And when I say brief, I do mean brief.
In fact, I only wish to deal with a single issue, which will serve to illustrate a broader point.
It was suggested in an earlier discussion by an interlocutor named hokku (click here) that the many discrepancies between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) show beyond any reasonable doubt that these so-called sacred documents are merely the fallible writings of fallible human beings. Now, I have no problem conceding half of that statement. The Bible was indeed written by fallible men, and all Christians (so far as I am aware) have always understood this. Unlike Muslim and Mormon beliefs concerning the writings of Muhammad and Joseph Smith, Christians have never claimed that the Bible was audibly dictated by some supernatural agent (or translated from special tablets) and thus that it should bear the obvious signs of divine authorship. Rather, we maintain that the message is most certainly divine, while the documents bear the obvious signs of human authorship.
Those signs include, among other things, the style of writing of the period in which those human authors lived. This is the most important and absolutely central issue that must be understood when approaching the question of the gospels’ historical reliability. Ancient biographies were not written in the manner that biographies are today. The purpose of an ancient historian or biographer was to convey the events of a person’s life (or of some historical period) framed in a way that conveyed a certain theme or message, or even a moral. There was little or no concern for chronology, except where it would serve the author’s overall purpose. Events were selected (and obviously events were left out) and ordered in such a way as to best illustrate the character of the biographer’s subject, or the theme of the period or event being related.
An important point to note here is that all of this is stylistic, and there is no reason to assume that just because ancient biographies were not written as biographies are today, that they were any less accurate in the stories and events they conveyed.
At last we come to the discrepancies. I’ll give one example, and move through this next point rather quickly. In one account, there are two angels at Jesus’ tomb when the women arrive, and in another account, only one is mentioned (and related to this, in one account they are called “angels” and in another account simply “men”). Skeptics approaching the gospels eager to find any flaw make much of these details, but notice a few important facts.
Neither of these examples represents a contradiction. One account does not say that there was only a single angel, to the exclusion of the possibility that there were two; it merely mentions what one angel says to the women when they approach the tomb. For this writer, the detail that there was another angel present was perhaps unimportant to his concerns. Likewise, the fact that one account refers to the angels as men is no contradiction, for angels always appear in the Bible in the form of men. For this writer, the exact nature of the “men” at the tomb was not as important as what they said to the women, and thus that detail was left out.
Such examples could quickly be multiplied, and they are just as quickly dismissed when one considers the nature of the ancient biography.
Moreover (and this is no small point either), the fact that there are minor discrepancies in superfluous details with no affect to the core account actually serves to confirm authenticity rather than call it into question. For if four different men standing on four different corners of an intersection all witnessed an accident, we would expect minor discrepancies, as different people tend to remember different details about the same event. But if all four men told the exact same story, verbatim, what would we suspect? Naturally, that they had gotten together beforehand and worked out their story. And this we would find even more suspect than four slightly different accounts of the same basic story.
Lastly, I wish to address the one remaining argument of hokku’s from the comments of the previous post that I linked to above (just so you don’t have to scroll up, here it is again). His suggestion was that comparing three verses from the resurrection story, each from one of the synoptic gospels, would show a discrepancy that cannot be explained away. Let us look for ourselves at the verses.
Matthew 28:7 – “Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.”
Mark 16:7 – “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
Luke 24:6, 7 – “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”
Now, the suggestion was that Luke deliberately changes the prediction that Jesus made that he would go to Galilee, to one that he made when he was in Galilee. However, it seems perfectly clear that two different predictions are being referred to here. In Matthew and Mark it is a prediction that Jesus would meet his disciples in Galilee after he rose from the dead (and, actually, Mark doesn’t even makes it a prediction of Jesus, the angels simply tell the women that it will happen), and in Luke it is simply a prediction that he will rise from the dead. Why doesn’t Luke mention that Jesus told his disciples to meet him in Galilee? Because Luke chose not to record that meeting in his gospel, and so recording that Jesus predicted it would have been pointless. There is also nothing here to rule out the simple (and rather obvious) possibility that Jesus was actually in Galilee when he predicted that he would meet his disciples in Galilee again after his death. All quite sensible solutions.
As always, there are other fronts of attack against the gospels, and Lord willing I will attempt to tackle some of those in the near future.
You unfortunately minimize the significant differences in the resurrection story. Regarding numbers of angels (or men) seen at the tomb, you mention only the difference in number, but not the complete disagreement between Matthew and the others about what the angel DOES at the tomb. In Matthew an angel descends from heaven and rolls away the stone and frightens the guards. In the other gospels, there is no rolling away of the stone by the angel and no guards.
As for the revision by Luke of the Markan framework, in which he changes a prediction that the disciples will see the risen Jesus in Galilee to a remembrance of something Jesus once said in Galilee, that too is a glaring red flag, because it is obvious WHY Luke changed it — because there is no mention at all of post-resurrection appearances in Galilee in Luke; all Lukan appearances of Jesus take place in the vicinity of Bethlehem, in contrast to Matthew, where the appearances happen in Galilee, except a brief one inserted in the text that awkwardly just repeats the prediction of the angel of a Galilee meeting.
One has to go through these stories, comparing them line by line, to see that they are simply edited and revised versions of the Markan framework, and where Mark provides no framework both Matthew and Luke go off in their own separate directions to make up “missing” information that is mutually discrepant. The same thing happens in the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, because there too, there is no Markan framework to follow and so Luke and Matthew present two quite different stories, just as they do in the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.
I watched the assassination story of former prime minister Bhutto in Pakistan and I saw the same final story coming out with different details seen by each witness. The point was she was killed, but how, where, how many, there are still many lingering questions.
You see in real life, big stories have variations…but the same point comes out. If the Bible was fake, they would pretty much be all the same, exactly to the detail.
The variation you see in the Bible does not “minimize” it, but actually proves that there were other people that saw, heard, or were in the vicinity of the events. They have different inputs and may not have other details like the other books. That’s actually normal and is a strength, not a weakness.
-Don Sausa
Author of The Jesus Tomb: Is it Fact or Fiction?
hokku, thanks for the quick reply!
“In Matthew an angel descends from heaven and rolls away the stone and frightens the guards. In the other gospels, there is no rolling away of the stone by the angel and no guards.”
Actually, all three accounts include the stone being rolled away, Matthew is simply the only one to describe HOW the stone was rolled away. Again, it was common for ancient biographers to pick and choose details to include, so there’s no reason to assume that Matthew invented something that didn’t really happen simply because Mark doesn’t include it.
“…that too is a glaring red flag, because it is obvious WHY Luke changed it — because there is no mention at all of post-resurrection appearances in Galilee in Luke.”
Exactly. I agree with you that the reason Luke doesn’t include Jesus’ prediction of meeting his disciples in Galilee is that Luke doesn’t include that particular appearance, so he doesn’t need to include the prediction of it. However, you make an unwarranted jump in your reasoning when you assume that he changed a prediction. As I mentioned in my post, he simply says that Jesus predicted his resurrection when he was in Galilee. This has nothing to do with a totally different prediction (mentioned in Matthew and Mark) which Jesus made, that after he rose from the dead he would meet his disciples in Galilee. They are two different predictions, Luke simply mentions WHERE Jesus predicted his resurrection, where as Matthew and Mark do not. And just because the prediction happened to be made in Galilee, you jump to the assumption that it is somehow connected to the prediction in Matthew and Mark that Jesus would meet his disciples in Galilee, but I have yet to see a reason for thinking this (so far I’ll you’ve shown is that two different predictions both have something to do with Galilee).
And, as I also mentioned, there’s no reason to think that Jesus was not in Galilee when he made the prediction that he would return to Galilee after his resurrection, which would be a perfectly reasonable way to reconcile the different details included in each gospel.
Don, that’s just what I was trying to say, and you said it much better! Thanks for the comment.
David–
Good post, good responses.
It might be helpful to try and hash out a detailed distinction between the concept of “discrepancy” and “difference (in a more general sense)”.
MG, that’s a very good point. I’ve heretofore used “discrepancy” very loosely, but “difference” is definately more appropriate, since discrepancy tends to carry the notion of incompatibility, and if I have attempted to argue anything it’s that the three narratives are not incompatible.
Someone wrote:
“You see in real life, big stories have variations…but the same point comes out. If the Bible was fake, they would pretty much be all the same, exactly to the detail.”
If someone tells you that a robbery took place in San Francisco, and another tells you it took place in Seattle, and there is absolutely no evidence for a robbery, you would be foolish to assume that both accounts are correct in spite of placing the supposed event several hundred miles apart. Similarly, if Luke tells one story of post-resurrection appearances, placing them only in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and Matthew tells quite a different story of post-resurrection appearances, setting them largely in Galilee, you are quite justified in assuming someone is not telling the truth, particularly when it is obvious that both Matthew and Luke follow the Markan framework until Mark does not supply information, at which point both Matthew and Luke diverge wildly in their stories, the same thing that happens with the birth narratives.
It is precisely the DIFFERENCES in their story that set off the alarm bells, because by carefully looking at these differences we can see exactly what they were up to and how the accounts are simply human and fallible and not at all historical. It takes only doing the work, comparing the Synoptic accounts line by line, to see that this is in fact the case, and by the way, it works even better in Greek than in English, though it is quite obvious in English as well.
Hokku,
If someone tells you that a robbery took place in San Fransisco, and then someone else tells you that the same robber committed a robbery in Seattle, and neither reporter specified the exact time that the robberies took place, what is the logical conclusion?
Well, you could suggest (as you have) that one or both of them are lying, but do you have any reason to do so? Do you have any overriding evidence to suggest one of the reporters to be untrustworthy? If not, then I don’t see any pressing reason to prefer your suggestion over this one: They were two different robberies committed by the same robber. As I said, since neither reporter specifies the exact time of their robberies, a glaringly obvious possibility (and one that you continue to ignore without argument) is that there are two different times and two separate incidents in question.
Likewise, given what I have said about the method of ancient biographers, a highly plausible (and I would say the most plausible) scenario is this: Jesus appeared in many places during the 40 days after his resurrection, including both Jerusalem AND Galilee. Matthew, because of his audience and the overall aim or purpose of his account, chose to include a specific set of appearences, and Luke another.
You see, what you are doing is claiming that by looking at these differences we can see the nefarious motives of the authors, how they were OBVIOUSLY making things up and changing details to suit their purposes, etc. But there is really nothing obvious about your claims; they are certainly possible, but you are merely assuming them to be the case without ever making a substantial argument against the alternatives. You have never once addressed the method of ancient biographies, that it was in fact normal to leave out details and structure stories in whatever way the author saw fit, and thus that we would EXPECT to find many of the differences you point out.
What you need (to fit with your robbery analogy) is for Matthew to say that the resurrection happened in one place, and for Luke to say that it happened in another place. Since there was only one resurrection, this would prove a major contradiction and cast serious doubt on at least one of the authors. But you can provide no such example because only peripheral (and ultimately unimportant) details are variant between them, and your conjectures that “we can see exactly what they were up to” are merely assumptions.
Since you mentioned Greek, (and this doesn’t really have anything to do with our discussion, I’m just curious) do you know Greek? Did you used to be a Christian at one time, or do you merely have a interest in the subject? Have you studied Christianity (or the Bible) in detail, in college or grad school perhaps?
Thanks again for continuing the discussion!
David wrote:
“Jesus appeared in many places during the 40 days after his resurrection, including both Jerusalem AND Galilee. Matthew, because of his audience and the overall aim or purpose of his account, chose to include a specific set of appearences, and Luke another.”
The only reason you assume that is because you jumble together what are essentially incompatible accounts. I suggest you try writing them all as ONE account, including every detail in the biblical accounts from burial to ascension, using not only the four gospels but also the relative parts of Acts and 1 Corinthians, putting the events in chronological order and omitting no detail. You will quickly see how incompatible and unreliable they are.
You asked about my interest in the subject. I think fundamentalist religion is very damaging, not only to the individual but also to society, and I think it is worthwhile to take some time to demonstrate the human and fallible nature of the Bible to those who have been misled by religious dogmatists.
I customarily use the “original” texts (which are not of course really originals, but represent the earliest and best manuscripts) when studying and discussing these matters, whether it be Greek for the NT or Septuagint, or Hebrew for the OT or Latin for both. That way one is not misled by vague or inaccurate translation, and one can also note and consider variant readings.
To me the resurrection narratives — along with the birth narratives — are two of the most obvious evidences against the reliability of the gospel accounts, because in them we can see at both “Matthew” and “Luke” reworked a few basic themes in quite different ways and came up with very different and incompatible stories. This should be obvious to everyone, and the only reason it is not obvious to “conservative” Christians is that they read these accounts while mentally glossing over the remarkable differences and discrepancies, not really understanding what they are reading or seeing the implications.
“The only reason you assume that is because you jumble together what are essentially incompatible accounts.”
Actually that’s inaccurate. I wasn’t assuming it, I was proposing it as a likely explanation. Moreover, I attempted to argue for its likelihood by presenting reasons (i.e. the method of ancient biographers).
On the other hand, you have yet to actually argue for your explanation. Thus far you have merely asserted statements like “it’s obvious to see what they were doing” without presenting any reasons for thinking so. In fact, even in the statement I quoted above you simply asserted that the accounts are “essentially incompatible”, but you still need to actually argue for that.
“…because in them we can see that both “Matthew” and “Luke” reworked a few basic themes in quite different ways and came up with very different and incompatible stories.”
Not to sound snipy or anything, but this is the third time that you’ve repeated the same assertion, that the differences between the gospel narratives are “obviously” irreconcilable and “obviously” prove them to be untrustworthy, etc. Consequently, I am forced to again repeat that you have not argued for that assertion, nor have you made any serious attempt to rebut my attempts to reconcile the differences (or responded to my argument that the differences are just what we would EXPECT given the style of ancient biographies).
Now, it seems that for this discussion to continue to be fruitful we should begin to look closer at my specific arguments, rather than going in circles.
“This should be obvious to everyone, and the only reason it is not obvious to “conservative” Christians is that they read these accounts while mentally glossing over the remarkable differences and discrepancies, not really understanding what they are reading or seeing the implications.”
That’s a VERY big claim. Just so we’re clear, you seem to have asserted that all “conservative” Christians are being intentionally irrational and lack any serious understanding of historical/textual criticism. Can you perhaps substantiate such a claim? And out of curiosity, have you read any serious, scholarly works from the opposite side (from someone like N. T. Wright or Gary Habermas), or have you only studied this subject from one side?
This is totally off-topic, so we don’t have to pursue it now (as it might be distracting to the current discussion), but how precisely do you think that religion (of the “conservative” or “fundamental” variety) is damaging? And how are you defining “fundamentalist”?
Thanks again for the reply!
You wrote:
Not to sound snipy or anything, but this is the third time that you’ve repeated the same assertion, that the differences between the gospel narratives are “obviously” irreconcilable and “obviously” prove them to be untrustworthy, etc. Consequently, I am forced to again repeat that you have not argued for that assertion, nor have you made any serious attempt to rebut my attempts to reconcile the differences (or responded to my argument that the differences are just what we would EXPECT given the style of ancient biographies).”
That is because it IS so obvious that anyone reading the texts and comparing them objectively must see something is wrong, unless they are “seeing through a glass darkly,” the glass being preconceptions that there cannot be errors in the Bible, so any visible obviously cannot be there. This really is a “conservative Christian” common syndrome.
Do not overlook my suggestion that you write a single account combining all the resurrection stories, beginning from the burial and extending through the ascension, omitting no detail and in chronological order. This will do wonders to re-orient your vision regarding the accounts, and then we can discuss the results.
In the interim, if you see anything you feel “needs defending” by me, please point it out, and I will be happy to present support.
Well, I’m afraid “because it just IS, and you’d see it too if it weren’t for your preconceptions!” doesn’t constitute a serious argument, so apparently this is where our dialectic stalls. I have presented an argument for my position, and it would probably be helpful for you to actually engage with it, rather than telling me what my REAL motives are. Until then, there isn’t much else I can do.
(Incidentally, I could just as easily turn a similar “argument” on you, saying that it’s quite obvious that the gospels are perfectly harmonious, and your preconceived dislike of conservative Christianity is blinding you from seeing that, and thus you’re looking to find a discrepancy anywhere you can. I’m sure you can see how that’s begging the question and a totally unhelpful way of proceeding).
And as far as your other suggestion, there are no discrepancies between the post-resurrection appearance accounts that I can see (and I HAVE not only compared the three synoptics, but John as well). If there is something specific you wish to bring up you should do so and I would be happy to consider it, but so far my conservative Christian blinders have prevented my “seeing the light.”
In any case, the task you propose is impossible, insofar as putting all the stories together chronologically, for the simple reason that the gospels have no concept of chronology (at least, not between each other). As I said, ancient biographies were not concerned with chronology, and even if they were, it’s not as though Matthew says “Jesus appeared in Galilee on March 16″ and then Luke says “Jesus appeared in Jerusalem on March 22″ so I fail to see how any attempt to put together a chronology would be possible.
Thanks again for the comments!
You wrote:
“Well, I’m afraid “because it just IS, and you’d see it too if it weren’t for your preconceptions!” doesn’t constitute a serious argument, so apparently this is where our dialectic stalls.”
No, but it constitutes a serious prelude to argument by presenting a viewpoint. I went on to ask you what, specifically, you would like me to defend, but you did not reply to that.
One can read the post-resurrection accounts without ever noticing the serious problems they present, and that is, of course, because of dogmatic conditioning that predisposes one NOT to see them. But if you do as I suggested, and attempt to put all the post-resurrection accounts in the Gospels and in Acts and 1 Corinthians into one single account, omitting nothing, and having them in chronological order, it should become obvious to you.
Regarding that, you wrote:
“In any case, the task you propose is impossible, insofar as putting all the stories together chronologically, for the simple reason that the gospels have no concept of chronology (at least, not between each other). As I said, ancient biographies were not concerned with chronology, and even if they were, it’s not as though Matthew says “Jesus appeared in Galilee on March 16″ and then Luke says “Jesus appeared in Jerusalem on March 22″ so I fail to see how any attempt to put together a chronology would be possible.”
That is simply not true. The gospels all present a chronology by presenting events in sequential order. The preface to Luke even underlines the writer’s intention to do so “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you IN ORDER, most excellent Theophilus. So the gospels ARE ordered, chronologically, and all you need do is put them together as I have suggested.
I will say, however, that it seems next to impossible to get conservative Christians to do this simple exercise. I have asked several to do it, and none of them were willing. They seem terrified of it, for some reason, but in any case it is paradoxical that those who present themselves as so devoted to the Bible cannot be brought to actually read and make sense of it. I hope you will not follow this pattern, because it is very helpful in demonstrating the human and fallible nature of Biblical documents.
So there need be no stall. You do the exercise and present the results, and of course you may ask me to defend what you will, and I shall try to accomodate.
By the way, I shall make good use of the pause before you read my previous message and reply, by giving you a very obvious example of how conservative Christians read the Bible without really seeing or understanding the significance of what they are reading. It is the story of the woman with the jar of ointment. We find it in all four gospels, though with significant differences which the average reader would simply not notice without taking the time to compare line by line:
Mark and Matthew say the ointment was poured on Jesus’ head; but Luke and John say, however, that his feet were anointed.
In Mark the woman is not identified; in Luke the woman with the ointment is called a “sinner.” But in John she is identified not as a sinner or anonymous, but rather as Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus.
In Luke’s account the woman is weeping; in John she does not weep.
Mark, Matthew and Luke place the event at the house of a certain Simon. John does not.
In Matthew the event happens two days before the Passover; in John it takes place six days before the passover. In Luke it is at quite a different time.
The early theologian Origen had no good solution for this problem. The best he could do was the pitiful assumption that there must of been three different women with ointment at three different times.
It is obvious, however, that these are just different versions of the same basic story.
In John, Judas on seeing the use of the ointment, remarks, “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?”
In Matthew , it is “the disciples” who protest: “To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much and given to the poor.”
In Mark it is only an undentified “some” who complain: “Why was this waste of ointment made? for it might have been sold for more than three hudnred pence, and have been given to the poor.”
It is noteworthy that in Mark Jesus responds that “she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.”
In Matthew a similar remark is made “she did it for my burial.”
And in John we find “Against the day of my burying has she kept this.”
Luke, however, removes all association with burial, and he removes protest about the waste. Instead, he uses the anointing as an illustration that “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.” So Luke has given the story quite a different point and purpose, in addition to placing it in a different chronological slot.
The average conservative Christian would read these accounts at different times and never notice the significant differences, the variations on the same basic theme. Origin noticed them, but could only come up with his inadequate explanation of “three different women at three different times.”
Paradoxically, some conservative Christians still use that feeble explanation in an attempt to explain such things as why in John the cleansing of the Temple comes at the beginning of Jesus’ career, while in Matthew and Mark it comes near the end. Again, it is obviously the same theme, but used differently and placed in a different “time slot” by different writers. This shows us just how freely the gospel writers could be in revising and editing, and also shows us how very human and fallible the gospel accounts are.
It is the same thing that causes Christians to visualize the birth of Jesus complete with star, manger, shepherds, angels, and Magi, even though such a picture is a COMPOSITE of elements from quite different and discrepant accounts.
That is why to begin to understand the nature of the Bible, and in this case of the NT in particular, one must carefully compare events line by line, word by word, and compare their place in the sequence of events. Then the seams and gaps, the revisions and additions, become quite obvious.
hokku,
“That is simply not true. The gospels all present a chronology by presenting events in sequential order. The preface to Luke even underlines the writer’s intention to do so “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you IN ORDER, most excellent Theophilus. So the gospels ARE ordered, chronologically, and all you need do is put them together as I have suggested.”
Firstly, you seem to have missed my qualifying statement, that there is no “inter-gospel” chronology, so to speak. I will endeavor to explain my point as clearly as possible to avoid any further confusion.
Matthew might say “Jesus did x and then he did y.” And Mark might say “Jesus did x and then he did z.” Ah ha! We seem to have found an error! Which did Jesus do after he did x, y or z? Well, a perfectly simple and reasonable answer is that he did both, and Matthew simply chose not to include z, while Mark chose not to include y.
You see, within each gospel there may be a chronology of events, but as they are not tethered to dates or times, we cannot compare them between gospels.
Furthermore, Luke may have set out to write his account in chronological order, but none of the other three make any such claim, and I have already attempted to labor the point that ancient biographies were not concerned with chronology as much as theme. Thus, in Matthew, Mark or John we cannot assume that they are presenting us with events in chronological order. They are probably staying close to the actual chronology, but we can expect that different events might be moved around to suit the author’s purposes.
Secondly, I already said in my last response that I have compared all the resurrection accounts and found nothing troubling. But I think I’m becoming confused about what your actual argument is. You have said more than once that the many “discrepancies” between the gospels prove that they had fallible, human authors. Well, I agree that the gospel authors were human and that they were fallible, I simply affirm that the content of the documents themselves are without error (or at least infallible). So, is your claim that the gospels are not historically reliable (which is what I’m trying to defend), or is it merely the above point, which we both seem to agree on? Or is it something else that I’m missing?
If you wouldn’t mind simply stating your argument again, as clearly as possible (without any examples), so that I can have a better grasp of what is it I am defending against, that would be very helpful. Thank you again.
“Matthew might say “Jesus did x and then he did y.” And Mark might say “Jesus did x and then he did z.” Ah ha! We seem to have found an error! Which did Jesus do after he did x, y or z? Well, a perfectly simple and reasonable answer is that he did both, and Matthew simply chose not to include z, while Mark chose not to include y.”
The problem for your theory is that Matthew and Mark often have Jesus doing precisely the same thing in the same order. But still one finds significant differences. Then again, we can have two gospels telling obviously the same event, but giving it completely different significance. But still one finds notable differences. If we are told, for example, that the women come to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus in one gospel, and we are told, as we are, in another gospel that they came simply to “see the tomb,” we are justified in seeing a significant difference, because not only are TWO DIFFERENT REASONS given for their presence at the tomb, but we also can see from the account in which they do not come to anoint the body THAT THE BODY HAS ALREADY BEEN ANOINTED, AND THE WOMEN KNOW IT. In short, two different gospels are saying two quite different things about the same event.
Further, the chronology is close enough among the gospels in the resurrection narratives that not only can we see what they have in common, we can also see important AND ILLOGICAL omissions from one to another. For example, only Matthew records a Roman guard at the tomb and the bodies of people other than Jesus rising from the grave and going into the city. No other gospel records those very notable events, and we have to ask why there is such an omission. It is not logical that the others “CHOSE” to omit them, because they are MAJOR EVENTS having significant bearing on the story. So your scenario is quite illogical and unreasonable, and one can find instance after instance to demonstrate that.
You say you have read and compared the resurrection stories BUT YOU HAVE STILL NOT DONE IT AS I SUGGESTED, by posting a single account including all details, leaving nothing out, and putting it in order as best you can. Simply reading them without attempting these is not likely to do you or anyone else much good, so the sooner you do this simple exercise, the better for your understanding of the matter.
In summary, my contention is that the Gospels (like the rest of the Bible) are human and fallible documents, revised and edited over time, and can be demonstrated to be so. But to see this, one has to honestly and sincerely examine the evidence and work with it. If one just assumes infallibility, one will see only what one wants to see, which is definitely not what is there.
Let’s make a deal. You do the suggested exercise and post it, and note whenever you feel you CANNOT put an event or detail in chronological order, but put in in, nonetheless, with that caveat. That should solve your objection to the exercise and enable you to do it, and will also tell us a good deal about how you view the order of events as compared to how the Bible presents them.
So here again is the exercise:
Write a single account of the events from (and including) the burial of Jesus to his ascension, using the four Gospels as well as the relevant accounts in Acts and 1 Corinthians, omitting no detail (leaving nothing out) and presenting them in chronological order (or time-sequence, if you will, and again, note whichever event you feel you CANNOT put in sequence, but include it nonetheless, with such a note (you can simply use an asterisk or whatever mark you choose). Then post your single account and we shall discuss the result and its implications.
hokku, you said:
“The problem for your theory is that Matthew and Mark often have Jesus doing precisely the same thing in the same order. But still one finds significant differences.”
Yes, I already addressed that when I said, “They are probably staying close to the actual chronology, but we can expect that different events might be moved around to suit the author’s purposes.” Thus I was acknowledging that a very general chronology can be drawn form the gospels, but nothing so specific as to prove that there are any irreconcilable discrepancies of the order you’re suggesting.
You also said:
“So your scenario is quite illogical and unreasonable, and one can find instance after instance to demonstrate that.”
Actually there’s nothing illogical about it. Consider another example: Jesus’ genealogy. The prophesied Messiah was supposed to come from the line of King David, thus it would seem to be extremely important that the gospel writers include Jesus’ genealogy as proof that he meets the requirements of Messiah. It is, as you say, both “major” and “significant.” So why would Mark and John exclude it from their gospels (especially John, since he likely had access to Matthew’s gospel, and probably Luke’s as well, and could have simply copied one of their genealogies)?
Well, if we do not simply approach the gospels in a vacuum, blindly (and perhaps dogmatically?) searching for discrepancies and considering them in and of themselves, but rather if we look at the gospels in light of contextual concerns such as the gospel’s intended audience, many reasonable conclusions are open to us.
In the case of Jesus’ genealogy, we find that Matthew was writing to the Jews, who would have obviously been interested in Jesus’ messianic qualifications based on the Old Testament. Mark, on the other hand, was likely writing to a Roman audience, who would have had little or no knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures and wouldn’t have cared whether or not Jesus fulfilled some old Jewish prophecies.
I trust you see my point. Whether or not a detail is significant depends almost entirely on the context, which includes many considerations such as the intended audience.
It becomes more and more evident to me as this discussion proceeds that you are attempting to fit the gospels into a preconceived mold, making statements like “the author SHOULD have done this” or “if it was authentic the author WOULD have done that”, etc. Some might call that dogmatism.
In any case, I think I have provided ample reason to question your whole endeavor, not the least of which being my comments on the style and method of ancient biographies, which you have yet to say anything about.
However, since you seem utterly unwilling to provide point-by-point rebuttals to my arguments, I will do as you ask and give a line-by-line breakdown and analysis of the post-resurrection narratives, and perhaps that will get us somewhere.
Before I do your exercise, let me also say a bit more by way of clarifying my own position.
This is a short quotation from Dr. William Lane Craig that clearly sums up what I’m trying to say about ancient biographies (and also answers one of your previous questions about John’s account of the Temple cleansing):
“Scholars have come to see that the genre to which the Gospels most closely conform is ancient biography. This is important for our question because ancient biography does not have the intention of providing a chronological account of the hero’s life from the cradle to the grave. Rather ancient biography relates anecdotes that serve to illustrate the hero’s character qualities. What one might consider an error in a modern biography need not at all count as an error in an ancient biography. To illustrate, at one time in my Christian life I believed that Jesus actually cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem twice, once near the beginning of his ministry as John relates, and once near the end of his life, as we read in the Synoptic Gospels. But an understanding of the Gospels as ancient biographies relieves us of such a supposition, for an ancient biographer can relate incidents in a non-chronological way. Only an unsympathetic (and uncomprehending) reader would take John’s moving the Temple cleansing to earlier in Jesus’ life as an error on John’s part. … What matters is that the central idea is conveyed, often in some key words and climaxing in some saying which is repeated verbatim; but the surrounding details are fluid and incidental to the story. … So the stories in the Gospels should not be understood as evolutions of some prior primitive tradition but as different performances of the same oral story. … [This] means that the Evangelists had no intention that their stories should be taken like police reports, accurate in every detail. What we in a non-oral culture might regard as an error would not be taken by them to be erroneous at all. ”
This is basically the heart of what I have been trying to say, and so far as I can tell it takes the wind out of the majority of your claims. However, I will still do your exercise, so look for that sometime tomorrow.
You wrote:
“The prophesied Messiah was supposed to come from the line of King David, thus it would seem to be extremely important that the gospel writers include Jesus’ genealogy as proof that he meets the requirements of Messiah. It is, as you say, both “major” and “significant.” So why would Mark and John exclude it from their gospels (especially John, since he likely had access to Matthew’s gospel, and probably Luke’s as well, and could have simply copied one of their genealogies)?”
If you would ask yourself questions like this more often, and would look for the answers, you would learn the error of your ways. Whay does Mark exclude a genealogy from his Gospel? Because it is completely unimportant to his theology, not only because he never mentions a Messiah-Bethlehem prophecy, but also because in Mark’s theology, Jesus BECAME THE SON OF GOD AT HIS BAPTISM. That is why he did not need any birth story about a “son of God” being born in Bethlehem. For Matthew and Luke, the beginning of the gospel is the BIRTH (though they give quite different stories about it); Jesus in Matthew and Luke is quite literally God’s son, born of a virgin birth.
For Mark, however, the beginning of the gospel is the BAPTISM, when a voice came from heaven declares Jesus to be “my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” and the Holy Spirit descends into (Greek “eis”) Jesus. There is no virgin birth in Mark, and very little regard shown for the family of Jesus, which at one point regards him as having gone crazy.
John also has its own theological agenda which has no need for a virgin birth (Jesus is already the LOGOS, the son of God as an emanation, as Philo of Alexandria teaches), so he is son of God long before his birth.
And note again that not only are the birth stories of Matthew and Luke greatly divergent, but they are also tacked on the the Matthaean and Markan revisions of Mark, which is why both Luke and Mark diverge; they had no Markan text to copy and revise, as they do with the rest of Mark except for the post resurrection narratives, where Mark again offers nothing to copy, so again Matthew and Luke’s stories greatly diverge, tacking on their own “endings.”
As for the genealogies themselves, there has obviously been considerable hanky-panky in introducing them. The genealogies both purport to be those of Joseph, yet Joseph was not, according to the doctrinal revisionism, the father of Jesus. We know historically that there were Ebionites (Jewish Christians) who believed Jesus to have been born in the normal human fashion, the son of Joseph, and it is most likely that this view explains the paradox of giving long genealogies for someone who is not really the biological father of Jesus. Oddities such as as this reveal the differences in belief among early Christians regarding who Jesus was and what it meant to be “God’s son.”
I look forward to seeing your single account of the resurrection narratives, from the burial through the ascension, incorporating the four gospels and the relevant accounts in Acts and 1 Corinthians.
You add:
“Only an unsympathetic (and uncomprehending) reader would take John’s moving the Temple cleansing to earlier in Jesus’ life as an error on John’s part. …”
All of the writings were not composing history, nor were they composing fact. They were composing religious propaganda, and each twists and molds the text to fit his own purposes. John presents a completely different picture of Jesus than we find in Mark, and Paul again puts a very different twist on what the “gospel” is considered to be. All are very human and very fallible, and the same must be said of the writings in the OT and NT.
“Whay does Mark exclude a genealogy from his Gospel? Because it is completely unimportant to his theology, not only because he never mentions a Messiah-Bethlehem prophecy, but also because in Mark’s theology, Jesus BECAME THE SON OF GOD AT HIS BAPTISM.”
I’ll say this for you, you do love to make unsupported assertions. I don’t suppose you’d care to offer some arguments for a claim like this, since I find nothing in Mark’s account of the baptism (or elsewhere in his gospel) that contradicts the virgin birth or suggests that Jesus didn’t “become” God until his baptism.
I’d also like to take a moment to point out one more time something I’ve been trying to say all along without much success. Notice that in my last response (and in prior responses) I made an argument, with premises and a conclusion. I said that the gospels are ancient biographies. I said that ancient biographies (or “Lives” as they would have been called) were written in a particular style such that the incidental details of an anecdote were fluid and could be changed slightly, all that mattered was that the same central idea was conveyed. I then said that this is exactly what you find with the gospels, and moreover when you begin to consider contextual details such as a gospel’s intended audience, you can easily see why certain writers chose to omit certain details, include others, etc.
Now that seems to be a perfectly reasonable case to me. Your response, however, was to essentially ignore almost everything I said, and simply postulate your own theory. Now that would be fine if you provided ample support for your theory, but so far you haven’t. In the quote above you simply asserted that Mark has a different theology. Well, not only have you not demonstrated how Mark’s theology is different, but I specifically gave you a reason for his exclusion of the genealogy, namely that he was writing to a Roman audience that wouldn’t care, and you said absolutely nothing by way of rebuttal.
You also said other things like: “All of the writings were not composing history, nor were they composing fact. They were composing religious propaganda, and each twists and molds the text to fit his own purposes.”
Well, the majority of scholars now agree that the gospels were at least written in the GENRE of an ancient biography, which, even though incidental details in a story could be changed, had a very important emphasis placed on relating truth. I have provided this scholarly consensus as one reason for my assertion that the gospels are history (and fact). So, how would you support your assertion? And we already agree that each author was “molding” the text to fit his purposes, because this is the style of ancient biography. I have provided several reasons for thinking that this “molding” process in no way damages the integrity of the stories, and that the author’s purposes have to do with things like his intended audience.
The only point I am trying to make (one more time) is that at every turn I have provided you with answers to your posed discrepancies, and I have provided some reasoning or argument for the proposed answer I gave. And each and every time you have either ignored my argument and simply asserted your own theory (as you just did with Mark), or else you have jumped around from one discrepancy to another, always proposing some new problem, and then always ignoring the answer I give for it. My point about the style in which ancient biographies are written is extremely important to this whole discussion, and you haven’t even attempted to say anything about it.
I guess I’ll I’m asking for, during this time while I attempt to do your exercise (although I don’t actually have very high hopes that that will get us anywhere either, given the way the discussion has proceeded thus far), is that you make some attempt to interact with my own arguments. I would just like to feel as though what I’m saying is getting through, and that you aren’t simply reading what I write and then immediately responding with your own dogmatic answer. Here are two examples to get you going:
1. You said that certain details between the gospels are changed, thus showing them to be untrustworthy history. An example was the woman anointing Jesus with oil. In one account she anoints his head, in another his feet. I argued that in ancient biographies such incidental details were not considered important and could be changed around, and that what was considered important was the central message being conveyed. How would you rebut this argument?
2. You said that the order of certain details between the gospels are changed, again showing them to be untrustworthy. I again said that this is merely the style of ancient biography. Events could be retold in a non-chronological order to make a thematic point. This is quite straightforward. How would you rebut this argument?
I apologize if I sounded overly-critical. I don’t mean any of this as a personal attack upon you, I’m simply critiquing the manner in which you’ve conducted your end of the discussion. I look forward to your response, as I’m sure you look forward to my completing your exercise. Thanks again for all the comments.
You wrote:
“I’ll say this for you, you do love to make unsupported assertions. I don’t suppose you’d care to offer some arguments for a claim like this, since I find nothing in Mark’s account of the baptism (or elsewhere in his gospel) that contradicts the virgin birth or suggests that Jesus didn’t “become” God until his baptism.”
There is also nothing in Mark’s account that contradicts Jesus being five different colors and being able to speak Klingon, but that tells us nothing at all other than demonstrating your preconceptions. What Mark does reveal is not the slightest interest in Jesus’ birth, and a minimum of interest in his family. Mark’s “gospel” begins with the baptism, and has no need for a virgin birth or elaborate genealogies. Note that Mark NEVER mentions Joseph as the father of Jesus. Instead, when the issue is raised, Mark says: “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary…?” Calling someone the “son of” his mother had implications of illegitimacy.
We can see the unease the other writers had with this, because Matthew revises it to read “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary?” and Luke elaborates the context while reducing the questioning to “Is not this Joseph’s son?”
And what we do see in Mark is Jesus being declared son of God at his baptism when the heavens open and the Spirit descends into him (note that it is as though Jesus becomes possessed by the Spirit — we see later in Mark that the Spirit “casts him out” into the wilderness, a violent term that Matthew and Luke change to “led”). The voice from heaven declares “You are my beloved son; with you I am well pleased,” which is a reflection of Psalm 2:7: “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” On his elevation, the ancient king of Israel was believed to become the son of God, and in Mark, Jesus becomes the son of God at his baptism, thus no need for or interest in birth stories and virgin births, both things Matthew and Luke added to the Markan text, which again is why their two stories are so divergent and discrepant — they had no Markan model to follow, as they do with the rest of Mark up to the point where the women run from the tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone.
Your remark that the gospels being “ancient biography” does not change the fact that they are not historically accurate and that they are religious propaganda. It is quite obvious from the text of Mark what his priorities are and why he includes no birth or genealogies — they are immaterial when Jesus becomes son of God at his baptism, and when Mark has no interest at all in supposed Bethlehem-related prophecies, which of course would have been of great interest to a Roman audience (if Mark were writing for one), in which prophecy was held in high regard.
You wrote:
“An example was the woman anointing Jesus with oil. In one account she anoints his head, in another his feet. I argued that in ancient biographies such incidental details were not considered important and could be changed around, and that what was considered important was the central message being conveyed. How would rebut this argument?” Don’t forget that in one account she is also a “sinner,” whereas in another she is the sister of Mary and Lazarus!” Obviously the gospel writers made free and easy with whatever materials they felt important to their message. We cannot regard them as historical or factual; they are religious propaganda. You say that what was important was the central message, but we of course have examples — the woman with the ointment being one of them — in which THE CENTRAL MESSAGE IS QUITE DIFFERENT. In one the point of the story is that she is anointing Jesus for burial. In another it is the gratititude of one to whom much has been forgiven! And there are other examples where the same story is given quite different points. NONE OF IT IS RELIABLE.
Poor old Origen even went so far as to say that when things do not make sense in the Bible, we need to take them in a symbolic or metaphorical sense, but even he admitted that the text changes (in his view) from literal to symbolic without warning, so one never really knows where the literal leaves off and the symbolic begins. Of course he and his readers are just left in a muddle.
Further, it cannot be denied that the gospel writers commonly present their stories in a sequenced, chronological order; as I have shown, Luke even specifically mentions in the prologue that the account is ordered. So one cannot simply say that there was no intention to do so, or to convey an “historical” order to the reader, or that it does not matter that there are great divergences in the order. To the average reader of the Bible, who regards the text as “inspired,” it makes a great deal of difference whether there were TWO cleansings of the temple or whether there was one and a false one, or one and no other, or whether there was none at all (which is historically the most likely, because the guards would have been on Jesus in a moment had he caused such a disturbance in the Temple). It makes a difference whether there are fabricated stories of a woman anointing Jesus, or whether there were three historical women, or one, or none at all.
hokku,
“There is also nothing in Mark’s account that contradicts Jesus being five different colors and being able to speak Klingon, but that tells us nothing at all other than demonstrating your preconceptions.”
It has nothing to do with my preconceptions. If you intend to show that there is a contradiction between the gospels, you need to show where it is. I merely argued that there isn’t one, as Mark simply leaves the question open.
“What Mark does reveal is not the slightest interest in Jesus’ birth, and a minimum of interest in his family.”
Exactly. Those things did not concern him, so he left them out. Seems to fit with what I’ve been saying.
“On his elevation, the ancient king of Israel was believed to become the son of God…”
I’d be very interested to hear some support for this claim.
“Further, it cannot be denied that the gospel writers commonly present their stories in a sequenced, chronological order; as I have shown, Luke even specifically mentions in the prologue that the account is ordered. So one cannot simply say that there was no intention to do so, or to convey an “historical” order to the reader, or that it does not matter that there are great divergences in the order.”
Once again, that only means that Luke intended his account to be chronological, it says nothing about John (or Matt. or Mark). Just because the gospels present events in some order (how could they not?), that doesn’t mean that the events are intended to be related in the actual, historical, “real” order in which they occurred. Ancient biographies often took liberty with chronology, so indeed I can “simply say that there was no intention to do so, or to convey an “historical” order to the reader.” Moreover, I can say “that it does not matter that there are great divergences in the order” in the sense that we don’t need to know WHEN Jesus cleansed the Temple, only that he did.
One of the reasons I continue to press the point about ancient biographies is that I’m seeing from you a tendency to impose categories onto the gospels that they don’t belong in. When we look at ancient biographies we see certain characteristics, such as all the ones I’ve already mentioned again and again. Then, when we come to the gospels, we see all the same characteristics. Thus we can safely conclude that the gospels fit perfectly into the genre of ancient biography and that what you (as a modern reader with very different presuppositions about what a “history” or “biography” should be like) would call serious errors that prove them to be unhistorical, are exactly what we would expect to find and are therefore no cause for alarm.
Now, when we get down to nitty-gritties, there are obviously some difficult passages. I admit that up front. Don’t mistake me as saying that this topic is an “easy” or “obvious” one. So, we can go back and forth about why one gospel says “son of Mary” and another says “son of Jospeh”, or what exactly the main point of the story of the woman anointing Jesus with oil is, etc. I can develop a fairly reasonable-sounding theory that will not convince you, you will tell me that your theory is just “obvious” and that I’m obliged to ignore it because of my “conservative” Christian dogmatic concerns, etc.
But the point is that 90% of what you’re attempting to force into the mold of “error” or “discrepancy”, etc, is nothing to be alarmed about, and in fact most of what we accept as genuine ancient history falls prey to your proposed problems. You said: “Your remark that the gospels being “ancient biography” does not change the fact that they are not historically accurate…” Indeed, it has been remarked that if we throw out the authenticity of the Bible, we might as well shut down the ancient history departments of our universities. Some opponents of Christianity are so dogmatic in their opposition that I wouldn’t be surprised if they were willing to do that.
You wrote:
“If you intend to show that there is a contradiction between the gospels, you need to show where it is. I merely argued that there isn’t one, as Mark simply leaves the question open.”
My point was that it is meaningless to say there is nothing in Mark that openly contradicts a virgn birth, etc., because it is as pointless to say that as to say there is nothing in Mark that contradicts Jesus owning a TV set.
Mark of course would not be expected to contradict an issue he had no interest in promoting and no intention to raise.
You go on to say:
“Once again, that only means that Luke intended his account to be chronological, it says nothing about John (or Matt. or Mark). Just because the gospels present events in some order (how could they not?), that doesn’t mean that the events are intended to be related in the actual, historical, “real” order in which they occurred.”
Let’s look at that. An intentionally “historical” chronological sequence is clearly apparent in Mark, for example:
“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee…”
“And immediately the spirit drove him out into the wilderness.”
“And he had been in the wilderness forty days and was tempted by Satan…”
“And after John was imprisoned, Jesus Came to Galilee…”
“and passing by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon…”
“and immediatly leaving their nets, they followed him…”
“And having gone on a little, he saw James…”
“And immediately he called them…”
“And they departed after him…”
“And they enter into Capernaum…”
“And immediately on the Sabbaths he entered the synagogue and taught them.”
One can go on and on, noting things that are obviously set not only in a time sequence but also in a specific physical locality within that time sequence. The same can be done with Matthew, and of course with John. So you are simply wrong when you say ” there was no intention to do so, or to convey an “historical” order to the reader.”
There are of course ancient writings that convey no intended historical order, such as the Gospel of Thomas, but the NT gospels quite cleary present a sequence in which events were taken to have happened. Whether you think the reader was to take it seriously or not, the fact is that Christian readers from ancient times DID take it seriously, and it presented them with problems which they discuss in early texts, such as the viewpoint of Origen, which I have mentioned.
Now whether one is “alarmed” by all the discrepancies in the Bible depends on whether one takes it seriously as “fact” or not. If one does not, it neither is important what the sequence of events is purported to be, nor what those events were. If one does, then these discrepancies are very serious indeed, because they repeatedly call its reliability into question. If we do not know that Jesus cleansed the Temple in the early part or the late part of his ministry simply from reading the accounts, why need we assume that he cleansed it at all? One might find refuge in simply considering it all a myth and a metaphor, as Joseph Campbell did.
You wrote further:
“Indeed, it has been remarked that if we throw out the authenticity of the Bible, we might as well shut down the ancient history departments of our universities.”
Not remarked by anyone who knew what he was talking about. In fact recent archeology only tends to confirm the fictional and political nature of a good part of the major stories of the OT. One may counter that there are certain provable historical events and names, but one can do the same thing with Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.”
But back to the baptism. It is worth mentioning that while Mark places the declaration of Jesus as God’s son at the baptism, John says nothing about Jesus being baptized, or the heavens opening, or a declaraton of sonship. Instead John’s baptism is placed in contrast to the “baptism” by Jesus, which is in the Holy Spirit. Same story, completely different point to it.
hokku,
“An intentionally “historical” chronological sequence is clearly apparent in Mark…”
Sure, the language would seem to indicate that there is some general concern for chronology (and Mark uses “immediately” or “suddenly” so many times that it gets monotonous), but that doesn’t mean that the whole account is meant to be strictly chronological. If I said, “Then, this one time, Jesus did x” that doesn’t necessarily mean that x happened immediately after whatever the last story was that I told, just because I used the connecting word “then”, nor does it mean that as I’m telling a series of stories that I’m keeping them all in perfect chronological order. This concept seems pretty straightforward, and there isn’t much more I can say about it.
“Not remarked by anyone who knew what he was talking about.”
That’s quite an assumption, given I didn’t mention any specific name. You should be careful about those. In fact it was one of my philosophy professors, PhD from Oxford, who has spent a considerable amount of time researching this issue and discussing it with atheists, specifically atheists in the field of anceint history. Now, those credentials don’t make his opinion correct, but neither can any reasonable person simply dismiss him as someone who “doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
“In fact recent archeology only tends to confirm the fictional and political nature of a good part of the major stories of the OT.”
I don’t see how that relates to this discussion, but I’d still be curious to know what specifically you’re referring to. To my knowledge, as more and more archeological discoveries are made in that part of the world, more and more cities, names, etc. from the OT that people once thought were mere fiction are being found to be real. Not just that there are a few examples, but the major current of archeological history has always been flowing forcfully against the skeptics. But as you say, such historical details can be found in fictional novels, but then I still don’t see why you brought it up at all.
“But back to the baptism. It is worth mentioning that while Mark places the declaration of Jesus as God’s son at the baptism, John says nothing about Jesus being baptized, or the heavens opening, or a declaraton of sonship.”
That doesn’t answer my question or provide any evidence for your claim that Mark’s theology about when Jesus “became” God is radically different from Matthew and Luke.
And any support for that claim about Israelite kings becoming “sons” of God?
You wrote:
“Sure, the language would seem to indicate that there is some general concern for chronology (and Mark uses “immediately” or “suddenly” so many times that it gets monotonous), but that doesn’t mean that the whole account is meant to be strictly chronological. ”
Quite enough of it is presented chronologically to make your argument invalid. Keep in mind that we have not only sequence in the gospels, but frequently sequence combined with location.
You wrote:
(Quoting me)”‘In fact recent archeology only tends to confirm the fictional and political nature of a good part of the major stories of the OT.’
I don’t see how that relates to this discussion, but I’d still be curious to know what specifically you’re referring to. ”
I refer you to such works as The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (an archeologist and a historian). Finkelstein is director of Tel Aviv University’s excavations at Megiddo, Silberman is, among other things, contributing editor to Archeology magazine.
You wrote:
“That doesn’t answer my question or provide any evidence for your claim that Mark’s theology about when Jesus “became” God is radically different from Matthew and Luke.”
Of course it does. If there is no virgin birth in Mark (and there is not), no birth narrative in which Mary is impregnated by the Holy Spirit (and there is not), no pre-existent Logos who becomes flesh (as in John), and Mark’s “heavenly” declaration that Jesus is/has become God’s son takes place and is emphasized at his baptism — and Mark states the “beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” to be at the appearance of John and his baptism, then that alone provides substantial evidence. But further, we have the evidence of early Jewish Ebionite Christianity, as already mentioned, which held to a form of adoptionism, so we have extra-biblical evidence for this understanding as well.
You wrote:
“And any support for that claim about Israelite kings becoming “sons” of God?
Yes, in fact there is support for the king considered to be divine as in other near eastern groups, but in this specific case there is I Chronicles 28:6:
“He [Yahweh] said to me: It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, FOR I HAVE CHOSEN HIM TO BE MY SON, AND I WILL BE HIS FATHER.”
You wrote:
“And any support for that claim about Israelite kings becoming “sons” of God?
Yes, in fact there is support for the king considered to be divine as in other near eastern groups, but in this specific case there is I Chronicles 28:6:
“He [Yahweh] said to me: It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, FOR I HAVE CHOSEN HIM TO BE MY SON, AND I WILL BE HIS FATHER.”
Just to add emphasis to this, I will repeat that the declaration in Mark is a reflection of Psalm 2, which referred originally to the King:
“I have installed my King on Zion, on my holy hill.” I will declare the decree of Yahweh; he said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.”
Interestingly, an alternate “Western” reading popular in the first centuries for Luke’s “You are my beloved son” is precisely Psalm 2: You are my son, today I have begotten you.”
hokku,
“Quite enough of it is presented chronologically to make your argument invalid.”
Actually you would have to prove that ALL of it is meant to be strictly chronological in order to INVALIDATE my argument. What you have done is given reason to SUSPECT that my argument is invalid, but I merely contend that the evidence in favor of my argument still outweighs the suspicisions you’ve raised. Perhaps you have mistaken my claim. I’m not saying that the whole thing is just thrown together in some random order with absolutely no concept of chronolical progression. It’s not as though Jesus’ baptism might have been after his resurrection or something like that. What I’m saying is that there need not be an adherence to strict chronology in ancient biographies, and so we have no reason to assume that the whole gospel is presented in a strictly chronological way. Again, I feel like we’re talking past each other on this point.
As for the Israelite Kings, 1 Chron. 28:6 says nothing about any general view that Israel might have had about their kings becoming “sons” of God in any unique way that would not have been true of all the “children” of Israel. Any mention of neighboring kingdoms is irrelevent, as the Mosaic Law was instituted primarily to set Israel apart from its neighoring nations and their beliefs and practices. Unless you disregard OT Jewish theology at the start (in other words, presuppose your own position), not much of a case can be made that the Israelites held any such belief about their King.
As for Adoptionism, that heresy was condemned very early on (like all the “christological” heresies), and no case can be made that adoptionism was the earliest Christian beleif about Christ. If MG is still reading these comments, perhaps he can chime in with some input on that subject.
You wrote:
“I’m not saying that the whole thing is just thrown together in some random order with absolutely no concept of chronolical progression. It’s not as though Jesus’ baptism might have been after his resurrection or something like that.”
Putting the cleansing of the Temple at both near the beginning of the ministry and near the end is close enough to that. But the ultimate point is the documents are unreliable and show obvious evidence of what today we call plagiarism, editing and revision, all characteristics of human and fallible documents.
“As for the Israelite Kings, 1 Chron. 28:6 says nothing about any general view that Israel might have had about their kings becoming “sons” of God in any unique way that would not have been true of all the “children” of Israel.”
As I have shown, we find the same view in the Psalms. There is a lot more to be said on this topic, which relates doctrinally to certain NT views of Jesus, but it leads us off the main topic. Suffice it to say I have demonstrated that both Solomon and the king mentioned in the Psalms were considered to have become “the Son of God.” And of course elsewhere Israel in general is spoken of as “my son,” which of course was completely misinterpreted in Matthew as a prophecy of the return from the flight to Egypt of Jesus (“Matthew” was not very good at this, but does it a lot).
You wrote:
“As for Adoptionism, that heresy was condemned very early on (like all the “christological” heresies), and no case can be made that adoptionism was the earliest Christian beleif about Christ. If MG is still reading these comments, perhaps he can chime in with some input on that subject.”
All beliefs that are not in the “majority” become called “heresy” by the group that gains power, so that is quite irrelevant. We can tell adoptionism was quite early and existed for some time, and of course it is evidence for the belief expressed in Mark that Jesus had an apparently normal birth (though as already indicated, no father is mentioned and there is the implication of illegitimacy in the language used). Early Christianity was far from monolithic, and even in the earliest Christian writings we find Paul bickering with Christians of other persuasions, many of them “Jewish” Christians with quite different views on observance of the law. And notably, Paul even complains of people in the congregation who do not believe in resurrection, which is not surprising considering that we even find people who are said to have gone to Galilee and met the risen Jesus there “doubting.” When one considers that to Paul belief was “in vain” if one did not believe in the resurrection, it shows us just how wide the range of early Christian belief was.
Wasn’t yesterday the day you were to post your document uniting all the NT burial-to-ascension accounts and details? Is there some delay?
Sorry, so much to do, so little time.
Using 1 Corinthians 15 as a template, we can sketch a pretty rough outline. As an introductory note, one thing that is immediately apparent is that 1 Cor. 15 and Luke (as well as Acts, of course) follow the same ordering of events. This is good news (for me at least) because Paul’s listing of events is obviously meant to be strictly chronological, and as we already established, Luke’s gospel is likewise intended to follow strict chronology. Thus, between the only accounts of post-resurrection appearances that we know with certainty to be in actual chronological order, there are no discrepancies (although I didn’t find any chronological re-ordering in the other accounts anyway, so I guess it’s a moot point). Ok, here’s my “harmony” of the gospels (one last caveat — I don’t have my materials sitting in front of me, only my notes, so if I’ve left something major out, please let me know):
Jesus dies, is buried and then rises from the dead. He appears to the women present at the tomb first.
Some time after this he appears to Peter alone. Though the gospel doesn’t specifically mention this appearance, Luke 24:34 seems to suggest that Jesus had already appeared to Peter before he appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.
So, next he appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They run to see the Eleven and tell them. Peter is obviously already there, so it’s possible that he already told the other ten (and the two Emmaus disciples are confirming his story with their exclamation in Luke 24:34), or else he was afraid to say anything to the others because he still didn’t fully believe it himself (which would also be consistent with the general attitude of the Eleven throughout these narratives).
Then Jesus appears among them. This would be where Paul says “to the Twelve.” Now, throughout his epistles Paul uses the term “the Twelve” almost like an official title, to separate the original Apostles from the rest of Jesus’ disciples (often called apostles as well). So we needn’t fret that there were actually only 11 at the time, this is just Paul’s designation for the original men hand-picked by Jesus. (Also, even though we’re not really including John’s account in this excercise, I would say that this is the likely place to put the “doubting Thomas” event).
Next we have an appearance to “500 brothers at once.” This could coincide with the appearance in Galilee at the end of Matthew where Jesus gives the Great Commission, or it could refer to some other appearance not mentioned in the gospels.
Then we have a special appearance to James. None of the gospels mention this, but Paul mentions it again in Galatians (I’ll look up the reference for you if you’d like it) as the reason for James’ conversion (as he was still unconverted for some time after Jesus’ first appearance to the Eleven — which would make sense if he was Jesus’ biological half-brother).
Finally, we have the appearance to “all the apostles”, which is most likely in Bethany, right before his ascension into Heaven.
And of course, to Paul on the road to Damascus.
Feel free to ask questions, ask for more details, contest something, etc.
Thanks again for the fruitful and stimulating discussion!
Hokku–
Here are a couple of possible problems that came to mind when I was thinking about the possibility of a Markan adoptionist Christology. I didn’t assume biblical inspiration or inerrancy or anything in making the arguments; I just tried to assume that the Markan narrative is somewhat internally consistent and had an audience of some kind. None of these is an argument that Mark’s beliefs were correct, just that its hard to see how we could claim that he had adoptionistic beliefs. None of the arguments is adequate by itself, but I think that taken jointly they make the adoptionist interpretation unlikely. Then again, Im not a biblical scholar, so I’d like your feedback. Tell me what you think:
1. When John speaks about the coming of Jesus in the prologue, he speaks of him as “The one who is more powerful than I” and says that he is not worthy to stoop and tie his sandals. This is hard to mesh with the idea that Jesus was not considered to be divine by the author of the Gospel of Mark prior to his baptism . How does an adoptionist exegesis explain Mark’s putting these words in John’s mouth in a way that isn’t ad hoc?
2. The language of John becomes even more problematic if we try to read it adoptionistically because if adoptionism is right, then Jesus had to prove his worthiness of divinity through effort and therefore to have had some kind of special life prior to his exaltation. This follows from the definition of adoptionism; after all, its not just any mortal who is worthy of becoming divine. This implies some kind of backstory that the readers of Mark would be familiar with. The existence of this backstory also seems to be implied by the total lack of clarification as to who Jesus is or where he comes from at the start of Mark’s narrative–something that other Jewish writers afford their readers when they are introducing an important character in their so-called salvation history. But if this assumption is granted–that according to the Christian story, Jesus had an incredible, powerful, or unusual life prior to baptism that made him worthy of somehow partaking of divinity–then invoking a virginal conception and Incarnation as being part of Mark’s background information becomes a lot more credible. It becomes one of many acceptable ways to explain Jesus’ worthiness to be given divinity (another way would be that he had some kind of incredible human virtue, a story that may have narrative difficulties of its own). But of course if he had divinity before the baptism via a virginal conception and Incarnation from pre-existence, then the argument for adoptionism collapses.
3. The actual events of the baptism and what immediately follows are peculiar if read through the lens of adoptionism. One big problem is where the author sees Jesus becoming exalted to divinity. Is it the Holy Spirit’s descent? This would be a strange place to identify the exaltation because the Holy Spirit seems to remain distinct from Jesus (the Spirit drives him into the wilderness in 12, implying a kind of distinction). If we were looking for evidence of exaltation, we would want to locate something that has specifically changed about Jesus’ position on the hierarchy of beings; but identifying the Spirit’s descent as embodying this is odd because of the subsequent distinction between the Spirit and Jesus. Also, there was a precedent in Jewish teaching for the descent of the Spirit being a royal anointing–giving a king rule over Israel–when accompanied by a washing in the river by a prophet; but its a huge stretch to see this as an enactment of divinization. Especially when we take into account John’s acknowledgment of the prior power and authority of Jesus, this is very awkward. Is the voice of the Father the point that we look to to see divinization happening? This is strange because the voice merely acknowledges, it doesn’t actually *do* anything from what we can tell. All the transformation that the author wants to get across seems to have already happened once the Holy Spirit comes down and rests over him. So where’s the exaltation to divinity from a previously non-divine state?
4. If we try to argue that the words “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well-pleased” are an acknowledgment of present exaltation to divinity, then this sits very awkwardly with Mark’s account of the transfiguration later on, where similar language is used. With the transfiguration we have to grant that the voice from the cloud is recognizing a status that has been in Jesus’ possession at least since the time of his baptism. It is thus an acknowledgment of a state that Jesus has had for awhile–not recognition of something that has just been obtained, much less an actual act of conferring authority or power verbally. But if we are willing to grant this with respect to the transfiguration account, then why not assume that Mark’s meaning is the same in both cases? This is simpler. Is the only reason that we should prefer your exegesis of Mark 1:11 that the phrase “you are my Son…” here occurs for the first time? At this point the argument has become a stretch.
5. Your arguments from the lack of an Incarnational narrative or a virginal conception narrative seem to assume that these ideas weren’t in the background of the minds of the readership, and that Mark’s choice not to include them implies that he didn’t believe in them–two assumptions that I don’t see any good reason to grant. The argument from the baptismal proclamation is awkward for reasons I’ve explained above. And your argument from how Mark positions “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” seems unpersuasive because (a) Mark could just mean that this is the beginning of his telling of the Gospel (which seems in no way problematic as a read) and (b) as I argued above, Mark seems to assume his audience has some prior knowledge of the story of Jesus, which would include supplemental material about how Jesus confers salvation, etc.–more Gospel.
6. Finally, there may be arguments available that Mark believes in Jesus’ divinity in a sense that is stronger than that of adoptionism–a pre-existent sense, or a fully-divine sense. If you would like, I can attempt to locate these for you.
Thanks.
David–
The fact that the Church condemned adoptionism early on is peculiar to bring up in a discussion with someone who does not accept the authority or accuracy of ecclesiastic judgments. What was the point of bringing that up?
Also, not all Christological heresies were condemned early on. Monothelitism wasn’t condemned until the 600s. And iconoclasm was not condemned until the 700s.
Hokku is right about it being early, but there may be some decent reasons for thinking that the Incarnational view is at least as early and perhaps more widespread. (and of course this is my belief)
David:
Before we discuss your comments on what you did, I need to point out that you forgot a very important and crucial part of the requirements, which I repeated several times — the inclusion of every detail, leaving nothing out — omitting nothing.
For example, you begin with a summary rather than doing that:
“Jesus dies, is buried and then rises from the dead. He appears to the women present at the tomb first.”
What you should have done was to include each event and detail. For example, who buried Jesus? Where was he buried? When was he buried? Who saw the burial? Was the body anointed before burial? etc. etc. etc. This is all extremeley important in this exercise, because as the old saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” Again, when you say “he appears to the women present at the tomb,” you neglect to say who those women are, and how many, and what the names are, and precisely when they come to the tomb, and what is their purpose (if stated) in coming, and what or whom do they see there…etc. etc. etc.
It is the thoroughness of this exercise that provides its point, because it opens up all the seams and problems in the discrepant stories.
I am quite willing to wait a little longer for the result, now that you understand what is involved.
MG, thanks for the excellent comments. I think you’ve done a superb job of refuting (or at least calling into serious doubt) the theory that Mark was an adoptionist.
As for my comment on the subject, I wasn’t meaning to call attention to the fact that it was condemned, so much as the fact that it was condemned very early. This isn’t a decisive argument by any means, but my point was to show that it would be a very unlikely read of history to suggest that adoptionism was the earliest Christian belief and was only deposed after another theory grew into prominence later on.
hokku,
“This is all extremeley important in this exercise, because as the old saying goes, ‘the devil is in the details.’”
I know this will come as a great shock to everyone who has been following this discussion, but the gospels fall under the genre of ancient biography. Equally shocking will be the revelation that in ancient biographies, the incidental details of an anecdote were considered relatively unimportant and thus fluid within the story. So, by their very definition, the devil is anywhere but the details.
However, I will proceed as you have requested:
Jesus body was given to Joseph of Arimathea. He wrapped it and placed it in the tomb.
Guards were posted in front of it to ensure that his followers didn’t come and steal away the body.
The morning of the first day of the week, two women named Mary, a woman named Salome, and possibly other women (though it could have been just these three), went to the tomb with spices.
As the women are arriving, there is an earthquake and the stone is rolled away, and the guards are knocked unconscious (Matthew isn’t specific about whether or not the women saw the stone being rolled away, but from Luke’s account we can assume that they didn’t).
When they arrive, two angels are there, and at least one of them speaks to the women (I say two angels because it is possible that there were two, even though Matt and Mark chose only to mention the one that spoke. However, it would not be possible for Matt and Mark to be correct that there was only one angel, because Luke says there were two, and that would be an obvious contradiction. It would seem to make sense that Luke is the one recording more accurate details, considering that is one of the purposes of his gospel).
Thus ends my probable reconstruction of the burial and resurrection accounts.
Now, Matt says that the women are going to “see the tomb” while Mark and Luke say they are bringing spices. I see no reason why this should be problematic, since there is no reason why they could not have been going with both motivations in mind (and, of course, this is one of the pesky incidental details that would not have been important to an ancient biographer).
And, as I mentioned briefly already, I see no reason why there couldn’t have been two angels at the tomb, and Matt and Mark simply chose to mention only the one that speaks. If I say “there was a man, Bob, standing next to me, and he said…” that doesn’t exclude the possibility that there was another man (Bill) standing next to him, but since Bill didn’t say anything I just didn’t mention him in my story.
And was the angel sitting on top of the stone or inside the tomb? Does it really matter? Now, I know you will say that such a discrepancy is indicative of fallible human authorship. But like I said, I agree. I’m not claiming that the gospels were written by the finger of God Himself. In fact, the only thing the Bible says on this matter is that the Holy Spirit would help the gospel writers to remember certain things. But these gospels were still written in the form and style of the biographies of the time, and that means that they didn’t have to conform to our modern standards of historical or biographical writing. Thus, the incidental details of an anecdote, which in no way affect the primary message or moral of the story, are basically unimportant and should be treated as such.
Now, you contended in an earlier comment that the main point of similar stories are completely different between different gospels, and that would be an interesting contention to explore. But so long as we continue to discuss minor differences in incidental details, my answers will remain basically the same. You could contend that the gospels do not fit into the category of ancient biography, but you and I are hardly qualified to disagree with the scholars in this field, nor could we carry on such a discussion on a blog like this.
Thanks again for your continued willingness!
(Oh, and I would still like to discuss your views on the “damage” that religion does to individuals and society, if you’d be willing to do that sometime).
I will begin at the beginning, and later go on. But for now….
You wrote:
“Jesus body was given to Joseph of Arimathea. He wrapped it and placed it in the tomb.”
You added to that:
“Now, Matt says that the women are going to “see the tomb” while Mark and Luke say they are bringing spices. I see no reason why this should be problematic, since there is no reason why they could not have been going with both motivations in mind (and, of course, this is one of the pesky incidental details that would not have been important to an ancient biographer).”
This is where things begin to get interesting, right off the bat. You omitted a detail here, something very important; Joseph of Arimathea (according to John) did not merely wrap the body; it was wrapped with “a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight” (KJV). So when we look at Mark and Luke saying the women were bringing pices to anoint the body, that makes no sense at all, because a relatively enormous amount of spices had already been placed with the body.
If we follow Matthew, we see that the women could not have been ignorant of this, because Matthew says that Joseph wrapped the body, laid it in his tomb, rolled a stone to the door, and left, “and there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
And even Mark says, after describing the internment, “And Mary Magdalene and Mary of Joses beheld where he was laid.”
So the Markan and Lukan accounts of the women coming with spices make no sense at all in view of the fact that the body had already been treated with and overabundance of spices, and the women would have been aware of the fact.
Further, if that — bringing spices — was the reason for their coming, why would Matthew have not stated as much? Obviously they did not come merely “to see the tomb” if they had brought spices to anoint the body, and they could not have brought spices to anoint the body when they had been present at the interment and were aware the body had already been treated and wrapped with spices.
You cannot say “it would not have been important to an ancient biographer,” because obviously the spices WERE important to three out of four of the gospels, but they say quite different things about them. Matthew is the only one who omits them, which is interesting because it is Matthew who is the only one to mention the Magi and their gift of myrrh, a “spice” which figures prominently in later Christian thought in regard to the burial of Jesus. Yet Matthew says nothing about the huge and expensive amount of spices used on the body as reported by “John.”
Nor do Mark and Luke, obviously, because it would make clear nonsense out of the women coming to anoint the body when it had already been anointed and they had been present at the internment.
This, again, is why it is important not to omit a single detail in this exercise — it is these details that show us how careless it is to just gloss over such things as the Markan/Lukan account of women bringing spices in contrast to John’s account that the body had been wrapped with a great amount of spices, and Matthew’s inexplicable omission of the same.
What we can say is that both John and Matthew are telling us something greatly discrepant with the Lukan/Markan accounts in this instance. It will not do to say that when the women came specifically to bring spices and anoint the body, that that is compatible with merely coming to “see” the tomb. They are two quite different things — two very different purposes.
We note further that in John, Mary Magdalene, the ONLY woman reported as coming to the tomb, is given no reason for coming. It could not have been to bring spices, because of the obvious fact that the body had already been anointed in John’s gospel.
I will wait for this to sink in before going on to deal with the rest.
hokku,
“This, again, is why it is important not to omit a single detail in this exercise…”
Well for starters, I thought this exercise was only meant to include the 3 synoptics, so I didn’t include anything from John.
Secondly, there are other possibilities that you didn’t take the time to consider while you were making a mad dash to your already firmly cemented conclusion.
For one thing, the verses that mention the women seeing the tomb don’t give any indication that they witnessed the whole process of preparation before the body was placed inside. Indeed, if we’re going to consider John’s account in this matter, his gospel would seem to indicate that the body was anointed and prepared at another location before being transported to the tomb. Thus there’s no reason we can’t assume that the women simply didn’t know if (or how much) the body had already been anointed.
“Further, if that — bringing spices — was the reason for their coming, why would Matthew have not stated as much?”
I don’t know. Because he didn’t want to? The point that you’re still missing is that ancient biographies were not concerned with such details. I can’t put it any other way.
You added: “You cannot say “it would not have been important to an ancient biographer,” because obviously the spices WERE important to three out of four of the gospels…”
Why must a detail be important to Matthew simply because Mark and Luke included it? You also seem to be forgetting that Matthew had access to Mark and probably used large portions of it for his gospel. This isn’t one of those cases where it appears that details were added on later. It’s the exact opposite. And when considering that, the only reasonable conclusion I can see is that Matthew just chose to leave it out.
Finally, you said: “It will not do to say that when the women came specifically to bring spices and anoint the body, that that is compatible with merely coming to “see” the tomb. They are two quite different things — two very different purposes.”
Why not? Suppose I was retelling this story to someone and I said, “And then in the morning Mary and some other women came to see the tomb and anoint Jesus’ body.” Now, simply adding the two purposes together with an “and” might be a bit ad hoc and somewhat unconvincing, but the point is simple: There is nothing incompatible about the two accounts.
You wrote:
“Well for starters, I thought this exercise was only meant to include the 3 synoptics, so I didn’t include anything from John.”
Then you have not been paying attention.
On January 4th I wrote:
“I suggest you try writing them all as ONE account, including every detail in the biblical accounts from burial to ascension, using not only the four gospels but also the relative parts of Acts and 1 Corinthians, putting the events in chronological order and omitting no detail. You will quickly see how incompatible and unreliable they are.”
On January 5th I wrote:
“Do not overlook my suggestion that you write a single account combining all the resurrection stories, beginning from the burial and extending through the ascension, omitting no detail and in chronological order.”
On January 7th I wrote:
“So here again is the exercise:
Write a single account of the events from (and including) the burial of Jesus to his ascension, using the four Gospels as well as the relevant accounts in Acts and 1 Corinthians, omitting no detail (leaving nothing out) and presenting them in chronological order (or time-sequence, if you will, and again, note whichever event you feel you CANNOT put in sequence, but include it nonetheless….”
I won’t bother to go through the additional times I detailed it, but you can see that it was made quite clear from the beginning.
You wrote:
“For one thing, the verses that mention the women seeing the tomb don’t give any indication that they witnessed the whole process of preparation before the body was placed inside. Indeed, if we’re going to consider John’s account in this matter, his gospel would seem to indicate that the body was anointed and prepared at another location before being transported to the tomb. Thus there’s no reason we can’t assume that the women simply didn’t know if (or how much) the body had already been anointed.”
Suffice it to say that it is difficult to overlook the presence of such a huge amount of spices wrapped with a body, let alone not noticing the odor (have you ever SMELLED myrrh? I have). We have Matthew saying that the women were watching the crucifixion from a distance, and then we have Mary Magdalene and the other Mary at the burial. Should we assume they went for coffee in the interim? And if they were present at the burial, they could not have been unaware that the body had been prepared for burial. Luke goes so far as to say that the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee, “followed after and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.” They could not have been unaware that the body had been wrapped with such a huge amount of spices, and of course, according to Luke THEY PREPARED SPICES AND OINTMENTS ON THE VERY SAME DAY, then rested on the Sabbath, then came back to the tomb with their spices on the first day. Even if they had NOT been present from crucifixion to burial — which we cannot see in the text — someone would have told them not to bother, that the body had already been more than adequately prepared. So you are simply grasping at straws in an attempt to harmonize what cannot be harmonized without damage to reason and logic.
You wrote:
“Why must a detail be important to Matthew simply because Mark and Luke included it? You also seem to be forgetting that Matthew had access to Mark and probably used large portions of it for his gospel.”
You overlook my point. Three out of four gospel writers consider it quite significant enough to include. Matthew did not include it. Of course he was aware of the Markan story, but he decided to go his own way and omit it, because he has enough fictions of his own to add, and does not consider it significant for his purposes. But it IS very significant in pointing out how the individual writers molded the story to their own desires and ends, to the point of introducting discrepancies.
Now obviously if Matthew did NOT include the spices, he did not think Mark was writing “the Word of God,” and he did not think Mark was “infallible” and certainly not inerrant. We can see that both Luke and Matthew felt quite at ease in modifying the Markan stories when it suited them, and of course John goes happily on quite a different course as well. That disposes of supposed divine inspiration and inerrancy, whether you personally hold to either of those mistaken notions or not (a great many “evangelicals” obviously do).
You wrote:
“Suppose I was retelling this story to someone and I said, “And then in the morning Mary and some other women came to see the tomb and anoint Jesus’ body.” Now, simply adding the two purposes together with an “and” might be a bit ad hoc and somewhat unconvincing, but the point is simple: There is nothing incompatible about the two accounts.”
IF that had been what was written in the “originals,” there would be no problem. But the problem exists in your conflation of two accounts detailing two different purposes for coming to the tomb. One is the very significant practice of anointing a body for burial. The women would only have come to do this if the body had not been anointed BEFORE burial. Otherwise it would be superfluous. And in all the gospels but John, there is NO INDICATION THAT THE BODY HAD BEEN ANOINTED BEFORE BURIAL. That is why it can be used as an excuse to get the women to the tomb. John, of course, needed no such excuse, because the body had already been anointed. And Matthew did not choose to include the matter of spices at all, so he gives as HIS excuse the innocuous statement that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary had simply come to “see” the tomb.
And note further that in Matthew, the women do not have to worry about getting INTO the tomb; that is not their purpose, because they have brought no spices. However, in Mark the women are worried, saying, “Who shall roll the stone for us away from the door of the sepulchre?” Why? Because they had to get INTO the tomb to anoint the body. Again, we have a BIG discrepancy in these accounts, and we can see that the different writers have not only manipulated similar basic information to write different and discrepant stories, but they have also left traces of how and why the stories were written as they were, and why they are discrepant from one another. That is extremely significant in how we view the Bible, whether as a supposedly inerrant account of events or as a collection of very human and fallible documents, worked to fit human whims and purposes.
I think even you agree that mixing the two purposes — going to bring spices and going merely to “see” the tomb — is stretching belief beyond its rational limits.
And keep in mind, we are only at the very beginning. Things get much worse, or from another perspective, far more interesting and revealing.
hokku,
“Even if they had NOT been present from crucifixion to burial — which we cannot see in the text — someone would have told them not to bother, that the body had already been more than adequately prepared. So you are simply grasping at straws in an attempt to harmonize what cannot be harmonized without damage to reason and logic.”
Well, I fail to see how simply postulating “someone would have told them not to bother” is any less of a grasp at staws on your part, so I stand by my point.
“You overlook my point…it IS very significant in pointing out how the individual writers molded the story to their own desires and ends, to the point of introducting discrepancies.”
There are two major problems for your position here:
1. I have said over and over again that these documents are ancient biographies and follow the style and method of that genre. The authors were not concerned with incidental details, and so they freely changed and moved them around a bit, because their only real concern was relating the character (and some actions) of Jesus. So, to be blunt, they didn’t care why the women went to the tomb, all that mattered was that they went. The closest analogy we have to this genre of writing in our modern culture is a joke. Here’s an example that Dr. Craig used:
“What did the Calvinist say after he fell down the elevator shaft?”
“I don’t know.”
“He got up, dusted himself off and said, ‘I’m glad that’s over.’”
Now, Dr. Craig said he heard the joke again some years later, but he heard it like this:
“What did the Calvinist say after he fell down the stairs?”
“I don’t know.”
“He stood up, wiped off his face and said ‘I’m glad that’s over.’”
At this point the anology should be obvious. Did the Calvinist fall down an elevator shaft or strairs? Did he dust himself off or wipe off his face? Well, it’s a joke, so it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the story is similar enough that the punchline is funny.
Now just consider any time in the past when you have tried to relate a story to someone. You will no doubt summarize certain details, leave out others, and, most importantly, if we were to compare your story to another’s person who is talking about the same exact event, there are bound to be a few differences. But no one would be so cynical as to conclude that you’re actively changing the details of the story for some nefarious purpose. Nor would we conclude that neither of you really saw the event in question.
I’ll say it one more time, you’re simply trying to force the gospels to fit into categories that they don’t belong, which is just dogmatism on your part.
2. You keep talking about the radically different purposes that each gospel writer had, making the reasons for all the discrepancies “obvious.” As yet, you have failed to show that the gospels actually DO have radically different purposes (your one attempt, that Mark was an adoptionist, wasn’t at all convincing).
What is actually remarkable is that four different men writing four different accounts of Jesus’ life paint basically the SAME picture.
You have intimated that you know some Greek, so I assume you’ve read a lot of classical Greek literature. I would suggest comparing Plato’s picture of Socrates with that of Xenophon. They paint radically different pictures of Socrates, and they aren’t separated by that much time. So, yes, ancient writers would certainly place their own spin on historical events, I conceed that. But that makes the overall harmony and unity of the four accounts of Jesus’ life that much more remarkable (and that much more convincing).
In any case, I hope the analogy of the joke helped you to better understand what I’ve been trying to say about the genre of ancient biography. I’m sure you will contend that such apathy towards details is reason enough to doubt the accuracy of them, but once more, I hope you place equal doubt on every other piece of ancient history we have today.
I would be glad to keep moving through the rest of the post-resurrection accounts with you, but I imagine it will look much the same as what we’ve already said.
Thanks again!
You can lead a horse to water….
I have already shown you that not only are there significant differences in the beginning of your account, but that we can explain those differences from the texts.
It is the same as the, yes, obvious example when Matthew’s angel predicts a future meeting with Jesus in Galilee and Mark turns the same thing into a remembrance of something said in the past in Galilee, leaving behind the red flags that Matthew does have post-resurrection appearances in Galilee so he makes a prediction, but Luke has none and has to say something different.
You are right, continuing on would only make matters worse for you, because you are faced with the dilemma of recognizing these things for what they are — the results of human, fallible authors and editors and revisers, and not the supposed “Word of God” at all.
I am sure this can be difficult, because it means the overturning of your world view. But not recognizing the simple facts means living the rest of your life in self-delusion. So I am going to let you off the hook and let you ponder all this. I hope you will continue to research and read on this matter, OUTSIDE the limiting bonds of typical “conservative Christian” apologetics, which will get you nowhere, because their goal is not truth, but keeping you in the system.
I must say you have been patient, and thank you for that. Now you are on your own (at least for a while).
Just one typo correction, then I go:
I wrote:
“Mark…” but it should have read “Luke…”
“Luke turns the same thing into a remembrance of something said in the past in Galilee, leaving behind the red flags that Matthew does have post-resurrection appearances in Galilee so he makes a prediction, but Luke has none and has to say something different.”
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to keep this discussion going (43 comments is quite the record!).
The only point I would like to make in parting is as follows:
You began this discussion by bringing up what you felt were irreconcilable discrepancies between the gospels. I attempted to show you how they could be reconciled, you disagreed and tried to explain how my reconciliation was inadequate, and so on.
However, my attempts at reconciliation have always included (and indeed arisen directly out of) the gospels themselves, taking into account when and how they were written, their style and genre, etc.
Almost every single one of your arguments have either been based on (1) the false assumption that the gospels should be judged in the manner we would judge a modern biography or historical text, or (2) your own conjectures about what might or should have happened (such as your comments about the women at the tomb) that are, to my mind, no more rational or “obvious” than any of my conjectures.
Now, from where I’m sitting, that makes my side of this debate at least as rational, reasonable, or “obvious” as yours, if not more so.
In any case, I’m still grateful for your willingness. I would still love to talk about your opinions on the “dangers” of religion to individuals and society. Just let me know if you’d be willing to discuss that some time. Thanks again!
-David
You wrote:
“Almost every single one of your arguments have either been based on (1) the false assumption that the gospels should be judged in the manner we would judge a modern biography or historical text, or (2) your own conjectures about what might or should have happened (such as your comments about the women at the tomb).”
The average “conservative” Christian does indeed look at the gospels as both factual biography and factual history, so let’s examine your viewpoint. You have already said that you view them as “ancient” biography. Using your perspective, would you please explain precisely how you see the information contained in the gospels:
1. Is it fallible in describing events? For example, did all events described take place just as described, or if not, how does one extract the “historical” event from its non-historical trappings?
2. Is it fallible in describing sequence? For example, when John puts the cleansing of the Temple near the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and another gospel puts it near the end, is this a mistake when considering “what actually happened,” or did perhaps neither cleansing take place as a factual, historical event?
3. How, precisely, do you separate what is factual in the NT from what is simply words assembled to express a given writer’s theological perspective through those words?
4. How do you distinguish what is historically true in the NT from what is simply “true” in some metaphorical or allegorical sense? For example, in the five accounts relative to the resurrection, how can you assume an historical, factual resurrection and post resurrection appearances if the details concerning them are simply fictionalized contexts added by the various writers, and not in themselves historically reliable?
Please be precise, and give examples to illustrate.
My over-arching, general answer to your question is that, because the gospels are ancient biographies, we can assume two things: (1) The “main” or “core” story is intended to be a true relation of a an actual, historical event, however (2) many of the incidental details or “setup” of the story are intentionally fluid and are not meant to be taken as absolutely literal.
To flesh that answer out more, I will answer each of your specific questions:
1. I’ll start with an example: the anointing of Jesus’ body. None of the synoptics say that Jesus’ body was anointed before the women came. John says that it was. So, you ask, “are the gospels fallible in describing events?” This is where the genre of ancient biography must inform our understanding. From the perspective of a modern biography, where every single detail is meant to be literal and accurate, we could very simply answer your question, “Yes.” But the gospels are not intended to fit that mold.
What you really want is an answer to the question, “Did Jospeh of Arimathea anoint Jesus’ body or not?” Now, because John specifically says that he did, and even describes in detail the amount of spices, it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that John is correct. BUT WE NEED NOT BE DOGMATIC ABOUT SUCH DETAILS. All we need to know in this story (and all that I am claiming to be “infallible”) is that Jospeh was a given the dead body, it was laid in a tomb and left undisturbed until the third day, when Mary and some women came to the tomb (for whatever reason) and it had really risen from death.
All of the other details of the story can be compared and debated about, and a plausible reconstruction can be made (for example, both Luke AND John are right, Jospeh did anoint Jesus’ body and, for whatever reason, the women also brought spices with them), but in the end we cannot have 100% certainty about such projects, nor are they of great importance to Christian faith or practice.
2. “Is it fallible in describing sequence?” This is obviously a loaded question, but for the sake of brevity I will simply answer with a qualified “yes.” So, when did Jesus cleanse the temple? At some time during his public ministry. The precise chronology is unimportant.
3. The process of “seperating” simply depends on reading through the stories and seperating core details from incidental ones. This isn’t even remotely difficult, so it’s not as though the admission that the gospels are ancient biographies suddenly calls into question whether or not Jesus even died on a cross or rose from the dead. Those are quite obviously the core details.
Or, here are some other general guidlines. Whenever all four gospels agree on a detail, we can reasonably accept that detail as literally accurate. And because the gospels are meant to be biographies of Jesus, we can also assume that whatever he does and says are also meant to be accurate (as opposed to what other people around him do and say).
4. I wouldn’t consider any details (incidental or otherwise) to be “metaphorical” or “allegorical.” Despite the anecdotal nature of ancient biographies, they are still meant to be true history.
You asked: “how can you assume an historical, factual resurrection and post resurrection appearances if the details concerning them are simply fictionalized contexts added by the various writers…”
This isn’t entirely accurate. To say that the incidental details of a story are “fluid” or even “unimportant” is not at all the same as saying that they are “fictionalized.” So, for example, the women really did have a motive for going to the tomb, even if we can’t determine precicely what it was. Moreover, I’m not saying that any of the gospel writers “made up” post-resurrection appearences to make a theological point, only that the precice order of the appearences and incidental details of them are not NECESSARRILY 100% literal. I say necessarily because some of them certainly could be, we just can’t know for sure.
I understand that many Christians have a poor understanding of what it means that the Bible is infallible, but for the most part you’re simply nit-picking and approaching the whole issue with an extreme and unsympathetic cynicism. I’m not expecting you to accept wholeheartedly every attempt at reconciliation I’ve made on every detail, but it’s a little ridiculous to call into question the truth of EVERYTHING the gospels says simply because they weren’t particularly concerned with minor details. When I read Heroditus I don’t doubt that there was ever a war between Greece and Persia, even if I doubt many of the details Heroditus adds to the story. (That’s just one example of what I meant when I said that if we completely throw out the Bible then we must also throw out all of ancient history).
If you would like further clarification, please ask. This was a long comment and I’m sure some of it will need more clarifying.
You wrote:
“(1) The “main” or “core” story is intended to be a true relation of a an actual, historical event, however (2) many of the incidental details or “setup” of the story are intentionally fluid and are not meant to be taken as absolutely literal.”
You have just placed yourself on a very slippery slope. If only the “core” is to be taken as factual, then the reader has no idea at all whether anything added to that core is factual, and indeed cannot know where the “core” begins or ends, or whether any supposed “core” in a narrative is itself simply non-factual detail; in fact one can simply regard the story as an onion from which one keeps peeling layers to arrive and pass any hypothetical “core” until nothing at all meaningful remains.
I think for all practical purposes you have just deconstructed the NT into nothing.
You also wrote:
“Whenever all four gospels agree on a detail, we can reasonably accept that detail as literally accurate.”
On what do you base that premise? It seems to me sheer wishful thinking, given that at least two of the synoptics are simply revised and edited and expanded versions of the third, and much of what is in John is found in none of the three and presents quite a different Jesus than that found, for example, in Mark.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable, given the nature of the gospels and the complete lack of ANY contemporary outside verification, to call the whole matter into question. To do otherwise seems to me to be willing to put the desire to believe above the existing evidence.
hokku,
“If only the “core” is to be taken as factual, then the reader has no idea at all whether anything added to that core is factual, and indeed cannot know where the “core” begins or ends, or whether any supposed “core” in a narrative is itself simply non-factual detail;”
I did not say that nothing outside of the core details are “factual”, just as earlier I did not say that they were “fictionalized.” We are getting down to finer details now, and we must be on guard to not be loose with our words. What I said was that the incidental details are fluid and not meant to be taken strictly literally. There’s a difference. I’m not saying that we cannot know whether or not women really went to the tomb, I am saying we cannot know (with 100% certainty, which is, again, a big qualification) exactly how many women were there, why they came, etc.
“On what do you base that premise? It seems to me sheer wishful thinking…”
Not at all, I simply recognize the gospels for what they are meant to be, and deal with them accordingly. You have yet to present me with a reason for assuming your posture of radical skepticism over my posture of general openness. And I’m not even talking about being an atheist (or a member of some non-Christian religion) and having a posture of skepticism regarding the gospels’ claims about Jesus performing miracles or being the Son of God. If you are skeptical about those details because your current worldview does not allow for them, that’s fine. But the position you are currently advocating is an unwarrented radical skepticism about the gospels as a whole, calling into question every word they say about anything, and I’m afraid that is a much stronger position which will require much more powerful arguments than anything you have yet presented.
And don’t dismiss my comments about ancient history too quickly. By your current reasoning, I should doubt the existence of Socrates (as well as most of the events of his life that we think are probably true) simply because Plato and Xenophon present very different pictures of who he was and what he said and did. Now, I think it to be much more reasonable to assume that he did exist and to assume that where Plato and Xenophon agree on something that it is probably factual. And this seems to be an equally reasonable approach to the gospels.
“…and much of what is in John is found in none of the three and presents quite a different Jesus than that found, for example, in Mark.”
This is the part that intrigues me the most. I already mentioned the radically different pictures of Socrates that we get between Plato and Xenophon. This was not uncommon for ancient biographies. What makes the gospels so striking (and gives a big boost to our estimate of their reliability) is how exactly ALIKE all four pictures of Jesus are. Four different men in four different decades writing about the same person, and they all seem to match up remarkably well (especially compared to later gnostic texts like the gospel of Thomas). So, I’m very curious to know what you mean by “quite a different Jesus.” You compared John to Mark, but I hope you aren’t referring to your earlier argument that Mark was an adoptionist. MG’s response to that argument was very strong, and you’re going to have to contend with his arguments before you can continue to just assume your position as a premise. If you are referring to other major differences, then I would really like to hear what they are.
As before, I appreciate your willingness to continue this important discussion.
You wrote:
“But the position you are currently advocating is an unwarrented radical skepticism about the gospels as a whole, calling into question every word they say about anything, and I’m afraid that is a much stronger position which will require much more powerful arguments than anything you have yet presented.”
I do not consider it “radical” skepticism at all. It is simply using one’s head. The gospels present the miraculous, yet we have nothing at all to support their discrepant presentations of the miraculous. Simply because some documents written close to 2,000 years ago contain stories about miraculous events. That was a largely pre-literate world rife with superstition. We have not the slightest outside evidence of event he existence of Jesus contemporary with him, in spite of the amazing events the gospels purport to record — a miraculous moving star that positions itself above the birthplace of Jesus, close enough so that the spot may be found, a slaughter of the innocents under Herod, abundant miracles of healing, resurrection — and yet no one but Christians seem to have witnessed it. Doesn’t that strike you as very peculiar, particular when the gospels cannot agree on the “who, what, when, where, how” of it?
It seems to me that your position requires only remarkable gullibility and a great will to believe the unbelievable in spite of a total lack of evidence.
One further point: You wrote:
“…how exactly ALIKE all four pictures of Jesus are. Four different men in four different decades writing about the same person, and they all seem to match up remarkably well….”
Considering that the synoptics just recycle the same material, edited and expanded in two of them, what is surprising? And the fourth, John, diverges so greatly in much of the text that one cannot at all say it matches “remarkably well.” In Mark, for example, Jesus is continually secretive about who he is, and supposedly does not want word to get out in public; he teaches through cryptic parables to the public, explaining them to his disciples. Yet in John he makes public declarations about himself, giving long theological speeches, quite unlike the presentation of him in Mark. In John there is no “Last Supper” at all. So did it happen? Did it not? According to your theory, we cannot know, because not all the gospels record it. So what is the “factual core” of the Last supper stories?
We know the ancients were not only capable of biography, but also of heavily fictionalized biography, and not only that, but of completely fictional accounts. To assume that one should accept the hypothetical “core” of any account without any confirming evidence strikes me again as simple gullibility and an overwhelming desire to believe.
hokku,
You said: “I do not consider it “radical” skepticism at all…”
You then went on to describe all of the miraculous events that the gospels record. I have to wonder, did you even read my last comment? My whole point was contrasting a reasonable skepticism about the supernatural events in the gospels to your “radical” skepticism about EVERYTHING in the gospels. Your response was to point out all of the supernatural events. I’m afraid that only strengthens my point.
“— and yet no one but Christians seem to have witnessed it.”
This particular point is rendered moot by the fact that those who witnessed the events in question were not “Christian” until after the events, and indeed they cite the events as the reason for their conversion to Christianity (which is the whole purpose of the gospels).
“…particular when the gospels cannot agree on the “who, what, when, where, how” of it?”
Again you overstate your case. There is much more agreement between the gospels then there is disagreement (especially the synoptics, as you yourself have pointed out that they just copied from each other). You are also determined to take my comments about incidental details and apply them to everything, and until we can make clear that huge distinction, progress will continue to be slim.
“In John there is no “Last Supper” at all. So did it happen? Did it not? According to your theory, we cannot know, because not all the gospels record it.”
This is, again, a misrepresentation of what I have said. Just because one writer chose to leave a story completely out, that does not mean that we should assume the other three made it up. Nor does it mean that John is saying that it didn’t happen. My comment about the four gospels being in agreement referred only to stories which all four actually told, and then only to the incidental details that are different. These distinctions are huge and very important, but if you are (dogmatically) refusing to see them, there isn’t much I can do.
Just answer me this, do you believe that every single word written by Heroditus, Plato, Xenophon, and others is a complete fabrication? Do you hold to the same kind of radical skepticism with every ancient text (not just the supernatural elements that were added in)? If so, then your qualms reach far outside of the realm of the Bible alone, and there isn’t much more we can fruitfully talk about here. If not, then I would simply ask you to consider your own dogmatic stance against the Bible, see how it is inconsistent with your general position on similar ancient texts, and honestly ask yourself if it isn’t motivated by whatever problems you have with Christianity itself, rather than problems with what is actually written.
You wrote:
“My whole point was contrasting a reasonable skepticism about the supernatural events in the gospels to your “radical” skepticism about EVERYTHING in the gospels.”
The “supernatural” is so closely woven with everything in the gospels that one cannot really remove it without destroying their basic thrust. One cannot simply limit skepticism to what is “supernatural” in such work, particularly when there are such great differences over details.
I have spent a good deal of time in past years on the “bioi” of the saints, Christian hagiography. Such accounts vary drastically in historicity, with some being simply fiction from beginning to end. That does not prevent them from having internal speeches and “real” historical names and places. One can find multiple examples of such histories, but that does nothing to authenticate them as factual biography.
It appears to me that you really have no rational method of determining with any certainly what in the gospels is likely to be factual as opposed to what is fictional. Take away the supernatural and you have a person who lived and taught and died. Is it possible that “Jesus” is a reworking of the residue of an unrecogizable earlier teacher or teachers? Perhaps. But what we can say is that we really have no way of knowing at present, because the Jesus of the gospels is so heavily worked over and fictionalized that one cannot discern whether there is in fact an historical residue upon which the fictions were based, or whether they are simply an historization of theological elements assembled into a “life.”
Certainly we can tell next to nothing about Jesus from the earliest Christian writer, Paul — except that he was a kind of heavenly being who, much like the OT figure of Wisdom, descended into the lower plane, was rejected, killed, raised and returned to the heavenly realm. Paul never places Jesus in a recognizable historical context, and seems to have virtually no interest in a supposed earthly Jesus apart from his mythic descent, death, resurrection, and return to the heavens. And then, of course, we have the Gospel of Thomas which presents Jesus as a mystical teacher without ANY of the trimmings found so necessary to a “life” of Jesus.
I simply do not think there is sufficient evidence to approach the gospels as you approach them, nor do I yet see how you manage to extract a “core” of solid history that you can clearly distinguish from the matrix of fantasy.
But so far your discussion has been entirely in the realm of theory. Present some actual examples from the text to illustrate your working methods, and demonstrate how they make and support your point, and perhaps that will help me to see something I am not seeing at present.
I should have answered your direct question in your last posting:
“Just answer me this, do you believe that every single word written by Herodotus, Plato, Xenophon, and others is a complete fabrication? Do you hold to the same kind of radical skepticism with every ancient text…”
One has to maintain a critical approach and judge each case on its own merits (or lack thereof). We can see, for example, some obvious cases of fictionalization in the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. My own view is that the Matthaean birth narrative is heavily based upon a view of supposed OT prophecy that enabled the writer to convert it into a narrative around some basic elements in Christian tradition — Joseph & Mary, Bethlehem, etc. Yet if we move to Mark, there is no birth narrative, and even Joseph disappears. And of course Luke uses similar basic elements but arranges them into quite a different birth story. No reason to regard any of it as factual that I can see.
hokku,
“I simply do not think there is sufficient evidence to approach the gospels as you approach them, nor do I yet see how you manage to extract a “core” of solid history that you can clearly distinguish from the matrix of fantasy.”
It’s funny that you say that, because it just so happens that there is an entire science of historical-textual criticism which deals with exactly that question, and even the radical, anti-Christian “Jesus Seminar” has been forced to conclude that there is a small “core” of the gospels that represent a real, historical Jesus.
Now, neither of us is equipped to engage in this debate, and I’m simply deferring to the experts. Obviously I have major disagreements with the Jesus Seminar, but even they find the gospels to be more reliable than you do, so I think I’m in a pretty good position on that front.
You wrote:
“Now, neither of us is equipped to engage in this debate, and I’m simply deferring to the experts.”
Nonsense. You presented a theory, and I want to see you defend it with practical examples. To attempt to say “Well, the Jesus Seminar agrees with me” is simply an appeal to supposed authority, not a reasoned argument.
Give me some meaningful examples from the Gospels of your working theory in action — how you separate factual core from dubious matrix. Either it can be successfully done or it cannot be. I hold that with the Gospels, it cannot be succesfully done, any more than Jesus Seminar “voting” on whether Jesus did or did not say something is anything more than opinion.
And as for whether a “biblical” Jesus actually existed or not, how beneficial do you think it would be to the career of a theologian or NT scholar and his funding to assert that he did not?
I suggest you do some reading in G. A. Wells.
hokku,
“To attempt to say “Well, the Jesus Seminar agrees with me” is simply an appeal to supposed authority”
Yes, that’s exactly what it is. And just so we’re clear, the Jesus Seminar definately doesn’t agree with me. There’s still plenty of room for debate when it comes to the authenticity of the NT, and within that debate the Jesus Seminar and I are about as far apart as we can be.
The point is simply that even the most liberal and anti-Christian experts in this field are forced to “give in” much more than your position allows. I’m well aware that that doesn’t constitute an argument for anything on my part, it’s simply my justification for calling your radical skepticism “unwarrented.”
Why devote so much time to presenting a theory that you cannot defend by actual example?
But on to something else. Unfortunately, your friend MG has re-posted what I have written here earlier regarding adoptionism on his own web site, but has neglected to ask for or receive permission to do so. Please look into that, because if he wants to reprint what I post, he must ask permission; not to do so is a violation of “netiquette,” not to mention copyright.
But as he posted his own response, not only on his own web site but here as well, I will answer his questions about Markan adoptionism:
“1. When John speaks about the coming of Jesus in the prologue, he speaks of him as “The one who is more powerful than I” and says that he is not worthy to stoop and tie his sandals. This is hard to mesh with the idea that Jesus was not considered to be divine by the author of the Gospel of Mark prior to his baptism.”
Easily explained. When John says “the one stronger than I comes after me,” he is talking about the “Son of God,” which Jesus becomes upon his baptism and the Spirit entering into him. Remember that Mark presents the baptism as a kind of burial and resurrection to a new life, in which the Spirit posesses the man Jesus, and he thereby becomes the Christos, the Anointed. “He,” John says, “will baptize you in Holy Spirit.” Of course it is not the pre-baptism Jesus he is speaking of, but the post-baptism Jesus, into whom the Spirit has entered.
“2. The language of John becomes even more problematic if we try to read it adoptionistically because if adoptionism is right, then Jesus had to prove his worthiness of divinity through effort and therefore to have had some kind of special life prior to his exaltation. This follows from the definition of adoptionism; after all, its not just any mortal who is worthy of becoming divine. This implies some kind of backstory that the readers of Mark would be familiar with.”
You are putting the cart before the horse. Mark obviously has no serious interest in his readers knowing a pre-baptismal Jesus, and does not bother with such things. All we need to know in his view is that Jesus has come for John’s “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” So he is obviously pious; beyond that we require nothing at this point in the story, any more than we “need to know” what Abram/Abraham might have done that warrented Yahweh suddenly telling him, without such a biographical preamble, “I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great…”
For Mark the good news of Jesus, the “story” of Jesus, begins with the baptism, and he needs no backstory, which later elaboration in Matthew and Luke attempted to provide when Jesus being “Son of God” was shifted back to his birth. That is why both Matthew and Luke tack their tracts to assert this revised viewpoint onto the beginning of the Markan material, which neither has nor requires it.
“3. The actual events of the baptism and what immediately follows are peculiar if read through the lens of adoptionism. One big problem is where the author sees Jesus becoming exalted to divinity. Is it the Holy Spirit’s descent? This would be a strange place to identify the exaltation because the Holy Spirit seems to remain distinct from Jesus (the Spirit drives him into the wilderness in 12, implying a kind of distinction).
Of course this is the question which later led to the Christological controversies that troubled the church, but we need not concern ourselves about them here, because we are in a prior and unelaborated Christology in which Jesus becomes Son of God through baptism and the descent of the Spirit, the burial and resurrection into a new life, the equivalent in OT terms of the coronation of the King. It is not at all a “strange place” for this to happen in view of that, and Mark’s view of this “newborn” Jesus is that he has become possessed by the Spirit. That is why his ministry begins at that time, and why we are told almost nothing of his (unimportant to the story) life prior to this event. That is also why we are told in clear terms that the Spirit “casts him out” (literally “ekballei,” the same term used of driving out demons) into the wilderness, showing the POWER of this new condition. The Spirit is now in control, the Spirit that descended INTO him (“eis auton”) at baptism.
Mark and Luke recognized this as Mark’s view, and “wrote it out of the story” rather awkwardly by the addition of the birth narratives that make Jesus “Son of God” from birth, and in not-so-subtle changes such as making the Spirit come “upon” (“ep’/epi”) Jesus rather than descending INTO him, and by changing the casting out into the wilderness by the Spirit into being “led” by the Spirit, which does indeed seem to bring about a dichotomy that is not present in Mark’s presentation.
“4. If we try to argue that the words “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well-pleased” are an acknowledgment of present exaltation to divinity, then this sits very awkwardly with Mark’s account of the transfiguration later on, where similar language is used. With the transfiguration we have to grant that the voice from the cloud is recognizing a status that has been in Jesus’ possession at least since the time of his baptism…But if we are willing to grant this with respect to the transfiguration account, then why not assume that Mark’s meaning is the same in both cases?
Simple answer — because at the baptism, the voice is speaking TO THE BAPTIZED JESUS “You are my son…” In the Transfiguration it is an announcement to the disciples — “THIS is my son.” Second, there is of course no descent of the Spirit into Jesus at the Transfiguration — merely a voice from heaven that announces to the disciples. It is similar but crucially not identical language, and certainly not an identical event, and Mark clearly has a different purpose in the Transfiguration. Keep in mind that Jesus has not told his disciples that he is Son of God and “Christos” — this is announced by God to the disciples at the Transfiguration, and Jesus “swears them to silence.”
“5. Your arguments from the lack of an Incarnational narrative or a virginal conception narrative seem to assume that these ideas weren’t in the background of the minds of the readership, and that Mark’s choice not to include them implies that he didn’t believe in them–two assumptions that I don’t see any good reason to grant.”
If he does not speak of them there is no reason to assume that he believed in them. In fact we can demonstrate that such a notion is quite out of keeping with Mark’s perspective. I have already shown how the Jesus of Mark is possessed by the Spirit after his baptism, through which he enters his new existence as “Son of God.” This is greatly emphasized by the attitude of his “earthly” family later in the story.
Remember that Mark never mentions a “Joseph” — instead we have “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?” which is all Mark is going to tell us about his family background — implying illegitimacy, as Matthew recognizes, because he revises it to “Is not this the carpenter’s son…?” And we have only to go as far as 3:21 to see that his family recognizes that this “new” Jesus is not the same Jesus they had known: “Having heard, his family (“hoi par autou”) went out to seize him, for they were saying that he has lost his mind (“exesti”).” This is the new Jesus, possessed by the Spirit, and even his family must acknowledge the great difference, that this is not the “same” person they had known before.
5.a ” And your argument from how Mark positions “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” seems unpersuasive because (a) Mark could just mean that this is the beginning of his telling of the Gospel…”
One does not need those words to see that this is where the gospel begins for Mark — with John and the baptism. If it had begun earlier, he would have begun earlier. But that is not his view. Keep in mind also that there seems to have been some unease even with those words, which could possibly be misunderstood, thus the variant readings in which “gospel of Jesus Christ” becomes “gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God.”
“6. Finally, there may be arguments available that Mark believes in Jesus’ divinity in a sense that is stronger than that of adoptionism–a pre-existent sense, or a fully-divine sense. If you would like, I can attempt to locate these for you.”
You would have to detail those specifics for any reply, but from what I have seen of your objections so far, your aversion to adoptionism seems to be largely the result of “dye seepage” — of reading the other gospels into Mark rather than being genuine problems with Markan adoptionism. I find no obstacles to adoptionism in what you have presented up to this point.
hokku,
“…but has neglected to ask for or receive permission to do so.”
He gave you full credit for your arguments (as much credit as he can give you, anyway, since I assume “hokku” is merely an SN), and even linked to this discussion, so I see no violation of anything going on. Such is the nature of New Media, my friend.
hokku,
Also, G. A. Wells was a professor of German, which puts historiography and/or literary criticism a bit beyond the range of his expertise. Now, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify his arguments, but it also doesn’t engender a great deal of faith in them, and he is most certainly in the minority of the minority on this issue. But at least I have a better idea of where you’ve been coming from this whole time.
You wrote:
“…but has neglected to ask for or receive permission to do so.”
He gave you full credit for your arguments (as much credit as he can give you, anyway, since I assume “hokku” is merely an SN), and even linked to this discussion, so I see no violation of anything going on. Such is the nature of New Media, my friend.
He did not ask or receive permission, and that is neither appropriate NOR LEGAL. I suggest you read the WordPress articles regarding copyright. Either you deal with this matter or I will contact both WordPress and the host for your friend’s blog site and make them aware of the situation.
I am having no further discussion with you until you and your friend rectify this matter. Linking to a site is legal. Simply reposting extensive text by someone else on one’s own site without permission — whether the author is identified or not — is not legal. Correct it right away or else I will deal with it.
I have decided that rather than carry this farther, I am going to regard MG’s unauthorized reposting of my message as justifiable by regarding it as a fair-usage “review.” I will not complain to the blog management involved.
I will, however, have no further discussion with you unless both you and he agree not to repeat such behavior without author permission. And needless to say I am not impressed by your ethics, considering that I did not even KNOW MG had reposted by writing until I found it by accident while looking for something else in a search.
Very poor form on both your parts.
hokku,
I looked around for wordpress.com articles dealing with this issue, but didn’t find anything that sounds anything like what you’re talking about. Was there somewhere specific you wanted me to look?
In any case, I still haven’t the faintest idea what your complaint is about. When you write a paper for school, do you call every author of every book you use as a resource and personally ask them if you can quote them? No, you make sure to distinguish their work from your own by the use of quotation marks and then you cite them (by footnote, endnote, etc). This is essentially what MG did.
I’ve never heard of someone’s copyrights being infringed by a quotation (especially a cited quotation). But again, if you could point me to the wordpress article you were referring to, I would be happy to read it and make sure that nothing illegal is going on.
First, as I wrote, it is common courtesy on the Internet to ask permission to re-use original material. Second, fair use allows fair “restatement” of material in one’s own words — within limits — but literal reproduction of large amounts stretches the limits of fair use and can cross to legal copyright violation.
The common practice on the Internet is to ASK someone directly for permission, which is usually a simple matter because one has direct access to the person, as both of you do to me. One does not just repost original writings without asking permission or even notifying the author. It is simply not ethical.
Again, I will have no more discussion with you until both of you agree not to violate this simple matter of Internet etiquette. And I cannot imagine why anyone else would, either.
hokku,
I can’t really speak for MG, but I can say that I’m sorry you felt wronged, and I’m sure he will ask your permission in the future.
However, it is perfectly normal to pull extensive quotations from someone else’s work for the purpose of commenting and/or responding to them (hence the term “pull quote”). This happens all the time, and is perfectly legal. In fact, I can’t think of a single blog that I have ever read where the author DID NOT use large and multiple quotations from the source that he/she was commenting on. This is just common blogging practice. In short, quotations are no more illegal and do not infringe on copyrights any more than simple restatements do.
Now, I do not wish to be argumentative any more, nor do I wish you to continue to feel wronged by either myself or MG. But I also wish to make it clear that MG has done nothing illegal, nor has he violated normal blogging etiquette. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from leveling such heavy accusations in the future without doing much more extensive research.
That being said, your personal preference about the quoting of your material will be taken into account, and if you should wish to engage in discussion here (or on MG’s blog) in the future, we will keep it in mind and make sure to check with you first.
http://mykenora.com/myk/library/cybercamp/frmnetiquette.html
hokku, you’ve gotta be kidding me bro. Mike was not presenting any of your material as his own. He simply quoted you, identifying you as the person to whom the quote is attributed. You don’t have a copyright on blog material anyways, but even if you did, what Mike did was well within the range of normal blog protocol.
Forget about blogs even. Think about an academic paper. Do I have to ask Alvin Plantinga’s permission before I quote from one of his books or papers? No. I merely have to properly attribute the quote to him, not trying to pass it off as an original work. Now, obviously what counts as proper attributing is much looser on the blogosphere than it is in an academic paper because blogging is an inherently informal medium. What Mike did was perfectly acceptable, and is simply the way things are done in the blogosphere. Chill out.