2021-05-03T10:30:37-04:00

Last updated on: May 3, 2021 at 10:30 am   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

Matthew’s narrative states that after Judas hanged himself the “chief priests” took the silver he left behind at the Temple and bought with it a
potter’s field to bury strangers. Matthew concludes that this event fulfilled what the prophet Jeremiah spoke. In contrast, Acts records that “Judas himself ” purchased the field. Here, there is an incontrovertible contradiction.

CONTRADICTION #86 Acts 1:18 Contradicts Matthew 27:7 Regarding the Action Taken by Judas

Acts 1:18-19 contradicts Matthew’s 27:3 report of the action taken by Judas concerning his money. Matthew had a remorseful Judas returning the thirty pieces of silver whereas the author of Acts had Judas himself purchasing the field with his “reward of iniquity” (i.e., blood money that he received for the betrayal of Jesus). Did Judas return his silver or use his silver to purchase the potter’s field? Without a doubt, the texts read at face value contradict each other. (p. 518)

CONTRADICTION #87 Acts 1:18 Contradicts Matthew 27:7 Regarding Who Purchased the Field

Acts 1:18 contradicts Matthew 27:7. Matthew, the earlier of the two accounts, straightforwardly reports that it was the chief priests (i.e., they; them = plural) who purchased the field with money: “And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.” In contradiction, Acts 1:18 unequivocally declared that it was Judas (i.e., this man = in singular) who bought the field with his bounty money: “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” Therefore, it must be asked, Who purchased the field, one person or several people, Judas or the chief priests? Here, there is an incontestable contradiction. (p. 519)

Christian apologist J. P. Holding provides very insightful and excellent commentary and explanation:

Matthew says the priests bought the field, but Acts says that Judas did. So who did it?

. . . There are a few factors here — one linguistic, the others sociological.

The word used by Matthew for “bought” is agorazo — a general term meaning, “to go to market.” It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word:

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one.

Poleo can mean “sell” but it’s primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering. Therefore the translation of “buy” (and “sell”) is made according to context.

How does this mean anything with regard to Judas?

First, note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to “get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase.” This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas’ and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his. (A reader notes that this makes sense because Levites were technically not allowed to own property, so they had to make someone else owner of the field.)

And that leads to another question no one has yet raised, but which I will:

It seems too much of a coincidence, that the priests managed to buy the exact same field that Judas died in.

Not at all. Once Judas died in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas’ name (see below) to turn into a cemetery. [Dave: it was indeed used as a burial ground up till the 19th century]

If Judas threw the money away, it wasn’t his anymore, it belonged to the priests.

This is where our social factor comes into play. Note that the money cannot be put in the treasury — it cannot be made to belong to the temple again — because it is blood money. Keener observes in his Matthean commentary [657-8]:

Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with the situation, and likewise understand that the blood was innocent…The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean (link 2 below) — though even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means.

Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field — or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point.

***

Photo credit: Judas (Johann Zwink) in passion play, Oberammergau, Germany (1900) [public domain / Library of Congress]

Summary: Michael Alter argues that Matthew & Acts contradict in the matter of Judas & the potter’s field; i.e., who bought it: Judas or the Jewish rulers who conspired with Judas to arrest Jesus.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, Judas, Judas & the potter’s field

2021-05-04T00:52:27-04:00

Last updated on: May 4, 2021 at 12:52 am   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

Acts omits any explicit details how Judas specifically died. (p. 505)

Acts states: “falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18). But the explanation I agree with below holds that this occurred after he died, so it is not information about how he died (which was suicide by hanging).

Not only does the author of Acts omit discussion of a suicide but he also failed to hint, imply, or even insinuate anything about a means of death. In direct contradiction to Matthew, Acts 1:18 implies that Judas died by an act of God. That is, Judas’s death was a result of God’s wrath and fury is a fulfillment of scripture, God’s word. This fulfillment of God’s wrath is graphically detailed with Judas’s bowels bursting out. (p. 505)

It does not assert that it was a direct “act of God.” If the writer intended that, he would have made it very clear, like other passages which do detail a direct action of God resulting in death:

Genesis 19:24-25 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor’rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; [25] and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

Numbers 16:25-35 Then Moses rose and went to Dathan and Abi’ram; and the elders of Israel followed him. [26] And he said to the congregation, “Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away with all their sins.” [27] So they got away from about the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abi’ram; and Dathan and Abi’ram came out and stood at the door of their tents, together with their wives, their sons, and their little ones. [28] And Moses said, “Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord. [29] If these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me. [30] But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth, and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD.” [31] And as he finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split asunder; [32] and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men that belonged to Korah and all their goods. [33] So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. [34] And all Israel that were round about them fled at their cry; for they said, “Lest the earth swallow us up!” [35] And fire came forth from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense.

Numbers 16:46 . . . wrath has gone forth from the LORD, the plague has begun.

Numbers 33:4 while the Egyptians were burying all their first-born, whom the LORD had struck down among them; upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.

1 Samuel 25:38 And about ten days later the LORD smote Nabal; and he died.

2 Chronicles 13:20 Jerobo’am did not recover his power in the days of Abi’jah; and the LORD smote him, and he died.

2 Chronicles 21:18-19 And after all this the LORD smote him [Jehoram] in his bowels with an incurable disease. [19] In course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony.

2 Chronicles 24:18 And they forsook the house of the LORD, the God of their fathers, and served the Ashe’rim and the idols. And wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their guilt.

2 Chronicles 32:25 But Hezeki’ah did not make return according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud. Therefore wrath came upon him and Judah and Jerusalem.

Acts 5:1-6 But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property, [2] and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. [3] But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? [4] While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” [5] When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. [6] The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

Acts 12:21-23 On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and made an oration to them. [22] And the people shouted, “The voice of a god, and not of man!” [23] Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.

Nothing like that is remotely present in Acts 1 with regard to Judas’ death (I provided two other passages in Acts where God does directly judge and smite). Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament make it very clear if and when God is exercising wrath and judging someone unto death. The suicide of Judas was an example of what St. Paul wrote about:

Romans 6:12-16 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. [13] Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. [14] For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. [15] What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! [16] Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Acts 1:16-20 presents five significant details omitted from Matthew’s narrative: . . . 

2. Judas died but not from a suicide, (p. 505)

Acts 1 doesn’t deny that it was a suicide. It simply provides some of the gruesome details of what happened to Judas. It’s merely yet another of Alter’s innumerable “manufactured” pseudo-“contradictions.” Moreover, Acts 1:18 doesn’t say that Judas died from this fall it describes. If it had done so, it would have been an “incontrovertible” contradiction with Matthew. But because it didn’t, the account is perfectly harmonious with Judas having hanged himself, with this “bowel” incident occurring after he died, to his corpse. The New Testament is always internally harmonious: as we would expect of an inspired revelation.

In conclusion, Acts directly contradicts Matthew. . . . Acts also has no indication that Judas committed suicide by hanging. (p. 507)

This is a clear example of two NT books complementing each other: each one providing details the other doesn’t include, yet without contradiction. The death of Judas is one of the classic “chestnuts” of the atheist / Bible skeptic “the Bible has a zillion contradictions” mentality. Let’s examine how the two accounts are completely harmonious. The following theory is both plausible and entirely possible, and it incorporates both Judas’ hanging himself (Matthew), and his bowels gushing out (Luke’s Acts). Apologist J. Warner Wallace describes it:

But what about the manner of Judas’ death? Did he stumble to his death on that field or go off somewhere and hang himself? This aspect of the accounts can be reconciled if you know something about human anatomy and post-mortem bloating. Let me explain. . . .

[W]hy does Luke’s account say he fell headlong in this field? Note an important distinction here: Luke does not say Judas tripped or stumbled to his death. These words were available to Luke, but he described the event differently. Judas fell. This description makes sense if his body fell to the ground sometime after he successfully hanged himself. In fact, the additional gruesome description in which Luke says Judas “burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out” is also consistent with this reasonable inference. Unfortunately, I’ve had to respond to a number of suicides and death investigations in the many years I’ve investigated homicides. These investigations taught me a number of disturbing truths about what happens to the human body after death. I’ve described, for example, the Mortis Triad in prior posts related to the Resurrection of Jesus. When we die and our heart stops pumping, four things begin to happen. First we begin to cool (a condition known as “algor mortis”). We also become rigid (“rigor mortis”) and begin to show signs of blood pooling (“livor mortis”).

In addition to these changes, dead bodies begin to decompose, particularly if undiscovered for a period of time. As bodies decompose, they begin to experience post mortem “bloating”. Dead bodies swell as bacteria within the body cavity begins to ingest the post mortem tissues and organs. This bacterial activity produces decomposition gasses which inflate the body disproportionately. . . .

If Judas hanged himself in the Potter’s Field and remained undiscovered for a period of time, he would most likely experience such post-mortem bloating, especially if gasses couldn’t escape as the result of his ligature. If the rope eventually broke, his bloating body would fall to the ground and break open in the one area most distended by post-mortem bloating: his abdomen. If this was the case, he would have “burst open in the middle” and “all his intestines” would have “gushed out”. Luke wasn’t being overly dramatic in his description, and although this may at first appear unlikely to those unfamiliar with death scenes, post mortem bloating would result in precisely such a condition.

Judas committed suicide by hanging; therefore, his head and upper torso would have been closest to the tree limb that he was hanging from and his feet nearest to the ground. Consequently, from a hanging position, Judas would be falling feet first. Yet Acts reports that Judas fell head first without any mention of a hanging. It would seem that Judas would need to be hanging from a substantial height for his body to have adequate time to rotate or tumble into a head first position. (p. 509)

He could have hanged himself from a tree by a cliff. The field of blood where Judas killed himself is thought to be near the intersection of the Valley of Hinnom and the Kidron Valley in Jerusalem. These are both (by definition) places with many rocky cliffs. I walked the entirety of the latter when I visited Israel in 2014. There are at least two other conceivable scenarios that would explain “headlong.” The corpse of Judas, in a hypothetical scenario where the rope broke, could have been intercepted by a lower branch, which could have resulted in his head being on the bottom as the corpse fell. Or it could have hit a rocky outcrop on the way down, resulting in the same thing. Either scenario is entirely possible.

Even if Judas were assumed to be falling head first, he would have presumably split open his head, not his guts. (p. 509)

This doesn’t follow if the corpse was already bloated, per the scenario detailed above. The belly would split open upon falling, whether the head also did or not. But a head would bloat much less, since it has so much bone. The body could also have landed on some pointed rock in the area of the belly on the way down (if it was falling at any angle other than “straight down”). It’s obviously all speculation. The apologetic point is that none of these hypothetical scenarios are impossible; and they are sufficiently plausible to be brought up as possible explanations.

***

Photo credit: Judas (Johann Zwink) in passion play, Oberammergau, Germany (1900) [public domain / Library of Congress]

Summary: Michael Alter offers the classic supposed “contradiction” re: “how did Judas die?” Did he hang himself, or fall, with the result being that his intestines gushed out? Well, both, as I explain.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, Judas, how did Judas die?, Judas’ death, Judas’ suicide

2021-05-02T15:51:02-04:00

Last updated on: May 2, 2021 at 3:51 pm   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #85 Acts Contradicts Matthew—Judas’s Repentance

The account of Judas’s nonrepentance reported in Acts directly contradicts Matthew. This narration is perhaps one of the simplest and yet strongest arguments supporting the thesis that their respective authors wrote completely different stories. Unequivocally, these two stories demonstrate no resemblance to each other. . . .

Matthew 27:3-5 reports that after Jesus was arrested: “Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.” . . . Judas repented (i.e., felt remorseful) . . . A careful analysis of Matthew’s Judas reveals a repentant and remorseful Judas. . . . Judas was so remorseful that he wanted nothing to do with the money that he had received for betraying Jesus. . . . 

Contrary to Matthew, in Acts there is no repentance, no remorse, and no sense of guilt. (pp. 503-504, 507)

In Matthew 27:3-4, it says in RSV that Judas “repented” and said “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” Acts 1:16-20, in mentioning Judas’ suicide, simply doesn’t say one way or the other whether he repented or not. So it’s an argument from silence, from which nothing can be determined, as to alleged contradiction. But there is also a linguistic consideration (the following sources are all commenting on Matthew 27:3):

The Greek word is not that commonly used for “repentance,” as involving a change of mind and heart, but is rather “regret,” a simple change of feeling. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

A different Greek word from that used, ch. Matthew 3:2; it implies no change of heart or life, but merely remorse or regret. See note ch. Matthew 21:29; Matthew 21:32. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Repented himself (μεταμεληθείς). This word (differing from μετανοέω, which expresses change of heart) denotes only a change of feeling, a desire that what has been done could be undone; this is not repentance in the Scripture sense; it springs not from love of God, it has not that character which calls for pardon. (Pulpit Commentary)

Repented himself (μεταμελητεις — metamelētheis). Probably Judas saw Jesus led away to Pilate and thus knew that the condemnation had taken place. This verb (first aorist passive participle of μεταμελομαι — metamelomai) really means to be sorry afterwards like the English word repent from the Latin repoenitet, to have pain again or afterwards. See the same verb μεταμελητεις — metamelētheis in Matthew 21:30 of the boy who became sorry and changed to obedience. The word does not have an evil sense in itself. Paul uses it of his sorrow for his sharp letter to the Corinthians, a sorrow that ceased when good came of the letter (2 Corinthians 7:8). But mere sorrow avails nothing unless it leads to change of mind and life (μετανοια — metanoia), the sorrow according to God (2 Corinthians 7:9). This sorrow Peter had when he wept bitterly. It led Peter back to Christ. But Judas had only remorse that led to suicide. (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament)

Repented ( μεταμεληθεὶς )

This is a different word from that in Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; μετανοεῖτε , Repent ye. Though it is fairly claimed that the word here implies all that is implied in the other word, the New Testament writers evidently recognize a distinction, since the noun which corresponds to the verb in this passage ( μεταμέλεια ) is not used at all in the New Testament, and the verb itself only five times; and, in every case except the two in this passage (see Matthew 21:32), with a meaning quite foreign to repentance in the ordinary gospel sense. Thus it is used of Judas, when he brought back the thirty pieces (Matthew 27:3); of Paul’s not regretting his letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 7:8); and of God (Hebrews 7:21). On the other hand, μετανοέω , repent, used by John and Jesus in their summons to repentance (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17), occurs thirty-four times, and the noun μετάνοια , repentance (Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:11), twenty-four times, and in every case with reference to that change of heart and life wrought by the Spirit of God, to which remission of sins and salvation are promised. It is not impossible, therefore, that the word in this passage may have been intended to carry a different shade of meaning, now lost to us. Μεταμέλομαι , as its etymology indicates ( μετά , after, and μέλω , to be an object of care), implies an after-care, as contrasted with the change of mind denoted by μετάνοια . Not sorrow for moral obliquity and sin against God, but annoyance at the consequences of an act or course of acts, and chagrin at not having known better. “It may be simply what our fathers were wont to call hadiwist (had-I-wist, or known better, I should have acted otherwise)” (Trench). Μεταμέλεια refers chiefly to single acts; μετάνοια denotes the repentance which affects the whole life. Hence the latter is often found in the imperative: Repent ye (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19); the former never. Paul’s recognition of the distinction (2 Corinthians 7:10) is noteworthy. “Godly sorrow worketh repentance ( μετάνοιαν ) unto salvation,” a salvation or repentance “which bringeth no regret on thinking of it afterwards” ( ἀμεταμέλητον )There is no occasion for one ever to think better of either his repentance or the salvation in which it issued. (Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament)

2 Corinthians 7:9-10 As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting; for you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. [10] For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.

Nathan Millican from the Theology Along the Way website, commented insightfully on Judas and this issue of his repentance (or lack thereof):

A worldly sorrow brings regret that leads to death, whereas a godly sorrow does not bring regret and leads to salvation. Barnett in his Second Corinthians Commentary writes, “the structure of Paul’s verse is: For the grief that is according to God works repentance [that] leads to salvation, [which] is without regret. But the grief that is of the world works death.”[1] Thus, there is a truth inferred here that is important for the discussion at hand, which is the “grief that is of the world works [unrepentance, which leads to] death [and is with regret].”[2] . . .

This type of sorrow as evidenced in Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians is not a sorrow that leads to salvation, but rather brings with it death. Judas regretted his actions or showed remorse or sorrow for his actions because of their consequences “not necessarily because they were wrong as sins against a holy God.”[5] What did Judas lack? He lacked a godly sorrow that brings no regrets that leads to salvation. His remorse was not commensurate with a remorse that God says is a prerequisite to salvation. And what was the end result of his remorse? He ended his life. “He was sorry for his sin, but instead of taking his sorrow to God, he despaired. He turned inward, not Godward, and his remorse became self-condemnation.”[6] (“Why wasn’t Judas’ repentance a repentance that leads to eternal life?”)

“A Tragic End for Judas” (Ligonier Ministries) adds:

Matthew’s juxtaposition of Peter’s denial and Judas’ death invites us to compare the state of their souls. Like Peter, Judas is remorseful after the fact, changing his mind about the wisdom of his deed after seeing Jesus condemned (Matt. 27:3–4). . . .  Judas does not really try to stop what he has started and will not testify of Christ’s innocence before Pilate. John Calvin writes, “True repentance is displeasure at sin, arising out of fear and reverence for God, and producing, at the same time, a love and desire of righteousness.” Were Judas repentant, justice and righteousness would move him to intervene on Jesus’ behalf. Godly sorrow leads people to run to God, but Judas’ despair makes him run into the arms of death (v. 5).

Since Acts mentions no repentance or even remorse at all, and the remorse felt by Judas as described in Matthew 27:3 is by no means the normative New Testament repentance with grace-enabled profound reform of one’s life and joy accompanying, the alleged contradiction is refuted. Judas didn’t “repent” in the full NT sense in either passage.

***

Photo credit: Judas (Johann Zwink) in passion play, Oberammergau, Germany (1900) [public domain / Library of Congress]

Summary: Michael Alter, dealing with the question of “did Judas repent or not?” tries to argue that Matthew records a true repentance, while Acts does not at all (hence, a contradiction: so he claims).

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, Judas, motives of Judas, Judas’ repentance, repentance of Judas, did Judas repent?

2021-05-02T15:47:37-04:00

Last updated on: May 2, 2021 at 3:47 pm   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #81 Contradictory Chronology When Judas Concocted His Plan

John’s chronology contradicts the synoptic narratives as to when Judas formed or first conceived his plan to betray Jesus. (p. 447)

It does not at all, as has been shown in Reply #19 and Reply #20, and will continue to be shown in this present installment.

Matthew thus states that Judas designed his plan immediately after the incident which took place in the house of Simon the leper at Bethany.

The episode of Simon the leper anointing Jesus while he was in Bethany is recorded in Matthew 26:6-13. This event occurred on Tuesday, two days before the Passover meal preparation. . . . It was now, immediately after this rebuking incident recorded in verses 14 and 15 that Matthew states that Judas went to the chief priests and asked what he would receive in exchange for delivering Jesus. Therefore, Matthew had Judas concocting his plan to betray Jesus before the Last Supper. (p. 448)

So far, we have no disagreement. But they’re never far away!

Mark 14:3-9 records the same incident. However, Mark differs from Matthew in several details: (1) the ointment was identified as spikenard, (p. 448)

It “differs” in that it offers details that Matthew doesn’t include. It’s not contradictory. Matthew has “very expensive ointment” (26:7), while Mark describes it as “ointment of pure nard, very costly” (14:3). That’s like one person saying he bought his wife a gift of “very expensive perfume” and his wife telling her girlfriends the brand name of the perfume. Are the two contradictory? No. Both are true and in harmony with each other.

(2) some of the disciples were described as indignant, (p. 448)

This isn’t even a difference from Matthew, which also describes “the disciples” as “indignant” and additionally saying (similarly to Mark), “Why this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor” (Mt 26:8-9). Again: differing detail and no contradiction.

and (3) the value of the ointment was declared to be “more than three hundred pence.” (p. 448)

Great and “so what!” But at least this is an actual difference (though of course not a contradiction).

After Jesus spoke to the disciples, Mark 14:10 substantiates Matthew’s text: “And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.” Therefore, Mark 14:10-11 also has Judas arranging to betray Jesus on Tuesday, two days before the Last Supper. (p. 448)

Thus, on the issue of timing of Judas’ consultation with the Jewish authorities, Alter agrees that Matthew and Mark are in agreement. It was two days before the Last Supper.

Luke 22:3-6 also records that Judas’s arrangement to betray Jesus occurred on Tuesday. (p. 448)

Cool. So Alter agrees that all three Synoptic Gospels concur on this.

John 12:1-8 substantially embellishes the text, making Judas appear progressively more heinous and odious than the synoptic narratives: (p. 448)

In light of Alter’s view that the evangelists are deceiving liars, we can interpret “embellishes” as adding untrue, made-up additional fictional elements. But as always, this is sheer arbitrary speculation from a hostile observer, with no hard evidence. What John adds is not contradictory to the Synoptics.

(1) he had Judas being the solitary disciple who challenged the anointment with three hundred pences worth of spikenard, . . . (p. 448)

If indeed John had specified that Judas was the “solitary” disciple protesting, then it would actually be a contradiction (!!!) of Mark’s and Matthew’s parallel accounts. But of course he doesn’t do that. He simply states “Judas Iscariot. . . said, . . .” (12:4). We see nothing there about “only Judas” or “Judas alone” or “Judas was the solitary disciple who said . . .” or “Judas and no other disciple” said . . ”

(2) he editorialized that Judas’s opposition to the anointing by Mary was not by any love for the poor but because he was at one time a thief and the purse bearer of the society, which had gathered around Jesus. In addition, John 11:1 and 12:3 identifies the previous anonymous anointer as Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus. (p. 448)

All of which elaborates upon the other accounts without contradicting them . . .

Then, John 13:2 declares: “And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” (p. 448)

As explained in Reply #20, this expression of a present tense is an outdated inaccurate rendering of the KJV. Virtually all modern translations indicate this intention to have been a past event, which is, of course, harmonious with the data from the Synoptic Gospels, summarized above.

Up to this exact moment John’s Judas had not held a conference with the chief priests and the Pharisees. (p. 449)

This is untrue. John doesn’t specifically mention it, but he doesn’t deny it, either (which would be one scenario that would establish a contradiction). What he does is allude to the fact that Judas had by then fully intended to betray Him (13:2). As we find out from the information provided by the Synoptics, this had occurred two days earlier.

As a matter of fact, John 13:27-30 narrates that it was none other than Jesus who told Judas during this meal to go and buy some things for the feast or that he should give something to the poor: 

Jn 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

Jn 13:28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.

Jn 13:29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.

Jn 13:30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. (p. 449)

Alter completely botches the plain meaning of this text. Jesus, in saying “do [it] quickly” (Jn 13:37) is referring to Judas’ actual betrayal, which was to occur within a matter of hours.  John 13:28-29 describes the disciples’ misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying to Judas (13:28: “no one at the table knew why he said this to him”). Further preceding context, additionally, proves beyond doubt what Jesus meant. He was referring to Judas going out to do his dirty deed:

John 13:21-27 When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” [22] The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. [23] One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; [24] so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, “Tell us who it is of whom he speaks.” [25] So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, “Lord, who is it?” [26] Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. [27] Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

Finally, John unequivocally demonstrates that his gospel contradicted the Synoptics. John 18:28-29 narrated that the arrested Jesus was brought before Pilate. Presumably, as a matter of civility or consideration, Pilate left the judgment hall to meet the Jewish leadership and Jesus. John explains the reason that the Jewish leadership would not enter the judgment hall: “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.” In other words, if the Jewish leadership entered the judgment hall, they would have been defiled (i.e., made themselves ritually unclean) and would not be able to partake of the passover. It makes no sense that the Jewish leadership would have been concerned about becoming ritually unclean and consequently disqualified from eating the passover if the Passover meal had already occurred. (p. 449)

Without getting into the many theories about the Last Supper as related to Passover, I merely note that the fear of defilement in Gentile houses went beyond just Passover. Thus (contrary to Alter’s final sentence) it does “make sense” that the Jews would have refused to enter the praetorium apart from the consideration of Passover alone:

Bengel’s Gnomen: John 18:28. Αὐτοὶ) they themselves.—ἳνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν, lest they should be defiled) as Pilate’s house was not cleared out of leaven: Deuteronomy 16:4, “There shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coasts seven days.”—φάγωσι τὸ πάσχα, that they might eat the Passover) So 2 Chronicles 30:22, ויאכלו המועד, “They ate the feast seven days.”

Pulpit Commentary: This defilement by entrance into the house of a Gentile was not an enactment of the Law, but was a purely rabbinic observance (Delitzsch, ‘Talmudische Studien,’ 14. (1874); ‘Zeitschrift fur die gesammte Luth. Theol.’). We find it operative in Acts 10:28, . . .

I found what looks like just the thing to understand this issue of ritual purity and defilement in first-century Judaism, in relation to the Romans and Gentiles in general: “Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism” (Jonathan Klawans, Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies, Volume 20 , Issue 2 , November 1995 , pp. 285 – 312). Unfortunately, I couldn’t access all of it for free, but the references are present. One of them reads:

Another important New Testament verse to consider is John 18:28, which states that there were Jews who refused to enter the praetorium lest they be denied and not be able to eat the Passover sacrifice. It should be noted that according to John 18, Matt. 27, and Mark 15, the praetorium is where Jesus was beaten. One can assume that any number of bloody activities took place there, and that there would have been a fear of contracting corpse impurity.

***

Photo credit: Judas (Johann Zwink) in passion play, Oberammergau, Germany (1900) [public domain / Library of Congress]

Summary: Michael Alter sought contradictions in the NT’s portrayal of the chronology of Judas’ evil plans in vain. Perhaps if he keeps observing the logical fallacies in his arguments, he’ll be more cautious. 

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, Judas, motives of Judas, chronology of Judas’ evil plans

2021-04-30T15:01:45-04:00

Last updated on: April 30, 2021 at 3:01 pm   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #80 Satan Being Judas’s Motivation for Betraying Jesus

The gospel narratives present contradictory information regarding Judas’s motivation for betraying Jesus. Mark 14:10 reads: “And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.” Consequently, Mark provides no explanation as to why Judas betrayed Jesus. Instead, Mark 14:11 declares that upon receiving Judas’s offer to betray Jesus, then and only then did the chief priests promise to give him money for his action: “And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.” Consequently, a plain reading of the text reveals that Judas did not go to the chief priests with the forethought of receiving money. (p. 445)

Of course, Alter will go on to claim that this is somehow contradictory compared to one or more of the other Gospels, and I will contend that he is incorrect in his cynical interpretation (his hostility and ad hominem attacks against the evangelists being blatantly obvious in this section). Alter simply can’t rule out money being Judas’ motivation, based on this text. It may have been, for example, that Judas said to the chief priests, “if you give me money, I’ll betray Jesus”: whereas the text says that he “went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them” (Mk 14:10).

We don’t know all that was said, since we only have Mark’s summary of what Judas proposed. But what I proposed as a possibility is perfectly plausible and sensible (before we even look at the data in the other Gospels). Whatever he said (and he must have said something), the chief priests were “glad, and promised to give him money” (14:11). Nothing in the text makes it impossible for filthy lucre to have been Judas’ motivation.

There are only so many reasons and motives for immoral people to do what they do. Usually they come down to very few (pride, envy, revenge, financial gain, etc.). Alter can’t logically claim what he claims, in flat-out denying that Judas’ motivation was money (“Judas did not go to the chief priests with the forethought of receiving money”: his italics). It’s one of his many unwarranted “universal negative”-types of statements. 

Matthew 26:14-15 presents important details omitted in Mark: “Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.” Therefore, unlike Mark, Matthew had Judas specifically going to the chief priests and bargaining for how much they would pay him to deliver Jesus. The amount agreed upon was thirty pieces of silver. As a result, Matthew reports that Judas’s motivation was money (i.e., perhaps covetousness). (p. 445)

This is not a contradiction. Mark simply omits the detail of motive. But as I think I showed, it’s common sense to posit what the motivation was. What is reasonably theorized about Mark’s account (“reading in-between the lines”) is flat-out stated in Matthew’s. Thus, we readily see how the Gospels complement (as opposed to contradict) each other.

Contrary to Mark and Matthew, Luke 22:3 reports that the rationale for Judas’s action was that Satan had entered into him before the Last Supper: “Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.” Significantly, Luke omits any preconceived notion of Judas desiring money to betray Jesus or expecting to receive compensation for his deed. The action was seemingly the result of Satan entering Judas. (p. 445)

Both things can be true: 1) Satan entering into Judas, to provoke or encourage him to 2) choose to do wicked things (for which he remains responsible before God): one of which was immoral financial motive (usually when we sin, we think we will “gain something” from it), to betray his master. None of the  Gospels are obliged to mention every single thing that others may have mentioned, in order to prevent people like Alter coming around and seeing a “contradiction!” under every rock. Possibly (it seems perfectly sensible to me), Matthew and Mark didn’t mention the aspect of the devil because, as I said, in Christian theology, we are all responsible for our own actions, whether we are tempted by Satan or not.

Expanding Luke’s narrative, John 13:26-27 has Satan entering into the heart of Judas during the Last Supper. (p. 446)

In fact, according to the NT, Satan had already entered into Judas in a serious sense of profound influence before the time of the Last Supper. John is harmonious with Luke, who also teaches (assuming his passage is intended chronologically in our modern sense) that this happened before the Last Supper. Alter contends that this happened “during” the Last Supper presumably in part because of the KJV rendering of John 13:2: “And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him” (which he cites on p. 448 in a second section). The unfortunate rendering there is the word “now.” Modern translations (KJV derives from 1611) agree almost unanimously that the event had happened earlier:

RSV And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,

NIV . . . the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus.

ESV . . . the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas . . . 

NASB . . . the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot . . . 

Amplified . . . the devil had already put [the thought of] betraying Jesus into the heart of Judas . . . 

CEV Even before the evening meal started, the devil had made Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, decide to betray Jesus. 

Good News (TEV) . . . The Devil had already put into the heart of Judas . . . 

ASV. . . the devil having already put into the heart of Judas . . . 

Young’s Literal Translation . . . the devil already having put it into the heart of Judas . . . 

Confraternity . . . having already put . . . 

Moffatt . . . the devil had suggested . . . 

NEB and REB The devil had already put it into the mind of Judas . . . 

NRSV The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas . . . 

Barclay . . . the devil had already put the decision to betray Jesus into the heart of Judas . . . 

NAB The devil had already induced Judas . . . So during supper,

Kleist & Lilly . . . the devil had by now firmly fixed in the heart of Judas . . . 

Phillips By suppertime, the devil had already put the thought of betraying Jesus into the mind of Judas . . . 

Williams . . . the devil had suggested to Judas . . .

Beck The devil had already put the idea of betraying Jesus into the mind of Judas . . .  

Jerusalem . . . the devil had already put it into the mind . . . 

Wuest . . . the devil having already hurled into the heart of Judas . . . 

Goodspeed . . . the devil having by this time put the thought . . .

 

Baptist Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, comments on this passage:

The devil having already put (του διαβολου ηδη βεβληκοτος — tou diabolou ēdē beblēkotos). Another genitive absolute without a connective (asyndeton), perfect active participle of βαλλω — ballō to cast, to put. Luke (Luke 22:3) says that Satan entered Judas when he offered to betray Jesus. Hence John‘s “already” (ηδη — ēdē) is pertinent. John repeats his statement in John 13:27.

John 13:27 Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

Satan “entered into him” in the sense of a deliberate decision to go tell the authorities where Jesus could be found (the literal act of betrayal), so that He could be apprehended. This parallels Luke 22:3 (“Satan entered into Judas”), which is strongly expressing the thought that Satan directly influenced his decision to offer himself as a betrayer to the Jewish chief priests and scribes. In other words, when we sin in such a wicked  way, the devil is always ultimately our inspiration and influence, and he rejoices.

I don’t believe that the notion of Satan “entering” a person is restricted to a one-time occurrence. We see, after all, multiple possessions by demons of a person in this passage from Jesus:

Luke 11:24-26 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, `I will return to my house from which I came.’ [25] And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order. [26] Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.”

Thus, by analogy, Satan could do the same. Luke shows one satanic “entering” at Judas’ decision to betray (the resolve), and John describes a second, much more evil “entering”: at the time of the actual betrayal (the actual act). In any event, Satan was influencing Judas in a way akin to what Jesus described elsewhere:

John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Matthew and Mark don’t mention the devil’s nefarious ends (which is not contradictory), Luke does, in a time frame before the Last Supper, and John also declares that the decision to betray had already occurred before the Last Supper. Thus, the texts are still seen to be clearly non-contradictory. 

Of course, we also know from John that Judas had been a thief long since (thus offering more insight as to why he would be open to being paid to betray Jesus):

John 12:3-6 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment. [4] But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said, [5] “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” [6] This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.

Jesus also says: “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (Jn 6:70)

Alter doesn’t accept any of this, and so he lays it all out and expresses his extreme anti-New Testament bias evident (I do thank him for his transparency):

[T]he gospel narrators probably lied in the modern sense of the word. When a witness in a court of law deliberately excludes, includes, or rearranges material according to his purposes, he is committing perjury. The authors and final redactors of the gospel narratives were liars in a modern sense. (p. 447)

This whole series of replies is intended to show objective, fair-minded, inquiring readers that the Gospels and the New Testament are entirely trustworthy, accurate, and non-contradictory: traits that don’t absolutely prove, but are entirely consistent with, or suggestive of the inspiration of the same books.

In other words, we would fully expect a possibly inspired document not to be self-contradictory and logically chaotic and incoherent. And on the other hand we would expect a non-inspired, non-infallible set of four books about the same general subject matter to contain innumerable actual contradictions.

The problem is not that the four evangelists are “liars”; it is that Alter and skeptics like him are invariably uninformed or misinformed about various important factors of language, genre, history, exegesis, scriptural cross-referencing, hermeneutics, literary techniques (such as compression, hyperbole, ellipsis, and idiom), and different Hebrew  ways of thinking, etc., that I have been bringing up.

Because skeptics are ignorant of those, and often seem to reflexively interpret the Bible with an abysmally wooden hyper-literalism, they arrive at the wrong conclusions, which in turn, confirm them in their errors all the more and lead to yet more mistakes and false conclusions in their analyses (Proverbs 26:11 likens this to “a dog that returns to his vomit”).

However resistant to persuasion and unmoved Michael Alter is or may be, I’m quite confident that many readers of this series will be convinced of the higher level of plausibility of my arguments: in turn either bolstering their existing faith, their confidence in biblical inspiration in particular (hence in the God Who enabled and produced it), or leading them along the road to a conversion to Christianity, if they are of some other belief-system. 

***

Photo credit: Judas (Johann Zwink) in passion play, Oberammergau, Germany (1900) [public domain / Library of Congress]

Summary: Michael Alter again attempts to demonstrate various contradictions where they don’t exist; in this instance, the motives of Judas in betraying Jesus, and when Satan entered into him.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, Judas, motives of Judas

2021-04-30T11:09:36-04:00

Last updated on: April 30, 2021 at 11:09 am   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #79 Matthew Contradicting Mark-Luke When Judas Was Paid

Matthew directly contradicts Mark (and also Luke) by reporting the time when Judas was paid by the chief priests. Mark narrates that Judas specifically went to the chief priests to betray Jesus. When the Jewish leadership heard from Judas, they were pleased and promised to give him an undisclosed amount of money. Therefore, no money was received in advance.

Mk 14:10 and Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.

Mk 14:11 And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.

Similar to Mark, Luke’s Judas did not receive any money up front:

Lk 22:4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

Lk 22:5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.

In contradiction, Matthew reports that Judas received his money up front:

Mt 26:14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,

Mt 26:15 And said unto them, “What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” . . . 

In conclusion, in Mark and Luke, Judas did not receive any money up front; the chief priests only agreed to enter into an agreement and give him money. In contradiction, Matthew’s Judas was paid in advance. Matthew incontrovertibly and indisputably contradicted Mark and Luke. (pp. 444-445)

Matthew 26:14-15 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests [15] and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.

Matthew appears to be applying what is called in Hebrew literature “telescoping” or “compression” of time (a literary technique that I also wrote about at some length in my reply #15: including Matthew‘s use of it in particular).  In his book, Hebrew for Theologians: A Textbook for the Study of Biblical Hebrew in Relation to Hebrew Thinking (University Press of America, 1993) Jacques Doukhan notes that in the Hebrew mind, “the content of time prevails over chronology. Events which are distant in time can, if their content is similar, be regarded as simultaneous.” (p. 206).

Matthew 28:2-4 is arguably another example of the same technique. Former atheist Steve Diseb elaborates on a further instance of this in Matthew:

The Cursing of the Fig Tree . . . 

Matthew 21:17-22; Mark 11:11-15, 19-25.

Matthew — Jesus curses the fig tree. The withering of the tree appears to happen immediately after the curing.

Mark — Jesus curses the fig tree, but the withering happens much later after Jesus and the disciples have moved on; they don’t notice it until after the cleansing of the Temple.

As we have seen throughout the examples provided in this series, Matthew regularly shortens his telling of the events. Matthew decided to tell the two parts of the story side-by-side, instead of separating the curing and withering of the fig tree with the cleansing of the Temple between them. As we have seen throughout this series, Matthew tends to group things according to thematic reasons.

Matthew’s not the only one who does this. Sometimes Mark and Luke use the same literary technique as well:

Matthew mentions two demoniacs, while Mark and Luke only mention one. This occurs throughout Matthew’s gospel: two demoniacs (Mt. 8:28ff), two blind men (Mt. 9:27ff), and two more blind men (Mt. 20:30ff). In each case, Matthew has two, rather than one. This doesn’t give us great difficulty, because Mark and Luke do not write that there was only one demoniac or blind man. Instead, they use a literary device called “telescoping,” where they choose to focus on one figure, rather than two. (“Introduction to Matthew”, James M. Rochford, Evidence Unseen)

There is a right way and a wrong way to understand the use of compression in the New Testament. The Gospel writers do not “make things up out of whole cloth” or deliberately take liberties with known facts for the sake of an agenda that trumps truthfulness and honesty (i.e., Alter’s view of how they go about writing their accounts). Dr. Lydia McGrew, a friendly acquaintance of mine, makes several very important observations in this regard:

Two senses of “compression” or “telescoping.” These are phrases that you’ll hear, terms that you’ll hear. Now sometimes, what you’ll hear is that an author like a Gospel author, will tell things in a briefer way: he’ll leave things out. He’ll just not mention everything, not mention every detail. An illustration I’ve heard used is that it’s like the “guy version” and the “girl version” of a story, wherein women like to hear all the details whereas men just like to hit the bullet points, and so on. That’s fine for one sense of compression, that describes one sense of compression or telescoping. . . .

If you just leave stuff out, you’re just being indefinite. You’re not specifically trying to give the impression that these things happened all in one day or all in a much shorter time, or that certain people didn’t say certain things, or anything like that. You’re not trying to make your reader read your document in such a fashion that it gives the impression that this took a shorter time. . . .

Next: Two senses of “non-chronological order.” This is very similar to the two senses of “telescoping” or “compression.” Now what you often will find – and I’d say that ancient authors have somewhat more of a tendency to do this than we do, but we do it sometimes too – is just what I call “and-and chronology” or “and-but chronology”: “He did this and this, but he did this, but this happened.” OK. This is not implying a chronology. All right. This is not giving a specific chronology at all! This is just saying, “These things happened.” They might not have happened in that precise way. . . .

That fact, that ancient people – and we sometimes, too – are inexplicit about our chronology, is not something that was discovered as a special compositional device used by the Greeks and Romans, or something, just last year. That’s actually something that traditional harmonizers have been saying for many, many decades, and actually [for] hundreds of years. OK? Sometimes you get a non-chronological narration, but it’s not actually giving a chronological order. . . .

Narrating in an order where you do not imply a chronology is incompatible with narrating in an order where you do imply a chronology, and you change the chronology from someone else’s – maybe even changed it from what you had reason to believe was true. OK?

So one might [not] – and shouldn’t – have any objection to narrating in an inexplicit fashion about chronology, narrating things in a topic-oriented order or something like that, without even mentioning a chronology – versus laying out a chronology – “This happened, then this happened, then this happened” – when you know it’s the wrong chronology! You know it’s not how it happened! “Dr. Lydia McGrew on Six Bad Habits of New Testament Scholars (and how to avoid them)”, The Skeptical Zone, 1-12-18)

In the introductory section of this article (written by someone else), Dr. McGrew’s concern (with which I totally agree) is described as follows:

In his book, Dr. [Michael] Licona defended the historicity of the Gospels but endorsed the view, common among New Testament scholars, that the authors of the Gospels would have considered it perfectly legitimate to deliberately alter historical details of events, relating non-factual claims as if they were factual, because back in those days, writers of biographies were more concerned with Truth than with mere facts. Dr. McGrew is a conservative Christian writer, but not a Biblical inerrantist. Nevertheless, she felt that by acknowledging the existence of what she terms “fictionalizing compositional devices” in the Gospels, Dr. Licona had conceded too much to skeptics such as Bart Ehrman (whom Licona debated on the reliability of the New Testament back in 2016), and that such a concession undermined his whole case for the historicity of the Resurrection.

Matthew was simply thinking “non-chronologically” in 26:15 and applying a perspective that Jacques Doukhan noted (cited above): the Hebrew outlook, where “the content of time prevails over chronology.” Per Dr. McGrew’s analysis, Matthew isn’t “messing” with known chronology (like, e.g., John the Baptist being born before Jesus) in a way that is non-factual or fictional. He is simply (as she put it) “Narrating in an order where you do not imply a chronology” — with use of the “right” sort of compression. This is a crucial distinction.

Judas was paid for his betrayal. The Gospels agree on that. Matthew simply ignores the element of when he was paid. It wasn’t his concern. And that’s okay. Chronology is not of the essence of what is described. People like Alter and other biblical skeptics (and sadly too often, even conservative Christian scholars) superimpose onto his account the element of chronology and therefore (starting with that false premise) wrongly believe it contradicts Mark and Luke.

We observe for the millionth time, then, that the Gospel writers and ancient Hebrews were not primitive simpletons. The entire Bible is very rich in literary techniques and figures of speech. As I have noted before (but it bears repeating): Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger catalogued “over 200 distinct figures [in the Bible], several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties.” That is a  statement from the Introduction to his 1104-page tome, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898).

But Alter’s entire 913-page book, with its hundreds of references to and citations of scholars, and a claim to often present both sides of issues (“The references include opinions and sources from a wide range of perspectives”: p. xliv) never takes note of either “compression” or “telescoping” (at least not by those terms, if so). On the other hand — typical of a “Greek hyper-rationalist” approach rather than the very different, more holistic ancient Hebrew mindset — he mentions “chronology” 117 times and “chronological” 43 times: never realizing that chronology is often, if not usually a matter of indifference to the Gospel writers (who are far more interested in “what” happened rather than “when” it did). Alas, he has failed to do sufficient research, in his never-ending (shall we say?) “fascination” with the New Testament texts.

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: The question of “when was Judas paid?” & chronology was simply ignored as a non-issue by Matthew, who utilized the literary technique of compression; also known as “telescoping.”

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, when was Judas paid?, Judas’ payment, thirty coins, Judas 

2021-04-29T10:28:58-04:00

Last updated on: April 29, 2021 at 10:28 am   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #76 John Versus Matthew and Luke

The Gospel of John directly contradicts Matthew and Luke. (p. 429)

Nonsense, as I will demonstrate below.

The original Mark 16 omits any mention of women meeting a resurrected Jesus. Consequently, there was no bodily contact with Jesus or even a message proffered. Based on a literal reading of the text, instead, the women met a young man, received a message, subsequently fled the tomb, and spoke to nobody. (p. 429)

This is the game of denying the canonical status of Mark 16:9-20. See several solid arguments in favor of that section’s inclusion in the Gospel of Mark and the biblical canon. But even if verses 9-20 are rejected, 16:8 doesn’t indicate how long the women “said nothing to any one.” Thus, even without the true traditional ending of Mark it’s not established that they told no one at any time that they saw the empty tomb and were told by an angel that Jesus had risen from the dead (thus leading to supposed “contradiction” #2,967,135 in the NT, etc., ad nauseam). It’s yet another desperate argument from silence from Alter.

Matthew 28:9 reports that several women left the tomb after meeting an angel and having received a communication. On their way to the disciples, they encountered the resurrected Jesus. Then, the women grasped hold of Jesus by his feet and worshiped him: “And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.” (p. 429)

Yes indeed: all of this happened. And praise be to God that it did. This is the proof that Jesus was Who He claimed to be (God), which is. of course, also proof that God exists and that He loves us so much that He has provided a way for our sins to be forgiven, leading to eternal bliss in union with Him in heaven. That’s why we Christians refer to the gospel: the “Good News.” It’s the best possible news that human beings could receive.

Luke 24:13-33 extensively details Jesus traveling with two pilgrims on their way to Emmaus during most of the day. Later, Luke 24:34-43 had Jesus appearing before the Eleven gathered in Jerusalem as well as the two travelers previously mentioned. During this encounter Jesus states in verse 39: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath no flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Therefore, here, Jesus encouraged his disciples to touch him. It is unknown if the offer was accepted. (p. 429)

This is true as well, since Alter is merely recounting what the Gospel of Luke teaches. He’s setting us up for the alleged “zinger” and couldn’t resist one of the old chestnuts of biblical skepticism.

In direct contradiction, John 20:14 has Mary Magdalene alone meeting Jesus on Easter Sunday morning after her second visit to the tomb. After recognizing Jesus, she addressed him, saying, “Rabboni.” Then, John 20:17 reports that Jesus told Mary Magdalene, “Touch me not.”

John’s narration completely contradicts the synoptic accounts. (p. 429)

Not at all. Once again, Alter relies on the surface, prima facie reading, without delving more deeply into the words involved. When someone who believes in the inspiration of Scripture comes across a difficult-to-understand passage or ostensible “contradiction” at first glance, they look into (or at least have the potential to look into, with various available aids) the Greek or Hebrew word involved; to see how it is used elsewhere, etc. Or they pursue the different uses of words and questions of genre, possible non-literal intent, cultural background factors, etc. I have been doing this myself, throughout this series of replies.

Alter — in his replies to this series in my comboxes — often virtually mocks and derides this sort of Bible study, and seems to think that every Bible passage (purported or not) must be crystal clear and immediately self-evident to every reader. In this respect he seems to presuppose the Protestant false doctrine of “perspicuity” (clearness) of Scripture: i.e., the rejection of the necessity of authoritative interpretation, which is guided by the Church and tradition. But Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and historic Judaism all agree that guidance and aid in Bible interpretation is often necessary. I’ve written three books about the larger issue of sola Scriptura as the rule of faith (one / two / three).

Alter in this section attempts to make hay out of the women grabbing Jesus’ feet and worshiping Him in Matthew and disciples “handling” Him (to verify that He was flesh and blood) in Luke (and we could also mention Doubting Thomas later in this same chapter of John), while Mary Magdalene (here’s the ever-present alleged “contradiction”) was told “not to touch” Jesus in John 20:17. It’s much ado about nothing. A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament explains it:

Touch me not (mh mou aptou). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning “cease clinging to me” rather than “Do not touch me.” Jesus allowed the women to take hold of his feet (ekrathsan) and worship (prosekunhsan) as we read in Matthew 28:9 .

Almost all more recent English translations reflect this more specific (prolonged, more intense) sense of touch:

RSV: hold

TEV / NIV / NRSV / Beck: hold on to

NAB: holding on to

ESV / NKJV / Weymouth / Barclay / Goodspeed / NEB / REB / Jerusalem / Knox / Amplified: cling

NASB / Williams / Wuest / Moffatt: clinging

Marvin Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament agrees:

Touch me not ( μή μοῦ ἅπτου )

The verb, primarily, means to fasten to. Hence it implies here, not a mere momentary touch, but a clinging to.

The following two biblical commentaries elaborate along the same lines:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: The words themselves must be carefully considered. “Touch” represents a Greek word which means to “cling to,” to “fasten on,” to “grasp” an object. The tense is present, and the prohibition is, therefore, not of an individual act, but of a continuance of the act, of the habit, “Do not continue clinging to Me.”

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: The translation ‘touch Me not’ is inadequate and gives a false impression. The verb (haptesthai) does not mean to ‘touch’ and ‘handle’ with a view to seeing whether His body was real; this Christ not only allowed but enjoined (John 20:27; Luke 24:39; comp. 1 John 1:1): rather it means to ‘hold on to’ and ‘cling to.’ Moreover it is the present (not aorist) imperative; and the full meaning will therefore be, ‘Do not continue holding Me,’ . . .

So (you guessed it): no contradiction again. There are deeper waters of reflection regarding this passage, but they are inappropriate here. It’s enough to have demonstrated that a more prolonged and intense sense of “touch” was being referred to in this passage, compared to the others. In other words, it wasn’t touch per se that Jesus was forbidding, but a certain kind of touch: clinging. The reasons for the distinction of different sorts of touch are beyond my purview (they delve far more deeply into eschatological and Christological theology). I’ve accomplished my task as an apologist: to remove the plausibility of a supposed contradiction in these particular NT texts.

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: Michael Alter seizes upon the “touch me not” passage of John 20:17 to try to establish a contradiction over against other “touching” NT passages. He fails, & I explain the relevant difference.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, “touch me not”, Mary Magdalene

2021-04-29T10:23:06-04:00

Last updated on: April 29, 2021 at 10:23 am   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously (and impressively!) sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review. 

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

To see all the other installments, search “Michael J. Alter” on either my Jews and Judaism or Trinitarianism & Christology web pages. That will take you to the subsection with the series.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #75 Which Women Saw the Postresurrected Risen Jesus on Easter Sunday?

The books and epistles found within the Christian scriptures that relate to Jesus’s resurrection read like completely different stories, not several people witnessing the same event from different vantage points. (p. 427)

I have repeatedly shown that this is not an accurate representation, by refuting bogus alleged “contradictions.” The latter is the “bread and butter” of atheist and other skeptical criticisms of the Bible (their favorite “gotcha!” technique). If they go down in refutation (and the more the merrier!), then the essence and heart of the skeptical anti-biblical (or in this case, anti-New Testament) argument goes down, too.

In the Epistles of Paul there is no mention of any women witnesses. (p. 427)

This is untrue:

1 Corinthians 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

This usage of adelphos (Strong’s word #80) — most often translated “brethren” or “brothers” — includes both men and women. Several Bible translations make this inclusion of women more clear:

NIV / NASB / Amplified: . . . brothers and sisters . . .

NRSV: . . . brothers and sisters . . . [note: Gk brothers]

CEV: . . . other followers . . .

Good News (TEV): . . . his followers . . .

Phillips / Beck: . . . Christians . . .

Therefore, Paul does mention female witnesses, contrary to Alter’s claim above: just not by specific names.

Christian apologists have offered various explanations for this omission. (p. 427)

I’m sure they have. This is a classic example of a thing that may appear odd or inexplicable from our vantage point (i.e., lack of mention of individual female witnesses); yet it’s no contradiction. Arguments from silence prove nothing. Michael Alter often agrees with that sentiment in his book and correspondence and replies to my critiques. But he readily sees that they prove nothing in views he opposes, while not seeming to notice that they also prove nothing when he uses them.

Mark 16:1-8 records no witnesses. Only later Mark 16:9-11 discusses the sole witness of Mary Magdalene. (p. 427)

Alter distinguishes between 16:1-8 and 16:9-16, because many scholars reject the authenticity of the latter verses in Mark. But Alter thinks the evangelists (considering all of their texts or alleged texts) — whoever they are — are a pack of deceptive liars and mythmakers worthy of Tolkien and Homer, out to create legends in the service of a false theology based on lies (Jesus is Messiah and God; He rose from the dead, etc.), and even constantly correcting each other. So why should he care about mostly Christian internecine disputes about texts? He often presents a grossly misleading portrayal of NT texts, in a failed effort to make them fit into his “relentless contradiction” scenario. This is one of innumerable examples of that technique. Here is what the relevant text actually reads:

Mark 16:9 Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. [“first” also appears in the KJV rendering that Alter has been using in his book]

This is not claiming that Mary Magdalene was the “sole” witness. It says, rather, that she was the “first” witness (male or female). The use of “first” proves that the writer definitely did not consider her the “sole” witness. How difficult was that to ascertain? But Alter missed this crucial consideration. We shall now proceed to see if contradictions are truly present or not in this collection of passages about the risen Jesus and women.

In contrast, Matthew 28:1 and 28:9 report that two women, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, witnessed a post-resurrected Jesus. (p. 427)

Matthew 28:1 Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag’dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre.

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Yes, these two women did witness the risen Jesus. But Alter is trying to make out that this contradicts Mark 16:9. It does not. Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Jesus (just as another woman: His mother, was the first human being to be made aware that He was conceived as the incarnate God in her womb). Many scenarios can be easily imagined that instantly harmonize the passages.

For example, maybe “the other Mary” happened to be looking away when the risen Jesus suddenly “met them”, so that Mary Magdalene was, technically, the first to see Him; the first person (and woman) to whom He appeared. Or Jesus met Mary Magdalene with no other women around, and then Matthew 28:9 records a second instance of His appearing to her, except with another woman, too.

Luke narrates that no women saw the risen Jesus. (p. 427)

This is incorrect. It simply doesn’t record the instances of women witnessing the resurrected Jesus (another argument from silence that Alter mistakenly thinks holds some weight). To not report that “[females] x and y saw the risen Jesus” — to not say anything about this at all — is not at all, logically, the same as saying, “no [females] ever saw the risen Jesus”. This a huge logical difference.

What it records is that “Mary Mag’dalene and Jo-an’na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them” (Lk 24:10) saw the empty tomb (24:2-3) and were told by angels that Jesus was risen (24:4-7), which they then reported to the (eleven) disciples (24:10-11). In other words, they had two pieces of evidence (empty tomb and angels’ report) that Jesus had risen from the dead (thus proving His claims as incarnate God).

The only exception might have been the second pilgrim on the way to Emmaus. However, the gender of this person is unknown and subject to speculation. (p. 427)

Luke 24:10-11, 13 make it pretty clear that these two were “apostles”: i.e., men, and eleven in number. But this doesn’t affect my own present argument.

Conversely, Luke 24:34 later reports that Jesus had an earlier appearance with Simon, i.e., Peter. Finally, John 20:16-18 narrates that Mary Magdalene alone witnessed the resurrected Jesus. (p. 427)

John 20:11-18 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb; [12] and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. [13] They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” [14] Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” [16] Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rab-bo’ni!” (which means Teacher). [17] Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” [18] Mary Mag’dalene went and said to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

Again, the text never states that “only Mary” (among all women) saw Jesus, or that “Mary alone and no other woman” saw the risen Jesus. Those are the sorts of words that would be required for an actual contradiction to be present.  As it is, no contradiction has been established: not even to the slightest degree. The text simply records an instance with Mary Magdalene alone, without denying that other women saw the risen Jesus, too.

These conflicting accounts, along with those discussed throughout this text, prove that the Christian scriptures are unreliable. (p. 427)

Jesus referred to “a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; [27] and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it” (Mt 7:26-27). The “sand” here is Alter’s false premise that “conflicting [contradictory] accounts” are present in the first place. They’re not (neither here, nor throughout the innumerable alleged examples in his book); therefore, the “house” or deductive conclusion built upon them (“the Christian scriptures are unreliable”) is a falsehood. The New Testament is not only eminently reliable, accurate, and trustworthy; it is also inspired and infallible revelation.

 

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: Michael Alter tried to establish a contradiction in the NT accounts of the various women who saw the risen Jesus. But he failed basic logical tests; thus this argument of his collapses.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, women who saw the risen Jesus

2021-04-28T11:23:53-04:00

Last updated on: April 28, 2021 at 11:23 am   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review, and has committed himself to counter-response as well: a very rare trait these days. All of this is, I think, mightily impressive.

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and eagerly enjoy the dialogue and debate. This is a rare opportunity these days and I am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #71 Four Different Stories

The gospel narratives present several internal contradictions. Mark and Matthew say nothing about Peter or anyone else investigating the tomb. (p. 394)

Then they don’t contradict the other two Gospels on this score, do they? They don’t include “different” stories (let alone “contradictions”), because they have no stories at all about this incident. It’s just more of Alter’s odd, peculiar definition of “contradiction” that has no support in any logical textbook that has existed since the ancient Greeks.

Luke [24:12] states that Peter alone ran to the tomb and explored it from outside. (p. 394)

RSV omits this verse because it’s not found in western manuscripts. So here is another version:

Luke 24:12 (NKJV) But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying by themselves; and he departed, marveling to himself at what had happened.

Luke 24:12 doesn’t say that Peter “alone” ran to the tomb (which would exclude everyone else). It says that Peter ran to the tomb, without mentioning anyone else (that might have also done it). It’s a logical difference. On a web page that lists many translations of the passage, there was not a single instance of “only Peter” or “Peter alone.” His “stooping down” here doesn’t contradict John’s account, which doesn’t say he stooped from the outside; it says that John (“the other disciple”) did that.

He omits any statement about anyone else going to the tomb. (p. 394)

Yes he does. But that’s not a contradiction. It doesn’t contradict Matthew and Mark because they don’t have the story, so there is nothing to contradict. It doesn’t contradict John, either, because it doesn’t say “only Peter” or “Peter alone” or “Peter by himself ran to the tomb and no one else ever did”, etc. It’s embarrassing to have to repeat these basic facts of logic over and over and over and over and over again, but Alter (who knows why?) keeps making the same elementary logical mistakes.

John’s text seemingly contradicts Luke and declares that two people raced to the tomb, namely, Peter and the disciple who Jesus loved. (p. 394)

It does not contradict. It’s complementary. It may seem odd or strange or something “difficult” that needs to be adequately explained, but it’s not contradictory. Here it is:

John 20:3-8 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. [4] They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; [5] and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. [6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, [7] and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. [8] Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;

Then John adds that it was the other disciple who Jesus loved who entered the tomb only after Peter first entered it. Remarkably, Mark, Matthew, and Luke omit the fact that Peter entered Jesus’s burial place. (p. 394)

Again, strange and something to “figure out”, but not contradictory. And so the subtitle of Alter’s section contains a falsehood (sadly, not uncommon in his book!). But Luke actually does mention others visiting the tomb, twelve verses later:

Luke 24:12 “Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.”

Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard commented about this issue of differing reports:

Discrepancy one states that John records only Mary Magdalene going to the tomb (John 20:1), yet Matthew (28:1-2), Mark (16:1-3), and Luke (24:10) report that she was with other women.

The objection falsely assumes that John was intending to say Mary Magdalene was the only woman. John merely showcases Mary Magdalene without any mention of the other women. And just because an account is incomplete, it doesn’t follow that it is in error. Even Luke doesn’t give a complete account of the women who went to the tomb (24:10).

Moreover, John’s account of Mary’s response to Peter and John indicates that he knew other women were with her: “she ran . . . and said to them . . . we do not know where they have laid him” (John 20:2, emphasis added). Luke employs a similar tactic when he first showcases Peter going to the tomb (Luke 24:12), but then later informs his reader that others had gone as well (Luke 24:24).

Alter made many claims of alleged contradictions in the Resurrection accounts earlier in his book. I had neither the patience nor energy to tackle all of them (sort of like having to squat 150 flies at once). But here is a harmony of all of the stories regarding the Resurrection and what happened afterwards, from a Bible questions website, based on the work of Gary Habermas and Michael Licona:

  • Jesus is buried, as several women watch (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42).
  • The tomb is sealed and a guard is set (Matthew 27:62-66).
  • At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).
  • An angel descends from heaven, rolls the stone away, and sits on it. There is an earthquake, and the guards faint (Matthew 28:2-4).
  • The women arrive at the tomb and find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples (John 20:1-2).
  • The women still at the tomb see two angels who tell them that Jesus is risen and who instruct them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-8).
  • The women leave to bring the news to the disciples (Matthew 28:8).
  • The guards, having roused themselves, report the empty tomb to the authorities, who bribe the guards to say the body was stolen (Matthew 28:11-15).
  • Mary the mother of James and the other women, on their way to find the disciples, see Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10).
  • The women relate what they have seen and heard to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11).
  • Peter and John run to the tomb, see that it is empty, and find the grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10).
  • Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb. She sees the angels, and then she sees Jesus (John 20:11-18).
  • Later the same day, Jesus appears to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).
  • Still on the same day, Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32).
  • That evening, the two disciples report the event to the Eleven in Jerusalem (Luke 24:32-35).
  • Jesus appears to ten disciples—Thomas is missing (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25).
  • Jesus appears to all eleven disciples—Thomas included (John 20:26-31).
  • Jesus appears to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-25).
  • Jesus appears to about 500 disciples in Galilee (1 Corinthians 15:6).
  • Jesus appears to his half-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7).
  • Jesus commissions his disciples (Matthew 28:16-20).
  • Jesus teaches his disciples the Scriptures and promises to send the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:4-5).
  • Jesus ascends into heaven (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-12).

This matches the similar outline given by the late Michael Green in The Empty Cross of Jesus (first ed, p 122). (“Do the resurrection accounts contradict each other?”, Ian Paul, 4-21-20)

 

***

Photo credit: Saint Peter and Saint John Run to the Sepulchre, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [Wikimedia Commons / public domain]

Summary: Michael Alter makes several claims of alleged contradiction regarding Peter & John at the empty tomb of Jesus. They all fail the logical smell test as “contradictions.” They’re complementary.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, Peter & John at the Empty Tomb

***

2021-05-01T17:08:13-04:00

Last updated on: May 1, 2021 at 5:08 pm   By

Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume, The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered  59 “brief” replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions (March 2021). We later engaged in amiable correspondence and decided to enter into a major ongoing dialogue about his book. He graciously sent me a PDF file of it, free of charge, for my review, and has committed himself to counter-response as well: a very rare trait these days. All of this is, I think, mightily impressive.

Mike describes himself as “of the Jewish faith” but is quick to point out that labels are often “misleading” and “divisive” (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, “Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad” variants of Judaism and learns “from those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.” Fair enough. I have a great many influences, too, am very ecumenical, and am a great admirer of Judaism, as I told Michael in a combox comment on my blog.

He says his book “can be described as Jewish apologetics” and one that provides reasons for “why members of the Jewish community should not convert to Christianity.” I will be writing many critiques of the book and we’ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I’m quite excited about it and eagerly enjoy the dialogue and debate. This is a rare opportunity these days and I am most grateful for Mike’s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.

I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue.

*****

Alter wrote:

CONTRADICTION #70 Luke 24:49 Contradicts Matthew 28:10

Luke 24:49 unequivocally declares that Jesus saw his disciples in Jerusalem and orders them to stay there: “And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” In contradiction, Matthew 28:10 reports that Jesus commanded the women to inform his disciples that he would meet them in Galilee: “Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.” In addition, Jesus had previously instructed his disciples that they were to meet him in Galilee. This message to go to Galilee was also stated earlier in Mark and Matthew during the Last Supper.

Mk 14:28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.

Mt 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

One point should be very clear: Jesus’s order to go into Galilee and the statement that at that locale he would first appear to the disciples is unmistakable, repeated, and peremptory. In conclusion, Luke contradicts Matthew. (p. 388)

Luke 24:49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.

Matthew 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

This is apples and oranges. The disciples did see Jesus after He was risen, in Galilee (Mt 28:16-17; Jn 21:1). So Matthew is talking about post-Resurrection appearances.

Luke’s passage, on the other hand, has to do with the Day of Pentecost, when the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which happened right in Jerusalem. Pentecost occurred after all of Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearances and His Ascension. It’s described by the same writer, Luke, in Acts 2:1-4 (cf. language of Lk 1:35; 9:1). The following passage also ties in:

Acts 1:8 “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth.”

In Luke 24:51, Jesus ascends to heaven. Likewise, in Acts 1:9, He ascends to heaven. Both passages are written by the same author. It’s no contradiction whatsoever. Matthew and Luke + Acts are talking about completely different things. But it’s fascinating that this couplet is somehow thought to be a contradiction, isn’t it?

But there is, prima facie, two further possible difficulties in Luke: 1) his not mentioning the Galilee appearances and 2) his chronology of events. As for the first thing: he is under no obligation (literary or logical) to do so. He simply doesn’t include that aspect of  the appearances, and concentrates on events in Jerusalem and its vicinity. There is no rule (not even in Alter’s book) that says, “one evangelist has to mention what other evangelists mention: even if the other three all mention it.” And to not mention something is not a “contradiction” with regard to the other texts that mention the thing: no matter how hard Alter wishes it to be so or how much he rubs the bottle with the genie in a tremendous effort to make his wish come true. It just isn’t. That’s not how logic works.

The second thing is more difficult to explain. Luke 24 seems to make everything happen on one day:

24:1 . . . on the first day of the week . . .

24:13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emma’us . . .

24:33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together . . .

The text continues, ostensibly one continuous narrative, until Jesus ascends to heaven (24:51). Thus, it would leave no time for the appearances in Galilee. But verse 50 refers to His Ascension some forty days later (Acts 1:3). Why does it do this without having a “break” in the text? Even Alter wouldn’t (I don’t think) claim that the same author claimed that Jesus ascended on Easter Sunday (Luke) and 40 days later (Acts). So there must be some other explanation for how things are described in Luke. This brings us to a Hebrew (and Greek and Roman) literary device called “compression” [of time].

Christian scholar Craig Blomberg took note of this in his book, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP, 2nd edition, 2007, p. 216). He refers to “when one Gospel writer has condensed the account of an event that took place in two or more stages into one concise paragraph that seems to describe the action taking place all at once. Yet this type of literary abridgment was quite common among ancient writers (cf. Lucian, How to Write History 56) . . .”

F. Gerald Downing, in his volume, Doing Things with Words in the First Christian Century (Sheffield: 2000, pp. 121-122) observed that the Jewish historian Josephus (37-c. 100 AD) used the same technique:

Josephus is in fact noticeably concerned to ‘improve’ the flow of his narrative, either by removing all sorts of items that might seem to interrupt it, or else by reordering them. . . . Lucian, in the next century, would seem to indicate much the same attitude to avoidable interruptions, digressions, in a historical narrative, however vivid and interesting in themselves.

Protestant apologist Glenn Miller, in his superb and characteristically thorough article, “Contradictions in the Infancy stories?,” states: “this condensation, omission, and telescoping is pervasive in all of biblical literature. . . . this kind of literary style/device is everywhere in the NT narratives.” He then provides many examples (search the above quote to get to them, and see further examples in a separate article by former atheist Steve Diseb).

 

Christian apologist Erik Manning shows how Matthew also utilized the device of compression:

Matthew used compression in the story of the centurion’s servant. He omits all remarks of the Jewish elders and the centurion’s friends who served as go-betweens in Luke’s account.

He compresses the story by leaving out these extra people and stages of the narrative. (Compare Matthew 8:5-13 with Luke 7:10) Some have tried to say this is a contradiction, but they just don’t understand compression.

Likewise, Matthew 9:18-26 compresses the story of the healing of Jairus’ daughter. Mark gives us a much longer version of the story with two different stages of development. In the first stage, Jairus’ daughter was sick to the point of death. In the second stage, the messengers come and tell Jairus that his little girl just died.

Matthew gets to the point — the daughter dies, and Jesus raises her back to life. Matthew takes 176 words (at least in our English Bible) for what Mark takes 481 words to tell us. Ehrman has tried to complain that these accounts are also irreconcilable but they’re not when we understand that Matthew is telescoping the events. (“Are the Accounts of Jesus’s Ascension Contradictory?”)

One can give an abridged Cliffs Notes version of a story and a longer one, without inventing anything or fudging facts. That’s what I believe Luke did. I think this “literary” understanding and explanation quite sufficiently refute the charge of “contradiction.” The Bible must be understood as a sophisticated text, that can be analyzed just like any ancient text (and given the same respect, apart from any religious adherence).

***

Photo credit: Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke (2016, Netflix USA) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

Summary: Michael Alter tries to establish a contradiction between Luke & Matthew regarding Jesus’ Galilee appearances & the “shortened” (compressed) version in Luke of post-Resurrection events.

Tags: alleged Bible contradictions, alleged Resurrection contradictions, Bible “contradictions”, Bible “difficulties”, Bible Only, biblical inspiration, biblical prooftexts, biblical skeptics, biblical theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, Holy Bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Jewish anti-Christian polemics, Jewish apologetics, Jewish critique of Christianity, Jewish-Christian discussion, Michael J. Alter, New Testament, New Testament critics, New Testament skepticism, Resurrection “Contradictions”, Resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, Luke & Galilee Appearances, Jesus’ Galilee Appearances

***

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #7: Sola Scriptura 2...
Slowly deemphasizing, allegorizing, the Book of Mormon?
Should You Stay in an Unhappy Marriage for...
Jesus & Lao Tzu: Beginnings and the Afterlife
High Thoughts, Shared Among Friends
Do Your Possessions Reflect Your Soul's Purpose
view all Family blogs