alleged historical errors in the gospels

Unpacking the Census Conundrum in Luke’s Account: Did Luke Make a Blunder?

by

Skeptics have long scrutinized the passages in Luke 2:1-2, seizing upon what they see as historical discrepancies in the biblical account of the census. These verses have been a focal point of contention, with critics arguing that Luke made substantial errors, questioning his reliability as a historian. The criticism primarily revolves around the timing of the census and the mention of Quirinius, the governor of Syria. Here, the noted agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman elaborates on this objection in detail: “The historical problems with Luke are even more pronounced. For one thing, we have relatively good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of … Read more

The Barabbas Story: Legend Or Reality?

by

The story of Barabbas, the insurrectionist released by Pontius Pilate in place of Jesus, is a familiar episode in the Gospels. However, biblical scholars and critics have raised doubts about its historical accuracy, pointing to several perceived inconsistencies. To begin with, critics claim that there is no historical record of such a practice, questioning whether it actually occurred. Furthermore, they argue that Pilate, known for his harsh and cruel character, releasing an insurrectionist seems highly inconsistent. Lastly, some skeptics suggest that the name Barabbas, meaning “son of the father,” might have been invented by the evangelists for symbolic and literary purposes. Let’s look at each of these arguments in turn. Understanding the Argument from Silence … Read more

No, Mark Didn’t Invent the “Sea” of Galilee

by

Porphyry, the 3rd-century Greek philosopher, didn’t like Christianity and tried to “sea-ze” any opportunity to debunk it. He believed Mark was just “casting” a big fishy story about the Sea of Galilee.  Alright, I am “shore” that these puns are lame. However, I’ve noticed that some modern critics of Christianity recycle some of his arguments, so I thought it might be useful to address them. What exactly does Porphyry say? He writes:  Another section in the gospel deserves comment, for it is likewise devoid of sense and full of implausibility; I mean that absurd story about Jesus sending his apostles across the sea ahead of him after a banquet, then walking across to them “at … Read more

No, The Author of Acts Didn’t Use Josephus

by

There’s an ongoing debate among scholars about whether the author of the book of Acts used Josephus’ writings. Some critics argue that the author heavily relied on Josephus, which would raise doubts about the author’s claim of being a companion of Paul. This is because Josephus’ writings didn’t appear until the early second century and obviously Luke would’ve long been dead. Although this perspective isn’t widely accepted yet, it’s gained popularity among some scholars and a few online skeptics who believe that Acts is a work of historical fiction. In this post, I aim to explore why I think this theory is really far-fetched. Let’s Talk Chronology The order of events is a major point … Read more

Is John’s Jesus Different Than The Synoptics?

by
window church crucifixion church window

New Testament scholars often treat the Gospel of John like a red-headed stepchild. We’re often told that John presents a Jesus who is fundamentally different from the Synoptics. For example, here is the well-known NT critic Bart Ehrman:  …if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels? … Why do they have such fundamentally different views of who Jesus was?… (interview with NPR 12/14/05) Ehrman certainly isn’t alone in his opinion here. Even Craig Evans, an evangelical New Testament scholar, concedes this point to Bart. He says: I suspect we (Ehrman and I) don’t have too much difference on John. My … Read more

Holy Koolaid Ruins Christmas

by

In his video 12 Contradictions in the Bible, Holy Kool-Aid includes the standard list of complaints against the Christmas narratives. Leave it to the skeptics to try and stuff a lump of coal in the stockings of Christians every year. Let’s see what Thomas has for us: Two of the four canonical gospels even tell the story of Jesus’ birth. And these two accounts are irreconcilably different. In both stories, Jesus is born in Bethlehem. But in Matthew, after Jesus’ birth, King Herod hears about baby Jesus described as the future king of the Jews. He feels threatened and has every baby under the age of two slaughtered while Jesus’ parents Mary and Joseph escape … Read more

Video: Don’t Blindly Follow “Biblical Scholarly Consensus”

by

I’ve made a lot of content defending the historical reliability of the gospels. And one of the most common objections I hear is that my views aren’t in line with modern scholarship. And I admit it. If you’re a Christian and you’re looking for evidence for your faith, you and I are guaranteed to lose the credential war. Yes, there are good conservative Christian scholars out there like DA Carson or Craig Blomberg. But they’re a minority voice. The scholarly consensus is against me. I get it.  Here’s the thing though: That doesn’t really bother me, and it shouldn’t bother you. When it comes to biblical scholarship, we have some reasons to be seriously skeptical. … Read more

Are There Beastly High Priestly Problems Going On in Luke and John?

by
annas and caiaphas

If the Gospels make historical goofs, then it’s hard to call them reliable documents. Skeptics have been quick to point out that the Gospel writers make several factual errors, and an example of that is Luke and John’s confusion regarding the high priesthood.  Tradition tells us that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul and used apostles for sources. Surely he should’ve known better. And John was supposedly a Jew and an eyewitness. A local should’ve probably had a solid idea about how the high priesthood works.   Let’s start with Luke.  Two High Priests?  Luke 3 sets the stage for John the Baptist, and this is where he seems to get confused. Luke 3:2 reads: “during … Read more

Is the Story of Darkness During Jesus’ Crucifixion Pure Fiction?

by

Skeptics tell us that one of the reasons we can’t trust the Gospels is because they make so many historical gaffes. In particular, the evangelists tell us of far-out tales that aren’t corroborated by other contemporary historians. One of those stories is the darkness that happened during Jesus’ crucifixion, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  Here’s Mark’s version:  And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. Mark 15:33, cf. Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44 We know from history that historians like Pliny and Seneca have carefully described much less exciting events in the same kind of remote regions. But they failed to note an eclipse occurring in … Read more

Did Mark Invent Jesus’ Trial Before the Sanhedrin?

by
Jesus before Caiaphas

Some skeptical Biblical scholars say that Mark’s account of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin is pure fiction. There are several aspects of the hearing that doesn’t fit with what we know about Jewish customs regarding capital trials. Mark supposedly biffs it on several points:  The Sanhedrin couldn’t hold trials at night. (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1) They could only have hearings in the temple, not in the high priest’s house. (M. Sanh 11:2) They couldn’t conduct court cases during Jewish holidays, and Jesus’ tribunal allegedly happened during Passover. (M. Sanh 4:1)  There was no 24-hour waiting period before sentencing. (M. Sanh 4:1)  The blasphemy charge requires the use of the divine name, and Jesus never uttered it. … Read more

Is Jesus Alive?