Can the NT post-resurrection accounts be reconciled? -- Toby Beau vs. llamaluvr

[RBH]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Toby Beau and llamaluvr, who will debate the following resolution:

Resolved: The post-resurrection accounts of the New Testament cannot be reconciled.

Toby Beau will affirm and llamaluvr will oppose. The debate will have three rounds plus a closing statement from each participant.

A peanut gallery will be has been set (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=219338) up in BC&H.

Enjoy!

RBH, Admin & Acting FDD Mod.

Addendum (Sept. 15): the debaters have agreed make the final round concurrent instead of turns and the time limit will be extended to a period of 4 days.

[Toby Beau]

Thanks llamaluvr for agreeing to debate and thanks RBH for moderating.

Apologists want us to read the New Testament as both scripture and history. They appeal to the contradictions as "signs" that the authors didn't conspire together and should be trusted for that fact; however on Sunday morning we're expected to believe there are NO contradictions, because it's the word of God. They want to have the best of both worlds, skipping between the world of critical history and inerrant doctrine. But for the sake of intellectual honesty, this cannot be done.

The New Testament has six written accounts of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. A few are similar to one another, but in general they disagree greatly. A common response to this criticism is an analogy to eyewitness reports of a car crash. To anticipate this response, I'd like to discuss what I take to mean by harmonize. Let's take for example this scenario: a car accident with 4 witness reports.

Bob: "I saw the blue car rear end the red car which pushed it into the green car."
Jim: "I saw the red car hit the side of a green car, then the blue car hit the red car from behind."
Sarah: "The red car ran a red light and hit a black car and the blue car hit the red one from the other side."
Jake: "The red car was stopped at the light, then the green car hit him and pushed him back into the blue car."

Now lets say that we are to take each account as "gospel truth" (pun intended). Each report must be correct and can contain no errors. Each report mentioned 3 cars but there is a discrepancy between color of the cars (Sarah saw a black car). Since Sarah is inerrant, there must have been a fourth car which the others chose not to speak of.

What about the order in which the cars collided? Bob says the blue pushed red into green. So red couldn't have hit green first. But, Jim says he saw red hit green, and then get hit by blue. Since there cannot be a contradiction, blue must have hit red twice! Once before red hit green and once after. But when we take Sarah's account we see that blue hit red, which hit green and then black. Then blue hit red again. Now, we must interpret Jake in light of the others. Jake says red was stopped at the light, then green hit him. But we must understand that Jake is really looking at this from a big picture; it really reads more like this:

"The red car was stopped at the light, [then blue hit red, causing him to run the red light] then the green car hit him [then the black car hit him] and pushed him back into the blue car [which hit him for the second time]."

There we go! I was able to, with some creative license, successfully harmonize the accounts of the "Great Car Crash." Poor old red actually got hit 4 times! I was quite impressed with myself for being able to accomplish this, but even more amazingly was the way in which this explanation sounds so strangely convincing. I almost fooled myself. :) But the account I just gave of the "Great Car Crash" was not a true harmonization, but a post-hoc rationalization. What's most reasonable? That three or more of the witnesses mistook or misremembered details of the crash, or that the blue car actually hit the red car into two others, backed up and hit him again?

I want the readers to watch out for this type of pseudo-harmonization from my opponent because it is the most typically I've heard. It's possible to change the meanings of words, interpolate or remove words or phrases and ultimately contradict the plain, obvious meaning of the story. It's challenging and it takes some clever thinking; but as you can see from my car crash story, it can be done. If my opponent is able to accomplish only this, I will be forced to commend his clever and creative wit. But I'm not looking for a nice story, I'm looking for a reason to trust the New Testament as reliable history.

The following is my summary of the post-resurrection stories in the NT.

1. Mark 16 - Three women (Mary Magdalene; Mary, James' mother and Salome) went to the tomb early Sunday morning to anoint Jesus' body. On the way, they wondered what they were going to do about the rock covering the tomb. They approached the tomb and saw the rock already rolled away and a young man in a white robe sitting in the tomb. The man tells them to go tell disciples and Peter; women run away, are seized with fear and they tell nobody. Then Jesus got up and appeared to Mary Magdalen. Mary ran to tell the disciples and found them weeping and they didn't believe her. Then Jesus appeared to two unnamed disciples; they went to tell the rest but they still didn't believe. Then Jesus appeared to all 11 while they’re having dinner. He reprimands them for their lack of faith. He tells them to preach to the world, handle snakes and drink poison. Then he goes up to heaven.
note:
* three women at the tomb
* stone moved prior
* one man meets them at the tomb
* ascends to heaven the same day


2. Matthew 28 - Early Sunday morning Mary Magdalen and “the other Mary” went to go see the grave. They found the stone still in place over the tomb and guards on duty. A massive earthquake happened and an angel came down out of the sky to roll away the stone. The guards fainted from fright. The women stood and the angel told them not to be afraid. He told them that Jesus was not in the tomb, but was raised. He showed them the empty spot where and said that Jesus was on on his way to Galilee. In great joy they ran to the disciples and were met by Jesus on the way. They exchanged greetings and the women ran off to get the other disciples. The disciples came and worshipped Jesus. He assured them that he has full authority on earth and tells them to go to all the world, telling them to be baptized and to keep the commandments. He told them that he is “with you all the days until the culmination of the age.” No ascension into heaven.
note:
* Two women at the tomb
* stone still in place
* angel removes stone
* disciples do not doubt women's story


3. Gospel of Luke - At least five Unnamed women (later revealed to be Mary Magdalen, Mary of James, Joanna and “the rest”) arrived early Sunday morning to anoint the body. The stone was already rolled away. They took a peek around and didn't see his body. Then two men appeared beside them in shining clothing. The women were terrified and the men asked them why they were looking for Jesus at remind them of what Jesus taught about and they're like “Oh, right. We forgot about that.” They left the tomb and went to tell the guys. The guys didn’t believe the women, but Peter ran to the tomb and found the empty linen wrappings. He walked away "marveling". Later, as two disciples went on a 7 mile journey, Jesus appeared in disguise to question them. They told him everything that happened up to date and Jesus rebuked them for not knowing the signs. They decided to take this stranger out for dinner, and when breaks bread Jesus-style they suddenly realized who he was. Then Jesus disappeared. They ran to tell the other disciples and then Jesus suddenly appeared to everyone. Some suggested it was a hallucination or spiritual vision, but Jesus let them touch his flesh. He ate some food and he told them about all the stuff he taught them about the prophesies and such. They opened up their minds and they began to understand. He led them to a place called Beth-Anu (house of the sun) and is carried up to heaven.
note:
* Five women at tomb
* Stone already rolled away
* Two men meet them
* Women never actually see Jesus
* Ascends to heaven on same day


4. Acts of the Apostles - Jesus hangs out for 40 days after his resurrection. It says that he only appeared to the disciples. He tells them about the Kingdom of God. Then he slowly lifts into heaven, above the clouds. Even after he’s passed out of sight, they’re all still watching. Then two men in white garments says to stop gaping at the sky, because he’s coming back.
note:
* Ascends to heaven 40 days later


5. John - Early Sunday morning, Mary Magdalen went alone to the tomb. She saw the stone rolled away and ran away to tell Peter and “Jesus’ favorite disciple”. In hysterics, she lamented that Jesus’ body has been stolen and she didn’t know where it could be. The two disciples literally raced each other to the tomb. Peter lost. They saw the empty sheets. They understood what was going on, but they also sort of didn't. They turned and went home. Mary stood outside the tomb blubbering until two angels appeared. They asked her why she was crying. She told them that someone stole Jesus’ body. Jesus then appeared in disguise. Mary thought he was a gardener and asked him to tell her where he took Jesus’ body. He says, "Mary!"; she shouts, “Teacher!” (I'm sure it was very dramatic). Jesus then told her NOT to touch him because he has not yet ascended into heaven. He sent her to go get his “brothers” and tell them what’s up. She did. Later that evening, Jesus popped into a house where the disciples were. He showed them his scars and told them that they can forgive sins. Thomas wasn’t there at this time and he didn’t believe the others. Eight days later, they were having another party and Thomas WAS there. Jesus came again and challenged Thomas to stick his fingers into Jesus' open wounds. Jesus rebuked the need for evidence and praised blind faith. The author says that there were many other deeds that were not recorded. Later on, (no earlier than Monday morning for sure) Jesus found Peter, Thomas, Nathanial, the sons of Zebadiah and two others fishing. Jesus did a sort of miracle and they caught a bunch of fish. They dragged it in and Jesus cooked them breakfast. The rest couldn't be contained in all the books in the world. No ascension into heaven.

note:
* One woman at tomb
* Peter & "favorite-guy" are first to know, before any angels tell Mary anything
* Doesn't let people touch him (except Thomas, who doesn't)
* Stays for at least an extra day
* Jesus appears at the tomb


6. Paul letter to Church in Corinth - Jesus was raised on the third day. Was seen by Cepheus (Peter), then by the twelve. After that, he was seen by over five hundred brothers at once. After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Finally, he appeared to Paul.

note:
* 12 disciples (instead of 11) which don't even include Peter, James or the apostles
* No appearance to women


Thank you. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

[llamaluvr]

Hello. I would like to join Toby Beau in thanking RBH for moderating, as well as thanking Toby for proposing this debate.

My opposition made an example of four accounts of an automobile accident that I think is an excellent place to start. I have to admit I read through them rather quickly, because I certainly did not have the desire to try to reconcile four such disparate accounts. Thus, I was quite surprised when my opposition essentially reconciled them, even if it was a farfetched explanations! I found these accounts far more difficult to piece together than the post-resurrection histories.

I do see his point regarding the headstands people will go through to attempt to reconcile. There are many such exercises executed upon Biblical texts that are truly ridiculous. However, the point which my opposition proved- that incredibly disparate accounts can often be reconciled- still stands. Indeed,.

He makes another point about whether the best interpretation is that all four were telling the truth, or whether one or more individuals was mistaken. I would contend every situation is different. Something like a car accident happens so quickly, it would be easy to only recall a few facts- the facts you might consider essential to explaining what happened. One moment you see crunching metal and next moment the cars are heaped together, and, unless you saw it as it happened, you might have no idea how those cars got clumped together- and, even if you did see it, you might still be fuzzy on the details.

However, I do not believe the post-resurrection accounts are an example of this. In fact, I honestly don't believe the "Great Car Crash" is very analogous to the gospel accounts. In the car accident, you have four people trying to give a complete understanding of what happened- or at least giving the details essential to a complete understanding. The gospel accounts are not ordered towards a complete understanding of Jesus's post-resurrection activities.

When someone writes something for third-party consumption, as the gospel writers did, they generally have a point or intention in mind. I believe my opposition's arguments have in mind that the intention of the writers of the post-resurrection accounts (specifically the gospels) was to give a complete understanding of what happened. However, it is clear that they instead intended to simply demonstrate that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead, and, in a more general sense, that Jesus is the son of God. Admittedly, they could have done that by each giving a complete explanation of everything that happened, but, for whatever reason, they chose not to.

John speaks to us most directly to this fact, saying, " Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name," (John 20:30-31) and also in John 21:25 when he speaks of the many other miracles performed by Jesus. John's post-resurrection account reinforces this, as he is very short on details of the very first visit to the tomb, where other authors go into much detail. Elsewhere, in more than one book, we miss important details of Jesus's life, like the nativity story.

Similarly, Luke directly states his intentions, stating he wrote this gospel for Theophilus "so that [he] may know the exact truth about the things [he had been] taught." The gospel serves as verification for the instruction Theophilus has received regarding the Christian faith, not as much for his curiosity regarding the minutiae of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection.

Taken together, the gospels average about one (very short) chapter each on an event to which your average biographer would devote half of a book. In this framework, we can see how reconciliation is a reasonable activity. Nobody was trying to give you the full story in the first place, so maybe by fitting them together you can obtain a greater understanding of the events than if you just had one account that (of course) would reconcile very easily with itself alone. Even if we had no claim of inerrancy to defend or defeat, an honest attempt at reconciliation is still important for the examination of the historicity of the claims therein.

I will take on what I perceive as the key questions presented here, with some others answered in my affirmation later in the debate.

1. How long before Jesus was assumed into heaven?

To get this out of the way, no gospel account that does not mention the ascension actually denies the ascension, so there is no issue affirming the ascension from a cohesivity standpoint. The late authorship dates generally offered for the Gospel of John would indicate that much of his readership would be otherwise aware of the ascension, and he may not have felt a need to state it, or he may have felt it was outside of the scope of his intentions for writing.

The account that would seem to be the most likely to indicate that Jesus ascended on the same day as he resurrected would be that of Mark 16. In the NASB, verse 14 begins with "afterward," as in, after the account of the women and the brief reference to Emmaus, Jesus appeared to the eleven apostles, not really indicating a time period, although Luke more positively affirms that this probably took place on the same day, so it is reasonable to assume it did. However, it can be argued that the entire appearance was described in verse 14. The author says Jesus appeared and rebuked them. Luke affirms basically the same story in more detail, not tying the content of Mark 16:15 to the same episode.

The only evidence we have that the events of Mark 16:14 and Mark 16:15 happened directly after another is a) their close proximity in the text, and the word "and," or Greek equivalent thereof. However, the word "and" appears elsewhere in Mark to combine events that most likely could not have directly proceeded each other in such a short time frame. "Immediately" shows up more often in the NASB when it comes to events directly proceeding one another, and even then it doesn't always mean those events all happened in the same day. I don't know Greek, so I couldn't tell you a whole lot about it, but the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that clauses in Mark are most frequently strung together by the Greek word kai, a simple conjunctive analogous to "and" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm), so the use of "and" is most-likely representative of the meaning of the text and the spirit of the translation.

The onus of proving Mark is speaking of the same day is on my opposition. To assume he is definitely speaking of the same day is to read more into the text than is there.

The same claim of Luke's account is even more farfetched. Again, all we have to go by in Luke 24:50 is a simple conjunctive. If the NASB is at all a decent literal translation, and both my opposition and I agree it is, these authors used conjunctives a quite differently than we do today. However, even today, if someone said to you, "So-and-so did this, and he did that, and he did the other thing," we would still need other context to determine whether or not it was all in the same day. Finally, common authorship for both Luke and Acts is about the least-disputed thing out there, and, as my opposition notes, Acts affirms that Jesus ascended forty days later.

1a. 1 Corinthians 15:4-8

It is important to note first and foremost that Paul's intention here is not to recount the entire post-resurrection story, but to establish the authority by which he preached the resurrection (see the rest of the chapter). It helps to explain why he has focused on the Apostles, mainly. It's a matter of apostolic authority- the Corinthian church was teaching contrary to that which was witnessed by the Apostles (and, a few hundred others). Paul neither says he is making an attempt to recount all of his appearances, nor does he even imply it.

Paul had contact with the Apostles, apparently, so he probably was not confused about how many of them there were. "The twelve" could just as easily stand for the entire lot of Apostles, or the rest of the apostles besides those already mentioned. Simply saying "the twelve" doesn't mean an exact number necessarily, not when you have a group of people commonly known as that. In Computer Science, we are fond of the Gang of Four, writers of the seminal book Design Patterns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns). Just because John Vlissides died about two years ago doesn't mean we're going to start calling them the Gang of Three.

Also, he does not rule out the same person witnessing Jesus more than once. In fact, that's what he does- he mentions the whole group of Apostles twice. It also does not eliminate post-ascension appearances, as Paul mentions his own vision.

2. How many women?

There's really not a whole lot to this one. No account excludes the possibility of someone not mentioned being there, as well. Mary Magdalene's the only one anybody really needed to mention to move the story along, anyway. My friend recently told me he met Grady Sizemore at a restaurant in Kansas City last week. He was there with two others who also met him. If Bobby hadn't mentioned the other two who were with him in an earlier part of the conversation, and Justin and Aaron tell me next week they met Grady Sizemore with Bobby, would Bobby have been lying? The point of the story was that Bobby met Grady Sizemore- that's why he told it in the first place.

3. How many angels?

Same thing as with the women, basically. If the other synoptics said, "There is only one angel here," that would be a legitimate beef, but Luke is the only one that ever numbers them- the others just describe the one and tell us what he says. Additionally, it is not inaccurate to describe an angel as a "man in white," if, indeed, he is a man in white.

4. When was the stone rolled away?

Matthew seems to disagree with the other synoptics here, but the story of the stone being rolled away seems to be some sort of interjection into the story about the women visiting the tomb. Matthew 24:2 says, "a severe earthquake had occurred." The key word there is "had." It sounds like it happened before the women got there. This also explains why neither Matthew nor any of the other gospels record the women being bullied by the guards.

5. Did the women see Jesus first?

I will be explaining more when I offer a complete reconciliation in my affirmation later, but it should be noted that Matthew, Mark, and John affirm that the first appearance was to at least Mary Magdalene, if not other women with her, as well, while Luke is silent on the issue of who saw him first. Matthew is the only one where the is a question of whether this happened before the disciples were told (and possibly then Peter went to the tomb). But, Matthew 28-8-9 does not indicate they were interrupted by Jesus on their first return trip from the tomb, so we cannot assume they did not tell the men before Jesus saw them. Again, all we really have is that simple conjunctive. The others either affirm or strongly suggest they women saw Jesus in a separate trip.

6. Did the men doubt the women's story?

Mark, Luke, and John affirm that they did, while Matthew doesn't mention anything about the men's response. These are not the droids you are looking for.

--

That’s a good place to start. And I’m out of words, anyway.

[RBH]

Tony Beau has requested an extension due to a family emergency, and I have granted it.

[Toby Beau]

Thanks for the time extension. It sounds lame, but my wife and I lost our friend's cat who we were taking care of. We searching around our neighborhood all day and all night and I fell behind on sleep, school and this debate. But all is well, she was found and I'm back in action.

My opponent argues that it's clear that the gospel authors intended to communicate their own point or intention of the resurrection of Jesus. I agree. Each author has a different opinion about what Jesus and his followers did and said. This however, gives more reason to suppose the gospel accounts were never intended to jive with one another in the first place. Llamaluvr claims that the authors were not writing complete accounts, but each writing is part of a single collaboration on the life of Jesus. This theory implies that there was a sort of community involvement among the authors; that they lived in the same place in the same time and wrote their accounts around the same time as one another. I will explain why this theory does not hold up.

First, why don't we see more harmonization between the gospels? Could any rational person ignore the glaring inconsistencies if they had all four accounts together, comparing and checking details? Even granting that each author wants to communicate a different theological slant to a different audience, they would still want to get their story straight and it would have been easy to do so. Checking out the story and getting the details right would have been a sign of good, honest and critical history. What theological lesson would be lost if John would have just told us it was 3 women who found Jesus at the tomb? Was it that much of a chore to simply make sure the fundamental details of the story were correct? If the authors had the means to check the facts but failed to do so, it would be a sign of laziness and poor scholarship. The whole situation sounds more like the authors made the whole thing up and blew their cover by not being able to keep their story straight.

Second, each account is written as a sequence of events. If they were general stories left open for details, they would have just made simple, generic statements. There is no need to include details which may be false or misleading. These accounts don't gloss over the details, they proclaim them! John tells us how Mary thought at first that the body was stolen, that the disciples raced to the tomb and that Peter lost the race. Then Mary was alone, then two angels appeared, then Jesus appeared. Matthew records an angel sitting on the tomb waiting to meet the women. These details don't support the theory that the gospels are merely writing a general overview of the facts. If John is to busy to bother writing that there were five women as opposed to one, why include details such like the exact number of fish caught at the post-res cookout in John 21.

Third, the stories wouldn't make sense if the details of the others were added. Take, for example, John's account. If we must add the missing details of Matthew, it would look more like this: (details added in brackets)
" Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene [with Mary the mother of James, Joanna, Salome and others] came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.[Because an angel came and rolled the stone away and made the guards faint. The angel sat on the tomb told them "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified... He has risen... Go quickly and tell His disciples... "(Matt 28:2-8)] So she ran [And Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me."(Matt 28:9-10)] [and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest, but they didn't believe them.(Luke 24:9,11)] And [she] came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
Taking into account these details makes John's story completely meaningless! If Mary saw the angel that was sitting on the tomb and was met by Jesus as she left, why would she tell Simon and the other disciple that she thought his body was stolen? John's account at least makes logical sense when read alone. These holes don't exist in the story plots, but are pounded in by apologists trying feebly to hold to perfect inerrancy.


Finally, the conflicting sections of the gospels are not simply negations or additions of details or accounts. They are re-writings of the same accounts. John says that Mary saw the empty tomb and went immediately to Peter. Matthew says an angel opened the tomb and showed them the fact that the tomb was empty, then explained to the women where Jesus was. Mark says that a man who was sitting in the tomb showed them that Jesus wasn't there. Luke says that the women discovered the empty tomb, then the angels appeared. These are four accounts of the same event.Instead of elaborating on each other or adding details, the gospels just contradict and confuse one another.

The theory that the four gospels are each writing part of a story is false in light of what's actually written. They are full of specific detail and sequences of events which conflict, contrast and confuse the other accounts. There is no logical way to harmonize them.

I'll use the rest of my post to respond to some of Llamaluvr's arguments.


1a. 1 Corinthians 15:4-8

It is important to note first and foremost that Paul's intention here is not to recount the entire post-resurrection story, but to establish the authority by which he preached the resurrection...
...Also, he does not rule out the same person witnessing Jesus more than once. In fact, that's what he does- he mentions the whole group of Apostles twice. It also does not eliminate post-ascension appearances, as Paul mentions his own vision.
Have you ever done one of those logic puzzles where you have a list of clues and you have to fill in who did what and so on? One clue that helps to differentiate between people is to use one name in a sentence among other clues. For example: "Bill and the person who has a blue hat don't play softball". That clue gives us enough information to put an X under "Bill" and "Softball" and "Blue Hat" and "Softball". But it also leads us to believe that "Bill" is not the one with the blue hat. The listing of Peter, James, the Twelve and the Apostles in the same sentence infers that they are in different groups, for this same reason


2. How many women?
There's really not a whole lot to this one. No account excludes the possibility of someone not mentioned being there, as well. Mary Magdalene's the only one anybody really needed to mention to move the story along, anyway. My friend recently told me he met Grady Sizemore at a restaurant in Kansas City last week. He was there with two others who also met him. If Bobby hadn't mentioned the other two who were with him in an earlier part of the conversation, and Justin and Aaron tell me next week they met Grady Sizemore with Bobby, would Bobby have been lying? The point of the story was that Bobby met Grady Sizemore- that's why he told it in the first place.

It's laughable to suppose John is simply trimming the fat to move the story along. I'm sure it's a truly boring story by itself. I can imagine his editor saying "Whats all this about all kinds of women and the tomb? Let's get this story moving, who's the most important one? Magdalen? Ok, keep her in, cut the rest of those broads out, we don't need to know that! Oh, by the way; how many fish did Peter catch at the end? We need to know this stuff!"

Also, your anecdote about Grady Sizemore is not a good analogy. First, Bobby DID mention the other two. So he obviously felt it would be honest to include the fact that Aaron and Justin met Grady as well. If they all met Grady, why would the point of the story be that Bobby met Grady?

Contrary to popular belief, numbers actually mean something. 1 does not mean "maybe 2 or more", it means 1. If I tell my wife that A friend is coming over for dinner, how would she react when five friends sit down to eat and my response is "well, just because I said "one" doesn't rule out four others. There is at least one!"

3. How many angels?

Same thing as with the women, basically. If the other synoptics said, "There is only one angel here," that would be a legitimate beef, but Luke is the only one that ever numbers them- the others just describe the one and tell us what he says. Additionally, it is not inaccurate to describe an angel as a "man in white," if, indeed, he is a man in white.

In English, using the indefinite article "an" means referring to a single thing. There is no need to say "only one" unless there was some reason to suggest the reader was expecting more than one. How ridiculous would it be if Matthew said "Behold, there was a mighty earthquake and ONLY one angel descended from heaven and rolled away the tomb!" Only one? It wouldn't make sense. Saying AN angel is the same as saying ONE angel.
Also, it's not just the number or species of angel that's a problem, but when and in what manner the angels appeared to whom.

4. When was the stone rolled away?

Matthew seems to disagree with the other synoptics here, but the story of the stone being rolled away seems to be some sort of interjection into the story about the women visiting the tomb. Matthew 24:2 says, "a severe earthquake had occurred." The key word there is "had." It sounds like it happened before the women got there. This also explains why neither Matthew nor any of the other gospels record the women being bullied by the guards.

The mention of the word "had" only appears in the NASB, which is strange. But the original Greek (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=28&verse=2&version=KJV#2) uses the word γίνομαι (ginomai) which is the past tense of the verb, "to be". So "earthquake had occurred" vs. "there was a severe earthquake" might be the same thing. Since the whole story is in past tense, it's unclear when the earthquake was. However, granting that the earthquake happened before the women got there; the ANGEL rolling the stone away happened before the women's eyes. It says that the angel sat down and talked to them. So by using this defense, that it happened before the women got there, makes Johns account even MORE false. John says Mary saw nothing but an empty tomb before she fled to tell Peter. Interestingly, the translator/editors of "The Message" version defiantly seem to think that all this went down with the women there.
"After the Sabbath, as the first light of the new week dawned, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to keep vigil at the tomb. Suddenly the earth reeled and rocked under their feet as God's angel came down from heaven, came right up to where they were standing. He rolled back the stone and then sat on it. Shafts of lightning blazed from him. His garments shimmered snow-white. The guards at the tomb were scared to death. They were so frightened, they couldn't move. -The Message"

That's all I got for my rebuttal. I look forward to reading Llamaluvr's next post!

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Toby Beau, please note that your recent statement has slightly exceeded the word limit that you and llamaluvr agreed to prior from the parameters thread. We'll leave the statement as it is, but please try to keep future statements within the limit.

KWSN, FD Moderator

[llamaluvr]

In this portion of the double-affirmant debate, I will be affirming the opposite argument, that the post-resurrection accounts are indeed reconcilable.

I would like first to put forth fully what I see as the intentions of the gospel authors in writing, and what that means for reconciliation attempts. What we know is that they did *not* intend to describe everything in courtroom-esque detail. I was a juror in a federal narcotics case earlier this year, and, at one point, with the arresting agent on the stand, the prosecution proceeded to go through several copies of basically the same picture, asking over and over, "does this accurately depict the living room?" He went on for about an hour, at which point the judge called called a recess to wake the jury up and tell the prosecutor to cut the crap and present only relevant evidence. The guy wanted to show off every picture anybody took of the house on the day of the raid, relevant or not. Should I mention that he got lazy elsewhere, forgetting key evidence which required us to let the crack dealer off easy?

By all of them including the approximately three years of Jesus's ministry, his death, and resurrection we are well-aware they indented to give us sufficient details to understand that Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead. Luke affirms as much in his first chapter to Theophilus. None give any evidence that they tried to spell out every detail of Jesus's life. John tells us that there is a lot of things he did not describe (20:30-31, 21:25). Not every gospel describes Jesus's birth, not all of them go very deep into the work of John the Baptist. No gospel describes the miracles of every other gospel.

The gospels do recount some stories specifically. However, just because they dive into details in some places does not mean they intented to dive into every detail everywhere. In proving a point about somebody or something, anecdotal evidence can be helpful. A single detailed account can provide insight into how the person may have responded in theoretical non-documented situations. In this sense, the gospels often serve as a character reference for Jesus, rather than traditional biography. The gospels are ordered towards explaining his lordship rather than his entire life story.

Once we understand that the gospel writers weren't trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink in, we can see why there are a lot of differences. The four gospels have different slants to them, focusing on different events to give us a different angle on the story. We might understand more about St. Peter from Mark, or more about Jesus's birth from Luke. Each writer may have had a different opinion of what would be of most interest to their audience, if indeed their main intention was to offer context behind the claims they and other disciples had been making for several decades at that point. We're sure they had different audiences because they appear to have been written at different times in different locations within the Roman Empire, and possibly in different languages.

Given these facts, the question of reconciliation would hardly be of interest... except for the claim of Biblical inerrancy put forth by most Christian traditions. To better understand how reconciliation works we should understand what inerrancy is and is not. "Inerrancy" simply means the work is never wrong, not that it is especially right or clear or understandable. So, you can have the opinion that something should have been stated more clearly, or that it was not a good idea to omit certain facts, but those opinions don't invalidate inerrancy. Historically, there was never a need in Christendom for all truth to be able to be easily discerned from Biblical texts- the Bible has been interpretted in light of the faith passed on in the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church, which both wrote the scriptures and lived them in history. I hope my opposition will appreciate that claims against inerrancy must be thoroughly substanciated- they cannot simply arise from the notion that there must have been a better way to do it.

In the same vein, there are often claims that, when considering a reconciliation and the possibility that the writer was mistaken, we should defer to the latter. However, the latter can often require more backbending than the former! For instance, to suppose that in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 Paul was simply mistaken on his chronology, you have to convince yourself that he was actually completely breaking from his lesson he had been going on with for 14 previous chapters just to tell the Corinthians a story they already knew. It is far more reasonable to claim Paul was making a simple point about apostolic authority, something we know from previous chapters that the Corithian church had issues with. Likewise, it is usually far more reasonable to assume what the ancients largely affirm- that they were describing the events accurately, until proven otherwise. There were a lot of gospels out there. A lot of thought and time went into the affirmation of these four, and they could have affirmed none of them if they wanted to. If there is a contradiction, fine, but we can't make them up. Reconciliation merely interposes events from different works; assuming mistakes requires the invention of new information.

With that, I present an in-order reconcilation, with thesises afterwards addressing the potential issues I see. Thesis numbers will correspond to the ordering numbers.

1) Mary Magdalene and the other women went to the tomb (all). They may or may not have been all together.

2) On the way, they ask, "Who will roll away the stone?" (Mark)

3) Before they arrived, an angel rolled the stone away (Matthew).

4) Guards fall unconscious (Matthew)

5) Women arrive, find stone rolled away (all but Matthew).

6) Women enter the tomb (Mark). May have entered in multiple groups at different times

7) One or two angels were present (at least one in Mark, Matthew, two explicity in Luke). Different numbers may have been present if not all women entered the tomb concurrently.

8) Angel(s) explain that Jesus rose from the dead (Matthew, Mark, Luke).

9) Angel(s) state they should tell the disciples to go ahead and see him in Galilee (Matthew, Mark).

10) Women left (all) in fear( Matthew, Mark), didn't tell anyone right away/ on the way back (Mark).

11) Reported to apostles (Matthew, Luke).

11a) Reported specifically to Peter and other disciple (John?) regarding empty tomb (John).

12) Apostles express skepticism (Luke).

13) Peter went to tomb (Luke), with another disciple; at least Mary Magdalene joined (John).

14) Peter entered tomb (Luke, John), Mary stayed outside.

15) Peter saw linens (Luke, John).

16) Other disciple saw linens, believed (John).

17) Mary saw two angels inside tomb, angels asked Mary why she was crying (John).

18) Mary sees Jesus, expresses disbelief (John).

19) Mary see it is Jesus (John, Mark, Matthew).

20) Mary cling to Jesus (Matthew, John), Jesus asks her/ them to stop (John).

20a) Simimlar event of 17-20 happens to other women. Either he appeared to them separately, or the women joined Mary.

21) Women told apostles/ disciples (Mark, John)

22) Disciples express disbelief (Mark).

23) Appears to disciples on road to Emmaus (Mark, Luke).

24) Jesus appears to the apostles in Jerusalem (Mark, Luke, John).

25) Sometime later, Jesus appeared to them in Galilee (Matthew).

26) ...

27) Jesus ascended 40 days later (Acts).


Thesises:

1) In no account which presents a subset of the possible women does the author preclude other women from being in the group. Additionally, the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm) describes the possibility of multiple groups of women starting off separately and meeting at the tomb. These women probably didn't all live together, and it was early in the morning. Some authors may combine the women, while others offer differnt groups. For this event and events 17-20, it is possible that not all of the women were within the same vicinity at the same time. Either way makes sense- saying "Mary went to the tomb" does not preclude Salome from also tagging along, or from Salome being in a different party that went to the tomb.

3,5) Even in absense of grammatical indicators, the incident of how the stone rolled away is still set prior to the women arriving in Matthew. The angel asks what they are looking for. If the stone had been rolled away in front of them, Jesus probably would have popped out and they would not have been looking for them. Three gospels affirm this directly, the other alludes to it strongly, so what is the the most reasonable explaination here? My opponent will need to demonstrate that Matthew truly meant the stone was rolled away before their eyes, because abiguity definitely tilts towards the unity of the stories here.

5.2) John's account abbreviates the first visit. We do get about as much information here as from the other gospels, though. The most important information was that Jesus wasn't there. The angels' affirmation helped the case for Jesus being alive, but real proof still didn't come until later, when Mary and others saw Jesus in person. John's account seems to indicate that the women didn't fully believe the angels, a perfectly reasonable assumption.

7) Difference in number of angels is not a discrepancy even if all tomb accounts describe the same event, because no account describing one angel does not preculde that there weren't others. If there were multiple appearances to different groups, of course there then could be different numbers of angels. Tombs probably aren't that big. It's dubious that five women fit themselves in there at once, especially if Peter alone had to stoop in (John 20:5). My opponent needs to prove that the single-angel accounts actively preclude an additional angel and that all tomb accounts describe the same event.

8,9) Explainations from angels are harmonious enough that they could represent the same conversation, paraphrased, but they do have differences, which could be explained by different parties entering the tomb at different times.

10) In Mark, close ties to their return trip could indicate they simply didn't tell anybody on the way back. It says they were "afraid" - possibly of getting in trouble with authorities.

11,11a, 12) It is possible that they told all of the apostles present, but only after talking to Peter and John (?) did anybody take them seriously. Peter may have been more desperate than the others after his three denials.

13) Mark also makes clear that Jesus's appearance to Mary was at some point other than the first trip to the tomb.

17-20) Even though Mary has been to the tomb before, she, at most, only talked to the angels the first time. When she has already been to the tomb, back, and to the tomb again, and still hasn't seen Jesus, it would be easy to doubt that what the angels said is true. And, of course, she still hadn't actually seen Jesus until now.

21) Appearance to women in Matthew may different from appearance in John to Mary. My opposition would have to demonstrate how this is not possible. If different groups of women are being described, they probably weren't all together at once, and Jesus could appear any number of times to any group of them.

23) An aside, presents no continuity issues with other accounts.

24) Promised meeting with apostles in Galilee probably still stood, but after the initial response to the women's claims, we really had to wonder if they were ever going to show up. Jesus's appearance in Jerusalem may have been required in order to get them to Galilee.

25, 27) No mountain in Galilee is that close to Jerusalem, as I understand it. This shoots down any notion that Jesus ascended on Resurrection Sunday.

26) All other accounts are episodic in nature and present no particular difficulty.

[Toby Beau]

Llamaluvr claims that it's clear that each gospel author is not writing in order to give exhaustive detail about the life of Jesus. Also, that each author is presenting the same account with a different perspective in order to appeal to their different audiences. My opponent's argument is flawed for two reasons:

First, he's falsely characterizing my argument as demanding the impossible; a "courtroom-esque" detail of Jesus' life. I never said that such detail is necessary or even possible. His position is not made any more credible by attacking an argument that I never made.

Second, it's not enough for him to claim that the authors had different audiences and wrote in a point of view that would appeal to those audiences. Llamaluvr must first tell us who the audiences were, what their beliefs were and give probable evidence as to why certain details would entail a better understanding for said audience. For example: who was John's audience? What was it about that community that required John to "slant" the story in such a way that it appears only one woman went to the tomb and that she first ran to the disciples fearing that the body had been stolen? What contemporary evidence would support this? It's not enough for my opponent to say "they must have had a reason", we need a probable cause and a reason before we are to even entertain that hypothesis. Without any such evidence, his argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

The four gospels have different slants to them, focusing on different events to give us a different angle on the story. We might understand more about St. Peter from Mark, or more about Jesus's birth from Luke. Each writer may have had a different opinion of what would be of most interest to their audience, if indeed their main intention was to offer context behind the claims they and other disciples had been making for several decades at that point. We're sure they had different audiences because they appear to have been written at different times in different locations within the Roman Empire, and possibly in different languages.

I'd like Llamaluvr to explain in his next rebuttal how the contrary details of each story which I laid out, depends on these different perspectives. What about St. Peter do we learn by reading contrary accounts of the women, angels and empty tomb? He claims that he is sure they had different audience, but who were they? Why must Matthew's audience get the impression that the women at the tomb witnessed an angel roll away the stone (because in the absence of Mark, Luke or John's gospel there is no reason to suppose the women didn't witness the event) if in fact it happened before anyone arrived? (And if it did happen before, how exactly did Matthew even know to write about it? Surely not the guards, because Matthew says that they ran off to the Pharisees and were bribed! These sort of details scream "fiction"!)

Historically, there was never a need in Christendom for all truth to be able to be easily discerned from Biblical texts- the Bible has been interpretted in light of the faith passed on in the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church, which both wrote the scriptures and lived them in history. I hope my opposition will appreciate that claims against inerrancy must be thoroughly substanciated- they cannot simply arise from the notion that there must have been a better way to do it.

I have made a very complete case against inerrancy based on the fact that no single account of the gospels can be true without making the others false. The counter has been a very vague explanation about "different audiences" and "unique perspectives", but my opposition has not given any evidence to support those arguments.

In the same vein, there are often claims that, when considering a reconciliation and the possibility that the writer was mistaken, we should defer to the latter. However, the latter can often require more back bending than the former! For instance, to suppose that in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 Paul was simply mistaken on his chronology, you have to convince yourself that he was actually completely breaking from his lesson he had been going on with for 14 previous chapters just to tell the Corinthians a story they already knew.

All we would have to suppose is that Paul isn't mistaken, but actually has a completely separate chain of events in mind. If the 4 gospels are unreliable, as I'm arguing they are, there is no reason Paul should have an account similar to the gospels. Paul's writings came before the gospels

Now, concerning Llamaluvr's harmonization story.

As I promised, I must congratulate my opponent's clever and creative wit. :notworthy: I would have never thought of the groups of women and disciples actually splitting up and encountering Jesus. It reminds me of so many episodes of Scooby-Doo. Imagine a Hannah-Barbera-style Peter and John racing to the tomb; legs scrambling in mid-air before zooming over a wraparound scenery, arms out-stretched. Meanwhile, groups of women and disciples are startled by appearance after appearance of Jesus, popping in and out of each scene (I can hear the "tire screeching" sound effects as the disciples try to suddenly stop when they see the Lord leap out in front of them). I suppose if that's what happened, we should expect chaotic and confusing accounts. But even this crazy scenario, entertaining as it may be, does not cut it.

First, you must account for the fact that NO single gospel story expresses any of the same type of chaos you illustrated in your harmonization. Each is written as a sequence of events that makes perfect sense if read by itself, it's only when introduced to the other three that you are required to read in this type of madness.

Second, there are still contradictions. You still must account for Mary's quote in John 20:2 "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." Also, John tells us she saw the tomb then ran to the disciples and told them. She never had an encounter with any angels until after she tells Peter and John. You mentioned that Mary may have disbelieved in the angel, thus confided in Peter that she thinks he was stolen; but that still doesn't explain Luke 24:8 in which the women believed and went straight away to tell the disciples. Mark 16:9-10 also says that Mary first saw Jesus, then told the disciples.



1) In no account which presents a subset of the possible women does the author preclude other women from being in the group. ... These women probably didn't all live together, and it was early in the morning. ... Either way makes sense- saying "Mary went to the tomb" does not preclude Salome from also tagging along, or from Salome being in a different party that went to the tomb.

This rationalization reminds me of the old school-yard gag; Jim says to Mike, "I have two coins in my pocket totaling 35 cents, one of them isn't a quarter. What are the coins?" After hours of racking his brain, Mike confesses that he doesn't know the answer. "A quarter and a dime!" Says Jim. "But you said there wasn't a quarter!" protests Mike "No," replies Jim, "I said one of them wasn't a quarter. But the other one was!"

Well, yeah, he was technically right; but incredibly misleading. Did the gospel writers set up these riddles on purpose?

3,5) Even in absense of grammatical indicators, the incident of how the stone rolled away is still set prior to the women arriving in Matthew. The angel asks what they are looking for. If the stone had been rolled away in front of them, Jesus probably would have popped out and they would not have been looking for them. Three gospels affirm this directly, the other alludes to it strongly, so what is the the most reasonable explaination here? My opponent will need to demonstrate that Matthew truly meant the stone was rolled away before their eyes, because abiguity definitely tilts towards the unity of the stories here.

How would this story even be recorded if no one witnessed it? (Unless you want to admit that it's fiction). Reading the story in it's own context, there is no reason to suppose the whole ordeal didn't just go down right then and there. The angel rolls the rock, sits down and starts talking. There is no gap unless you put it in, then the story doesn't make sense. Jesus apparently already escaped the tomb by a different method. We can see in the later narratives that Jesus doesn't really need to use doors anymore. Matthew's story is explaining how the women came to realize the tomb was empty, they saw it happen!

7) Difference in number of angels is not a discrepancy even if all tomb accounts describe the same event, because no account describing one angel does not preculde that there weren't others. If there were multiple appearances to different groups, of course there then could be different numbers of angels. Tombs probably aren't that big. It's dubious that five women fit themselves in there at once, especially if Peter alone had to stoop in (John 20:5). My opponent needs to prove that the single-angel accounts actively preclude an additional angel and that all tomb accounts describe the same event.

Do I really have to prove that 1 != 2? Am I really telling the truth if I walk into a room with two guys and say there is one guy? This is more of examining each word and trying to fish out some new meaning rather than looking at the clear meaning of the text in context.

13) Mark also makes clear that Jesus's appearance to Mary was at some point other than the first trip to the tomb.

...which would contradict Luke and Matthew

17-20) Even though Mary has been to the tomb before, she, at most, only talked to the angels the first time. When she has already been to the tomb, back, and to the tomb again, and still hasn't seen Jesus, it would be easy to doubt that what the angels said is true. And, of course, she still hadn't actually seen Jesus until now.

Not if the angel was sitting on top of the tomb, proclaiming that Jesus is risen; "And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples." Matthew 28:8

21) Appearance to women in Matthew may different from appearance in John to Mary. My opposition would have to demonstrate how this is not possible. If different groups of women are being described, they probably weren't all together at once, and Jesus could appear any number of times to any group of them.

Since I've already demonstrated so many other inconsistencies, my case does not rest on this claim. However; I can easily demonstrate this. Matthew 28:1 clearly says "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary". They hear the angel and then..."8And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. 9And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him." Who is the them in verse 9? It's obviously Mary Magdalene and the other Mary! Unless you wish to posit a second "Mary Magdalene", then this issue now laid to rest.

[llamaluvr]

In his previous statement, regarding my statements about whether or not the gospel writers needed to go into exhaustive details about everything, my intention was not to accuse my opponent of holding that position, and I apologise if he took it that way. My intention was to point out that we cannot assume that the intention of the writers was to write an exhaustive narrative or biographical work. Because we cannot assume this, we cannot assume they thought it necessary to describe everything that happened to Jesus after he rose from the dead. Thus, we can expect there to be differences in the accounts- one author may have felt that some details were more important than another author did. This is artistic license. It's allowed.

My opponent has asked me to expound upon the different audiences for the gospels. My point wasn't as much about how the authors tried to appeal to their audiences, as much as the fact that they had different audiences and different authors tells us something about to what degree we should expect them to be similar. At any rate, we do know quite a bit about who wrote them and for what they were written for, and some of it can be directly related to the resurrection accounts. We know that Luke wrote to his patron Theophilus to enforce what he had already learned about the faith (Luke 1). Luke provides a lot of context, most likely for a Greek reader not directly familiar with early 1st-century Jewish politics. The Jewish Encyclopedia says regarding the Gospel of Matthew, "The gospel of Matthew stands nearest to Jewish life and the Jewish mode of thinking. It was written for Judæo-Christians and made ample use of an Aramaic original" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew).

Clement of Alexandria wrote that Mark composed his gospel at the request of several of those who had heard Peter preach in Rome. St. Papias also noted that Mark wrote down Peter's recollections, with no particular intention of giving a connected account (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm). This could explain some of the events that must have been separated by a significant time period being connected only by simple conjunctives.

For the Gospel of John, the later date (alluded to in chapter 21 by the mention of Peter's death) is a partial explaination for his greater focus on Christology, as the author may have already had access to the Synoptics and wished to expound upon them. That may account for the additional information about later post-resurrection appearancees of Jesus. Traditionally, it is believed Mary Magdalene followed Mary the mother of Jesus to Ephesus, likely making them part of the Johannine community (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm). This would explain the focus on Mary Magdalene in chapter 20- he may have gotten the story directly from her. Iraneus notes that John wrote the book in Ephesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm).

My opponent's comment that appealing to the differences in audience and setting in a general sense was an argument from ignorance is more or less false by his own admission. He basically acknowledged that different sources from different points of view can provide different but reconcilable testimony's in his "Great Car Crash" example. The notion that different witnesses may produce different accounts should be intuitive, as should be the notion that time periods and audiences could only contribute to those differences. If my opponent's hang-up was simply regarding what the differences were specifically, well, I have provided several of them.


Why must Matthew's audience get the impression that the women at the tomb witnessed an angel roll away the stone...if in fact it happened before anyone arrived? (And if it did happen before, how exactly did Matthew even know to write about it? ...

There is no evidence that Matthew's audience actually had that impression. If they hadn't heard the story already (the gospel accounts were probably first exchanged orally, or in other documents, as none of these gospels were written until decades later), they might understand anyway from the fact that Jesus didn't come running out. One can argue that Jesus can walk through walls, but given that he sent an angel down to move the stone, he probably didn't in this case.

This story may have been recounted by Jesus himself, or perhaps a guard sympathetic to the disciples, or perhaps they asked the angel(s) themselves. Just because the conversation wasn't recorded doesn't mean it didn't happen. I know my opponent said he is not claiming that the gospels must describe events exhaustively, and I haven't intended to accuse him of that, but if we had more rounds I would ask him what he honestly requires here besides an exhaustive account.


All we would have to suppose is that Paul isn't mistaken, but actually has a completely separate chain of events in mind. If the 4 gospels are unreliable, as I'm arguing they are, there is no reason Paul should have an account similar to the gospels. Paul's writings came before the gospels

My opponent has not demonstrated how Paul's sequence of appearances is not sequential. Just because he may omit appearances does not mean he is not telling the truth, especially since we know his goal is not to give a complete list of appearances, but to demonstrate apostolic authority, a point which my opponent has declined to dispute. And we know he at least omits all the appearances to the women. Additionally, he may be listing appearances not recorded in any gospel. John acknowledges that there were other appearances not recorded (John 20). In fact, we know Paul is refering to appearances not recorded in the gospels, because he mentions his own.


First, you must account for the fact that NO single gospel story expresses any of the same type of chaos you illustrated in your harmonization...
I would have to dissagree- some do so more clearly than others, but each one reflects a wild goose chase for Jesus. The women go looking for him, the women come back, the women see him later, he appears on the road to Emmaus, the disciples doubt, Peter runs to the tomb, still doesn't see Jesus. Just John alone reflects a lot of confusion and running around. It was not an easy morning.


You still must account for Mary's quote in John 20:2 ... Also, John tells us she saw the tomb then ran to the disciples and told them. She never had an encounter with any angels until after she tells Peter and John. You mentioned that Mary may have disbelieved in the angel, thus confided in Peter that she thinks he was stolen; but that still doesn't explain Luke 24:8 in which the women believed and went straight away to tell the disciples. Mark 16:9-10 also says that Mary first saw Jesus, then told the disciples.

John says Mary saw the tomb was opened and ran back. Even if she talked with the angels, there is nothing contradictory about that statement. John may not have included that part because nobody actually saw Jesus at that point. He puts much greater focus on the part leading up to Mary seeing Jesus. This makes perfect sense given John's focus in his gospel.

Mark doesn't say anything about what happened between the women leaving the temple and Mary seeing Jesus. I will still hold that Mark's recollection of the women not telling anyone could very well refer to simply their return trip, rather than not telling anyone indefinitely. Four reasons:

1) The comment is tied to their leaving the tomb in shock. In modern English, Mark might have simply said "they were speechless as they left the tomb."
2) The style varies in Mark, from terse to picturesque (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm). Mark 16:8 may reflect more of the embellishment side of things- color added to the account to establish their shock.
3) If Mark is a collection of Peter's preaching as is claimed by St. Papias, we would expect this sort of color as remnants of Peter's orations. If people requested Mark to write his gospel because they enjoyed Peter's preaching, Peter was probably a rather good preacher, incorporating engaging storytelling practices.
4) Likewise, if Mark was trying to stay faithful to Peter's preaching, and he did not recollect how Peter recounted the first incident of doubting, or perhaps Peter didn't mention it himself when he preached, he might omit it from the story. Even without it, we still get the point that they doubted the women at first.

Additionally, Luke doesn't say they believed Jesus had rose from the dead. At any rate, it would make sense if they believed and told the disciples, who totally deflated their hopes with doubt, perhaps making them wonder if they were seeing things. Then they could have talked to Peter after they started questioning themselves.

There also exist reconcilations where Mary M. returns right away. This may explain why Luke only chooses to define the group of women once they return to the disciples.

---

My opponent recollected a school-yard gag in response to my comments about the women who went to the tomb. I disagree that it is misleading for the authors to record different accounts of different groups. As I mentioned directly above, Luke, the gospel which refers to the most women, does not define who the women are until recounting who told the apostles, and even then may only be speaking in reference to when they told them. Additionally, any comments along the lines of "Woman1 and woman2 went to the tomb" still does not mean they had to go at the same time. It's accurate to say that one woman traveled on her own, or that two or more went there.

---

Regarding comments on the number of angels, if you say you saw a man, even if there are 500 men in the room, you're still telling the truth. If there is "a man" standing in the room, even if there are 500 others, there is still "a man" standing in the room. My opponent also did not address the possibility that the women entered at different times. Angels can walk through walls, too.


Mark also makes clear that Jesus's appearance to Mary was at some point other than the first trip to the tomb.


...which would contradict Luke and Matthew
I find this objection puzzling. Luke mentions nothing about Jesus's apperance to Mary or any of the other women, affirmative or negative. I discussed earlier how it is not conclusive that Matthew 28:8-9 meant the women saw Jesus on their way back to the disciples. My opponent has not demonstrated how Matthew 28:9 must have occured before the actions stated in 28:8 were completed. The text, taken literally, is inconclusive here; how does my opponent know for sure what was intended?




21) Appearance to women in Matthew may different from appearance in John to Mary. My opposition would have to demonstrate how this is not possible. If different groups of women are being described, they probably weren't all together at once, and Jesus could appear any number of times to any group of them.

... Who is the them in verse 9? It's obviously Mary Magdalene and the other Mary! Unless you wish to posit a second "Mary Magdalene", then this issue now laid to rest.
Why not two appearances to Mary Magdalane- one alone, and one with the others? Or how do we know that Matthew isn't combining the multiple appearances to different women into one account? If I say, "the president greeted everyone," does it mean he said hello to everyone at once or shook their hands individually? We can't suppose more than what the text says.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

For the final round, the debate participants will post their statements concurrently.

[Toby Beau]

If someone who was completely unfamiliar with any of the gospel stories were to pick up a copy of say, the gospel of Matthew and read it through. He would have no reason to suppose that the stories flows as a single, sequential narrative.

"Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you." And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

It's inconceivable to suppose that among these verses, a reader would infer the idea that perhaps they left the tomb and split up and Mary Magdalen ran back and forth, talking to the disciples first, then coming back and seeing more angels. It's absurd. Notice that they "took hold of His feet", if this is Mary's second meeting with Jesus since the thing in John, she should know that she's not allowed to touch him. But Matthew says she "took hold of His feet." These pseudo harmonization's will always fail when the impossible standard of inerrancy is applied. Any credible historian takes personal writings, accounts and gospels with a grain of salt. They always assume that each writing is not only going to have a political or theological slant, but also misinformation, exaggeration and even myths. Walking on water, multiplying food, talking animals or massive resurrection of the dead are all signs to doubt the literal historical validity of a writing. This doesn't come from a naturalistic presupposition, but a common sense applying of basic critical thinking. If we suppose every miracle in the gospels to be true, then what reason do we have to suppose that many other ancient miracles and legends are not true as well? Should we now accept that Simon Magus could fly using magic? Or that the prophet Muhammed really split the moon in two? There are thousands of examples of myth, legend, propaganda and pseudo-history in ancient writings. They are taken critically and the gospels shouldn't be treated any differently.
If Llamaluvr's harmonization of the NT post-res occurrences is true, then it really appears that at least three of the writers were intentionally misleading. Even if "technically" such-and-such word doesn't exclude such-and-such situation from also occurring; it's still incredibly mis-leading or even lying. The authors are writing their slant with their fingers grossed behind their backs, veiling over the details and phrasing things in just such away that it's not technically a lie. But for all intents and purposes, it would in fact be a lie. John told a completely different post-res story than the other three. So did Matthew, Luke and Mark. The irony is, that even though my opponent claims saying 1 when there are 5 is in no way misleading or dishonest, I am relatively confident that he does not live his life as such. He wouldn't appreciate people telling those kinds of stories to him and if he misled someone in that way, he would feel just as much guilt as if he had told a lie. ("How many people came to the party?" "Uhh...[at least] one.") It wouldn't have hurt John's case to simply tell the story like it was. Why write it as if it excluded many key facts that the others included. If they wanted the stories to be read together as a harmony, why didn't they smooth out their facts and get their story straight? It's not just that some leave out details that the others leave in, it's that they have the same situations with contradictory details!
These puzzling inconsistencies become absurdly confusing when they are crammed together into a kind of unintelligible gospel-puzzle. But taken the way historians read and interpret all ancient religious texts, the gospels begin to make perfect sense as they are; different authors with different audiences who not only want to present the story from their point of view, but also to correct, embellish or omit parts of the stories from the other authors. There were many other relevant facts that were outside the scope of this debate, but things I would encourage any Christian to explore before making and informed decision as to the validity of the gospels. One such topic is the findings of higher and textual critics. For example, the oldest manuscripts of Mark do not include any post-resurrection appearances, and it's well accepted that the other gospels used Mark as a source, thus adding resurrection stories as a later myth. Also, the gospels are all written anonymously; no one really know who wrote any of them (It is not known where Clement of Alexandria could have gotten his information nor do we know which text he was even referring to, there is no reason to suppose that he had any special track of knowledge or the same gospel of Mark we have today). Even by conservative dating methods, it's very unlikely that anyone who knew Jesus would have been alive long enough to actually write any of the gospels we have today. Granting the questionable principal of taking at least two generations for myth to arise, the gospels don't appear till well into the third generation (average life span was around 45-50 years. 40 years after Jesus' death would definitely be the third generation). That's the most reasonable position and it's one that I recommend that all Christians take once they have read and examined the texts themselves.
But in order to realize that apologists are (if I may quote the great Judge Judy) "peeing on your leg and telling you it's raining", you don't need to know ancient history or Greek; all you need is (if I may quote the great Kent Hovind) "two eyes and a brain". It's obvious to anyone that there is some funny business going one between the four gospels. The fact that there are volumes written in attempt to reconcile the "apparent" contradictions should disturb anyone who holds this or any holy text as "gospel truth". The only reason to bend backwards in order to harmonize the stories, is because of an a priori presupposition to inerrancy. That's asking too much.

[llamaluvr]

Are the contradictions of the resurrection accounts that straightforward? My opponent built an argument on the basis that the irreconcilability of the accounts was self-evident, and that it represented the most reasonable reason for their differences. His "Great Car Crash" example summed up this viewpoint nicely:


There we go! I was able to, with some creative license, successfully harmonize the accounts of the "Great Car Crash." Poor old red actually got hit 4 times! I was quite impressed with myself for being able to accomplish this, but even more amazingly was the way in which this explanation sounds so strangely convincing. I almost fooled myself. But the account I just gave of the "Great Car Crash" was not a true harmonization, but a post-hoc rationalization. What's most reasonable? That three or more of the witnesses mistook or misremembered details of the crash, or that the blue car actually hit the red car into two others, backed up and hit him again?

I saw two principle challenges in that statement- to what limits can we go in fashioning a harmonization, and to what extent can such a harmonization even be reasonable?

My contention has been that it really isn't that straightforward- that, unlike as my opponent has done, we can't just take these accounts purely at face value, and conclude that the contradictions we see intuitively are really contradictory. These are nearly 2000 year-old documents. I have demonstrated that some of them were written to Greeks, some to Romans, some to Jews. I have demonstrated that the accounts may have had different sources who experienced different parts of the story.

In light of even a basic understanding of these factors, a statement like that my opponent made in his second response, that "[the Gospel resurrection accounts] are re-writings of the same accounts," isn't likely to be wholly true. I made a point that the Gospels were not written with the intention of giving an exhaustive account of Jesus's life and ministry, but rather a confirmation of ancient Christian teaching and/ or a biographical portrait of Jesus. My point was that, while each Gospel gives a sufficient overview of Jesus's ministry, they could not be whole representations of it. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to suppose that any of the Gospel writers intended to give an exhaustive account of the resurrection, as none of them devoted more than a page or two to what is believed to be 40 days worth of appearances. It is reasonable to say that even each of the writings regarding Resurrection Sunday may only give a selection of the events regarding Jesus's first appearances, as evidenced by the brevity of the accounts and the fact that the motivations given for writing the gospels is not sufficient for us to suppose otherwise.

Additionally, I offered a point about inerrancy- the claim that makes such discussions even relevant in the first place. Inerrancy simply means "never wrong," not that there is some required percentage of the whole truth that must be told. This means that "errors of ommission" don't really count for much in this sort of debate. We have to ask, "was the evidence the author provided sufficient given his motive for writing," not, "was the evidence provided sufficient for establishing the entire framework of the full account?" A lot of a story can be missing, and still can be useful for demonstrating the author's point, while not contradicting accounts from the same time period that site different occurrences.

What does this mean for the first challenge? It means that we can go a long way in our efforts to harmonize. It's OK to harmonize, or even to simply not rush to conclusions about, two accounts of the same event from different perspectives written to different people at different times and in different places. They may both contain information valuable towards discerning what really happened. This is a worthy approach, too, because it takes into account information external to the sources that can provide more context into how it was understood at the time it was written, not just how it is understood in modern times after dozens of translations.

The answer to the second challenge, again, rests in history. I argued two points briefly in regards to this: 1) that these documents were never meant to be interpreted independently of the living tradition of the Church, and 2) that those closest to the creation of these writings found them each to be accurate. How can we say that it is more reasonable to suppose some of the authors were mistaken when the accuracy of the accounts was testified to down the generations? As I said before, the Church could have chosen none of them for the canon. If we say that, from our perspective today, they must be contradictory, we have to invent history to substantiate that. Even if we had not way of harmonizing the accounts, we would still be left with the fact that the earliest readers felt otherwise. We then have to ask, did they feel otherwise simply because they were convinced by harmonization attempts, or because the Gospels didn't exist in a vacuum, but among oral traditions, universal teachings, and even extrabiblical documents that substantiated them?

Thank you, Toby Beau, for joining me in this debate, and thanks, as well, to the moderators for their help.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The formal debate is now complete. We would like to thank llamaluvr and Toby Beau for their participation. Discussion can be continued in the peanut gallery.

KWSN, FD Moderator