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 25, 2022

March 25, 2022 By

“Receiving” Jesus is Receiving God the Father, from Whom He Was “Sent” 

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 a portion of his article, “Does Jesus Claim to Be God in Mark?” (3-19-17). His words will be in blue.

[I]n the Gospel of John Jesus does, repeatedly, claim a divine status for himself:  “I and the Father are One,” “Before Abraham was, I AM,” “If you have seen me you have seen the Father,” and so on.  These sayings are found only in John, not in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  That seems very odd if the historical Jesus really went around making such claims about himself.  How could the three earliest Gospels (and their sources: Q, M, and L!) not say anything about Jesus making such radical claims if they knew he made them.  Wouldn’t that be the most significant thing to say about Jesus, that he called himself God?  Did all of them simply decide not to mention that part?

That seems unlikely.   It is far more likely that they had never heard of such a thing, and so didn’t report it.

In fact, there is a passage that is analogous to what Ehrman himself thinks would be a “claim to divine status”: “If you have seen me you have seen the Father”:

Mark 9:37 (RSV) “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” (cf. 12:1-11 at the end, below)

If “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9; cf. 12:45) means claiming to be God (as Ehrman states) then by the same logic and exegesis, “whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me” also means claiming to be God. Therefore, Jesus made this claim, according to the Gospel of Mark. Moreover, there is a more or less exact parallel passage in John:

John 13:19-20 I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. [20] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

But there is more! The motif of being “sent” which is also present in Mark 9:37 is also massively present in the Gospel of John:

John 3:34 For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit;

John 4:34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.

John 5:23-24 that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. [24] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 5:30 I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

John 5:37-38 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; [38] and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent.

John 6:29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

John 6:38-40 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; [39] and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. [40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:57-58 “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

John 7:16 So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me;”

John 7:18 He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood.

John 7:28-29 So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, “You know me, and you know where I come from? But I have not come of my own accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do not know. [29] I know him, for I come from him, and he sent me.”

John 7:33 Jesus then said, “I shall be with you a little longer, and then I go to him who sent me;”

John 8:16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.

John 8:18 I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.

John 8:26 . . . he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.

John 8:29 And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him.

John 8:42 . . . I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 9:4 We must work the works of him who sent me . . .

John 10:36 “do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

John 12:45 And he who sees me sees him who sent me.

John 12:49 For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak.

John 13:16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.

John 14:24 He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.

John 15:21 . . . they do not know him who sent me.

John 16:5 But now I am going to him who sent me . . .

John 17:3 . . . Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

John 17:18 . . . thou didst send me into the world . . .

John 17:21 . . . so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (cf. 17:23, 25)

John 20:21 . . . the Father has sent me . . .

Lastly, Jesus utters a parable, in which the “son” that was “sent” clearly represents Himself:

Mark 12:1-11 And he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a pit for the wine press, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country. [2] When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. [3] And they took him and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. [4] Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully. [5] And he sent another, and him they killed; and so with many others, some they beat and some they killed. [6] He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, `They will respect my son.’ [7] But those tenants said to one another, `This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ [8] And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. [9] What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. [10] Have you not read this scripture: `The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; [11] this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

***

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: geralt (6-20-18) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman denies that Jesus is God in Mark. I show that He is, since receiving Him is receiving God, & because God the Father “sent” Him.

March 25, 2022

March 25, 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 in this article to a particular erroneous point Dr. Ehrman makes about the star of Bethlehem, in which (so I will contend) he fundamentally misunderstands the biblical text and the presence of habitual phenomenological language in the Bible. Here is what he has stated (his words will be in blue):

How does a star . . . lead the Magi not just to Bethlehem but stop over a house?  How does a star stop over a house? (12-26-19)

Miracles, of course, defy historical explanation. But even so, are there features of the two accounts that are difficult to explain even on the assumption that miracles happen?  How, for example, does the “star of Bethlehem” in Matthew stop moving over Jerusalem, resume moving, and then stop over a house? (11-18-21)

When I discuss this account while wearing my historical-critical hat, I talk about the plausibility of . . . a star that stops moving over a city, and then over an actual house, . . . (12-25-21)

What Does it Mean to Say that the Star of Bethlehem “Went Before” the Wise Men (Matthew 2:9)?

This refers to (in context) to the wise men being in Jerusalem and talking to Herod (Mt 2:1, 7-9). He “sent them to Bethlehem” (2:8), which is south of Jerusalem, about six miles (I myself traveled this route in 2014). Therefore, this (I submit) is what the Bible (which habitually uses phenomenological language) means by saying that the star “went before” them.

In other words, it would always have been “ahead” or “in front of” or “before” them as they traveled: much as we say we are “following the sun west” or how American slaves (in folklore, at least, if not in fact) attempting to escape to the north followed the “drinking gourd” (the “Big Dipper”) north.

Thus, one could say that the Big Dipper or North Star “went before” the slaves, just as we say they “followed” it. The North Star would also lead anyone to the North Pole if they kept following it; that is, by our vantage-point it would “go before” them.

We also refer to the sun “rising” and “setting” as if it is moving. But we know that the appearance of its movement to our eye is due to the earth’s rotation. It’s all phenomenological language, which we use all the time, just as the biblical writers also did. Hence, “The Bible History Guy” writes:

Later that year, in late November to early December of 2 B.C., Jupiter’s position in the sky, when viewed from Jerusalem, was to the south – in the direction of Bethlehem. This was six months after the brilliant birthday conjunction of Jupiter and Venus. This was just the right time for the Magi to reach Jerusalem. (1)

We know from the astronomical charts that Jupiter was to the south from Jerusalem; therefore, it “went before” the wise men as they traveled south to Bethlehem: the journey that the text refers to.

Jupiter wouldn’t have moved much on the way from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. A camel travels about 3 mph average, so it would have taken two hours to get to Bethlehem. That’s roughly the entire time the Bible refers to them (in non-literal language, I believe) following a star. In the language of appearance (non-literal language), it “went before them” not in perceived motion, but because it was always ahead of them on the way.

Dag Kihlman provides an even more fascinating and specific view:

Jupiter — if this was the star of Bethlehem — was not seen in the early evenings in December in 2 BC. It rose very late, at roughly 9 PM. . . .

A more realistic view (if Jupiter was the star of Bethlehem) is that the magi traveled early in the morning, when Jupiter was still visible. . . . In the early morning, Jupiter was south of Jerusalem, and thus in the direction of Bethlehem.

If the magi travelled in the early morning they would probably have followed the normal route between Jerusalem and Bethlehem: Derech Beit Lechem. This route follows the terrain and slowly turns to the west. If the magi started at a suitable hour, they would have had Jupiter in front of them as they left Jerusalem. If they travelled by donkey, camel or horse . . . they would have had Jupiter in front of them all the way to Bethlehem, since Jupiter would have moved slowly to the west just as the road slowly turned west. (2)

How Do We Understand the Star of Bethlehem Coming to “Rest Over the Place Where the Child Was”?

Matthew 2:9 (RSV) . . . the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was.

“The Bible History Guy” again provides a good summary of what the astronomical data indicate:

On December 2, 2 B.C., Jupiter entered retrograde motion. It continued in this state till December 25 (Julian calendar). During this time, Jupiter appeared to travel horizontally above Bethlehem, when viewed from Jerusalem, while the other planets visible, Mercury and Venus, dipped normally toward the horizon as they traversed the night sky. Jupiter’s horizontal stasis throughout December – right above Bethlehem when viewed from Jerusalem – made it appear to come to rest, as Matthew recorded, above the City of David. (3)

What is the “retrograde motion” of planets? Astronomer Christopher Crockett explains:

Typically, the planets shift slightly eastward from night to night, drifting slowly against the backdrop of stars. From time to time, however, they change direction. For a few months, they’ll head west before turning back around and resuming their easterly course. Their westward motion is called retrograde motion by astronomers. . . . [It’s] an illusion caused by the motion of Earth and these planets around the sun. (4)

As an analogy, when we pass a car on the freeway, it temporarily seems to be moving backwards. As already noted above: in December, 2 BC, Jupiter appeared to come to a stop above Bethlehem and — according to some researchers — remained there seemingly motionless for six days (5).

Ernest L. Martin noted that at dawn on December 25th in that area, it would have been at an elevation of 68 degrees, above the southern horizon: shining down on Bethlehem. See:  The Star That Astonished the World, published in 1991 (6). It would have been the brightest “star” in the sky on that day and location.

Another important aspect of this discussion is the clause “it came to rest over the place where the child was.” First of all, the text does not say that this means it shone specifically onto a “house.” This is a common misconception. Matthew 2:11 (i.e., two verses later) simply says they went “into a house”: not that the star was shining on it, identifying it. We must be precise about what any given text under consideration actually asserts and does not assert. Two of the very best and renowned Protestant Bible commentators and exegetes of our time agree:

It is not said to indicate the precise house, but the general location where the child was. (R. T. France [see link for citation]) (7)

The Greek text does not imply that the star pointed out the house where Jesus was or that it led the travelers through twisty streets; it may simply have hovered over Bethlehem as the Magi approached it. (D. A. Carson [see link for citation]) (8)

Let’s examine the actual biblical text a little more closely. The Greek “adverb of place” in Matthew 2:9 is hou (Strong’s word #3757). In RSV hou is translated by “the place where” (in KJV, simply “where”). It applies to a wide range of meanings beyond something as specific as a house.

In other passages in RSV it refers to a mountain (Mt 28:16), Nazareth (Lk 4:16), a village (Lk 24:28), the land of Midian (Acts 7:29), Puteoli (Pozzuoli): a sizeable city in Italy (Acts 28:14), and the vast wilderness that Moses and the Hebrews traveled through (Heb 3:9). Thus it can easily, plausibly refer to “Bethlehem” in Matthew 2:9.

In RSV (Mt 2:9), hou is translated by the italicized words: “it came to rest over the place where the child was.” The question, then, is: what does it mean by “place” in this instance? What is the star said to be “over”? As we’ve seen, other uses of the same word referred to a variety of larger areas. The text does not specifically say that “it stood over a house.” Yet many able and sincere, but in my opinion mistaken, Christian commentators (along with the skeptics) seem to think it does.

This is an important point because it goes to the issue of supernatural or natural. A “star” (whatever it is) shining a beam down on one house would be (I agree) supernatural; not any kind of “star” we know of in the natural world. But a star shining on an area; in the direction of an area (which a bright Jupiter was to Bethlehem in my scenario: at 68 degrees in the sky) is a perfectly natural event.

Matthew 2:9 is similar to how we say in English: “where I was, I could see the conjunction very well.” “Where” obviously refers to a place. And one’s place is many things simultaneously. Thus, when I saw the “star of Bethlehem”-like conjunction in December 2020, I was in a field, near my house (in my neighborhood), in my town (Tecumseh), in my county (Lenawee), in my state (Michigan), and in my country (United States).

This is my point about “place” in Matthew 2:9. It can mean larger areas, beyond just “house.” If the text doesn’t say specifically, “the star shone on the house” then we can’t say for sure that this is what the text meant.

I have found 18 other English Bible translations of Matthew 2:9 that also have “the place where” (Weymouth, Moffatt, Confraternity, Knox, NEB, REB, NRSV, Lamsa, Amplified, Phillips, TEV, NIV, Jerusalem, Williams, Beck, NAB, Kleist & Lilly, and Goodspeed).

In all these cases, they are translating hou: literally meaning “where” but at the same time implying place (which is the “where” referred to). The Living Bible (a very modern paraphrase) has “standing over Bethlehem”: which of course, bolsters my argument as well (because it didn’t say “house”).

All these things being understood, all the text in question plausibly meant is that the bright star was shining down on Bethlehem, just as we have all seen the moon or some bright star shining on a mountain in the distance or tall building or some other landmark.

A man might see the light from the harvest moon romantically shining on his girlfriend or wife’s face. It need not necessarily mean that this is all it is shining on. It simply looks that way from our particular vantage-point.

All of this is in my opinion, more plausible and straightforward and in line with biblical thinking than positing a supernatural “star.” It’s true that many reputable and observant Christian biblical commentators exist who do argue for that interpretation, and I don’t disparage them at all. Theirs are honest efforts just as mine is. Reasonable and equally devout Christians can and do disagree. I can only present the reasons for why I hold to my opinion.

Thus it can easily, plausibly refer to “Bethlehem” in Matthew 2:9. It may be that many readers (filled with the endless – sometimes inaccurate — images of Christmas from childhood) confuse this with another Christmas passage:

Luke 2:8-9 And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. [9]  And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear.

Note that it is the light from an angel (rather than a star) that “shone around them” and they were not yet visiting Jesus. Thus, Luke 2:15 states: “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened . . .” They were not in the same place. When I visited Bethlehem in 2014, I saw exactly how far it was: at least according to local tradition. The birth site is a considerable distance away, and at a higher elevation.

We mustn’t be led astray by extraneous factors when exegeting Holy Scripture. I believe the explanation I have adopted is feasible and in complete harmony with both science and the biblical texts.

To say, then, that the star “came to rest over the place” is to observe that they didn’t see it moving much over Bethlehem once they arrived there. I’m not an astronomer, so I can only cite other people who know more about these aspects. If the wise men hit the right day (in Bethlehem), Jupiter would have appeared to be stationary.

In the Christian view, God in His providence could have again arranged that the wise men, exercising their own free will, arrived at just the right time when the bright Jupiter appeared to be a sign above Jerusalem for this king Whom they believed was indicated by what they saw in Persia or Babylon (both due east).

Commentator Peter Pett stated that Jupiter “was actually stationary on December 25, interestingly enough, during Hanukkah, the season for giving presents.” (9) That was in 2 BC. Note again that I am not saying this is when Jesus was born, but rather, when He was at least a year old.

Ivor Bulmer-Thomas opined (10):

As a planet approaches a stationary point and then moves away from it its motion is very slow, hardly detectable by the naked eye for about a week. The Magi would have noticed the slowing down of the planet as they approached Bethlehem, and they would have recognized that a stationary point was near.

Now what is even more interesting is Bulmer-Thomas’ documentation that the ancients knew about retrograde motion of the planets, and stationary points:

[T]here is a wealth of material showing directly that for several centuries before the birth of Christ and round about the time of his birth Babylonian astronomers were deeply interested in retrogradations and stationary points. It is contained in hundreds of cuneiform texts excavated in Babylon and Uruk . . . The three volumes of Neugebauer’s Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (1955) give a vast collection of Babylonian inscriptions dealing with retrogradations and stations. (11)

This is highly significant because it would mean not only that Matthew 2:9 uses phenomenological language, but also that the Magi understood retrograde motion of planets, which may lie behind the terminology (received from oral tradition) of “came to rest over” Bethlehem.

And in my opinion these facts support my natural interpretation all the more, because it’s not just (as a critic might say) “projecting” our modern scientific understanding onto the Bible, but an understanding that already existed and was known by the Wise Men.

But if the star didn’t shine right on the “house” (Mt 2:11) where Jesus was, how did the Wise Men find it? We too often make things too complicated by over-analyzing them.  They would simply have to ask the locals about this child who generated so much excitement one or two years previously, and where He lived. Word about notable events travels fast in small towns and people know each other.

It would be like when I visited Woodstock, New York in 1992 and asked someone at a gas station if they knew where “Big Pink” was: the famous house (i.e., to rock music fans) where Bob Dylan and The Band (some of whom lived there) recorded The Basement Tapes in 1967. It so happened that this man lived there, so he took me right to it. That’s how small towns are.

Woodstock, New York in 1990 had a population of 6,290, and yet I could get to a particular house (actually several miles away in the countryside) by running into one man at a gas station. The population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ infancy was estimated to be only 300 by eminent archaeologist William F. Albright. Other Bible scholars think it was no more than a thousand. Yet we are to assume that no one there knew where Jesus and Mary and Joseph lived? That goes against common sense.

Footnotes

(1) “The Bible History Guy”, “The Real Star of Bethlehem”, 12-12-19.

(2) The Star of Bethlehem and Babylonian Astrology: Astronomy and Revelation Reveal What the Magi Saw, self-published, 2017, pp. 97-98.

(3) “The Bible History Guy”, ibid.

(4) “What is retrograde motion?”, EarthSky, 2-6-17.

(5) See, for example, Susan S. Carroll, “The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomical and Historical Perspective”, 1997,

(6) Available online at Associates for Scriptural Knowledge.

(7) The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1985), p. 84.

(8) Matthew; part of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, revised edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 1917), page undetermined at the Google Books page.

(9) Pett’s Commentary on the Bible (on Matthew 2:9). No date is given for the commentary. The author appears to still be living.

(10) “Star of Bethlehem” (Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 33, Dec. 1992), 371.

(11) Ibid., 370.

***

Note: in my particular model, the wise men visit Jesus in December of 2 BC, and I apply the objective data of what we know regarding astronomical events in and around Bethlehem at that time (particularly Jupiter and its retrograde motion). Elsewhere, I deal with the related dating issue of when Herod died, the census, etc. (see many articles collected on my Christmas web page). But generally speaking, retrograde motion of planets, the wise men’s knowledge of same, and phenomenological language in the Bible are points that stand on their own, and I believe that they provide the key to understanding the biblical texts here examined.

But Ehrman interprets hyper-literally (like fundamentalists do) and so he misses the entire point, which is far more subtle and complex than he seems to think possible with the biblical text and that time and place. This is not even a miracle, but rather, a perfectly normal celestial event, that we are able to determine through science: which took place in December, 2 BC in the vicinity of Bethlehem.

***

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: iessephoto (12-26-20) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible skeptic Bart Ehrman puzzles over what he thinks is a “star stopping over a house.” I counter that the Bible doesn’t even assert this in the first place.

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 24, 2022

March 24, 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 a portion of his article, Internal Discrepancies in the Gospel of John (6-26-18). His words will be in blue.

In John 5:1, Jesus goes to Jerusalem, where he spends the entire chapter healing and teaching. The author’s comment after this discourse, however, is somewhat puzzling: “After this, Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee” (6:1). How could he go to the other side of the sea if he is not already on one of its sides? In fact, he is nowhere near the Sea of Galilee; he is in Jerusalem of Judea.

This might seem strange to us but it wouldn’t at all to Galilean Jews in the first century who lived on the west side of the Sea of Galilee (Capernaum, where Peter’s house was and where Jesus stayed for a time). The east side was known by them as the “other side” because it was a different culture: a Gentile one. I can think of at least two American examples that are analogous to this usage.

The Grand Canyon in Arizona has, of course, two sides, or rims: the south rim and the north rim. The south rim is vastly more popular and gets ten times as many visitors. I had visited the south rim three times (hiking to the bottom on my second visit), and then in 2019 finally visited the north rim. If I were talking to anyone who had been to the Grand Canyon, I could have said, “we went to the other side of the Grand Canyon this year” and they would know exactly what I was talking about.

Secondly, as a Michigander, if I were to say that “we’re gonna visit the other side of Lake Huron / Michigan / Superior / Erie” (i.e., the Great Lakes), it would be immediately understood by anyone from Michigan that it’s the west side of Lake Michigan (in Illinois and Wisconsin), the east side of Lake Huron and north side of Lake Superior (in Ontario, Canada), and the south side of Lake Erie (in Ohio). And I have visited all those places. It has to do with the side that one is more familiar with (the Michigan side!) and/or where one lives. In that context, “the other side” is immediately understood. This analogy is almost a perfect one.

And that’s exactly what we have with regard to “the other side” of the Sea of Galilee. It was understood by Galileans that the west side was far more familiar and that referring to “the other side” was clearly the eastern Gentile side of the lake. There is still very little on the immediate shores on the east side to this day (I visited the area in 2014). Accordingly, not just the Gospel of John, but the other three Gospels all use this standard title in referring to the east side of the Sea of Galilee: which is precisely how it could be referred to as a destination from any part of the country (in this instance, from Jerusalem):

Matthew (four times): Matthew 8:18, 28; 14:22; 16:5.

Mark (five times): Mark 4:35; 5:1, 21; 6:45; 8:13.

Luke (one time): Luke 8:22.

John (three times): John 6:1, 22, 25.

The title was understood to such an extent that in all but two of fifteen instances of the phrase “other side” occurring in the New Testament, it refers to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Luke 10:30-31 being a generic, “non-title” usage). They didn’t even bother to say “east side” or “Gentile side” of the lake or whatever the region was called then (Gerasa or Gergesa, etc.) because everyone knew what “the other side” referred to. The Evangelists could have used the phrase “east side” had they chosen to (it appears 33 times in the Old Testament, though not in the new, and “east” appears eight times in the NT). But none of them chose to do that.

In any event, this objection is really “scraping the bottom of the barrel” in terms of alleged biblical “contradictions”: and I’m familiar with hundreds, having replied to a great number of them. Once we understand the reasoning and rationale above, I believe that it vanishes (alongside countless other “faux / pseudo- / alleged ‘contradictions’ “).

***

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: Zachi Evenor (2-5-14) Sea of Galilee: panorama of the southern end [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: Agnostic Bible critic Bart Ehrman tries to make out that it’s “contradictory” to refer to the “other side” of the Sea of Galilee without being on the opposite side.

 

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.

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 article, “Jesus and Paul: Are They on the Same Page?” (2-17-22). His words will be in blue.

I spent several posts explicating Paul’s understanding of his gospel, that by Christ’s death and resurrection a person is put into a restored relationship with God. He had several ways of explaining how it worked (the “judicial” model; the “participationist” model; and the other models I described). But in all of these ways, it was Jesus’ death and resurrection that mattered. It was not keeping the Jewish law. It was not knowing or following Jesus’ teaching. It was not Jesus’ miracles. It was not … anything else. It was Jesus’ death and resurrection. . . . 

Paul says something completely different.   Paul does not tell the person to follow the Law of God.  He tells him to “believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus and be baptized.”

Ehrman is here arguing as if he were a Protestant who believes in “faith alone”: a non-biblical and extra biblical tradition of men, and not the biblical teaching. He makes Paul out to be a “faith alone” zealot: as if he were no longer Jewish at all, and Jesus to be so “Jewish” in outlook that He scarcely offers any new developments in soteriology. Neither thing is true, of course, and they are quite consistent with each other: Jesus also teaches about faith (in Him) and Paul also teaches about observant faith and good works.

So the false dichotomy Ehrman tries to create in this regard is exactly that: false. It’s not “either/or” within Paul’s or Jesus’ teaching on salvation, and it’s not a dichotomy between them. Both teach about faith as a prerequisite of salvation and both teach about the necessity of good works for salvation. God’s grace is behind all of it.

First, here are no less than eighteen of Paul’s statements about salvation, which never mention Christ’s death and resurrection (which is indeed very important in his view and that of Jesus), and stress good works in the attainment of final salvation:

Romans 1:5 (RSV) through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith . . .

Romans 1:17 . . . as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”

Romans 2:6-10, 13 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. . . . [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Romans 6:17, 19 . . . you . . . have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, . . . [19] . . . For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; . . .

Romans 13:13-14 let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. [14] But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Romans 16:26 . . . according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith 

1 Corinthians 9:24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

Galatians 5:6-7 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Colossians 3:23-25 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.

2 Timothy 2:15, 21-22 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed. (cf. 3:8, 14)

I then summarized in my previous post, the teaching of Jesus himself, about the coming Son of Man and the need to prepare by keeping the Law of God, as revealed in the Torah, as summarized in the commandments to love God above all else and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.

Do these represent the same religion? . . . 

I am asking if the gospel that Paul preached is essentially the same or different from the message of Jesus. A very good case can be made, of course, that they are fundamentally different. . . . 

[A]t the end of the day, it sure seems to me that they had different understandings of “salvation.”   Jesus had an urgent message to deliver about the coming kingdom of God to be brought by the Son of Man for those who were obedient to God; and Paul had an urgent message to deliver about the return of Jesus for the “saved” – those who believed in Christ’s death and resurrection.

In a comment for this post (2–20-22), Ehrman claims that Jesus would have found Paul’s letters “completely bizarre.”

Ehrman is presenting only one side of Paul’s soteriological views and one side of Jesus’ views. That hardly gives us the whole picture. He has failed in not presenting the legal notion of “the whole truth.” Jesus surely does teach the importance of works. I myself have highlighted this, in my efforts to refute the false doctrine of salvation by faith alone. See:

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

But Jesus did not refrain from also highlighting (just as Paul did) that salvation came from belief in Him, and His death and resurrection on behalf of all mankind:

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

Mark 10:29-30 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. (cf. Mt 19:29; Lk 18:30)

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.

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.

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

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

John 6:35-36, 40, 47 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. [36] But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. . . . [40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” [47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

John 7:38 He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, `Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.'”

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

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

John 12:32 and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

John 12:46-47 I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. [47] If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.

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

So yeah, the two sets of teachings do indeed represent “the same religion.” There is no clash or contradiction whatsoever.

It is important to notice what Jesus’ response is to how to have eternal life.  You have to keep the laws God laid out in the Torah.  And if you want to have treasures in heaven, you are to do even more than that – you are to give love totally to your (poor) neighbor.   That’s how one earns salvation.

It’s not true that it is a universal requirement (according to Jesus) for everyone to give all their money to the poor in order to be saved. That’s what was required of the rich young ruler, because he had made riches his idol. But nowhere is this made a prerequisite for anyone or everyone else. Ehrman simply reads the universality into a very particular situation. The point that Jesus made to His disciples after this encounter, was not that all had to give up everything, but that, rather, “How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” and “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mk 10:23, 25).

***

Ehrman responded in his combox (3-23-22):

I’m not talking about Jesus as presented in the Gospel of John, but the historical Jesus — who never speaks about believing in his death and resurrection for salvation. And Paul certainly does not think that keeping the law will contribute to earning salvation — otherwise, as he says, “Christ died in vain.”

This is what Bible skeptics constantly do, and it is completely arbitrary and irrational. If they don’t personally care for a passage or group of related passages (if it doesn’t fit into their preconceived notions), they simply claim that they were made up and have no relation to actual history. He believes what he wants to believe (the will rather than the mind at that point). There is no way to rationally argue with this sort of utterly subjective fairy tale method of “exegesis.” Nothing objective exists in such a methodology. The only way we can object to it is to expose the methodology itself, as I just did.

If Ehrman agrees with a given biblical passage, he certainly has no objection to highlighting it as evidence for his overall disbelieving worldview. But if he doesn’t agree with it, he plays some variation of the game that we see above: it wasn’t really in the Bible or was modified by the nefarious orthodox Christians for their own ends. It’s conspiratorialism and mythmaking. This “enables” him or “justifies” him in thinking that he can dismiss with the wave of a hand all of the scriptural data that I brought to bear.

I continue to maintain that we have to analyze the Bible on its own terms. It is what it is (agree or disagree). The only way to determine if a biblical book is historically trustworthy (from a secular scientific perspective) is to examine it using secular and scientific criteria (archaeology and historiography). I have done this with the book of John. See: Gospel of John & Archaeology & History (17 Extrabiblical Verifications of the Gospel of John’s Historical Accuracy). Because of this demonstrated, tested accuracy, we can trust John to accurately report Jesus’ words (agree or disagree with those words).

It remains to be seen if Ehrman will seriously interact with my critiques, with an entire article, not just soundbites in combox replies. I’ve done six so far. Time will tell. He does seem like a nice and courteous man, as far as that goes. And that’s crucial these days, in seeking to engage in true, constructive dialogue.

 

***

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 in Gethsemane (1886), by Heinrich Hofmann (1824-1911) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Agnostic & anti-theist Bart Ehrman attempts to draw a false dichotomy: Jesus vs. Paul on Salvation. He does so by only presenting one side of the teachings of each.

 

March 19, 2022

March 19, 2022 By

With Emphasis on the Term “Son of God” Applied to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and Its Implications

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, “In What SENSE is Jesus “God” in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? My Change of Mind” (2-28-21). His words will be in blue.

There is nothing like these self-declarations of Jesus [in John] in the Synoptic Gospels. He does not go around talking about his divine character and pre-existent origin. In the older, traditional, terminology, the Synoptics present a “lower” Christology then the “high” Christology of John. And so, for many years, I argued that they did not see Jesus as God.

It still think it is true that the Synoptic Gospels do not portray Jesus as a pre-existent being who has become incarnate and is and always has been “equal” with God the way John does. They do not have an incarnational Christology lurking somewhere behind them. What they do have, however, is an exaltation Christology, in which either (a) Jesus was understood to have been exalted to a divine status at his baptism, as in Mark

Mark teaches no such thing. Here is the passage:

Mark 1:9-11 (RSV) In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. [10] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; [11] and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

God the Father simply stated (publicly) that Jesus was His Son; not that He became His Son (or divine). The latter elements are simply read into the text by skeptics; i.e., it is eisegesis, which means reading into a biblical text (from preconceived notions) what isn’t there. If it were actually in the passage, it would read something like, “Thou art now my beloved Son” or “Thou hast now become my beloved Son”. That’s what it would look like, if this heretical notion were actually taught in the passage.

and the original form of Luke (which began with ch. 3, before chs. 1-2 were tacked on in a second edition);

This is the same erroneous eisegesis applied to Luke. And of course, Ehrman has no actual evidence to suggest that Luke used to begin with its present chapter 3. As with virtually all of the speculation about why the Gospel writers wrote what they did; their motivations and methodologies, it’s all sheer speculation and mere purely subjective fairy tales devised in skeptical and atheist brains, with no evidence whatsoever able to be set forth as the reason for why they think as they do.

They want to believe in these mythical goings-on, and so they do. It’s as simple as that. It’s not a rational process. It’s a mythical, fairy-tale process, borne in existing skepticism and cynicism. Simply because they spout these myths about the Evangelists is no evidence or reason for anyone else to believe in their fairy-tales and conspiratorial fantasies.

or (b) Jesus came into existence as the Son of God because God was the one who made his mother pregnant, as in the second edition of Luke that started with chs. 1-2 and probably in the Gospel of Matthew.

It stands to reason that if God the Father is uniquely your Father, that you are the Son of God. This is biblical teaching. But “Son of God” in the Jewish mind at the time also meant “making yourself God” (Jn 10:33).” “Son of God” (referring to Jesus) appears 16 times in the Synoptic Gospels.  It’s applied to Jesus even by the devil (Mt 4:3, 6; Lk 4:3, 9), demons (Mt 8:29; Mk 3:11; Lk 4:41), (rhetorically and provocatively) by the high priest (Mt 26:63), and by mockers when He was dying (Mt 27:40, 43).

Followers worshiped Jesus and said “Truly you are the Son of God” (Mt 14:33; cf. Jn 1:49-50; 11:27) and He didn’t reject this at all (as He certainly would have if He didn’t believe Himself to be that). The high priest said, “tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Mt 26:63; cf. Jn 11:27; 20:31), which proves that the Jews connected “Son of God” with the Messiah (“Christ” being Greek for “Messiah”). Luke 4:41 also notes that demons “knew that he was the Christ.”

It’s true that John elaborates further about “Son of God”, but the same essential elements are already present in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Jesus expressly refers the term to Himself in John 5:25; 10:36; 11:4. But He had already accepted the title as addressed to Him (Mt 14:33), which is logically the same thing. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus, under direct questioning of the high priest, claims to be the Son of God, the Messiah, and the Son of man, all-in-one:

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.” (“I am” in the parallel passages is rendered as “You have said so”: Mt 26:64, and “You say that I am”: Lk 22:70; meaning, basically, “yes: you have stated it correctly”; also, Jesus said, along the same lines, “If I tell you, you will not believe”: Lk 22:67)

The reaction of the high priest and the Pharisees, Sanhedrin, etc., after Jesus asserted that He was the Son of God  / Son of man, and the Messiah was “He has uttered blasphemy” (Mt 26:65), “He deserves death” (Mt 26:66), “‘You have heard his blasphemy. . . .’ And they all condemned him as deserving death” (Mk 14:64). All of this proves, of course, that He made the claims and that the hostile hearers knew exactly what He meant: that He was God in the flesh. They disbelieved it, so they immediately regarded it as the blasphemy of a liar and pretender. This was already the same dynamic that we also observe in John:

John 5:18 This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:30-36 I and the Father are one.” [31] The Jews took up stones again to stone him. [32] Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” [33] The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” [34] Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? [35] If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), [36] do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

So it is more explicitly presented in John, but all the essential elements are in the other three Gospels, too. Therefore, Ehrman is dead wrong to assert that they aren’t in the other three Gospels. And I’ve only just begun laying out all the evidence.

Being adopted or born as the Son of God was a different way of being divine from being a pre-existent divine being made flesh. But it was still a highly exalted state of existence, above the human. And Jesus is that in the Synoptics.

Nonsense; He is presented as fully God in the Synoptics. I have already proven this by what is seen above, but I have much more evidence left to show.

For years I had difficulty explaining features of the Synoptics that could be taken to point to his divinity in some sense. I certainly had explanations, but I was never completely satisfied with them.

What Ehrman accepted then and now is Arian heretical slop: not the Jesus of the New Testament. I can see how this would provide much dissatisfaction, because it isn’t what the biblical texts exhibit.

In these Gospels, for example, Jesus has the power to forgive sins, and he receives “worship.” These *can* be explained without thinking of Jesus as in any way divine, but it’s a little bit tricky, and at the end of the day, I think it’s easier to simply to say that these things are said of Jesus because the authors do think of him as in some sense and exalted divine being.

Only God can be worshiped in the fullest sense (adoration), and this is how Jesus is presented in the Synoptics; therefore, He is God; period. Forgiving sins in His own name, with His own power, is also something only God can do. More on this below.

this exaltation of Jesus at the end of his life came to be read back into his life, so that stories were told about him in which he appeared to be divine in some sense already before he died.

This is the subjective, fairy-tale game I noted above. There is no actual historical evidence for any of this (if there were, you can be sure that Ehrman et al would certainly point to it). Ehrman and those like him want to believe it, since they deny the divinity / Godhood of Jesus and the Holy Trinity, so they pretend that it was added later and fantasize that it was supposedly not in the Synoptic Gospels at first. There is no way to prove when whatever was supposedly “added later.” All we have are the texts as they are now, passed down in extremely numerous, early, reliable, and consistent manuscripts.

Now (having cited Ehrman and having given him his “say” on my own blog) I shall present the full evidence of the Godhood / deity / divinity of Jesus as the third Person of the Holy Trinity, in the Synoptic Gospels.

Direct Statements of Jesus’ Equality with God the Father

Matthew 4:7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” [the devil was tempting Jesus: 4:3, 5-6]

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]

Judge of Mankind

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man… will repay every man for what he has done. (cf. Rev 22:12; Ps 62:12; Is 40:10)

Matthew 25:32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, (cf. Ezek 34:17)

The Old Testament plainly taught that God was the judge of men:

1 Samuel 2:10 …The LORD will judge the ends of the earth… (cf. Gen 18:25; 1 Chr 16:33; Ps 7:11; 9:8; 96:10; Is 2:4; 33:22)

Psalm 50:6 The heavens declare his righteousness, for God himself is judge! (cf. 58:11; 67:4; 82:8; 94:2; Jer 11:20)

Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. (cf. 3:17; Ezek 18:30; 33:20; Joel 3:12)]

Zephaniah 1:14-15 The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast; the sound of the day of the LORD is bitter, the mighty man cries aloud there. [15] A day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

Psalm 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

Psalm 110:5-6 The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. [6] He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth.

Divine “I” 

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)

Acceptance of Worship (Reserved for God Only)

Matthew 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (cf. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20)

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. (cf. 28:17)

Mark 5:6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him;

Mark 5:22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja’irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet,

Mark 7:25 But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet.

Mark 10:17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

God alone is to be worshiped (as Jesus Himself noted):

Exodus 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), (cf. 20:3)

Deuteronomy 8:19 And if you forget the LORD your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you this day that you shall surely perish. (cf. 11:16; 17:3; 29:26; 30:17; 1 Ki 9:6-9; Jer 16:11; 22:9; 25:6; Dan 3:28)

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’” (cf. Mt 4:10)

Omniscient (All -Knowing)

Omniscience is implied (though not proven) in many passages that describe Jesus’ extraordinary knowledge; these are consistent with omniscience (Mt 9:4; 12:25; Mk 2:8; 14:13-15; Lk 5:22; 6:8; 9:47; 22:10-13).

Additionally, there are many other verses illustrating that Jesus knew the future perfectly, which is also consistent with, and suggestive of omniscience, though not a proof (Mt 12:40; 13:1; 16:21; 17:9, 11-12, 22-23; 20:18-19; 21:39; 24:2; 26:2, 12, 21, 31-34, 54; Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34; 14:9, 18, 27-30, 42, 49; Lk 9:22, 44; 11:30; 12:50; 17:25; 18:31-33; 22:15, 21-22, 32, 34, 37).

The Old Testament taught that God alone is omniscient:

1 Chronicles 28:9 …the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought.… (cf. 1 Ki 8:39; 2 Chr 6:30; Ps 44:21; Is 66:18; Ezek 11:5; Mt 6:8; Lk 16:15)

Psalm 147:5 Great is our LORD, and abundant in power;  his understanding is beyond measure. (cf. Job 36:4; 37:16; Is 40:28; 46:10; 48:3)

Omnipresent (Present Everywhere)

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

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

God alone is omnipresent:

1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee…. (cf. 2 Chr 2:6)

Psalm 139:7-8 Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence? [8] If I ascend to heaven, thou art there! If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there!

Jeremiah 23:24 Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD.

Forgives Sins in His Own Name

Mark 2:5, 10 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”… [10] …the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins… (cf. Mt 9:2-6; Lk 5:20-24)

Luke 7:47-48 “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” [48] And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

God alone can forgive sins in His own name:

Exodus 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,… (cf. 2 Sam 12:13; 1 Ki 8:34; Dan 9:9; Mic 7:18)

Psalm 25:11 For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my guilt, for it is great. (cf. 25:7, 18; 32:1-2, 5)

Psalm 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. (cf. 65:3; 79:9; 85:2; 99:8; Is 1:18; 6:6; 44:22)

Psalm 103:12 as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. (cf. 130:4)

Isaiah 43:25 I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (cf. 55:7)

Jeremiah 33:8 I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me. (cf. 31:34; Ezek 33:15-16)

Luke 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, “Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only?” (cf. Mk 2:7)

Jesus Taught that the Messiah (“Christ”) — Which He Claimed to Be — is Lord (Kurios) and God

Matthew 22:43-45 He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, [44] ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet’? [45] If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (cf. Mk 12:36-37; Lk 20:42-44)

Every time the New Testament refers to Jesus as Christ (including Jesus’ own declarations), it is declaring that He is the Messiah, since Christ is the Greek for the Hebrew Messiah:

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)

See also Mt 1:16-18; 5:17; 11:2, 10; 21:42; 24:5, 23-24; 26:56, 68; 27:17, 22; Mk 3:11; 5:7; 13:21-22, 26; Lk 1:31-33; 2:11, 26; 4:20-21; 22:37; 23:2, 35, 39; 24:44.

Son of Man When Jesus calls Himself “the Son of Man” (e.g., Mt 10:23, 32-33; 19:28; 23:37 ff.; 24:47; Mk 2:19-20; 3:28-29; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 31; 10:33, 38; 14:21, 41; Lk 11:30; 12:8, 49-50; 17:24; 18:6, 8; 21:36; 22:27, 48), He is claiming to be the Messiah, since He is referring (especially in Mk 13:26; 14:62) to a well-known messianic passage:

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [14] And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

In Mark 14:61-62, Jesus assumes that the Christ (Messiah) and the Son of Man are one and the same (Himself). Matthew 16:16-17 establishes the fact that the Messiah and “the Son of God” are identical as well.

Source of Eternal Words

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

Compare to the Old Testament, referring to God:

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

Angels of Whom?

Matthew 13:41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, (cf. 16:27; 24:31; Lk 15:10; Gen 28:12; 32:1; Lk 12:8-9)

Second Coming

Matthew 24:30 then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; (Mt 16:27; 26:64; Mk 14:62)

The Old Testament presents God coming in judgment in an identical way:

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him. (cf. 40:5; Ps 96:13; 98:9)

Isaiah 66:15-16 For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the stormwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. [16] For by fire will the LORD execute judgment, and by his sword, upon all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many. (cf. 59:20; Joel 2:11; Zech 2:10)

Zechariah 9:14 Then the LORD will appear over them, and his arrow go forth like lightning; the Lord GOD will sound the trumpet, and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south.

Zechariah 12:10 …when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born.

Zechariah 14:3-5 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. [4] On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley;… [5]…. Then the LORD your God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

Isaiah 11:4 …he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

Savior

Matthew 1:21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

Luke 2:11 for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

Luke 19:10 [Jesus] For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost. (cf. Jn 10:9; 12:47

Only God can be the savior of mankind:

Isaiah 43:11 I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. (cf. 43:3; 45:15, 21; 49:26; 60:16, 63:8; Hos 13:4)

Luke 1:47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

***

The evidence is overwhelming. See also my related paper: Deity of Jesus: Called Lord/Kurios & God/Theos [10-24-11]

***

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 Crowned with Thorns (c. 1633-1639), by Matthias Stom (fl. 1615-1649) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I prove through copious examples from Mark, Matthew, and Luke, that Jesus is God in the Synoptics, over against Bart Ehrman, who denies it on inadequate grounds.

 

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
What Religion Does Taylor Swift Practice?
Sticking the Corners
2
Have You Ever Wanted to Hear...
Beloved
3
Does God Make People Suffer?
Reflections in the Knight
4
We Should Take Hell Seriously
A Little Bit of Nothing
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Jesus Didn't Say Render Unto Caesar That Which...
After The Revolution Was A Heck of a...
St. Jerome (c. 343-420) vs. "Faith Alone"
Artificial Intelligence, Pope Francis, and the G7
Can We Help Zoraya? Part 3—Episode 14
On Being Family (Un)Friendly
view all Catholic blogs