(30 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I explained why the contradictions found in the Bible affect a certain understanding of the inspiration of Scripture. The contradictions are not a point in and of themselves (OK, OK, so there are contradictions. So what?). There actually is a payoff. In factd, several. One of the payoffs is that the fundamentalist Christian claim that the Bible has no mistakes of any kind is almost certainly wrong. But as I have said this is not the only point or even the most important one.
I think we can all agree that most people read the Bible for religious reasons, pure and simple. They think that in *some* sense it is the word of God, and that it provides the guidance they need for what to believe and how to live. But what if there are *different* and even *irreconcilable* differences from one biblical author to another on precisely these issues? Which part do you follow? For then it is not a simple matter of reading any part of the Bible and saying, “OK, that settles it! That’s what I should believe. Or that is how I should behave/conduct myself.” Because if another part of the Bible says something else, then … then you’re still stuck: what should you believe or how should you behave?
Even fundamentalists are confronted with this problem, and they have to come up with theological explanations about how the Bible can contain the very words of God, the directions he has given to his people, word-for-word, if the words in one part are at odds with words in another part.
On the most obvious level, most …
To read the rest of this post you will need to belong to the Blog. If you don’t belong, you’re missing out on a lot. Joining costs about two bucks a month. That’s much less than a Big Mac and it’s much healthier. And every buck goes to charity. So why not join?
Considering contradictions, when Ecclesiastes 3:3 states there is “a time to kill”, does that mean all killing? animal slaughter? something else? Does this verse contradict the Commandment?
Even believers in the ten commandments often say that in times of war all bets are off.
I’ve often mused over the differences in this between Galatians and Matthew, as they seem to me to be irreconcilable. My fundy friends (and yes, they are dear to me) get upset that I’m just being argumentative. I can’t wait to see how this thread plays out because it is THE question when talking with Americans about the Bible. Thanks.
This post is invaluable to me!
For me, one of the most morally rehensible part of the OT is the acceptability of slavery. Instead of clearly stating,”Thou shalt not own another human as property” we get various rules on how to own them and tricks to keep the Hebrew males that you might have to release after 6 years. In this case, I am more moral than God. Even the N.T. doesn’t correct this or even seem to have any contradictions about it!
Pattylt June 29, 2018
For me, one of the most morally rehensible part of the OT is the acceptability of slavery. Instead of clearly stating,”Thou shalt not own another human as property” we get various rules on how to own them and tricks to keep the Hebrew males that you might have to release after 6 years. In this case, I am more moral than God. Even the N.T. doesn’t correct this or even seem to have any contradictions about it!
Are you preaching or asking Bart a question?
The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” The bible has much to say about how we are to treat each other. Love is the overriding principle and the foundation for everything we do. God hates when we mistreat one another and when we are abused by others.
It is important to note that neither slavery in New Testament times nor slavery under the Mosaic Covenant have anything to do with the sort of slavery where “black” people were bought and sold as property by “white” people in the well-known slave trade of the last few centuries.
The extreme kindness to be shown to slaves/servants commanded in the Bible among the Israelites was often prefaced by a reminder that they too were slaves at the hand of the Egyptians. In other words, they were to treat slaves/servants in a way that they wanted to be treated.
“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)”
Paul gives clear instructions that Christian “masters” are to treat such people with respect and as equals. Their employment position did not affect their standing in the Church.
“1 Timothy 1:10”
Bart, do you think you have any obligation or duty to try to correct or inform others when they make comments that are in error in response to what you have posted? On the forum you don’t moderate, I have begun to do that. However, I’m confident you have some responsibility along those lines, don’t you?
By encouraging a firestorm of reaction that misrepresents biblical principles, isn’t the poison spreading from the root of bitterness and wreaking havoc exactly as promised?
I think people tend to forget that basically all cultures accepted slavery of one form or another (many still do). The modern revulsion towards slavery is precisely that–modern. And largely created by devout Christian abolitionists (like Harriet Beecher Stowe).
The text is one thing. Your reading of it another. The books of the bible have always been read selectively, and the personality, education, and background of the people reading it have always mattered.
It is, I think, much easier to read the bible as anti-slavery than pro-slavery, but both currents can be found, because both currents existed, in both Jewish and Christian communities.
If you and your neighbors profit from slavery of some kind, it’s going to be a lot harder to find the moral will to condemn it. It didn’t take hold because of religion. I have no doubt at all that if civilization had been created without any concept of God or gods (and I doubt it ever would have done), there still would have been slaves. The strong tend to oppress the weak. Religion has, to some extent, served as a curb on this tendency. But it can also be used to justify it.
To me, the most eloquent statement on the subject comes from the Africans brought here to a new country–who became among the most devout Christians who ever lived. In many cases, after early attempts at conversion, they were actively discouraged from Christian worship–I read one account of a man, James Smith, who had a very strong personal conversion, became a sort of lay minister, preaching to those around him–and was savagely beaten for it.
Because, you see, it was harder to justify inflicting this kind of bondage on fellow Christians. Once American chattel slavery took on its mature form, it became more and more important to dehumanize the slaves. We’re still suffering from the after-effects of that.
It was the black churches that served as the resistance to this campaign of dehumanization, and basically the only white people who gave them any material aid were themselves devout.
And that should be weighed into the balance. “Christianity got slavery wrong.” Which Christianity? Can anyone be foolish enough not to see there are, and always have been, many Christianities? Many atheisms, too. And the worst of them……..
With my background in psychology I never underestimate the human mind to rationalize and justify, just about anything! If you have a belief in divine inspiration and inerrancy of the text there are “some” fundamentalists that cannot see these contradictions due to their defenses of rationalization and justification. I’ve seen some Christians simply perform a type of Biblical Algebra where one verse simply cancels out another. For example, passages in the OT where God is depicted killing people or saying people who are not followed the God of Abraham should be killed are simply summarily dismissed as being part of the Law which they are under no obligation to follow, yet they never seem to question the cruel and harsh was God is depicted.
My question today is along the lines of my last question where I asked how you deal with Fundamentalist/Evangelical students that disagree with your conclusions because of their beliefs. As I discuss these issues on another forum with some Fundamentalist friends I have realized they have a difficult time thinking Historically rather than Theologically. Is it difficult for those students to see the difference between viewing the text from an Historical perspective as opposed to a Theological perspective? How do you teach them to see the text as an Historian would examine the text?
Very difficult indeed. Some students take an entire semester to get their minds around it; others never do get it.
One of the hardest things for a human being to admit is that maybe — just maybe — something we believe is simply wrong. Have you ever noticed that we desperately try to avoid the feeling of being wrong? That’s because that feeling of being wrong is so full of negative social emotions: embarrassment, shame, betrayal, resentment, etc. That’s why we create mental barriers to being wrong. Accepting that we may be wrong is simply to painful.
Check out the TED talk by Kathryn Schulz.
If a believer is not saddled with the notion that NT texts are “scripture”, but rather, just texts that are representative of a basic orthodoxy of the faith, and, if a Gentile believer (in particular) understands that the Law of Moses was given to Israel, and *not* to Gentiles, then it entirely changes that believers perspective. But, it doesn’t change (one bit) whether that believer can believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected, nor does it change the myriad of implications of that resurrection.
What I see in the writings of many skeptics is a very brittle, wooden, and (to be honest) un-thinking approach to (in particular) the NT. And, rather than concluding that just maybe the NT really *shouldn’t* be regarded as some kind of “authoritative scripture”, this same brittle and wooden approach leads to skepticism – about what? About the conclusions resulting from that same brittle and wooden approach. It’s not at all surprising to see that many skeptics were those that were once attracted to the Fundamentalist approach.
“But, it doesn’t change (one bit) whether that believer can believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected, nor does it change the myriad of implications of that resurrection.”
It absolutely does change (a) whether one can believe in the resurrection and (b) what the implications would be (the NT writers themselves couldn’t even agree what it meant).
Indeed, unless one believes the creation story, including the ‘fall’, there is no reason why a sacrifice was required in the first place, let alone worrying about the implications thereof.
LOL! Sort of puts the Bible in perspective, but then, I don’t think it’s much different from other holy books that have been stitched together from the writings of multiple authors over centuries. I think we must acknowledge that this is a realm where logic and rationality play little role, and where people not only do not think, but don’t want to think. Still, it’s instructive to point out the problems faced by believers in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Ultimately, if anyone ever gives these questions serious consideration, everyone chooses their own canon within a canon, their own favorite popes, or preferred interpretations, religious or otherwise. Or they just absorb some more or less unconscious set of views from their parent(s) or someone else. Does that sound cynical? I think it’s just human behavior.
The (generic) Church’s position on divorce has always been a puzzler.
Mark 10:9 says, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Here, the ban on divorce is absolute — because marriage is something that GOD has put together, it is therefore forbidden to dissolve it under any and ALL circumstances, for ANY reason.
But Matthew 5:32 says, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, SAVING FOR THE CAUSE OF FORNICATION, causeth her to commit adultery.”
Well, which IS it? If marriage cannot ever be dissolved because it is an institution that God put together, then it cannot be dissolved even if adultery is present.
Either Man can, or Man cannot, dissolve marriage for any reason. Which is it? I could argue both ways from the Gospels. And i honestly don’t know why most of Christianity has followed the stricter enforcement.
As for the Torah and whether Christians should follow it — the Apostle Paul is emphatic. The Law is now null and void. At best, it was like a schoolmaster before Jesus came, but not that Jesus has come, we no longer need a schoolmaster.
For this reason, Christians are under no requirement to keep dietary restrictions or put signs on their doorposts. But the 10 Commandments are just as much a part of the Law as are the dietary and ritual laws. If the ENTIRE Law is now null and void — because it cannot ever save helpless mankind — then ALL of it is null and void, INCLUDING the 10 Commandments.
My guess that that you have not really figured out that adultery itself *breaks* the covenant of marriage. In Jesus’ teaching, *divorce* did not break that covenant, so that even with a divorce, that covenant was still in effect. But, adultery? Well, it’s found in countless places in the OT: adultery breaks that covenant. Jesus agreed with this.
Getting a divorce *after* your spouse commits adultery is a “western” thing. In Jewish law, if someone was convicted of adultery, then the marriage was simply terminated, and at times, the offender was pronounced “dead” to the family. (see The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage – Maurice Lamm)
Jesus’ teaching, though – that simply getting a divorce was a no-go – was a hard teaching to swallow. However, he was in agreement in holding that an adultery was, itself, breaking the covenant. There was no “divorce” about it.
I think, though, you’d really need to spend some time to actually *study* the issue. I mean, you’re asking all these questions about it. Is there something prohibiting you from going off and finding the answers?
If nothing else, start with that book I recommended. Once you’ve read it, then you might get some idea of what Jesus is talking about… (just a suggestion)
For someone who claims to have read “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage,” you sure learned NOTHING from it.
Did your book even go into what an “agunah” is? An agunah is a woman whose marriage has broken up, yet her ex-husband refuses to make it official with a bill of divorce, which means she cannot remarry or indeed engage in any kind of sexual relations without it being adultery.
Which is why it’s NONSENSICAL to claim that adultery is what dissolves marriage. Marriages — in Judaism — REMAIN intact, even if adultery has occurred. Only a bill of divorce, known as a “get,” dissolves marriage.
(By the way, does your book even mention “get”? Does it define the difference between female and male adultery inside a marriage? Somehow I doubt it. If a husband visits an unmarried hooker, did he commit adultery?)
According to you, adultery itself dissolves a marriage. Errant NONSENSE. Because if it did, then Jesus’ remarks about no divorce save in cases of “fornication” make no sense, because the matter is already moot.
And in any event, these words contradict the ABSOLUTE ban on divorce that Jesus lays down in Mark. If adultery dissolves marriage, then this remark too makes NO SENSE.
There’s a REASON for the Catholic Church’s absolute ban on remarriage after civil divorce. It’s because the RCC bases its doctrine on Mark, and says, because marriage is something that God put together, no man is capable of breaking it, for ANY reason. There is therefore no such thing as divorce, and anyone who remarries after (civil) divorce is simply committing adultery.
Jesus DIDN’T agree that adultery breaks the covenant of marriage.
You claimed that “Getting a divorce *after* your spouse commits adultery is a “western” thing. In Jewish law, if someone was convicted of adultery, then the marriage was simply terminated.”
OBVIOUS nonsense. Contradicted by Jesus’ own words. Matthew 5:31: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:” Matthew 19:7 says, ” Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement?…” OBVIOUSLY, the concept of legal, WRITTEN divorce is ANCIENT, not “western.”
As for myself, you’d be surprised. I have spent my entire life looking for answers to such questions. The person who needs to learn more is you, not me.
Wow! I love this post. You are a great inspiration to me. Thanks!
Dear Dr Ehrman. I have a seen a lot of affirmations about “Most scholars think this or that” how is it determined that in your field? does it mean professors teaching in universities, curators in museums or how. how are fundamentalists accounted in that affirmation
In the field of biblical studies it’s complicated (not, say, in chemistry or American history). I usually say something like “most critical scholars” conclude this that or the other thing, to differentiate between those who have a religious perspective that may affect their views and those who accept evidence regardless of the religious implications.
When I was in my teens and believed the Bible was inerrant, that gave me some comfort. In the midst of the chaos, confusion, and fear, I had a solid rock to cling to. But the more I studied the Bible and thought about it in relation to our worldly realities, the more I saw the problems… and the freer I was to get my own life.
Wait!! Fundamentalist Christians (and Jews and Muslims and…others) cherry pick their scriptures when it suits them to do so, and they are inconsistent in so-doing? Say it ain’t so.
good points, i agree the bible is not authoritative,
Dr. Ehrman,
How did you get through a prestigious evangelical college (Wheaton) without these issues effecting your faith or your view of scripture? What was was it about Princeton that got you to see these issues clearly? Was it the level of scholarship, the professors, your cohort, etc?
Thanks
It’s easy to accept a certain view of Scripture if everyone around you does. It’s only when you study hard on your own and think about the issues that you can be open up to other possibilities.
Well said! When anybody trots out, unthinkingly, the tribal view (about anything) I respond by stating my own dictum: ‘Read widely, think deeply.’ And that can be done only by oneself.
If someone were to collect writings from X number of religious scholars (say 27), all having PhDs from reputable institutions with years of research experience, and published them in a book…how many discrepancies in opinion, or even contradictions, might there be? At least a few. Perhaps a lot. Should I then question the “authority” or reliabilty of these experts? The same could be said about any field. I remember reading in a textbook once that Pluto is a planet. This is now considered wrong. Should I now doubt that the Sun is a star or the moon revolves around the Earth?
Im not saying that the Bible’s contradictions arent a problem and don’t have implications. But I do ask what makes someone/something authoritative and, given that contradictions and mistakes seem inevitable, how do you decide when that authority is questionable or a text is unreliable?
I am currently reading ‘Jesus before the Gospels’.
In the section ‘Swords in the Garden’ you cast doubt on the story because it flies in the face of Jesus’ words about those who live by the sword die by the sword. How does this fit with Luke 22:36 – 38 where Jesus is reported to have told his disciples to purchase weapons?
In the section ‘The Barabbas Episode’ you state that there appears to be no mention of the practice of releasing prisoners at the behest of the mob outside the gospels. In my wider reading I have encountered the following:
1. Josephus records that when the Roman governor Albinus was preparing to leave office he released prisoners who had been incarcerated for crimes other than murder. ‘he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers.’ (Antiquities 20.9.3).
2. In the Mishnah (Jewish oral tradition, written in around AD 300) it records that “they may slaughter the passover lamb for one….whom they have promised to bring out of prison”.
3.A piece of papyrus also records a Roman governor of Egypt saying: “You were worthy of scourging but I gave you to the crowds.” (P.Flor 61, c. AD 85).
4. Pliny the younger notes such practices and who had responsibility to do so, “It was asserted, however, that these people were released upon their petition to the proconsuls, or their lieutenants; which seems likely enough, as it is improbable any person should have dared to set them at liberty without authority” (Epistles 10.31).
Do you see these references as germane to the Barabbas story?
1. Yes, the injunction to purchase weapons, on this theory, is a later legendary accretion; 2. I’m not saying that governors could not release people if they wished. I’m saying we have no reference to some kind of Passover tradition of releasing a prisoner, let alone an insurgent who has, say, murdered a Roman soldier!
Regarding those swords: In each of the gospels, it says that one of the disciples cut off a servant’s ear during the arrest. He does this at the moment when armed soldiers are in the middle of making a touchy arrest, and yet nothing happens to him! Have you ever heard any satisfactory explanation for this?
Not really. Other than that it appears to be legendary.
The entire story told is that Jesus told his disciples to buy swords, and they brought back two (swords are expensive). He said that would be enough. So if this happened, it wasn’t Jesus trying to build an army. It was Jesus making a symbolic gesture, as he often did. “We had weapons and didn’t use them.” The story I see is of a man who is acting out a play he’s constructed in his mind. Which ends with his own death, and the coming of the Kingdom. Well, no theatrical production is ever 100% successful.
The Bible has been used to both oppose and support
Slavery
War
Genocide
Bigotry
Oppression
Nationalism
Capitalism
Socialism
Monarchy
Persecution
Segregation
etc.
“If any one, as he pleases, form a dogma agreeable to himself, and then carefully search the Scriptures, he will be able to produce many testimonies from them in favour of the dogma that he has formed.” – Pseudo-Clementine Homilies,2,10
Anything ever written that had any influence over people has been used in similarly confusing fashion.
And usually contains no end of contradictions.
Because human nature is itself contradictory.
From a comment yesterday:Then Jesus said to the woman, “I was sent only to help God’s lost sheep–the people of Israel.”
◄ Matthew 10:6 ►Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
◄ Matthew 10:5 ►These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.
So why then did Paul go among the gentiles?
Because he saw himself as the one God had called to extend the mission to the nations, now that it had been proclaimed to the Jews.
Parable of the Wedding Banquet
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
“Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’
“But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
“Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
His chosen people rejected Him, so He invites others, the gentiles. Jesus Christ, who “came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him”
“I’m not saying that governors could not release people if they wished. I’m saying we have no reference to some kind of Passover tradition of releasing a prisoner” Bart
This is a reference.
“It’s easy to accept a certain view of Scripture if everyone around you does. It’s only when you study hard on your own and think about the issues that you can be open up to other possibilities.” Bart
That isn’t true. You can accept to a point the majority opinion and reserve doubts at the same time. You can still be open to many possibilities. In fact we are instructed to, “Test all things; hold fast what is good.” Also, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, BUT TEST THE SPIRITS, whether they are of God… By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.”
“test all things…” Etc. Absolutely! Of course before you said that God hides truth from the “wise and learned, even today”. So you must mean that testing should only be done by the ignorant and unwise, which is a low standard.
Testing is why many have a problem with claims of Bible inerrancy or of Jesus being the Messiah based on the OT. Many of the OT verses claimed for proof of Jesus as Christ don’t fit or pass the test. Claims of authorship of the Bible books and authentication of the stories don’t pass the test for many, especially by the standard used to reject others.
People can believe based on little or no evidence. But legitimate and sincere proof and “testing all things” require the best objectivity and knowledge one can obtain. If God really wants truth tested it goes counter to your claims elsewhere that God hides truth from the wise and learned.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I am a lay person who has never read the bible in full. My goal is to read it cover to cover. I am looking for the best english edition for a student which exhibits the least theological bias. Any recommendations?
Thanks!
I would recommend the NRSV, which I especially like in an annotated edition, such as the HarperCollins Study Bible.
I found “The New Oxford Annotated Bible – New Revised Standard Version With The Apocrypha” (Fourth Edition) very helpful when I read through the entire Bible 2 years ago. It has great introductions to all the books by noted scholars and insightful essays, tables, glossary and maps.
Do you ditch the insistence that you resist the ruling authorities at all costs because they are completely opposed to God (the book of Revelation)
Dr. Ehrman, can you be more specific about this? You gave no chapter or verse for reference.
It’s hard to give a chapter and verse on this one. The whole book is written to oppose Rome, the anti-Christ/”Beast” that is violently oppressing the people of God.
Dr. Ehrman, If the entire book of Revelation was written to oppose Rome then how did it survive? I’m curious about this because I know the Romans were good at eradicating unwanted literature.
We don’t have any record of Roman authorities going on a book-destroying mission (against the Christians) until the early fourth century (under Diocletian), and even then Revelation was not singled out. It was in-house literature.
In-house literature? So that’s why it wasn’t eradicated? Is that what you’re saying? They could have eradicated it otherwise? Do you believe that some of the Dead Sea scrolls, at least, such as the War Scrolls, could have been hidden in caves to protect them from the Romans during the time of the first great war?
Sure, they could have eradicated the books if they had known about them. And yes, some of hte DSS were definitely hidden in view of the coming war.
It’s pretty hard to find any document used as a source of authority that isn’t contradictory. Because human needs and desires are contradictory. Our values are constantly at odds with each other. For example, we all want unfettered liberty and absolute security. It is flat-out impossible to have both. One or the other is hard enough.
Yes, you are the one exercising authority, by interpreting the document in question (unless there is a system of laws behind it, in which case your interpretation may not be recognize outside your own head). But you’d be doing that if no book of the bible had survived, and no organized religion had ever existed. And your neighbor would have his own ideas. And you’d pick up some rocks or fashion some spears, and have it out. That’s why we started coming up with systems of authority, based on written texts, which purported to have divine authority behind them. Because why would people obey laws written by other people just to keep them in line? Would we have any civilization at all if there had never been religion?
Rousseau liked to talk about The Social Contract (I think it was David Hume who quipped “I’d like to see a copy” but I’m not sure.) Rousseau also believed that we were all noble savages back before laws and religion. Rousseau never studied chimpanzee colonies (I like our cousins a lot, they have some fine qualities, but noble they ain’t–can’t afford to be).
What’s weird about this is that the authority you’re talking about is one that people freely accept, at least in the western world. There are huge divisions in evangelical Protestantism (leaving aside the differences within Christendom as a whole), but feeling besieged, increasingly involved in politics, there’s a lot less room for diversity of opinion than was previously the case. You can dissent, but it’s going to mean either leaving the church, or founding a new one (which Protestants can do, but the tax-exempt thing is such a pain to finagle).
I like to believe the ultimate authority is individual conscience. (Which nobody is born with, and some never develop). But where does that come from? Not the bible. From the thing that made people write it.
The text is only an angle, that can put your photograph on the wall of the church, and not the hammer that hit the angle on the wall. The hammer is yourself. 🙂 Did you mean to say that?
As an amateur theologian and a believer, you have given me a lot to think about. I am beginning to think that I am most likely to pick the parts of the Bible that fit my personal beliefs and pretend that the rest doesn’t “matter” or can be explained away, like that really didn’t come from Paul but was a forgery etc. I have jokingly said to my Sunday school class that what I talk about is sometimes the “Gospel according to Gary”. Maybe I’m closer to being right than I thought !!
Bart, on June 25 you sent this reply to someone: “I don’t think there was a Moses–I see all these stories as legendary.”
How about King David? Real or legend?
I think there probably was a King David, but we know almost nothing about him and the biblical accounts, in my opinion, are legends.
Bart thanks for another thought-provoking post. In my case the thought provoked is this: For most Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) the problem on contradictions is overcome by having another source of authority: Church teaching. Surely when the founders of Protestantism decided on the Bible as the sole authority they must have been aware of the contradictions. Why would they not have given some sort of out to replace Church teaching authority?
Yes, it really is a problem only for those who base *everything* on the Bible.
Today I watched a repeat of “Dr. Oz” where he has two medical doctors give their own accounts of a Near Death Experience. To them, there is no doubt that the afterlife is real and they were there. A third emergency room doctor who has had no personal NDE’s talked about how science is changing (in his opinion) and the old explanations of drug-induced hallucinations and lack of oxygen are no longer sufficient to explain the experiences people have had after dying in his care, only to be revived.
Does the bible give me an authoritative answer that there’s life after death? Yes, for me. It’s an interesting debate. I’m of the mindset that the bible can instill both virtues and calamities within a person. A very human book that offers some explanations for what happens in our lives and gives hope to one person and cause for great despair to another. It has caused millions of people to wonder, “Did God create man or did man create god?”
The Bible gives several different (inconsistent) answers. That’s what my next book is about!
And therein lies the problem.
Good post. I can’t help thinking about the political debates in the US. The same people who want to give the biblical text authority also seems to be the ones who often are most insistent on a textualist interpretation of the constitution and in both cases they find mostly what they want in the text.
Personally, I appreciate your posts about contradictions very much, because of the clues they give us about the origins and composition of the texts. As you pointed out in your recent post about the literary seams in John – or your previous posts on other biblical texts in which multiple source texts have been sewn together, as in the Torah, the Synoptics, Isaiah, Job etc.
I actually agree with most of this blog and the previous one! And I’m glad you explained that scripture doesn’t have to be inerrant to be inspiring or even true. Since pure, outright fiction can be some of the most inspired writing we read, the Bible’s contradictions don’t interfere with the inspiration. And the more I have had to study the Old Testament, the more I’ve found hints of the New in the Old.
Well, You obviously have not studied enough Bart. Any good fundamentalist pastor could explain this all to you.
(Insert heavy sigh here in realizing that you are just, just………. lost.)
I would write more but only have 362 words left………….
I have found the work of Crossan and Borg (and of course yours Bart!) on this issue to very profound. For example, Crossans ‘How to read the Bible and still be a Christian’ on the issue of violence.
The basic premise is that the radical message of Jesus and Paul were ‘watered down’ by subsequent generations so as to conform with the existing authority/political structures of the time.
Coupled with notion that contradictions were introduced into the stories of the NT because of the way they were passed down orally, I think one can come to a much more coherent view of the development of Christianity. Or maybe I am completely wrong. :-/
Peace.
This particular post made more sense to me than just about anything I’ve read recently. Thanks Doc.
Hey! i get to have 3, countum, 3 comments!
Bart?
S-A-N-T-A has you heart..
Black Hearted Bart! You should have been a pirate!
Big meany!
AARRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!
Thanx Dr. Ehrman. I really like this post. Which do you prefer to study, historical christianity and its effect on western civilization or textual criticism of the gospels? You do both so well I just wondered if you have a favorite?
I made a career decision some years back to move on from textual criticism, and so am no longer actively engaged in it. I loved it while I was there. And now love what I’m doing now!
The Bible has always presented challenges for readers to determine what is applicable to current times, which verses are meant for whom, to what extent, why, what about this and that?
If a believer in Christ misinterprets certain scriptures, so what?
It makes absolutely no difference if 1 John 5:7-8 belongs in the Bible doctrinally. None. Anyone can misinterpret scripture and claim it is contradictory. It doesn’t make it so. Jesus doesn’t want kids to hate their parents, Bart. Common sense isn’t anti-Bible. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.” Jesus Christ
Bart, you know better than to say Jesus wants us to hate family members. Compared to the love we have for Him, nothing else can compete. You know that’s what He’s saying. That’s how important He is. He wasn’t playing games and He used hyperbole and other literary techniques all the time to make His points. Your unhealed resentments have surfaced here. Resentment has defiled your heart and your thinking. I didn’t recognize this before now. There it is. Strong, intense anger from past hurt. It was so powerful, it was overwhelming, absolutely overpowering and it ate away at your good heart.
“We were not allowed to have sexual relations of any kind. Those were reserved for marriage. (Which is one reason so many people got married very young at Moody. That, of course, is in many instances a recipe for disaster, as history later then bore out). By no sexual relations, I not only mean no sexual intercourse. I mean no sexual contact of any kind, including touching and kissing.” Bart
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Moody was out to protect its students. Moody was attempting to restrict interaction among its students that could lead to sin. You may have resented them for this, but God was in those rules, my friend. O.T. Scripture is unambiguous about sexual purity. Jesus took it much further, however. To lust after a woman is adultery. Cut out your eye if it causes you to sin, or cut off your hand, or any other part of your body if it causes you to lose Me!
Professor, what do you know about the state of the Jewish calendar in antiquity? This is a question whose answer might impact on the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.
As you know, today, both Judaism and Islam have a lunar calendar, based on the NEW Moon. Months in both religions commence(d) on the FIRST sighting of a crescent moon on the first or second evening after astronomical New Moon. And days run sundown-to-sundown.
But was this always the case in Judaism? Rabbinical Judaism says it was; the proof is in the words of Genesis 1:5, “And it was evening and it was morning, one day” — indicating that the division between one day and the next has always happened at sundown.
Sir Dr. Colin J. Humphreys proposes in his The Mystery of the Last Supper that Judaism adopted this New Moon-based calendar only after returning from the Babylonian Exile; prior to that Exile, Judaism had used a calendar derived from Egypt in which days ran from sunRISE-to-sunRISE, and where months commenced on the FINAL sighting of the OLD Moon in the pre-dawn skies for that particular month.
This theory, if true, would mean that in this old-style calendar, all months would begin a day or more earlier than they do under the New Moon calendar.
We know that Judaism was profoundly influenced by the Babylonian Captivity. Jews went into captivity speaking Hebrew and came back speaking Aramaic. And the very names of their months are Babylonian; in fact, the name of the current month is Tammuz, which also is the name of a Babylonian deity. VERY odd for the religion of the Jealous One God to have, but there it is.
Humphreys proposes that the Samaritans STILL use the old-style calendar, and that the Jews of Galilee continued to use the old-style calendar even into the time of Jesus. And this is how he reconciles the competing Gospel accounts of the Last Supper — on Passover or on the night before? He says, Jesus and the disciples, being Galillean, observed Passover (Last Supper) on Wednesday evening which, to THEM, was Passover, whereas the rest of Jerusalem observed it on Friday evening.
There is an argument in the Talmud about rabbis quarreling about the correct day of Yom Kippur; could be this is residue of the old-calendar argument?
Do you have an opinion about any possible pre-Exile Old-Moon-based calendar?
I have to admit, among the many, many things I’m deeply interested in with respect to Jewish and Christian antiquity, calendars have never been among them….
“…over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise.” Bruce Metzger
“But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. 20 These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.”…
A root of bitterness, a bitter root, producing bitter fruits to themselves and others. It produces to themselves corrupt principles, which lead to apostasy and are greatly strengthened and radicated by apostasy—damnable errors (to the corrupting of the doctrine and worship of the Christian church) which usually ends either in downright atheism or in despair. It also produces bitter fruits to others, to the churches to which these men belonged; by their corrupt principles and practices many are troubled, the peace of the church is broken, the peace of men’s minds is disturbed, and many are defiled, tainted with those bad principles, and drawn into defiling practices; so that the churches suffer both in their purity and peace. But the apostates themselves will be the greatest sufferers at last
Obeying God is not often discussed these days. It is almost taboo. We are modern, independent, capable men and women for Pete’s sake. We obey ourselves. EGO- easing God out. I promise in no uncertain terms He does not want to be in the business of burping pablum puking backsliders. Submission to God equals growing up. Said that to say this: Being obedient to the light I have been given is a full time job. The itsy bitsy apparent discrepancies that can be skewed into a massive 3” tsunami don’t compare to the challenges of living a sanctified wholly life.
1 comment yesterday. 1 comment today and it says my limit has been reached
Bart – You failed to mention Yahweh’s directive and condoning kidnapping and rape of young girls:
Try explaining the following to your daughter. And don’t forget that the beloved Messiah Jesus of the Trinity was right there by his father’s side the whole time. That’s right – Jesus said “Before Adam was – I AM.”
Read this top 10 list of Yahweh’s horrific commands and tell me you believe this is a loving God; who in most cases ordered, blessed and even was the one who “delivered” the “spoils” into the Hebrew’s hands.
1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24)
2) Murder, rape (32,000 virgins!) and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18, 25-35)
3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 )
6) David’s Punishment – Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God’s “Forgiveness” (2 Samuel 12:11-14)
7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30)
9) Slaves and Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:1-11 )
10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2)
11) BONUS Horror: Yahweh allows Jephthah to sacrifice his only daughter. (Judges 11:28-40)
Interestingly, I have never heard any of this preached on Sunday morning.
Boko Haram and ISIS can’t hold a candle to Yahweh.
Wow. Excellent post, a veritable Exegetical Smackdown, to use the technical term 🙂
Professor,
Jesus says he is not a son of David at Matthew 22: 41-45, Mark 12: 35-378, and Luke 20: 41-44 (Paul says it at Romans 1: 1-4 and 2 Timothy 2: 8). Jesus relies upon Psalm 110 in these parallel passages. There seems to be a contradiction with Matthew and Luke putting in a genealogy that goes back to David but including Jesus asking, How can the second Lord of David, a pre-existing Christ, be a descendant of David?
Did you find a resolution to this so this truly is not a contradiction?
Thank you,
Steefen
It’s never been clear to me that he is saying he is not a descendant of David; he may instead be asking how CAN he be the Son of David if he is the son of God.
The context is criticism of scribes. Let’s look at Mark 12: 35 – 39.
(35) As Jesus was teaching in the Temple area, he said, “How do the scribes claim that the Messiah is the son of David?
(36) David himself inspired by the holy Spirit said:
“The Lord said to my lord,
‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet.’”
(37) David himself calls him ‘lord’; so how is he his son?”
The crowd heard this with delight.
Denunciation of the Scribes
(38 ) In the course of his teaching he said, “Beware of the scribes who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces,
(39) seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets.
= = =
So, it seems to be an error that Jesus is saying, Scribes, you are correct, the Messiah of Judah–not the Messiah of Levi who is greater than the former–is the son of David; now, let’s see if you can tell us the explanation of the mystery of how can he be the son/descendant of David and also be a Lord over David; how can he not be in human form then but be in human form now?
Second, it would be a grave vacancy for Jesus not to fulfill the more powerful Messiah of Levi role (The Book of Jubilees, The Rule of the Community, The Damsacus Document, and the Aramaic Levi Document) and only fill the lesser Messiah of Judah role.
Third, the crowd heard it with delight, delighting in correcting the scribes, no?
Just had a second comment deleted… What’s the deal Bart?
Not sure. If it was relevant and not inflammatory, I would have posted it.
Well, Bart, here’s another one, from Matthew 7:7:
“Seek and you will find”
Does is say to study the Jewish scriptures? Doesn’t seem so. I understand it as saying seek anywhere for answers. Maybe you’ll find them in Hindu, or Buddhist texts, or Greek mythology, could be anything. Jesus doesn’t specify.
Upon reading the words of Jesus I did seek, and I did find. I found a simple universal answer to the question of what to believe, which is: Believe nothing, respect everything. As to how to behave, see that everything you do is done for the good of all, not for yourself alone. This is why it is good to pray before a meal. But it is not literally to God we should pray, for in praying to God because he instructed that we do we are hoping for a reward (or to at least avoid a paddling on Judgement Day. We give thanks to the animal who died for us of whom we are about to eat, and to the plants and to all of whom worked to bring that meal from the land to our plate. And then we ask “Am I worthy of this meal?” This is exactly what Mahayana Buddhists teach.
Dr. Ehrman, you wrote “If the Gospel of Mark suggests that Jesus … was made the son of God [at] his baptism – can Christians believe that? Of course not, not today.”
Why can’t this be believed today? What do we know that second century believers didn’t know that would render the belief untenable? Modern science may change our thinking on the casting out of demons, for example, but I don’t see that Jesus becoming a god at one time is more tenable than at another. Don’t today’s believers largely believe what they’re taught? And isn’t this largely due to extant Christianities that won out over others? It seems to me that today’s Christians discount the at-his-baptism option because that’s what they’re taught.
Ah, I shouldn’t have said that. Of course Christians can believe that. Though most would find it wrong and offensive.
Professor Ehrman you mention that ” In many places in the Old Testament it presupposes that there are many gods, not just One God. When the Ten Commandments instruct the ancient Hebrew to “have no other gods before me,” the very assumption is that there are indeed other gods, but none of them is to have priority over Yahweh.”
Please correct me if i am wrong but did the Jews not fall into idolatry so much so that prophet after prophet had to come and warn them from it.
I also have been reading that the Jews worshiped Ashera the wife of Yahweh and that Solomon even built a temple for her. Please comment and correct me if i am wrong.
Certainly some Israelites worshiped other gods, yes indeed.
All the “rhetoricals” in Dr Ehrman’s original post, as well as those asked by some others in this thread, cause me to wonder: Is it really possible that, for the last 2000 years, there have not been any Christians that have seen these same issues? Did we (I am a believer) all just somehow manage to completely be blinded to such questions? And now, all of a sudden, there are a few Enlightened Ones that have been clever and intelligent enough to step back and see these issues?
In Exodus, we read “Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens. Let them judge the people at all times; and let it be that every major dispute they will bring to you, but every minor dispute they themselves will judge.”
What’s there to judge, if everything is black-and-white? Thing is, everything *isn’t* black-and-white. Everything *isn’t* just “spelled out”.
Could it be that God might actually expect people to use their heads?
Oh, no, on the contrary. Contradictions have been an interest since the second century!
In this post you mention that the commandment to love thy neighbor only means fellow Israelites and that the Canaanites were to be killed. I’ve read other articles to the contrary. Confusion ensues.
Would you mind explaining how you’ve come to this conclusion?
It’s because after God commands the Israelites to love their neighbors he tells them to kill all the Canaanites. I’m assuming he hasn’t changed his mind about the love part, so he must have different people in view.
“If the Bible is Contradictory, How Can it Be Authoritative?”
Ask the same question of the Talmud. In some ways more authoritative than the written Torah, but check full of argumentative contradictions and ongoing disputes, with even God even being overruled by the majority of rabbis. When will Christian fundamentalists abandon their absurd view of literal truth and their mundane view of God? If only Christians would have maintained a multifaceted and dialogical view of truth from their wise predecessors in faith.
I once heard Joyce Meyer teaching that you can observe the Sabbath on any day of the week. The commandment really only means that you have to have one day a week to not work and totally rest. And you can pick whatever day is good for you. I don’t see how you can find that in the text, but I can see why that would be appealing.
Yeah, actually the commandment is not to work on the seventh day. But one can see why a Christian might want to argue otherwise.
Dr. Ehrman, I am new to your forum and to your books. I am currently reading Forgery and Counterforgery. I was attracted to read your books because of your biography and spiritual journey. I was hoping in the book to discover the criteria applied in determining the authorship of a NT book. So far, I have been disappointed because I am presented only with conclusions and assumptions of modern scholarship – not the real basis for those conclusions. Are there any of your books you would recommend that deal with this topic? The topic of this present blog was intriguing to me. However, I find the examples of contradictions you present seem to ignore context and progressive revelation – at least, in the way I am used to reading these texts and which, to date, I have found intellectually honest and satisfying in holding a high view of these writings as inspired by God.
I’m not sure what you mean — have you read much of the book? As I indicate in the intro, for texts over which there is no real dispute (e.g. the Gospel of Peter) I don’t mount the arguments; for ones that are disputed but not much, I indicate some of the main reasons (e.g., 2 Peter); for ones that are very much in dispute, I give extensive arguments (e.g. 1 Peter or the Pastoral epistles). Have you not seen the arguments?
No, I will keep reading. I am in Chapter 6. I recall the description of your approach in the intro, and I should not have drawn a premature conclusion. The extensive arguments for 1 Peter, etc. would be just what I am interested in. Thanks.
“And if the command to love the neighbor really meant that you are to love your fellow Israelite but kill all the Canaanites (which, in fact, it did mean)…”
This brings to my mind the story of the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman (although I suppose it’s possible that Jesus had two different yet nearly identical encounters with two different woman) in which Jesus responds to her plea for help by saying “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs”. Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor as yourself” is commonly interpreted as applying to everyone (especially in light of the “great commission” et. al.) but in this story Jesus appears to be, at least initially, discriminating against this woman on the basis of her ethnicity.
Do you have a sense from the gospels that Jesus considered gentiles to be “less than” jews or is this more likely a reflection of the gospel author’s biases?
I’m not really sure. Jesus almost certainly indicated that many who were not Jews would enter the kingdom (thnk: sheep and the goats), so I doubt if he castigated gentiles per se.