This is a comparison of a comment by Doctor Logic about the independence of the New Testament authors, and a prescient response by Tim and Lydia McGrew from the Blackwell essay quoted in the previous post.
DL: There are several Christian claims that I see repeated here at DI that drive me bananas. First, there's the claim that there were independent witnesses to the Resurrection. There weren't. You have essentially one account because the authors were part of the same cabal. The collaborated at every stage.
T & L McGrew: Though some scholars have challenged these accounts as later additions,
there are serious reasons to take them to be authentic reports of what the
women said. First, the prima facie tensions in the narratives of the
discovery of the tomb and the first appearances of Christ tell strongly
against collusion, copying, and embellishment. One evangelist gives
an account of one angel at the tomb, another of two; one has the
women setting out “early, while it was yet dark,” another sets the scene
“when the sun was risen.” The lists of the women who are named in the
various gospels overlap only partially. Some puzzling details are never
worked out for the reader. If Mary Magdalene ran back to tell Peter
and John, how did they fail to meet the other women as they returned?
What did Jesus mean when he said “Touch me not” to Mary Magdalene?
These are the sorts of loose ends and incongruities one would expect
from independent eyewitness accounts of the same event, where
substantial unity – agreement on the main facts – is accompanied
by circumstantial variety.
12 comments:
What is interesting about this sort of argument is that it seems to imply that internal contradictions are actually evidence for the inspiration of scripture, as opposed to evidence against--the typical claim touted by Bible antagonists.
Are we to believe that a Bible free of internal tensions would actually be considered by believers to count against inspiration?
I think not. It’d be quite the opposite.
This smacks of “heads I win-tails you lose” on the part of the apologist.
Anon,
Why do you think that this discussion is about inspiration?
Hi Tim,
Granted.
I think the discussion here is about whether the Gospel accounts were written in good faith. No?
Frankly, with respect to that question, I think the arguments put forth here are very respectable.
I bring up inspiration because it strikes me that evidence in support of good-faith historical accounts, ironically, seems to undercut inspiration.
Personally, I think it more likely that the Bible would be free of contradictions it were truly divine.
Sorry to change the subject. Probably a discussion for another time.
This does raise some interesting issues about inerrancy, because it is looking as if, in order to get a set of Gospels out there that show convincing signs of being independent, God has to inspire writers to make good-faith efforts to get the facts but at the same time to permit them to make some factual errors, and the overall message is actually enhanced by the errors!
However, whether this kind of "errancy" is something that should be of concern to a "Chicago-style" inerrantist is something I am not sure about. It is of no concern to me.
Differing post-resurrection accounts can point to divergent oral traditions. It does not necessarily point towards eyewitnesses writing from different perspectives. Or the authors simply did not know what happened and got a little creative in the story telling. We also see signs of the later evangelists correcting "mistakes" found in earlier gospels. The gospels show unmistakable signs of literary interdependence, not actual collusion by the authors.
Anon,
Fair enough. I agree that it's really a different discussion.
These are the sorts of loose ends and incongruities one would expect
from independent eyewitness accounts of the same event, where
substantial unity – agreement on the main facts – is accompanied
by circumstantial variety.
This is the argument that drives me bananas.
When the gospels were written, a few decades after the events depicted in them, they were written as a way to record the oral traditions and teachings that had accumulated up to that point. It is quite possible that the differing accounts are there because no individual gospel author knew what exactly was the "true" version of events.
In a faith community, especially one built on a trusts of the veracity of that community's claims by various figures, it is difficult to simply throw things out once they have become part of that faith community's story.
This happens all the time in our current day and age. When we are uncertain about which historical account is the most accurate, we simply preserve all of the accounts that we are aware of rather than make a choice about an event we weren't able to witness.
What happens when different people have different portrayals of an event...and those portrayals conflict with one another?
Other than saying that there was some sort of event, we can't say much about whose portrayal is correct and whose portrayal is skewed by agenda, memory, embellishment...etc.
I put forth that the gospel writers....well actually the people who decided to preserve the gospels...preserved the different accounts because they didn't know which was the best and most accurate recounting of events. It was better to preserve them all, rather than eliminate something that might have been important. After all, who could tell, from their perspective, what might be of spiritual importance? Jesus was awfully good at taking obscure references and using them to illustrate a teaching or make a point.
Who's the person that wants to risk accidentally eliminating something Jesus might have said?
This might also explain the ending that was tacked onto the gospel of Mark which just so happens to harmonize all of the various resurrection stories.
Someone was paying attention and decided that it made much more sense to harmonize all those accounts rather than have to deal with the epistemological uncertainty of wondering which accounts were the right accounts.
Errors don't make things more true and are not any kind of evidence for anything.
Terri,
You might find it useful to spend some time comparing the independent accounts of events in secular history. One finds there the same pattern of discrepancies and sometimes outright contradictions on points of detail, together with unanimity on the main outlines of the event.
The discrepancies and loose ends do indicate that no one has gone back over the narratives to smooth everything out.
Tim,
I don't disagree. In fact, that was my point. In genera,l when we are in doubt about things, we preserve everything. That is not an indicator of certainty about what happened.
It is a literary/historical admission that we're not really sure...that any of the possible scenarios might be the "true" one.
ANd the added ending in Mark 16 is certainly an attempt to smooth things out. I don't see how it could be seen in any other way. We know it isn't original to the early gospels and it just happens to corroborate all the other gospels, showing a literary awareness of the other gospels and their endings and the various discrepancies that existed.
I'm not advancing anything extraordinary here. WE do the saem thing.
Why do we keep the added ending of Mark and the story of the adulterous woman in John? Most modern bibles include a note saying that these additions are not found in the earliest manuscripts....yet we still include them with the gospels.
It's that same tendency to keep what has become valuable to the faith tradition even though we are not certain that it was really a part of the early tradition....which can make us question the historicity of those sections.
Most people wouldn't want to excise the story of the adulterous woman because it is a powerful teaching about the forgiveness of sin and Jesus' acceptance of sinners.
Can you imagine a world in which "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" wasn't a poignant common saying which most of the adult population, even those who don't know where it comes from, understood and appreciated.
It has become an important touchstone even though the whole thing might not have happened.
Why would we think that early Christians would have behaved any differently when it comes to stories about Jesus and the Resurrection?
It isn't until many years later that the leadership of the Christian movement realizes that they might need to set some boundaries about what was part of the accepted canon and what wasn't.
McGrew claims that if insurance companies receive reports of accidents, written 30 years after the events, and which deliberately change them (as Matthew and Luke changed Mark), then they would pay up.
Sorry, but you would not even get a claim for a new windscreen passed by an insurance company on this 'documentation', let alone a claim that somebody rose from the dead and 'became a life-giving spirit'.
These women at the tomb no more existed than the Angel Moroni did.
No Christian ever wrote a document saying he met them.
Why can't Christians actually produce some evidence that somebody saw an empty tomb, rather than write articles about how the Gospels must be true because they contradict each other on the basic facts?
TIM
You might find it useful to spend some time comparing the independent accounts of events in secular history. One finds there the same pattern of discrepancies and sometimes outright contradictions on points of detail, together with unanimity on the main outlines of the event.
CARR
Of course, the Bible claims that if witnesses agree 'on the main outlines of the event', but disagree on the details, then they are discredited, and could not even be accepted by a kangaroo court.
MARK 14
Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59Yet even then their testimony did not agree
Tim would immediately jump up and point out that these witnesses agreed on the main outline, that Jesus said 'I will destroy this temple', and the fact that their testimony did not agree proves they were all telling the truth.
How stupid the Biblical author was not to realise that if their testimony did not agree, that meant they were telling the truth.
McGrew claims that if insurance companies receive reports of accidents, written 30 years after the events, and which deliberately change them (as Matthew and Luke changed Mark), then they would pay up.
I think it's pretty clear this isn't what McGrew was saying.
In the context, 30 years isn't that great of a period of time at all. For a culture steeped in an oral tradition.
More importantly, Jesus didn't come to give us Scripture (not by itself at least), he came to establish a Church - the living body of Christ.
Your criticism fails on Catholicism.
Sorry, but you would not even get a claim for a new windscreen passed by an insurance company on this 'documentation', let alone a claim that somebody rose from the dead and 'became a life-giving spirit'.
You're still misunderstanding the point of the comparison. It wasn't with regards to "would a claim for payout still be accepted".
But again, your comparison fails on Catholicism, because the Church (the living body of Christ) was established before Scripture. This was never disputed.
So, the retelling of the story (only 30 years?) can still maintain viability and then later be written down.
These women at the tomb no more existed than the Angel Moroni did.
You're entitled to run with your misunderstanding and come to these conclusions - don't be stunned when others aren't impressed.
No Christian ever wrote a document saying he met them.
How many people back then do you think had the ability to read? Let alone write? Let alone the resources to write extended personal journals? When, again, taking into account the living body of Christ (the Church).
Why can't Christians actually produce some evidence that somebody saw an empty tomb
Why? For you to find ways to discount that as well?
A growing Church, martryed Church Fathers, and a cannon of Scripture didn't do it for you. Aside from polaroids.... what do you suggest?
rather than write articles about how the Gospels must be true because they contradict each other on the basic facts?
Not on the 'basic facts' but on 'corollary facts'. And this brings us back to the point McGrew made. You remember, the point you contorted out of shape and confusedly mocked because you thought it would be tantamount to asking a company intent on keeping money on their side to paying out for insurance claims.
Post a Comment