Loading ...
New Testament Studies: Episode Three
This section of Ehrman’s book focuses on the timeline and background of the NT writings. Here is a summary of Ehrman’s summary of the origins of the Gospels:
The Gospels go back to oral traditions, mainly from people who had not been there. “Moreover, it [this chapter] will maintain that stories like this tend to change in the process of retelling over time, with some stories actually being made up. [...] Most historians think that Mark was the first of our Gospels to be written, sometime between the mid-60s to early 70s. Matthew and Luke were probably produced some ten or fifteen years later, perhaps around 80 or 85. John was written perhaps ten years after that, in 90 or 95.”
The oral traditions about Jesus spread from small beginnings, “say a total of fifteen or twenty people altogether.”
We’ll work through this and more as we go.
Fallacy 1: ”Matthew and Luke were probably produced some ten or fifteen years later, perhaps around 80 or 85.”
Rebuttal 1: I think we’ve been through why such late dating of Matthew and Luke is wishful thinking. Once again, the Synoptic Gospels each include a prophecy from Jesus about the fall of Jerusalem (which occured in 70 AD). So why does some scholarship date these accounts after the fall? Surely these authors would have a) mentioned such a momentous event as the destruction of the temple and b) mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies about Jerusalem’s fall.
Fallacy 2: The oral traditions about Jesus spread from small beginnings, “say a total of fifteen or twenty people altogether.”
Rebuttal 2: I’m not entirely sure of Ehrman’s point here. He may be right that oral traditions about Jesus came from a small group, but only about the traditions part. What I mean is that Jesus, though probably not the biggest deal immediately, was not some phenomenon created by twenty people. Paul counts 500 witnesses to Christ’s bodily post-resurrection appearances, and we know that in Palestine, at least, the events surrounding Jesus’ life were well-known even to the king (Agrippa II, I believe).
I’m not suggesting that Ehrman has much of a point beyond remarking on Christianity’s humble beginnings, but I want to keep his statements from establishing the mistaken idea that Christianity began “in a corner.”
Fallacy 3: Verbal accuracy is a phenomenon of our society. In oral societies, traditions are malleable; meant to change, to be made relevant to new situations.
Rebuttal 3: Hopefully you can see the non sequitur. This may have been true of some oral societies, but not necessarily applicable to the beginnings of Christianity. Please see my previous post for some discussion of Jewish Talmidim (students of rabbis). Ehrman fails to consider context; or rather, he over-considers the setting and forgets the purpose of it all. Didn’t Jesus make statements such as, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matt. 24:35)? So Ehrman’s telling me that the disciples, knowing what Jesus thought of His words, changed His words, but, at the same time, included such statements to show the immutability of His words?
Note that I’m not arguing that things don’t change over time; Ehrman could have said that traditions about Jesus changed unintentionally and I’d have to find a different argument. But his point is that the early Christians purposely, intentionally, to suit their own relative needs, changed the ideas associated with Jesus. Given what they would include in their records of these ideas (see Matthew quote above), Ehrman’s take either fails or makes these people out to be fools.
Fallacy 4: There are “irreconciable conflicts” in the Gospels; for example, the Passover narratives between the Synoptic Gospels and John.
Rebuttal 4: I suggest reading those accounts (Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, John 13, 19, etc.) before reading commentary on them. It would appear that John gives a different day than the others. Some would say that John was making a theological point, but that does not rectify the discrepancy between accounts.
So we turn to William Lane Craig and the following article from ReasonableFaith.org:
Date and time of the crucifixion: All the sources agree that Jesus was crucified on Friday. What is in dispute is whether Passover was on Thursday or Friday. The Synoptics seem to suggest that Jesus’ Last Supper with the disciples on Thursday night was a Passover meal. John agrees that Jesus did share a Last Supper with his disciples on Thursday night in the upper room prior to his betrayal and arrest. But John says that the Jewish leaders wanted to eliminate Jesus before the Passover meal began Friday night. So was Passover on Thursday or Friday? That’s the whole dispute! (I hope this puts the issue in perspective for you.)
One possibility is that John has moved the Passover to Friday to make Jesus’ death coincide with the slaughter of the Passover lambs in the Temple. But maybe not: since there were competing calendars in use in first century Palestine, the sacrifices may have been made on more than one day. The Pharisees and people from Galilee reckoned days as beginning at sunrise and ending at the following sunrise. But Sadducees and people from Judea reckoned days as beginning at sunset and ending with the next sunset. In our modern age, we adopt what I think is the rather weird convention that the day begins in the middle of the night at midnight and goes until the next midnight. Well, this difference in reckoning days completely throws off the dating of certain events, as you can see on the following chart.
Passover lambs were offered on the 14th of the month of Nisan. According to the Galilean reckoning, the 14th of Nisan begins about 6:00 a.m. on the day we call Thursday. But for the Judean, 14 Nisan doesn’t begin until 12 hours later, about 6:00 p.m. on our Thursday. So when the Galilean, following Jewish regulations, slays the Passover lamb on the afternoon of 14 Nisan, what day does he do it on? Thursday. But when the Judean offers his lamb in sacrifice on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, what day is that? Friday! When night falls, he then feasts on the lamb, by his reckoning, on 15 Nisan. Thus, in order to meet the demands of both Galilean-Pharisaical sensibilities and of Judean-Sadducean sensibilities, the Temple priesthood would have to have made Passover sacrifices on both Thursday and Friday. Jesus, as a Galilean and knowing of his impending arrest, chose to celebrate the Passover Thursday night, whereas the chief priests and scribes responsible for Jesus’ arrest went by the Judean calendar, as John says. Although we have no evidence that Passover sacrifices were made on both days, such a solution is very plausible. The population of Jerusalem swelled to around 125,000 people during the Passover festival. It would be logistically impossible for the Temple priesthood to sacrifice enough lambs for that many people between 3:00 o’clock and 6:00 o’clock on one afternoon. They must have sacrificed on more than one day, which makes it entirely possible for Jesus and his disciples to celebrate the Passover Thursday night prior to his arrest.
Similarly for the time of Jesus’ crucifixion: Mark says the crucifixion was at the third hour, that is, 9:00 a.m., but John says Jesus was condemned “about the sixth hour,” that is, around noon. Again, maybe John has moved the time until later. But maybe not: in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts the only times of day ever referred to (with one exception) are the third, sixth, and ninth hours. Obviously in an age without modern time-keeping devices round numbers or quarters of the day are being used. The third hour could refer to any time between 9:00 a.m. and noon.
You might consider reading the article in full as it deals with misconceptions of the doctrine of inerrancy and questions of the Bible’s accuracy.
-Nick