What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon
What different kinds of books are in the New Testament? When, how, and why were they written? And why did some books, and not others, come to be collected into what Christians came to consider the canon of scripture that would define their belief for all time? With these 12 lectures, get a fast-moving yet thorough introduction to these and other key issues in the development of Christianity. Designed to deepen the understanding of both Christians and non-Christians alike, this lecture series takes as its perspective the historical, rather than the theological, issues behind the development of the Bible. And it's an illuminating perspective, indeed, ranging across issues of language, oral history, the physical limitations of spreading the written word at a time when the printing press lay far in the future, and, of course, the theological forces that were shaping Christianity, molding a commonly accepted canon from the various expressions of the faith spreading across the ancient world. Professor Ehrman recreates the context of the times in which the canon was being assembled so that you can understand what the message of each written work would have meant to ancient Christians. You'll come to see how the diverse books of the New Testament were gathered together into the form we now know, whether it's the four canonical Gospels (whose authorship was only attributed by later Christians), the book of Acts, the 21 Epistles, or the book of Revelation (sometimes called the Apocalypse of John). These lectures are a compelling introduction not only to the development of the Christian canon, but to all of the forces that would play a role in early Christian history.
6 pages, Audio CD
First published January 1, 2005
13 people are currently reading
517 people want to read
About the author
Bart D. Ehrman
69 books2,111 followersBart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews
October 2, 2024
A strictly historical, but very interesting and thought-provoking set of lectures on the making of the New Testament whether you are a believer or not.
Bart D. Ehrman is an authority on the subject, though not the best of speakers. I hasten to add that overall it doesn't take away anything from the value of these lectures.
Bart D. Ehrman is an authority on the subject, though not the best of speakers. I hasten to add that overall it doesn't take away anything from the value of these lectures.
May 26, 2021
Bart Ehrman is a respected New Testament scholar, known especially for his work in textual criticism and the text of the New Testatment. This is his lecture series on the making of the canon of the New Testament, though I'd argue that he focuses more on the writing, theological, and authorship issues of the books of the New Testament, spending only the last couple of lectures on how they came to be included in the canon.
Throughout these lectures, I found that Ehrman had an ax to grind with Christianity, at least modern protestant Christianity (and especially fundamentalism), which is his background. Perhaps my prior view of Ehrman colored how I heard him in these lectures, but there were certainly blatant times where he was condescending towards Christian beliefs, more so than is necessary from the evidence of the making of scripture.
I think Ehrman often overstates his case and positions on the New Testament and how it came to be. He often appeals to scholarly consensus, which is not as unanimous as he implies. That being said, it is important to know the consensus and all sides of the debate and to know the evidence to inform our conclusions (this is the reason I chose to listen to these lectures). And there was valuable information in these lectures. However, if you are not familiar with these debates, you might take some of the assertions that Ehrman makes as settled fact when there is nuance and debate of these conclusions (a good book that addresses some of Ehrman's assertions is "The Case for Jesus" by Brant Pitre).
For example, one of Ehrman's famous (or infamous) analogies is to use the game of telephone to describe the oral culture and method by which Jesus' teachings were passed on before being written down, implying that they grew wildly inaccurate as they got passed down. However, modern word on oral cultures has shown this is not the case, and that oral traditions, especially those that are of historical events, have quite high fidelity. The model that Ehrman uses is representative more of the higher critics in the 19th and 20th centuries than today. Further, Ehrman emphasizes that the New Testament took "many years" and even centuries to come to be recognized in the canon, but this needs to be much more nuanced. It is true that there were centuries of decisions on the overall canon, but most of the canon was recognized by most of the church from a very early date, with only the fringe being debated.
Ehrman also makes a pretty big deal over the many different gospels and writings that did not make it into the canon, but I think he too overstates the cases here. If it were true that many different gospels were circulating at an early date in competition with the four that eventually got canonized, then the heretics would more often cite their own gospels. This doesn't start happening until the late second and third centuries (with the gnostics). In the early battles, heretical groups such as the Marcionites and Ebonites did not quote from other gospels, but rather emphasized certain gospels or rejected certain gospels altogether. For example, Marcion took for his scriptures a mutilated version of the Gospel of Luke, and the letters of Paul (excluding the pastoral epistles). Instead of quoting from variant gospel traditions, he modified the know traditions. This implies something quite different than 'there were various gospels all competing from an early date to get into the canon.'
Further, I don't buy Ehrman's model of the conflict between those who would win ('orthodoxy') and those who would lose ('heresy'). The canon was eventually formed by usage in the universal church, as is noted by several early authors when they discuss disputed books "that are not read/accepted in all the churches". If there were truly a group of people who forced the issue on all the church, then they did a bad job by highlighting disputed books and not forcing a canon early on. It is true that the early church used the theology of the books as one of the criteria of authenticity, but Ehrman makes this seem to be a bad thing as if you couldn't judge whether a book was authentic by whether or not it agreed with what was known to be the claimed author's belief. It is ironic, in a sense, that it is this very criterion that Ehrman uses to claim that Paul was not the author of certain epistles, such as II Thessolonians- because it supposedly disagrees theologically with what Paul writes in I Thessalonians. So, it seems that Ehrman can do this without bad intentions, but the early church fathers can't.
Overall, it is clear that Ehrman has a particular view of the New Testament that I believe is shaped by his context and background. This is not the material that I would suggest as a starting place to study the canon, though if you are familiar with the discussion it could be a good resource to hear a different perspective. There are good things you can learn from this (I particularly enjoyed Ehrman's walk through some of the gnostic writings), but it does come with a certain tone that I would say is at least a bit antagonistic towards faith.
Throughout these lectures, I found that Ehrman had an ax to grind with Christianity, at least modern protestant Christianity (and especially fundamentalism), which is his background. Perhaps my prior view of Ehrman colored how I heard him in these lectures, but there were certainly blatant times where he was condescending towards Christian beliefs, more so than is necessary from the evidence of the making of scripture.
I think Ehrman often overstates his case and positions on the New Testament and how it came to be. He often appeals to scholarly consensus, which is not as unanimous as he implies. That being said, it is important to know the consensus and all sides of the debate and to know the evidence to inform our conclusions (this is the reason I chose to listen to these lectures). And there was valuable information in these lectures. However, if you are not familiar with these debates, you might take some of the assertions that Ehrman makes as settled fact when there is nuance and debate of these conclusions (a good book that addresses some of Ehrman's assertions is "The Case for Jesus" by Brant Pitre).
For example, one of Ehrman's famous (or infamous) analogies is to use the game of telephone to describe the oral culture and method by which Jesus' teachings were passed on before being written down, implying that they grew wildly inaccurate as they got passed down. However, modern word on oral cultures has shown this is not the case, and that oral traditions, especially those that are of historical events, have quite high fidelity. The model that Ehrman uses is representative more of the higher critics in the 19th and 20th centuries than today. Further, Ehrman emphasizes that the New Testament took "many years" and even centuries to come to be recognized in the canon, but this needs to be much more nuanced. It is true that there were centuries of decisions on the overall canon, but most of the canon was recognized by most of the church from a very early date, with only the fringe being debated.
Ehrman also makes a pretty big deal over the many different gospels and writings that did not make it into the canon, but I think he too overstates the cases here. If it were true that many different gospels were circulating at an early date in competition with the four that eventually got canonized, then the heretics would more often cite their own gospels. This doesn't start happening until the late second and third centuries (with the gnostics). In the early battles, heretical groups such as the Marcionites and Ebonites did not quote from other gospels, but rather emphasized certain gospels or rejected certain gospels altogether. For example, Marcion took for his scriptures a mutilated version of the Gospel of Luke, and the letters of Paul (excluding the pastoral epistles). Instead of quoting from variant gospel traditions, he modified the know traditions. This implies something quite different than 'there were various gospels all competing from an early date to get into the canon.'
Further, I don't buy Ehrman's model of the conflict between those who would win ('orthodoxy') and those who would lose ('heresy'). The canon was eventually formed by usage in the universal church, as is noted by several early authors when they discuss disputed books "that are not read/accepted in all the churches". If there were truly a group of people who forced the issue on all the church, then they did a bad job by highlighting disputed books and not forcing a canon early on. It is true that the early church used the theology of the books as one of the criteria of authenticity, but Ehrman makes this seem to be a bad thing as if you couldn't judge whether a book was authentic by whether or not it agreed with what was known to be the claimed author's belief. It is ironic, in a sense, that it is this very criterion that Ehrman uses to claim that Paul was not the author of certain epistles, such as II Thessolonians- because it supposedly disagrees theologically with what Paul writes in I Thessalonians. So, it seems that Ehrman can do this without bad intentions, but the early church fathers can't.
Overall, it is clear that Ehrman has a particular view of the New Testament that I believe is shaped by his context and background. This is not the material that I would suggest as a starting place to study the canon, though if you are familiar with the discussion it could be a good resource to hear a different perspective. There are good things you can learn from this (I particularly enjoyed Ehrman's walk through some of the gnostic writings), but it does come with a certain tone that I would say is at least a bit antagonistic towards faith.
January 5, 2019
This is a short lecture series from The Great Courses that takes a look at the books of the New Testament from a historical perspective. This is an informative and valuable perspective. I found many points of interest throughout these lectures. There are 12 lectures, each about 30 minutes long. So it’s great for a beginner or someone who just wants a little taste of the New Testament from a historical viewpoint.
One thing to remember when listening to anything from a historical perspective is that it has its limits as well as a very specific set of accepted underlying premises that are quite different from those accepted by a more religious perspective. I feel like this is important to keep in mind while listening to these lectures, especially in the beginning. This professor does make many assumptions and random commentary that suggest he is a mind reader of the ancients. Toward the end, however, I felt like that improved. He acknowledged some of the things the historical viewpoint can’t say for certain and some of the assumptions historians make.”
3.5 stars
One thing to remember when listening to anything from a historical perspective is that it has its limits as well as a very specific set of accepted underlying premises that are quite different from those accepted by a more religious perspective. I feel like this is important to keep in mind while listening to these lectures, especially in the beginning. This professor does make many assumptions and random commentary that suggest he is a mind reader of the ancients. Toward the end, however, I felt like that improved. He acknowledged some of the things the historical viewpoint can’t say for certain and some of the assumptions historians make.”
3.5 stars
September 21, 2017
[watched the dvds]
I felt like this one delved a lot into Bart's personal opinion about the accuracy of canon. Otherwise a pretty decent look at the history of the new testament, though not quite as detailed or far-reaching as I was hoping.
I felt like this one delved a lot into Bart's personal opinion about the accuracy of canon. Otherwise a pretty decent look at the history of the new testament, though not quite as detailed or far-reaching as I was hoping.
July 11, 2022
I thought this was good with useful information. Listened to it on audiobook via local library app.
June 26, 2022
I loved this series of lectures by Bart Ehrman. I am Christian who has always been interested in the history of the Bible and how it came to be, but that interest has definitely increased these past few years. This collection of lectures about the New Testament and how it came to be canon was fascinating. Ehrman does a great job at explaining concepts in every day terms so you don't need a seminary degree to understand these lectures. This collection is for the reader who is interested in diving deeper in learning about the Bible in a historical way. For me, it enhances my faith. When I know more context of the period and situations, I can know God better.
December 26, 2011
Rating: 2.5 out 5
I listened to Dr. Ehrman other course called "The New Testament" which was 24 lec X 30 min and was more detailed than this one and so 80% out of this series was mention in it.
Still 20 % was new to me some in form of different example used by Dr. Ehrman and few are completely new concept.
As for the presentation it's great especially for some one new to the subject and wand short introduction
May 1, 2024
I listened to this through Libby!
This lecture series provided a historical overview of how the New Testament came together into what we think of as canon today, including many facts about the texts that most laypeople aren't aware of when they discuss the New Testament. Ehrman also briefly reviewed a fair amount of the context around non-canonical texts that emerged from various eras of the early Christian church, and that's always of particular interest to me, so I'm glad he delved into that. In my opinion Ehrman, although he's an agnostic atheist, does a pretty excellent job (in these lectures, at least) of separating his personal beliefs from his scholarship, which I think is important for any scholar who wants to understand the historical context of a religion or religious text, regardless of what religious beliefs or nonbelief they bring to the table. This was my first foray into Bart Ehrman's scholarship, and I also felt like this was a pretty accessible start. I'm excited to read more of his work in future!
This lecture series provided a historical overview of how the New Testament came together into what we think of as canon today, including many facts about the texts that most laypeople aren't aware of when they discuss the New Testament. Ehrman also briefly reviewed a fair amount of the context around non-canonical texts that emerged from various eras of the early Christian church, and that's always of particular interest to me, so I'm glad he delved into that. In my opinion Ehrman, although he's an agnostic atheist, does a pretty excellent job (in these lectures, at least) of separating his personal beliefs from his scholarship, which I think is important for any scholar who wants to understand the historical context of a religion or religious text, regardless of what religious beliefs or nonbelief they bring to the table. This was my first foray into Bart Ehrman's scholarship, and I also felt like this was a pretty accessible start. I'm excited to read more of his work in future!
June 12, 2024
Growing up in a church that preaches constantly to read the scriptures, I never had much desire to delve into them until now. To me, they’d always been taught as a literal history of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. but I’m realizing now how little I really knew. This was a great introduction to how some of our most important scriptures (from the point of view of someone raised in a Christian church) came to be. I had no idea that Paul was as crucial as he was for spreading Christianity, even though he was never an apostle or knew Jesus. I didn’t realize the gospels were anonymously written decades after the life and death of Jesus, and didn’t look too closely at the differences and contradictions in each narrative. I really liked how this information was presented in 30 minute lectures and found Professor Ehrman pleasant to listen to. Will definitely be checking out more of his work.
July 30, 2018
A short account of some of the issues Professor Ehrman has discussed at more length in some of his other books. Namely, who wrote the New Testament, When were they written, Why they were written and how was it decided what books became canon and which ones did not make the cut. Part of the Great Courses program.
April 8, 2023
I listened to this lecture series while doing yard work after reading one of the author’s books - How Jesus Became God. It was my first try with one of the Great Courses and I liked it. I’m going to continue checking out his stuff. My beef here, with this series and his book I’ve read, is that he seems to have done disdain for believers. I tend to be on his side of the arguments, but don’t love some of the angles he comes from…
January 1, 2025
I enjoyed this lecture series on how the New Testament came to be. It was informative and well-organized. I do wonder, if the student is not already familiar with the material, how easy it is to follow. Also, I'm not sure the professor distinguishes enough between what is known, what is scholarly consensus, and what he personally thinks happened. This is probably true of most series of lectures, it just happens I know enough about the subject matter this time to notice.
January 16, 2018
Unfortunately, in order to teach a course about the making of the New Testament canon, someone has to know it, and in this course as well as in his other works [1], the instructor of this course has shown himself to be rather poor in terms of his biblical knowledge. The best that can be said for this course is that the author is generally humorous and charming, but he's unfortunately not a good authority for what the Bible says or how it came to be, and the way he makes fun of his undergraduates seems to suggest that he has a contempt for those who believe in the Bible and who strive to follow it, a contempt that does not wear well on the professor as well. Perhaps this book is best aimed at those who do not know about the Bible and who only want to know a negative and critical view of it, but as someone who is definitely not in that target audience I found this course to be largely a waste of time and found little enjoyable or profitable in it.
This course is mercifully a short one, with twelve half an hour lectures on six cds. The course opens with a superficial overview of the New Testament and then the professor looks at Paul as the earliest Christian author. Unfortunately, the author seems to have the same mistaken view of Paul that was condemned in 2 Peter (which the author cites as evidence for early canonizing of literature among Christians) and that is held by many contemporary antinomians. After that comes a discussion of the seven epistles that the author considers are genuinely Pauline and then a grossly exaggerated discussion of issue of pseudonymity where he assumes that authorship was not a serious concern among ancient Christians. The professor then discusses the beginnings of the Gospel Traditions by making some kind of imaginary discussion about how the truth of the Gospel spread and then looks at the earliest Gospels (the four in the Bible) and some other gospels that for various reasons "missed the cut." The professor then looks at apocalypticism and Revelation, exaggerates the problem of textual error and makes some assumptions about higher textual criticism, and then closes with discussions on authority in the early church, the importance of interpretation, and the finalizing of the canon and the arguments over orthodoxy and apolosticity.
As an unreliable narrator of the matters of his course, the author fails to provide much in the way of insight into how things actually happened. He has a lot of bogus ideas, a lot of just-so stories, and has a sometimes entertaining manner, but he has little in the way of knowledge. A big part of the problem of the author is that he wants to do contradictory things. His authority to speak about the scriptures is harmed by the fact that he comes to the New Testament as a judge and as a critic rather than as someone who wishes to repent and obey God. In addition, he both wants to cut out what he does not like about the scriptures and simultaneously add a great deal of respect for obviously bogus books that he whines were left out of the canon somewhat unfairly, even as he freely admits that many of these were not ancient or apostolic works at all. Unless one wants to look at how higher critics see the Bible, and that is not a task that is enjoyable or profitable for many people, there is little to enjoy or appreciate about this work except that it has all the hallmarks of scholarly arrogance as well as ignorance.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
This course is mercifully a short one, with twelve half an hour lectures on six cds. The course opens with a superficial overview of the New Testament and then the professor looks at Paul as the earliest Christian author. Unfortunately, the author seems to have the same mistaken view of Paul that was condemned in 2 Peter (which the author cites as evidence for early canonizing of literature among Christians) and that is held by many contemporary antinomians. After that comes a discussion of the seven epistles that the author considers are genuinely Pauline and then a grossly exaggerated discussion of issue of pseudonymity where he assumes that authorship was not a serious concern among ancient Christians. The professor then discusses the beginnings of the Gospel Traditions by making some kind of imaginary discussion about how the truth of the Gospel spread and then looks at the earliest Gospels (the four in the Bible) and some other gospels that for various reasons "missed the cut." The professor then looks at apocalypticism and Revelation, exaggerates the problem of textual error and makes some assumptions about higher textual criticism, and then closes with discussions on authority in the early church, the importance of interpretation, and the finalizing of the canon and the arguments over orthodoxy and apolosticity.
As an unreliable narrator of the matters of his course, the author fails to provide much in the way of insight into how things actually happened. He has a lot of bogus ideas, a lot of just-so stories, and has a sometimes entertaining manner, but he has little in the way of knowledge. A big part of the problem of the author is that he wants to do contradictory things. His authority to speak about the scriptures is harmed by the fact that he comes to the New Testament as a judge and as a critic rather than as someone who wishes to repent and obey God. In addition, he both wants to cut out what he does not like about the scriptures and simultaneously add a great deal of respect for obviously bogus books that he whines were left out of the canon somewhat unfairly, even as he freely admits that many of these were not ancient or apostolic works at all. Unless one wants to look at how higher critics see the Bible, and that is not a task that is enjoyable or profitable for many people, there is little to enjoy or appreciate about this work except that it has all the hallmarks of scholarly arrogance as well as ignorance.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
September 25, 2013
A scholarly and historical (not devotional) perspective on how the New testament came to exist in its present form. The course is a lecture series given by premier Bible Scholar Bartrand Ehrman. If you're looking for an objective view into the history of the Bible and Christianity, I highly recommend this series.
June 9, 2022
If you are religious this course might torque you off. He uses academic analysis to talk about the accuracy of the New Testament, how they selected the books to keep and which ones to throw away. If that statement torques you off then maybe you ought to skip this course. I am aware of the issues and was not disturbed.
I will probably listen to this audio course again.
I will probably listen to this audio course again.
August 29, 2014
Fantastic in every regard for the layman. Your mileage may vary based upon what you bring to the table. For me, an atheist in good standing with a Christian background but no education in what that meant, this was ideal. I've already started another lecture series with this professor.
May 20, 2023
I feel like I missed a lecture or some background to a lot of conclusions he assumed during these lectures so that part made some of this confusing.
Overall I think this was interesting and provided some good context even if I obviously didn’t agree with all of his starting points.
Overall I think this was interesting and provided some good context even if I obviously didn’t agree with all of his starting points.
December 21, 2023
Very cool and well balanced history. Presented by a very well respected professor who has seen walked and lived every extreme of faith.
May 21, 2019
Interesting lectures about the gospel, epistle, and apocalypse narratives that made it into the New Testament, as well as some discussion about a few of these genre types about Christ and early Christianity that did not make it into the canon (or Bible). There is a lot to be gained from learning about the historical context, cultural customs, and literary traditions that informed the New Testament writings and the messages presented therein. Early Christianity was not a united movement, but similar to today, there were various groups who believed, denied, and debated doctrine, teachings, and writings about Jesus Christ and his disciples, with the orthodox (or really most politically powerful) factions winning out and and minority sects being virtually dismissed from the canonized volume of scripture (though some scripture with debated interpretations among different Christian sects persist). There is great discussion about the common practice of writing under a false name of a popular historical figure or writer to honor them or lend greater credence to the story: hence not all alleged authors of scriptures should be taken at face value. I appreciated the organization of these lectures and the logical clarity in which they are presented. Whether you read the Bible religiously or are curious about its cultural role in Western civilization and the global world today, it doesn't hurt to better understand how the New Testament came to be and what some of its puzzling content might mean.
November 26, 2023
6h 12m.
Well structured, well substantiated, and concisely communicated. This is a historical investigation, not a religious or spiritual one. It does not dwell in why or which scriptures or theologies you should believe, rather it is informing on the early Christian history of the church, their beliefs, their conflicts, and their conclusions.
It is accompanied by a PDF syllabus, which outlines the facts discussed, further resources and sourcing, as well as some questions which these facts provoke, as they do not align with modern church “common” knowledge and expectations.
Any pastor who is not preaching this fundamental knowledge from the pulpit is either an unqualified leader (because they themselves do not know), a manipulator (taking advantage of other’s ignorance), or a coward (who would rather not flow upstream and disturb the peace). I feel so much rage over how I have never heard nor heard of a contemporary pastor who is educating their congregations on biblical scholarship, such as this, but I have personally experienced and observed the vast amount of misinformation they support and preach instead.
Although I can understand how biblical scholars with this knowledge can still believe in Christianity, this information alone would have vaulted me 10 levels farther in my deconstruction if I had known this earlier.
Well structured, well substantiated, and concisely communicated. This is a historical investigation, not a religious or spiritual one. It does not dwell in why or which scriptures or theologies you should believe, rather it is informing on the early Christian history of the church, their beliefs, their conflicts, and their conclusions.
It is accompanied by a PDF syllabus, which outlines the facts discussed, further resources and sourcing, as well as some questions which these facts provoke, as they do not align with modern church “common” knowledge and expectations.
Any pastor who is not preaching this fundamental knowledge from the pulpit is either an unqualified leader (because they themselves do not know), a manipulator (taking advantage of other’s ignorance), or a coward (who would rather not flow upstream and disturb the peace). I feel so much rage over how I have never heard nor heard of a contemporary pastor who is educating their congregations on biblical scholarship, such as this, but I have personally experienced and observed the vast amount of misinformation they support and preach instead.
Although I can understand how biblical scholars with this knowledge can still believe in Christianity, this information alone would have vaulted me 10 levels farther in my deconstruction if I had known this earlier.
June 17, 2024
I had thought this would be about the actual debates over which books became canon, but it's actually a short summary of the info covered in Ehrman's other Great Courses lectures. (Mostly info covered in more detail in From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, some from Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles Over Authentication, and a little from The Historical Jesus.) So, if you need to be judicious about what courses you get, you can get this as a 6-hour introduction, or you can skip it and get the longer ones.
May 27, 2024
I listened to this through Libby!
This lecture series provided a historical overview of how the New Testament came together into what we think of as canon today, including many facts about the texts that most laypeople aren't aware of when they discuss the New Testament. Ehrman also briefly reviewed a fair amount of the context around non-canonical texts that emerged from various eras of the early Christian church, and that's always of particular interest to me, so I'm glad he delved into that. In my opinion Ehrman, although he's an agnostic atheist, does a pretty excellent job (in these lectures, at least) of separating his personal beliefs from his scholarship, which I think is important for any scholar who wants to understand the historical context of a religion or religious text, regardless of what religious beliefs or nonbelief they bring to the table. This was my first foray into Bart Ehrman's scholarship, and I also felt like this was a pretty accessible start. I'm excited to read more of his work in future!
This lecture series provided a historical overview of how the New Testament came together into what we think of as canon today, including many facts about the texts that most laypeople aren't aware of when they discuss the New Testament. Ehrman also briefly reviewed a fair amount of the context around non-canonical texts that emerged from various eras of the early Christian church, and that's always of particular interest to me, so I'm glad he delved into that. In my opinion Ehrman, although he's an agnostic atheist, does a pretty excellent job (in these lectures, at least) of separating his personal beliefs from his scholarship, which I think is important for any scholar who wants to understand the historical context of a religion or religious text, regardless of what religious beliefs or nonbelief they bring to the table. This was my first foray into Bart Ehrman's scholarship, and I also felt like this was a pretty accessible start. I'm excited to read more of his work in future!
January 11, 2024
In 12 lectures Professor Bart Ehrman does a good job in explaining why some texts made it into the bibical canon while others did not.Ehrman makes the important point that there were many interpretations of the work and sayings of Jesus in early Christianity with various oral traditions eventually being written : out of this plethora of material eventually the Church fathers decided on a canon or authorized set of 27 books making the New Testament cut( including the weird and disturbing apocalyptic Book of Revelations) while not including others like the Gospel of Thomas a book with many interesting sayings attributed to Jesus.Eventually one faction or school of Christian interpretation won out over the others and by the 4th century the Canon was set.But it might have been a very different set of sacred texts handed down and given the importance of the Bible in our culture the story Ehrman tells is an important one.
December 30, 2024
This is an interesting compilation of lectures on how the New Testament was put together - it’s very concise and gives a thorough overview of how and when events probably happened. However, it focused too much on the historical and social aspects of compiling the literature, to the detriment of the literary and spiritual aspects of it. There was too much focus on the chronological differences in the synoptic gospels, for example, without exploring the literary styles that would have been used at the time to tell stories with particular themes to particular audiences.
To hear such an in-depth study of scripture with dynamic faith removed from the enquiry was actually quite depressing. Without the lens of revelation, to spend so many years researching and talking about the Christian faith seems pointless. While I appreciated the different perspective, I didn’t find the secular point of view very robust.
To hear such an in-depth study of scripture with dynamic faith removed from the enquiry was actually quite depressing. Without the lens of revelation, to spend so many years researching and talking about the Christian faith seems pointless. While I appreciated the different perspective, I didn’t find the secular point of view very robust.
March 28, 2020
This was an interesting audio-course about how the New Testament came into being. The author is an agnostic atheist and focuses only on what we can know by historic documents and archeology. He seems to ignore the oral tradition of the Christian church and almost never mentions the Catholic church by name, which was essential in finalizing the New Testament canon.
Despite this, I think it's important for serious (or even amateur) students of the bible to understand its origins and the type of literature contained within it (both of which the author does well), as well as the ancient tradition of distinguishing between the literal and spiritual senses of the texts. The spiritual sense can be further understood in allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses (these are only lightly mentioned by the author).
Despite this, I think it's important for serious (or even amateur) students of the bible to understand its origins and the type of literature contained within it (both of which the author does well), as well as the ancient tradition of distinguishing between the literal and spiritual senses of the texts. The spiritual sense can be further understood in allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses (these are only lightly mentioned by the author).
May 5, 2025
If you're looking for a historically grounded, non-devotional overview of how the New Testament came to be, this lecture series delivers—with caveats. Ehrman is engaging and well-versed, focusing on textual inconsistencies, authorship debates, and why certain writings made the cut while others didn’t.
That said, this is not theology—it’s pure historical criticism, and Ehrman often leans into his skeptical stance. If you’ve read a bit on canon formation already, much here won’t surprise you, but there are still fascinating nuggets (especially the discussion on Gnostic texts and early church disputes).
Bottom line: Insightful and informative if taken as one perspective among many, but probably not the place to start if you’re seeking a balanced or faith-affirming take on the Bible’s origins.
That said, this is not theology—it’s pure historical criticism, and Ehrman often leans into his skeptical stance. If you’ve read a bit on canon formation already, much here won’t surprise you, but there are still fascinating nuggets (especially the discussion on Gnostic texts and early church disputes).
Bottom line: Insightful and informative if taken as one perspective among many, but probably not the place to start if you’re seeking a balanced or faith-affirming take on the Bible’s origins.
May 23, 2024
Ehrman makes some assertions that cannot possibly be known. He doesn't bring up the counterpoints that would more fully flesh it out.
Still, overall, I believe most of what he said and as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the problems he points out don't matter to me at all as I believe there was a great apostasy and things lost or changed. I could certainly see why the average Christian would struggle with some of the things he points out. However, I do not agree with all he says, especially concerning apocalypse narratives. That was his weakest argument that had nothing to back it up.
Overall, it was interesting, but I actually already knew most of it to my surprise. Still, it's a good, quick overview through a critical, historical lens.
Still, overall, I believe most of what he said and as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the problems he points out don't matter to me at all as I believe there was a great apostasy and things lost or changed. I could certainly see why the average Christian would struggle with some of the things he points out. However, I do not agree with all he says, especially concerning apocalypse narratives. That was his weakest argument that had nothing to back it up.
Overall, it was interesting, but I actually already knew most of it to my surprise. Still, it's a good, quick overview through a critical, historical lens.
December 4, 2024
This was an enjoyable listen. I find myself sympathetic to Ehrman’s critical historical approach. I think that Christians of all types should really attempt to understand how the Bible was created / how little we know about the books of the Bible / how much we do know about the books of the Bible and also excluded books, and so on. There are other comments here which mention that they felt Ehrman was condescending in tone but I didn’t sense any of that, myself also being a practicing Christian as is the other commenter.
I do highly recommend this series of lectures. I also highly recommend critically analyzing the foundation of one’s beliefs. Even if one doesn’t have any particular stance regarding Christianity, it is an important listen.
I do highly recommend this series of lectures. I also highly recommend critically analyzing the foundation of one’s beliefs. Even if one doesn’t have any particular stance regarding Christianity, it is an important listen.
March 4, 2023
Even though I am an atheist (or perhaps because?) I enjoy learning about the history of arguably the most influential book of western civilization. There are numerous gospels known but four anonymous ones were chosen and subsequently named Mathew,, Mark, Luke and John. Paul, who was NOT a disciple and probably never even met Jesus , almost single-handedly saves Christianity from obscurity. Problems regarding oral histories and written words before the printing press availability were also discussed. These were 6 thirty minute lectures. I would have loved to have had this professor as a teacher.
August 12, 2025
Super interesting read i would recommend to anyone interested in the history of christianity and the bible. my issue a lot of times with books or writings related to religion is that you can very easily tell whether the author is an atheist or a believer. (richard dawkins’ writing is great when you’re an angry 17 year old skeptic looking for someone to tell you it’s okay not to believe, but now it just seems a bit overkill). with bart ehrman, there isn’t an agenda being pushed. he is simply telling the history and giving context, without telling you what to believe. my only qualm is that i wish it wasn’t just a compilation of the lecture outlines, i would’ve loved a more formal approach.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews