RIP Dr Martin!

@tehray3094

4 ай бұрын

It is so sad to learn that he passed. RIP, Prof. Dale Martin ❤‍🩹

Finally a bit of peace around here to listen to Dale like I did when I streamed his classes for interest

It's nice to see Dale Martin again, now that he's passed away from us. I really enjoyed his lecture series on the New Testament at Yale that I've listened to multiple times on KZread.

@levantinian

3 ай бұрын

It’s an incredible course. He is so likeable in those vids.

Love me some Dale Martin…thank u Dale …u have taught me so much…keep it up!!

Another top show, Dale Martin is such a great scholar, look up his KZread videos for example Greer-Heard debate 2016 and freely available videos of his Yale course

@notanemoprog

Жыл бұрын

Apparently his Greer-Heard 2016 video is set to private now, it was very interesting to listen to and also quite moving. It should be made available again IMO

Good job on getting Dale Martin on your channel.

Great guest to snag. Fabulous.

Dr. Martin's KZread playlist on Early Christianity was a huge help to me. He handles the text carefully and reverently, yet critically. That's a rare, but greatly appreciated approach. I would love to see Dr. Martin debate someone like Richard Carrier, or Gary Habermas for that matter. Or perhaps a more civil discussion with a younger supernova like LItwa. I like seeing Martin sharing his knowledge outside of the university!

@Achill101

3 ай бұрын

May I ask what you mean with Martin's KZread playlist on early Christianity? I know only his (excellent) lecture series on the New Testament at Yale. Was there another series here on KZread? If yes, what was it? Because I would like to watch it.

@Achill101

3 ай бұрын

You might already know that Dale Martin passed away last December. RIP. We won't see any new debates by him anymore, but we can still enjoy his past appearances.

Excellent guest!

Keep it up with the good scholarship!

I am glad that Dale stuck his neck out a little bit on the infancy narratives. The greek connection would have seemed at home in anatolia, greece and alexandria. But we know that the ebionites and nazareans that eventually became christian used these two text, Matthew primarily and luke, but that they removed the first two chapters. Maybe the lavantine christisns saw the greek influences on these chapters much mire readily than modern scholars. Its food for thought.

@floydnelson92

4 ай бұрын

Bart thinks the first two chapters of Luke, or first part of Luke, was added later than the rest of Luke

So sorry to hear of his passing.

Excellent iview with one of my favorite scholars - well done and Happy New Year

Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman are my favorite biblical scholars. They're serious and honest biblical scholars who don't go into weird pseudo historical theories.

@History-Valley

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

@petermullenberg1878

Жыл бұрын

​@@History-Valley really? wow. can't say i agree. some ancient views there.

@KurtisHord

4 ай бұрын

He was a true materialist and very intellectually honest

I like that scholar. Balanced, yet challenging to all sides. I heard he died. Whereever he is, i hope he is safe!🎉

I watched his Yale lecture series

Thank you

Dale Martin 💗

the sock monkey in the background is iconic

That was a great interview. Dale Martin is great. I think the title is a bit of a misnomer, but that's a minor quibble. Great work and thanks to all concerned.

Paul understood that you could say all you want about salvation and hell but it would be just be nearly impossible to get an adult man to willingly get circumcised. The very thought of cutting off this most sensitive area in the days of no pain killers, possible infections etc. was nearly unthinkable then and today.

Hope you'll bring him back, Jacob.

@KurtisHord

4 ай бұрын

Step away from the lathe

@Achill101

3 ай бұрын

Dale Martin passed away last December. What we have now of him is all we ever get.

Appreciate Dr Martin's views. Personally I think there is a lot less "history" in the gospels than Dr Martin does. He's right that there's not a strong reason to doubt the less crazy parts of what is written there, but I'm also not seeing a better reason to believe that it's historical, being surrounded by crazy. The writers of the gospels clearly knew how to write fiction, and having a "betrayal" twist involving the Judas character could have been inspired by Paul's epistles and OT pesher (psalm 41). Anyway, I just don't know how much of it is historical, but I also don't think the "no reason to doubt" standard is high enough to really establish anything with any confidence.

@oddy59

Жыл бұрын

This is rubbish but that could be true reasoning . As a opposed to this is rubbish so it’s probably all rubbish

@SugoiEnglish1

4 ай бұрын

CS. Lewis said that view of yours shows you don't know how to read.

Yo where ya been ?!!!

Gospel of Mar{k? ->Y} Written by; Josephus Flavius bar Matthias (Arrius Capurrnius Piso) His son, wrote Matthew.

Definitely agree with Dr. Martin's dating of gospels

Too many commercials

Venipo- Paul explains WHY he was risking the wrath of God for calling Jesus the Christ/ which was the reality proven by the Resserection- Now, why would you call that a lie, unless you were at the tomb on Easter morning ??

"Why would people make up stories about Jesus? I don't think they did." Really? People seem to make up stories all the time. Is Dale Martin going to start expounding on historicity of the Book of Mormon or the Scientology's _Dianetics?_ I expect not because neither he nor the biblical scholars with PhD's that he respects believe those stories.

How is this dude not related to nicolas cage?

Personally, I don't think the historical Jesus would have approved of the Eucharist

His Yale courses online were really awesome introductory biblical scholarship but you can tell he is so used to teaching undergrad. I think anyone watching this channel already knows 90% of the stuff he kept explaining as prerequisites. Know your audience man, if we are here we know our stuff, get on with it.

@youngknowledgeseeker

Жыл бұрын

We're just lucky we're getting this stuff for free. But yeah I get you.

😮 I don't think almost nothing in the bible is the literal truth but it does seem that the early Christians, even those that knew Jesus, could have found someone with the ability to write could have been around gathering material and writing it down or more likely someone tried to gather up the various stories, the oral tradition, and write it down in an organized way. Remember, few people could read or write and those that could were likely to know Greek. Of course these written accounts copied over and over but these scrolls were still relatively rare. Just my opinion.

he lost me after his views on the eucharist. ancient views.

Prof. Martin is rather mainstream. When it comes to John, for example, he shows no awareness of Dennis MacDonald's claims as to a Dionysiac influence/substratum.

@somniumisdreaming

Жыл бұрын

What is the issue with being mainstream?

@thomasfarrow7053

Жыл бұрын

The questioner is focused on historical textual criticism of the Bible, Dr. Martin's specialty- not its theological concepts. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche should be a different discussion.

@Dybbouk

Жыл бұрын

Yes, too mainstream. Jesus supporting the Law could be seen as a reaction to Marcion which pushes back dates for the Gospels.

@Achill101

3 ай бұрын

​@Dybbouk - what do you mean with "Jesus supporting the law"? It seems clear that Jesus kept the law himself, all reported questions to him are about his disciples not keeping the 615(?) Jewish rules. Was Jesus supporting that Christian Gentiles kept the law? After his death, we have only the mythical Jesus: Paul insisted that the mythical Jesus had revealed to him Christian Gentiles didn't have to keep the law, but others thought otherwise.

IF YOU INSIST ON "DOING" ANYTHING (circumcision is JUST ONE) in order to be approved of by God, you cannot be saved BECAUSE GOD WILL NOT BE BOUGHT!! A very simple concept. He is the GIVER, we are the receiver by faith in His Son's WORK!! PAUL PROVES THIS ARGUMENT BY USING THE FIRST JEW !!Abram was JUSTIFIED by God by faith in Genesis, BEFORE HE WAS CIRCUMCISED AND BEFORE THE WILLINGNESS TO SLAY HIS SON... This IS Paul's argument . . Paul states that Christ's "higher Law" was taught by Christ to aggravate our 'sickness, fear of death" and go to Christ in desperation, NOT TO BECOME HOLY!! So either Paul is inspired or not- Paul's life is graced by God, performed great miracles- DID JAMES?

I'm not a scholar or PhD on the level of Dale Martin, obviously, and I mean that with no sarcasm. BUT I'm very curious how he can say John portrays Jesus as "equal" with God??? Highly exalted, sure. The #2 and right hand man and image of God sure. But I feel like John, and Jesus in John, STRESS CONSTANTLY that they are NOT equal DESPITE how empowered and exalted Jesus is. "I can do nothing by myself". "I do not speak on My own initiative" "If I testify of myself it would mean nothing". "I go to the Father for the Father is greater than I". "To my God and your God". "Do you say I'm blaspheming because I said "I'm God's son"?". I mean that's me just riffing off the top of my head, if I just flipped through John I'd find more, alot more times where Jesus, and John, make sure to let the reader know they are NOT equal despite Jesus exegeting God to the point he can say "Have you been with me so long but haven't known me, if you've seen me you've seen the Father" PS - I think it's only clear that Paul thought that Jesus became "divine" (not God, but "divine") post resurrection....imo

@thomasfarrow7053

Жыл бұрын

I agree about Paul's view. But by the time John was written, the divinity of Jesus changed a few times. The Trinity doctrine took 300 years to develop - and it's a mystery, (incomprehensible). John 1:1 ESV / In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 10:30-33 ESV / I and the Father are one.”

@youngknowledgeseeker

Жыл бұрын

@@thomasfarrow7053 I think "wisdom christology" is a possible solution to this "mystery". God's wisdom and word were his wise interaction with creation and his wise instruction for it, in the "wisdom of Solomon" is wisdom is described as a perfect mirror of God, the radiance of His Brilliant Glory. It was simply his attributes personified not a real conscious being alongside him from eternity. The jews would write about where his wisdom/word could be found. They would argue look it's here in the words of Moses, or it's embodied in the person of Moses, or it's in the temple, etc etc. Then along Comes John in chapter 1 saying that God's wisdom and word has found its home in the man Jesus, embodied as Jesus. No more wondering about where to find God's wisdom and word. Also John 10 is overwhelmingly easily solved by John 17. Being "one" has absolutely nothing to do with a "mystery" or "Trinity" or Jesus being God according to John and Jesus's own definition of "being one". Even though I 100% disagree that John thinks Jesus is divine in the sense that he literally is God, yeah it is possible that by the very late first century, more exalted views of Jesus may have crept in. However I don't think John oversteps his boundaries in his gospel, I think Paul would have agreed with him as well as the other gospel authors.

Believes Q is a good hypothesis to explain how Matthew and Luke agree? I’m done.

@Achill101

3 ай бұрын

I see good arguments for the existence of Q, e.g. those presented by Streeter, even if I personally find the use of Luke by Matthew more likely.

@anitkythera4125

3 ай бұрын

@@Achill101 Q seems totally superfluous. What data does it explain better or more parsimoniously than simply assuming Markan priority?

@Achill101

3 ай бұрын

@anitkythera4125 - Q is part of the 2SH (two source hypothesis) that assumes Markan Priority and explains the remaining overlap of Matthew and Luke (the double tradition) with a common source, Q. The two sources are Mark and Q, the outcomes are Matthew and Luke. . . . Q is good at explaining alternating primitivity: when Matthew and Luke but not Mark share passages, one passage might be sometimes more elaborate in Matthew and more primitive in Luke, but another passage might be more elaborate in Luke and more primitive in Matthew. Alternating primitivity is easy to explain with a common source, but difficult to explain with one copying from the other.

In my opinion the only true Christians were Jewish christians who followed the law and believed in the virgin birth and believed that Jesus was only a man and the Messiah. Basically Judaism+ the Messiah. A group of the Ebionites believed exactly this and had also only a single gospel in Hebrew. Paul corrupted true Christianity

This guy is slightly ridiculous. Q is a hypothesis but it’s only a hypothesis. But Jesus must have performed miracles cause you know that’s what he did. Everyone agreed Jesus appointed 12 followers cause you know even Paul said that. But Paul never met Jesus. He’s no authority.

@thomasfarrow7053

Жыл бұрын

The authors of Mark (68 CE.), Mathew (80 'CE.), Luke (80 CE,) and John (90 CE.) never met Jesus. The Q hypothesis is generally agreed upon by most textual scholars.

@KurtisHord

4 ай бұрын

@@thomasfarrow7053thanks for your rigor in debunking this nonsense. I will be citing it: I run into morons all the time trying to bake pseudoscience about early Christian history