![\"\"](\"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 #57 Matthew\u2019s Chronological\u00a0Contradiction<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Reimarus posits that Matthew 28:2 is self-contradictory: \u201cAnd, behold,\u00a0there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from\u00a0<\/span>heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.\u201d\u00a0Specifically, Reimarus (1971, 183) makes the claim that if Matthew\u2019s report\u00a0is true that \u201cthe stone had been rolled away by an angel in the presence of\u00a0the women, then it must be untrue that the women became aware from a\u00a0distance that the stone had been rolled away and that it was gone.\u201d The NIV\u00a0translation (1978, 1151) of Mark 16:2-3 supports Reimarus\u2019s interpretation\u00a0that from a distance (i.e., \u201cthey were on their way to the tomb\u201d) the women\u00a0observed that the tomb\u2019s entrance was not blocked.<\/span><\/p>\n Mk 16:2 Very early on the first day of the week, they were on their\u00a0way to the tomb. It was just after sunrise. They asked each other,\u00a0\u201cWho will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Mk 16:3 Then they looked up and saw that the stone had been\u00a0rolled away. The stone was very large.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n To recapitulate, Mark has the women viewing from a distance as the\u00a0stone was being rolled away just prior to their physical arrival at the tomb.\u00a0<\/span>Therefore, Reimarus maintains that the chronological order of the text in\u00a0Matthew is switched since he narrates (1) the women came to the sepulchre,\u00a0(2) the angel descended from heaven, (3) there was an earthquake, and then\u00a0(4) the stone was rolled away.<\/span> (pp. 331-332)<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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<\/a> presented these texts and then explained:<\/p>\n [L]et\u2019s reconsider what Matthew says. We\u2019re introduced to the passage about the angel by the Greek participle \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 (gar). Strong\u2019s Greek Concordance defines it as:\u00a0\u201cFor. A primary participle; properly, assigning a reason.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>In other words, it exists to explain the earthquake and set of circumstances as the women found them.<\/p>\n As\u00a0philosopher Tim McGrew points out<\/a>,\u00a0\u201cMatthew uses an aorist participle, which could be (and in some versions is) translated with the English past perfect: \u201c\u2026 for an angel of the Lord had descended \u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n With this knowledge, let\u2019s look to see how several Bible translations make this meaning of \u201chappened in the past\u201d more clear in Matthew 28:2:<\/p>\n Weymouth<\/strong>: . . .\u00a0there had been<\/span> a great earthquake;\u00a0for an angel of the Lord had descended<\/span>\u00a0from Heaven, and had<\/span> come and rolled back the stone, . . .<\/p>\n Young\u2019s Literal Translation<\/strong>: . . .\u00a0\u00a0for a messenger of the Lord, having come down<\/span> out of heaven, having come, did<\/span> roll away the stone . . .<\/p>\n New American Standard Bible<\/strong>: <\/span>And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred<\/span> . . .<\/p>\n Amplified Bible<\/strong>:\u00a0<\/span>And a great earthquake had occurred<\/span>, . . .<\/p>\n Williams<\/strong>: Now there had been<\/span> a great earthquake . . .<\/p>\n Wuest<\/strong>:\u00a0 . . . an angel of the Lord having descended<\/span> out of heaven and having come<\/span> . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s 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<\/em> of the Greek, including the sense of tense. This was their guiding principle in translation. It\u2019s also notable that in the notes of the translators of the famous King James Version, it\u2019s acknowledged that a valid alternate reading was \u201chad been.\u201d<\/p>\n Many commentaries also agree with this \u201cpast tense\u201d understanding: thus showing that it is neither \u201cfringe\u201d nor simply apologetic special pleading; it<\/em> is present in the text<\/em>, according to them, and the translators noted above:<\/p>\n This information removes Alter\u2019s ever-present (and ever-fallacious) charge of contradiction with regard to Matthew 28:2. Nice try but no cigar . . .<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong>Selva Rasalingam as Jesus in the The Gospel of Luke<\/em> (2016, Netflix USA)<\/span> <\/span>[Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication<\/a><\/span>]<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Michael Alter says Matthew contradicts the other three Gospels re: \u201cwhen was the stone rolled away?\u201d But I show how Matthew\u2019s Greek also allows a harmonious \u201cpast\u201d interpretation.<\/span><\/p>\n Tags<\/em>:\u00a0alleged Bible contradictions,\u00a0alleged Resurrection contradictions,\u00a0Bible \u201ccontradictions\u201d,\u00a0Bible \u201cdifficulties\u201d,\u00a0Bible Only,\u00a0biblical inspiration,\u00a0biblical prooftexts,\u00a0biblical skeptics,\u00a0biblical theology,\u00a0exegesis,\u00a0hermeneutics,\u00a0Holy Bible,\u00a0inerrancy,\u00a0infallibility,\u00a0Jewish anti-Christian polemics,\u00a0Jewish apologetics,\u00a0Jewish critique of Christianity,\u00a0Jewish-Christian discussion,\u00a0Michael J. Alter,\u00a0New Testament,\u00a0New Testament critics,\u00a0New Testament skepticism,\u00a0Resurrection \u201cContradictions\u201d,\u00a0Resurrection of Jesus,\u00a0The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry, when was the stone rolled away<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Michael J. Alter is the author of the copiously researched, 913-page volume,\u00a0The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (2015). I initially offered\u00a0 59 \u201cbrief\u201d 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":56098,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[448,172],"tags":[4129,12966,525,524,514,2637,1879,1633,1878,1387,1386,535,4068,140,13451,13448,13445,13457,13454,282,13495,13498,13261,1347,13481,13555],"class_list":["post-56392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-jews-judaism-old-testament","category-trinitarianism-christology","tag-alleged-bible-contradictions","tag-alleged-resurrection-contradictions","tag-bible-contradictions","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-inspiration","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-skeptics","tag-biblical-theology","tag-exegesis","tag-hermeneutics","tag-holy-bible","tag-inerrancy","tag-infallibility","tag-jewish-anti-christian-polemics","tag-jewish-apologetics","tag-jewish-critique-of-christianity","tag-jewish-christian-discussion","tag-michael-j-alter","tag-new-testament","tag-new-testament-critics","tag-new-testament-skepticism","tag-resurrection-contradictions","tag-resurrection-of-jesus","tag-the-resurrection-a-critical-inquiry","tag-when-was-the-stone-rolled-away"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
Barnes\u2019 Notes on the Bible<\/em>:\u00a0<\/a> There was a great earthquake \u2013 Rather there \u201chad been.\u201d It does not mean that this was while they were there, or while they were going, but that there \u201chad been\u201d so violent a commotion as to remove the stone.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nJamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary<\/a><\/em>: And, behold, there was\u2014that 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.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nGill\u2019s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/em>:\u00a0<\/a>And behold there was a great earthquake,\u2026. Or \u201cthere had been one\u201d . . .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nClarke\u2019s Commentary<\/em><\/a>:\u00a0All this had taken place before the women reached the sepulchre.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nEllicott\u2019s Commentary<\/em><\/a>:\u00a0The words imply, not that they witnessed the earthquake, but that they inferred it from what they saw.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nExpositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em><\/a>: [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 . . .<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nKing James Translators\u2019 Notes<\/em><\/a>:\u00a0was: or, had been<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n