Need help; Easter story contradictions

[Segnosaur]

I need a little help here. I was recently involved in a debate with someone here over contradictions in the Easter story.

I pointed to the story "Leave No Stone Unturned" (http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html), where someone suggests that it is impossible to write a complete timeline of the Death and ressurection of Jesus from the bible, due to contraditions in the 4 gospels (plus one of the other books of the bible).

Now, the person I was debating with mentioned a book called "Who moved the stone" (by Morison), supposedly from a non-believer who ended up 'proving' biblical history.

Now, I did some searching on the Morison book, and found out a few things (such as he wasn't really a skeptic about the bible and god, just about the resurection story), and he made a few assumptions. (For example, in one gospel, a group of women set out at night, in another its at daybreak; the reason Morison gave is that it takes a group of women a while to get organized to go anywhere :rolleyes:.)

Now, my question is, is anyone here familiar with the Easter contradtions and the Morison book? Can you point out any other glaring contraditictions that Morison leaves out?

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is some stuff...

Look at Issue No. 2,

Resurrection (http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart11.html#issref112)

Here is a big bunch of:

BIBLICAL INCONSISTENCIES (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml)

These will probably keep you busy for a while...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Here is some stuff...

...

These will probably keep you busy for a while...
Thanks. I've seen a lot of these. I've also browsed through the skeptics annotated bible (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com). I was looking for specific criticisms of the "Who moved the stone" book though.

[stamenflicker]

Now, my question is, is anyone here familiar with the Easter contradtions and the Morison book?

I can't help you with the book, but as far as the contradictions go, it's a waste of time IMHO. Think about this way. September 11th strikes and you have four different accounts of what happened from a participants view. One says the fire department showed up first, the other says it was the police. One says the event was terrifying, the other says it brought out his inner strength.

Point is, that whatever personal stories you get about 9-11, they will contain different events, even different interpretations, than say your CNN news report. Anyway, if you're looking for CNN objectivity (what an oxymoron) regarding the resurrection, forget it. These are either stories, or personal recollections, meant to tell a tale and serve a purpose. If you want to trust any one of them over the other-- trust Luke's account. At least he claims to be writing accurately.

Flick

[synaesthesia]

Basically we get a whole variety of stories, most of which derive from the other stories. There are similarities and incongruities as we should expect from such a human tale.

The evidence suggests that these are humans writing a human book with a splash of a bit of human ******** (parting of the seas? Give me a break. Supernatural ninjas removing Jesus without killing the guards.

The point is not that God could not have written the bible because it is contradictory. The points is that humans DID write the bible, and nothing about it's writing suggests that any superhuman aid was necessary for it!

Just a whole lot of bad editing.

[stamenflicker]

The point is not that God could not have written the bible because it is contradictory. The points is that humans DID write the bible, and nothing about it's writing suggests that any superhuman aid was necessary for it!

Blah. You have raised all the right questions, but have settled for a lazy conclusion. As polietly as I can, I encourage you to give it more thought.

Flick

[Yahzi]

Stupidflucker
As polietly as I can, I encourage you to give it more thought
Of all the people on this board to accuse of thoughtlessness, Synthesia is the worst possible choice. No one has shown a more consistent patience and erudition. Even the big guns, like Tricky, Dr X., etc. recognize and admire the depth of Synth's thinking. He is quite possibly the only person on this board that one could never accuse of holding a poorly considered position.

Everytime I take you off ignore long enough to read a post, you are worse than I remembered.

[Liamo]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
If you want to trust any one of them over the other-- trust Luke's account. At least he claims to be writing accurately.

Flick
Well, anyone can claim that; it doesn't follow that his account is accurate...

Liam

[stamenflicker]

Of all the people on this board to accuse of thoughtlessness, Synthesia is the worst possible choice. No one has shown a more consistent patience and erudition. Even the big guns, like Tricky, Dr X., etc. recognize and admire the depth of Synth's thinking. He is quite possibly the only person on this board that one could never accuse of holding a poorly considered position.

I'd rather be accused of thoughtlessness than malice. And currently, both apply to you. Have a nice day :)

Flick

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I can't help you with the book, but as far as the contradictions go, it's a waste of time IMHO. Think about this way. September 11th strikes and you have four different accounts of what happened from a participants view.
Well, there is a difference.... there are people who THINK the bible is 100% accurate and guided by god. They also claim there are no contradictions (I remember, a radio host on a local talk station made that claim a few months ago), and the lack of contraditions somehow proves god exists.

Nobody is claiming that news accounts from 9/11 were inspired by a higher power.

Like I said, I was looking for specific information about a book claiming that the time line of the easter story could be layed out with no contraditions. I just want to know what the book author overlooked.

[Finella]

Hi, Segnosaur...

I have heard about this author, and I would say that his book (not having read it, but only his description of it) is flawed in that he uses only the Bible for evidence of his arguments (if I remember right -- correct me if I'm wrong). Thus it doesn't really fit the skeptics' code of looking at all the possible evidence, if you know what I mean.

I don't know if you're up to much more reading, but check out _Liberating the Gospels_ by John Shelby Spong. I'm still finishing it, but basically his argument is that the gospels were written to fulfull specific social, religious, and political purposes; thus they were never meant to be literal accounts of Jesus' life, rather their versions of the stories are allegory and metaphor, meant to illuminate how important Jesus really was at the time. Therefore, contradictions don't really matter (and yes, there are of course contradictions! sheesh, people!), at least in the sense of the gospels.

---,---'--{@

[Christian]

Maybe you can check this out:

The Resurrection accounts (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=63)

[Yahzi]

Stupidflucker
I'd rather be accused of thoughtlessness than malice. And currently, both apply to you. Have a nice day
You accused Synthesia of thoughtlessness. No-one accused you of thoughtlessness. I accused you of smug arrogance bordering on contempt. Try to keep the details straight.

What I exhibit towards you solidly exceeds the borders of contempt, and for well-deserved reasons. Your inability to grasp the fact that you might be wrong is paralled only by the consistency with which you are wrong.

In any case you failed to address the issue: that Synth, a professional philosopher, has undoubtedly put more thought into this issue that you have, your condescending vaccuity not withstanding.

I read your reply out of obligation, since I had posted to you. But your response was so idiotic as to render me free from any further obligation. So I shan't bother to read any replies to this. And hopefully it will be a good while before I forget again why I don't read your posts.

[stamenflicker]

What I exhibit towards you solidly exceeds the borders of contempt,

Wonders never cease, we agree.

and for well-deserved reasons.

Whoops. I spoke to soon. Your "reason" is that you lost an discussion with me. Rather than finding the middle ground in good taste, you decided it would be better to ignore a contradictary thinker.

Your inability to grasp the fact that you might be wrong is paralled only by the consistency with which you are wrong.

I've conceeded many points and arguments on this board.

In any case you failed to address the issue: that Synth, a professional philosopher,

Dang! I always wanted to meet one of those. Yee-haw!

has undoubtedly put more thought into this issue that you have, your condescending vaccuity not withstanding.

You can't even come close to demonstrating how much thought either of us have put into any subject. You are speaking from your @ss, just like last time we debated.

Oyeah, last time I checked "condescending vaccuity" was double talk, and therefore meaningless. I do like the ring to it though, is it copywrited?

I read your reply out of obligation, since I had posted to you. But your response was so idiotic as to render me free from any further obligation. So I shan't bother to read any replies to this. And hopefully it will be a good while before I forget again why I don't read your posts.

Want some cheese with that whine?

Flick

[kedo1981]

Hey flicker!
The more I consider your 9.11 analogy the more I like it; mostly because it makes the “inconstancies in the bible” point and not “no inconstancies in the bible” point of view.
When the history of the 9.11 attacks is “codified” how many versions will there be? Jet plane hit the buildings :::::::::::::::::: buildings collapsed :::::::::::::::: many died. Will there be a chapter that says there was a Jewish conspiracy that claims to be the truth, and another chapter that says there was a UFO involved and that also claims to be the truth?
I don’t think so!!

The Bible has been given “a free pass down the hallway of illogic” ; mostly; I think because for the first 17 hundred years of Christianity almost no body could read it.

[Doctor X]

Indeed.

Of course:

Think about this way. September 11th strikes and you have four different accounts of what happened from a participants view. One says the fire department showed up first, the other says it was the police. One says the event was terrifying, the other says it brought out his inner strength.

is a false analogy. First NONE of the Synoptic Gospels were written by contemporaries, let alone witnesses. A disagreement on "who got there first" is a far cry from being ten years off on a birth narrative, having completely different events, et cetera ad nauseum.

Not to mention that Lk and Mt rewrite Mk independently.

Rather, this results from a desire to avoid about 100 years of biblical scholarship. One may wish to intellectually bury one's head in the sand; however, one cannot criticise others for having an open mind.

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

First NONE of the Synoptic Gospels were written by contemporaries

Can U prove it?

A disagreement on "who got there first" is a far cry from being ten years off on a birth narrative

Unfortuneately we can't stick around to see how 9-11 will be recorded 50 years from now, much less how it is interpreted 2,000 years from now. It's hard to know what stories will surround the event and which ones will be taken as "final" authority on the matter. Undoubtedly there will be descrepencies.

Rather, this results from a desire to avoid about 100 years of biblical scholarship. One may wish to intellectually bury one's head in the sand; however, one cannot criticise others for having an open mind.

I welcome an open mind... just pointed out that contradictions in no way determine a truth or the lack of a truth when personal stories or recollections are involved-- actually when people in general are involved.

Flick

[Doctor X]

Can U prove it?

Yes.

Start with:

Koester: Ancient Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0334024501/qid=1046625411/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-9373109-4910449?v=glance&s=books)

Mack: Who Wrote the New Testament? (http://http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060655186/qid=1046625558/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-9373109-4910449)

and consult their extensive bibliographies. Should you disagree with roughly a hundren years of biblical scholarship, then can arrange to have your DETAILED rebuttal--complete with textual criticism, of course--reviewed by the Journal of Biblical Literature.


Unfortuneately we can't stick around to see how 9-11 will be recorded 50 years from now, much less how it is interpreted 2,000 years from now.

Does not at all support the attempt to make the Synoptics or Jn, or other non-canonical works contemporary.

Thus:

Undoubtedly there will be descrepencies.

The degree of discrepencies, as explained above, do not compare.

Unless, of course, you conceed that the contraditions in the Synoptics and Jn have expanded so far now that we cannot give them any credence now. . . .

I welcome an open mind...

Evidence indicated otherwise.

. . . just pointed out that contradictions in no way determine a truth or the lack of a truth when personal stories or recollections are involved-- actually when people in general are involved.

Wrong.

As stated, even two thousand years hence, I highly doubt we will have a ten-year discrepency between dates of 9/11.

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

Should you disagree with roughly a hundren years of biblical scholarship, then can arrange to have your DETAILED rebuttal--complete with textual criticism, of course--reviewed by the Journal of Biblical Literature.

I figured you jump right to "experts." All you done is offered a suggested interpretation of the data. It cannot be proven or disproven. And there are some very good documents and research on the gospels that point to a contrary interpretation. But we've been down that road. Bottom line: You can't prove the gospels were not eye-witness accounts.

The degree of discrepencies, as explained above, do not compare.

You can't know this, seeing that only a fractional amount of time has passed. Further, you are basing modern information gathering techniques and pressing them backward with a false hermeneutic.

Unless, of course, you conceed that the contraditions in the Synoptics and Jn have expanded so far now that we cannot give them any credence now. . . .

I'm saying the contradictions point us in no direction, if you are willing to say the contradictions lead us anywhere, then you must also conceed that the similarities [which BTW are 100 times greater] lead us to a conclusion as well.

As stated, even two thousand years hence, I highly doubt we will have a ten-year discrepency between dates of 9/11.

I bet we do, if it's remembered at all. And that's in spite of all the wonderous 20th century methods of recording information, which last time I checked, were not available in 50AD.

Flick

[Doctor X]

I figured you jump right to "experts."

While the attempt to Poison the Well with quotation marks is noted and demonstrates an inability to argue to the point, if one wishes to overturn the findings of scholarship, one must actually confront the scholarship.

Otherwise, one merely buries his head in the sand. Such is not a position amenable to progress.

All you done is offered a suggested interpretation of the data.

Ipse dixit not supported by scholarship and, hence, wrong.

It cannot be proven or disproven.

Should one wish to actually consult scholarship, one might very well have a more informed opinion.

And there are some very good documents and research on the gospels that point to a contrary interpretation.

Argumentum ad ignorantium--they seem quite absent in this discussion. However, to repeat, one is free to use these sources to rebut a century of scholarship and submit it to a scholarly journal. I can guarrantee that it will be reviewed.

But we've been down that road.

"We" have not. I have, I must confess, followed the road of scholarship which, it seems the respondent fears to tread.

Bottom line: You can't prove the gospels were not eye-witness accounts.

Ipse dixit and wrong. Again, enlightenment merely requires an honest appraisal of the evidence. If one refuses to do that, I cannot help him.

Certainly, I would find it interesting how one "eye-witness" saw an event ten years before a completely different event ten years after--both connected to a birth.

Ten years seems rather prolongued for a labor, even in the 1st century CE. . . .

Moi: The degree of discrepencies, as explained above, do not compare.

You can't know this, seeing that only a fractional amount of time has passed.

This error remains the individual's.

Moi: Unless, of course, you conceed that the contraditions in the Synoptics and Jn have expanded so far now that we cannot give them any credence now. . . .

I'm saying the contradictions point us in no direction, . . .

Unfortunately, a direction towards a hole in the sand does not appeal to me.

. . . if you are willing to say the contradictions lead us anywhere, . . .

Not a question of willingness. Evidence tends to lead one to conclusions.

. . . then you must also conceed that the similarities [which BTW are 100 times greater] lead us to a conclusion as well.

Here, the individual is wrong.

I refer again to the "small" problem of ten years "between" births. Again, I cannot help those who refuse to consider scholarship.

Moi: As stated, even two thousand years hence, I highly doubt we will have a ten-year discrepency between dates of 9/11.

I bet we do, if it's remembered at all.

Unfortuntately, precedence rather argues against this hope. We rather remember the date of ascension of Roman Emperors, we recall the dates of Hellenistic Wars, et cetera ad nauseum.

Again, I cannot help those who chose not to learn.

. . . were not available in 50AD.

Most curious since the earliest Synoptic is dated--at the earliest--to around 70 CE.

Funny thing what actual research rather than wanting reveals.

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

DR. X.... btw, what are you a doctor of? Third person dialectics?

While the attempt to Poison the Well with quotation marks is noted and demonstrates an inability to argue to the point, if one wishes to overturn the findings of scholarship, one must actually confront the scholarship.

I’m well aware of the scholarship, especially the dominant opinion. The “scholarship” however is more than 1500 years removed from the actual events in question. My point is that you cannot PROVE anything.

You would have been far better off saying “Evidence suggests that NONE of the gospels were written by contemporaries.” Then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Instead you blatantly overstepped the boundaries of know-ability and refused to own up after I merely asked if you could prove your hypothesis, or still the hypothesis of your scholars. You claim that it is the scholarship that must be overturned, I claim that it is the gospels themselves that must be.

Should one wish to actually consult scholarship, one might very well have a more informed opinion.

Again, as I have demonstrated in half a dozen threads below, I am more than aware of the scholarship. My opinion is quite informed and will demonstrate such if you require it, though you could just as easily pull up a few old threads.

I said your statement regarding contemporary authorship could not be proven or dis-proven. And I am correct. Bring a thousand scholars to the table writing 1,500 years after an event and all you have is “an informed opinion.” That’s a far cry from ”proof”.

Argumentum ad ignorantium--they seem quite absent in this discussion. However, to repeat, one is free to use these sources to rebut a century of scholarship and submit it to a scholarly journal. I can guarrantee that it will be reviewed.

It’s getting rebutted, and the scholarship is not above reproach. In fact, since when does good scholarship close its doors on new possibilities? This is nowhere more evident than to watch the scholars scramble to discredit Carsten Theide. Even if Theide is way off base, it’s autrocious to see the response of “scholars” to a new idea.

"We" have not. I have, I must confess, followed the road of scholarship which, it seems the respondent fears to tread.

I have little fear of the scholarship. Again, you are foolish to claim that it represents a “actual” account of events in the distant past. Had you taken your head out of the sand in the threads below then "we" could have treaded this path.

Again, enlightenment merely requires an honest appraisal of the evidence. If one refuses to do that, I cannot help him.

“Help” me? How benevolent of you. Very well then, since you can “prove” the gospels were not written by contemporaries, do it.

Furthermore, “appraise” means “to determine the value of.” Your own words introduce a level of subjectivity into this matter.

Ten years seems rather prolonged for a labor, even in the 1st century CE. . .

OK… ten years. Let’s assume one of them is wrong. What are you left with? The possibility of one eye-witness account and one redaction? Enlighten us, please as to which it is.

MOI: I'm saying the contradictions point us in no direction, . . .

THY: Unfortunately, a direction towards a hole in the sand does not appeal to me.

MOI: If you are willing to say the contradictions lead us anywhere, then you must also conceed that the similarities [which BTW are 100 times greater] lead us to a conclusion as well.

THY: I refer again to the "small" problem of ten years "between" births. Again, I cannot help those who refuse to consider scholarship.

OK, please tell me how you even remotely addressed my point. If the number of similarities outweigh the number of differences by a margin of 47 to 1, then tell me again how the contradictions point to a direction more profound than the similarities.

Unfortuntately, precedence rather argues against this hope. We rather remember the date of ascension of Roman Emperors, we recall the dates of Hellenistic Wars, et cetera ad nauseum.

Do we? What sources do we use? How old are the sources? How many surviving copies do we have? How can we be certain they are eye-witness accounts? Put up or shut up.

Again, I cannot help those who chose not to learn.

I'm sorry, your record is skipping.

Most curious since the earliest Synoptic is dated--at the earliest--to around 70 CE.

Ahh, the fallacies never cease. Your statement should read, “Most curious since the earliest Synoptic that has been discovered is dated--at the earliest--to around 70 CE.”

How do you know it was the earliest written? Enlighten us again, please.

You cannot know what the earliest date for a Synoptic actually was which has been my point for our entire discussion.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Dr. X,

For you to ponder...

Here are Bruce Metzger's estimates compared with other religious literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Metzger estimates the New Testament has 20,000 lines, an accuracy of 99.5% with only 40 lines (about 400 words) in question. (This is probably on a letter by letter basis.) Homer's Illiad is the next most reliably preserved document. It has 643-650 manuscripts, and is 95% accurate. It has 15,600 lines, with about 764 lines in doubt.

Now compare that to this:

Aristotle wrote 364-322 B.C. There are only 5 copies, the earliest being 1100 A.D.

Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 10 copies

Demosthenes 4th century B.C. 200 copies

Euripides’ Tragedies 330 copies (The Origin of the Bible p.182)

Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 8 copies

Homer wrote The Iliad 643-650 copies, more than any others. 5% of the words are in question

Jubliees (A Jewish apocryphal book) 14 copies among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Mahabharata (a Hindu scripture) 10% in question

Old Testament Manuscripts 235 scrolls and fragments the Dead Sea Scrolls alone. From the Great Isaiah scroll, about 5% of the words are different vs. the Massoretic text. However, most of these are archaic vs. later words and grammar with the same meaning.

Pliny the Younger 1st century A.D. 7 copies

Suetonius wrote The Twelve Caesars 70-140 A.D. The earliest copy is 950 A.D.

Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 20 copies

Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 8 copies

The Qu'ran 765 A.D. 9th century. Aisha said one Sura had 200 verses. After Uthman's "standardization", today it has 73 verses. Also, part of Sura 9:30 was abrogated. The Bukhari Hadith 6:509 says that when certain people died, parts of the Qur’an known only to them were lost. Other Bukhari Hadiths saying parts of the Qur’an were missing and/or abrogated are 4:57,62, 69,229; 6:510,511.

from the site... http://www.biblequery.org/ntmss.htm

Flick

[TexasBEAST]

MOI: If you are willing to say the contradictions lead us anywhere, then you must also conceed that the similarities [which BTW are 100 times greater] lead us to a conclusion as well. [...]

OK, please tell me how you even remotely addressed my point. If the number of similarities outweigh the number of differences by a margin of 47 to 1, then tell me again how the contradictions point to a direction more profound than the similarities.
I am coming into this at a very late date and may have understandably missed some of the peripheral build-up to this particular exchange, but seems to me that...

The large number of similarities would seem to indicate that the *Eugangelionoi* ("evangelons", "gospels", whatever) are all linked in some way to a common origin.

However, there is no good reason to conclude that that origin was a single cryptic proto-Eugangelion scroll, or even eyewitness account(s) of the life of a real living breathing *Iesous Khristos* ("Jesus Christ"). Perhaps the whole *Iesous* story was just a pitiful rip-off of any one or more of the myriad other would-be resurrection/Messiah myths floating around amongst the uneducated masses of the Roman Empire during the first century, tailored to the audience of one particular community (of Jews)? This would seem to constitute a very reasonable hypothesis, rather than presuming into existence a real *Iesous* magic-man and/or some sort of conveniently-now-lost proto-Gospel.

My read is that the Eugangelionoi were written based on some sort of oral tradition propaganda fabricated decades removed from the presumed life and death of the central character (*Iesous*), which freely borrowed from existing pagan myths of the day. They were apparently (opinion--not "proof") an attempt to write down the various folk myths floating around in the mid-first century, using Jewish-Greek language. But oral tradition varies in details. Thus, so do the written documents.

I have no problem consenting that there was probably some sort of common origin to the Eugangelionoi. I just see no reason to consider that common origin as somehow wonderful and fantastic and "profound", when a perfectly mundane explanation will do quite nicely. ("Occkam's Razor" and all that crazy jazz...) The *Eugangelionoi* are full of contradictions because they are characteristically ancient human literature: imagined by human beings, written by human beings, edited by human beings, and preserved by human beings. With all the fallibility and silliness that that entails...

Um, duh?!

[TexasBEAST]

I haven't read the particular book in question in the original post, but I think there are lots of interesting issues to ask, even setting aside the difficulty of trying to create an entire detailed timeline of the last days of *Iesous Khristos*.

1. Did the Crucifixion occur on the Passover, or afterwards? Synoptics say it occurred the second day of the *Khag Matzah* (Festival of Unleavened Bread). (Now, the *Pesakh* (Passover meal) is eaten the night before the first day of the festival.) But *Ionnes* (John) says he was crucified on the *Pesakh* itself. (This is done in order to make *Iesous* the symbolic Passover lamb.) (But it would've been entirely unacceptable for all those Jews to have been outside attending an execution on such a holy day.) So which is true?

2. There is a major contradiction between the prophecies that *Iesous* would be dead for three days and three nights, and the narratives that say he was crucified on Friday afternoon and gone by Sunday morning (only one day and two nights!).

3. The work you mentioned was called "Who Moved the Stone?" or something along those lines? Good question. According to the book of *Matthaios* (Matthew) 27:62-66, *Pilatos* (Pilate) didn't post guards at the tomb until the night after the crucifixion (Saturday night), which means a whole day theoretically would've existed to pull a fast-one and remove the corpse from the grave and replace the stone before the guards got there. Anyone could've done it. Maybe *Iosef Arimathaia* (Joseph of Arimathea), wealthy guy that he was, made arrangements with *Pilatos* so that he would have time to pull an old switcharoo?

As to what went down during the night before the discovery of the missing body, with all the contradictions to that effect, it's anyone's guess. Maybe *Iosef Arimathaia* paid the guards off, removed the stone himself, and told the guards to make up a story of seeing some angels.

(This is nuts! :D I'm hypothesizing about this crap like it's real or something. May as well argue whether or not Perseus used his right hand or his left to fell Medusa! Is the "great red dragon" in Revelations scarlet red, or crimson red?)

4. A point about the Shroud of Turin controversy--*Ionnes* 20:6-7 says that the *mathetoi* (disciples) went into the tomb and found two separate pieces of fabric there: a body shroud, on one side of the tomb, and a head shroud, on the other side of the tomb! This would seem to completely defy the whole Turin Shroud story, with an image of a complete head and body on one single garment. Whatever.

¡*Ciao* now, brown cow!

[Gregor]

SFlick occasionally posts rational thoughts, but only on non-christian topics. His typical Biblical-truth debate tactic (which I've had the misfortune to address on many occasions) is:

1. Make wildly unsupported statements (e.g. "most scholars think the gospels were written much earlier than 60 CE.")

2. Backpeddle

3. Backpeddle

4. Cite irrelevant side notes from scholars and an argument through obscure misdirection (see Metzger post)

5. Place the burden on you

6. Acknowledge error in original argument, but claim that the meaning of the argument was the important part, not the truth of its component parts.

7. Depart the field of battle - tail firmly between legs

The original question of this thread was has anyone read a particular book trying to square the obvious contradictions found in the Easter story. Having not read this particular book, but have read many defenses from "just so" stories (e.g. "Evidence That Demands a Verdict") to logical constructs (e.g. "Birth of Christianity"), the defenses can be grouped into the following:

1. True inerrantists - we'll bend every greek infinitive and every rule of scholarship to boldly state "there are no contradictions, and they are all first-person accounts."

2. Modified inerrantists - there is a core truth in one version (usually Mark), with some minor contradictions for effect (e.g. the earthquake in Matt is for drama, only). [However, these folks ignore the fact that Mark is the earliest BUT the narrative ends with an empty tomb alone - no astral visions, no stories to Mary etc. The angelic visitor and explanation in Ch 16:10-17 was added in the 300s]

3. Meaning folks - whether anyone visited the tomb that day is irrelevant - it's the appearances after death that are important. The Easter story is background.

4. It's all myth.

And leave it to Christian to provide a laughable link to Dr. Dino's Creation BS page with its "convoluted construct" defense of inerrancy. Hell, if you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, the Easter contradictions are nothing in comparison.

[stamenflicker]

Gregor,

"most scholars think the gospels were written much earlier than 60 CE.")

I've never claimed such. I have said that there is evidence to suggest such-- at least evidence to suggest a pre-70AD authorship. I would never claim that most scholars accept this proposition. However the admittance that such a dating is even remotely possible-- and BTW it is beyond remotely possible that the original text excluding redactions was an eye-witness account-- anyway such an admittance of remote possibility automatically excludes the notion of absolute proof of a non-eye witness authorship. Can you possibly deny this claim?

Backpeddle

Backpeddling keeps us both in good shape, represents good forum manners, and helps determine the lowest common denominator of agreement. You should try it sometime.

Cite irrelevant side notes from scholars and an argument through obscure misdirection (see Metzger post)

??? I'd say it's quite pertinent. If one claims we know certain things from history, it's important to note that the NT has the most reliable textual history available-- even if only through fragments en masse. The true misdirection is one that points us away from the reliability of this ancient document. I've said all along, question the claims of the gospels, but don't be so foolish as to question the gospels themselves. Most every other piece of literature or history from this time period has a worse textual track record. Can you possibly deny this claim?

Acknowledge error in original argument, but claim that the meaning of the argument was the important part, not the truth of its component parts.

I'm make numerous errors, both on this forum and in real life. I'm big enough to admit it too, unlike most of you know-it-alls. Furthermore the "errors" are generally a phrase taken completely away from the nature of the argument-- and when arguing with you Gregor-- a mis-spoken phrase becomes the central discussion as opposed to the meaning and totality of the post in question. I backpeddle, conceed a mis-statement all in good taste in the long hopes that you might actually begin to consider what I've posted. But your a Fundi Gregor, worse than most Christians I know. Can you deny this title?

Depart the field of battle - tail firmly between legs

To my knowledge this has never happened. Perhaps you can site some examples?

And leave it to Christian to provide a laughable link to Dr. Dino's Creation BS page with its "convoluted construct" defense of inerrancy. Hell, if you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, the Easter contradictions are nothing in comparison.

Did I miss this post?

Flick

[Loki]

Gregor,

And leave it to Christian to provide a laughable link to Dr. Dino's Creation BS page with its "convoluted construct" defense of inerrancy. Hell, if you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, the Easter contradictions are nothing in comparison.
Over an extended period of time, and a range of subjects, I've come to respect Christian's intellect - unless the bible is involved! His insistence that the bible clearly predicts radar, and his willingness to consider the Flood as "possibly true" cast severe doubts over his value as a contributor on the subject - purely my opinion, of course.

[Doctor X]

DR. X.... btw, what are you a doctor of? Third person dialectics?

As noted I cannot help those who refuse to learn.

I?m well aware of the scholarship, especially the dominant opinion.

Evidence is to the contrary.

The ?scholarship? however is more than 1500 years removed from the actual events in question.

Irrelevent. Incidentally problems were known far sooner--why else would Mt and Lk rewrite Mk?

My point is that you cannot PROVE anything.

Remains his error.

You would have been far better off saying ?Evidence suggests that NONE of the gospels were written by contemporaries.? Then we wouldn?t even be having this discussion.

Would be dishonest.

Instead you blatantly overstepped the boundaries of know-ability. . . .

No. I again recommend a review of the basic texts then the extensive bibliographies.

. . . I claim that it is the gospels themselves that must be.

Remains his error. Scholarship offered evidence. That the individual does not wish to explore it matters not to scholarship.

Of course, should the individual reconcile the many difficulties, I am sure he will present it for possible publication.

Waiting. . . .

Waiting. . . .

Again, as I have demonstrated in half a dozen threads below (sic), I am more than aware of the scholarship.

I am afraid I require a more reliable witness than ipse dixit particularly when evidence indicates otherwise.

My opinion is quite informed and will demonstrate such if you require it, though you could just as easily pull up a few old threads.

I am well aware of "old threads" which promised much and delivered far less.

Again the individual may write up these claims and submit them for publication.

Various other claims follow which would not be necessary if some familiarity with scholarship were obtained.

Note well that the fact that many more witnesses of late age that disagree with one another for the Synoptics compared to other texts do not really add to the discussion.

Regarding the date of about 70 ACE: This is the date for Mk. Its prediction of the destruction of the Temple--if a rule exists in ancient texts it is that prophecies are written after the events--places it near the date. Mack's book--see above--gives a more complete discussion.

Must I re-create the wheel?

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

Doc X,

Incidentally problems were known far sooner--why else would Mt and Lk rewrite Mk?

Scholars are in disagreement on what you hold to be fact. Some subscribe to the notion of a proto-Mark that Luke and Matthew used along with another source "Q" because Luke and Matthew contain similar material with each other, but separate from Mark. So any way you look at these "late" gospels you refer to were based on earlier "written" sources. Can you deny this claim?

O and BTW-- if Matthew and Luke were written to solve "problems" as you claim, why did they create more and even extremely difficult new problems? Don't ignore this question.

Would be dishonest.

The dishonesty is your own. You are not even willing to add the words "Evidence suggests" before the sentence "None of the gospels were written by contemporaries." The jury is still out on this one and you know it.

Of course, should the individual reconcile the many difficulties, I am sure he will present it for possible publication.

You mean like Sokal? Haven't we seen that any bloke can get his crazy, unfounded idea published in a journal?

Note well that the fact that many more witnesses of late age that disagree with one another for the Synoptics compared to other texts do not really add to the discussion.

Of course not. That would mean you were wrong.

Regarding the date of about 70 ACE: This is the date for Mk. Its prediction of the destruction of the Temple--if a rule exists in ancient texts it is that prophecies are written after the events--places it near the date. Mack's book--see above--gives a more complete discussion.

So let me get you on record here Dr. X. Are you saying there is NO, NONE, ZERO, NOTTA evidence in any scholarly journal on a earlier date to the gospels? A simple yes or no should suffice.

Flick

[Doctor X]

Scholars are in disagreement on what you hold to be fact. Some subscribe to the notion of a proto-Mark that Luke and Matthew used along with another source "Q" because Luke and Matthew contain similar material with each other, but separate from Mark.

This does not disagree with the statement that both Mt and Lk and also Mk are later as noted.

So any way you look at these "late" gospels you refer to were based on earlier "written" sources. Can you deny this claim?

"Proto-Mk" is not an early source.

O and BTW-- if Matthew and Luke were written to solve "problems" as you claim, why did they create more and even extremely difficult new problems?

They did not intend to be in the same book together. The texts were written to address contempary social issues. Mk apparently did not need a birth narrative. Lk and Mt did. They used sources--such as Mk--differently.

Don't ignore this question.

Rather petulent since the individual has ignored the question on reconciling the birth narratives.

The dishonesty is your own.

That remains the individual's error and, perhaps, dishonesty.

You are not even willing to add the words "Evidence suggests" before the sentence "None of the gospels were written by contemporaries."

Unnecessary.

The jury is still out on this one and you know it.

That is, however, dishonest. That some who wish to ignore scholarship wish to believe this does not evidence constitute.

Moi: Of course, should the individual reconcile the many difficulties, I am sure he will present it for possible publication.

You mean like Sokal? Haven't we seen that any bloke can get his crazy, unfounded idea published in a journal?

Avoids the question. As stated, should the individual find the courage to commit his assertions to paper it shall be considered for publication.

Of course, the reviewers may pick it to pieces. Nevertheless, the chance does exist that the manifest wisdom will pass muster.

Moi: Note well that the fact that many more witnesses of late age that disagree with one another for the Synoptics compared to other texts do not really add to the discussion.

Of course not. That would mean you were wrong.

Indignant ipse dixit that does not follow from the quote.

So let me get you on record here Dr. X. Are you saying there is NO, NONE, ZERO, NOTTA evidence in any scholarly journal on a earlier date to the gospels? A simple yes or no should suffice.

The quote refer'd to Mk. Mt and Lk antedate Mk. Some scholars still hold to Mt'an priority by ignoring some major difficulties which they do not explain.

Someone may publish an opinion. Thus far, I have seen no--to use the individual's term--"evidence"--for an earlier date for Mk.

Again, the individual is encouraged to submit his evidence.

"Q" dating is more problematic--reviewed in Mack's work and the work of Kloppensomethingorother--referenced in Mack's work. Here you have evidence for "layers" of meaning which may indicate different periods of composition. Nevertheless, "Q" does not provide the historical detail. It does not make Mt or Lk earlier.

--J.D.

[stamenflicker]

Doc X,

An excellent reply and true to the nature of what this forum should be about. We are getting to the "nitty gritty" as we say down here in the south.

I will start a new thread this week so we can discuss the "scholarship."

I will say that reagrding the birth narratives that they obviously conflict and never the twain shall meet.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

BTW-- the fact that they conflict leads us to three possible conclusions: Mt. is correct and Luke is wrong; Luke is correct and Mt. is wrong; they are both wrong. My point in this thread was that we cannot know for certain any of these. We merely draw our opinions based on what we can uncover. Should both accounts be wrong-- and I'm completely open to that-- it doesn't detract from the possible early dating because scholars assume that both were derived from another source. It is very possible that these were later additions to a text with a much earlier date, hence giving way to the notion of an eye-witness account.

Flick

[Doctor X]

StamenFicker:

Thank you. Apologies, but I am a bit busy "at the office" this week so I may have to take some time to reply.

--J.D.