded on mythicism but he's spot-on on forgery and so on. Somehow he fails at bringing things to their natural conclusion. That doesn't mean people don't like him, only that he's a bit silly on that subject.

👍 "Nazis, I hate these guys!" 😂

what are you talking about

@@jevogroni4829 what is sator squares can you tell me what it without Google it and I watch a lot of Bible archaeology

@@jevogroni4829 tell me what sator squares without using Google plus I watch a lot of Bible archaeology

Arian Heresy is the idea that Jesus was a created lower divine being with substance similar to God but not the same. The one you're thinking about is the later Nestorian Heresy. Also, Nazareth wasn't even a town in Jesus' time. It was a podunk village. Its importance and size have been severely overrated thanks to Jesus. There's no way in heck you could set up any kind of military garrison in Nazareth of Jesus' time. The smallest possible effective military formation of the era would have outnumbered the village's population. AFTER the time of Jesus, specifically after the First Jewish War, many Judaeans of the upper middle class moved to Galilee. That influx on migrants was what turned Nazareth into a town that could later be garrisoned. It was actually a fairly wealthy little town in the Roman era, especially after Christianity took over the Empire.

You're talking about time spans of a couple centuries and I'm trying to recall matters from my college days in history classes 40 years ago. Thank you for the update. I generally subscribe to the following: Christ was essentially an Essence. Stoked up on their teachings (apocalyptic) and fresh from a baptism, vision ala John the Baptist, and a period of time in the desert (a vision quest), he was ready to preach. I think he was also suffering from delusions. The Essence pierced messiah belief led him to the cross where he died, did not pass go and did not collect $200.

@@agentoffortune74 What you say is the current majority view for scholars of the historical Jesus based in Israel, with the exception that they no longer think he was an Essene proper. He was sharing the Essenes' belief system and sect-specific understanding of a suffering messiah, but not exactly one. I don't remember who coined this term, but "Essenoid" is sometimes used by scholars to describe this sort of person. 40 years ago academia hadn't finished translating and disseminating much of the sectarian writings of Qumran. Now we know that the Qumranites would probably have stoned Jesus if he tried telling them some of the things attributed to him in the Gospels. It turns out that real Essenes were really anal in the way they committed to Torah observance. My favorite example is that they have special rules on how to prepare insects for consumption, which also sort of explains why John was eating grasshoppers. They would probably have seen Jesus as a heretic corrupting their teachings. Some of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels also hint that he was influenced by the Pharisaic Hillel school, which was known for their relaxed and flexible attitude towards interpreting the Torah, and was therefore strictly opposed by the Essenes. So, quasi-Hillelite Essenoid rabbi who went a bit too far with his delusions of grandeur is one way to look at the historical Jesus.

​@@andrewsuryali8540😂That made my day. LOL. And we haven't even gotten to the resurrection yet.

Literary dependence doesn't mean they are recording the same event, but borrowed the narrative. If you get two different but similar tellings of the story of Robin Hood, it doesnt mean it's not just a story. It is physically impossible for the Noah story to be literally true. Regional floods are sufficient to explain the source material.

@@TheGreatAgnosticI hear there’s a flood layer in Uruk, I suspect those people experienced a flood so catastrophic and widespread that they we’re talking about it for the next however many thousand years and it evolves into these myths. Of course the animals but everything else in the story is pretty far fetched as well, like each of Noah’s sons was a completely different race for instance, of course they had no idea how many animals and environments there actually were. I suppose satan was transporting monkeys and such to South America and turning rats into kangaroos for Australia to throw us off.

I worked for Jodi for 10 seasons at Huqoq. Like she says it depends on the site and depends on what kind of stratigraphic layer you move through. Some layers need pick axes and shovels to remove material (while being closely watched by specialists) even backhoes at times...and yes, trowels, brushes and dental tools are used when necessary...

Boswell was a buffoon. Groping for speculations to cope with faith in the face of evidence isn't serious scholarship.

@@GWFHegel-ms7gz Actually, I was not in 1976 and am not now "groping for speculations to cope with faith." If Joseph hastily borrowed someone else's tomb, it would make it even more likely that the tomb's real owner may have indignantly removed the body. It was not merely an empty/emptied tomb that gave Jesus' earliest disciples the conviction that he had risen, but the experiences that followed (1 Cor. 15:3-8). For Mary, Jesus remained dead and his body had been placed elsewhere until she had an experience convincing her otherwise.

@@TruthAboutJesus-pz4mb I wasn't accusing you of groping, but Boswell. We have exactly zero reason to believe Joseph borrowed another tomb, just like we have zero reason to believe Paul saw the risen Christ. We have no clue what Mary, if she existed, may have thought, believed, or experienced. We have anonymous copies of copies of oral traditions. That isn't sufficient to know what Jesus professed, Mary believed, or what the disciples may have witnessed.

@@GWFHegel-ms7gz Dear sir, there are NUMEROUS sceptical, even atheist and agnostic scholars who are convinced by what they take to be firm historical evidence that there really was, for example, a Paul (Saul) of Tarsus who against his own will became convinced that he had seen an appearance of the same Jesus who he had previously thought was a heretic. Paul's seven or eight authentic letters* are not anonymous, but were really written by him, and therein he speaks of having spent time with Kephas (Peter) and with James (Yakob) the brother of Jesus, both of whom were also convinced that they had exprienced appearances of the risen Jesus -- and that happened although both Paul and Jesus' brother had formerly not believed in him. You seem to be unaware that it is not necessary for historical researchers to claim dogmatically that Jesus actually did rise from death to be convinced that there is verifiable evidence that a number of his followers, and even some of his opponents, became convinced (rightly or wrongly) soon after his death that he had risen. ______ *Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon (and maybe Colossians?).

yes, good theories will make claims about things we dont know yet, and if we find these things to be true, we can get more confidence in the theory. if a theory never gets any examination or feedback in this way, it never can benefit from this process of confidence building. the best interpretations of data are both exposed to risks of being invalidated by new data and then bolstered over time if new data remains consistent with it despite that exposure

Either OSH- or OS-yoo-air-ee is common. It's a preference. Like "ma-CHYOOR" or "ma-TOOR" for mature.

@@FernLovebond So it's nothing to do with the ancient roots of the language? Like the _"Sshh"_ sound in the Irish "Sinead", or the Welsh "siop", or the Sanskrit "Kṛṣṇa"? It's a personal choice? Well, that just makes it even MORE annoying! LOL! 🤣 It's a double "S", so the sound is "ess", not "sshhh". Thanks for the reply. {:o:O:}

@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 I mean, if you think about it, the average speaker isn't concerned about etymologies and root words of ancient language sources, we're just speaking what we've heard or what we've assumed. Regional, social, and cultural variances in dialects and pronunciation mean words shift in exact phonetics, cadence, stressors, or even in spelling. Colloquialisms, idioms, and local nomenclature, all offer a wide variety of expression; and without that variety, language would become boring, rote, prescribed. Where one person says "where is he?" the next might say "where he at?" and they could both be equally effective, in the correct context. Sure, to you one will seem "correct" and the other "wrong," but it's a matter of who is speaking to whom for what purpose. There are issues of power dynamics, culture and race tied up in that. The trick is to learn how to appreciate differences, rather than just dismiss others as "wrong" because they don't match our expectations.

Metaphor

The search for the holy grail is purely a medieval literary trope that usually explores contemporary virtues or symbolises mans journey towards God

Every argument for anything implies the existence of objective truth. Otherwise you're just throwing opinions back and forth.

​@@SchutzBoysbandI think you're not listening closely and are making a mountain out of a mole hill. They weren't advocating complete epistemological relativism. They argued OBJECTIVE evidence can sometimes be interpreted in a variety of ways. 😊

*science

What a nonsensical comment. Archeaology is a science. And it isn't a pure social science since it uses the methods and techniques of the physical sciences, like radiometric dating, stratiography, etc. Don't be silly.

Nobody would have the remains of a criminal enemy they condemned, in their own tomb. It would be like Putin being buried with Navalny.

You don’t think Caiaphas had more than one person crucified?

⁠@@MasterShake9000Technically, Caiaphis couldn’t order a crucifixion. That was a Roman capital offense reserved for offenses such as sedition, treason and rebellion. So even the 2 thieves being crucified could only occur if they were runaway slaves that went to being robbers. Pilate was the only one who could have had someone crucified. The Sanhedrin could have had someone stoned to death like James the Just, but they still needed the Roman Governor’s permission. See the comments on James by Josephus.

Ropes I bet they used ropes most of the time

You do realize this zoom call between Bart and Jodi is advertising her upcoming online course in March, right? Besides, from what I listened to they talked about Jesus quite a bit, maybe not in the context you wanted, but stil...

wow profound question right there. that was deep

​@@tawan20082008The topic is about archeaology in the time of Jesus. They talked about that extensively.

Finally!! 😂

@@stewartthorpe2533

Not sure how those two follow.

@marcomoreno6748 Jesus could not have been a king (a real king) if He never existed, but since Bart is saying Jesus did indeed exist, was He also really a king like proclaimed about Himself?

No. I can confidently say that Bart’s learned opinion would be that any such claims were later additions and not part of the real Jesus of Nazareth’s preaching.

@dukeon It sounds like you're saying you know what Jesus would have preached about and what He would not have preached about.

@@tryme3969 And it sounds very much like you might be a Christian troll. I’m simply repeating what I’ve heard Bart say about Jesus’ purported claims to Kinghood, Godhood, being the Son of Man, etc. Bart doesn’t believe that the historical Jesus preached any of that, rather that he was a apocalypticist who believed the Son of Man (the Messiah) and the Kingdom of God were imminent. He (Bart) believes that Paul, the Gospels, and to some extent even the early Church Fathers introduced the idea of Jesus being THE Christ - ergo, the Jewish Messiah, as well as a direct descendant of the line of David, etc - into the orthodox faith, which made Christianity much more appealing than just saying that he was a prophet (as Islam does) who was executed by the Romans, but his message of the End should still be heeded. Dead prophets don’t really attract followers, but resurrected godheads do. These are not _my_ opinions, as you appear not to understand. If you disagree with them, go have a chat with Bart. I only answered your question because I know what he has said in his books, interviews, lectures, blogs, podcasts, and so on, so I know how HE would answer your question. More or less, of course. He’s the textual analyst, after all, not me.