alleged historical errors in the gospels

Matthew’s Massacre of the Innocents: HIstory, Not Fiction

by

When we think about the Christmas story, we imagine warm and cozy scenes—Mary, Joseph, and the baby in a humble manger, angels, shepherds, and the wise men offering their gifts. But right in the middle of this heartwarming tale is a grim event. In Matthew 2:16, Herod, after learning about the birth of the Messianic king, orders the killing of all boys aged two and under in Bethlehem. It’s a disturbing part of Christ’s birth story, but not everyone believes Matthew’s account. Scholars and historians doubt this event for a few reasons. It’s not in Luke’s Gospel or any other historical records. Some think it was made up to fit a narrative, to portray Jesus … Read more

Did Luke Fabricate a Census to Get Jesus to Bethlehem?

by

‘Tis the season for the same old skeptics trotting out those tired arguments about the birth narratives. Here’s biblical scholar and popular TikToker Dan McClellan rehashing the whole “Luke invented a census” spiel. The story of Jesus’s birth, as found in Luke 1 and 2, is not historical….According to Luke 1, Jesus would have had to have been born, if not during the life of Herod, within about a year of his death at the latest. So, Jesus would have had to have been born by 3 BCE if Luke chapter 1 is historical. But chapter 2 introduces two critical problems. The first is that the author needs to get Joseph and Mary from Nazareth … Read more

Rebutting Dan Mcclellan’s Attempt at Debunking the Virgin Birth

by

You know it’s Christmas when you get your annual lump of coal with the whole ‘Matthew invented the virgin birth’ schtick. This time, it’s from TikTok’s favorite cynical biblical scholar, Dan McClellan: The virgin birth is a tradition that seems to have developed decades after Jesus’s death, primarily because of a poor translation of a passage from the Hebrew Bible…. The earliest writings we have about Jesus, the writings of Paul and the gospel of Mark, say absolutely nothing at all about any virgin birth. Paul’s really only concerned with the resurrected Jesus, and Mark’s story starts with the beginning of his ministry and his baptism. It’s not until after that that people are starting … 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 Jesus Alive?