Biblical Contradictions

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The census of Quirinius is a full blown brain teaser that falls between...having a very tiny window of explanation that would require a future discovery to vindicate, and being a flat out mistake by Luke (who has a pretty good record of being vindicated by archaeology). Quid est Veritas created a great threat on this issue.

Ancient Greco Roman biographical genre being used as a reason to go nuts with accusations of mistakes is another matter. It actually did not impose chronological order, or even geographical coherence constraints on the authors. They were extremely theme based. You can have Jesus saying/doing such & such in Judea, and in the very next verse or section (without a narrated segue) the theme moves right along with Jesus saying/doing such & such in Galilee. But the major take away is that this was NOT a violation.

Now you make Jesus the hero of the story and the sky becomes the limit on how many possible theme angles each gospel writer could have had in mind when they attacked the subject matter. Jesus as the regal descendant of David, Jesus as the bloodline descendant of David, Jesus as suffering Messiah, Jesus as conquering Messiah, Jesus as the servant Messiah, Jesus as King of the future world, Jesus as prophet, etc. ‘King of the Jews’ was more of a title the author would attatch to the viewpoint of non-Jews. Jeez so now the theme possibilities have increased even more, which pair of eyes is ‘This’ particular reference assuming in this particular situation. And then on top of that each gospel writer played with and mixed up themes like crazy.

Matthew scholars constantly point out that it seems like his audience was more skilled with their understanding of OT scripture and that it seems like he actually adds ‘Bonus points’ of OT allusions all over the place for people to pick up on. There are so many possible lines of reference for a man/God that fulfilled prophecies that to an extent we are stuck with this word ‘Seems.’ It is too complex to totally nail down the theme, the themes ‘Seem’ to be mixtures too as I already said. Mark will rarely hit a certain theme whereas Matthew is heavy on that theme, and vice versa, yet both of them touch on it.

All 3 synoptics ‘Seem’ to have the same main skeleton of geographic structure to them and based on Jewish feativals they make no chronological sense in how they seem to be stuffed into what ‘Seems’ like a 1 year ministry. Only John’s 3 year ministry actually adds up and makes sense. But again these are not violations to their genre, they are violations to ours.

Matthew is constantly in hot water by skeptics with his loose allusions to his ‘Seemingly’ apt Jewish audience. Suppose my neighbor for whatever the reason had a shoot out with the local police, suppose he fought them off well and then there was a temporary cease fire and there was a window of dead silence. Suppose I then yelled out at him “Remember the Alamo!!!” It ‘Seems’ that Matthew constantly had such a style of loose allusions to events long past. The same skeptics would not be jumping up & down at me blasting me for my ignorance that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Alamo.

And the gulph between what the Christian and the non-Christian considers to be a violation becomes even greater when you have Christians telling you that prophecies were often multi layered where part of the prophecy may occur immediately, part of it may occur 200 hundred years later, and yet again part of it remains to be played out in the future. Think about ‘The abomination of desolation.’ Well this simply becomes historical lunacy to the non-Christian!! The amount of historical meeting points that there are for the Christian & non-Christian to meet has limits.

Using your logical side to confirm the credibility of the basic skeleton outline of Biblical truth...to then justify a bridge of faith to dig deeper into it is necessary. But when these deeper levels of explanations enters into the Christian vs non-Christian debate the dialogue becomes a train wreck of disagreement lol. Tell a non-Christian that a prophecy was BOTH for the time of Isaiah and for the time of Jesus and they start looking at you like you’re crazy ha.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The census of Quirinius is a full blown brain teaser that falls between...having a very tiny window of explanation that would require a future discovery to vindicate, and being a flat out mistake by Luke (who has a pretty good record of being vindicated by archaeology).

It’s not that complicated at all, Ehrman just doesn’t dig very deep. Quirinius, prior to being governor over Syria, was a senior military commander (12-2 BC) in Asia Minor. Valus, the then governor, was not very competent, whereas Quirinius was succcessful in defeating the Homonadenses (he had a triumphal march etc). When Augustus started the process of the first census in Syria(as specified by Luke, the first census, and not the 2nd one in 6-8AD. Existing records show that there was a census carried out by the prefect over Egypt every 14 years, no data on Syria but this is a comparison) in 7 or 8 BC, Quirinius was appointed, as military commander and more trusted by Augustus than Varus - Quirinius was later appointed by Augustus as tutor to his son, Gaius - (the word translated ‘govenor’ In Luke 2:2 actually means ‘to be in charge’ or ‘to be leading’) to oversea the thorny problem of managing a census in Palestine, against Jewish law. Luke and his audience were familiar with these events, hence no explanation for 21st century readers, but, as with much that initially seems confusing in the NT, you can dig around and fill in the gaps. The problem with wiki articles etc that some other people (not you) have used here is that they are just skims of popular viewpoints.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry. I guess I don't feel like trying to persuade you when the video in the OP by Bart Ehrman didn't persuade you. I didn't watch the video, but Ehrman know the issues better than I do.

So, your argument is:
Some guy said some stuff, I don’t know what it is, but whatever it is it offers proof against what you think (although I don’t know what that is either?). Is that about the long and short of it?;-)
Please read my post above #139, I’m interested to know what you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
If these 4 ancient documents called the Gospels prove to contain comparative traits that you would actually expect to find in 4 ancient parallel documents written from different sources, namely that ‘Same but different’ quality, the skeptic doesn’t like that...Errors!! Mistakes...is the outcry!! God forbid these ancient documents line up with each other over here, or over there...if Luke is sounding a little bit too much like Mark the skeptic doesn’t like THAT either!!! COLLUSION becomes the outcry!!! You can’t win, they hate both.

Or my other favorite, down through the centuries we have the outcry of “Endless Contradictions & Mistakes!!!” But then down through the centuries the same exact people (depending on their mood) also have the outcry of “Constant Editing to Harmonize!!!” LOL which one is it? These things are mutually exclusive.

It’s the same ‘Same but different’ quality you would get if police interviewed multiple neighbors in an investigation...we might be talking about a neighbor who wound up mysteriously dead, one neighbor might say ‘She died’ and another neighbor might say ‘She was dying.’ Just as one example, you can think of 1,000 same but different scenarios on your own just use your imagination.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This chap reminds me of a lecturer I had in Uni who used to make these occasional random rants against communism. Now, I live in a post communist country, and I’ve spent time in other communist and post communist country countries and I think the whole experiment was a disaster. But, I was at uni to learn, not to be told what to think. Any lecturer with integrity should present the facts and the theories that try to explain them, and encourage his students to do their own research and justify their findings, not just rant on about his own pet ideas.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It’s not that complicated at all, Ehrman just doesn’t dig very deep. Quirinius, prior to being governor over Syria, was a senior military commander (12-2 BC) in Asia Minor. Valus, the then governor, was not very competent, whereas Quirinius was succcessful in defeating the Homonadenses (he had a triumphal march etc). When Augustus started the process of the first census in Syria(as specified by Luke, the first census, and not the 2nd one in 6-8AD. Existing records show that there was a census carried out by the prefect over Egypt every 14 years, no data on Syria but this is a comparison) in 7 or 8 BC, Quirinius was appointed, as military commander and more trusted by Augustus than Varus - Quirinius was later appointed by Augustus as tutor to his son, Gaius - (the word translated ‘govenor’ In Luke 2:2 actually means ‘to be in charge’ or ‘to be leading’) to oversea the thorny problem of managing a census in Palestine, against Jewish law. Luke and his audience were familiar with these events, hence no explanation for 21st century readers, but, as with much that initially seems confusing in the NT, you can dig around and fill in the gaps. The problem with wiki articles etc that some other people (not you) have used here is that they are just skims of popular viewpoints.
Here is Ehrman digging a little deeper.

Quoted from Ehrman's The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Writings. 3rd. edition. p.118

"In addition to the difficulties raised by a detailed comparison of the two birth narratives found in the New Testament, serious historical problems are raised by the familiar stories found in Luke alone. Contrary to what Luke indicates, historians have long known from several ancient inscriptions, the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish historian Josephus that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria until 6 C.E., fully ten years after Herod the Great died. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then Quirinius was not the Syrian governor.

We also have no record of a worldwide census under Augustus, or under any emperor at any time. Moreover, a census in which everyone was to return to their ancestral home would have been more than a bureaucratic nightmare; it would have been well nigh impossible. In Luke, Joseph is said to return to Bethlehem because his ancestor David came here from there; but David lived a thousand years before Joseph. Can it be possible that everyone in the empire was to return to the place their ancestor lived a thousand years earlier? If such a census were required in our day, where would you go? Imagine the massive migrations involved. Then imagine that no other ancient author considered it important enough to mention, even in passing!"
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here is Ehrman digging a little deeper.

Quoted from Ehrman's The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Writings. 3rd. edition. p.118

"In addition to the difficulties raised by a detailed comparison of the two birth narratives found in the New Testament, serious historical problems are raised by the familiar stories found in Luke alone. Contrary to what Luke indicates, historians have long known from several ancient inscriptions, the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish historian Josephus that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria until 6 C.E., fully ten years after Herod the Great died. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then Quirinius was not the Syrian governor.

We also have no record of a worldwide census under Augustus, or under any emperor at any time. Moreover, a census in which everyone was to return to their ancestral home would have been more than a bureaucratic nightmare; it would have been well nigh impossible. In Luke, Joseph is said to return to Bethlehem because his ancestor David came here from there; but David lived a thousand years before Joseph. Can it be possible that everyone in the empire was to return to the place their ancestor lived a thousand years earlier? If such a census were required in our day, where would you go? Imagine the massive migrations involved. Then imagine that no other ancient author considered it important enough to mention, even in passing!"

I think that Tom has pointed out correctly. People in general don't need to call a man in power the governor in terms of their formal title. Quirinius was virtual a governor of the area all the times.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Contrary to what Luke indicates, historians have long known from several ancient inscriptions, the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish historian Josephus that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria until 6 C.E., fully ten years after Herod the Great died. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then Quirinius was not the Syrian governor

See previous

We also have no record of a worldwide census under Augustus, or under any emperor at any time.

Not worldwide, entire Roman world. There are an untold number of things from the ancient world of which there is no record, but are commonly held to be true or accurate. Luke's record, although regularly treated with far more aggressive and emotional scrutiny that anything else from the period, is a record of events that he and his audience were familiar with. There are records of censuses (censi?) taking place in different areas of the Roman world regularly, this wasn't an unusual event.

Moreover, a census in which everyone was to return to their ancestral home would have been more than a bureaucratic nightmare; it would have been well nigh impossible. In Luke, Joseph is said to return to Bethlehem because his ancestor David came here from there; but David lived a thousand years before Joseph

This is a deliberately exaggerated interpretation. The text doesn't claim that anyone had to return to their ancestral home, and calling Bethlehem Joseph's 'ancestral' home is misunderstanding the particular nature of a Jew in the line of David; that was his family home.

More generally, in order to evaluate the kind of emotional and superficial stuff that guys like Erhman churn out, a wider understanding of the period, the narrators, their audience, the characters involved, their culture, and their relationships is essential. You just can't understand it without any of that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This is a deliberately exaggerated interpretation. The text doesn't claim that anyone had to return to their ancestral home, and calling Bethlehem Joseph's 'ancestral' home is misunderstanding the particular nature of a Jew in the line of David; that was his family home.
Me thinks you protesteth too much. I wonder if you would put this much energy into defending any other contradictory ancient writings? The lengths that you and several other CF members have gone to are amusing. To keep a copacetic view of scripture, you have to literally ignore plain textual meaning, and literally ignore extrabibilical (or lack of) evidence.

To all who have responded, I am genuinely appreciative. Thanks. :)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We also have no record of a worldwide census under Augustus, or under any emperor at any time. Moreover, a census in which everyone was to return to their ancestral home would have been more than a bureaucratic nightmare; it would have been well nigh impossible.

Some different interpretations of the relevant verse, the 'more literal' and 'less literal' etc indicates the approach the team of translators took when translating the whole bible. As you can see there are some different takes on this text. The 'New Living Translation', which is more 'loose' than 'less literal' is a poor choice for building an argument on, as Erham surely is aware, mentions ancestral I think:

All directed themselves to register for the census, each one to his own town (more literal)

All had to go to the village of their origin in order to register (less literal)

All went to register, each one to his city (more literal)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city (KJV)

And everyone went to register for the census, each to his own city (descriptive)

And all went to enroll themselves, everyone to his own city (most literal)

And so on
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Me thinks you protesteth too much. I wonder if you would put this much energy into defending any other contradictory ancient writings? The lengths that you and several other CF members have gone to are amusing. To keep a copacetic view of scripture, you have to literally ignore plain textual meaning, and literally ignore extrabibilical (or lack of) evidence.

To all who have responded, I am genuinely appreciative. Thanks. :)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

? Please explain why you think these verses support Erhman's argument
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Me thinks you protesteth too much. I wonder if you would put this much energy into defending any other contradictory ancient writings

Could you provide a contradiction? This is interesting for me too. Quiet on the farm, and this doesn't take much energy

Cheers
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
you have to literally ignore plain textual meaning, and literally ignore extrabibilical (or lack of) evidence.

One of the ‘loose’ translations uses the word ‘ancestral’. Loose translations essentially try to put across what they think the writer was trying to say. More literal translations simply translate what was written. Using a looser translation to make a point is a bit dubious.
The extrabiblical evidence is only unclear if you focus on particular aspects of it, and ignore others.
Christians and atheists alike often make the same mistake of just opening the bible, reading something and taking it to mean whatever it seems to them that it means. This is not always so helpful. To understand the gospels you have to strip away your own contextual ideas and take on the contextual realities of the text. Here for example, Luke is saying to his intended gentile audience, ‘that thing you all know about, not the second one, the first one’. To expect there to be some sort of clarification built into the text for later readers is simply to misunderstand what is going on. It’s a miss-step that then has you fumbling through anything that doesn’t fit in with your initial mistaken premise.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
One of the ‘loose’ translations uses the word ‘ancestral’. Loose translations essentially try to put across what they think the writer was trying to say. More literal translations simply translate what was written. Using a looser translation to make a point is a bit dubious.
The extrabiblical evidence is only unclear if you focus on particular aspects of it, and ignore others.
Christians and atheists alike often make the same mistake of just opening the bible, reading something and taking it to mean whatever it seems to them that it means. This is not always so helpful. To understand the gospels you have to strip away your own contextual ideas and take on the contextual realities of the text. Here for example, Luke is saying to his intended gentile audience, ‘that thing you all know about, not the second one, the first one’. To expect there to be some sort of clarification built into the text for later readers is simply to misunderstand what is going on. It’s a miss-step that then has you fumbling through anything that doesn’t fit in with your initial mistaken premise.
Yeah, Ehrman's a scholar, and he's done this. I understand your objections though, I do. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for everyone who responded. I learned a few things. Thanks.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
The problem with wiki articles etc that some other people (not you) have used here is that they are just skims of popular viewpoints.
Yes, this happens in politic, medico, educatic, financic, socialic, religic and all categories
online daily - hundreds or thousands of pages posted daily,
without any regards to authenticity or accuracy or even to any truth.
(this year it was pointed out that over 10,000 'writers' are paid per word or per article to publish on the internet, ten pages per day EACH, with not regard for if it is true or not.
Such it was broadcast (by some of those doing it, and others noting it)
and such it has already happened, beyond control.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If these 4 ancient documents called the Gospels prove to contain comparative traits that you would actually expect to find in 4 ancient parallel documents written from different sources, namely that ‘Same but different’ quality, the skeptic doesn’t like that...Errors!! Mistakes...is the outcry!! God forbid these ancient documents line up with each other over here, or over there...if Luke is sounding a little bit too much like Mark the skeptic doesn’t like THAT either!!! COLLUSION becomes the outcry!!! You can’t win, they hate both.

Or my other favorite, down through the centuries we have the outcry of “Endless Contradictions & Mistakes!!!” But then down through the centuries the same exact people (depending on their mood) also have the outcry of “Constant Editing to Harmonize!!!” LOL which one is it? These things are mutually exclusive.

It’s the same ‘Same but different’ quality you would get if police interviewed multiple neighbors in an investigation...we might be talking about a neighbor who wound up mysteriously dead, one neighbor might say ‘She died’ and another neighbor might say ‘She was dying.’ Just as one example, you can think of 1,000 same but different scenarios on your own just use your imagination.

This is a forest and trees type of issue.

If Jesus said "Take nothing, not even a staff" in one gospel and then "Take nothing, except a staff" in another, I can find it reasonable if you said there is a common source.

But the resurrection narratives vary wildly. Even if you tried to argue that they aren't contradictory of one another, the problem is that they are clearly not from the same source material.

The crisis here for Christianity is that there is no source material at all for the resurrection. Mark is the first gospel, and the original copies end with the boy (angel) in the tomb. That is all the source material that Matthew and Luke had. Thus their endings are totally different - because they are made up.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But the resurrection narratives vary wildly. Even if you tried to argue that they aren't contradictory of one another, the problem is that they are clearly not from the same source material.

Can you expand on that a bit pls?

Thanks
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Can you expand on that a bit pls?

Thanks

Matthew is the only gospel that discusses the guards in front of the tomb. Without Matthew's gospel, it would never have occurred to us that they were ever there. There is a lot that he says about the guards. What is his source? Matthew says that the dead walked the streets. What is his source?

Matthew, Luke, and John all agree that Jesus was in a cave tomb with a stone in front of it. Why doesn't one of them say that he was thrown into a common grave, or that the disciples held onto his body over the Sabbath, or something else radically different? It's because they all had Mark as their source for the story up to that point. As I said, Mark originally ends abruptly with the boy/angel in the tomb telling the women that Jesus has risen, but there is no account of Jesus doing anything as a risen man.

Some point out that the risen Jesus did certain things in Matthew and completely different things in Luke, claiming there is a contradiction. Apologists insist that Matthew and Luke are merely telling different sections of the same story. When we're evaluating whether two things are from the same source, we care less about contradictions (see my example with the staff in my previous post) than we do about actual similarities in the text.

Mark ends abruptly after verse 8:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Now let's look at some parallels between the gospels:

Parallel Accounts of the Resurrection (NIV)

It looks like Mark 16:1-8 came first, then Matthew invented his version of the resurrection narrative starting after the events of Mark 16:8, then Luke invented his version without knowledge of what Matthew had written down, then the ending of Mark was added, and then John borrowed from Luke.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Matthew is the only gospel that discusses the guards in front of the tomb. Without Matthew's gospel, it would never have occurred to us that they were ever there. There is a lot that he says about the guards. What is his source? Matthew says that the dead walked the streets. What is his source?

Matthew, Luke, and John all agree that Jesus was in a cave tomb with a stone in front of it. Why doesn't one of them say that he was thrown into a common grave, or that the disciples held onto his body over the Sabbath, or something else radically different? It's because they all had Mark as their source for the story up to that point. As I said, Mark originally ends abruptly with the boy/angel in the tomb telling the women that Jesus has risen, but there is no account of Jesus doing anything as a risen man.

Some point out that the risen Jesus did certain things in Matthew and completely different things in Luke, claiming there is a contradiction. Apologists insist that Matthew and Luke are merely telling different sections of the same story. When we're evaluating whether two things are from the same source, we care less about contradictions (see my example with the staff in my previous post) than we do about actual similarities in the text.

Mark ends abruptly after verse 8:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Now let's look at some parallels between the gospels:

Parallel Accounts of the Resurrection (NIV)

It looks like Mark 16:1-8 came first, then Matthew invented his version of the resurrection narrative starting after the events of Mark 16:8, then Luke invented his version without knowledge of what Matthew had written down, then the ending of Mark was added, and then John borrowed from Luke.

The dating of the gospels and their order or writing is a bit more complicated, in my opinion the ‘late daters’ have kind of had their day and the early daters have better arguments, for one example the amount of citation (around 20,000 examples) and discussion of the gospels in the later 1st C, and some of the initial basis for late dating is pretty weak. Interesting Q anyway, really stuck for time at the moment but will respond although someone else probably will in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Matthew is the only gospel that discusses the guards in front of the tomb. Without Matthew's gospel, it would never have occurred to us that they were ever there. There is a lot that he says about the guards. What is his source? Matthew says that the dead walked the streets. What is his source?

Matthew, Luke, and John all agree that Jesus was in a cave tomb with a stone in front of it. Why doesn't one of them say that he was thrown into a common grave, or that the disciples held onto his body over the Sabbath, or something else radically different? It's because they all had Mark as their source for the story up to that point. As I said, Mark originally ends abruptly with the boy/angel in the tomb telling the women that Jesus has risen, but there is no account of Jesus doing anything as a risen man.

Some point out that the risen Jesus did certain things in Matthew and completely different things in Luke, claiming there is a contradiction. Apologists insist that Matthew and Luke are merely telling different sections of the same story. When we're evaluating whether two things are from the same source, we care less about contradictions (see my example with the staff in my previous post) than we do about actual similarities in the text.

Mark ends abruptly after verse 8:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Now let's look at some parallels between the gospels:

Parallel Accounts of the Resurrection (NIV)

It looks like Mark 16:1-8 came first, then Matthew invented his version of the resurrection narrative starting after the events of Mark 16:8, then Luke invented his version without knowledge of what Matthew had written down, then the ending of Mark was added, and then John borrowed from Luke.
There is a pretty cool (and short) book called Easter Enigma by John Wenham. He makes a case that IMO would be entertaining for both the Christian and the non-Christian. There are non-Christians out there who just consider the Bible to be a great classic in human literary history (maybe even the best, but they still consider it fictional).

We’ve probably all heard at one point or another about the tough issues of harmonization of the various Passion narratives, and we probably all know about the Passion story (there is Christmas ha). If nothing more than a cool book that has a very interesting explanation for ‘That Novel’ that you have known about (and considered disjointed) your entire life, I would recommend the book.

I feel the same way about ‘The Unseen Realm’ and the Old Testament. A guy that I know saw me reading it once, a guy who is as atheistic as they come, and he rolled his eyes. So I quized him on some basic topics from Genesis & Exodus...he had a basic understanding (even though also a hatred towards it lol). I said to him “Aren’t you a Sci-Fi fan??” I told him that if he just thought the OT was crazy ancient stories that he might actually enjoy the book, because it ties the OT ‘Fairytale’ together.

I feel the same way about Easter Enigma and the Passion story, it’s an interesting piece of detective work to tie the story together. However I read it as history, yet you would probably just read it to tie together a story that you’ve known about your whole life, to have it make more sense would be interesting IMO (even if you still think it’s fiction). Even if you disagree with Wenham it’s still a cleverly thought out explanation.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0