about account add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up back-arrow register-arrow book-mobile book categories chat-bubble-mobile chat-bubble close college contact-us credit-card drag email-square facebook-mobile facebook-square facebook faq film history home load modal-error person pinterest-square play-mobile play queue remove resume search share show star tick trailer trash twitter-mobile twitter-square twitter university warning warning youtube-square open-eye close-eye promo-tag tag check info info active

The New Testament

Discover how historical research can illuminate the New Testament in this riveting course that combines biblical scholarship, archaeology, and literary analysis.

Watch First Lecture

Reviews

l********m
February 25, 2019
Just to let you know, I am a Christian. However, I am not giving this course a low score out of aggrievement over a self-identified agnostic's disrespect of my beliefs. I am actually truly stunned that the presenter is simply so wrong in his assertions as to make himself ridiculous. Mr. Ehrman appears to deliberately misrepresents Biblical text in an attempt to reveal inaccuracies. However, he also gives citations to the exact passages he discusses, which is odd because a very cursory reading of the verses makes it very clear that his claims are invalid. I couldn't get past lecture 4 where he attempts to "prove" that the gospels of Mark and John have differing timelines for the events leading up to the death of Jesus. Mr. Ehrman is either confused about the difference in two Jewish feasts (Feast of the Unleavened Bread and the Passover) or he is knowingly taking text out of context to make a false impression. He states that the two gospels differ in that Mark's account indicates that Jesus ate the Passover feast with his disciples prior to his arrest (which it does not); but that John’s account indicates that Jesus died on the "day of preparation" for the Passover (thus before the Passover). How can this be, he opines? It is especially surprising to me, considering the lecture immediately preceding (Lecture 3) was about Judaism, that he can make these statements with a straight face. He furthermore fails to mention that Mark’s account also states that Jesus died on the "day of preparation" in the following chapter. Of course, noting that verse would invalidate his argument, so it was conveniently left out. Finally, I would think if he were trying to make a point that there are inaccuracies that he would have selected the most egregious example to highlight first. But, his statements regarding these two passages fall apart so quickly that I wonder just how inane any further examples may be. As I mentioned, I stopped watching after Lecture 4. Given the presenter’s inability or inclination to provide an accurate representation of one area of discussion, I no longer had an expectation of correctness in any other. Why waste my time listening to someone I discern to be flawed in either knowledge or reasoning?

Reply

Delete

t********m
February 1, 2019

Reply

Delete

r********m
November 1, 2018
Expertly done, engaging, well-paced, informative, and interesting.

Reply

Delete