Bart D. Ehrman - The Bane of Fundies!

[Minimalist]

And I'm certain that you've already made that happen!

[Minimalist]

Also important to keep in mind is the fact that the authorship and dating of the Gospels is a debate. There are many positions on this subject, but it would be unwise to assume that the traditional view of authorship is wrong.

For the sake of argument let's look at the "traditional" view.

Mark.1
[1] The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
[2] As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
[3] The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
[4] John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

The Gospel According to St. Matthew

1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

1:2Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; 1:3and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram; 1:4and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; 1:5and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 1:6and Jesse begat David the king.

The Gospel According to St. Luke

1:1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 1:2even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 1:3it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; 1:4that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed. 1

The Gospel According to Saint John

1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1:2The same was in the beginning with God. 1:3All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. 1:4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

There are the beginnings of all 4, according to Earlychristianwritings.com and the American Standard version. In no case is there the slightest hint of authorship. There is no attempt to even suggest that the authors were either part of jesus' traveling road show or that they spoke to anyone who was.
Ehrman, in Lost Christianities, discusses the concept of Apostolic Authority in which, to over-simplify, xtians sought to ascribe their writings to people who had some street cred, to borrow the term. The earliest attestation we have for them was Irenaeus in Against Heresies and that dates to 180 AD...a short time after Celsus and Lucian of Samosata began to cast aspersions against xtian doctrines.

These remain anonymous works to which someone attached these names in order to give them a pedigree. Most of the gnostic gospels were given similar stylings but the church, for reasons of doctrine rather than authorship or authority, suppressed those.

[Godscreated]

---

Moving on, as I guess G-C is off licking his wounds, we come to this little gem beginning on Page 26:

This is longer - sorry about that - I hope it does not tax xtian attention spans.

After the disciples eat the Passover meal they go out to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Judas Iscariot brings the troops and performs his act of betrayal. Jesus is taken to stand trial before the Jewish authorities. He spends the night in jail, and the next morning he is put on trial before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him to death by crucifixion. We are told that he is crucified that same day, at nine o’clock in the morning (Mark 15:25). Jesus, then, dies on the day of Passover, the morning after the Passover meal was eaten.

All this is clear and straightforward in Mark’s Gospel, but despite some basic similarities, it is at odds with the story told in the Gospel of John, which is also clear and straightforward. Here, too, Jesus goes to Jerusalem in the last week of his life to celebrate the Passover feast, and here, too, there is a last meal, a betrayal, a trial before Pilate, and the crucifixion. But it is striking that in John, at the beginning of the account, in contrast to Mark, the disciples do not ask Jesus where they are “to prepare the Passover.” Consequently, he gives them no instructions for preparing the meal. They do eat a final supper together, but in John, Jesus says nothing about the bread being his body or the cup representing his blood. Instead he washes the disciples’ feet, a story found in none of the other gospels (John 13:1–20).

After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the sentence: “It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon” (John 19:14).

Noon? On the Day of Preparation for the Passover? The day the lambs were slaughtered? How can that be? In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus lived through that day, had his disciples prepare the Passover meal, and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o’clock A.M. on the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon.

I do not think this is a difference that can be reconciled. People over the years have tried, of course. Some have pointed out that Mark also indicates that Jesus died on a day that is called “the Day of Preparation” (Mark 15:42). That is absolutely true—but what these readers fail to notice is that Mark tells us what he means by this phrase: it is the Day of Preparation “for the Sabbath” (not the Day of Preparation for the Passover). In other words, in Mark, this is not the day before the Passover meal was eaten but the day before Sabbath; it is called the day of “preparation” because one had to prepare the meals for Saturday on Friday afternoon.

And so the contradiction stands: in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten. Moreover, in Mark, Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not condemned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified.

Just another holy fuck-up, it seems.

---

[Minimalist]

The gospel writers...whoever they may have been....tried to get Pilate off the hook by blaming the Jews.

The reasons for this are obvious.

[Godscreated]

The gospel writers...whoever they may have been....tried to get Pilate off the hook by blaming the Jews.

The reasons for this are obvious.

Your proof is.

[Minimalist]

Read them. They get progressively more forgiving of Pilate and progressively more antagonistic to the Jews.

There were 3 serious Jewish revolts between 66 and 135 AD. By the end the Jews were quite unpopular. Coincidentally ( or not ) it is around 140 that xtians become noticeable to the Greco-Romans.


BTW, what has any of this to do with Ehrman's point that your "inerrant" gospels contradict themselves about the day that your god boy died? I understand why you keep trying to change the subject but it is my job to keep dragging you back to face reality.

[theVOID]

Right, was it passover day or the day after? If my most loved friend and teacher died on Christmas I don't go around mistakenly telling people it was on boxing day.

[Minimalist]

"John" at least understood that Jewish priests would not conduct a trial on Passover. More than one can say for the other 3 losers.

[coffeeveritas]

First of all Minimalist, thank you for your response. It certainly appears you did your homework, you have lots of good data, but I do have a few points to raise:

The gospel writers...whoever they may have been....tried to get Pilate off the hook by blaming the Jews.

The reasons for this are obvious.

I'm afraid the reasons for this aren't obvious to me. Your use of the term "Jews" is a bit too ubiquitous. The Gospels portray tension between Jesus and certain Jewish factions that were active in Jerusalem, such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Gospels themselves don't have any problem whatsoever with "Jews" so I'm not sure what it is you're talking about.

As for your earlier remarks about the Gospels, there are actually earlier references to the authorship of the Gospels than 180 AD. As for your assertion that, "There is no attempt to even suggest that the authors were either part of jesus' traveling road show or that they spoke to anyone who was," that is precisely what Luke claims in his introduction. He is claiming that these people were eyewitnesses and that he had researched the matter himself. As for the "street cred" theory, it was a common practice to use a famous person's name, but there are also books which were written by there actual authors. If the Gospels were trying to get "street cred" they would have included the famous name at the top of the letter, and made it plain that they were the author. Since they didn't, one could see that as them being humble, or that they were known to the community they were writing to, so they didn't feel the need to title the work (as one might assume as a key figure in the church). The Gospels were written anonymously, so it's going to be a debate, but the point I was trying to make is that the traditional view of authorship is still a valid theory.

[theVOID]

I'm afraid the reasons for this aren't obvious to me. Your use of the term "Jews" is a bit too ubiquitous. The Gospels portray tension between Jesus and certain Jewish factions that were active in Jerusalem, such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Gospels themselves don't have any problem whatsoever with "Jews" so I'm not sure what it is you're talking about.

Not true, in Luke Pilate believes Jesus is innocent but can't save him because the Jews would raise hell for the Romans, they condemn Jesus and instead free Barabbas (the governor could apparently free a prisoner on Passover). Luke is the 'Alexandrian' gospel, it's origins are from a rather anit-semitic sect of Christianity.

In Matthew it's all Pilates doing and the Jew's weren't particularly responsible for Jesus being crucified. Matthew is from a very very jewish community, thus the difference.