Jimmy Akin

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