“You can’t say everything.” This is one of the refrains I often cite to my students as we discuss historical documents. When ancient authors put quill to papyrus (or parchment), we need to remember that they had a limited amount of space, a limited amount of time, a limited number of goals, and often a very specific purpose for which they wrote.
Inevitably, therefore, an historical account will include some things that other historical accounts (of the same event) might omit, and they might omit some things that other historical accounts might include.
This reality is particularly important to remember when the Gospel accounts are analyzed and compared with one another. Differences aren’t (necessarily) the same as contradictions. Each author inevitability gives a limited perspective on the whole. They can’t say everything.
Unfortunately, in Bart Ehrman’s recent book, How Jesus Became God–The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperOne, 2014), this particular principle goes unheeded. In order to demonstrate contradictory Christologies in the New Testament (particularly amongst the Gospels) Ehrman leans heavily on what the Gospel authors don’t say. Put directly, Ehrman uses an argumentum ex silentio (argument from silence).
This discussion of Ehrman’s use of the argument from silence will be the final installment of a series of posts interacting with and responding to his new book (for the prior post see here, here, and here).
For Ehrman, a central example of contradictory Christologies comes from comparing Mark with Matthew and Luke. Mark, he argues, believes Jesus became divine only at his baptism, and was a mere man prior to that point. Matthew and Luke, in contrast, present Jesus as divine even from birth (since he was born to a virgin).
But, how does Ehrman know that Mark rejects the virgin birth, and therefore rejects the higher Christology that goes with it? Simple: Mark doesn’t mention it. Ehrman states,
[Jesus] was already adopted to be God’s Son at the very outset of his ministry, when John the Baptist baptized him. This appears to be the view of the Gospel of Mark, in which there is no word of Jesus’s pre-existence or of his birth to a virgin. Surely if this author believed in either view, he would have mentioned it (238).
Here is where we see the clear use of the argument from silence. Ehrman assumes that if a New Testament author doesn’t mention something then they must not believe it. But, there is a reason why arguments from silence are regarded as fallacious. As noted above, we simply do not know why an author included some things and not others; and it is very dangerous to suppose that we do.
Think, for example, of Paul’s discussion of Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:23-26—a topic he never discusses anywhere else. Now imagine for a moment that (for some reason) we didn’t have 1 Corinthians. We might conclude that Paul didn’t know about Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper; indeed we might even conclude that Paul didn’t believe in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. And we would be flat out wrong.
Likewise, to suppose that Mark’s omission of the virgin birth means he doesn’t believe in the virgin birth (and thus must not share Matthew and Luke’s Christology) is an unsustainable line of reasoning. After all, Mark doesn’t even include a birth account! Should we conclude from that fact that he didn’t believe Jesus was born at all? Indeed, Mark omits many other stories that the other Gospels include; shall we conclude that he did not know any of them? Historical records are inevitably limited in scope; an author cannot say everything. Thus, we cannot draw hard and fast conclusions about things an author did not include.
Later, Ehrman makes the same argument from silence again. This time, he wants to show that Matthew and Luke don’t share John’s view of Jesus as pre-existent. He states:
I should stress that these virginal conception narratives of Matthew and Luke are by no stretch of the imagination embracing the view that later became the orthodox teaching of Christianity. According to this later view, Christ was a pre-existent divine being who ‘became incarnate through the Virgin Mary.’ But not according to Matthew and Luke. If you read their accounts closely, you will see that they have nothing to do with the idea that Christ existed before he was conceived. In these two Gospels, Jesus comes into existence at the moment of his conception. He did not exist before (243).
Notice particularly the last line: “He did not exist before.” But, how does Ehrman know that Matthew and Luke don’t believe Jesus existed before? Do they state such a thing anywhere? No. Ehrman is simply assuming this because they don’t directly mention Jesus’ pre-existence. In other words, he assumes this because Matthew and Luke are silent on the matter.
In the end, the repeated use of the argument from silence suggests that Ehrman is more intent on finding contradictions than he is on simply exploring the Christology of the New Testament authors. But, if one gives historical documents the benefit of the doubt, and doesn’t assume that omissions of a fact equal rejection of a fact, then the Gospel accounts actually prove to be quite complementary in regard to their understanding of Jesus as the divine Son of God.
Grant says
If we use Ehrman’s style of reasoning and conclude from Mark’s omission of the birth of Jesus Christ that he doesn’t believe Jesus was born at all, then wouldn’t Mark have had to believe in something special and supernatural regarding the origin of Jesus?
That’s nonsense, of course, but that just shows the argument from silence is nonsensical.
brianbrianbrian says
Grant this is kind of silly. If he doesn’t mention that Jesus ate three meals a day, your argument is that the argument from silence implies this suggests Mark thought Jesus was fed miraculously. But obviously it does not – it just implies that Mark found nothing interesting to report about Jesus’ eating habits. That is quite sensible.
But there is no corresponding logic for writing a biography of someone who was born miraculously of a virgin and not mentioning it. If you wrote on someone you knew who was born in such a manner, I’m guessing you wouldn’t skip that part. No one would. That is the issue.
Conversely if we follow your logic and Kruger’s, how do we know that Jesus didn’t frequently fly above the ground? My claim would be “because someone would have written about it.” Using your’s and Kruger’s logic, maybe no one bothered mentioning it.
Grant says
Well spotted brian. It was meant to be silly. As is the argument from silence.
As the article says:
“Indeed, Mark omits many other stories that the other Gospels include; shall we conclude that he did not know any of them? Historical records are inevitably limited in scope; an author cannot say everything. Thus, we cannot draw hard and fast conclusions about things an author did not include.”
What DID Mark include? Mark quoted that very passage from Isaiah. That’s what Mark has in mind in writing the opening of his Gospel. So Mark did believe in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, since he quotes from Isaiah 40 to explain the appearance of John (Mark 1:4), and the one spoken of in Isaiah prepares “the way of the LORD,” and makes “straight in the desert a highway for our God.”
That’s what IS THERE. But Bart Ehrman ignores that to focus on what isn’t there and guess as to why it isn’t. Saying that “the point is a biographer tries to focus on the salient points” ignores Dr. Kruger’s point that an author can’t include every single “salient point,” they “can’t say everything.”
brianbrianbrian says
Grant
With respect, you and Kruger actually use the argument from silence all the time. It is why we would agree that Jesus was not married and did not have children. Or that he followed kosher dietary laws his whole life. It makes no sense that something as pivotal as a marriage would be left out or that his eating pork would not be a huge issue that would be mentioned. Whether you are a very orthodox Xn or a skeptic, everyone uses the argument from silence. It puzzles me that Kruger doesn’t see this. He makes it look like a weak argument by using silly examples.
The passage from Isaiah is not that relevant. You can believe in pre-existence without a virgin birth.
At the end of the day, you seem to be saying that Jesus being born miraculously of a virgin was not salient. Respectfully, that is a puzzling claim. Mark wrote the first gospel with surely no knowledge that others would be written. How on earth do you skip that fact? If you do think he overlooked that, than I am not sure why you would be certain he was not married. When you are trying to convince your reader that some guy was the son of god, one of those points is far more salient than the other. If it’s not salient, guys like you and Kruger would not find it so important to defend.
Respectfully
Brian
Grant says
The teaching of the Virgin Birth is part of Christology. Jesus Christ, being pre-existent, takes the body prepared for him in the womb of the virgin and is born to save those the Father gives to him. And its important because if Jesus Christ is merely the child of a descendant of fallen Adam, then He can’t save anyone.
The goal of denying the Virgin Birth is to refuse a high Christology, namely that Jesus is Divine. So, yes, the Virgin Birth is salient from a high Christology. So, considering all the teaching of the New Testament, a Christian won’t believe in pre-existence without a Virgin Birth.
“The passage from Isaiah is not that relevant.” It isn’t relevant to the teaching of the Virgin Birth, but it is relevant to a high Christology. Mark quotes it to reveal the meaning of John the Baptist’s appearance as he prepared the way of Jesus Christ, and Isaiah reveals that the highway that figure prepares is for God. The Lord from Isaiah’s prophecy is Jesus Christ, the God for Whom the highway is prepared. That’s a high Christology at the opening of Mark’s Gospel.
So Mark has a high Christology, applying the prophecy of Isaiah about the preparation of the way for God. And even though he doesn’t explicitly state that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, why shouldn’t he have believed it? Because he didn’t state it? Perhaps he was assuming that the Christians he was writing to believed it? That can also be argued, or rather proposed, from silence. That’s why “arguments from silence are regarded as fallacious,” silence does not definitely state anything, and what IS said must be considered.
We can see that in what you said, that “Mark wrote the first gospel with surely no knowledge that others would be written. How on earth do you skip that fact?” Surely? Fact? Did Mark say that he was certain of that? We can’t know that.
brianbrianbrian says
Grant you assume the work is written for Xns (as opposed to both for Xns, for the interested, and for conversion purposes). I’m not sure but using your logic that Xns already know this, why then write the rest of the text? They surely know there were miracles and a crucifixion too. Again, this applies some sort of special logic to the virgin birth.
Mark’s gospel is chock full of attempts to tell you this guy is otherworldly via his powers, etc. The virgin birth suits this like a glove. And, seriously, it’s kind of a big deal. You just don’t leave that out. And, again, Kruger and you and me rely on arguments from silence all the time. Otherwise, every biographer would have to write pages and pages of stuff that the people did not do so as to prevent misunderstanding. You would literally have to write that Napoleon did not have a virgin birth, was not a miracle worker, and was not 9.5 feet tall. The writer simply has to assume that you will rule out the tremendously unusual and just focuses on telling you the stuff you can’t guess…like a virgin birth.
toddes says
As Dr. Kruger points out in the article, the Gospel of Mark is a Christology, i.e., a theological document, not a biography. So, while it may include biographical information, the emphasis is elsewhere.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
First, Papias writes that Mark wrote down what the Apostle Peter said. Papias also knew the Apostle John and Polycarp. Second, Mark was most likely the young man who fled from the Garden of Gethsemane the night Jesus was betrayed ( Mark 14:21-22). Third, Mark’s home was where the disciples met praying for Peter when the angel delivered from the hands of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12).
Fourth, history and theology cannot be divided. They both go hand in hand. It is well-known that the gospels were biographies for the time period in which they were written. They are NOT modern ideas of biographies. Christianity is an historical religion. It is based on historical fact. It is also a theological.
Every person is a theologian. Every person has a viewpoint about God, god, gods or goddesses, without God (atheios – alpha-primative), no god (atheios – modern definition). The viewpoint of the author or person is always laying underneath the surface of what is being written. In fact, it determines what will be written. Just because the document is theological does not make it non-historical. The events are true; they happened in real time. The theological part is why they happened. The theological part of the document is specifying the reason for the events to have happened as narrated. This does not mean that the events did not occur. There is a supernatural element in them that cannot be tested or examined other than through the eyes of faith. Faith is not blind. It is intuitive, intellectual and experiential; knowledge is the same. The difference is that knowledge (aside from God) is limited to the past and present, but faith takes that knowledge and projects it to the future.
Now, Mark is writing what Peter said. He writes it down faithfully. There is a plan to what is being written. Mark knew almost all the eyewitnesses of the events portrayed in his gospel. He is writing down the information that matches the qualifications of an Apostle as defined in Acts 1:22, which Peter would fit quite nicely, “from the baptism of John to the time He was taken up from us.” In fact, Mark was an eyewitness (oral eyewitness that is used in a court of law – martyr) himself to some of those events. Whether Mark or Matthew is the first gospell written is another issue entirely. Luke uses the word “autopse’ – an eyewitness that is literary or document based though may include an oral eyewitness (affidavit); our modern word “autopsy” comes from this word.
An Apostle was one chosen by Christ, who was with Christ, from the baptism of John to the Ascension to Heaven. Mark was a known associate of Paul and Peter (Silvanus, “Silas,” was also a known associate of Paul and Peter). Thus, the early church, from the first and second centuries took the Gospel of Mark to be from Peter. This known even as early as AD 100-150 (Papias).
brianbrianbrian says
The choice is false. It is both theology and biography. It follows one person’s life from a key starting point (baptism), follows that life chronologically, and ends when that life ends. That is a biography. Paul’s letters for example are more pure theology on occasion, and thus say almost nothing biographical about Jesus at all.
Further, the key thing about the virgin birth is that it is not just a biographical datum, but a key theological claim. It’s why Kruger is fighting so hard for it – because it says something theological about Jesus. Yet Kruger thinks Mark (who writes the first gospel and surely has no clue others will be written), is trying to convince everyone this guy is unlike every other human who has ever lived and yet leaves out this little matter of a virgin birth. A virgin birth is not eye colour. For later Xns, it is a critical claim of utmost biographical and theological significance. That Mark leaves it out is quite telling.
brianbrianbrian says
This is a poor argument. Of course Mark not mentioning Jesus’ birth does not imply Mark doesn’t think he was born. The point is a biographer tries to focus on the salient points. But how on earth do you fail to mention someone was born miraculously of a virgin? Would you leave that out? There is no sensible explanation for why he leaves this out other than he has not heard it or does not believe it.
Interestingly, when Paul mentions Jesus’ birth he never highlights its grandeur but rather always makes it sound low and contrasts it with the resurrection. He describes Jesus as born of the “flesh” which for Paul is not a positive term.
It is only later gospels where the new notion appears. Suggesting Mark decided it wasn’t worth mentioning strains all credulity.
Teddy says
According to the Early Church Fathers, Mark’s Gospel was a lecture given by Peter in Rome, so the reason why the Birth narrative was not in that Gospel is because Peter didn’t go that far back in his lecture
brianbrianbrian says
It’s way too long to be a lecture. And no one can remember a lecture like that – human memory cannot do that.
Lila Fair says
You continue to prove the original author’s point when you say that, “there is no sensible explanation for why he leaves this out other than he has not heard it or does not believe it.” Because no other explanation given makes sense to you, you assume your explanation is the only valid one.
In our post-modern culture, the idea of a miraculous virgin birth sets Jesus apart from other teachers and cult figures, and would very likely be included in any narrative. But Mark is not writing to a 21st century audience. His audience includes Romans and Greeks who grew up with tales of supernatural heroes and their miraculous origins. Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ unique humanity and love for humanity set Jesus apart from Hercules or Romulus and Remus for a very different group of readers than those with whom we are familiar. Later gospels emphasizing his miraculous birth may have been intended for a more Jewish readership, where his virgin birth would readily identify him as Messiah. Or the inclusion may have been in the nature of “correction” for early believers who over-emphasized his humanity at the expense of his divine nature.
I don’t mean to actually stand on this argument; I am not a Bible scholar nor an expert in the history of that time period. My point is that all such arguments are speculative in the absence of primary sources from that time period. I could suggest any number of reasons why Mark might have left out and/or included the passages in his account, and the same for the other gospel writers. It doesn’t make my suggestions definitive. I believe that is the author’s point as well. The writers of the Gospel accounts weren’t writing to defend a well-defined Christology–they were sharing the Good News they had witnessed. Mr. Ehrman has every right to posit his theories, and, for many, they will make sense and answer long-held questions. But this author has a valid criticism of those theories. Either or both may prove to have found some portion of the “truth.”
brianbrianbrian says
I liked your response Lila. A couple of points:
* I don’t think anyone leaves out a virgin birth. That a few others were claimed does not make it irrelevant. Healings and miracles were very commonly claimed (including from other Jews of the period; as were exorcisms…Jesus even acknowledges that the Pharisees’ sons do exorcisms) but the writer does not drop these points. On the contrary – they are vital to the claim. Jesus being born of a virgin is vital for Mark’s argument that this guy is something different. That he leaves it out…that makes little sense except for the point made my innumerable scholars – Mark does not know or believe this.
* On Kruger’s larger theory, as I wrote above, his criticism of the argument from silence cannot be supported. Everyone uses it. It’s why most of us will not believe that Jesus was married or had children – the gospels do not say this, but it’s too pivotal to have been left out. I gave other examples in my other posts. Everyone – most certainly including Kruger – uses the argument from silence. He has to discredit it here because the data really does point to uncomfortable conclusions.
Respectfully – Brian
Edward A. Dingess (@EdwardADingess) says
Actually you are missing the whole point. It is a FACT that just because Mark did not mention the virgin birth, that does not mean he did not believe in it. It also does not mean he did not think it was important. He had a reason for writing his account just as the other writers had their reasons. All Dr. Kruger is saying is two very simple things: the author had a purpose for his project which may have been different from other similar projects and second, the argument from silence is fallacious for good reason. If you are going to argue that Mark did NOT believe in the virgin birth, you are going to have to provide some evidence. Otherwise, since Mark is telling the story of the same Jesus the other writers told, we are justified in our view that he did believe the other events about this same Jesus.
The text of Mark was divinely inspired. The simple answer as to why it was not included in his gospel is because God, for reasons known only to Him, moved Mark in His own direction according to His own purpose. Too simple? For scholars maybe. True at its core? You better believe it.
I would be willing to be there is a much larger underlying problem with your view, namely, your philosophy of revelation and hence, your view of Scripture. But I could be mistaken I suppose.
brianbrianbrian says
Edward
The argument from silence is actually very sound. As I mentioned above, everyone uses it. The gospels do not say Jesus was single or that he never had children but no one credible believes he was. Why? Argument from silence – it’s too important to never come up. In the same way, he obviously followed kashrut (or kosher) dietary laws since if he did not, the uproar would have been too enormous not to get mentioned. Kruger uses the argument from silence ALL THE TIME (we all do).
Mark did not have the other accounts to look at. His is written first with surely no idea that others will be written. He is trying to convince his audience this guy is something special. You might leave out that he likes to eat dates; you don’t leave out his birth was otherworldly. This basically makes Mark a kind of fool with no sense of judgment.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Dear Brian,
There are several issues involved in the “argument from silence.”
First, you are correct in one sense that we all argue from silence.
Second, but you are incorrect in what that “argument from silence” means. Is that “argument from silence” just that, an argument from silence or are there inference being made from the context and language being used? Please remember that historical, theological, cultural, social, literary genre and language contexts are all important with regard to the issue at hand. For example: You keep stated the following:
“Mark did not have the other accounts to look at. His is written first with surely no idea that others will be written.”
Where did the idea that Mark was the first written? Yes, most scholars today believe that is so; but unfortunately, before the mid to late 20th century AD most scholars believed that Matthew was written first (as most of the early church fathers did also). I, for one, believe that Matthew was written first; but, again, both your view and my view of which was written first is based on “arguments of silence” with a difference: inference.
Third, Papias clearly states that Mark wrote down what Peter said. Papias said,
“The Elder used to : Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he [Peter remembered….For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave nothing out that he heard or to include any falsehood among them.” (Note: Elder is referring to the Apostle John)
Now, can we with absolute, 100% certainty that what Papias said is correct? NO. Probably about 99%, but that is about as far as any one can go. Do remember the difference between possible and probable. It is a difference in degree and is based on known facts and faith.
Regarding the issue of the Virgin Birth. Matthew and Luke both record the incident. Luke is much more fuller than Matthew’s, but that is of no consequence. John does not mention the Virgin Birth either; yet the Gospel of John is definitely written later than the Synoptics.
Finally, you said,
“The gospels do not say Jesus was single or that he never had children but no one credible believes he was. Why? Argument from silence – it’s too important to never come up. In the same way, he obviously followed kashrut (or kosher) dietary laws since if he did not, the uproar would have been too enormous not to get mentioned.”
What do you mean “it’s too important to never come up”? If you mean that some one would surely have brought up the fact that Jesus was a bachelor in a society and culture that leaned heavily on marriage being the second most important institution of Israel or Judaea other than the Temple than you are “probably” correct. But, if the issue is answered in that Jesus knew that He was going to die on the Cross, and the evidence is clearly in favor for that, then it was not necessary to answer an unasked question (in all probability). BTW, the latter is an “argument from silence, but it is an inference from what is said by Jesus Himself in the Gospels regarding His relationship to the Father and to his family. It is no accident that Jesus had the Apostle John take care of His mother, Mary and not his half-brothers, James and Jude. We do know that the Romans and others did ask how that the death of a criminal could lead people to believe that Jesus was God and Lord (the very words used of Caesar) and worship Him as such. That is one of the reasons for the Gospel of Mark (Jesus was the “obedient” Son of Man).
Back to the what Ehrman is saying. He believes that the Ecumenical Church Councils of the 4th and 5th Centuries made these decisions as what books were in the canon, the content of those books, etc. Unfortunately, most of his arguments are based as “arguments from silence.” This means that “if it is not mentioned, then it never happened.” That is POOR scholarship and sloppy scholarship at that. If any person in college or graduate or peer-reviewed journals ever submitted a paper as Ehrman has continually done, then they would receive, justly, a failure on that paper. Ehrman does not cite his sources. And even when he does cite the source it is done inadequately.
Then, there is the fact that Ehrman writes for a “general public” who do not know the issues quite as well as those within realm of biblical scholarship.
As I said in the second reply to this series, ” ‘Just because there is an ‘absence of evidence’ does not necessarily prove that there is ‘evidence of absence.’ “ That above all else should be always remembered. Too often both sides of an argument are based on assumptions or presuppositions that cannot ever be proved. Thus, faith, belief, or trust in the source(s) is required. All scholars use faith whether they agree or not.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
brianbrianbrian says
I’m not sure you understood some of my arguments (maybe I’m misreading). My point is that if Jesus was married and had kids, we would know because important things like this get mentioned. The absence of evidence here (i.e. we here of no such things) makes virtually everyone conclude he was single. That is an argument from silence. I gave other examples. My basic point is this gets used all the time. Kruger pretending it is a poor criteria fails to acknowledge that he and everyone else use it. It’s a good criteria if applied well and not in the silly manner Kruger uses to discredit it. Any good tool can still be applied poorly.
I think this discussion is at an end for me. I mean no disrespect but I can see our view on scholarship is quite different. I’m not sure how you think Matthew is first but that leaves you outside of one of the most agreed upon matters of Biblical scholarship. Your comment on Papias being 99% reliable is, I would suggest, a most baffling claim. Any acquaintance with religions shows them full of these claims whereby they tell you the source had direct access to as early a witness as possible and that it was totally remembered. Xty alone provides innumerable examples from 2nd C gospels being attributed to Thomas or whoever. That does not guarantee Papias is telling a convenient story but it should make one doubtful. Yet you are at 99%? This is puzzling since we don’t even know Papias’ sources, we have no corroborating data, etc. I think sometimes Ehrman makes his own mistakes but I think your bias towards orthodoxy is likely too strong for us to converse productively. Cheers.
Edward A. Dingess (@EdwardADingess) says
We make judgments about such historical claims based on an inspection of all the available evidence and if there is no evidence to support a particular conclusion, we may rightly affirm we have no reason to conclude such and such. However, we have to ask is that approach the right approach when we are dealing with the situation at hand. In your example, we have all the books of the NT, and not a shred of evidence to suggest Jesus was married. Is Erhman’s claim in the same category as your example? I think any reasonable person would hold that the latter is an entirely different discussion. Is it reasonable to conclude that Mark did NOT believe any of the events about Christ that He did not write about? I think such a view is extreme.
You say, it is too important NOT to mention. But your view is based on an unsupportable assumption. Your claim that Mark had no access to the Jesus story of Luke and Matthew on the basis that his account was first is simply unsupportable and for all intents and purposes, a poor assumption. The oral story surely preceded the written one. And who had access to that story is anyone’s guess. But I think it is safe to say that Mark surely must have know it well, given the evidence of his close proximity to the situation. And if that is true, and the virgin birth was an established uncontroversial matter or a matter that did not fit his situation for writing, why would he need to bring it up?
Something is only too important NOT to mention if it directly impacts the purpose and intent of your communication. If it does not, then these authors with limited materials and resources at their disposal had to pick only those events and subjects that met the circumstances for their project. This makes it all the more puzzling (not really) why Erhman would use such a weak argument to prop up his agenda. It is an agenda of unbelief. This is a man who has invented a new canon for criticism after all: the least orthodox reading it to be preferred. At least he is consistent.
brianbrianbrian says
Yes of course writers have purposes. You nicely slot the writers into clean silos. But Mark wants to win people to Christ. He wants to convince them that this guy is something else. If “nobody cares about the origins of a servant” why would they care about say the miracles of a servant? The virgin birth is totally relevant to Mark’s purposes to show Jesus is worthy of following and a messiah. And you ignore that Paul’s letters also seem to imply the lowness of Jesus’ birth. Combine these two facts and you have a problem. Matt and Luke then both add birth stories but they are entirely different, not even agreeing if the family lives in Bethlehem or in Nazareth, whether there was a census, etc. The evidence mounts all in one direction.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
I am reminded of this ditty: “Just because there is an ‘absence of evidence’ does not necessarily prove that there is ‘evidence of absence.’ “
anaquaduck says
There is no denying the disciples had a hard time coming to grips with God in the flesh & a life of faith. So did Zechariah when an angel supernaturally appeared to announce the “coming” birth. Lk 1:20. Mary ponders these things in her own heart Lk 1:32, 33 which will later be torn Lk 2:35 as will the temple curtain Mk 15:38. It was bound to happen eventually, it began in eternity before the earth began. Matt & Luke don’t specifically mention “I Am” as does John, Jn 8:23 &58 but they certainly reflect it, at least in part, they certainly don’t contradict it.
The main emphasis of Jesus ministry is the people be made aware that Jesus has come from God. He & God are working as one. Matt, Mark, Luke & John reflect this oneness.The old order of things are passing away. Israel will see God redeem the nations by His light. Mtt 21:42
anaquaduck says
Although John brings us “in the beginning was the Word….” Jn 1:1… He also brings Jn 10:38.“that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Is this a contradiction then for the logic of Ehrman.?
sisterofkay says
I’m a writer by trade. I can tell you that I emphasize different points in what I write depending on my audience and the theme I have chosen. It is important to consider those aspects when reading the gospels.
It seems apparent from the text itself that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience with the intent of making them understand that Jesus was the Messiah they had long-awaited. That’s why he includes the genealogy and information about his origins.
Luke’s gospel was written for a Gentile audience and his focus was on Jesus as the Son of Man. Because he wanted people to understand the human aspect of Jesus, he included the detailed account of his birth and his human lineage.
John wrote his gospel to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles with the goal of demonstrating that Jesus was God Incarnate. Again, this is apparent from the text.
Mark’s emphasis was on Jesus as servant as noted in Mark 10:45: “For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many.” Nobody cares about the origins of a servant. Therefore, there was absolutely no reason to include an account of his birth.
Again, I can’t emphasize enough that writers make choices about what they include based on their purpose for writing and the audience to whom they are writing. We can derive from the books themselves an understanding of their audience and intent.
Lastly, as Gary Habermas puts it, we can’t blame an author for not doing something he never intended to do. Therefore, we can’t blame Mark for not including a birth account if it didn’t fit his purposes and, from the text itself, we can deduce that it wasn’t.
anaquaduck says
Can it also be argued from Isaiah 40, which is Mark’s Genesis or starting point (which has no hint of silence…)
You who bring good news to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good news to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, “Here is your God!”
Grant says
I would say it could. Mark knew this passage in Isaiah. We also read there: “And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
Jesus Christ appeared: “And the Word abecame flesh and bdwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14). And when He returned to the Father, Jesus Christ sent his disciples to preach the Gospel all peoples.
We read in Colossians 1:5-6: “the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and increasing—as it also does among you.”
Grant says
brianbrianbrian wrote this reply to me:
“Grant you assume the work is written for Xns (as opposed to both for Xns, for the interested, and for conversion purposes).”
I do believe it was written for Christians primarily since they believe and preach the Gospel. Those being converted will also believe, and no one would or should try to stop anyone interested from reading Mark’s Gospel.
Brian also said:
“I’m not sure but using your logic that Xns already know this, why then write the rest of the text?”
For people he would not be able to speak to. The Gospel of John was written “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Reproducing Bart Ehrman’s quoted words here: “[Jesus] was already adopted to be God’s Son at the very outset of his ministry, when John the Baptist baptized him. This appears to be the view of the Gospel of Mark, in which there is no word of Jesus’s pre-existence or of his birth to a virgin. Surely if this author believed in either view, he would have mentioned it”
Again, from Mark’s application of Isaiah’s prophecy to John the Baptist, he believes that Jesus Christ is the God for whom John the Baptist prepared the way. So Mark does believe in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ. And for Jesus Christ, God the Father tore open the heavens just to say “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” So clearly Mark believes Jesus Christ is unique and not a fallen descendant of Adam. Mark writes that even the demons He rebuked despaired that He is “the Holy One of God.” So how was Jesus Christ born then? Mark doesn’t state the Virgin Birth explicitly, but a special birth is certainly not unreasonable.
I haven’t applied “special logic” to the Virgin Birth. John’s Gospel doesn’t mention that “the Word became flesh” through a virgin. Why would we assume that John didn’t believe in it? But John explicitly states that the Word Who became flesh is God, which is the unavoidable conclusion of Mark applying Isaiah’s prophecy to John the Baptist. Again, how did Mark believe that God became man?
Lastly, Brian said “And, again, Kruger and you and me rely on arguments from silence all the time. Otherwise, every biographer would have to write pages and pages of stuff that the people did not do so as to prevent misunderstanding.”
Yes, we all leave things out, assuming that others will know or reason what we’ve left out, but there is only so much that can be argued from silence, and someone shouldn’t rely on it as their sole argument. Brian insists that Mark absolutely had to include something or else he didn’t believe it. But I’ve pointed out that perhaps Mark was assuming that the Christians he was writing for believed in the Virgin Birth, and they would teach those who didn’t know.
Near the end of John’s Gospel, where John stated his purpose in writing, he also wrote: “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe.” John clearly aknowledges he left out signs that Jesus performed. Just because he didn’t write about them, does not mean he didnt’ believe in them.
anaquaduck says
Like Ehrman, Brian….wants us to believe they knew what Mark was thinking by what he write.
Grant says
Or rather what Mark didn’t write.
I’m probably going to repeat some of what I’ve said before, but it seems necessary to me.
I understand that certain things can be assumed in the absence of an explicit statement, but what we need to understand is that that assumption does not have the same certainty of an explicit statement. But Brian was, in effect, insisting that it did.
Dr. Kruger made a point about Mark not mentioning a birth at all (nevermind the Virgin Birth), and that Ehrman’s use of the “argument from silence” would mean that Mark would also not believe Jesus was born at all. Brian said that was silly, but I don’t agree. Jesus Christ was surely born. He was “tempted by Satan” in the wilderness (Mark 1:13), and we know part of that incluced hunger as we read in Matthew 4:2, so its clear he had a human body. Or are we to assume that Mark didn’t believe that either since he doesn’t mention it? After all, the humanity of Jesus Christ is a central teaching of the Gospel, and since Mark doesn’t say much about Jesus being hungry…
The issue is the nature of his birth, and since Mark clearly believes Jesus Christ is the God for Whom the way was being prepared by John the Baptist, that’s clearly not going to be the same kind of birth everyone else has.
We have an explicit statement from Mark (the word “LORD,” one of the names for God in the Old Testament, is κυριου in Mark and the Septuagint), and yet Bart Ehrman ignores that and claims that Mark says nothing about the pre-existence of Jesus. So, being the Holy God, how was he born? Again, necessarily not of a descendant of fallen Adam. He had to be a sinless offering to save His people.
The attempt to deny Mark’s belief in the Virgin Birth is another attempt to break up the text of Scripture and prevent the use of parts of the Bible to support, clarify or understand other parts. The Christian believes that the Bible is one revelation from God. Brian and Bart Ehrman don’t. They will think we should abandon that in order to engage in their discussion. They would like us to surrender our beliefs before we talk about theirs. But is not doing so an admission in some way that their beliefs are more valid than ours? So I’m not going to do that. That’s going to be an issue whenever there is discussion/argument on something the Bible says.
anaquaduck says
(correction) By what he did not write