Request:
Thank you for responding to my earlier question regarding the blog post written by Bart Ehrman on Messianic Prophecy. Your answer was very helpful and I learned a lot from it. click here for article
I was wondering if you could respond to one of his claims he makes later in the post. Ehrman lists some of the prophecies of Jesus before saying, “there are lots of these “facts” from Jesus’ life, it is thought, that fulfilled Scripture. But how do we know that these are facts from Jesus’ life? The only way we know is (or think we know it) is because authors of the New Testament Gospels claim that these are the facts. But are they? How do we know that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem? That his mother was actually a virgin? That he was actually silent at his trial? And so forth and so on? We only know because the Gospels indicate so. But the authors of the Gospels were themselves influenced in their telling of Jesus’ story by the passages of Scripture that they took to be messianic predictions, and they told their stories in the light of those passages.
Take Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. A couple of times on the blog I’ve talked about how problematic it is to think that this is a historical datum. It’s true that both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in that small village. But Mark and John do not assume that this is true, but rather that he came from Galilee, from the village of Nazareth. Moreover, Matthew and Luke *get* Jesus born in Bethlehem in radically different and contradictory ways, so that for both of them he is born there even though he comes from Nazareth. Why don’t they have a consistent account of the matter? It is almost certainly because they both want to be able to claim that his birth was in Bethlehem, even though both of them know for a fact he did not come from Bethlehem, but from Nazareth. Then why do Matthew and Luke want to argue (in different ways) that he was born in Bethlehem? It is because in their view — based on the Old Testament prophet Micah 5:2 — that’s where the messiah had to come from. And so for them, Jesus *had* to come from there. They aren’t recording a historical datum from Jesus’ life; they are writing accounts that are influenced by the Old Testament precisely to show that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament.”
Ehrman’s claim is the Gospel writers, knowing what the prophecies are that needed to be fulfilled, simply embellished/implanted these details falsely in their works to make it look like Jesus actually fulfilled them in real life. What is your response?
Response:
Ehrman is quite deceptive in his arguments above. For example, he notes that only Luke and Matthew mention Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. True, but John wrote after both Luke and Matthew. Also, he says that John and Mark “assume this is not true.” This is SO obviously a false statement. He “proves” this by pointing out that Mark and John say Jesus came from Galilee. Well, so do Luke and Matthew! All early Christians agreed that Jesus came from Galilee. The question is not where he came from but where he was born, but Ehrman, very deceptively, claims that Mark and John repudiate that. They do absolutely nothing of the sort!!!!
Besides, it was the same Christian community, based on the same Christian oral tradition, to which both Matthew and Mark wrote, at virtually the same date. This disingenuous and clearly false statement by Ehrman shows you where he is coming from.
It is true that several of the prophecy fulfillments are only testified to by the Christian writers, but two points on this:
1. A number of the prophecy fulfillments are a matter of history, and not just from Christian writers. For example, we have Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus. From them we can realistically conclude that Jesus was silent when accused (Isaiah 53), that he was crucified in Jerusalem (Psalm 22, Daniel 9:24), that he was despised and rejected (Isaiah 53), and that he came from Galilee, on the border of Zebulun and Naphtali (Isaiah 9:1-6). We also know the date of his execution, fulfilling the timeline prophesied in Daniel 9:24-25 (See my book on Daniel: Daniel, Prophet to the Nations, available at
www.ipibooks.com)
2. Ehrman is assuming that the gospel writers were lying, but they would have been lying to people who would most certainly have known they were lying. Mark was written either in the late 50s or the early 60s. This was a mere 30 years after the events. More than half of those who witnessed the gospel events were still alive at that time, and could easily have refuted what Mark said. (this is an assumption on my part, but I propose confidently that more than half of those reading this post will still be alive 30 years from now) There is no way that Matthew could have gotten away with lying about where Jesus was born, as he would have been called out by the Christian community. When we are told that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (fulfilling Zech 9:9), it would have been outright foolish for the Gospel writers to have made this little detail up, as their lie would have been pointed out by the Christian believers who were there. Liars do not provide such easily refutable small details. They keep it general. The same for the price paid to Judas of 30 pieces of silver. Clearly, this was common knowledge to the believers, many of whom were in Jerusalem when Jesus was killed.
Ehrman tells us that Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of the birth of Jesus are contradictory. This is simply, plainly and clearly false. What event mentioned by Luke is contradicted by what event mentioned by Matthew? None!!! These are independent accounts, which is why they recall different details. Ehrman would have Matthew and Luke record identical details. But if this were the case, why have more than one gospel? There is NO CONTRADICTION in the two stories, and I defy Ehrman or anyone else to propose facts in one account which are unambiguously proved wrong by the other. Notice that Ehrman does not bother to support his rhetoric with any actual contradictions.
Ehrman says that both Matthew and Luke know for a fact that Jesus came from Galilee, not Bethlehem. Well, of course this is the case. All four gospels tell us that Jesus came from Nazareth, and that he was a Nazarene. But then Ehrman quite deceptively claims this proves that Matthew and Luke did not believe he was born in Bethlehem. What??? Where does he get this? Again, Matthew is not a liar, and neither is Luke. Neither claimed that Jesus came from Bethlehem. In fact, he left the town soon after his birth, never to return that we know of. To charge them with lying is a very serious thing, yet Ehrman does this literally without evidence, and even against common sense, given that the early church, including Jesus’ brother James, clearly knew where Jesus was born!!!! Ehrman is on very very thin ice here.
Ehrman says the Gospel writers, knowing what the prophecies are that needed to be fulfilled, simply embellished/implanted these details falsely in their works to make it look like Jesus actually fulfilled them in real life.
Well, fine, Bart, but please give me a single piece of evidence to back up this rhetoric, and explain how Matthew was able to insert a blatant lie into his text when Jesus’ two brothers, James and Jude were still alive. Does he propose a massive conspiracy here? This should not be taken seriously, and Ehrman is being downright deceptive in his rhetoric.
To me, the utter weakness of Ehrman’s arguments, when he is the hero of the critics of Christianity, has the reverse effect of making my confidence in the gospels and in the Bible even stronger. Is this the best they have? Really?
John Oakes
