2021-04-27T15:58:34-04:00

Last updated on: April 27, 2021 at 3:58 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 #57 Matthew’s Chronological Contradiction

Reimarus posits that Matthew 28:2 is self-contradictory: “And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” Specifically, Reimarus (1971, 183) makes the claim that if Matthew’s report is true that “the stone had been rolled away by an angel in the presence of the women, then it must be untrue that the women became aware from a distance that the stone had been rolled away and that it was gone.” The NIV translation (1978, 1151) of Mark 16:2-3 supports Reimarus’s interpretation that from a distance (i.e., “they were on their way to the tomb”) the women observed that the tomb’s entrance was not blocked.

Mk 16:2 Very early on the first day of the week, they were on their way to the tomb. It was just after sunrise. They asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb?”

Mk 16:3 Then they looked up and saw that the stone had been rolled away. The stone was very large.

To recapitulate, Mark has the women viewing from a distance as the stone was being rolled away just prior to their physical arrival at the tomb. Therefore, Reimarus maintains that the chronological order of the text in Matthew is switched since he narrates (1) the women came to the sepulchre, (2) the angel descended from heaven, (3) there was an earthquake, and then (4) the stone was rolled away. (pp. 331-332)

It is readily observed also that the women saw the stone already rolled away when they arrived, as reported in Luke 24:2 and John 20:1. So how does the believer in biblical inspiration explain away what seems at first glance to be a glaring contradiction in Matthew’s account? Well, as is often the case and necessity, one has to examine the Greek word(s) involved and also the tense. Christian apologist Erik Manning presented these texts and then explained:

[L]et’s reconsider what Matthew says. We’re introduced to the passage about the angel by the Greek participle γὰρ (gar). Strong’s Greek Concordance defines it as: “For. A primary participle; properly, assigning a reason.” In other words, it exists to explain the earthquake and set of circumstances as the women found them.

As philosopher Tim McGrew points out, “Matthew uses an aorist participle, which could be (and in some versions is) translated with the English past perfect: “… for an angel of the Lord had descended …”

With this knowledge, let’s look to see how several Bible translations make this meaning of “happened in the past” more clear in Matthew 28:2:

Weymouth: . . . there had been a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord had descended from Heaven, and had come and rolled back the stone, . . .

Young’s Literal Translation: . . .  for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone . . .

New American Standard Bible: And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred . . .

Amplified Bible: And a great earthquake had occurred, . . .

Williams: Now there had been a great earthquake . . .

Wuest:  . . . an angel of the Lord having descended out of heaven and having come . . .

It’s true that this is a minority of translations, but this is significant, and shows that such a rendering is quite possible and permissible, according to the informed and educated judgment of these language scholars / translators. Moreover, the translations of Young, Wuest, and the Amplified Bible were specifically designed to bring out the precise and exact meaning of the Greek, including the sense of tense. This was their guiding principle in translation. It’s also notable that in the notes of the translators of the famous King James Version, it’s acknowledged that a valid alternate reading was “had been.”

Many commentaries also agree with this “past tense” understanding: thus showing that it is neither “fringe” nor simply apologetic special pleading; it is present in the text, according to them, and the translators noted above:

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:  There was a great earthquake – Rather there “had been.” It does not mean that this was while they were there, or while they were going, but that there “had been” so violent a commotion as to remove the stone.
*
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: And, behold, there was—that is, there had been, before the arrival of the women. . . . And this was the state of things when the women drew near. Some judicious critics think all this was transacted while the women were approaching; but the view we have given, which is the prevalent one, seems the more natural.
*
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: And behold there was a great earthquake,…. Or “there had been one” . . .
*
Clarke’s Commentary: All this had taken place before the women reached the sepulchre.
*
Ellicott’s Commentary: The words imply, not that they witnessed the earthquake, but that they inferred it from what they saw.
*
Expositor’s Bible Commentary: [W]hen they came, the sun just rising as they reached the spot, they found the stone already rolled away, and an angel of the Lord at the tomb . . .
*

This information removes Alter’s ever-present (and ever-fallacious) charge of contradiction with regard to Matthew 28:2. Nice try but no cigar . . .

***

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 says Matthew contradicts the other three Gospels re: “when was the stone rolled away?” But I show how Matthew’s Greek also allows a harmonious “past” interpretation.

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 the stone rolled away

***

2021-04-27T12:03:48-04:00

Last updated on: April 27, 2021 at 12:03 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 #48 Christian Apologists Doubt Its Historicity

It is most noteworthy that even Christian apologists with impeccable credentials doubt the historicity of the visit to Pilate and the request of a guard. For example, Craig (1989b, 211) writes: “Matthew’s account has been nearly universally rejected as an apologetic legend” but then adds a personal apologetic, “though the reasons for this assessment are of unequal worth.” Jumping forward almost twenty years, Craig (1998, 211-12) was interviewed and specifically questioned about the controversy related to the guard at the tomb. His full comment bears sensible and thoughtful consideration:

“Only Matthew reports that guards were placed around the tomb,” he replied. “But in any event, I don’t think the guard story is an important facet of the evidence for the Resurrection.

For one thing, it’s too disputed by contemporary scholarship. I find it’s prudent to base my arguments on evidence that’s most widely accepted by the majority of scholars, so the guard story is better left aside.”

Similarly, John Wenham (1992, 79) openly and candidly admits that Matthew’s story of the Roman guard “bristles with improbabilities at every point.”

Plainly, these two Christian apologetic scholars raise doubt as to the veracity of Matthew’s account. (pp. 288-289)

CONTRADICTION #49 Historical Reliability

The visit of the Jewish leadership to Pilate on the Sabbath is doubtful. First, Matthew is the only gospel to record this remarkable event. In the eyes of Christian apologists, omission of facts by three of the four gospel narrators is considered to be a weak position by opponents of Jesus’s resurrection since it is an argument based on silence. (p. 289)

Unfortunately, for all of his fascination with and deference to “contemporary scholarship” William Lane Craig is not equally as enthralled with virtually universal Christian tradition regarding Christology and theology proper concerning God the Father. He’s been one of the most notable defenders theism against atheism. Yet (very sadly, as I, like many others, have enjoyed his work) he is indeed a heretic, from the perspective of historic Christianity; on three very serious counts:

1) He denies that Jesus has two wills, which is the heresy of monothelitism.

2) He denies that God is outside of time after the creation (writing, “God ought to be considered as timeless sans creation and temporal subsequent to creation.”: “God, Time, and Eternity”). That is rank heresy, too, because it means that God can change, which violates the dogma of His immutability.

3) He denies that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, which is a denial of what is called the monarchia or principatus of the Father — meaning that the Father is not “begotten”; the Son is, and the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).

 

These are all dogmas of the Catholic faith (agreed to by most traditional Protestants as well), but Dr. Craig appeals to his own (heretical) interpretation of Scripture, which for him trumps any apostolic tradition of the Church; thumbing his nose (in a 2007 article) even at “Nicene orthodoxy.”

Bottom line: Dr. Craig is not the final word in Christian apologetics. He’s not even a true Christian, so he doesn’t speak for us. He speaks for general theism over against atheism, and biblical inspiration insofar as he actually accepts the inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture. In this instant he doesn’t. His substitution for that is a head count of the scholars (which has also been Michael Alter’s constant — self-defeating — method in his book).

Likewise, Anglican John Wenham — though generally a “conservative” Christian scholar, didn’t always accept the inspiration of Holy Scripture, either. According to the Wikipedia article on him, he rejected the biblical doctrine of eternal hellfire and the eternality of souls:

Wenham . . . held to the position of “conditional immortality” – or the belief that the human soul is not by default eternal in nature; this belief goes hand in hand with the notion that sinners, once cast into hell, are at some point burned up and essentially no longer exist. (This doctrine is also frequently referred to as annihilationism.) In his book Facing Hell, An Autobiography 1913–1996, Wenham writes, “I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the Gospel. I should indeed be happy, if before I die, I could help in sweeping it away.”

Eternal torment in hell is unquestionably taught in the New Testament, as I have documented. Jesus Himself taught a lot more about hell than about heaven. But because it is an emotional topic and difficult to defend (in our rapidly secularizing, postmodernist age), it has become fashionable in recent decades for otherwise solidly traditional scholars to reject or seriously question it.

Other examples among evangelical Protestants are F. F. Bruce (who thought annihilationism was a permissible interpretation, without himself holding it) and John R. W. Stott, who wrote that “the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment” [source]. No one can reject the traditional Christian teaching on hell without rejecting biblical infallibility and biblical inspiration (in those places where the New Testament plainly teachings eternal torment in hell).

I repeat for the umpteenth time: scholars are not the final word, the final court of appeal, or the “magisterium” in any form of traditional, orthodox, historic Christianity. Christianity is a religious faith: not an academic field like geology or botany or astronomy. Rather, the “rule of faith” is inspired and infallible Holy Scripture for Protestants, and inspired and infallible Holy Scripture, interpreted in light of harmonious sacred tradition and authoritative Church teaching, for Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

In a word, it is irrelevant to us, then, what William Lane Craig (not even a Christian) or John Wenham happen to think about guards at the tomb: seeing that they (at least at times) arbitrarily pick-and-choose what they will believe in the Bible.

For an opposing view, I will turn to a philosopher who actually believes — as far as I can tell — in the inspiration of Scripture and historic Protestant Christianity: Dr. Timothy McGrew. He responded to this very argument in Michael’s book in an article from 24 February 2019, entitled, “Was There a Guard at Jesus’ Tomb?” I shall now cite his words in the article almost in its entirety, and also further relevant combox comments:

Skeptical objections to the historicity of the Gospel narratives are numerous. They are also, for the most part, old news. When so many people have gone over the same ground so often, we should not expect much in the way of novelty. Still, every so often someone manages to state some objections so forcefully, or at least with so much bravado and so many footnotes, that they appear to be a new and devastating challenge to the basic factual accuracy of the Gospels.

Michael Alter’s book The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry (2015) is certainly long enough to seem imposing, . . . [but] I am unimpressed by Alter’s arguments . . .

[V. J. ] Torley [following Alter’s reasoning] rejects the story that there was a guard at the tomb for the following four reasons:

A. It is mentioned only in Matthew’s Gospel, not in the other three.

B. This account fails to explain why the body could not have been stolen on Friday night.

C. We are not told why Pilate would agree to the Jewish leaders’ request. In particular:

1. The request concerned a purely religious matter, and we would not expect Pilate to care much about such things
2. Pilate had just been pressured into ordering Jesus’ crucifixion, and therefore any further request would be unlikely to meet with a favorable reception

D. The Jewish rulers would not have made such a request of Pilate, since a gentile employed by a Jew would not be allowed to work on the Sabbath.

Let us consider these reasons in turn.

First, only Matthew’s Gospel mentions the setting of a guard at Jesus’ tomb. It is not clear how much weight Torley intends this fact to bear by itself. But as the argument from silence in such cases is generally terribly weak, it is hard to see why it should be significant just here. Many of the events of antiquity crop up in only one source. The conditions that have to be met for an argument from silence to be strong are rather stringent and are rarely met in historical work. (For details, see my paper “The Argument from Silence,” Acta Analytica 29 (2014), 215-28.) As Torley has not attempted to argue that the silence of the other evangelists meets the probabilistic challenge laid out there, I will not belabor the point.

Second, Torley objects that the account does not explain why the body could not have been stolen on Friday night. In making this objection, he assumes that the request was made on Saturday morning. For the moment, suppose it was; even so, the objection has little force. There are simply too many plausible ways for the rulers to fail to make the request on Friday. Pilate might have left pointed instructions that he wasn’t to be bothered further that evening. The Jewish leaders might have left someone of their own to keep an eye on the tomb overnight. Failing that, they might still have thought that it would be better than nothing to have a guard set for the remainder of the time period specified.

But it is not even clear from the text that the request was made on Saturday. The Jews reckoned the beginning of the Sabbath with sundown on Friday, so for all the text says, they may have made the request on Friday evening as soon as they ascertained the location of Jesus’ body. In his work The Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, According to the Four Evangelists (London: J. Hatchard and Son, 1827), Johann David Michaelis argues that the language of Matthew, with its peculiar turn of phrase (ἥτις ἐστὶν μετὰ τὴν Παρασκευήν, hardly necessary after Τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον unless something more specific than the generic succession of days is intended) actually indicates that the request was made just past sundown on Friday:

Literally translated, on the following day, which is after Friday. As it is self-evident that one day must follow another, and it requires no author to tell us this, the meaning is, “on the following day, immediately after the end of Friday,” or in other words, immediately after sunset, with which, according to the custom of the Jews, the day ends, and the sabbath begins. This mode of speaking seems singular in Greek, but in Hebrew, from the same word [ערב] signifying “evening,” “holy evening,” or, as we should say, “vespers,” it becomes more intelligible. The meaning is, that from an apprehension the body might be stolen in the night, they did not wait until the following morning, they went immediately to Pilate that same evening, which now no longer belonged to Friday, but formed part of the sabbath, and requested a guard. [100; cf. the German edition, 83]

Various other New Testament scholars, not all of them conservative (Doddridge, Paulus, Kuinoel, Thorburn) concur in Michaelis’s analysis. Meyer dissents, but without adducing any reasons other than his disagreement with these authorities regarding the meaning of the expression τῇ ἐπαύριον. He does not engage with Michaelis’s point regarding the parallel Hebrew expression [ממחרת ערב השבת] at all.

The second objection, then, is either very weak (if Michaelis is wrong) or completely misguided (if he is right). This is hardly the sort of reasoning that should lead us to discard a contemporaneous narrative account of a public event.

The third objection is that Matthew’s narrative does not tell us why Pilate would acquiesce in the request of the Jewish leaders. On the face of it, this is a very odd way to object to historical evidence. Many narratives recount events without affording us an explanation for them, and sometimes we are left to guess what that explanation might be. So what?

But perhaps this problem is just a matter of wording; perhaps the real objection is that the two considerations Torley mention are supposed to make it unlikely that Pilate would grant a guard at the tomb. Is it so?

The first consideration is that Pilate, as a secular authority dealing exclusively with non-religious matters, would have had no reason to grant a request of this sort — perhaps also that the Jewish leaders would not have had the temerity to put it to him. But this consideration misses the mark entirely. The matter of Jesus’ death, though of religious importance to the Jewish rulers, had far wider ramifications. An imposture might well raise civil trouble in Jerusalem, particularly as it was swollen at this time with hundreds of thousands (Josephus, Jewish War 2.14.3 (Loeb #280), estimates three million) of Passover pilgrims. Jesus’ popularity with the crowds was well known. Unrest at Passover had led to disastrous results within living memory, notably on the death of Herod the Great, as Josephus describes in his Antiquities 17.9.3 (Loeb #213-18). Preventing civil unrest lay squarely within Pilate’s sphere of responsibility. On this count, the matter is exactly the sort of thing we would expect the Jewish rulers to request of Pilate. It is a mark of authenticity rather than of inauthenticity.

The second consideration is that Pilate, whom the Jewish leadership had (according to the Gospels) maneuvered into having Jesus crucified against his own better judgment, would have been unlikely to grant them a further request. This point deserves close consideration, because it has a significance that has escaped Torley and Alter. According to the Gospel narratives, Pilate did not believe Jesus had done anything worthy of death. He allowed the Jews to have their way on this matter only because he feared that they would send a twisted version of events to Rome, destabilizing his governorship and perhaps leading to his being recalled in disgrace. For the sake of their argument, Alter and Torley need to grant at least this much authenticity to the Gospel narratives. In a subsequent post, I will return to this point, as it substantially undermines a claim that Torley and others have made in support of the second and third objections.

But the consideration is relevant here only if there is no other reason that Pilate might have felt moved to grant such a request. And even assuming that Pilate was thoroughly unhappy with the Jewish leaders by this time, such a reason lies ready to hand. The theft of a body and proclamation that the individual in question was alive was the sort of scenario a Roman governor under Tiberius could not safely ignore. Some sixteen years earlier, one Clemens, a slave of Caesar Augustus’s grandson Agrippa Postumus, stole the ashes and bones of his murdered master and spread the rumor that Agrippa had in fact escaped the attempt on his life. As he resembled his dead master in age and physique, he went so far as to impersonate him in some of the towns at twilight. Tiberius, who had become sole emperor after the death of his adopted father Augustus in that very year, feared a conspiracy and had Clemens apprehended, interrogated, and slain in a private part of his palace. (See Tacitus, Annals 2.39-40.)

So this second consideration, as well, turns out not only to pose no problem for the authenticity of the narrative but actually to be a point in its favor. These are the sorts of details that modern critics, even those professing to examine historical matters very minutely, are apt to overlook because they are not intimately familiar with the historical context.

The fourth objection is that the Jewish leaders would not have asked Pilate to set a guard at the tomb, since it was the Sabbath day, and Jewish law would have forbidden them to hire a gentile to do such work on the Sabbath. Yet again, the objection seems to me to be fundamentally misguided, and in two ways. First, even supposing the objection to be fairly stated, there is no guarantee that the Jewish authorities would be particularly scrupulous in the matter of hiring a Roman guard to do their work, as they had already shown their willingness to hold a trial by night in prima facie violation of their own rules.

But as it happens, the text does not bear out the idea that they were hiring anyone. Rather, they were making a request to Pilate, as the civil governor, that he would secure the tomb with a guard. Nothing in Jewish law as interpreted at the time would prevent them from making such a request.

I conclude that on the first point, Alter’s argument, as summarized by Torley, completely fails to undermine the credibility Matthew’s account of the setting of a guard at the tomb where Jesus had just been buried. Indeed, some of the particular considerations raised against that account are actually points that count on the other side, showing a minute consistency with the historical context and recent historical events that have escaped the notice of these critics.

[from the combox, henceforth] There is certainly something ad hoc going on in Alter’s treatment of the matter, but the problem lies in the methodology Alter employs here rather than in the story as told in Matthew’s Gospel. Start with a surmise — “Maybe it didn’t really happen.” Faced with the fact that there isn’t much reason to doubt it, make up a purely hypothetical motivation that someone might have had for inventing such a story: “Maybe Jesus’ body really was stolen, and they had to create a cover story for that fact.” Faced with the further problem that this particular cover story is hardly what one would invent to answer to that hypothetical state of affairs and could easily be contradicted by people on the ground in Jerusalem who knew the guards, ignore the problem and instead double down on creating hypothetical rationales for other parts of the story. “The guards have to be gotten out of the way so the women can enter …” Okay, why not just have Jesus’ resurrection itself knock them out instead of resorting to the awkward fabrication of their falling asleep? Simple questions like this suffice to show how specious such reasoning is. What historical narrative, however faithful, could not be dissolved (at least in the imagination of the critic) by the application of such methods?

*

It is a matter of balancing probabilities and inclining to the most likely. There are three independent variables here: the prior probability that a guard was set, P(G), the probability of our having the Matthean account, given that a guard was set, P(M|G), and the probability of our having that account, given that a guard was not set, P(M|~G). I contend that, on the basis of such information as we actually possess, P(G) is not particularly low, and therefore the ratio P(G)/P(~G) is not significantly less than 1. I have disposed of Alter’s attempt to argue to the contrary. P(M|G) is not itself wildly low; if that is what happened, this is more or less the sort of account we might hope to have of it. P(M|~G), however, is very low; I cannot see why anyone would think it is even on the same order of magnitude as P(M|G). Therefore, P(G)/P(~G) ≈ 1, and P(M|G)/P(M|~G) >> 1; therefore, P(G|M)/P(~G|M) >> 1; therefore, P(G|M) is easily more likely than not.

*

[T]he only people who look gullible here are those trying to do a priori history in order to explain away the primary sources.

*

I might, with a great deal more justice, say that anyone who thinks such considerations as Alter and Best have offered carry weight in a historical argument is more concerned to reject the Gospel narratives than to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

*

I could name plenty of ancient historians, New Testament scholars, and classicists who do in fact take the Gospel narratives in general and Matthew’s account in particular very seriously. But I much fear that Eric would dismiss them all on the same ground that he uses to dismiss the extrabiblical writers who speak of the Jewish story that the disciples stole Jesus’s body – that they are Christians, or influenced by Christianity, and they are therefore not to be taken seriously. Those who appreciate circular reasoning in defense of a preestablished conclusion are welcome to derive whatever satisfaction they can from such a strategy.

*

Many real events seem far less probable on their face than this. The career of Julius Caesar is an instance — or far more incredibly, that of Napoleon Bonaparte. If we were allowed to use uncalibrated personal incredulity as a principle of inference, it would send a wrecking ball through the discipline of history, ancient and modern.

[Michael Alter replied directly to Dr. McGrew in the combox, and to his wife Lydia (also a credentialed philosopher) and others in the thread, six times: [one / two / three / four / five / six]

***

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 contends that two Christian apologists (both of dubious orthodoxy) questioned the account of the guards at the tomb; therefore (huh?!), it’s a “contradiction.”

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, guards at the tomb

***

2021-04-27T10:23:47-04:00

Last updated on: April 27, 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 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 #37 Who Took Jesus’s Body Down from the Cross?

There is a definite contradiction concerning the removal of Jesus’s body from the cross as recorded in Acts. Acts 13:27-29 states that Paul was informed that Jesus was taken down from the cross by the Romans, the same people who crucified him.

Acts 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets
which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.

Acts 13:28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

Acts 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.

The passage in Acts, attributed to Paul but written by Luke, declares that those who took part in the recovery of Jesus’s body were responsible for his execution. Consequently, Paul emphasizes that Jesus was taken down from the cross, not by his followers but by his enemies, the very group who Paul accuses of arranging for his death. (p. 229)

Note that Matthew 27:57-60, Mark 15:43-46 and Luke 23:50-53 all assert that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus, whereas here it appears that the hostile Jewish rulers who sought His execution did it (which appears prima facie to be a contradiction). Moreover, John 19:38-42 informs us that both Joseph and Nicodemus buried Jesus. Hence, Alter contends:

In direct contradiction, the synoptic narratives claim that the action of taking down Jesus’s body is carried out by Joseph alone. This contradiction seems particularly odd since the author of Acts is also believed to be the writer of Luke, yet he records conflicting accounts. How then is it possible that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles conflict?

Adding to the confusion, John 19:39 states that it was Joseph and Nicodemus who take the body, prepare the body, and bury the body: . . . (p. 229)

Alter also revisits this entire discussion later on in his book:

CONTRADICTION #41 John and Acts versus the Synoptics

John and Acts directly contradict the synoptic Gospels regarding who buried Jesus. The synoptic Gospels report that Joseph alone buried Jesus. . . . 

To the contrary, John and Acts report that a plurality of people buried Jesus. John 19:42 claims that Joseph and Nicodemus buried Jesus: “There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews’ preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.” In addition, Acts 13:29 reports that a plurality of people buried Jesus: “And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.” Thus, there is a glaring and incontrovertible contradiction. (p. 274; essentially the same argument is reiterated in “CONTRADICTION #42 Acts versus the Synoptics and John” on p. 275)

The question of Joseph or Joseph + Nicodemus as the person(s) who buried Jesus is not a logical contradiction because the Synoptics  (directly contrary to Alter’s false claim) do not use the terminology of “alone” or “only” with regard to this action of Joseph, nor do they make the other claim that would establish a contradiction beyond all doubt: that Nicodemus was not involved at all. Hence, no contradiction on this score is present. I didn’t create the rules of logic; I only abide by them and point it out in the course of dialogue or non-dialogical apologetics when others don’t.

The question of whether one or two of those men or the Jewish rulers buried Jesus, is a much more difficult one, but it does have a plausible explanation, and it is again based on the common biblical phenomenon of a non-literal usage of words. If a word or sentence was not intended to be literal in the first place, then applying logic to it involves additional considerations of interpretation. The idiomatic usage has to be taken into account as well.

I again appeal to E. W. Bullinger’s wonderful book, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898; reprinted by Baker book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1968). It’s available online on several different sites (here’s one). Bullinger classifies Acts 13:29 as an instance of actually two sorts of non-literal figurative use of language: ellipsis and idiom. Bullinger defines the first:

El-lip´-sis. This is the Greek word ἔλλειψις, a leaving in, from ἐν (en) in, and λείπειν (leipein) to leave.

‘The figure is so called, because some gap is left in the sentence, which means that a word or words are left out or omitted. The English name of the figure would therefore be Omission.

The figure is a peculiar form given to a passage when a word or words are omitted; words which are necessary for the grammar, but are not necessary for the sense.

The laws of geometry declare that there must be at least three straight lines to enclose a space. So the laws of syntax declare that there must be at least three words to make complete sense, or the simplest complete sentence. These three words are variously named by grammarians. In the sentence “Thy word is truth,” “Thy word” is the subject spoken of, “truth” is what is said of it (the predicate), and the verb “is” (the copula) connects it.

But any of these three may be dispensed with; and this law of syntax may be legitimately broken by Ellipsis.

The omission arises not from want of thought, or lack of care, or from accident, but from design, in order that we may not stop to think of, or lay stress on, the word omitted, but may dwell on the other words which are thus emphasised by the omission. For instance, in Matthew 14:19, we read that the Lord Jesus “gave the loaves to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.”

There is no sense in the latter sentence, which is incomplete, “the disciples to the multitude,” because there is no verb. The verb “gave” is omitted by the figure of Ellipsis for some purpose. If we read the last sentence as it stands, it reads as though Jesus gave the disciples to the multitude! (p. 1)

He goes on to explain how ellipsis can be found in three kinds in Scripture: absolute, relative, and the ellipsis of repetition. Acts 13:29 involves absolute ellipsis, which in turn has four sub-varieties and further categories. So this instance is “the omission of nouns and pronouns” and (as a further sub-category), “the omission of the nominative.” Bullinger provides many examples of this from both testaments. I will cite all of them, save one lengthy examination (for the sake of brevity). They are found on pages 4-8:

I. The Omission of Nouns and Pronouns

1. The Omission of the Nominative

Genesis 14:19-20.-Melchizedek said to Abram, “Blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand. And he [i.e., Abram] gave him tithes of all.”

From the context, as well as from Hebrews 7:4, it is clear that it was Abram who gave the tithes to Melchizedek, and not Melchizedek to Abram.

Genesis 39:6.-“And he left all that he had in Joseph’s hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread Which he did eat. And Joseph was a goodly person, and well-favoured.”

Here it is not at all clear which it was of the two who “knew not ought he had.” If we understand Potiphar, it is difficult to see how he only knew the bread he ate: or if Joseph, it is difficult to understand how he knew not ought he had.

If the Ellipsis, however, is rightly supplied, it makes it all clear.

The verse may be rendered, and the Ellipsis supplied as follows:- “And he [Potiphar] left all that he had in Joseph’s hand: and he [Potiphar] knew not anything save the bread which he was eating. And Joseph was beautiful of figure, and beautiful of appearance.”

All difficulty is removed when we remember that “the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians” (43:32). Everything, therefore, was committed by Potiphar to Joseph’s care, except that which pertained to the matter of food.

2 Samuel 3:7.-“And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, and … said to Abner, Wherefore, etc.”

Here it is clear from the Sense of the next verse and 2 Samuel 21:8 that “Ishbosheth” is the word to be supplied, as is done in italics.

2 Samuel 23:20.-“He slew two lionlike men of Moab.”

The Massorah points out [Note: Ginsburg’s Edition, Vol. i., p. 106.] that the word Ariel occurs three times, in this passage and Isaiah 29:1. In Isa. the word is twice transliterated as a proper name, while in 2 Samuel 23:20, margin, it is translated lions of God: the first part of the word אֲרִי (aree) a lion, and the second part אֵל (el) God. But if we keep it uniformly and consistently as a proper name we have with the Ellipsis of the accusative (sons) the following sense: “He slew the two sons of Ariel of Moab.”

2 Samuel 24:1.-“And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”

Here the nominative to the verb “moved” is wanting. Someone moved, and who that was we learn from 1 Chronicles 21:1, from which it is clear that the word Satan or the Adversary is to be supplied, as is done in the margin:-“And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and [the Adversary] moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.”

1 Chronicles 6:28 (12).-“And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Vashni (marg., called also Joel, ver. 33 and 1 Samuel 8:2) and Abiah.”

Here there is an Ellipsis of the name of the firstborn: while the word וַשְׁנִי, Vashni, when otherwise pointed (וְשֵׁנִי) means “and the second“! so that the verse reads,

“And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn [Joel] and the second Abiah.” This agrees with the Syriac Version. The R.V. [Note: The Revised Version, 1881.] correctly supplies the Ellipsis, and translates vashni “and the second.”

“Joel” is supplied from ver. 33 (see also 1 Samuel 8:2, and the note in Ginsburg’s edition of the Hebrew Bible).

Psalms 34:17.-“[They] cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.”

The immediate subject in ver. 16 is evildoers. But it is not these who cry. It is the righteous. Hence the A.V. and the R.V. supply the words “the righteous” in italics. The nominative is omitted, in order that our attention may be fixed not on their persons or their characters, but upon their cry, and the Lord’s gracious answer.

The same design is seen in all similar cases.

Psalms 105:40.-“[They] asked, and he brought quails,” i.e., the People asked. The nominative is supplied in the A.V. But the R.V.  translates it literally “They asked.”

Proverbs 22:27.-“If thou hast nothing to pay, why should one [i.e., the creditor] take away thy bed from under thee?”

Isaiah 26:1.-“In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; we have a strong city; salvation will one [i.e. God] appoint for walls and bulwarks.”

The A.V. interprets by supplying the nominative. The R.V. translates it literally.

Jeremiah 51:19.-“He is the former of all things, and Israel is the rod of his inheritance.”

Here both the A.V. and R.V. supply the Ellipsis from 10:16. Had it been supplied from the immediate context, it would have come under the head of Relative Ellipsis, or that of Repetition.

Ezekiel 46:12.-“Now when the Prince shall prepare a voluntary offering or peace offerings voluntarily unto the Lord, one shall then open him the gate that looketh toward the East, &c.,” i.e., הַשּׁעֵר the gate-keeper (supplied from the noun הַשַּׁעַר, the gate), which follows, shall open the gate.

Zechariah 7:2.-“When they (Heb. he) had sent unto the house of God, Sherezer and Regem-melech and their men, to pray before the Lord” [i.e., when the people who had returned to Judea had sent].

Matthew 16:22.-“Be it far from Thee, Lord.”

Here the Ellipsis in the Greek is destroyed by the translation. The Greek reads, “Ἵλεώς σοι, κύριε” (hileôs soi, kyrie), which is untranslatable literally, unless we supply the Ellipsis of the Nominative, thus: “[God be] merciful to Thee, Lord!” Thus it is in the Septuagint 1 Chronicles 11:19, where it is rendered “God forbid that I should do this thing,” but it ought to be, “[God] be merciful to me [to keep me from doing] this thing.”

Acts 13:29.-“And when they had fulfilled all that was written, of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre,” i.e., Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took him down. But it is the act which we are to think of here rather than the persons who did it. Hence the Ellipsis. . . . 

1 Corinthians 15:53.-“For this corruptible [body] must put on incorruption, and this mortal [body] must put on immortality.”

The noun “body” must also be supplied in the next verse.

Ephesians 1:8.-“Wherein he hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence.”

It is not “wherein,” but ἧς (hees) which, i.e., “[the knowledge] or grace, which he hath made to abound in us in all wisdom and prudence.”

Titus 1:15.-“Unto the pure all things are pure.”

The noun “meats” (i.e., foods) must be supplied as in 1 Corinthians 6:12. “All [meats] indeed are clean to the clean.” The word “clean” being used in its ceremonial or Levitical sense, for none can be otherwise either “pure” or “clean.”

Hebrews 9:1.-“Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service.” Here the word covenant is properly supplied in italics.

2 Peter 3:1.-“This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance,” i.e., “In both which [epistles] I stir up,” etc.

1 John 5:16.-“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life, etc.,” i.e., “[God] shall give him life.” See also Matthew 5:11; Matthew 5:15; Luke 6:38, where men must be the word supplied.

The second non-literal figurative aspect of Acts 13:29 is idiom. Again, for the sake of brevity (utilizing the wonderful and ultra-convenient tool of a link), readers may peruse Bullinger’s multi-faceted definitions. He lists eleven sub-categories for idiom: one of which is “Idiomatic usage of verbs.” Acts 13:29 falls under the further sub-category: “4. Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.” (p. 823). He then provides examples, on pages 823-824. I include all of them:

Genesis 31:7.-Jacob says to Laban: “God did not give him to do me evil”: i.e., as in A.V., God suffered him not, etc.

Exodus 4:21.-“I will harden his heart (i.e., I will permit or suffer his heart to be hardened), that he shall not let the people go.” So in all the passages which speak of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. As is clear from the common use of the same Idiom in the following passages.

Exodus 5:22.-“Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people?” i.e., suffered them to be so evil entreated.

Psalms 16:10.-“Thou wilt not give thine Holy One (i.e., suffer Him) to see corruption.” So the A.V.

Jeremiah 4:10.-“Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people”: i.e., thou hast suffered this People to be greatly deceived, by the false prophets, saying: Ye shall have peace, etc.

Ezekiel 14:9.-“If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet”: i.e., I have permitted him to deceive himself.

Matthew 6:13.-“Lead us not (i.e., suffer us not to be led) into temptation.”

Matthew 11:25.-“I thank thee, O Father … because thou hast hid (i.e., not revealed) these things,” etc.

Matthew 13:11.-“It is given to know unto you,” etc. (i.e., ye are permitted to know … but they are not permitted to know them.

Acts 13:29.-“When they (i.e., the rulers, verse 27) had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre”: i.e., they permitted Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus to do so.

Romans 9:18.-“Whom he will he hardeneth”: i.e., he suffereth to be hardened. Not that this in any way weakens the absolute sovereignty of God.

Romans 11:7.-“The rest were hardened”: i.e., were suffered to become blind (as in A.V. marg.).

Romans 11:8.-“God hath given them the spirit of slumber”: i.e., hath suffered them to fall asleep.

2 Thessalonians 2:11.-“For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie”: i.e., God will leave them and suffer them to be deceived by the great Lie which will come on all the world.

 

The Bible is not always easy to understand: especially for those of us who are not ancient Hebrews, and who are unfamiliar with their customs and ways of writing and thinking. It requires a degree of perseverance and study (I’ve been intensely studying it for 44 years — 40 of those as an apologist — : if anyone is wondering). It was always intended to be authoritatively interpreted even for those raised in the culture that it derived from.

Moses was to teach the ancient Hebrews the Law; not just read it to them (Ex 18:20). His brother Aaron was also to teach (Lev 10:11). Moreover, Levite priests were to authoritatively teach (Dt 33:10; 2 Chr 15:3; Mal 2:6-8). Ezra was a teacher of the Law (Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26). When he read the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (Neh 8:3), he had thirteen Levites assisting him “who helped the people to understand the law” (Neh 8:7; cf. 2 Chr 17:8-9). These Levites “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (Neh 8:8). The same scenario applied in the New Testament as well:

Acts 8:30-31 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” [31] And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

2 Peter 3:15-16 . . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

I have provided the proper sense of Acts 13:29, by utilizing Bullinger’s fabulous and comprehensive biblical scholarship; thus showing that the ubiquitous charge of “contradiction” from biblical skeptics is again a false and unsubstantiated one in this instance. Once the failures of the skeptics are demonstrated enough times, the onlooker starts to get a distinct sense that maybe they are the ones (given their abysmal track record) who should be doubted and challenged, rather than Holy Scripture.

Some inquisitive readers may be interested in a collection of scores of my articles, where I solve these alleged biblical contradictions.

***

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 attempted to assert two different contradictions regarding “who buried Jesus?” The first is solved by classical logic, the second through understanding Hebrew idiom.

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, who buried Jesus?, burial of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus

***

2021-04-25T10:05:54-04:00

Last updated on: April 25, 2021 at 10:05 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 #35 Luke Contradicts Mark and Matthew

Luke contradicts Mark and Matthew regarding who in the Sanhedrin condemned and did not condemn Jesus. Mark 14:53 states that Jesus was brought before the high priest and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes after his arrest. Later, Mark 14:64 reports: “And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.” Finally, in Mark 15:1 there is the added information that “in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.” Therefore, Mark went out of his way to emphasize that all members of the council, including Joseph, condemned Jesus and that the whole council delivered him to Pilate. . . . 

Twice Matthew reports in his narrative that the council planned and participated in the actions against Jesus:

Mt 26:59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.

Mt 27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death

Therefore, Matthew substantiates Mark’s narrative that all members of the Sanhedrin participated in the condemnation of Jesus.

Luke 23:50 reports that Joseph of Arimathea too is described as a bouleutēs or a counsellor (AV). Gigot (1910), writing in The Catholic Encyclopedia, elaborates: “He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutēs, literally, ‘a senator’, whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews.” Similarly, Brown (1994a, 2:1227) states: “While preserving Mark’s bouleutēs, which he clearly understands to mean a member of the Sanhedrin responsible for Jesus’ death” (v. 51). Yet in the next verse, Luke directly and
undeniably contradicts Mark and Matthew by stating, “(The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;).” Consequently, Luke 23:51 stressed that all members of the council, except Joseph, condemned Jesus.

Therefore, according to Luke, Mark 14:64 must have been in error when he narrates: (1) “And they all condemned him to be guilty of death,” or (2) it was the whole council except Joseph of Arimathea. (pp. 211-212)

It could have been that Joseph of Arimathea was somehow not present at the council. We’re all familiar with situations in life where appearing somewhere would force us to do something we don’t want to do, so we find some way — any way — to simply not attend. This can’t be ruled out.

But I would rather argue from the biblical use of “all”: where in many instances it doesn’t have the meaning of “absolutely every person or thing without exception.” The particular word here for “all” is holos (Strong’s word #3650). The definition is “whole or complete.” It’s the same root as our word “holistic.” The question is whether it is to be taken absolutely literally every time it appears. And the answer is clearly “no.” Here are other instances of holos (out of 110 in the NT) where a literal interpretation would be nonsensical:

Matthew 4:23 (KJV) Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching

Matthew 4:24 (KJV) went throughout all Syria . . .

What does it even mean to say that someone traversed “all” of a large area? It’s always the case that there are some areas, even if just small ones, that weren’t covered.

Acts 2:46-47 (KJV) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, [47] Praising God, and having favour with all the people.  . . .

The early Christians in Jerusalem couldn’t possibly have been liked and admired by absolutely “all” people without exception. Just 27 verses after this chapter, we read:

Acts 4:1-3 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sad’ducees came upon them, [2] annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. [3] And they arrested them and put them in custody until the morrow, for it was already evening.

 

Moreover, Stephen was stoned to death for preaching the gospel and strongly rebuking unbelievers in Jesus for consenting to His murder (Acts 7:54-60). Acts 8:1 adds: “And Saul [Paul] — before his conversion, of course, described in the next chapter — was consenting to his death.” We also read:

Acts 12:1-3 About that time Herod the king laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church. [2] He killed James the brother of John with the sword; [3] and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also.

Therefore, the first Christians obviously did not literally have “favour with all the people”. It meant in that particular context: “wide favour” or “favour generally speaking; particularly among the common people or the masses.”

Acts 21:30 Then all the city was aroused, and the people ran together; they seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and at once the gates were shut.

This was in Jerusalem: a city of about 60-80,000 people at this time. Are we to believe that every single person in Jerusalem was “aroused” and wanted to persecute Paul? Clearly not . . . They couldn’t possibly even all know what was happening. This is very similar to the passages in question: “all the council” [wanted to kill Jesus] / “all the city” [wanted to arrest and shut up Paul].

In Revelation 12:9 we are informed that “that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan” is “the deceiver of the whole world.” But he is not. Christians resist his tricks and his ploys, which is why the same book also talks about the devil causing some Christians to be thrown into prison (2:10).

Therefore, the word “all” applied to the council of Jewish leaders or Sanhedrin, or any such assembly, does not necessarily mean absolutely every, and does not rule out exceptions to the rule: of whom Joseph of Arimathea was one.

The Hebrew Bible has many similar instances:

Genesis 41:57 Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

Psalms 29:9 . . . in his temple all cry, “Glory!”

Psalms 41:1-3 Blessed is he who considers the poor! The LORD delivers him in the day of trouble; [2] the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; thou dost not give him up to the will of his enemies. [3] The LORD sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness thou healest all his infirmities.

God doesn’t always heal. And being righteous doesn’t cause God to necessarily heal all infirmities. The book of Job alone proves this. God described Job as follows: “there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil” (1:8). Yet Job went through intense suffering (which God allowed). The book is devoted to describing it (and the agony it caused) in excruciating detail. God never explains why. But He certainly didn’t heal him for a long time.

It’s the same in the New Testament. Paul had some sort of malady (many Bible scholars believe it was an eye disease: see 2 Cor 12:7). He asked God three times to heal him (12:8), but God said, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (12:9). And this is a man who healed others. He couldn’t always heal himself.

Many more instances of non-literal meanings of the word “all” in Scripture could easily be provided. What I have already demonstrated is more than enough to explain “all the council” as yet another non-literal / proverbial-type description, which can allow exceptions (in this instance, Joseph of Arimathea). The council as a whole condemned Jesus.

***

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 contends that “all the council” condemned Jesus, & Joseph of Arimathea was a member of it; therefore, it’s a biblical contradiction. Or is it? I show how “all” is used in the NT.

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, Joseph of Arimathea, Sanhedrin, Jewish council, chief priests & elders

2021-04-25T00:27:11-04:00

Last updated on: April 25, 2021 at 12:27 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 #26 How Could John Know Blood and Water Exited Jesus’s Body?

John 19:34 narrates that “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.” However, it is
doubtful that John could have known that water also “bled” from Jesus’s side. Numerous obstacles would make an observance of water flowing from Jesus’s side not plausible.

First, when Jesus’s side is pierced he is hanging from a cross having previously been scourged. Therefore, it would be difficult to see the water
flowing from the side wound as it mixed with the blood from the prior scourging.

Second, given that there is one piercing, the blood and water would be exiting from the same wounded area. Therefore, here too there would be the comingling of blood and water. Assuming this comingling to be correct, how would the witnesses be able to confirm that water also exited this wound area?

Third, there is the issue of sunlight. If Jesus was suspended from the cross several feet off the ground and pierced late in the afternoon, after the three hours of darkness had ended, it is possible that the witnesses would have been looking directly into the sun as it lowered in the western horizon. This looking into the sun could have also impeded their vision. (pp. 185-186)

Either John or some other eyewitness who reported it to him saw what has been verified by medical science; and this is an excellent verification of the trustworthiness and accuracy and (we also say) inspiration of Holy Scripture. A cardio-thoracic surgeon, Dr. Antony de Bono, explained it as follows:

Jesus had a haemothorax, which in the stillness of the dead body, had separated out as they do into two layers: the heavier red cells below and the light watery plasma above. The haemothorax was the result of the savage flagellation.

The withdrawal of the spear would have been followed first by the red cells (blood), then by the lighter plasma (water).

The body of Jesus had been hanging on the cross, dead, for some time. Obviously the fluid must have accumulated during life by a bleeding into the chest cavity, almost certainly due to the savage flagellation.

It is well known that blood in these circumstances in a still dead body starts to separate out, to sediment, the heavier red cells sinking to the bottom leaving a much lighter, straw colored fluid, the plasma above.

When a hole is made by the spear, the red cells, which John describes as blood, gushes out first, followed by the plasma, which John saw as water. [see several other similar medical descriptions]

It’s the consecutive, non-simultaneous draining of the blood first, then water (assuming the above explanation is correct), that would have made it easy to identify by a “lay” onlooker (with the clear fluid being accurately identified as “water”).

Finally, it is rejected that the witnesses would have been permitted to get close enough to verify the water flow. (p. 186)

I submit that it wouldn’t be difficult to see — even quite a ways off — water or a fluid looking like water (the biblical writers habitually use phenomenological language) coming out of Jesus’ side. It would be even easier to see blood (just as one can see blood on the face of a boxer from way up in the stands). The fact that they flowed one after the other, would be even more striking, and perhaps largely accounts for why this story is in John’s Gospel. As it turns out, it’s completely verified by medical science, and the fact that blood came out of Jesus’ side first, followed by a clear liquid, made it possible to clearly distinguish and describe the presence of both.

The only alternative is that the soldier who pierced Jesus’s side is the source of this information. (p. 186)

Alter is constantly ruling out possibilities. He should stop for the sake of his own good, and the effectiveness of his arguments. It could have been any witness, and they didn’t have to be all that close, to notice the change from red blood to a more or less clear liquid. John simply had to consult a witness who saw it happen. It could have been one who was already a Christian and follower of Jesus (one of the “acquaintances”: Luke 23:49) or one who later became a Christian. Or it could come from his own eyewitness experience: standing either close or further away. Or it could even be a non-Christian Jew or Roman who met John at some point: who was impressed by the strange sight to the extent that he or she wished to report it to one who was chronicling these events (either John or some purveyor of an oral tradition that eventually made its way to John).

***

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 contends that it is impossible for John or some other witness to have seen blood & water flowing from Jesus’ side (i.e., an assumed simultaneous flow). A doctor comments . . .

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, blood & water, wound in Jesus’ side

*****

 

2021-04-26T00:05:07-04:00

Last updated on: April 26, 2021 at 12:05 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 #21 The Differing Accounts of the Women at the Cross during the Crucifixion

The synoptic narratives reported differing details of those present at Jesus’s crucifixion and the actions they took. (p. 167)

That’s to be expected. Differences are not necessarily contradictions, as I have explained to atheists and biblical skeptics till I am blue in the face (to no avail).

Mark 14:50 reports that the only people present at the death of Jesus were several women. (p. 167)

Wrong. Mark 14:50 says nothing about the crucifixion. It says that the disciples “forsook him, and fled” at the time of the arrest of Jesus. This is very shoddy, reckless argumentation” not even worthy of the name.

One chapter later, Mark 15:40 tersely reports a singular action: “There were also women looking on afar off.” Mark adds that “among whom where Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.” Consequently, there were also other women present in the vicinity when Jesus died. (p. 167)

All correct. What the text does not say is that — of Jesus’ followers and disciples —  only women were present at the crucifixion (however “far off” they were).

Contrary to the synoptic Gospels, John alone has Jesus’s mother present during Jesus’s crucifixion. This is the first appearance of Jesus’s mother in John. Out of nowhere she suddenly appears. (p. 167)

This is untrue. Mary had appeared in the story of the wedding of Cana, which detailed the first public miracle of Jesus” turning the water into wine (Jn 2:1-11). She was referred to as “the mother of Jesus” twice (2:1, 3) and “His mother” (2:5).

Alter then goes on to provide a list of the “few references to her physical presence in any of the gospels” (p. 167): presumably a complete list, which he presents “chronologically” (eight passages in all). But it’s not complete. He manages to somehow overlook Matthew 2:11, which is about Jesus’ Nativity, Matthew 2:14, 20-21, about the flight of Mary and Joseph to Egypt, Matthew 12:46: “his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him”, Mark 3:31: “And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him” (in 3:32 the crowd reiterates this), and Luke 8:19: “Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd” (reiterated by the crowd in 8:20).

He found eight passages that reference the “physical presence” of Mary, and missed five (or 38% of all of them). The cause was obviously his overlooking a necessary search of “his mother” and “mother”. This brought about his erroneous statement about Mary first appearing in the Gospel of John in the 19th chapter and a list that missed five mentions of her being present.

Consequently, there is no description of the physical presence of Jesus’s mother for almost eighteen years, from the age of twelve to the age of thirty. (p. 168)

That’s right. So what?

Not only is this physical appearance highly remarkable but John also reports a terse communication Jesus had with his mother while on the cross: . . . 

Jn 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman,
behold thy son! (p. 168)

 

“Terse” is defined by Dictionary.com (2nd definition, which seems to be what Alter is implying) as “abruptly concise; curt; brusque.” Following the same source’s definition for “curt” we find: “rudely brief in speech or abrupt in manner.” And “brusque” is “abrupt in manner; blunt; rough.” Basically, then, Alter is arguing that Jesus was being “rude, short, rough, or improperly blunt” with His own mother, while He was dying: something far less than deferential or respectful. This is outrageous, even considering that Alter, of course, dies not believe in the Christian view of Jesus as God incarnate.  It’s simply not what was happening in this instance.

Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin — as he always does — provides an excellent explanation of this:

The title “Woman” is not a sign of disrespect, it is the opposite — a title of dignity. It is a formal mode of speech equivalent to the English titles, “Lady” or “Madam.”

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

“The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But . . . In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses Penelope, his well-loved wife [Iliad 3, 204; Odyssey 19, 221]. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatra, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it” (The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, p. 98).

Similarly, the Protestant Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:

Jesus’ reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. ‘Woman’ (gynai) was a polite form of address. . . . (vol. 9, p. 42).

Even the Fundamentalist Wycliff Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse, “In his reply, the use of ‘Woman’ does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26)” (p. 1076).

So there is nothing to this. It doesn’t even make any sense. Alter believes John simply makes up what Jesus said; it has little relation to either accuracy or history. So why would he make up a scene in which a dying Jesus, worried about the protection of His mother after He is dead, entrusts her to one of His best friends, but does so in a “terse” and rude manner? What sense does that make? It makes no sense, whether one regards the words as historical or pure fiction. It’s not plausible. Jesus (from all we know of Him) simply wouldn’t act like that, and if it is mere myth, John would have no possible reason (that I can imagine, anyway) to present Him as rude to His mother at such an agonizing moment, near His own death. It’s purely absurd to think so.

Yet not one of the synoptic Gospels reports the dying words of Jesus to his mother or even her presence at his death. In particular, it is extraordinary, if not incredible, that Luke did not report these events having examined “all things from the very first” (Lk 1:3) and to have deliberately omitted them. (p. 168)

So what? In God’s providence, He saw that one of the evangelists did mention it, and that is sufficient to preserve it for posterity. John reported her close presence and the words spoken because he was an eyewitness; he was there! Alter doesn’t assert it here, but the title of this sub-section implies that this omission is one of his alleged “contradictions” (using his arbitrary, modified, unscholarly definition of the word in order to suit his own agenda of NT-bashing). But, again, I reiterate: arguments from silence do not establish contradiction.

Alter further charges:

Finally, John 19:25 contradicted the synoptic Gospels by reporting that the women were positioned close to the cross when Jesus died: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” Yet the synoptic narrative reports that the women were positioned far away.

Mk 15:40-41 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

Mt 27:55-56 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.

Lk 23:49, 55 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things . . . And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. (p. 169)

We agree that the Synoptics report onlookers being “afar off” (KJV) or at a “distance” (RSV). If tradition is correct, we know the spot where they stood, and I stood on it in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in October 2014. My rough estimate is that it was about half of a football field away (150 feet). This is consistent with the biblical “afar” or at a “distance.”

Alter himself notes (see above) that only the Gospel of John reports Jesus’ mother having been at the crucifixion. And it’s the only Gospel that alludes to one of the disciples — John Himself — being there. What Alter neglects to consider is that this could very well have been a report of a different occurrence from what the Synoptics detail. We have no time frame given. We know that Jesus’ agony and death on the cross took about six hours.

In fact, we have some possible clues about the time of each described observance. In terms of the order of things mentioned in the text, Mark refers to the female onlookers three verses (15:40) after He notes Jesus’ death (15:37). It’s not proof, but it’s a hint or indication that they were there at the time of His death. Matthew utilizes the same order of report: Jesus’ death (27:50) / description of the women (27:55-56). It’s the same again in Luke: Jesus’ death (23:46) and noting the women and other “acquaintances” present (23:49).

John, on the other hand, seems to place his scene shortly after Jesus was nailed to the cross, since he talks about the soldiers dividing up Jesus’ garments: “When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts” (19:23) and right after mentioning that, he describes “his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene” who were “standing by the cross” (19:25), along with John himself (19:26). Again, it’s not ironclad proof but it’s interesting and something to consider in the overall mix.

Where there is overlap of mentioned women (present near the cross and at a “distance”), it’s still not undeniably contradictory, since that would require variant assertions of a person being in two different places at a given particular time or the entire time.  For example, Mary Magdalene was mentioned as being close to the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, and further off (in Matthew and Mark). She would simply have moved (possibly being forced to move by the Roman soldiers) from one place to the other: perhaps earlier by the cross and later (up to the time of Jesus’ death) at a distance.

None of this is a big deal or a stretch at all. In my own life, I recall that I attended a Detroit Pistons game with my daughter (against the Golden State Warriors: then the world champions). It could rightly be said that “Dave and Angelina watched the two teams from the fifth row” and also that we “observed the Pistons and the Warriors from distant seats up near the rafters.” Both things are true! But more information needs to be added to explain it fully. When we were in the fifth row it was temporarily watching the teams warm up. Then we moved to our actual seats that we had tickets for. So we did both things, and it’s not contradictory at all. They were at different times. But if someone said “Dave and his daughter watched the game the entire time from row 5 and someone else said we did that — the entire time — from one of the last rows, then that would be contradictory, and either both reports would be wrong or one wrong and the other right: to be determined upon further investigation.

Likewise, what would be an actual logical contradiction regarding our topic would be if some verses describing the crucifixion stated that all of the female onlookers (whether Mary, the mother of Jesus is mentioned by name or not) were without exception, always standing at a distance, the entire time of the crucifixion, while John 19:25 taught that Mary, Jesus’ mother stood near the cross.  That’s an actual contradiction. There are a number of scenarios that can be imagined that would be undeniably contradictory (according to the laws of logic: not the unbridled, irrational whims and fancies of Bible critics). But of course the Gospels don’t assert anything even remotely contradictory.

My explanation is not in the least inconsistent with all the relevant texts considered together. Nothing in those texts would preclude such a theory, which is not implausible at all. Two different things were being recorded: observance from afar, and observance much closer to the cross. And even overlap of the women mentioned is not a contradiction unless the claims contradict and are incoherent and confused with regard to the specific times and locations involved.

***

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 argues that the New Testament presents conflicting and “contradictory” accounts as regards the women at the crucifixion. I show how these charges have no basis in either the relevant texts or logic.

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 at the crucifixion, bystanders at the crucifixion, onlookers at the crucifixion

2021-04-23T11:12:50-04:00

Last updated on: April 23, 2021 at 11:12 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 #20 The Forsaking of the Disciples

The synoptic narratives reports differing details of those present at Jesus’s crucifixion and the actions they took. In Mark 14:50, none of the apostles are described as being present during Jesus’s crucifixion: “And they all forsook him, and fled.” (p. 166)

That passage has nothing to do with the crucifixion, but rather with the arrest of Jesus (14:41-50). It refers to their forsaking of him at that particular moment. But what could they have done, anyway? They were supposed to engage in a brawl with “a crowd with swords and clubs” (14:43)? They simply didn’t want to be arrested. It was a perfectly human and understandable reaction. They couldn’t prevent Jesus from being arrested, but (whether rightly or wrongly) they could prevent it happening to themselves. But to repeat: this tells us nothing whatsoever about whether any of them were at the crucifixion. So it’s an irrelevant and wrongheaded use of a Bible passage.

Matthew 26:56 also reports that all the disciples had deserted their Master at the time of Jesus’s arrest. (p. 166)

Yes, precisely as in Mark 14:50; neither passage has anything to do with witnessing firsthand the crucifixion of Jesus.

Luke 23:48 reports: “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.” Then, in verse 48 [should be 49], he adds: “And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.” Significantly, Luke fails to identify these acquaintances. Consequently, it is impossible to determine if any of these acquaintances were his disciples. (p. 166)

That’s correct.

A contradiction exists, given that Luke’s acquaintances include any of the disciples. (p. 166)

It does not. “All” is often not used literally in Scripture (the same happens in English; e.g., “all of Detroit came out to greet the world champion Detroit Pistons”). “All his acquaintance” in this context simply means, “lots of his acquaintances.” The non-literality is clear in verse 48 as well. Are we to believe that every single person without exception went away, beating their breasts? Of course not. Luke 23:48 is a general, proverbial statement, to the effect of saying: “the general consensus is that the witnesses who were there went away grieving.” Because “smoting one’s breast” was one Hebrew expression of grief (see, e.g., Nah 2:7), that visual depiction was used.

If someone doesn’t want to take my word (often my critics don’t!), I can provide several examples of such things in Scripture, and the authority of linguistic Bible sources. I did so, in one of my articles published at National Catholic Register:

The word for “all” . . . in Greek (pas) [the word in Lk 23:49 rendered “all”] can indeed have different meanings: as it does in English. It matters not if it means literally “every single one” in some places, if it can mean something less than “absolutely every” elsewhere in Scripture. . . .

In verse 1:29 [of Romans] the KJV has the phrase, “being filled with all unrighteousness,” whereas RSV adopts the more particular, specific meaning, “all manner of wickedness.” . . . in 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as “filled with all knowledge” (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong’s Concordance. . . . 

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged Ed.) states:

Pas can have different meanings according to its different uses . . . in many verses, pas is used in the NT simply to denote a great number, e.g., “all Jerusalem” in Mt 2:3 and “all the sick” in 4:24. (pp. 796-797)

See also Matthew 3:5; 21:10; 27:25; Mark 2:13; 9:15; etc., especially in KJV.

Likewise, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives “of every kind” as a possible meaning in some contexts (p. 491, Strong’s word #3956). And Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words tells us it can mean “every kind or variety.” (vol. 1, p. 46, under “All”). . . .

We see Jewish idiom and hyperbole in passages of similar meaning. Jesus says: “No one is good but God alone” (Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17). Yet He also said: “The good person brings good things out of a good treasure.” (Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45; 7:17-20; 22:10). Furthermore, in each instance in Matthew and Luke above of the English “good” the Greek word is the same: agatho.

Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God’s, but He doesn’t deny that we can be “good” in a lesser sense. We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:

Psalm 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, [Hebrew, tob] no not one. (cf. 53:1-3; Paul cites this in Rom 3:10-12)

Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims, “I have trusted in thy steadfast love” (13:5), which certainly is “seeking” after God! And in the very next he refers to “He who walk blamelessly, and does what is right” (15:2). Even two verses later (14:5) he writes that “God is with the generation of the righteous.” So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance.

Such remarks are common to Hebrew poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the “righteous” (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words “righteous” or “good” (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.). . . .

The key in all this is to understand biblical language properly in context. It’s not always literal.

That is, Luke is known to have been highly dependent upon Mark and Matthew. Yet Luke seemingly rejects something reported by Mark and Matthew. Why then would Luke change such an important fact? (p. 166)

It’s a non-issue once the common non-literal use of “all” (pas in Greek in the NT) is understood. The problem with a lot of Bible critics is that they lack a basic understanding of different biblical genres (not to mention ancient Hebrew culture) and the over 200 non-literal figures of speech that are commonly used. I’ve seen this scores and scores of times among atheist biblical “exegetes” (whom I have refuted a few hundred times). They interpret the Bible in a woodenly literal manner that is very typical of relatively uneducated fundamentalist Protestants. In many cases, they actually were from that background, by their own report. So I have to get them up to speed in their biblical exegesis (a term very loosely applied in their case) and hermeneutics by informing them of the basic, elementary principles of those endeavors.

An even greater contradiction appears in John. (p. 166)

It’s not contradictory at all, as explained above. The Synoptics never claimed that no disciple was present at the cross. And the use of “all his acquaintance” was clearly non-literal in context.

Contrary to the synoptic Gospels, John had at least one disciple present during Jesus’s crucifixion, the disciple “whom he loved.”

Jn 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Jn 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Jn 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Not only is he the only disciple identified as being present during the Crucifixion, but Jesus also carried on a conversation with him and directed him to care for his mother! In effect, John’s narrative reads like a completely different story from the synoptic accounts. (p. 166)

As in all these alleged “contradictions,” what is happening is a consistent, non-contradictory complementarity of texts. The same occurs here. Almost all Christian commentators believe that John was the sole disciple at the cross. But there were also several “women who had followed him from Galilee” (Lk 23:49) and His mother. These included Mary Magdalene, who was His first follower (male or female) to see Him risen again. So He was not “forsaken” at the cross by all of His disciples, nor all of His larger group of “followers.” Nor does any text claim that He was. The women in His circle proved themselves more courageous than the men (which is so often the case in general life). I think that is one reason Jesus chose to first appear after His Resurrection to a woman: a little bit of pointed divine sense of humor . . .

But all the disciples save again for John, and Judas, died horrible deaths as martyrs; so in the long run they indeed proved themselves loyal, heroic, and obedient followers of Jesus, who went out and “turned the world upside down.”

In conclusion, given that Luke’s acquaintances included his disciples, Luke and John (John states that at least one disciple was at the cross during Jesus’s crucifixion) directly contradicts Mark and Matthew. However, if Luke’s “acquaintances” did not include the disciples, now there is a contradiction between John and all of the synoptic Gospels. (p. 167)

None of this is established at all, as just demonstrated.

***

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 argues that the NT contradicts itself regarding “disciples forsaking Jesus” & those present at the cross. I refute his arguments by logic & explanation of Hebrew non-literal idiom.

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, disciples forsaking Jesus

2021-04-21T13:25:02-04:00

Last updated on: April 21, 2021 at 1:25 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 #10 Significant Omissions of Luke’s Narrative in Three Gospels

The gospel narratives present significantly differing details about the thieves on the cross. At first appearance, the details in Mark, Luke, and John read virtually the same: there are two thieves being crucified along with Jesus. However, in Matthew an additional and significant fact is provided that both thieves also taunted Jesus.  

Mt 27:44 In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him. (NIV)

Mt 27:44 The bandits who were crucified with him also taunted him in the same way. (NRSV)

Mt 27:44 The robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words. (NASB)

Luke’s narrative reads like a completely different story: “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?” . . . 

Matthew stated categorically that both thieves taunted Jesus, whereas Luke reported that just one thief did. (p. 120)

Both things can be true. It could simply (and not implausibly) have been that both thieves reviled Jesus at first, then when one of them “upped the ante” and said to Jesus, “Save yourself and us!” (Lk 23:39), the other had a change of mind, repented, and rebuked him:

Luke 23:40-41 “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? [41] And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

For all we know, there could have also been further conversation not recorded. Jesus might have briefly preached the gospel to both men, with one accepting it. Once again (for the umpteenth time) this is not a contradiction. One tires of the quick recourse among biblical skeptics and atheists to the accusation of “contradiction” when the example given is far from the case. Here is what a contradiction actually is:

A contradiction is a logical incompatibility between two or more statements or propositions. It occurs when those statements or propositions, taken together, yield a falsehood. By extension, outside of logic, contradictions are also said to occur between actions for which the motives are held to be contradictory, or between beliefs or principles when their content is contradictory.

Pointing to this principle in applied logic, Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”

The simplest or classic form of contradiction is the assertion both of some statement or proposition and its negation. So, for example, the statement-pair: “All fire engines are red,” and “It is not true that all fire engines are red” is contradictory. This means that one of those statements must be false; they cannot both be true at the same time and in the same manner.

The logical form of a simple contradiction is “Statement + negation of that statement.” (New World Encyclopedia, “Contradiction”)

Alter played around with the definition of “contradiction” early in his book:

[O]missions can at times be considered contradictions when the missing material is highly relevant and significant. Thus skeptics argue that the
absence of proof can be proof, but it is acknowledged not always.

Numerous times this text will present contradictions which fall under the Christian apologists’ rubric of omission. When these contradictions are
encountered, it must be remembered that the omissions here are extremely significant and something a normal person would not expect to see. (p. 26)

This is simply not what a logical contradiction is. Omissions are not contradictions, and arguments constructed from them are fallacious arguments from silence (argumentum ex silentio). He is trying to argue that if an omission is “significant” or “relevant” enough, then it can qualify as a “contradiction.” This make the entire determination one of subjective mush. Who is to decide what is “significant” or “relevant”? That’s not how logic works (and I did take a course in it in college, just for the record, as well as several other philosophy courses).

Logic is not about relative significance of two ideas or proposition or statements of fact. It’s about the relationship between two things: whether the relation is in harmony with the laws of non-contradiction and logic or not. There are several hypothetical ways that the story of the two thieves might be considered contradictory, if only they were in the texts and not bald speculation.

Mere difference is not contradiction. For example, if Matthew had stated that “both thieves insulted Jesus the entire time and never stopped till they [or He] died”, then that would be an undeniable contradiction compared with Luke. That is what a real contradiction looks like. But of course Matthew doesn’t say such a thing.

As it is, all we have to do is speculate about is a change of mind and heart of one of the thieves. Is that a plausible possibility? Have human beings never changed their minds? How absurd will we become in our skepticism? Alter would have to maintain that the one thief who is said to have rebuked the other in Luke couldn’t possibly have changed his mind — in about six hours of unspeakable agony, nailed to a cross — from his earlier stance of mocking Jesus. That could never have happened in any possible universe?!

This is absurd. Of course it is a possibility. We also know that being on the verge of death remarkably focuses a mind and a soul on the most serious aspects of life. This would be a time for a “deathbed repentance / conversion” from a life of crime if there ever was one.

Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, the claim of “contradiction” vanishes. It’s not established by what we know about the nature of a contradiction, and by simple deduction, we can posit a plausible scenario that explains what Alter thinks is a contradiction (but what really isn’t, by definition). One merely has to be objective and fair-minded about it, and not question the text at every turn.

That’s the thing: fairness. In a Christian discussion on this issue, one person commented:

The so-called “difficulties” with this passage are no different, in kind, from many other differences that exist in parallel accounts among the four (and, especially, the three synoptic) Gospels. They are not difficulties to those who take the gospel accounts at face value. They only create problems when we bring an a priori suspicion to the reading of them, as if we suspect that someone is trying to “put something over” on us, and we are determined to find every possible evidence that they are doing so.

Obviously, if we were listening to friends, on different occasions, relating a story that was known to all of them (rather than reading the Gospels in the Bible), we would bring no such suspicion to our listening. Nor would certain differences in detail of various reports disturb us or raise our eyebrows (unless they involved ostensible contradictions, which our present case does not). . . .

I know that Luke was not an eye-witness, but I have never disqualified a historian’s reports simply on the grounds that he was not there when the events occurred. Luke has been demonstrated to be one of the most careful historians of ancient history. The people who doubt him without a cause must approach him differently than I do.

Beyond that, Luke reported that part of verses 39 through 43 were found in neither Mark nor Matthew. Where then did Luke obtain his material? (p. 120)

It could have been from any number of sources: from Jesus’ mother, who was present at the crucifixion, Mary, mother of James and Joseph, Mary, mother of the sons of Zebedee, Salome, or Mary Clopas. All these women were present at the cross. Or he could have gotten the information from, say, a Roman centurion eyewitness and earwitness who later became a Christian, or from any number of onlookers, who were willing to talk about what they saw and heard (not necessarily all Christians).

Or he got it from an oral tradition passed down. There could even be a tradition based on things Jesus taught during His post-Resurrection appearances. His appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus alone appears to have lasted several hours: all likely in theological / spiritual  conversation (Lk 24:13-31). Luke in Acts (1:3) says that these appearances of the risen Jesus lasted “forty days” and Paul says Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time” (1 Cor 15:6). All of these things are possible. On what grounds must we be excessively skeptical? Well, it seems to often stem from groundless pre-existing hostilities.

We must also understand that oral traditions were highly (quite often, remarkably) reliable in ancient cultures where relatively few people could read or write. See, for example: “How Reliable were the Early Church’s Oral Traditions?”

On the other hand, given that the event is historical, would it have been possible for Mark, Matthew, and John to be unaware of this tradition? (p. 120).

Yes; why not?

Furthermore, it is not reasonable to expect that three authors would agree to omit such important details from their narratives assuming they knew the tradition. (p. 120)

It’s the nature of all stories about roughly the same events. Each account will omit something one or more of the others include; they might differ on, say, chronology or relative emphasis. None of this is unusual or unexpected at all. And these factors ought not be seized upon in cynical attempts to “see a contradiction under every rock” (in the New Testament).

***

Photo credit: Christ Crucified between the Two Thieves: The Three Crosses (c. 1660), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Michael Alter claims that Luke contradicted the other Gospels with regard to the crucified thieves. His account showed one rebuking the other, rather than both taunting. Is this contradictory?

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, crucified thieves, thief on the cross

***

2021-04-21T11:12:40-04:00

Last updated on: April 21, 2021 at 11:12 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, not in his book, but in reply to #2 in my series of replies, in my combox:

Let us return to the 72-hour controversy. Is it literal or not? This writer does not know the answer, and neither do you. Instead, this writer examines various possibilities – many written by Christian scholars and theologians. The burden of proof is for you to prove that the Gospel authors precisely meant part of a day counted as a whole day. Did all Jews living at that time accept 100 percent of that interpretation? Again, where is your evidentiary proof? Is it possible that some ancient people did not accept or construe time as you opine?

In his book, as is his custom, Alter offers several different theories of how Christians have approached this “problem”. Also, as he is in the habit of doing, he doesn’t take a stand on any given theory, but interprets the presence of many theories as indicative that a “problem” in the New Testament text exists (which doesn’t necessarily follow). Thus, above he claims he “does not know” if the 72 hours should be considered literal and also confidently claims that I don’t know, either. I noted there that I have dealt with the topic already, though not at great length. But Alter provides much of the rationale in his description of the Friday-to-Sunday “standard” Christian belief:

According to the Jewish custom of inclusive reckoning of time, any part of a day was reckoned as an entire day, including the night. Consequently, part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday would have been counted as three days (see Gen 42:17; 1 Kgs 20:29; 2 Chron 10:5, 1 Sam 30:12; y. Shabbat 9:3; cf. b. Pesahim 4a). Therefore, a Friday burial and Sunday morning resurrection would count as three days. (p. 95)

He cites the two Old Testament passages that I utilized in my paper. Let’s take a look at them:

Genesis 42:17-18 And he put them all together in prison for three days. [18] On the third day Joseph said to them, “Do this and you will live, for I fear God:

1 Samuel 30:12-13 and they gave him a piece of a cake of figs and two clusters of raisins. And when he had eaten, his spirit revived; for he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights. [13] And David said to him, “To whom do you belong? And where are you from?” He said, “I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amal’ekite; and my master left me behind because I fell sick three days ago. [“three days and three nights and “three days” are used interchangeably]

Here are Alter’s other two (that he presumably learned about from Christians making this argument):

1 Kings 20:29 And they encamped opposite one another seven days. Then on the seventh day the battle was joined; and the people of Israel smote of the Syrians a hundred thousand foot soldiers in one day.

2 Chronicles 10:5 He said to them, “Come to me again in three days.” So the people went away.

He also adds talmudic references (but only by citation). Pesachim 4a:2 specifically states: “And learn from it that with regard to the halakhot of mourning, the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day.” (cf. Mishna Shabbat 9:3).

I argued in my earlier paper that we use the same sort of idiom today, in English: ” ‘This is the third day I’ve been working on painting this room.’ I could have started painting late Friday and made this remark on early Sunday.” I gave a second analogical example:

[W]e will say that we are off for a long weekend vacation, of “three days of fun.” . . . But it is understood that this is not three full 24-hour days. Chances are we will depart part way through the first day and return before the third day ends. . . . Yet we speak of a “three-day vacation” and that we returned “after three days” or “on the third day.” . . . Such descriptions are understood, then, as non-literal. The ancient Jews and Romans simply added the clause “and nights” to such utterances, but understood them in the same way, as referring to any part of a 24-hour day. 

I can’t absolutely prove that “all Jews living at that time accept[ed] 100 percent of that interpretation.” But that’s an unreasonable (indeed, impossible) demand in the first place. Rarely can anyone prove about some period of the past among one group of people (2000 years ago in this instance) that 100% believed in any given thing. How could one possibly do that? It’s absurd, and a classic example of excessive demands being put on the New Testament and the apologetic in favor of it that would rarely be extended to anything else.

If I can show that there was this idea in Jewish reckoning of time, including, as it is here, in the Talmud: most of which was compiled in writing after the New Testament (the Mishnah, c. 200 and the Gemara, c. 500), then that is plausible and sufficient enough. I have done all that I can be expected to do. We certainly know that there was a myriad of non-literal Jewish idioms and figures of speech. So it’s not unusual to posit a non-literal meaning in a passage. One source I cited in my paper gives two further examples:

Luke 13:32 shows Jesus speaking of “today, tomorrow, and the third day” – so the third day is the day after tomorrow, if we start counting today. If today is Friday, tomorrow is Saturday, then the third day is Sunday. Similarly in Exodus 19:10-11, God tells Moses to sanctify the people “today and tomorrow” and to be ready on “the third day“. If today is Friday, tomorrow is Saturday, then the third day is Sunday.

Here are those passages:

Luke 13:32-33 And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. [33] Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; . . . 

Exodus 19:10-11 And the LORD said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments, [11] and be ready by the third day; . . . 

Here are two more:

Leviticus 19:6-7 It shall be eaten the same day you offer it, or on the morrow; and anything left over until the third day shall be burned with fire. [7] If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination; it will not be accepted,

1 Samuel 20:5 David said to Jonathan, “Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit at table with the king; but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field till the third day at evening.

“Day and night” is also often used in Scripture to convey the meaning of “continuously” (Lev 8:35; Dt 28:66; Josh 1:8; 1 Kgs 8:59; 1 Chr 9:33; 2 Chr 6:20; Ps 1:2; 32:4; 42:3; Lk 18:7; Acts 9:24; 26:7; Rev 4:8).

Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press provides two more great examples from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament:

Perhaps the most compelling Old Testament passage which clearly testifies that the ancients (at least occasionally) considered a portion of a twenty-four hour period “as the whole of it” is found in 2 Chronicles 10. When Israel asked King Rehoboam to lighten their burdens, he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (2 Chronicles 10:5, emp. added). Verse 12, however, indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘ Come back to me the third day’ ” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood this to mean “on the third day.”

From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; Acts 10:3). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit,Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour…” (10:30, NASB, emp. added). Although the event actually had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day could be counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.

Note that it was Jesus Who repeatedly referred to “on the third day” with reference to His Resurrection (Mt 17:23; 20:19; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). Therefore, to understand the meaning, we only have to ascertain what He meant; not 100% of “all Jews living at that time.” And we know that Jesus used the idiom as He exhibited in Luke 13:32-33: not literally (just as we often do today). No one else says this in the Gospels except Jesus, save for Matthew reporting that He said it (16:21). This is my demanded “evidentiary proof.” What more is needed? But I can provide more, to clinch my case:

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

I have in my personal library a hardcover edition of E. W. Bullinger’s Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898). It’s an 1104-page volume. He states in the Introduction: “We have catalogued over 200 distinct figures, several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties.” (p. ix). He classifies the figurative use in Matthew 12:40 as “Idiom” or “the peculiar use of words and phrases” (p. 819). He devotes about one-and-a-half large pages to this one verse (pp. 845-847). Here it is: 

Jonah i. 17 (ii. 1), quoted in Matt. xii. 40.

The expression, “three days and three nights,” is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights.

In 1 Sam. xxx. 11 (12), it is said that a certain Egyptian had not eaten bread and drunk water for “three days and three nights,” and yet it was only three days since he fell sick (ver. 13), not four days.

In Est. iv. 16, Esther says she and her maidens will fast “three days and three nights,” and yet it was on ” the third day ” that Esther went into the king; not the fourth day, which it must have been if the expression were literally understood.

It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.

Now the New Testament is for the most part Hebrew in idiom, but Greek in language. This is the simple explanation of the difference between it and classical Greek. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the First Gospel, as we have it, is a translation from a Hebrew Original. This is one of the idioms. It is used in Jonah i. 17 (ii. 1), and by our Lord in Matt. xii. 40. And yet many Scriptures say that He should rise, and did actually rise on ” the third day.” This could not have been if the expression were used in its literal sense. It must have been the fourth day and not the “third.”

The fact is that the idiom covers any part of “three days and three nights.” This method of Hebrew reckoning is as distinct from Gentile reckoning, as their commencing the day at sunset and our commencing it at midnight. All these different modes of reckoning are peculiar to the respective peoples and languages and must be duly taken into account.

The Lord’s words in Matt. xii. 40 do not disagree with the Scripture assertion that He should rise on “the third day.” We have the expression “after three days” once (Matt, xxvii 63), and “in three days ” once (John ii. 19). But the common expression is “on the third day,” and it occurs ten times. But if the expression be literal and not an idiom, all these passages should say the fourth day! Paul preached the resurrection on “the third day” according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. xv. 4), and this is the great Scriptural fact which we cannot get away from.

Neither can we alter the fact that He rose on “the first day of the week.” Neither can we alter the history which records His death and burial as taking place the day before the Sabbath. “The sabbath drew on” (Luke xxiii. 54. Matt, xxvii. 62) ; “the day before the sabbath ” (Mark xv. 42); and yet the two disciples going to Emmaus on the first day of the week say, ” This is the third day (not the fourth) since these things were done ” (Luke xxiv. 21).

From all this it is perfectly clear that nothing is to be gained by forcing the one passage (Matt. xii. 40) to have a literal meaning, in the face of all these other passages which distinctly state that the Lord died and was buried the day before the Sabbath and rose the day after it, viz., on the first day of the week. These many statements are literal and are history : but the one passage is an idiom which means any part of “three days and three nights.” The one complete day and night (24 hours) and the parts of two nights (36 hours in all) fully satisfy both the idiom and the history.

It may be added that we have a similar usage in English. When a person is sentenced to ” three days’ imprisonment,” it may be late in the evening of the first day when he arrives at the prison, but when the doors open on the morning of the third day (not the fourth) he walks out a free man. In other words, if a person is committed to prison for three days — and he reaches it on Monday night — he leaves it the first thing on Wednesday morning.

***

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 argues against the phrase “three days and three nights” being Hebrew idiom for “parts of three days” as opposed to three literal 24-hour days. I provide massive biblical examples of idiomatic use.

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, three days and three nights, sign of Jonah, on the third day

***

2021-04-20T15:01:58-04:00

Last updated on: April 20, 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 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: The Gospels do not record any historical words attributed to Jesus that demonstrated that he conceived of his death as a propitiatory sacrifice to save mankind from its sins! Why then did Jesus not once, during his ministry, either in private to his disciples, as recorded in the Gospels or as part of his public teaching, ever announce indisputably and unequivocally a divinely ordained scheme for the redemption of mankind? If the salvation of the world was at stake, as Christians proclaim, would it not have been reasonable, in plain and unequivocal terms, to have declared this plan to those whose benefit it was supposedly intended? (p. 77)

This is massively untrue. Here’s a friendly suggestion to Mr. Alter (from one apologist to another): you would do well to refrain from using universal negatives and sweeping statements (“do not record any“ / “not once . . .”). It leaves you open to being definitively and easily refuted. All your opponents have to do is produce a single counter-example, and your assertion is nullified. As it is, I will produce many NT passages that contradict your claim.

But first let’s do a survey of what the Hebrew Bible has to say about the salvation of men, and about God alone being the savior and that He alone can and does forgive sins, leading to salvation. This will establish that Jesus, by claiming to be the savior or redeemer (in many different ways, as seen below) was claiming to be equal to God at the same time. This comes out most clearly in John 10:27-30 and 12:44.

***

Exodus 34:6-7 The LORD passed before him, and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, [7] keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, . . .

Psalms 103:12 as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

Psalms 130:3-4 If thou, O LORD, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand? [4] But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior.

Isaiah 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.

Isaiah 43:25 I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.

Isaiah 45:15, 17, 21 . . . O God of Israel, the Savior. . . . [17] But Israel is saved by the LORD with everlasting salvation; you shall not be put to shame or confounded to all eternity.. . . [21] . . . And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.

Isaiah 49:26 . . . I am the LORD your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

Isaiah 55:6-7 “Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; [7] let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Isaiah 60:16 . . . I, the LORD, am your Savior and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.

Isaiah 63:8-9 For he said, Surely they are my people, sons who will not deal falsely; and he became their Savior. [9] In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; . . .

Jeremiah 31:34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Jeremiah 33:8 I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me.

Daniel 9:9 To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness; because we have rebelled against him,

Hosea 13:4 I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.

Micah 7:18-19 Who is a God like thee, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger for ever because he delights in steadfast love. [19] He will again have compassion upon us, he will tread our iniquities under foot. Thou wilt cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.

***

Matthew 16:24-27 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. [25] For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. [26] For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? [27] For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.

Matthew 19:16-29 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” [17] And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” [18] He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, [19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” [21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” [22] When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.[23] And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [24] Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” [25] When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” [26] But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” [27] Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” [28] Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [29] And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

Matthew 20:28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Mark 8:34-35 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. [35] For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Mark 10:29-30 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.

Mark 13:13 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Luke 9:22-24 . . . “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.” [23] And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. [24] For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Luke 19:9-10 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. [10] For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.”

John 4:13-14 Jesus said to her, “Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, [14] but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

John 5:21, 24-26 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. . . . [24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. [25] “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. [26] For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,

John 5:33-40 You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. [34] Not that the testimony which I receive is from man; but I say this that you may be saved. [35] He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. [36] But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me. [37] And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; [38] and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. [39] You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; [40] yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

John 6:27-29 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.” [28] Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” [29] Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

John 6:33-35 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” [34] They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” [35] Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.”

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:44-58 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. [46] Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. [47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

John 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he.

John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

John 10:7-11 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. [8] All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. [9] I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. [10] The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. [11] I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

John 10:14-18 I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, [15] as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. [16] And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. [17] For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. [18] No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

John 10:27-30 “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; [28] and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. [29] My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. [30] I and the Father are one.”

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, [26] and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. . . .

John 12:32-33 “. . . when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” [33] He said this to show by what death he was to die.

John 12:35-36 Jesus said to them, “The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes. [36] While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”  . . .

John 12:44-48 And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. [45] And he who sees me sees him who sent me. [46] I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. [47] If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. [48] He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

John 15:13 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 17:1-3 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee, [2] since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. [3] And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

There is also much information in the Gospels regarding the “kingdom of God / heaven” motif, which ties into salvation.

***

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 remarkably claimed that “not once” did Jesus ever claim to be the savior of the world, or its redeemer, by means of His sacrificial death. I provide massive counter-Scripture.

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, savior, saviour

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