Differences in Hebrew & Greek Genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11
There are some significant differences between the Hebrew and Greek genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. Do these differences really matter?
“I want you understand what really matters, so that you may live pure and blameless lives until the day of Christ’s return”—Philippians 1:9 NLT
The Bibles that we use today are generally based on a Hebrew Refined Master Text, usually the Biblica Hebraica. A comparison of the genealogies in Genesis 5:1-32 and Genesis 11:10-26 in the Old Testament in our modern Bibles, which are translated from the Hebrew Text, with the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX), reveals that the Greek version has more years between the time of Adam’s creation and Abraham, because: (1) The listed mens’ ages when their son is born are generally higher, often by 100 years; and (2) Cainan is included in the Greek Septuagint text, but not in the Hebrew text. However, the overall length of their lives remains the same, in the both the Hebrew and the Greek texts.
Below are listed the names of the men in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, where the Hebrew and the Greek texts differ, and the ages at the birth of their son, first in the Hebrew, next in the Greek, and then the differences in these two ages.
Genesis 5:3—Adam, 130 . . . 230 . . . 100
Genesis 5:6—Seth, 105 . . . 205 . . . 100
Genesis 5:9—Enosh, 90 . . . 190 . . . 100
Genesis 5:12—Kenan, 70 . . . 170 . . . 100
Genesis 5:15—Mahalalel, 65 . . . 165 . . . 100
Genesis 5:21—Enoch, 65 . . . 165 . . . 100
Genesis 5:25—Methusaleh, 187 . . . 167 . . . -20
Genesis 5:28—Lamech, 182 . . . 188 . . . 6
Genesis 11:12—Arpachshad, 35 . . . 135 . . . 100
Genesis 11:13—Caianan (not listed in Hebrew text) . . . 130 . . . 130
Genesis 11:14—Shelah, 30 . . . 130 . . . 100
Genesis 11:16—Eber, 34 . . . 134 . . . 100
Genesis 11:18—Peleg, 30 . . . 130 . . . 100
Genesis 11:20—Reu, 32 . . . 132 . . . 100
Genesis 11:22—Serug, 30 . . . 130 . . . 100
Genesis 11:24—Nahor, 29 . . . 79 . . . 100
The following three articles by Henry B. Smith, which are available on the internet, document the case for using the Septuagint genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, in preference to the genealogies in the standard Hebrew text that all of our Bible translations have:
(1) “MT, SP, or LXX? Deciphering a Chronological and Textual conundrum in Genesis 5”
(2) “Methuselah’s Begetting Age in Genesis 5:25 and the Primeval Chronology of the Septuagint: A Closer Look at the Textual and Historical Evidence”
(3) “From Adam to Abraham: An Update on the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project: Dec 16, 2017”
The fact that Luke’s genealogy includes “Cainan” (Luke 3:36), gives some credence to the case that the Septuagint genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 may be more accurate than the Hebrew text’s genealogies. If true, this would have the net effect of adding at least 1,250 years to the time from Adam’s creation to Abraham. Expressed slightly differently, it would mean that Adam was created at least 1,250 years earlier, meaning that humans have been on earth for about 7,300 years, rather than just over 6,000 years.
However, as strong as the case may be for the Septuagint’s genealogies, it is wise not to be dogmatic. Why? The very fact that the inclusion of “Cainan” in the genealogy of Luke 3 differs by comparison with the standard Hebrew text of Genesis 11, should also give us pause. If God allowed valid copies of his Word, the Bible, to have such differences indicates that using genealogies to create a rigid chronological timetable, or timeline, is likely not what God wants us to do! This is one area where there is enough doubt as to which genealogical table regarding the men’s ages at their son’s birth is correct — the Hebrew or the Greek — that we can conclude it is not really important, especially since the overall length of their lives remains the same.
We know that Genesis is a very accurate historical document, including the genealogies. Romans 5:12 refers to “the first man Adam.” Jude 14 refers to “Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam” (NAB). Jesus and Peter both referred to “Noah” as a real person (Matthew 24:37; Luke 17:26; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5). The genealogy of Luke 3:34-38 lists the exact same men as the genealogies in Genesis 5 & 11, except for the fact that “Cainan” is not in the Hebrew manuscripts of Genesis 11:12,13, but is included in the Greek (LXX) manuscripts, and is in Luke 3:35,36.
We know from the genealogical ages documented Genesis 5 & 11, and other Bible facts, combined with secular history, that humans have been on earth for at least 6,000 years, and perhaps as long as 7,300 years. This approximate difference of 1,250 is not really significant because our faith is not in any way dependent on exactly how long humans have lived on earth. We do know that God “made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth” (Acts 17:26 NAB).
45 thoughts on “Differences in Hebrew & Greek Genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11”
If God did exist and the Bible was the word of God, then there wouldn’t be all this confusion, doubt, and disagreement on the text. God would not allow it. But there is. Therefore, either God does not exist or the Bible is not the word of God or both. Which is it?
God exists. What has become dogma since 1573 isn’t necessarily what God said. He is not responsible for the errors of much later dogma. BTW, if you ever decide to dig for 5000 yr old archaeological treasure in the Holy Land, the Bible is by far your best map. <
RT: God exists.
GW: False. God does not exist. Here is my favorite proof:
The Three-Way Argument Against the Existence of God Based on the Holocaust: By Gary Whittenberger, 1-29-2023
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would surely be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship. Or 3) the hypothetical ideal person, intelligent agent, or sentient being, i.e. that possible person with all desirable traits to their highest degrees and with no undesirable traits.
The First Way
2. If God did exist, then he would be all-knowing, all-powerful, invulnerable, and perfectly moral.
3. If God did exist, then the Holocaust would not have occurred.
A. If God did exist and allowed the Holocaust, then he would have been immoral. To give human beings the free will to engage in violent acts in furtherance of the extermination of a group of human persons would be immoral in itself. And to stand by and do nothing to prevent or stop an extermination, when you could do so, would have been immoral in itself.
B. But God would be perfectly moral.
C. Therefore, if God did exist, then he would not have allowed the Holocaust and so it would not have occurred.
4. But the Holocaust did occur.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
The Second Way
6. Furthermore, if God did exist, then he allowed the Holocaust to occur for one or more morally justified reasons.
7. But there are and could be no morally justified reasons for God to allow the Holocaust. Consider these possibilities:
A. One possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they did not know about the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-knowing.
B. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they did not have the power to prevent it or immediately stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be all-powerful.
C. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they would have been killed in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be eternal and all-powerful.
D. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they would have been significantly injured in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
E. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that they would have significantly suffered in an attempt to prevent or stop it. But this could not be a reason for God since he would be invulnerable and all-powerful.
F. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that allowing it would be necessary for them to prevent some greater harm than the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to prevent some greater harm since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all necessities and natural laws.
G. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that allowing it would be necessary for them to produce a benefit which outweighed the Holocaust. But this could not be a reason for God since nothing at all would be necessary for him to allow in order to produce some benefit that would outweigh the Holocaust since he would be all-powerful. God would have dominion over all necessities and natural laws.
H. Another possible morally justified reason for a person to allow the Holocaust is that permitting it would implement just punishment for every victim. But the Holocaust did not have the features of just punishment for every victim. For example, it lacked advance rule declaration, administration by proper authority, individualized proportional severity, and least effective severity for all victims.
8. Therefore, God does not exist.
The Third Way
9. Furthermore, if any tribunal is investigating or evaluating the occurrence of any horrible harm to a person or group of persons, then anyone who has knowledge of any detail related to that occurrence should present their testimony about what they know. Every person knowledgeable of the occurrence has a moral duty to come forward to the tribunal and testify to what they know, telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
10. The Nuremberg Trials constituted a tribunal investigating or evaluating the occurrence of the Holocaust.
11. And so, if God did exist, because he would be both all-powerful and perfectly moral, then at the Nuremberg Trials he would have testified as a witness, sworn to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me myself,” and presented his reasons for allowing the Holocaust.
12. But God did not testify at the Nuremberg Trials.
13. Once again, therefore, God does not exist.
RT: What has become dogma since 1573 isn’t necessarily what God said.
GW: God does not exist and so he has said nothing at all!
RT: He is not responsible for the errors of much later dogma.
GW: You are missing the whole point. If God did exist, there wouldn’t be disagreements or debates about what he said, wrote, dictated, or inspired. God would speak directly to all of humanity:
If God did exist, because of his nature (especially because he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral) he would communicate with human persons (and any other persons in the cosmos) ONLY in the following manner:
1. The revelations would be frequent and/or regular. At a minimum God would deliver a revelation at least once every 15 years which is considered a “generation” in the human sense.
2. In a revelation God would identify himself as “God,” but he would appear as a kind middle-aged woman to help people feel comfortable. Although God would normally be invisible, for these revelations he would make himself clearly visible.
3. God would perform at least three miracles in order to verify his identity.
4. God would give morally justified reasons for allowing or causing at least three horrible harms in the cosmos (or on Earth) in order to verify his identity.
5. God would present his moral code and the consequences for compliance and noncompliance.
6. God would answer questions from his audience, at least ten questions.
7. The revelation would be like a press conference and would last just 2-3 hours so that listeners would maintain interest and not become bored or drowsy.
8. God would present orally; he would speak. But at the end of his speech he would distribute printed or digital copies of his speech to everyone who wanted a copy.
9. God would speak in one language, the most popular language in the cosmos, whatever that would be, but God would ensure that everyone heard his speech in their native or primary language.
10. God’s speech would be clear, concise, and easy to understand.
11. God’s communication would be unambiguous, unequivocal, consistent, precise, specific, and rational. (If necessary, God would enhance some persons’ intelligence or ability to comprehend.)
12. God would speak to all persons in the cosmos at the same time. He would speak to theists, atheists, agnostics, polytheists, indeed all persons. Nobody would be left behind.
13. God’s communication would be objective, not subjective. All persons would see and hear God at the same time.
14. God’s speech would be simulcast over all TV, radio, internet, and streaming media.
15. God would not use intermediaries, assistants, messengers, or prophets. He would always do his own work – his own communication. He would know that this would reduce the probability of confusion, error, mistakes, and disagreement to zero.
RT: BTW, if you ever decide to dig for 5000 yr old archaeological treasure in the Holy Land, the Bible is by far your best map.
GW: No need to do that. We now know that the primary claim of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is false. God does not exist, and this has been proven. Also, we now also know that there is no GOOD evidence that Jesus came back to life and we have proof that God could not have caused Jesus to come back to life, even if he did come back to life. No wonder Christianity is in decline in the US and Europe.
GW: One of your leaders said it best: “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” Corinthians I (15:14, NIV) Christ be not risen, so your preaching is in vain.
There is a large reservoir of extant OT manuscripts, with some dating back to the 2nd century BCE. From these, and manuscripts of the LXX, etc., linguistic scholars of Biblical manuscripts are able to compose accurate refined master texts of the OT. All errors of any significance have been eliminated.
Almighty God has made sure that his word has been accurately preserved. “The word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25 NIV).
RT: There is a large reservoir of extant OT manuscripts, with some dating back to the 2nd century BCE. From these, and manuscripts of the LXX, etc., linguistic scholars of Biblical manuscripts are able to compose accurate refined master texts of the OT. All errors of any significance have been eliminated.
GW: First, “of any significance” is up for interpretation. Bart Ehrman would probably disagree with you on your claim here. He has written books about Biblical errors, some of which he believes were significant. Secondly, even the oldest Bible manuscripts were sometimes written long after the events which they purportedly describe, and this worsens validity. For example, the Gospels were written 30-70 years after the life of Jesus. Lastly, just because a story says that something happened doesn’t mean that it happened. Every manuscript, no matter how young or old, must be assessed by a critical analysis. How good is the narrative when assessed as a report?
RT: Almighty God has made sure that his word has been accurately preserved. “The word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25 NIV).
GW: We know this verse is false. God does not exist, and this has been proven. Your God plane no longer flies. It doesn’t even get off the ground. You have found no error in my Holocaust argument.
The life of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and Son of God, including his birth, betrayal, death and resurrection, was predicted hundreds of years prior to his birth by about 20 Israelite prophets in the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures. These were written far in advance of Jesus’ earthly existence, as attested by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The NT provides accounts from multiple sources who witnessed Jesus firsthand after his resurrection. Jesus made at least 10 separate appearances to his disciples between the resurrection and his ascension to heaven. There were no accounts of any witnesses who his resurrection a hoax, nor is there any historical record of contradictory witnesses of his resurrection.
It is important to note that, while the original writings of the Bible were inspired by God (none of which are extant today), the subsequent copies, and translations were not inspired by God (2 Timothy 3;16,17), although God made sure that his Word would be accurately preserved to the extent that He deems necessary (1 Peter 1:24,25).
There is no doubt about God’s existence, or the Bible being the Word of God. Neither is it questionable that the people listed in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 & Luke 3:23-38 existed, including Cainan. What is in question is some of these men’s ages when they had their sons. But since people lived for much longer periods of time back then, both the Hebrew text’s figures or the Septuagint’s figures could be true. For example, today a man could be 22 when his first son is born, or he could be 42. Both are plausible. So it is in these genealogies.Genesis 5:3 (Hebrew) says Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old, but the Greek says that Adam was 230 years old when Seth was born. There are two factors that make either age entirely plausible: (1) Seth was not born until Cain and Abel had grown up, and Cain had murdered Abel (Genesis 4:25); and (2) Adam lived for 930 years total, according to both the Hebrew and the Greek accounts.
The ambiguity in the textual differences makes no difference in any Bible teachings or doctrines, neither does the difference in the time that humans have lived on earth, although the Greek text’s ages do fit a little better into the currently known historical timetable. However, since Biblical genealogies have some gaps, it is not possible to construct an absolute chronological timetable, nor is it even necessary.
Most important, the very fact that there is some ambiguity in the text regarding relatively minor matters, such as these men’s ‘begetting’ ages, is a proof in itself that the Bible is not edited by fiction writers to ‘smooth out’ the story. It is an actual record of things that God wants us to know (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
The problem with dogmatism in relation to biblical inspiration is that dogma generally arises a century or millennium later. To say that “God’s word” is inspired is not the same as saying the words ‘carved in stone’ are the very words of God. The message of Yahweh is to be inscribed on human hearts.
It is abundantly clear to all reasonable and knowledgeable people that the Hebrew text was intentionally altered in the Christian era when the ancient texts were debated. The Septuagint, whose tradition precedes the earliest extant Hebrew texts by some 16 centuries and the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal a timeline within which Yahshua (Jesus) correlates to the prophecies concerning the Messiah. This is embarrassing to the Jewish leaders. The earliest Greek texts of the Tanakh outside the LXX were written 5 centuries later and intentionally exclude the possibility that Jesus fulfilled every prophecy of the Messiah save the last days Victory and ascendancy which Christian faith says will be fulfilled in His return.
RT: The problem with dogmatism in relation to biblical inspiration is that dogma generally arises a century or millennium later.
GW: A dogma is a set of beliefs impervious to change or any set of beliefs held with so much confidence and fervor that the holder is unwilling or unable to consider new evidence, reasons, and/or arguments which might cast doubt on the beliefs.
RT: To say that “God’s word” is inspired is not the same as saying the words ‘carved in stone’ are the very words of God. The message of Yahweh is to be inscribed on human hearts.
GW: When people say that the Bible was inspired by God, what do they mean? Sometimes they mean that God dictated to the authors what to write. Sometimes they just mean that God motivated them to write what they thought was true. What exactly do you mean?
RT: It is abundantly clear to all reasonable and knowledgeable people that the Hebrew text was intentionally altered in the Christian era when the ancient texts were debated.
GW: That’s probably true.
RT: The Septuagint, whose tradition precedes the earliest extant Hebrew texts by some 16 centuries and the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal a timeline within which Yahshua (Jesus) correlates to the prophecies concerning the Messiah. This is embarrassing to the Jewish leaders.
GW: The ancient Hebrew texts probably make prophecies about the Messiah to come in the future, but the Jews believe that he is yet to come and that Jesus described in the NT was not the Messiah. I know several Jews and they have made this clear to me.
RT: The earliest Greek texts of the Tanakh outside the LXX were written 5 centuries later and intentionally exclude the possibility that Jesus fulfilled every prophecy of the Messiah save the last days Victory and ascendancy which Christian faith says will be fulfilled in His return.
GW: The Gospel writers probably used ancient Jewish texts which had been altered and tried their best to make it seem that Jesus was the Messiah which had been prophesied. But as I have shown before, you can’t trust the prophesies from the Bible.
Naturalistic Explanations of Supposedly Accurate Prophesies:
1. Later authors knew earlier prophesies and fabricated stories to match those prophesies.
2. Some persons knew earlier prophesies and acted in such a way to match them. (Self-fulfilling prophesy)
3. Most prophesies are vague, ambiguous, or imprecise. Rarely do they predict who, what, when, where, why, and how.
4. Some prophets may have just been good historians or sociologists who are correct in their predictions at a higher rate than lay persons.
5. Lucky guesses.
6. True positives are cherry-picked and false positives are ignored.
7. Metaphorical, figurative, or other non-literal writing is mistakenly interpreted as a prediction of the future.
Your reply above is to Paul Draper, not BibleAuthenticty (BA). When you respond to BibleAuthenticty, please use BA, or similar, not RT
Oh, I’m sorry I did not see Paul’s name. Yes, I should have referred to him as PD.
While it is true that God said, “I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts” (Hebrews 8::10 NIV), it is not in a literal sense, because we humans cannot read what is in another person’s heart and mind. The terms, “the word of God” and “God’s word”, generally refer to God’s written word, the Bible. For example, “All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers in the field, the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord remains forever” (1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV).
Bible translations of the Old Testament (OT) were based primarily on Hebrew manuscripts of the 10-12th centuries CE, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The Hebrew Bible manuscripts of the DSS are of every OT book except Esther, and are dated from circa 150 BCE to 70 CE. These discoveries have proven that the Hebrew text of the OT had not changed during the 1,000 year period between the DSS and the previously oldest known OT manuscripts.
The oldest extant manuscripts of the LXX are dated to about the same time period, but they DO NOT “exclude the possibility that Jesus fulfilled every prophecy of the Messiah.”
RT: While it is true that God said, “I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts” (Hebrews 8::10 NIV), it is not in a literal sense, because we humans cannot read what is in another person’s heart and mind.
GW: False. It is not true in any way. Why? Because God does not exist, and this has been proven. You have still found no error in my Holocaust argument, and nobody else has either. But yes, we do not have telepathic powers, even though God does not exist.
RT: The terms, “the word of God” and “God’s word”, generally refer to God’s written word, the Bible. For example, “All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers in the field, the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord remains forever” (1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV).
GW: First, we know now that God does not exist. Secondly, even if he did exist, there is no good evidence that he has ever communicated with human persons. Thirdly, we know what it would be like if God did exist and communicated with humans. I have clearly described that to you. Instead, you continue to mistakenly believe that God would be incompetent.
RT: Bible translations of the Old Testament (OT) were based primarily on Hebrew manuscripts of the 10-12th centuries CE, until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The Hebrew Bible manuscripts of the DSS are of every OT book except Esther, and are dated from circa 150 BCE to 70 CE. These discoveries have proven that the Hebrew text of the OT had not changed during the 1,000 year period between the DSS and the previously oldest known OT manuscripts.
GW: This could be true, but it is not relevant to the issues we have been discussing.
RT: The oldest extant manuscripts of the LXX are dated to about the same time period, but they DO NOT “exclude the possibility that Jesus fulfilled every prophecy of the Messiah.”
GW: You keep misunderstanding the burden of proof. Anything logically possible is historically possible. The realm of possible events may be infinite. But we are interested in what certainly or probably happened, not what possibly happened. Anyone who asserts that an event happened in the past has the burden of proof to demonstrate BY EVIDENCE and logic that it certainly or probably happened. The three relevant types of evidence are Reports, Recordings, and Remnants, as we have previously discussed. If you do not understand these categories, let me know and I will explain them to you. As of right now the evidence for the hypothetical “coming back to life of Jesus,” in terms of Reports, Recordings, and Remnants, is insufficient for belief that this event certainly or probably happened. It is not even close. So, at present nobody today should believe that Jesus came back to life.
GW: “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” Corinthians I:15:14, NIV
BA: The life of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and Son of God, including his birth, betrayal, death and resurrection, was predicted hundreds of years prior to his birth by about 20 Israelite prophets in the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures. These were written far in advance of Jesus’ earthly existence, as attested by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
GW: Nonsense. We’ve covered this. Naturalistic Explanations of Supposedly Accurate Prophesies:
1. Later authors knew earlier prophesies and fabricated stories to match those prophesies.
2. Some persons knew earlier prophesies and acted in such a way to match them. (Self-fulfilling prophesy)
3. Most prophesies are vague, ambiguous, or imprecise. Rarely do they predict who, what, when, where, why, and how.
4. Some prophets may have just been good historians or sociologists who are correct in their predictions at a higher rate than lay persons.
5. Lucky guesses.
6. True positives are cherry-picked and false positives are ignored.
7. Metaphorical, figurative, or other non-literal writing is mistakenly interpreted as a prediction of the future.
GW: Anyway, it has been proven that God does not exist and there is no good evidence that anybody, including Jesus, ever came back to life when the eight signs of death have been clearly validated, including rigor mortis.
BA: The NT provides accounts from multiple sources who witnessed Jesus firsthand after his resurrection
GW: Not a single one! The consensus of experts is that the writers of the Gospels are anonymous. However, the experts also have concluded that some of Paul’s letters are authentic and some are not. But Paul never met Jesus. Jesus was dead long before Paul wrote.
BA: Jesus made at least 10 separate appearances to his disciples between the resurrection and his ascension to heaven.
GW: I have examined every alleged appearance of Jesus after his crucifixion and I have found a naturalistic explanation for every one of them. The resurrection is the least probable explanation in every case.
BA: There were no accounts of any witnesses who his resurrection a hoax, nor is there any historical record of contradictory witnesses of his resurrection.
GW: There are Muslim scholars who claim that the resurrection never occurred and that the crucifixion of Jesus was a hoax. They believe that some Jews swapped out Jesus for an imposter. Haven’t you read about this? Of course, like you these scholars have not a single first-person, author-identified, low-bias, promptly-written eyewitness report to support their assertions.
GW: Also, haven’t you read the “Jesus had a twin” theory?
GW: I do not promote a hoax theory. The most likely theory to be true is the grief hallucination theory. The second most likely theory to be true is the revival from coma theory. Both the resurrection and hoax theories are extremely unlikely.
There is far more reliable historical evidence for Jesus’ life, teachings, miracles and resurrection than for any other historical figure of ancient times. Take the authenticity Alexander the Great, for example. He was born 350 years before Jesus, and what we know today about him is based on TWO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES of his life by Arrian and Plutarch, which written about 400 years after Alexander died.
The extent manuscripts pf the works of Virgil and Horace, both of whom lived within a generation of Jesus, were written more than 400 years after their deaths, and the ones of Livy and Tacitus on Roman history and the works of Pliny Seconds on natural history were all written more than 500 years after the time of their original accounts.
In spite of this, no one doubtsVirgil and Horace wrote great poetic masterpieces. There are also no skeptics about the authenticity and accuracy of the accounts of Livy and Tacitus in chronicling the events of Roman Emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, or Nero, etc.
We know the historical Jesus primarily through four gospels, which were written within 65 of his death, not hundreds years later. The New Testament of Bible is supported by 25,000 manuscripts, as opposed to only 1,800 for Homer’s Illiad, and a handful for other ancient authors and their works.
“All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but he word of the Lord endures forever”—1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV
The authenticity of the works of humans pales in comparison to the authenticity of God’s Word, the Bible!
BA: There is far more reliable historical evidence for Jesus’ life, teachings, miracles and resurrection than for any other historical figure of ancient times.
GW: Even if you took the rest of your life to work towards proving that, you never would. You’d run out of time or you’d discover that your claim is wrong. Start by defining “ancient times.” Which teaching? Which miracle? For others we have actual eyewitness reports, statutes, and artifacts. You don’t have this for Jesus.
BA: Take the authenticity Alexander the Great, for example. He was born 350 years before Jesus, and what we know today about him is based on TWO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES of his life by Arrian and Plutarch, which written about 400 years after Alexander died.
GW: That is a horrible comparison since historical methods improve over time, especially during a 350 year period.
BA: The extent manuscripts pf the works of Virgil and Horace,…
GW: I’m sure you can find persons for whom the documentation is as bad as it is with Jesus.
GW: Here are persons for whom the documentation of their lives is far better than that for Jesus: Julius Caesar (100 BCE – 44 BCE), Emperor Augustus (63 BCE – 14 CE), Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE – 65 CE). Therefore, your historical hypothesis is hereby refuted.
BA: We know the historical Jesus primarily through four gospels, which were written within 65 of his death, not hundreds years later.
GW: The four Gospels are just stories about Jesus. As I have told you many many times, there are no first-person, author-identified, low-bias, promptly-written eyewitness reports of any event in the life of Jesus. ZERO.
BA: The New Testament of Bible is supported by 25,000 manuscripts, as opposed to only 1,800 for Homer’s Illiad, and a handful for other ancient authors and their works.
GW: Number of manuscripts doesn’t matter. There are many manuscripts about Harry Potter too.
BA: “All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but he word of the Lord endures forever”—1 Peter 1:24,25 NIV
GW: Who is the Lord? Here you are confusing Jesus and God, and they are not the same. Jesus may have been a real human person living in the first century. God is a hypothetical supernatural person who has now been proven to never have existed.
BA: The authenticity of the works of humans pales in comparison to the authenticity of god’s Word, the Bible!
GW: God has no Word. He doesn’t exist! Also, authenticity is not the same as validity. There may be an authentic manuscript which claims that Jesus came back to life, but this hardly means that Jesus actually came back to life. Think of an authentic manuscript as the original manuscript, not a copy and not altered. The Dead Sea Scrolls might be authentic manuscripts, but this in no way means that what they assert is true! You draw incorrect conclusions when you don’t think critically about your sources.
There are 39 ancient sources (in addition to the NT) that testify to the existence of Jesus Christ, such as Pliny, Josephus, and the Talmud. Ignatius, who lived only 70 years after Jesus’ execution, wrote about Jesus, “He was condemned. He was crucified in reality, and not in appearance, not in imagination, not in deceit. He really died, and was buried, and rose from the dead”.
BA: There are 39 ancient sources (in addition to the NT) that testify to the existence of Jesus Christ, such as Pliny, Josephus, and the Talmud.
GW: But none of them ever met or observed Jesus! So, they are weak sources. Please understand that I am not a mythicist when it comes to the existence of Jesus. I have never asserted that he did not exist. But none of the evidence is sufficient to validate any alleged supernatural event in his life, including coming back to life.
BA: Ignatius who lived only 70 years after Jesus’ execution, wrote about Jesus, “He was condemned. He was crucified in reality, and not in appearance, not in imagination, not in deceit. He really died, and was buried, and rose from the dead”.
GW: But Ignatius never met or observed Jesus! Let us agree and not debate that Jesus lived, was condemned, was crucified, and at some point died. But he did not necessarily die from crucifixion, was not necessarily buried in a tomb, and almost certainly did not come back to life after dying. The latter is a ridiculous idea, not supported by the evidence. Remember – you only have stories about Jesus from anonymous sources. No eyewitnesses.
Anyone who wanted to make up a story in the 1st century would not use women as their primary witnesses, because women’s testimony was considered worthless. All 4 gospels report that the first eyewitnesses to the proof of Jesus’ resurrection were women.
BA: Anyone who wanted to make up a story in the 1st century would not use women as their primary witnesses, because women’s testimony was considered worthless.
GW: If you are going to think rationally about stories, then you can’t think of a story in a dichotomous fashion, i.e. it is either entirely true or entirely false. For example, historical fiction is deliberately written to be partly true and partly false. I suspect that the Gospel stories are probably partly true and partly false. For example, we both believe that when the stories say that Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified, they are true! I also agree that if Jesus was in fact placed in a tomb (50% probable), then it is likely that it was the women who were last to leave the tomb when Jesus was placed in it and first to meet at the front of the tomb on Sunday morning. But if God did exist and caused Jesus to come back to life, then the women would have seen Jesus roll back the stone, exit the tomb on his own, and embrace them. None of this happened or is reported. We can be confident that God, even if he existed, did not cause Jesus to come back to life, even if he did come back to life, which is a ridiculous idea anyway. The grief hallucination and the coma hypotheses are perfectly good explanations for any alleged sightings of Jesus after crucifixion.
BA: All 4 gospels report that the first eyewitnesses to the proof of Jesus’ resurrection were women.
GW: They claim, but do not report. You don’t know that these are reports! None of the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses to women being eyewitnesses. You can’t be confident about hearsay. You must critically think about the Gospels, not just accept them at face value, as you were taught to do in childhood.
You’re dead wrong, friend!
“When they [“the women,” v. 1] came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others who told this to the apostles” (Luke 24:9,10 NIV).
The apostle Matthew was an eyewitness to these events. Luke used reports handed down to us BY THOSE WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES” (Luke 1:2 NIV). Peter was “a witness of Christ’s sufferings” (1 Peter 5:1 NIV), and “Mark” (1 Peter 5:13) was Peter’s writer of the 2nd gospel.John says “we saw him with our own eyes” (1 John 1:1 NLT), and “THIS REPORT IS FROM AN EYEWITNESS GIVING AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT” (John 19:35 NLT), and “This disciple is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here” (John 21:24 NLT).
Regarding the “grief hallucinations” theory:
“Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see given hallucination at a time”.—Psychologist Dr. Gary Collins
Those who saw the resurrected Jesus did not expect to see him, and were surprised by his being there. Psychiatrists agree that hallucinations require expectation. A psychiatric study suggests that the content of the hallucination requires the efforts [of the one experiencing the hallucination] to master anxiety to fulfill various wishes and needs” (Encyclopedia of Psychology, Vol 2, 2001).
BA: Regarding the “grief hallucinations” theory: “Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see given hallucination at a time”.—Psychologist Dr. Gary Collins
GW: I agree. If Peter and John are in a room together, they may both have a hallucination of Jesus at the same time, but they won’t have identical hallucinations of Jesus. Hallucinations are unique. If you later ask them to describe their experiences in writing and examine what they wrote, you will see different descriptions. For example, they might describe Jesus with different clothing, gestures, and actions.
BA: Those who saw the resurrected Jesus did not expect to see him, and were surprised by his being there.
GW: Maybe, maybe not. Grief hallucinations are never or almost never expected. Mine certainly wasn’t.
BA: Psychiatrists agree that hallucinations require expectation.
GW: No, they don’t agree on this at all. I never expected to hear my dead wife to call me from the kitchen.
BA: A psychiatric study suggests that the content of the hallucination requires the efforts [of the one experiencing the hallucination] to master anxiety to fulfill various wishes and needs” (Encyclopedia of Psychology, Vol 2, 2001).
GW: False. No effort is required to have a hallucination. They just happen to a person. A person does not try to have them. Have you ever experienced a hallucination?
BA: You’re dead wrong, friend!
GW: False. I’m alive right!
BA: “When they [“the women,” v. 1] came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others who told this to the apostles” (Luke 24:9,10 NIV).
GW: Why are you citing this verse? I already agreed that if Jesus was placed in the tomb (50% probable), then it is likely that the women were the last to leave the site of the tomb after the burial and the first to arrive at the tomb on Sunday morning. However, the Gospels differ on who these women were. This is further evidence against the idea that God dictated or inspired the Gospels.
BA: The apostle Matthew was an eyewitness to these events.
GW: Where is your report from the apostle Matthew in which he says he observed any events in the life of Jesus? Neither you nor anyone else has such a report.
BA: Luke used reports handed down to us BY THOSE WHO FROM THE FIRST WERE EYEWITNESSES” (Luke 1:2 NIV).
GW: I already pointed out the problems with this claim. Where are the eyewitness reports which Luke claims to have used? You want people to believe that a person came back to life on such weak evidence? Rational-thinking people are not going to believe it. This is one reason why Christianity is on the decline in the US and Europe. People are more and more starting to think rationally about the Gospels and the claims they make. Rational thinking people reach different conclusions from the ones you reach.
BA: Peter was “a witness of Christ’s sufferings” (1 Peter 5:1 NIV), and “Mark” (1 Peter 5:13) was Peter’s writer of the 2nd gospel.
GW: Again, where is your report from Peter in which he says he observed any events in the life of Jesus? Neither you nor anyone else has such a report. Where is your report from Mark in which he says he specifically interviewed Peter?
BA: John says “we saw him with our own eyes” (1 John 1:1 NLT),…
GW: I don’t use the NLT. It is a poor translation. I use the NIV. In the cited verse the NLT says “We proclaim to you the one who existed from the beginning…” Well, this is false. There is no good evidence that anyone existed from the beginning or that there was a beginning of the universe, as the author implies. Modern human persons began to exist only 200K years ago. Also, the author of 1 John does not specifically identify himself.
BA: and “THIS REPORT IS FROM AN EYEWITNESS GIVING AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT” (John 19:35 NLT),…
GW: How do you know that the author was an eyewitness of Jesus? Why do you believe the claim?
BA: and “This disciple is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here” (John 21:24 NLT).
GW: We discussed this issue in detail long ago. I refuted your claims about it. I have no need or motivation to go over it again. Bart Ehrman and the consensus of NT scholars assert that the authors of the Gospels are anonymous. There is no proof that they were eyewitnesses of Jesus. You have no good reports, recordings, or remnants to support your claim that Jesus came back to life. It is a ridiculous claim, based primarily on wishful thinking.
The four gospels are indeed based largely on eyewitness accounts, as evidenced in the article, “Anonymous Folklore, or Eyewitness Accounts, of Jesus?”, on this site. Please read it carefully!
BA: The four gospels are indeed based largely on eyewitness accounts,…
GW: You don’t know this. According to the relevant experts, the authors of the Gospels are anonymous. We don’t know who they were, except that they were educated Greek speaking men who wrote 30-70 years after Jesus allegedly died. They do not name their sources, if they had any. They do not quote their sources, if they had any. They don’t even identify themselves! If there were any eyewitness involved in the chain of communication to the Gospel writers, they were far removed in years and generations from the writers themselves. Once again, you do not have even a single first-person, author-identified, low-bias, promptly-written, eyewitness report of any event in the life of Jesus and its immediate aftermath, period. ZERO. ZILCH. NOTHING.
BA: as evidenced in the article, “Anonymous Folklore, or Eyewitness Accounts, of Jesus?’, on this site. Please read it carefully!
GW: I probably already read it. If not, we have probably covered every point brought up before. I will trust Bart Ehrman’s conclusions over your conclusions on these issues any day.
GW: I wanted to make a couple of more points about the Gospel of John. It is almost certain that it was not written by John, the son of Zebedee, the only disciple to be named “John.” Why? It has been estimated that this book was written in the time period of 90-110 CE. It is likely that John, the son of Zebedee, would have died before 90 CE. People in those times rarely lived beyond 45 years. So, if the disciple was 25-30 years old at the time he joined Jesus, if he were still alive, he would be 90-95 years old in 90 CE. This is very unlikely. John, the son of Zebedee was likely illiterate and spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, or similar language when he joined Jesus, and was not educated and Greek speaking as was the writer of the Gospel of John. Furthermore, the writer of the Gospel does not clearly and unequivocally identify himself either as John the Son of Zebedee or any disciple at all! Case closed.
GW: Besides we now know that God does not exist anyway, so the Bible is moot.
Please see the article, “The Titles of the Gospels–Are They Genuine?”, on this website.
According to a consensus of NT experts, the titles of the Gospels were not given by the authors of those Gospels. They were given by other people. Do the titles reflect the actual names of the authors? We don’t know. The authors do not clearly identify themselves within the texts of the Gospels, and so we cannot judge the accuracy of the titles. Also, we do not have any eyewitness reports of the assignment of titles. We will probably never know the answer.
You’re missing the point:
Every extant manuscript that includes the beginning of each gospels has a title attributing each of the four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, respectively. No exceptions!
Since no extant manuscript is an original, but written by a copyist, not only the titles, but also the the text of each gospel, is written by someone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, respectively. Each gospel also has many very early written witnesses attesting to the writership of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
John was likely the one of the younger apostles. One evidence of this is that he “outran Peter” (John 20:4 NIV) on the way to the empty tomb. He likely was born around the beginning of the 1st century, which would make him in his late 90’s when he wrote the gospel bearing his name. Jesus’ comments to Peter imply that John would live a long time, much longer than Peter (John 21:19-23). While it is is true that many people back then did not live into older age, the fact is that some did. In fact, a few even lived to 100.
To claim that John “was likely illiterate” reveals ignorance of the facts. Their father’s fishing business in which they were employed, was lucrative enough to have “hired men” (Mark 1:20 NIV).
Since Greek was the international language, and Pilate’s public notice of the reason for Jesus execution was written in “Aramaic, Latin and Greek” (John 19:20 NIV), it is obvious that Greek was widely used in Palestine at that time. An international transportation artery passed right by Capernaum, John’s hometown, which likely brought him into contact with diverse people.
BA: John was likely the one of the younger apostles. One evidence of this is that he “outran Peter” (John 20:4 NIV) on the way to the empty tomb.
GW: First, the author of the Gospel is anonymous. There is no good evidence that he was John the disciple of Jesus. Secondly, it is irrational for you to judge that the disciple John was younger than most of the disciples based only on a running race with Peter. Thirdly, the winner of the running race may have been in better health or physical condition or less sleepy or more motivated than the other, and not younger. Thirdly, the story of two disciples going to the tomb is only reported in the final gospel, not corroborated elsewhere, and so it is probably a fabrication. If this major detail were true, it would be reported in all the gospels! Therefore, you hypothesis is unsupported.
BA: He likely was born around the beginning of the 1st century, which would make him in his late 90’s when he wrote the gospel bearing his name.
GW: It is unlikely that any disciple of Jesus was still alive in his 90s. People typically did not live past 45. It was possible but very unlikely. The author of the gospel does not clearly identify himself as a disciple within the text of the gospel. Also, the disciple John was probably illiterate and did not know Greek. Your case is very weak.
BA: Jesus’ comments to Peter imply that John would live a long time, much longer than Peter (John 21:19-23).
GW: These comments were not reported by a verified eyewitness of Jesus. We cannot trust them. Also, Jesus would have been no better than you and me at guessing how long people would live. I will guess that I will probably live longer than you, but this does not mean that I will be right or that I am better at predicting this than an average person.
BA: While it is is true that many people back then did not live into older age, the fact is that some did. In fact, a few even lived to 100.
GW: Provide us with good evidence that there were three people born in the first century that lived to be 100 or even 90. I don’t think you can. It is not impossible that one of Jesus’ disciples lived to be 100 or 90, it is just extremely unlikely. And it is a moot question anyway if none of the disciples wrote or dictated a gospel, which appears to be the case.
BA: To claim that John “was likely illiterate” reveals ignorance of the facts.
GW: False. It reveals knowledge of the fact that most Jews in Palestine at the time were illiterate. I believe I read one estimate of 95% illiteracy. It is likely that all the disciples were illiterate.
BA: Their father’s fishing business in which they were employed, was lucrative enough to have “hired men” (Mark 1:20 NIV).
GW: This is irrelevant to the question of whether the fishermen disciples were literate or not.
BA: Since Greek was the international language, and Pilate’s public notice of the reason for Jesus execution was written in “Aramaic, Latin and Greek” (John 19:20 NIV), it is obvious that Greek was widely used in Palestine at that time.
GW: But not by the disciples.
BA: An international transportation artery passed right by Capernaum, John’s hometown, which likely brought him into contact with diverse people.
GW: Irrelevant. This does not mean that the disciple John could understand, speak, read, or write Greek. Writing a new second language is the last skill to be learned. Also, we do not know that the author of John was John the disciple. That is just your unfounded speculation.
GW: Let’s review three hypotheses about what actually happened:
1. Jesus existed. He was crucified. He hung on the cross at least overnight. He died on the cross. His corpse was removed from the cross by the Roman soldiers and thrown into a common pit. Later on, one or two disciples had grief hallucinations of Jesus and jumped to the conclusion that he had come back to life. The tomb story was fabricated later.
2. Jesus existed. He was crucified. He died on the cross. Before dusk the Roman soldiers removed the corpse from the cross and gave custody of it to Joseph and Nicodemus who buried the corpse in a traditional stone tomb. After everyone left the tomb area, during the night, Jesus’ corpse was stolen. It might have been stolen by family members or by men hired by the family and was then transported to Nazareth or elsewhere to be re-buried near dead family members. The ossuary of Jesus may actually be in Nazareth today. Archeologists should look there. Later on, one or two disciples had grief hallucinations of Jesus and jumped to the conclusion that he had come back to life.
3. Jesus existed. He was crucified. He slipped into a coma on the cross. Before dusk the Roman soldiers removed Jesus from the cross and gave custody of Jesus to Joseph and Nicodemus who took the presumed corpse to a traditional stone tomb. While attempting to wrap the body, the two men noticed that Jesus was still alive! He had come out of the coma! Nicodemus went outside the tomb and ordered the women to go home and they did. The two men then gave first aid to Jesus and carried him to a secret location where they and a trusted physician of the time nursed Jesus. The women found the tomb empty on Sunday morning. Jesus continued to improve. Later he met with disciples and friends and they thought, mistakenly, that he had come back to life. It is even possible that Joseph, Nicodemus, and Jesus himself all mistakenly thought that Jesus had come back to life, when he really had recovered from a coma.
Which of these scenarios actually occurred? We don’t know and we may never know. (I hope time travel is invented and you and I can go back and observe what actually happened.) However, all of them are far more likely than a scenario in which Jesus came back to life, which is implausible. If God did exist and if he caused Jesus to come back to life, then 1) The women would have observed Jesus roll back the stone, exit the tomb, and greet them. 2) The risen Jesus would have presented himself to his family and friends, the Jewish authorities, the Roman authorities, and the masses of common folk. And 3) All of this would have been well documented by the journalists and historians of the time. None of these happened. To properly postdict what did happen you need to understand what would have happened but didn’t. Your explanation doesn’t hold water, and rational thinking people know this. You can fool some people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time, and especially not the rational thinking people.
You can put in your search bar “Centenarians in Antiquity” and you’ll see several examples of centenarians in the era of the 1st century.
The certification of Jesus’ death before the body was released to Joseph (Mark 15:43-46), and the fact that the soldiers broke the legs of the two other men executed, but not Jesus’ legs because they “found that he was already dead” (John 19:31-33 NIV) rules out the “Jesus stayed on the cross overnight theory”, the “swoon theory”, and the “coma theory”, etc.
See the just edited last reply to you on this site.
BA: You’re missing the point:
GW: No, you’re missing the point.
BA: Every extant manuscript that includes the beginning of each gospels has a title attributing each of the four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, respectively. No exceptions!
GW: I do not believe you when you make this claim. I will need to see some evidence.
GW: However, even if your claim is true, it doesn’t refute my hypotheses – 1) The titles may have been appended by persons other than the authors, even on the oldest or original manuscripts. And 2) The titles may not be accurate in identifying the authors. What evidence favors my hypotheses? First, the authors do not identify themselves within the texts. They don’t give their names, their family names, or their home locations. Secondly, the wording of the title “The Gospel According to…” is not the kind of wording likely to be used by an author of these narratives. Instead, it might be “The Life of Jesus the Christ” followed by “By James of Jeruselem, the Brother of Jesus.” Thirdly, there are no eyewitness reports of people who observed the authors write the Gospels with those titles we see today.
BA: Since no extant manuscript is an original, but written by a copyist, not only the titles, but also the the text of each gospel, is written by someone other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, respectively.
GW: You are still missing the point. We are discussing not what a later copyist wrote, but what the original author wrote. Did the original author title their narrative “The Gospel According to…” This is the question, regardless if they did the actual writing or they dictated to a secretary. I and experts believe that the titles were added later by somebody other than the author. This somebody may have been a copyist or not.
BA: Each gospel also has many very early written witnesses attesting to the writership of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
GW: I do not believe you when you make this claim. I will need to see some evidence for each of the Gospels. A “witness” would have to personally know the author and have interacted with the author during their life, observing their writing and maybe even reviewing early drafts. For example, my wife could have made a written report that she saw me write my first book and reviewed early drafts.
The evidence is easily accessible via the internet for anyone who wants to see it. This website is not a debate site. If you’re not interested in looking at the evidence, forget it, but don’t waste our time and yours on this website.
BA: The evidence is easily accessible via the internet for anyone who wants to see it.
GW: You have made these extraordinary irrational claims, and so the burden of proof is on you to present the evidence in support of your position. I don’t believe you. Nobody should believe you if you can’t support your outrageous claims.
BA: If you’re not interested in looking at the evidence, forget it,…
GW: If you have any good evidence to support your position, I am interested in examining it. Present it! That is your duty.
BA: but don’t waste our time and yours on this website.
GW: Don’t waste our time making extraordinary irrational claims and refusing to present supporting good evidence when you are asked for it. That is your duty.
As for what is our “duty” on this website, it is not for you to decide how we operate this site. You’re being unwilling to do any minuscule searching for yourself is like:
“A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth. A sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven people who answer discreetly”—Proverbs 26:15,16 NIV
BA: As for what is our “duty” on this website, it is not for you to decide how we operate this site.
GW: Straw man. I am telling you what is your duty as a human being!
BA: You’re being unwilling to do any minuscule searching for yourself is like:
GW: You are being unwilling to do your minimal duty as a human being making a truth claim.
BA: “A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth. A sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven people who answer discreetly”—Proverbs 26:15,16 NIV
GW: Yes, this applies to you in the current case.
BA: You can put in your search bar “Centenarians in Antiquity” and you’ll see several examples of centenarians in the era of the 1st century.
GW: And you can present specific evidence to support your wild claims. Here is the relevant CUE rule: “In any discussion, debate, forum, or public venue, if person X makes a truth claim and if person Y challenges X to present supporting evidence for the claim, then X should always present the specific and relevant supporting evidence or declare that they have none. This is the moral duty of person X.”
BA: The certification of Jesus’ death before the body was released to Joseph (Mark 15:43-46), and the fact that the soldiers broke the legs o rules out the “Jesus stayed on the cross overnight theory”, the “swoon theory”, and the “coma theory”.
GW: First, you are not presenting eyewitness reports. We should not trust the gospels, especially stories that are not presented in three or four of the gospels. Secondly, if the story is not a fabrication, the centurion’s claim to Pilate about the alleged death of Jesus could be the result of negligence or a bribe, as we have already discussed. Thirdly, the story does not say that the soldiers broke the legs of Jesus! Read the Bible NiV. Fourthly, the story of leg breaking appears only in the last gospel, and so we can disregard it. It was probably a fabrication. Fifthly, Bart Ehrman believes that the corpse of Jesus was thrown into a common pit and the tomb narrative is just false. As I have said, I think this is 50-50 likely.
GW: All three explanations I presented are plausible and much more likely to be true than the ridiculous resurrection explanation. More and more rational people are starting to see this. Christianity is finally on the decline in the US and Europe.
The reason the soldiers DID NOT BREAK JESUS’ LEGS IS BECAUSE they “FOUND HE WAS ALREADY DEAD” (John 19:31-33). Ehrman’s and your theories are entirely speculative, without any evidence.
BA: The reason the soldiers DID NOT BREAK JESUS’ LEGS IS BECAUSE they “FOUND HE WAS ALREADY DEAD” (John 19:31-33).
GW: First, in your claim you did not say whose legs were broken. You need to be more specific and clear when you make a claim like that. Secondly, as I said before, the story of leg breaking appears only in the last gospel, and so we can disregard it. It was probably a fabrication. Thirdly, since the other two prisoners were not yet dead, it is likely that Jesus was not dead also. If the guards then broke the legs of the other two but did not break the legs of Jesus, then he may have still been in a coma.
BA: Ehrman’s and your theories are entirely speculative, without any evidence.
GW: All the theories, including the separate theories of the Gospel authors and yours, are speculative! They all have the same amount and type of evidence. My three theories are just more plausible than yours. They fit better with the evidence and with scientific findings such as 1) About 15% of all survivors of the death of loved ones experience grief hallucinations. 2) Some people go into comas when they are injured and some of those victims come out of comas. 3) A person, confirmed to be dead by all eight signs of death and remaining in that state for more than three hours never comes back to life. Never. 4) All people lie or fabricate at some time in their lives. 5) All people are fallible and make mistakes in perception, judgement, and behavior.
If Jesus did not die on the cross:
1. He had to survive massive blood los, torture, and a stab wound to his side.
2. The Roman soldiers, who were well acquainted with their duties at crucifixions, would have failed in their duties. If the soldiers failed, they would have been executed.
3. If Jesus had still been alive, the soldiers would have also broken his legs.
4. Witnesses saw his stabbing, resulting in blood mixed with water, medically indicating Jesus had died.
5. No one questioned whether Jesus was dead or alive when they prepared his body and completely wrapped it in linen.
6. Every witness of his death would have been mistaken.
7. While suffering from from the wounds on his back, in his side, and in his feet and hands, Jesus had to roll the stone (likely about 1 ton) away, sneak past 4 or more soldiers, and then walk 7 miles on the road to get to Emmaus without any visible evidence of his torture and crucifixion (Luke 24:13-28).
8. There would likely be a record or a witness to Jesus dying at a later time.
Your theories fly in the face of all evidence.
BA: If Jesus did not die on the cross:
1. He had to survive massive blood los, torture, and a stab wound to his side.
GW: Not the stab wound. That story appears in only the last gospel. It is uncorroborated, and so we may disregard it. Yes, Jesus would have had to survive blood loss and torture. Josephus describes a case where a crucified man was removed early from the cross, as was Jesus, and he survived. So, it could happen, especially if he were given the best medical care after being removed from the tomb on Friday evening.
BA: 2. The Roman soldiers, who were well acquainted with their duties at crucifixions, would have failed in their duties. If the soldiers failed, they would have been executed.
GW: Only if it were discovered by Pilate that they failed. Yes, the soldiers would have been executed if God did exist and caused Jesus to come back to life. Why? Because the risen Jesus would have presented himself to Pilate who would have noted the failure, and then Pilate would have executed the crucifixion team which had been responsible for Jesus. There is no evidence that Pilate thought Jesus survived.
BA: 3. If Jesus had still been alive, the soldiers would have also broken his legs.
GW: Only if ordered by the centurion! But in one of my explanations, the centurion was either negligent or bribed. As far as we know, Jesus was removed from the cross without any broken legs or pierced abdomen.
BA: 4. Witnesses saw his stabbing, resulting in blood mixed with water, medically indicating Jesus had died.
GW: No. The stabbing story appears in only the last gospel. It is uncorroborated, and so we may disregard it. It is such a major detail that if it had really occurred, then it would be reported in all four gospels.
BA: 5. No one questioned whether Jesus was dead or alive when they prepared his body and completely wrapped it in linen.
GW: If the coma hypothesis is correct, then Joseph and Nicodemus did not complete the wrapping. Jesus woke up and they took him out for medical care. This hypothesis is supported by a verse talking about the head covering being neatly folded to the side when the tomb was discovered empty, as if it had never been used. “6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.” John 20:6-7 NIV
BA: 6. Every witness of his death would have been mistaken.
GW: Keep in mind that there are no eyewitness reports of his death. According to the stories three people could see Jesus up close and assumed he was dead – the Roman centurion (unless he was bribed), Joseph, and Nicodemus. Yes, it is possible that all three of these were mistaken. And then Jesus woke up in the tomb to Joseph and Nicodemus. Also, the stories do not say that Jesus was checked for the eight signs of death when he was removed from the cross by a physician or anybody else. So, we can’t be sure that he was dead.
BA: 7. While suffering from from the wounds on his back, in his side, and in his feet and hands, Jesus had to roll the stone (likely about 1 ton) away, sneak past 4 or more soldiers, and then walk 7 miles on the road to get to Emmaus without any visible evidence of his torture and crucifixion (Luke 24:13-28).
GW: No. Remember we are disregarding the piercing to his side. But yes, Jesus would have had wounds from the whipping, nails to his wrists, and thorns on his head. If he woke up from a coma, he would not have rolled back the stone because the stone would never have been rolled in front of the tomb opening. And Joseph and Nicodemus would have assisted him out of the tomb, possibly carrying him on a stretcher. I have carefully analyzed the story about Emmaus. I think this was just a case of misidentification, emotional excitement, and wishful thinking. The two walkers were not sure that the man was Jesus. They were guessing.
BA: 8. There would likely be a record or a witness to Jesus dying at a later time.
GW: Maybe, maybe not. There is a story that he went to India where he died. There is another story that he went to France where he died. If he survived the crucifixion and coma, he might have just went into a quiet retirement, not wanting to be hassled any longer.
BA: Your theories fly in the face of all evidence.
GW: No. As I have shown, they are consistent with all the evidence we have and more plausible than the silly resurrection theory you have presented. There is no good evidence in terms of the three Rs – Reports, Recordings, or Remnants – to support the hypothesis that Jesus came back to life. Furthermore, even if he somehow did come back to life, I have proven that it was not caused by God. It might have been caused by a quirk of nature, an alien from another planet, a gifted human being, Satan, or some god other than God.
GW: I have proven that the two main pillars of Christian theology just don’t fly. The resurrection is so unlikely that we should not believe it occurred. And we have proven that God does not exist with the Holocaust argument.
None of your “if”s, “might”s, and “maybe”s square with the evidence.
They’re very much like the “magic bullet” that killed Kennedy and wounded Connolly in ’63, while ignoring the Magruder film, ballistic evidence, other films of the assassination, and eyewitness testimony.
BA: None of your “if”s, “might”s, and “maybe”s square with the evidence.
GW: False. They all square with the evidence. They fit very nicely with the stories and with scientific facts.
BA: They’re very much like the “magic bullet” that killed Kennedy and wounded Connolly in ’63, while ignoring the Magruder film, ballistic evidence, other films of the assassination, and eyewitness testimony.
GW: Nope. I’m using the same evidence as you are – the Gospel stories. But my explanations are more plausible than yours. There is no good evidence of any resurrection in the entire 200 thousand years of humanity.