JoeWallack

JW:
I've inventoried the following claimed discrepancies by Ehrman concerning the death of Judas at ErrancyWiki:

1) Why did Judas betray Jesus?

Mark 14.11 = Money

verses:

Luke 22.3 = Satan


2) What happened to Judas after the betrayal? [the famous contradiction]

Matthew 27.5 = Hung

verses:

Acts 1.18 = Burst

3) Who buys the field?

Matthew 27.7 = Priests

verses:

Acts 1.18 = Judas

4) How does the field get its name? [not generally claimed as an error but a righteous observation based on implication]

Matthew 27.8 = Blood money

verses:

Acts 1.19 = Judas' blood

Enjoy!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Craigart14

Recalling the ministers from my childhood, I think they all believed what they were saying, but not in the literal sense of today's Biblical inerrantists. After Darwin and the rise of liberal churches in the second half of the 19th century, it would be just about impossible for a thinking person to accept inerrancy. People do celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25, so the pastor's statement is true.

There are, no doubt, a lot of charlatans, such as the televangelist faith healers with all their tricks. I saw one preacher on TBN who claimed he had physically visited heaven in the same way that he had "been to Lubbock on Tuesday." I once showed a group of students the passages in Gen 1 that support the "sky-is-a-solid-dome cosmology," and reminded them that in Revelation, St. John claims to have passed by a fallen star. One girl asked, with an air of utter "gotcha" self-assurance, "How do you know it wasn't like that back in the day?" I was left utterly speechless by the transcendent ignorance of that statement, but I think she meant it in all honesty.

As for Ehrman's view on eyewitnesses, ask the cops. Two eyewitnesses, two different stories. After all, more people have seen Criss Angel fly than ever saw a resurrected Jesus.

Craig

Solo

I am glad to see there is progress in the feminist Bible studies. Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Woman's Bible only claimed that Moses never talked to God.

Was Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will) wrong then in accusing the testerone worshippers of distorting the truth about what happened between Joseph and Potiphar's wife ?

Jiri

bacht

Feminists don't seem to have an explanation for why Jesus, the most passive anti-heroic Jewish character, became the idol for a global religion. Christ is closer to the the androgynous Dionysus than the testosterone-driven Zeus. And the Catholics even elevated Christ's mother to (unofficial) goddess. Where is the macho part in all this?

JoeWallack

JW:
I've inventoried the following claimed discrepancies by Ehrman concerning the resurrection narrative at ErrancyWiki:

1) Who went to the tomb?

Mark 16.1 = Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome

verses:

Matthew 28.1 = Mary Magdalene and the other Mary

verses:

Luke 24.10 = Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the [mother] of James: and the other women with them

verses:

John_20.1 = Mary Magdalene

2) Was the Stone Already Rolled Back?

Mark 16.4 = the stone is rolled back

verses:

Matthew 28.2 = came and rolled away the stone

3) What was seen at the tomb?

Mark 16.5 = a young man

verses:

Matthew 28.5 = the angel

verses:

Luke 24.4 = two men

verses:

John_20.1-2 =

4) What was the Tomb Instruction?

Mark 16.7 = He goeth before you into Galilee

verses:

Luke 24.6-7 = the Son of man must be delivered up

5) Were the Tomb Instructions Followed?

Mark 16.8 = said nothing to any one

verses:

Matthew 28.8 = ran to bring his disciples word.

6) Who did the women report to?

Matthew 28.8 = disciples

verses:

Luke 24.9 = the eleven, and to all the rest

verses:

John_20.2 = Simon Peter, and to the other disciple

7) What was the Disciple's response to the women's report?

Matthew 28.9 = And behold, Jesus met them

verses:

Luke 24.11 = they disbelieved them

verses:

John_20.3 = they went toward the tomb.

8) Where were the Disciples' final instructions from Jesus?

Matthew 28.16 = Galilee

verses:

Luke 24.33 = Jerusalem

Ehrman starts The Resurrection Narratives section with:

Note that Ehrman identifies where the most errors are in the Christian Bible but stops short of saying what the significance is. Presumably he is still trying to shy away from more subjective observations. In the meantime, I'll cover for him. The most errors are in the part of the Christian Bible which is the most important part, supposed witness to Jesus' supposed resurrection.

Ehrman continues:

The Christians here can feel free to take this as baiting mistreatment of babes in christ.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
I've inventoried the following claimed discrepancies by Ehrman concerning the Passion narrative at ErrancyWiki:

1) How many animals did Jesus ride?

Mark 11.7 = the colt

verses:

Matthew 21.7 = the ass, and the colt

2) What was Jesus' Response To The High Priest?

Mark 14.62 = ye shall see

verses:

Matthew 22.69 = henceforth shall the Son of man be seated

3) Wrong Prophet Quoted

Matthew 27:9-10 =

9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom [certain] of the children of Israel did price;

10 and they gave them for the potter`s field, as the Lord appointed me.

verses:

Zechariah 11:12-13 =

12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty [pieces] of silver.

13 And Jehovah said unto me, Cast it unto the potter, the goodly price that I was prized at by them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them unto the potter, in the house of Jehovah.

4) When did the Curtain rip?

Mark 15.37-38 =

37 And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

38 And the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom.

verses:

Luke 23.45-46 =

45 the sun`s light failing: and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

46 And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost.

5) What did the Centurion say at Jesus' death?

Mark 15.39 = Truly this man was the Son of God

verses:

Luke 23.47 = Certainly this was a righteous man. .

Enjoy!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Sea

Not a direct contradiction, since only Luke shows the family going somewhere in the weeks following the birth.

Even if you take them as totally separate made-up stories (as I do), the action in Matthew clearly takes place about a year after Jesus' birth, not days and weeks. That's why Herod supposedly killed toddlers, not just newborns.

On a separate topic I don't see addressed in this thread...

On page 40, Ehrman makes a huge blunder by claiming the Gospels disagree about where Jesus went right after his baptism. John only reports what Jesus did for a few days following John the Baptist's report to the Jews of what he saw at Jesus' baptism. The baptism itself is not part of the narrative in John.

It's a disservice to the rest of the book to include such a flagrant non-discrepancy.

JoeWallack

JW:
As the owner of ErrancyWiki I'm primarily concerned with errors in the Christian Bible. Supposed errors by Ehrman are a secondary concern. Possible errors by you are even less of a priority. You are coming to us from Tweeb where there is virtually no scholarship and attitude is a substitute for research. I fear that these qualities may have rubbed off on you. Tweeb is what Ehrman would call "devotional". Here we use what Ehrman would call the "historical-critical" and we are long on evidence and short on conclusions.

You get off to a bad start above by not quoting that I am referring to Ehrman (yah, you do have a link to my post but who would read it?). Here's the link to Matthew 2:14 where I've inventoried the error. I don't have much related explanation right now because it's not needed. Again, "Matthew" writes that after Jesus was born he went to Egypt. "Luke" writes that after Jesus was born he went to Nazareth. The contradiction, for those who need points sharply explained, is that per "Luke" Jesus never went to Egypt after he was born. There is nothing in "Luke" which would support Jesus going to Egypt after he was born:

Luke 2
At ErrancyWiki arguments have to meet at least one of three minimum requirements in order to achieve "Pro" or "Con" status (rather than a "Neutral" observation):

1) Simple

2) Logical

3) Supported by the Text

Your attempted defense here has none of these qualities. In order to declare "error" I use a standard of "probable". What do you use? You're not one of these Farrell Till Skeptics who can't stand it when fellow Skeptics use implications to claim errors are you? Really C-, you shouldn't give a shit what Believers on Tweeb think of a claimed error. The standard for determining error should have nothing to do with what Believer reactions will be (Farrell Till, look out!).

Trying to use other contradictions in the stories such as "Matthew" supposedly having a time lag before the Egyptian trip, doesn't help you. Let's say you are right and per "Matthew" the Eqyptian trip is one year after Jesus is born. It does not change the claimed error. All you are doing is pointing out other errors in the Christian Bible and not an error in the claimed error.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Sea

Good to hear.

I agree that Luke gives the strong impression the family returned to Nazareth and simply stayed there. However, your wiki page on the topic flat out calls it a "contradiction" with no more explanation than divergent destinations "after he was born."

Now this would be a plain contradiction if Matthew said the family went to Egypt in the same timeframe as Luke said the family remained in Bethlehem until "the days for their purification [...] were completed", the family went to Jerusalem to present the child at the temple, and the family returned to Nazareth. The first few weeks of Jesus life should cover that timeframe. (Plus whatever it takes to get them back in Bethlehem somehow.)

But Matthew's infancy narrative does not take place until perhaps a year after Jesus' birth, as shown by the killing of children two years and younger according to the time he got from the magi.

"After he was born" refers to times roughly a year apart. The reason you give for labeling it a contradiction is invalid. There is a troublesome amount of tension between the infancy narratives, but it isn't as simple and snappy as you present it.

All three, actually. John 1 does present a timeline. The timeline does not include Jesus' baptism, only John the Baptist talking about Jesus' baptism at some unspecified point in the past.

It's understandable how someone could read the chapter quickly and think the narration's timeline includes the baptism itself. I recommend reading through again to see what I mean.

I'll never feel bad about a comparison to Farrell Till. Well, maybe if someone told me I look JUST LIKE HIM.

You're talking down about another website, while engaging in name calling in your first post to me?

spin

You seem to be trading in contradictions here.

Luke specifically states that after they had finished everything required by the law (about which the writer is rather precise), they returned to Nazareth (2:39). The last thing required by law is purification (2:22ff) after 33 days (Lev 12:4). The text quite clearly shows the family going to Nazareth after this requirement is fulfilled. The Lucan timeline gives no wiggle room.

Now you want to ignore what the text says because it doesn't flatly say that the family didn't go to Egypt, just as it doesn't say that it didn't go to Las Vegas. This is a trick of apologists, who are happy to go into denial over what the text clearly says because another apparently contradicts it.

Whatever the case, if you care to want to argue that such an eventuality is possible by insinuating new information into Luke, you must deal with the contradiction which exists because the Lucan family returns to Nazareth a bit after a month after the birth, while you want the Matthean family to stay in Bethlehem for over a year:

Ooops.

And then, after the Matthean family comes back from Egypt in order to return to Judea, Joseph hears that Archelaus is now king so he moves to the district of Galilee and settles in a town called Nazareth, presented as a new home town.

You are being too lenient on the apologists and not reading what the texts actually say and imply in their telling. It's an easy enough thing to duck and weave when threading two different stories together, manipulating what is inconvenient, but this sort of approach is not being true to the text. It starts with the a priori idea that it is incomplete, when a reading of the specific text suggests the contrary. You have a responsibility to understanding the text first and foremost. Eisegesis is an elective.

Joe showed no interest in the baptism issue you raised before, so it might be useful if you read this:


spin