Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? (vs. Jordan B. Cooper)

Last updated on: April 25, 2022 at 12:05 pm By Dave Armstrong

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications.

*****

I will be responding to Jordan’s two-part YouTube series on sola Scriptura: “An Explanation of Sola Scriptura“ (3-11-19), and “A Defense of Sola Scriptura“ (3-12-19). When I cite his words directly, they will be in blue, and citations and descriptions of his arguments will be accompanied by the time in the video as well.

For a Lutheran, it [sola Scriptura] means something very different than what it means for an Anabaptist or someone who’s part of the churches of Christ . . . even for the Reformed, who have kind of a similar view in some ways to the Lutheran tradition, but differ in other ways as well. And we’re all kind of lumped together . . . in reality, we have very different views in terms of what is the role of tradition, and is there any role of tradition whatsoever; is tradition an authority at all? [4:16-4:56]

Granted. Many on both broad sides (Protestant, Catholic) are too often guilty of ignoring fine and crucial distinctions in terms of defining views that they disagree with, among other Christians. This topic is notorious for that. I have a very good Catholic friend and fellow Catholic apologist with whom I differed on the definition. I contended that he was caricaturing the Protestant position and essentially opposing a straw man. He replied that I was over-intellectualizing it.

No! It’s important — absolutely essential in apologetics and theology — to get definitions and particularities / fine points right and to be intellectually honest when we oppose some theological position of a fellow believer, and to be charitable to them in presenting their own views. So I totally agree with this sentiment.

Sola Scriptura . . . recognizes that there are many authorities, but Scripture is the sole infallible authority, so Scripture has preference over all other authorities we might have. [5:16-5:27]

I totally agree again. The key is saying that the Bible is the sole infallible authority. It has to be qualified in that way. The logical corollary to that is to say that sacred or apostolic tradition and the Church are not infallible, as the Bible is. Jordan goes on to note that Scripture only is inspired or God-breathed (and I would add, it’s the only public revelation as well). Of course it is. No one denies that.

Catholics maintain, on the other hand, that the Bible is not the only infallible authority or source of the rule of faith (infallibility being a distinct and lesser gift over against inspiration). The true dispute, then, is whether the Church and tradition are ever infallible, as the Bible always is. That’s where the heart of he “battle” over these competing ideas lies. We say yes; Protestants, consistently following the definition of sola Scriptura, say (and must say) no.

I’m answering as I listen, so at this point I am very curious to see what Jordan thinks is the distinctively Lutheran version of sola Scriptura. What he says about it so far is identical to the working definition I have used in my extensive critiques (including three books): drawing from the definitions of Protestant apologists Keith Mathison, James White, and Norman Geisler: that of the first two came from their books on this topic.

There is a uniqueness in terms of the role of Scripture that nothing else can have, whether it’s traditions, whether it’s councils, whether it’s the authorities in the Church. And so it’s not to say that none of those things have any authority at all, but they’re not God-breathed, in the sense that Scripture is, so they don’t have the same status that Scripture itself has. And so Scripture is the thing that norms everything else. . . . all of those [other] things are to be submitted to Scripture. If there is a disagreement between a council and Scripture, or a Church father and Scripture, it is Scripture, ultimately, that is the higher authority, so that has the ultimate and final say. [5:34-6:18]

Inspiration is unique to Scripture, but it doesn’t follow that infallibility is also unique to Scripture: especially not if the Bible itself teaches that there are other infallible authorities, as I will show in due course. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient: all true Christian doctrines are taught in Scripture, either explicitly, implicitly, or as a deduction from clear biblical passages.

There is also development of doctrine (the great Lutheran theologian Jaroslav Pelikan wrote a lot about that), and some doctrines will be in Scripture only in a bare “kernel” or “acorn” form, but Catholics agree that there is something in Scripture about every true doctrine.

Accordingly, as a Catholic apologist specializing in “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism” (the name of my blog), I have produced biblical arguments for every Catholic doctrine that I have defended. Some evidences are much stronger than others, but I come up with something in every case.

As to councils and Church fathers, Catholics hold that (ecumenical) councils — like popes — are infallible only under certain conditions (including agreement with the pope, who “ratifies”: them). It follows that there can be non-infallible parts of them that are in error and/or are contrary to Scripture. Because of our qualifications, it doesn’t necessarily become a difficulty for the Catholic position when there is such a conflict. We believe that what has been proclaimed as infallible from councils and popes, is and will and must be in harmony with Holy Scripture.

As for Church fathers, we don’t teach that any of them are infallible. We hold that if they have a substantial (not literally unanimous) agreement on a given doctrine, that this is a fairly failsafe indication that the doctrine is in fact true, and part of authentic apostolic tradition. But by themselves they have no such authority, and that goes for even Doctors of the Church like St. Augustine (who was wrong in some ways about predestination), and St. Thomas Aquinas, who was wrong on the Immaculate Conception: but mainly due to the primitive biology of the time.

The Lutheran and Anglican positions would be pretty much on the same page here in terms of trying to find a balance between on the one hand holding to the unique authority of Scripture that is above all others, while also holding that tradition and councils and the historic worship of the Church: those things are important and we don’t have a right to just throw them out altogether. But, recognizing that they have limitations, that they’re not God-breathed . . . [7:12-7:45]

This is my understanding, too. It’s good as far as it goes (as far as it can go in Protestantism). But I think it ultimately breaks down and becomes inconsistent and self-defeating: in terms of what flows in the real world from such ideas. The difficulties in implementing such a position derive from the relationship of the Christian individual and these supposedly non-infallible teachings of tradition and an authoritative Church. Jordan says that they are “important”: and not at all worthless; we mustn’t discard them.

So far so good. On the other hand, sola Scriptura holds that they are always non-infallible. So the Protestant has to somehow decide which teachings of them are true (in which case I would note that they are — ironically — de facto or in a practical sense “infallible”) and which are not.

The Protestant would reply (I know, from many hundreds of debates) that all that is determined by adherence to Scripture. But of course (as we all know), Protestants have fairly serious disagreements amongst themselves about what Scripture teaches on a given doctrine. Scripture always has to be properly interpreted, and therein lies the perpetual dilemma for Protestants.

One example I always bring up is that they have five different major positions on baptism (infant regenerative, adult regenerative, infant symbolic, adult symbolic, and no baptism at all). They can’t agree about what “clear and perspicuous” Scripture teaches on baptism, and there is no end in sight for this disagreement. Blessedly, Lutherans and Catholics basically agree about baptism.

Protestants broadly agree with the earlier councils, when they were dogmatically defining the Holy Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the canon of the Bible (apart from the deuterocanon), and suchlike. But the third ecumenical council of Ephesus in 431 defined Theotokos (“Mother of God”) as a dogma. Lutherans and Anglicans have no problem with that; the Reformed / Calvinists do. The perpetual virginity of Mary was defined as orthodox dogma in the same council and also the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. All of the Protestant reformers (including Calvin) agreed with that doctrine; most Protestant today do not (and they do not, I argue, because of the inroads of theological liberalism starting in the 18th century).

The seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea in 787 condemned iconoclasm (the antipathy to images in worship and the Christian life). Lutherans agree (they have no problem with, for example, crucifixes and stained glass portrayals of the Bible); Reformed and Calvinists did not at all in the beginning of their existence, and often continue to not agree today. Both sides think that the Bible supports their position (as with all the other contested issues).

Catholics say that when a council of bishops from all over the world decides something important as binding on the faithful or not binding, with the agreement of the pope, that it’s infallible, and discussion on it ends. We have a way to end the controversy, whereas Protestants do not. Their only “solution” is to split from each other and form more denominations. Jordan is very familiar with this in his own Lutheran realm. I think it’s good (from within his paradigm) that his denomination followed Lutheran tradition and split from those who don’t, but the process of splitting itself is most unfortunate, because whenever disagreements of this sort continue on among Protestants, it means that error is necessarily institutionalized and sanctioned somewhere (wherever contradictions exist).

Someone must be wrong, or both are wrong, when they contradict each other. And errors and falsehood are bad things. Protestantism can’t resolve this. Catholicism and Orthodoxy can, because we reject sola Scriptura, which brings about this institutional chaos and doctrinal relativism, because (we would say) it denies what the Bible actually teaches about the rule of faith. I could go on and on about these matters, but I have to move on.

Jordan discussed [7:43-10:20] how the Reformed conception of authority differs from the Lutheran, by noting how in Reformed confessions (like Westminster), what is stated is backed up by Scripture in the footnotes, whereas in Lutheran Confessions / Book of Concord, “it consistently cites both Scripture and the Church fathers.” Very interesting. I didn’t know that. And it’s one more reason for my existing respect for Lutheranism as the best (and most “catholic”) Protestant tradition.

I do know, however, that many Reformed apologists seek to assert that the Church fathers back up their position, and Calvin’s Institutes certainly massively cites the fathers — as Jordan did note — (Augustine being the particular favorite among them). But I take Jordan’s word that Lutherans stress patristics more than Reformed.

He goes on to argue that the different views of the value of tradition play out differently in Reformed worship and Church government. What he discusses in the final section is an “in-house” fight and not directly related to questions of the validity of sola Scriptura itself, so I need not comment on it. In that dispute, I am firmly on the Lutheran rather than Reformed side.

The definition he gives in my second citation from him above is precisely the one I have been using in my critiques, going back literally 31 years now, since I was received into the Church. That being the case, my critiques accurately apply to the Lutheran conception of sola Scriptura. I have the same understanding of the proper definition that Jordan has.

In ending my reply to the first video, I’d like to quote a wonderful and positive (downright ecumenical) statement written in 1528 by Martin Luther, that rather strikingly backs up what Jordan says about Lutheranism and tradition:

We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. . . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. . . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ. . . . They take a severe stand against the pope, but they miss their mark and murder the more terribly the Christendom under the pope. For if they would permit baptism and the sacrament of the altar to stand as they are, Christians under the pope might yet escape with their souls and be saved, as has been the case hitherto. But now when the sacraments are taken from them, they will most likely be lost, since even Christ himself is thereby taken away. (Concerning Rebaptism, written against the Anabaptists in January 1528; translated by Conrad Bergendoff; Luther’s Works, Vol. 40, pp. 229-262 [words above from pp. 231-233], from the original German in WA [Weimar Werke], Vol. 26:144-174)

***

Now I will reply to the second video, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura“ (3-12-19). Here Jordan gets into a biblical defense, which for my money is the most fascinating aspect of the debate (what I solely concentrated on in my most well-known book on the topic), and the area where I always challenge my Protestant friends to back up their views, because I think that it must necessarily be based on Scripture itself in order to not be viciously self-defeating (as a mere unbiblical “tradition of men” with no particular authority, failing that grounding in Scripture). Let’s see how Jordan makes his case. I look forward to it!

Again, I will be answering as I listen to the tape, which is how I like to reply to things. As I write this, then, I haven’t yet listened to the second presentation. So far, I greatly appreciate and admire Jordan’s clear, articulate, heartfelt presentation, and look forward to interacting to many more of his videos in the future, in a friendly, respectful fashion, with a fellow Christian worker and committed disciple of Jesus. We agree on a lot; where we disagree, I’m confident that it can be done within a context of friendliness, Christian fellowship and theological interaction (out of love for theology and for God), and mutual respect.

If you’re talking to a Roman Catholic apologist, when they’re speaking about sola Scriptura, they’re always gonna raise the same statement. Over and over again, you’re gonna hear this, . . . and that is, “Scripture never teaches sola Scriptura, so you are holding Scripture as the ultimate authority; however, Scripture itself never says that it is the only authority, therefore, you’re contradicting yourself, because necessarily, you’re going outside of Scripture to say that Scripture is the only standard, and therefore we can throw out sola Scriptura“; so the Bible doesn’t teach sola Scriptura, therefore sola Scriptura is false. [0:47-1:25]

Yep; that’s what we Catholic apologists hone in on, and we do because it’s always important to focus on premises, and whether they can be supported (I learned that from Socrates in my philosophy courses in college). Secondly, its called for by the nature of sola Scriptura: if everything must be backed up by Scripture, and if lacking such support, a position must be false, then obviously, sola Scriptura, as a theological (technically ecclesiological) notion, must itself pass this test as well. The Protestant can’t escape this burden of proof.

The problem with how he presents Catholic apologetic polemics in this respect (above) is that he referred to the caricature of a radical “Scripture alone” position, rather than the true definition of sola Scriptura (where he and I fully agree). That is, he didn’t include the crucial distinction of “Scripture is the only infallible authority.” Some Catholic apologists indeed make this mistake. I mentioned a friend of mine, above, who did so, so I know it happens, and heaven knows I know (as a veteran of some thousand or more online debates over 25 years) how often Protestant apologists distort and caricature our beliefs. It’s an unfortunately common human failing and the bane of attempted constructive debate.

But I do not make this serious mistake, and I believe I’ve written more about this topic than any other Catholic apologist alive. If Jordan notes that “Catholic apologists” too often are fighting straw men, I’ll always readily agree (though we might quibble about how common it is, and how many professional / credentialed apologists like myself do so). But in any event, this doesn’t allow him to escape his task of finding sola Scriptura in Scripture itself. I say from thirty years of intense study of the topic that it’s not there, period.

Thus, I am intensely interested to see where Jordan thinks he can find it in Holy Scripture, in any sense (indirect or otherwise). I want to know why he believes it, and as a Protestant, the basis has to always be primarily, first and foremost, a biblical rationale I think that is also true, by the way, of a Catholic defending any position. They must always grapple with the relevant scriptural data, and I consistently do so in my work.

I think the question that we have is: do we have to find a particular Scripture that says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don’t think we have to. We don’t. There’s nothing in — you can’t find — in any of Paul’s letters, for example, . . . “by the way, Scripture is the only authority and traditions are not an authority and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible teachings.” It seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to defend their position, that they have to find a text that says that.” [1:39-2:14]

It’s not required for there to be one text that explicit and detailed. It can be a combination of texts: all of which assert part of the equation, or an indirect deduction from same. But the idea has to be there somewhere, since the Protestant says that Scripture is the norm. Jordan himself said in his first video: “Scripture is the thing that norms everything else. . . . all of those [other] things are to be submitted to Scripture.” That includes the notion of sola Scriptura itself. How could it not?

If it doesn’t line up with the norm of Scripture, it’s false, according to the principle of sola Scriptura. It has to pass the test that it itself asserts as normative for everything else. The stream can’t rise above its source. It’s supremely important to line it up with the Bible, particularly because Protestants have made it one of their pillars, and a thing that determines whether all other doctrines are true or false. That supreme authority for the rule of faith can’t be a view that’s not even found in the Bible itself. Is this not self-evident?

I think, more so, what we have to do is just speak about the unique authority of Scripture and the unique nature of Scripture, and just to say that Scripture does present itself as God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16 is kind of the famous text that says this . . . [2:15-2:35]

This is the argument usually used, but it’s entirely beside the point and carries no force whatever. No Christian disagrees that only Scripture is God-breathed (inspired). It doesn’t follow that it is the only authority, as a result. Jordan already conceded that other authority exists in the Christian life (Church, tradition, fathers), but he denies (like a good Protestant always does) that they are infallible. But Scripture being the only inspired document doesn’t annihilate other infallible authorities. If it did, that would have to be stated in Scripture, and it never states such a thing.

On the other hand, the Bible does assert and support the Catholic / Orthodox rule of faith, in teaching the infallible authority of the Church in 1 Timothy 3:15 and at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), and it says that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, as well as individual Christians. Here are relatively brief defenses of the first two arguments. I wrote about 1 Timothy 3:15 in my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers: 2012, pp. 104-107, #82):

1 Timothy 3:15 [RSV] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:

Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.

Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).

Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God’s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.

1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)

Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.

Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very “Body of Christ.” It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.

Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.

If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.

Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authority apart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.

The Jerusalem Council (recorded in the Bible) demonstrated the sublime authority of the Church to make binding, infallible decrees (something sola Scriptura expressly denies can or should be the case). It claimed to be speaking in conjunction with the Holy Spirit (“it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”: Acts 15:28) and its decree was delivered as such by the Apostle Paul in several cities (“As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem”: Acts 16:4). I’ve written about this council’s authority and its “Catholic” implications many times.

In other words, the Bible asserts what sola Scriptura expressly rules out (infallible entities other than Scripture), and in doing so, it directly refutes sola Scriptura. So it’s not just a matter of Protestants having to find proof of sola Scriptura in the Bible, but the fact that the Bible — God’s inspired revelation — contains strong disproofs of it. Going on and on about biblical inspiration doesn’t accomplish one whit towards a defense of sola Scriptura.

Jordan brings up 2 Timothy 3:16, which is always inevitable in any Protestant presentation. But it proves nothing of the sort. It never denies that Church or tradition can also be infallible (whereas 1 Timothy 3:15 and Acts 15-16 prove that they certainly can be). I made a counter-argument about it in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: (1996, published in 2003):

Ephesians 4:11-16 (RSV) And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

The “exclusivist” or “dichotomous” form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is fundamentally flawed. . . . Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is “equipped,” “built up,” brought into “unity and mature manhood,” “knowledge of Jesus,” “the fulness of Christ,” and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the “perfecting” of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.

Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all nonscriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense. (pp. 15-16)

The burden is really on them [Catholics or Orthodox] to prove that anything else has those characteristics . . . [3:35-3:41]

I have shown above from Scripture two instances, illustrating an infallible Church. Again, I have to stress that the issue in dispute is not inspiration (where all traditional, historical, trinitarian Christians fully agree), but rather, the scope of infallibility. One is a Pauline passage and the other a description of what happened in history, with the Jerusalem Council exercising infallible, binding authority for the Church universal. What it proclaimed in Jerusalem was preached by Paul (Acts 16:4) as binding throughout Asia Minor (Turkey). So I’ve already met his challenge. Jordan hasn’t met our perfectly reasonable and scriptural challenge at all. But there are thirteen minutes left in this tape. Maybe he will attempt it before it’s over.

I fundamentally deny that principle at all that to prove sola Scriptura you have to prove that the Bible says sola Scriptura somewhere. [4:40-4:50]

I don’t see how a Protestant can possibly say that, by the nature of sola Scriptura, and because of the arguments I have made above. Of course they have to prove that it is taught in Scripture, or at the very least is harmonious with what clearly is taught there, just as they have to do with every other doctrine they believe (and as we Catholics also have to do).

You have to prove that something else has that uniqueness that Scripture itself has, and claims for itself, and I don’t think that tradition, in the various forms . . . has that. [4:55-5:09]

Jordan has, more and more, as he goes on, shifted the discussion from infallibility, where it belongs, and which he mentioned in the first video as essential to the definition of sola Scriptura, to the “uniqueness” of Scripture (i.e., its inspiration). I think this is obfuscation. I don’t say he is deliberately doing it. He probably doesn’t realize it, but all of a sudden he’s implying that we have to prove that tradition and the Church are “God-breathed” as Scripture is. No one (of note) has ever said that they are that, — and anyone who did was clueless and theologically uneducated or heretical –, because it’s 1) untrue, and 2) isn’t the issue! The issue is “what is infallible? Does only the Bible have that characteristic?”

The high irony in this sort of argumentation is that Protestants always point out (as Jordan did in his first video) how so many Catholics botch the definition of sola Scriptura, leaving out the “infallibility” aspect. But then when it comes to having to defend the belief from Scripture, all of a sudden they completely neglect the infallibility aspect and talk only of inspiration, which is a completely separate issue and topic. It’s switching horses in mid-stream and it won’t do. Jordan has literally refused to defend it from Scripture; in effect he has conceded the entire discussion in so doing and has literally reduced his strongly held belief in sola Scriptura to a self-defeating proposition.

He then goes back to the “classic” text of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What he argues is defeated, in my opinion, by reading Ephesians 4:11-16, which says much of the same thing, while never even mentioning Scripture. He mentions that it 2 Timothy said that the Bible was sufficient “to equip for every good work.” Yes it does. But so, too, does Ephesians 4:12, which states “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” while never mentioning Scripture in the entire context. Instead, the cause of those things are the offices of the Church and God’s gifts.

In conclusion, Jordan hasn’t offered us anything in the Bible to prove that the Bible is the only infallible authority, or anything in the Bible that denies that the Church or tradition can also possess that characteristic under carefully defined conditions. He gives us nothing that is of any force against Catholic tradition, and nothing that supports Protestant traditions where they differ with us.

He goes on to comment on Matthew 15: a passage about the Pharisees and their traditions, ultimately drawing an analogy between the first-century Jews and their traditions, added to Scripture, and Catholic tradition, and says that when they conflict, Scripture trumps tradition. This is the classic Protestant argument: implying that “tradition is a dirty word” in the New Testament. The big problem I have with it is that Jesus, several times, contrasts the bad traditions of men with the good apostolic — or longstanding Jewish — tradition, so that it’s not a clear-cut case of “Bible good, tradition bad.” Tradition can be (and is, in the NT) good or bad. Hence, these passages (“bad traditions” in red and “good” ones in green):

Matthew 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”

Matthew 15:6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.

Matthew 15:9 In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.

Matthew 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men” (cf. Mk 8:33).

Mark 7:8-9, 13 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! . . . thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.”

Now, if Jordan and other Protestants want to quibble and say that Jesus doesn’t positively use the specific word “tradition” (paradosis), I retort that the usages above are (in context) equivalent. This is borne out all the more in Paul’s epistles, where he seems to have no such consciousness that tradition per se is a bad or almost always corrupt thing. He is so far from that, that he actually appears to place tradition on a par with Scripture, the gospel, and “the faith” (in terms of authority):

1 Corinthians 11:2 Maintain the traditions . . . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Hold to the traditions . . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9 We preached to you the gospel of God.

Acts 8:14 Samaria had received the word of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 You received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

2 Peter 2:21 . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.

Jude 3 . . . the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

It is obvious from the above biblical data that the concepts of tradition, gospel, and word of God (as well as other terms) are essentially synonymous. All are predominantly oral, and all are referred to as being delivered and received. Tradition is right in there with them, without distinction. In St. Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably.

In 2 Thessalonians “gospel” is mentioned twice (1:8 and 2:14), “tradition” twice (2:15 and 3:6), but neither “Scripture” nor “Scriptures” appears. “Word of the Lord” appears once (3:1), but it appears not to refer to the Bible. Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians “Scripture” or “Scriptures” never appear. “Word,” “word of the Lord,” or “word of God” appear five times (1:6,8, 2:13 [twice], 4:15), but in each instance it is clearly in the sense of oral proclamation, not Scripture.

Clearly then, tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for St. Paul. If, on the other hand, one wants to maintain that it is, then gospel and word of God are also bad words! Thus, the commonly asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men.

Paul is elsewhere almost unanimously positive about tradition. In the one place where he wasn’t (Col 2:8), he made a contrast of good and bad tradition, just as Jesus did:

Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

The bottom line of Jordan’s presentation is that the Protestant simply accepts sola Scriptura on faith as a (trusted, venerable, even sentimental) Protestant “tradition of men” and standard for all doctrines, even though it is (admittedly) a doctrine that can’t (with supreme irony) be found in the Bible. Jordan freely admitted that.

I do really appreciate his transparent honesty in admitting that the thing itself can’t be found in Holy Writ (only the uniqueness and inspiration of Scripture, which no serious, observant Christian denies). I’ve been making this point for over thirty years, so the support and agreement of a popular and influential Lutheran pastor in this respect is most welcome: very surprising, but welcome.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Summary: Lutheran pastor and theologian Jordan B. Cooper did two videos on the general subject matter of “Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?” I provide arguments for why it isn’t.

Ehrman Errors #11: Luke the Unreliable Historian?

Last updated on: January 20, 2023 at 4:34 pm By Dave Armstrong

Debunking Yet More of the Endless Pseudo-“Contradictions” Supposedly All Over the Bible

Bart Ehrman is one of the most well-known and influential critics of traditional Christianity and the inspired Bible (“anti-theists”) writing today. Formerly, in his own words, he was “a fundamentalist for maybe 6 years; a conservative evangelical but not extreme right wing for maybe 5 years more; and a fairly mainstream liberal Christian for about 25.” The primary reason he gives for having lost his faith is the problem of evil (a very serious topic I have dealt with many times). He stated on 3-18-22 in a comment on his blog: “I could no longer explain how there could be a God active in this world given all the pain and misery in it.” I don’t question his sincerity, good intentions, intellectual honesty, or his past status as a Christian; only various opinions which Christians must (in consistency) regard as erroneous.

Dr. Ehrman “received his PhD and MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.” He has written 30 books, which have sold over two million copies and have been translated into 27 languages.

Ehrman explains that the purpose of his blog is “to disseminate scholarly knowledge of the New Testament and the earliest periods of the Christian church to a non-scholarly audience, . . . Every post is rooted in scholarship – not just my own but that of thousands of scholars who have worked for centuries on understanding the historical Jesus, the New Testament, and the origins of Christianity.” Well, the conclusions of scholars are only as good as the solidity and truthfulness of the premises by which they are operating.

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to his article, “Is the Book of Acts Historically Reliable? The Negative Case.” (3-30-16). His words will be in blue.

There are two major ways to check to see if Luke is historically accurate. The first is to see if he is internally consistent in his telling of his stories. If not, then that would show that he is not particularly concerned to get the facts straight. The second is to compare him with other reliable sources of the time to see if they coincide or not. As it turns out, a number of things that Luke says about Paul are things that Paul himself talks about, so we can compare the two. Whenever they talk about the same thing, they are at odds with one another. Luke does not appear to be historically accurate.

First, internal consistency. Luke sometimes tells the same story two or even three times. When he does so, there are striking contradictions, which show, among other things, that Luke is more interested in spinning a good yarn than he is in preserving a historically accurate narrative. Let me cite two examples. First, Jesus’ ascension. In Luke 24 (you can read it for yourself and see) Jesus rises from the dead, on that day meets with his disciples, and then, again that day, he ascends to heaven from the town of Bethany. But when you read Acts 1, written by the same author, you find that Jesus did not ascend on that day or at that place. Jesus instead spends forty days with his disciples proving to them that he had been raised from the dead (it’s not clear why he would have to prove it! Let alone do so for forty days!); and only then — forty days after the resurrection– does he ascend.

I’ve already refuted this objection in answering another atheist who argued in the same way: Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? (9-10-18). Summary: Luke in his Gospel was using the well-known literary technique of compression, or telescoping; i.e., condensing or abridging the story and leaving out details in a way which may lead some (not familiar with the technique) to erroneously believe that it all happened on one day. But this methodology was unquestionably used by ancient writers such as Josephus, Plutarch, Cicero, and Quintillian. It was described by Lucian of Samosata (c. 125 AD-after 180 AD), a Syrian rhetorician, in his treatise, How to Write History.

Ehrman himself recognized that the Gospel writers sometimes use the technique, since he wrote about Matthew’s account of the raising of Jairus’ daughter: “Matthew . . . has telescoped the story to make it much briefer” (4-22-19). He claimed that in doing so, Matthew introduced contradictions (what else?!), but nevertheless he still acknowledged that there was such a literary technique and that Matthew used it. Therefore, he can’t rule out at least the possibility that Luke also did in our present case. In other words, our reply is not mere rationalization. It’s plausible and it has demonstrable historical background.

And here he ascends not from Bethany but from Jerusalem. Luke tells the same story twice, and in two radically different ways. Historical accuracy does not appear to be his major concern.

I would say that accuracy in reporting what the Bible stated in the first place seems not to be Ehrman’s “major concern.” Here are the two passages:

Luke 24:50-52 (RSV) Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. [51] While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. [52] And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

Acts 1:9-12 . . . as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. [10] And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, [11] and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” [12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away;

There simply is no contradiction here. In Luke 24, the text implies that Jesus ascended from Bethany, and that they “returned to Jerusalem” afterwards. In Acts 1, they also “returned to Jerusalem” (therefore the Ascension didn’t take place in Jerusalem!) after the Ascension took place on “the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem.” Where’s the contradiction? Wikipedia (“Mount of Olives”) explains that “On the south-eastern slope of the Mount of Olives lies the Palestinian Arab village of al-Eizariya, identified with the ancient village of Bethany mentioned in the New Testament . . .” Likewise, John 11:18 states: “Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off,”.

Neither text asserts that Jesus ascended to heaven from Jerusalem. He did so from the Mount of Olives, which Acts rightly distinguishes as separate from Jerusalem (as it was in the first century), while Luke mentions Bethany, which lies on the Mount of Olives. So it turns out that Ehrman (not the eminent historian Luke) is sloppy in his history, Bible reading, . . . and (if I do say so) the geography of first-century Israel.

Second example. On three occasions Acts narrates the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus, chapters 9, 22, and 26. Compare them closely to one another, and you find very odd contradictions. In chapter 9 Paul’s companions hear the voice of Jesus talking to Paul, but they don’t see anyone; in chapter 22 they see the light but don’t hear anything. Which is it? In Chapter 9 the companions are left standing while Paul falls to the ground; in chapter 26 they are all knocked to the ground. Which is it?

Acts 9:3-7 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. [4] And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” [5] And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; [6] but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” [7] The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22:6-9 “As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. [7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ [8] And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’ [9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.”

Acts 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.’

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Acts of the Apostles”) disposed of this objection way back in 1907:

It is urged that the three accounts of the conversion of St. Paul . . . do not agree. . . . There are many solutions of this difficulty. . . . Pape and others give to the eistekeisan the sense of an emphatic einai, and thus it could be rendered: “The men that journeyed with him became speechless”, thus agreeing with 26:14. Moreover, the three accounts can be placed in agreement by supposing that the several accounts contemplate the event at different moments of its course. All saw a great light; all heard a sound from Heaven. They fell on their faces in fear; and then, arising, stood still and speechless, while Paul conversed with Jesus, whose articulate voice he alone heard. In Acts 9:7, the marginal reading of the Revised Edition of Oxford should be accepted: “hearing the sound”. The Greek is akoyontes tes phones. When the writer speaks of the articulate voice of Christ, which Paul alone heard, he employs the phrase outer phrase, ekousan phonen. Thus the same term, phone, by a different grammatical construction, may signify the inarticulate sound of the voice which all heard and the articulate voice which Paul alone heard.

In chapters 9 and 22 Paul is told to go to Damascus to be instructed by a man named Ananias about what to do next. In chapter 26 Paul is not told to go be instructed by Ananias, instead Jesus himself instructs him. Well, which is it?

Acts 9:10-12 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani’as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani’as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” [11] And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying, [12] and he has seen a man named Anani’as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” . . .

Acts 22:10 And I said, `What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, `Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’

Acts 26:15-18 And I said, `Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, `I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. [16] But rise and stand upon your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and bear witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, [17] delivering you from the people and from the Gentiles — to whom I send you [18] to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Much ado about nothing, again, as we see by simply reading the texts and applying logic (and not being hostile to and suspicious the texts without reason from the outset).

1) Acts 9: Paul learns (in a vision) that some stranger named Ananias would help him regain his sight after his dramatic conversion experience.

2) Acts 22: Paul is told to go to Damascus to be instructed, then he recounts how Ananias instructs and exhorts him.

3) Acts 26: Paul recalls some things that Jesus told him (having to do with his future mission) at the time of his conversion.

Ehrman first misrepresents the stories of Acts 9 and 22 (I don’t say deliberately, but he should know better, being a NT scholar). It’s just plain sloppy analysis. Acts 9 says nothing about Paul being “told to go to Damascus to be instructed by a man named Ananias.” He simply saw a man identified as Ananias in a vision, who would, in effect, heal his temporary blindness. Nothing is here about either being sent to Damascus or being instructed by Ananias. The text talks about how Ananias was told by God in a vision to go visit Paul, but even so, it mentions nothing about “instruction.” So why does Ehrman project all these things onto the text that aren’t there? Who knows why?

In Acts 22 Paul is indeed told by God to go to Damascus and that he would be instructed. But God didn’t tell him that Ananias would do so. So Ehrman presents the two texts in an inaccurate way. They don’t contradict each other, though. The information is complementary and internally consistent. Ehrman then tries to make out that Acts 26 contradicts 9 and 22, simply because in that account, Paul recalled how Jesus had directly instructed him. But so what? Where is the supposed contradiction?

The texts taken together never assert that “only Ananias would instruct him” or “only God would instruct him.” If that had been the case, it would have been contradictory. They teach us that he was instructed by both. The more the merrier! First God did, and then Ananias affirmed that God was so speaking (to help Paul avoid being skeptical of his vision), with the evidence of a miracle to establish his own “credentials” as a man verifying what God had said.

Why do we have to choose between these things (“which is it?”), as if they can’t supposedly all exist together? We don’t! They exist in harmony and do not logically contradict. If Bart Ehrman disagrees, I suggest he revisit and refresh his memory as to what he learned in his logic class (if he ever took one), or read a book about logic now if he didn’t take the course in college. I’m not trying to be insulting (really, I’m not). We all have to learn how to think logically, and even when we do so, we can all fall into being so biased that we fail to correctly apply logic to a particular matter. Every textbook on logic provides examples of great thinkers falling into the trap of logical fallacies. If a person wishes to make serious charges against portions of the Bible, in terms of alleged contradictions, then he or she better have their “logical ducks” in a row.

All these examples simply show that Luke was far more interested in telling a gripping story than he was in being consistent. His artistic license has seriously undercut his historical accuracy.

They show no such thing, because — as I have now demonstrated — Ehrman’s charges all fall flat under intense scrutiny. Luke’s historical accuracy is demonstrated by being backed up by external archaeology and historiography at least fifty times.

But even more noteworthy are the external contradictions with a reliable source: Paul himself. Whenever Acts relates an incident from Paul’s life that Paul himself discusses, there are striking and irreconcilable differences. Sometimes these involve small details. For example, Acts 17 is clear and unambiguous: when Paul traveled to bring the gospel to Athens, he came by himself, without Timothy or any of the other apostles But Paul himself is also clear and unambiguous; in 1 Thessalonians 3 we learn that he came to Athens precisely in the company of Timothy, not by himself. It couldn’t be both.

Acts 17:14-17 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. [15] Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed. [16] Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. [17] So he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who chanced to be there.

1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, [2] and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you,

This is yet another non sequitur and non-contradiction. Let me explain how and why it isn’t. Paul came by himself to Athens, and gave instructions to the sailors who brought him there to inform Silas and Timothy (presumably through some sort of mail, or by going back to where they were) to meet him in Athens “as soon as possible.”

1 Thessalonians, contrary to Ehrman’s skeptical “gotcha!” claim, did not assert that Paul “came to Athens precisely in the company of Timothy.” It says nothing at all about who went there with him. It simply says that Paul was writing to the Thessalonians, about whom he was concerned (2:17-18), because of their suffering (2:13-14). So he sent Timothy (who was at this time with him) to exhort and comfort the Thessalonians, to be able to withstand the “afflictions” that are the “lot” of Christians (3:2-7). We know Timothy was eventually with him in Athens, but we don’t know from this text that he went there with him. That comes solely from Bart Ehrman’s zealous and overactive imagination.

Paul had asked that Timothy and Silas come as soon as possible. So Timothy eventually arrived (perhaps Silas couldn’t make it for some reason), and Paul sent him off to comfort other suffering Christians. In an earlier article (9-4-13), Ehrman added another equally false claim of alleged biblical contradiction, contending that “the book of Acts states that when Paul went to Athens, he left Timothy and Silas behind in Berea (Acts 17:10-15) and did not meet up with them again until after he left Athens and arrived in Corinth (18:5). . . . It’s a minor detail. But it serves to show something about the historical reliability of Acts . . .”

Actually, the book of Acts doesn’t deny that Paul met with Timothy and Silas between the time they all were in Berea and another later time when all were in Corinth. That comes from Ehrman’s fertile imagination only, and can’t be positively proven from the information we have in the Bible. Acts simply says that “Silas and Timothy arrived [in Corinth] from Macedo’nia” (18:5). Since it says absolutely nothing about the in-between time in Athens (neither affirming nor denying either Timothy or Silas’ presence there), it’s perfectly consistent, logically, for Paul to say in 1 Thessalonians that Timothy was with him part of the time (not from the beginning), before he sent him away on a mission.

So it looks like (but isn’t certain) that Silas never made it to Athens during Paul’s stay. Then in Acts 18: he arrives in Corinth from Macedonia, which makes perfect sense, seeing that Berea (where he was last mentioned as being) is in Macedonia. This is more evidence that he never left Macedonia previously (for whatever reason) to go to Athens and evangelize with Paul. So Ehrman is correct about Silas, but not about Timothy. He was sent by Paul from Athens to Thessalonica, and now he is said to be traveling to Corinth to meet Paul from Macedonia. Yep: this is perfectly reasonable, too, since Thessalonica is also one region of Macedonia. So it all fits perfectly together with no contradiction. Foiled again!

I reiterate: where’s the contradiction? There “is” one if a person sets up a straw man that can’t be demonstrated in the text itself. This is what Ehrman has done. Shame on him making such an intellectually sloppy and groundless argument and passing it off in public as if it were a “biblical contradiction.”

In another post attacking Acts and Luke (9-5-13), Ehrman pontificates:

We could deal forever with the question of the historical accuracy of Acts. There are entire books devoted to the problem and even to *aspects* of the problem, and different scholars come to different conclusions. My own view is that since Acts is at odds with Paul just about every time they talk about the same thing, that it is probably not to be taken as very accurate, especially in its detail.

Yes we could, (I for one would be delighted to do more of this), and I highly suspect that Ehrman’s arguments will be just as weak, flimsy, and fallacious as all of them refuted in this article were. He’s come up with a big zero so far; therefore, his triumphalistic attack on Acts falls on deaf ears. He has proven no such thing. If his loyal followers think he has, then I say they need to take a refresher course in logic along with Bart.

Sometimes the differences really matter. When Paul himself talks about his conversion in Galatians 1 he insists that after he had his vision of Jesus he did not – he absolutely and positively did not (he swears to it!) – go to confer with the other apostles in Jerusalem. Not for years. And what happens when Paul converts according to Acts 9? What is the first thing he does after he leaves Damascus? He makes a bee-line to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles. In Acts he does precisely what he himself swears he didn’t do.

This is clearly another instance of compression, or telescoping. Luke employs it in Acts 9, which is his narrative of Paul’s conversion and his meeting the apostles: just as he did in his Gospel, chapter 24, and Paul does not in Galatians 1. But in Acts 22:17, Paul himself uses the same technique of compression, during his trial. He recounts his conversion, then (desiring to condense the story for whatever reason) skips right over the three years in Arabia at Acts 22:17 and starts talking about being in Jerusalem and the initial skepticism that he had converted, after persecuting Christians. So Paul does it one place and not in another (which is perfectly fine). This is how ancient literature works. And no doubt there are analogous examples in our time as well.

Even more striking than the contradictions in the itinerary and travels of Paul are the discrepancies in his preaching. Here I give just one example. In Acts 17 when Paul is preaching to the pagans of Athens, he tells them that they worship idols out of ignorance. They simply don’t know any better. And because of that, God overlooks their mistake; but he now gives them a chance to recognize the truth and worship him alone.

Exactly. Here, Ehrman actually (to his great credit) portrays what is in the text, instead of warring against a straw man that isn’t in the text. But it doesn’t last for long! In Athens, Paul noted and praised the Athenians worship of a “god”: albeit an “unknown” one. So it’s not a question of denying God’s existence altogether, but rather, of worship that lacks particulars as to the nature and identity of the one they are worshiping. Paul then used the opportunity of their lack of knowledge and simultaneous sincere and pious religiosity, to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and the nature of the one true God. He uses what they know and builds upon it, up to and including the Christian message.

That stands in sharp contrast with the views that Paul himself lays out in his letter to the Romans. In chapter one Paul states his views of pagan idolatry and false worship, and they are completely contrary to what he allegedly said in Acts 17. In Romans Paul tells us that pagans worship idols precisely because they did know that there was only one God who was to be worshiped, and they rejected that knowledge in full consciousness of what they were doing. And because of that God has cast his wrath down upon them. Well which is it? Do they commit idolatry out of pure ignorance so God overlooks their mistake? Or are they fully aware of what they’re doing so God judges them? Assuming Paul himself knew what his own views were, you would have to say that Acts has misrepresented the very core of his preaching message.

It’s apples and oranges and another non-contradiction. In Acts 17 in Athens, Paul is addressing a situation where the Athenians had an “altar” with the inscription, “To an unknown god” whom they worshiped (17:23). This he perceived as their being pious and “very religious” (17:22). That’s not atheism: not a deliberate rejection of any god or God (nor even agnosticism), but ignorant religiosity; religion minus knowledge and particulars. Paul in effect praises it and expressly categorizes it as “ignorance” that “God overlooked” (17:30).

In Romans 1 he is addressing something utterly different than that: “men who by their wickedness suppress the truth” (1:18); people who “knew God” but “did not honor him as God or give thanks to him” (1:21) and “did not see fit to acknowledge God” (1:28). This is a vastly different approach from the Athenians (or at least those who worshiped the “unknown god”). Paul isn’t addressing all pagans whatever, but specifically, people with these characteristics.

Having stated this, he goes right into a very ecumenical, welcoming message in the next chapter (and the original New Testament didn’t contain chapters): one of possible salvation for all human beings (“glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”: 2:10-11). He teaches that abiding by a good conscience could very well bring salvation to anyone: Jew or Gentile alike (2:14-16). Obviously, then, he is not condemning all pagans and non-Jews with the wave of a hand. In Romans 1 he specifically condemned those who know there is a God and who deliberately reject Him, knowing that He exists.

So, as usual, no contradiction exists here, either. Ehrman simply failed to closely read the text and draw the proper distinctions. I suggest that he read much more carefully, and not be consumed by his excessive skeptical zeal.

Every time you compare what Acts has to say about Paul with what Paul has to say about himself, you find discrepancies. Just as you find discrepancies internally, whenever Acts recounts the same event more than once. As valuable as Acts may be as an interesting story about the first years and decades of the early Christian movement, the reality is that the book of Acts is not historically reliable.

That’s his claim. However, upon close examination, none of the examples he provided prove what he is trying to say: that Luke is contradictory and unreliable. Therefore, since I have done my own research and have presented fifty instances where he was reliable, based on archaeology (which is objective science and not arbitrary subjective fluff), and since these contradictions have not been proven (which is putting it mildly), I stand by Luke as a reliable historian.

***

Ehrman’s “reply” in his combox:

Paul doesn’t join up with Timothy until later in Acts, not while he is still in Athens.

My counter-reply:

As I already noted, Paul stated that Timothy was eventually with him in Athens, because he sent him somewhere else:

1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 (RSV) Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, [2] and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you,

***

Photo credit: St. Paul (c. 1611), by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman writes about “Luke the unreliable historian” by suggesting self-contradictions that don’t in fact exist upon a closer look.

Ehrman Errors #7: “Other Side” of the Sea of Galilee

Last updated on: March 24, 2022 at 10:55 am By Dave Armstrong

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to a portion of his article, Internal Discrepancies in the Gospel of John (6-26-18). His words will be in blue.

In John 5:1, Jesus goes to Jerusalem, where he spends the entire chapter healing and teaching. The author’s comment after this discourse, however, is somewhat puzzling: “After this, Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee” (6:1). How could he go to the other side of the sea if he is not already on one of its sides? In fact, he is nowhere near the Sea of Galilee; he is in Jerusalem of Judea.

This might seem strange to us but it wouldn’t at all to Galilean Jews in the first century who lived on the west side of the Sea of Galilee (Capernaum, where Peter’s house was and where Jesus stayed for a time). The east side was known by them as the “other side” because it was a different culture: a Gentile one. I can think of at least two American examples that are analogous to this usage.

The Grand Canyon in Arizona has, of course, two sides, or rims: the south rim and the north rim. The south rim is vastly more popular and gets ten times as many visitors. I had visited the south rim three times (hiking to the bottom on my second visit), and then in 2019 finally visited the north rim. If I were talking to anyone who had been to the Grand Canyon, I could have said, “we went to the other side of the Grand Canyon this year” and they would know exactly what I was talking about.

Secondly, as a Michigander, if I were to say that “we’re gonna visit the other side of Lake Huron / Michigan / Superior / Erie” (i.e., the Great Lakes), it would be immediately understood by anyone from Michigan that it’s the west side of Lake Michigan (in Illinois and Wisconsin), the east side of Lake Huron and north side of Lake Superior (in Ontario, Canada), and the south side of Lake Erie (in Ohio). And I have visited all those places. It has to do with the side that one is more familiar with (the Michigan side!) and/or where one lives. In that context, “the other side” is immediately understood. This analogy is almost a perfect one.

And that’s exactly what we have with regard to “the other side” of the Sea of Galilee. It was understood by Galileans that the west side was far more familiar and that referring to “the other side” was clearly the eastern Gentile side of the lake. There is still very little on the immediate shores on the east side to this day (I visited the area in 2014). Accordingly, not just the Gospel of John, but the other three Gospels all use this standard title in referring to the east side of the Sea of Galilee: which is precisely how it could be referred to as a destination from any part of the country (in this instance, from Jerusalem):

Matthew (four times): Matthew 8:18, 28; 14:22; 16:5.

Mark (five times): Mark 4:35; 5:1, 21; 6:45; 8:13.

Luke (one time): Luke 8:22.

John (three times): John 6:1, 22, 25.

The title was understood to such an extent that in all but two of fifteen instances of the phrase “other side” occurring in the New Testament, it refers to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Luke 10:30-31 being a generic, “non-title” usage). They didn’t even bother to say “east side” or “Gentile side” of the lake or whatever the region was called then (Gerasa or Gergesa, etc.) because everyone knew what “the other side” referred to. The Evangelists could have used the phrase “east side” had they chosen to (it appears 33 times in the Old Testament, though not in the new, and “east” appears eight times in the NT). But none of them chose to do that.

In any event, this objection is really “scraping the bottom of the barrel” in terms of alleged biblical “contradictions”: and I’m familiar with hundreds, having replied to a great number of them. Once we understand the reasoning and rationale above, I believe that it vanishes (alongside countless other “faux / pseudo- / alleged ‘contradictions’ “).

***

Photo credit: Zachi Evenor (2-5-14) Sea of Galilee: panorama of the southern end [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible critic Bart Ehrman tries to make out that it’s “contradictory” to refer to the “other side” of the Sea of Galilee without being on the opposite side.

Ehrman Errors #6: Joshua’s Conquest & Science

Last updated on: March 25, 2022 at 2:00 pm By Dave Armstrong

This is one of a series of reply-papers, in which I will address many of his materials from the perspective of archaeology, history, and exegesis.

*****

I am responding to his article, Israel’s Conquest of the Promised Land: Did Any of That Happen? (8-25-21). His words will be in blue.

I want to address a question lots of people typically have about these stories of the Conquest of Canaan in the book of Joshua. Did any of this happen?

Here’s how I discuss the matter in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Oxford University Press), a book you should consider getting if you’re interested in knowing both what’s in the Bible and what scholars say about it from historical and literary perspectives. . . .

[T]he narratives of Joshua . . . are clearly molded according to theological assumptions and perspectives. There is almost nothing in the accounts that suggest that the author is trying to be purely descriptive of things that really happened. He is writing an account that is guided by his religious agenda, not by pure historical interests. That is why, when read closely, one finds so many problems with the narratives. . . .

In the archaeological record there is no support for the kind of violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua. Think for a second: if one were to look for archaeological evidence, or other external verification, to support the historical narratives of Joshua, what would one look for?
- References to the invasion and conquest in other written sources.
- Evidence that there were indeed walled cities and towns in Canaan at the time.
- Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed at the time (Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, etc.). . . .

And what kind of verification do we actually get for the narratives of Joshua? None of the above. There are no references in any other ancient source to a massive destruction of the cities of Canaan. There were few walled towns at the time. Many of the specific cities cited as places of conquest did not even exist as cities at the time.

I addressed Hazor in my previous article. Remember, Ehrman claimed there was “no support . . . none” for “violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua”: as I detail below the actual, specific archaeological evidence that he thinks is nonexistent. It’s easy (and very foolish) to make “universal negative” statements. And it’s easy as pie to shoot them down. Even a single counter-example already logically demolishes such sweeping and “triumphalistic” claims. But I will produce many counter-examples.

This includes, most notably, Jericho, which was not inhabited in the late 13^th century BCE, as archaeologists have decisively shown (see box).

Jericho is a special case, due to the rapid level of erosion caused by the arid climate and the closeness of the Dead Sea: one of the saltiest bodies of water in the world. I explained this in my paper, Joshua’s Conquest & Archaeology.

The same thing applies to Ai and Heshbon. These cities were neither occupied, nor conquered, nor re-inhabited in the days of Joshua.

The data from Ai is inconclusive and does not thus far appear to positively support the biblical account. Archaeologist Kenneth Kitchen stated that there was a new settlement “at about 1220/1200 or soon after” (1): which is still Joshua’s era. Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson state:

The Iron Age I village at et-Tell was probably biblical Ai. The “men of Ai” whom Joshua defeated in the wadi north of the site (Josh. 8:1-29) were probably the first inhabitants of the Iron Age I site. (p. 23)

But Kitchen states that “Ai is enigmatic” (3). The evidence is even much less impressive for Heshbon. Christians need not be embarrassed by the occasional lack of confirmation of Scripture or scanty evidence in archaeology. There are many many more instances where the data confirms the Bible: often rather dramatically. So “score two” for Ehrman. He chose his examples wisely. But his sweeping, grandiose claims regarding the “conquest” do not hold up, as I will now show.

Lachish

Joshua 10:31-32 And Joshua passed on from Libnah, and all Israel with him, to Lachish, and laid siege to it, and assaulted it: [32] and the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah.

Archaeological Level VII of Lachish has been dated to the 13th century BC, and its destruction determined to be the middle or latter part of the 12^th century BC. According to Israeli archaeologist David Ussishkin, “the biblical description (in Josh. 10:31-32) fits the archaeological data: a large Canaanite city destroyed by fire; . . . and complete desertion of the razed city explained by the annihilation of the populace.” As with Hazor, a small Iron Age settlements appeared not long afterwards. (4)

Bethel

Judges 1:22-25 The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel; and the LORD was with them. [23] And the house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel. (Now the name of the city was formerly Luz.) [24] And the spies saw a man coming out of the city, and they said to him, “Pray, show us the way into the city, and we will deal kindly with you.” [25] And he showed them the way into the city; and they smote the city with the edge of the sword, but they let the man and all his family go.

The destruction of the Late Bronze Age town was by fire, and dated by William Albright to around 1240-1235 BC. This was followed by a relatively poor and different Israelite Iron Age I settlement. This was what happened according to archaeologists Amihai Mazar and Israel Finkelstein. Negev and Gibson (5) added that “The last Late Bronze Age stratum is covered by a very thick layer of ashes and charred and fallen bricks.”

Bruce Waltke notes Canaanite cities that underwent “catastrophic destructions”:

Hazor (Tell el-Qedah), Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim), Succoth (Tell Deir Alla), Bethel (Beitin), Beth Shemesh (Tell er-Remeileh), Ashdod (Esdud), Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir), Eglon (Tell el-esi), and Debir or Kiriath-Sepher (Tell Beit Mirsim or Khirbet Rabud). . . .

On the other hand, he differentiated cities mentioned in the Bible that show no sign of destruction, in line with the biblical accounts:

Gibeon (el-Jib) (Joshua 9), Taanach (Tell Taaannak) (Judg 1:27), Shechem (Tell Balatah) (Josh 24), Jerusalem (el-Quds) (Josh 15:63; 2 Sam 5:6-9), Beth-shean (Tell el-husn) (Judg 1:27-28), and Gezer (Tell Jezer) (Josh 10:33). (6)

Dr. Kitchen assessed the overall evidence and harmony with the scriptural accounts and concluded “eighteen or nineteen” sites out of twenty “were in being in Late Bronze (II)”, according to what we have determined by archaeology. He stated that Makkedah was an exception to the rule because “most of that site is not accessible, hence is not decisive.” (7)

He concluded from the research: “This review shows up the far greater deficiencies in some critiques of the Joshua narratives and list that are now already out-of-date and distinctly misleading.” (8)

Azekah

Joshua 10:10 And the LORD threw them into a panic before Israel, who slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth-hor’on, and smote them as far as Aze’kah and Makke’dah. (cf. 10:11; 15:35).

Azekah was occupied right through the early, Middle, and Late Bronze periods, as well as through the Iron Age . . . (9).

Libnah

Joshua 10:29-30 Then Joshua . . . fought against Libnah; [30] and the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel; and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it; . . .

Libnah . . . can be plausibly identified with Tell Bornat (Tel Burna), which was inhabited in the Late Bronze Age, in agreement with the probable date of Joshua’s raids. (10)

. . . settled in the Early Bronze Age and Iron Age I-II (11).

Eglon

Joshua 10:34-35 And Joshua passed on with all Israel from Lachish to Eglon; and they laid siege to it, and assaulted it; [35] and they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword; and every person in it he utterly destroyed that day, . . .

Eglon . . . is in all likelihood to be sited at present-day Tell ‘Aitun (Tell ‘Eton), occupied in the Late Bronze II period . . . (12).

Debir

Joshua 10:38-39 Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, [39] and he took it with its king and all its towns; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left none remaining; . . .

Debir . . . is more securely located at Khirbet Rabud . . . this site was inhabited in the fourteenth/thirteenth centuries, in the Late Bronze II period, and was reoccupied directly in Early Iron I (twelfth century). (13).

Gaza

Joshua 10:41 And Joshua defeated them from Ka’desh-bar’nea to Gaza . . . (cf. 14:6-7; 15:3).

Archaeological soundings . . . in 1922 . . . uncovered a series of walls, the earliest of which was associated with Late Bronze Age pottery . . . Egyptian texts dating to the reign of Thutmosis II [r. 1493-1479 BC] refer to Gazat “a prize city of the governor,” indicating at least a 15th century BC date for the occupation of the site. Gaza is also mentioned in the El Amarna [c. 1350 BC] and Taanach tablets [also c. 1350 BC] as an Egyptian administrative center . . . (14)

Shift in cultural patterns: that is, evidence of new people taking over from other peoples of a different culture (as you get in the Americas when Europeans came over bringing with them their own culture, different from that of the native Americans).

Ehrman claimed that there was no evidence for this, which is false. Junkkaala summarized his in-depth study of these cities that are mentioned in the Bible in conjunction with Joshua and the Israeli conquest and subsequent settlement:

This study has included 29 sites, which have been divided into two main categories: the “conquered cities” and the “unconquered cities”. The first category has been subdivided into three groups: excavated cities, surveyed cities and others. In all of the “unconquered cities” excavations have been carried out.

*

Two questions were asked concerning each of the sites: were they inhabited in the periods in question (Late Bronze Age II, Iron Age I and II), and can we know something about the cultural backgrounds of the inhabitants. In most cases it could be determined that the culture was influenced either by the Coastal Plain culture (C) or the Hill Country culture (H). The third possibility was the Sea People culture (mostly Philistines, P). . . .

*

The list of the “conquered cities” contains 19 sites. 12 of them have been excavated, 5 have been surveyed and 2 neither have been carried out. In 10 of the 12 excavated cities C-culture dominated in the Late Bronze Age II and in 3 of them (Ai, Arad and Makkedah) there was no identifiable settlement in that period. The cultural change between the Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age I can be seen in all of the sites, although in some it is not very obvious. This change does not happen simultaneously, in Ai the H-culture begins in Iron Age I as in almost all the other cities in this group, but Arad and Makkedah have no settlement until Iron Age II.

*

In 8 of the 12 excavated sites the new settlers seem to represent H culture. . . .

*

The list of the “unconquered cities” contains 10 sites, all of which have been excavated. C-culture dominated in all the sites in Late Bronze Age II. In the Iron Age I the same culture (C) has been found in at least 4 of them and P-culture or its variations in 5 of them (Gezer, Jarmuth, Dor, Aphek, and Achsaph). . . .

*

The conspicuous difference between the archaeology of the “conquered” and the “unconquered” cities is that in the former ones the H-culture begins during Iron Age I (although not commencing simultaneously), and in the latter it only starts in Iron Age II. (15)

This is strong archaeological confirmation of the biblical descriptions of the conquest. Waltke (backed up by others) (16) made a similar observation:

The sudden emergence of hundreds of new sites by pastoral nomads in Iron I contrasts sharply with the reduced number of sites in LB in comparison with MB. Kochavi (17) wrote: “During the Late Bronze Age, and especially towards its end, new small unfortified settlements are known. However, with the beginning of the Iron Age, they suddenly appear by the hundreds.” I. Finkelstein (18) elaborates:

Altogether only 25-30 sites were occupied in the Late Bronze II (c. 1400-1200 BC) between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys. Human activity was confined mainly to the large central tells…. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that many additional Late Bronze sites will be discovered in the future, because it is difficult to overlook such major settlements. Other regions were also practically deserted during the Late Bronze period…. In Iron I there was a dramatic swing back in the population of the hill country. About 240 sites of the period are known in the area between the Jezreel and Beer-Sheva valleys; 96 in Manasseh, 122 in Ephraim… and 22 in Benjamin and Judah. In addition, 68 sites have been identified in Galilee, 18 in the Jordan Valley and dozens of others on the Transjordanian plateau.

As I noted in my previous article, Ehrman likes Israel Finkelstein a lot. He thinks his 2002 book, The Bible Unearthed, is “absolutely terrific . . . Really great, in every way”, and that Finkelstein and co-author Neil Asher Silberman are “highly established and incredibly learned scholars who seem to know everything relevant to the Hebrew Bible . . . far more qualified than I to say anything about the history of ancient Israel” (“Did David Exist? And When Did I Know I Lost My Faith?”, 4-15-17).

Archaeology is often a speculative and inexact science. But I submit that there is more than enough verification in the above information to establish that the Bible was (yet again) substantially accurate in its claims regarding the “conquest” of Canaan begun by Joshua, and certainly enough to counter Ehrman’s grotesquely exaggerated claims that there is no evidence or archaeological verification of the historical accounts in Joshua.

Footnotes

(1) Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 188.

(2) Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Continuum, revised edition of 2001).

(3) Kitchen, ibid., 188.

(4) Eero Junkkaala, Three Conquests of Canaan: A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and Joshua 10-12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence (Finland: Abo Akademie University Press, 2006), 235-236, 238.

(5) Negev & Gibson, ibid., 221.

(6) Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Conquest” (Westminster Theological Journal 52.2 [Fall 1990]: 181-200); citation from pages 197-198.

(7) Kitchen, ibid., 186.

(8) Kitchen, ibid., 189.

(9) Kitchen, ibid., 183.

(10) Kitchen, ibid., 183.

(11) Negev and Gibson, ibid., 299.

(12) Kitchen, ibid., 184.

(13) Kitchen, ibid., 184.

(14) Negev and Gibson, ibid., “Gaza”, 191.

(15) Junkkaala, ibid., 299-300.

(16) Waltke, ibid., 197-198.

(17) M. Kochavi, “The Israelite Settlement in Canaan in the light of Archaeological Surveys,” Biblical Archaeology Today (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1985), 55.

(18) Israel Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society 1988), 39.

***

Photo credit: Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen’s landmark book on Old Testament archaeology [Amazon book page image]

***

Summary: I produce much evidence regarding Joshua’s conquest & science, but agnostic Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman contends that there is little or no such archaeological evidence.

Pearce Pablum #70: Nativity Book Errors

Last updated on: March 7, 2022 at 5:16 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist anti-theist and “philosopher” Jonathan M. S. Pearce runs the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. He has encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques, and wrote under a post dated 12-14-21: “I even need to thank the naysayers. Some of them have put up with a lot of robust pushback and still they come. Bravery or stupidity – it’s a fine line. But they are committed, and there is something to be said for taking that commitment into the lion’s den. Dave, you are welcome at my new place. Come challenge me. . . . thanks for your critiques of my pieces. Sorry I couldn’t get to more of them.” This echoes his words about me in a post dated 7-20-17, where he said, “well done . . . for coming here and suffering the slings and arrows of atheists’ wrath. . . . I commend him for getting involved and defending himself. Goodonya, mate.”

Under a post dated 1-27-22, he stated: “I do welcome disagreements because I don’t want [my blog] to [be] just an echo chamber. . . . [S]omeone like Armstrong does give me ammunition for some of my pieces!” Likewise, on 3-18-14 he proclaimed: “Dissenting views are utterly vital to being sure that you are warranted in your own beliefs and views.” And on 7-20-17: “I put my ideas and theories about the world out there for people to criticise. . . . I want to make damned sure that they are warranted. I can’t stand the idea that I could . . . believe something that is properly unwarranted. . . . What’s the point in self-delusion? . . . I put something out there, people attack it, and if it still stands, it’s pretty robust and I am happy to hold it. If not, I adapt and change my views accordingly.”

I’m delighted to oblige his wish to receive critiques and dissenting views! The rarity of his counter-replies, however, is an oddity and curiosity in light of this desire. He wrote, for example, on 11-22-19: “[I can’t be] someone who genuinely is not interested in finding out the truth about philosophy, God and everything. If I come up against any point that is even remotely problematic to my worldview, I feel the absolute necessity to bottom it out. I need to reconcile at least something; I have work to do. I cannot simply leave it as it is. . . . I would simply have to counter the arguments, or change my position.” Whatever; this hasn’t been my experience with him; only in short and infrequent spurts. I continue to offer them in any event, because they aren’t just for his sake.

Here’s what he thinks (by the way) of Jesus: “The Jesus as reported in the Gospels is so far removed from the real and historical figure of Jesus, overlaid with myth, story-telling, propaganda and evangelist agenda, that the end result is synonymous with myth. . . . I’d take mythicism over Christianity any day. And they call mythicists fringe as if the position is absurd? Now that’s crazy.” (8-2-14)

Jonathan’s words will be in blue.

*****

This is part of a series of replies to Jonathan’s book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination (Onus Books, 2012). I am utilizing a text from Barnes & Noble (Nook Book) which has no page numbers, so I can only cite chapter names.

I. Fact or Fiction?

[T]he infancy narratives are (at least mainly) fictional. (Introduction)

This is just to let my readers know what Jonathan thinks of these biblical texts. As we start to closely examine the rationale and arguments he makes, that form his “cumulative case” that he thinks is “water-tight”, we’ll see how flimsy and pitiful it really is. I’ve already strongly critiqued his related arguments several times and never found any significant difficulty in doing so. One can have fifty weak strands of rope or weak links that won’t become any stronger, just because they are collected together.

II. Incidents That Couldn’t Possibly Have Been Recorded?

Pearce marvels at incidents recorded in the Bible “to which there were probably no witnesses (Jesus talking to Herod) available to the Gospel writers. All these speeches seem to have been remarkably well-preserved . . .” (Introduction to the texts)

What an odd choice of example, since “chief priests and the scribes stood by” (Lk 23:10) as did Herod’s “soldiers” (Lk 23:11). All it would take was one or two of these to report about this encounter, which entered into either oral tradition or directly into one of the Gospels. But as it is, Luke records not a single word that Herod said; it only notes that “he questioned him at some length” (Lk 23:9).

Since only Luke reports this incident, there was no secret or “miraculous” knowledge involved. All that is reported is that Herod questioned Jesus. We’re supposed to believe that no follower of Jesus could have possibly known that that happened? It’s ridiculous. It took only one follower to follow the irate persecuting crowds with Jesus from a distance and see them enter into Herod’s palace.

III. “No” Extra-Biblical Corroboration of the Gospels?

[T]he Gospels . . . are not attested by extra-biblical sources. This means that no other source outside of the Bible, and contemporary with the events or with the Gospel accounts, reports and corroborates the events claimed within the Gospels. (Introduction to the texts)

Nonsense! Jonathan also claimed that Christians can produce a few extra-biblical historians, who only proved that Christians “existed.” What?! I recently completed articles in which I demonstrated that there were fifty such corroborations for Luke’s accuracy in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, and another 17 for the Gospel of John. That’s 67 more than none.

Jonathan gets in trouble here with his mindless “universal negatives”: as so often. I appreciate enthusiasm for a cause (even a well-intentioned bad one), but when it leads to utter misrepresentation and lies because one’s extreme bias is so out of control, it’s no longer worth very much.

IV. Jonathan Unable to Distinguish Between a Newborn and a Toddler

We have [in Matthew] . . . Herod massacring children in the search for this newborn ‘usurper’: (The Gospel of Matthew)

The huge error here is that Jesus wasn’t a newborn when the wise men visited Him. He was most likely between 1-2 years old, but definitely not a newborn. I explained this at some length in my article, Bethlehem Joseph / Census Issues (2-28-22).

So we have the deliciously humorous and ironic circumstance of Jonathan — in the midst of carping on and on about supposedly profound Gospel inaccuracy — not even knowing that this passage is not about the newborn Jesus. It’s quite unimpressive to observe him ignorantly distorting the biblical text wholesale in order to mock and “reject” it (i.e., a straw man of the real thing).

V. Ruth Was a Harlot or Adulterer? And Maybe the Virgin Mary, Too, According to Matthew and Jonathan?

Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba . . . were all known adulterers and harlots. With Mary included as a female in this list [a genealogy], perhaps Matthew is hinting something covertly. (The Virgin Birth)

Tamar (Gen 38:13-24) and Rahab (Josh 2:1) were indeed harlots, and Bathsheba an adulterer (famously with King David). Jonathan got some biblical facts right! Stop the presses! But Ruth? One looks in vain throughout the book bearing her name for any hint of harlotry. She was widowed and got married again. That‘s harlotry (or adultery), according to Jonathan?

Having insulted her with one of the worst accusations that can possibly be hurled at a woman, he then makes the blasphemous charge that the Blessed Virgin Mary herself might be in one of these categories [blasphemy is a category that includes much more than just God], and that Matthew was “perhaps . . . hinting” such an unthinkable thing. This is as ridiculous as it is outrageous. Lying blasphemy is never far from skepticism. This is a prime example of that.

VI. Was “Virgin” Mistranslated from Isaiah 7:14?

Jonathan devotes an entire chapter to this question, claiming that “Matthew misappropriated the passage from Isaiah for his own theological ends.” I already refuted his contentions over three years ago: Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Mistranslation” of “Virgin”? (Isaiah 7:14) (with Glenn Miller) [7-26-17].

He also claimed in this chapter (“The mistranslation of virgin”) that “dual prophecies have no precedent — there are simply no other examples of such a thing.” Nonsense (and more of his clueless universal negative claims). I refuted that idea, too, over a year ago: Dual Fulfillment of Prophecy & the Virgin Birth (vs. JMS Pearce) [12-18-20].

VII. Do Matthew and Luke’s Genealogies Contradict Each Other?

Next up is Jonathan’s chapter, “The contradictory genealogies“. I dealt with this topic already as well: Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Contradictory” Genealogies of Christ? [7-27-17].

VIII. Micah 5:2, Bethlehem, and Nazareth

Matthew and Luke . . . mistranslate the prophecy [of Micah 5:2] . . . (To Bethlehem or not to Bethlehem)

Once again I have offered a thorough refutation already: Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth “Contradictions” (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2) [7-28-17].

[I]t seems that Jesus was born in Nazareth . . . The Gospel of Mark seems to indicate that Jesus was from Nazareth. . . . Mark 1:9 declares: “Jesus came from Nazareth . . .” (To Bethlehem or not to Bethlehem)

His “argument” is that Mark calls Him “Jesus of Nazareth” and calls Nazareth His “hometown.” So what?! It was His hometown from the age of 1 or 2. It doesn’t follow that He was born there or that Mark’s simply not dealing with His birth means that He denied that Bethlehem was where He was born. This is the well-known “argument from silence” fallacy, and it’s always a flimsy, nonexistent pseudo-“argument” whenever it’s desperately trotted out. I dealt with this nonsense in the above paper:

In all appearances of “Nazareth” in conjunction with Jesus, never once does it say that He was born there. The Bible says that He “dwelt” there (Mt 2:23), that He was “from” there (Mt 21:11; Mk 1:9), that He was “of” Nazareth (Mt 26:71; Mk 1:24; 10:47; 16:6; Lk 4:34, 18:37; 24:19; Jn 1:45; 18:5, 7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 10:38; 22:8; 26:9), “out of” Nazareth (Jn 1:46), “brought up” there (Lk 4:16), that Jesus called Nazareth “his own country” (Lk 4:23-24), . . . Not one word about being born in Nazareth occurs in any of those 28 references. . . .

Take, for example (by analogy), the singer Bob Dylan. He was born in Duluth, Minnesota, but lived in Hibbing, Minnesota from the age of six (I happened to visit this house on our vacation this year: being a big fan). That‘s where everyone who knows anything about him says and understands that he was raised and where he spent his childhood. Consequently, no one ever says that he is “from” Duluth or “of” Duluth or was “brought up” there. Even many avid Dylan fans don’t even know that he wasn’t born in Hibbing.

All of those things are said about Hibbing: precisely as the Bible habitually refers to Nazareth in relation to Jesus. It’s talking about His hometown, where He was always known to live, prior to His three-year itinerant ministry. In the Bible, people were generally named after the places where they were from. Yet Jonathan seems to expect that the Bible should say that Jesus was “of” or “from” Bethlehem, rather than Nazareth, because He was born there. It doesn’t. It says that He was “of” or “from” Nazareth because that was His hometown. And it says that He was born in Bethlehem; never that He was born in Nazareth. All the biblical data is on my side of this contention. All Jonathan has is silence and empty speculation.

IX. Returning to an “Ancestral” or a Present Tribal Town for a Census?

Luke 2:3-4 (RSV) And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. [4] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

Luke does provide a reason for Joseph to go — because Bethlehem is his ancestral town. [typo corrected; he had Luke instead of Joseph] (Why return to an ancestral town for a census?)

What Luke actually writes is that Bethlehem is Joseph’s “own city”; i.e., he lived there (or at least his family did). The last clause above need not be interpreted as “everyone had to go to their ancestral city.” It could simply mean that Joseph went to Bethlehem and lived there because he was descended from David, who also lived there. But “house and lineage of David” could also refer to one’s tribe.

It doesn’t have to be some convoluted calculation going back 41 generations (as Jonathan has fun with: only making himself look ridiculous). First century Jews knew what tribe they were part of. David and Joseph his descendant were of the tribe of Judah, and Bethlehem was in the northern part of that.

Biblical linguist Marvin Vincent, in his Word Studies in the New Testament, concurs: “According to the Jewish mode of registration the people would be enrolled by tribes, families or clans, and households. Compare Joshua 7:16-18.” Even Roman citizens — as Jonathan notes in his next chapter — “were registered by tribe and class.” So Joseph was going to where his tribe (and he himself) lived.

Joseph was taking his betrothed to a home in Bethlehem, where they lived for 1-2 years after Jesus was born (as we know from the visit of the magi). He happened to live in Bethlehem which just happened to be where his illustrious ancestor David was known from Scripture to have been from. This ain’t rocket science.

X. Pearce Embarrassingly Botches the Meaning of the Immaculate Conception

. . . Mary becoming pregnant via the Holy Spirit . . . she had immaculately conceived . . . (Heavily pregnant? On your donkey!)

As any minimally educated Catholic knows, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception and grace received from God, causing her to be free from both actual and original sin. It does not refer to the virgin birth of Jesus. Yet a man this ignorant deigns to sanctimoniously lecture Christians about the supposedly hopelessly contradictory Gospels (that they are almost totally myths). It’s embarrassing. He can’t even get right what they teach in the first place.

XI. “Heavily Pregnant” Donkey Ride?

Jonathan (in the same chapter and its title) describes Mary as “heavily pregnant” on the journey. How does he know that, pray tell? All the text says is that she was “with child” (Lk 2:5). So he makes it up (one of his many fairy tales), to make it look really really bad and callous and cruel on Joseph’s part. At least he restrained his hyper-polemics to some small degree. By the time of his article, Summing up the Nativity as Concisely as Possible (12-2-16), his amazing powers of seeing in Scripture things that aren’t there became exaggerated to describing Mary on this journey as a “9 month pregnant partner.”

XII. Jonathan Still Can’t Figure Out the Difference Between a Newborn and a Toddler

In his chapter, “No work for you, Joseph!” Jonathan finally seems to figure out that the magi visited a 1-2 year old Jesus; not the newborn Jesus. He writes: “These two events . . . appear not to happen concurrently . . . (and many claim that Jesus was a toddler by this time).” He actually got something in the Bible right: just as an unplugged clock gives the correct time twice a day. But alas, as soon as he stumbled into the truth, he went back to the falsehood in his next chapter (“The magi are copied from Daniel and are clearly a theological mechanism“):

They were sent to Bethlehem to praise the newborn king . . .

Then he cites the ubiquitous Richard Carrier spewing the same error: “Matthew alone depicts Magi visiting Christ at birth . . .”

In his chapter 20 (“The magi and shepherds as evangelists are strangely silent“), he reiterates the error: “The magi . . . had undergone a huge effort just to drop some presents off and praise a baby . . .”

XIII. Mary Doubted That Jesus is the Messiah?

[W]hat could have possessed Mary . . . to doubt the messianic qualities of her son? (Any other business)

There simply is no evidence that this was the case, as I have written about several times (perhaps that’s why Jonathan doesn’t even try to document it):

Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers”? (Jason also claims that “Mary believed in Jesus,” but wavered, and had a “sort of inconsistent faith”) (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-27-20]

Did the Blessed Virgin Mary Think Jesus Was Nuts? [7-2-20]

Seidensticker Folly #50: Mary Thought Jesus Was Crazy? (And Does the Gospel of Mark Radically Differ from the Other Gospels in the “Family vs. Following Jesus” Aspect?) [9-8-20]

XIV. Nazareth Maybe Didn’t Exist in Jesus’ Time Because a Supposed Catholic Pawn (Actually Jewish) Archaeologist Said it Did?!

Jonathan starts sowing the seeds of doubt and then mentions an archaeological dig in 2009 and concedes (?), stating: “we can see that the Myth of Nazareth theory . . . falls apart.” (Any other business). Having arrived at this ray of truth he immediately qualifies it in the next sentence: “However, things aren’t so simple. . . . Firstly, the dig was being carried out by the Catholic Church . . . We have no evidence, just the word of an archaeologist employed by the Catholic Church.”

I recently tackled this subject: Pearce’s Potshots #64: Archaeology & 1st Century Nazareth (2-25-22). Jonathan is outdoing himself in his fanatical cluelessness this time: more dumbfoundedness and “polemical desperation” than he usually exhibits (and that’s really saying something). The archaeologist in question, that he mentions by name, is Yardenna Alexandre, a British-Israeli Jew, and she was digging for the Israel Antiquities Authority (hardly a Catholic pawn), according to a report in The Times of Israel (7-22-20). Jonathan lays out bullet points as to why he thinks these findings are “suspect”:

Alexandre has not published any of the findings or verified any of the claims.

In volume 98 of ‘Atiqot (2020): the publication of the Israel Antiquities Authority, her 68-page article, “The Settlement History of Nazareth in the Iron Age and Early Roman Period” is found (fully accessible as a PDF file at the preceding journal link).

The Israel Antiquities Authority published a short statement, only to take it off the web soon after.

I see. Sounds like some kind of conspiracy, doesn’t it?! Be that as it may, since its own publication now hosts a 68-page description of the findings (complete with copious photographs and diagrams), it’s a rather moot point, ain’t it?

The Church remains the only port of call for verifying the claims.

That would come as big news to the Israel Antiquities Authority, who sponsored the dig.

The Church (rather conveniently) proceeded to build over the remains meaning it can never be verified.

Really? Oooh: more nefarious conspiracies by those wicked, devious, science-hating Catholics!

No materials exist in any scholarly record.

Well, if they didn’t in 2012 (since the excavation had only finished up the year before, and these things take time: as anyone familiar with the rigorous method of archaeology knows), they certainly do now, and there is additional evidence noted in my article above.

[I]t clearly shows the levels to which the Catholic Church (or any religious organisation) are willing to go to support their worldview. These points make the entire house claim thoroughly dubious. . . . The evidence has since been destroyed, it seems, without any independent and professional corroboration. . . . I remain agnostic as to whether Nazareth existed or was inhabited at the time of Jesus.

Some folks are slow and reluctant to follow the scientifically ascertained facts. Some might say that Jonathan wrote his book in 2012, and that he might change his mind by now, in early 2022. Not so! I pointed out that I had verified the archaeological excavations of early 1st-century Nazareth on his blog, and (rather than thanking me for the update) he became angry at me and stated that I had misrepresented his view and should read his book to see what that was. Now I have done so. At the time (just a week ago as I write), I was going by his own statement on his blog, from 10-29-12:

In my book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination, I think I give ample evidence that allows one to conclude that the historicity of the nativity accounts is sorely and surely challenged. All of the aspects and claims, that is. There are problems, for sure, if one accepts that some claims are false but others are true. But the simple fact of the matter is that all of the claims are highly questionable.

Here are the hoops that a Christian must jump through. They are flaming hoops, and the Christian can do nothing to avoid being burnt, it seems. From my book:

In order for the Christian who believes that both accounts are factually true to uphold that faithful decree, the following steps must take place. The believer must: . . .

• Believe that, despite archaeological evidence, Nazareth existed as a proper settlement at the time of Jesus’ birth.

As he said, the last two paragraphs there were from his book. And I see them now, on the very next two pages in the Nook Book version. I did nothing wrong in interpreting his words as I did. It was just “the Christian always has to be wrong in a dispute with an atheist, no matter what!” canard.

As it is, Jonathan wants to play the game of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He pokes fun of the Christian belief in the existence of first-century Nazareth (based on both the historically reliable Bible and archaeology), but falls short of asserting that it definitely didn’t, and remains “agnostic” on the question. How intellectually brave and courageous! He covers his rear end, to please whoever he happens to be with at any given moment.

He plays the same game regarding Jesus mythicism, as we see in his words cited near the top of this article. He’s not a mythicist himself, but he mocks and derides anyone who thinks it is a fringe position in academia (as it certainly is: believed by no more than 1% of historians: if even that many). He has to “kiss up” like this because of the ever-growing ranks of mythicists among the atheist crowd these days. It’s an utterly pathetic and a disgraceful performance, from someone who refers to himself as a “philosopher.”

XV. Postscript: Jonathan’s Increasing Mockery and/or Silence in the Face of Legitimate and Substantive Critique

Jonathan doesn’t exhibit much of a desire to interact with substantive critiques anymore: such as the many I have lately been offering and posting on his blog. Here is how he responded to me there, on 3-1-22:

STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT. Please stop this. All you are doing is spouting the absolutely debunked drivel apologetics that my book takes to task. . . . I welcome your comments, but these are totally off-topic and you show absolutely no desire to interact with my own material . . . [capitalized “yelling” is his own]

And a day earlier, he waxed: “Oh very dear. This is rather embarrassing for you.”

As anyone can see, my replies are almost solely devoted to direct interaction with his material. He mostly insults me now, all the while falsely claiming — almost in a semi-paranoid fashion — that my critiques are merely personal attacks on him; and he refuses to offer any intelligent counter-reply.

In other words, he’s melting down, after previously inviting me to come to his blog and offer critiques: see his words at the top of this article. If you persistently refute an atheist’s attacks on Christianity and the Bible (this is my 70th critique of Jonathan), this is what you eventually get. My friend, Paul Hoffer summed up the incongruity of his manifest attitude very well:

If Pearce were a real skeptic, he would thank you for your critical analysis, reexamine his own premises and conclusions and then either defend them if he still thinks he is in the right or adjust his thinking to fit the evidence. Instead, he comes across like a mutton-chopped millennial yelling at the barista at Starbucks who got his latte wrong.

He’s become progressively more hostile and rude. Despite all that sad display, however, I do think he’s basically a nice guy who is a much better person than his putrid, flatulent ideology. I think we’d have a great time in a pub over beer. He simply can’t handle being refuted. He’s like lots and lots of people of all stripes in that respect. And it’s the bane of my existence (as an apologist and lover of socratic dialogue), to see so few people willing to enter into the pleasure of true dialogue.

This is the fruit of the widely held atheist notion that all Christians are idiots, simply by virtue of the fact that they are Christians. They can’t possibly be honest, either: so tens of thousands of atheists think and express. So the more I replied to him, the more hostile he became, because this just ain’t supposed to happen, you see: that a lowly, imbecilic Christian can actually prevail in a debate (and many debates) over a smarter-than-thou atheist.

His blog is supposed to be a place for civil, ethical discussion between atheists and Christians. The new venue where it is hosted (OnlySky) — to its credit — has made a huge and sincere, commendable effort to foster civil discussion. Yet massive insults sent my way are freely allowed on Jonathan’s site, and even the guy who co-runs the blog with Jonathan (Bert Bigelow) made the following comment, congratulating a fellow mocker: “Huzzah! For the best, most articulate, and most detailed put-down of Dave A that I have seen. Thanks for taking the time to do it.” (3-3-22).

See how it works? An atheist blog is a place where the “moderators” [choke] literally encourage the commenters to engage in extended “put-down[s]” of Christians who dare to object to the cynical, lying misrepresentations of Christianity and the Bible. Yet Jonathan and his buddies, almost to a person, are scared to death of coming to my blog and commenting, even though they are treated courteously, and I would disallow personal insults from anyone sent their way.

They keep lying over there and claiming that I ban everyone as soon as they disagree with me, which is laughably ludicrous and manifestly, patently false. My interactions with Jonathan alone (who is most welcome on my blog, but rarely appears there) disprove the tired slander.

Proverbs 9:8 (RSV) Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

Proverbs 14:6 . . . a fool throws off restraint and is careless.

Proverbs 29:9, 11 If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet. . . . [11] A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man quietly holds it back.

The only person who engaged in a perfectly normal, courteous, serious, substantive, enjoyable, charitable, sustained dialogue with me at Jonathan’s blog (i.e., after Jonathan stopped doing so) was “Lex Lata” (see our two-part dialogue [one / two] on the demoniacs and the pigs, Gerasenes and Gadarenes, etc.). People like Lex give me faith in the continuity of dialogue. I know it’s possible, and I’ve engaged in great dialogues with atheists many times (my very favorite of all of my 1000 + dialogues — way back in 2001 –, was, in fact, with an atheist).

But it’s rarer than a needle in a haystack, and the patience required to wait until one finds such an ultra-rare golden opportunity (and the willingness to be a “pin cushion” and a “dart board” for months on end) is scarcely humanly possible. But for the grace of God . . .

I will continue to critique Jonathan’s articles if I find something I haven’t dealt with yet: as opportunity arises. He’ll come to regret his contemptuous attitude, sent in my direction, in full view of all his back-slapping cronies and sycophants, because it only makes me more determined to spend time refuting his (and other atheists’) endless, relentless calumnies and slanders against the faith and the Bible and Christians.

But to end on a positive note: I do sincerely thank Jonathan for the relatively few times that he did actually offer a substantive counter-response to my critiques of his work (see a listing of those, under my name, in a search on his blog). That’s much more than I can say about his fellow well-known online anti-theist atheist polemicists Bob Seidensticker, Dr. David Madison, and John Loftus, who have never done it even once, after literally 80, 46, and 24 critiques (respectively) sent their way: adding up to 150 unanswered critiques.

***

Photo credit: Cover of Pearce’s book on the GoodReads site.

***

Summary: I take on anti-theist atheist Jonathan MS Pearce’s Nativity book errors. As always (sorely lacking grace), he demonstrates that he is relentlessly clueless & out to sea.

Pearce’s Potshots #65: Who First Visited Baby Jesus?

Last updated on: March 7, 2022 at 5:18 pm By Dave Armstrong

Jonathan’s words will be in blue.

*****

This is a reply to a portion of Jonathan’s article, “The hoops the Christian has to jump through to believe the Nativity” (10-29-12):

Here are the hoops that a Christian must jump through. They are flaming hoops, and the Christian can do nothing to avoid being burnt, it seems. From my book:

In order for the Christian who believes that both accounts are factually true to uphold that faithful decree, the following steps must take place. The believer must: . . .

• Believe that there is (and provide it) a reasonable explanation as to why each Gospel provides different first witnesses (shepherds and magi) without any mention of the other witnesses.

This is an easy one, and it is remarkable to me that Jonathan has made such a basic error as regards the Gospel accounts. First of all, we find the usual sloppy logical thinking in atheist attacks on the Bible. Neither Matthew nor Luke claim that the shepherds or the wise men (magi) were the “first” to witness the baby Jesus. That’s an invention that Jonathan somehow came up with (who knows how?).

And this is a key factor in determining whether an alleged “contradiction” is present. Let me elaborate a bit if I may. If Matthew had said that the wise men were the “first” to visit baby Jesus and Luke said that the shepherds were the ‘first” to do so, then that would have been a true, clear contradiction. But of course neither account says any such thing.

This is so obvious that Jonathan himself even hosted Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman on his blog, making exactly the same point I just made, and contradicting his own:

Of course some of the differences are simply … differences, not “contradictions.” As an obvious example, the fact that Luke mentions the shepherds but not the magi (wise men) and that Matthew mentions the magi but not the shepherds is not a contradiction. If both groups visited the infant Jesus, then Luke mentioned one group and Matthew the other: no contradiction. (Ehrman on the Nativity, 10-29-13)

Somehow, Ehrman avoided the (what did Jonathan call it?) “flaming hoops” and he — inexplicably — managed to navigate this extraordinarily difficult logical conundrum without being “burnt.”

Right after Luke reports that Mary gave birth to Jesus (Lk 2:7), it’s reported that angels inform the shepherds of the birth of Jesus on that very night (Lk 2:8-14). Then the shepherds determined to go see baby Jesus, and indeed did so (Lk 2:15-16). We know that this was the night of Jesus’ birth, complete with his lying in the famous “manger” (Lk 2:7).

Nothing is said about their being the first visitors. They may have been, but we can’t know for sure from the text. They could have been the first or the fifth, or the only ones on that night. From the text we can’t determine those things. And there is no imaginary obligation for a text to mention any or all other visitors too. All we know for sure is that they visited shortly after He was born.

With the wise men (Mt 2:1-11), what Jonathan appears unaware of is that they didn’t visit on the night of Jesus’ birth. No doubt he would appeal to Matthew 2:1: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, . . . ” (RSV). But this is one of the thousands of cases in the Bible where the intended meaning was not literal. Many Bible translations bring out more clearly the actual intent, that the incidents about to be recorded were some time after Jesus’ birth, not at the time of His birth:

CSB / CEB / EHV / ESV / ESVUK / HCSB / LEB / MEV / Mounce After Jesus was born in Bethlehem . . .

Darby / DNLT Now Jesus having been born in Bethlehem . . .

ERV Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem in Judea during the time when Herod was king. After Jesus was born, some wise men from the east came to Jerusalem.

GW Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea when Herod was king. After Jesus’ birth wise men from the east arrived in Jerusalem.

*

GNT Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem in Judea, during the time when Herod was king. Soon afterward, some men who studied the stars came from the East to Jerusalem

ICB . . . After Jesus was born, some wise men from the east came to Jerusalem.

*

ISV / NCB After Jesus had been born in Bethlehem . . .

*

Phillips Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in Judea, in the days when Herod was king of the province. Not long after his birth there arrived from the east a party of astrologers

*

MSG / NASB / NET / NIV / NKJV After Jesus was born in Bethlehem . . . [source]

Here’s a few more from my Bible collection:

Weymouth / Goodspeed Now after the birth of Jesus . . .

*

NEB / REB . . . After his birth . . .

*

NRSV . . . after Jesus was born . . .

*

Barclay When Jesus had been born . . .

*

Wuest Now, Jesus having been born . . .

When the magi stopped by, Jesus was a toddler. The word for child in Matthew 2:8-9 is paidion (Strong’s word #3813): defined as “a young child . . . properly, a child under training; the diminutive form of 3816 /país (“child”). . . . implies a younger child (perhaps seven years old or younger). Some scholars apply 3816 (país) to a son or daughter up to 20 years old.”

“Babe” on the other hand (Lk 2:12, 16 in RSV and KJV) is Strong’s word #1025, brephos: which means: “an unborn or a newborn child” and is used of children in the womb in Luke 1:41, 44. In Luke 2, it’s the day of Jesus’ birth (Lk 2:7, 11). So the use of “babe” (2:12, 16) and “child” (2:17) in English (RSV) obviously includes the meaning here of “newborn.” Commentators generally believe He was two years old or younger when the wise men visited, but in any event, not a newborn.

But Jonathan cites one Julian Haydon on his blog, making the same dumb mistake he made, including noting that “it is something I brought up in my last book” [on the Nativity]:

[T]he wise men knew to follow it [Star of Bethlehem] to find the baby Jesus, . . . Why didn’t the “miracle” of the star lead the wise men to baby Jesus in the first place . . .? (Slaughter of the innocents, 11-10-13, my italics)

Two years later, Jonathan was still trotting out this falsehood on his blog:

Herod is not likely to have troubled himself with the newborn . . . On pain of death, those Magi would have led him to the baby. . . . In fact, unless God only magically made the star visible to the Magi, the whole of Jerusalem could have gone to see the newborn Messiah; . . . (Response to Triablogue’s Jason Engwer on Nativity Accounts (Part 1), 12-20-14; my italics)

We know that this error is also present in his 2012 book, The Nativity: A Critical Examination because he cites part of it (p. 146) in a blog post dated 12-14-14:

[W]hy would catching a newborn and murdering this newborn, thereby forcing him to murder many other infants, be something that such an old king would bother to do? (my italics)

The magi visit a “house” (Mt 2:11), not a baby in a “manger” (Lk 2:7, 12, 16), in a place which was, in fact, very much a cave (I’ve been there). There are no angels (Lk 2:9-10, 13-15), shepherds (Lk 2:8, 15-18), or animals are in sight. The star of Bethlehem is a factor in Matthew’s account only. Luke never mentions it. The picture of the star of Bethlehem shining down on baby Jesus (surprisingly enough) is not biblical at all. Scholars believe that Jesus was possibly as old as two years old, based on Matthew 2:16 (RSV):

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men.

Herod felt “tricked” because they had departed the country by then (2:12-13). What he “ascertained from the wise men” was that Jesus was up to two years old. See also 2:7: “Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star appeared”. I think they may have said He was a year old, and that Herod then ordered all children under two to be killed, to be sure He killed the Messiah, based on His estimated age given to him by the magi.

Since these are two completely separate events and visitations, Jonathan’s “difficulty” and alleged “contradiction” vanishes.

***

Photo credit: 27707 (1-20-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Atheist JMS Pearce claims that the NT contradictorily teaches that both the shepherds & wise men first visited baby Jesus. In fact, the latter visited 1-2 years later.

Quirinius & Luke’s Census: Resources on the “Difficulty”

Last updated on: March 3, 2022 at 4:04 am By Dave Armstrong

This issue is an exceedingly complex one, which is why atheists and biblical skeptics like Jonathan MS Pearce and Richard Carrier have devoted a lot of enthusiastic and triumphalistic ink to it, thinking that it is an insuperable conundrum for Christians who believe in biblical infallibility or inerrancy (one of the quintessential “biblical contradictions” in their eyes). Christians have proposed various solutions to it, but, frankly, no one pretends that they are “easy” or easily understood solutions.

Any plausible Christian answer to the “problem”, moreover, requires considerable reading and patience to even be properly understood, let alone accepted. This is not a matter given to quick summary. For all these reasons, I have chosen not to address the issue, myself, in the depth it deserves (though I have tackled it to some extent), since it clearly requires more attention than I have time, energy, or desire to devote to it, and have simply compiled the following list of good articles, for the sake of those who want to pursue the issue in depth and to be aware of the best Christian arguments and proposed solutions available.

Many atheists (of the anti-theist sort) will quickly retort that the following efforts are desperate and pitiful examples of special pleading or deliberate intellectual dishonesty. Let them conclude what they will. I am happy to leave the decision to my readers as to which arguments are the best ones and more plausible, and whether their writers are dishonest hacks and sophists or honest inquirers who happen to be Christians and believers in the inspiration of the Bible (which characteristic includes historical accuracy).

“Luke and the Census” (Conservapedia)

“The Census of Quirinius: The Historicity of Luke 2:1-5” (Ronald Marchant, 1980)

“The Census of Quintilius Varus” (Ernest L. Martin, The Star of Bethlehem: The Star that Astonished the World, 2nd ed., 2003, ch. 12)

“Contradictions in the Infancy stories?” (Glenn Miller, 2-10-08)

“Joseph Misdated the Census of Quirinius” (John H. Rhoads, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 2011)

Astronomical and Historical Evidence for Dating the Nativity in 2 BC” (James A. Nollet, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 64, Number 4, December 2012, 211-219)

“Historical Evidence for Quirinius and the Census” (Bible History.net, 2013)

“The 100-year old mistake about the Birth of Jesus” (Jimmy Akin, 4-13-13)

“Jesus’ birth and when Herod the Great really died” (Jimmy Akin, April 2013)

“Does Luke Contradict Himself on When Jesus Was Born?” (Jimmy Akin, 9-12-14)

“The Lukan Census — Updated” (Glenn Miller, Sep. 2014)

“Jesus’ Birth – Roman History” (Joseph Lenard, 1-5-17)

“Recent Scholarship Dating Herod’s Death Matches Christian Texts About Jesus’s Birth“ (G. W. Thielman, The Federalist, 12-20-17)

“An Unusual Roman Census Decree By Caesar Augustus” (K.B. Vogelman, The Odds, 8-5-18)

“Did Augustus Tax the World?” (Things Paul and Luke, 11-30-18)

“The Census of Quirinius” (The Bible History Guy, 10-16-19)

“Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography” (Bryan Windle, Bible Archaeology Report, 12-19-19)

“Towards the Historical Plausibility of Luke 2:2” (Maviael Alves & Maviael Oliveira, October 2020)

“Solving the Census of Quirinius” (10-27-20)

“Untangling the Apparent Contradiction of the Census of Quirinius” (David E. Graves, Deus Artefacta, 7-16-21)

“Miller vs Carrier on the Lukan Census” (J. P. Holding, n.d.)

***

Photo credit: Saint Joseph Seeks a Lodging in Bethlehem, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I offer many resources concerning the biblical “difficulty” of Governor of Syria, Quirinius & Luke’s Census (see Luke 2:1-5). Atheists LOVE to engage in this discussion.

Pearce’s Potshots #63: Lex, NT Texts, & the Next Town Over

Last updated on: February 21, 2022 at 1:00 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. His “About” page from his former site states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.”

He has encouraged me to visit his site and offer critiques. Before he departed his former site at Patheos, he wrote under a post dated 12-14-21: “I even need to thank the naysayers. Some of them have put up with a lot of robust pushback and still they come. Bravery or stupidity – it’s a fine line. But they are committed, and there is something to be said for taking that commitment into the lion’s den. Dave, you are welcome at my new place. Come challenge me. All the best to you and thanks for your critiques of my pieces. Sorry I couldn’t get to more of them.”

Again, at his new site (under a post dated 1-27-22), after a vicious attack by a commenter, calling for me and indeed all Christians to be banned, Jonathan offered an honorable and principled refusal: “I do welcome disagreements because I don’t want [my blog] to [be] just an echo chamber. As long as it is good faith . . . someone like Armstrong does give me ammunition for some of my pieces! As long as they aren’t trollish.”

Guest writer Lex Lata’s words will be in blue.

*****

“Lex Lata” has responded to my reply to his post, “You say ‘Gerasa’ and I say ‘Gadara’: The case of the “obviously and demonstrably false” place name in the Gospels” (2-16-22). Mine was entitled, Pearce’s Potshots #62: Gadarenes & Gerasenes #3 (2-17-22). He made his reply in the combox of his post (hosted on Jonathan MS Pearce’s site). My words that he cites from my previous article will be indented and in black. My present replies will be non-indented black. His words from his article (as opposed to his combox reply) will be indented and in blue.

There’s a lot going on there, and time being in short supply, I’ll just kinda do drive-by responses to some of the things that get my attention; definitely not everything.

Well, I hope that in due course you will get to “everything” because everything in my article is important to my overall argument, or else it wouldn’t be there in the first place. I like to make all my words and arguments “count.” Not much “filler” . . .

To quote the Dread Pirate Roberts/Wesley, “Get used to disappointment.” For my part, I think it’s unrealistic to expect folks to respond to everything I write, and it wouldn’t even occur to me to ask that much of them. Their time is theirs. They are welcome to read or respond to all or some or one or none of the points I might cover. [Lex shrugs.] And of course someone has to be quiet and let stuff go for a conversation to ever end.

***

I’ll note up front that we don’t disagree as much as you seem to think we do (yay!),

Yes, it is very good to agree and find common ground.

in part because you have an unfortunate and rather off-putting tendency to attribute positions to me that I don’t espouse (boo!).

If so, then that can be clarified as we dialogue. I don’t want to misrepresent anyone’s position. I’m not sure, however, that this relative “closeness” of viewpoint is the case with Jonathan, and in a way I was responding to this new dynamic duo of Jonathan + Lex [Jon-Ex or Lexathan?], since this is now my third reply on this topic and since he seemed quite jubilant about your article and quickly stated that “we” [i.e., you and him] would reply to anything I wrote in this regard and that my view was, in fact, already “destroyed.”

I don’t think you two are clones in your views, but forgive me if I sometimes miss the fine distinctions. The standard atheist view (and certainly Jonathan’s) is that the Bible massively, relentlessly contradicts itself. Recently, for example, we saw Jonathan arguing that Matthew simply made up the guards at the tomb story. For us Christians, that is very serious sin: lying, bearing false witness. I described that as making up fairy tales, and Jonathan construed that judgment as a personal attack on him (which it was not). If one has no evidence whatsoever for a claim, then that is accurately described as a fairy tale. But I digress . . .

This is a different argument than claiming a contradiction in a legitimate manuscript (i.e., in the actual Bible, as best we can determine it), as Jonathan and Lex do.

Nowhere do I make this claim. Rather, I write that human error (or conceivably a deliberate change) regarding the Gerasenes likely crept into the manuscript tradition at some point. Please see my final thoughts.

Well, with all due respect, I think you do so in the subtitle of your article, right out of the starting-gate: “The case of the ‘obviously and demonstrably false’ place name in the Gospels.” That (rather provocatively) is claiming that there is a falsehood in the Gospels; not in such-and-such manuscript[s]. And, quite obviously, as you unpack your argument, you are maintaining that there is an internal contradiction present, too. So I don’t see how you can characterize that as merely quibbling about manuscripts. The first time you mentioned “manuscript” it was in the context of the texts becoming canon:

Origen would have been less than ecstatic, then, to learn that the discrepancy he lamented came to nest securely in the manuscript tradition and become canon: [followed by your three NT citations]

Origen [just one man and with no particular authority, according to how Christians view the Church fathers] may have thought these were spurious texts, but in any event, they did enter the canon, and so it seems to me that that is how they must be discussed now: as part of the Bible, not merely a once-disputed manuscript which now no longer is. The alleged discrepancies you discuss are part of the canon now.

You only mention “manuscripts” one more time in your article: referring to Origen “collect[ing] important manuscripts.” This is hardly enough for any reader to get the impression that you were talking about disputed texts from different manuscripts, rather than disputed texts in the accepted NT canon. You’re expecting more from me than ought to be expected, since you didn’t make that clear at all. All I have is your words. I can’t read your mind and intentions. If you clarify now, that’s fine, but the words in your article did not spell such a thing out clearly at all.

Okeedoke. I think it was clear enough. I started by quoting Origen on the discrepancy in the “Greek copies” at his fingertips, talked about the discrepancy coming to nest in the manuscript tradition, and closed by explicitly considering the possibility of inadvertent composition, translation, or transcription error creeping into Mark and Luke, much as Origen supposed. YMMV.

***

But as Gergesa was a small village, and little known, the evangelists, who wrote for more distant readers, spoke of the event as taking place in the country of the Gadarenes, so named from its largest city, Gadara; and this country included the country of the Gergesenes as a state includes a county.

Debatable.

It may be debatable, but it’s not implausible at all. It’s a perfectly sensible interpretation of Matthew’s description. As I noted, Gadara was only six miles away from the Sea of Galilee (and your linked photo showed how it could be seen from there), and 10-12 from Kursi [what I have contended was Gergesa / Gerasa]. You yourself argued at some length about the high importance of Gadara. So given those things, plus what the Greek word for “country of” meant, my interpretation shouldn’t be controversial at all. It can’t be absolutely proven, but few things in such discussions can be, anyway, so it comes down to relative plausibility.

The location associated with Gergesa was probably in the χώρα of Hippos (not Gadara), or possibly in its own. Regardless, I don’t contend that “τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν” is materially wrong.

You wrote:

Gadara was not some one-horse town easily lost in Gerasa’s long shadow. Scholars provisionally estimate Gadara’s population during this period to have been around 8,000, . . . Gadara produced noted poets and philosophers, boasted theaters and a hippodrome (like Gerasa), and warranted mentions from Pliny, Strabo, Josephus, and Ptolemy, among others (like Gerasa). . . .Gadara even minted its own silver coinage . . .

All that, and yet we are supposed to believe that it’s unreasonable to describe the area covering six miles to the Sea of Galilee and 10-12 to Kursi as “the country of the Gadarenes” (Matthew’s usage)?

No. (Others might contend that, but I’m not answerable for them, any more than you’re answerable for what other apologists write.) Even if the location was technically in Hippos’ territory and not in Gadara’s (per Eisenberg’s χώρα map), I can imagine why an author might refer less precisely (whether by accident or design) to Gadara rather than Hippos, or much smaller Gergesa, or whatever the landing spot was actually called.

***

Now, later, you say you had no beef with Matthew. I take you at your word. But if you don’t, many others do, and I am defending the Bible from all such attacks. Your main point seems to be that Gerasa was far away, and so couldn’t have had relevance to any statement regarding the “country of” in relation to the location of the incident with the demoniacs and the pigs.

[McGrew] makes this argument based on the fact that the original Aramaic names for Gerasa and Kursi would have been spelled very similarly if not identically. Therefore, the identification with Gerasa is potentially due to an early copyist mistake or misinterpretation of Kursi.

Yes, that’s a defensible hypothesis, consistent with Origen’s advocacy for Gergesa, and with my closing thoughts about human error.

Good. Then if this is granted, or allowed as “defensible”, then that accounts for the supposed discrepancy of Gerasa being too far away.

Three key things give us pause about the Gergesa/Kursi hypothesis, though. First, we don’t currently have solid, compelling archaeological confirmation of this community’s existence in the 1st century CE.

The likelihood is that the archaeologists simply haven’t dug that far down yet. Archaeologist / Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has noted that this is true of many archaeological sites, and by all appearances, it is of this one. They’ve found Byzantine remains of a church from several centuries later. But that’s the thing: the presence of the Church suggests that it was there for a reason: that something was believed to have happened there, of biblical significance.

It’s the same thing all around the Sea of Galilee. What is believed to be Peter’s house in Capernaum (discovered in 1968) had a church built over it (and a synagogue from the first century); so did the place of the alleged feeding of the 5,000, and the site of the Sermon on the Mount, etc. At a storied location like the Sea of Galilee: filled with connections to the Galilean ministry of Jesus, the presence of a church will almost always suggest a prior tradition tying Gospel events to a particular spot.

I agree that such traditions are not in the same category of hard archaeological proof, but if the site hasn’t been properly excavated yet, that will come in due course, just as is the case, for example, with other towns by the Sea of Galilee, like Chorazin and Bethsaida (Lk 10:13), which have been discovered and dated to the time of Christ:

Excavations in 1980 at Chorazin found remains going back to the 1st century. (Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, New York and London: Continuum, 2003; “Chorazin”, 118-119). As for Bethsaida:

In 2019, what some describe as the Church of Apostles was unearthed by the El-Araj excavations team during the fourth season at the site of Bethsaida-Julias / Beithabbak (El-Araj), on the north shore of Sea of Galilee near where the Jordan river enters the lake. The excavation was carried out by Prof. Mordechai Aviam of Kinneret College and Prof. R. Steven Notley of Nyack College. This Byzantine period church is believed by some to have been built over the house of the apostle brothers, Peter and Andrew. . . . According to Professor Notley:

We have a Roman village, in the village we have pottery, coins, also stone vessels which are typical of first century Jewish life, so now we strengthen our suggestion and identification that El-Araj is a much better candidate for Bethsaida than e-Tell.

SOURCES

Wikipedia, “Bethsaida”.

“The Lost Home of Jesus’ Apostles Has Just Been Found, Archaeologists Say” (Noa Shpigel & Ruth Schuster, Haaretz, 6 August 2017).

“Church of the Apostles Found by Sea of Galilee, Archaeologists Claim” (Ructh Schuster, Haaretz, 18 July 2019).

Another excavated site on the Sea is Magdala, the hometown of Mary Magdalene. The Wikipedia article on it states:

Archaeological excavations on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) conducted in 2006 found that the settlement began during the Hellenistic period (between the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE) and ended during the late Roman period (3rd century CE). Later excavations in 2009–2013 brought perhaps the most important discovery in the site: an ancient synagogue, called the “Migdal Synagogue”, dating from the Second Temple period. It is the oldest synagogue found in the Galilee, and one of the only synagogues from that period found in the entire country, as of the time of the excavation.

So yeah; I’d bet good money (with you!) that within ten years, Kursi will be properly excavated dated to at least the first century, complete with many indisputable artifacts, just as was the case with these other related sites.

Wouldn’t put a timeframe on it, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of things going down this way, whether it’s at the location associated with Kursi or elsewhere on the eastern shore.

***

Such things are happening almost on a monthly basis in Israel. I know, because I have concentrated on biblical archaeology over the past year.

We have tons of stuff for Hippos, Gadara, Gerasa, Scythopolis, their χώρα boundaries, etc., but for Gergesa/Kursi we’ve got little-to-nothing (until a couple of centuries later).

Like I said, it simply needs to be excavated at a lower level. If a Byzantine Church is there, almost certainly a first century presence will eventually be verified, based n massive analogy to other similar sites. I’d bet the farm on it (well, my Jet-Ski and my book and music collections).

Second, we similarly have no independent documentary evidence for this community’s existence in the 1st century, either, the way we do for the Decapolitan city-states.

It was likely just a small village: made significant by the fact that the demoniac-pig incident and the feeding of the 4,000 happened there, according to the Bible.

Yes, and even if no-one ever finds any contemporary documentary or archaeological confirmation, that doesn’t mean the community necessarily didn’t exist at the time. (Wood rots, adobe erodes, stones tumble, and papyrus disintegrates.) It just means the Gergesa/Kursi hypotheses remains tentative.

***

Nazareth, too, was a very small town when Jesus was born. When we were there, our guide told us that it was scarcely as large as the parking lot of the Church of the Annunciation there. But it’s been excavated to the time of Jesus.

Skeptics for many years have asserted that Nazareth didn’t exist at all in His time. Their judgments were premature and erroneous, as usual. Amanda Borschel-Dan, reporter for The Times of Israel, wrote an article about this topic and the latest archaeology:

Nazareth. . . as British-Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre notes . . .,the once small village with huge name recognition existed well before and well after [Jesus’] lifetime. . . .

Among her digs, in 2009, Alexandre discovered the first example of a residential building from the time of Jesus. It was found near today’s Church of the Annunciation, . . . In her report, Alexandre describes the structure as “a simple house comprising small rooms and an inner courtyard was inhabited in the late Hellenistic and the Early Roman periods [late 2nd c. BC to early or mid 2nd c. AD].” . . .

Among the artifacts is a coin of Emperor Claudius that was uncovered on the floor of a corridor that led into a three-story pit complex. According to the report, “The coin was minted in ‘Akko-Ptolemais in 50–51 CE. (“What do we know about Nazareth in Jesus’ time? An archaeologist explains”, The Times of Israel, 22 July 2020)

And finally, “Gergesa” itself seems to be a relative latecomer to the Synoptic manuscript tradition, which is suggestive that it might have been a motivated contrivance (some blame/credit Origen). So while the Gergesa/Kursi hypothesis has some appeal, and there could have been a 1st century community of that name that was mistranslated into the χώρα of the Gerasenes, we’re short on corroborating, contemporary evidence. Could that change? Sure. But for now, the support is scant.

Time will tell, won’t it? I’m quite confident that it’ll turn out to be the same there as it has for scores of biblical sites throughout Israel. You see how recent some of the finds were, that I noted above.

In the meantime, I have found a reputable Jewish literary source that attests to Gergesa / Kursi in around 150 AD, or some 75 years before Origen’s reference. It’s in the article, “Gerasa, or Gadara? Where Did Jesus’ Miracle Occur?” by Ze’ev Safrai (Jerusalem Perspective, Vol. 51, April-June 1996, 16-19). Dr. Safrai is Israeli Professor in the Department for Israel Studies in Bar Ilan University, with background education in the Talmud, Jewish history, geography, and archaeology. In his ongoing research, he specializes in the connection between talmudic literature and archaeological remains. He wrote in the above article:

Origen mentions an “ancient city” [in the quote I used, this was rendered “old town”] named Gergesa beside the Sea of Galilee. At first glance, one might think that this is only a literary description. The term “ancient city” sounds suspect, yet Origen has accurately described the Gergesa of his day, as the following midrash proves:

R. Nehemiah said: “When the Holy One, blessed is he, show’s Israel the graves of Gog and Magog, the feet of the Shechinah will be on the Mount of Olives and the graves of Gog and Magog will be open from south of the Kidron Valley to Gergeshta on the eastern side of Lake Tiberias. And he came until he entered [nichnesah; read instead, “Naosa,” i.e., Nysa Scythopolis].”

According to this midrash, the graves of Gog and Magog will stretch from Jerusalem to Gergeshta (= Gergesa), which is described as a settlement on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee. Thus, we learn that a place called Gergesa really existed east of the lake. Though its location was still known in Origen’s time, Gergesa was apparently desolate; therefore, Origen called it “an ancient city.” . . .

In the first century, there was a town on the eastern coast of the Sea of Galilee called Gergesa, or Gergeshta. Later, this place appeared as Kursia or Kursi in the accounts of Cyril of Scvthopolis, and as Karshin in talmudic literature. Apparently, both pronunciations were used concurrently. . . . To what extent did the early Christian community succeed in accurately transmitting the location of events in Jesus’ life from generation to generation? This question has not received sufficient scholarly attention. Here, however, we have shown that in at least one case — that Kursi-Gergesa was the scene of Jesus’ miracle of the swine — the community accurately transmitted the name of a miracle site. Apparently, Christian residents of Galilee, familiar with local geography, faithfully preserved this tradition.

The midrash he cited is Shir ha-Shirim Zutta, devoted to the Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs), and the exact reference is Zuta 1:4. The saying in question is ascribed to Rabbi Nehemiah, a disciple of the famous Rabbi Akiba, or Akiva. Wikipedia says that Nehemiah “lived circa 150 AD (fourth generation of tannaim).” The Jewish site Sefaria gives his dates as “c.135 – c.170”. This probably means dates that he is absolutely known to have been alive. He had to have been alive when R. Akiva was, and he lived (so says Wikipedia) from c. 50 to 135.

It has a steep cliff going down to the coast, but alas, not right on the water. Is this yet another ‘contradiction’?

I don’t use the word “contradiction,” and I would answer no. I’m even okay with Gadara’s χώρα, which has a lot of flat ground between the hills and the lake’s edge. Origen’s pickier about that than I am.

I didn’t say you did. That was me covering all the bases. Because the cliff isn’t right on the water, atheists will say that this is a disproof. I was anticipating that, for the sake of readers who might be confronted with that argument.

Lex wants to equate the ‘Gerasa’ under discussion with Jerash (Arabic: جرش Ǧaraš; Ancient Greek: Γέρασα Gérasa): the city now located in Jordan.

This is not about my wants;

It was simply a manner of speaking.

this is exactly the Gerasa described in plenty of apologetic arguments—the Apologetics Press piece I linked to in my guest post, for instance, which is flawed for multiple reasons. Moreover, this was your position in 2017, I see: “Now onto the place names. Gerasa is (as we know) some 30-35 miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee (but may have also been the name of the larger region). Wikipedia states about it: ‘In the second half of the 1st century AD, the city of Jerash achieved great prosperity’.” And in 2020, you still seemed okay with the idea. You appear to have changed your mind substantially since then (cool), but let’s be clear: the notion of Mark’s and Luke’s Gerasa being modern Jerash is not merely something I cooked up out of motivated reasoning.

That’s right. Some apologists have made that argument, and I used them myself in my past papers. As I make my replies, often my thought develops. I throw out possible resolutions to alleged contradictions, not necessarily holding to them myself, or totally. I keep thinking through the issue, as I am doing now again with you. Most of these things never cross a Christian’s mind, till atheists bring them up. They’re non-issues for us. As I did that for this topic, I came to regard the linguistic argument as the best solution. That’s not brand-new because I cited Dr. McGrew making the argument in my second, 2020 paper, near the end.

My argument above is that Gerasa should be understood as Kursi, which fits the scene of the biblical story to a tee (once the changing coastline of the Sea of Galilee is understood). If that is is or was indeed the case, then Jonathan’s and Lex’s argument collapses.

Huh? My closing thoughts, consistent with McGrew’s apparent idea, are that the Gerasenes reference could well be the result of a scribal or translation error. That error might have been a Gergesa/Kursi–>Gerasa scenario of the sort McGrew proposes.

Then that would be an area of agreement, but it contradicts your advocacy of Jerash as ancient Gerasa: and the one referenced in the Bible. Place names in the Bible are always complicated, because they often evolve and change and there are language issues and various transliterations. That’s all part of this, and altogether to be expected.

One of the big supposed ‘problems,’ as Jonathan and Lex see it, is Matthew’s references to the Gadarenes.

Again, huh? At no point do I write that I have a big (or small) problem with Matthew’s reference to the χώρα of the Gadarenes. Of course I think it’s accurate if Team JC in fact came ashore within Gadarene territory. And even if the location was in Gergesa’s/Hippos’ territory, I think calling it Gadarene country is perhaps inaccurate or imprecise, but not blog-worthy wrong.

Okay. Probably I was remembering Jonathan’s two articles, and/or other biblical skeptics making hay of it. If I have assumed too much, I apologize. I’m not trying to misrepresent you. That’s why I’m happy to reproduce your clarifications here and your reply in its entirety on my blog: to be as fair as possible.

[A]nd now they’re contending that Gadara is too far away to be reasonably referred to. But Lex’s own comments betray this.

My comments “betray” that contention because I contend no such thing. Again, at no point do I fault Matthew.

You did, after all, write:

And referring to Gadarene territory as the land of the Gerasenes would be tantamount to calling Virginian territory the land of the New Yorkers.

Is that not reasonably construed as taking a swipe at Matthew’s description?

No, you’re definitely misconstruing my analogy. It is saying that referring to Gadarene territory as the land of the distant Gerasenes (which certain apologists try to justify—again, see your 2017 and 2020 posts for just a few examples) is as inaccurate as calling Virginia the land of the New Yorkers. Calling Gadarene territory the territory of the Gadarenes—what Matthew essentially does—is of course perfectly kosher, like calling Virginian territory the land of the Virginians.

***

I don’t think I was that far off. Since I have to wrangle with you and Jonathan, it might be helpful to make a list: “this is where I disagree with Jonathan regarding the Gadarene / pig stuff: a, b, c, d, e . . ..” As it is, being an apologist who literally writes about many hundreds of topics (including hundreds of replies to atheists) — I have written more than 4,000 articles and 50 books (21 of them “officially” published) — , sometimes I can botch a few facts as to who thinks what. It’s never intentional, though. And if I am corrected, I always eat my humble pie openly, in public.

Yet Jonathan and Lex would have us believe that it can’t possibly be the case that this region could rightly be called ‘the country of the Gadarenes’ by Matthew?

No. Again, at no point do I fault Matthew.

Does Jonathan do so? I’m pretty sure he does, and I don’t feel like dredging up his reply to me, which was only to my first reply in 2017. I hadn’t even made my whole argument at that time.

I have since found an independent reference in Josephus that supports Matthew’s “country of the Gadarenes.” In His Life (Vita, 42), he refers to “the villages, belonging to Gadara and Hippos, which lay on the frontiers of Tiberias and of the territory of Scythopolis” and to “one of the neighboring states [as opposed to a “town” or “city”], Gadara . . .” This is a very early work, dated from 94-99 AD.

He goes on to say that his Gerasa (as opposed to Kursi / Gerasa) was less significant than Gadara at the time.

No. I say that Gerasa wasn’t significantly more prominent than Gadara. There’s a difference.

I did get that wrong (backwards). This is simple human error with the two G-towns, but sorry for that. You wrote:

Gerasa was so significant, wealthy, and influential that its reputation or identity loomed above that of Gadara, as a big city might relate to a suburb today.

Secondly, that’s not the Christian argument, anyway (straw men abound).

First, this is unintentionally hilarious, given your mischaracterization of my thoughts on Matthew and the χώρα of the Gadarenes. Second, as you must know, there is not merely “the Christian argument,” singular. Please see your 2017 and 2020 posts for just some examples.

What I was referring to was specifically an attempted equation of Gerasa and Gadara in apologetics efforts, which (if I recall correctly) I haven’t seen.

We’re not equating ‘Gerasene’ and ‘Gadarene’ (which would indeed be a contradiction).

Nowhere do I write that anyone is equating ‘Gerasene’ and ‘Gadarene’. What I contend is that some folks argue that Gerasa’s purported prominence justified calling the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee the χώρα of the Gerasenes, even though the Gerasenes lived a day or two away.

Fair enough. At this point, I’ll take a pass on going back and figuring out why that was my impression.

Not if there were two places named Gerasa, and one was indeed by the Sea of Galilee.

Agreed—If. (And it’s one thing to hypothesize that Gergesa/Kursi/whatever was miscommunicated as Gerasa; quite another to say the location was actually called Gerasa, which is unduly speculative.) And as noted earlier, our lack of contemporary corroborating evidence from the 1st century leaves Gergesa/Kursi explanation tentative. Maybe that’ll change, maybe it won’t.

I have provided several arguments from analogy, using the examples of other biblical towns around the Sea of Galilee, for why I think it likely will change, and also attestation in a Jewish Midrash from c. 150 AD.

So if, say, an excavation in 2025 in Kursi finds first century artifacts (maybe a fish hook, etc.) and something that says “Gergesa” or “Gerasa” on it (and a drawing of Jesus walking on the water: JUST kidding!), then you will concede that point and give up on utilizing Jerash / Gerasa in your argument?

No, I will settle for nothing less than two thousand pig skeletons all piled together in the same stratum at that spot. ;)

But seriously. I’m not married to the Jerash/Gerasa thing in the way you seem to ponder, so let’s put it this way. If archaeologists found credible 1st century evidence of a community called “Gerasa” in the Kursi/Hippos region, such as a reasonably clear and datable inscription on a tablet or stele or other artifact, I’d say case solved—that’s the Gerasa that the authors of Mark and Luke meant, and the texts are not in error on that particular geographic point. Or if historians found compelling contemporary documentary evidence (like Roman tax records or somesuch) to the same effect, I’d have the same reaction. It’s not as thought I melt when I see the Bible isn’t wrong about something, any more than you melt when you see that it is.

Now, if the findings showed the existence of something like “Gergesa” or “Gargishta” or the like at roughly the same location and time, I would also say this is most likely what the authors of Mark and Luke (or their sources) had in mind, but I would conclude that some scribal or translation error probably crept into the chain of communication at some point to give us “Gerasenes” (again, a likelihood I explicitly floated in the closing thoughts of my original post). There is a difference between Gerasenes, Gergesenes, Girgashites, Geshurites, etc.

Anytime we make an interesting discovery about prehistory or ancient history, it’s good news in my book, regardless of whether it tends to confirm or disconfirm events portrayed in Bible. Or the Iliad. Or the Epic of Gilgamesh. Or Herodotus. Or Livy. Etc. I don’t have an emotional stake in how accurately the works of antiquity do or don’t reflect the settings in which they were composed.

***

Would you still have remaining objections then, and keep using the polemical terminology of “‘obviously and demonstrably false’ place name in the Gospels” or would that settle it in my favor? I want to see if falsifiability applies to your position.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and such excavations go down to what would be a first century level and find nothing, then I would concede that Kursi was not the biblical location in question. It would have to be found elsewhere, and maybe it wouldn’t be too far away (on the other side of the big cliff, etc.). But such matters don’t cause a collapse of one’s Christian beliefs, anymore than you conceding the argument would threaten your atheism at all. In other words, there are no “big things” at stake here.

Lastly, I wanted to commend you again. You actually grant that Christians can have honestly and sincerely held opinions that atheists (equally honest and sincere) disagree with: a position that seemingly most in Jonathan’s forum disagree with. You can dialogue with me as a fellow thinker, who values reason and fact and the search for truth, and not cynically view me as an essentially compromised, intellectually dishonest apologist-hack. And I happily return the favor. This is why this dialogue was a great pleasure. Thanks for that. I hope you enjoyed it, too.

Together, I think we can demonstrate that it’s entirely possible for an atheist and a Christian (while continuing to disagree) to have an intelligent, constructive, thought-provoking dialogue, minus all insults and epithets and nonsense. I knew it was possible because I have done it many times (and my favorite dialogue of some 1000 was with an atheist, over twenty years ago, on the “problem of good”). But it is relatively rare. So I’m always pleased to be able to enjoy such opportunities.

I also want to sincerely thank you for writing this latest article. Before this one I had two defenses of the non-contradictoriness of the Bible with regard to the Gadarenes / Gerasenes et al. Now I have four, and my overall argument is far stronger than it was. I came up with a bunch more arguments: more quantity and also higher quality, in my opinion.

Even today I found some great new material that I added to my replies #3 and #4. One of the blessings in apologetics is to have respectable, serious critiques and counter-replies sent one’s way. This creates a challenge, and makes us go back to the grindstone and improve and hone our arguments. I have done so, and am very happy with the result. I learned a ton, and pass it along to others to consider as well.

When I’m challenged, one of two things happen, and both are good:

1. If I think the critique is erroneous and can be overcome, I work harder, do more research, and make my argument considerably stronger than it was originally.

Or:

2. I am successfully challenged so that I concede or am forced by reason and fact to modify what I formerly argued. This is good, too, because I don’t want errors in my work. That does me no good; nor my readers.

The common element of #1 and #2 is the outlook of seeking truth wherever it leads, and modifying one’s views accordingly.

I appreciate your open-mindedness and a complete lack of the “gotcha!” approach so common around here and other atheist forums. And — minus these few thoughts — you can have the last word (surprise!).

***

Photo credit: Map of the Decapolis; Nichalp (12-14-05) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license]

***

Summary: Continuing discussion on the incident with the demoniacs & pigs, & alleged contradictions in the NT texts, with Lex Lata, guest writer on Jonathan MS Pierce’s blog.

Pearce’s Potshots #62: Gadarenes & Gerasenes #3

Last updated on: February 22, 2022 at 11:31 am By Dave Armstrong

His words below will be in blue, and guest writer Lex Lata’s in green.

*****

This particular debate has a long history:

Jonathan: “On Harmonising Biblical Contradictions” (7-23-17)

Me: Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Swine, & Atheist Skeptics [7-25-17]

Jonathan: “The Demons! The Demons! Replying to Armstrong on Biblical Contradictions” (7-29-17)

Me: Demons, Gadara, & Biblical Numbers (vs. JMS Pearce) [12-18-20]

Jonathan: [no further reply in writing, unless I missed something, in which case I’m sure he’ll let me know]

Now, Jonathan’s buddy “Lex Lata” has written the piece on Jonathan’s blog: “You say ‘Gerasa’ and I say ‘Gadara’: The case of the “obviously and demonstrably false” place name in the Gospels” (2-16-22)

The following is my reply to the latter.

***

Lex cites Church father Origen:

Now, Gerasa is a town [πόλις] of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false . . . (Commentary on the Gospel of John, VI:24.) [italics removed]

Origen obviously regarded it (by alluding to “Greek copies”) as an illegitimate manuscript: a discussion that Christians have had for 2,000 years. This is a different argument than claiming a contradiction in a legitimate manuscript (i.e., in the actual Bible, as best we can determine it), as Jonathan and Lex do.

Origen would have been less than ecstatic, then, to learn that the discrepancy he lamented came to nest securely in the manuscript tradition and become canon:

They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. Mark 5:1-2 (ESV).

Then they sailed to the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee. When Jesus had stepped out on land, there met him a man from the city who had demons. Luke 8:26-27 (ESV).

And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. Matthew 8:28 (ESV).

Since I’ve already dealt with this charge twice, readers (especially those who read those two articles) may perhaps forgive me if I cite some my existing research (I have a lot of new stuff, too, further below):

Smith’s Bible Dictionary . . .:

These three names are used indiscriminately to designate the place where Jesus healed two demoniacs. The first two are in the Authorized Version. (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26) . . . The miracle referred to took place, without doubt, near the town of Gergesa, the modern Kersa, close by the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and hence in the country of Gergesenes. But as Gergesa was a small village, and little known, the evangelists, who wrote for more distant readers, spoke of the event as taking place in the country of the Gadarenes, so named from its largest city, Gadara; and this country included the country of the Gergesenes as a state includes a county.

We need to look up the Greek word for “country” in these passages, to see what latitude of meaning it has. In all three instances the word is chōra (Strong’s word #5561). Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines it as “the space lying between two places or limits . . . region or country.” The Sea of Galilee was clearly one of the limits.

In Luke 2:8 it is applied to the city of Bethlehem; in Acts 18:23 to Galatia and Phrygia. In Mark 1:5 it is used of “the land of Judaea” (KJV) and in Acts 10:39,to “land of the Jews” (KJV). In Acts 8:1 we have the “regions of Judaea and Samaria” (KJV), and in Acts 16:6, Galatia alone. Thus it is not always used of one specific country (nation), but rather, usually to regions or areas of either small (Bethlehem) or large (Judaea and Samaria) size, including regions surrounding large cities.

Additionally, there is a linguistic argument to be brought to bear, that I will devote most of my energies to this time around:

Dr. Timothy McGrew persuasively argues that “country of the Gerasenes” refers not to Gerasa, but to the town of Kursi (which was in the region of Gadara). [Alleged Historical Errors in the Gospels, published online, 2012, pg. 52-53] He makes this argument based on the fact that the original Aramaic names for Gerasa and Kursi would have been spelled very similarly if not identically. Therefore, the identification with Gerasa is potentially due to an early copyist mistake or misinterpretation of Kursi.

Dr. McGrew’s theory is strongly supported by the geography of Kursi and early church history. Kursi is on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee and has a steep hill that runs directly into the water . . .

In addition, the early church, through the 3^rd century church father Origen, identified Kursi as the town in which this miracle occurred. Further, an early 5^th century Christian monastery was built in Kursi and seems to have been located there to commemorate this event. (“Busted (8): The Question of Jesus and the Demoniac” by Scott Dunkley, Logic & Light, 8-15-15)

He’s not the only one to note this. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem has a page devoted to an archaeological site of a monastery at least as old as the third century, at Kursi, near the Sea of Galilee (I visited the area myself in 2014). The monastery is described:

Identification:

The monastery uncovered at Kursi was identified as commemorating the “Miracle of the Swine” as described in the New Testament (Matt. 8, 28-34; Mark 5, 1-20; Luke 8, 26-39). The identification is mentioned by Origen in the third century (Commentaria in Joannem, 6.22).The small chapel located on the upper reaches of the monastery marks the location of the miracle. The large complex consisted of a large basilica, a monastery, a pilgrims’ hospice with a bathhouse and other installations. It was probably named for the miracle it commemorated.

And what does it give for the “site name?: “Kursi-Gerasa; Chorsia-Gergesa.” Note that this is a Jewish university making these linguistic equations, not the Protestant apologist (Dr. McGrew) or the Catholic one (myself). Go argue with them. There is a connection between Gerasa and Gergesa and the site of the alleged miracle at present-day Kursi. “Gergesenes” doesn’t appear in the RSV Bible that I use. It appears in the KJV (which has a different manuscript tradition behind it) at Matthew 8:28. But this is not without warrant, either, as we see from the Jewish site just noted, and as we will now see from two ancient and reputable sources.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-313), the first great Church historian, in his Onomasticon: which was a gazetteer, listing place names with explanations of locations, wrote:

Gergesa. Where the Lord (Savior) heated the demoniacs (restored those vexed with demons to sanity). Now (today) a village is pointed out on the mountains near Lake Tiberias where the swine were condemned (cast down) to death. (Onomasticon, #363)

Origen himself (since Lex wanted to bring him up in this debate) — in the same section from which Lex made his citation — opts for Gergesa:

Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is dwelling of the casters-out, and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Saviour of the citizens of those places, who besought Him to depart out of their coasts. (Commentary on John, Book VI, sec. 24)

I visited this place in my trip to Israel in 2014. It has a dramatic cliff going down to the coast, but alas, not right on the water. Is this yet another “contradiction”? No. The texts, examined carefully, do not say that the pigs fell over the cliff into the sea, but that they ran down the cliff and then into the sea. Indeed, the cliff is shaped in a way that would allow them to do that (i.e., it’s not so steep that they couldn’t run down):

Matthew 8:32 (RSV) . . . the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and perished in the waters.

Mark 5:13 . . . the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.

Luke 8:33 . . . and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

Besides Dr. McGrew, others have argued that Gerasa (+ Gergesa?) are transliterations of Kursi:

Another possible resolution to the problem of the location of Gerasa has been proposed by Roger David Aus, who asserts that Gerasa may be a transliteration of Kursi . . . (Amanda Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context [T&T Clark; 1st edition: April 26, 2012], 168; cf. further related reference on p. 183. Both pages were accessed through the “Look Inside” feature on Amazon; see it for much further context and linguistic argumentation from Aus)

Lee A. Maxwell, in his doctoral dissertation for Concordia Seminary (St. Louis): Gadara of the Decapolis (1 May 1980), also finds this explanation quite plausible:

It has been suggested that Gerasa should actually be read as Gergesa, under the assumption that Gergesa was not well known enough so that the more renowned Gerasa was inserted into the text. More probable, however, is that the two were simply alternative spellings of the same name. In pronunciation the consonants grs and grgs would have been easily confused. Consequently, only when one thought of the alternative Gerasa (viz., Gerasa of the Decapolis) would there have been a problem of identification.

The following question, however, arises: If this Gergesa/Gerasa is the correct designation, where was its location on the southern or eastern side of the Sea of Galilee? Some have avoided specification (and speculation) simply by affirming that it was somewhere along the southern or southeastern shore of the lake.” One suggestion has been that it was at Beth-yerah (modern Khirbet al-Kerak on the southwest corner of the lake).” The presence of swine, however, indicates that the party landed in Gentile territory, and the area around Beth-yerah (at least that part of it west of the Jordan River) was in Galilee, that is, in Jewish territory.

The other proposed location for the site of Gergesa/Gerasa is along the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee near the Wadi as-Samak. For both topographical and toponymical reasons Tell al-Kursi on the south side of this wadi seems to be the most attractive option. Excavations there testify to the ancient tradition attached to the site. . . . the combination of geography and tradition renders Tell al-Kursi, or somewhere in the vicinity, probably the most logical candidate for the location of ancient Gergesa/Gerasa. (pp. 48-50)

Maxwell (on page 51) deems this explanation the most “probable” of the four possible explanations that he outlined. Surely, this is significant and can’t be dismissed, seeing (as I understand it) that the writer of a dissertation is supposed to know more than anyone else on the topic he or she chooses, as a result of all the copious research undertaken.

[W]e’ll . . . focus solely on the geographic predicament. Simply put, our scriptures link the same event to two different and noncontiguous communities. Contrary to the dutiful and not especially coherent harmonization efforts of some apologists, the archaeological and documentary evidence does not support the notion that “the country of the Gerasenes” somehow encompassed, or was more-or-less interchangeable with, “the country of the Gadarenes.”

Lex wants to equate the “Gerasa” under discussion with Jerash (Arabic: جرش Ǧaraš; Ancient Greek: Γέρασα Gérasa): the city now located in Jordan. But this is precisely what my linguistic argument undercuts. There were apparently at least two “Gerasa’s” in the Middle East in ancient times (a not uncommon occurrence, then or now). My argument above is that Gerasa should be understood as Kursi, which fits the scene of the biblical story to a tee (once the changing coastline of the Sea of Galilee is understood). If that is is or was indeed the case, then Jonathan’s and Lex’s argument collapses.

The Wikipedia article, “Gerasa (Judaea”) states: “Several attempts have been made to identify the Gerasa of Judea, the vast majority of scholars concurring that the ancient site is not to be confused with Gerasa (Jerash) of Transjordan, but with a site in Judea proper.” In the same article it’s also noted that the proposed sites in Israel are also a matter of controversy, and that Kursi is not even mentioned as one of the possibilities. But that’s where the linguistic and etymological argument comes in, which wasn’t touched by this particular article.

The Wikipedia article, “Kursi, Sea of Galilee” doesn’t address this argument, either, but on the other hand, neither does it rule it out. It needs to be addressed and shown to be implausible or improbable or erroneous if I am to be persuaded otherwise.

Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson [New York and London: Continuum, 2003]) — not a Christian work –, in its article, “Kursi (Khirbet El-)” never mentions Jerash, and gives credence to my linguistic argument:

Located on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, the name Kursi is thought to have originated from the name Gergesa and so it may be connected with the Land of the Gergesenes of the Gospels and the story of the stampeding Gadarene swine . . . (p. 286).

Likewise, in their article, “Gergesa” (p. 194) Negev and Gibson observe:

A place on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, . . . where Jesus cast out devils (Matt. 8:28 ff.). The site was known by the name of Kursi in Jewish sources, . . . Origen and Eusebius (Onom. 73:14) mention a village by the name of Gergesai near the Lake of Tiberius, in which the swine drowned. The site is known today by the name of Kursi.

One of the big supposed “problems”, as Jonathan and Lex see it, is Matthew’s references to the Gadarenes. I submit, based on my arguments above, that they’ve already gotten the location of the “Gerasa” in question wrong, and now they’re contending that Gadara is too far away to be reasonably referred to. But Lex’s own comments betray this.

Gadara’s urban center was close enough to the Sea of Galilee for residents to view it at a distance.

His link provides a helpful photo for the reader to visualize how close it was to the Sea of Galilee. Consulting a Google Map for the coordinates provided in the Wikipedia article, “Gadara”, I see that it is exactly six miles away. Now, surely, after seeing what the word translated “country” in the three Gospel accounts can mean (which both sides of this discussion have addressed), this is within its parameters, so that Matthew was perfectly reasonable to describe the area as “the country of the Gadarenes” (both RSV and ESV).

Assuming for the sake of argument that Kursi is our place for the miracle, Gadara is a mere twelve miles from that, too, according to the same Google Map: easily within a day’s walk (that the ancients were well used-to and routinely capable of). Yet Jonathan and Lex would have us believe that it can’t possibly be the case that this region could rightly be called “the country of the Gadarenes” by Matthew? Of course it can! There is nothing implausible or forced or “rationalizing” about that. Kursi is also directly across the Sea of Galilee from Capernaum: precisely as Matthew stated (8:5, 18, 23, 28).

Here is Lex’s own treatment of the Greek for “country of” (complete with very impressive sources!):

The word χώρα (khora/chora) can mean country, region, land, hinterland, area, location, place, etc. Of course, context frequently determines the precise sense of a word, and in the context of Hellenistic city-states—our context here—χώρα also refers more specifically to the rural territory within the jurisdiction of a given city-state (πόλις, polis) outside the main urban center (ἄστυ, asty). (See B. Antela-Bernárdez, “Poleis, Choras and Spaces, from Civic to Royal: Spaces in the Cities Under Macedonian Rule from Alexander the Great to Seleucus I,” Pyrenae, vol. 47, no. 2 (2016), pp. 27-38; M.H. Hansen, ed., A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures (2000), p. 19; and “polis,” in S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary (1996), p. 1205.)

Sure. Nothing is contrary to my scenario here. I’ve already made arguments for why the area could reasonably be called either “the country of the Gadarenes” or “the country of the Gerasenes” (Mark and Luke): since Geresa = Kursi (as my linguistic argument holds). It’s not a contradiction. Rather, it is the usual biblical non-contradictory complementarity.

Bearing this in mind, let’s turn to the χώρα within the political geography of the Decapolis. Take a few moments to look over the map on the second page of this chapter from Prof. Michael Eisenberg, a University of Haifa archaeologist who digs in the area. (We aren’t posting an image here for copyright reasons).

Gerasa’s χώρα did not extend to the Sea of Galilee. It did not even share a border with Gadara’s; the χώρα of Pella separated the two entirely. If a history teacher using this map asked me to put my finger on the country of the Gerasenes, and I pointed at the gray-brown patch around Gadara rather than the sienna patch around Gerasa, my teacher would justifiably doubt whether I was cut out for elementary map-reading.

But it’s the wrong Gerasa, which is the point. His premise is wrong. He goes on to say that his Gerasa (as opposed to Kursi / Gerasa) was less significant than Gadara at the time. He then “talks up” Gadara: which only supports my argument for why Matthew referred to it as the lead city of “the country” in this region:

To be sure, Gerasa’s economy and infrastructure experienced vibrant growth beginning especially in the latter part of the 1^st century CE. But the same was true of its siblings throughout the Decapolis, including Gadara, during the Pax Romana. And Gadara was not some one-horse town easily lost in Gerasa’s long shadow. Scholars provisionally estimate Gadara’s population during this period to have been around 8,000, with Gerasa’s being not much larger, at roughly 10,000 (see W. Pierson, Spatial Assessments of Urban Growth in Cities of the Decapolis (2021), pp. 167, 170). Gadara produced noted poets and philosophers, boasted theaters and a hippodrome (like Gerasa), and warranted mentions from Pliny, Strabo, Josephus, and Ptolemy, among others (like Gerasa). (See S.T. Parker, “The Decapolis Reviewed,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 94, no. 3 (1975), p. 437-441.) Gadara even minted its own silver coinage—unlike Gerasa and most other Decapolitan communities, whose mints appear not to have gone beyond bronze currency. (See A. Lichtenberger, “The Decapolis,” in T. Kaizer, ed., A Companion to the Hellenistic and Roman Near East (2022), p. 217.)

Prevailing in a debate becomes very easy when one’s opponent is partially making one’s argument. Thanks! All those resources are most helpful for strengthening my own case. Saves me a lot of work . . .

Second, and more significantly, any notion of Gerasene reputational prominence didn’t warrant even a mention by Origen, our best ancient source to consider the Gerasa/Gadara problem. He had his hands on some of the earliest Gospel papyri, spoke and wrote Koine Greek with native fluency, lived in Roman Palestine a little over a century after the Gospels were composed, and traveled extensively throughout the area to teach, collect important manuscripts, and trace JC’s footsteps as best he could. He literally talked the talk and walked the walk. If Gadarene territory might reasonably and correctly have been called the land of the Gerasenes in the Greek usage of the time—for whatever reason—we should expect Origen to have told us that, or to have stayed silent about a non-issue.

First of all, he (like Eusebius) equated Gergesa with what we know as Kursi today.

Secondly, that’s not the Christian argument, anyway (straw men abound!). We’re not equating “Gerasene” and “Gadarene” (which would indeed be a contradiction). We’re saying (following Origen and Eusebius and deducing a bit more) that Gerasa = Gergesa = Kursi and that the region around Kursi could reasonably be described as either “the country of the Gadarenes” (more regional, like a county) or “the country of the Gerasenes” (a local reference, to the town), just as I could say that I live “in the country / area / region of Lenawee County [Michigan]” or that I live “in the country / area / region of Tecumseh“: my current town, which happens to have a population of 8,000 or so just as ancient Gadara did.

I can also refer to the location of my residence as “southeast Michigan” [i.e., in the Lower Peninsula] or “the Irish Hills region of Michigan, which is another (colorful and delightful) place name in this area. If I were closer to Detroit, I could also say “suburb of Detroit” or “metro Detroit.” What is so difficult to understand about permissible alternate names for a region? We do it all the time. So did the ancients. Lex can do the same for wherever he lives in Minnesota. And Jonathan can do it in England / the UK / Great Britain, which is in the British Isles and western (but not continental) Europe. Lots o’ place names exist, and overlapping and non-contradictory ones.

But he did neither. Quite the opposite. Origen dismissed the nomenclature as “obviously and demonstrably false” (“προφανὲς ψεῦδος καὶ εὐέλεγκτον”).

Yes, because he was referring to the Gerasa in Transjordan. What is now known as Kursi, he called Gergesa, as Eusebius also did. As Maxwell noted in his dissertation on Gadara (cited above), “In pronunciation the consonants grs and grgs would have been easily confused.” Origen’s Commentary on John was written between 226-229. Eusebius’ Church History dates from 326. That’s pretty early attestation. “Gergesenes” (from the same root) appeared in the KJV at Matthew 8:28.

The King James Version used the Textus Receptus, which is based on Greek manuscript of very ancient pedigree, but not the oldest ones (which are followed by most modern versions). The question of preferability of Bible manuscripts is an extraordinarily complex issue. See, for example, the lengthy article, “Text of the Gospels” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the New Testament (five volumes: 1904). But there have been several new developments in the understanding of the most accurate manuscripts in the 118 years since that article.

The five-volume Expositor’s Greek Testament from 1897 already pretty much figured out (based on recent archaeological discovery) what is now my preferred argument, 125 years ago, in its commentary on Matthew 8:28-34:

[S]ince the discovery by Thomson (Land and Book, ii. 374) of a place called Gersa or Kersa, near the eastern shore of the lake, there has been a growing consensus of opinion in favour of Gerasa (not to be confounded with Gerasa in Gilead, twenty miles east of the Jordan) as the true name of the scene of the story. A place near the sea seems to be demanded by the circumstances, and Gadara on the Hieromax was too far distant. . . .

Prof. G. A. Smith, Historical Geography, p. 459, note, pronounces Gerasa “impossible”. But he means Gerasa in Decapolis, thirty-six miles away. He accepts Khersa, which he identifies with Gergesa, as the scene of the incident, stating that it is the only place on the east coast where the steep hills come down to the shore.

Likewise, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, in its commentary on Matthew 8:28-34, which was written in 1893, states in concurrence:

The readings vary between Gerasenes, Gadarenes and Gergesenes. Gerasa and Gergesa are forms of the same name. Gadara was some distance to the south of the Lake. It was, however, the capital of Peræa, and the more important place; possibly Gergesa was under its jurisdiction. Gergesa is identified with the modern Khersa; in the neighbourhood of which “rocks with caves in them very suitable for tombs, a verdant sward with bulbous roots on which the swine might feed” (Macgregor, Rob Roy), and a steep descent to the verge of the Lake, exactly correspond with the circumstances of the miracle.

The Pulpit Commentary, from the 1890s, also agrees with this general scenario, in its commentary on the same verses:

Verse 28. – And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes; Revised Version, Gadarenes, which is certainly right here, as is “Gerasenes” in the parallel passages (cf. Westcott and Hort, it. ‘App.’). Gergesa (Textus Receptus here, and Alexandrian authorities in parallel passages) and Gerasa (unless, with Origen on John 1:28, we understand by this the Arabian Gerasa fifty miles away)are probably forms of the same name now represented by Khersa, a village discovered (? in 1857) by Thomson (‘The Land and the Book,’ pp. 375, sqq., edit. 1880) on the eastern side of the lake, and lying “within a few rods of the shore,” with “an immense mountain” rising directly above it, “in which are ancient tombs, out of some of which the two men possessed of the devils may have issued to meet Jesus. The lake is so near the base of the mountain that the swine, rushing madly down it, could not stop, but would be hurried on into the water and drowned.”

So why do the Gospels of Mark and Luke refer to “τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν” rather than “τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν?” Dunno. We have little basis for any confident conclusions.

That’s odd. There are perfectly plausible, reasonable explanations for it.

. . . a lakeside area was confusingly and inaccurately given the name of a landlocked community one or two days to the southeast.

Not if there were two places named Gerasa, and one was indeed by the Sea of Galilee.

To be clear, I don’t expect the fuss about a place name in a spectacular exorcism story to deal a stunning blow to anyone’s faith. By itself, this is a mere foot fault in the broader context of the New Testament. Nor is it my position that the Gerasene difficulty must mean the Gospels and other books of the Bible are unusually defective with regards to geography. On the contrary, I think they get a good deal of that stuff right, roughly on par with many analogous texts from antiquity.

This is good and fair-minded, unlike so much of online atheist rhetoric of the anti-theist variety, which is insulting and condescending. This is why it’s a true pleasure to dialogue with Lex. He exhibits not one trace of those ethical and intellectual shortcomings. He also — refreshingly — understands that these arguments of mine are not “personal” at all. Not one bit. It’s all addressed to the weakness of premises and arguments.

I discuss this misidentification simply to illuminate one notable example of human error creeping into canonical holy writ that many believers of a fundamentalist bent tell us is inerrant. Origen discerned the problem of the Gerasenes firsthand nearly two millennia ago. We see it still today. And the inaccuracy cannot be convincingly cured by any amount of ad hoc apologetics.

And I beg to profoundly differ. I’ve dealt with this paper and two previous ones by Jonathan. Jonathan wrote under Lex’s article today:

[We] have 3 written pieces and a video. Deal with them or don’t. . . .There are arguments and you need to deal with them and that’s the end.

I dealt with all three (this one being produced within 24 hours of Lex’s article). I don’t deal with videos, only written material, for several reasons. So I’ve held up my end. The question is whether Lex and/or Jonathan will counter-reply to this and whether Jonathan will rebut my second reply to him.

Three meaty articles from me [a total of about 9,300 words or roughly 33 standard pages] just about the Gadarenes / Gerasenes supposed contradiction are quite sufficient to adequately cover the topic. I have a lot to write about as an apologist. But I will reply again if they come up with anything different from what I’ve already dealt with, and especially if they take on my arguments directly (a true dialogical counter-response), as I have, theirs. There is no need to repeat myself when these three articles are published on my blog for one and all to read.

[Note: I did reply a fourth time and came up with several new arguments: Pearce’s Potshots #63: Lex, NT Texts, & the Next Town Over (2-28-22).]

***

Photo credit: Talmoryair (3-10-09). Present-day Kursi, Israel (= Gerasa = Gergesa) on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus healed the two demoniacs. [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license]

***

Summary: This is my third rebuttal of atheists’ use of the tired “Gadarenes & Gerasenes” alleged biblical contradiction and “problem”: with several new resources introduced.

***

Pearce’s Potshots #60: Fairy-Tale Atheist Eisegesis (2)

Last updated on: February 1, 2022 at 11:41 am By Dave Armstrong

His words below will be in blue.

*****

This is a reply to his post, Christian apologetics and defending Matthew’s guards (1-31-22), which in turn is a response to my articles, Pearce’s Potshots #57: Matthew & the Tomb Guards (1-28-22) and Pearce’s Potshots #58: Paul & Jesus’ “Empty” Tomb (1-29-22). See Part 1 of this larger reply for background.

First, I don’t make this up out of thin air. The general ahistoricity of Matthew’s guards pericope is accepted by all skeptical scholars and a good deal of believing ones—see Brown above. Here is the famous Christian scholar Dale C. Allison:

…and [the theory that] Matthew, “with vindicatory intent,” backdated the guard to an earlier time. The most extensive treatment of the subject is Kankaanniemi, Guards. He argues that the Christian story developed as a response to the early Jewish fiction that the disciples stole the body while Roman soldiers guarded the tomb. Although he has not convinced me that the guards derive from Jewish polemic as opposed to Christian apologetic, we concur that Matthew’s story is not history.

Dale C. Allison (2021), The Resurrection of Jesus, New York: Bloomsbury, p. 180.

Allison continues later to make exactly the same point as me concerning the guards not becoming Christians and believing—is he pulling it out of thin air? Is his claim a rabbit out of the hat?

Whatever the rationalization, it is wildly unlikely that either would have declared, “Jesus is Lord!” Annas and Herod would have been like the fictional guards in Matthew 28, who see everything yet fail to lay down their weapons and take up the new faith.

Ibid. p.331.

This is a problem today: a lot of Christian scholars: even the more “conservative” / orthodox ones, accept false skeptical premises. My friend, Dr. Lydia McGrew, philosopher and amateur theologian (traditional Anglican) has written a book about this, called, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (2020). Here is the Amazon blurb about it:

In recent years a number of evangelical scholars have claimed that the Gospel authors felt free to present events in one way even though they knew that the reality was different. Analytic philosopher Lydia McGrew brings her training in the evaluation of evidence to bear, investigates these theories about the evangelists’ literary standards in detail, and finds them wanting. At the same time she provides a nuanced, positive view of the Gospels that she dubs the reportage model. Clearing away misconceptions of this model, McGrew amasses objective evidence that the evangelists are honest, careful reporters who tell it like it is.

And here is the comment of a well-known Christian philosopher:

As Thomas Kuhn pointed out long ago, it is often someone from a different discipline who has the epistemic distance and objectivity to evaluate a widely accepted paradigm/methodology in another discipline, because practitioners in the latter tend to look at things the way they were trained and, thus, cannot see things accurately. Kuhn’s remarks are right on target when it comes to philosopher Lydia McGrew’s critique of widespread methodological practices in New Testament studies. While The Mirror or the Mask is very easy to read, it is also a massive piece of first-rate, rigorous scholarship that leaves no stone unturned. Replete with very careful distinctions, The Mirror or the Mask offers a precise analysis of the contemporary practice of employing “fictionalization” to exegete various Gospel texts. McGrew’s careful analysis finds such a practice wanting and dangerous and replaces this practice with an approach that treats the Gospels as honest historical reports based on eyewitness testimony. This book is a must read for all who are interested in the historical accuracy of our portraits of Jesus. I highly recommend it. (J.P. Moreland: Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology)

This is what is going on with Dr. Allison above. One would have to see why he thinks this way; what evidence he adduces other than conspiracy theories, bolstered by the fact that an increasing number of scholars now believe them. Does he have anything substantial? Jonathan doesn’t present it, if so. But the text of Matthew has in its favor the hostile Jewish witnesses of the early centuries after Christianity arose, who themselves talked about the stolen body theory. That’s actual concrete historical evidence; quite different from Jonathan’s relentless mythmaking and legend creation with no historical basis. Wikipedia (“Stolen body hypothesis”) noted this:

A Jewish anti-Christian work dating from the 5th-century, the Toledoth Yeshu, contains the claim that the disciples planned to steal Jesus’s body from his tomb. In this account, the body had already been moved, and when the disciples arrived at the empty tomb they came to the incorrect conclusion that he had risen from the dead. Later, the corpse was sold to the Jewish leaders for thirty pieces of silver, who confirmed Jesus’s death; Jesus’s corpse was then dragged through the streets of Jerusalem. Another variant comes from a record of a 2nd-century debate between a Christian and a Jew, Justin Martyr‘s Dialogue with Trypho: “his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.”

This makes Matthew’s story more plausible. Jonathan thinks conspiratorially about the Gospels. I look at them, not just with the faith of a Christian (belief in their inspiration), but in light of independent verification of their veracity. I think the scientific and intellectual approach is more respectable than sitting around coming up with 153 different conspiratorial scenarios. And of course, now these include (among many atheists) the increasingly fashionable Jesus mythicism, which I have always considered intellectual suicide; hence, I refuse to interact with it at all.

Jonathan then enlists John Dominic Crossan in favor of his “Matthew & the guards” skepticism. Wikipedia says about him: “His work is controversial, portraying the Second Coming as a late corruption of Jesus’ message and saying that Jesus’ divinity is metaphorical.” So much for him. Why would any Christian be impressed by a scholar who blasphemes Jesus as a creature and not God? He has no credibility in our eyes. But you atheists love him because he spouts anti-Christian things that you agree with.

N.T. Wright is mentioned by Jonathan:

The other story which spills over in Matthew’s gospel from the crucifixion narrative to the Easter account involves the chief priests getting together with the Pharisees to go to Pilate and request a guard on Jesus’ tomb. This is of considerable interest, not so much for its own sake (though that is interesting too) but for the sake of what it tells us about the story-telling motives of the early church.

The tale begins on the sabbath itself…

NT Wright (2003), The Resurrection of the Son of God,

But Wright does not agree with Jonathan’s take. He is brought to the table for a particular polemical purpose, as I will discuss below. The book is partially accessible at its Google Books page. On page 637, Wright recounts Matthew’s story in 27:62-66 and concludes that “there is nothing intrinsically implausible” in the description of “the apparently easy collaboration of the Pharisees and chief priests, and of the two together with Pilate.” Then he opines regarding the Jewish polemical use of “that deceiver” in 27:63 (“that impostor” in RSV): “it seems more likely that it goes back to some kind of well-rooted memory.”

He then cites Matthew 28:11-15, which continues this motif, concluding with “this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.” Wright’s opinion of this portion is that “There is nothing improbable in this narrative; indeed, it makes good sense all round.” Frustratingly, page 638 isn’t available on this site, but page 639 is. Here he summarizes “the Bultmannian scheme” of the passages and he concludes:

If any historian finds this sequence more probable than the one Matthew offers, I can only admire their ability to believe such remarkable things. But I suspect that if even Rudolf Bultmann were to find himself as a member of a jury he would be more prepared to believe a story like the one Matthew tells than a story like the five- or six-stage development of tradition that must be told if we are to declare that Matthew’s is impossible.

Jonathan cites Wright from page 638:

But, while the historian is always cautious about accepting obviously apologetic tales, there are further considerations which make it very unlikely that this one was actually invented from scratch within the Christian community. . . . For our present purposes, the main thing is not to argue that the story, in both its parts, is historically true in all respects, though as we have seen it is unlikely to have been invented as a late legend.

Jonathan takes a potshot against me as an apologist by contrasting me with “actual apologists” like Wright, who is “well aware of the skeptical and non-Christian accusations” and “takes them seriously” and “acknowledges the counter-argument.” I suppose he could say that he did that in some sense, in describing Bultmann’s theory at length. But then he remarks that he thinks that Bultmann wouldn’t even believe his own story over Matthew’s if he were on a jury. And he says of folks who would believe his take: “I can only admire their ability to believe such remarkable things.” So if that is taking Bultmann “seriously” it is certainly only in the very mildest sense (by merely citing it). Once he gives his own opinion, he virtually belittles it (scarcely different from my take on liberal scholars of his ilk).

So once again the cynical and (his self-description) “purposeful passive-aggressive” attempt to pit me against the great Christian scholar N. T. Wright with regard to the Matthew guard story, fails miserably. Wright basically believes Matthew’s account (at worst thinking it might have been embellished a bit) because he is an orthodox Anglican believer who actually believes the Bible and not an extreme skeptic, like most of those Jonathan cites. Therefore, his conclusion is diametrically opposed to folks like Crossan and Fr. Brown. Their biases (for or against the Bible) are manifest.

Conveniently, after citing reams of Bishop Wright’s words, he stops precisely before the paragraph above where Wright talks about what Bultmann would do on a jury. Nice touch there, Johnny. I believe in getting a scholar’s whole opinion out there, as much as we are able, within space limitations. One more paragraph would not have put Jonathan out. It’s silly and objectionable to quote Wright’s description of Bultmann’s view but to omit his negative and rather dismissive opinion of it. But I’m delighted that Jonathan brought up Wright, because he has bolstered my opinion a lot.

It is hilarious because Armstrong accuses me of lacking any historical evidence for why Matthew alone claims this and then provides absolutely no evidence himself for his own historical belief!

This is untrue.

I have already noted in my many recent discussions on this matter that authors (even ancient ones) are generally given the benefit of the doubt and not regarded as deceivers, minus any compelling historical evidence of same. I’ve used Herodotus as an example: the great Greek historian who also includes supernatural elements in his accounts: like the Bible writers do.
I also call to the defense of the Bible, archaeology (particularly with Luke). If it’s shown to be accurate again and again, we can trust it in details where we have no explicit evidence (or any at all).
I also noted above that the presence of a verifiable post-Christian Jewish conspiracy theory of the “stolen body” makes it more plausible for Matthew to describe a situation where that very thing is discussed, and that this is an example of actual historical evidence for a claim (whereas Jonathan has offered none of that). He cites a bunch of almost all radically skeptical academic muckety-mucks, but never describes or cites their rationale for why they believe in this conspiracy theory; that is, some hard historical substantiation and not just raw, bald assertion and mention of others with like mind (which approaches the ad populum fallacy in some respects).

Perhaps his most substantial argument is the claim that there are 135 instances when the Synoptic Gospels make claims that are not seen in any other Gospel. He claims that this makes it “no big deal.”

Except many of the ones he mentions are again arguments against historicity!

Judas’ suicide? It’s included in Acts and there is a clear contradiction between the accounts.

No there isn’t, as I wrote about last May.

The magi and Herod chasing Jesus and family out of the country to live in political asylum for two years before returning out of Egypt to fulfill a Messianic prophecy in Matthew is a super example. Only super-committed Christians have the cognitive dissonance reduction to believe this rather insignificant “fact” of Jesus’ life would be omitted from, say, Luke, who flatly contradicts the claim in having Jesus’ family go to the Temple in Jerusalem straight away before then returning straight away afterwards to Nazareth. This never happened! This is Matthew ex eventu prophesying!

Nonsense. I’ve dealt with this whole supposed “gotcha!” polemic too:

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Bethlehem & Nazareth “Contradictions” (Including Extensive Exegetical Analysis of Micah 5:2) [7-28-17]

Jesus the “Nazarene”: Did Matthew Make Up a “Prophecy”? (Reply to Jonathan M. S. Pearce from the Blog, A Tippling Philosopher / Oral Traditions and Possible Lost Old Testament Books Referred to in the Bible) [12-17-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #11: 28 Defenses of Jesus’ Nativity (Featuring Confirmatory Historical Tidbits About the Magi and Herod the Great) [1-9-21]

What Armstrong fails to do here is to explore how the guards were posted there and how the Gospel writer knew about them and their arrangement. I briefly discussed the issue in the last post. Matthew would have had to have been privy to a private meeting between the chief priests and Pilate.

No he wouldn’t. It’s altogether possible that he heard a report from Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, who were Pharisees (Mt 27:62) and members of the Sanhedrin, sympathetic to Christianity. They could very well have been present at the meeting with Pilate with the “chief priests” also.

Of course, he doesn’t mention his sources, or how actual words from secret non-Christian conversations were accurately relayed across such time and space.

I just provided one perfectly plausible theory. It’s speculation, but it’s plausible and based on some facts we know from the Bible (which is historically trustworthy).

This kind of stuff is too problematic for Armstrong.

Hardly.

My original piece stands. Armstrong has provided nothing to even remotely change my opinion on that. He should opt for substance over rhetoric because latter just starts a rhetorical whirlpool to the depths.

I’m happy as always to let readers decide who has built up a more compelling argument or “case.”

I’m still waiting for the substance.

Read this and Part 1 as well.

Just insulting me is an uninteresting game that we can, indeed, both play.

Once again, I have not insulted Jonathan personally. I have uttered many strong words, however, against his many flimsy, lousy arguments about this, and his futile, irrelevant (yet dogmatically expressed) bald opinions that entail by their very nature, mythmaking and legend-building efforts.

It’s just that it is a waste of time, no one wants to see it, and I don’t really want to play it anymore.

Jonathan played it this time, having already charged me in this overall discussion with “being willfully disingenuous” and “being really dishonest.” I have not accused him of these things: neither now nor ever. So if he is concerned about insulting debate opponents, I suggest that he look in the mirror and the beam in his own eye and not the speck in mine.

Meanwhile, though he lectures me about my nonexistent attacks on his person, he continues all the while (inexplicably) being perfectly content to allow commenters in his combox to insult me up and down in sweeping, prejudicial, and bigoted ways (with the repeated utter lie-myth-whopper that I supposedly ban everyone who simply disagrees with me, front and center). That’s all fine and dandy. I haven’t done this at all with him, yet somehow he has this mistaken notion in his head that I have. Go figure. I think it is oversensitivity: something we all fall into at times, as frail human beings.

I guess he has me confused with so many of his atheist buddies who routinely savage and insult Christians and offer little or no rational engagement on the issues between us.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

***

Photo credit: Saint Paul Writing His Epistles (c. 1620), attributed to Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I critique atheist Jonathan MS Pearce’s relentless attack on the truthfulness of the Gospel texts & the honesty of the four Evangelists, i.e., fairy tale atheist eisegesis.