This article is a combination of three independent articles conjoined here with permission from the author. The original three articles are “Why You Should Not Be Intimidated By Bart Ehrman: A Review of Jesus, Interrupted (Part 1)“, “More Misrepresentations And Distortions By Bart Ehrman: A Review Of Jesus, Interrupted (Part 2)“, and “Find Contradictions Where There Is None: A Review Of Jesus, Interrupted (Part 3)“.
[Article 1] In a previous article, I addressed the question that I have heard from so many, “If Christianity is true and so well supported as you say it is, why do so many intelligent and apparently informed people not accept it?” Towards the close of that article I noted that many Christians feel intimidated when encountering a scholar with a PhD, a position at a major University, and a stellar publication record. Such, however, as I intend to show in this and a subsequent article, is not a guarantee of being a careful scholar.
Dr. Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He has written a number of books attempting to cast doubt on the reliability of the New Testament. I have made an extensive study of Bart’s work and have learned that when Bart Ehrman makes a claim, it is best to check the primary source for yourself, since if past experience is anything to go by, he is more likely to be misrepresenting his sources than otherwise. Even though Bart Ehrman has a PhD and a professorship position at a major University, he makes a lot of very elementary mistakes in his work. Let’s take as an example his book titled, Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don’t Know About Them[1].
Space does not permit me to do justice to all of the the arguments presented in Ehrman’s book. So you are just going to have to trust me that I am not cherry picking examples that are unrepresentative of the book as a whole. In future articles, I will pick up additional errors from this and other books by Ehrman.
Our first example is from chapter 1 of the book. He writes on page 8,
“Not only are there discrepancies among different books of the Bible, but there are also inconsistencies within some of the books, a problem that historical critics have long ascribed to the fact that Gospel writers used different sources for their accounts, and sometimes these sources, when spliced together, stood at odds with one another. It’s amazing how internal problems like these, if you’re not alerted to them, are so easily passed by when you read the Gospels, but how when someone points them out they seem so obvious. Students often ask me, ‘Why didn’t I see this before?’ For example, in John’s Gospel, Jesus performs his first miracle in chapter 2, when he turns the water into wine (a favorite miracle story on college campuses), and we’re told that ‘this was the first sign that Jesus did’ (John 2:11). Later in that chapter we’re told that Jesus did ‘many signs’ in Jerusalem (John 2:23). And then, in chapter 4, he heals the son of a centurion, and the author says, ‘This was the second sign that Jesus did’ (John 4:54). Huh? One sign, many signs, and then the second sign?”
Now, let’s review the actual texts that Ehrman cites here.
- John 2:11 – “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee.”
- John 2:23 – “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing.”
- John 4:54 – “This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.”
Pay special attention to the text that I have highlighted in bold, since these are the sections of the texts Ehrman has omitted to tell you about. John 2:11 and 4:54 are talking about the first and second signs that Jesus did while in Galilee. The signs alluded to in John 2:23 were not in Galilee but in Jerusalem. Is Ehrman being dishonest, or is he merely incompetent? You decide.
Now let us take an example from chapter 2 of the book. This one pertains to the resurrection narratives (p. 48):
“Who actually went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem – possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and ‘other women’ (Luke 24:1; see 23:55)?”
According to Bart Ehrman, John 20:1 indicates that it was Mary alone who went to the tomb. But is this actually what the text says? Apparently Bart Ehrman did not read as far as verse 2, in which we read,
“Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.’”
The use of the plural pronoun “we” in this text in fact presupposes that there had been other women who had been present with Mary at the tomb, so there is no contradiction here at all.
Bart Ehrman also claims in this chapter that Matthew has Jesus riding into Jerusalem seated upon two animals. He states on page 50,
“In Matthew, Jesus’ disciples procure two animals for him, a donkey and a colt; they spread their garments over the two of them, and Jesus rode into town straddling them both (Matthew 21:7). It’s an odd image, but Matthew made Jesus fulfil the prophecy of Scripture quite literally.”
But is this what Matthew says? Here is Matthew 21:7.
“They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.”
What is the antecedent of “them”? The most plausible antecedent is the cloaks. Matthew is indicating that Jesus sat on the cloaks, not that he sat on both the donkey and the colt. In fact, since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew).
Chapter 2 of the book also has a selection of examples from Acts, which are just as appalling as his gospel examples. For example, according to Ehrman, Paul’s own words in Galatians contradicts the book of Acts. He writes on page 57,
“According to Paul’s account, [the Jerusalem council] was only the second time he had been to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18; 2:1). According to Acts, it was his third, prolonged trip there (Acts 9, 11, 15). Once again, it appears that the author of Acts has confused some of Paul’s itinerary – possibly intentionally, for his own purposes.”
The problem is that Galatians does not say that at all. Paul writes in Galatians 1:18-19,
“18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”
That would be Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem following his conversion. In Galatians 2:1, Paul writes,
“Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.”
Where does the text say that this was only Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem? In fact, we learn from Acts 11 that between those two journeys Paul had gone to Jerusalem to bring aid to the saints affected by a famine. There would have been no purpose in Galatians for Paul to have mentioned this trip, as it did not relate to conferring with the apostles about the gospel he was preaching.
Ehrman also argues that there the gospels become progressively anti-Jewish and pro-Roman from Mark through to John. On page 44, Ehrman writes,
“Finally, it is significant that in John’s Gospel, on three occasions Pilate expressly declares that Jesus is innocent, does not deserve to be punished, and ought to be released (18:38; 19:6; and by implication in 19:12). In Mark, Pilate never declares Jesus innocent. Why this heightened emphasis in John? Scholars have long noted that John is in many ways the most virulently anti-Jewish of our Gospels (see John 8:42-44, where Jesus declares that the Jews are not children of God but ‘children of the Devil’). In that context, why narrate the trial in such a way that the Roman governor repeatedly insists that Jesus is innocent? Ask yourself: If the Romans are not responsible for Jesus’ death, who is? The Jews. And so they are, for John. In 19:16 we are told that Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jewish chief priests so they could have him crucified.”
Ehrman’s claim here is that, as we move from earlier to later gospels the gospels progressively shift the blame for Jesus’ death from the Romans to the Jews. Ehrman of course assumes the consensus position that Mark was written first, followed by Matthew, then Luke, then John. So let’s see to what extent each of the four gospels fits the pattern that Ehrman claims exists.
Mark, like all of the other gospels, describes the plot of the Jewish leaders and chief priests to kill Jesus. Mark, like all of the Synoptics, also records the plot of the chief priests and the bribe given to Judas to betray Jesus. Like all of the other gospels, Mark tells us that those who arrested Jesus in Gethsemane were sent from the chief priests, and that Jesus was tried by night before the high priest. He also tells us that the Jewish leaders delivered him to Pilate. And in Mark 15:9 and 14, Pilate tries to get the Jewish crowd to allow him to release Jesus. How does that fact square with Ehrman’s claim that, in Mark, Pilate and the Jewish leaders are agreeing on what has to be done?
How does Matthew fit this pattern? Ehrman points out that Matthew reports the Jews saying “His blood be on us and our children” (Matthew 27:25). This indeed is a very striking statement. But Matthew comes before Luke and John, and they report nothing of the sort. Thus, the contrast counts when Ehrman desires to show “development” from Mark to Matthew, but is conveniently passed over when Ehrman moves on to discuss Luke and John.
How does Luke fit this pattern? Luke omits the hand-washing scene found in Matthew 27:24-25. Luke 23:27 portrays a great crowd of people weeping and mourning as Jesus is led out to be crucified. This can hardly be considered to be more anti-Jewish than Matthew’s account.
How does John fit this pattern? Besides lacking the hand-washing scene in Matthew 27:24-25, John also omits mention of the Roman centurion who states “Truly this was the Son of God!” (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39) or “Certainly this man was innocent!” (Luke 23:47). But John, according to Ehrman’s paradigm, being the latest of the gospel authors, is supposed to be the most pro-Roman. Furthermore, in Mark’s gospel, Jesus is mocked by the Jewish leaders (Mark 15:29). But this mockery is not recorded in John. This is very surprising given the thesis that John’s gospel is further along the trajectory of anti-Jewish sentiment.
So, the next time a scholar who holds a PhD and a professorship position at a major University, like Bart Ehrman, attempts to challenge your confidence in the reliability of Scripture, do not be intimidated. Instead tell him that you would like to read his sources for yourself. Of course, you may at this point be wondering if I have been selective in cherry-picking a non-representative sample of Ehrman’s examples from his book. To assuage this concern, in part 2, I will review yet further examples of Ehrman’s objections to the gospels and reveal that this sort of sloppy scholarship represents not a deviation from the norm but rather a trend.
Footnotes
[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them). (New York: HarperCollins, 2009).
[Article 2 Begins]
In my previous article, I attempted to disabuse my readers of the intimidation that many Christians feel when confronted by critics of the faith holding PhDs and teaching positions at major Universities. I gave a critique of several examples of Bart Ehrman’s alleged contradictions and errors in the gospel accounts from his book Jesus, Interrupted [1]. With Bart Ehrman I regrettably have learned never to trust him to accurately represent his sources since, from past experience, I know him to be misquoting or misrepresenting his sources far more often than he accurately represents them. In case you thought I was picking on low hanging fruit and that his other examples are robust, in this article I want to examine some more instances from his book to further disabuse you of any intimidation you might have when it comes to someone as qualified and well known as Bart Ehrman.
You may recall that, in my previous article, I discussed Ehrman’s claim in Jesus, Interrupted that there is a trajectory from Mark, the earliest gospel written, through to John, the last gospel to be written, towards becoming increasingly pro-Roman and anti-Jewish. We dispatched of that claim by noting how Ehrman conveniently cherry-picked his data from the gospel sources. Ehrman, however, presents a second claim about an alleged gospel development, and that is the presentation of Jesus’ attitude towards his impending death. On pages 65-66, Ehrman writes of Mark’s presentation of Jesus’ passion narrative,
“Jesus is silent the entire time, as if in shock, until his cry at the end, echoing Psalm 22 … Mark is trying to say something by this portrayal. He doesn’t want his readers to take solace in the fact that God was really there providing Jesus with physical comfort. He dies in agony, unsure of the reason he must die.”
In regards to the parallel accounts in the gospel of Luke, Ehrman writes,
“In this account, Jesus is not at all confused about what is happening to him or why. He is completely calm and in control of the situation; he knows what is about to occur, and he knows what will happen afterward: … This is a far cry from the Jesus of Mark, who felt forsaken to the end.”
But is that what Mark was doing? To find out, we can list out some of the other texts found in Mark’s gospel where Jesus talks about his impending death:
- Mark 8:31 – “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.”
- Mark 9:31 – “…for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.”
- Mark 10:32-34 – “And taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.””
- Mark 10:45 – “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
- Mark 12:6-11 – Parable of the tenants who kill the son of the vineyard owner, offending the Jewish rulers, who knew (verse 12) “that he had told the parable against them.”
- In Mark (as in all of the Synoptics), Jesus answers the high priest’s question – “Are you the Messiah?” in bold, unequivocal terms – “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61). But this claim is completely absent from John, the last gospel to be written!
- Of all of the gospels, only John, the last of them to be written, records the most human admission of physical pain and weakness in the words from the cross: “I thirst” (John 19:28).
These many references in Mark’s gospel do not fit very well with Ehrman’s thesis that Mark portrays Jesus as one who is “unsure of the reason he must die” and uncertain of “what will happen afterward.” Indeed, Jesus’ cry in Mark 15:34, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” is, as Ehrman himself notes, an echo of Psalm 22:1, probably intended to convey to the hearers that Psalm 22 was now being fulfilled in their presence. This Psalm, however, Ehrman omits to tell his reader, ends in the vindication of the Psalmist.
Ehrman’s habitual misreading of his sources, however, is not limited to the gospels alone, but also extends to extrabiblical material. For example, on page 287, Bart Ehrman writes,
“Mark 7:3 indicates that the Pharisees ‘and all the Jews’ washed their hands before eating, so as to observe ‘the tradition of the elders.’ This is not true: most Jews did not engage in this ritual.”
Ehrman has in mind here Exodus 30:18-21; 40:30-32 and Leviticus 20:1-16, in which the priests are called to observe hand washing practices, but the people in general are not. However, did the Jews of Jesus’ time, who were heavily influenced by the practices of the Pharisees, engage in this ritual, even though it was not required of them in the written Law? To find out, we can look at some Jewish evidence. According to a letter addressed from an Alexandrian Jew by the name of Aristeas of Marmora (who lived in the second or third century B.C.) to his brother Philocrates, “And as is the custom of all the Jews, they washed their hands in the sea and prayed to God…”
Another source is the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (20-50 A.D.), who writes that the law “does not look upon those who have even touched a dead body, which has met with a natural death, as pure and clean, until they have washed and purified themselves with sprinklings and ablutions” (The Special Laws 3.205).
Let’s consider some modern scholarly opinion. Susan Haber writes [2],
“The Centrality of impurity to Jewish life in the Second Temple period is supported by archaeological evidence. The discovery of mikvaot in such diverse places as Gamla, Sepphoris, Herodium and Massada suggests that in Palestine the removal of impurity was not a rite reserved only for approaching the sacred precincts of the Temple, but was common practice for Jews of all walks of life. The textual evidence suggests that the Jews of the Diaspora also purified themselves, if not through immersion, then by sprinkling, splashing or hand washing.”
To Ehrman’s credit, Ehrman has since corrected himself on this particular issue. I am not aware, however, of any other of the issues I am raising having been publicly acknowledged by Ehrman, and indeed Ehrman himself indicates that the retraction of his false claim about the ceremonial washings was “the first time in recorded history” (and that was as recently as the 28th of January 2019). Furthermore, most people who read Jesus, Interrupted will not see Ehrman’s blog article retracting this claim and so, given that the book is still in print, I felt compelled to call out Ehrman’s mistake here.
On page 40 and 41, Bart Ehrman asks where was Jesus the day after he was baptized? He writes,
“In Matthew, Mark, and Luke – the so-called Synoptic Gospels – Jesus, after his baptism, goes off into the wilderness where he will be tempted by the Devil. Mark especially is quite clear about the matter, for he states, after telling of the baptism, that Jesus left ‘immediately’ for the wilderness. What about John? In John there is no account of Jesus being tempted by the Devil in the wilderness. The day after John the Baptist has borne witness to the Spirit descending on Jesus as a dove at baptism (John 1:29-34), he sees Jesus again and declares him to be the Lamb of God (John is explicit, stating that this occurred ‘the next day’). Jesus then starts gathering his disciples around him (1:35-52) and launches into his public ministry by performing his miracle of turning water into wine. So where was Jesus the next day? It depends on which Gospel you read.”
The only problem is that John does not narrate the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Rather, it merely says,
“‘And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.'”
This, then, is not the baptism narrative itself but rather John giving testimony to what had happened on an earlier occasion. Bart Ehrman once again has simply misread the text.
Let’s take an example from the book of Acts. Ehrman quotes Galatians 1:16-20:
“I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)”
Ehrman writes (p. 55),
“This emphatic statement that Paul is not lying should give us pause. He is completely clear. He did not consult with others after his conversion, did not see any of the apostles for three years, and even then he did not see any except Cephas (Peter) and Jesus’ brother James. This makes the account found in the book of Acts very interesting indeed. For according to Acts 9, immediately after Paul converted he spent some time in Damascus “with the disciples”, and when he left the city, he headed directly to Jerusalem, where he met with he apostles of Jesus (Acts 9:19-30). On all counts Acts seems to be at odds with Paul. Did he spend time with other Christians immediately (Acts) or not (Paul)? Did he go straight to Jerusalem (Acts) or not (Paul)? Did he meet with the group of apostles (Acts) or just with Peter and James (Paul)?”
Indeed, this example also came up in my debate with Dr. Richard Carrier two years ago. Let us read Acts 9:23-25 more carefully:
“When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.”
Now, how long a period of time is denoted by “…many days…”? Take a look at 1 Kings 2:38-39, where “many days” in Hebrew is immediately glossed as three years:
“38 And Shimei said to the king, ‘What you say is good; as my lord the king has said, so will your servant do.’ So Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days. 39 But it happened at the end of three years that two of Shimei’s servants ran away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath. And when it was told Shimei, ‘Behold, your servants are in Gath,'”
But what about the trip to Arabia? Luke is silent on it, but does Luke contradict Paul’s claim that he went to Arabia? I would place Paul’s trip to Arabia within the “many days” of Acts 9:23. Paul also informs us in Galatians 1:17 that he “returned again to Damascus”, so it isn’t surprising then that his subsequent trip to Jerusalem is from Damascus.
I will take one final example to close, and I would consider this to be one of Ehrman’s best examples that he offers – on what day was Jesus crucified? Ehrman’s discussion is lengthy so I will not quote it here. You can find his discussion for yourself on pages 23-28. However, here are the relevant Biblical texts Ehrman references:
- Mark 14:12 – “And on the first day of Unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?” [The Last Supper follows]
- John 19:14 – [Describing the scene where Jesus is condemned to be crucified] Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover.
Now, here is the apparent contradiction. In Mark, the Last Supper occurs on the first day of Passover. Jesus’ arrest takes place that same night and his crucifixion on the following day, i.e. the first day of Passover. According to Ehrman, John tells us that the crucifixion took place on the day of preparation for Passover — that is, the day before the Passover. However, John does not say that it was the day of preparation for the Passover. Rather, he says that it was the day of preparation of Passover. Mark 15:42 uses the same term, and also indicates what it means:
“And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.”
In other words, “preparation” means preparation for the Sabbath. Now, let’s read John more closely. In John 19:31, we read,
“Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.”
John agrees with Mark that it was the day before the Sabbath. This is what he means by “preparation.” However, there are four more questions we have to address to fully resolve all of Ehrman’s points.
First, what does John mean when he says, “for that Sabbath was a high day?” I would argue that he means that it was a particularly special feast day, not just any Sabbath day, but Sabbath in Passover week.
Second, what about John 18:28? Here is the text:
“Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they could not be defiled but could eat the Passover.”
Doesn’t this contradict the claim that Passover had already taken place? The short answer is ‘no’. Passover is not just one day; rather, it is a week-long festival. Indeed, throughout the gospel of John, the word “Passover” occurs eight other times and always refers to the whole festival, not only to the opening meal. The Passover seder, or supper, that marks the commence of the Passover celebration is in fact not the only ritual meal that is eaten during Passover; in fact, there is another ritual meal, the chagigah (meaning “festival offering”), eaten at mid-day the following day. This is known as the feast of unleavened bread, but Josephus indicates that it was also known as the Passover meal. He writes (Antiquities 14.2.1), “As this happened at the time when the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which we call Passover,…”
If the chief priests had entered Pilate’s dwelling and consequently become ceremonial unclean, the defilement would expire at sundown. All that would be required of them would be to wash and they would be made ceremonially clean for the evening meal. Therefore, the chief priests have to have been concerned about some meal other than the evening meal. That is to say, their concern cannot have had to do with the initial Passover seder meal.
Thus, John’s account fits perfectly with Mark’s. The concern of the chief priests cannot have been about the initial Passover seder. The seder was already over, having been eaten the previous evening. Rather, the chief priests were concerned about another meal in Passover, probably the feast of unleavened bread known as the chagigah.
Thirdly, isn’t the meal in John 13 a different meal from the last supper in the synoptic gospels? Bart Ehrman writes,
“They do eat a final supper together, but in John, Jesus says nothing about the bread being his body, or the cup representing his blood. Instead, he washes the disciples’ feet, a story found in none of the other gospels.”
Here, however, we have two undesigned coincidences that reveal that the meal described in Luke and John is the same one and also corroborating the historicity of both accounts [3]. Here are the relevant texts from Luke and John:
- Luke 22:27 – “For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.”
- John 13:4-5 – “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…”
A reader of Luke’s gospel might ask what Jesus is referring to when he says “I am among you as the one who serves.” John’s account, however, illuminates the broader context. Jesus gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood by washing the disciples’ feet, an event not recorded in Luke’s account of the same occasion. A reader of John’s gospel might ask, why does Jesus wash their feet? What prompted this object lesson in servanthood? The answer is given in Luke 22:24 – “A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” In other words, John reports the object lesson in servanthood, whereas Luke reports the occasion that gave rise to it — namely, the dispute among the disciples over who was the greatest. Thus, Luke explains John, and John explains Luke. These two undesigned coincidences corroborate the historicity of the event and show that, contrary to Ehrman’s assumption, the two accounts reflect one and the same event.
Finally, what about John 13:1?
“Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.”
Doesn’t this contradict the claim that the Last Supper was the Passover meal? In Greek, however, the text does not say that the supper was before the feast: rather, all it says is that before the feast, Jesus loved his disciples to the end. There is thus no great problem here either.
Given that Ehrman has written a book subtitled “revealing the hidden contradictions in the Bible (and why we don’t know about them), I think it is a fair assumption that Ehrman has offered us his best examples of objections to the gospel accounts. Since those objections fail, this ought to give us renewed confidence in the historical reliability of the accounts in the gospels and Acts.
In conclusion, there are only three things required for refuting claims by Bart Ehrman when it comes to the reliability of the Biblical text: an open Bible, a pencil, and some common sense. In future articles, I will continue to review additional examples both from Jesus, Interrupted as well as other works by Bart Ehrman.
Footnotes
[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them). (New York: HarperCollins, 2009).
[2] Susan Haber, “They Shall Purify Themselves”: Essays on Purity in Early Judaism (Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 130-131.
[3] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts. (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017).
[Article 3 Begins]
In two previous articles (here and here), I covered a number of examples of alleged contradictions in the gospels and Acts, taken from Jesus, Interrupted, by Dr. Bart Ehrman of the University of Chapel Hill, North Carolina [1]. We saw that even someone with a PhD, a teaching position at a major University, and a stellar publication record can make some very basic errors — over and over again. After composing my first article, I was concerned that some might think I was cherry picking particularly weak examples from Ehrman’s book, and ignoring the real meaty objections. This led me to writing a second article, wherein I provided yet further examples to further show that the mistakes I was documenting on Ehrman’s part represent not a deviation from the norm but rather a trend. Still, after two articles some readers may still be unconvinced that I am giving a fair sample of Ehrman’s objections. Thus, here I offer a third article, in which I will document even further examples of Ehrman’s sloppy scholarship, again taken from his book Jesus, Interrupted.
What did the voice at Jesus’ baptism say?
On page 39-40, Ehrman claims that what the voice at Jesus’ baptism said “depends on which account you read.” He writes,
“In Matthew it says, ‘This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.’ The voice appears to be speaking to the people around Jesus, or possibly to John the Baptist, informing them who Jesus is. In Mark, however, the voice says, ‘You are my son, in whom I am well pleased.’ In this case the voice appears to be speaking directly to Jesus, telling him, or confirming to him, who he really is. In Luke, we have something different (this is a bit complicated, because different manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel give the voice different words. I am taking here the original wording of the verse as found in some older manuscripts of the Bible, even though it is not found in most English translations). Here the voice says, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’ (3:22), quoting the words of Psalm 2:7).”
What Ehrman here does not inform his readers, however, is that the reading “You are my son, today I have begotten you” in Luke, quoting Psalm 2:7, is only found in a single Greek manuscript (although it is also found in several Latin manuscripts and quotations by church fathers). Most textual scholars argue that this is a non-original reading. For example, Bruce Metzger writes [2],
“The Western reading, ‘This day I have begotten thee,’ which was widely current during the first three centuries, appears to be secondary, derived from Ps 2:7.”
But Ehrman does not even bother to acknowledge in his writing that his assertion here is highly contested. He does not even provide any argumentation for why he opts for this reading being the original.
Who is for Jesus and who is against Him?
On page 41, Ehrman says,
“Some sayings of Jesus are rendered in similar but nevertheless diverging ways. One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is the pair of sayings related in Matthew 12:30 and Mark 9:40. In Matthew, Jesus declares, ‘Whoever is not with me is against me.’ In Mark, he says, ‘Whoever is not against us is for us.’ Did he say both things? Could he mean both things? How can both be true at once? Or is it possible that one of the Gospel writers got things switched around?”
An examination of the contexts of these two texts (Matthew 12:30 and Mark 9:40), however, reveals that these refer to two completely different episodes. In Matthew, the preceding context is that Jesus has just been accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan. This is paralleled in Mark 3:22-30, so Mark 9:40 cannot possibly be describing the same circumstance.
In Mark 9:40, the context of the saying is that John the son of Zebedee has said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us,” (Mark 9:38). Given that two statements appear in completely different episodes, it is not at all apparent that the two accounts contradict one another. Furthermore, the two statements (that “whoever is not with me is against me” and “whoever is not against us is for us”) are perfectly compatible. Where, then, is the problem?
How long did Jesus’ ministry last?
On pages 41-42, Ehrman alleges that John conflicts with Mark on the length of time of Jesus’ ministry. Ehrman points out that,
“On three separate occasions John refers to different Passover celebrations, which since they were a year apart would seem to indicate that the ministry must have lasted at least over two years, rounded up to three.”
According to Ehrman, Mark by contrast represents Jesus’ ministry as being extremely brief. In fact, he argues, “the distinct impression is that the ministry has lasted a few months, from harvest time to spring.” Supporting this is Mark’s repeated use of the word εὐθὺς, meaning “immediately.” However, there are at least two Passovers mentioned in Mark. Ehrman notes one of those, since he observes,
“At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, in chapter 2, his disciples are going through the wheat fields and eating the grain, to the consternation of the Pharisees, who believe they are violating the Sabbath. This must be taking place, then, in the fall, at the time of the harvest.”
However, the feeding of the five thousand, reported in Mark 6, also evidently took place at around Passover. John explicitly tells us this (John 6:4). Mark, however, also strongly implies it. He notes that the grass was green (Mark 6:39), which suggests that the time of year was the spring when the grass is green rather than brown (due to increased rainfall). Also consistent with it being around the time of the Passover, Mark also indicates that “many were coming and going” (Mark 6:31), indicating the busyness of the place. Thus, given that there are at least two Passovers in Mark, Ehrman’s argument is significantly undermined.
When was the curtain in the Temple ripped?
On page 51-52 of Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman discusses the ripping of the temple curtain, which happened as Jesus died. Ehrman writes,
“According to Mark’s Gospel, after Jesus breathes his last, the curtain of the Temple is torn in half (15:38)…Luke’s Gospel also indicates that the curtain in the Temple was ripped in half. Oddly enough, it does not rip after Jesus dies but is explicitly said to rip while Jesus is still alive and hanging on the cross (23:45-46).”
But is that what the texts of Mark and Luke say? As those who have read my previous two articles interacting with Ehrman know only too well, it pays to check that Ehrman has faithfully represented his sources. Here are the two texts:
- Mark 15:37-38: And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.
- Luke 23:44-46: It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.
From the translation found in the English Standard Version (ESV) quoted above, it is easy to see how Ehrman came to the conclusion he did, and for someone illiterate in Greek this mistake might be excusable. However, Ehrman is an expert in Greek, and so this mistake is quite inexcusable. The ESV translation of Luke 23:46 says, following the tearing of the curtain, “Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!’ And having said this he breathed his last.” The English translation makes it sound like Jesus died following the tearing of the curtain. However, this is not at all clear in the Greek. The Greek word translated “then” is και, which is a conjunction normally translated “and.” It is temporally non-specific, and ancient writers, including the New Testament authors, frequently used και when narrating events achronologically (that is, without respect to chronological sequence). Thus, both Mark and Luke are ambiguous as to the exact order of these events, and both are even consistent with the tearing of the temple curtain being simultaneous with Jesus’ death.
Did the churches in Judea know Paul?
Our next example pertains to the book of Acts in relation to the letters of Paul. On page 56, Ehrman writes concerning Galatians 1:21-22,
“Here again Paul is quite clear. Sometime after he converted he went around to various churches in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, but he ‘was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea’ (Galatians 1:21-22). This has struck some scholars as odd. According to the book of Acts, when Paul was earlier persecuting the churches in Christ, it was specifically the Christian churches in ‘Judea and Samaria’ (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2). Why is it that Christians in the churches he had formerly persecuted didn’t know what he looked like? Wasn’t he physically present among them as their enemy earlier? According to Acts, yes; according to Paul, no.”
This, however, does not seem to me to be a great difficulty at all. Acts 8:1-3 indicates that Paul had been involved in persecuting the church in Jerusalem, to be distinguished from the whole region of Judea. Acts 8:1 in fact indicates that the believers in Jerusalem “were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.” They no doubt would have told other believers with whom they came into contact of the persecution they had experienced under Saul of Tarsus, but it does not follow that the churches in Judea would have known him by sight, although they would doubtless have known him by reputation.
Conclusion
Once again, we have seen that Ehrman’s objections to the New Testament, once one actually investigates his sources for oneself, quickly dissolve. Since it is a fair assumption that Ehrman has chosen his best and, to his mind, most convincing examples of alleged contradictions in the gospels and Acts, the abject failure of Ehrman’s proposed contradictions should give us renewed confidence in the substantial trustworthiness of the Biblical accounts. In future articles, I will continue to review Ehrman’s objections to the Biblical accounts.
Footnotes
[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them). (New York: HarperCollins, 2009).
[2] Bruce Metzger, A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.). (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 112-113.
