Background
Jesus, crucified between two thieves, after a few hours of darkness over the land, cried out to God asking why He had forsaken Him. When Jesus died, there was an earthquake, and the Temple's curtain tore. Dead holy men came out of their graves. Those watching Jesus die realized, at the very least, that it had been a mistake to kill Him.
Joseph of Arimathea petitioned Pilate for Jesus' body. Upon receiving it, Joseph wrapped it with linen, may or may not have adorned it with lots of spices, placed it a tomb, and rolled a rock door in front of the tomb.
Empty Recollection
| Two women went to look at Jesus' tomb. | Three women went to anoint Jesus' body with spices. | "The women" went to anoint Jesus' body with spices. | Mary Magdalene alone went to Jesus' tomb (no reason given). |
| There was an earthquake, and an angel rolled open the door, scaring the guards. | The women found that the stone door had been removed. | The women found that the stone door had been removed. | Mary found that the stone door had been removed. |
| The angel spoke to the women from on top of the door. | The women entered the tomb, where they found an angel who spoke to them. | The women entered the tomb. Two angels appeared there and spoke to them. | No angels were seen or heard from yet. Mary saw the empty tomb and ran back to tell Peter. |
| The angel invited the women inside the tomb to see that it was empty, and told them to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee. | The angel told them to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee. | The angels reminded them of what Jesus had said in Galilee about rising on the third day. | (No angels there to speak, but two would appear there later with Jesus in John 20:10-18.) |
| Afraid yet joyous, the women went to tell the Disciples. | The women were afraid, fled, and told no one.* | The women told the Disciples. | Mary told Peter and "the one Jesus loved" that Jesus' body had been taken. |
| (No Disciples visit the tomb.) | (No Disciples visit the tomb, but later, in Mark 16:11, they would not believe the women's report.) | The Disciples do not believe the women, but Peter alone went to the tomb. Finding it empty, he was puzzled. | Peter and "the one Jesus loved" went to the tomb and found it empty, but they still did not understand that Jesus was to rise from the dead. |
OK, so obviously there are several contradictions here, but are they just innocent and honest errors in memory?
On the side of corrupted memory, across all of the variations, there is a narrative skeleton of sorts running through these Gospel accounts; the door stone was removed for a female (at least one) eyewitness to observe the tomb in its empty state, who then informed Disciples of the finding. While an angel, or angels, did not appear in this section of John, they would appear later in the next section in John 20:10-18, so we could even include that element as part of the story skeleton.
This common skeletal thread does, indeed, suggest a common original source. That opens the door for these accounts, no matter how disparate, to have been based on a true story, but that is just one possibility. Equally possible is that the story was constructed by and distributed from one person or group of persons. Either way, the great differences in the story versions suggest that this was passed as part of the early oral history, because some time, and some geographical isolation, was likely necessary to allow for these different versions to develop.
On the other hand, and on the side of intentional alterations, there are some indications that these differences are not the result of corrupted memory, but rather demonstrate deliberate editing.
The easiest case to perceive possible manipulation is in Matthew. As noted in the previous study, Matthew uniquely recorded that Jesus' grave was guarded. He appears to have been writing with a purpose, and that purpose was to communicate that there was no way that Jesus' body could have been removed from the grave by someone. Not only was Matthew's grave guarded, but it was not opened until its opening could be witnessed by the two Mary's, and that opening was accompanied by the supernatural events of an earthquake and an angel opening the grave. And when the grave was opened? The body was already gone.
The other Gospels lack all mention of the guards at the tomb, the angelic tomb-opener, and the earthquake, and instead have the tomb open by the time a Mary arrives. With the tomb already open, who knows what could have happened to the body? (On the side of faith, the resurrected Jesus could have walked out of the tomb, which actually implied later in John, as we will see in the next study.) Without any support from the other three Gospels, and with an obvious motive for Matthew to have the tomb guarded and its opening witnessed, this appears to be a deliberate change that Matthew made.
This change can be further demonstrated by comparing Matthew 28:5-7 to Mark 16:6-7. The wording there is very similar to one another. If these were truly independent accounts, it would be an incredible feat, if not a miracle, for the two authors to remember and record these words in a manner which almost matches each other after so much time had passed, and yet such a miracle would be blemished by Mark not remembering anything about the earthquake and the angelic tomb opener. Instead, it seems much more likely that Matthew was copying from Mark, but tweaking the copy to fit in the guarded-tomb narrative.
Contrasting Matthew and Mark, where no Disciple visited the empty tomb, Luke and John have both recorded that Peter visited the tomb and was puzzled by its vacancy, thus demonstrating (explicitly in John) that the Disciples really did not understand that Jesus was to be resurrected. (Though it is uncertain, it is possible that this lack-of-understanding-the-resurrection meme was employed because the message of the historical Jesus turned out to be quite different than what would come to be known in the resurrected version of Jesus. In this way, the Disciples thereafter could claim to skeptical Jesus-witnesses that no one had really understood Jesus when He was alive.) This creates a couple of problems:
First, as we observed in a previous post, Matthew redacted the Disciples' lack of understanding of Jesus' prophesied death and resurrection, and, in a different post, we cited how even Matthew's Pharisees understood that Jesus claimed that He would be resurrected, which is why they requested the guard for the tomb! So there is a fundamental contradiction between two alleged Disciples; Matthew and John.
Second, Mark, who was allegedly Peter's traveling companion, translator, and the writer of the earliest Gospel, does not record that Peter had even heard about the empty tomb from the women witnesses, let alone that he personally investigated it and was mystified by the fact that it was empty.
Summing all of this information up, what we have here is many contradictions in this short account of finding Jesus' tomb empty. While it is possible to explain the differences to faulty memory, there are some significant changes which appear to go beyond the realm of rotted recall, and instead drift into deliberate dissertation with contrived intents. I will leave it to you to weigh the evidence in your mind.
* Mark's Asterisk
The oldest manuscripts of Mark end the Gospel with Mark 16:8, without recording the women telling anyone about the empty tomb, and without any sightings of the resurrected Jesus. A series of later manuscripts append this onto the ending:
And they (the women) reported all the instructions briefly to Peter's companions. Afterwards Jesus Himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.Still no appearances of Jesus, but at least the women passed on the instructions to the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.
ReplyDeleteNice table ! Great exposition, as always. Fun Sunday School.
I have another option which asks more questions:
There is a core story (CS), there are mistakes on the story, there are changes in the story for some intent, but there is still a CS. So the questions remain:
(1) Was the CS created from pure fiction (mythicists)
(2) Was the CS based on some nonspiritual events: Jesus got killed
(3) Was the CS based on the real Christian CS
Then the questions for Christians in light of these three are:
(a) Can you see yourself resisting seeing the text as containing memory mistakes and intentional manipulations? If so, can you see why your mind resists? Does this tell you anything.
(b) Can you see any value in a Christianity that is pure symbolic: that is, based on #1 or #2.
(c) Would your Christianity survive is you acknowledged the certain errancy of your holy scriptures, or would it crumble? Why? (this is a rephrasing of (a).
(d) Finally: If you do comparative religious studies, you will see these same phenomena happening in other religions. What does that tell you?
Thanks Shay! I wish I had thought to utilize a table back when I started the Passion narrative.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the expansion too! Great, thoughtful questions for the reader. As I approach the end of the Gospels, and therefore likely the end of exegesis on this blog, I would have liked to have such questions after every post. But you have done a great job with your blog doing that!
This is easy to refute,
ReplyDeleteLets start with Tomb,
you claimed about John 20:1-9 "Mary Magdalene alone went to Jesus' tomb (no reason given)."
The text never says she was Alone, it just mentions that she went to tomb, never says she was alone, this is open, the text never suggest that she when alone or with others, so no conflict here, not mentioning the others doesn't prove that there weren't others, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Matthew 28:1-8 says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave., doesn't say Only they went, the author probably failed to mention the other person,
Also Mark 16:1-8 - "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of [a]James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him"
So there is no problem, in review, John never says she was alone, Matthew never say it was Only Mary and the other Mary, and Luke just says women, they never say they were Alone, so probably even more women could've accompanied them.
thus there is no conflict between the 4 Gospels and with Mark we can conclude that it was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of [a]James, and Salome, who went to the tomb with no contradiction, the authors just failed to mention the names as either #1, since they are humans like us, they forgot to mention them or #2, it wasn't important or #3 The Holy Spirit refused to have them be all the same, as this would make people think they copied each other, so He guided them to leave out some names, which is not important.
so the first part of the chart is refuted. next comment I'll mention the next part, so on.
you should take down this post, it's misleading and disproven.
Next, Tomb Stone.
ReplyDeleteAll seem to agree except Matthew, we can easily say this was an Interpolation, as it contradicts majority, and thus no conflict to Biblical accounts. However this is not an Interpolation as the earthquake, and Angel opening tomb occured Before women arrived, John, Mark, and Luke just failed to mention it, due to no knowledge of it, not witnessing it or to skip on to women finding tomb.
Did The Angel speak to the Women inside or when sitting on stone?
easy, John, Mark and Luke agree that the women met The Angels in the tomb, Does Matthew Contradict this?
No, lets read,
"2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified."
From this sentence "4 and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. "
to this one, "5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.""
It could've been any amount of time, the text never specifies if it was immediately that The Angel talks to the woman or later on, so there's no contradiction, he sat on tomb, scared the guards, then when women arrived met them inside the tomb.
still no contradictions in first two parts of chart.
"The angel spoke to the women from on top of the door."
ReplyDeleterefuted in previous comment,
"No angels were seen or heard from yet. Mary saw the empty tomb and ran back to tell Peter."
Text never says she didn't speak to Angels or immediately ran back, it just doesn't mention it, anything could've happened, she could've tripped, the witness John just didn't write it in, saying she didn't talk to The Angel in John is taking a lack of mention for absence of event, something not being mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen, unless John says "she didn't speak to anyone and ran back to Peter", there's no contradiction.
"The angel invited the women inside the tomb to see that it was empty, and told them to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee."
ReplyDelete"The angel told them to tell the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee."
No contradiction between these two yet, lets continue,
"The angels reminded them of what Jesus had said in Galilee about rising on the third day."
still nothing contradicting,
"(No angels there to speak, but two would appear there later with Jesus in John 20:10-18.)"
Still no contradiction, absence of mentioning event where Mary spoke to Angel doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that the witness refused to mention it.
Next,
Matthew, "Afraid yet joyous, the women went to tell the Disciples."
then,
Mark, "The women were afraid, fled, and told no one.*"
you have to use the other text for context, otherwise it's a pretext, problem is rest of text is missing so we cannot use Mark as a "contradiction" as the rest of the text(which is probably unknown) can possibly address this. until then Mark cannot be used for this argument.
So there's no contradictions, unless the rest of Mark is found and confirms that they certainly didn't say a word.
Last one, Matthew - (No Disciples visit the tomb.)
ReplyDeleteMark - (No Disciples visit the tomb, but later, in Mark 16:11, they would not believe the women's report.)
No contradiction
Luke - The Disciples do not believe the women, but Peter alone went to the tomb. Finding it empty, he was puzzled.
Still no contradiction
John - Peter and "the one Jesus loved" went to the tomb and found it empty, but they still did not understand that Jesus was to rise from the dead.
Mark and Matthew not mentioning Peter and John going to tomb doesn't mean Mark and Matthew are saying they didn't, Luke not mentioning "The One Jesus Loved"(John) doesn't mean John wasn't there and that Peter was alone.
there was no contradiction at all in Gospel accounts, this post is misleading and should be taken down, I can understand if you didn't know, I once didn't, it's alright, now you know though.
Hello Rafael Moreno. Thanks for stopping by.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering, Rafael, did you actually read the post, or did you just get stuck at the chart?
All of your comments appear to be centered around the chart, which is nothing more than a summary of what is found in each Gospel. The chart's contents is not at all misleading to the content which anyone can find in each corresponding Gospel account.
By the way, just because you can string together a narrative which makes all of the Gospel accounts (at least in this section) not contradict each other does not guarantee that it happened that way. As you mention, humans make mistakes. Chances are, there are some mistakes in the Gospels.
The main argument in the post has little to do with the trivial discrepancies which can be brushed away by open interpretations, and instead focuses on larger issues.
When you get a chance, please read the entire post, and then comment accordingly.
"By the way, just because you can string together a narrative which makes all of the Gospel accounts (at least in this section) not contradict each other does not guarantee that it happened that way."
ReplyDeleteIt does however refute the argument of contradiction though, until it's proven that there is a contradiction, the argument of contradicting accounts cannot be used. this post should be taken down as it is misleading and false, there's no contradiction in text.
"As you mention, humans make mistakes. Chances are, there are some mistakes in the Gospels.
"
Not mentioning something isn't really a mistake, because had they written the same exact thing, without leaving some things out, then we can argue that it was copied.
"The main argument in the post has little to do with the trivial discrepancies which can be brushed away by open interpretations, and instead focuses on larger issues."
next comment
"The easiest case to perceive possible manipulation is in Matthew. As noted in the previous study, Matthew uniquely recorded that Jesus' grave was guarded. He appears to have been writing with a purpose, and that purpose was to communicate that there was no way that Jesus' body could have been removed from the grave by someone. Not only was Matthew's grave guarded, but it was not opened until its opening could be witnessed by the two Mary's, and that opening was accompanied by the supernatural events of an earthquake and an angel opening the grave. And when the grave was opened? The body was already gone."
ReplyDeleteThe text doesn't suggest that the women witnessed the tombs opening, here's Matthew,
"2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, "
From this sentence, "4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. "
to this sentence, "5 The angel said to the women, "
the time in between could've been any length, as the text doesn't suggest it is immediate, so saying that the women viewed The Angels opening the tomb and scaring the Guards is only an assumption, we can easily assume it happened afterward, so the text can't be used to prove that the witnessed it or for a contradiction, since this is the case, there are no known contradicting text.
"The other Gospels lack all mention of the guards at the tomb, the angelic tomb-opener, and the earthquake, and instead have the tomb open by the time a Mary arrives."
Lack of mention is not lack of event, like lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"With the tomb already open, who knows what could have happened to the body? (On the side of faith, the resurrected Jesus could have walked out of the tomb, which actually implied later in John, as we will see in the next study.) Without any support from the other three Gospels, and with an obvious motive for Matthew to have the tomb guarded and its opening witnessed, this appears to be a deliberate change that Matthew made."
The text never suggest the women viewed the tomb opening, this is an assumption.
"
This change can be further demonstrated by comparing Matthew 28:5-7 to Mark 16:6-7. The wording there is very similar to one another. If these were truly independent accounts, it would be an incredible feat, if not a miracle, for the two authors to remember and record these words in a manner which almost matches each other after so much time had passed, and yet such a miracle would be blemished by Mark not remembering anything about the earthquake and the angelic tomb opener. Instead, it seems much more likely that Matthew was copying from Mark, but tweaking the copy to fit in the guarded-tomb narrative."
Or that he decided to correct his fellow Apostle, as his fellow Apostle left out details, or that Mark copied from Matthew to save time, doesn't prove Matthew copied from Mark.
"Contrasting Matthew and Mark, where no Disciple visited the empty tomb, Luke and John have both recorded that Peter visited the tomb and was puzzled by its vacancy, thus demonstrating (explicitly in John) that the Disciples really did not understand that Jesus was to be resurrected."
ReplyDeleteMark and Matthew not mentioning Apostles visiting tomb doesn't mean the Account says that they Didn't visit it, it just doesn't mention it, it doesn't say it didn't happen.
"First, as we observed in a previous post, Matthew redacted the Disciples' lack of understanding of Jesus' prophesied death and resurrection, and, in a different post, we cited how even Matthew's Pharisees understood that Jesus claimed that He would be resurrected, which is why they requested the guard for the tomb! So there is a fundamental contradiction between two alleged Disciples; Matthew and John.""
Actually no, they did not get or believe that he would Resurrect.
"Second, Mark, who was allegedly Peter's traveling companion, translator, and the writer of the earliest Gospel, does not record that Peter had even heard about the empty tomb from the women witnesses, let alone that he personally investigated it and was mystified by the fact that it was empty."
not mentioning does not mean didn't happen, just means, didn't mention. for example, since I didn't mention that I went to the store, did it not happen? no, it did, just wasn't mentioned.
"Summing all of this information up, what we have here is many contradictions in this short account of finding Jesus' tomb empty."
there were none at all.
the entire post was refuted, please remove it because it is misleading, it can cause unnecessary lack of knowledge and doubt, if you're going to keep this up at least refute what I wrote, to prove that you seek the truth.
Part 1 of the rebuttal, Rafael.
ReplyDeleteRafael, thanks for taking the time to read the post. Here is the refutation of your objections:
Regarding the veracity of weaving together a collective narrative, you said: "It does however refute the argument of contradiction though, until it's proven that there is a contradiction, the argument of contradicting accounts cannot be used."
No, it does not necessarily refute the contradiction argument. We are evaluating evidence here. If we hold this to the same standards as evaluating legal evidence in a trial, these four accounts would be considered contradictory. For example, reading John's Gospel provides absolutely no indications that there were any more women other than Mary Magdalene. She is the only women mentioned. She is the only woman Jesus spoke to. She is the only one who stayed behind after Peter checked out the grave. I invite you to take another read though John's Gospel and tell me how it could really be a group of women.
"Not mentioning something isn't really a mistake, because had they written the same exact thing, without leaving some things out, then we can argue that it was copied."
I am not sure if you realize this or not, but there is a ton of evidence suggesting that there was copying between the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It is precisely due to this evidence of copying that the differences become all the more significant in determining the truth. Please let me know if you need help identifying the copying between the Gospels.
You said "The text doesn't suggest that the women witnessed the tombs opening, here's Matthew, "
Both times now that you have made the argument, you conveniently left off Matthew 28:1
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
The implication is clearly that they witnessed the tomb being opened. The angel on top of the rock spoke to them after he opened the tomb.
If they did not witness the earthquake and the angel opening the tomb, then who, allied with Jesus' disciples, was there to witness it and thus pass on the story to us?
"Lack of mention is not lack of event, like lack of evidence is not evidence of absence."
That is true. At best, I have an Argument from Silence in this case, which is never a rock solid proof, just like how your point that mentioning one woman does not mean that there were not multiple women falls under the same weakness. It is circumstantial evidence. The best we can do is weigh all of this circumstantial evidence to help us come to the truth.
"No, it does not necessarily refute the contradiction argument."
DeleteYes it does, simple, you present no contradictions, only speculating what happened and forming contradictions, this isn't how it works.
"For example, reading John's Gospel provides absolutely no indications that there were any more women other than Mary Magdalene."
Likewise it provides absolutely no indication that Mary Magdalene was alone, so saying she was being the others were not Mentioned doesn't mean she's alone, thus, no contradiction.
"She is the only women mentioned. She is the only woman Jesus spoke to. She is the only one who stayed behind after Peter checked out the grave. I invite you to take another read though John's Gospel and tell me how it could really be a group of women."
Exactly, she is the only woman mentioned, doesn't mean the others weren't there, this is an assumption based on faith, faith doesn't work with these historical text. arguing that she's the only one mentioned is like arguing that since only Jesus Christ and His Disciples are mentioned, that no one else exists, it doesn't work that way.
"I am not sure if you realize this or not, but there is a ton of evidence suggesting that there was copying between the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke."
Yes, the argument goes that Matthew and Luke copy from Mark or a Q Source, this is false however as Matthew is before Mark.
"The implication is clearly that they witnessed the tomb being opened. The angel on top of the rock spoke to them after he opened the tomb."
No it it does not, lets read,
"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb."
All it says is that they went to look at the tomb, where does it say they witnessed The Angel opening the tomb? it does not, nowhere does the text imply that they witnessed it, the time it took from Angel sitting on tomb and Mary arriving is speculative, thus no contradiction.
"
The implication is clearly that they witnessed the tomb being opened. The angel on top of the rock spoke to them after he opened the tomb."
No it does not imply this, lets read through,
Matthew - 28 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
Ok, so Mary and other Mary go to Tomb, text doesn't say or even imply that they were there yet, so we have no reason to believe that they witnessed the next events,
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
The time it took from what happened in ^that sentence and the next one is Speculative, doesn't say how long it took
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified."
Notice it never says, "Immediately The Angel said to the women..." thus saying it happened right in front of them is speculative and not suggested or written in the text.
Delete"If they did not witness the earthquake and the angel opening the tomb, then who, allied with Jesus' disciples, was there to witness it and thus pass on the story to us?"
The Holy Spirit, which also answers, How did they know that Judas was evil at heart and wanted to betray Jesus Christ? The Holy Spirit informed then, simple. we cannot assume naturalism when analyzing the text.
"That is true. At best, I have an Argument from Silence in this case,"
but not an argument of contradiction, so this post this pointless and misleading, all you can argue is that some Apostles left things out, which prove nothing, there's no contradiction.
" It is circumstantial evidence"
Therefore cannot be used and is based on a faith, we go by facts and what's in the text.
"just like how your point that mentioning one woman does not mean that there were not multiple women falls under the same weakness."
Actually no, not being mentioned in the text doesn't prove a contradiction, it just leaves us at that, Not being mentioned, we cannot use it to prove a contradiction, therefore when we analyze the text they all flow and fit like a puzzle, unless it doesn't and there are contradictions, then they all fit, and that's all that matters when it comes to The Gospel Accounts, they fit, no contradiction, therefore no conflict in historical data, to sum it up all 4 Gospels do not contradict these facts,
Mary Magdalene, Mary Mother of James, and Salome go to annoint Jesus Christ after the sabbath,
-in which an earthquake happens an Angel appears, scares The Tomb Guards, text doesn't say or even suggest that the women arrived at the tomb yet and witnessed this..
- in which the women find the tomb stone open
- women go inside, find 2 Angels who explain that Jesus Christ was Resurrected from the dead
- that the women told the Apostles in which Peter and John went to investigate,
no Gospel contradicts these points.
Part 2 of the rebuttal, Rafael.
ReplyDelete"The text never suggest the women viewed the tomb opening, this is an assumption."
No, it is not an assumption. It is an implication brought about by the order of the text. The order of events that Matthew reported was:
1) women went to the tomb
2) the tomb was opened
Had the order of 1 and 2 been reversed, then I could not draw such an implication.
You said "Or that he decided to correct his fellow Apostle, as his fellow Apostle left out details, or that Mark copied from Matthew to save time, doesn't prove Matthew copied from Mark."
True, you cannot saw with confidence that Matthew copied from Mark based on this one verse. This is but one tree in a forest. If you compare these two Gospels completely, it becomes rather obvious that Matthew copied from Mark. Both Christian and Secular scholars have reached this conclusion.
"Mark and Matthew not mentioning Apostles visiting tomb doesn't mean the Account says that they Didn't visit it, it just doesn't mention it, it doesn't say it didn't happen."
See the above regarding Arguments from Silence.
"Actually no, they did not get or believe that he would Resurrect."
Please point out in Matthew where they did not get the resurrection. (This is one of those significant changes I alluded to above.)
not mentioning does not mean didn't happen, just means, didn't mention. for example, since I didn't mention that I went to the store, did it not happen? no, it did, just wasn't mentioned."
See the above regarding Arguments from Silence.
"the entire post was refuted, please remove it because it is misleading, it can cause unnecessary lack of knowledge and doubt, if you're going to keep this up at least refute what I wrote, to prove that you seek the truth."
There is a significant difference between refuting something (proving something wrong) versus merely explaining how things could have possibly worked, as you have tried to make the case here. Illustrating that something is possible is not the same as proving something did happen, right? You need to distinguish between the two, because to make it possible requires you to tweak the authors accounts and to ignore the implications intended in their text.
This is only one study in a series throughout both the New and the Old Testaments. While the strength of this particular post is not rock solid on its own, collectively taken into account with my other studies suggests that my stance is, indeed, on solid ground.
"No, it is not an assumption. It is an implication brought about by the order of the text. The order of events that Matthew reported was:
Delete1) women went to the tomb
2) the tomb was opened
Had the order of 1 and 2 been reversed, then I could not draw such an implication."
Order doesn't prove it, watch this,
1. Rafael went to go buy something at the store
2, The store was robbed
Does this prove that I witnessed the store getting robbed? of course not, all it says that I went to the store, I could've seen it, I could've missed it, assuming that I saw it is based on faith, which doesn't prove anything, only what the historical text says.
"True, you cannot saw with confidence that Matthew copied from Mark based on this one verse. This is but one tree in a forest. If you compare these two Gospels completely, it becomes rather obvious that Matthew copied from Mark. Both Christian and Secular scholars have reached this conclusion."
Matthew came first, so if you claim a copy, you have to work from these facts, the most you can say is that Mark copied Matthew and corrected his friend/Apostle on some facts.
"There is a significant difference between refuting something (proving something wrong) versus merely explaining how things could have possibly worked,"
I didn't merely explain, I used the text alone, no speculation, which is what you are supposed to do to prove a contradiction, the contradictions were refuted, since there's no contradiction, the whole argument is based on faith and speculation, which is not Scientific, Logical, Historical or used in proving something.
"as you have tried to make the case here. Illustrating that something is possible is not the same as proving something did happen, right?"
Exactly, which is what you did, you assumed that since Angels appearing at tomb and rolling the stone came after the sentence which said Mary and The Other Mary went to the tomb, that they witnessed it, the text never says it, so it's just speculation, which no one wants, we want cold hard facts.
"You need to distinguish between the two, because to make it possible requires you to tweak the authors accounts and to ignore the implications intended in their text."
We don't look for implications, but what the text says, for example if Text said that the women Witnessed Angels rolling stone, then that's a contradiction, if not, then there are no known contradictions and the argument is refuted, speculating a contradiction doesn't work, as it takes faith and not facts from text.
Rafael, I believe you are mistaken in the surety of your arguments, but you do not realize it. Please, allow me to explain with an example:
ReplyDeleteRobert says that he saw a red ball.
Gilbert says that he saw a green ball.
Do Robert and Gilbert contradict each other? Obviously, the answer is yes, right?
What if I told you that the ball must have been half red and half green? Does that mean that Robert and Gilbert no longer contradict each other? No. That simply makes it possible for both of them to be telling the story accurately relative to their perception, and yet that does not guarantee both are both telling the story accurately.
Gilbert could have seen the red half of the ball, but misremembered it as being green. Or it may be that Gilbert is color blind, such that red appears green to him! :-)
Their accounts are still contradictory, and neither account can be said to reveal the entire truth or can be guaranteed to be accurate. If the accounts had agreed, then we would have more assurance of the color of the ball. Yet without being eyewitnesses ourselves, we are still put at some distance from knowing the truth of the matter.
Now, I do not know about you, but when I write, I choose my words. When I am trying to convey a little bit of history, the words I choose are selected to represent what happened. I expect the reader to receive them precisely as I have written them.
I extend the same benefit of the doubt to the writers of the Gospels. If they say that an angel sat on a rock and talked to someone, I take it to mean precisely that. If they say that, instead, the talking angel was inside the tomb, I take it to mean precisely that. To do otherwise requires the evaluation that you know the history better than the person that actually wrote the things down.
It is acceptable to make such an evaluation if you have the evidence to support it. You do not. You have an assumption that the Holy Spirit was working behind the writings of the Gospels (which, by the way, I could illustrate several evidences to the contrary, such as all-too-frequent misquoting of Scripture, even from the mouth of Jesus).
So when one Gospel writer says one thing happened, but another Gospel writer says that a different thing happened, that is a contradiction, regardless of whether or not you can conceive a way for it to be non-contradictory in your head.
Not all contradictions are meaningful, and no single contradiction should be used as proof that the entire story is false. There is not enough clout to do so. It is by the collective weight of the evidence that we must come to the truth.
So, do you understand why your arguments have not so surely "refuted" mine? Or do you still believe that you have solid ground here? Let me provide two quotes from you, back-to-back, just in case:
"to this sentence, "5 The angel said to the women, "
the time in between could've been any length, as the text doesn't suggest it is immediate, so saying that the women viewed The Angels opening the tomb and scaring the Guards is only an assumption, we can easily assume it happened afterward, so the text can't be used to prove that the witnessed it or for a contradiction, since this is the case, there are no known contradicting text."
"the text never says it, so it's just speculation, which no one wants, we want cold hard facts."
"
ReplyDeleteRobert says that he saw a red ball.
Gilbert says that he saw a green ball.
Do Robert and Gilbert contradict each other? Obviously, the answer is yes, right? "
No they do not contradict, unless Robert says that he saw a red ball and that No green ball was there and Gilbert says that he saw a green ball and that there was No red ball, so there could've been both a Green and Red ball however Robert only saw the red one and Gilbert only saw the Green one.
"What if I told you that the ball must have been half red and half green? Does that mean that Robert and Gilbert no longer contradict each other? No. That simply makes it possible for both of them to be telling the story accurately relative to their perception, and yet that does not guarantee both are both telling the story accurately.
"
Which means no contradiction and contradiction... Contradicts, saying that the ball was all red or green would contradict, none said that, therefore no contradiction their perspective correlates.
"I extend the same benefit of the doubt to the writers of the Gospels. If they say that an angel sat on a rock and talked to someone, I take it to mean precisely that. "
They did not say that, the text doesn't even Imply that The Angel talked to Mary WHILE on the rock, stop ignoring what I wrote, I will copy and paste,
Did The Angel speak to the Women inside or when sitting on stone?
easy, John, Mark and Luke agree that the women met The Angels in the tomb, Does Matthew Contradict this?
No, lets read,
"2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified."
ReplyDeleteFrom this sentence "4 and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. "
to this one, "5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.""
It could've been any amount of time, the text never specifies if it was immediately that The Angel talks to the woman or later on, so there's no contradiction, he sat on tomb, scared the guards, then when women arrived met them inside the tomb.
If it said that The Angels talked to Mary WHILE on the Stone then you could say that, it doesn't say that, the amount of time from sentence 4 to 5 is Speculative, it doesn't say it's right away, saying The Angel talked to Mary while on the tomb is reading into the text, we do not do this with Historical Text.
"It is acceptable to make such an evaluation if you have the evidence to support it. You do not. You have an assumption that the Holy Spirit was working behind the writings of the Gospels (which, by the way, I could illustrate several evidences to the contrary, such as all-too-frequent misquoting of Scripture, even from the mouth of Jesus).
"
I don't have an Assumption, I have Scientific Facts such as The Shroud of Turin, proving "Jesus misquoting scripture" can only amount to interpolation, which would mean it is not Scripture and you didn't prove anything.
"So when one Gospel writer says one thing happened, but another Gospel writer says that a different thing happened, that is a contradiction"
Yet that didn't happen with the Empty Tomb accounts.
"So, do you understand why your arguments have not so surely "refuted" mine?
No I do not, because you have not demonstrated.
"Or do you still believe that you have solid ground here?
I don't believe, I unbiasely see a rebuttal of your post, there are no contradictions,
you did not refute what I said, but did what you cannot do with Investigation and that is Speculate, please take this article down, it is misleading and false, there are no known contradictions in Empty Tomb accounts.
Saying The Angel spoke to Mary while on the stone is unfound. saying The Angel did speak while on the tomb is a speculation, assumption, it must be the text, otherwise we withhold truth, we cannot use assumptions but logic and proof in text.
in order to prove that The Angel spoke to Mary while sitting on tomb you have to prove that from that from sentence 4 to 5 that it was a short period of time or that The Angel didn't move, this cannot be done because the text doesn't say how long it was, it's speculative, which means could've been a long time could've stayed on the tomb, since there's no way of knowing how long it was, there is no contradiction, a Contradiction isn't speculative, it's definitive, if speculative we cannot take it serious, the burden is on the one who says there's a contradiction, they must use Contradictions, that which contradict something, not something they assume or speculate does, this isn't how proof works.
Rafael, I am sorry, but I guess my indirect explanation was not clear to you. Please allow me to try a more direct approach here to help you understand.
ReplyDeleteYou are trying to refute me, right? In order to refute me, you have the burden of proving that I am absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt, wrong. In other words, you need to refute me in a way which shows that my interpretation cannot be possible. To prove me wrong, based on your own philosophy, you are not permitted to speculate. You must only use cold, hard facts.
Now, in Matthew, we have a report of the angel sitting on the rock, and we have a report of the angel subsequently speaking to the women, but we have no report of the angel doing anything else in between. Implicitly, that means that the angel spoke to the women while sitting on the rock, just like how all of the verses associated with the Sermon on the Mount are implicitly given by Jesus while on the mount without each verse mentioning explicitly "and He also said this on the mount". That is what I have advanced as the author's intended meaning.
All of the refutation that you have offered so far is speculation, like in the immediately preceding comment you said "which means could've been a long time". That "could've" is pure and utter speculation with absolutely no grounds to back it up other than silence.
So, when you can refute me with facts, then you will have fully refuted me. If, instead, you persist in saying "well, it could have been this way, because the text does not say that it was not this way," your argument is based on pure speculation, and therefore it is not strong enough to be a fully effective refutation. At best, you can call it a difference of opinion; a theory of your own based upon your own speculation.
So, there you have it. Refute me with facts. If you can, then I will consider taking down this post, because I do not put information which I know to be wrong up on these posts. But stop trying to refute me with your own brand of speculation and arguments from silence. They are too weak to do the job you want them to do.
" In order to refute me, you have the burden of proving that I am absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt, wrong."
DeleteAnd I did, I refuted every supposed contradiction and proved that there are no observable contradictions in text, that all you provided was speculation. lets have this clear, Speculation is not a Contradiction, Contradiction.. is Contradiction. unless the text Says that The Angel WHILE sitting on The Stone Talked to Mary, then you don't have a contradiction, only speculation.
"Now, in Matthew, we have a report of the angel sitting on the rock, and we have a report of the angel subsequently speaking to the women, but we have no report of the angel doing anything else in between. "
Exactly, we therefore do not know the period of time in which The Angel spoke, it is therefore speculative, the text doesn't say, "Immediately the Angel spoke while on the stone" or "after getting off the stone and going inside the tomb", you're left with... Who knows? which isn't a Contradiction.
"Implicitly, that means that the angel spoke to the women while sitting on the rock"
Exactly, Implicitly, meaning speculation, you refute your own argument, there's no contradictions in text.
"That is what I have advanced as the author's intended meaning."
That's because Jesus Christ whereabouts(The Mount) isn't Important, The Angel, The Stone and The Tomb are important because you claim there's a contradiction, you cannot use speculation to say there's a contradiction.
"All of the refutation that you have offered so far is speculation,"
Exactly, because the Matthew Text is Speculative, which is what I'm proving by speculating, the fact that it can be speculated means there's no Contradiction in text, speculation isn't contradiction, we don't know if The Angel was on the stone or in the tomb according to Matthew, which means you have no Contradiction, I'm not making a claim, you are, you need to point out cpntradiction not speculation of Angel sitting on stone.
" That "could've" is pure and utter speculation with absolutely no grounds to back it up other than silence."
Just like that, "He sat on stone while talking to Mary" is, the text doesn't specify, thherefore no contradiction as sitting on stone while talking to women is also speculative.
""well, it could have been this way, because the text does not say that it was not this way," "
Which is what you did, you said, "Implicitly, that means that the angel spoke to the women while sitting on the rock"
Basically speculating, I make no claim I'm not claiming that The Angel didn't speak to Mary while sitting on stone, I'm saying that it's not said or implied in text, so I have no burden and is based on text, not speculation.
Well, I am sorry you feel this way, Rafael. It appears that we are going to have to agree to disagree here.
ReplyDeleteWould you do me, and yourself, a favor? Please solicit a trusted friend of yours to review the arguments you have set forth here. By trusted friend, of course, I mean one you consider wise, and also one who will tell you that you are wrong when necessary, or pat yo on the back and tell you that you did well when appropriate.
I think that if you have someone else review what you have said here, you may get a clearer perspective.
Thanks for stopping by.
"It appears that we are going to have to agree to disagree here."
ReplyDeleteSorry I will not agree to disagree, I cannot do that when you withold truth, this isn't about agreeing, your contradictions were objectively refuted, all you did is use debate tactics which I got through, and do not bother taking down the comments because I will screencapture them,
You are dangerous to the scientific and free thinking community, admit that the post was refuted. if my posts were refuted on my blog, I'd take them down, why not you?
You provided absolutely no contradictions in text and it's disingenuous, all you demonstrate is that your atheism is not based on intellect or honest investigation.
Dear Rafael,
ReplyDeleteI would not dream of taking down your comments. Quite the contrary, I have considered using them as examples.
I recommended that you have someone else read over this debate for your own good. To put it as mildly as possible, you have some regrettable misunderstandings in your arguments here. I was hoping you would get someone to help you realize this.
Again, I am sorry that you feel the way you feel, but your feelings are obviously not a good indication of the truth of the matter. I can only hope that you will realize the truth with time. So I wish you the best, and may you always gain in love, patience, understanding, and wisdom.
"you have some regrettable misunderstandings in your arguments here. "
DeleteWhich ones? Demonstrate.
"So I wish you the best, and may you always gain in love, patience, understanding, and wisdom."
DeleteContrary, I wish you not only love, patience, understanding and wisdom but honesty as well, the argument was refuted, had I been refuted on my blog, I would accept it and take the post down.
Rafael, based on your language, you likely see me as an adversary, or certainly in a very negative light. Me trying to demonstrate anything to you at this point would be like trying to pick an apple off a tree before it is ripe. Instead, if you want to get to the truth of the matter, as I have recommended previously, get someone you trust to read through this comment exchange. I know that you will not listen to me, but you might listen to someone else who you know and trust.
ReplyDeleteI will happily take the post down when you have actually refuted it. Until then, best wishes to you.
"you likely see me as an adversary, or certainly in a very negative light"
DeleteWhy because I want the post taken down? it's refuted, if you refuted one of my post then it's going down, because truth is what matters.
"
I will happily take the post down when you have actually refuted it. Until then, best wishes to you."
Demonstrate how I didn't refute it, what do I need to refute? point it out and I'll do so.
Too bad you have hierarchy here -- hard to follow -- I came back to take a peak.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that Rafael wants the blog post taken down -- what a silly request.
Raf, starting with such an unreasonable request gives away your attitude.
At best, you should hope for a blogger to change any errors in the post.
So, I suggest you quote EXACTLY what you consider to be the erroneous wording of TWF and show how you refuted it.
Keep it brief, show that you listened to TWF's counters (agree or not) and quote exactly what you think is mistaken.
Remember, the best you could reasonably hope for is a rewording.
But you don't sound too reasonable, I must say. I look forward to you showing me otherwise.
Why a silly request? the post was refuted.
DeleteI told you, Rafael, you don't refute a whole post, you refute parts of a post. Likewise I won't decide you are a completely mixed up person but only parts of your thinking are mixed up.
DeleteBy asking this question, you ignore my explanation and this is what you have done with TWF through much of this comment section. You are consistent in your poor dialogue method.
I actually had hope for you when you started your objections.
I know that when I write, I often overstate my position, don't take other theories into account or acknowledge them and actually state wrong facts. At times like that, when readers point them out, I often go back and change that part of that post -- if, after exploring, I agree with the correction.
But I almost never take down a whole post.
Similarly, I may think a person is being foolish about something, but I don't think the person is an entire fool. Likewise, I may think a person may belief the wrong thing, but that is not enough for me to want the person sent to hell for eternity. You see, black and white thinking is primitive.
Rafael, I find it remarkable that you are confident enough in your argument to demand that I take the post down, but apparently not confident enough to show your arguments to a trusted friend.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry that you feel the post is refuted when it is not.
If you truly believe that I am in error, and truly desire me to take the post down, you will have to convince me that I am in error. Obviously, you have been unsuccessful at that. So, why not try again, if the "truth" matters that much to you? Why not make an organized argument, as Sabio described above?
I would think that it should give you some pause that I have not deleted or filtered any of your comments or mine, but have left them out there for the world to judge. I am very confident that the arguments you have presented so far have been inadequate to refute the post. So, for the final time, I will urge you to seek out the guidance of a trusted friend. Then, come back with your best argument of why the post is refuted. Again, refutation means that you have proven that it cannot be the way that I have described it, not that it may not be that way. If you can only provide "may not", then all you have is a difference of opinion, which is all that you have provided thus far as I understand it. But maybe I have missed something. So prove me wrong.
Also, Rafael, just so you know, this is a rather minor reason in the spectrum of why it is unreasonable to believe in Jesus.
ReplyDeleteFor example, more critical issues come from prophesy, staring with the very beginning with John the Baptist allegedly leading the way for Jesus. What he did does not match the Bible at all, not to mention how the NT writers butchered the quotations of the OT prophesies.
So, what I am telling you is, I would be perfectly fine with conceding victory on this issue to you if you would present a convincing argument. It is no challenge to my beliefs, or lack thereof. You just have not managed to present a convincing argument, despite the fact that you think that you have.
TWF:
ReplyDeleteJust for caution, I probably should link you to one of Jame Snapp Jr's arguments for the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 here:
http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/PDF/snappmark.pdf
Heck, might as well just offer a link to all of his resources:
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/BasicTC.html
Minding of course that this does not bare entirely important on the issues here presented, seems you have argued the main issues out.
TWF:
ReplyDeleteI feel I should also through this fellow's harmony: http://sunnybrookepub.com/resurrection_of_jesus.pdf
Mostly because it seems to pay the most credence to what's in each text.
Several of the twenty-two points
-) Women go to the Tomb
-) Tomb Opened by angel with an earthquake
-On the point of the angel on the rock, I think Rafael had a fair point inasmuch Gospel writers occasionally write somewhat discontinuously when they introduce information by a but. Basically the text says, this is what the angel did to x, but this is what he did to y There's also some internal sense, if the women saw an angel that terrified guards they too would have likely been mortified.
-) Women see tomb opened and Mary Magdalene flees
-) MM report "we" do not know where they have taken him
-) Peter heads over to the tomb with MM
-) Peter leaves MM
-) MM looks in the tomb and sees two angels
-) MM heads back and sees Jesus
-) MM and others regather at tomb and receive the message from the angels
-) MM and others return and meet with Jesus
-) MM and others report to Apostles
-) Peter and John go to the tomb (and some other disciples, see Luke's account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus)
etc., etc., and so on. I am fairly certain the Archdiocese of Washington also have a variant of this on their website.
Personally I prefer a more simplified version of the one presented above proposed by Roger Forster: http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html#reconstruction
It's fairly believable based upon the simplifications used when describing sub-groups acting within groups
(e.g. Saying there were men outside and that 'they' performed such and such an act, when only some did, or saying a group discovered such-and-such when one did so ahead of the others)
That said, there may still be a few issues with how Matthew and Luke render their information, at least in the latter case as the words of the men on the road to Emmaus seems only to be aware of the vision of angels as the most notable event although one can find congruity in their mentioning that the extra visitors "had not seen him" possibly implying that aspect was reported. Other defenses may include appeal to a lack of presence on the part of these disciples at the women's' full report (saying "us" although they had not directly heard as student at a high school would say, "We lost the game", even though the student was not part of the losing team), or some such thing.
If you wish, additional women might be argued into the storytelling of Matthew based on his switch to "the women" (compare Luke's occassional switching where he says Jesus said to X, but said to his disciples, when it is obvious he taught his disciples at some other point) among which the two mentioned Mary's were a apart of. The Mary's up to this point being specified stand-ins for the whole of them.
"not tot mention how the NT writers butchered the quotations of the OT prophesies"
On this point I think it should be noted that a number of persons propose a broader meaning for "fulfilled" in reference to prophecy, and that there is validity to the "multiple names" defenses (cf. Acts 1:23, Ezra 1:16, the case of Azariah/ Uzziah in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, etc.).
Probably sending in too much stuff.
May all be well with you,
Felix Zamora
TWF:
ReplyDeleteAlso, an idea I had cross my mind, but more succinctly put (mind you, by an atheist), on the case of things accepting there are contradiction:
"McKinsey argues that the New Testament accounts of the resurrection are contradictory. Unlike the previous objection, I believe this objection is true. (However, I think that critics of inerrancy sometimes overstate the extent of these discrepancies. Some of the alleged discrepancies can be plausibly reconciled without appealing to ad hoc explanations.) But, as my earlier remarks should make clear, I believe that objection (2) is irrelevant to the truth of the Resurrection. From a theological perspective, the Bible does not have to be inerrant in order for the Resurrection to be true. And historically speaking, even if one treats the NT accunts [sic] of the Resurrection as historical accounts, the fact that those accounts contradict one another about incidental details provides no direct evidence against the Resurrection itself. Indeed, this is a problem that historians routinely face when assessing historical texts. But historians do not throw out entire groups of documents simply because the documents contradict one another about the incidental details. Instead, historians try to determine the best historical explanation for those disagreements, in an attempt to identify the core historical details."
On the point of inerrancy being incidental to the discussion, I can't help but concur.
May all be well with you and your family,
Felix Zamora
Hi Felix,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the many comments. I appreciate it. I am going to work post-by-post, leaving the remainder of the comments in queue, mainly so I don't forget to reply to them! :-) I hope you'll be patient with the process, as it may take a while.
You've put a lot of information here, which is great. I'd like people who visit to see both sides. I'm not going to reply to most of what you posted point-by-point, for reasons I'll get to in a moment. Anyway...
Thanks for the link on Mark's ending. It's not really a critical point, by my estimation. I can easily see the end getting "lost" off a scroll.
It's funny, but neither you nor Rafael mention anything about the text I put below the table, which I think is the more-important part of this post! :-) But I get it. The whole resurrection scene is critical to the validity of Christianity, at least to the layperson, so any challenge to it becomes impossible to ignore. That's why there's such a wealth of materials and harmonies trying to put all of the pieces together. I don't want to get on a soapbox here, so let me just say that I am not a layperson. My critique is at a different level.
Your quote and response to my response:
"not tot mention how the NT writers butchered the quotations of the OT prophesies"
On this point I think it should be noted that a number of persons propose a broader meaning for "fulfilled" in reference to prophecy, and that there is validity to the "multiple names" defenses (cf. Acts 1:23, Ezra 1:16, the case of Azariah/ Uzziah in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, etc.).
Actually, the "butchering" I was referring to was that the words of the NT quotes are quite often different. Words are changed, missing, or added versus the original OT text. Even Jesus made several misquotes, if you believe the Gospel writers. Do yourself a favor: Every time you hit quoted scripture in the NT, go back and look at the OT source. You'll be surprised! Trust me!
As to your last comment on this thread, I couldn't agree more. In fact, I said to Rafael even more succinctly above:
"Not all contradictions are meaningful, and no single contradiction should be used as proof that the entire story is false. There is not enough clout to do so. It is by the collective weight of the evidence that we must come to the truth."
Finally, the reasons... I set out to blog through all of the Gospels without skipping any material, so that I could be as far as possible, not just cherry-picking the rough spots. This inherently means that some of my positions are going to be stronger and more important than others, and obviously there will be weaker, less important ones as well. This section, while interesting, did not make my best-of list, which you can find on The Good News post for the NT.
Best wishes!
TWF:
ReplyDelete"Words are changed, missing, or added versus the original OT text"
Mssing) On at least some of those mentions such as that concerning the quotation of YHWH's proclamation to Moses, the fact that they had no ellipses seems significant. On that instance in particular, the quote would be regarded as accurate in English if there were ellipses
Changed, Missing) This is where the relevance of the "combination" quote comes in to play. A number of quotation combine one or two passages of Scripture according to the traditions prevalent at the time. Mark's introductory citation and that in Romans 3:10-18 present combination where the parts are distinct. That said, I believe I have also read that the "Malachi" portion of the first quote is actually a combination of the Malachi text with a bit from the Pentateuch.
May all be well with you,
and thank you for responding to so many comments
Felix Zamora
Hello Felix,
ReplyDeleteActually, the missing parts I was speaking about were words in the middle of verses, not at the beginning or end where ellipses would be appropriate.
And the changed text goes deeper than smashed-up quotes. There's a bit more to it, but I don't want to spoil the surprise for you. :-) Seriously. I recommend making it a new habit. No need to break into a detailed study now. Just when you come across them, check them out. And while you're there, check out the context of the quotes, just to make sure they're applicable.
If you have already done such work, then, forgive me for the suggestion. It's obvious you've studied the Bible a bit more than the average guy, but I' not sure what you've focused on, or which teachings you cling to most steadfastly.
Sorry it's taking so long to get through the comments. Long hours and hectic schedules aren't allowing much free time now. And I wouldn't be surprised if I make a stupid mistake from fatigue. :-)
Best wishes to you!
-TWF
BTW, TWF, your comment box does not allow subscribers to "unsubscribe"
ReplyDeleteWhat, Sabio? Are you not (still) entertained? :-) Sorry about that. I like your new icon!
ReplyDeleteI removed your comment, Sabio, as you replied in the other profile. :-)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what happened to the subscribe for you. I see a little "Notify me" in the bottom here, but I suspect that you're stuck once you click that button. I guess this is a WP point of superiority, huh?
Cheers!