Loading...QUESTION:
If I had collected a lot of stories about a person and put them together into a “biography” I would at least make sure that all the stories were at least somewhat consistent. I don’t understand why the writers of the gospels didn’t make sure their final product made sense – they certainly didn’t seem to have any problems changing things to suit them in many cases. Did they just write down everything they heard without any regard to whether one story or dialog totally contradicted another in the same story? Did they not even care?
RESPONSE:
This is a great question, and I wish there were a simple (let alone great) answer to it. Let me make a few observations more or less off the cuff, without presuming to make anything like an authoritative pronouncement on the matter….
First, the question refers to internal discrepancies *within* a single author, not to discrepancies between authors. One of the most interesting features of the canonical Gospels’ accounts of Jesus is, of course, that they are at odds with one another in little details (was Jairus’s daughter dead *before* he came asking for Jesus’ help – as in Matthew — or did she die only *after* he came – as in Mark?) and in big aspects of their overall pictures (was Jesus a human made divine as, evidently, in Mark? or was he a divine being who became human as, demonstrably, in John? Big difference!).
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a member. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
I’m looking forward to this next post! I’ve read so many rationalizations over the years about how Paul was *not* talking about himself when he talked about us/we being alive at Christ’s return..
To me it looks as if 2 Cor 5:6-8 is talking about leaving the physical body much like the later(?) idea of a soul leaving the physical body. And that this idea is at odds with the idea that every believer’s physical body (dead or alive) will become converted into a spiritual body when Jesus returns, as expounded in 1. Cor 15. Or?
Yeah, seems to be add odds to me too!
Maybe Paul didn’t write one of those books. Probably not, but…
I am somewhat embarrassed that this question did not occur to me sooner , and possibly you covered it much earlier in the blog . If so , feel free to sternly tell me to get my lazy butt in gear and check the archives . OK, here goes: since it is only a modern conceit that since the ancients lacked Facebook they must have been retards , the same discrepancies that are obvious to us must have been equally obvious to them , yet they apparently put them into the canon pretty much as is . Yes , I know there are important differences between earlier and later versions of the same gospel , but very little apparent effort to ” fine tune ” a final Official discrepancy free Version . My question is this : since Biblical Inerrancy was apparently not a really big deal back then , just when and why did it become so ?
Inerrancy as *we* think of it came about at the end of the 19th century, in connection with the Niagara Conference(s). You can probably find info about them on the web.
Dr. E,
Fascinating! as always. I eagerly await your next post.
I have dismantled my faith and have started to build it back. At the moment, I believe there is a God and a spirit world. Your commentary and observations are helping me along this journey.
Good post. These are the kinds of posts I like best. Now, how does one explain the3 different conversion stories about Paul in Acts?
I’ll get to that.
“It needs always to be remembered that NONE of these authors – precisely none of them – thought, believed, or imagined that his book would be put into a “Bible” with a bunch of other books and read as if it was perfectly consistent with all these other books.”
Just to play devil’s advocate, are you sure about this for the author of 2 Peter?
Yup! He wanted his book to be seen as apostolic, but he had no idea there would be a “New Testament” eventually.
Don’t the date ranges of 2 Peter and Marcion overlap? So couldn’t it be that the author of 2 Peter already knew that people were making collections of authoritative apostolic writings? Or are you making a smaller point that the “New Testament” as such is anachronistic?
Similarly, the author of the Pastorals presumably already knew that the writings of Paul had been collected and were being distributed. So although he wouldn’t have been trying to write for the “New Testament” as such, he did know about the collected writings of Paul and was trying to write something to join that authoritative collection.
Depends completely on how you date both of them! I date 2 Peter to around 120 CE, and Marcion to the late 130’s.
And, yes, there’s a difference between writing a forgery hoping people will be reading it and writing a book that you think will be in the Bible.
Perhaps contradictions are not necessarily surprising or bad. On the contrary. Some books of the NT were written based on oral traditions that were circulating for decades before the accounts were written. I think it is quite expected that contradictions would be present. In this sense, if the narratives in one book were perfectly coherent, maybe this would presuppose that the author was selective regarding the oral traditions in circulation and collected in his book only the ones that compose a perfectly connected narrative, leaving out passages that, though were being told orally, did not fit in.
I guess one explanation for internal inconsistency could be that information from multiple sources was edited into one book without the editorial smoothing out of the differences in the sources. Isn’t this what happened with the first two chapters of Genesis?
Yup!
Hi Bart,
I get it that ideally it would be great if the bible was coherent. But if there was no contradiction whatsoever in such books, wouldn’t that seem fabricated? Afterall, tough I believe in God and in the word of Jesus, I don’t have any doubts that the NT as written by men and not through divine inspiration. Wouldn’t a perfect alignment of narratives, traditions, theology, etc presuppose some sort of manipulation, even if the intention of the scribe that manipulated it was pure? I’m not defending the mistakes, I’m just trying to understand.
Thanks!
Well, if the Gospels were word for word the same, then we would assume someone had simply copied the other. But there can be four perfectly coherent accounts that tell different aspects of the same thing (including different stories e.g.) or even different versions without flat-out contradicting one another. If we had that, I don’t think that would seem suspicious; it would just look like truthful reporting by people who knew…..
“To live is Christ and to die is gain”? I don’t even understand it!
Well, while alive, his life is all about Christ. And when he dies, that will be better yet, since he’ll actually be *with* Christ.
“Only *later*, when these books were combined into a canon and called “The New Testament” was anyone at all concerned about how to make sure there were not any discrepancies among the authors (even though, obviously, there were and are!).”
I’m not sure but I think this might be what the question was referring to…why didn’t those that combined the books into a cannon “correct” the books so that there were not any discrepancies? Did they not see them or recognize them as discrepancies? Did they think readers would not notice? Did they think at that point in time they could not make changes?
Ah! OK, I’ll talk about that too!
That’s an interesting point, and it really outlines a number of problems regarding reading something already assuming it to be true. You can’t ask the important questions. Why investigate WHO wrote it when it is already assumed to have been God that wrote or inspired it? Why ask what changes that might have happened within a person like Paul between his early teachings and late life? Of course he had to have been unwavering and unchanging in his beliefs; otherwise you may have to question everything he said. Why look for a hidden agenda in regards to what a person may have written if you assume that the right words and teaching had to have been preserved through some supernatural process? Why look into the history and verifiability of the stories and fragments of text that remain, if it still won’t be possible to see past your indoctrination and assumptions? I wonder if you could achieve the same results by purposely raising a child to believe that the Harry Potter series is absolute inspired truth? I suspect that you could.
If Paul believes the “some will sleep” concept, i.e., members who have died are simply sleeping and when the Lord comes they will wake up and join him–with us not far behind–then the Paul I know would want to LIVE in the interim, continuing the Lord’s work right up to the end! Why would he regard his dying as gain?
Because then he could be with Christ sooner.
Seriously, Bart. Consider the fact that Paul once said that he would gladly give up his own relationship with Jesus, his own salvation, if by doing so he could redirect certain other souls to salvation! With a mindset like that, you don’t think he would have gleefully, even to his own detriment, moved back his inevitable meeting with Jesus if it meant bringing more souls into heaven?
And where went the “sleeping” deal? Elsewhere Paul is “some of us will sleep, others will not” When Paul dies, will he be asleep until Christ’s coming or will he go directly into the arms of Jesus? It’s so confusing.
Well, he doesn’t *seem* very gleeful about it!! On sleeping: it’s a Greek euphemism for “dying,” so I’m not sure it implies some kind of interim state of suspended animation….
DR Ehrman:
YOUR COMMENT:
I think this is the only sensible way to understand 1 Thess. 4:13-18, where he contrasts “the dead in Christ” who will rise from the dead when Jesus returns from heaven, with “those of us who are alive, who remain.” He includes himself with those who will be alive when Jesus returns.
MY COMMENT:
What I hear Paul saying is that the believers who are alive, including himself, and *remain alive until* the coming of the Lord will not be gathered to the Lord before those who have fallen asleep or died in the Lord. In fact the dead will rise first and *we who are alive* (alive when the Lord returns) will will be caught up together with them and meet the Lord in the air. (if they die, including Paul, before the coming of the Lord it doesn’t apply, they must remain alive *until* His coming), DR Ehrman please note the words, *remain* *alive* and *until*
In V:17 Paul reiterates, ‘we who are alive and remain” will meet the Lord in the air. I don’t hear Paul *affirming* that he will be one of the ones that remains alive until the event of the Lord’s return. He’s telling the believers that if anyone including himself, since he’s also a believer, is alive when the Lord returns, that person(s) will not be gathered to the Lord before those who have already died as I stated above and V:17 below declares.
NASB BIBLE
1 Thessalonians 4: 13-But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.
14-For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.
15-For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16-For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17-Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
18-Therefore comfort one another with these words.
Say, I was just skimming through other parts of the site, reading your responses to a conservative blogger’s(?) questions. He asked about your having said the story of the woman taken in adultery (the story where Jesus writes in the dirt) probably isn’t historical. In your response, you said you believed it was a merging of two older stories, one of which may indeed have been historical; but the evidence for that would have required a very long explanation. I wish, sometime, you’d explain it for us!
Ah. That would take a series of posts. I’ll think about it.
That’s in my opinion one of the strongest arguments against mythicists (at least those who claim that Paul “invented” Jesus and Christianity): if Paul really invented all the story, then he wouldn’t have found himself in troubles when dealing with the delay of the parousia.
This is a little off topic, but I’m curious what you think the NT writers believed with regard to whether a believer, once saved, can lose her salvation. Since you’re no longer a believer yourself and have no skin in the game, it seems you could be more dispassionate about this than believers who consider it a life-or-death matter. Did Paul at bottom have a different view from that of the author of the Hebrews, for, example, or are the apparent differences only on the surface? Did Paul agree with himself? And secondarily, are you ever informed by believers that you were never a true believer to begin with, and if so, how do you respond to them? I think the question is moot from my vantage point, since I consider that *no one* has ever been “saved,” but this comes up a lot for me, so I’m just wondering on a personal level how you’ve dealt with this, if indeed you have.
My sense is that Paul thought the Galatians were indeed in danger of losing their salvation. The author of Hebrews (chs. 6 and 10) seems to state pretty clearly that it can happen. I’m not sure the other authors say anything about it.
Sort of off topic, but I couldn’t find a better place.
Yesterday in his blog (in a post entitled “Textual Ambiguity and Textual Variants in Acts” http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/textual-ambiguity-and-textual-variants-in-acts/) , Larry Hurtado mentioned your work:
“Finally, I see no clear pattern or “drift” to the variants. I mean that I don’t see any particular movement, e.g., replacing references to God with references to Jesus, or vice versa. I don’t see any particular witness exhibiting any such drift either. In one or two places doctrinal sensitivities may have been a factor, perhaps most likely in Acts 20:28, where the reading preferred in Nestle-Aland could have been taken as subject to a “patripassionist” reading (taking God, “the Father,” as having acquired the church “through his own blood”). But even here, the aim in the variants was clearly to avoid what the readers likely regarded as phrasing that could be (from their standpoint) misunderstood (and the reading of the text that they sought to avoid would be, in fact, a misunderstanding of it).
“In short, there is no indication of a programmatic ”Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,” at least in the sense of some orchestrated effort to bend the text of Acts in some pronounced doctrinal direction. (And in his study with that provocative title, Bart Ehrman admitted that the total number of variants that he could offer as likely reflecting doctrinal concerns was a very small portion of the many textual variants attested, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 46 n. 124, and that there was, in fact, no evidence of an organized “corruption” of the NT writings.)”
Would you like to comment?
I agree completely. There was no systematic attempt to corrupt the text uniformly in one direction or another — e.g., by Christian leaders. (And to my knowledge, there’s never been anyone who *said* there was, except for in the case of Marcion)
DR Ehrman:
YOUR COMMENT:
None of these authors thought they were writing Scripture…
MY COMMENT:
The following verses disagree with your assertion that none of these authors thought they were writing the words of God.
1 Thessalonians 2:13-For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.
Also the writer of 1 peter declares that his message is the Word of God.
1 Peter 1:25-BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER.” And this is the word which was preached to you.
What do you say to these quotes DR Ehrman? I know you don’t believe Peter wrote 1 Peter. What about 1 Thessalonians, one of the undisputed writings of Paul the Apostle of Jesus The Christ. Did Paul really say what’s recorded in 1 Thesssalonians 2:13?
There’s a difference between an oral delivery of the word of the Lord and the writing of Scripture.
It’s also likely that, some days, Paul wasn’t feeling very well. 🙂
when mark USES “PHONE” he informs his readers about what was said in “phone”. example: jc cried OUT with a “PHONE MEGAS” , “my god, my god, why have u forsaken me” AND “there came a VOICE/”phone” out of the CLOUD …this is the son of me .. the beloved” . the interesting THING is that , on other occassions, he doesn’t have his items speak in a loud “phone”
example:
And when the unclean spirit [pneuma] had torn him, and cried out with a loud voice [phone-megas], he came out of him. (Mark 1:26)
And cried with a loud voice [phone-megas] . . . and the unclean spirits [pneuma] went out . . . (Mark 5:7-13)
NOTICE that the loud voice is not with words? the UNCLEAN ones just cry out with a LOUD VOICE/PHONE MEGAS . when jc DEPARTEd with a loud VOICE , he departed without WORDS. This is easy to understand. EARLIER in the account , mark qualified his “phone” WITH the WORDS ,”why have u forsaken me” ,but when his jc is ABOUT TO die he has him UTTER a loud cry/voice .MARK HAD NO REASON TO put words in jc’s mouth because when jc WAS @ deaths door, he had his “phone” qualified with LOUD WORDS in the 9th hour .
when mark has spirits and jesus depart, he does not have them talking/speaking in a loud voice.
This seems to be the case on how he has used “phone ” and “phone” qualified with “megas”
lukes has jesus departing with LOUD words. marks use of “phone megas” doesn’t seem to support lukes version.
can you share your thoughts on this Dr Ehrman?
Very interesting! I’ve never thought about it!
Dr Ehrman
i quote:
kai idontes tinas tôn mathêtôn autou hoti koinais chersin tout estin aniptois esthiousin tous artous
and / they were seeing / some / of his disciples / that / with defiled hands / that is, unwashed [hands] / they ate / their bread.
For / the Pharisees / and / all the Jews / if they do not wash / their hands / by fist / they do not eat / holding fast / the tradition / of the elders / and / when [they come] / from the marketplace / if they do not / cleanse themselves / they do not eat / and / many / other things / there are / which they have received / to hold fast to: / washing / of cups / and / pots / and bronze vessels.
how would the greek listners of mark understand the word “aniptois” ? i have read that it LITERALLY means UNCLEAN /dirty /unwashed and not in a spiritual sense or not washed properly.
jesus thinks that washing your hands BEFORE meals is not from god but created “traditions by men”
why do christians WASH thier hands before meals? if they were eating with unclean hands would they run to the nearest sink after they heard a response like jesus’?
“Jesus said, ‘Are ye also yet without understanding? 17do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly, and into the drain is cast forth? 18but the things coming forth from the mouth from the heart do come forth, and these defile the man; 19for out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, whoredoms, thefts, false witnessings, evil speakings: 20these are the things defiling the man; but to eat with unwashen hands doth not defile the man.’”
if jesus disagrees with the pharisees on many things then why would he want to stick to purity/cleansliness rules?
I think Christians do it today for a reason neither the Pharisees nor Jesus nor anyone else in antiquity either thought of or would have understood. Germs.
“Then comes the breathtaking conclusion. The women flee the tomb, and tell nobody anything, “for they were afraid” (16:8). That’s how the story ends.”
if according to matthew they left from the tomb and crashed into jesus, then they did say something to someone and that someone was jc. mark says that they didn’t tell nobody anything. how could he have said this if he knew that jc was waiting around the corner from the tomb? makes no sense.
Mark didn’t know that. Or he chose not to narrate it.
“father FORGIVE then for they do not know what they are doing”
did the guy who put this in jc’s mouth really think that jc wanted to die brutally on 4×4 planks of wood?
why forgive them? they were doing a good deed when they crucified jesus. according to theology, if pilate asked jesus, ” do you want me to CRUCIFY you,” jesus would have said YES, if he SAID “no” then he would be SINNING
why was forgiveness sought?
a)forgiveness was sought for a people who have brutally pinned jesus
b) forgiveness was sought for a people who DID not have good intention
if christians choose option B, then if the romans had GOOD intention, they would have been justified in crucifying jesus!
if they choose option A, then jesus did not want to DIE brutally on planks of wood.
“they don’t know what they are doing”
this is very confusing. god doesn’t love human DEEDS/ACTIONS , but he makes DAMN sure that human violent DEEDS pin him to a cross so then he can give his forgiveness?
so i guess that he was PERCEiving something good in roman action.
your thoughts on this Dr Ehrman.
The verse is usually taken as something distinctive of Luke and Luke alone. It is normally interpreted as a prayer for forgiveness for the Jews responsible, no the Romans. And it is part of Luke’s entire claim that what the Jews did to Jesus they did in ignorance. The “ignorance motif,” as it is called, is prominent in both the Gospel and, especially, in the speeches of Acts, also written by Luke. The logic of it: the Jews didn’t know any better, so they can repent, and God will forgive them.
Dr Ehrman
mathhew says, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’
kalon
καλὸν
right
i am right in thinking that if one does not do ‘kalon’ then was is doing the OPPOSITE of right (i.e, sinning/doing wrong)?
Well, I’m not a philosopher of language, but I think it’s fair to say that the saying means you shouldn’t throw the food to the dogs.
i assume, with no knowledge of greek, that jesus thinks it is NOT useful/beneficial/PROPER to throw the childrens bread to the ill little dog/gentile dogs. so there must be something special about the BREAD. before jesus says “it is not good…,” the woman kneels and says , ” help me”
so is jesus saying that it is not useful/beneficial/proper to take the children’s miracles/bread and to cast it to the dogs?
if yes, does this mean that jesus had absolutely no desire to help her ill daughter?
mark gives the ‘wait for you turn’ impression, but matthew seems to take another stance.
Yes and yes!
Dr Ehrman
can you help me with the following?
i will quote the relevant verses
mark:
Jesus Curses a Fig Tree and Clears the Temple Courts
12The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
20In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”
22“Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. 23“Trulyf I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. 24
matthew:
Jesus Curses a Fig Tree
18Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
20When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked.
21Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
mark:
exērantai
matthew:
exēranthē
mark has peter use exērantai
peter REMEMBERED what he had heard and said ,”rabbi LOOK!…”
the translation in the NIV is using an exclamation mark to show peter’s surprised reaction to what he had seen. if the curse had an immediate affect on the tree when it was cursed , one would react like the deciples did in matthew , “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?”
mark:
exērantai
matthew:
exēranthē
when mark uses “exērantai” does he mean that the tree had withered or does he mean that there was a further development to the withering ?
i came across a translation which said , “dried up from the roots”
can one argue that matthew is saying the same thing so then christian apologists cannot argue that there was a further development to the withering?
thank you
I’m a little confused by your question. Mark’s term is εξηραμμενην, which means, “it had all withered. In Mark, after Jesus curses the tree, they go directly to the Temple. The next morning the disciples see the tree that had been withered. So the sequence is: cursing of the fig tree; cleansing of the Temple; (then, the next day): seeing the withered tree .
Matthew’s order is different. Here Jesus does not curse the fig tree before cleansing the temple but afterward. And the tree withers right away: παραχρημα εξηρανθη (“Immediately it was withered). So here, the cleansing of the Temple does not occur between the curse of the tree and the discovery that it was withered, as it does in Mark.
dr ehrman
was the fig tree incident something unreal/parable or was it history?
have you discussed the account about jesus cursing the fig tree?
I don’t think it really happened. It does functioned parabolically: the fig tree represents Israel, who is judged by God for not bearing fruit. But the odd thing is that “it wasn’t the season for figs.” Not sure how that fits in (though I’ve thought about it for years). In other words, unlike Israel, you wouldn’t *expect* that fig tree to be bearing fruit….
Doc Ehrman
this is all confusing. some assume that the words ” it wasn’t the season for figs” has hidden meaning of ” the temple cult is over and it isn’t bearing figs anymore”
all this would imply that jesus’ attack on the temple never really happen but is a coded message for ” execution of jesus is greater than execution of animals ”
when you quote ” it wasn’t the season for figs ” this would imply that the authour knew that the right season would produce figs so what has any of this got to do with the good or bad israel does?
i just can’t see how the word ” season ” means ” not the season for animal sacrifices anymore”
I think Jesus could still have attacked the temple even if the parable of the cursing of the fig tree is not historical.
Dr Ehrman
i have a question about the greek word for signs
the ADDED ending to mark says :
“And these signs (σημεῖα – sēmeia) will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands…”
does it seem to you that the writer of mark has used the word “signs” in a negative way? notice how he is associating things with the word SINGS below? ” to LEAD astray”
The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign (σημεῖον – sēmeion) from heaven to test him.
For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs (σημεῖα – sēmeia) and wonders (τέρατα – terata), to lead astray (ἀποπλανᾶν – apoplanan), if possible, the elect.
Truly, I say to you, no sign (σημεῖον – sēmeion) will be given to this generation.”
Mark 13:22
For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs (σημεῖα – sēmeia) and wonders (τέρατα – terata), to lead astray (ἀποπλανᾶν – apoplanan), if possible, the elect.
does this argument hold weight
” ironically, the editor has not understood this specific use of the word σημεῖον in GMark. Because of the use of the word σημεῖον (sémeion – sign) in a positive sense in Ps-Mark 16:17.20 the believers und disciples now appear as the false prophets, against which Jesus warned in Mk 13:22.”
Signs appear to be works of power that convince someone about the identity of the one who performs them. But they are ambiguous: sometimes the deceive.
What would the literal translation of the Greek words: παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα in John 19:14, be? James White has tried to argue that paraskeuē is also the Greek word for Friday and so if paraskeuē is translated as Friday in John 19:14 there is no contradictory crucifixion account. Your response?
My response is that he should learn Greek.
What would your argument be to why paraskeuē cannot be translated as Friday in John 19:14?
Don’t Greek speakers even today use it to say “Friday” in Greek?
I don’t know modern Greek. The word does not mean “Friday.” It means “Preparation.” In Jewish circles, if it was used in reference to “Preparation for the Sabbath” then it would designate the day before the Sabbath. That is what it *designated*, not what it *meant* — and only in Jewish circles. The word appears in many, many other contexts than “preparation for the sabbath”– and simply *meant* “preparation” (not even “preparation day”). When used in the phrase “preparation for the Passover” it did not mean “Friday of the Passover”; it meant “the day before the Passover, the day on which preparations were made for the Passover.”
according to James White, Greeks today use the word for “Friday”, there is also this article that says the following:
First century Christians used “paraskeuē” to mean Friday. An early Christian work, the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Disciples 70-120 A.D.) instructs Christians to fast on “the fourth day and Preparation” (Didache 8:1). It was referring to Wednesday and Friday.
(http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/2JesusChrist/CrucifixionKeepingTrackOfTime.aspx)
Well, you’re persistent!! Look up the word in the standard lexicon of ancient Greek, the Liddell & Scott. They will give a handful of definitions for the word. All of the definitions are variations of “preparation.” That’s what the word means. But they will note that in Jewish circles, when used before the word “Sabbath” it designated the day before the Sabbath (that is, Friday) and when it is used before the word “Passover” it meant the day before the Passover (on whatever day that was). In *those* circles — Jewish and then later, Christian circles influenced by Jews [e.g., the circle behind the Didache) — if the word was used without a further qualification (“for Passover”) it would indicate the “Day of Preparation for Sabbath” — i.e., Friday. But if it has a qualification, it does not and cannot mean “Friday” (so that the PARASKEUE for the Sabbath does not mean “Friday for the Sabbath” and PARASKEUE for the Passover does not mean “Friday for the Passover”). In all these contexts it means what the word means: “Preparation.” In John 19:14 the usage is completely unambiguous. It is the “Day of Preparation for the Passover.”
When the author of the Gospel of John says “the sixth hour” in John 19:14 what does he mean? 6 hours after what? What style of timings do the Gospels use?
Six hours from 6:00 a.m. It seems weird, but that appears to be how it works.
Bart I’ve seen apologists try and get around the time of death contradiction by saying that John was using Roman time (measuring from midnight) when he says the sixth hour (so six AM). Is roman time an actual thing or are they just making this up?
So he was put on trial before Pilate before 6:00 a.m. and crucified before the sun came up? Does that seem plausible to you?
Doctor Ehrman
i took this from the gospel of mark,
ἀναστήσεται .
he will arise
john has jesus raise himself. does “arise” in mark mean that mark thinks jesus will raise himself ? ” i will bring myself to life” ?
or does mark mean that jesus would be caused to be RAISED?
I’m not sure which passage of Mark you’re referring to.
doctor ehrman
is the following an accurate translation of mark
quote:
here is the relevant verse is Mark 7:2 which reads in Greek:
kai idontes tinas tôn mathêtôn autou hoti koinais chersin tout estin aniptois esthiousin tous artous
Which translate literally as:
and / they were seeing / some / of his disciples / that / with defiled hands / that is, unwashed [hands] / they ate / their bread.
The key word “unwashed” is aniptos (likewise again in Mark 7:5). It means what it says: unwashed.
The phrase “in the way” is nowhere in the text. Even the next verse reads only:
For / the Pharisees / and / all the Jews / if they do not wash / their hands / by fist / they do not eat / holding fast / the tradition / of the elders / and / when [they come] / from the marketplace / if they do not / cleanse themselves / they do not eat / and / many / other things / there are / which they have received / to hold fast to: / washing / of cups / and / pots / and bronze vessels.
You will see no reference to the words your translation inserts. Those words simply aren’t there. The phrase “to the wrist” is a modern attempt to interpret “by fist” [dative of pugmê], the more direct meaning of which is that they wash their hands with their fists (i.e. the way we scrub our hands, enclosing one in the fist of the other), meaning they wash well. Note that the disciples are not said to have washed less well, but to not have washed at all.
Hence what is being described is simply washing their hands, which “some of the disciples” weren’t doing–their hands were “unwashed” (notably, the tradition Jesus goes on to denounce here included washing your cooking and drinking utensils, too, cf. Mark 7:4, another obvious vector for germs that Jesus was evidently unaware of).
questions
1. so does jesus think that the pharisee practices with water were “tradition of men”?
quote
8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.”
?
2. if jesus was a god wouldn’t it be a teachable moment that sinful thoughts were detrimental to ones living and that the pharisees were right in washing their hands before they eat?
thanks
1. Yes. 2. He thought it should not be a religious requirement.
if it was not a religious requirement would there be any requirement to hand washing at all?
i mean without religious ritual would there even be washing hands before meals?
if we carefully read marks text he seems to say that the disciples hands were unwashed does this not indicate that jesus did not teach hand washing before meals?
No, no requirements to wash hands. We obviously wash hands today for other reasons.
doctor ehrman
in the gospel of matthew, the non-jewish woman gives a reply to jesus and he says to her
“woman, great is your faith…”
in the gospel of mark, jesus’ reply is, “for the retort….”
so in mark the argument made by the woman changes jesus’ mind?
in matthew it is “great faith…”
“great faith ” in what? judaism? in jesus’ words that she is a little dog and children bread is not to be cast to the dogs?
is matthew changing marks rebuttal from the woman into “great faith” ?
i quote
24 And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon.[i] And he entered a house, and would not have any one know it; yet he could not be hid. 25 But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoeni′cian by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, “Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 2
9 And he said to her,
“For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” 30 And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the demon gone.
21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
notice the lady is addressed as “woman…”
but in mark , it is written
“For this saying you may go your way…”
did the saying impress jesus which was changed by matthew into “great faith” ?
i really don’t see what great faith she expressed in mark
she just seem to make a good point
That too is a good point!
could mark have included the story because he is telling
“hey look, even you gentiles could enter the kingdom because you can come up with a clever saying even with lack of faith in jewish rituals”
?
note the woman express no faith in marks version
Dr Ehrman
Luke 21:12
But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you . . .
wait a second
is luke saying that the deception of the faithful will be a future event ?
doesn’t this contradict
Mark 13:9-13?
5Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
9“You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
I’m not sure I follow your argument (of why it’s a contradiction).
did the writer of mark believe that the first tribulation amongst christians was going to be false “i am’s”?
“false christs”
mark:
5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
does luke seem to be contradicting this when he says
Luke 21:12
But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you . . .
dr ehrman
some christian apologists try interpret jesus’ treatment of non-jewish woman as follows
“Again, you are either theologically incompetent or willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Jesus was NOT calling the woman or her daughter a dog. He was speaking in metaphor to make a point.”
is there such thing as an “insulting metaphor”?
if jesus really did not mean to reduce her to an animal then why did he think that the recipient receives food by having it cast at it?
and why does the recipient accept it by admitting that crumbs or bits are enough?
would the use of the word “small dogs” pissed of people even if it was “metaphor” ?
Probably!
“30 But God raised him from the dead; 31 and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people. ”
are the words “those who came up with him from galilee to jerusalem…”
referring to the pre-resurrected jesus or post resurrected jesus?
did the pre-resurrected jesus come up with the disciples from galilee to jerusalem in the lukan account?
i guess so because the angel tells the women “remember how he told you while he was in galilee…”
dr ehrman
have you dealt with the apologists who reconcile the resurrection accounts?
some assume that mark, matthew and luke report the FINAL visit of the women
the problem i see is that if it was the final visit, then would the story teller say it was “early in the morning” ?
second problem i see is that if it was the final visit , then mary has to tell peter two times that the body is no longer in the tomb and every time peter visits the tomb he learns nothing new.
so the only thing that changed with mary is that she no longer believed that the body was stolen, but peter went two times and learns nothing new
what else do you see that i may have missed?
thanks
and i learn that luke seems to indicate as well and john that it is peters 1st visit . there is no indication that he came a second time
luke
Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened.[e]
john
6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went back to their homes.
It’s a little hard for me to answer your question: I’m not sure what you’re saying they reconcile or how they do it. If you want to pick one problem, explain it, and then explain their solution, I’d be happy to comment.
dr ehrman
assuming that apologist says that the visits to the tomb, reported in mat, luke and mark are the final visits. apologist does this because he wants to reconcile johns account with the synoptics.
so if someone said to you that the synoptics have multiple visits to the tomb , but they narrate the final visit, how would you respond?
If this wasn’t their first visit to the tomb, why are they wondering who will roll away the stone for them?
yeah i remember that one.
i can’t believe that 5 years ago i knew the response you gave, but i completely forgot it. to catch the apologist at his game of harmonisation does one need to read a lot and train the brain?
Yup!
hello BART
when luke has the family go from nazareth to jerusalem every year, does he have them go from birth of jesus onward ?
QUOTE :
The Greek text seems to leave open the question as to when we start the count (e.g. do we start it from Christ’s birth? from well before Christ’s birth? from when the child grew?). While the conjunction at the start of Luke 2:41 does not necessitate consecutive chronology, it can be read that way, i.e. the child grew strong, and then every year his parents went to Jerusalem. Of course Luke 2:41 can also be read as a sort of parenthetical thought, but the text does not require such a reading.
///
if this is the case, then apologists can have the family return from egypt to nazareth and have the family doing yearly trips.
apologists can even have the family avoiding danger , i quote :
One easy explanation is that, although they considered Archelaus dangerous, that did not prevent them from slipping into Jerusalem for the Passover feast and then slipping back out (i.e. their sense of religious obligation overrided sense of danger).
your thoughts please ?
Yes, that’s obvoiusly a problem — but Luke doesn’t have that business with Archelaus. That’s in Matthew. If Matthew is right about Archelaus then it’s hard to see how Luke can be right about an annual pilgrimage.
please can you answer the following questions based on how you read the greek
//// 39 When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. 40 The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him.
41 Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover.////
does the greek indicate that the child is brought to jerusalem from birth onward?
does the greek indicate that the parents are travelling to jerusalem WITHOUT the child?
matthew says that joseph was afraid to go to judea, even if the parents were travelling to jerusalem withou child, how did joseph find the guts to go to passover yearly?
joseph was coming from egypt to go to judea, right? that would mean he would have to cross DANGER with child! lol
this means the yearly trips need to be postponed .
1. The Greek reads much like the English. It does not indicate which year they started to go; 2. No, it doesn’t indicate one way or the other; 3. Right — that’s a problem with reconciling Luke with Matthew.
hector avalos said :
First, the language of Luke 2:41 certainly indicates that Mary and Joseph went to Jerusalem EVERY YEAR because the Greek has KAT’ ETOS, which means annually or every year. This is a well-attested expression, on which you can see other examples in Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon (1957 edition), p. 317. Luke 2:41 indicates that they made this annual trip from the birth onward, and so that would have included the entire reign of Archelaus.
i’m confused .
But it doesn’t explicitly say which year they started going annually (the year of Jesus’ birth or, say, when he was five).
Dr E,
matthew wrote :
When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20 “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” 21 Then Joseph[k] got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee.
is it logical to assume that when the text says, “he was afraid to go there” then this means that he was not only afraid for the child, but for himself too?
I would say that it could mean that, but htat it would not necessarily have to mean that.
Dr ,
the apologists want to smash the narratives together to create one account.
the baby is taken to palestine.
the magi find the child in a house in BETHLEHEM
how old is the child?
quote :
Herod asked when the star appeared. Then he had children who were up to two years old executed — based on the time of the star’s appearing. If the star appeared as an omen, then Jesus was born two years before. This is not hard.
end quote
so between infant jesus and 2 year old jesus, we can expect that religious jew like joseph did attend the yearly passover, right?
after all, bethlehem is 7.1 km from jerusalem
luke says :
41 Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.
“they WENT UP AS USUAL”
are the words “as USUAL ” in the greek? the translation came from the NRSV
“as usual” implies a habit which was practised BEFORE the child reached 12 years of age, right?
so my understanding is that between 2-12 age range of jesus, joseph had to miss the annual TRIPS to jerusalem. ANYTIME between these years there must have been a danger in visiting JUDEA.
do you agree?
when the text says, “he was afraid to go there,” then what sense would it make that he did go there to celebrate passover? if someone is afraid to go there, but still goes there ,then do we write , “he was afraid to go there” ?
does that make any sense?
Yes, “as usual” means that it was their custom prior to the event mentioned when Jesus was twelve. What it doesn’t indicate is when they started the custom. And yes, that is hard to reconcile with what Matthew says about wanting to stay out of the jurisdiction of Archilaus.
when the child is brought back he would be under the age of 12, right?
is 12 still a “child” ?
Depends whom you ask! Most 12 year olds might say No.
if we “smash” each account like christian apologists do , then :
if child is already found in bethlehem, then jerusalem would be 7 km from jerusalem, this would indicate the custom of visiting the festival started very early , right?
No, they were in Bethlehem because of the census, not because of an annual Passover trip.
Why is this issue so important for you?
“No, they were in Bethlehem because of the census, not because of an annual Passover trip.”
i am trying to prove to an apologist that there is a timeline conflict between luke and matthew.
Ah, got it.
Does Mark make a mistake when he says that the day the lambs are slaughtered is the first day of unleavened bread? I thought the feast of unleavened bread came after passover?
Passover was considered the first day of the week-long festival.
Thanks Bart, another question: I’ve been looking at the contradictions between the accounts of the denials of Peter. In Luke 22:60 where It says “But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about!” At that moment, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed” does the Greek word used for “Man” suggest he’s talking to an actual man or does it have a more general sense?
It is not the word for “male-specific person” (ANER) but for “person, male or female” (ANTHROPOS).
Hi Bart, is this a plausible reconciliation of the Jairus contradiction?
https://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/was-jairus-daughter-dead-or-dying/
I’m afraid I don’t have time to read links — but if you want to summarize the view I’d be happy to say what I think of it.
“The answer is in the original Greek from which these passages are translated. In Matthew 9:18, what is translated “has just died” are the words arti hetelentasen (Strongs 737, 5053). The word arti can mean the immediate past (just now) or the immediate present (now). The word hetelentasen means die or death, and is not in present or past tense, but aorist tense, which speaks of the action as a whole without regard to tense. So the phrase can mean, albeit woodenly, “now die.” It is not a past tense, completed action, but the emphasis is speaking of what is at hand.”
I think the gist of his claim is that you could translate Matthew as “henceforth dead” or some other way that isn’t explicitly “has died”, resolving the contradiction with Mark
“Henceforth dead” would not be an accurate trasnslation. It would be “has just now died.”
Talking of authors who contradict themselves any idea why Luke has Jesus ascending on the day of his resurrection but Acts places it 40 days later!? This seems like quite an obvious mistake for the same writer to make
Yup, it’s a famous problem! One common explanation is that he thought the ascension was a “key” moment, and wanted to end his Gospel with it, but also to begin his book of Acts with it. And that required it to happen at two different times. It’s a very strange discrepancy though — within the same author! I argue in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture that the verse in Luke is not original but was added by a later scribe, so that Luke doesn’t actually narrate the event in two places, only at the beginning of Acts. Think maybe I’ll add this question to my mailbag!