I will be responding to that article. First of all, it should be noted that even if these were genuine contradictions, that still wouldn't impugn the Resurrection. The sources could be flawed and the Resurrection would have still happened. In fact, most historical sources from antiquity do have contradictions and errors; that doesn't mean the whole source is bunk! In any case, I do believe in inerrancy (someone who thinks that the documents in their original manuscripts are without any error in the truths that the author intended to affirm, historical, theological, whatever). SO. What do I do about these? Challenge accepted :)
For Judas: http://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-die.html
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/how-did-judas-die-hanging-or-falling-down
Who bought the potter's field: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=755
As for the women: did they stand from afar or close enough that Jesus could talk to them? This betrays a sort of ignorance about how ancient biographies were written. What we have in the Gospels aren't transcripts, nor are they meant to be a sort of "video-like" recording of the events. They're basically summaries; the Gospels were written so that the early Christian community could easily memorize it. So different writers might include different details depending on what their community knew, and what the authors themselves didn't know. But that one author adds more detail than another actually doesn't impugn the account or imply a contradiction. Mark may well not have known that Jesus talked with the women on the Cross; that's not a contradiction. Jesus could have spoken to them, and then they could have stood from afar. That's not ad-hoc harmonization either; just think about this scenario. Suppose you have two friends named Bobby and Dr. Mario. They both went to a water park, and you wanna hear all about it. Well Bobby tells you that they went down the raging vortex of water park death, and after that went on a water slide. Dr. Mario tells you that you went on the vortex, then you went on a funnel of water park death, then you went on a water slide. Contradiction!!! Well...not really. One person is just supplying more detail than the other. Now suppose Bobby and Dr. Mario are relating to you who went with them that you would know. Bobby gives one set of people, and Dr. Mario gives another. Depending on the type of information the people are trying to convey, the information can vary-however, Bobby and Dr. Mario wouldn't be contradicting each other. One would just be supplying more detail.
Similarly, in the Gospel accounts, some authors just supply more details, while others leave it out-either because they didn't know about it, or because it wasn't relevant to their purposes. For example, take the list of women witnesses. Some writers would include those women which their audiences would have known-and thus, depending on the audience, the list of women will change. This isn't a contradiction.
Stay or Leave?: Again, not a contradiction. In Luke 24:36-49, Luke was describing what went down in Galilee (he didn't need to say that this was Galilee because they lived in a high context society. Details that were well known in a community didn't need to be repeated; hence why arguments from silence aka "one Gospel mentions X and another doesn't" aren't actually indicative of contradictions).
Famous last words: This is an argument from silence. Because one Gospel doesn't record those words doesn't mean that the author intended to say that this was all Jesus ever said on the Cross-that's silly. In fact, I've already related how dialogue in the ancient world was recorded. They were paraphrase/summary statements of a larger dialogue, not word for word recitations. Hence, one Gospel can have a condensed version of a saying of Jesus, and another can word it in a different way, and both could be right, since both would be accurate summaries of what Jesus said. In any case, there's no reason why He couldn't have said those things while on the Cross-to argue that because one Gospel doesn't record it, that therefore there's a contradiction is strange to me.
Finding the Tomb: I think I addressed this above. Different authors recorded different women depending on their audience.In Mark 16:8, obviously the author doesn't mean to say that the women never told anybody at any time; otherwise how would he know about? That's silly-he's saying that they didn't initially tell people when the news was told to them. It's similar to how I might say that I didn't do my homework when I got home; I don't mean I never ever did my homework. The idea that the disciples don't go to the tomb in Matthew is once again, an argument from silence. That the author doesn't mention it certainly doesn't mean that he wasn't aware of it, nor is he contradicting the author account. One account is simply supplying more detail.
Greeters at the Tomb: Once again, it's a case of an account supplying more detail. And for the record, angels in the old testament could sometimes manifest as men (see Genesis 18:2). "Angel" often just means a messenger from God-it doesn't always mean a winged dude.
True Colors?: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=300
Gospel Truths:
1.) Gospels were written anonymously?
Eh. Yes and no. It's true that they weren't originally written as "The Gospel according to Mark" or whatever. But the tradition really isn't random; if you could attribute a Gospel to anyone, why choose Mark instead of Peter? Mark was known as a chronicler of Peter-why not cut out the middle man? In fact, in the second century, we KNOW Gospels were forged in the names of popular disciples. So it doesn't really make sense to use relatively obscure ones when it comes to the synoptics. As to John, he was more popular-but there's good reason to think John either wrote parts of it, or was a source. The grammar of the Gospel of John and 1 John are so similar that many scholars infer a common source.
2.) The Gospels were undated
Yet scholarship-not just those darn conservative fundamentalists!-but people like Bart Ehrman can generally pin them down. We have quotations from the Gospels from church fathers like Ignatius and Clement, who were writing at the end of the first century. Justin Martyr calls them the "memoir of the Apostles" in his writings. Hence, the Gospels had to be written before the turn of the second century. The most liberal dating puts Mark at around AD70, Matthew and Luke at AD70-AD85ish, and John at around AD90. These are still well within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. The twelve disciples weren't the only disciples Jesus had-the Gospels record accounts of a lot more than just the twelve. Hence, these Christian communities would have been getting their information from eyewitnesses. For more on this, see Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses", or look at one of his lectures on youtube.
3.) Gospels written in Greek, not Aramaic. So what? If you're bilingual (which the disciples definitely were-they grew up under the Roman Empire, and hence had to learn koine Greek), then this really isn't a problem.
4.) Sure, they're not written in first person. Why does that mean that they're not eyewitness accounts? As Bauckham argues, there are clear tell-tale signs actually that the accounts were using eyewitnesses. Think about the naked man who randomly flees in Mark when Jesus was arrested. He serves practically no purpose in the narrative itself...but as Bauckham suggests, channeling a German NT scholar Gerd Theissen, some characters in the Gospels (who serve no purpose in the narrative) are there to indicate them as sources. Some are named, but others are unnamed for the sake of protective anonymity.
Hand-Washing Pilate: Would this have been well known? Not really. It again depend on the sources the writers of the Gospels were using. That one Gospel supplies more detail about the trail than another does NOT imply a contradiction here.
Guard at the tomb: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/reply-to-evan-fales-on-the-empty-tomb-of-jesus
Did Pilate Punt to Herod: Once again, high context society here. The Gospels were written to be preachable. Think about how human memory works-we often need only a small line from a particular event to jolt our memories about what happened. Hence, if the trial was well known, the writers would have only needed to give a small account of the trial to jolt the memory of their community.
Ascension of Jesus: Well, if John didn't give as much centrality/drama to it as Luke, that just kind of ruins the whole evolutionary development thing! Of course, if different authors have different emphases, one wonders why this implies a development or a contradiction or even a noteworthy objection....
Spear to the Side: Actually, this was just a common roman practice of checking to see if a victim was dead. See Martin Hengel's work on Crucifixions in the Ancient world. In Mark, when the soldiers go to check if Jesus is dead, what do you think that entails? Secondly, it's false that there was an objection about Jesus surviving. In the first century, the only objection raised by the Jewish opponents were: the disciples stole the body (which, interestingly, means that the tomb was empty!). Lucian of Samosata, a Greek critic of Christianity, made the same sort of remark. No one was thinking that Jesus could have survived crucifixion. In fact, we only have
We don't have one record of ANYONE surviving crucifixion. It comes from Josephus; he was an influential Jew who had capitulated to the Romans. Three of his friends were crucified, and Josephus used his influence to get them down and give them the best medical attention available. Two of them still died. You really think anyone would object that Jesus could survive getting flogged with a cat-o-9, being beaten, and having nails pierced through his hands and feet? (and btw, we know that was a common roman practice in Judea too. Yehonnan is the remains of a crucifixion victim-the people who found his body found a nail stuck in his foot with a piece of wood still attached. It was a brutal process, to say the least. The Romans knew how to kill people)
Magical Powers: Actually John doesn't say that Jesus walked through the wall. He could have appeared on the inside, to be sure-He certainly is invested with what we would call "supernatural" powers. But I can think of a reason Jesus would want the stone rolled away-the fact that the tomb was empty would be obvious to those who wanted to seek His face. The crowd that arrested him wasn't "knocked down" by the way; they backed away and bowed down because they thought he was claiming deity. Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
(John 18:4-6 ESV)
Why do they back down and fall to the ground? "I am he" is a greek phrase: ego eimi. It was YHWH's self-identification in Exodus 3:14 and frequently throughout Isaiah (particularly chapters 40-55).
To the charge that the Gospels are like religious hero accounts, see Richard Burridge's treatment on the genre of the Gospels. Ehrman (an agnostic critic of Christianity) sees them as Greco-Roman biographies. So no. Also, why think we would have contemporary records of what went down in Judea? Not a whole lot of people actually cared about Jerusalem (besides Israel). This wasn't the 21st century-reporting of events wasn't wild and widespread.
How did the women expect to gain access if the guards were there: Excuse me, the purpose of the guards was to prevent the disciples from stealing the body. Clearly, the women with their spices weren't going to do that. And if they tried, the guards could have stopped them. Nowhere are the guards commanded to prevent anyone from getting in the tomb.
Why was the tomb found open: I've addressed that-easily so that there would be clear evidence of an empty tomb.
Was Pilate actually reluctant to convict: Yup, which actually makes good historical sense. Pilate had gotten in trouble for slaughtering a bunch of Jews, and was removed in AD36 as the Roman prefect for more bloodshed. So get this: 3-6 years after Jesus's crucifixion, he was in a spot where one act of mass bloodshed would have gotten him removed. If he released Jesus (who the Jews were claiming had set himself up as the messianic King/Lord of the world), then Tiberius would have gotten suspicious of him. He would have been releasing someone who had allegedly challenged Caesar. And yet, his reputation was also on the line here. If he condemned Jesus without finding clear evidence for a guilty charge, he would be known as someone who capitulated to Jewish requests. He was ruthless; but even in our historical sources about him (Josephus and Tacitus and Philo), he still acts for what he sees to be a viable reason. So he was in a dilemma; in the end, he chose to kill Jesus to preserve his job, rather than bringing in a bunch of Roman soldiers to kill everyone on Passover.
Now I just want to address 5. It's getting popular from the New Atheist community to claim that Jesus didn't exist. First of all, even if it were true that the sources we have about Jesus were all Christian sources, that wouldn't matter. A lot of sources about a lot of figures from the ancient world are saved from the followers of that figure. There are ways to sift out embellishments from facts (though I don't think there are actual embellishments in the Gospels). But moreover, there isn't one scholar who teaches at an accredited institution of higher learning-atheist, Muslim, Jew, agnostic, liberal Christian, whatever-who thinks that Jesus didn't exist. See this clip from Bart Ehrman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4q3WlM9rCI
Nor are these troubling facts. In fact, this is exactly what we'd expect to see from independent eyewitness sources. Now, as to the issue of "embellishment", see this article from Lydia McGrew: http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2015/03/debunking-claim-of-development-in.html
Now I just want to address 5. It's getting popular from the New Atheist community to claim that Jesus didn't exist. First of all, even if it were true that the sources we have about Jesus were all Christian sources, that wouldn't matter. A lot of sources about a lot of figures from the ancient world are saved from the followers of that figure. There are ways to sift out embellishments from facts (though I don't think there are actual embellishments in the Gospels). But moreover, there isn't one scholar who teaches at an accredited institution of higher learning-atheist, Muslim, Jew, agnostic, liberal Christian, whatever-who thinks that Jesus didn't exist. See this clip from Bart Ehrman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4q3WlM9rCI
Nor are these troubling facts. In fact, this is exactly what we'd expect to see from independent eyewitness sources. Now, as to the issue of "embellishment", see this article from Lydia McGrew: http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2015/03/debunking-claim-of-development-in.html
No comments:
Post a Comment