Bart D. Ehrman, Answered

The early Church accepted the Greek Matthew as Matthew's own work, Robert argues, since a tax collector in Capernaum must have known Greek.

“Matthew himself is a known entity. It is more reasonable to assume the early Church accepted the Greek of his gospel because they knew it to be from his inspired pen alone. As a tax collector for the Romans in Capernaum, Matthew must have been conversant in Greek, otherwise he could not have functioned in that position.”

Irenaeus, as Robert cites him, names Matthew, Mark as Peter's interpreter, Luke as Paul's companion, and John the disciple as the writers of the four Gospels.

“Irenaeus: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia””

Robert lists early witnesses to Luke's authorship and says Luke drew on John, Matthew and Mark as sources.

“That Luke did write his own gospel is testified by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Tatian, Celsus, Eusebius, Marcion, the Diatessaron and the Muratorian Canon. Luke’s gospel is not an entirely eyewitness composition; rather, it is the gospel “according to Luke” (κατά Λουκᾶν). The sources from which Luke drew to write his gospel are noted in vrs. 12. Of the more prominent, John was an eyewitness to all the events, while Matthew to most of them, and Luke drew the rest from Mark and his own experiences.”

Here Robert states that the Gospel texts do not name their authors and are anonymous, a point he turns against the Protestant test of canonicity.

“although Matthew’s name in commonly ascribed to the writing of the first gospel, the text nowhere claims that Matthew is its author. The same is true of the other three gospels - they are all anonymous. Thus the Protestant does not even know if an “apostle, or one approved by an apostle,” wrote these gospels.”

Matthew wrote his Greek Gospel in 60 AD, Robert states, and Mark and Luke each had a copy of it.

“NB: Matthew’s Hebrew logia is not to be confused with Matthew’s gospel that was written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek after 80 AD. Matthew wrote his inspired Greek gospel in 60 AD, of which both Mark and Luke had a copy and had collaborated until 66 AD.”

The New Testament does not mention the fall of Jerusalem, Robert argues, because apart from John and the Apocalypse it was written before 70 AD.

“In this case, it continues the action because many apostles lived after 70 AD. Although there is no historical reference to 70 AD in the NT, that is because the NT, except for John and the Apocalypse, was written before 70 AD.”

According to Robert, Luke says he received his information directly from eyewitnesses and lived in their generation.

“In fact, the only non-apostle to write a Gospel, Luke, makes it clear that he received his information directly from eyewitnesses, from which he then selected and synthesized for his gospel (Luke 1:1-4). We also know from the Pauline epistles that Luke lived in the same generation as the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life (cf. Cl 4:14; 2Tm 4:11; Pm 1:24).”

Robert reads the Greek of Luke 1:1 as referring to writings gathered from people who saw the events or heard them directly from witnesses.

“But πεπληροφορημένων’s neuter is objective and refers to all the writings gathered together from those who had seen it with their own eyes or heard it directly from those who had witnessed the events.”

The Gospels contain no historical errors, Robert states, and their seeming conflicts are only apparent.

“As the other gospels, all of Matthew’s gospel is historically authentic and gives us completely accurate information. There are no historical errors in Matthew’s account, either in the first two chapters, or in any other part of his gospel. As Luke says in the opening of his gospel, giving an accurate account of the historical details of Jesus’ life was the very purpose for writing the gospel (Lk 1:1-4: “That you may know the truth of those words in which you have been instructed”). Although some of the historical details of the gospels seem to be incomplete or conflicting, these are only apparent discrepancies.”

In Robert's account, critics proposed the theory of second- or third-generation redaction of oral tradition to keep the Gospels from being read as eyewitness accounts.

“Incidentally, the “Q” theory, or what is also known as the “twosource” theory, was proposed by historical critics in an effort to keep the Gospels from being understood as actual eyewitness accounts of what occurred in the life of Jesus, as they had been traditionally understood. “Q” was vitally important to the liberals, because if the Gospels can be fashioned into nothing more than second- or thirdgeneration redactions of a first generation oral tradition, then the incidence of foreign elements (e.g., fiction) creeping into the narratives would be quite high, and thus make the final document historically unreliable.”

The quest for the historical Jesus, Robert argues, could not separate the miraculous from the history in the Gospels.

“The scholars found that no matter how hard they tried, the miraculous could not be separated from the Jesus of history. The history and the supernatural were so intertwined, and so meticulously detailed, interwoven, and overlapped, that to subtract the miracles 20 would be to erase the history. To their utter consternation, the Bible was written in such a way that if you eliminate the one you eliminate the other, and there was simply no escape from this reality.”

On a broadcast Robert says the four evangelists wrote the Gospels, that second-century Christians did not redact them, and that they are true and trustworthy.

“All of the Bible was written by the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It was not redacted by second century Christians who had an animosity for the Jews. We accept the Bible as it is written by eyewitnesses, and if they weren't eyewitnesses, then they received divine revelation, as Saint Paul did about the issue with the Jews, so that at the end of the day we can say that everything that's written in the New Testament is true and trustworthy.”

Robert's key witness is Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John, who reports that John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus.

“The most important witness to John’s written works is Irenaeus (120-203), who was a disciple of Polycarp (69-155) the bishop of Smyrna, who was a disciple of John along with Papias (60-100). It is Irenaeus who reveals in his famous book, Heresies (3, 1, 1) that John wrote his gospel while in Ephesus and that John lived there in the reign of Trajan (Heresies, 3, 4, 4; 2, 22, 25).”

Robert calls the "two Johns" inference false and says none of the early commentators denied John's authorship of the fourth Gospel.

“Eusebius, however, quotes a statement from Papias from which Eusebius infers that there are two Johns, one called the “apostle John” and the other called the “presbyter John,” which supposition, though false, gained momentum with Dionysius of Alexandria (248-264 papacy) since he could not believe that John wrote the Apocalypse and therefore believed it was written by the “presbyter” John. Although none of the above commentators denied John’s authorship of the fourth gospel, modern critics attempt to use the “presbyter” theory to deny John’s authorship of both the gospel and the Apocalypse.”

In Robert's reading, the crowd understood John 8:58 as a claim to be God and tried to stone Jesus, who was hidden by those around Him.

“The Jews realize Jesus is designating himself as God Almighty and they proceed to follow the prescription of Lv 24:13-16 against blasphemy by stoning him right then and there, an immediate act of mob justice, as it were, as opposed to bringing formal legal injunctions against him as demanded by the law. 396 hid himself”: ἐκρύβη, an aorist passive indicating Jesus was hidden by a third party, most likely the apostles and friends surrounding him so the Jews could not reach him.”

The Greek of John 21:24, Robert argues, shows John was alive and still testifying to what he had written.

““bearing witness”: Gr: μαρτυρὼν, present participle, which means that John was still alive when these words were written and was still testifying to them. Μαρτυρὼν is followed by the aorist participle γράψας (“has written”), which syntactical order thus means that John is still orally testifying to what he has already written”

"Eat the Passover" in John 18:28 need not mean the paschal lamb, Robert argues, so John does not contradict the Synoptics on the day.

“678 “eat the Passover”: Gr: φάγωσιν τὸ πάσχα, but the Synoptics place the eating of the lamb on Thursday evening, which is Nisan 14 (see note at Jn 12:1). The solution is that “eat the Passover” does not necessarily refer to eating the paschal lamb (at least here in John’s context); and “defilement” would not have prohibited them from eating the lamb on Friday evening.”

Mark's Greek wording means "at the time of Abiathar the high priest," according to Robert, which fits the Old Testament timing and leaves no error to prove.

“For example, in the case of Jesus saying that Abiathar was the high priest instead of Ahimelech, the particular way in which Mark worded the statement eliminates any possible way of proving that either he or Jesus erred. The Greek genitive ἐπὶ Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως means “at the time of Abiathar the high priest.” This fits the Old Testament timing very well, since after Saul had Ahimelech murdered, Abiathar, his son, fled to David and served as his priest, and was appointed high priest when David actually became king. Under these circumstances, it would be perfectly legitimate for Jesus to refer to Abiathar as the high priest.”

Robert grants that some difficulties may not be answerable with current information, while rejecting the claim that apparent contradictions prove error.

“There are others that are more difficult, and some might not even be answerable since we do not have all the necessary information to make a firm decision. But noticing apparent contradictions in Scripture is nothing new. Cornelius Lapide, a late middle age Catholic theologian catalogued hundreds of supposed “errors” in Scripture, along with hundreds of explanations he gathered from various patristic and medieval exegetes. What is “new” are those in the Catholic church today who claim these apparent contradictions are irrefutable evidence of an error-filled Scripture.”

Speaking of Ehrman's claim about the day of the crucifixion in John and Mark, Robert says the points can be answered from his New Testament commentary.

“Happened one day, and Mark says it happened another day. You know, be the pastor, it's very easy to deal with these things. But this guy, and he's shouting these assertions like, you know, he'd be damned if he doesn't tell you, you know, these things, because you need to know them, and the Bible's not trustworthy, and blah. And with all the bravado that he uses to get his point across, you might think that he had something of substance to say, but he didn't. Not at all. And every one of his points can be shot down real easy.”

Only differing copies of Paul's writings survive, Robert says, yet the Church still claimed to possess the inspired word of God because the origin of Scripture is what matters.

“extant, all we retain of his inspired writings are copies - copies which contain many differences among themselves. Would we dare to conclude that those people in the centuries following Paul did not really possess his inspired written teachings? Of course not. Even though the copied manuscripts had errors, the Church still claimed to possess the inspired word of God. The Church did not reject the copies based on their fallibility, since she understood that it is the origin of Scripture that is the real issue.”

The original autographs are gone, Robert says on a broadcast, but the copies differ by less than one percent, so it is safe to say the original is in those copies.

“We don't have any of the original New Testament, you know, the original, what they call the original autographs that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Saint Paul and Saint Peter wrote on, or Jude, James. We don't have any of the originals. All we have is copies. But as long as we have the copies, we're fine with that, because we know there's less than one percent discrepancy between those copies, so it's a safe bet that we have the original in those copies. So we don't really need the original autographs, and, you know, God has His reasons.”

In Robert's view the New Testament is fully preserved across about 5,000 manuscripts, and the task is finding that full text within them.

“The Bible is preserved, and it's preserved in about, let's say, just take the New Testament, it's preserved in about 5,000 different manuscripts. So it is preserved 100%, okay? The key, or the task, is how do you find that 100% in all those manuscripts. You know, you know all of God's word is there, okay? That is a theoretical fact, because you know that whatever is there is all that we have, and all that we have is called the Bible, okay? That's why I call it a theoretical fact. It's just a logical deduction.”

Of the 7,948 New Testament verses in Nestle-Aland, Robert reports, 6,176 carry textual variants, ranging from single letters to whole sentences.

“(An exhaustive investigation into a standard Protestant Greek text of the New Testament (Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 580 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979) reveals that of the 7,948 total verses from Matthew to the Apocalypse, 6,176 verses contain textual variants. In other words, 78% of the New Testament verses are to some extent corrupted. The variations range from simple letters that change a word or its tense, to whole sentences which are either missing or significantly different).”

Even the places with significant variants, such as the Johannine Comma and the ending of Mark, do nothing to undermine Christianity, Robert says.

“But it doesn't really make a difference in our understanding of the New Testament, because in none of the places that even have a significant amount of textual variant, like the Johannine Comma and the ending of Mark, it really has nothing to slight the Christianity at all, nothing to say, "Oh, here's a big error in Christianity, you know, let's throw out the whole thing." There's just not one textual variant that does that.”

No major doctrines come from the portion of the text where manuscripts disagree, according to Robert.

“The first issue would be that the 6% that there's a discrepancy on, the fact is, no major doctrines come from that 6%, okay? So we're safe there. Well, just on a practical level we're safe.”

The copyists of the Greek New Testament, Robert says, were not inspired and made mistakes.

“The translations, or the copies, let's say, of the Greek New Testament were not inspired by God. The monks who did this for us were not inspired by God, and they made mistakes, okay? They did make mistakes.”

Robert's commentary lists the verse only in two late minuscules and the Clementine Vulgate, and says most Greek texts and all listed Fathers omit it.

“Textual evidence is sparse for this reading, appearing only in minuscules 221 (10th cen.), 2318 (18th cen.), Vgcl; some omit, “and these three are one” (61, 629, 88, 429, 636, 918). Most Greek texts omit most of vr. 7 and go to vr. 8’s “the spirit the water and the blood”: ℵ A B K P Y 048 049 056 0142 33 81 88 104 181 326 330 436 451 614 945 et al, BYZT, Vgww. All patristic usage also omits it: Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Dionysius, Hilary, Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil, Faustinus, Nanzianzus, Ambrose, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril.”

He printed 1 John 5:7-8 in his commentary, Robert says, because the Douay-Rheims has it and he has no authority to remove it.

“When I wrote my commentary, I included First John 5:7 and 8 in the text, because I have no authority to take it out of the text, okay? The Douay-Rheims has it in there, so I will put it in there.”

Someone before us already decided the Comma and the long ending of Mark belong in the canon despite the controversies, Robert says, and he sides with that decision.

“The Johannine Comma is in our Catholic Bible, so is the long ending of St. Mark. So somebody before us has already decided that these two things belong in the Canon of Scripture, okay, despite any controversies there are about them. So I side with that.”

Robert's John commentary notes that some who doubt the passage's placement do not doubt the incident, and says the Catholic Church has officially held it to be authentic Scripture.

“Some expositors who doubt this pericope do not doubt the incident occurred but only that it does not fit within this part of John’s gospel. The Catholic Church has officialy held it to be an authentic part of Scripture.”

No one contested Mark 16:9-20 in Jerome's day, Robert says, because the codices that omit it were found only in the 1800s.

“So back in Jerome's day there's no competition. Everybody believes that Mark 16:9 to 20 belongs in Scripture, because there's no competition from these codices that were now found in the 1800s. And we believe that they come from the fourth and fifth century.”

Mark 16:9-20 stays and is treated as the word of God, in Robert's view, unless someone gives positive proof it should not be there.

“So we accept their decision, and, you know, unless somebody has positive proof that Mark 16:9-20 shouldn't be there, then it stays, okay? And it's treated as the word of God until somebody can prove differently. And I can tell you this: nobody's going to be able to prove it. That's a fact.”

Someone must judge whether John 8:1-12 is authentic Scripture, Robert argues, and the Church is the best judge.

“In the end, just as someone has to judge whether John 8:1-12 is indeed authentic Scripture, so someone has to judge whether the Assumption of Mary is indeed authentic oral tradition. What better judge of these things do we have than the Church that Jesus said he would guide and protect till the end of time?”

All thirteen Pauline letters, including Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastorals, open with Paul's own claim to be the author, Robert says, and that is how we know he wrote them.

“In Paul's letters, his epistles, 13 of them, which are verified by himself as being written by him. Now, we know this because in each of the epistles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, all of them begin with "I, Paul, write to you." Okay. So, he's claiming to be the author. That's how we know that he is the author. He's claiming to be the author.”

The critics' assumption that new vocabulary rules out Paul as author is, in Robert's words, a presumption they cannot prove.

“The critics' assumption is that if we find new words that Paul hasn't used in the other 13 Epistles, that this ipso facto means Paul couldn't have written Hebrews. Well, that's an assumption, that's a presumption that they can't prove, okay? So you're going to have to have a lot more evidence of the Hebrew authorship that weighs against Paul than just saying he used, you know, a different vocabulary.”

Robert's commentary says Jude borrows from Second Peter, showing it was recognized as canonical, while noting Jerome saw linguistic differences between the two letters.

“Jude recognizes Peter’s Second epistle and borrows material from it, thus showing Second Peter was recognized as canonical even though Eusebius classed it as “antilegomena.” Jerome noticed linguistic differences between First and Second Peter”

Liberals date New Testament books late, Robert says, so that their authors could not have been eyewitnesses.

“That's why you hear liberals talking about the most of the New Testament books being written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., well into the late 1st century or early 2nd century. They want these books written, why? Because that means if they're written in the late 1st century, that means they couldn't have been eyewitnesses.”

The high priest's question in Mark 14:61, Robert says, exposes the main objection against Jesus: His claim to be the Son of God and the Messiah, both of which Robert calls equivalent to being God.

“Caiaphas cuts right to the chase and reveals the main objection against Jesus, namely, his claim to be the Son of God and the prophesied Messiah, both equivalent to being God. Anything less the Jewish leaders would have accepted and thus considered Jesus either deluded or infatuated with himself. But these two issues were the highest claims Jesus could make; that any man could make.”

Jesus' answer "I am" under oath in Mark 14:62 is, for Robert, Mark's clearest and most succinct affirmation from Jesus Himself that He is God in the flesh.

“then Jesus is still under oath, and he takes full advantage of that position and thus declares he is the Son of God and thus the prophesied Messiah. As such, Mark’s gospel gives us the clearest and most succinct affirmation from the mouth of Jesus he is, indeed, God in the flesh.”

In the healing of the paralytic, Robert argues, Jesus couples a miracle with His claimed power to forgive sins, pointing to Him as the Son of God who can forgive sins.

“Here Jesus is coupling the healing of the paralytic with his power to forgive sins. In the people’s minds, no one could perform such miraculous feats unless God was with the healer.236 If God is with the healer to heal, then it is not too much a stretch of the imagination to reason that he is indeed the Son of God who can forgive sins.”

In John 5:18, Robert says, the Jews understood Jesus to be making Himself equal with God, and Jesus cannot be God's Son without also being God.

“Jesus is so intimately connecting himself with the Father that the Jews cannot have one without the other. (This usage is in contrast to “Our Father” (Mt 6:9) or “My Father and your Father” (Jn 20:17)). The Jews understand the depths of Jesus’ meaning and thus accuse him of making himself equal with God. Jesus cannot be God’s Son without also being God, for being “equal” with God means”

Robert reads Romans 1:4 as Christ, who had emptied Himself of the majesty of His divinity, being formally manifested as Son of God in power at the resurrection.

“Rather, Paul is referring to what he states in Ph 2:6-11, namely, Christ emptied himself of the majesty of his divinity to become man. Christ did so in the “spirit of holiness” or “spirit of sanctification,” i.e., in all humility and selflessness. After this, Christ was formally manifested as the “Son of God in power” when he overcame death in the “resurrection from the dead.””

Robert says the first application of "begotten" in Acts 13:33 is the Son's eternal generation from the Father, which Paul also applies to the resurrection.

“413 “this day have I begotten thee”: σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε, although the first application of “begotten” for the Son is his eternal generation from the Father, here Paul also applies it to the resurrection, but this would also include his birth, suffering, and death (cf. Lk 3:22; Hb 5:5).”

Philippians 2:7, in Robert's reading, shows Christ fully human while not ceasing in any way to be divine, against the view that He emptied Himself of divinity.

“38 “likeness of men”: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων, that is, although Christ is human in every sense of the word, he did not cease in any way to be divine, as opposed to, on the one hand, the Docetists who held that Christ did not possess a real human nature but only one that appeared as human; and, on the other hand, to the Kenoticists who believed Christ emptied himself of”

Robert reads Psalm 110:1 as the Lord addressing the Lord, so that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord who planned His own coming through David's line.

“Since that is so, then the Messiah is both Lord of David and the son of David, which necessarily means the Lord planned his own coming to earth through David’s loins and thus became the 43rd in the father-son line from David about one thousand years ago. To prove his divinity, this Messiah is told by the Lord: “Sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool,” which shows the Lord is sitting at the right hand of the Lord; and the Lord works for the Lord by vanquishing all the enemies of both.”

However implicit the doctrine of the Trinity is in Scripture, Robert says, the Ecumenical Councils extracted it from Scripture.

“(1) However “implicit” the doctrine of the Trinity is in Scripture the fact remains that the Ecumenical Councils saw fit to extract the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, but did not see fit to extract a doctrine of sola scriptura. No council in Christian history ever declared Scripture as the ‘sole and sufficient authority’ or ‘the final court of appeal.’ Hence it is misleading to propose that “it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction” without pointing out to the reader that the very councils to which the apologist appeals did not see it as “possible.””

The councils based the doctrine of the Trinity on more than Scripture alone, Robert says, citing the Fathers' appeals to Tradition against the Arians.

“(2) The Councils based their doctrine of the Trinity on more than Scripture alone. If one reads the accounts of the early Fathers on the matter of the Trinity and the Incarnation, one finds frequent references to the Tradition of the Church that was handed down to them, especially in opposition to groups like the Arians who denied the Trinity and the Incarnation claiming Scripture did not teach such doctrines.”

Robert summarizes Arius as teaching that the Son was a creature with a beginning, which reduced the Word to a demigod.

“Arius stated the following four things about this relation: (1) The Son or the Word of God must be a creature, ktisma or poiema; (2) As a creature the Son or the Word must have had a beginning; (3) The Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct knowledge of, His Father; (4) The Son must be liable to change and even sin (τρεπτος; αλλοιοτες). The net result of this teaching was to reduce the Word to demigod; even if infinitely transcended all other creatures, he himself was no more than a creature in relation to God, the Father.”

"This generation" in Luke 21:32 means the people then living, Robert says, whose generation ended in the events leading up to 70 AD.

“In the colloquial sense ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη means, “this very generation” or “this same generation.” The phrase appears 5× in the NT (e.g., Mk 8:12; Lk 11:29 - “Why does this generation seek for a sign”; while the other two repeat Mark’s wording - Mt 24:34; Lk 21:32), and refers to the generation of people then living, most of whom will have their generation cut short in the days leading up to 70 AD.”

Jesus' words, in Robert's reading, point first to the destruction of Jerusalem in that generation and also to future generations up to the end of the world.

“Jesus is making it clear to the apostles when the “abomination” would come and how it will be followed by the destruction of Jerusalem. It is coming in their own generation, not the next generation. But Jesus’ words were chosen carefully so that although they point in the first place to the then generation of Jews of the first century AD, they are also pointing to the future generations of Jews, up until the “heavens and the earth pass away” (vr. 31)”

The New Testament speaks of several "comings" of Christ, Robert says: some within a generation of His resurrection, including the judgment on Israel in 70 AD, and one at the end of time.

“Historically, the judgment took place in 70 AD, but the Gospels were written before its occurrence, and therefore do not refer to it in retrospect. The NT refers to “comings” of Christ in various ways, many of which refer to Christ returning shortly, in a generation of His resurrection (cf. Jn 14:18-21; Ac 1:3-11; 10:13-15; Mt 24: 3, 34; 26:64; Mk 14:62; Lk 21:36; Ap 2:5, 16, 25; 3:3, 11); while others point to His final coming at the end of time (cf. 1Th 4:14; 2Th 2:1, 8; 2Pt 3:12).”

On a broadcast Robert explains that "generation" in Greek can mean a specific generation of about 40 years or a larger category of people, giving Matthew 24 a dual meaning.

“And sometimes they'll use words that can have a dual meaning. Like when you say "this generation," it's one of those words in the Greek where generation can refer to a specific generation of people, say, of 40 years or so, or it can refer to a generation of a larger category of the human race, let's say, okay?”

Answering a question on Jesus mythicism, Robert calls the claim that Josephus's writings are not historical ridiculous, since writers of that time quoted one another.

“Don't be bothered by these things. To even attempt to say that Josephus's writings are not historical is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, okay? Because all these guys at this time who are writing, Josephus among them, were all quoting each other. I mean, Josephus quotes from, you know, some Roman emperors and Judas Maccabeus and, you know, all kinds of people that they're quoting from, as others do.”

Origen, as Robert cites him, reports that the secular historian Phlegon recorded the darkness under Tiberius, "during whose reign Christ was crucified."

“NB: This phenomenon would not have been an eclipse caused by the moon since darkness only occurs over specific areas of the earth in a total eclipse and does not last long in any case. The gospels record that the sun stopped shining for three hours. Origen (d. 254) corroborates Phlegon’s testimony: “The eclipse which took place at the time of Tiberius, during whose reign Christ was crucified, and the great earthquakes of the same time, were noted by Phlegon in his Books 13 & 24” (Contra Celsus, Bk. 2, n. 33).”

Paul calls James "the Lord's brother," Robert notes, a phrase he reads as a near relative rather than a blood brother.

“In Gl 1:19 Paul calls James “the Lord’s brother,” and that some of Jesus “brothers” have wives (see commentary on Mt 12-13 that Jesus’ brothers were near relatives, not blood brothers).”

Robert says the Gospel references to Jesus as son of Joseph are qualified in Luke 3:23 by "as was supposed," since Joseph was the foster father, and that Mark 6:3 calls Jesus the son of Mary.

“all of which were modified in Lk 3:23 as ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ (“being son, as was supposed, of Joseph”) since Joseph was not the blood father but the foster father. Jesus is also once called the “son of Mary” (ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας) in Mk 6:3, but he is not called “the son of Joseph and Mary.””

John calls Jesus son of Joseph while also calling Him the only begotten of the Father, Robert explains, because Joseph was His legal father.

“70 “son of Joseph”: Gr: υἱὸν τοῦ Ιωσῆφ, John has no qualms about calling Jesus the “son” of Joseph, even though he has identified Jesus in vr. 18 as the “only begotten of the Father.” Joseph was Jesus’ legal father, perhaps having adopted Jesus. Thus his name appears as Jesus’ legal father in the genealogy of Lk 3:23 (Gr: ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ιωσήφ: (“being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph”)) and Mt 1:16.”

From the New Testament meaning of parthenos, Robert concludes that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus.

“Answer: Yes, both Scripture and Tradition indicate that, despite any alleged ambiguities in the wording of Isaiah 7:14, Jesus was indeed born miraculously of a virgin, namely, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The word “virgin” in Mt 1:23 is the Greek παρθένος (parthenos). It is used 14 times in the NT (e.g., Lk 1:27; Ac 21:9; 2Co 11:2; Ap 14:4). When explained in Scripture, as it is in 1Co 7:28-37, it refers to an unmarried woman who has had no sexual relations with men. Thus from the New Testament understanding of “virgin,” it is clear that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus.”

None of the seven Old Testament uses of almah refers to a married or sexually active woman, Robert says, and some explicitly indicate an unmarried woman with no sexual relations.

“However, the word almah appears only seven times in the Hebrew Old Testament (cf., Gn 24:43; Ex 2:8; Ps 68:25; Pr 30:19; Sg 1:3; 6:8; Is 7:14), thus the evidence upon which to base such conclusions is rather limited. None of the above passages suggest that almah refers to a woman who is married or has had sexual relations. Conversely, there are explicit indications that almah refers to an unmarried woman who has had no sexual relations.”

The Septuagint translates almah as parthenos in both Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14, Robert notes, showing the Alexandrian Jews understood the terms as identical.

“The above analysis is confirmed by the fact that the LXX translates the Hebrew almah with the Greek parthenos (“virgin”) in both Gn 24:43 and Is 7:14, showing that the Alexandrian Jews understood the latter term to be identical with the former.”

Robert says Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled both in a historical birth in Isaiah's time and in the birth of Christ from the virgin Mary.

“For example, the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 concerning the woman who will bear a son and call his name Immanuel is fulfilled both in the historical birth of Mahershalal-hashbaz (Is 8:2, 8) and in the birth of Christ from the virgin Mary (Mt 1:23).”

Robert says the Gospels' conflicting details are only apparent discrepancies arising from each writer's selection of details, with Matthew giving Joseph's genealogy and Luke giving Mary's.

“Although some of the historical details of the gospels seem to be incomplete or conflicting, these are only apparent discrepancies. Deeper study shows that the gospel writers, faced with virtually an infinite number of details in each scene, selected the specific details that coincided with their particular purposes, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. Regarding the genealogies, Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph in forty-two names, from Abraham to Jesus, leaving out three names and repeating two names for his own historical and spiritual reasons; whereas Luke (Lk 3:23-38) gives the genealogy of Mary”

Luke's genealogy is Mary's, Robert argues, since Joseph was only the foster father, and Luke separates Joseph from it by omitting the Greek article before his name.

“145 “as it was supposed”: ὡς ἐνομίζετο, that is, Joseph was the foster father of Jesus, not his physical father. Since Joseph was not the physical father, most scholars have understood Luke’s genealogy to be of Mary, Jesus’ real mother, since a genealogy of a foster father would be superfluous. Thus Luke separates Joseph from the genealogy by eliminating the Greek article, tou:, before his name.”

Quirinius governed the military in Syria before becoming its titular governor, according to Robert, so a census in 6 AD would be a second one, the first being in 1 BC at Jesus' birth.

“Cyrinus was also an advisor to Tiberius when the latter was exiled at Rhodes between 6 BC and 2 AD (Tacitus Annals, Bk III), showing that Cyrinus was governing the military in Syria long before becoming the titular governor of Syria. Even if a census occurred in 6 AD, it was a second census under Cyrinus, the first in 1 BC during the birth of Jesus.”

In Robert's reckoning the Magi likely came months after the birth, leaving time for Mary's purification in the temple before the flight to Egypt.

“We don’t know how long it was between the birth of Jesus and the visit of the Magi, but since Herod calculated that he would cover a two-year period in his slaughter of the innocents, it is likely that Jesus was a few months old to two years old when the Magi visited him. This period of almost two years would give Mary plenty of time to fulfill her purification requirements in the temple.”

The argument that the Evangelists would have used anepsios for cousins holds little weight, Robert says, because the Gospel Greek portrays the idioms of the Jewish speakers.

“Although one might argue that, since the Gospels were written in Greek, the Evangelists were compelled to use Greek terminology (i.e., if the “brothers” of Mt 13:55 were truly Jesus’ cousins then they should be called the Greek term for cousin ἀνεψιός (“cousin”), such argumentation holds little weight, since the Greek of the New Testament was written to portray the thought-structure and idioms of the Jews who were speaking in the narrative of Mt 13:55, not vice-versa.”

Robert says the Hebrew word for brother and the Greek adelphos were not limited to siblings, so the Evangelists could call Jesus' cousins His brothers.

“All the above passages prove that the Hebrew word for “brother” (and its LXX Greek translation, adelphos), were not limited to siblings from the same immediate family. Thus, the Evangelists could refer to Jesus’ cousins or near relatives with the words “brothers” or “sister” and be perfectly consistent with the traditional usage of those terms.”

Papias, as Robert cites him, says James, Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord.

“Patristics and Medievals: Papias: “(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdelene. 233 These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s.”

Jesus' rising from the dead can be shown from history, Robert says, pointing to evidence of His crucifixion and death, many witnesses, and evidence of His resurrection.

“Now, the fact is that Jesus rose from the dead. That can be shown from history. Really no question about that, okay? We have historical evidence that He was crucified, that He died on the cross. We have tremendous witnesses all throughout that time of history that tell us that, and we have evidence of His resurrection.”

The resurrection is known through eyewitnesses, including the 500 who saw Jesus during His 40 days, and through early writers, Robert says, and this would hold up in a court of law.

“We have eyewitnesses that were there that told the story. Jesus appeared to 500 people after He rose from the dead and stayed on earth for 40 days, okay? So that's why God made Him do that, so that we would have witnesses to His resurrection. And then some people wrote it down, and some people got their stuff published, like Josephus and some other people around that time. We got some early Fathers like Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, who knew John the Apostle. I mean, we have enough. This would hold up in the court of law.”

Liberal Protestant scholarship, beginning in the Enlightenment, treats the Gospels like any other book, in Robert's account, and starts from the assumption that miracles do not occur.

“There was a whole slew of Protestants who came afterward in the Enlightenment period. That's when the liberal Protestants started, okay? And there were many of them. And this is what happens when the Gospel gets into the universities. What are they going to do? They're going to treat it like any other book. And so, "Come on, man, you don't really believe Jesus walked on water. You don't believe really fed 5,000 people. It's all miracles. We know they don't occur, so let's look at this rationally."”

Robert says John believed in the resurrection because he saw that Jesus was not in the tomb, while noting that the apostles as a group came to full belief only later.

“735 “believed”: Gr: ἐπίστευσεν, that is, John believed in the resurrection because he saw that Jesus was not in the tomb. In contrast, Lk 24:12 indicates that Peter left the scene still wondering what had occurred. But at this point none of the apostles really believe the Lord has risen. Even John is silent in vr. 18. As the story unfolds, they finally believe only when there is no other logical choice. Yet their previous unbelief has a silver lining, since it shows that the proofs of Jesus’ resurrection must have been so overwhelming that they could not help but change their minds and believe.”

The undisturbed linen cloths, Robert argues, indicate that no one handled Jesus' body as Lazarus' grave cloths were handled, and that enemies did not mangle it or carry it off.

“733 “linen cloths lying”: Gr: τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, implying by the word choice that the linens were not manually handled in any way as were the grave cloths of Lazarus when he rose from the dead (Jn 11:44). It further suggests that Jesus’ body was not mangled in any way by enemies, since tattered linens and blood would be the result of such an attack. Moreover, enemies would have carried off the body with the linens intact.”

Jesus had to be buried quickly before the Sabbath, Robert notes, and Joseph's tomb, which Matthew says Joseph owned, was near Golgotha.

“726 “close at hand”: Gr: εγγὺς ἦν, the body of Jesus needed to be buried quickly in order to escape running into the Sabbath at 6:00 pm. Joseph’s tomb was near to Golgatha so it was the wisest choice for burial. Matthew tells us that Joseph owned the tomb whereas John is not interested in that detail.”

Paul affirms that Christ really died and was buried like all other men, Robert says, and the Creeds mention His burial to stress the reality of His death.

“291 “died”: ἀπέθανεν. Paul reiterates this truth to affirm that Christ really died. He was not a phantom; it did not only appear as if he died; his death was not faked. He died and was buried like all other men, and his body would have begun decomposing if not for the special intervention of God (Ac 2:27-28). Similarly, the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed both contain a reference to Christ’s burial to emphasize the reality of his death.”

The verb Paul uses for Christ "was seen" refers to seeing with the natural eye, Robert says, which he takes to confirm the appearances were not hallucinations.

“290 “was seen”: Gr: ὤφθη, aorist passive of ὁράω, a verb that refers to seeing with the natural eye as any person or object is seen, thus confirming that the sight of Christ’s resurrected body was not a hallucination (cf. Lk 24:39-43; Jn 20:27). Paul does not give a complete list of people who saw Christ, but only those who would be important to the Corinthians.”

Paul specifies that the 500 saw Christ at one time at one event, Robert says, most likely the Galilee meeting where Jesus gave the Great Commission.

“291 “five hundred”: such that Paul specifies that these 500 saw Christ at one time and at one event. The most likely event that Paul has in view is the meeting Jesus had in Galilee to announce the Great Commission (cf. Mt 26:32; 28:7-16; 19:1; Mk 14:28; Jn 21:1). Perhaps the entire town of Galilee had only 500 people.”

In Luke 24:39, Robert says, Jesus is not merely appearing as a human, as angels did, but is the same Jesus who died days earlier, His body preserved from decay.

“755 “I myself”: ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτός, lit., “I am myself.” Jesus is not just appearing as a human, nor as the angels appeared as humans at the resurrection for the sake of the apostles’ senses (Lk 24:4). This was the same Jesus who died days earlier, his body having been miraculously preserved from decay in the grave (Ac 2:20-21).”

Robert says most alleged contradictions between John and the Synoptics are explained by careful attention to detail, and the rest by each evangelist recording only certain details.

“He assumes the reader is familiar with the Synoptic accounts, and thus adds what is mostly new material to the resurrection and surrounding events. As regards alleged contradictions between John and the Synoptics, most can be explained by paying careful attention to the detail. The others are logically because each evangelist records only certain details and no one records everything that occurred, thus we can only piece together the sequence of events.”

Robert says neither Paul nor Jesus teaches anywhere that one can be saved by faith alone, so Jesus' stress on works does not set Him against Paul.

“there must also be a problem in reconciling Jesus’ teaching with Paul because of Jesus’ stress on works. Neither Paul nor Jesus, however, say anywhere in Scripture that one can be saved by faith alone.”

In the story of the Rich Man, Robert says, Jesus teaches that faith and obedience to the commandments are the means of salvation.

“3) In the story of the Rich Man in Mt 19:16‐26 (Mk 10:17‐21), Jesus commends the man for his faith and obedience to the commandments and teaches that such is the very means of salvation. Communicating to him in love, Jesus calls him to a higher level of obedience, e.g., giving his riches to the poor, in order to finally attain the kingdom of God.”

Romans 2:13, in Robert's reading, has Paul assign justification to the doers of the law, using the same Greek verb he uses elsewhere in Romans.

“The pivotal verse is Romans 2:13 in which Paul says, “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” If we did a word-study on “justified,” we would see that it is the same Greek word, dikaioo, that Paul uses throughout the book of Romans, including Romans 3:28; 4:2, 5. But the curious fact is that Paul is assigning justification to those who are “doers of the law,” which matches his statements in Romans 2:6-7”

Robert says that in Romans 4 Paul faults Jewish reliance on works without faith, such as circumcision, so that Paul's point is that work without faith is dead.

“In Romans 4, Paul is not faulting Abraham’s concept of faith and works. He is faulting the Jews. He has to expose a glaring contradiction in their theology so they can see how spiritually bankrupt they are. To do this, he attacks the very practice in which they most take pride - circumcision. Works without faith will simply not pass muster with God. All in all, as James points out that faith without works is dead, Paul’s point is that work without faith is dead.”

God gave Cornelius' household the gift of tongues as a sign to Peter that the Gentiles were now part of God's plan, Robert says, with no distinction by race regarding the gospel.

“God gave them the gift of tongues as a visible sign to Peter and the Jews that the Gentiles were now a major part of God’s plan, a plan which Scripture prophesied long before it occurred (cf. Gn 12:3/Gl 3:6-9; Rm 9:30; 11:13; 15:9-27). Since the Gentiles are given the same charismatic gift that Peter and the Jewish apostles received at Pentecost, Peter sees again that there is no longer any distinction based on race in regard to the gospel”

At the Council of Jerusalem, Robert notes, Peter referred to his own preaching to Cornelius about ten years earlier.

“461 “the Gentiles”: τὰ ἔθνη, Peter referring specifically to his preaching to Cornelius (Ac 10-11), which was ten years prior. 462 “who knoweth the hearts”: ὁ καρδιογνώστης, lit., “the heart-knower.” The same term is used in Ac 1:24 when Peter prays to God to help determine who the apostle would be to replace Judas. Here it is used to express the idea that God made no mistake when he chose Cornelius to hear the gospel.”

Peter gave the definitive decision at the Council of Jerusalem on whether Gentile converts had to be circumcised, according to Robert.

“Some claim that since James was the bishop of Jerusalem, he had control over the meeting. Although James certainly held authority there, the fact that Peter rose to give the definitive decision on the single matter at hand (i.e., whether Gentile converts had to be circumcised), shows all the more that Peter was the recognized leader of Christendom since he, not James, makes the crucial decision that has been held as the dogma for the church ever since. There is no vote on whether to accept Peter’s doctrine. Everyone accepts his unilateral judgment.”

Robert says that in 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul refers to receiving the gospel directly from Christ, as Galatians 1:11-12 states, so it would not be dismissed as Paul's own opinion.

“290 “received”: παρέλαβον, Paul is here referring to his direct receiving of the gospel from Christ himself, as he makes clear in Gl 1:11-12 cf. Acts 9, 22, 26. Paul wants to make his direct reception from Christ clear to the Corinthians so that they are not tempted to dismiss Paul’s messages as his own opinion.”

Pope Damasus approved the present canon at Rome in 382, Robert says, followed by Hippo, Carthage, Pope Innocent, Nicaea in 787 and Florence.

“In 382, at the Council of Rome, Pope Damasus officially approved the canon we have today. In 393, the Council of Hippo did likewise, as did the Council of Carthage in 419. In 405 Pope Innocent approved the same canon in a letter to a Gallican bishop. In 787, the Council of Nicea approved the same canon, as did the Council of Florence in 1440.”

Trent issued the final infallible decree on the canon, according to Robert, but was bound by the earlier Fathers, popes and councils.

“Even though it made the infallible decree, the Council of Trent showed that it was bound by all the previous statements concerning the canon which appeared in the consensus of the Fathers and the decrees of the popes and councils.”

On a broadcast Robert says the Council of Rome declared the 27-book New Testament canon, which was authoritative but not an infallible dogmatic proclamation.

“First council under Damasus in 380 A.D., Council of Rome, declared a canon, okay? 27 books of the New Testament they declared, okay? 73 books in the Old Testament they declared. But can we consider that an infallible dogmatic proclamation of the Church at 388 A.D.? The answer is no, okay? We would consider authoritative. We would consider it the only gospel in town to be followed. You know, our church, which somebody in 381 could say, "Our church has said that the Canon is composed of these books."”

The Church, after weighing the evidence, is the final judge of a book's canonicity, Robert says.

“Catholicism has no problem with these issues since her tradition and councils provide the answer to the authorship of Matthew and Hebrews and the authenticity of Luke’s writings. We end up in the same place every time. The Church, after it gathers all the evidence for canonicity, is the final judge of a book’s canonicity, just as a judge in a courtroom, after all the evidence is presented before him, must make the final decision.”

Many passages of Scripture together support apostolic succession, Robert says, and the Fathers believed in it.

“The doctrine of apostolic succession, however, has support from so many passages of Scripture that, in the aggregate, bring us to conclude that it is a divine teaching. 50 Moreover, the Fathers of the Church believed in apostolic succession (we will document momentarily). Hence, both Scripture and Tradition confirm this teaching.”

Robert's John commentary argues the Didache's Sunday "sacrifice" is the Eucharistic sacrifice, already practised when it was written.

“Since the Didache specifies that the time of the sacrifice takes place “On the Lord’s own day” when the people “assemble...to break Bread,” it is clear that the sacrifice refers to the Eucharistic sacrifice, which, according to writings from Fathers concurrent with the writing of the Didache, was in full practice.”

Robert's commentary traces the term transubstantiation to the 11th to 13th centuries and says earlier Latin and Greek Fathers used words for conversion and change of substance.

“The term Transubstantiation was first used by Hildebert of Tours (c. 1079); followed by Stephen of Autun (d. 1139); and Peter of Blois (d. 1200). In 1202, Pope Innocent III used transsubstantiari (Denz. 416, 784), which led to the use of transsubstantiatio at the ecumenical councils of Fourth Lateran in 1215 and Lyons in 1274. Previous to this, the early Latin Fathers used “convertere” (Eng. “to convert”); “transmutare” (Eng. “to change”); “transformare,” “transfigurare,” and “transfundere.” The strongest designation used by the Greek Fathers was μεταουσιος (“change of substance”).”

Although the doctrine was dogmatized in 1215, Robert says, the Benedictine editors were referring to the concept of transubstantiation, or something similar, in the earlier writer Theodoret.

“The “anachronism” to which Schaff refers is that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not dogmatized until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, thus Theodoret could not be speaking of it in the previous quote. However, the Benedictine editors surely understood this. They are referring, instead, to the concept of Transubstantiation, or something similar to it.”

Robert says that if Jesus believed in Gehenna He believed in hell, and that those who claim otherwise would have to prove Gehenna meant annihilation.

“Well, if Jesus believed in Gehenna, He believed in hell, okay? And the next thing they would have to do is they'd have to prove that Gehenna was a destruction to bring non-existence. Annihilation is another word for, okay.”

It is certain from Scripture and Church teaching that the damned will never see God, Robert says, while whether the body suffers physical pain for eternity remains somewhat ambiguous.

“Eternally speaking, the damned are never going to see God. That we know for sure. That's as clear as day in both Scripture and Church teaching, okay? The only thing that is left a little ambiguous is the physical punishment of the body in hell. The question is, is that eternal in the sense that there will be physical pain for eternity on that body?”

Matthew 25:46 speaks of eternal punishment, Robert says, but the Greek word does not answer how long the punishment lasts beyond eternal separation from God.

“(“and these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life”), which is certainly true, but how long the punishment lasts, outside of already being eternally separated from God, is not answered by the Greek αἰώνιον, and perhaps deliberately so.”

Before the Christian era, Robert writes, the eternal soul was the essence of Platonic philosophy; some Christians such as Augustine adopted it, and since the soul is created it can be destroyed.

“Before the Christian era, the concept of an eternal soul was the essence of Platonic philosophy. It believed that each person had an eternal soul that previously existed in another world and came to earth when it was united with a human body (hence, our knowledge was “a-priori”). When the body eventually died, the soul would live on forever. Although some Christians adopted Plato’s concept and integrated it with Scripture (e.g., Augustine), nevertheless, since Christianity believes (in opposition to Plato), that the soul is created, not eternal (e.g., Gn 2:7; Ps 103:30), logic dictates the soul can be destroyed.”

Suffering is part of God's plan according to Romans 8:28, Robert says, and God uses the suffering caused by sin to conform people to the image of Christ.

“In verse 28, Paul explains to the Romans that the suffering they are going through is part of God’s plan, since everything (good and bad) works for good. This is the marvel of Christianity when compared to the rest of the world’s religions - that God can bring something good out of suffering. In fact, not only does He make something good out of it, this was His “predestined” plan of long ago. God “foresaw” the sin of man, but instead of destroying all of mankind, God used the suffering caused by sin to conform us to the image of Christ, the image we need to get into heaven.”

The pain and suffering of the human race come from sin, Robert writes.

“similarly, we experience suffering and pain in this world (due to sin), and we too cry out for relief, hoping that the enemy will not consume us before our final redemption is accomplished. Accordingly, the pain of the Woman of Apocalypse 12 symbolizes all the pain and suffering brought upon the human race due to sin, but especially the pain experienced by the Church as it suffers the onslaught from the unrepentant sinners of mankind.”

Robert distinguishes between what God allows to happen, which is His will in a general sense, and what God prefers but does not get.

“Everything, you can consider in God's will, because He allowed it to happen, if you want to look at God's will in that sense, in the general sense, okay? But then there's another part of God's will that we talk about, and that is what He would prefer, okay? We can talk about God's Providence on the one hand; we can talk about what God wants and doesn't get on the other hand, okay?”