Category: Bible History

During the cross-examination period of my recent debate with Bart Ehrman, Bart asked me how I would reconcile the fact that Matthew 2 suggests Joseph had a residence in Bethlehem with the fact Luke 2 suggests he had a residence in Nazareth.

I responded by saying that I thought he had homes in both places—that Joseph likely was from Bethlehem but that he had moved away for work and settled in Nazareth.

You can watch the exchange here.

Bart replied, “That’s an interesting idea. I hadn’t thought of that.”

To his credit, Bart then began thinking through the idea seriously, wondering how a two residences theory would square with the fact that Joseph was from the working class and wondering whether he’d really have been able to afford two homes, which is a good question (see below).

I’ve thought that two residences is the obvious, straightforward answer for a long time, but since Bart had only 10 minutes to cross-examine me, I kept my answer brief, and I wasn’t able to go into all the reasons for my conclusion.

So, I thought I’d discuss the subject here.

 

The Evidence of Luke

The first thing to mention is that the “Joseph’s two residences” view is not based on a desire to harmonize Matthew and Luke.

It is something that Luke’s Gospel indicates, without any need to consult Matthew.

The first time we hear about Joseph in Luke, we read:

In the sixth month [of Elizabeth’s pregnancy] the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary (Luke 1:26-27).

People in any age—and this was certainly true in the first century—tend to live in the same area as the ones they are engaged to be married to (or are already legally married to), and so from this we would expect from this passage that Joseph was residing in Nazareth.

Doing an inductive, narrative reading of the Gospel of Luke, that should be the default expectation for the reader from this point forward: Joseph has a residence in Nazareth.

Later, we read:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. . . . And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city (Luke 2:1, 3).

This corresponds to known Roman enrollment practices, which involved calling people back to the place of their legal residence.

I have discussed this matter further here, but—even in modern times—there are multiple practices based around one’s place of residence. If you want to comply with the law, you need to:

• • Pay taxes based on your place of legal residence
  • Vote based on your place of legal residence
  • Register for the draft based on your place of legal residence

Given the mobility of modern society and the massive communications networks we’ve set up (including the original one—the postal service), we now have the flexibility to do many of these things at a distance, but we’re still tied to our legal residences for various governmental functions and duties.

People in the ancient world did not have modern communications networks (not even a formal postal delivery service), and so they needed to appear at their places of legal residence on certain occasions.

Thus, in A.D. 104, the Roman governor of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus, issued a decree in which he stated:

Since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration and continue faithfully the farming expected of them (lines 20–27; Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 268).

Reading Luke inductively, the ancient reader would thus understand Luke to be saying in 2:3 that people who were away from their place of legal residence to be returning there for the enrollment required by Caesar. Every person had to return to “his own city.”

We then read:

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David (Luke 2:4).

In context, the first century reader would infer that Joseph’s primary legal residence was in Bethlehem, and so he returned there. He had been away in Nazareth, where he was betrothed to Mary, but now he came back to comply with the enrollment requirement.

Luke also has an explanatory comment for why Joseph had a residence in Bethlehem: “because he was of the house and lineage of David.”

Given the importance of keeping land within tribes and families in Israelite culture (as well as maintaining legacy connections to prestigious ancestors like David), some Davidids still had residences in Bethlehem, and Joseph’s family was one of them.

We thus see that—reading Luke’s narrative one piece at a time—Joseph had two residences: one in Bethlehem (his legal one) and one in Nazareth.

Our initial conclusion that Joseph had a residence in Nazareth was an inference based on the fact he was betrothed of Mary of Nazareth, but later, Luke is explicit. After Jesus has been born and the customary birth rites have been performed, Luke says:

And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth (Luke 2:39).

So, Luke describes Bethlehem as Joseph’s “own city” (2:3-4) and Nazareth as Joseph and Mary’s “own city” (2:39).

Joseph thus had two residences, with stronger ties for legal/governmental purposes to Bethlehem, indicating it was his primary place of legal residence.

 

Why Nazareth?

Why had Joseph set up a secondary residence in Nazareth?

People may move away from home for a variety of reasons (e.g., to get away from difficult family members, to avoid trouble with law enforcement, to avoid oppressive political regimes), but both historically and today the most common reason is economic advantage. In other words, to find work.

Joseph thus may have left Bethlehem in order to make money, although it could have been for some other reason.

But why would he go to Nazareth?

The most likely explanation is because he already had family there. We know that there were other Davidids living there.

Luke confirms this later in the chapter, when discussing the finding of Jesus in the temple at age twelve:

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances (Luke 2:41-44)

This reveals that Joseph and Mary had relatives in Nazareth, with whom they traveled to Jerusalem annually for Passover, and relatives of the holy family continued to dwell in Nazareth for a considerable period of time afterward.

The extended family of Jesus—a group known as the Desposunoi (Greek, “the Master’s people”) after Jesus, the Master (Greek, despotês)—continued to be known in the early Church until at least the third century.

About A.D. 200, the early Christian writer Julius Africanus (who was born in Jerusalem and had lived in Emmaus) wrote that after Herod burned the public genealogical records:

A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction.

Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Savior.

Coming from Nazareth and Kokhaba—villages of Judaea—into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of [Chronicles] as faithfully as possible (apud Eusebius, Church History 1:7:14).

So, in Africanus’s day, members of Jesus’ extended family were still living in Galilean villages like Nazareth and Kokhaba (which is about 10 miles from Nazareth).

Indeed, Davidides may have been prominent in these communities, as both of their names may reflect Messianic aspirations:

• • Although the etymology of Nazareth is uncertain, it is often thought to be derived from the Hebrew term netser (“branch”), in keeping with Isaiah’s prophecy: “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots” (Isa. 1:11).
  • Kokhaba means “star,” in keeping with the prophecy “a star will go out from Jacob, and a scepter will rise from Israel” (Num. 24:17).

When people do move for work, they often move to where they have family, as relatives represent an already-existing social support network.

And so, there were likely migrations of Davidids between Bethlehem in the south and Nazareth and Kokhaba in the north.

Joseph thus likely went to Nazareth because he already had relatives there.

 

What About the “Inn”?

If Joseph had a legal residence in Bethlehem, why did he and Mary seek to stay in an “inn” when Jesus was born (Luke 2:7)?

Here we are confronted with a translation issue. Greek does have a specific term for what we would call an inn (pandocheion, used in Luke 10:34), but the term Luke uses in his infancy narrative—kataluma—has a broader range of meanings.

It can, for example, refer to a specific part of a house.

This can be seen from the fact that, later in the Gospel, Luke uses the same word to refer to the “upper room” or “guest room” where Jesus and the disciples eat the Last Supper:

[Jesus said:] And tell the householder, “The Teacher says to you, ‘Where is the guest room [kataluma], where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?’” (Luke 22:11).

Paul H. Wright has more on the nature of a kataluma:

Most houses (be they of a commoner or a king) had a guestroom or lodging place (katalyma) where a traveler could pause to eat or sleep for a period of time. This is the word that is usually, though incorrectly, translated “inn” in Luke 2:7. When in the katalyma, the traveler received the hospitality and protection of the family who lived there (see Sir 14:25).

There were proper inns (pandocheion) at certain places along the network of roads in the Roman Empire, though only one is mentioned in the Gospels: the inn of the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:34). That story reflects travel conditions that could be found on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho, a route essentially absent of houses and hence guestrooms.

The Mishnah (m. Yebamot 16:7) also mentions an inn on the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea, though likely from a later period. In any case, it seems as though proper inns were not a significant part of first century ad Judea, and that travelers who were fortunate enough not to overnight in the open typically stayed in a katalyma instead (Barry Beitzel, gen. ed., Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels, 3).

Concerning the location of the kataluma within a house, Wright states:

Village houses of the first century ad were composed of a number of small rooms and open courtyards with no fixed floor plan per se. Styles of housing differed regionally (Galilee vs. Judea, for instance), but the functionality of space was rather consistent.

For instance, rooms that were more private in character (e.g., the place where the homeowner and his wife slept) tended to be toward the back of the housing compound, well out of view of visitors, while spaces for public activities such as wedding feasts or acts of hospitality were up front, closer to the street.

Some of the rooms and/or courtyards were reserved for the family’s animals (a donkey or two, perhaps, and the sheep and goats). Flocks and herds were brought into the household compound in times of danger or inclement weather, and their body heat slightly warmed the living spaces of its residents.

In villages built in the hill country, houses could easily have multiple stories, especially if the building was located on a slope. In this case, the room for the animals was typically in the lower story while the family lived above.

In any case, because the katalyma served guests rather than persons who were permanently attached to the household, it was likely a room close to the front of the house, near the street.

Traditional village homes throughout the Middle East today are arranged the same way, and a visitor will invariably find himself or herself hosted in a place within the household compound that is somewhat detached from rooms where the regular daily activity of the household takes place.

There was no room, we read, for Mary and Joseph in the katalyma of the house where they intended to stay in Bethlehem (Luke 2:7). All the protocols of hospitality operative in the ancient Near East suggest that this was the home of a relative, and it was blood ties that had brought Joseph (and Mary) to Bethlehem for the census in the first place (Luke 2:4) (ibid., 3-4).

As to why Mary gave birth outside the kataluma, Wright observes:

Why there was no room in the katalyma is a matter of speculation. Perhaps the homeowner was already using the space for other purposes. Perhaps other guests were already in town for the census.

Or perhaps this was simply not an appropriate place for someone to give birth, reading Luke 2:7 idiomatically, “there was no room there for that.”

This latter suggestion is supported by birthing practices that have been documented in traditional village homes in places such as Bethlehem prior to the introduction of hospitals in modern times.

At the moment of birth, the expectant mother would go to the room where animals were normally kept (the stable) to give birth, and only later was brought back up into the living spaces of the housing compound (ibid. 4-5).

This proposal has been made by other scholars, and I find it particularly likely. Childbirth involved the release of bodily fluids that produced ritual uncleanness (cf. Luke 2:22, Lev. 12:1-8).

In view of this, it is scarcely likely that a family would want their guestroom ritually polluted in this way, and it would be much more natural for a woman to give birth in a part of the dwelling not regularly used as a living space for humans—per the custom described above.

In any event, it would be most natural:

• • For Joseph and Mary to be staying in a home owned by family members in Bethlehem (possibly with Joseph as the legal owner)
  • For them to stay in the home’s kataluma since they were not usually living there, and the main rooms were being occupied by whichever relatives were the current householders (e.g., those Joseph had loaned the home to)
  • And for Mary to give birth outside the kataluma, either because it was too crowded by other enrollment visitors or because of the ritual uncleanness childbirth involved

 

The Issue of Ownership

Luke indicates Joseph had two places of residence—Bethlehem and Nazareth—but we haven’t fully addressed the issue of what property Joseph may have owned.

If the enrollment of Jesus’ birth was a tax census, it is possible that Joseph owned property in Bethlehem—either as sole owner or as part owner with other family members.

However, this may not have been the case if the enrollment was for other purposes (see this article).

It should be pointed out that there is more than one way a person may occupy a particular dwelling. Options include:

• • Squatting—i.e., occupying the dwelling illegally, against the will of the owner
  • Flopping—i.e., occupying the dwelling rent-free but with the permission of the owner
  • Renting—i.e., paying the owner for occupancy, either with money, goods, or labor
  • Owning—i.e., holding legal title to the dwelling, either as a result of purchasing or inheriting it

Theoretically, any of these options could have been the case with respect to Joseph’s residences in Bethlehem and Nazareth.

Squatting is not a common living arrangement, as it is discouraged both by property owners and the law. Also, we are told that Joseph was a righteous man (Matt. 1:19), and if he had relatives in both Bethlehem and Nazareth, there would be no need for him to squat. As a result, this is unlikely to be the arrangement applying to either of his residences.

However, given the presence of relatives in both places, a flopping and/or renting arrangement would be quite possible—particularly in Nazareth if Joseph had moved there relatively recently for work.

He might have found living space in a property owned by a relative and been allowed to live there either rent-free or by contributing what he could to the broader family finances (an arrangement common in many lower-class families historically).

It’s also possible that he had purchased a modest dwelling in Nazareth and was its legal owner.

Since his primary place of legal residence was in Bethlehem—as indicated by the need to go there for the enrollment—that would suggest greater legal ties to Bethlehem, and this would fit with him actually owning property there.

I have not been able to determine the extent to which first century Palestinian law recognized the concept of co-ownership, but if it did, Joseph may have been co-owner via inheritance of family property in Bethlehem.

If co-ownership was not practiced, Joseph may have inherited family property but still moved to Nazareth to find work, in which case it would be natural and culturally expected for him to allow other family members to have the use of the Bethlehem property while he was away (both out of family generosity and to avoid people squatting in it!).

 

Affording Two Dwellings?

It should be pointed out that moderns can have a distorted idea of the expense involved in owning two homes.

Today, most people do not pay for their homes outright. Instead, they take out mortgages, which require them to pay money to the lender on an ongoing basis for years or decades.

To own two homes today thus commonly involves doubling up expenses over an extended period of time.

However, this would not have been the case for Joseph, and especially not for the residence in Bethlehem. That would have been family property that Joseph inherited and that he paid nothing for.

Regardless of whether he was flopping with relatives, renting a home, or had bought a dwelling in Nazareth, the Bethlehem property would have been owned free and clear, and there would be no ongoing expenses for him when he was not using it.

There would be no electricity bills, no water bills, no trash collection bills—none of the auxiliary costs that typically accompany home ownership today, because none of these public services existed.

The one expense that could apply to Joseph’s Bethlehem property on an ongoing basis was taxes—the very thing that could require Joseph’s presence to pay them, since there was no secure way to send money in Roman Palestine.

And taxes may have been the very thing that brought about the trip to Bethlehem we read about in Luke.

 

My Own Experience

When thinking about this piece in preparation for writing it, it struck me how similar this scenario is to my own life experience.

I had the fortune to grow up in a middle-class family that came from Texas—where I was born—but my parents relocated to Arkansas when my father accepted a professorship at the University of Arkansas.

When I embarked on a career as an apologist, I had to move to find work. There were no Catholic apologetic ministries in Arkansas, and so I moved to California to work for Catholic Answers.

There thus was a period in which I was renting in California, but my legal place of residence was still in Arkansas—not unlike what may have been Joseph’s situation when he first came to Nazareth.

Later, when my parents passed on, my siblings and I inherited both family land in Texas and the home we grew up in in Arkansas. Under Texas and Arkansas inheritance laws, we became co-owners of both properties.

So, now I was living in California but also had property in two other states by inheritance. As a result, I did not have an ongoing mortgage to pay on either property, as they were already owned free and clear—just as would have been the case for Joseph’s property in Bethlehem.

Of special interest is what happened with our house in Arkansas. For a time, we used it as a rental property, but it was always understood (and openly discussed among us) that if any of us ever fell on hard times, we could use the house if needed.

When my sister’s husband changed jobs, my brother and I let her family use the house–free of charge–and eventually we sold it to my sister, keeping the property within the broader family.

This illustrates a situation that is not at all uncommon in our society, where a son—like myself or Joseph—strikes out on his own to make a life in a new place and establishes a residence there, while still inheriting property where the family was based.

This experience is not at all uncommon, and it does not require a middle-class background.

 

The Experiences of Others

In fact, anybody who moves for work needs a place to stay, and so even working-class people from economically underdeveloped regions maintain multiple residences.

I encountered an illustration of this a number of years ago when I went as a speaker on several apologetically themed cruises.

The housekeeping and wait staff on the ships came from places like Indonesia and the Philippines, and they spent much of the year away from their families in their home countries.

Naturally, they maintained a residence there, and they also maintained a secondary residence (including a mailing address) onboard the ship, which was included as part of the wages for their labor.

Here in Southern California, we have many migrant workers from Mexico and other Latin American countries, and they do the same thing: They often maintain a family home in their country of origin—to which they often send remittances from their earnings—and they have a secondary residence here in the U.S.

After my debate with Bart, I was contacted by an individual who reports the same occurring in East Africa, writing:

I conducted ethnographic research into “East African Perspectives of Family and Community” several years back.

There is a common trend that adults (more often men), have a “country home” and a “city home.”

The country home is the property that’s been in the family for many generations, and it’s often the residence of the current matriarch/patriarch of the whole (extended) family.

The working adult (again, most often the man) will live in the country home on weekends and during work breaks.

The “city home” is where the working adult lives during a stretch of working days (often Monday-Friday) since employment that supports them is rarely found around their ancestral familial estate. . . .

It’s certainly within the realm of possibility that the Holy Family had more than one home—and it is also certainly not a “luxury of the rich,” as in modern East Africa it’s actually the working class who have to live in two places in order to make a living.

It’s usually only the rich (and lower-poverty people) who only have one residence found within the cities—whether it be houses or slums.

Similarly, in the comments on my debate with Bart on YouTube, Bradley Kisia writes from Kenya:

Just a note about poor people having two homes… come to Africa.

People have a home they call home in the rural, then they maintain a residence in their place of work.

It is so normal that I’m kind of bewildered that those in the west would assume it is a preserve of the rich.

In Kenya, we have ushago (rural where our ancestry can be traced) and a home in Nairobi.

Our rural home is over 200 miles from where I grew up… It is where my father was born and my ancestors for about 500 years lived.

Also, a listener of Catholic Answers Live from Nigeria recently called in to confirm this. You can listen to the account here. (She also pointed out that people would identify themselves as coming from an ancestral location, even if they had not been raised there, though this doesn’t directly address the two-homes issue.)

So, having two places of residence is not at all uncommon. It tends to happen naturally with people who move for work—whether those people are me, seafarers, migrant workers who find employment in another country, or people whose families live in the countryside but who work in the city.

After all, no matter where you’ve gone to find work, you still need somewhere to sleep!

And so, this certainly would not be unexpected for someone from Bethlehem—like Joseph—who moved to Nazareth for work.

 

The Evidence of Matthew

Thus far, everything we’ve covered has been based on Luke’s description of the holy family.

This illustrates the fact that my proposal is not simply an effort to harmonize Luke with Matthew (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

Here at the end, though, we should look at what we find in Matthew.

In that Gospel, we first encounter a genealogy of Jesus (Matt. 1:1-17), after which we learn about the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:18-25).

Matthew tells us about Joseph and Mary, but he does not indicate where they were living. It could have been Nazareth; it could have been Bethlehem; it could have been anywhere else. Matthew is simply silent on the matter.

Then, at the beginning of the account of the magi and the flight to Egypt (Matt. 2:1-18), we read:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise Men from the East came to Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).

This tells us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, though not about anything before that time.

Matthew also records that the magi visited up to two years after Jesus was born, for:

Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the Wise Men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the Wise Men (Matt. 2:16).

Being warned in a dream that this is to occur, Joseph takes the family to Egypt and stays there until Herod is dead (Matt. 2:13). When they return, we read:

But when [Joseph] heard that Archelaus reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth (Matt. 2:22-23).

Matthew thus records how the holy family ended up in Nazareth—where we know on other grounds that Joseph had Davidid relatives—though Matthew is silent about whether they had been there before.

Some have suggested that the verb Matthew uses to describe Joseph dwelling in Nazareth (katoikeô) implies that Joseph settled there for the first time, never having lived there before, but this is not true. The verb simply does not mean “settled somewhere for the first time.”

According to the Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, katoikeô means things like “to make one’s dwelling,” “to inhabit,” “to settle,” “to dwell,” “to live,” etc.

And according to Bauer, Arndt, Danker, and Gingrich’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.), it means “to live in a locality for any length of time, live, dwell, reside, settle (down)” and “to make something a habitation or dwelling by being there, inhabit.”

The verb doesn’t require anything more than Joseph living/dwelling/inhabiting/residing in Nazareth after he came back from Egypt.

Even if we were to opt for the translation “settle,” which could suggest that this was a long-term relocation after a substantial period spent elsewhere, that would be explained by the fact the family had just spent a substantial period in Egypt. It also would be explained if—as is quite possible—Joseph and Mary had relocated to Bethlehem and were living there on a regular basis before the flight to Egypt.

In no case does the verb tell us that they went to live in Nazareth for the first time. And, as noted, Matthew is silent about where they were before the birth of Jesus.

 

Integrating Luke and Matthew

We thus do not see any contradictions between Luke and Matthew. They select different facts for inclusion in their accounts, but as Bart acknowledged in the debate, selection differences are not contradictions.

We may integrate the data from the two accounts as follows:

• • Originally, Joseph was from Bethlehem but moved to Nazareth for work since there were relatives there.
  • Joseph thus had a residence in Nazareth, though we do not know whether he purchased it, rented it, or lived in it rent-free through the generosity of relatives.
  • Joseph still had a legal residence in Bethlehem, likely through inherited property.
  • When the enrollment occurred, he went to Bethlehem since it was his primary legal residence.
  • While there, Joseph and Mary stayed with relatives, perhaps in a house that Joseph owned but that was being occupied at the time by family members.
  • Either because the guest area (kataluma) was full or because it would ritually defile the guest area, Mary gave birth in a different part of the house.
  • After the customary rites of purification had been done a month later, the family returned to Nazareth.
  • Between one and two years later, the family was back in Bethlehem. This may have been for one of the annual pilgrimage feasts—Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:16)—which we are told the holy family kept (Luke 2:41), or it may have been because Joseph had relocated to Bethlehem on a more permanent basis.
  • After the visit of the magi, Joseph temporarily took the family to Egypt.
  • And when they returned, Joseph learned that Herod’s son Archelaus was ruling in Judea, so he went to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem.

Joseph may have originally planned to stop at Bethlehem to visit relatives there (as would be natural when passing through the area on the way to Nazareth). Or, if they had been living in Bethlehem on a regular basis before the flight to Egypt, he may have planned to resume their lives there.

Either way, once he learned about Archelaus, he cancelled the plan to go to Bethlehem and went to Nazareth, where it was safer. (Archelaus was a cruel ruler whose reign was terminated by the Romans in A.D. 6 for mismanagement, which is why there was a Roman governor—Pontius Pilate—in charge of the region during Jesus’ adult ministry.)

This scenario is based on facts from both Gospels, it does not contradict anything in either Gospel, and it is quite plausible given what happens when people move away from their family homes for work.

We thus do not find a contradiction between Matthew and Luke.

See here for more about how the Infancy Narratives fit together.

In public discussions of the historical reliability of the Gospels, Bart Ehrman frequently calls attention to the following passage from Matthew. It deals with supernatural signs that took place when Jesus died on the Cross:

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many (Matt. 27:51-53).

The part about saints being raised and coming out of their tombs is unique to Matthew. It is not in the other Gospels.

For centuries, readers have wanted to know more about this—like what happened to these saints afterward (did they return to their tombs? die again? ascend to heaven?).

But we are told nothing else in the Gospels and have no reliable, supplemental accounts in early Christian literature. In fact, the Church Fathers barely mention the subject.

There is a good bit to say about this passage, but here I want to focus on the use that Ehrman makes of it in debates.

Basically, he claims that this event is (a) strange and (b) not believable.

He will challenge his Christian debate partner and his audience on whether they really believe this happened.

And to make affirming its truthfulness less palatable, he will animatedly mock the idea of accepting it, speaking of the raised saints as “zombies.”

 

Zombies?

By characterizing these individuals as zombies, Ehrman conjures mental images from comic books, cartoons, and horror movies of shambling, decaying zombies shuffling around Jerusalem—which is a ridiculous image meant to make the hearer find believing in this incident less palatable.

It’s also a logical fallacy known as the prejudicial language fallacy or loaded language fallacy. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains:

Loaded language is emotive terminology that expresses value judgments.

When used in what appears to be an objective description, the terminology unfortunately can cause the listener to adopt those values when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so.

That’s exactly what is happening here. Ehrman is using an emotionally loaded term—zombie—that is ostensibly an objective description of the raised saints, when in fact it is not.

He then relies on the emotionally laden term to get the listener to adopt his perspective on the passage when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so.

 

Not Zombies

To see why the term zombie is not an accurate description of the raised saints, we need to consider how the term is used.

For an extended discussion of the concept and history of zombies, you can listen to Episode 159 and Episode 160 of Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World.

But to put the matter concisely, since the term zombie entered the English language, it has conventionally referred to a person who has died and then been returned to life in a damaged, sub-normal state of functioning.

In this sub-normal state, zombies typically move slowly, lack independent thought, can be used to perform slave labor, and may be physically rotting away—among having other horrifying characteristics.

However, this is not what the Bible envisions when it speaks of people being brought back to life.

Instead, they are envisioned either as returning to a healthy, normal state of human functioning or they are envisioned as returning to an improved, glorified state of functioning.

Conceptually, there are three general states of functioning one could return to:

• • An improved, glorified state—like Jesus and the blessed on the Last Day
  • A healthy, normal state—like Lazarus, Jairus’s daughter, and people who are revived after being clinically dead in hospitals
  • A damaged, sub-normal state—like Haitian zombies are supposed to be (see the Mysterious World episodes linked above)

It is only the last state that the term zombie applies to in standard English.

We do not call otherwise healthy people who have had their hearts restarted “zombies.”

And English certainly does not use the term to refer to people who come back in a glorified state.

It is only to those returning in an unhealthy, damaged state to which standard English applies the term, and this state is never discussed in the Bible.

As a result, Ehrman is fallaciously misusing the term in an attempt to generate emotional revulsion and/or mocking cynicism on the part of the audience.

In fact, Ehrman is deliberately misusing the biblical text, because Matthew does not invite us to imagine the raised saints as shuffling, horrific zombies.

The fact Matthew refers to them as saints who have been raised telegraphs to the reader that they should be regarded as good.

At a minimum, they would have been returned to normal functioning—like Lazarus and Jairus’s daughter—and they may have been returned to a glorified state—like Jesus and the blessed on the Last Day.

Indeed, these two positive states are the very ones Matthew expects his readers to envision, as they are the ones that apply to the passages in his own Gospel where the dead are raised.

Ehrman is simply abusing the biblical text in order to score rhetorical points.

 

No Good Reason

And this is simply a rhetorical move, because—per the loaded language fallacy—he has given us no good reason to disbelieve that this happened.

When functioning as a secular historian, Ehrman stresses that historians can’t pass judgment on miracles—on supernatural events that by their nature would go beyond the ordinary operation of history and thus go beyond the historian’s competence.

He thus denies having an anti-supernatural bias that affects his judgment.

But that is exactly what is happening in this case.

In discussions of this subject, Ehrman has appealed to “common sense” as reason to disbelieve that some of the dead were raised during the Crucifixion.

However, from a Christian perspective, “common sense” does not prevent one from believing in the resurrection of Jesus—or Lazarus—or Jairus’s daughter—or the blessed on the Last Day—or the saints who were raised during the Crucifixion.

These may be miracles, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe in them—unless you have decided that miracles are impossible and thus committed yourself to an anti-supernatural bias when reading accounts of them.

What Ehrman really means is that his own sensibilities—informed as they are by anti-supernatural bias—tell him that this couldn’t have happened, and he mistakes his own sensibilities for what is common.

But, in fact, most human beings—both in world history and today—do not share this view and regard the miraculous as a real possibility, however rare miracles may be.

Ehrman has thus given a person open to the miraculous no good reason to disbelieve in this miracle.

Instead, he has abused the biblical text by deliberately misrepresenting what Matthew asks us to imagine.

And he has abused the English language by misusing the term zombie in an attempt to score rhetorical points.

Despite his reputation as a Gospel skeptic, Bart Ehrman holds that the Gospels do contain accurate information about Jesus, his life, and his teachings.

Speaking as a secular historian, Ehrman does not hold that any historical document can give us certainty about what happened, but he does hold that they can establish a probability—and sometimes a very high probability.

Here are some things Ehrman thinks the Gospels are probably right about, followed by a quotation documenting this in his own words.

The quotations are drawn principally from chapters 8 and 9 of his book Did Jesus Exist?

I don’t agree with the reasoning or interpretation that Bart gives in each of these quotations, but I do agree that the Gospels are right about the bulleted claims.

 

Gospel Claims:

• Jesus existed
• Jesus was a Jew
• Jesus was a teacher
• Jesus lived in the 1st century
• Jesus lived in Roman Palestine
• Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate

“We have seen that these sources are more than ample to establish that Jesus was a Jewish teacher of first-century Roman Palestine who was crucified under Pontius Pilate” (p. 268).

 

• Jesus came from northern Palestine (Nazareth)
• Jesus was an adult in the A.D. 20s
• Jesus was connected with John the Baptist
• Jesus later became a preacher and teacher to Jews in rural Galilee
• Jesus preached about “the kingdom of God”
• Jesus told parables
• Jesus gathered disciples
• Jesus developed a reputation for healings and exorcisms
• Around A.D. 30, Jesus went to Jerusalem for Passover
• During this trip, he aroused opposition among local Jewish leaders
• The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem had him tried before Pontius Pilate
• Pilate had Jesus crucified
• Pilate had him crucified for calling himself “the king of the Jews”

“Everyone, except the mythicists, of course, agrees that Jesus was a Jew who came from northern Palestine (Nazareth) and lived as an adult in the 20s of the Common Era. He was at one point of his life a follower of John the Baptist and then became a preacher and teacher to the Jews in the rural areas of Galilee. He preached a message about the “kingdom of God” and did so by telling parables. He gathered disciples and developed a reputation for being able to heal the sick and cast out demons. At the very end of his life, probably around 30 CE, he made a trip to Jerusalem during a Passover feast and roused opposition among the local Jewish leaders, who arranged to have him put on trial before Pontius Pilate, who ordered him to be crucified for calling himself the king of the Jews” (Did Jesus Exist?, p. 269).

 

• Jesus was baptized at the beginning of his public ministry
• Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist

“There is little doubt how Jesus began his public ministry. He was baptized by John the Baptist. . . . The reason we have stories in which Jesus was baptized by John is that this is a historically reliable datum. He really was baptized by John, as attested in multiple independent sources” (p. 302).

 

• John the Baptist preached an apocalyptic message of coming destruction and salvation

“John the Baptist is known to have preached an apocalyptic message of coming destruction and salvation” (pp. 302-303).

 

• Jesus agreed with John the Baptist’s message

“Of all the options, he chose John the Baptist. This must mean that he agreed with the particular message John was proclaiming” (p. 303).

 

• Jesus’ apocalyptic message focused on the kingdom of God

“Jesus’s apocalyptic message focused on the coming kingdom of God. The first words he is recorded as saying set the tone for much of his public proclamation: ‘The time has been fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news’” (Mark 1:15)” (p. 305).

 

• Jesus said the kingdom would be brought about by “the Son of Man”—a cosmic judge

“This future kingdom would be brought by a cosmic judge whom Jesus called the Son of Man” (p. 305).

 

• Jesus taught a coming reversal of fortunes—the exalted being humbled and the humble exalted

“One of Jesus’s characteristic teachings is that there will be a massive reversal of fortunes when the end comes. Those who are rich and powerful now will be humbled then; those who are lowly and oppressed now will then be exalted” (p. 307).

 

• Jesus didn’t think you needed to scrupulously observe the Mosaic Law
• Jesus did not interpret the Sabbath command the way Pharisees did

“Unlike certain Pharisees, Jesus did not think that what really mattered before God was the scrupulous observance of the laws in all their details. Going out of one’s way to avoid doing anything questionable on the Sabbath was of very little importance to him” (p. 310).

 

• Jesus did not understand Temple worship and sacrifices the way Sadducees did

“Unlike some Sadducees, Jesus did not think that it was of the utmost importance to adhere strictly to the rules for worship in the Temple through the divinely ordained sacrifices” (p. 310).

 

• Jesus did not think people should isolate themselves to maintain ritual purity

“Unlike some Essenes, he did not think that people should seek to maintain their own ritual purity in isolation from others in order to find God’s ultimate approval. As we will see in a moment, his reputation was tarnished among people like this, as he associated precisely with the impure” (p. 310).

 

• Jesus believed the heart of the Mosaic Law was love of God and love of neighbor

“What did matter for Jesus—as for some other Jews from his time about whom we are less well informed (see, for example, Mark 12:32–34)—were the commandments of God that formed, in his opinion, the very heart of the Law. These were the commandments to love God above all else (as in Deuteronomy 4:4–6) and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (as in Leviticus 19:18)” (pp. 310-311).

 

• Jesus believed the way to attain the kingdom was love of God and neighbor

“The way to attain the kingdom, for Jesus, was by following the heart of the Law, which was the requirement to love God above all else and to love other people as much as (or in the same way as) one loved oneself” (p. 311).

 

• The Gospels preserve Jesus’ sayings in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats

“The sayings of the passage [i.e., Matt. 25:31-46—the parable of the sheep and the goats] probably go back to Jesus” (p. 313).

 

• Jesus was a moral teacher

“Jesus is often thought of as a great moral teacher, and I think that is right” (p. 313).

 

• Jesus said the kingdom of God has already begun

“Jesus insisted that in a small way, the kingdom of God was already present, in the here and now. This does not contradict the view that it would come with the arrival of the Son of Man. It is instead an extension of Jesus’s teaching about the future kingdom” (p. 314).

 

• Religious leaders mocked Jesus for hanging out with lowlifes rather than the pious

“Other religious leaders apparently mocked him for preferring the company of lowlifes to that of the pious and upright” (p. 317).

 

• Jesus associated with tax collectors and sinners

“Unlike other religious leaders—say, from among the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes—Jesus associated with such people [i.e., tax collectors and sinners]” (p. 317).

 

• Jesus had an inner circle of 12 disciples
• Jesus handpicked the 12

“One group that Jesus associated with in particular was the “twelve,” an inner circle of disciples who were evidently handpicked by Jesus. The existence of this group of twelve is extremely well attested in our early sources” (p. 318).

 

• Jesus told the 12 they would sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel

“There is one saying of Jesus involving the twelve that almost certainly passes the criterion of dissimilarity. This is the Q saying I mentioned earlier, given in Matthew as follows: ‘Truly I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the new world, when the Son of Man is sitting on the throne of his glory, you will be seated—even you—on twelve thrones ruling the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Matthew 19:28). That this saying probably goes back to Jesus himself is suggested by the fact that it is delivered to all twelve disciples, including, of course, Judas Iscariot” (p. 318).

 

• Jesus privately taught the 12 he was the Messiah, the king of the coming kingdom

“What this means is that Jesus probably taught his closest followers that he would be the king of the coming kingdom of God. In other words, at least to those of his inner circle, Jesus appears to have proclaimed that he really was the future messiah, not in the sense that he would raise an army to drive out the Romans, but in the sense that when the Son of Man brought the kingdom to earth, he, Jesus, would be anointed its ruler” (p. 319).

 

• Jesus had regular conflict with other Jewish teachers

“It is thoroughly attested throughout our early traditions that Jesus was in constant conflict with other Jewish teachers of his day” (p. 319).

 

• Jesus had conflict with members of his own family
• Jesus spoke of leaving one’s family for the sake of the kingdom

“Jesus appears to have opposed the idea of the family and to have been in conflict with members of his own family. This opposition to family, we will see, is rooted in Jesus’s apocalyptic proclamation. Jesus’s opposition to the family unit is made clear in his requirement that his followers leave home for the sake of the coming kingdom. Doing so would earn them a reward [see Mark 10:29-31]” (p. 320).

“By leaving their families high and dry, they almost certainly created enormous hardship, possibly even starvation. But it was worth it, in Jesus’s view. The kingdom demanded it. No family tie was more important than the kingdom; siblings, spouses, and children were of no importance in comparison” (p. 321).

 

• Some members of Jesus’ family didn’t believe him during his public ministry

“[T]here are clear signs not only that Jesus’s family rejected his message during his public ministry” (p. 321).

 

• Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple

“In addition to being opposed to other Jewish leaders and to the institution of the family, Jesus is portrayed in our early traditions as being in severe opposition to one of the central institutions of Jewish religious life, the Temple in Jerusalem. Throughout our Gospel traditions we find multiple, independent declarations on the lips of Jesus that the Temple will be destroyed in a divine act of judgment” (p. 322).

“If, as seems likely, Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in the coming judgment, he may have overturned the tables and caused a ruckus as a kind of enacted parable of his apocalyptic message” (p. 327).

 

• Jesus spent much of his preaching ministry in Galilee
• At the end of his ministry, Jesus went to Jerusalem for Passover
• There, he also proclaimed his message

“In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus spends his entire preaching ministry in Galilee, and then during the last week of his life he makes a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover feast. This is completely plausible, historically” (p. 325).

“After taking his message around the countryside of his homeland, Galilee, he came to Jerusalem, also to proclaim his message, as our Gospels agree in saying he did, once he arrived in the city” (p. 325).

 

• Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple

“But Jesus may well have caused a small disturbance there [the Temple], as is multiply attested (Mark and John) since this tradition coincides so well with his proclamations about the corruption of the Temple and its coming destruction” (p. 326).

 

• Jesus objected to the money changing and selling animals in the Temple
• Jesus reacted violently and overturned tables

“Jesus apparently took umbrage at the operation [of selling changing money and selling animals at the temple] and reacted violently to it” (p. 327).

“If, as seems likely, Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in the coming judgment, he may have overturned the tables and caused a ruckus as a kind of enacted parable of his apocalyptic message” (p. 327).

 

• Jesus was betrayed to the Jewish authorities by one of his followers
• This follower was Judas Iscariot
• Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to Pilate
• Pilate was in Jerusalem at the time
• Pilate gave Jesus a brief trial
• Pilate ordered Jesus crucified

“What we can say is that Jesus was probably betrayed to the Jewish authorities by one of his own followers; these authorities delivered him over to the Roman governor, Pilate, who was in town to keep the peace during the festival; after what was almost certainly a rather brief trial, Pilate ordered him crucified. All of these data make sense when seen in light of Jesus’s apocalyptic proclamation” (p. 327-328).

“There are solid reasons for thinking that Jesus really was betrayed by one of his own followers, Judas Iscariot” (p. 328).

 

• Jesus came to Jerusalem a week before Passover

“The early accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree that Jesus came to Jerusalem a week before the Passover itself. This makes sense, as it was customary: one needed to go through certain rituals of purification before celebrating the festival, and that required attendance in the Temple a week in advance” (p. 328).

 

• After the incident at the Temple, Jesus suspected his time was up

“It is not implausible, however, to think that Jesus suspected that his time was up. It does not take a revelation from God to realize what happens when one speaks out violently against the ruling authorities in this kind of inflammatory context, and there was a long history of Jewish prophets having met their demise for crossing the lines of civil discourse” (p. 328).

 

• Jesus believed he was the king of the Jews
• Jesus did not proclaim this openly

“What is very strange about the Gospel stories of Jesus’s death is that Pilate condemns him to crucifixion for calling himself the king of the Jews. This is multiply attested in all the traditions, and it passes the criterion of dissimilarity because this is not a title that, so far as we can tell, the early Christians ever used of Jesus. His followers called him the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Lord, the messiah, and lots of other things but not, in the New Testament at least, the king of the Jews. And so they would not have made that up as the charge against him, which means that it appears really to have been the crime” (p. 329).

“There I suggested that just as Jesus was the master of the twelve now, in this age, so too he would be their master then, in the age to come. That is to say, that he would be the future king of the coming kingdom. This is not something that he openly proclaimed, so far as we can tell. But it does appear to be what he taught his disciples” (pp. 329-330).

 

• The Jewish authorities didn’t simply try Jesus by their own law
• The Jewish authorities handed Jesus over to Pilate

“What is clear is that the Jewish authorities did not try Jesus according to Jewish law but instead handed him over to Pilate” (p. 330).

 

• Jesus did not understand his kingship as a worldly, political one

“He was claiming an office that was not his to claim, and for him to assume the role of king he would first need to overthrow the Romans themselves. Jesus, of course, did not understand his kingship in this way” (pp. 330-331).

 

• When asked if he was king of the Jews, he either answered ambiguously or in the affirmative

“Jesus could hardly deny that he was the king of the Jews. He thought he was. So he either refused to answer the charge or answered it in the affirmative” (p. 331).

 

• Judas existed
• Judas betrayed Jesus to the authorities
• Judas died an untimely death
• Judas’ death was connected to a field in Jerusalem

“I think there really was a Judas. I think that he really did betray Jesus to the authorities, and I think he probably came to some kind of untimely death that was somehow connected with a field in Jerusalem” (Unbelievable? podcast; source).

Understanding the practices that ancient authors—including the authors of the Gospels—used when writing can clear away a great deal of confusion.

Taken from my book A Daily Defense:

 

Day 248: Truth versus Precision

Challenge: The Bible contains many passages that say something close to the truth but not quite accurate.

Defense: This confuses truth with precision.

Perhaps you’ve seen the Star Trek episode “Errand of Mercy,” where the following exchange occurs:

Kirk: What would you say the odds are on our getting out of here?

Spock: Difficult to be precise, Captain. I should say, approximately 7,824.7 to 1.

Kirk: Difficult to be precise? 7,824 to 1?

Spock: 7,824.7 to 1.

Kirk: That’s a pretty close approximation.

Spock: I endeavor to be accurate.

This illustrates the different levels of precision expected by humans and vulcans.

Something similar occurs when modern audiences read ancient texts. We live in an age in which things are rigorously measured and recorded. But the ancient world was very different. There were few and imprecise measuring tools, no audio or video recorders, and most people could not read or write.

Consequently, the ancients expected a lesser degree of precision than we do. They would have rolled their eyes at us the way we roll our eyes at Mr. Spock and his absurd overprecision.

This has implications for how we read the Bible. We can’t hold its authors to a higher level of precision than they were using. They expressed truths, but according to the level of precision expected in their day, not ours.

Statements of truth regularly involve approximation. When we say the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second or that pi is 3.14, we are expressing truths, but in an approximate manner. Approximation is so common scientists even speak of different “orders of approximation” they use in their work. At some point, it becomes foolish to try to be more precise, and this judgment must be made based on the situation in which we find ourselves.

We must thus respect the circumstances in which the biblical authors wrote and not expect more precision of them than their situation allowed. If we want to charge them with error then we need to show that they weren’t using the degree of precision expected in the ancient world.

Tip: For examples of how precision works in the Bible, see Day 258.

 

 

Day 258: Approximation in the Bible

Challenge: Why do you claim the biblical authors used a different level of precision than we do?

Defense: Approximations were more common because of the inability in the ancient world to accurately measure and record things (see Day 248).

We can show Scripture uses many forms of approximation, including:

(1) Numerical approximations: For example, a basin in Solomon’s temple is said to have a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits (1 Kings 7:23; 2 Chron. 4:2), indicating the approximate value of π (pi) as 3 (see Day 197). Numerical approximations are also involved when we encounter stock numbers in Scripture (40, 120, and 1,000).

(2) Verbal approximations: Because the ancient world had no recording devices and few stenographers, ancient audiences didn’t expect written dialogue to be a verbatim transcript but an approximation of what was said. Reconstruction and paraphrase were normal. We see examples when Scripture presents parallel accounts of the same events and the biblical authors give dialogue in somewhat different form (e.g., in the Gospels).

(3) Descriptive approximations: Every time we describe an event, we must decide which details to include and omit. There is an inescapable element of approximation in every event description, and this applied to the biblical authors also. Consequently, one evangelist may mention that Jesus healed two men on an occasion, while another may streamline the account by mentioning only one (see Day 37). Similarly, one author may give a more detailed account by mentioning both the principals in an encounter and the agents they employed, while another may mention only the principals (see Day 124).

(4) Chronological approximations: Usually, the ancients did not keep detailed chronological records, and they had the liberty to record events either chronologically or nonchronologically, within the same general time frame (e.g., within the ministry of Christ; see Day 89).

(5) Literary approximations: We often convey truth using literary devices not meant to be taken literally (“We should roll out the red carpet for this visitor”), and so did the ancients (see Day 31). Symbolism and figures of speech like hyperbole are common in Scripture.

Approximations are intrinsic to human speech; we can’t avoid using them, and we use the same kinds as the ancients. We just use them differently.

 

Day 89: Chronology in the Gospels

Challenge: The Gospels sometimes record the events of Jesus’ ministry in different order and thus contradict each other.

Defense: These are not contradictions. Ancient authors had the liberty to record events chronologically or nonchronologically.

Even in our modern, time-obsessed world, biographers have liberty to arrange material in nonchronological ways. A biography of Abraham Lincoln might devote a chapter to his thoughts on slavery and race relations rather than breaking this material up and covering it repeatedly throughout a chronological account of his career. Similarly, Jesus’ ethical or prophetic teachings might be put together in single sections of a Gospel, as with the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25).

In the ancient world, people usually did not have day-by-day records of a person’s life. The memory of what a great man did persisted, but not precisely when he did things. Recording material in a nonchronological order was thus expected. This was true even of the most famous men in the world. See Suetonius’s The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, which records the words and deeds of the Caesars without a detailed chronology.

Ultimately, what a great man said and did was considered important, not precisely when the events happened. That’s why the former were remembered and the latter was not.

Jesus gave his teachings on many occasions, but without having a detailed chronology available, the evangelists sequenced them according to topical and literary considerations. The same was true of many individual deeds Jesus performed (e.g., healings).

This is not to say that the evangelists give us no chronological information. Some events obviously occurred before or after others. Thus his baptism (with which he inaugurated his ministry) is toward the beginning of the Gospels and the Crucifixion is at the end.

Sometimes chronological details were remembered, such as the fact Jesus performed a particular healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6), that John the Baptist’s ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1-3), or that certain events in Jesus’ life took place on major Jewish feasts (John 2:13, 6:4, 7:2, 10:22, 11:5). It is thus possible to glean chronological information from the Gospels.

 

Day 124: Who Did What in the Gospels?

Challenge: The Gospels contain error since they describe different people performing the same action. Matthew says a centurion approached Jesus about healing his servant, but Luke says Jewish elders did this for the centurion (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10). Similarly, Mark says James and John made a request, but Matthew says their mother made it (Mark 10:35-45; Matt. 20:20-28).

Defense: The biblical authors had liberty to describe events in terms of the principals or their agents.

More than one person can be involved in an action. The person on whose behalf the action is performed is known as the principal, while the person who actually does the action is known as the agent. Both today and in the ancient world, actions can be described as if the principal or the agent performed them.

During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, newspapers might have reported, “American president Kennedy told Soviet premier Khrushchev to take his missiles out of Cuba.” In reality, Kennedy and Khrushchev (the principals) never spoke. Their exchanges were carried on through diplomatic intermediaries (their agents). Because the principals were the main actors, newspapers could speak as if the two directly engaged each other. The diplomatic intermediaries were secondary.

In Scripture, we read that Moses built the tabernacle (2 Chron. 1:3) and Solomon built the temple (1 Kings  6:1-38). In reality, both were leaders too lofty to do the labor themselves. They used workmen who acted on their behalf (Exod. 38:22-23; 1 Kings  7:13-45). Because Moses and Solomon were the principals, they are sometimes mentioned, while the workmen who were their agents may not be mentioned.

The evangelists had the same freedom choosing how to describe an incident. They could describe it in terms of the agents acting (as with Luke’s mention of the Jewish elders and Matthew’s mention of the apostles’ mother) or the principals acting (as with Matthew’s mention of the centurion and Mark’s mention of James and John).

When the evangelists chose the latter, the action of the agents may be said to be “telescoped” into the principals on whose behalf they acted. This literary technique is used in the Bible in more situations than we use it today, but it is not an error. It is a known literary device.

 

Day 37: One or Two in the Gospels?

Challenge: How can you trust the Gospels when they can’t even agree on details like whether Jesus exorcized one demoniac or two, healed one blind man or two, rode one animal or two, or had his Resurrection announced by one angel or two?

Defense: These incidents are not contradictions but reports mentioning different details.

It is true the Gospels sometimes report an incident and mention only a single demoniac (Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27), blind man (Mark 8:22-23, 10:46; Luke 18:35), animal (Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30; John 12:14), or angel (Matt. 28:2; Mark 16:5), while other reports mention two demoniacs (Matt. 8:28), blind men (Matt. 9:27, 20:30), animals (Matt. 21:2), or angels (Luke 24:4; John 20:12).

These are not contradictions, because in none of these cases does an evangelist say there was only one of the thing in question present. The evangelist may mention only one, but that leaves open the possibility—confirmed by one or more of the other evangelists—that there was more than one present.

It has often been noted that if several people witness a car accident, they will each observe and report different details when they recount it later. This phenomenon may be partly responsible for cases mentioned above. For example, if Matthew was an eyewitness to a particular event he may have remembered seeing two demoniacs, blind men, and so on, while noneyewitnesses like Mark and Luke were dependent on sources who may have mentioned only one.

There also may be another phenomenon at work: dramatic simplification. Because books then were fantastically expensive (a copy of the Gospel of Matthew could have cost the ancient equivalent of over $1,500), ancient authors worked under pressure to keep their books short. This could result in them presenting only an incident’s essentials, which could have the added benefit of making the story more focused and compelling.

If on a single occasion two people asked Jesus for a particular favor, like healing, or if two angels showed up to deliver a single message, the essence of the event could be communicated to the audience if only one was mentioned. After all, Jesus did grant a person’s request for healing, and an angel did show up to deliver a message. The mention of a similar companion in both cases was not essential.

When discussing the reliability of the Gospels, Bart Ehrman frequently states that certain passages contain contradictions or historical errors.

To help attendees and viewers of my recent debate with Bart, here are resources that go into more depth on the charges he commonly makes and how they can be understood.

First, though, here is a piece discussing facts that Bart believes the Gospels (probably) get right, as well as quotations documenting this.

POST-DEBATE UPDATE:

Where Was Joseph’s Residence?

Now for pieces responding to the charges Bart makes:

How Ancient Authors Wrote

The Enrollment of Jesus’ Birth

How the Infancy Narratives Fit Together

Who Was Jesus’ Grandfather?

Questions About Jesus’ Genealogies

An Older Article on Jesus’ Genealogies

Did Jesus Name the Wrong High Priest?

When Was Jesus Crucified? The Day of the Week and Passover

Zombies After the Crucifixion?

How the Resurrection Narratives Fit Together

The Fate of Judas Iscariot

 

 

 

In Mark 2:23-28, we read:

One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?”

And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”

And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.”

It has been charged that here Jesus names the wrong high priest—that it wasn’t Abiathar at the time of the event he refers to.

What should we make of this?

From my book Mark: A Commentary:

 

25–26. Jesus asks the Pharisees rhetorically whether they have read what King David did when he and his men were hungry. Have the Pharisees read “how he [David] entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”

This event is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. At the time “the house of God” was the Tabernacle (aka “the Tent of Meeting”), since the Temple in Jerusalem had not yet been built.

“The bread of the Presence” was a set of loaves that were placed in the Tabernacle and, later, the Temple. The name comes from the fact that the loaves were set before God’s face (Hebrew, paneh), and so together they were the loaves set before the divine face or presence (Hebrew, lekhempaniym). These loaves were set in God’s presence (before his face, in his house); they did not convey God’s presence (transubstantiation being a mystery of the Christian era).

Mark’s statement that this was “when Abiathar was high priest” has attracted much attention, for David did not approach Abiathar in this narrative. 1 Samuel names the priest as Ahimelech, who was Abiathar’s father (1 Sam. 22:20). This has struck many as a mistake on Mark’s part.

It is noteworthy that neither Matthew nor Luke mentions Abiathar (cf. Matt. 12:3–5, Luke 6:3–4). This may provide a clue to the sequence in which the Gospels were written. Most scholars today hold that Mark wrote first, in which case Matthew and Luke eliminated the reference to Abiathar. Others hold that Mark was not the first writer, in which case he introduced the reference. The matter is not decisive as to Gospel sequence, but it could serve as one clue among others.

As to the claim that this is a mistake, there are various solutions. Some will be more attractive than others, depending on your views:

• • One solution is that this reference simply was not in the original Mark, for the reference is not found in some manuscripts.
  • Another is that there was a scribal error, for Abiathar was better known than Ahimelech. The latter is mentioned eighteen times in the Bible, but Abiathar is mentioned thirty-one times. A copyist may have accidentally recorded the name of the more famous priest.
  • A third solution is that, although Mark indicates that this was during Abiathar’s time, he doesn’t say that David approached Abiathar. Since Abiathar is referenced almost twice as frequently, Mark may have mentioned him as a more familiar figure with which to indicate the time period.
  • Further, this event certainly was during Abiathar’s time, since he appears at the beginning of the very next chapter, without an appreciable time passing, and seemingly as an adult (see 1 Sam. 22:20–22).

And there are yet other solutions.

Whatever may be the case, Jesus’ point in referring to the incident is that the Law must be understood in accord with the needs of the men it is meant to serve. When David and his men were hungry, they were able to eat bread that normally would not have been available to them under the Law of Moses. In the same way, when Jesus’ disciples are hungry, they are able to pluck the handfuls of grain they need to eat, whether or not this would be in accord with the letter of the Law of Moses.

While the Law is important, it is not to be taken as an absolute, divorced from the human context it is meant to serve.

How should we understand the differences in how Matthew and Luke (in Acts) record the fate of Judas?

Taken from my book A Daily Defense:

 

Day 170: How Judas Iscariot Died

Challenge: Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Matthew says Judas hung himself (Matt. 27:5), but Luke says that “falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18).

Defense: The accounts preserve different aspects of the event but do not contradict each other.

Both agree Judas died shortly after the Crucifixion. Matthew says Judas hanged himself after returning the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests, while Luke has Peter speaking of the event during the period between the Ascension and Pentecost (between forty and fifty days after the Crucifixion). The fact they agree on the timing, but describe the death differently, shows independent traditions in circulation that affirmed Judas’ death very shortly after the Crucifixion. That indicates Judas did die at this early date.

Judas probably began accompanying Jesus while in his twenties (Jesus himself began his ministry when about thirty; Luke 3:23). This suggests Judas died a sudden and remarkable death (i.e., not an ordinary death due to old age). Matthew’s report of his suicidal hanging accounts for this, leaving us to explain Luke’s reference to him falling and bursting open.

The earliest explanation is found in the second-century historian Papias, who wrote around A.D. 120. His works are lost but partially preserved in other writers. According to the fourth-century writer Apollinarius of Laodicea, Judas survived the hanging by being cut down before he choked to death, but he quotes Papias as saying Judas suffered severe swelling (edema) of the head and body, eventually causing him to burst open (see Monte Shanks, Papias and the New Testament, chapter 4, fragment 6). We now know that edema of the neck and body can be a consequence of strangulation, so Papias’s account may be based in fact.

Others have proposed that Judas remained hanging on a tree branch until his body began to decompose and swell due to the gases decomposition produces. The rope then broke or slipped, causing his body to burst from the force of impact.

Some have noted that the traditional site of Judas’s death features trees along a high ridge where strong winds occur. The winds may have caused the rope to slip, and the height of the ridge may have added to the force of impact, causing the body to burst.

 

Day 23: Who Bought the Field of Blood?

Challenge: Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Matthew says that the Jewish priests bought the field of blood (Matt. 27:7-8), while Luke says Judas Iscariot did (Acts 1:18-19).

Defense: Matthew and Luke are in fundamental agreement, and there are multiple ways the different attributions can be explained.

Both authors agree that Judas Iscariot’s betrayal led to a field in the area of Jerusalem becoming known as the field of blood. Both also say that this field was paid for with the money that the chief priests had given Judas to betray Jesus. Both are thus agreed about the basic facts. How, then, can we account for the different way the two authors describe the purchase of the field?

One proposal is that the reference in Acts (“Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness”) is meant to be ironic rather than literal. It occurs in a speech that Peter is making, and it has been suggested that Peter merely meant that Judas got his just deserts. The money he originally meant to spend on himself ended up paying for a graveyard.

This is possible, but as we observe elsewhere (see Day 124), the biblical authors sometimes omit the agents who perform an action in order to bring out the significance of the principal figures with respect to whom the action is performed.

Thus, we read that Moses built the tabernacle (2 Chron. 1:3) and Solomon built the temple (1 Kings 6:1-38), though in reality both were built by workmen acting on the leaders’ behalf (Exod. 38:22-23; 1 Kings 7:13-45). Sometimes the agents get mentioned and sometimes they don’t.

It is therefore possible that Matthew chose to mention the role of the priests: They were the agents who actually bought the field. By contrast, Luke wants to bring out the significance of the fact it was Judas’s money, without going into the mechanics of how the transaction was made. He thus omitted reference to the priests and only mentioned Judas.

Or this choice may have been made by someone earlier in the chain of tradition than Luke, who simply reported the tradition as he had it. Either way, it would be in keeping with the known practice of omitting agents to bring out the significance of the principals.

 

Day 35: How Did the Field of Blood Get Its Name?

Challenge: Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Matthew says that the field of blood got its name because it was bought with blood money (Matt. 27:6-7), but Luke says it was called this because people knew Judas died a gruesome death there (Acts 1:18-19).

Defense: Names can have more than one significance, and the two explanations are compatible.

The fact that Matthew and Luke record different expressions of the tradition regarding Judas’s fate indicate that both were in circulation.

Some people—aware of Matthew’s tradition—knew the priests bought the field and called it “field of blood” because it was bought with blood money. Others—aware of Luke’s tradition—knew about Judas’s bloody fate and called it “field of blood” for that reason. Some Jerusalemites may have been aware of both versions—like modern readers are—and called it “field of blood” for both reasons.

There are parallels to this elsewhere in the Bible. The biblical authors and their audiences often saw a single name as having more than one significance.

For example, the name of the city Be’er-sheva can mean “Well of the Seven” or “Well of the Oath,” and the author of Genesis preserves more than one tradition regarding its significance. He notes that at this location Abraham dug a well, gave Abimelech seven lambs, and swore an oath with Abimelech (Gen. 21:30-32). He also notes that Isaac later dug a well and swore an oath with Abimelech there (Gen. 26:31-33). Ancient readers of Genesis were thus aware of both traditions and saw them as complementary explanations for the name of Be’er-sheva: It was called that for both reasons.

Similarly, the field of blood was so called both because it was bought with blood money and because of Judas’s death. (Note that Luke says Judas bought a field, that he died a bloody death, and that people thus called the place “field of blood,” but he doesn’t say Judas died there. He may or may not have.)

One explanation would have originated first, but both were in circulation in the first century, and both contributed to why people called the field what they did.

Matthew opens his Gospel with a genealogy stretching from Abraham down to Jesus (Matt. 1:1-17). The final part of this genealogy reads:

And Jacob [was] the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ (Matt. 1:16).

Luke also gives a genealogy, except his stretches from Jesus back to Adam, the original “son of God” (Luke 3:23-38). The initial part of it reads:

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli (Luke 3:23).

Both genealogies have fascinating aspects that would require considerable discussion, but here we’re interested in a specific question: Who was Jesus’ grandfather?

According to both of the passages we’ve just read, Jesus was the (legal) son of Joseph, but Matthew indicates that Joseph’s father was named Jacob, while Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli.

How can this be explained?

At first glance, it looks like Matthew and Luke are preserving two different lines by which Jesus’ ancestry goes back to David, and these two lines join at Joseph. Our question is: How does that joining work?

 

Why Trace Jesus’ Ancestry by Different Lines?

Before going further, it will be useful to discuss why Matthew and Luke would trace Jesus’ genealogies through different lines, because it is very obvious that they do.

Most famously, they trace his ancestry through different sons of David. Matthew traces it through the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces it through the line of David’s son Nathan.

We should begin by pointing out that it is not at all unexpected Jesus would be descended from David in more than one way.

People tend to marry within their own community, and so if you go back multiple generations, it is very common to find that someone is descended from an individual in more than one way.

Given how tight-knit Judean culture was, it would be inevitable—over the course of a thousand years—that Jesus would be descended from David in more than one way.

By way of parallel, England’s Queen Elizabeth II is descended from William the Conqueror (who lived a thousand years before her) in multiple ways. For example, she is descended from him both by the line of William’s son Henry I of England and by the line of William’s daughter St. Adela of Normandy. (For more information, see Day 85 here.)

The question for us is: Why would Matthew and Luke use different lines?

Part of the answer may be as simple as, “These were the lines that they had documentation for when they were writing their Gospels. They used the genealogical information that was available to them.”

However, there also may be other reasons, and the decision to either trace through Solomon or Nathan is not difficult to solve.

After King David’s time, the line of Judean kings passed through Solomon until the Babylonian Exile, when the line ended with Jeconiah (aka Jehoiachin).

The prophet Jeremiah then issued a curse from the Lord on Jeconiah, stating “none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer. 22:30).

However, according to various Jewish sources, this curse was later lifted, which would mean Jeconiah’s descendants would again be eligible to be kings. (For more information, see Day 95 here).

The result was that there was a doubt about whether future legitimate kings of the Jews would need to come from the line of Solomon or from another line of David’s sons.

A difference of opinion on this issue would admirably explain why Matthew uses one line and Nathan the other.

• • For those who believed legitimate kings needed to come from the line of Solomon, Matthew shows how Jesus’ ancestry is traced through him.
  • And for those who believe legitimate kings could not come from the line of Solomon, Luke shows how Jesus is descended from David by way of Nathan.

And—since Jesus is descended from David in more than one way—those different lines join up again at some point, and we’re interested in the merging of the lines that seems to happen in the generation before Joseph.

So, why does Matthew describe Joseph’s father as Jacob, while Luke describes him as Heli?

 

Joseph and Mary: A Common (and Incorrect) Explanation

A common explanation of the difference is that Matthew gives us Joseph’s genealogy, while Luke gives us Mary’s.

This is perhaps understandable in that Matthew’s infancy narrative (Matt. 1-2) focuses on Joseph, while Luke’s infancy narrative (Luke 1-2) focuses on Mary.

However, any simple version of this theory encounters a huge problem: Mary is not mentioned anywhere in Luke’s version of the genealogy (Luke 3:23-38).

No matter how popular or attractive this view may be to some, no simple version of it can be supported from the text.

The way the genealogies are written, both of them are genealogies of Joseph.

Understanding that to be the case, how can we explain the fact that Matthew lists Joseph’s father as Jacob and Luke lists him as Heli?

 

1) By Any Other Name?

One way it could hypothetically be explained would be by a difference in names. People in the ancient world—including in the Bible—sometimes went by more than one name. In fact, we see this repeatedly in the first generation of Christians (Simon/Peter, Joseph/Barnabas, Saul/Paul, John/Mark).

Sometimes this was because a person had acquired a nickname (thus Simon and Joseph acquired the nicknames Cephas/Peter and Barnabas). Sometimes it was because they were operating in a different cultural environment (thus Saul and John used their Roman names Paul and Mark when dealing with non-Jews). And there could be other reasons.

In principle, Jacob and Heli could be two names for the same individual.

This is more possible than you might initially think. If we look one generation further back, Matthew tells us that “Matthan [was] the father of Jacob” (Matt. 1:15), and Luke tells us that Heli was “the son of Matthat” (Luke 3:24).

It is very common to find variant spellings in ancient documents—including genealogies—and the names Matthan and Matthat are so close that some scholars have suggested this is just a variant spelling and that Matthan/Matthat was a single person.

In that case, Jacob and Heli might have been two names that his son was known by, and the question of who Joseph’s father was would be solved: He was a man who went both by the name Jacob and by the name Heli.

This would not solve every question about the genealogies, because prior to Matthan/Matthat the lines diverge again (see above), but it would resolve this issue.

However, the “two names” theory is not the only one we need to consider.

 

2) Skipping Generations

A notable fact about ancient Israelite genealogies is that they often skipped generations.

This was in part because Hebrew and Aramaic had no kinship terms for “grandfather,” “great grandfather,” or “great-great grandfather.” Similarly, they had no kinship terms for “grandson,” “great grandson,” or “great-great grandson.”

Instead, any male ancestor of yours was referred to as your father, and any male descendant of yours was referred to as your son (see Day 106 here).

This is why Jesus can be called the “son of David” (Matt. 1:1) and how he can inherit the throne of “his father David” (Luke 1:32)—even though David lived a thousand years before Jesus.

Because every male ancestor was a father and every male descendant was a son, you didn’t need to list every generation in a genealogy, and it’s clear that ancient authors sometimes skipped them—either for reasons of brevity or to make a point.

For example, Matthew deliberately skips generations in order to present his genealogy as 3 sets of 14 generations (Matt. 1:17). By looking at the Old Testament genealogies—which Matthew was certainly aware of—you can see many of the generations he’s skipping.

The likely reason he uses three blocks of 14 names is that in Hebrew and Aramaic the name David adds up to 14 (D + V + D = 4 + 6 + 4 = 14). The genealogy thus implicitly conveys the idea “David! David! David!” Matthew is making the point that, under God’s providence, Jesus is the legitimate and ultimate Son of David, the Messiah.

We also know that Matthew is skipping generations in the period covered by the final 14 names. Raymond Brown points out:

The spans of time covered by the three sections of the genealogy are too great to have contained only fourteen generations each, since some 750 years separated Abraham from David, some 400 years separated David from the Babylonian Exile, and some 600 years separated the Babylonian Exile from Jesus’ birth (The Birth of the Messiah, 74-75).

If there were only 14 generations in a 600-year period then the average age of fatherhood for each generation would have been 43 years old, and that’s too high. Fathers have some children earlier and some later, but in the ancient world it was not normal to have your middle (“average”) child at 43.

If we go with a more reasonable estimate of a middle child being born to a father who is 30 years old, we should expect 20 generations during this period, suggesting that Matthew has skipped at least 6 generations.

That’s relevant to our question because, as soon as you skip a generation, you double the number of “fathers” in this system of reckoning.

For example: My name is Jimmy, and my father’s name also was Jimmy (I’m a junior). However, if you skip my father’s generation and look at my male ancestors one generation further back, there are two: My paternal grandfather Howard and my maternal grandfather Allen.

If we were composing an Israelite-style genealogy for me, and if we skipped my father’s generation, I could be described either as “Jimmy the son of Howard” or “Jimmy the son of Allen,” depending on which line of ancestry you wanted to focus on.

Now here’s the point: This could be what’s happening with Joseph.

We have strong evidence that Matthew skipped something like 6 generations in this segment of his genealogy, and Luke may have done so also.

If any of these skipped generations was the one before Joseph, then the issue is resolved:

• • If Matthew skipped the generation before Joseph, then Heli may have been Joseph’s father and Jacob one of his two grandfathers.
  • If Luke skipped the generation before Joseph, then Jacob may have been his father and Heli one of his two grandfathers.
  • If both Matthew and Luke skipped the generation before Joseph—or if there is more than one skipped generation before Joseph—then the options multiply further.

In any case, a single skipped generation before Joseph, by either author, would explain what we see.

 

3) Adoption

Not everything you see in a genealogy is to be explained in terms of biological relationships. They also include legal relations.

Today, if a husband and wife have several kids together but also adopt a child, the adopted child will be listed in their family tree alongside their biological children.

The same was true in ancient genealogies. In fact, in a tribal/patriarchal society like ancient Israel, it was extremely important to know your family line, because it dictated how you would relate to other Israelites.

To be part of Israelite society, you had to be a member of one of the twelve tribes, and when a person from another culture joined the people of Israel, he had to be legally adopted into one of the tribes.

We see an example of this with Caleb—one of the two faithful spies at the time of Moses. Caleb is introduced as “the son of Jephunneh” (Num. 13:6), and Jephunneh is identified as a Kennizite (Num. 32:12). The Kennizites, in turn, were a Canaanite people (Gen. 15:19), so it appears that Caleb actually had Canaanite ancestry.

This is not surprising, since Egypt was a major world power and quite cosmopolitan. Many people from surrounding cultures ended up there—including Canaanites—and some of them allied with the Israelites at the time of the Exodus and left Egypt. Exodus 12:38 records that many foreigners departed with them.

As a person of Canaanite ancestry, Caleb decided to go with them and eventually became so allied with the Israelites that he became one of them. Thus, he was adopted into the tribe of Judah, and the patriarch Judah became his legal ancestor.

Note that, in this case, the name of Caleb’s biological father—Jephunneh—has been preserved, in addition to his new, legal ancestry.

Jesus’ genealogy also incorporates the concept of legal descent, for Jesus was Joseph’s legal son, but not his biological son. Jesus was adopted by Joseph (cf. Luke 2:48) and enrolled into his genealogy.

In part because of higher mortality in the ancient world, adoption was not uncommon, and its use in Jesus’ genealogy alerts us to the possibility that it may appear more than once.

It is possible that some of the junctures in Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies could be due to legal adoption in which—like Caleb—a figure’s biological parentage has been preserved as well as his new, legal parentage.

Further, since people often take care of the children of their deceased relatives—and sometimes adopt them—it would not be unnatural if, in the thousand years between David and Christ, members of some lines of Davidides adopted members of the extended family, uniting the lines in genealogical terms.

For example, suppose that Joseph was Heli’s natural son, but Heli died prematurely, and Joseph was adopted by Jacob. In this case, Joseph would be the legal son of Jacob but the biological son of Heli.

 

4) Heiresses

A special form of Israelite adoption could involve heiresses. Under normal circumstances, Israelite women did not inherit property, but it was important to keep land within the family, and if a man died without sons, his property could be inherited by his daughters—making them heiresses.

The most famous case involves the daughters of Zelophehad of the tribe of Manasseh, who died during the Exodus. He had no sons, so his daughters were allowed to inherit a portion of the territory of Manasseh in the Promised Land (Num. 27:1-11).

However, this created a new issue, because normally women were not required to marry within their tribe. If the heiresses of Zelophehad married outsiders, their land would pass from Manasseh to a different tribe.

As a result, a law was instituted that heiresses could only marry within their own tribe so that the tribe would not have its territory depleted over time (Num. 36:1-12).

Not only was it important to preserve family property, it also was important to preserve the name of a man with no sons, and this sometimes happened through his daughters.

In 1 Chronicles 2:34-35, we read about a man named Sheshan who had no sons but only daughters. To carry on his line, Sheshan married one of his daughters to an Egyptian slave of his named Jarha. As a result, the daughter bore a son named Attai, who carried on Sheshan’s line.

In Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63, we read of a priest named “Barzillai (who had taken a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by their name).”

In 1 Esdras 5:38, the priest’s name is given as Jaddus, and the daughter of Barzillai’s name is given as Agia. Whether or not these were their actual names, it has been proposed that Agia was an heiress, and Jaddus married her, he took Barzillai’s name to preserve it since there were no sons to carry on the line.

In view of the function of heiresses to preserve their father’s legal line, it has been proposed that this may explain the situation with Joseph.

According to this view, Mary had no brothers and so was an heiress (as suggested by the second century document known as the Infancy Gospel of James or Protoevangelium of James). And so—as an heiress of the tribe of Judah—when Joseph married her, he gained the legal heritage of her father, Heli.

It should be pointed out that this is not the same as the common claim that Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s and Luke’s is Mary. Mary is not mentioned at all in Luke’s genealogy, and it cannot simply be “her’s.”

On this view, both genealogies are Joseph’s, with Matthew giving Joseph’s heritage through his biological father Jacob and—with Mary being an heiress—Luke giving Joseph’s alternative heritage through his legal-father-by-marriage (i.e., father-in-law) Heli.

 

5) Levirates

Heiresses were not the only way a sonless man’s line could be preserved. A more common way was through the custom of the levirate marriage.

In Latin, a levir is a brother-in-law, and a levirate marriage is one in which a woman marries her brother-in-law.

This practice was used in numerous Ancient Near Eastern cultures, and under the Mosaic Law, this was required when a man died without a son:

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel (Deut. 25:5-6).

This custom was common enough that it found and explicit treatment (and a rather lengthy one; Deut. 25:5-10) in the Law of Moses, and it is mentioned in all three of the Synoptic Gospels in the account of the Sadducees’ question (Matt. 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-40).

The firstborn son would thus be the biological child of the levir but the legal child of his deceased brother.

This custom was common enough that it is found at least twice in the case of Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus—once in the case of Tamar (Matt. 1:3, cf. Gen. 38:8ff) and again in the case of Ruth (Matt. 1:5, cf. Ruth 4:10).

And it has been proposed that this is the explanation for Joseph’s two fathers—that they were brothers, and one was his biological father and the other his legal father.

 

Support from Jesus’ Family?

The levirate view is the earliest surviving answer we have to the question at hand, and it comes from very early indeed (see Day 162 here).

Around A.D. 200, the early Church historian Julius Africanus wrote a letter in which he addressed the subject. Large portions of this letter are preserved by Church historian Eusebius (see Church History 1:7).

And Africanus indicates his source: It was the extended family of Jesus, which continued to be known down to the mid-3rd century (c. A.D. 250; see Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 45-133).

At the time, Jesus’ extended family was known as the Desposunoi (from the Greek term despotês, “master”). The Desposunoi were the family of Jesus, “the Master,” and Africanus was in a good position to know about things they said. Richard Bauckham notes:

Since he was born in Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina) and lived part of his later life at Emmaus (Nicopolis), he would have had access to Palestinian Jewish Christian traditions. Descendants of the family of Jesus were certainly still living in Nazareth in his lifetime (op. cit., 355-356).

According to Julius Africanus, Jesus’ extended family indicated that Joseph was the child of a levirate marriage. The two brothers were Jacob and Heli (aka Eli), and according to Africanus:

Thus, we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother.

Of these the one—Jacob—when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason.

Wherefore also it is written [in Matthew]: “Jacob begat Joseph.”

But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him (Church History 1:7:9).

Africanus also preserves the name of the mother of Jacob and Heli—a name not given in the Bible but preserved by Jesus’ family—as Estha (1:7:8). Africanus continues:

This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.

For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account . . . (1:7:10-11).

Africanus then gives the family’s description of how Herod the Great came to power and how . . .

Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction [as an Idumean, and thus ethnically a non-Jew], burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called [foreigners].

A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction.

Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Savior.

Coming from Nazara and Cochaba—villages of Judea—into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of [Chronicles] as faithfully as possible (1:7:13-14).

Some members of the family of the Lord thus did not remain in their home villages (Nazareth and Kokhaba) and travelled outside of Palestine (confirmed by 1 Cor. 9:5).

They then used the genealogies at the beginning of the book of Chronicles and their own family records to explain Jesus’ ancestry and its messianic significance.

Unlike the former explanations of the relationship of Jacob and Heli—which are possible but rely on conjecture—here we have an explanation that was being reported by Jesus’ own family at a very early date.

Since it is preserved by Julius Africanus, it must predate his time of writing, meaning it was circulating in the second century or even the first.

And it indicates that Joseph did, indeed, have two fathers due to his being the product of a levirate marriage—his legal father being Heli and his biological father Jacob.

 

Conclusions

There is much more that can be said about Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and Luke (see here for a discussion of some of them).

However, we have seen that there are multiple ways of answering the question of who Joseph’s “father” was:

• • Jacob and Heli may have been two names for the same person
  • One of the skipped generations may have occurred just before Joseph
  • Adoption may have been involved
  • Mary may have been an heiress, whose legal ancestry Joseph inherited upon marrying her
  • And finally, there is the view that Jesus’ own family was claiming in the early Church—that Joseph was the child of a levirate marriage

There also are other ways of accounting for this that we haven’t covered.

However, we have seen enough to understand that there is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke’s genealogies regarding Joseph unless one assumes that both genealogies (a) are of Joseph and (b) do not involve alternative names, (c) do not have a skipped generation before Joseph, (d) that no adoption was involved, (e) that Mary status as an heiress was not involved, and (f) that there was no levirate marriage.

We are thus very far from having a contradiction.

 

Taken from my book A Daily Defense:

Day 85: Descended from David How?

Challenge: Jesus’ genealogies contradict each other. Matthew has Jesus descended from David’s son Solomon (Matt. 1:6), while Luke has him descended from David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31). Similarly, Matthew has him descended from Zerubbabel’s son Abiud (Matt. 1:13), while Luke has him descended from Zerubbabel’s son Rhesa (Luke 3:27).

Defense: Jesus was descended from David and Zerubbabel by more than one line.

Normally, a person has two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. But this doubling pattern does not go back indefinitely.

Marriages usually occur within the same community (a village, region, tribe, or nation). People in a community tend to be related. Consequently, the number of ancestors is less than what the doubling pattern would predict. In a small community, an individual may occupy more than one slot in a family tree.

Suppose William has a son named Henry, who has descendants, and several generations later, one named Elizabeth is born. Suppose William also has a daughter named Adela, who also has descendants. Because of intermarriage in the community, Elizabeth is also one of Adela’s descendants. Genealogists would say Elizabeth is descended from William by the Henry “line” and the Adela “line.”

This describes the British royal family. Queen Elizabeth II descends from William the Conqueror (c. 1028-1087) by the line of King Henry I and the line of St. Adela of Normandy, both of whom were William’s children. In fact, Elizabeth II is descended from William by multiple lines (at least eight through Adela alone). William the Conqueror thus appears in multiple slots in Elizabeth II’s family tree.

The same was true for David and Zerubbabel concerning Jesus, who descended from David by both the Solomon and Nathan lines and from Zerubbabel by both the Abiud and Rhesa lines. This is not unexpected. David lived a millennium before Jesus. Matthew records twenty-seven intervening generations, so according to the doubling pattern, Jesus would have at least 67,108,864 ancestors in David’s generation.

There were not that many Israelites alive in David’s generation, so, since David was one of Jesus’ ancestors, David filled multiple slots in Jesus’ family tree, and Jesus was descended from David by multiple lines. The same is true of Zerubbabel, though to a lesser degree, since Zerubbabel lived only half a millennium before Jesus (for more, see Day 95).

 

Day 95: The Judgment of Jeconiah

Challenge: Jesus is disqualified from being Messiah since he descends from the last king of Judah, Jeconiah (Matt. 1:12). God judged Jeconiah so that “none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah” (Jer. 22:30).

Defense: There are multiple flaws with this argument. Here are several.

First, Jesus was not descended from David only by the line of Jeconiah. He was also descended through the line of Nathan (Luke 3:31; see Day 85). It may have been questions among some Jews about whether a descendant of only Jeconiah could be Messiah that prompted Jesus’ family to preserve the memory of the Nathan line. The presence of both genealogies in Scripture shows that, regardless where a Jew fell on the Jeconiah question, Jesus had a qualified lineage either way.

Second, the prophecy need mean no more than Jeconiah’s immediate sons wouldn’t be kings because the Babylonian Exile would go on for too long (cf. Jer. 22:25-28).

Third, one of Jeconiah’s grandsons—Zerubbabel—received ruling authority in Judah, being made its governor (Hag. 1:1). (On Zerubbabel’s lineage, see 1 Chron. 3:17-19; there may be a levirate marriage involved since Zerubbabel’s father is usually said to be Shealtiel, though here he is said to be son of Pediah; both were sons of Jeconiah, and thus Zerubbabel was his grandson).

Fourth, the language used concerning Zerubbabel suggests a reversal of God’s judgment. God told Jeconiah, though you “were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off” (Jer. 22:24), but he told Zerubbabel he will “make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of hosts” (Hag. 2:23). The image of making one of Jeconiah’s descendants again like a signet ring suggests a restoration of the family to divine favor.

Fifth, multiple Jewish sources indicate Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin) repented and the curse was lifted. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906 ed.) notes: “Jehoiachin’s sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king” (s.v. “Jehoiachin”).

 

Day 106: Matthew’s Missing Generations

Challenge: Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus omits some generations and thus is wrong.

Defense: In Israelite genealogies, it was permitted to skip generations.

Hebrew and Aramaic don’t have terms for “grandfather,” “great-grandfather,” “granson,” “great-grandson,” and so on. Any male ancestor was called a father (Hebrew, ’ab, Aramaic, ’ab, ’abba), and any male descendant was called a son (Hebrew, bēn, Aramaic, bar).

Thus, prophesying the birth of Jesus, Gabriel tells Mary, “The Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32). David lived a millennium before Jesus, yet he is called Jesus’ father. Similarly, both Jesus and Joseph are called “son of David” (Matt. 1:20, 9:27). This made it possible to skip generations in genealogies, whether they ran forward (“Joram was the father of Uzziah”) or backward (“Uzziah was the son of Joram”).

Richard Bauckham notes:

That a family descended from one of the sons of David had at least an oral genealogy must be considered certain. This does not, of course, mean that it would be a complete genealogy. Oral genealogies, like many of those in the Old Testament, regularly omit generations, since their function is not to preserve the memory of every name in the list but to link the family with an important ancestor who gives it its place in the community (Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, 341).

Matthew skips generations for literary purposes, grouping his genealogy in three sets of fourteen generations (Matt. 1:17). The reason may be to stress Jesus’ connection with David. In Hebrew and Aramaic, David (DVD) adds up to fourteen (D = 4, V = 6, D = 4).

Matthew would have expected his readers to recognize that the generations he skips are recorded in the Old Testament. In 1:8, he says Joram was the father of Uzziah (aka Azariah), but 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 shows three generations between the two. The missing names are Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. These three figures were kings of Israel. Their stories are told between 2 Chronicles 22 and 25.

When Matthew skips three Jewish kings in the line of David—well known to the audience from the Old Testament Scriptures—he expects his readers to recognize the literary device he is using in the genealogy.

 

Day 162: His Father Was Who?

Challenge: Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus contradicts Luke’s. Matthew says Shealtiel’s father was Jeconiah, while Luke says it was Neri (Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:27). Similarly, Matthew says Joseph’s father was Jacob, while Luke says it was Heli  (Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23).

Defense: There are multiple possible explanations, given the way Israelite genealogies worked.

Hebrew and Aramaic didn’t distinguish between fathers, grandfathers, and so on. All male ancestors were called “fathers” (see Day 106). Consequently, since one person can be descended from another by more than one line (see Day 85), both Jeconiah and Neri could have been Shealtiel’s “father” (male ancestor) if one genealogy skipped a generation. The same is true of Jacob and Heli with respect to Joseph.

Alternately, adoption (legal rather than biological descent) may have been involved. Shealtiel may have had a legal and a biological father. The same is true of Joseph. This is particularly relevant because of the levirite marriage custom, which required that if a man died childless, his brother was to marry the widow and father a son who was legally attributed to the line of the dead man (Deut. 25:5-6). The levir (Latin, “brother-in-law”) thus supplied a son for his deceased brother. Given the ancient mortality rate, this situation was common. It is not surprising if it occurred more than once in the millennium between David and Jesus in their family tree.

It may have happened with respect to Shealtiel, and we have early testimony that it did happen with respect to Joseph. Early Christian writer Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 160-240) reported a tradition from Jesus’ surviving relatives in his day regarding the fatherhood of Joseph.

According to Jesus’ family, Joseph’s grandfather Matthan (mentioned in Matthew) married a woman named Estha, who bore him a son named Jacob. After Matthan died, Estha married his close relative Melchi (mentioned in Luke) and bore him a son named Heli. Jacob (mentioned in Matthew) and Heli (mentioned in Luke) were thus half brothers. When Heli died childless, Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:6:7).

Regardless of which explanation is true, the fact that multiple explanations exist indicates that no contradiction has been shown.

It’s sometimes claimed that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) disagree with the Gospel of John about the day on which the Crucifixion occurred.

It is asserted that the Synoptics portray Jesus being crucified the day after Passover, while John portrays him crucified on Passover, when the lambs were being slaughtered at the temple.

This is not the case.

To see why, we will begin by looking at the events of the days of Holy Week, starting with the events of Easter Sunday and working our way backwards to the Last Supper.

Then we’ll look at how these days relate to the Jewish feast of Passover.

 

The First Day of the Week (Sunday): Resurrection & the Empty Tomb

All four Gospels indicate that Jesus rose on Sunday or the “first day of the week.” This was the day that the women visited the tomb and found it empty.

• • 28:1—“Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”
  • Mark 16:2—“And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.”
  • Luke 24:1—“But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared.”
  • John 20:1—“Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.”

So, the tomb was found empty on Sunday, the first day of the week.

Confirmation of the Resurrection occurring on this day also is found in 1 Corinthians, where St. Paul indicates Christians gathered on this day, making it appropriate to take up money for church collections:

• • 1 Cor. 16:2—“On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come.”

See also Acts 20:7 for an example of Christians meeting on the first day of the week “to break bread”—a reference to the Eucharist and the “agape feasts” that Christians celebrated in connection with it (cf. Acts 2:42, Jude 12, 1 Cor. 11:17-34).

 

The Seventh Day of the Week (Saturday): The Weekly Sabbath Rest

The day before Sunday is the seventh day of the week, but in the New Testament it is regularly referred to as “the sabbath.”

The Gospels thus describe the previous day as the sabbath:

• • 28:1—“Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”
  • Mark 16:1—“And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.”
  • Luke 23:56b-24:1—“On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb.”
  • John 19:31—“Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away [and buried].”

The Gospels are thus in agreement that the day Jesus lay in the tomb—before it was found empty—was the sabbath.

Since it is the day before “the first day of the week,” this is the regular, weekly sabbath, or Saturday. (We will deal later on with the meaning of John’s statement that “that sabbath was a high day.”)

 

The Sixth Day of the Week (Friday): Jesus Crucified and Buried

We refer to the day before the weekly sabbath—the sixth day of the week—as Friday.

However, in first century Palestine it was referred to as the “day of preparation” (Greek, paraskeuê) because of the preparations that Jewish people needed to make in advance of the sabbath rest, such as procuring and cooking food ahead of time.

All four Gospels indicate that Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday, the day of preparation:

• • Matt 27:59-62—“Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. Next day, that is, after the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate.”
  • Mark 15:42-43—“And when evening had come, since it was the day of preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.”
  • Luke 23:53-54—“Then [Joseph] took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud, and laid him in a rock-hewn tomb, where no one had ever yet been laid. It was the day of preparation, and the sabbath was beginning.”
  • John 19:31—“Since it was the day of preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.”
  • John 19:42—“So because of the Jewish day of preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.”

The Gospels thus indicate that Jesus was crucified and buried on the day of preparation (Friday), before the weekly sabbath (Saturday), before “the first day of the week” (Sunday).

 

The Fifth Day of the Week (Thursday): The Last Supper

All four Gospels also indicate that—the night before he was crucified—Jesus held his last supper with the disciples.

This means that the supper was held on the fifth day of the week, or what we would call Thursday.

The Gospels do not specifically name this day of the week, but they do indicate that the supper was held the day before the Crucifixion.

• • Matthew records the supper from 26:20-35, he records Jesus’ arrest and his time before the Jewish authorities from 26:36-75, and then at 27:1-2 says, “When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death; and they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor.”
  • Mark records the supper from 14:17-31, he records Jesus’ arrest and time with the Jewish authorities from 14:32-72, and then at 15:1 says, “And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.”
  • Luke records the supper from 22:14-38, he records Jesus’ arrest and time with the Jewish authorities from 22:39-65, and then in 22:66 and 23:1 says, “When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes. . . . Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate.”
  • John records the supper from 13:2-17:26, he records Jesus’ arrest and time with the Jewish authorities from 18:1-27, and then at 18:28a says, “Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was early.”

Since Jesus was brought before Pilate and crucified on the day of preparation (Friday), these passages indicate that the supper occurred on the evening of the preceding day—the fifth day of the week (Thursday).

 

Events by Days of the Week

From the foregoing, we see that all four of the Gospels are in agreement on the chronology of events as reckoned by the days of the week:

• • Fifth Day of the Week (Thursday): In the evening, Jesus holds the Last Supper. Afterward, he is arrested and spends time before the Jewish authorities (much of this likely happened after midnight).
  • Sixth Day of the Week (“The Day of Preparation,” Friday): In the morning, Jesus is taken before Pilate. He is subsequently crucified and buried by his followers.
  • Seventh Day of the Week (“The Sabbath,” Saturday): Jesus’ followers rest, and Jesus remains in the tomb. The Jewish authorities go to Pilate and arrange for a guard to be placed at the tomb (Matt. 27:62-66).
  • “First Day of the Week” (Sunday): Jesus’ tomb found empty. Resurrection appearances begin.

With the days of the week determined, we are now in a position to look at the issue of which day was Passover.

 

Passover: The Day and the Week

The biblical authors understand Passover both as a single day and as a week-long festival.

Per Exodus 12:6, the day of Passover was celebrated on the 14th day of the month Abib (later called Nisan).

The day of Passover inaugurated a period of seven days in which the Israelites had to remove leaven from their houses and could eat only unleavened bread (Exod. 12:15; cf. 12:18). This period became known as the “feast of unleavened bread” (Exod. 23:15).

However, since this period was inaugurated by the day of Passover, the overall period of unleavened bread was also called “Passover,” and so Passover was also understood as a week-long festival.

Thus, in Luke 22:1 we read:

Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover.

The same is found in Jewish sources of the period. Philo writes:

And there is another festival combined with the feast of the Passover, having a use of food different from the usual one, and not customary; the use, namely, of unleavened bread, from which it derives its name (The Special Laws 2:150).

And Josephus writes:

And, indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover, and used to be celebrated with a great number of sacrifices, an innumerable multitude of the people came out of the country to worship (Jewish War 2:1:3[10]).

In view of this, we have to consider whether a particular passage is using the term “Passover” to refer to the day of Passover or the week of Passover (or the Passover sacrifice or Passover meal, both of which are also possible).

 

The Synoptic Gospels on the Last Supper

The Synoptic Gospels indicate that the Last Supper was a Passover meal that occurred on the first day of Unleavened Bread (i.e., the day of Passover; 14 Nisan). This is seen from the way that they introduce their accounts of the supper:

• • Matthew 26:17 states: “Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?’”
  • Mark 14:12 states: “And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, ‘Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?’”
  • Luke 22:7-8 states: “Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it.’”

Multiple other passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke also identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal (Matt. 26:18-19, Mark 14:14, 16, Luke 22:11, 13, 15).

 

John’s Gospel and the Synoptics

Before we look at the Last Supper in John’s Gospel, it is important to understand the nature of the fourth Gospel and what John is trying to do.

John is consciously supplementing the Synoptic tradition. He expects his readers to already know the Synoptic tradition. This is why, after describing the activities of John the Baptist, he suddenly says “For John had not yet been put in prison” (John 3:24).

The imprisonment of John the Baptist is mentioned nowhere else in the fourth Gospel. It is something John expects the audience to already know about.

John also displays awareness of the other Gospels when he states:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe (John 20:30-31).

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25).

John thus expects his readers to know about events recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (like the imprisonment of John the Baptist), he indicates that he has been selective in what he has put in his own Gospel, and he indicates—hyperbolically and with a possible hint of exasperation—that a huge number of Gospels could be written, suggesting that he is aware of an supplementing the Synoptics but warning the readers that the task of describing everything Jesus did would be impossible.

This much can be discerned from a casual reading of John, but a closer reading makes it even clearer that John is deliberately supplementing the Synoptic Gospels.

In particular, he has structured his own Gospel to interlock with the Gospel of Mark. There also is evidence that he was consciously supplementing Luke’s Gospel. Whether he was aware of and supplementing Matthew is less clear.

However, it is clear that John expects his readers to know the Synoptic tradition and that he is supplementing it.

 

John’s Gospel and the Last Supper

John is not as explicit about the Last Supper as the Synoptics. However, a first century reader of John—like normal readers ever since—have naturally understood that the Last Supper is also a Passover meal in John.

Since the Synoptics record Jesus eating a very important Passover meal with the disciples on the night he was arrested, and John records Jesus eating a very important meal with the disciples on that night, the natural inference is that it was the same Passover meal described by the Synoptics.

That would have been the obvious inference for John, it would have been the obvious inference for his first century readers, and it has been the obvious inference for the vast majority of readers for two thousand years.

Only very compelling evidence could overturn this. John would have to do something pretty dramatic to block this inference.

Instead, as he is about to introduce the Last Supper, he says this:

Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end (John 13:1).

John thus introduces the subject of Passover and indicates that—before this it arrived—Jesus had done two things (1) he had realized that his hour to leave the world was coming and (2) he had loved his disciples (and continued to love them to the end).

Having raised the subject of Passover and indicated these things that occurred before it, John immediately proceeds to the Last Supper:

And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and tied a towel around himself.

Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him (John 13:2-5).

This strongly suggests that the supper in question was a Passover meal:

1. 1. John has indicated Passover was approaching.
   2. The Passover festival begins with a special meal.
   3. John then records Jesus eating a special meal with the disciples before his arrest.
   4. John knows and is supplementing the Synoptic tradition, which he expects his readers to also know.
   5. The Synoptics also indicate that the special meal Jesus ate before his arrest was a Passover meal.

The logical inference is that John is telling us about that Passover meal!

And there are additional reasons to identify it as one. Andrew Steinmann writes:

There are several indications in John that it was a Passover meal:

It was held in Jerusalem, although Jesus was staying in Bethany for the festival (John 12:1). Jesus and his disciples did not return to Bethany that evening—it was required that the Passover night be spent within the ritual limits of the city.

Jesus’ statement that those who have washed need only their feet cleaned implies that the disciples had washed before the meal (John 13:10). This would have been a ceremonial cleansing to prepare for the Passover meal.

The disciples thought that Judas left the meal to buy (additional?) provisions for the feast or to donate money to the poor. It was customary to donate to the poor on Passover night.

Thus, there are good reasons to believe that John was depicting a Passover meal, and there is no compelling reason to believe that he was depicting any other type of supper [From Abraham to Paul].

In view of all this, the logical conclusion is that John understands the Last Supper to be a Passover meal—unless he does something very compelling in the text to indicate otherwise.

So: What have skeptics raised in that regard?

 

When the Lambs Were Being Slaughtered???

It is commonly claimed that John—who depicts Jesus as “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29, 36)—also depicts him as being sacrificed on the Cross at the same time the Passover lambs were being sacrificed at the temple.

As common and as poetic as this idea may be, it has absolutely no foundation in the text.

John may refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God, but he refers to Jesus as the Lamb “who takes away the sins of the world” (v. 29), but taking away sin was not the function of the Passover lamb.

The Passover lamb’s blood was to mark the doorposts of the Israelites as God’s people and to serve as a meal for the journey of Exodus they were about to undertake. It was not a sin offering.

The natural understanding of a lamb as taking away sin would be in connection with ordinary sin offerings—not Passover.

So, John’s depiction of Jesus as the Lamb of God is to be understood in terms of his serving as a sin offering, with paschal associations being secondary.

However, more fundamentally, John nowhere refers either to the Passover lambs or to their being slain. The only “lambs” he does refer to are Jesus’ disciples (John 21:15).

John simply does not say anything about Passover lambs, much less that they were being killed while Jesus was on the Cross.

You might infer that that was happening, but John does not claim this.

As a result, the inference is no stronger than the textual evidence that could be produced in its favor.

 

“The Day of Preparation of the Passover”

One verse that is sometimes appealed to is John 19:14, which states:

Now it was the day of preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He [Pilate] said to the Jews, “Here is your King!”

This identifies the day Jesus was taken before Pilate—and thus the day of the Crucifixion—as “the day of preparation of the Passover.”

Some have taken this to mean that it was the day before Passover, so that the lambs would be killed that afternoon, in preparation for the Passover meal after sundown.

This is an exegetical mistake. It erroneously assumes that the term “Passover” in this verse is referring to the day of Passover.

However, as we saw earlier, “Passover” also was used as the designation of a week-long feast and “the day of preparation” was an idiom for Friday.

The logical inference is that John 19:14 states Jesus appeared before Pilate on the Friday of Passover week—which is exactly what the Synoptics indicate.

Further, John twice uses the phrase “the day of preparation” in the same chapter, and in both cases, he is referring to Friday, the day before the sabbath:

Since it was the day of preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away (John 19:31).

Here the day of preparation is identified as the day before the sabbath, and while every sabbath was a high day, this particular sabbath was even more so, as it was the sabbath falling in Passover week.

John then says:

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb (John 19:41-20:1).

This is the same pattern that we see in the Synoptics:

• • Jesus is crucified on Friday, “the day of preparation”
  • But he is hurriedly buried, because the sabbath is about to begin at sunset
  • And then he rises on “the first day of the week”

John even notes that he was hastily buried “because of the Jewish day of preparation” (i.e., because no work could be done the next day) and “the tomb was close at hand.” In other words, there would not have been time to take him to a more distant tomb before the sabbath began at sundown.

So, once again, these are the weekly day of preparation (Friday) and the weekly sabbath (Saturday) because they precede “the first day of the week.”

John’s use of the phrase “day of preparation” for Friday twice in the same chapter indicates that 19:14 means “the Friday of Passover week”—not “the day before Passover.”

 

“That They Might Eat the Passover”

An additional passage to which people have appealed to argue that John presents Jesus as being crucified on Passover. In John 18:28, we read:

Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.

From this, it is reasoned that—since the Jewish authorities had not yet eaten the Passover meal, the Passover festival must not have begun yet.

All of the rest of the data we have—including data from John—indicates that it had begun, so how should we understand this individual data point?

Multiple interpretations have been proposed.

 

Some Possibilities

Andrew Steinmann summarizes several proposals:

There have been many attempts to reconcile the Synoptics and John on this point.

[1] Perhaps the most radical was the suggestion that Jesus and his disciples followed the calendar of Jubilees, which always placed the Passover on Tuesday. Jesus’ accusers, however, followed the traditional calendar according to this theory.

[2] Another theory proposes that Jesus and his disciples reckoned days from sunup instead of sundown. However, Jesus’ accusers reckoned days from sundown. This would make for a half-day difference in the Passover and could be used to explain why Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal an evening earlier than Jesus’ accusers.

[3] Still another theory proposes that when Jesus’ accusers did not enter the Praetorium in order to be able to “eat the Passover” what was meant was that they wished to be able to eat the sacrifices offered during the Passover or the sacrifices for the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread on 15 Nisan (Num 28:18–23).

One problem with this theory is that Jesus’ accusers included not only priests, but also lay members of the Sanhedrin, and those laymen would not have been eligible to eat the sacrifices under any circumstances.

The first proposal does not succeed, for as we have seen, all four of the Gospels indicate that the Last Supper was held on a Thursday, not a Tuesday.

The second proposal is possible but unlikely. We do not have evidence that Jesus was using a different time reckoning system than the authorities, and it would only be necessary to propose this if we lack better explanations, and we don’t. There are better solutions.

The third proposal is possible. I don’t find the objection that Steinmann makes to it persuasive.

It does not matter if some of the Sanhedrin were laymen. Many members were priests—including the high priest himself—and if the group went as a body to Pilate’s praetorium and the high priest and other priests stopped outside, the laymen would have stopped also.

It thus is possible that the group—as a body—stopped outside the praetorium so that the priests would be ritually pure and able to eat the sacrifices that would be offered that day.

 

The Khagigah

The Hebrew term for a sacrifice offered during a feast is khagigah (sometimes spelled chagigah), and there is a tract in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud by that name which deals with festal sacrifices.

Numbers 28:16-19 explains that, on the day after Passover, a set of these sacrifices was to be offered:

On the fourteenth day of the first month [Abib/Nisan] is the Lord’s Passover.

And on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast; seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.

On the first day there shall be a holy convocation: you shall do no laborious work, but offer an offering by fire, a burnt offering to the Lord: two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish . . .

These offerings were also referred to using the term Passover. Alfred Edersheim explains:

And here both the Old Testament and Jewish writings show, that the term Pesach, or ‘Passover,’ was applied not only to the Paschal Lamb, but to all the Passover sacrifices, especially to what was called the Chagigah, or festive offering (from Chag, or Chagag, to bring the festive sacrifice usual at each of the three Great Feasts).’

According to the express rule ([b.]Chag. 1.3) the Chagigah was brought on the first festive Paschal Day.

It was offered immediately after the morning-service and eaten on that day—probably sometime before the evening, when, as we shall by-and-by see, another ceremony claimed public attention.

We can therefore quite understand that, not on the eve of the Passover, but on the first Paschal day, the Sanhedrists would avoid incurring a defilement which, lasting till the evening, would not only have involved them in the inconvenience of Levitical defilement on the first festive day, but have actually prevented their offering on that day the Passover, festive sacrifice, or Chagigah (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah 2:568).

It is thus quite possible that the Jewish authorities didn’t enter the praetorium because they wanted to be ritually pure to eat the sacrifices to be offered on the 15th of Nisan, which also were called “the Passover.”

 

Other Food of the Passover Festival

Indeed, the term Passover seems to have been used to refer to other food eaten during the days of unleavened bread. In Deuteronomy 16:1-3, we read:

Observe the month of Abib and keep the Passover to the Lord your God; for in the month of Abib the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night.

And you shall offer the Passover sacrifice to the Lord your God, from the flock or the herd, at the place which the Lord will choose, to make his name dwell there.

You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction.

This tells us that the Passover sacrifice shall not be eaten with unleavened bread. But then the text says that “seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread.”

This cannot refer to the lamb killed for the Passover meal itself, because it had to be consumed the night of the meal.

It was expressly prohibited to keep any of the Passover lamb until the next morning (Exod. 34:25, Num. 9:12), so “it” could not be eaten for seven days.

And yet the text does describe “it” being eaten for seven days with unleavened bread, indicating that food consumed during the week-long feast could also be referred to as “the Passover.”

It’s thus possible that the Jewish authorities did not want to enter the praetorium in order to be ritually clean and so able to eat some other kind of (special?) food that day, since it was the Passover season.

 

When Did They Have Time?

Another possibility emerges when we revisit the initial deduction that—since the authorities hadn’t yet eaten “the Passover”—the Passover had not yet begun.

But who says? If we take “the Passover” to refer to the Passover meal itself, all we can infer with certainty is that the authorities had not yet eaten this meal.

Why might that be?

Maybe because they simply hadn’t had time to do so.

 

Jesus’ Covert Arrangements

Twice as he is preparing for his passion, Jesus does something very strange.

As he is approaching Jerusalem, he tells two of his disciples:

Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat; untie it and bring it.

If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately’ (Mark 11:2-3).

Tied up in the street is not the normal place to leave an unridden colt, suggesting it has been put there on purpose for the disciples to find.

This is confirmed by the message he says to give them: “The Lord has need of it.” A random colt owner (cf. Luke 19:33) would not know who this refers to and wouldn’t have reason to trust whoever this “Lord” was.

It appears as if Jesus—without informing the core disciples—has sent word ahead and arranged for the colt to be left in the street for his use and the owners already know who he is and are expecting the disciples to collect it.

The reason Jesus would engage in this subterfuge is straightforward: He’s planning to ride the colt during the Triumphal Entry by which he publicly fulfills Messianic prophecy (Matt. 21:4-5).

This would reveal him as the Messiah of Israel—a seditious act that the authorities (Jewish and Roman) might interfere with, and so he keeps the arrangements secret.

Jesus does something similar a few days later:

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”

And he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the householder, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is my guest room, where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples?”

“‘And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us” (Mark 14:12-15).

Again, we see evidence of Jesus having made secret arrangements in advance. The upper room will be “furnished and ready”—indicating that the householder has advance knowledge that Jesus will be using it.

And fetching water was considered women’s work rather than men’s, so it would be unusual to see a man carrying a jar of water—making it a usable sign for the disciples to identify who they need to follow.

Why would Jesus make these arrangements without telling the disciples in advance? Why not just say, “We’ll be eating the Passover meal at the house of John son of Simon”?

The logical answer is because Jesus knows Judas is going to betray him. He plans to use the Passover meal in a very special way (including instituting the Eucharist), and he very much wants to eat it with his disciples (Luke 22:15).

He thus does not want Judas letting the authorities know where he could be found for the Passover meal, and so he keeps Judas—and the other disciples—in the dark about the location until the very last minute, giving Judas no time to betray him.

Once the supper was underway, Judas learned that—as he had previously—Jesus would be going to the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:29, John 18:1-2), and so he left the Last Supper and let the authorities know where they could intercept Jesus and arrest him.

 

From the Viewpoint of the Authorities

Now let’s look at this situation from the viewpoint of the Jewish authorities.

They’ve hired Judas to betray Jesus, and they’re waiting for Judas to inform them about where he will be.

The Passover lambs have been slaughtered, and the authorities go home to wait for word from Judas.

But the Passover meal involves drinking multiple cups of wine, and it could be difficult to stay awake after the meal—as the disciples themselves discovered (Matt. 26:40-45, Mark 14:37-41, Luke 22:45-46).

And the authorities needed to organize a crowd, including soldiers and the high priest’s servants, to go and arrest Jesus and to have this arresting party ready to act as soon as word from Judas came. That also couldn’t be done in the middle of a meal.

So, the authorities decide to wait to eat the Passover meal until Jesus has been taken into custody. (Or perhaps they began it but were interrupted by the arrival of Judas, so they were unable to complete the ritual.)

When Judas arrives, he says they need to intercept Jesus at the Garden of Gethsemane, and they send the arresting party out—late in the evening.

When Jesus is brought before them, they conduct a lengthy set of interrogations in the early morning hours. The rest of their households have gone to sleep. And they’re planning to take Jesus before the Roman governor first thing in the morning.

It’s thus quite possible that the Jewish authorities—or at least key individuals among them, such as the high priest—had not yet eaten the Passover meal and hoped to do so after a quick meeting with Pilate to authorize the execution, which could still leave them time to eat (or complete) the meal before dawn.

 

Andrew Steinmann’s Elaboration

Andrew Steinmann provides further discussion of this scenario:

Note that two of the three Synoptic Gospels as well as John state that Jesus was brought to Pilate early in the morning at the end of the fourth watch of the night, that is, after about 4:30 am.

Jesus’ accusers had been busy all night long. They had gathered a crowd to arrest Jesus, had put him on trial during the night, and confined him while they contemplated their next move—taking him to Pilate.

Unlike Jesus and his disciples, they had not yet had time to eat the Passover meal, which had to be eaten before dawn (Exod. 12:10; 34:25; Deut. 16:4; cp. Exod. 23:18; 29:34; Lev 7:15).

They were hoping to remain undefiled so that they could eat it after Pilate gave them permission to crucify Jesus.

Jesus’ accusers apparently expected a quick ruling from Pilate.

However, their refusal to enter the Praetorium may have actually delayed Pilate’s ruling, as a close reading of John’s portrayal of the events suggests.

At first, Pilate did not see a capital offense in their accusations but told Jesus’ captors to judge him by their laws (John 18:29–31).

They insisted, however, that Jesus had committed a capital crime, so Pilate took Jesus into the Praetorium and interviewed him.

Although Jesus claimed a kingship, Jesus’ responses denied that he was an insurrectionist (John 18:33–36).

Moreover, Pilate appears to be convinced that Jesus was some type of philosopher whose concern was for truth, hardly making him a threat to Roman interests (John 18:37–38).

Hoping that flogging Jesus would mollify the crowd, Pilate presented him as innocent (John 19:1–5).

They were not mollified, but demanded Jesus be executed (John 19:6).

When the chief priests and Sanhedrin accused Jesus of making himself the Son of God, Pilate again interviewed Jesus in the Praetorium (John 19:7–11).

Jesus’ ultimate answer that acknowledged Pilate’s authority convinced the Roman prefect of Jesus’ innocence, and he tried to find a way to release him (John 19:12a).

Only when the crowd played their trump card—that if Pilate released Jesus, the prefect would not be a friend of Caesar’s—did Pilate hand Jesus over to be crucified.

Thus, Jesus’ accusers did not enter the Praetorium, hoping for a quick decision from Pilate so that they could eat the Passover meal before sunrise.

However, they would end up missing the Passover meal, since the cautious and thorough Pilate did not give them permission until sometime around dawn (John 19:14).

John is subtle—but very effective—in showing that Jesus’ captors were not in charge of the flow of events.

By a comparison of John 18:28 and John 19:14 the reader is led to conclude that Jesus’ life is not being taken from him, but he is laying it down willingly (John 10:17–18).

Moreover, John is also using irony to demonstrate that by rejecting Jesus, his accusers were placing themselves in a position of bearing the guilt of their own sin instead of having Jesus bear it for them.

Had they entered the Praetorium and become defiled, they could have eaten the Passover meal one month later than usual (Num 9:6–12).

However, if a person was clean, but did not eat the Passover meal, that person was to be excluded from God’s people and would bear his own sin (Num 9:13) (op. cit.).

 

Conclusions

Despite the claim that John’s understanding of the chronology of Holy Week is in conflict with the Synoptic Gospels, this is not what we find.

All four of the Gospels are in agreement on the days of the week and what happened on them:

• • On the fifth day of the week (Thursday), Jesus held the Last Supper with the disciples
  • On the sixth day of the week (“the day of preparation”/Friday): Jesus was brought before Pilate, was crucified, and was buried
  • On the seventh day of the week (“the sabbath”/Saturday): the disciples rested, Jesus laid in the tomb, and guards were set to watch it
  • On “the first day of the week” (Sunday): Jesus rose from the dead, and his tomb was found empty

Neither do we find any conflict between the Synoptic Gospels and John with regard to when Passover occurred:

• • The Synoptics make it abundantly clear that the Last Supper was a Passover meal eaten on the evening of the fifth day of the week (Thursday)
  • John—who is supplementing the Synoptics—implies that the Last Supper was a Passover meal
  • And the statement that on Friday morning the Jewish authorities wished to remain pure to “eat the Passover” may refer to (1) the sacrifices offered that day which were also referred to as eating “the Passover,” (2) to other food eaten in Passover season, or (3) to the fact that they simply hadn’t had time to eat the Passover meal, given the late word from Judas and everything that had been going on.