History and the Gospels

[Angelos]

What would you do if someone claimed that the Gospels (not all, of course) had historical incongruities? Even though biblical scholars rebut several critics that blame the evangelists for applying anachronism to their testimony or writing in a certain style at the expense of historical accuracy, some people making a comparative study of the Gospels and the first century Judaism generally conclude that some narratives in Matthew and Mark are not compatible with what the Jews of the time really practiced. For instance, many Jewish scholars argue that the account of Jesus’ trial in front of the Sanhedrin (in Matthew and Mark) is full of errors. The commentary note in an American Catholic Bible refers to this accusation:

“This account contains elements that are contrary to the judicial procedures prescribed in the Mishnah, the Jewish code of law that dates in written form from ca. A.D. 200, e.g., trial on a feast day, a night session of the court, pronouncement of a verdict of condemnation at the same session at which testimony was received. Consequently, some scholars regard the account entirely as a creation of the early Christians without historical value. However, it is disputable whether the norms found in the Mishnah were in force at the time of Jesus. More to the point is the question whether the Matthean-Marcan night trial derives from a combination of two separate incidents, a nighttime preliminary investigation (cf John18, 13.19-24) and a formal trial on the following morning (cf Lk 22, 66-71).” (New American Bible, St. Joseph personal size edition, 1986, footnote on p. 61 in the New Testament)

What is more baffling is that Luke is the only evangelist to narrate Jesus’ trial by the Sanhedrin with historic accuracy. Actually, Luke’s narration of the Peter and John’s first trial by the Sanhedrin in the Acts of the Apostles confirms his awareness of the procedures describes in the Mishnah: “While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests and the commander of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, angry because they were teaching the people and announcing in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. So they seized them and put them in jail until the next day (for it was already evening).” (4:1-3) “On the next day, their rulers, elders, and experts in the law came together in Jerusalem” (4:5).

Then why do you think Matthew and Mark disregarded this important point while narrating the foundation of Christian faith, Jesus’ passion from the arrest to the crucifixion? What was their reason for writing in blatant contrast to the legal practices of those days?

If you have any more questions on the theme of historical accuracy in the Gospels or any examples of incongruities (including the notion of anachronism), please bring them up for discussion

 

[puzzleannie]

What would you do if someone claimed that the Gospels (not all, of course) had historical incongruities?

to hold the truth of Catholic teaching contained in the Gospels in suspicion because the Gospel writers do not all relate the same details, agree on certain details, or structure their narration in the same way is to misunderstand how documents such as the Gospels stand as historical primary sources.

for instance, if you looked at the written records left by US Grant, RE Lee, Sherman, Garfield, Hood, Forrest etc. those produced while they were active in their army commissions during the Civil War, with those they produced years after the war, you would find differences in details, perspective, events, persons, places, battle accounts etc. To criticize a compendium of these sources (such as Battles and Leaders for instance) because of those differences, and then to infer that the historical reality of the civil war is called into question because of these discrepancies, would be to misunderstand how such sources are used in constructing the historical record.

 

[Liberian]

Angelos,

I have heard that the Sanhedrin realized after the fact that they had messed up royally in putting Jesus to death and instituted the practices cited in the Mishnah (cited a century and a half later, by the way) to make sure they didn’t mess up again.

The only real sticking point that I have ever heard of is that Mark says Jesus was crucified around 9:00 AM and John says He was before Pilate around noon.

• Liberian

 

[NotWorthy]

Angelos,

The only real sticking point that I have ever heard of is that Mark says Jesus was crucified around 9:00 AM and John says He was before Pilate around noon.

• Liberian

Couldn’t the differences in time correlate to one Author using Roman time and the other using Jewish?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Several authors have pointed out that the trial was in violation of Jewish Law and thus invalid. Matthew and Mark are simply telling what happened. Just because a procedure was illegal doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

 

[Liberian]

Notworthy,

I don’t think so, because earlier in John’s Gospel he talks of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well “about the sixth hour”–the same time as John has Him standing before Pilate.

• Liberian

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,

I don’t think so, because earlier in John’s Gospel he talks of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well “about the sixth hour”–the same time as John has Him standing before Pilate.

• Liberian

OK? What time of the day is that? I’m missing the point, here.

John could easily be using Jewish time, while Mark, who wrote his Gospel in Rome(?) would have been using Roman time, perhaps?

 

[Mystophilus]

What would you do if someone claimed that the Gospels (not all, of course) had historical incongruities? … For instance, many Jewish scholars argue that the account of Jesus’ trial in front of the Sanhedrin (in Matthew and Mark) is full of errors.

History is a matter of assembling the sources which remain to us from a given period and location, and then attempting to construct a scheme of what was occurring.

As Puzzleannie noted, the Gospels themselves are historical sources: they are part of what we use to construct our scheme of the C1st Church, of C1st Palestine, etc. They are particularly significant because we have very little apart from the Gospels and Acts which deal with that setting.

Thus, when a C2nd-3rd text on how legal proceedings ought to occur disagrees with a C1st text on how an individual proceeding did occur, the only defensible conclusion is that the C1st text is representing unusual legal proceedings. Nothing whatsoever can be established about its accuracy.

 

[But_for_Grace]

I’d just like to interject on two things here.

First, as to the time issue, one possibility that I have seen and find to be quite probable (I read it in Haydock’s commentary thought it occurs elsewhere) is that while two author’s give diffrent names, they can refer to the same time. The reason for this is that the Jewish people tended to break the day up into four three hour blocks, so that, like at the crucifixion, one may say it happened at at the sixth hour and another at the third hour and still be refering to the same thing. It is similar to what we do, if the time is 11:45, some of us may say that it is 11 and others noon.

secondly, as to historical difficulties in the scripture, I would call upon the hostile witnesses, that is, why aren’t there mounds of books by historical authors (that is, let’s say during the time thath the early church father’s wrote) that denounced what was said in the new testament as false and innacurate? the only conclusion is that the new testament is correct in its naration of events, and at least on this count christianity could not be attacked.

 

[Scottgun]

On a different but related note, one needs to be aware of skeptics who attempt to use a variation of special pleading called by one apologist “textual hopscotch”. That is, I’ve seen skeptics use bible verses to demonstrate that it teaches flat earth. The christian defender showed the context of the verses and other bible verses to show that it does not. The skeptic then countered that Scripture is unreliable or has been tampered with. Get that? Any passages a skeptic quotes for his position are authentic, but anything a Christian quotes for his can be brought into question as to its authenticity. You will likely see the same thing in a discussion with a muslim who will say the Bible is corrupt and then turn around and use certain passages they think prove something for their position.

Solution: Agree on what you are arguing about. Is it about the authenticity of Scripture? Fine. Is it about what the Bible teaches at face value? Great. Just don’t let someone bounce from one to the other at their own convenience.

Scott

 

[Fidelis]

While others have dealt well with the specifics, there are a number of resources available that answer challenges of this sort. Here’s just one link:

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/104-4676125-8323958?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bible+difficulties

The Church has been around for 2000 years. Think it hasn’t been asked before?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

You are dealing with a Jewish apologetic that was purposed by Haim Cohn in modern times in his book, The Trial and death of Jesus ( 1971 ). He is basing his argument on laws that came after a reformation ( hundreds of years after christ ) in Jewish legal system that were not in place in Jesus’ day. A good book from our perspective is The Trail of Jesus by Walter M. Chandler. also, The Trail of Jesus a criminal lawyer defends Jesus by Dee Wampler. The Trail of Christ from a legal and scriptural viewpoint by David K Breed. The Trail of Christ by Innes and Powell. tektonics.org/gk/jesustrial.html this link has a list of books related to this topic.

PILATE, PONTIUS: (print this article)
By : Isidore Singer Isaac Broydé

Fifth Roman procurator of Judea, Samaria, and Idumæa, from 26 to 36 of the common era; successor of Valerius Gratus. According to Philo (“De Legatione ad Caium,” ed. Mangey, ii. 590), his administration was characterized by corruption, violence, robberies, ill treatment of the people, and continuous executions without even the form of a trial. His very first act nearly caused a general insurrection. While his predecessors, respecting the religious feelings of the Jews, removed from their standards all the effigies and images when entering Jerusalem, Pilate allowed his soldiers to bring them into the city by night.

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=312&letter=P&search=trial%20Jesus

 

[Mystophilus]

secondly, as to historical difficulties in the scripture, I would call upon the hostile witnesses, that is, why aren’t there mounds of books by historical authors (that is, let’s say during the time that the early church fathers wrote) that denounced what was said in the new testament as false and innacurate?

There are. They, so far as I am aware, all Jewish. If you have ever wondered why such people as John Chrysostom had such harsh words for the Jews, the answer is this: in the early centuries AD, Jews and Christians were engaged in an ideological conflict, expressed as a war of words over the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. The Jews portrayed the Christians as liars, and the Christians portrayed the Jews as Christ-killers.

 

[Liberian]

Not Worthy,

The Samaritan woman was getting her water at noon, in the heat of the day (Jesus’ disciples having gone into town to get some lunch) because she was a social outcast. Everybody else got water in the morning or in the evening when it was cooler.

Mark’s Gospel says “third hour” which is interpreted as “nine in the morning.”

• Liberian

 

[Deacon2006]

Angelos,

The only real sticking point that I have ever heard of is that Mark says Jesus was crucified around 9:00 AM and John says He was before Pilate around noon.

• Liberian

Since the hours of Bible time represent larger blocks of than modern hours we must take care to say that the third hour is best described as a block of time between 9am and noon and the sixth hour is about noon to 3pm.

Even a literalist would say there is no discrepancy here.

God Bless

 

[NotWorthy]

Not Worthy,

The Samaritan woman was getting her water at noon, in the heat of the day (Jesus’ disciples having gone into town to get some lunch) because she was a social outcast. Everybody else got water in the morning or in the evening when it was cooler.

Mark’s Gospel says “third hour” which is interpreted as “nine in the morning.”

• Liberian

I had always heard this, too, until I read the Agape Bible Study on John. It’s quite enlightening:

*“It was about the sixth hour.” *This number may be literal or it may be symbolic. Six is the number of man/ humanity. Man and woman were both created on the 6th day. Six is also the number symbolic of man in rebellion and the Northern Kingdom of Israel had been estranged from God, in violation of the Covenant of Sinai, since the 10th century BC. But, if the time is literal, then the question is does John use Jewish or Roman time? If it were Jewish time, the time would be 12 noon. If the time is Roman time it could be 6AM or 6PM, the normal times that the women of the village would come to the village well, at the beginning and at the end of the day. Since John does not indicate that this is morning or evening I suspect the time is symbolic. However, Shechem is 40 miles north of Jerusalem. If you figure a healthy man can travel about 20 miles in a day and if Jesus and the disciples had started in the morning from Jerusalem, this would have been the end of the second day’s journey (common people only traveled in the daylight).

Those scholars who support Jewish time point out that this woman is leading a disreputable life and so would be restricted from coming to the village water source with the other women but if that is the case it does seem unusual that her testimony of Jesus as the Messiah in verses 28-30 would be so readily accepted by the people of her village. That she may lead a sinful life by Jewish standards does not mean the Samaritan people judged such behavior in the same light. Samaritan customs were not as strict and that was part of reason why the Jews considered the Samaritans to be an unclean people, even worse than other gentiles.

 

[Angelos]

Thanks to everyone for these enlightening posts

Here is my opinion on the account of Jesus’ trial in Matthew and Mark

All evangelists say that Jesus was brought to the high priest’s house right after he had been arrested. Since Jesus was not cast into jail, it is probable that Jesus was interrogated about His teaching before the official trial in the morning.

Matthew 26:57 Now the ones who had arrested Jesus led him to Caiaphas, the high priest, in whose house the experts in the law and the elders had gathered. 26:58 But Peter was following him from a distance, all the way to the high priest’s courtyard. After going in, he sat with the guards to see the outcome.

Mark 14:53 Then they led Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests and elders and experts in the law came together. 14:54 And Peter had followed him from a distance, up to the high priest’s courtyard.

Luke 22:54 Then they arrested Jesus, led him away, and brought him into **the high priest’s **house.

John 18:15 Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas.(Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard.)

Further, neither Matthew nor Mark uses the word “trial” to describe the investigation Jesus went through, and the accounts in Matthew and Mark are amazingly compatible with what John says about one singular person questioning Jesus’ authority.

Matthew 26:62 So **the high priest **stood up and said to him…
Matthew 26:65 Then **the high priest **tore his clothes and declared, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses?

Mark 14:60 Then **the high priest **stood up before them and asked Jesus…
Mark 14:61 Again **the high priest **questioned him,
Mark 14:63 Then **the high priest **tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses?

John 18:19 While this was happening, **the high priest **questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.

Likewise, in Matthew and Mark Jesus is beaten and mocked after this unofficial investigation very much like in John, where an officer strikes Jesus’ because of His response.

Matthew 26:65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? Now you have heard the blasphemy! 26:66 What is your verdict?” They answered, “He is guilty and deserves death.” 26:67 Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists. And some slapped him, 26:68 saying, “Prophesy for us, you Christ! Who hit you?”

Mark 14:63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 14:64 You have heard the blasphemy! What is your verdict?” They all condemned him as deserving death. 14:65 Then some began to spit on him, and to blindfold him, and to strike him with their fists, saying, “Prophesy!”

John 18:20 Jesus replied,” I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret. 18:21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. They know what I said.” 18:22 When Jesus had said this, one of the high priest’s officers who stood nearby struck him on the face and said, “Is that the way you answer the high priest?” 18:23 Jesus replied, “If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why **strike **me?”

 

[Angelos]

It must be remembered that Luke is the only evangelist to recount the gathering of an official trial in the morning. Nevertheless, Luke distinguishes this official trial from the investigation that had taken place at night through the replacement of a singular pronoun in Matthew and Mark (the high priest) with the plural pronoun “they”. Further, Luke – in order to distinguish Jesus’ trial at night from the one that convened early in the morning – states that “Jesus was led away to the council”:

Luke 22:66 When day came, the council of the elders of the people gathered together, both the chief priests and the experts in the law. Then they led Jesus away to their council 22:67 and said, “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe, 22:68 and if I ask you, you will not answer. 22:69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 22:70 So **they all **said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” He answered them, “You say that I am.” 22:71 Then they said, “Why do we need further testimony? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!”

According to Luke, Jesus is mocked by the guards before his trial:

Luke 22:63 Now the men who were holding Jesus under guard began to mock him and beat him. 22:64 They blindfolded him and asked him repeatedly,” Prophesy! Who hit you?” 22:65 They also said many other things against him, reviling him.

This detail is recorded by Mark as well: 14:65 The guards also took him and **beat **him.

  According to Matthew and Mark, the high priest and Pontius Pilate use similar statements while questioning Jesus, and the places of these questionings are identical. The first questioning occurs in the house of a major religious figure (Jewish high priest), the second one in the residential place of the Roman governor (Pontius Pilate)

Matthew 26:62 So the high priest stood up and said to him, “Have you no answer? What is this that they are testifying against you?”

Matthew 27:13 Then Pilate said to him, “Don’t you hear how many charges they are bringing against you?” 27:14 But he did not answer even one accusation, so that the governor was quite amazed.

Mark 14:60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is this that they are testifying against you?”

Mark 15:2 So Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He replied, “You say so.” 15:3 Then the chief priests began to accuse him repeatedly. 15:4 So Pilate asked him again,” Have you nothing to say? See how many charges they are bringing against you!” 15:5 But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.

Finally, in John the Roman soldiers mock and beat Jesus before He was sentenced to death, which bears similarities to Luke’s account about Jesus being mocked by His guards *before *the trial:

John 19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged severely. 19:2 The soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they clothed him in a purple robe.19:3 They came up to him again and again and said, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly in the face.

In John alone, we see Jesus brought out of the palace to stand in front of the people before His final condemnation to death. This is very similar to Luke’s account, where Jesus is led to the Jewish council for the declaration of His final condemnation to death:

John 19:4 Again Pilate went out and said to the Jewish leaders, “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no reason for an accusation against him.” 19:5 So Jesus came outside, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Look, here is the man!” 19:6 When the chief priests and their officers saw him, they shouted out, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate said, “You take him and crucify him! Certainly I find no reason for an accusation against him!” 19:7 The Jewish leaders replied, “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die, because he claimed to be the Son of God!”

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Mark uses the Jewish timekeeping system and John uses the Roman

Roman time went from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hour time period began in the evening at 6 pm and the morning of that day began at 6 am. Thus Mark is stating that Jesus was crucified at 9 am and John is stating that the trial was still on at 6 am. In John 19:16 we see that the soldiers took charge of Jesus, meaning that the crucifiction had not yet taken place. So the times are reasonable.

If we look at John’s other uses of time 10 am seems a reasonable to to be preaching.

(John 1:35-39 NIV) The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. {36} When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” {37} When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. {38} Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” {39} “Come,” he replied, “and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

With the woman at the well story of John 4, Jesus was tired from his journey and 6 pm seems a reasonable time for this. Just before sundown when it was cool and the woman would come to draw water.

(John 4:3-7 NIV) When the Lord learned of this, he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee. {4} Now he had to go through Samaria. {5} So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. {6} Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour. {7} When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?”

apocalipsis.org/difficulties/thirdhour.htm

 

[Angelos]

Now another question of mine related to the same topic of Bible and historical accuracy.

If we compare the following verses, we have some sort of a contradiction, or a piece of information that’s neither historically accurate nor conforming to the biblical accounts:

Luke 11:50 so that this generation may be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 11:51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary.Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation.

Matthew 23:35 so that on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Why did Jesus in Matthew define Zechariah of the 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 as the Jewish prophet who was not murdered in the temple courts?

Frankly, I posed this question in a Protestant forum, too. However, no one has given any replies to it for 4 days! I wish you would take pains to find an answer to it

Blessings to all in the divine name of Rab Yesua’l Mesih.