 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?

Is the Christ of Revelation Out for Blood?

"Misquoting Jesus” is the only show where a six-time New York Times bestselling author and world-renowned Bible scholar uncovers the many fascinating, little known facts about the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the rise of Christianity.  The show features Dr. Bart Ehrman and host, Megan Lewis.

History

Society & Culture

Religion & Spirituality

Other

Spirituality

Christianity

Buddhism

Hinduism

Judaism

Islam

 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?

Were Early Christians Known to Be Moral Reprobates?

 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.

Did Jesus Have to Suffer? Trying to Make Sense of a Troubling View

 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.

Is the "Good Book" Really So Good?

 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"? 

Was Jesus Buried on the Day of His Crucifixion

 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?

Is the Christ of Revelation Out for Blood?

Download our free app to listen on your phone