Loading...Sometimes readers ask questions that have answers they probably would not suspect in a million years. My guess is that this is true of the following interesting query about a contradiction between the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (written by the same author) about the ascension of Jesus.
QUESTION:
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.
RESPONSE:
I explain the problem and try to come up with a solution in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Here is what I say there (edited to get rid of some of the technical discussion that is not directly germane to the question):
******************************************************************************
How did the proto-orthodox doctrines of Jesus’ bodily ascension and return in judgment affect the text of Scripture? I begin by considering a problem that proves particularly difficult to adjudicate. The final verses of Luke’s Gospel record Jesus’ departure from his disciples: “And it happened that while he was blessing them, he was removed from them and was taken up into heaven. And they, worshipping him, returned into Jerusalem with great joy” (Luke 24:51–52). Two of the key phrases of this climactic scene, however, are lacking in significant textual witnesses: “and he was taken up into heaven” (v. 51) from manuscripts D a b d e ff along with (interestingly enough) codex Sinaiticus, and “worshipping him” (v. 52) from D a b d e. Without these disputed phrases we have a very different conclusion to Luke’s Gospel. Now Jesus simply leaves his disciples (without ascending into heaven) and they do not worship him when he does.
The textual problem is complicated by the circumstance that…
To read the rest, you will need to belong to the blog. If you don’t belong, why not? It costs less then fifty cents a week, and for that you get five meaty posts, each and every week. And every one of those cents goes to help the needy. So why not???
Maybe it was an encore?
“Back by popular demand.”
No, I think your explanation is correct.
It just reads better without that ending. As Mark’s gospel reads better in its earlier form.
Always leave them wanting more.
One thing all four gospel authors had in common was that they were good writers. That’s one reason why all four gospels survived–and if people rewrote Shakespeare (and they did), why wouldn’t they rewrite Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John?
But when you add bad writing to good, to try and ‘fix’ a perceived problem, it always sticks out like a sore thumb. (Which is bad writing, sorry, I should avoid cliches like the plague.)
Question: Do you think there were other gospels from this period that were lost? I don’t mean the gnostics. I mean from the same time period the three synoptics and John were written. I know there was one, that we have some references to. Hebrews, right?
No, no explicit mention of a Gospel in the book of Hebrews. But Luke indicates he had “many” predecessors, so presumably there were others (besides Mark and Q)
Sorry, I was in a hurry when I posted that. I meant this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews
The interesting thing about lost gospels is why they were lost. Did people not like them? Were they not as compellingly written? Were there ideas in them that ended up not catching on? Or was it just happenstance? Not enough copies made, too many destroyed for one reason or another.
My own feeling is that there are reasons other than happenstance for why some literary works live on, and others are forgotten. But that hardly proves that no great book (or poem, or play) was ever lost.
Ah yes, the Gospel of the Hebrews. I give a fresh English translation of all the surviving fragments in my book The Other Gospels. It’s another one we wish hadn’t been lost!
Has anyone you know of published a book for nonscholars about Queen Jezebel? The only serious attempt I can find is by Lesley Hazleton, but the reviews and her bio suggest she’s a journalist with some knowledge of Hebrew and the middle East, not a trained historian. Help?
Is it a possibility that the scribe adding on to Luke had no knowledge of Acts? What does this say then, if anything, about the time between the writing of Luke and Acts? Is there any consensus on how much time Luke took to write Acts after finishing Luke?
Certainly possible. They may have circulated independently of one another.
I like the fact that here and in the last supper pericope you twice prefer an uncharacteristically shorter reading of the Western text. Brooke and Fenton would be proud!
Yes, in my book that’s the argument, that this, like the other Western non-interpolations, is in fact original, that W & H got it right. What they didn’t realize is that each of the interpolations functions as anti-docetic polemic.
Nothing to disagree with here. Easy to accept that the text was adjusted (why I read your books). And even easier to agree that the forces of the docetist “spiritual” ascension and the proto’s “physical” ascension were likely to have prompted it. I’d even go further and say it wasn’t the decision of some lowly scribe… But again, isn’t this just adjusting the “scaffolding” without really changing the event itself?
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Please forgive this totally unrelated question! Recently, I was reading Robert Alter’s comments on Deuteronomy. He explained that with respect to to Moses’ warnings about false prophets being “put to death,” that it actually referred to being killed without a trial. The Gospels put a heavy emphasis on the trial of Jesus that for all intents and purposes seemed like a ridiculous one of trial by mob mentality, but a trial nevertheless. Do you think the repeated emphasis comes from the necessity of relieving the accusation of being put to death without trial? So as not to have been handled in the same way as a false prophet?
I’m not sure what he means. I don’t believe they *had* “trials” (in anything like the modern sense) back in the days of Deuteronomy. In any event, the trial narratives in the Gospels appear to be designed in large part to show that it was not the Romans who actually killed Jesus but his Jewish opponents who were responsible for his death.
I know that some (most?) conservative fundamentalist scholars do accept the interpolations of the ending of Mark and the adulteress pericope in John but do they accept others such as this one? I tend to think they will if it resolves a blatant contradiction like this but not if it removes a favored saying or point. Thoughts?
Sure, they evaluate the evidence and then make a decision, though if htere is a problem with one or the other variants in respect to their faith position, that obviously can affect the decision they reach.
Dr. Ehrman,
When was the book of Acts written and how are we so sure the writer of Luke also wrote acts? Thanks, Danny.
I date it to the mid 80s or so. If you read the first four verses of Luke and then the first two of Luke, you’ll see why it appears to be the same author. Moreover, the writing style, the themes, the theological points of view, and clever similarities between the actions found in one and in the other all point in the same direction: one author for both.
If Acts was written in the 80’s, then shouldn’t he have mentioned Nero by name as he did the other dead Caesars, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius?
IMO Acts was a legal document submitted for Paul’s trial, c. 62. Luke knew that Emperors didn’t change on a schedule. Their demise / accession was unpredictable. If Acts, as a written legal document, had included Nero Caesar by name, it would have become null and void if, by the time of the trial, Nero had been assassinated & replaced.
Therefore, Acts lack of naming Caesar Nero indicated that it was written during Nero’s lifetime.
What think ye?
No, because he is narrating events that took place *before* Nero. (Just as when I’m writing about the NT, I have never mentioned the emperor Justinian, even though he lived before my time; he was *after* the time I’m writing about)
The events of Acts chapter 20 – 28 took place *before* Nero? Sure about that?
Not completely. But there doesn’t seem any reason for him to mention Nero by name in particular there (any more than Luke mentioned Tiberius by name in teh passion narrative of the Gospel)
Dear Sir:
Does my point come across in the following?
A) Nero ascended 54 AD
B) 51 AD Gallio appointed proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12-17)
C) 51-54 AD Paul spends three years in Ephesus (Acts 20:31)
D) And about the time that Nero becomes Emperor, Paul makes up his mind to go to Rome (Acts 19:21)
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=gallio&qs_version=NIV
E) Augustus & Tiberius are each mentioned once by Luke
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+2%3A1%2C+3%3A1&version=NIV
F) Claudius twice:
“This happened during the reign of Claudius” Acts 11:28
“because Claudius had ordered” the 49 AD expulsion of Jews: Acts 18:2
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+11%3A28%2C+18%3A2&version=NIV
BUT
G) Then the current (Nero) Caesar is referred to simply as Caesar SEVEN times from Acts 25:8- 27:24, all in context of Paul’s upcoming trial.
If Acts had been a post 68AD work of historical fiction, there were plenty of opportunities to use the name “Nero”, e.g. during Festus’ conversation with Agrippa (Acts 25:13-22) “But when Paul made his appeal to be held over for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar”
I’m not saying there was no *opportunity* to mention Nero, any more than there were no opportunities in the Gospels to mention of Tiberius. Plenty of opportunities.
I guess my question(s) are as follows:
Does Luke’s failure to mention (or choice not to mention) Nero by name lend any support to the following hypothesis:
My hypothesis is that …
1) If Luke was the traveling companion of Paul, &
2) If Luke wrote Acts …
…. a) prior to the trial (or acquittal) of Paul in Rome 62, &
…. b) partly to legally defend Paul (& Christianity) for that trial
…. c) during the Reign (54-68) of Nero …
then … wouldn’t it have been unnatural, even unwise for Luke to have used the actual name of the living Caesar at the time?
If you, dwelling in 1st Century Rome, were the lawyer,
and if you were spending two years compiling written information in legal defense of a religious sect, using expensive papyrus & ink, (no computers, printers, or easy edits),
and
nearly a third of the client’s / sect’s history (Acts 20-28 / 54 – 62 AD) took place on the current Emperor’s watch,
and
you knew that some Emperors last (Tiberius: 23 years, Claudius: 13 years)
but some don’t (Caligula: 5)
and
you knew (as did the general public at Paul’s port of entry) that Nero had murdered his mother in 59
and
like everybody else,
you knew that ‘what goes around comes around”,
thus
you *didn’t* know when the next Emperor assassination might take place.
would *you* have referred to Nero by name in your legal document? What if, during your trial preparation, the emperor was assassinated?
The only reason to mention Nero is if there was some literary reason to do so. I hardly ever have named either Obama or Trump on the blog, during the past six years. Even though in this case I certainly had plenty of opportunity to do so! My not doing so says more about my purposes and aims than about the years in which I was writing.
The literary reason is that Paul’s appeal to Caesar was clearly during the reign of Nero. Regardless of when Acts was written, the story cuts off about halfway into Nero’s reign. Do you not agree?
Yes, the story appears to end in the mid 60s. (BTW, it doesn’t mention Tiberius or Caligula by name either)
I continue to be struck by how often Bible authors, since there were no copyright laws, seem to edit two or more different versions of an event together as seen in the Documentary Hypothesis. Is it likely that Luke and Acts had such an editor editing two or more manuscripts together thus producing contradictions? I would also like to know if this kind of editing together of two or more manuscripts was a common way of writing ancient books.
Yes, I think that certainly happened with Luke Acts. That’s why there are different theological views found thorughout the work. Maybe I’ll post on this!
What is your interpretation of Luke 9:51? Does this passage make it any more likely that Luke intended to end his gospel with the Ascension? What about Acts 13:31? If the 40-day tradition were known, why does “Paul” use the non-specific “many days” that Jesus appeared after his resurrection? (Cf. vv.18, 20, which give more precise numbers.)
Good quesiton — but it depends on what “taken up” means. If it does mean “ascension” then all the verse indicates is that the author knows about the tradition, not that he is planning to narrate it in his Gospel. “Many days” doesn’t seem to contradict “40 days”
Another point is that in Luke’s version of the transfiguration, we have this unique line in Luke 9:31:”[Moses and Elijah] appeared in glory and were speaking of [Jesus’] departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.”
This, and v:51’s statement that “the days drew near for [Jesus] to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem,” make me believe that Luke’s original intent was Jesus’ ascension on the day of the resurrection— a delay of 40 days seems incongruous. Acts 1:2 could then be taken as inclusive of the ascension, which would seem the natural way of reading it without the preconceived notion that a 40-day period intervened between resurrection and ascension. Acts 1:3, then, narrates a visible ascension after 40 days of teaching, after the invisible ascension of Luke 24:51. I would add that while it’s true that the word translated “carried up” in 24:51 (so NRSV) appears nowhere else in the Lucan corpus, neither does either of the words translated “departure” and “taken up” in Luke 9:31,51 respectively occur again, but their authenticity is not in question.
Yes, in Luke’s Gospel the ascension absolutely happens on th eday of the resurrection. IN Acts it’s 40 days later. Big problem! Often it’s thought that Luke thought the departure of Jesus made good sense as the very end of the gospel story and as the very beginning of the story of the founding of the church (which needed some instruction before getting going — hence the 40 days). But there are also some textual problems involved….
James Tabor argues that very early Christianity taught a “spiritual” resurrection rather than a physical resurrection of Jesus. Is this something you might agree with?
No, it’s a point on which we strongly disagree.
Considering the short ending of Mark, and that it sounds like initially no one saw (or claimed to see) a resurrected Jesus, is it possible that the initial accounts were that Jesus had risen and ascended spiritually, but those accounts were later expounded on and conflated until they were mostly saying it was a truly physical resurrection, etc?
No, I’d say the entire point of the brief account is that the body is *gone*.
The body is gone and that is all?
-Mark is the earliest gospel.
-It was intented to convert people to the faith, or to strengthen the faith of the believers of the sect.
-Even in ancient times, I supose there were more pedestrian and alternative explanations for a gone body. That is not exactly IMHO the kind of spectacular event that would convert people. It may be subtle and mysterious, but open to interpretation. And the ancients were definitely not more stupid than we are.
And when I read the Octavius:
“Why should I refer to those old wives’ fables, that men were changed from men into birds and beasts, and from men into trees and flowers?–which things, if they had happened at all, would happen again; and because they cannot happen now, therefore never happened at all”
As you say, historians qua historians are not able not say that miracles do not happen, but that they are the least probable occurrence, by definition. For some christian apologist this earthly miracles did and could not happen. Period (because they contradict how nature works, and because did not happen in their present times, which are quite sensible reasons, by the way). So, were they hypocritical in the extreme, Minutius Felix was not a real christian, or it makes perhaps more sense to think in some kind of spiritual resurrection (dreams, visions, whatever) made more “material” late for doctrinal or sectarian in-fighting purposes?. You have said that the disciples did not invent the story, they had visions. Visions are compatible with spiritual resurrection, and in the Old Testaments there are stories of mediums and spirits. I am rather confused.
Sorry, I’m not sure what you’re asking.
What leads you to believe majority of Christians prior to irenaeus believed in physical resurrection of Jesus as opposed to a spiritual?
Pagels thinks gnostics universally(?) reject physical resurrection of Jesus, but irenaeus touted the physical resurrection mostly to promote legitimacy of Roman church and discredit his opponents.
Is it similar to Tabor’s view?
He emphasizes that it was a resurrection of the *flesh*, in distinction to the views of Gnostics, who thought it was not. He discusses the matter at some length in Adversus Haereses, especially book 5.
where does Tarbor explain that?
It seems to me Jesus own authentic teachings can be more simple and better understood as implying spiritual resurrection rather than physical. even Paul’s
Explanation makes sense.
I have another Luke question. You mentioned a while ago that you were going to post on Luke 23:43. I’d read, on an evangelical blog, some discussion about whether (as a matter of Greek grammar) it should be read as “Amen I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise” or as “Amen I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise”.
And the difference is presumably of some importance as to what Luke thought about the afterlife. If the first reading is correct (you will be with me in Paradise *today*) then presumably Luke thought, like most of today’s Christians, that the dead experience consciousness in between their death and their future bodily resurrection. (So the minority of today’s Christians who believe in “soul sleep” would obviously have to adopt the second reading.) If so, how does this compare to what we know of the views of the afterlife among apocalyptic Jews of Jesus’ time? And do you think that Luke believed in mind-body dualism / a “soul” in the sense that we understand it today? (I’m guessing all of this will be in your new book on the afterlife!)
I’m also assuming that there is zero chance that this saying goes back to the historical Jesus – given that it’s not multiply attested, and I see no way that the author of Luke could have known what Jesus did or didn’t say on the cross. It looks more like a theologically motivated Lukan embellishment. Am I right about that?
Well, for one thing it doesn’t make sense for Jesus to say “this is what I’m telling you today.” What would that mean? If he’s talking to him at that moment, what other day would it be? And since he won’t be talking at *all* about it tomorrow, and probably never laid eyes on the guy up to this moment … I think the repunctuation suggestion is really being driven not by a question of the grammar but by the theological question of what it might mean that they will be together in paradise later that day. That’s not a question of grammar, though, but of meaning.
David Neale,
To buttress Dr. Ehrman’s point, just read the gospels and you will see *numerous* times that Jesus precedes his pronouncements with “Verily I say unto…” In no passage does Jesus ever say, “Verily I say unto you today…” This is the case for the entire New Testament, not just the Lukan corpus. In fact, other than the verse in question, I found no other place where the word translated “today” even appears in the same sentence, save for Mark 14:30, which reads as follows in the NRSV: “Jesus said to him, ‘Truly [or “verily”] I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’” Obviously, Jesus wasn’t saying that that very day is when he was predicting Peter’s denial, but that the time when Peter would deny him was that same day.
In investigating this, I did come across an anomaly for which I have no explanation: in John’s gospel, the word for “verily” is always doubled (I found *no* exceptions). The NRSV translates this double occurence as “very truly,” while the KJV consistently translates both Greek words as “verily.” Perhaps Dr. Ehrman has some thoughts on this?
Yes, the Greek literally says “Amen I say to you.” So in John, it is “Amen, Amen, I say to you.” That is a frequent way to begin a saying in John, which never has the single “Amen,”; the double Amen occurs in no other Gospel.
Do you have any idea(s) about why John does this?
It appears to be meant to say “What I’m telling you now is the absolute truth — believe it!”
Fair enough. When you have time, I’d be really interested to read more about what this saying implies for Luke’s beliefs about the afterlife (and how those beliefs might differ from other NT authors and/or from apocalyptic Jewish beliefs of Jesus’ time). But presumably that’s the sort of thing that will be covered in your new book on the afterlife, so maybe I’m jumping the gun! At any rate I imagine it’s too broad a question to answer in a comment.
(And by the way, thank you for the helpful and swift response! It is much appreciated.)
Yup, I’m definitely dealing with it in my book. Basically the verse shows (along with the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16) that Luke believed in postmortem rewards and punishments, prior to the resurrection, unlike anything we find in the teachings of the historical Jesus himself.
You’re right. Didn’t see that one coming, and I’ll not soon forget the lesson either.
“And if that’s the case, there is in fact no contradiction between the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts.”
lol I don’t think it’s Bart’s intention, but this sentence reads like a dogmatic apologist who concludes every convoluted argument with: “So you see? There are no contradictions in the Bible.” XD
I believe in calling them as I see them, not in the way I’m *expected* to see them!!
Oh, bugger. I was one of those who thought the author had contradicted himself. My assumption was that there was a gap in time between the two works and he forgot what he had written in his first book since had given it away.
How much money did the ancient world make of the city of rome
???
Dr Ehrman –
Do you think it might be possible that a scribe added the ascension verses to the Gospel because, perhaps, he might simply not have had a copy of (what we call) the Book of Acts?
I’m thinking, perhaps quite early on, there might have been this situation, and, much like with the Gospel of Mark, a scribe added on an ending to Luke. And, somehow, that addition “stuck”.
Do you think this might be a plausible explanation?
Yup, it’s possible.
Dr Bart, in John 19:11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin. If Jesus of Nazareth thought he was to die for the remission of sin of the world why then would he say such…
I think his answer would have been something like…”this I must do to redeem the world”
Besides the whole story of Judas betraying Jesus won’t be necessary.
If Paul thought those without the law but live according to the law are right with God then why did he focus on preaching Jesus rather than his teaching?
I mean if all the people need to be saved is to live good Whether they be pagan or monotheists then what sense is in preaching Jesus as the messiah that must be believed in to get saved?
Yup, I’ve often wondered that as well!
Maybe because Paul meant to imply that a truly pious Gentile would realize his “law” was as impossible to follow as the Jewish Law? Just a wild uneducated guess.
It’s not logical, no. But faith isn’t about logic. Paul had a vision of Jesus. Through this vision, he found what he believed to be his true vocation in life. Of course he’d make Jesus central to everything. He wants people to listen to him. How better than to tell them this amazing story? That he ended up being a part of?
I mean, Rock and Roll would have existed without Elvis, or The Beatles (it was around well before either). Some people even think it would have been better without them (more racially integrated, put it that way).
But it’s always compelling to put charismatic figures at the center of a movement. A movement without compelling central figures tends not to take hold, even if the ideas are good.
Humans have the capacity for rational thought, and that is why we’ve achieved a level of material success no other species has–but a life lived entirely according to rational thought tends not to be very rewarding. And material success can feel pretty hollow sometimes. Assuming you even have that.
And that’s my third post of the day. Bye. 🙂
“Conclusion: the verse was probably added to the end of Luke. It wasn’t original. And if that’s the case, there is in fact no contradiction between the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts.”
I have no problem accepting this, but surely you realize that by saying this, you are proposing that the New Testament can’t be the perfect, inerrant word of God, for if the NT is inerrant, then there can be no room for latter-day scribes who inserted spurious text into the evangelist’s text in the name of the evangelist.
Which of course is possible to make with many such problems in the NT.
Of course. That’s one of the main points of many of my books. You may want to read Misquoting Jesus for a start.
Actually, many Christian scholars (and lay) are fine with this. They say that only the *original* autographs (itself a problematic concept) were inerrant. They acknowledge that changes were made, words dropped out or were added, etc. In essence it sets up an unfalsifiable theory of inerrant originals.
It’s very illogical. Not you, but the argument.
The Christians’ claim is that the original autographs are inerrant, but readily concede that subsequent errors were introduced into the texts by later copyists.
I have a question for them: If God, having gone to the trouble in the first place of inspiring the actual original writers, to make their texts inerrant, then why would not the same God extend the same attention and care to the subsequent copyists and editors?
In other words, if the original autographs were inerrant, then so should all the subsequent copies too.
Well, the problem with that argument (the way it can be defeated) is free will. We are free to disobey God, so we are presumably free to rewrite Him as well.
Which in no way resolves the problems with the different gospels contradicting each other, and no reason to think the autographs didn’t as well.
If the dead won’t be resurrected until the end of time. What then do we makeof of the apparition of moses and Elijah during Jesus transfiguration? Or the speech of Jesus about Abraham being overjoyed to see his days. There seems to be a shift from the doctrine of physical resurrection to spiritual resurrection.
They appear to be living in an intermediate state between death and resurrection. (BUT: Elijah never did die, but went up to heaven; and there were traditions that the same wasa true of MOses as well)
There is a Jewish tradition which says, because Elijah the Prophet never died, this (somehow) freed him to make frequent appearances to the rabbis of the time of the Talmud.
In the story of The Day God Laughed, after a panels of rabbis overruled God Himself, even after the fact that God Himself had decided against them in a case, with His Heavenly Voice, it is said that after the rabbis overruled God Himself, Elijah the Prophet appeared to them. The rabbis — naturally — were very nervous about this, and fearfully asked Elijah what was The Almighty’s reaction after they had overruled HIM!
And Elijah replied, GOD LAUGHED! FOR JOY! Because his own children, using reason and logic, had managed to defeat EVEN HIM in a match-up of wits.
There is a Passover Seder tradition that leaves a cup of wine by the doorstep for the Prophet Elijah, to welcome him in the event the Prophet makes a visit to announce the imminent coming of The Messiah.
Dr. Ehrman,
In your debate with Mike Licona back in February, Dr. Licona argued that “time compression” may also have been at work in Luke. In Acts, the author actually discusses the true time period where in Luke he simply moves the plot along for the sake of time.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks
Sure, kind of like me saying that JFK was assasinated in 1963 and the next year Nixon resigned from office because of hte Watergate scandal, and the year after that Jimmy Carter was elected as president.
Likely you are aware of the phenomenon of time compression that evangelical Christians make with regard to the 70 Weeks of Daniel.
The entire purpose of the prophecy is to foretell the construction and subsequent destruction of the 2nd Temple. But, because the magical word “MESSIAH” appears in the prophecy, Christians have spent centuries trying to work out the timing of this to make Daniel agree that the “Messiah” in his prophecy is Jesus..
Both Jews and Christians agree that a “week” in Daniel is a period of 7 years. So in Daniel, first there is a period of 7 “weeks” (49 years) and then an additional period of 62 “weeks,” when a “messiah” appears who gets “cut off.”
Naturally, 62 + 7 = 69 weeks. But since the Temple was destroyed 1 “week” later, in 70 AD, that would mean that this Messiah gets “cut off” in 63 AD, but since Jesus was crucified in 33 AD, at about the 64.5th “week,” how can this jibe with Daniel? And the answer is, the Christians arbitrarily and without justification “stop the clock” from 33 – 63 AD, then let the clock run again, to jam their theory into this Procrustean bed. Which is like me rewinding a clock long enough for my team to get ahead, or like the Democrats in 2000 who sought to keep the Florida recount open long enough to get Al Gore over the top, then shut it down.
Since a “messiah” is nothing but an anointed Jewish king, and since the last King of the Jews was Herod Agrippa II, who was deposed (cut off) at the outset of the Jewish Revolt of 66-73 AD, if this prophecy refers to anybody specifically, it therefore would refer to Herold Agrippa II and not Jesus.
I find it interesting that textual corruption can be appealed to in order to make a text more consistent. It seems like something that could help an apologist out, yet the idea might be just as unacceptable to them. Are there other examples of a likely textual corruption being able to address major discrepancies?
Sure! Scribal harmonization is a common feature of our ms. tradition. USUALLY the textual changes resolve rather htan create discrepancies.
Hosea 6:6 “I don’t want your sacrifices—I want your love; I don’t want your offerings—I want you to know me.
Isaiah 1:11 (ASV) What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? saith Jehovah: I have had enough of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
◄ Ezekiel 18:27 ►
But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life.
Jeremiah 3:12-13
To make it short. Dr Bart Ehrman there are several verses in the Old Testament that pointed to the fact that God has no delight in sacrifice but true repentance. Now if that’s the case why would Paul think Jesus death was a sacrifice since he know God would pardoned his people whenever they repent from there evil just like the people of Nineveh did. No sacrifice was needed….
Professor: I just now checked out both the KJV and Martin Luther’s original German translation of the entire Bible into German.
I did so because in both cases, the translator(s) used “original” materials and directly translated into their respective languages, instead of doing so through an intermediate language such as the Latin Vulgate. Luther did it all by himself, and King James used a team of the best Bart Ehrmans of his time to put the Bible into English.
Both of these versions include the (possibly) “satanic verses” of Luke 24:50-53. Which makes it evident to me that these verses themselves also come from ancient times.
Question: Are there any variant versions of Luke in existence where these (“satanic”) verses are missing? And if so, how can we tell which is authentic and which is spurious?
They were both using the Erasmus edition of the Greek text, later known as the Textus Receptus. Look it up and you’ll see what some of the problems with it are, or see my book Misquoting Jesus for it.
I shall get a copy.
By the way, do you find that this blogsite increases sales of your books noticably?
I have no way of knowing. My best selling book came out before I started the blog. I’ve often wondered if the blog cuts *into* sales, since people can access my thoughts/knowledge here (so why buy a book?).
Prof. Ehrman, my writing was atrocious, I understand that you did not understand the question. What I meant is: how they could proclaim to be followers of a religion with a higher moral standard than paganism and at the same time hpw could they be so hypocritical about miracles in the material world (all miracles are fables save our own). And if you say that the most probable events are that some disciples had visions of Jesus, then why it is not more probable that there was not a physical resurrection and was not intended to be understood as that at first, given Mark abrupt and ambiguous original ending?
Perhaps the first question is more fitting for a psychologist than for an historian or textual critic.
BTW at least in my case reading your blog, listening to your debates has induced me to buy more of your books. You are a model of clear writing, so even when somebody disagrees with you it is easy to see what is your hypothesis. There are scholars so convoluted as to be unfalsifiable.
Lots of Christians today have high moral standards but don’t think the miracles of other religions actually happened.
I don’t think a physical resurrection could possibly be more probably than visions. People have visions all the time.
Sorry you may have already addressed this but haven’t seen this objection yet so here goes… If I understand you correctly, your saying that if Luke 24:50-53 is an interpolation than there was no contradiction between Luke and Acts. Since Acts 1:2 says: “UNTIL the day when he was taken up to heaven…” that means the ascension was not narrated in Luke. This kinda makes sense to me. The only problem I have with it though is that Acts 1:3 says Jesus was with them “during forty days” and but Acts 1:2 says that Luke narrated “until the DAY when he was taken up…”. So if Luke 24:50-53 is an interpolation then Luke ends on the same day as the resurrection but in Acts the author says that Luke covered the events until the DAY Jesus was taken up which Acts states in the next verse was forty days later (actually 39 days but close enough). So doesn’t this mean that the contradiction is still there even if you assume that the ending of Luke is a interpolation?
Ok, I now realize that I slightly misunderstood you. I think you were saying that just Luke 24:51 was interpolated not all of Luke 24:50-53. In any case though, it doesn’t change what I was saying about your argument.
Great question! But the textual addition is not all of 24:50-53; it starts only at the very end of 24:52. So it ends with him blessing them and does not indicate anything else about what happened. Acts 1:2 indicates that he spent 40 days with the disciples, and that’s not contradicted by Luke 24:50-51a. It’s contradicted only if the ascension is said to have happened then. For a fuller discussion, see my book Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, where I spend seven full pages talking about the issues!
The concept of ascending to some higher place requires an idea of the cosmos. For instance, for our present knowledge if Jesus ascended at the maximum speed of light (I guess even God cannot violate his laws) toward the end of the universe he would not have reached it by now.
So He is still somewhere moving forward.
But how about the Jews around 30-40 c.e.?
I remember the story of Jacob’s ladder, stolen from the captivity in Babylon (the idea). Would Jesus use it to reach the heavens?
Is there any Apocrypha that talks about it?
And using a pole or a chariot would make the story more Jewish then, for instance, a cloud-like device like in the Romolo story?
An apocryphonthat talks about Jesus using Jacob’s ladder to get to heaven? No, not that I know of.
I have a question regarding Lukes’ understanding of the story of Jesus and his death and resurrection. You might have explained this before, but I have searched the blog and couldn’t find anything about this specifically. The question has to do with Luke 24:46-47 where Jesus says (that the scriptures say) that the Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead, and that the forgiveness of sins through repentance should be preached in his name to all people, beginning in Jerusalem. To me this sounds pretty much like how a lot of christians talk about jesus. It is about forgiveness – Jesus will forgive anything as long as you ask him for it. But a big part of the gospel does not sound as though that is Lukes’ view at all, to me. Sure Luke comes across as much more liberal than Matthew. But Jesus, in Lukes account, still seems to preach mainly about how to be righteous. And that the kingdom of god is for those who are righteous and that the rest will be punished (just like god did with Sodom, he says).
So my question is – Is god going to forgive or punish people, according to Luke?
He will forgive people who repent and turn back to him and begin to behave in righteous ways. (THat idea he will forgive, based on repentance, is not the view of hte apostle Paul, in terestingly enough. Luke doesn’t seem to have a doctrine of the atonement of sin, only of forgiveness based on repentance.)
Hi Bart,
I was working through the end of Luke and comparing it to the tomb stories found in the other canonical gospels.
I’m trying to wrap my head around Luke 24:34.
Specifically, v34,: ‘They were saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon”’.
Who are “they” in the passage? In the many previous verses, “they” referred to Cleopas and the other unnamed follower travelling to Emmaus. If that’s the case, this passage would seem to imply that it was Cleopas and Simon (Peter?) who talked with Jesus on the way to Emmaus.
Or is the “they” referring to the 11 and other followers telling Cleopas and the unnamed follower that Jesus appeared to Simon? If that’s the case, that seems to present a new set of problems.
I’ve spent quite a bit trying to figure this out and have combed your posts here; I can’t seem to find anything about that bizarre verse.
Thanks so much.
Yes, that can be confusing. In the Greek it’s a bit clearer. The people saying this are “the eleven” and “those with them” (telling it to the two coming back to Emmaus)
Dr. Ehrman,
Can you recommend any article about cosmology of that time? Also I was wondering about the word “spirit”.
For example, Paul says (1 Corinthians 15:42-44) about “spiritual body”. Or, 1 Peter 3:18, “made alive in the spirit”. Does that mean that spirit is something still made of matter? (Jesus himself says he’s not a ghost, Luke 24:39). But then on the other hand, Jesus’ description of the Holy Spirit, being like the wind (John 3:8) seems to confirm the “clasic” understanding. Now I’m really confused, could you shed some light, please?
Thanks,
Dan
1. Cosmology: nothing comes to mind! Maybesomeone else can hel us here. 2. “Spirit.” The Greek word PNEUMA meant different things to different thinkers. Platonists would have argued that it was non-material; most everyone else (Stoics, e.g.) argued that it was a very refined sort of “stuff” — but still “stuff,” that is, a kind of material substance. Paul’s view is actually fairly clear. Jesus like everyone else had a coarse material body made of this course stuff that all physical stuff is made of; when he was raised, his physical stuff got transformed into pneumatic (spiritual) stuff, the kind of stuff that cannot be hurt, injured, or killed. It’s immortal stuff. So the resurrection is not a resucitation of the corpse on one hand, and not a non-material existence of the non-material soul on the other. It’s a different kind of body, one that is now glorified and immmortal.