Bible Contradictions

According to Richard Dawkins,

"But there are many unsophisticated Christians out there who think it absolutely is necessarily so — who take the Bible very seriously indeed as a literal and accurate record of history and hence as evidence supporting their religious beliefs. Do these people never open the book that they believe is the literal truth? Why don't they notice those glaring contradictions?" (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 120).

Oh? Like, for instance. . .

I Thirst

Bart Ehrman explains that, according to Mark, Jesus says nothing on the cross until the end:

Is this indeed so, that Mark reports Jesus remained silent while other gospel writers portray him as saying, for instance, "I thirst" (John 19:28)? Does Mark ever say, 'Jesus remained silent?' Of course not. Rather, he does not quote other utterances, such as "I thirst." This is the Rule of Exhaustive Utterance: If Mark quotes Jesus as saying 'Eloi, eloi,' then Mark is affirming that Jesus did NOT say anything else. Any quotation must follow the rule: 'He say thus-and-so, [AND NOTHING ELSE].'

Do we ever apply this Rule of Exhaustive Utterance in daily life? For instance, if the Reuters news article on Yahoo quotes an Australian fire-fighting hero as saying, 'The flames were fifty feet high,' and the AP article quotes the same man as saying, 'It was touch-and-go for a while,' do we say, 'the two accounts contradict one another'? Rather, does it not strike us that the man probably said BOTH things? That is the normal protocol readers follow when differing accounts offer complementary information. We allow the accounts to supplement each other. That is the best way to garner information about the world. Why is it not followed here?

Mark's gospel is the shortest of the gospels and would consequently be expected to report the fewest incidents. What is so incredible about a man dying on the cross saying "I thirst"? We do a two-step shuffle with Dr. Ehrman: first we pretend that the gospel authors are writing fiction, purportedly to allow them to speak for themselves, though they did not think they were writing fiction and were indeed even liable to challenge from surviving witnesses. Were we not pretending that the gospel authors were writing fiction, we would not have said that Mark describes Jesus as silent except for "My God, my God, etc.," since there are very plainly recorded six other utterances from the cross in the other evangelists. Then, having created a 'Bible contradiction' through the pretense that the gospel authors are writing fiction, we suddenly recall that they are not writing fiction but history. After all Jesus cannot both have said nothing except "My God, my God, etc.," and also have said the six other utterances recorded elsewhere. Thus, we simultaneously rediscover that the evangelists are writing history...and that it's error-ridden history! This methodology leaves one wondering: why did we pretend these authors were writing fiction, when we knew all along that they were not?

Does the pretended courtesy of allowing the evangelists to speak with their own voice accomplish its stated aim? To the contrary, the evangelists assert that they are writing history, incorporating eye-witness testimony into their accounts: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word..." (Luke 1:1-2). How then does it show respect to these authors to treat them as if they were writing fiction? A fiction writer is a god making his own universe; if he does not recount an event, then it never happened, not in his universe. Do the evangelists want this protocol applied to their writings? To the contrary, they specifically disavow any intent to deny events they do not describe: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25). To read them with Dr. Ehrman's protocol is to deny their expressed wish. John does not want to be understood to deny those "many other things" he has omitted to mention.

The pretended courtesy of allowing these authors to speak for themselves amounts in the end to accusing them of fraud. They say they are historians, Dr. Ehrman says they are fiction-writers. He accuses them of fraud...because he is so concerned to maintain their integrity!: "To approach the stories in this way is to rob each author of his own integrity..." (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' p. 70). Why not accuse them of absconding with the funds as well? And he will treat them as historians in the end...but only after he has destroyed their credibility by first pretending they are novelists!

Dr. Ehrman is at least theoretically aware that those people who concern themselves with the formal validity of arguments do not consider the argument from silence as valid; he notes that this criticism was levied against Walter Bauer: "Bauer was attacked for making too many arguments from silence..." (Bart D. Ehrman, 'The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot,' p. 177). In fact one argument from silence is one too many; it is not a valid argument. Dr. Ehrman evidently thinks it is not really so bad; he goes on breezily to bolster the argument from silence with his customary argument from authority: "...the general perspective offered by Bauer has become a dominant view among scholars of early Christianity today." (Bart D. Ehrman, 'The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot,' p. 178), as if two bad arguments combined might make one good. The fact remains it is not a valid argument. The reader is not entitled to infer Jesus' silence from Mark's silence about what Jesus said.

Dr. Ehrman elevates his claim about Jesus' reputed "silence" in Mark to the point where he is not only denying what the other evangelists say, he must deny what Mark himself says. He requires the reader to isolate the crucifixion passage and to find in it evidence that Jesus ended His life in shock, not comprehending why this was happening to Him. If that is what Mark wishes to communicate, why does he report Jesus saying about the woman who anointed Him: "She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial." (Mark 14:8)? Dr. Ehrman claims to find a difference between Mark's account and Luke's in that in Luke, "He is in charge of his own destiny, knowing what he must do and what will happen to him once he does it." (Bart Ehrman, 'Misquoting Jesus,' pp. 143-144). But Mark reports Jesus answering the high priest, “Jesus said, 'I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'” (Mark 14:62). Is it not evident that Jesus did not have to claim openly to be Daniel's Son of Man as he here does, and that the outcome of the trial might have been different had He instead made mild and conciliatory statements? Why would One who does not know what He must do and does not realize what will happen to Him once He does it make such a deliberately inflammatory statement?

Mark and his Bible-believing readers know that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22, a Psalm whose initial cry of distress gives way to the shout of triumph,

"For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from Him;
But when He cried to Him, He heard." (Psalm 22:24).

If the author Mark had had any such intentions as Dr. Ehrman ascribes to him, would he have reminded his readers that Jesus was quoting a Messianic psalm, or refrained from mentioning it, which was certainly within his power? He goes out of his way to remind them, reporting that some by-standers waited to see whether Elijah would come. They thought that, in quoting a Messianic Psalm, the Lord was setting in motion a train of events. The expectation that Elijah would return to clear the way for the Messiah comes from Malachi 4:5-6:

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

An American who paid attention in elementary school, hearing 'Four score and seven years ago..." cannot help but think, '...our fathers brought forth upon this continent...' If you try not to think 'our fathers brought forth,' you will think of it anyway. Memorized material makes our minds run on rails. For a reader, accustomed to hearing the psalms sung, to hear the cry of dereliction without any penumbra surrounding it, without the sense that 'there's more,' requires a feat of mental gymnastics of which few are capable. To hear something that you're used to hearing as if you've never heard it before is difficult. But Bart Ehrman demands no less. And this is where we came in; this is where the 'quest for the historical Jesus' started, with the demand for a decontextualized, dejudaized understanding of the cry of dereliction, breaking its connection with Psalm 22:

"Reimarus (1694-1768) was the great iconoclast.. [...] Jesus was a Jewish reformer who became increasingly fanatical and politicized; and he failed. His cry of dereliction on the cross signalled the end of his expectation that his god would act to support him. [...] Go back to the beginning, and you will find your faith...resting on a failed Messiah and a fraudulent gospel." (N. T. Wright, 'Jesus and the Victory of God,' pp. 16-17)

The dramatic difference it makes is underscored by those newspaper accounts of Bart Ehrman's triumphs written by people who appear not to know the Lord is quoting Psalm 22 in saying, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me." Here's the psalm in its entirety:

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel. Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.

"Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

"I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel. For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard. My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him. The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD’S: and he is the governor among the nations. All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul. A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this." (Psalm 22).

The reader will notice that what happened to the Lord is just what the Psalm says will happen to the Messiah, a point which certainly hadn't escaped Mark's attention. A narrator who wishes to evoke a certain response on the part of his audience may find it helpful to draw attention to other spectators who are displaying just that response. Given humanity's natural tendency toward imitation, this is a non-obtrusive and non-coercive way to make a point. The spectators to whom Mark draws our attention thought that Jesus was calling on Elijah; they thought He was, or that He thought He was, the Messiah. So should we. This is one point Mark is making, not that Jesus was confused or defeated or any of the other things Dr. Ehrman wills into the passage.

One irony here is that the Christian believer understands the cry of dereliction as dark and disturbing precisely because the one crying was no mere man as Dr. Ehrman imagines. What is so remarkable about a man who feels estranged from God? Dr. Ehrman's reading of scripture gives new luster to the phrase "one-dimensional." What offends Bible believers about this shell game: that Dr. Ehrman accuses Matthew, Luke and John of making up bogus utterances from the cross,-- is the only way he can hold onto "My God, my God, etc." Why? Replace for the moment your understanding of the world and the actors in it with all their complexity by a bare kitchen table with little cardboard figures strewn across it. The little cardboard man who has the slogan scribbled across his chest of 'compassion' must be pulled up to leave room for the little cardboard figure with the slogan reading 'pain' or 'estrangement.' You see, 'compassion' is not the same thing as 'pain' or 'estrangement,' and the little cardboard man cannot wear both slogans at once. So the other six utterances must be discarded to make way for this one. Bible-believers, of course, cannot tolerate those other six utterances being discarded, nor is there any reason they should have to. Mark does not say, 'He said this and no more.' And what is so unlikely about a man dying on the cross saying "I thirst"? Let us sweep our little cardboard men off the table; there is no plumbing the depths of a human heart, much less a divine heart. The Lord can certainly really feel 'compassion' as well as 'estrangement.'

Dr. Ehrman's response to "My God, my God, etc.:" 'Too bad, sucker,'-- is not the right one. We should fall down on our knees and thank Him:

Timothy the Gentile

Here is a 'discrepancy' "between Paul and Acts" with which Ehrman favors the reader:

"The Gentile Timothy"? Is there, indeed, a discrepancy between Paul's unwillingness to to have the Gentile Titus circumcised, and his willingness to see the same done to Timothy? Though Ehrman cannot tell the two cases apart, there is a dramatic difference: Titus is a Gentile, Timothy a Jew. Timothy was not a Gentile, but an anomalous case: a Jewish man who had not been circumcised:

"Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek." (Acts 16:1).

To this day this is the criterion used by the immigration authorities in Israel: a Jew is either a convert or the offspring of a Jewish mother. Why not the father, when descent is normally reckoned through the father? Because of verses like Ezra 10:3:

"Now therefore, let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and those who have been born to them, according to the advice of my master and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law." (Ezra 10:3).

Why were the children sent away? They had Jewish fathers, weren't they Jews? The expectation in the Old Testament is that pagan mothers will succeed in enticing their children away from their father's faith:

"For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly." (Deuteronomy 7:4).

Perhaps because mothers spend more 'face time' with the child, the mother is expected to win the contest for the child's allegiance.

The early church agreed that Gentile converts to the Christian faith need not take on the yoke of the law. But on a different, though related, question (Ehrman cannot tell these two questions apart): should a Jew who acknowledges Jesus as Messiah continue to observe the Mosaic law in whole or in part,-- there was, to put it gently, less agreement.

Paul's position on this latter point leaves far more room for liberty of conscience than this author imagines. There were people in Paul's churches who observed the Jewish holidays and sabbaths. They were never kicked out, though Paul did not see the need:

"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." (Romans 14:5).

In this case, a 'Bible contradiction' has been created by inventing a fictitious set of circumstances: that Timothy was a Gentile,-- not found in the text.

Faith vs. Works

"The four gospels do not agree.

"Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing of the atonement, nothing of salvation by faith. They knew only the gospel of good deeds -- of charity." (Robert Ingersoll, 'About the Holy Bible,' VII)

I'm not sure what this author means by denying these three authors know anything about the atonement:

"And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:27-28, Mark 10:45).

Is there a conflict between salvation by faith as taught by the apostle Paul and the exhortations to works of charity with which the gospels are filled?:

Bart Ehrman shares this concern as well:

"And so the problem is this: if Matthew's Jesus was right, that keeping the law and loving others as yourself could bring salvation, how could Paul be right that doing these things were irrelevant for attaining salvation?" (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' p. 92).

But Paul does not say works are "irrelevant" to salvation, he says that they are the consequence of salvation:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Making something which is a consequence of another thing into a precondition for that thing may leave you with the dizzying feeling you are going around in circles.

Love Your Enemies

According to Robert Ingersoll, Jesus demonstrated the impossibility of His own moral teaching by rebuking the Pharisees:

Does it show hated to correct the erring? Jesus demonstrated His love by His deeds:

"For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:6-8).

There is something unearned about Robert Ingersoll's comparison of the state of civilization as depicted in the book of Judges, when "In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 21:25), with the highest achievements of Christian civilization, because Christian civilization is by no means the default condition of mankind. If you take away its foundation, it does not remain forever suspended in mid-air, as should have been discovered in the twentieth century when the advances of scientific Marxism-Leninism led to the horrors of Stalinism.

Deist Tom Paine is another infidel not sold on the virtue of loving one's enemies:

". . .but when it is said, as in the Testament, 'If a man smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,' it is assassinating the dignity of forbearance, and sinking man into a spaniel.

"Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has besides no meaning. It is incumbent on man, as a moralist, that he does not revenge an injury. . .but to love in proportion to the injury, if it could be done, would be to offer a premium for a crime. . .to say that we can love voluntarily, and without a motive, is morally and physically impossible." (Tom Paine, The Age of Reason, Part II, Chapter III).

This same author wants to say, however, that "the fragments of morality" found in the Bible "are the natural dictates of conscience. . .and are nearly the same in all religions." (Tom Paine, The Age of Reason, Part II, Chapter III). This very same incoherence is found in gospel critics today. They begin with 'me-tooism,' saying 'You can be good without God'. . .and only later admit surreptitiously that, of course, none but a cringing spaniel would turn the other cheek, or love an enemy. For that matter they see little reason to live in accordance with Christian sexual morality. So why start with a pretense which will soon enough be dropped?

Paul the Maverick

Bart Ehrman finds a contradiction between the characterization of Paul in Acts and in Paul's own letters. In some cases the contradiction arises, like with 'Timothy the Gentile,' from Ehrman's own imaginative reconstruction rather than the text. For example, there is a discrepancy between the various places Acts finds Paul preaching: synagogues, by the river-side, the lecture-hall of Tyrannus, the upper chamber from which Eutychus fell, Mars' hill,-- and the locale which Ehrman has discovered was his only place of proclamation, his work-shop (Paul was a tent-maker). But Paul does not say he used his work-shop as a place of proclamation, nor even that he opened a retail establishment in the various places he went as opposed to, say, selling his leather goods to a wholesaler. Was Paul's work-shop even open to the public? Perhaps it was one of these 'factory outlets.' If Paul was able to preach while working his needle, then he was more deft than those of us who must attend to one thing at a time. But since he says no such thing about himself, this 'Bible contradiction' needs no further elucidation.

Ordinarily we do not interpret the authors we read in hopes of creating a conflict. If Suetonius says something that might imaginatively be interpreted so as to conflict with Tacitus, but need not be so interpreted, most readers will choose the interpretation which harmonizes the two authors. This is not because anyone thinks these authors inspired, but only because they are describing the same world. The 'Jesus' industry turns this normal interpretive paradigm upside-down. An improbable and tendentious interpretation of a passage will be adopted. When it is then noted that this interpretation conflicts with another passage and thus, under normal circumstances would be discarded, instead we discover a 'Bible contradiction.'

Luke records Paul preaching on the history of Israel, but according to Ehrman, he "never" recounts these events in his letters:

Quotation marks, like Saran Wrap and sliced bread, are modern innovations. But it is true quotations of the Lord's words which necessitate quotation marks are infrequent in Paul:

"For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.'" (1 Timothy 5:17);
"And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages." (Luke 10:7).

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes." (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

However, the Bible reader is also aware that Paul doesn't care about much besides Jesus:

"For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:2).

There are many citations of the Lord's teachings which do not require quotation marks because Paul summarizes the substance rather than repeats the words. Paul knows, and of course is interested in, Jesus' teaching on divorce and ministry support:

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14).

In other cases Paul's turn of phrase reminds the Christian reader of sayings of the Lord, for instance,

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:2).

The phrase 'faith to move mountains' might seem like a shop-worn cliche, but it comes from Jesus:

"For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." (Mark 11:23).

If the main points of Paul's teaching do not come from Jesus, then one must marvel at coincidence. Paul's gospel is the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Savior:

"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth." (1 Timothy 2:6-7).

Remarkably like what Jesus said about Himself:

"And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:27-28).

Paul's ethics revolve around love and forgiveness:

"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse...Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord...Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:14-21).

"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'You shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10).

As coincidence would have it, Jesus' ethics revolve around the very same themes:

"But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you." (Luke 6:27-28).

"And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:39).

Anyone who thinks these are inevitable doctrines that all will discover who delve into the Old Testament law should recall the Rabbis rummaged in the very same archive and came up with something rather different. So here are the facts: two first century preachers preached the same message, one a decade or two after the other. The second told whoever would listen he was a follower of the first. The ethics he taught is substantially the same as taught by the first. Yet the second preacher, it has lately been discovered, did not much care about what the first preacher said. Say what?

Seeing God

"Moses, the celebrated prophet and legislator of the Israelites, ingratiated himself into their esteem, by the stratagem of prayer, and pretended intimacy with God; he acquaints us, that he was once admitted to a sight of his back-parts! and that 'no man can see' his 'face and live;' and at other times we are told that he 'talked with God, face to face, as a man talketh with his friend'. . . " (Ethan Allen, Reason, the Only Oracle of Man: Or a Compendious System of Natural Religion,  Chapter VI, Section IV,)

Is there a problem here?

Realized Eschatology

Does the realized eschatology of the letter to Ephesians contradict Paul's other writings? Or are the future resurrection in the flesh and the present heavenly life with Christ two different, but complementary, perspectives, two facets of a complex reality?:

Is there indeed a contradiction between the message of 1 Corinthians and Ephesians, such that we must follow Dr. Ehrman in labelling the latter letter as a forgery? Or are these two aspects of complex whole?:

Most fields of inquiry, following William of Ockham, look for the most parsimonious explanation. The 'Jesus' industry is a notable exception, preferring to multiply authors, documents, and everything else, without end and without reason. But if Paul actually did write the letter to the Ephesians, that explains a lot of the misconceptions he later had to combat. People might have taken his language in an 'either/or' sense, when he meant it in a 'both/and' sense. This would, in any other field, be a reason to attribute Ephesians to Paul, not to a forger.

He Hanged Himself

"Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5).

"Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood." (Acts 1:18-19)

If these are two alternative causes of death, then they are contradictory. One cannot both die by hanging and by spontaneous disembowelment. The coroner must note one or the other on his report.

For that matter, how do you die of spontaneous disembowelment? Bart Ehrman wants very much for the account in Acts to be another cause of death: "Peter describes his death in graphic terms...Most striking of all, this is not a death by hanging. Judas somehow falls headlong on this field, and when he does so, his stomach rips open, his intestines gush out, and he makes a bloody mess." (Bart D. Ehrman, 'The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot,' p. 38). But how to make 'stomach rips open' work as a cause of death? Perhaps this field, purchased to be used as a potter's field, is filled with rocky crags: "It's not clear exactly how Judas falls headlong: Does he jump from a cliff? Does he lurch forward onto some stones? Does he simply fall down and burst open?" (Bart Ehrman, 'The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot,' p. 39). Uneasy that he hasn't made sense of Acts 1:18-19 as a cause of death, Dr. Ehrman later brings up accounts in Josephus and other authors of grotesque deaths in antiquity, apparently the result of untreated intestinal cancer. But Judas wasn't ill before the crucifixion; he still functioned as treasurer, and walked to the place of betrayal. And if the field had the topography Dr. Ehrman is forced to ascribe to it, surely the high priests could have found one better suited to its function of a potter's field. How are the grave-diggers to make progress amongst all those cliffs and stones?

Dr. Ehrman is not concerned with making sense of this material, but rather with making nonsense of it. What doesn't make sense as a cause of death makes perfect sense post-mortem. A bloated, decomposing corpse decays in the sun, then falls face down as the rotting rope deteriorates. As TV crime shows endlessly show us, corpses which are not fresh are fragile. Burying the dead was a religious duty, a filial duty, and a duty of friendship. One of the horrors of the Jewish war was the unburied dead. It is in the nature of treason that a traitor has few friends; his old friends, whom he betrayed, have little use for him, and his new friends have even less.

Why would Peter or anyone else care what happened to a dead body? People do care. The curse against Jezebel was executed post-mortem, that the dogs should disturb her body (2 Kings 9:36). People in antiquity found it a hard thing that Achilles dragged Hector's body around the walls of Troy; and people today find it a hard thing that Somali militiamen dragged the body of an American helicopter pilot through the streets of Mogadishu. The horror associated with an unattended and unmourned death, and lack of burial thereafter, is brought out by the Old Testament prophets:

"And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away." (Jeremiah 7:33).

"And I will leave thee thrown into the wilderness, thee and all the fish of thy rivers: thou shalt fall upon the open fields; thou shalt not be brought together, nor gathered: I have given thee for meat to the beasts of the field and to the fowls of the heaven." (Ezekiel 29:5).

Bart Ehrman also claims to find a contradiction as to the purchaser of the field. According to Dr. Ehrman, the high priests were the owner of record: "it is purchased by the Jewish high priests." So by his interpretation, just exactly what they said they could not do: put the money back into the temple treasury -- they did, and purchased the lot on behalf of the Temple association, or in the name of the high priests. But they said they could not do that.

Nor is it likely that by-standers immersed in the law of Moses would find it easy to pick up the money. We are accustomed to 'finders keepers' being the law in some cases, for instance in marine salvage. But it's not the law of Moses, which does not allow people to pick up what isn't theirs. They can only hold found items in trust: "You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him." (Deuteronomy 22:1-2). So Judas may not only have been the constructive purchaser of the field, but perhaps his name was on the deed. Otherwise the high priests might stand accused of conversion. In some cases a lot is freed for public use, not because the public owns it, but because nobody does. Judas did not want the money back. Yet he may have realized no one could prevent him from defiling with his death a parcel bought under his name.

Bart Ehrman finds further discrepancies in Judas' reported motive:

"The four accounts differ on why Judas did the foul deed. There is no reason stated in Mark, although we are told that he received money for the act, so maybe it was out of greed (14:10-11). Matthew (26:14) states explicitly that Judas did it for the money. Luke, on the other hand, indicates that Judas did it because 'Satan entered into him' (22:3). In other words, the devil made him do it. In John, Judas is himself called 'a devil' (6:70-71), and so presumably he betrayed his master because he had an evil streak." (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' pp. 45-46)

It is difficult to see the force of Dr. Ehrman's "on the other hand." On what other hand? Is it not to be expected that Satan will use people's existing moral weaknesses, such as greed, to drag them down? The Bible teaches there are unseen spiritual agencies at work in the world, who take an interest in human endeavors:

"And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha." (2 Kings 6:16-17).

These unseen armies stand behind both good and wicked men. This understanding is not in place of the idea that men themselves are morally responsible for their own actions. Observers can open, or close, their eyes to these armies. A full and comprehensive listing of the forces drawn up in battle array must include them. Dr. Ehrman's 'either/or' scheme fits the Bible evidence on this point no better than on the others.

There remain two different accounts of why it's called the field of blood. But the same interpreter, reading a poem, may give two complementary interpretations, which reinforce one another rather than conflict. This is another 'Bible contradiction' where there is less than meets the eye.

Uncorroborated

"If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth....But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." (John 5:31-39).

“The Pharisees therefore said to Him, 'You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.' Jesus answered and said to them, 'Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going...And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.'” (John 8:13-18).

When read in their entirety, these two passages say essentially the same thing: that Jesus' testimony to His mission is corroborated by His Father's testimony. But these two passages are oft quoted by agnostics because there is a verbal contradiction between John 5:31: "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true," and John 8:14: "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going..." The contradiction, however, is only verbal and not substantive, because 'true' is used in two senses: 1.) a technical legal sense in which testimony which is not corroborated is said to be not 'true' because not usable under Mosaic law, and 2.) the global, default sense of 'true' in which any statement is 'true' if it mirrors reality.

The law of contradiction states that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. This testimony is true and not true, not in the same, but in a different sense, and there is no contradiction: "And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity...but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can in fact." (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Chapter 4, 1006).

False Witnesses

On the very same point hangs this next 'Bible contradiction:'

"We have already seen that Mark represents the charge brought against Jesus at the Sanhedrin trial, that he would destroy the Temple, as 'false witness;' yet, earlier in his narrative, he records how Jesus had foretold the Temple's destruction." (S. G. R. Brandon, 'The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth,' p. 71)

Some readers see considerable similarity between statements Jesus is conceded to have made, and the statements the false witnesses, whose testimony did not agree, alleged that He had made:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19).

"And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Mark 13:2).

"And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Matthew 24:2).

"As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." (Luke 21:6).

Recognizing a general similarity, let us not be so hasty as to slur over questions of voice and agency. It is one thing for President Reagan to stand in Berlin and say, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," quite another for him to say, 'I will bring down this wall with 500 pound bombs.' The first statement is an exhortation addressed to another, the second is a threat of war; the first was well received, the second would have been ill received. If you go to the doctor and he says, 'I will kill you,' you call the cops, but if he says, 'You have six months to live,' you have no legal recourse. The accusation is that the Lord said, "I will destroy this temple:"

"And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together." (Mark 14:57-59).

"But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." (Matthew 26:60-61).

"And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." (Matthew 27:40).

"And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, Save thyself, and come down from the cross." (Mark 15:29-30).

The prophecies are given in passive voice. To the extent that agency is suggested, it is 'enemies:'

"For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." (Luke 19:43-44).

The closest in form is John 2:19, but that is second person imperative, which does not mean "I will destroy!" The false witnesses did not get even the wording right, much less the interpretation.

There is another point. The legal standard set forth in the Talmud for corroborating testimony is stringent. The judges' questions present even a conscientious witness with an obstacle course; if he clears the first few gates, he may stumble at the sixth:

"Mishnah. They [the judges] used to examine them with seven searching queries [Hakiroth]: In what Septennate?  In what year? In what month? On which day of the month? On what day?  At what hour [of the day]? And, at what place? R. Jose said: [They were only asked:] On which day [of the week]? At what hour? And, at what place? [They were further asked:] Did ye know him?  And, did ye warn him?

"...The more exhaustive the cross-examination [Bedikoth] the more praiseworthy the judge. It once happened that Ben Zakkai cross-examined [the witnesses] even as to the stalks of the figs.

"What is the difference between Hakiroth and Bedikoth?  — In Hakiroth, if one [of the witnesses] answers: 'I do not know,' their evidence is void. With respect to Bedikoth, however, if one answers: 'I do not know,' or even if both say: 'We do not know, their evidence is valid. But if they [the witnesses] contradict each other, whether in the Hakiroth or the Bedikoth, their evidence is void." (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 40a).

The Talmud was compiled some centuries after the New Testament era. Moreover, the Sanhedrin of Jesus' day was a mixed body of Pharisees and Sadducees. Once the law of Moses was no longer an operating law code, any pressure to keep it realistic was lifted, and the Rabbis were able to weave elaborate requirements. One must wonder how a witness awakened by a scream in the middle of the night, who witnesses a crime, is supposed to know "at what hour," when clocks had not yet been invented! Whether these particular interrogatories were in use during the first century or not, the concept of corroboration they imply is robust. It is not enough that the witnesses sort of agree; they must say the same thing, not just about the main point, but about subsidiary ones as well. It is unlikely that such a strict standard appeared as a bolt out of the blue. It is by a very strict standard that witness testimony is held to be 'false' or 'true,' i.e., usable or not usable to obtain conviction under the law of Moses.

Americans, too, are accustomed to a legal system with a high standard of proof and layers of protection for the accused. What this means in practice is that, from time to time, people who are as guilty as sin, like Lizzie Borden and O. J. Simpson, walk. This was no doubt as frustrating to the populace of Judaea as to the people of today. But they never changed the system. A legal system with a high standard of proof schools the public to weigh the evidence; at any rate, all those people who watch 'Court TV' sound like Philadelphia lawyers to me. Bear this in mind when you hear Bart Ehrman and the like describing first century Jews as child-like primitives who liked to make up stories, and weren't quite sure what you were asking when you said, 'but is it true?'

Atonement

According to Bart Ehrman, Luke does not believe in the 'atonement:' that Jesus purchased redemption for erring mankind with His own blood,-- preferring to believing in 'forgiveness' instead:

"Luke's view is that salvation comes not through an atoning sacrifice but by forgiveness that comes from repentance." (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' p. 94).

This is supposed to be a discrepancy between Luke's work, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, and the remainder of the New Testament which does teach the atonement. Is this true? No more so than usual:

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28).

"'This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'" (Luke 22:19-20 NRSV).

Head Covering

A political agenda drives modern Bible 'scholarship.' Since several things Paul said cannot be reconciled with women pastors, Paul must never have said those things. 'Paul,' his evil twin, said it. This field of 'scholarly' endeavor feels free to replicate entities without reason, so there may be as many 'Paul's' as one cares to count. Bart Ehrman makes up an additional 'Paul' to address a purported contradiction between 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14:

According to Dr. Ehrman, this is a direct contradiction: "In the disputed passage of chapter 14, however, it is equally clear that 'Paul' forbids women from speaking at all. It is difficult to reconcile these two views -- either Paul allowed women to speak (with covered heads, chapter 11) or not (chapter14). As it seems unreasonable to think that Paul would flat out contradict himself within the space of three chapters, it appears that the verses in question do not derivce form Paul." (Bart Ehrman, 'Misquoting Jesus,' p. 184). As is common with modern Bible 'scholarship,' we are to envision a clumsy interpolator, who does not notice he is 'contradicting' what Paul just got done saying.

But is there any contradiction at all? In one case, the women are praying in the spirit and prophesying, in the other case they are asking questions of their own curiosity. Who is the speaker in the first instance but the Holy Spirit? The rule, when God speaks, is "Quench not the Spirit." (1 Thessalonians 5:19). It is not prudent to command God to be silent when He wishes to speak.

The idea of the Holy Spirit speaking through women, or men, is unfamiliar to Bart Ehrman. He has some confused idea that the Christian perception of a unitary voice in scripture is a function of the book binder's art: "They assume that since all the books in the Bible are found between the same hard covers, every author is basically saying the same thing." (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' p. 62). But the voice that Christians hear speaking in scripture, picking up a theme, dropping it then revisiting and playing with it a thousand years later, is the Holy Spirit: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21).

The "law" to which Paul refers is not the law of Moses, which contains no provision addressing decorum in public meetings. Was there a law in that locality forbidding women from speaking at a public meeting? As readers of the Greek novels realize, some women in pagan Greece lived under conditions almost like the Purdah of the Islamic world. They were expected to spend most of their lives indoors and were not free to come and go at will. Paul always encourages his flock to obey the law, though they need not volunteer obedience to laws of other jurisdictions. In any case there is no room left for lady pastors in 1Timothy 2:12, which says, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Men and Angels

"The same problem occurs int he accounts of Jesus' resurrection. On the third day after Jesus' death, the women go to the tomb to anoint his body for burial. And whom do they see thre? Do they see a man, as Mark says, or two men (Luke), or an angel (Matthew)?" (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' p. 8).

Angels have not the same nature as men:

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." (Hebrews 2:16).

However, they appear so very much like men that "some have entertained angels unawares." (Hebrews 13:2). The same 'contradiction' occurs numerous times in the Bible, for instance in Daniel:

"Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation." (Daniel 9:21).

"Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz." (Daniel 10:5).

"And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" (Daniel 12:6).

These "men" are angels. As yet undiscovered Bible contradictions, no doubt! What is being called a "man" is what to appearance is a man, though known to be an angel. This seems to be a case, not of a real contradiction, but of the flat, simplistic use of language characteristic of Bart Ehrman. He reasons, 'if they're angels, they can't be men; if they are men, they cannot be angels.' But the visionaries who talk with angels are willing to call them 'men' at times, on grounds of the resemblance.

From Everlasting

The church has always believed that the four gospels were written by two apostles, Matthew and John, and by two associates and travelling companions of the apostles, Mark and Luke. Those who prefer to disbelieve this must discard ancient testimony. Bart Ehrman demands that we discard all the actual evidence on this point, on grounds that:

Is this even true, that Matthew teaches Jesus came into being when he was conceived or born? No more so than usual. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2:

"And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." (Matthew 2:6).

This is a quotation of Micah 5:2, which reads,

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (Micah 5:2).

The Septuagint gives the following rendering of Micah 5:2:

"And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity." (Micah 5:2, Benton Septuagint).

If Matthew did not share Micah's view that the goings forth of the Messiah were from the days of eternity, then why quote the verse at all and remind people of a point which, according to Bart Ehrman, he wished to confute? Moreover, Bart Ehrman implies that Matthew did not think Jesus was God:

"In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God..." (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' p. 102)

Is that actually true? No more so than usual:

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matthew 1:23).

If there is a case to be made for discarding contemporary testimony in the face of actual contradiction, there is no case to be made for discarding actual testimony in the face of bogus 'Bible contradictions' of the Bart Ehrman variety.

Preach the Faith

Bart Ehrman makes the vile accusation that some of New Testament letters which claim Paul's authorship were not written by Paul but by forgers masquerading as Paul. This is based in part on such minor differences of style as might be expected from an author who dictates to an amanuensis as did Paul. Dr. Ehrman also offers an argument from word usage. One word can have different meanings; for instance, when someone says, 'I feel well today,' and 'The well has run dry,' the word 'well' does not mean the same thing in both cases. According to Bart Ehrman, if the author of the pastoral letters does not invariably use the word 'faith' as it is used in other Pauline letters, then this author is unmasked as a fraud:

This very powerful technique proves not only that Paul did not write Titus, but that he did not write Galatians either, because 'faith' is used in that letter in its neutral sense as 'religion:'

"But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed." (Galatians 1:23).

The 'faith' Paul sought to destroy while unbelieving was not 'trust or confidence in God,' but rather the Christian religion, just what the term means in Titus 1:13. For that matter the pastoral letters also use 'faith' in the sense of trust and confidence in God's promise of salvation:

"Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned..." (1 Timothy 1:5).

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15).

It is not clear why Paul, having used 'faith' in the special sense of committing one's cause to Jesus and relying upon Him solely, loses the normal liberty speakers otherwise enjoy of using the word also in the sense of 'religion.' I don't know if the immigrant Albert Einstein had any relatives in this country, but if he did, I suspect he said to his wife, 'Let's go visit the relatives.' Because he had used the words 'relative' and 'relativity' in a special sense in his physical theorizing, was he forbidden from using the word in this common and familiar sense? Must he say, with the news media, 'loved ones,' when that is not the common way of referring to those to whom we are related by birth or marriage? Certainly it would not be proof of two Einsteins, if he said 'Let's go visit the relatives.'

These people must get rid of the pastoral letters because they disallow women pastors, but they have not proved Paul did not write these letters. Although it is a true and worthwhile point that Paul uses 'faith' in a special sense in his teaching of salvation by faith, this does not require Paul to use the word only that sense, as if he were a programmed mechanism. The New Testament letter written by James, the Lord's brother, and Paul's letter to Galatians look at first glance like mirror images. Galatians teaches salvation by faith, James expresses skepticism on that score. Paul indulges in holy cursing (Galatians 1:8-9); James scolds people who curse (James 3:9).

But as the church realized, this shot across Paul's bow, if so it was intended, sailed wide, cleared the superstructure and landed harmlessly in the water. Paul, in writing of salvation by faith, does not mean by 'faith' a 'verbal or mental assent to a list of propositions.' He means throwing oneself upon God, without any other plea or backup plan. The two letters are not contradictory, because they are not really talking about the same thing.

It is helpful to keep in mind the sense in which Paul uses 'faith' in letters like Galatians and Romans. But his special use of this word does not mean that Paul is forever in the future mechanically tethered to using the word 'faith' in only that sense and none other. He retains the same liberty as does any other speaker of the language to use the word in its full range of meanings.

Bishops and Deacons

Bart Ehrman tries to give substance to his venomous accusation that the Pastoral letters were written, not by Paul, but by a forger, by suggesting a novel form of church governance for the churches Paul (the real one) founded: there was none. There were, he says, "no appointed leaders" in the church at Corinth. Because the Pastoral letters give "Directions for appointing bishops who were evidently in charge of the spiritual oversight of the church, and deacons who were in charge of almsgiving and taking care of the physical needs of the community" (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' p. 133), they cannot have been written by Paul, because his churches had no such officers as bishops or elders presiding. This leaves the reader wondering where the bishops came from whom Paul addresses in Philippians 1:1, which Dr. Ehrman acknowledges as Pauline:

"Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons..." (Philippians 1:1 NRSV).

Presumably "bishops" sprung up in those days like mushrooms, with no one appointing them. Except Luke says it was Paul and his colleagues who appointed church officers:

"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." (Acts 14:22).

In New Testament usage, 'elders' are not distinguished from 'bishops,' though the two offices would later be differentiated into a hierarchy. Paul addresses the "elders" of the church at Ephesus, and tells them that they are "bishops:"

"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church...Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers ['episkopos'], to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:17-28)

How does Dr. Ehrman imagine the churches are to function with no leadership? He says they don't need leaders because church members are "given an endowment of the Holy Spirit." (Bart Ehrman, 'Jesus, Interrupted,' p. 131). People who want to test this theory can walk into their local Assemblies of God church, and ask for the pastor. There should be none, right, because these churches cultivate speaking in tongues and other charismatic gifts?

The word 'bishop' is found in the Old Testament as well as the New:

"And these were the children of Benjamin...And Joel son of Zechri was overseer ['episkopos'] over them: and Juda son of Asana was second in the city. (Nehemiah 11:7-9 Benton Septuagint).

"And Jehoiada made a covenant between the LORD and the king and the people, that they should be the LORD’S people; between the king also and the people. . .And the priest appointed officers ['episkopos' επισκοπος] over the house of the LORD." (2 Kings 11:17-18).

When the word 'elder' occurs in the New Testament, it is as likely to refer to an office of the old dispensation as the new:

"Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread." (Matthew 15:2).

For that matter the word 'church,' 'ecclesia,' meaning assembly, is found often in the Septuagint:

"And the king turned his face, and blessed all the congregation ['ecclesia'] of Israel: and all the congregation ['ecclesia'] of Israel stood by." (2 Chronicles 6:3 Benton Septuagint).

...translating 'qahal.' There would be less confusion on these points if the New Testament's 'ecclesia' were consistently translated as 'congregation' or 'assembly,' rather than the discordantly novel 'church,' but established interests did not want it so:

"Fourthly, the [KJV] translators were given certain guidelines under which they were to work...'The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated "congregation."'" ('The Translation of the KJV,' James R. White, 'The King James Only Controversy,' p. 71).

Since these offices are not even novelties of the New Testament congregation, it's odd that Paul could not visualize them and it awaited a forger to introduce them as new things. Moreover, it is hard to understand why the Holy Spirit gives Christians the gift of 'government:'

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:28).

...when this celebrated author says there was no government "in the church." If this gift is altogether superfluous, why offer it at all?

As noted, in the Pastorals, as in the rest of the New Testament, the offices of 'elder' and 'bishop' are not differentiated but identified. Compare:

"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous..." (1 Timothy 3:1-3).

with,

"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." (1 Timothy 5:17).

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre..." (Titus 1:5-7).

As this situation would later change, when the growing 'catholic' church pried apart these two titles, bishop and presbyter, into two distinct offices at different levels, this usage is a testimony for an early date. Missionary churches, at our own late date as then, bring in ministers from outside and by appointment, because a minister cannot be a new believer: "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." (1 Timothy 3:6). But the church in the mission field is made up of novices! That Paul runs his missionary churches as missionary churches have always been run is no difficulty, nor any contradiction to the long-standing habit of settled and established churches of choosing their ministry.

Cock Crow

"And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." (Mark 14:30).

"Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." (Matthew 26:34).

Some general notes about language: a speaker who wishes to relay the words of another has several ways of doing so, none of them illegitimate, dishonest or contradictory. There is direct quotation: 'She said, "You are to go to the store."' There is indirect quotation: 'She said for you to go to the store.' A speaker may paraphrase or summarize without, normally, being suspected of a crime. If the speaker quoted used a foreign language, it will be necessary to translate; and two translators, acting in perfect good faith, can employ different words. If speakers of the two languages also use different methods of reckoning time, the translator may find it necessary to recast the time-language to avoid misunderstanding.

Most of us count one cock crow: at dawn. But the Romans counted at least two. It's the "second" cock-crow which resounds at dawn:

"He may shut the windows, cover
   cracks with curtains, lock
The doors, douse the light, make
   everyone leave, let no one sleep
Near at hand: but before the dawn the
   neighborhood barkeep
Will know what he was doing at second
   cock crow, will hear
Also what his chief cooks and carvers
   invented." (Juvenal, Satires, IX, 105-109)

If the "second cock crow" is dawn, then when is the first? The middle of the night. One of the guests at Trimalchio's dinner tells a werewolf tale:

"It so happened that our master had gone to Capua to attend to some odds and ends of business and I seized the opportunity, and persuaded a guest of the house to accompany me as far as the fifth mile-stone. He was a soldier, and as brave as the very devil. We set out about cock-crow, the moon was shining as bright as midday, and came to where the tombstones are...Was ever anyone nearer dead from fright than me? Then I whipped out my sword and cut every shadow along the road to bits, till I came to the house of my mistress...My Melissa wondered why I was out so late. "Oh, if you'd only come sooner," she said, "you could have helped us"...I couldn't keep my eyes shut any longer when I heard that, and as soon as it grew light, I rushed back to our Gaius' house like an innkeeper beaten out of his bill, and when I came to the place where the clothes had been turned into stone, there was nothing but a pool of blood!" (Petronius, Satyricon, Volume 2, The Dinner of Trimalchio, Chapter 62).

Notice, please, they leave "about cock-crow," he has time to watch his companion turn into a werewolf at the cemetery, he has time after that to get to his girl-friend's house, she wonders why he was "out so late," and then, unable to sleep, he rushes back home "as soon as it grew light." Manifestly, "cock-crow" is not dawn but sometime during the dark of the night. This was the first cock-crow. The second cock-crow resounded at dawn.

The antiquarian Macrobius fixes cock-crow, in the Roman "civil day," at some time after midnight but before first light:

"The divisions of the civil day are these: first, 'the middle turning point of the night;' then 'cock crow;' after that, 'the silence,' when the cocks are silent and men are still asleep; then 'first light,' when day becomes discernible; after that, 'morning,' when the light of day is clear." (Macrobius, The Saturnalia, Book I, Chapter 3:12)

Does this add up to a 'Bible Contradiction,' or at most a translation issue?:

Wrong Day

When we hear the phrase, 'Preparation Day,' we ask, preparation for what? What are they preparing for? A fishing trip? Back to school? So when we read, "And it was the preparation of the passover..." (John 19:14), we say, 'Aha! They're preparing for the passover!' Now, let us surmise that New Testament readers, instead of wondering, when they encounter the phrase 'Preparation Day,' what it means, think they already know. Let us surmise the phrase had already achieved a stereotyped meaning as 'the day of preparation [for the Sabbath],' i.e., Friday. This is the meaning it still retains in modern Greek. Let us further surmise that 'Passover' can mean, not just one evening, but the entire week of the feast of unleavened bread, as it also is understood in modern Israel. This is how Luke defines it:

"Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover." (Luke 22:1).

This usage is not common in the Old Testament, but it's not unknown either:

"In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten." (Ezekiel 45:21).

If we are allowed these two surmises, both of which have independent attestation, then 'preparation of the passover' means 'Friday of Passover week.' If that is the case, then John is saying exactly what the synoptists are saying:

With which John Gill agrees:

"Ver. 14. And it was the preparation of the passover...but it seems best of all to understand it only of the preparation for the sabbath, which, because it was in the passover week, is called the passover preparation day: and it may be observed, that it is sometimes only called "the day of the preparation", and "the preparation", Mt 27:62, and sometimes the "Jews' preparation day", Joh 19:42, and it is explained by the Evangelist, Mr 15:42. "It was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath"; on which they both prepared themselves for the sabbath, and food to eat on that day; and this being the time of the passover likewise, the preparation was the greater: and therefore to distinguish this preparation day for the sabbath, from others, it is called the passover preparation; nor have I observed that any other day is called the preparation but that before the sabbath..." (John Gill, Exposition of the Bible, Comment on John 19:14).

After the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, the conjecture became popular that the apparent difference between John and the synoptists reflected a dispute about the calendar, or at least about the new moon, like the quarrel about the Day of Atonement between the Qumran covenanters and the priest. Calendrical disputes ultimately come down to a question of authority: who has the right to intercalate months or days? However there is no independent evidence that any one of the apostles or evangelists is riding a calendrical hobby-horse.

According to A. T. Robertson, John and the synoptists are in fact saying the same thing. The last supper is the Passover seder. That same day Jesus is sacrificed,-- counting the days from evening to evening, evening on Maundy Thursday through the evening of Good Friday counts as one day,-- but not synchronized to the slaughter of the lambs. According to Bart Ehrman, John 'changed' the day so that Jesus, the Lamb of God, could be sacrificed as our Passover.

The Passover lamb was sacrificed on 14 Nisan:

"Moreover Josiah kept a passover unto the LORD in Jerusalem: and they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month." (2 Chronicles 35:1).

Modern Jews celebrate the Passover meal the next evening, on 15 Nisan. While the temple still stood, the lambs were sacrificed on the afternoon of the 14th, though the Old Testament institution speaks of the "evening" and "the going down of the sun:"

"Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening." (Exodus 12:5-6).

"But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt." (Deuteronomy 16:6).

In the synoptic gospels, the last supper is the Passover meal: "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God..." (Luke 22:15-16). Consequently Jesus' sacrifice cannot be timed to coincide with the slaughter of the Passover lambs, because that has already happened. John, in fact, concurs that it has already happened. According to A. T. Robertson, those passages which suggest otherwise are not being read with sufficient attention to two facts: 'preparation day' means Friday, and 'Passover' means, not only the meal, but the entire festival. The NIV translates John 19:14 as, "It was the Day of Preparation of Passover Week..." Admittedly difficulties remain, though the problem with John 13:1, for instance, is more a infelicitous chapter division than a conflict. It is assumed to be an introduction to the account of the Last Supper to follow, though it fits better as a coda to the just concluded discourse on the people's unbelief.

The Romans reckoned days from midnight to midnight, rather than from evening to evening. There are advantages to counting the days as the Romans do; midnight is a fixed point, so the day is 24 hours long. It is an oddity of the Hebrew system that the day is never 24 hours in length. Approaching the summer solstice, as the time of sunset grows later and later, the day exceeds 24 hours, whereas it retreats in length approaching the winter solstice, as sunset comes earlier and earlier. The Romans also counted hours from midnight, as opposed to the Jewish usage of counting hours from sun-rise. Both systems were familiar to readers of the New Testament, so there is no need to see a conflict between John's timing, "the sixth hour," and the others.

Two Genealogies

The Bible reader who compares Matthew and Luke finds two genealogies for the Lord, which diverge in the next generation after King David:

Matthew offers a different genealogy, casting no aspersions, either veiled or apparent, on Joseph, Jesus' father in the eyes of the law:

What's going on here? Can one individual ever have two different genealogies? Actually the answer is yes; compare Suetonius' account of Nero, if we may compare darkness with light:

"Nero was born at Antium, nine months after the death of Tiberius, upon the eighteenth of the calends of January, just as the sun rose, so that its beams touched him before they could well reach the earth. While many fearful conjectures, in respect to his future fortune, were formed by different persons, from the circumstances of his nativity, a saying of his father, Domitius, was regarded as an ill presage, who told his friends who were congratulating him upon the occasion, "That nothing but what was detestable, and pernicious to the public, could ever be produced of him and Agrippina." Another manifest prognostic of his future infelicity occurred upon his lustration day. For Caius Caesar being requested by his sister to give the child what name he thought proper—looking at his uncle, Claudius, who afterwards, when emperor, adopted Nero, he gave his: and this not seriously, but only in jest; Agrippina treating it with contempt, because Claudius at that time was a mere laughing-stock at the palace." (Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, Chapter VI).

There are two points: Nero was the natural son of Domitius Ahenobarbus, the adopted son of Claudius, the prior emperor. Neither can be omitted; he seems to have inherited his cruel temper from his natural father, but what he inherited from his adopted father was the empire. For all legal purposes he was the son of Claudius; only seventeen years old when Claudius died, why else would the legions have hailed him as emperor, with no accomplishments to his name? So both identities are important.

Someone may object, but the Jews had no such custom. But they did; in fact the concept that a child can be the legal son of one man and the biological son of another is embedded in Jewish law: "And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel." (Deuteronomy 25:6). In Levirate marriage, the child is the legal son of the dead brother, the biological son of the living one. And Jacob claimed Joseph's two sons for inheritance purposes: "And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine." Genesis 48:5). So inheritance can run in a different lineage from biological descent.

At this point Jesus' unique status amongst all of humanity comes into view. As the country gospel song 'On my Father's Side' puts it,

"What’s your name son?
On my mother’s side my name is Jesus
But on my Father’s side they call me Emmanuel.

"How old are you?
On my mother’s side now I’m twelve years
But on my Father’s side I’ve just always been.

"Where you from?
On my mother’s side I’m from Bethlehem
But on my Father’s side it’s New Jerusalem."

The only way to trace Jesus' physical descent is through His mother; His biology is on His "mother's side." Not that He is a clone of Mary, or He'd be female; for certainly God can speak into existence whatever genetic material is needed. But His biological ancestry cannot be traced through Joseph, to whom He has no physical link. The law sees Him as Joseph's son, just as any child born during a marriage is perceived in law as a product of the marriage, but if physical descent is what one of our two authors is after, it cannot come through Joseph.

Thus arose the conjecture,— and, of course, it can be only that, Luke's genealogy is not stated explicitly to be Mary's genealogy,— that one of these ancestor lists gives Jesus' legal claim to the throne, which must run through Joseph, His legal father, and the other, His familial descent through Mary. Just as Suetonius is careful to tell us both about Nero's adoptive father, Claudius, so we can understand why he became emperor, and also about Domitius Ahenobarbus, whose cruelty was so unlike the passive Claudius, so also the New Testament gives both pieces of information.

Editor's Choice

An editor can choose between two ways of telling a story: strict chronological order, in which no plot-line can be wrapped up without distracting interruption from any foreign, unrelated event, — at the extreme, the approach loses itself in incomprehensibility, as in James Joyce's 'Ulysses,'— and the sub-plot approach, in which each story-within-a-story is told complete, by which approach however the reader risks losing sight of the whole picture. A historical author like William Shirer will, for example, in telling the reader about Nazi Germany's war, skip from the scene in the Ukraine to what's happening in Belgium or North Africa. In each of these skips, the reader may lose six months or so, which can be disorienting; but no one goes around accusing these authors of contradicting themselves, because a strict chronological approach, tying the reader to a minute-by-minute time-line, would leave the reader even more confused and baffled. But let's see what happens when one gospel author chooses a chronological approach, and another follows through the sub-plot to resolution:

Matthew says that the fig-tree was withered presently, immediately, παραχρημα, forthwith, without delay. Mark's account, however, inserts an entire section of activity in the temple between the cursing and the disciples' perception of the fig-tree's having withered:

This is a frequently-cited 'Bible contradiction.' It seems a large part of the problem arises from the two authors having adopted different narrative strategies, Mark telling the story in strict chronological order, allowing intervening events to interrupt the flow, whereas Matthew has allowed his sub-plot to move forward to its resolution unimpeded by irrelevant events. It's the editor's choice which strategy to adopt; if the historian wants to follow the narrative thread through, say, the North African campaign before departing for other venues, he has not done wrong by departing from strict chronology. Imposing strict chronology is very near to a punishment; one suspects many more people have read James Joyce's 'Ulysses' at the behest of an English instructor, for the same reason as they used to give out cod liver oil, because it's good for you,— or so they thought,— than have ever read that work for pleasure, of which it doesn't give much. When Matthew says "when the disciples saw it," he doesn't say when that was, or in any way deny that this discovery happened the next morning.

What 'immediately' means is subject to context, for instance when the Philippian jailer's household was baptized, "And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately [παραχρημα] he and all his family were baptized." (Acts 16:33). This cannot have happened, say, within 32 seconds by the stop-watch, because it would have taken a few minutes to go and get the water, etc. The word, in Greek or English, is not a time-count like such words as 'minute' or 'second;' for a tree to die immediately, wither over-night, and its death to have become perceptible by the next morning, does constitute an 'immediate' death as opposed to a 'lingering' one. By normal standards for that sort of event, the tree's extinction was immediate. Anyone who has ever stood by helplessly and watched as a shrub starts to look sickly, then turns yellow, then finally the leaves fall off, realizes that this process is not commonly all that rapid. Trees do not normally go from perfect health to dessication over-night. What the disciples saw the next morning would therefore have struck them as remarkable and uncommon.

A death-event that happens to a tree 'immediately' might not be perceptible immediately. An event, and general knowledge of the event, are not precisely the same thing; as per usual, this 'Bible contradiction' is contrasting apples and oranges. When we cut our Christmas trees and bring them indoors, they do not look dead at first. In the hot sun the tree's demise as a living organism would have become apparent sooner, though still not at the same moment the life went out of it. An observer seeing the dried out tree in the morning might justly infer the tree's death at the very moment of the Lord's curse. So when Mark explains that by the next morning, as they again passed by the tree, the disciples could see that it was dead, this does not in itself state when the tree died nor contradict Matthew's 'immediately.'

Part of what is creating the conflict here is the assumption that the disciples were the first discoverers of the tree's condition, as if all these events took place within a glass bottle. However, they are unlikely to have been, given that these events took place on a well-travelled road between a near suburb and a great city. Inquiring of local residents or habitual travellers might have yielded Matthew the information, 'No, it was already like that yesterday,' fully justifying his use of the word 'immediately.'

Sermon on the Mount, Sermon on the Plain

An oft-heard source of 'Bible contradictions' is the various occasions on which the evangelists report that Jesus told a particular story or issued a given injunction. This is, in fact, one of the commonest means by which these people 'prove' that the gospels contain fictitious material. If the same phrases are heard in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount as in Luke's Sermon on the Plain, then we are to conclude the Sermon on the Mount is an "editorial device," a fiction invented by Matthew, not "historical." See:

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock." (Matthew 7:24-25).

"Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock." (Luke 6:47-48).

Certainly the same, or very nearly the same, information has been given by both authors; Q.E.D., Matthew invented the Sermon on the Mount. Or maybe not! What if, like every other public speaker who has ever lived and travelled on the face of this earth, Jesus recycled the same material and reused His best lines for presentation to more than one audience? What if the 'Kingdom of God' stump speech given in one place had more than a passing resemblance to the same talk given elsewhere? What if He stayed on theme and on message; what if His parables, maxims and lessons were not so easily missed that a one-time absence assured that you would never hear it?

Notice that Dunn's proof rests upon the assumption that everything Jesus said, He said once and no more than once. This assumption, if stated, is so obviously and patently false,— it is absurd,— that I cannot imagine why anyone would give assent to it. No modern-day politician followed around by the TV cameras ever delivers completely fresh material at each successive stop on the campaign trail, even though it's easy enough to 'catch' them recycling and re-gifting nowadays; so what was supposed to inhibit a first century Palestinian politician from giving His best material on more than one occasion? Though there is no earthly teacher so lacking in wisdom and prudence as never to employ repetition, without which learning does not take place, the Teacher never once repeated Himself? And why not. . .?