Loading...As promised, this is Matthew Firth’s (2019) response to my post (the previous one) in which I try to show several places in the Gospels that contain contradictions. Firth does not see a contradiction in any of the five examples I cited, and explains why, contrary to first appearance, the accounts are completely in line with each other. Read him carefully and see what you think (To make sense of his reply you may want to see what he is responding to in the previous post, but … hey, follow your heart.)
******************************
Thank-you very much, Bart, for your opening gambit. It has given me a most enjoyable afternoon of delving deeply into the Gospel texts, and I really appreciate the written format of this debate, which allows space for considered reflection, study and learning, rather than the rhetorical tennis of some other formats of debate which, while they produce spectacle, rarely achieve deep insight either for the proponents or the onlookers.
I will now take the cases in the order in which you proposed them.
1. The case of Jairus’ daughter can, I think, be usefully looked at in terms of the Greek Text, Matthew’s practice of ‘telescoping’ stories about Jesus, and the emotional reality of the situation.
In Mark 5.23 we see that Jairus says ‘thugatrion mou eschatos echei.’ A wooden translation of this would be ‘my little daughter is at the end.’ In Matthew 9.18 we see that Jairus says ‘thugater mou arti eteleutesen.’ A wooden translation of this would be ‘my daughter just now died.’ But, the word ‘arti’ is not as rigid as one might think. It can mean ‘just now’ (immediate past), ‘now’ (immediate present), and it can also be used to suggest a sense of inevitable impending reality, as is the case in Matthew 3.15. This being the case, the word can be rendered ‘even now’. Also, while the word ‘eteleutesen’, being in the aorist tense, can simply be rendered ‘died’, it can also be used to create a sense of being at the very point of death, as is the case in Hebrews 11.22. So, a possible rendering of the sentence is ‘my daughter just now was at the point of death.’ So it seems to me that the Greek in both Mark and Matthew can be seen as creating a sense of impending inevitability.
Even if this is not the case, Matthew’s common practice of ‘telescoping’ or abbreviating the stories about Jesus (a common and very acceptable practice among ancient writers) can help us to see what is going on. Mark has Jairus pleading with Jesus to restore his daughter, then there is the intervening healing of the woman subject to bleeding, then messengers come to report that the daughter is dead, then Jesus goes to restore the daughter. Matthew abbreviates the story by cutting out the arrival of the messengers, and has, in one reading of the Greek, Jairus reporting his daughter’s death. Thus a two stage process has been trimmed down to one stage. Given that this was an acceptable ancient practice, and given that both accounts would have been circulating at the time, there is no sense of a particular problem here.
Firth makes some intriguing arguments to resolve these apparent problems. Blog members can see what they are. Join the blog and you can too! Click here for membership options
>> 3. … The omission of a backstory does not mean that there was no backstory, especially in the context of ancient writers being very happy about trimming out material that we might think is vital.
… the family left for Egypt until the death of Herod (you say that they made this journey on foot, but the text does not say this)
… Joseph then has another dream which prompts him to return the family to Israel, but he avoids Judea due to the reign of Archelaus, and another dream prompts him to take the family back to Nazareth.
Lately, I’ve been reading about dualities in string theory, and how it is that all five of them are really just mathematical manifestations of one grand (M) theory. It’s certainly been really tough processing these things, but, I tell ya, string theory intricacies pale in comparison with Mr. Firth’s explanations.
Nope. This is typical apologetic nonsense. While I appreciate his ability to twist into a pretzel, #YogaPro, the fact that he clearly ignores is that when one gospel says one thing and another gospel says another, telling people that they say the same thing is seriously dishonest. Lying, as we know, makes baby Yahweh cry.
To say there are contradictions in Mark 5 is an understatement. One of the first “truths” I figured out on my own was there is no “devil”. Once I came to terms with that revelation I knew something else was going on in the exorcist stories.
Briefly, Mark 5, the entire chapter goes together to form a literary biblical masterpiece. The exorcist and pigs going into the sea, Jairus (name BTW is traced to H215), daughter who is 12, the woman with the 12-yr issue of blood that touches hem of Jesus garment, even getting in the ship and going back and forth to the other side has a collective meaning.
So we ask ourselves is any of this true? I would say not or at least not like it is written.
The more concerning question is if Matthew Firth’s can not see the collective biblical meaning of Mark 5 and why the contradictions from the other gospels all I can say is…
“Are you kidding me?” I would not be good at a biblical debate…lol
“In Luke 24.36 they are ‘still talking about this.’ The text does not require an immediate jump from v.35 to v.36 with no temporal period in between. Indeed, the sense of ‘still talking about this’ could imply a protracted period of wrestling with the tumultuous events that they were discussing. It may be that Matthew’s Galilee encounter took place in this period.”
Let’s be honest…if this was any other narrative, nobody would read this as there being temporal time in between verses. The language itself very heavily implies it being immediate, and never before have I heard a scholar – or anyone else – suggest otherwise. The level of mental gymnastics here to solve the contradiction is rather extreme, in my opinion.
If we play by this reasoning, I could suggest any number of things happening in between verses just for lacking an “immediately after that…”
I think the lesson of this is you can basically eliminate a contradiction in absolutely anything.
Alice says 2+2=4
Bob says 2+2=5
Respected Reverend Firth says really there is no necessary discrepancy. Alice may be appearing to say 2 and 2 are four but her emphasis is on the numbers being added and we have to understand, being a woman and speaking fast as they’re prone to doing, snipping the decimal point follow-ups .4 and .6 respectively
Her emphasis is on the journey not the end result and as ancient women mathematicians are known for that taking it into context there is no necessary contradiction with Bob! Bob using computerspeak understandably chops off the decimals at each of the two 2s but correctly adds them to equal 5 as is known of ancient male mathematicians inspired by the Spirit of Calculation.
Frankly, considering all of these details, the notion of a contradiction, of any sort really, between Alice and Bob is simply unfounded, shallow cursory reading of the texts!
But I thank you good Ehrman for your astute challenge-you’ve forced me to plunge the depths of ancient math on a more profound level than I would have on my own!
The only reason to insist on the absolute accuracy of the texts is to maintain control over people. People might not believe if the texts were not the inerrant word of God. Mr. Firth is twisting into a pretzel to maintain a rigid control over the message and ultimately other people. Critical exegesis is necessary to free the people and find the truth.
I agree with Jesus Christ Divided on this one. In addition, it is this kind of thinking that has practical consequences in the real world. I see more and more that this ‘square peg in a round hole’ justification is being used by those in the secular political world with significant influence by the Neo-fundamentalist political right to justify practically anything materially and politically.
Re: #3
Wirth’s version still doesn’t beat the guy you recently debated who suggested Joseph had a house in Nazareth and a house in Bethlehem!
Has anyone ever collected the attempts by apologists to reconcile the Nativity stories? That would be an entertaining volume!
It would be. ANd nope, I haven’t seen such a thing.
Whew!
The explanation of #1 is plausible to me, but I’m certainly no authority on Ancient Greek.
As for the rest, the principle of Occam’s razor should be applied. The simplest explanation is likely to be correct, not his tortured theories, especially regarding the genealogy. The gospels have contradictions.
Regarding Jairus’ supposed daughter the straight forward grammatical meaning is that she died. You would need textual context to try and change it. You have made no effort to do so. Regarding the specifics:
“But, the word ‘arti’ is not as rigid as one might think. It can mean ‘just now’ (immediate past), ‘now’ (immediate present), and it can also be used to suggest a sense of inevitable impending reality, as is the case in Matthew 3.15.”
https://biblehub.com/greek/737.htm
The root word is “end”. It is specifically used to distinguish between an event (like death) and a process (like dying). You concede it normally means death. You claim an example where it means dying, 3:15:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3&version=NRSVUE
“14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.”
The “now” above sure sounds like just another specific time marker. How it can mean “a sense of inevitable impending reality”, God knows.
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
Read my response and see how I address this.
I think he is delusional. (Yes, omitting a portion of additional detail is not really contradiction, but most of the rest of his claims smack of desperation)
The contradictions between the four Gospels that came to be accepted into the official canon should have been just as apparent to the Patriarchs of the early Church, such as Iraneus: how did they reconcile the discrepancies?
Their conciliatory approach differed from Marcion, who produced an edited version of the Gospel of Luke (much like Thomas Jefferson), and asserted that this was the only true Gospel.
Off topic q – in regards to the synoptic problem would you agree that the ordering of the pericopes, that Matthew/Luke rarely if ever agree against the Markan ordering, leave only two possibilities?
1) that Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke both *independently* copied Mark
2) Matthew/Luke wrote first and Mark had access to both when composing his gospel?
I’d agree those are the best options, but of course there are others. Hundreds of others. E.g., All three used a non-existent source that had all the stories in all three and it came out in two versions and….
Ok but isn’t it very damaging to the Farrer hypothesis – doesn’t Markan priority and the ordering of pericopes almost require something like Q and Matthew and Luke not knowing each other?
It claims that Mark was first; Matthew used Mark; Luke used both Mark and Matthew. I may have mis-expressed myself earlier.
Yes Farrer says Luke used Matthew and both used mark. But (without hypothesizing lost gospels) we accept two good explanations for the order of periocopes
(1) Mark first and Matthew/Luke *independently* use of Mark
(2) Matthew/Luke first and Mark uses both
then shouldn’t those who claim Luke knew Matthew really be arguing for something like Griesbach rather than Markan priority?
Without lost gospels isn’t the order of pericopes in the synoptics very damaging to the Farrer hypothesis?
I think so, yes.
In a interview in March, you mentioned that the idea of the resurrection could’ve started off as a lie but it was not the more probable case. How improbable is it, and why do you think that it is unlikely?
I think maybe you misheard me?
I may have misheard you or just misunderstood you. Please correct me:
You said in an interview it Paulogia that Peter and the disciples may have been duplicitous about the resurrection Jesus. That it was possible that Peter thought the message was too important, and there was a theory of the resurrection story being fabricated.
I just wanted to know if this id what you meant. That it was possible Peter (or the others) fabricated the resurrection story or were deceitful about it. That they didn’t *truly* believe it happened but preached it anyway.
I don’t think I said that. Maybe you didn’t catch the nuance of my words? I may have said that this was a view that has been propounded by *other* people, but it’s not a view I’ve ever stated. Or if I did, I simply switched words around inadvertently (like when someone leaves a “not” out of the ten commandments!)
I see. That’s on me. So, just to make sure:
1. The resurrection story *wasn’t* “created” out of deceit. It began as genuine belief. Something the disciples really believe had happened?
That’s my view, yes.
It strikes me that Firths’ leading argument regarding the Jairus contradiction is that the English-language translations of Mark 5.23 and Matthew 9.18 are too “rigid” relative to the original Greek-language passages, thus creating a mere appearance of contradiction. If this is so, one would think that a conscientious New Testament scholar and minister like Firth would press authorities for revising and rectifying English-language translations, rather than simply preach from a condescending vantage point that insists he, as someone aware of the original Greek, enjoys special knowledge about the “inerrancy” of these passages that, in their English translations, are so patently and demonstrably contradictory. But I suppose Firth is not the only theologically-oriented minister who seems content with a “gnostic” understanding of the New Testament, however misguided and misinformed the unwashed masses might be.
A google search discloses a sanctimonious homophobia hand-in-glove with Firth’s doctrinaire “Christian” apologetics:
The Rev’d Matthew Firth, Priest in Charge of St Cuthbert’s & Holy Trinity, Darlington, said that he was “committed to our churches welcoming all people to experience the gospel of Jesus Christ, but the values of Pride are, in general, incompatible with that gospel in terms of how they conflict with Christian doctrine and Christian ethics.”
While on the surface Matthew Firth’s responses may appear facile, the omission of a convincing argument does not mean there is no convincing argument, especially in the context of the Christian Apologist tendency to use reasoning that sounds strange. Given this understanding, it is perfectly plausible that in the course of preparing these responses, Matthew Firth had thoughts that, had he shared them, would have convinced us. So clearly he wins.
Hmmm… Interesting logic.
I know, my modest attempts can’t compete with real Apologetic logic, e.g. “Since disbelief in God and the Bible as His Word is irrational, there will always be aspects of every unbeliever’s case that cannot be defended.” — Kyle Butt, “Reflections on My Debate with Bart Ehrman”
Kyle Butt reflected on our debate? OK then!
“Also, while the word ‘eteleutesen’, being in the aorist tense, can simply be rendered ‘died’, it can also be used to create a sense of being at the very point of death, as is the case in Hebrews 11.22. So, a possible rendering of the sentence is ‘my daughter just now was at the point of death.’”
“can simply be rendered ‘died’”? The Greek aorist tense indicates a simple past tense:
https://ezraproject.com/greek-tenses-explained/#:~:text=The%20aorist%20tense%20is%20the,results%20are%20still%20in%20effect.
“it can also be used to create a sense of being at the very point of death, as is the case in Hebrews 11.22.”
Hebrews 11:22 is the nominative (present/active) tense:
https://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/11-22.htm
This is what the critical apparatus show. My guess is there is a manuscript/s that has the aorist form and the Apologist you got this from used it in their apology.
So the evidence indicates that the simple and clear grammatical meaning is “died”.
The grammatical context also supports “died”:
https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/9.htm
“18…My daughter is even now dead: BUT come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. 19And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.”
Note the conjunctive BUT, here used as a contrast, contrasting death and life. So the daughter is not the only thing that is dead here.
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
I think (though not sure) that it was Jean-François Lyotard who stated that the main role of the two metanarratives in which he was interested (emancipation and totalisation) was “protecting various consciousnesses from doubt.” Sounds a lot like Fr Firth and his ilk.
Bart, may i ask three sort of related questions :
Reading Luke 3 15-22, the mentioning of John the Baptist being imprisoned occurs before any mention of Jesus being baptized. Some have speculated that this could imply Luke believing that Jesus was baptized by someone other than JtB, and that Luke either doesn’t know or won’t tell.
1. What are your thoughts on concluding that Luke implies Jesus was baptized by someone other than JtB ?
2. If scholars have established Markian priority, why would Luke have worded the imprisonment / baptism scenario in this way, potentially different to Matthew and Mark ?
3. If Jesus was born divine, as many Christians believe, why the need for baptism ?
Thank you
I think it’s pretty clear in Luke that Jesus’ baptism was connected with John, no (3:21)? 3:20 is often taken to be a foreshadowing of what will come later. Matthew claims that Jesus got baptized “to fulfill righteousness” (i.e., it was the right thing to do, possibly to show others what they needed to do). But yes, if it was a baptism for the remision of sins, why would Jesus need to be baptized? My sense isthat hte baptism story in Mark (our first account) does not at all presuppose that Jesus was divine prior to the event.
Thank you Bart.
Hmm… I suppose that both robbers hurling insults at Jesus can be reconciled as well. Maybe Matthew, who must undoubtably be an eye-witness, was in the nose bleed section, along with Mark, and only saw/heard babbles; not realizing the full extent of the conversation. Luke, another certain eye-witness was closer, so heard the specifics; and thus, could confirm that one of the two robbers was on Jesus’s side. This would also explain the last seven words of Jesus- to some, it was a guess. I mean, have you ever been to a crowded event? It’s hard to hear, ya know? To another in the front row, the words were loud and clear. And so, to me.. I see no contradiction here.