Final Response to Matt Firth – The Bart Ehrman Weblog


Matt: thanks for your more comments.   I’ve provided my replies under.  At the outset I ought to say that I’m not confident I comprehend what a “genuine contradiction” would appear like for you.    If you have two authors who at least seem to contradict every other, certainly the greatest explanation will not be 1 that:

  • Suggests an author / speaker actually does not imply what he says but suggests one thing else.
  • Suggests an alternative that has never ever ever occurred, to our understanding.

With that in thoughts, I turn to your new explanations.  I’ll respond in green.


Thanks incredibly a lot, Bart, for these exciting responses. I will get straight into explaining why I nonetheless do not assume you have shown that the examples you have supplied are genuine contradictions.

In the case of Luke 24 you say that the grammar of the Greek indicates that ‘Luke is exceptionally cautious to date the whole sequence of chapter 24, at the starting of every significant paragraph. It all occurs on the day of the resurrection.’ But we know from Acts, Luke’s sequel, that Luke surely does not assume that all of Luke 24 occurred on the day of the resurrection. He says in Acts 1:three and the following verses that just after Jesus’ suffering and resurrection, Jesus appeared to the apostles more than a forty-day period, and just after that he was taken up. This suggests that Luke is effectively conscious that Luke 24:50-53 did not occur on the day of the resurrection, in spite of your assertion that the grammar tends to make it clear that all of the events of Luke 24 did occur on the day of the resurrection.

What this indicates is that the Greek grammatical usage right here is a lot much more versatile and a lot significantly less rigid than you make out in relation to what it is saying about the temporal chain of events. It also indicates that Luke is content to leave out descriptions of intervening events which he knows to have occurred. The implication of this is that there are a quantity of areas in the flow of Luke 24 exactly where an intervening trip to Galilee could have occurred. Offered that the Greek is a lot much more versatile than you make out, I nonetheless retain that the excursion could have occurred in between Luke 24:35 and Luke 24:36. But it is also attainable that it occurred in between Luke 24:43 and Luke 24:44. There is for that reason no required contradiction.

Right here I see that you do not essentially address my objections but bring in a new issue: Luke seems to date the as ascension to the day of the resurrection in Luke but to forty days later in Acts, and so he could not have meant what he mentioned in Luke.

Your logic appears to be that if a particular person contradicts himself, he will have to not imply what he says due to the fact he wouldn’t contradict himself.  Is that it?  I.e., are you saying …

To see the rest of my response, point-by-point, you will have to have to belong to the weblog.  Why not join?  It does not price a lot, and all the income goes to charity!

You have to have to be logged in to see this element of the content material. Please Login to access.


Similarities and Variations: Which Matter the Most?





Latest posts