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.
You must be a registered and paid member to read the following text…
Rev Firth, I beleive you are aware of Jewish Exegesis…
I will not speak of the first 3 points for now as for me the 4th was calling my attention…
You may give a plausible explanation for the delay from leaving one place for the other, I still find your explanation thin… but I would like to get your thought not on the word but on the spirit of it… let’s dive deeper in the Pardes (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod) as Jesus was a Master of the Torah (he was teaching the Torah wasen’t he not, with authority!)
In Mathiew their is an urgency to go to Galilee (what is the spirit of that text?) were as in Luke it is clear, sooo sooo clear that it is relating to Chavouot (the gift of the Torah)? I’m not talking about timelines here, I’m talking about the Spirit of the text! How are they both connected, how are they not contradicting themselves?
So you are saying by omission anything could have happened and since no one can say it did not, then it is possible it did? That is what I been trying to convince all my family and friends about my alien telepathic contacts I have experienced over the past few years!!
Telescoping, abbreviating, blurting out, recording snippets, levitate wife-laundering, temporo-spatial discontinuities via Dr Who’s TARDIS … INNERANCY!
Only problem being, in order to spare a magical abstract idea about a collection of texts, one must destroy the meaning of each individual text.
It is comparable to Paul’s teaching about Jesus being allowed to eventually cover up and smother Jesus’ own teachings about how to live. Paul at least thought he was also preserving Jesus’ teachings within the communities he was building. But once we had the magical perfect text, we no longer need the communities to whom and for which they were written.
If we were to believe this narrative, it would mean that Jesus must have been born well before 4 BC, the date of Herod’s death, and only assuming that this narrative is happening in the last year of Herod’s life. Maybe earlier?
I wonder how many “years” it is? Three? Seven? Was Jesus already in his fifties when he died?
Does this mean that for 2000 years we have been using the wrong calendar?
Well documented and written post Reverend. As a former Christian I whole-heartedly embraces concepts like these described above. Especially on point 2 of the genealogies. However I have come to change my mind on this part due to lack of sufficient documents and too much propositions with no grounding. I think the theory you proposed is s common one but yet leaves more questions than answers.
Take for instance back in the Hebrew Bible we have absolutely no recordings of David’s son Nathan, other than a passage mentioning him as the son of David along with others. Nothing in Chronicles or Kings describing his lineage. Unless we have Apocrapha works indicating so, I see this harmonization baseless. This is in my view only from my studying of the texts. Another questions which comes to my mind is where did the author of Luke/Acts get his information about the genealogy? His work was written down after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which I believe that was where birth records and lineage listings were stored. If it was oral tradition, then we run into the problem of ancient orators who made up things to captivate the audiences for a more pleasurable reaction. Questions like these race through my mind when I hear theories like yours because they leave the reader/listener with more questions than closure. I respect your position and your theological understanding of the Christian New Testament, but I think you and others are grabbing at straws on this point. I think we all should leave the stories at face value with contradictions and all without trying to mesh it together into one story. Remember what John Dominic Crossan says frequently “…these are gospels according to such and such, not the gospel of Jesus or according to Jesus…”
I’m not looking for a rebuttal to my comment, just wanted to comment on my opinion of this pointt.
I think that when we talk about contradictions in written texts, the real question should be “do the explanations offered to solve the apparent contradiction are more probable than the statement that the text is really contradictory?. The explanations that the reverend is giving are not supported by any evidence (they are just imaginative assertions) so the contradicton statement (which is supported by the existence of the text itself and the mechanisms of oral transmition which aways renders contradictory testimonials as can be proved by many psichological and sociological studies) is more probable at the moment. The revenrend must put more effort to bring strong evidence to support his “solutions” to beat Dr Ehrman.
It seems to me that Reverend Firth is presenting potential explanations as to WHY there are contradictions in the gospels, not proving that there are none. This is not the point of the exercise at hand. There can be conflicts in differing stories of the same event (there almost always are), but even if you can prove for a fact the event happened (which isn’t true for anything described in the gospels), that doesn’t change the fact that the accounts differ.
If the gospels are infallible representations of actual events, as willed by a celestial power, then less equivocal terms and phrases would have been employed and literary license would have been revoked by divine edict. If they are, in fact, just recollections of past happenings by four individuals, written over a period of years, and the authors may not have witnessed any of those events (could not possibly have witnessed all of them), then we must take it for granted that contradictions do exist, and we can’t take any of them as incontrovertible evidence that a particular event happened in a particular way. We can believe one version, or none, but not all.
If you have to explain away contradictions, that means there are contradictions to explain. The matter is related to the texts themselves, not possible interpretations of said texts. Either they agree on all points or they do not. They clearly do not.
You say, “tomayto,” I say, “tomahto.”
As with some apologetics, it’s a semantic issue.
Good examples of the gyrations and hoops that apologists have to jump through and manuver to try and explain contradictions. I did the same as a former apologist at a large church. Instead of letting the text speak for itself, they have to basically say, “let me explain to you what God ment to say.”
Reverend Firth,
To me you are indicating that there are no contradictions as long as the quoted areas don’t mean what they say. If I apply that logic to the entirety of the Gospels then there is no reliability to anything written in them. It is simply not probable that four different authors with different written sources, theologies and oral traditions would write the same story.
It’s great that it’s raising money for a good cause, but this is as pointless an exercise as I can imagine.
Ah, I can think of lots more pointless things. I have a good imagination!
I understand what was meant, but I don’t it is pointless to air different views such as this from time to time. It is a good reminder if the specifics of the arguments from time to time.
It only takes a creative imagination to harmonize any two seemingly contradictory statements. Christians, Mormons, and Muslims are particularly good at this ploy when it comes to the massive quantity of apparent contradictions in their holy books. Here is one of my favorites:
Educated, intelligent Christians long ago recognized that the scientific evidence is just too overwhelming to continue believing the Genesis Creation Story literally. But how do they harmonize this fact with the statements by Jesus about the Creation story? Jesus certainly spoke as if he believed in a literal Adam and Eve. Clever solution: Jesus knew that Adam was not a real historical figure but he spoke as if he were to fit in with the culture of his day. Or…Jesus voluntarily gave up his divine omniscience while here on earth, adopting the beliefs of his culture, even if the culture was wrong.
Oy veh!
This kind of convoluted reasoning that stretches reasonableness to the breaking point is one of the reasons I had to abandon my previous views about the Bible. I think that many people can keep their faith better by recognizing the human qualities of the Bible rather than sacrificing their common sense to an unnecessary standard of divine inerrancy.
“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”.
Well for me personally it is a problem and here is why: It is like saying that ‘Hitler died by suicide’ and then you simply say ‘Hitler died’. True both have the same endings that Hitler died but here one is cutting important historical information. In the case of Jairus it is used to make more emotional but in reality he altered the story of what could have really happened.
With regards to genealogies, I can not comment about the legal aspects of the time because I haven’t any readings yet it seems surely to me it can’t be both of them are right because the names are different.
“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.” If this is true than the person who wrote Matthew simply did not believe the stories he knew about how Mary got pregnant. To omit such details that would help to beef up the divinity of Jesus means that to Matthew either these stories were false or simply he did not know about them.
I hope Professor Bart can correct me in this. I plan to write more on the following points.
Does Matthew not deal with Herod the Great and Luke deal with the census of Quirinius? I thought Herod the Great died before Quirinius could have done his census? Could someone please clear up this issue, if I am mistaken?
I agree. Matt 2:1 says Jesus was born during reign of Herod the king, which is 4 BCE or earlier. Luke 2:2 say Jesus was born when Quirinius did his census, which was 6 CE, ten years after Herod’s death. That by itself should put to rest any debate about whether there are contradictions in the gospels.
Rev Firth – great debate, thank you and Dr Ehrmann too for taking part.
You deal with the apparent resurrection contradictions by speculating that in theory, with some movement up and down the country, the Galilee and Jerusalem events can all find a place in the timeline. But you have not answered the actual contradiction, which is that in Matthew 28 7 Jesus explicitly gives the instruction for the disciples to go to Galilee where they will see him, and in v 16 they did, whereas in Luke 24 49 Jesus explicitly tells them to stay in Jerusalem.
If this is this not a contradiction, I don’t know what would be.
I started by reading Rev. Matthew Firth’s response to #3. He states “The words ‘as soon as’ and ‘straight to’ and ‘directly’ are not there” yet prior to this comment he states “and another dream prompts him to take the family back to Nazareth” yet the word “back” to Nazareth is not there. He is trying to have us believe the author is saying that they had already lived in Nazareth whereas the writing implies that they are going Nazareth for the first time because of what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Responding Rev. Firth’s comment to #1 “it’s possible that we see Mark and Matthew focusing on different snippets of what Jairus said.”. This sounds like a very human explanation (consistent with a very human book – the Bible). I would have thought that Rev. Firth would believe that God was the author of both Mark and Matthew. Would God focus on different snippets of what Jairus said?
If we accept the argument that the apparent contradiction in the story of Jairus’s daughter can be resolved by assuming that Matthew has “telescoped” his version of the story, doesn’t this lead to a rather more serious problem?
That is, we can argue that one source has “telescoped” his version, but still hold that both sources are nevertheless attempting to “*report* the same event”. All well and good, but this doesn’t avoid the fundamental problem. Rather in this case it’s not an issue of simply rephrasing a report. Instead –as Dr Ehrman points out– Matthew and Luke are, ultimately, “*telling* different stories”.
The real issue here is that if we accept this as evidence of Matthew’s practice of “telescoping” (i.e of his altering the details of a story for stylistic considerations), doesn’t this necessarily require that we must abandon claims of the strict historical accuracy of Matthew? If we accept that he has made these kinds of changes to his report about an event in this case, how can we be sure that he hasn’t done it (multiple times?) elsewhere?
I wonder at what point we collectively decide that one debater or the other may be violating Ockham’s razor?
We collectively? Never. Individually? Very quickly!
There’s an awful lot of supposing going on in Firth’s response on the genealogies. It’s instructive that neither Matt or Luke mention either levrite marriages or the idea that one is writing a different type of genealogy. The explanation is pretty ad hoc and seems to require a lot of tap dancing.
As an aside:
While it’s correct that it’s not in the context of the genealogies, the concept of Levirate marriage is explicitly mentioned in the story of Jesus’s discussion with the Saducees about the seven brothers (Mt 22:23-33, Mk 12.18-27, Lk 20:27-40.
Two reporters from the same newspaper show up to the scene of a car accident where there is an overturned car, a fire hydrant spewing water, a dead dog and an agitated eyewitness who is the dog’s owner. The owner tells his account of the wreck to both reporters simultaneously.
The next morning on page 1 of the paper the following story written by Reporter A appears:
– The car came speeding into the intersection
– The car swerved but was too late to avoid hitting the dog
– The swerving car hit the hydrant and flipped several times before settling
On page 2 the following story written by Reporter B appears:
– The car came speeding into the intersection
– The car lost control, hit the hydrant and flipped
– While flipping, the car struck the dog before coming to settle
Later an iPhone video surfaces that shows the dog’s owner giving his testimony to the reporters. Due to his emotional state, the owner actually recounted the story twice, once exactly the way Reporter A told it, and once exactly the way Reporter B told it.
The eyewitness’s account is self-contradictory, each of story A and B are incomplete, at least one story is incorrect, and together story A and B are contradictory.
You would not subscribe to this newspaper.
1. Sounds plausible, so maybe?
2. It’s quite creative, but okay.
3, 4. It’s so much easier to think that the Gospel writers heard different stories about Jesus and wrote their own truth.
On the birth narratives I just want to be clear on your position. Verse 30 from the NRSV ” When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” If I understand correctly, between the two words in verse 39″…Lord, they…” you claim that all that Matthew narrates about fleeing to Egypt, the slaughter, attempted return to Bethlehem, and then finally to Nazareth occurs. Your position is that it is possible to avoid contradiction. You also claim that that it doesn’t say they return directly to Nazareth. But, equally, it doesn’t say anything that Matthew says either, which would render your position even more untenable as the plain reading says they returned when all that was required by the law was finished. Your comments?
Rev Firth, do you think that both genealogies were written by the original authors, as opposed to having been added later? Also, for those of us who were taught that Jesus had no human father, should we interpret the lines as only “alleged”, not for real? Personally I don’t think the lines add any value to the overriding message of the NT anyway.
“In terms of the genealogies, I will be much briefer and I will simply propose a solution.” Am I wrong in thinking this argument commits the ad hock fallacy?
Mostly expected line of responses from Rev Firth but as experts’ debates usually do, attract me to flip-flop.
Dr. Ehrman,
If Matthew had Mark as a source, why would Matthew knowingly write a contradictory account of the daughter dying? Do historians assume that the author of Matthew simply trusted another version of the tradition more and so included it over what was written in Mark, or is there any possibility there is something to the “telescoping ” hypothesis? In the end, I don’t feel Reverend Matthew agrees with your definition of what a contradicton is. The goals is not try and harmonize different accounts.
Thanks, Jay
Because he didn’t think Mark was the Word of God that could be altered, and he thought he could produce a better, more succinct version of the account. In doing so he created a contradiction. But he wasn’t worried about htat. He didn’t know that 2000 years later we’d be comparing the two.
It is a universal truth that writers look at something some other writer has written and see things they want to fix. That’s part of what makes writers writers.
(Note: I rewrote this several times before posting it.)
How about Jesus being born both before 4 BCE and after 6 AD?
How many different hypothetical scenarios does one have to read into a text before the theology developed from it becomes patently false ?
Two points: there is almost no overlap between the birth stories in Matthew and Luke yet Rev Firth believes they are both true with each author only reporting half the story. Does he believe that Matthew and Luke met up to ensure they were each only reporting elements the other wasn’t or does he think that this happened by pure chance which seems incredible.
Secondly John helpfully numbers the resurrection appearances and his three don’t occur on a mountain in Galilee so this must mean that Matthew’s appearance is the fourth appearance. This makes the disciples’ behaviour in Luke seem downright ludicrous.
As a way to raise more money from donations, what if you made this debate open to non subscribers to read ( but they cannot comment – you don’t want the whole blogosphere commenting). Maybe a few would donate even though they don’t become members. I read a few sceptic and atheist blogs, many of the people there would surely read the debate, and a few may donate. Again, just don’t allow non subscribers to comment. Just an idea.
Thought about it. But was hoping to entice people to join to see what htey were missing (since I always allow the opening part of the post to be public as a teaser)
Dr Ehrman at what time will you say “copies of the copies of the copies of the copies”?
Ha! Not in this particular debate. We won’t be arguing about whether scribes changed the text but whether the authors who wrote the texts originally contracited each other.
Mr. Ehrman, I believe that the best way to establish contradictions is to dive into the Spirit, the Essence of the text.
We can argue about timelines, and wordings and all that… but a fish smells like a fish, and a goat smell like a goat… you know what I mean, the Essence of things, with a capital “E”!
We can read that a fish started a journey at some point then went this way, and did this and that, but bottom line, it will smell like a fish… If in the other text he smells like a goat, well, that’s a big red flag!!!
What are your thoughts on that? (you may have talked about it already but I missed it)
I prefer to think of it as a court case. If you were charged with killing your neighbor’s goad, and a prosecuting attorney says you did kill the goad but the defense attorney says you actually killed the person’s fish, the prosecutor would not be allowed to get you off the hook by responding, Hey, it’s all the same thing!
Mr Ehrman, it’s funny. I got your answer as I’m watching RBG’s (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) movie as I’m thinking of going bach to University for a degree in Politics specialising in Law. I must say I like your approach! 😉
Dr. Firth some of this is more than a little hard to follow. I am sorry, but it is. I have read the bulk of the Apologetics Press website so have some understanding about how these arguments are made. I am left with three questions:
1. Having lived in the Bible belt all of my life, I find it increasingly difficult to be as tolerant and understanding of fundamentalists having these literal views as I would like to be. Actually, Dr. Ehrman does a much better job of having this understanding than I do. So, do you think this emphasis on the literal view as the only view and the correct view makes it hard for non-literalists to develop some understanding and tolerance of this literalist view?
2. Does this literalist view have some possible harm such as does it lead to bigotry toward women and bigotry toward gays? Did it contribute to the Biblical defense of slavery?
3. If the goal is to convert others, doesn’t this literalist view turn away many from churches from the get-go?
Thanks for the discussion even if I could not follow a lot of it.
Rev Firth, your response to Dr. Ehrman does not seem to address his central position regarding the resurrection narratives. According to John, Jesus appears to the disciples (minus Thomas) that Sunday of the resurrection and in Luke to all 11 on that Sunday. John specifically states, “It was late that Sunday evening and the disciples were gathered together behind locked doors, because they were afraid of the Jewish authorities. Then Jesus came and stood among them.” Luke also states that Jesus appeared to them that Sunday evening (with Thomas present, not a week later as in John). However, Jesus and angels/man, state in Matthew and Mark on that morning to the women that the disciples should go to Galilee because it is there that he would appear to them as Dr. Ehrman states, but you do not address. Why would the “angel/young man” and Jesus instruct such a thing in Matthew if he was going to appear to them that very day? Telescoping, which you seem to rely on, does not bridge this contradiction without pretzel-like contortions of the text when comparing all 4 gospels in concert. Either he appears first to them in Galilee as directed in Mark and Matthew, or he appears to them in Jerusalem that very same Sunday in Jerusalem as in John and Luke. How do you explain such a contradiction? With all due respect, It seems that with your explanations that you are relying on an incoherent approach to the text that is wholly undergirded in circular reasoning.
Although I have not yet read the argument made by Dr Ehrman, on my way in a moment, this counter argument is the sane old “stuff” I have heard for over 30 years in the church, 20 years in ministry, and the reason I’m here…despite all their efforts, no christian ever explains the real “why”, they never answer the hard questions, just explain them away with suppositions and much imagination.
Kind of like so many shallow conspiracy theories.
I would call foul on point 4 right out of the starting gate. I’m sure my Greek isn’t anywhere near as good as Dr. Ehrman’s, and I will gladly accept correction from him, but it appears to me that the Genitive Absolute which opens Luke 24:36 in the original Greek cannot properly be translated as “while they were still talking about this”. Yes, both NIV and NRSV have some variant of this, but the RSV does a better job of capturing the literal meaning: “As they were saying this”–or even more literally, “While they were saying these things”–which almost certainly refers back to the words which had just been uttered by Cleopas and his companion in 24:35.
The dictionary form of the Greek verb here is “laleo”, and as used in Luke-Acts it almost never refers to any sort of back-and-forth discussion. With very few exceptions, “laleo” in Luke-Acts is used to describe an essentially one-way communication in which one party (God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, one or more angels, apostles, demons, false prophets, or whatever) is declaiming while everyone else just listens. And on the (very few) occasions when “laleo” is genuinely used in Luke-Acts to refer to some sort of actual conversation, as far as I can tell it is always qualified by the addition of extra Greek words to make clear that the parties are speaking “to one another”. (See, for example, Luke 2:15 and Acts 26:31.)
The other point to consider here is that Luke uses Genitive Absolute constructions with “laleo” at least four other times: Luke 8:49, Luke 22:60, Acts 4:1, and Acts 10:44. This is part of Luke’s characteristic literary style; and every other time he uses it, its sense is that Event 2 (i.e., the event described after the Genitive Absolute) is taking place while Event 1 (i.e., the speech described before the Genitive Absolute) is still going on, or at most barely completed. As we might say, the speaker’s words are “still on his lips” when the next thing happens. That being the case, the natural reading of Luke 24:35-36 should be exactly the same: While the words of Cleopas and his companion are still “hanging in the air”, Jesus himself appears among them–which leaves no room for any intervening events, and certainly not a ten-day traveling disputation from Jerusalem to Galilee and back.
Dr. Firth: When it comes to religion and politics, humans tend to make up stuff to fit what they already believe (confirmation bias) making it almost impossible to know what happened yesterday much less what happened 2,000 years ago. So, how in the world do we know that the author of Matthew used “telescoping” and how do we know that this was a “common” technique used by ancient authors of that time? With regard to the genealogies, if there were some kind of complicated problem of remarriages why didn’t the Gospel authors just explain this problem and its affect on the genealogies? If these authors were inspired, surely they would have known that there were going to be questions about the different genealogies and explained them don’t you think? Thanks.
Reverend Firth, thank you for confessing that based on the most common meaning of what they wrote, there is likely a contradiction in the Jairus story between “Mark” and “Matthew”. Nothing more than what you wrote is needed. What you failed to mention is the source issue and what that might mean.
If we look at the parallel sentences in the original Greek:
https://biblehub.com/text/mark/5-23.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/9-18.htm
we see a reMarkable amount of parallels between the two suggesting a common source:
[Same root words (case is different)]
“The”
“Daughter”
“Of me”
Here we have the first change in root words, “dying” vs. “dead”.
“that” vs. “but” (no difference in meaning).
“Having come”
“Lay”
“The”
“Hand”
“upon/on” “her
And the second significant difference. “Mark” adds:
“So that she might be cured.” This wording is consistent with someone who is dying but not dead.
“And”
“She might/will live”.
So for the parts that agree in meaning the specific words are not generally synonyms but the same root words.
On the other hand the only parts with significantly different meanings are for the issue at hand, whether the
victim at the time is dead or dying. In total this indicates that “Matthew” used “Mark” as a source here and “Matthew” INTENTIONALLY contradicted “Mark” by changing the meaning from “dying” to “dead” (a conclusion that most Christian Bible scholars would agree with). That leaves you in the strange/bizarre/macabre position of thinking that “Mark” and “Matthew” are inerrant but “Matthew” not thinking “Mark” was inerrant.
The god of this Forum has commanded that we follow question monothesis so my question to you is:
Which is more important to you:
1) Concluding that there is no contradiction between “Mark” and “Matthew”.
verses
2) Understanding the likely meaning of what “Mark” and “Matthew” wrote.
This is a rhetorical question but my interpretation here is that god’s commandment includes rhetorical questions.
For those of you who would like to catch more of my act I’ll be appearing all week on top of The Christian Bible with a high powered argument at http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/ .
I’ve been looking for the link to this debate everywhere! Can someone please share it with me?
I’m not sure what link you’re referring to. So far I’ve posted a list of contradictions and Rev. Firth has posted his assessment of them — that’s all there is so far.
The fact that the good Reverend ran out of word count without addressing all the issues is a clear indication the kind of gyrations in logics and reasoning required to offer a remotely respectable rebuttal.
Let me help you, Reverend, to condense everything into a two paragraphs:
If the contradictions arises from omission, then it’s down to “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” This is a fallacy in informal logic, Reverend. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
If the contradictions arises from anything else (“timeline difference”, “name difference”, etc), then it’s because, Bart, you read it wrong and these are the reasons why you read it wrong: “insert some fantastical explanations without giving any evidence: “Matthew was telescoping”, “Levirate marriage” etc?)
After reading Rev Firth’s responses, I would suggest honesty demands he pay the £1000.00 over to Dr. Ehrman.
As noted by Dr. Ehrman, a contradiction is “two statements that cannot, at the same time, both be literally true.” Reconciliations are not so easy to define. For example, if I tell one person “I drove HOME to Pascagoula from Dallas,” and another “I drove home to Pascagoula from Dallas, and stopped in New Orleans,” the reconciliation is simple.
But, if I tell one person, “I drove home to Pascagoula from Dallas,” and another “I drove home to Miami from Little Rock,” those two are, literally, not reconcilable, since I was referring to the same, single trip. Yes, someone could say “well, you once stayed in Miami for two weeks—thus you were “living” there for that time, and we know you went to Little Rock once; perhaps you drove from Little Rock, to Dallas, then to the temporary “home” in Miami, then on to New Orleans, then on to Pascagoula…presto! Reconciliation!” But that contradicts BOTH stories, and creates a third THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IN EITHER OF MY STORIES!
Matthew states that Joseph and Mary were ALREADY IN Bethlehem when Joseph learned of the pregnancy, and desired to put her away; but, he is angelically counseled to the contrary. Jesus is born, and later they flee to Egypt, then attempt to return to Bethlehem, and then, warned again, SETTLE in Nazareth. (Matt 1:18-2:23)
Luke states that Joseph and Mary are LIVING in Nazareth, but travel to Bethlehem for a census while Mary is pregnant; while there, Jesus is born; after some religious duties and some 40-odd days are accomplished, they go back HOME to Nazareth. (Luke 2:1-40). These are not reconcilable, they are two different stories, and to “reconcile” the two narratives creates a third…based on nothing but supposition or perceived omissions, and complicated backstories. In short, while Firth’s “any-reconciliation will suffice” reply is spiritually anesthetizing, it does not reconcile anything. It simply creates a third narrative found nowhere in the gospels.
Either the Matthew-narrrative is true, literally, or the Luke-narrative is true, literally. They were either living in Nazareth, or living in Bethlehem. They either returned to Nazareth shortly after the birth, or journeyed there years later. “Connecting the dots” requires that one or the other narrative is factually incorrect, an unacceptable conclusion (for Evangelicals). Worse, the convoluted reconciliation should leave one wondering whIch, if any, narratives in the bible, are LITERALLY reliable. So, Pastor Firth opts for spiritual anesthesia. Happy Easter, everyone.
Dear Dr Ehrman. All I would say is that the boy (MF) did good. I wonder whether you under-estimated him :-). I look forward to the next installments
Disappointing responses. I’m not a Biblical scholar but it’s clear that your approach, i.e. to say that “here’s a possible way of reconciling these contradictions” is GROSSLY illogical. No one’s surprised that a person could fabricate some answer (insert a new person in the genealogy, e.g.) to fix the contradiction. Not every response is an adequate response.
Hm. A common ancient practice was “telescoping.” How do we know that?
I’m afraid the apology supplied in #4 is a real howler.
Suppose that there is a temporal gap between verse 35 and 36, so that during this period, the disciples went to Galilee according to Matthew, experiencing the risen Lord on a mountain top. If so, Luke 24:37 becomes meaningless, because they would have no more any reason be ” terrified and affrighted”.
If there is a temporal gap, it has to be moved further to the end of the chapter.
But is that possible? The Lukan “Jerusalem-centric” position starts already at verse 47. That leaves 43/44 as the only possibility. In my opinion, this is in the middle of one narrative unit. It is hard to break it into to this order: that Jesus first demonstrated his corporeal resurrection(Luke), next had the disciples march to the Galilean mountain to receive the Great Commission (Matthew) including the meaning of it all and finally, back in Jerusalem, Jesus explained the Scriptural meaning behind the crucifixion (Luke). It is completely illogical.
The simplest summary of Firth’s first response, and all the others I expect we will see is, “well, it doesn’t really MEAN what it says.” Ok, fair enough. But if we must incorporate telescoping, evaluation of emotional responses, interpolation of facts not given in the text(s), etc., then we can conclude that the text REALLY, WELL AND TRULY does not mean what it says, it means something else. Accordingly, the texts become invalidated on their faces, and the reconciliation, as it were, is rendered pointless.
JAIRUS: it *says* she was alive, but it maybe “meant” something else; lots of emotions going on, and hey, all that matters is He healed her, right?
GENALOGIES: it *says* certain persons were ancestors, but it “meant” in the legal sense (when convenient), not the biological sense
BIRTH NARRATIVE: it *says* that they were from Nazareth, went to Bethlehem for a census, and returned home after the baby was born; but add in some backstory, and it “meant” that they did a lot of other stuff, too
RESURRECTION: it *says* the guys from Emmaus Road were sharing their experience (Luke 24:35), and while they were all chatting about it (24:36)… well, it “meant” that a few months passed between those two verses, all we need is a little interpolation of facts not in the texts. Uh, that one is a real WOW-er, since there were no chapter and verse separations in any ancient manuscripts
The only form of reconciliation offered by Pastor Firth is open invalidation of the written text in the first place! I must have missed that technique in debate class.
Basically, the argument is that there are no contradictions if the Bible means something completely different from what it appears to say. But wouldn’t that be true in cases of non-contradiction? For example, when the Bible says that Jesus is the son of God, maybe that’s technically correct but really means nearly the opposite? When Acts 2:38 says go and be baptized, all of you, and you will receive the Holy Spirit, perhaps it means that you should receive the baptism of Mithra? If the Bible is simply incoherent when it’s convenient for you, maybe it is always incoherent?
This probably too late to put in here. Since I have been away from the blog for a while.
Just wanted to comment on genealogy part. The other contradiction in the in genealogy is that Matthew says is was 28 generation from David to Jesus i.e. about 1000 yrs. However, Luke says it was 43 generation about 1500 yrs. If Luke is right, then Jesus was born about 500 yrs. later. This inconsistency is irreconcilable. We know that Matthew omitted four evil kings in his genealogy but still we are talking about 400 yrs. difference.
Ah yeah, lots of fun stuff here. Another is that Matthew’s explicitly labeled “14” generations (the last batch of three) is only 13…