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?