If you went to UNC Chapel Hill and took a class by Bart Ehrman–or if you have read any of his books–it is likely that you have heard one of his main arguments about the contradictions in the Christian canon of Scripture, namely, that the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) portray the crucifixion on Friday whereas the gospel of John portrays the crucifixion on Thursday.
In light of the alleged contradiction, Ehrman argues that the gospel of John recounts the crucifixion on a Thursday (the day of the Passover when the lamb is slain) in order to enhance the theme of John’s gospel narrative, that Jesus was the Son of God who was slain as a sacrifice for humanity’s sins. Ehrman concludes, therefore, that the historical authenticity of the gospels is a sham, cannot be trusted, and even alludes that the gospel accounts were written more from agenda than a sincere desire to recount what the writers eyewitnessed.
However, many scholars accuse Ehrman of jumping to conclusions too quickly. Certainly, it is without question that Ehrman’s observations appear to be quite compelling, and if his conclusions were true, it would seismically shake the foundations of Christianity’s doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
Yet, such a conclusion has not been met with little refutation. Two renowned authors, for example, Andreas J. Kostenberger and Michael J. Kruger, specifically refute Ehrman’s claims of such a contradiction in the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John about the dissimilar dates of the crucifixion. In their book, The Heresy of Orthodoxy, they posit the following counterargument:
“Specific claims of contradictions between John and the Synoptics include arguments that the crucifixion accounts conflict. For example, some argue that John places the crucifixion on Thursday instead of Friday in light of John’s reference to “the day of Preparation” (19:14). “The day of Preparation” usually occurred on Thursdays when the Passover lambs would have been slaughtered in preparation for Passover later that evening. Yet the solution to this apparent dilemma lies close at hand. In John 19:31, it is made clear that Jesus’ crucifixion took place on “the day of Preparation,” with the very next day being a “high day” (i.e., the Sabbath of Passover week). Thus, even in John the crucifixion takes place on Friday, with “the day of Preparation” in John, as in Mark and Luke, referring, not to the day of preparation for the Passover, but to the Sabbath (Mark 15:42; Luke 22:1; cf. Josephus, Ant. 16.163–64). Moreover, since Passover lasted a week (in conjunction with the associated Feast of Unleavened Bread; Luke 22:1), it was appropriate to speak of the day of preparation for the Sabbath as “the day of Preparation of Passover Week” (though not of the Passover in a more narrow sense; cf. John 19:14).”
Along with this argument, Ehrman also argues that the crucifixion and resurrection do not take place in an actual three days like the four gospel accounts seem to suggest. In response, I have heard several scholars say that the Greek words “in three days” does not literally mean “three days” like we would understand in our modern English context. Rather, “in three days” is a Greek expression that simply stood for a relatively short amount of time. Thus, the text does not literally mean “three days” like we Westerners understand “three days;” it sensibly makes use of the language of the day to communicate a short amount of time instead.
To be honest and fair, I am definitely not as knowledgeable as the scholars mentioned in this blog, but I do want to humbly point out that opposing arguments against Ehrman’s ‘groundbreaking, world-changing, shocking’ claims do exist–and from scholars who are just as smart and just as qualified as Ehrman. Of course, such counterarguments do not get fair media attention with Ehrman’s arguments–not because they are not equally valid–but because they do not carry the inherent ‘shock factor’ that Ehrman’s claims do.
In other words, just because media puts such a research everywhere doesn’t mean it is true. And just because it is shocking doesn’t mean it is true either. Evidence means it’s true, and that requires that both the Christian and the non-Christian must approach evidence and textual criticism with open minds, humbly evaluating what they might or might not want to be true all along. Evidence, however, is not the end-all-be-all, either. Because, as science teaches us, more evidence about evidence might be later discovered as well, which could lead us to slightly modified, or entirely different, conclusions.
________________
Andreas J. Köstenberger & Michael J. Kruger. The Heresy of Orthodoxy. 178-179.
