Catholic
History and Religion
March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022 By

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Ehrman’s “reply” in his combox:

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

My counter-reply:

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

March 24, 2022

March 24, 2022 By

Jesus “Scarcely” Talks About Himself in the Synoptics? No Parables At All in John?

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

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

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

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

*****

I am responding to his article, Is This the Same Teacher? Jesus in John and the Synoptics. (10-4-17). His words will be in blue.

In the Synoptic Gospels, you will have noticed that Jesus scarcely ever speaks about himself. There his message is about the coming kingdom of God and about what people must do to prepare for it. His regular mode of instruction is the parable. 

To the contrary, He massively speaks about himself, by using the method of referring to Himself as the “Son of Man.” Elsewhere (in many posts), Ehrman tries to vainly argue that Jesus thought the Son of Man was someone else. But this won’t fly. His use of the phrase clearly is referring to Himself, as countless clues from immediate context prove. See Him doing this 82 times.

Even Ehrman concedes that this appears to be the case several times, but then he argues from Mark 8:38 (which he believes is actually Jesus’ words: a rare case!), that the passage (“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” [RSV] ) cannot possibly be understood in and of itself as referring to Him.

This is also untrue. Seven verses earlier He clearly applies the title to Himself: “And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” Moreover, there is the parallelism: “ashamed of me [?] . . . [I’ll] the Son of man will be ashamed of you . . .” Verses can’t be read in total isolation.

But there is much more reference to Himself in the Synoptics, which proves that it is false to claim that Jesus “scarcely ever speaks about himself” in these three Gospels:

Matthew 4:19 (RSV) And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” (cf. Mk 1:17)

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

Matthew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 10:32-33 So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; [33] but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (cf. Lk 12:8-9)

Matthew 10:34-35 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. [35] For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

Matthew 10:37-38 He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; [38] and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me. (cf. Lk 10:16)

Matthew 11:6 And blessed is he who takes no offense at me. (cf. Lk 7:23)

Matthew 11:27-29 All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. [cf. Lk 10:22] [28] Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. [29] Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Matthew 12:30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. (cf. Lk 11:23)

Matthew 13:15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them. (cf. Mt 13:13-14 and Is 6:9-10) [Jesus is citing an Old Testament passage about God and applying it to Himself]

Matthew 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way.”

Matthew 16:16-17, 20 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”… [20] Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (cf. Mk 8:27-30; 9:41; Lk 4:41; 9:18-21; Jn 4:25-26)

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. (cf. Lk 9:23)

Matthew 16:25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Matthew 18:5-6 Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; [6] but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (cf. Mk 9:37, 42; Lk 9:48)

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Matthew 24:5 For many will come in my name, saying, `I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. (cf. Lk 21:8)

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Matthew 26:31 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’

Matthew 26:32 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee. (cf. Mk 14:28)

Matthew 26:53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me

Matthew 28:20 . . . I am with you always, to the close of the age.

Mark 9:39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me.

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. (cf. Mt 19:29; Lk 18:30)

Mark 10:38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?

Mark 14:7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me.

Mark 14:61-62 . . . Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” [62] And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (cf. Lk 22:70)

Luke 2:49 And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”

Luke 5:32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 6:46 “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?

Luke 9:18 Now it happened that as he was praying alone the disciples were with him; and he asked them, “Who do the people say that I am?”

Luke 9:26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

Luke 12:49-50 I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! [50] I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!

Luke 13:35 Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'”

Luke 14:27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Luke 22:15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer;

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

Luke 22:32 I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, `And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfilment.”

Luke 24:25-27 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

Jesus teaches in His own authority (“I say to you”) in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:18-34, etc.), and many other passages. The prophets, in contrast, spoke as God’s messengers in the second person (“The Lord says…”). He often talks in a way in which only God could speak, and distinguishes Himself from the prophets (Mt 13:17). Perhaps the most striking example of this occurs in Matthew 23:

Matthew 23:34, 37 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes… [37] 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! (cf. Jud 6:8; 2 Ki 17:13; 2 Chr 24:19; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Hag 1:12; Zech 7:12)

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! (cf. Mt 23:37; Dt 32:11-12; Ruth 2:12; Ps 36:7; 57:1; 63:7; 91:4)

That’s an awful lot of material to be described as something Jesus “scarcely ever” did, ain’t it? I guess Christians and Ehrman live in alternate universes. We don’t even see the same things. Where we see green, he sees red. Go figure . . .

In John, however, Jesus does not speak in parables (which he never uses)

He rarely does, but “never” (one of Ehrman’s unfortunately frequent “universal negatives”) is woefully inaccurate. In John 10:1-5, Jesus taught about the shepherd and the sheep. Then John 10:6 states (very similar to many instances of His parables): “This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.” Then He proceeds to explain that He was the “good shepherd” (Jn 10:7-16).

Moreover, in John 16:20-22, Jesus compares a woman about to deliver a child to the agony and joy of the disciples after they would see Jesus risen. This is parabolic technique as well. Jesus uses a parable-like analogy in John 3:8: “The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.”

In John 4:32-38 Jesus makes two quick parable-like analogies to food and the harvest (“Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest.”: 4:35). In John 12:24, Jesus compares His death and resurrection to a grain of wheat dying, but then bearing much fruit as a result. His teaching on the vine and the branches is very much like a parable:

John 15:1-8 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. [2] Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. [3] You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. [4] Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. [7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. [8] By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples.

In the early part of John 6 (not the latter part, which is literal and eucharistic), Jesus compares Himself as savior and deliverer of “eternal life” to the manna in the wilderness:

John 6:47-51 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.”

Once again, this contradicts the description of Jesus “never” supposedly making parable-like utterances in John. It’s the same Jesus, and He teaches generally or broadly in the same way (if not in all minute particulars): using massive analogies or word-pictures.

nor does he proclaim the imminent appearance of the kingdom (which he never mentions).

Again, it appears that Ehrman reads a different Bible than we do:

John 3:3, 5 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” . . . [5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Moreover, Jesus is described as a “king” in John, which is part and parcel of the “kingdom of heaven.” He’s the king. He doesn’t reject the title when someone applies it to Him (1:49), nor during Palm Sunday, when people say this, and the text sees it as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (12:13-15). And He explicitly affirms that He is the “king” under questioning from Pilate (18:33-37).

In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus has come down from the Father and is soon to return to him. His message alone can bring eternal life. He himself is equal with God. He existed before he came into the world. . . . He says that he is the one sent from God to bring life to the world, and he does signs to show that what he says is true.

His preexistence is strongly implied in the Synoptics, which also use the terminology of the Son being “sent” by the Father (Mt 10:40; 15:24; 21:37 [same notion in a parable; cf. Mk 12:6]; Mk 9:37; Lk 4:18, 43; 10:16) and the equation of folks receiving Jesus, which also means that they receive God the Father (Mt 10:40; Mk 9:37; Lk 10:16). I have gathered the abundant overall evidence of the deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels at least four times:

Deity of Jesus: Called Lord/Kurios & God/Theos [10-24-11]

Seidensticker Folly #55: Godhood of Jesus in the Synoptics [9-12-20]

9 Ways Jesus Tells Us He is God in the Synoptic Gospels [National Catholic Register, 10-28-20]

Ehrman Errors #2: Jesus is God in the Synoptics (With Emphasis on the Term “Son of God” Applied to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and Its Implications) [3-19-22]

He reveals God’s glory. Only those who receive his message can partake of the world that is above, only they are in the light, and only they can enter into the truth.

We see similar passages about disciples being the bearer of “light” in several passages in the Synoptics (Mt 5:14-16; 6:22; Lk 11:33-36; 16:8). As always, the four Gospels are complementary, not contradictory. They are fully consistent with each other. Ehrman mentions Jesus saying “I am the light of the world” (Jn 8:12). But the Synoptics teach the same thing about Him (Mt 4:16; Lk 1:79; 2:32).

Yeah, John has a lot more “stuff” and different and unique things (absolutely): to which the Christian says: “so what? Ho hum. It’s all there in the Bible for our instruction. Different books highlight different things.” Ehrman seems to find this the most inexplicably curious and foreign notion. We see it as common sense and wisdom from God.

He presents other arguments of a similar nature that are able to be shot down as well, but I have put more than enough time and effort into this reply already, and it is sufficient.

***

Ehrman replied in the combox:

So when the prophets of the OT were sent from God, or John the Baptist, does that mean they pre-existed? (3-27-22, 3:43 PM)

I counter-replied:

No. I’d appeal to your own words above, which seem different from what you are now saying. You wrote:

In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus has come down from the Father and is soon to return to him. … He existed before he came into the world…. He says that he is the one sent from God to bring life to the world, … How does one belong to the world that is above? By believing in the one who has come from that world, Jesus (3:31). … it is an appeal to believe in the one sent from heaven so as to have eternal life in the here and now.

With these comments you appear to think that when Jesus says He was “sent” in John, He was referring to His preexistence. I agree! My point is that He also does so in the Synoptics (Mt 10:40; 15:24; 21:37; Mk 12:6; 9:37; Lk 4:18, 43; 10:16).

Did you read my article? Obviously, no dialogue of much substance can occur here, with a two-comment, 400 word-per-day limit. I had barely enough words allowed to me to make this reply, and it’s my second comment of the day. But thanks for the 20-word reply!

No, I didn’t read your article. And yes, in John Jesus clearly states he pre-existed, as does the Prologue. That is precisely what we don’t have in the Synoptics. “Sent” language is common in the prophets of Scripture, with no reference to pre-existence.

I agree that pre-existence is not explicit in Mark, but it is in Matthew and Luke, as I already noted in my article:

***

Jesus teaches in His own authority (“I say to you”) in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:18-34, etc.), and many other passages. The prophets, in contrast, spoke as God’s messengers in the second person (“The Lord says…”). He often talks in a way in which only God could speak, and distinguishes Himself from the prophets (Mt 13:17). Perhaps the most striking example of this occurs in Matthew 23:

Matthew 23:34, 37 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes… [37] 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! (cf. Lk 13:34; Jud 6:8; 2 Ki 17:13; 2 Chr 24:19; Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; Hag 1:12; Zech 7:12)

Prophets don’t send other prophets. Only God sends prophets. Since Jesus is speaking in the first person of sending prophets, it’s a claim to be God. This proves His pre-existence in two ways: 1) only God does this, and he says He does it; and 2) John the Baptist was the last prophet, and he was born before Jesus; therefore, if Jesus “sent” him, He was pre-existent.

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: Christ and the young rich ruler (1889), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman writes about the topic of “Jesus: Synoptics vs. John?” & argues incorrectly that John is fundamentally different & contradictory.

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022 By

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lachish

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

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

Bethel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Azekah

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

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

Libnah

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

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

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

Eglon

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

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

Debir

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

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

Gaza

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

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

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

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

This study has included 29 sites, which have been divided into two main categories: the “conquered cities” and the “unconquered cities”. The first category has been subdivided into three groups: excavated cities, surveyed cities and others. In all of the “unconquered cities” excavations have been carried out.
*
Two questions were asked concerning each of the sites: were they inhabited in the periods in question (Late Bronze Age II, Iron Age I and II), and can we know something about the cultural backgrounds of the inhabitants. In most cases it could be determined that the culture was influenced either by the Coastal Plain culture (C) or the Hill Country culture (H). The third possibility was the Sea People culture (mostly Philistines, P). . . .
*
The list of the “conquered cities” contains 19 sites. 12 of them have been excavated, 5 have been surveyed and 2 neither have been carried out. In 10 of the 12 excavated cities C-culture dominated in the Late Bronze Age II and in 3 of them (Ai, Arad and Makkedah) there was no identifiable settlement in that period. The cultural change between the Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age I can be seen in all of the sites, although in some it is not very obvious. This change does not happen simultaneously, in Ai the H-culture begins in Iron Age I as in almost all the other cities in this group, but Arad and Makkedah have no settlement until Iron Age II.
*
In 8 of the 12 excavated sites the new settlers seem to represent H culture. . . .
*
The list of the “unconquered cities” contains 10 sites, all of which have been excavated. C-culture dominated in all the sites in Late Bronze Age II. In the Iron Age I the same culture (C) has been found in at least 4 of them and P-culture or its variations in 5 of them (Gezer, Jarmuth, Dor, Aphek, and Achsaph). . . .
*
The conspicuous difference between the archaeology of the “conquered” and the “unconquered” cities is that in the former ones the H-culture begins during Iron Age I (although not commencing simultaneously), and in the latter it only starts in Iron Age II. (15)
This is strong archaeological confirmation of the biblical descriptions of the conquest. Waltke (backed up by others) (16) made a similar observation:
The sudden emergence of hundreds of new sites by pastoral nomads in Iron I contrasts sharply with the reduced number of sites in LB in comparison with MB. Kochavi (17) wrote: “During the Late Bronze Age, and especially towards its end, new small unfortified settlements are known. However, with the beginning of the Iron Age, they suddenly appear by the hundreds.” I. Finkelstein (18) elaborates:

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

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

(3) Kitchen, ibid., 188.

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

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

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

(7) Kitchen, ibid., 186.

(8) Kitchen, ibid., 189.

(9) Kitchen, ibid., 183.

(10) Kitchen, ibid., 183.

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

(12) Kitchen, ibid., 184.

(13) Kitchen, ibid., 184.

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

 

March 23, 2022

March 23, 2022 By

Including Possible Archaeological Evidence for the Battle of Deborah in Judges 4

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

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

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

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

*****

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

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

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

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

Joshua 11:10-13 (RSV) And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote its king with the sword; for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. [11] And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed, and he burned Hazor with fire. [12] And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took, and smote them with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. [13] But none of the cities that stood on mounds did Israel burn, except Hazor only; that Joshua burned. (“Jabin king of Hazor” was referred to in 11:1)

Ehrman makes the patently, demonstrably false statement:

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

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

At the moment, I am dealing with only Hazor. I’ll get to many other cities in due course (I have the time, since I am a full-time apologist). Remember, Ehrman claimed there was “no support . . . none” for “violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua”: as I detail the actual, specific archaeological evidence that he thinks is nonexistent. It’s easy (and very foolish) to make  “universal negative” statements. And it’s easy as pie to shoot them down. Even a single counter-example already logically demolishes such sweeping and “triumphalistic” claims. But I will produce many counter-examples in this and other similar articles to come.

Hazor, according to archaeology (1), was “destroyed along with a massive conflagration in the thirteenth century, probably toward its end” (exactly the time period of Joshua).

In 1996 rather sensational charred remains of a late Bronze Age palace were discovered in excavations led by Amnon Ben Tor. That this was the work of the Israelites was suggested by the “deliberate decapitation and mutilation of statues of deities, in keeping with the charge of Moses to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7:5”. “The emerging picture, . . . is consistent with the description of the sack of Hazor in Joshua 11.” (2)

Eero Junkkaala wrote at length specifically about this general topic and noted that four Israeli archaeologists (Yadin, Aharoni, Ben-Tor, and Frankel) agreed and concluded that the city was destroyed militarily by the Israelites. Frankel wrote about it: “the archaeological finds ostensibly correlate with the biblical description: a Canaanite city was totally destroyed and a small Iron I village was built upon its ruins.” (3).

In stratum XIII, the last of the Bronze Age strata, the building [“probably a palace”] was destroyed by fire. (4)

Rafael Frankel [see his book], also maintained that “in the case of the conquest of Hazor too, the archaeological finds ostensibly correlate with the biblical description: a Canaanite city was totally destroyed and a small Iron I village was built upon its ruins.”

Footnotes:

(1) Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 185.

(2) James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 35.

(3) Eero Junkkaala, Three Conquests of Canaan: A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and Joshua 10-12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence (Finland: Abo Akademie University Press, 2006); citations from pages 230-231, 233-234.

(4) Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Continuum, revised edition of 2001), 78.

Even Ehrman concedes in his article that Hazor was “wiped out at about the right time,” which of course contradicts his earlier statement that there was “no support . . . none“ [my italics] for the “violent destruction of the cities of Canaan”. Which is it? Perhaps Ehrman can explain to us this discrepancy in his argument. In any event, the evidence for the burning destruction of Hazor in Joshua’s time is clear and incontrovertible.

Now we can deal with the topic of Judges 4, which Ehrman takes to be a biblical contradiction. He writes:

In ch. 11 [of Joshua], for example, the Israelite forces completely annihilate the city of Hazor: . . . If that were true, why is it that in the next book, Judges, the Canaanites still very much live in and control Hazor, under their king Jabin, whose powerful army afflicted and oppressed the Israelites (Judges 4)?

The battle is described in Judges 4:1-24 (the entire chapter), complete with references to “Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor” (4:2), “Jabin the king of Hazor” (4:17), “Jabin the king of Canaan” (twice in 4:23-24), and “Jabin king of Canaan” (4:24). There is no mention, by the way, in this second incident, of Hazor being burned or destroyed; only that Jabin was “destroyed.” This corresponds with the archaeology that likewise doesn’t show a second destruction at this time.

So of course, the skeptics and atheists have had a grand time mocking this, since the city was burned in Joshua 11, and here it is again, with the same king? How hilarious, huh? The only problem is that there is a long time gap involved, which Ehrman neglects (he acts as if the two events were close in time). In fact,  Judges 3:11 states that “the land had rest forty years” and notes that the first Judge Othniel died.  Judges 3:30 then informs us that “the land had rest for eighty years.” By my math that is at least 120 years that had passed since Joshua’s destruction of Hazor, and this second battle led by Deborah, who is brought up five verses later.

The first battle was around 1230-1200 BC, according to archaeologist and Egyptologist Kitchen, and several other prominent archaeologists. But when is the time period of Deborah? It so happens that recently, archaeologists believe they may have found evidence of the town Haro’sheth-ha-goiim, where Deborah’s nemesis Sisera dwelt (Jud 4:2). El Ahwat is now believed to possibly be the location (as reported in The Jerusalem Post on 11-27-19). A chariot linchpin was found on the site, as Wikipedia reports. 900 chariots were involved in this battle (Jud 4:7, 15-16).

Wikipedia also noted that the well-known Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein dated the site at around 1060-1050 BC [Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E. 2007. Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology with an Addendum on el-Ahwat. Ägypten und Levante: Internationale Zeitschrift für ägyptische archäologie und deren nachbargebeite Vol. 17.]. Wikipedia (“Deborah”) states that “Traditional Jewish chronology places Deborah’s 40 years of judging Israel (Judges 5:31) from 1107 BC until her death in 1067 BC” [see further source].

As one can see, the dates almost line up with Finkelstein’s scholarly archaeological opinion. A. D. H. Mayes, in his article, “The Historical Context of the Battle against Sisera”, Vetus Testamentum. 19 (3) [1969]: 353–360 [download a PDF copy at an article site] also believes that the most likely period for this battle was somewhere between 1050-1000 BC.

So how do such judgments correspond with the biblical data? They do quite strikingly. The Bible notes at least a 120-year gap between Joshua and Deborah and this second battle. The late estimate for the first battle (1200 BC)  is 140 or 150 years earlier than Finkelstein’s estimate, and 150-200 years earlier from that of Mayes. Given the inexact nature of much archaeological speculation, that is very good correspondence indeed; there may very well be more unmentioned years passed, according to the Bible, and so it is seen that the Bible is (for the zillionth time) historically accurate and (conversely) not definitely in error.

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

All this being the case, Ehrman’s objection basically vanishes to nothing. It’s not unthinkable at all for a town to rebuild itself in a period of 140-200 years. Archaeologist Rafael Frankel stated about Hazor, that “a small Iron I village was built upon its ruins.” That’s all we need to know. It was in existence (again) at the time of Deborah’s battle.

The only remaining problem is the multiple mention of king Jabin. It appears, in light of all of the above, that there simply were two people with this same name. This is not unusual at all, when we look at the history of kings all over the world. A list of Assyrian kings, for example, shows many examples of multiple king names (indicated by “II”, “III”, “IV”, or “V” after the names): most of them closer in time to each other than the 120-year minimum spread between the two Jabins. Scottish kings show the same tendency; as do Egyptian pharaohs and no doubt many other (if not all other) such lists. The most famous multiple names perhaps come from the French monarchs, with 19 kings named Louis and ten named Charles. So that is a non-issue.

With that settled, Ehrman’s entire objection — at least in my humble opinion — vanishes, in light of what we know from secular archaeological science and history (not simply biased Christian apologetics or internal Christian arguments from the Bible).

***

See the related paper, Pearce’s Potshots #41: 13th c. BC Canaanite Iron Chariots [7-16-21]

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: Qasinka (2-9-13). Ruins of Hazor [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman makes several objections regarding Hazor and the “conquest” of Canaan by the Israelites. I provide strong counter-arguments.

 

March 22, 2022

March 22, 2022 By

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

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

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

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

*****

I am responding to his articles, But Why Doesn’t Paul Say More About the Historical Jesus? (12/9/2021) and Why Doesn’t Paul Say More about the Historical Jesus? Other Options. (12-11-21). His words will be in blue.

To this point I have enumerated everything that Paul explicitly says about what Jesus said, did, and experienced during his earthly life.  The driving question is the one that I turn to now and in the next post.  Why didn’t Paul tell us more?

The short (and I think, obvious) answer is that we have the four Gospels that already do so. How many times are necessary? Now, I could see that if there were no Gospels, and Paul was all we had, that it would become altogether necessary, to present the whole picture. But with them present, the equation changes. Paul is basically writing systematic theology: how the atoning death of Christ brings salvation.

He is dealing with the theological implications; doing theology; whereas the Gospels (much more in the style of the Old Testament), are “doing” the life of Christ; telling the story of His ministry and mission. The Old Testament had very little systematic theology per se. Paul was offering something new and exciting: in effect being more “Greek” than “Jewish” in his approach and intention.

I suppose Ehrman could come back with “the Gospels weren’t written yet when Paul wrote his letters.” Whether they were or not, there were certainly very strong oral traditions out and about, by this time, some twenty or more years after the crucifixion. All are agreed on that. Paul assumes that his readers already have this knowledge:

Ephesians 4:20-21 (RSV) You did not so learn Christ! — [21] assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus.

Colossians 1:4-5 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love which you have for all the saints, [5] because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. [Lk 12:39]

He demonstrates almost exact familiarity with either a Gospel or a tradition that was behind the story of the Gospels:

Acts 13:24-25 Before his coming John had preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. [Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3] [25] And as John was finishing his course, he said, `What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. [Jn 1:21] No, but after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’ [Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Jn 1:15, 30] (cf. Acts 19:4)

Romans 2:1 . . . when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. [Mt 7:1-2; Lk 6:37]

Romans 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. [Mt 5:44]

Romans 13:7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Mt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25]

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [Lk 22:19-20]

1 Corinthians 15:36 . . . What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. [Jn 12:24]

Ephesians 5:8 for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light [Jn 12:35-36] (cf. Lk 16:8; 1 Thess 5:4-5)

1 Thessalonians 1:7 and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, [Mt 25:31] (cf. 1 Thess 4:16-17)

He cites a tradition about Jesus that is not in the Gospels (but arguably is, by logical extension, in thought):

Acts 20:35 In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.'”

He cites something else that isn’t found in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 9:10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop.

Moreover, Luke (who many think wrote the Gospel bearing his name) was Paul’s companion and doctor (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 1:24). And he was writing an account of many major events in Paul’s own life, in the book of Acts (see 1:1-5; cf. Lk 1:1-4). One can imagine Paul and Luke talking about how Luke had written or was to write the Gospel of Luke, and Paul saying, “you do the life of Jesus, and I’ll do the theology of Jesus.  The Spirit apportions to each one individually as he wills [1 Cor 12:11].”

Moreover, Mark (if he is regarded as the author of the Gospel of Mark) also traveled with Paul (Acts 12:25; 15:37; Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 1:24). One can easily imagine Paul having the same sorts of discussions with him, about who was writing what, as he may very well have had with Luke. In other words, he knew they had written or were to write the Gospels, and/or that they were well familiar with the oral traditions concerning Jesus; therefore, he need not do the same thing. Division of labor . . .

Paul was determined to do exactly what God had called him to do, such as, for example, his specific mission to the Gentiles, not the Jews (Acts 13:46; 18:6; Rom 11:13; 15:15-16; Gal 1:16). I contend, then, that (following the idea of his very specific, particular mission) Paul deliberately sought to write about Christology and the theology of Jesus, rather than specifically about His life (biography, or the story of salvation).

Paul of course has a lot to say about the importance of Jesus, especially the importance of his death and resurrection and his imminent return from heaven.

Exactly! And that’s because he was writing “the theology of Jesus” and not “the life of Jesus.”

We hear nothing here of the details of Jesus’ birth or parents or early life, nothing of his baptism or temptation in the wilderness, nothing of his teaching about the coming Kingdom of God; we have no indication that he ever told a parable, that he ever healed anyone, cast out a demon, or raised the dead; we learn nothing of his transfiguration or triumphal entry, nothing of his cleansing of the Temple, nothing of his interrogation by the Sanhedrin or trial before Pilate, nothing of his being rejected in favor of Barabbas, of his being mocked, of his being flogged, etc. etc. etc.

This perfectly illustrates my argument. All of those things mentioned just happen to be (by the merest of coincidences!) in the four Gospels. That’s why Ehrman knew about them in the first place. Yet Ehrman finds it odd that Paul deliberately chooses not to do the same thing a fifth time (!). I’ve always thought this was a very odd skeptical / atheist objection.

But he does at least stumble into the most feasible explanation in his sentence before the above paragraph: “Imagine what we wouldn’t know about Jesus if these letters were our only sources of information.” That’s right. I agree! But since that’s not the case, it’s rather a moot point, isn’t it? Why bother with this at all? Why does the question even come up?

The historian who wants to know about the traditions concerning Jesus — or indeed, about the historical Jesus himself — will not be much helped by the surviving letters of Paul.

That’s correct, but it’s not a problem. The Christian and the theologian or historian interested in the history of theology and/or ideas or the sociologist of religion will find Paul’s letters crucial and immensely helpful; indispensable, because this was Paul’s purpose.

But what are we to make of this?

Nothing. It’s a non sequitur.

Why does Paul not remind his congregations of what Jesus said and did?

Because there was no need to.

Does he think that these things are unimportant?

No.

Does he think that they are irrelevant?

No.

Does he assume that his readers already know them?

Yes. Or if they didn’t already, they would soon, once the Gospels were all in their final forms, in writing, for posterity.

Does he know them?

Yes, just like all the other Christians.

How could he not know? 

Exactly!

Ehrman mulls over an “option one” in trying to understand this state of affairs: “we might conclude that Paul never mentioned these traditions in his letters because he knew that his converts already knew them.”

Yep. This is the answer, but Ehrman (who knows why?) finds it unsatisfactory.

[O]n occasion — relatively rare occasions, to be sure — Paul does use one of the traditions about Jesus in order to convince his converts of a necessary course of action. . . . If Paul was demonstrably inclined to use the traditions about Jesus in this way, why does he not do so more often? 

Because it was an exception to the “rule” of his methodology and purpose. Arguing by the “what ifs” and “why didn’t x say / do y?” is not a compelling or persuasive method at all. It carries very little force. We can do this all day, about anyone (including God), but what would it accomplish? Exactly nothing.

It might be a fun, stimulating exercise in imagination, thought experiment, and hypothetical speculation, but it has nothing to do with Paul’s purpose at hand. And this is habitually the problem with the analyses of skeptics like Ehrman. They are mostly subjective mush and have about as much force as an argument that vanilla ice cream is superior to chocolate (to which I reply, “well, it is on pie . . .”).

The problem with this first option is that Paul had lots of occasions to mention traditions about Jesus to buttress his views, but scarcely ever took the opportunity.

If you don’t need to do something that’s already been done, you don’t need to. A=a. The question to ask first is, “was it necessary or required?”, not, “why didn’t he do it, when he had every chance to do so?!”

Option Two: Paul knew more of the traditions of Jesus, but considered them irrelevant to his mission.

They weren’t irrelevant to his overall mission (he assumes them as a package of understood premises or presuppositions that he is now building upon); only to what he chose to write about.

Why would he choose not to?

Because it was already done and known.

If this in fact was Paul’s view, then he didn’t cite the words and deeds of Jesus simply because he didn’t think that they were important.

That doesn’t follow. One need not repeat things ad infinitum. There is a point where it simply isn’t necessary. Ehrman’s agonized, bewildered ponderings as to why this is would only make sense, I respectfully submit, if there were no Gospels or no oral “Gospel tradition” at the time Paul wrote his letters.

Option Three: Paul didn’t mention more about Jesus’ words and deeds because he didn’t know very much more.

This is where atheists and skeptics typically engage in wild flights of fancy and fantasy and fairy tales. We need not concern ourselves with this at all because it is completely subjective reasoning, that can’t even be rationally, objectively discussed.

He never inquired further into the things Jesus said and did, and possibly never even thought about inquiring further, because he simply wasn’t interested.

Right. Simply ludicrous . . .

I’m afraid that I must leave this dilemma for you to resolve.

I gave it my best shot! As always, I have great trust and confidence in my readers, to be able to critically discern which of the stated views make the most rational sense and which is the most plausible.

***

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

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

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

***

Photo credit: The Preaching of St. Paul at Ephesus (1649), by Eustache Le Sueur (1616-1655) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Agnostic anti-theist writer Bart Ehrman wonders aloud about Paul’s “neglect” of the life of Jesus. I make the obvious point that the Gospels (and the oral tradition prior to their writing) already did this four times.

June 11, 2016

June 11, 2016 By

Master List of Christian Internet Resources for Apologists (Links)

BibleAntique
(Compiled on 7-19-10; links checked and updated on 9-6-20)
***

Websites
***

A Christian Thinktank (Glenn Miller; probably the single best resource; very in-depth)

Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry (J. P. Holding)

Old Testament Issues (J. P. Holding)

The Reliability of the New Testament (J. P. Holding)

Book Recommendations (J. P. Holding)

C. Dennis McKinsey’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy: Critique and Answer Key (J. P. Holding)

Contradicting Bible Contradictions (Ben van Noort)

Bible Difficulties and Bible Contradictions (Matt Slick)

Bible Query (Christian Debater website; includes easy links to answers regarding each biblical book)

Errors and Contradictions in the Bible? (part of the Answering Islam website)

192 Alleged “Contradictions” in the Bible (+ Part Two / Part Three) (Unam Sanctam Catholicam [Catholic] )

Defending the Gospels: Answers to [38] Problems in Reply to “Shredding the Gospels” by Diogenes the Cynic (John McClymont)

Apologetics Press: Alleged Discrepancies (mostly by Eric Lyons)

Resolved Biblical Contradictions (Rational Christianity site)

Dealing With Apparent Contradictions in Scripture (John Kitchen; PDF)

Responses to various alleged contradictions in the Gospel of John (Sam Shamoun)

Why do all four Gospels contain different versions of the inscription on the Cross? (Russell M. Grigg)

A Suggested Harmonization of the Resurrection Narratives (Murray J. Harris)

The Resurrection of Jesus: A harmony of the resurrection accounts (Answering Islam website)

The Problem of Apparent Chronological Contradictions in the Synoptics (Joe Botti, Tom Dixon, and Alex Steinman)

Bible Difficulties (Come Reason Ministries)

What about the Jesus Seminar? (Answering Islam site)

Replies to Various Controversial Issues Regarding the Bible (Answering Islam site)

The Myth of “Factual” Bible Contradictions (Eric Lyons)

Are There Contradictions in Genesis 1 and 2? (Kenneth J. Howell; This Rock, January 2004 [Catholic] )

Contradictions in Scripture? (Brian W. Harrison [Catholic] )

Skeptic’s Instructions for Reading the Bible:

  • Always read it completely literally in isolation and never take into account the social, historical, literary and cultural context in which it was written.
  • Have a wrong concept of how God should have done things and then throw the rattle out of the pram when he does things differently – this is otherwise known as setting up a straw man and then knocking him down.
  • Assume that God dictated it rather than using men in the social, historical and cultural context of the day.
  • If there is a difficult passage never consult a commentary written by someone who understands the social, historical, literary and cultural context.
  • Never compare scripture with scripture to find the meaning of difficult texts
  • Never use different Bible versions, never check out the Greek or Hebrew.
  • Always assume that if you cannot understand something then it cannot ever be true.
  • Ignore the fact of progressive revelation.
  • Never try to understand difficult doctrines like the Holy Trinity, and never consult a theologian who can better explain these things.

[from Ross A. Taylor’s Bible Difficulties: Resources to Refute the Skeptics and Critics; last item modified a bit presently]

Norman L. Geisler, in his book, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Baker Books: 1992), made a similar list about the mistakes that atheists make when approaching the Bible and attempting to interpret it (hat tip to Ross Taylor’s site above):

1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable.
2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent.
3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God’s infallible revelation.
4. Failing to understand the context of the passage.
5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones.
6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage.
7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics.
8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report.
9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations.
10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones.
11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all its records.
12. Forgetting that the Bible uses non-technical, everyday language.
13. Assuming that round numbers are false.
14. Neglecting to note that the bible uses different literary devices.
15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of scripture, is without error.
16. Confusing general statements with universal ones.
17. Forgetting that latter revelation supersedes previous revelation.

Books
***

BIBLE DIFFICULTIES, “HARD SAYINGS”, AND ALLEGED “CONTRADICTIONS”

Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan: 1982) [read online for free: PDF format]

Gleason L. Archer, Jr., New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan: 2001)

William Arndt, Bible Difficulties: An Examination Of Passages Of The Bible Alleged To Be Irreconcilable With Its Inspiration (Kessinger Pub.: 2008)

William Arndt, Does the Bible Contradict Itself?: A Discussion of Alleged Contradictions in the Bible (Concordia Pub. House: 5th ed., 1976)

William Arndt, Robert G. Hoerber, & Walther R. Roehrs, Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions (Concordia Pub. House: 1987)

Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul (IVP: 1989)

F. F. Bruce, Hard Sayings of Jesus (IVP: 1983)

Phillip Campbell, The Book of Non-Contradiction: Harmonizing the Scriptures (Grass Lake, Michigan: Cruachan Hill Press: 2017)

Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Baker: 2011)

Carey L. Daniel, The Bible’s Seeming Contradictions: 101 Paradoxes Harmonized (Zondervan, 1941)

M. R DeHaan, 508 Answers to Bible Questions: With Answers to Seeming Bible Contradictions (Zondervan: 1952)

Daniel Worcester Faunce, A Young Man’s Difficulties With His Bible (American Baptist Pub. Soc.: 1898) [read online for free at Internet Archive: link one / link two]

Daniel Worcester Faunce, The Mature Man’s Difficulties With His Bible (American Baptist Pub. Soc.: 1908) [read online for free at Internet Archive]

Norman L. Geisler, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Baker Books: 1992)

Norman L. Geisler & Thomas Howe, Big Book of Bible Difficulties: The Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation (Baker Books: 2008)

John Haley, Alleged Discrepancies Of The Bible (Whitaker House: 2004; originally 1874) [read online for free at Internet Archive; links to choose from: one / two / three / four]

James Augustus Hessey, Moral Difficulties Connected With the Bible (SPCK: 1871) [read online for free at Internet Archive]

A. F. W. Ingram, New Testament Difficulties (SPCK: 1903) [read online for free at Internet Archive]

Timothy Paul Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus (IVP: 2007)

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., editor, Hard Sayings of the Bible (IVP: 1996)

D. James Kennedy, Solving Bible Mysteries: Unraveling the Perplexing and Troubling Passages of Scripture (Thomas Nelson: 2000)

J. Carl Laney, Answers to Tough Questions: A Survey of Problem Passages and Issues (Kregel: 1997)

Robert Stuart MacArthur, Bible Difficulties and Their Alleviative Interpretation: Old Testament (E. B. Treat: 1899) [read online for free at Internet Archive]

H. L. Mitchell, One Hundred And Seventy-Seven Alleged Bible Contradictions And Discrepancies: A Book For Thinking Christians And Honest Skeptics (Kessinger Pub.: 2007)

David E. O’Brien, Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties (Bethany House: 1990)

William L. Pettingill & R. A. Torrey, 1001 Bible Questions Answered (Thomas Nelson: 2001)

Ron Rhodes, The Complete Book of Bible Answers (Harvest House: 1997)

Ron Rhodes, Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses: Clear Explanations for the Difficult Passages (Harvest House: 2008)

Larry Richards, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Revell: 1997)

Thomas Spalding, Scripture Difficulties Explained by Scripture References, or, The Bible its Own Interpreter (Daldy, Isbister: 1877) [read online for free at Internet Archive]

Robert H. Stein, Interpreting Puzzling Texts in the New Testament (Baker: 1997)

Robert H. Stein, Difficult Sayings in the Gospels: Jesus’ Use of Overstatement and Hyperbole (Baker: 1986)

John Thein [Catholic], The Bible and Rationalism; or, Answer to Difficulties (Kessinger: one-volume ed.: 2010) [read free online versions at Internet Archive: volumes one / two / three / four]

R. A. Torrey, Difficulties and Alleged Errors and Contradictions in the Bible (Baker Book House: 1964) [read a free online version at Internet Archive]

Robert Tuck, editor, A Handbook of Biblical Difficulties; or, Reasonable Solutions of Perplexing Things in Sacred Scripture (T. Whittaker: 1887) [read online for free at Internet Archive]

Robert Tuck, A Handbook of Scientific and Literary Bible Difficulties (T. Whittaker: 1891) [read free online version at Internet Archive]

Richard Whately, Essays on Some of the difficulties in the Writings of the Apostle Paul, and in Other Parts of the New Testament (Draper: 1865) [read free online version at Internet Archive]


BIBLICAL LITERARY FORMS / BIBLE INTERPRETATION

G. K. Beale , editor, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Baker: 1994)

G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, editors, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker: 2007)

Sandy D. Brent, Cracking Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting the Literary Genres of the Old Testament (B&H; Academic, 1999)

E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated (Baker Books: 2003)

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Baker: 2nd ed., 1996)

Jeanie C. Crain, Reading the Bible as Literature (Polity: 2010)

David A. Dorsey, Literary Structure of the Old Testament, A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi (Baker: 2004)

Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Zondervan: 2nd ed.: 1993)

R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (Regent College Pub.: 1992)

Marshall D. Johnson, Making Sense of the Bible: Literary Type As an Approach to Understanding (Eerdmans: 2002)

John R. Maier & Vincent L. Tollers, The Bible in its Literary Milieu: Contemporary Essays (Eerdmans: 1979)

Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Zondervan, 1985)

Leland Ryken & Tremper Longman III, editors, A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible (Zondervan: 1993)

Robert H. Stein, Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules (Baker: 1997)

Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors (Westminster John Know Pr: 2009)

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Baker: 2006)


ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CULTURE AND THE BIBLE / BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Cyrus H. Gordon & Gary A. Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (W. W. Norton & Co.: rev. ed.: 1998)

G. Herbert Livingston, The Pentateuch and Its Cultural Environment (Baker: 1987)

Bruce J. Malina & John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul (Fortress Press: 2006)

Bruce J. Malina & Richard L Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Fortress Press: 2nd ed.: 2002)

Bruce J. Malina & Richard L Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Augsburg Fortress Pub.: 1998)

Bruce J. Malina & John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Acts (Fortress Press: 2008)

Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Westminster John Knox Press, 3rd ed.: 2001)

John J. Pilch, The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible (Liturgical Press: 1999)

John J. Pilch, Introducing the Cultural Context of the Old Testament (Wipf & Stock: 2007)

John J. Pilch, Introducing the Cultural Context of the New Testament (Wipf & Stock: 2007)

John J. Pilch & Bruce J. Malina, editors, Handbook of Biblical Social Values (Hendrickson Pub., rev. ed.: 1998)

John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context (Zondervan: 1994)

Edwin M. Yamauchi, Gerald L. Mattingly, & Alfred J. Hoerth, editors, Peoples of the Old Testament World (Baker: 1998)


RELIABILITY AND HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE

Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?: A Look at the Historical Evidence (IVP: 1993)

Richard J. Bauckham, editor, The Book of Acts in Its First Century; Vol. 4: Palestinian Setting (Eerdmans: 1995)

Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP: 2nd ed.: 2008)

Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary (IVP: 1998)

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? (Wilder Pub.: 2009)

F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Doubleday: 1993)

R. T. France & David Wenham, editors, Gospel Perspectives, Volume 1: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels (Wipf & Stock Pub.: 2003)

R. T. France & David Wenham, editors, Gospel Perspectives, Volume 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels (Wipf & Stock Pub.: 2003)

R. T. France & David Wenham, editors, Gospel Perspectives, Volume 3: Studies in Midrash and Historiography (Wipf & Stock Pub.: 2003)

David W. J. Gill & Conrad Gempf, editors, The Book of Acts in Its First Century; Vol. 2: Graeco-Roman Setting (Eerdmans: 1994)

Colin J. Hemer, Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Eisenbrauns: 1990)

Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Wipf & Stock Pub.: 2003)

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (IVP: 2001)

Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls & Related Literature) (Eerdmans: 2003)

Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford Univ. Press, 3rd ed.: 1992)

Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts in Its First Century; Vol. 3: Paul in Roman Custody (Eerdmans: 1994)

Graham Stanton, Gospel Truth?: New Light on Jesus and the Gospels (Trinity Pr Intl: 1995)

Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Augsburg Fortress Pub., rev ed.: 2001)

Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature) (Eerdmans: 1999)

Bruce W. Winter & Andrew D. Clarke, editors, The Book of Acts in Its First Century; Vol. 1: Ancient Literary Setting (Eerdmans: 1994)


BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY (OLD TESTAMENT AND GENERAL)

William Foxwell Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Westminster John Knox Press: 2006)

William Foxwell Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (Gorgias Press: 2009)

William Foxwell Albright, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra: An Historical Survey (Harper Torchbook: 1963)

John Ashton and David Down, Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline (Master Books: 2006)

John D. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Baker: 1997)

William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel (Eerdmans: 2002)

Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Baker: 1998)

Alfred Hoerth & John McRay, Bible Archaeology: An Exploration of the History and Culture of Early Civilizations (Baker: 2006)

James K. Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible (Lion UK: 2008)

James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford Univ. Press: 1999)

James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford Univ. Press: 2010)

James K. Hoffmeier & Alan Millard, editors, The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions (Eerdmans: 2004)

David M. Howard, Jr. & Michael A. Grisanti, Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts (Kregel: 2004)

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars (Broadman & Holman Pub.: 1998)

K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2003)

K. A. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today (Wipf & Stock Pub.: 2004)

James D. Long, Riddle of the Exodus: Startling Parallels Between Ancient Jewish Sources and the Egyptian Archaeological Record (Lightcatcher Books, rev. ed., 2006)

V. Philips Long, editor, Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of Biblical Israel (Eerdmans: 2002)

Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Baker: 1997)

Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out: What Archaeology Reveals About the Truth of the Bible (Harvest House: 1997)

Iain W. Provan, V. Philips Long, & Tremper Longman, A Biblical History of Israel (Westminster John Knox Press: 2003)

Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Baker: 1997)

Edwin M. Yamauchi, Stones and the Scriptures (Baker: 1981)

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY (NEW TESTAMENT)


E. M. Blaiklock, The Archaeology of the New Testament (Thomas Nelson: 2nd ed.: 1984)

James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology (Eerdmans: 2006)

John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Baker: 2008)

Merrill Unger, Archaeology and the New Testament (Zondervan: 1984)

Edwin M. Yamauchi, The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor (Baker: 1980)

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS

Richard J. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans: 2006)

Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Baker: 2002)

Darrell L. Bock & Daniel B. Wallace, Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ (Thomas Nelson: 2007)

Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic Sage Or Son Of God? (Baker: 1995)

James H. Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide (Abingdon Press: 2008)

Paul Rhodes Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Baker: 2007)

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (IVP: 2008)

Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (College Press Pub. Co.: 1996)

J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, & Daniel Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Kregel: 2006)

Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Zondervan: 1998)

Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ (Zondervan: 2007)

Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus) (Eerdmans: 2000)

Michael J. Wilkins & J. P. Moreland, editors, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Zondervan: 1996)

Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (IVP: 2nd ed.: 1997)

N. T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? (Eerdmans: 1993)

N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Augsburg Fortress Pub.: 1992)

N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Augsburg Fortress Pub.: 1997)

HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND JESUS’ RESURRECTION

William Lane Craig, The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (Moody Press: 1981)

William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann; edited by Ronald Tacelli & Paul Copan, Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (IVP: 2000)

Craig A. Evans & N. T. Wright, Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened (Westminster John Knox: 2009)

Gary R. Habermas & Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel: 2004)

Gary R. Habermas & Antony Flew; edited by David J. Baggett, Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation With Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (IVP: 2009)

Gary R. Habermas, Antony Flew, & Terry L. Miethe, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate (Wipf & Stock: 2003)

Josh McDowell & Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection (Regal: 2009)

Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone? (Zondervan: 1987)

Lee Strobel, The Case for Easter: Journalist Investigates the Evidence for the Resurrection (Zondervan: 2004)

Lee Strobel, The Case for the Resurrection (Zondervan: 2010)

N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Augsburg Fortress Pub.: 2003)

N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (HarperOne: 2008)

N. T. Wright & John Dominic Crossan; edited by Robert B. Stewart, The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan And N.T. Wright in Dialogue (Fortress Press: 2006)

***

Photo credit: “geralt” (12-9-14) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

***

***

 

November 16, 2015

November 16, 2015 By
. . . And of Course, “Jittery John” Again Explodes . . . 
 Volcano
[Flickr /  CC BY 2.0 license]
(11-30-06)
“Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.”

Job 38:3 (RSV)

“Pour forth the overflowings of your anger, and look on every one that is proud, and abase him . . . bring him low; and tread down the wicked where they stand.”

Job 40:11-12

 

This amazing display of condescension came about after I commented on a post from atheist John W. Loftus (author of a bunch of books and webmaster of the influential Debunking Christianity website), having to do with whether God was in time or not. John has a history (with me, at any rate) of flying off the handle, rather than presenting rational counter-replies, when some criticism is offered. The classic case was when I dared to offer criticisms of his deconversion story. His reaction has to be seen to be believed.

I had hoped that (with the passage of time) he had gotten over this skittishness and hair-trigger defensiveness and condescension where I am concerned, but alas, it was not to be. He has even “upped the ante” and continued a stream of insults toward me, for (quite outrageously) being and acting like a Christian confident in his faith and able to defend it. In the past, he has called me a “joke” and an “arrogant idiot” among other things. He has yet to retract any of the epithets.

Now, I’m the first to gladly assert that his reaction should not be seen as one that typifies atheists, or disproves any particular atheist version of reality. Neither is true. But that is not my purpose at present; rather, it is to show how even intelligent people (John has two masters’ degrees) can become utterly irrational and unreasonable when confronted with criticism of their arguments, and how harmful this is to the intellectual endeavor. This is how not to do it, folks!

There is also some considerable humor and amusement to be enjoyed (the section about “obvious”); I simply couldn’t resist. He laid himself out wide open on that one; provided the rope to hang him with. John’s words will be in blue.

* * * * *

. . . look these arguments up before you comment further. Please do my readers a favor here. Read up on this topic before you continue to waste space. Let other more informed people comment.

ME: On the other hand, it is obvious that God must be outside of time, if one accepts the description of Him that the Bible offers.

That he walked in the cool of the Garden of Eden? That he showed Moses his back side? That he appeared to Abraham? That he changed his mind? That he visited us in Jesus? You are ignorant if you think what you just said is obvious.

. . . Anthropomorphism. That saves you, doesn’t it? Then show me one verse in the Bible that could not have been written by an ancient superstitious person. Just one. Show me where there was a prediction of the computer chip, or a vaccine for Polio. Show me where God told people about the vastness and age of the universe.

ME: I suspect you are slanting his full argument. If he is orthodox, he would not put it in such despairing terms.

Read it yourself. Why is it that you distrust what I say? If you distrust what I say then why bother to comment on this at all? Just say you don’t believe he said this and move on.

[I didn’t say I distrusted it, only that there was possible bias in presenting the Christian’s argument]

Dave, you present your uninformed arguments as if everyone should agree with you, and that is what I object to.

You used the words “obvious” and “obviously” twice in this last comment alone, when not even all Christians will agree with you, much less atheists. Why do you continue to insist that the things you believe are obvious? That’s what I think is ignorant of you, for if they were obvious no one would disagree.

But that’s not all. You state “it is nonsensical and utterly illogical.” You state “This is radically unbiblical,” and “impossible exegetically.”

You annoy me, not because of your arguments, but because of your ill placed confidence. Any educated person would not state the things you do with such arrogance. That’s all.

Besides, it does nothing for your argument to add the word “obviously” to it. And if you were informed as you say about this, then you would know that such interpretatons are not impossible since Christians themselves think otherwise.

I mean, really, with you there is no discussion to be had for any topic you write about. You are the answer man. Everyone else is ignoring the obvious. And that’s the hallmark of an ignorant and uneducated man.

You keep being personally insulting, John, and I’ll keep making arguments (just like when I critiqued your deconversion). People can see through that.

If I’m as big of a dolt and an ignoramus as you endlessly contend, then surely you’ll be able to blow my arguments out of the water.

But of course, since you’re far less “confident” than I am, this handicap (or virtue, depending on one’s point of view) would OBVIOUSLY present an opposing counter-weight to your doing so.

Which scholar, for instance, would you point to who says his arguments are obvious?

I don’t know who’s a scholar or who isn’t, but I’ll use examples from this very blog:

Obviously, the problem is that each author of the various books treats ‘Faith’ as something differently.

(DagoodS, 11-1-06)

(I won’t argue whether such a conception of “degrees of individuality” is “true or not” in a philosophical sense, which will obviously get us no where, since how could one prove any of my assumptions above at all)?

(Ed Babinski, 10-20-06)

Obviously, this passage presents some theological difficulties for early Christians. This passage seems to run against the notion that Jesus is God.

(Bill Curry, 11-6-06)

. . . God must take the sum total of His wrath out on the most unworthy recipient, a wholly guiltless individual, who also happens to be Himself? Why is such a belief necessary? And why do Christian creeds insist on the necessity of such a belief, when it obviously does not appeal to all, nor even make sense to all?

(Ed Babinski, 10-20-06)

Conclusive proof that the Bible is NOT inerrant. [title] . . . The God who created the Universe, stars, planets, and our own Sun, obviously wasn’t aware of the very astronomical phenomena he created.

(Desolate-Paladin, 6-21-06)

Steve is obviously committing a fallacious appeal to authority, considering he hasn’t yet even evaluated my writing in order to refute it on the grounds of “no formal credentials”.

(Daniel Morgan, 5-11-06)

The Establishment Clause is best understood by the Lemon Test. This situation fails the test on obvious grounds, . . .

(Daniel Morgan, this very day: 11-30-06)

The message was as obvious as anything, but I tried to look for answers. I read up on the responses from all the theological camps, from the conservatives (Blomberg, Marshall, McKnight, Wright, Witherington) to moderates (Meyer, Brown) to the Jesus Seminar.

(exapologist – almost a scholar, going for his doctorate in philosophy, 9-9-06)

Rather it is a book easily proven to be filled with errors and of obvious human origin.

(s burgener, 11-5-06)

Now let’s say a Calvinist offers an answer and is unconvinced by any of my replies. I never said I could convince those who hold to absolutely idiotic beliefs such as this one, that they are wrong. Any thinking person not already blinded by their faith would see the obvious and serious problem here.

(John W. Loftus, 10-15-06)

[I]t is apparent that upon careful examination, several fundamental elements of the Christian faith do not stand up to outside critiques, or even, in some cases, to several passages in the same book. In the case of the ‘virginal birth’ and the accompanying prophecies, it is obvious that the two critical parts of the faith of Christianity can not logically coexist. But then, logic is not what religion is based upon.

(C.J. Baserap, 5-14-06)

But here’s one scholar, at least: William Lane Craig:

There’s another version of Dr. Ehrman’s objection which is even more obviously fallacious than Ehrman’s Egregious Error. I call it “Bart’s Blunder.”

In this paper, presented by you (6-6-06), you yourself state that Craig is a pretty decent scholar, not an idiot and deluded and presumptuous fool like you think I am: “Craig understands symbolic logic, and uses it to his advantage whenever he can. . . . Craig does a masterful job of it.”

Since Dr. Craig used the outrageous word “obvious” with regard to one of his own arguments, or regarding the “obviously fallacious . . . Egregious Error” [his capital letters] and “Blunder” of an opponent, then he, too must be (as you say I am) “the answer man. Everyone else is ignoring the obvious . . . the hallmark of an ignorant and uneducated man.” Nice little foray into symbolic logic there, John . . .

And again you (5-7-06) cite NT scholar James Dunn (one whom Ed Babinski has tried to cite against my position):

“John’s Gospel is ‘obviously different’ [Dunn] from the other three earlier Gospels in terms of style and content.”

So there is another “ignorant and uneducated” scholar, using this dreaded word “obvious” and thus proving that he has no business commenting on anything at all, with such unmitigated gall and hubris, leading him to possess such inappropriate confidence!

Okay Dave. Fine. Where do you get the time to search these things out? For me to answer you I would have to search out the context of every one of these uses of “obviously.” But let me guess. Craig does this only in debates for rhetorical effect. Others were talking about their own notions and personal experiences. Still others are indeed fairly obvious.

They’re what???!!!

There are other usages you pointed to which I’ll let those who used them speak for themselves. But if I’m arguing against a viewpoint that I know my opponent doesn’t agree with, or if I’m arguing a minority viewpoint, or a contestable viewpoint then it’s ignorant to use the word for anything contestable, especially as much as you use it. And even when you don’t use such a word it’s in the whole tone of what you write.

For instance it is “obvious” to me that Christianity is false.

It’s what???!!! But of course, this is not an arrogant use of the word; only when I use it to defend Christianity. Curious logic . . .

That’s my personal belief, and it’s proper to use this word to describe my personal feelings about Christianity. But to say it’s “obvious” that Christianity is false in an argument that attempts to show another person that it’s false, is ignorant, unless done for rhetorical effect, which is merely rhetorical and has no force at all. Ehrman could’ve simply said “this is not obvious to me.”

That’s interesting. So to describe an argument as “obviously wrong” is insufferably arrogant, but to utilize a number of different arguments to make a statement describing one’s conclusion that an entire religion is obviously false, is perfectly prim and proper. It’s a silly distinction. Just let people say what they want to, and give them the freedom to use whatever words they wish. John finds my style offensive and overly-confident. I find his insulting and condescending. Does he really think my being confident that an argument is “obviously wrong” is more offensive than him calling me an “arrogant idiot” and all the additional insults (most aimed at my knowledge and intelligence) seen presently?

I am annoyed by people like you, and it may be a personality problem. I’m annoyed with pompous self-righteous know-it-all’s, especially when I know they don’t.

See, there you go! LOL Yet another to add to my collection. So John lectures me about supposed attitudes, using examples that don’t prove his point, and then absolutely proves that his attitude is far worse than mine, by any objective criteria.

And that is how you come across. Now it might go over well with your supporters and visitors to your site, but not here. Here you will find people who disagree with you a lot more often.

Not only do you think you’re right when you haven’t read the relevant literature. Now you are attempting to defend the arrogant way you argue. You’re just right about everything, or, at least you always come across that way. And in my book that reveals you are an uneducated, ignorant, arrogant know-it-all.

What I am probably going to do is to delete these comments tomorrow so that we can start this discussion all over again. You may copy them if you want to, but they are off track.

Yes, of course (precisely why I knew I had to preserve them). I suppose I would do the same thing, if something made me look like a fool, as this stuff does regarding John.

[to someone else]:

I think people who argue in the manner I see over at Triablogue [an anti-Catholic site], and even Dave Armstrong to some degree, don’t care about us as persons. They only want to show to others, whom they do care for, that we are wrong. Many of them think we are ignorant or willfully ignorant deceivers who don’t care about the truth at all. So they treat us like non-persons.

Yes, of course. I disagree with a position, and this sort of hyper-paranoid tripe is what I get back. But John is clearly (whoops, OBVIOUSLY) showing tons of “care” for me as “person” when he uses the following descriptions (all now a matter of record):

you continue to waste space

You are ignorant

you present your uninformed arguments as if everyone should agree with you

Any educated person would not state the things you do with such arrogance.

with you there is no discussion to be had for any topic you write about.

You are the answer man. Everyone else is ignoring the obvious. And that’s the hallmark of an ignorant and uneducated man.

I am annoyed by people like you, . . . pompous self-righteous know-it-all’s

Now you are attempting to defend the arrogant way you argue.

You’re just right about everything, or, at least you always come across that way.

you are an uneducated, ignorant, arrogant know-it-all.

I think people who argue in the manner I see over at Triablogue, and even Dave Armstrong to some degree, don’t care about us as persons.

Many of them [implied, including me] think we are ignorant or willfully ignorant deceivers who don’t care about the truth at all. So they treat us like non-persons.

(all on 11-30-06)

Not bad for a day’s work, especially for one who is lecturing another about how to treat folks respectfully. What else has John said about me in the past?:

Dave, as I read this [my critique of his deconversion] I thought to myself, he doesn’t think of me as an equal. He looks down his nose at me. As I’m writing he looks for loopholes. He doesn’t think I was sincere. I’m probably not even a person to him.

You’re a joke. I’m surprised you have an audience. You’re also a psychologist, eh? Wow! . . . Again, you’re a joke.

. . . that quite frankly is stupid of you.

You’re a joke, and I just don’t have the time to teach you what you need to understand.

To think you could pompously proclaim you are better than me is beyond me when you don’t know me. It’s a defensive mechanism you have with people like me.

You have shown yourself to be non-objective with me and to parade before the ignorant how smart and how much more faith you have than I did.

It’s called respecting people as people, and Dave’s Christianity does not do that with people who don’t agree with him.

I’m just tired of pompous asses on the internet who go around claiming they are superior to me in terms of intelligence and faith. Such arrogance makes me vomit.

. . . self-assured arrogant idiots out there, like Dave, who prefer to proclaim off of my personal experience that they are better than I.

(10-16-06; wow, it’a close call between these two insult-days. I give the nod to 10-16, though, because I love “arrogant idiot” and “joke” the best)

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
So-Called Traditional Catholics Follow The Wrong...
A Little Bit of Nothing
2
Catholic Mass is Orthodox – Right...
Formation Matters
3
Theologies of the Soul. Soul 1
Public Theology
4
Hindu-Christian Marriages
Equality For Happiness
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Notes on the Eclipse (Don't tell Bishop Strickland)
On Divine Mercy Sunday, remember Saint Faustina's vision
Thoughts On Intelligent Design
Thomas And The Eternal Event Of The Resurrection
Should Do Something
Witness to History: the Donkey
view all Catholic blogs