(29 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...In this series of posts on how I got interested in textual criticism, I’ve had a number of people indicate that they don’t see how the problems posed by our manuscripts did not absolutely destroy my evangelical faith. By implication, I think, they are wondering why evangelicals broadly, to a person, don’t see these problems and realize that they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to their belief in the Bible.
The logic these commenters are applying is one that I discuss in my book Misquoting Jesus. If the evangelical belief is rooted in the sense that the Bible contains the very words that God inspired, and if a study of our manuscripts reveals that there are thousands – hundreds of thousands – of places where these words were changed, so that there are some places where we cannot know what the authors actually wrote, then isn’t that an insurmountable problem? Why would God inspire the words of Scripture (that would take a mighty miracle!) if he did not make sure these words were never changed (that too would take a mighty miracle! But this second miracle would be no greater than the miracle of inspiration). The fact is – as is evident to anyone with any knowledge of the manuscripts at all – the copyists of the Bible changed its words, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. And we don’t have the divinely inspired originals themselves. If God didn’t make sure his people got his words, why should we think he inspired the words in the first place? Doesn’t textual criticism destroy the foundation of evangelical faith?
That’s the logic, and I understand it full well (since, as I said, I’ve spelled it out for years!). It is the logic that helped me move away from evangelical faith. But in itself, with nothing else to back it up, I don’t think it would have had that powerful an effect on me. For years as an evangelical, I simply didn’t find it an overwhelmingly persuasive argument.
It is funny (as in “strange,” not as in “humorous”) how different people see the force of logical argumentation differently. But they do. People simply see things differently.
This semester I am …
To See the Rest of this Post you NEED TO BE A MEMBER! If you don’t belong yet, JOIN! You’ll get lots of stuff, for very little cost, and every dime goes to charity. SO GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
A lot of people fail to see the difference between faith and dogma. Dogma is something we have in place of faith, because faith is hard. Dogma is easy. But faith endures. Textual analysis can undermine dogma. It can’t undermine true faith. Because faith isn’t fact-based. And as important as facts are, they are not the same thing as truth. “Love is better than hate.” Not a fact-based statement. It never can be. But it’s the truth. We can’t ever prove it. But all men and women of good will, of all religions and none, believe it to be true. We have faith. When Huckleberry Finn rejects the dogma instilled in him by his elders, because it tells him to betray his friend Jim, says “All right, I’ll go to Hell!”–that’s faith of the highest order.
Faith is never threatened by an acknowledgement of the facts, because facts and faith are parallel realities. We need both. We need not make them enemies.
But, if we speak of being dogmatic and how dogmatic a person is, whether he is a person of faith or not, then there is an intimate relationship between faith and degree of dogmatism. It seems naive to think everyone who has faith has the same strength of faith or that everyone sticks to their faith dogmatically. Facts DO change the faith of some but not of others. And I think “love is better than hate” is an empirically demonstrable fact. People get along better, societies work better when the hallmarks of love–patience, generosity, justice, compassion, and forgiveness–are stronger than in other societies. I think that’s why we came to value love: we’ve seen the results.
I guess it’s always the assumptions that one brings into the debate, which links well to a debate I watched between you and Dr Wallace on whether or not the original NT is lost. I only have YouTube videos to judge from, but I tend to like and respect him. He seems to start with that assumption of “in the beginning, God. . .”, and that definitely affects his outcomes. If I’m unpacking him correctly, he seems to be saying that the vast majority of errors are human made, and God ensured multiple lines of transmission so that smart people like Dr Ehrman and Dr Wallace could discover that original work? Well, maybe Dr Wallace can discover it (lol)?
I have a priest who is a former Episcopalian who really does believe you are a spawn of Satan. I, however, wish I had some talent that would enable me to be able to repay the service you have done. I’m now reading the gospels and finding parts that I used to think were to be read historically, but now see clearly that they are to be read metaphorically. Is that the first step on the road to agnosticism? Maybe, but it’s getting to be an ever more fascinating trip.
Interesting! Most Episcopalians I know are fairly simpatico with my work. Not so much the Free Will Baptists….
rburos, It’s not necessarily a “first step on the road to agnosticism.” Even if you reject the entire New Testament, it wouldn’t mean you would cease believing in God. You could be a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or something else.
Good article!
It’s posts like these that make the cost of the membership worth while.
“Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference” – Mark Twain.
“All things are possible with God” is another conversation-ender. If you hear that in a discussion, you’d be prudent to smile and walk away.
There’s a meme on the Internet where God is talking to Jesus. And God says to Jesus, “Time to reveal our existence to humanity, son. How should we do it?” And Jesus answers, “How about we speak through raving charlatans, who write down our words in soon to be dead languages that require painstaking interpretation and study?” And God says, “How trolly. I love it.”
That pretty much sums up how I feel about this.
What is very clear to many Christians is not clear to me at all. I must be a fool to spend time thinking about these matters. I also find myself wondering “If there is Christian or non-Christian God — which I would not be surprised if there was or wasn’t — “Why couldn’t God have done a better job of providing more persuasive evidence?” At this point, I can honestly say to my Maker if I do meet him or her that I truly had an open heart and mind and just couldn’t bring myself to believe in Christianity but tried to be a good human being instead. If I am damned for this, then what he hel* can I do? I don’t even understand what the heck is meant by “In the beginning was the Word”. And I majored in English Literature in college! I mean do I have to learn Greek or Hebrew or another language to understand what the Bible says?
Also, a minister I knew told me this long time ago. He knew a fellow who was not at all a likable person; in fact, he was an “ass****”. So when a third-party told him that the fellow had become a Christian, he expected the fellow to have changed and was now a likable person. However, when the minister met the fellow again, the minister found out that the fellow was still an “ass****”, and the minister then realized that you can still be a Christian ass****.”
While atheists make up somewhere between 6 and 20% of the American population (depending on which day you get them on), the self-identified atheist population of American prisons is less than 1%. Go figure that one out.
Similar to how I put it to my Mormon son-in-law: We can spread the message that God loves humanity and wants humanity to love him and be close to him by choosing a prophet in a time when that would seem really weird to most people to form a religion that, after almost 200 years, will have 15.5 million members and which would send its best teachers out–18-21-year-old whippersnappers out called “elders” (ha ha ha ha)–to persuade the other 7.5 billion people of the truth of the most important news in mankind’s history.
I remember hearing, when I was young, a “theory” about Joseph. I *think* the idea was that he had a half-brother (different fathers) who died, leaving a widow but no children. Joseph was required, by either law or custom, to marry the widow and (assuming he could) father children who would be considered, legally, his half-brother’s. And that could have led to two traditions about Joseph’s paternal ancestry – one of them actually being his half-brother’s ancestry. It was thought that it “didn’t really matter,” since both lines led back to David.
Of course, I don’t believe any of it! But believers can come up with “explanations” for almost anything.
Yes, that is a theory floated around scholarly circles too. It is shown to be completely wrong by Raymond Brown in his book Birth of the Messiah.
Great post, Bart, and entirely consistent with my experience. I was raised in an evangelical (Southern Baptist) environment and completely committed myself to those beliefs. I was a youth minister in college and grad school and seriously considered seminary. I was also a collegiate debater and took great pride in my ability to study, explain, and debate apologetics. I also simply *knew* the Bible was inerrant and the inspired word of God, and any apparent contradictions must have had reasonable resolutions. Over time, especially after I moved away from home to attend a prestigious law school, issues with the Bible and my faith in general piled up. I fought hard–for *years*–to hold onto my beliefs, but evidence and reason finally won out.
The experience showed me how deeply and sincerely wrong we can be, even about things that we consider most important to us and about which we are most certain.
I don’t think any argument can prove or disprove Christianity. You can still HOPE or not hope that a just God exists and we will all be judged ultimately.
Disproving Christianity by revealing the porous nature of its foundations, is relatively easy. Dispelling faith is another matter. I question religions all the time but I don’t challenge faith, even though I don’t share it. As Robert Langdon put it, “faith is a gift I have yet to receive”.
So true. It takes courage to confront our long and deeply held beliefs.
I once had a philosophy teacher who said, “Philosophy is the ongoing cross-examination of our most basic presuppositions about who we are.” He said that he and many others consider the death of Socrates to be much more tragic than the death of Jesus.
Bart, with regard to the different genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke; what was your own opinion on these differences when you were a Christian? Also, have you any information on what Bruce Metzger’s views were with regard to this matter?
I suppose I thought that Luke’s genealogy was of Mary, not Joseph. I’m not sure if that’s what Metzger thought or not. But in any event, all one has to do is actually read Luke and see that it’s not true!
In my line of work, counseling, before my disability, my job was also trying to get people to see things differently. It is difficult to change because our defense mechanisms work so well and once we have a world view we are dedicated towards it and it is easy to rationalize and dismiss those things which do not fit our world view. This is really true for all of us which is why we need to really think critically about what we believe so we don’t become close minded.
Sorry if this sounded as if I was sermonizing. I have become a theistic agnostic. I have not closed the door to there being more than just this material world and it is possible that some higher intelligence or being exists. I just don’t know and therefore cannot rule it out. But I do not believe this being intervenes much in our affairs so that may make me a deist. I have a sense of spirituality and I am a practicing Buddhist. In my practice of spirituality I put into practice spiritual principles that I find do work in life. I had a minister once tell me I am more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy and that is true! But in most debates I have been in I often side with atheists!
In my training as a therapist (and in Buddhism) is to become aware that we have biases and opinions that are emotional and not always built on facts, evidence and logic. Great post!!!
My beliefs are similar to yours but I am not practicing anything. I am waiting for any sincere Christian to profess to me that he or she really doesn’t know if Jesus or God exists but he or she believes in Christianity because it helps him or her deal with life and provide much needed support and guidance. I actually find many parts of the Bible very moving and bring me close to tears. Lol Thanks for your post.
Strange how you go from “it is possible that some higher intelligence or being exists” to “I do not believe this being intervenes much in our affairs.” Deists aren’t agnostics about the basic belief that a supreme divine being exists. I am the same in that “I have not closed the door to there being more than just this material world.” I think there are more dimensions than we have dreamed of. But, for me, that has never necessitated the existence of a god or gods. There could be a spiritual realm or dimension but no God. I am agnostic about the existence of God too. But, since I am, I do not speculate about whether he/she/it is active or apart from human affairs. BTW, my wife was a psychotherapist (LCSW) for thirty years or so and feels Buddhism, more than any tradition, works best for her and she used many of its teachings (e.g., regarding attachment and ego) in her practice.
This is so clearly communicated, and it’s the problem I think about almost on a daily basis. Why did I not see all the obvious problems when I had faith? Why don’t people with whom I discuss these obvious issues, see them as problematic. And more importantly, how do I know I’m not doing the same thing now?
I watched a video by James White, and he made the point that, based on the books that you’ve authored, you are essentially attempting to get people to disbelieve…that was the experience you went through, and it should be everyone’s experience. It’s a really slippery slope…when your perspective on something changes, and you see people believing exactly the way you used to (and you so clearly see why you were mistaken), you want to convince them of what you have been convinced of.
Well, I certainly do want to challenge people’s beliefs — especially when these beliefs can be so harmful to others (rabid conservatives like White do not promote views that are socially helpful, in my rather strong opinion)
Professor, speaking of the genealogy in Luke, you ask, “So what’s the point of showing a genealogy for Jesus if Jesus is not connected to the genealogy???” The author of Luke got this from somewhere. Is it possible that the genealogy, as it existed in Luke’s day, developed at a time prior to (or perhaps independent of and ignorant of)
the development of the belief in the Virgin Birth ? Absent the belief in the Virgin Birth – and disregarding the errors – the genealogy then would make sense because Joseph would be Jesus’ father. What I find fascinating in all of this is why such an obvious problem would be retained in the evolution of this Gospel even after the Virgin Birth became generally accepted as a doctrine of faith?
Yes, I think that’s entirely possible!
Never thought of this before. Since the virgin birth and the genealogies are only mentioned in Matthew and Luke, it doubly confounds it for me. Seems like the authors of Matthew and Luke would be the least likely to provide a genealogy that went through Joseph, unless they simply thought that Joseph was chosen by God as the “nominal” father of Jesus because of the alleged lineage, and that was deemed enough by the authors of Matthew and Luke to squeeze Joseph into the lineage of David? Neither of them seemed to recognize a conflict between the virgin birth and the genealogies, which is really odd in the case of Luke especially, unless he was unaware of the gospel of Matthew. Why on earth would he write a genealogy that conflicted with one written for a Jewish audience that he knew pre-existed his. It seems that Matthew, being written to a primarily Jewish audience, would be more interested in the genealogy than would Luke, and Luke, written to a Gentile audience, would be inclined toward what I consider a more pagan idea such as a virgin birth. That both of them included these obvious conflicts is baffling, unless of course, neither saw them as a conflict for some reason that is not apparent. I would love to see some scholarly theories about this (in a Trade book of course).
Outstanding blog post. I believe this is actually the root cause of most conflicts in the world.
This discussion should be a college course itself: “The Ability to Change our Beliefs.”
Do they even teach logic in college anymore?
Oh yes, logic still gets taught. But it’s obvoiusly not required!
The parallels between this post and our current presidential race are extensive. Too many on both sides see the competition through a distorted lens. Logic and reason don’t apply. We can only hope that the political conflict doesn’t follow the course of the religious parallels.
Many schools have changed the course to “Critical Thinking.” Sometimes philosophy students take Logic and other take Critical Thinking. It became mandated years ago in California that teachers in high school (maybe earlier) not have a separate course in critical thinking but incorporate it into their other classes. But, for some teachers, that might be like mandating them to teach the theory of evolution in their science classes.
My starting point is that beliefs are tools that help us reach our goals. The closer those beliefs approximate objective truth the better we’re able to achieve our goals. Beliefs can help us understand and adapt to the world even if they are flawed. If a flawed belief helps us achieve our goals we should be careful about discarding it until we find a belief that more closely approximates reality. Often we do not so much change our beliefs as we refine them. Of course with religious belief there is a huge temptation to wishful thinking and likely no crucial experimental test of those beliefs until we die. So we need to be extra careful with religious beliefs. Still, because so much is at stake, I think it makes sense to devote a fair amount of effort to the search for religious truth as long as there is more than a negligible chance of, eg, there being a God.
Very good point. It’s true that as one becomes wiser that things are not as clear as it once seemed. As one human being navigating this uncertain world, I have a great sympathy for anyone doing the same, even those — believers and un-believers included — who seem so certain. Believe me, I have met many Christians who felt pity for me as I walked away thinking “Do they know that I am also feeling pity for them?”
Well, I would not suggest to a Hitler or a racist or ethnic or nationalistic bigot that they hold on to their beliefs until they find a belief that more approximates reality–especially if they were acting, in their beliefs, against others. This reminds me of a visit by the Maharishi (are you old enough to remember?) to our university and a member of the audience asked him, “Since you teach that meditation can help anyone achieve their goals in life, what would happen [it was the time of the Cold War] if both Nixon and Kosygin began meditating?”
In my view, since my values and lack of knowledge about a god existing and my doubts about it mean that I do not know that a lot is at stake, I would not “devote a fair amount of effort to the search for religious truth.” I know some people believe a lot is at stake but that is part of their religious belief or truth, not mine. There are so many different versions of alleged religious truth that I am more inclined to believe none of them are right than I am to believe one of them must be right. It is enough to realize there is likely more to this universe than meets the eye and live in its joys and mystery.
Well said!
Hi Bart,
About the genealogy of Jesus and whether Jesus is connected to the genealogy of Joseph, is the viewpoint that “Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph, and in those times the adopted son also adopt the genealogy” valid?
Yeah, it’s about the only way to make sense of the geneaologies!
Logic and argumentation are ultimately human inventions, subject to human failings and only as strong as the commonality of the language used to support them. It’s hard to claim absolutism-or even high ground-when we don’t check first principles down to the meaning of the word “is.”
I certainly don’t feel superior to anyone about anything! There’s countless people more intelligent than me and able to figure things out that I can’t. However, it’s much easier to be understanding with an 18 yr. old not seeing something about the bible than with an older adult who’s went decade after decade after decade believing the same thing, never changing or growing or questioning anything. They get on in the world being completely clueless and their lives are just dandy. Some days that makes me envious. On other days, I’m just exasperated.
Hello everyone (especially Bart!). My first time posting and I have to comment on this. I, too, struggle trying to understand why some people hold beliefs or political views that are so different from mine (obviously, if they just saw things from another point of view they’d get it?). Ha! These are bright educated people and yet I struggle with trying to grasp their point of view or reasons. I listen to their reasoning and usually just shrug my shoulders and think “their brain must just be wired differently than mine”. Extensive reading and really listening to what they are trying to say can help. Often, what I hear behind the rationalization that they give is an element of fear. It is really hard for some people to think they are wrong. I learned long ago that I am wrong about so many things that I became comfortable in changing my mind. I think it is a skill that one can learn if they are willing but that first encounter with cognitive dissonance is very uncomfortable. Many just lock down their brains and build a wall rather than face it head on. I have found that the more one is faced with opposing opinions the better the chance that a foreign idea might just make sense down the road. It takes time. Love your work, Bart. Keep it up. Patty
Brilliant post…Twain once said something to the effect of “The ease with which I am able to dismiss another fellow’s faith has caused me to seriously question my own.” I think we could make it even more general and replace “faith” with “perspective” to reflect your general point.
That old beam in our own eye, eh?
You don’t use the word ‘objective’ (in that sense) anymore? Why not?
I don’t think as human beings — finite creatures rooted completely in our own lives, cultures, backgrounds, heritages, assumptions, word-views, beliefs, disbeliefs — we have the possibility of complete objectivity. I don’t think it exists. (So I’m not saying we are just subjective. I’m saying the dichotomy of subjective-objective actually doesn’t exist. There is no objectivity)
1. I would lump all of this under the concept of “confirmation bias.” Even in science, I learned long ago, that certain projects are more likely to get research funding if they agree with the dominant view regarding an issue.
2. I always admire your tolerance. It is really hard for me to have such tolerance when the evidence about a matter, say the tenets of Mormonism, is really overwhelming.
3. A good current example is the widespread support of Trump when many would conclude that the evidence that he is not qualified for the job is overwhelming and, again like your students, his supporters always have somewhat convoluted ways of justifying their view.
Yes, I’m not saying I’m completely tolerant and think everyone’s views are equally valid. Quite the contrary. Especially when it comes to both politics and religion!!! (But I do try to understand why people see the world so differently from me.)
I was a casual Christian long after an agnostic friend who went to Bible study with me utterly destroyed my vision of a loving God worth worshipping, based on that same Bible. It was my marriage to an atheist that made me evaluate and discard religion as of no value to me personally.
I see a harsh reaction as some people leave religion, though. As a practicing pop psychologist, I assume they are both angry and embarrassed that they believed a fiction as if it were reality. They seem to feel lied to, and they can go on rants about lies, lying, and liars. It is odd that despite years of having lived in a particular pair of shoes (being a believer) they have no empathy for those who currently see the world through the lens of a believer.
Hurrah! for your last paragraph above. I am in my mid-50s, just a few years behind you, and about the only sense of certainty I have remaining is that true study is an invitation to humility. My primary interest is history, and I am continually struck by how little we actually know, but rather consider true with widely varying degrees of confidence. And that truth and confidence are always subject to revision given new evidence and/or new approaches to evaluating and understanding evidence. I find that humility naturally lends itself to grace, meaning that I can more easily live at peace with myself and with others. Such a state is a journey of a lifetime, and I thank you so very much for sharing the experience through your scholarship and your willingness to reflect deeply and publicly about your own journey.
Great post dude.
As a Roman Catholic, I do not believe the Word of God is a book, but a person named Jesus. I also believe the writings of the New Testament are inspired and true, but that what they express in terms of meaning is absolutely constrained by the language and concepts available to people living in the first century. As a student of semiotics, I understand that the words I read in my English bible are entirely dependent upon how well the translators understand both the Greek and the cultural/historical context of the times. That is why I appreciate your work, as well as that of other biblical scholars such as N. T. Wright, John Dominic Crossan and Dale Martin. My favorite YouTube videos are those that feature you together with them on the same panel. Unfortunately, they are hard to find and often incomplete.
One question I have to which I can’t seem to find the answer is “What did is mean for Jesus to call God “Father” within the context of 1st Century Palestine?” – How would the people hearing this at the time have interpreted its meaning. I find that as the concepts of “father” and “mother” become increasingly synonymous with “parent” in our modern understanding of these terms, it becomes increasingly difficult to know what Jesus meant by it and how that meaning would best translate to our present reality. If you have the chance to respond, I would be so very grateful! Thanks.
I’m not *quite* sure I know the nuance of your question. But the short answer is that Jesus seems to have understood a father to be a loving parent who would do only what was good for his children, and God was like that for us, his children.
This is one of the best posts I have read on this subject! I teach US History in a community college, and I try to explain the concepts you outlined above to students on the first day of class. I tell them that its my job to challenge their biases, and create cognitive dissonance. As far as i’m concerned, if I’m not creating a degree of cognitive dissonance, I’m wasting my time and theirs.
Fundamentalists will respond that, of course, the genealogies are different in Matthew and Luke since one reflects Joseph (the legal line) and one reflects Mary, the Davidic line. No one knows for sure since all the records were destroyed. Believers should be able to debate and respond to challenges that you and others raise about the Bible.
Miracles cant be disproved. Jesus’ resurrection was a miracle, life (if we can define it) is a miracle and many believe the bible as it reflects progressive revelation is a miracle.
Yes, when someone tells me that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s, I ask them to read the text!!
Bart – I found that, after I “left the faith,” one unfortunate side effect was that I lost my self-confidence. Did you have that experience? And, if so, how have you worked through it? Losing a bit of self-confidence was probably necessary, at least in my case, given that a huge part of the problem was over-confidence in my own beliefs. But, for awhile at least, I was plagued with a frequently paralyzing doubt about virtually *everything.* It took me at least a few months to bounce back. Can you relate to this at all?
I think I had the opposite reaction, a kind of surge in confidence that I had finally realized the truth!
I remember hearing how one line is for Mary and one is for Joseph. Could that be the case or why not?
Read them and see. Both are explicit. They are the family lines of Joseph.
DR Ehrman:
Your Comment:
The fact is – as is evident to anyone with any knowledge of the manuscripts at all – the copyists of the Bible changed its words, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. And we don’t have the divinely inspired originals themselves.
My Comment:
The fact that the copyists perverted the words of God shouldn’t surprise scholars. The same thing happened with the Old Testament writings.
By the time Jeremiah lived in the latter part of the seventh century BCE into the sixth century BCE. the original words of the Living God were perverted by the scribes. Jeremiah testifies to this fact in Jeremiah 8:8 and Jeremiah 23:36 (bible references below)
Jeremiah 8:8-“How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
Jeremiah 23:36-“For you will no longer remember the oracle of the LORD, because every man’s own word will become the oracle, and you have perverted the words of the living God, the LORD of hosts, our God.
Your Comment:
If God didn’t make sure his people got his words, why should we think he inspired the words in the first place? Doesn’t textual criticism destroy the foundation of evangelical faith?
My Comment;
God did make sure The Ten Commandments were not edited by writing them on tablets of stone.
According to 1 Kings 6:1, four hundred and eighty years had passed since the children of Israel had come out of Egypt when King Solomon began constructing the Temple in Jerusalem.
Also according to 1 Kings 8:9, and 2 Chronicles 5:10, the children of Israel still had the two original tablets of stone which Moses had stored inside the Arch of the Covenant.
My point is, that the original Ten Commandments were not altered, and were still in their possession; kept in the Arch of the Covenant.
1 Kings 8:9-There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the sons of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.
2 Chronicles 5:10-There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets which Moses put there at Horeb, where the LORD made a covenant with the sons of Israel, when they came out of Egypt.
We would be wiser if we try to understand why God does things the way he does them, than to assume how he should’ve done them, or how he should do them according to our own estimation.
You talk about the story of the stone tablets and the ark as if you have some good reason (evidence) for thinking the story is historically true. That baffles me. Also, why do you assume that, when prophets are criticizing the scribes for changing God’s words, that those changed words are sometimes what the copyists gave us in the Bible? If the copyists DID change them, where are the original words that were changed? If the Ten Commandments did last the first few hundred years, what evidence do you have that copyists didn’t change those too later?
DR ehrman:
Your Comment:
It is striking that both genealogies claim to be presenting the genealogical tree of Joseph, the husband of Mary. But they are literally different genealogies.
My Comment:
It is also striking, that scholars knowing that a document is not historically reliable yet persist in using it to ascertain historical facts about Jesus.
It’s like a witness at a trial. You have to figure out where their testimony is helpful.
If the witness was not an eyewitness his or her testimony is conjecture.
Cheito, the same applies to Jeremiah’s “witness” to the scribes’ behavior and the “documents”telling the story and the story of the Ten Commandments.
What is also striking, cheito, is that, out of one side of your mouth, you admit that scripture has been ‘perverted’ and altered, but then, out of the other side, you quote scripture as some sort of authority. Do you not see a conflict there?
Some books in the Old and New Testament were perverted very subtly. Other books are just not inspired at all but they are the work of some person who was not an eyewitness, i.e. Matthew, Mark, Chronicles. However I’m convinced we do have books in the bible that are inspired by God and even those have been tampered with to some degree, but as I said very subtly. The so called 10 commandments, I believe, were spoken by God himself. At the end of it all we’ll know who is right and who erred in mind…
Or, at the end of it all, we won’t know.
By what special criteria did you detect the subtle or any perversions of scripture and, on the other hand, become “convinced” that “we do have books in the bible that are inspired by God”?
“Nobody”s truly tall”–they’re all shorter than nine feet. Yet we know Kennedy Meeks is undoubtedly tall.
Similarly, we might set a standard of objectivity that, because all human beings have their biases and blind spots, when applied supports the conclusion “no one is objective”
But then can Sean Hannity be said to be less objective than Jim Lehrer? I think so. If so much can be said, then, though perfect objectivity cannot be attained, objectivity is an attribute or a set of standards that should not be said not to exist.
Another example: one might rightly say that that pair of students who can’t see that the problem of inconsistent genealogies even exists are deficient in objectivity–what’s in their own heads limits their perception of what’s out there to a greater extent than the others in the class.
Dr. Ehrman, at some point in my interest in the NT I realized my preconceptions of the Jesus story (which did not distinguish what happened in which Gospel) was a result of Methodist Sunday School in which the story was… one amalgam presented in a text book complete with pictures of a tall long haired, brown bearded, Anglo Saxonish Jesus and other people wearing long flowing well made clean robes etc etc. I suspect most of your students may be similarly “prepared”….
The discrepancies in the genealogies, the infancy narratives, as well as the postmortem appearances and activities of Jesus between Matthew and Luke are certainly striking. Regarding these discrepancies, would the idea that these two writers were presenting different halves of the same story have been a foreign concept to the original recipients of these documents, or would they have tried to harmonize the various traditions the way modern-day apologists do? Or would the original recipients have even known about the various traditions floating around at the time? It’s clear that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, while Luke was writing to a Hellenistic gentile audience. Do you think Matthew’s original audience, for example, was aware of the various Lukan traditions and vice versa? How were the discrepancies handled in the first century? Do we have good evidence?
No, I don’t think the audiences of the two Gospels, at first, knew of the other. And I don’t think these are two sides of the story — they appear to be two different stories on a similar theme. There are always complicated ways to resolve discrepancies. The most common has always been to say that Luke gives Mary’s genealogy, not Joseph’s. The (very big) problem with that solution is that Luke explicitly traces the line of Joseph, not Mary!
Totally agree. It’s amazing to me the number of scholarly commentators who, for example, try to harmonize the order of postmortem appearances by listing the events in Jerusalem first (Luke/Acts/John), followed by the appearances in Galilee (Matthew/John), followed by another 90 mile trip back to Jerusalem (Luke/Acts). They completely ignore the fact that the very first thing the angel at the tomb, as well as Jesus himself, do in Matthew’s gospel is direct the disciples (via the women) to go straight to Galilee. Why would they do that if the plan was to meet in Jerusalem first? And why do some of the disciples still doubt (or hesitate or whatever) in Matthew if they’d already seen and spent time with the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem?
The one that really kills me, though, is the (alleged) harmonizing of the infancy narrative timelines, where all the events in Bethlehem per Matthew (Magi, Herod, etc.) somehow get shoehorned into the middle of Luke 2:38-39, and the fact that Joseph settles in Nazareth for the FIRST time in Matthew 2:22-23 gets swept under the rug. Legitimate, serious scholars do this (not all, but far too many). It’s really hard to take this stuff seriously, and I think a lot of these guys, brilliant as they may be, do a great disservice to the profession (scholarship) by staking out these absurd positions. In these cases, I don’t accept that these guys simply “can’t see the problems.” I just don’t buy it. I think a lot of these guys are more interested in keeping their jobs or their status or whatever, than they are in telling the truth (look at what happened to Gundry and Licona). Can’t say that I really blame them, it’s just a shame. Perhaps I’m being overly cynical? Surely there’s an element of this at play…
There must be a good number of scholars who do not try to resolve the discrepancy but just say it’s a discrepancy.
Yes, most critical scholars without a theological reason for arguing otherwise.
Dr. Ehrman: Even more problematic, neither genealogy is actually the genealogy of Jesus!
Steefen, author of the Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, First Edition
… He was known as the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat – Luke 3: 23-24
Jesus (son of Joseph and Mary) where Mary had Heli as parental guardian, giving Heli the honorary position of son of the king, Antigonus II Mattathias.
~ ~ ~ An Explanation ~ ~ ~
Heli need not be a biological son of King Antigonus II Mattathias. Besides, a biological son of Antigonus would have to have survived Herod the Great’s slaughter of the heirs of Antigonus. This did not happen; however, as we have seen, Josephus speaks of a female heir who did survive.
The sole survivor, a daughter of (Antigonus II) Matthat is Heli.
Alternative 2
In the book Herodian Messiah by Joseph Raymond, Heli would not have been the father of Joseph, Jesus’ stepfather, Heli would have been the father figure or adoptive father for Antigonus’ surviving daughter–yes, another adoptive father, this time for Mary, the father figure to Mary when her marriage to Prince Antipater failed when King Herod condemned him to death and had him executed for plans of patricide.
= = =
Dr. Ehrman, why fault a genealogy when a female has to stand in for no male heirs and when stepfathers or father-figure guardians have to stand in for a father who has been assassinated (Antigonus Matthat was assassinated by Marc Antony)?
Sorry — I don’t understand the question.
You are saying neither genealogy is the genealogy of Jesus.
Thinking about the genealogy in Luke, I see a way where the early reverse chronology is telling us something accurate and that part of the genealogy is the genealogy of Jesus.
I thought you were saying that because you thought the Lukan genealogy does not get back to Mary after starting off with Joseph. I was presenting a way that it does.
Second, I was asking you why do you fault the Lukan genealogy a) when a female is the link in the family chain rather than a male; b) when a respectable father figure is substituted for an embarrassing biological father?
Three scenarios for the father of Jesus:
Jesus’ true father was Antipater who was condemned to death by his father Herod the Great because this Jesus’ father plotted to kill his father, Herod, the Great.
Jesus’ true father was King Monobazus who gave birth to Jesus via royal sibling incest.
Jesus’ true father was Panthera, a Roman military man (not a husband of Mary), which would give Jesus some Roman rights during his trial.
Neither of the above three scenarios put Jesus’ biological father and Jesus himself in a good light.
Today, I went to the Genealogy Center at a local library. 1) There is genealogy by public records, 2) there is genealogy by DNA, 3) there is genealogy [by the investigative historian], 4) there is genealogy by the victors who write History.
Luke, in a sense, was a victor who got to publish Jesus’ genealogy.
Joseph > Heli > Matthat > Levi > Melchi > Jannai
where Jannai is Levi and Melchi, priest and king
OR
where Matthat is Levi and Melchi, priest and King.
Jannai is Alexander Jannai/Jannaeus/Yannai, Hasmonean king of Judaea 103-76 BCE who was High Priest and king. However, there is another candidate, who for a while was king and priest: Aristobulus II, king 66-63 BCE and High Priest 66 to 62 BCE. Eventually, we get to Antigonus II Mattathias, son of Aristobulus being made king and High Priest not by Rome but by Parthia (eventually, you get a “hence” three wise men from the East (Parthia) come to visit Jesus.
With Antigonus II Mattathias’ daughter surviving Herod the Great’s slaughter, she gets pregnant by her husband Antipater, or by a Roman military man named Panthera/Pantera, we have the Parthia approved bloodline of Antigonus surviving in an embarrassing way for print but preserved for investigators of history.
So, Dr. Ehrman do you fault genealogies of parents who only have daughters with a child and no sons with child? Second, do you fault ceremonial genealogies where criminal fathers are stricken from the record?
I tend not to fault people at all when it comes to genealogies.
What’s your take on the supposed discovery of Jesus’ tomb replete with evidence he had a son? It looks like someone from a neighboring university (UNC Charlotte) is involved. It sounds a bit Dan Brownian to me, but I’m interested to hear your *as objective as possible* reaction…
http://www.jpost.com/Christian-News/Geologists-claim-statistical-findings-science-prove-Jesus-buried-in-Jlem-with-wife-supposed-son-396262
I’m afraid I don’t believe it.
Dr. Ehrman, regarding the genealogy of Jesus in Luke, were there different Greek words that would distinguish between a biological son or a son-in-law, or adopted son? In viewing Strong’s Concordance, the statement “…He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph…” in Luke 3:23 appears to use Greek word huios when referring to Jesus as the son of Joseph. Was there a different Greek word the author of Luke could have used instead? Thanks.
No, the term huios gets used for both.