Ah sorry I misread, I thought you had said the gospels agreed jesus died on the day of preparation for the passover.

The thing is, in mark jesus eats the passover meal with his disciples. However John claims Jesus was sentenced on the day of preparation

John 19:14 "It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. "

So unless you think it took them 18 hours to get around to crucifying him (that is 9am passover day), which certainly isn't indicated by john, the stories still don't match up. I think the important part here is that john's version not only leaves out the passover meal scene, but makes it impossible to happen. John's version does have a last supper, but it is much different than mark's passover meal scene; but I think you already know this.

JESUS H CHRIST ON A CRUTCH! I went looking for this thread to bump it up with another contradiction and find that I missed an entire conversation. That's what I get for taking a day off, I guess.

Anyway, first things first. In another thread we have the xtians whining about Jesus' genealogy and on page 35 Ehrman gets around to dealing with this holy fuck-up.

Quote:Once again, Matthew and Luke are our only Gospels that give Jesus’ family line. Both of them trace his lineage through Joseph to the Jewish ancestors. This in itself creates a puzzling situation. As we have seen, both Matthew and Luke want to insist that Jesus’ mother was a virgin: she conceived not by having sex with Joseph but by the Holy Spirit. Joseph is not Jesus’ father. But that creates an obvious problem. If Jesus is not a blood-relation to Joseph, why is it that Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ bloodline precisely through Joseph? This is a question that neither author answers: both accounts give a genealogy that can’t be the genealogy of Jesus, since his only bloodline goes through Mary, yet neither author provides her genealogy.

[Emphasis added to annoy the fundies.]

Ehrman then wanders around for a bit before returning to the theme on page 37.

Quote:These then are simply some of the differences between the two accounts. The real problem they pose, however, is that the two genealogies are actually different. The easiest way to see the difference is to ask the simple question, Who, in each genealogy, is Joseph’s father, patrilineal grandfather, and great-grandfather? In Matthew the family line goes from Joseph to Jacob to Matthan to Eleazar to Eliud and on into the past. In Luke it goes from Joseph to Heli to Mathat to Levi to Melchi. The lines become similar once we get all the way back to King David (although there are other problems, as we’ll see), but from David to Joseph, the lines are at odds.

How does one solve this problem? One typical suggestion is to say that Matthew’s genealogy is of Joseph, since Matthew focuses on Joseph more in the birth narrative, and that Luke’s is of Mary, since she is the focus of his birth narrative. It is an attractive solution, but it has a fatal flaw. Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary (Luke 1:23

[Again, emphasis added to make sure the fundies stay annoyed.]


Now I have to go back and see what I missed.

Quote:Tell me Min if the copiest did such a poor job why is it that the book of Isaiah is word for word accurate after 1000 years between known copies, this knowledge tends to lean in favor of the copiest.
PS. there are many others who are experts in the ancient languages and they disagree with Ehrman, and they are no more biased than he is.

Wrong book, G-C. Ehrman outlined all the mistakes ( and the reasons for them ) in Misquoting Jesus. BTW, this is not news to anyone except you apparently. Scholars first detected these holy fuck ups 3 centuries ago. Ehrman is not breaking any new ground here. The inaccuracies of your bible have been known and understood for a long time.

Perhaps some time we'll get into Misquoting Jesus...although it is a tad dry until the last couple of chapters.

---

Quote:Did not try to change the subject or anything else, I live and face reality every day the biggest difference between you and myself on this matter is I do it with God and not alone and for me it's a sound choice.
After reading all four gospels I see that they are all in agreement that Christ was crucified on Friday the day of preparation for the Sabbath.

That must be the gospel according to G-C then because they absolutely DO NOT say that. Do you just make this shit up as you go along?

P.S. Keep your god. I don't need fairy tales or an invisible friend.

---

Quote:I'm not aware of any recent scholarship dating the Gospel of Luke as late as 135 CE,

Don't confuse my musings with Ehrman. I'm well aware of the pious pronouncements but as I said above "Luke" is dated to 70 because of the sacking/burning of the temple. Scholars had a choice. They could look like fools and insist on "prophecy" OR they could look for a fall back position and cite the sack of Jerusalem for a convenient date.

All I am saying is this.

"Jesus" did not say the temple would be sacked and burned. He said ( allegedly ) that not one stone would be left standing on another. What is curious to me ( and perhaps not to you ) is that such a condition did happen in 135 when Hadrian leveled the ruins and built a Roman ( i.e. pagan ) city on the rubble.

Now, as to the references,

Quote:The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[70] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[71]

I realize the "traditionalist" crowd insists on the earliest possible date but Marcion ( again ) was c 140 and Marcion refered to it as "The Gospel of the Lord" not "Luke." That seems to have been a later invention. That mid-second century date seems to keep recurring and coincidences make me suspicious.

BTW, the quote above is from Wiki and refers to a 1990 book by Donald Guthrie called New Testament Introduction. Wiki is lousy but at least they give their sources.


More than I can say for religious writings.

---

(November 15, 2010 at 6:46 pm)cdog Wrote: Ah sorry I misread, I thought you had said the gospels agreed jesus died on the day of preparation for the passover.

The thing is, in mark jesus eats the passover meal with his disciples. However John claims Jesus was sentenced on the day of preparation

John 19:14 "It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. "

So unless you think it took them 18 hours to get around to crucifying him (that is 9am passover day), which certainly isn't indicated by john, the stories still don't match up. I think the important part here is that john's version not only leaves out the passover meal scene, but makes it impossible to happen. John's version does have a last supper, but it is much different than mark's passover meal scene; but I think you already know this.

Ehrman discusses this and proposes a logical reason for it. I'll see if I can dig up the reference after dinner, Cdog.

(November 17, 2010 at 8:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I'm not aware of any recent scholarship dating the Gospel of Luke as late as 135 CE,

Don't confuse my musings with Ehrman. I'm well aware of the pious pronouncements but as I said above "Luke" is dated to 70 because of the sacking/burning of the temple. Scholars had a choice. They could look like fools and insist on "prophecy" OR they could look for a fall back position and cite the sack of Jerusalem for a convenient date.

All I am saying is this.

"Jesus" did not say the temple would be sacked and burned. He said ( allegedly ) that not one stone would be left standing on another. What is curious to me ( and perhaps not to you ) is that such a condition did happen in 135 when Hadrian leveled the ruins and built a Roman ( i.e. pagan ) city on the rubble.

Now, as to the references,

Quote:The terminus ad quem, or latest possible date, for Luke is bound by the earliest papyri manuscripts that contains portions of Luke (late 2nd/early 3rd century)[70] and the mid to late 2nd century writings that quote or reference Luke. The work is reflected in the Didache, the Gnostic writings of Basilides and Valentinus, the apologetics of the Church Father Justin Martyr, and was used by Marcion.[71]

I realize the "traditionalist" crowd insists on the earliest possible date but Marcion ( again ) was c 140 and Marcion refered to it as "The Gospel of the Lord" not "Luke." That seems to have been a later invention. That mid-second century date seems to keep recurring and coincidences make me suspicious.

BTW, the quote above is from Wiki and refers to a 1990 book by Donald Guthrie called New Testament Introduction. Wiki is lousy but at least they give their sources.

Well I understand you're suggesting that the earlier manuscript we have is late 2nd century, and some scholars leave the latest possible date open to about the mid second century, and since the date is left open that late you would argue that it's possible the destruction of the temple referenced is its literal demolition in 135 CE. My point was that while that certainly is an interesting theory, I haven't seen it in a scholarly work, and it seems to be that you are claiming that idea as your own, which would explain it. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. While your date is not impossible, since it is within the absolute limits imposed by some scholars, I believe one could argue the absolute latest date for Luke is about 110 CE, based on the fact that the Gospel is referenced in a document dated c. 110 CE (as early as c. 80 possible), which I already mentioned. Also keep in mind that the dates we are talking about are the absolute limits for the Gospel and there is every reason to believe the date isn't at that extreme of a margin. Dating the Gospel that late would also mean that you're putting Luke after John since we have a fragment of John dated c. 125. I don't want to entirely dismiss your idea, but I would point out that a first century dating seems drastically more likely based on the evidence. But who knows, maybe after some good thorough research, you'll be the one to put forth a mid third century dating of Luke theory. A pleasure as always my friend.

(November 15, 2010 at 6:46 pm)cdog Wrote: Ah sorry I misread, I thought you had said the gospels agreed jesus died on the day of preparation for the passover.

The thing is, in mark jesus eats the passover meal with his disciples. However John claims Jesus was sentenced on the day of preparation

John 19:14 "It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. "

So unless you think it took them 18 hours to get around to crucifying him (that is 9am passover day), which certainly isn't indicated by john, the stories still don't match up. I think the important part here is that john's version not only leaves out the passover meal scene, but makes it impossible to happen. John's version does have a last supper, but it is much different than mark's passover meal scene; but I think you already know this.

Sorry for being so late getting back to you on this cdog. Here's Ehrman's answer for the discrepancy between "john" and the others.

Quote:I can’t give a full analysis here, but I will point out a signifi cant
feature of John’s Gospel—the last of our Gospels to be written,
probably some twenty-five years or so after Mark’s. John is the only
Gospel that indicates that Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away
the sins of the world.” This is declared by John the Baptist at the
very beginning of the narrative (John 1:29) and again six verses
later (John 1:35). Why, then, did John—our latest Gospel—change
the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John’s
Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation
from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the
day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon),
when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple.
In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to
make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey
this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between
his account and the others.

In other words, changing the day is a plot device. Plot devices are very common in fictional writing.

---

Quote:My point was that while that certainly is an interesting theory, I haven't seen it in a scholarly work, and it seems to be that you are claiming that idea as your own, which would explain it. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

I wouldn't presume to assume that it is mine, alone. I have not read everything ever written on the subject. I also don't know that I'd dignify it with the word "theory" which has a definitive scientific meaning and one which continually eludes creationists.

I'm merely noting the convergence of coincidences and, as I said above, coincidences make me ill.

BTW, if more theists could discuss/debate as you do I'd be a lot less cranky.

Well, its been over a week so time to move on with the NT Follies.

Beginning on Page 44, Ehrman starts discussing the problems with the Passion narrative.

Quote:Here I mention just three and point out their potential significance. First, Jesus has a lot more to say in John’s account than in Mark. In fact, he has sustained conversations with Pilate, speaking of his “kingdom that is not of this world” (18:36), indicating that he has come into the world to speak the truth (18:37), declaring that Pilate has no ultimate power over him, except what has been given him by God (19:11). These extended dialogues conform well with what you find throughout all of John’s Gospel, where Jesus engages in long protracted speeches, quite unlike the series of aphorisms and one-liners that you frequently find in the Synoptic
Gospels.

Second, rather than having Jesus flogged after his trial is over and the sentence has been pronounced—which, one might think, would be the sensible time to carry out the sentence—in John, Pilate has Jesus flogged in the middle of the proceedings (19:1). A variety of explanations have been given for John’s change of this detail; it
may be because of what happens next: Pilate brings Jesus out of the headquarters to present him, beaten, bloodied, and in a purple robe, to the Jewish people, and says to them, “Behold the man.” For the author of John, Jesus is much more than a man, but Pilate and the Jewish crowds don’t recognize it. Pilate and his soldiers are mocking Jesus by dressing him up in a crown of thorns and giving him a purple robe and declaring, “Hail, King of the Jews.” In fact, unbeknownst to them their declaration is true. For John, Jesus really is the ing, appearances notwithstanding.

Finally, it is significant that in John’s Gospel, on three occasions Pilate expressly declares that Jesus is innocent, does not deserve to be punished, and ought to be released (18:38; 19:6; and by implication in 19:12). In Mark, Pilate never declares Jesus innocent. Why this heightened emphasis in John? Scholars have long noted that John is in many ways the most virulently anti-Jewish of our Gospels (see John 8:42–44, where Jesus declares that the Jews are not children of God but “children of the Devil”). In that context, why narrate the
trial in such a way that the Roman governor repeatedly insists that Jesus is innocent? Ask yourself: If the Romans are not responsible for Jesus’ death, who is? The Jews. And so they are, for John. In 19:16 we
are told that Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jewish chief priests so that they could have him crucified.

So which is it? Is "Jesus" the laconic dolt that Mark portrays or the chatterbox of John? As always the point is not which is "correct." The point is that the accounts depict radically different behavior by the alleged victim.

(November 28, 2010 at 5:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: So which is it? Is "Jesus" the laconic dolt that Mark portrays or the chatterbox of John? As always the point is not which is "correct." The point is that the accounts depict radically different behavior by the alleged victim.

They show that Mark and John were interested in different aspects of what Jesus did. Mark emphasized what Jesus did and didn't devote as much space to what Jesus said and the other gospel writers did. When John wrote his gospel the other gospels most believers already had the other gospels so he focused on things Jesus had done that the other writers hadn't mentioned.

Quote:They show that Mark and John were interested in different aspects of what Jesus did.

Yes. Precisely Ehrman's point. What it also shows is that each author tailored their account to make it conform to what they wanted to say. However, the contradiction remains unharmed. Jesus could not have been almost totally silent AND chattering like valley girl AT THE SAME TIME.

Personally, I think both accounts are pure inventions. You have to the choice to make on which version to "believe."

It would seem to be that the four very different accounts of Jesus in the gospels presents a major challenge to the whole doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

Ehrman's whole point is that xtians try to read them as Markmatthewlukejohn which only makes them look sillier. If you treat them as 4 different stories then the problem goes away.


To be replaced with a new problem. They do not tell the same story.