![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/04\/Jesus60.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry<\/em><\/a> (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \u201cbrief\u201d replies to as many alleged New Testament contradictions<\/a> (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.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike describes himself as \u201cof the Jewish faith\u201d but is quick to point out that labels are often \u201cmisleading\u201d and \u201cdivisive\u201d (I agree to a large extent). He continues to be influenced by, for example, \u201cReformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and Chabad\u201d variants of Judaism and learns \u201cfrom those of other faiths, the secular, the non-theists, etc.\u201d 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<\/a> on my blog.<\/p>\n He says his book \u201ccan be described as Jewish apologetics\u201d and one that provides reasons for \u201cwhy members of the Jewish community should\u00a0not\u00a0convert to Christianity.\u201d I will be writing many critiques of the book and we\u2019ll be engaging in ongoing discussion for likely a long time. I\u2019m 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\u2019s willingness to interact, minus any personal hostility.<\/p>\n I use RSV for all Bible verses that I cite. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Alter wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n CONTRADICTION #37<\/em> Who Took Jesus\u2019s Body Down from\u00a0the Cross?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n There is a definite contradiction concerning the removal of Jesus\u2019s body\u00a0from the cross as recorded in Acts. Acts 13:27-29 states that Paul was informed\u00a0that Jesus was taken down from the cross by the Romans, the same people\u00a0who crucified him.<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers,\u00a0because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets<\/span> Acts 13:28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet\u00a0desired they Pilate that he should be slain.<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him,\u00a0they took him down from the tree<\/em>, and laid him in a sepulchre.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The passage in Acts, attributed to Paul but written by Luke, declares that\u00a0those who took part in the recovery of Jesus\u2019s body were responsible for his\u00a0execution. Consequently, Paul emphasizes that Jesus was taken down from\u00a0the cross, not by his followers but by his enemies, the very group who Paul\u00a0accuses of arranging for his death. (p. 229)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Note that Matthew 27:57-60,\u00a0Mark 15:43-46 and\u00a0Luke 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<\/em> to be a contradiction). Moreover, John 19:38-42 informs us that both Joseph and Nicodemus buried Jesus. Hence, Alter contends:<\/p>\n In direct contradiction, the synoptic narratives claim that the action of\u00a0taking down Jesus\u2019s body is carried out by Joseph alone<\/em>. This contradiction\u00a0seems particularly odd since the author of Acts is also believed to be the writer\u00a0of Luke, yet he records conflicting accounts. How then is it possible that the\u00a0Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles conflict?<\/span><\/p>\n Adding to the confusion, John 19:39 states that it was Joseph and\u00a0Nicodemus who take the body, prepare the body, and bury the body: . . .\u00a0<\/span>(p. 229)<\/p>\n Alter also revisits this entire discussion later on in his book:<\/p>\n CONTRADICTION #41<\/em> John and Acts versus the Synoptics<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n John and Acts directly contradict the synoptic Gospels regarding who\u00a0buried Jesus. The synoptic Gospels report that Joseph alone buried Jesus. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n To the contrary, John and Acts report that a plurality<\/em> of people buried\u00a0Jesus. John 19:42 claims that Joseph and<\/em> Nicodemus buried Jesus: \u201cThere\u00a0laid they<\/em> Jesus therefore because of the Jews\u2019 preparation day; for the sepulchre\u00a0was nigh at hand.\u201d In addition, Acts 13:29 reports that a plurality of people\u00a0buried Jesus: \u201cAnd when they<\/em> had fulfilled all that was written of him, they\u00a0<\/em>took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.\u201d Thus, there is a\u00a0glaring and incontrovertible contradiction.<\/span> (p. 274; essentially the same argument is reiterated in \u201cCONTRADICTION #42<\/em> Acts versus the Synoptics and John\u201d<\/span> on p. 275)<\/p>\n The question of Joseph or Joseph + Nicodemus as the person(s) who buried Jesus is not a logical contradiction because the Synoptics\u00a0 (directly contrary to Alter\u2019s false claim) do not<\/em> use the terminology of \u201calone\u201d or \u201conly\u201d 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\u2019t 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\u2019t.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n I again appeal to E. W. Bullinger\u2019s wonderful book, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible<\/em> (London: 1898; reprinted by Baker book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1968). It\u2019s available online on several different sites (here\u2019s one<\/a>). Bullinger classifies Acts 13:29 as an instance of actually two<\/em> sorts of non-literal figurative use of language: ellipsis<\/em> and idiom<\/em>. Bullinger defines the first<\/a>:<\/p>\n El-lip\u00b4<\/span>-sis. This is the Greek word\u00a0\u1f14\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2<\/span>, a leaving in, from\u00a0\u1f10\u03bd<\/span>\u00a0(en) in, and\u00a0\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd<\/span>\u00a0(leipein) to leave.<\/p>\n \u2018The 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cThy word is truth,\u201d \u201cThy word\u201d is the subject spoken of, \u201ctruth\u201d is what is said of it (the predicate), and the verb \u201cis\u201d (the copula) connects it.<\/p>\n But any of these three may be dispensed with; and this law of syntax may be legitimately broken by Ellipsis.<\/p>\n 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\u00a0Matthew 14:19<\/span>, we read that the Lord Jesus \u201cgave the loaves to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.\u201d<\/p>\n There is no sense in the latter sentence, which is incomplete, \u201cthe disciples to the multitude,\u201d because there is no verb. The verb \u201cgave\u201d 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)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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 \u201cthe omission of nouns and pronouns\u201d and (as a further sub-category), \u201cthe omission of the nominative.\u201d 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:<\/p>\n I. The Omission of Nouns and Pronouns<\/p>\n 1. The Omission of the Nominative<\/p>\n Genesis 14:19-20<\/span><\/strong>.-Melchizedek said to Abram, \u201cBlessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand. And he [i.e., Abram<\/em>] gave him tithes of all.\u201d<\/p>\n From the context, as well as from\u00a0Hebrews 7:4<\/span>, it is clear that it was Abram who gave the tithes to Melchizedek, and not Melchizedek to Abram.<\/p>\n Genesis 39:6<\/span><\/strong>.-\u201cAnd he left all that he had in Joseph\u2019<\/span>s hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread Which he did eat. And Joseph was a<\/em> goodly perso<\/em>n, and well-favoured.\u201d<\/p>\n Here it is not at all clear which it was of the two who \u201cknew not ought he had.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n If the Ellipsis<\/em>, however, is rightly supplied, it makes it all clear.<\/p>\n The verse may be rendered, and the Ellipsis supplied as follows:- \u201cAnd he [Potiphar<\/em>] left all that he had in Joseph\u2019<\/span>s hand: and he [Potiphar<\/em>] knew not anything save the bread which he was eating. And Joseph was beautiful of figure, and beautiful of appearance.\u201d<\/p>\n All difficulty is removed when we remember that \u201cthe Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians\u201d (43:32). Everything, therefore, was committed by Potiphar to Joseph\u2019<\/span>s care, except that which pertained to the matter of food.<\/p>\n 2 Samuel 3:7<\/span><\/strong>.-\u201cAnd Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, and\u00a0\u2026<\/span>\u00a0said to Abner, Wherefore, etc.\u201d<\/p>\n Here it is clear from the Sense of the next verse and\u00a02 Samuel 21:8<\/span>\u00a0that \u201cIshbosheth<\/em>\u201d is the word to be supplied, as is done in italics.<\/p>\n 2 Samuel 23:20<\/span><\/strong>.-\u201cHe slew two lionlike men of Moab.\u201d<\/p>\n The Massorah points out [Note: Ginsburg\u2019<\/span>s Edition, Vol. i., p. 106.] that the word Ariel occurs three times, in this passage and\u00a0Isaiah 29:1<\/span>. In Isa. the word is twice transliterated as a proper name, while in\u00a02 Samuel 23:20<\/span>, margin, it is translated lions of God<\/em>: the first part of the word\u00a0\u05d0\u05b2\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9<\/span>\u00a0(aree<\/em>) a lion<\/em>, and the second part\u00a0\u05d0\u05b5\u05dc<\/span>\u00a0(el<\/em>) God<\/em>. But if we keep it uniformly and consistently as a proper name we have with the Ellipsis<\/em> of the accusative (sons<\/em>) the following sense: \u201cHe slew the two sons<\/em> of Ariel of Moab.\u201d<\/p>\n 2 Samuel 24:1<\/span><\/strong>.-\u201cAnd again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.\u201d<\/p>\n Here the nominative to the verb \u201cmoved\u201d is wanting. Someone moved, and who that was we learn from\u00a01 Chronicles 21:1<\/span>, from which it is clear that the word Satan<\/em> or the Adversary<\/em> is to be supplied, as is done in the margin:-\u201cAnd again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and [the Adversary<\/em>] moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.\u201d<\/p>\n 1 Chronicles 6:28<\/span>\u00a0(12).<\/strong>-\u201cAnd the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Vashni (marg., called also Joel<\/em>, ver. 33 and\u00a01 Samuel 8:2<\/span>) and Abiah.\u201d<\/p>\n Here there is an Ellipsis of the name of the firstborn: while the word\u00a0\u05d5\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u05b0\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span>, Vashni<\/em>, when otherwise pointed (\u05d5\u05b0\u05e9\u05c1\u05b5\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9<\/span>) means \u201cand the second<\/em>\u201c! so that the verse reads,<\/p>\n \u201cAnd the sons of Samuel; the firstborn [Joel<\/em>] and the second Abiah.\u201d This agrees with the Syriac Version. The R.V. [Note: The Revised Version, 1881.] correctly supplies the Ellipsis, and translates vashni<\/em> \u201cand the second.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cJoel\u201d is supplied from ver. 33 (see also\u00a01 Samuel 8:2<\/span>, and the note in Ginsburg\u2019<\/span>s edition of the Hebrew Bible).<\/p>\n Psalms 34:17<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201c[They<\/em>] cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.\u201d<\/p>\n The immediate subject in ver. 16 is evildoers<\/em>. But it is not these who cry. It is the righteous. Hence the A.V. and the R.V. supply the words \u201cthe righteous<\/em>\u201d 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\u2019<\/span>s gracious answer.<\/p>\n The same design is seen in all similar cases.<\/p>\n Psalms 105:40<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201c[They] asked, and he brought quails,\u201d i.e<\/em>., the People<\/em> asked. The nominative is supplied in the A.V. But the R.V.\u00a0 translates it literally \u201cThey asked.\u201d<\/p>\n Proverbs 22:27<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cIf thou hast nothing to pay, why should one [i.e., the creditor<\/em>] take away thy bed from under thee?\u201d<\/p>\n Isaiah 26:1<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cIn that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; we have a strong city; salvation will one [i.e. God<\/em>] appoint for<\/em> walls and bulwarks.\u201d<\/p>\n The A.V. interprets by supplying the nominative. The R.V. translates it literally.<\/p>\n Jeremiah 51:19<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cHe is the former of all things, and Israel<\/em> is the rod of his inheritance.\u201d<\/p>\n Here both the A.V. and R.V. supply the Ellipsis<\/em> from 10:16. Had it been supplied from the immediate context, it would have come under the head of Relative Ellipsis<\/em>, or that of Repetition.<\/p>\n Ezekiel 46:12<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cNow when the Prince shall prepare a voluntary offering or peace offerings voluntarily unto the Lord, one<\/em> shall then open him the gate that looketh toward the East, &c.,\u201d i.e<\/em>.,\u00a0\u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u05bc\u05e2\u05b5\u05e8<\/span>\u00a0the gate-keeper<\/em> (supplied from the noun\u00a0\u05d4\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1\u05bc\u05b7\u05e2\u05b7\u05e8<\/span>, the gate<\/em>), which follows, shall open the gate.<\/p>\n Zechariah 7:2<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cWhen they (Heb<\/em>. he) had sent unto the house of God, Sherezer and Regem-melech and their men, to pray before the Lord\u201d [i.e.<\/em>, when the people who had returned to Judea<\/em> had sent].<\/p>\n Matthew 16:22<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cBe it far from Thee, Lord.\u201d<\/p>\n Here the Ellipsis in the Greek is destroyed by the translation. The Greek reads, \u201c\u1f3d\u03bb\u03b5\u03ce\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5<\/span>\u201d (hile\u00f4<\/span>s soi, kyrie<\/em>), which is untranslatable literally, unless we supply the Ellipsis<\/em> of the Nominative, thus: \u201c[God be] merciful to Thee, Lord!\u201d Thus it is in the Septuagint\u00a01 Chronicles 11:19<\/span>, where it is rendered \u201cGod forbid that I should do this thing,\u201d but it ought to be, \u201c[God<\/em>] be merciful to me [to keep me from doing<\/em>] this thing.\u201d<\/p>\n Acts 13:29<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cAnd when they had fulfilled all that was written, of him, they took him<\/em> down from the tree, and laid him<\/em> in a sepulchre,\u201d i.e., Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took him down. But it is the act<\/em> which we are to think of here rather than the persons<\/em> who did it. Hence the Ellipsis<\/em>. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:53<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cFor this corruptible [body<\/em>] must put on incorruption, and this mortal [body<\/em>] must put on immortality.\u201d<\/p>\n The noun \u201cbody\u201d must also be supplied in the next verse.<\/p>\n Ephesians 1:8<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cWherein he hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence.\u201d<\/p>\n It is not \u201cwherein,\u201d but\u00a0\u1f27\u03c2<\/span>\u00a0(hees<\/em>) which, i.e.<\/em>, \u201c[the knowledge<\/em>] or grace<\/em>, which he hath made to abound in us in all wisdom and prudence.\u201d<\/p>\n Titus 1:15<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cUnto the pure all things are<\/em> pure.\u201d<\/p>\n The noun \u201cmeats\u201d (i.e<\/em>., foods) must be supplied as in\u00a01 Corinthians 6:12<\/span>. \u201cAll [meats<\/em>] indeed are clean to the clean.\u201d The word \u201cclean\u201d being used in its ceremonial or Levitical sense, for none can be otherwise either \u201cpure\u201d or \u201cclean.\u201d<\/p>\n Hebrews 9:1<\/span><\/strong>.-\u201cThen verily the first covenant<\/em> had also ordinances of divine service.\u201d Here the word covenant<\/em> is properly supplied in italics.<\/p>\n 2 Peter 3:1<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cThis second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both<\/em> which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance,\u201d i.e<\/em>., \u201cIn both<\/em> which [epistles<\/em>] I stir up,\u201d etc.<\/p>\n 1 John 5:16<\/span>.<\/strong>-\u201cIf any man see his brother sin a sin which<\/em> is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life, etc.,\u201d i.e.<\/em>, \u201c[God<\/em>] shall give him life.\u201d See also\u00a0Matthew 5:11<\/span>;\u00a0Matthew 5:15<\/span>;\u00a0Luke 6:38<\/span>, where men<\/em> must be the word supplied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The second non-literal figurative aspect of Acts 13:29 is idiom<\/em>. Again, for the sake of brevity (utilizing the wonderful and ultra-convenient tool of a link), readers may peruse Bullinger\u2019s multi-faceted definitions<\/a>. He lists eleven sub-categories for idiom: one of which is \u201cIdiomatic usage of verbs.\u201d Acts 13:29 falls under the further sub-category: \u201c4. Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission<\/em> of the thing which the agent is said to do.\u201d (p. 823). He then provides examples, on pages 823-824. I include all of them:<\/p>\n
\nwhich are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in\u00a0condemning him.<\/span><\/p>\n