Contradictions within the Gospels?

marty1985

I haven't studied the bible, just read a bit on my own and am intrigued by some apparent contradictions and am looking for some of your views. We know (at least, I believe it's the accepted view) that the four Gospels were written independently and years apart, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, sometimes reproducing it verbatim. The Gospel according to John is an entirely different kettle of fish, but I am wondering about some contradictions within the Gospels, and how we can reconcile the differences, without creating a "fifth Gospel" by just adding them all together - or is that what some Christians do?

For example, the trial before Pilate. Does Jesus say nothing, or does he have long discussions with Pilate? There are also seemingly contradictions in the story of the birth of Jesus, and in his death and resurrection, such as who actually went to the tomb. At the last supper, did Jesus break bread or did he wash the disciples' feet? Are we to believe he did both, although no account says he did both?

I am just wondering are there any other contradictions in the Gospels that you have wrestled with and what conclusions did you make?

My final question is if the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, why did they change some parts of the story and omit other parts?

Pompey Magnus

One of the big contradictions that struck me whe it came to the Gospels was the issue of miracles. The synoptics portray Jesus as performing miracles to help people in need, but he explicitly refused to perform miracles to prove his own identity, he told the Pharisees that no sign will be given to "that evil and adulterous generation". This refusal lies entirely behind the third temptation in the wilderness where Satan "tempts" Jesus to jump off the Temple and be caught by the angels, the first two temptations make perfect sense, making bread out rocks when one is hungry and inheriting the Earth all would be genuinely tempting, but where is the temptation in jumping off a high building? The only benefit in this action would be for Jesus to be witnessed by the crowds at the Temple and thus prove his identity, a temptation that Jesus refused.

In John, rather than spurning temptation to perform signs for the people, Jesus performs signs precisely in order to perform his identity. Jesus explicitly claims “Unless you people see signs and wonders you will never believe.” It is striking that neither the story of Jesus refusing to perform a miracle that is found in Matthew, nor the temptation in the desert, are found in the Gospel of John.

Comparing the Jesus found in the story in Mark of the raising of Jairus' daughter and the Jesus in John in the story of the raising of Lazarus we find two very different characters. Mark's Jesus goes immediately to the girl who died before Jesus could get there, Jesus goes to the girl privately with just a few witness and when the girl is raised he urges secrecy. John's Jesus waits a few days until Lazarus dies, then goes to him. When he arrives he puts on a big public display surrounded by crowds.

In the synoptics Jesus performed miracles as a response to people's faith and were not intended to convert people to believe, in John the miracles were specifically intended to convert people to believe.

antiskeptic

marty1985 wrote: »

At the last supper, did Jesus break bread or did he wash the disciples' feet? Are we to believe he did both, although no account says he did both

Two different accounts reporting on two different aspects of an event isn't a contradiction. The Irish Times would report on the political aspects of a visit by the President Sarkozy. Hello would give us all the detail on his relationship to Carla Bruni. Two different motivations gives two different approachs.

Over the years, I've found that many supposed contradictions can be easily neutralised (if not resolved) when one employs tools such as the one above. Other tools involve inserting longer pauses in time where there is no precise duration for timescales between events given (a classic example from elsewhere is inserting billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 to arrive at an old earth).

Which is not to say there isn't a contradiction to be found. Have you got one in mind you'd like to investigate here?

PDN

For example, the trial before Pilate. Does Jesus say nothing, or does he have long discussions with Pilate?

Jesus had a private conversation with Pilate, as John's Gospel records. However, as Matthew 27:14 makes clear if you read it in context, he remained silent when the false accusations were put to Him.

No honest person would call that a contradiction. It's no different to a prisoner today chatting to the detectives about last nights football, but it can truthfully be said, "When charged he made no comment".

who actually went to the tomb

Initially there was a group of at least five women who went to the tomb. The different Gospels place emphasis on one or more of these women, while in no way limiting the possibility that there were others present also.

There are many reasonable suggestions why the different accounts have different emphases. One would be that we know that each Gospel was written to a different audience. For example, Luke's Gospel mentions Joanna and the others don't. This might easily be because Joanna wasn't considered worth mentioning by the others, but Theophilus (the guy Luke was writing to) may have known Joanna. Therefore it would make perfect sense for Luke to say, "Oh, and btw, Joanna was there too."

Another explanation for why different Gospels concentrate on different individuals may be because a group of women never go anywhere in an orderly fashion! So the two Marys could have set off for the tomb (as per Matthew), then called by at Salome's house to pick up her because she was the one with the spices (as per Mark). As they were in the garden some of the women may have stopped to admire each other's fingernails, leaving Mary Magdalene as the more focussed one to get to the tomb first (as per John) then they ran to tell the men what had happened, with Joanna as usual doing most of the talking (as per Luke)!

In fact, if you think how four separate witnesses (with access to different interviews with certain of the women) might record the various details, what we end up with reads like exactly the kind of thing we should expect. I speak as a guy with a bunch of female relatives, and at Christmas, when they all get together, I'm amused at how they tell stories of their visit to New York. No-one contradicts anyone else, but their stories are all different as they tell them from their perspective.

At the last supper, did Jesus break bread or did he wash the disciples' feet? Are we to believe he did both, although no account says he did both?

Yes, of course he did both.

Each Gospel writer selected their material to suit the needs of their hearers and the purpose of their Gospels. Even today, if you asked several Christians "What happened in the Upper Room?" I can guarantee that those who place a higher value on the sacraments would say, "They had the Last Supper". But if you asked the same question of someone like me, who spends a lot of time training students in seminaries that they need to be servant-leaders, my first response would be, "That's where Jesus washed the disciples' feet".

No Gospel writer pretended that he was giving all the facts. In fact, John specifically says that all the books in the world could not tell everything Jesus said and did. John specifically chose those things that would lead the hearer to put their faith in Christ.

I am just wondering are there any other contradictions in the Gospels that you have wrestled with and what conclusions did you make?

There are many differences in emphases and material that I have found tremendously interesting and worth studying, because they give us important clues as to the purpose of each Gospel and its theological message. For example, Luke's Gospel gives a much more prominent emphasis to the role of women and Gentiles than do the others - which helps us see his universal application of salvation. But contradictions? No, I've not come across anything that can genuinely be described as a contradiction.

My final question is if the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, why did they change some parts of the story and omit other parts?

Because this is what always happens when more than one person gives an account of anything.

For example, I recently had to write a chapter in my denomination's official history book. First I wrote down, without consulting any other source, what were, in my opinion, the most important events and details. Then I read up on previous accounts (in journals and magazines) that others had written of those same events. This helped me check some details, but I also saw some stuff and thought, "O Yes! I should include that." Of course, as I inserted some of that material into my account, I rewrote it to avoid accusations of plagiarism. But if I had not had to adhere to modern literary conventions I would have just have cut and pasted the stuff in with a few alterations here and there where I think the authors authors failed to emphasis sufficiently what I deem to be most important.

Finally, I interviewed other eye witnesses who gave me some most valuable insights and perspectives that neither I, nor the other authors had noticed. So I inserted more fresh material from this interviews and edited some of the other stuff I had already written.

Finally I sent the chapter off to the editor, and, after a lot of discussion, we made some more changes to fit in with what the publishers wanted the book to say, and to appeal to a core audience in another country. Therefore we emphasised some elements and decided not to emphasise others.

Now think about what the Four Gospels are trying to say to whom, and who wrote them.

Mark - written primarily to a Roman audience, either to lead them to faith, or quite possibly to convince them that Christians were good people and posed no threat to the Empire. Quite possible written by someone who was present at the end of Christ's ministry in Jerusalem, and a close associate of Peter who may well have acted as his scribe at times.

Matthew - written to a Jewish audience to convince them that Jesus was the promised Messiah who fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. Quite possibly the only Gospel written by one of the twelve apostles.

Luke - written by a doctor who was not an eye-witness to any of the events, but carefully interviewed others and had access to the apostles. Was written primarily to an individual, Theophilus, who perhaps had the power to support Luke and his fellow Christians financially, or to protect them for persecution.

John - written for a group of followers who realised that Christianity was going to develop as a distinct faith from Judaism, and wanted to share their message in a terminology and philosophy that would appeal to the entire Greek-speaking world. The author was probably not one of the twelve apostles, but may well have been an eye-witness to many of the events (Lazarus has been suggested as a possible author).

Now, if four such diverse authors were to write account for such purposes and audiences, and if they followed the kind of processes we should expect such authors to pursue, then I would be absolutely flabbergasted if they hadn't changed some parts of their sources and ommitted other parts.

ISAW

marty1985 wrote: »

I haven't studied the bible,

so it would seem.

just read a bit on my own

that is a contradiction! Reading on your own IS study!

and am intrigued by some apparent contradictions and am looking for some of your views.

good for you. it shows you have an open mind on the issues.

We know (at least, I believe it's the accepted view) that the four Gospels were written independently and years apart, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, sometimes reproducing it verbatim.

Well....

It is believed Mark is an earlier document. I wont go into the reasons try looking up "markian Priority"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_priority

You might also look up the "Q" doccument which is believed to be another now lost doccument which also predated Matthew and Luke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

The Gospel according to John is an entirely different kettle of fish,

Johannine authorship was also evidenced by Polycarp, (who is said to have known the apostles), Irenaeus and Eusebius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Traditional_view
See references 20-24


[/quote]
but I am wondering about some contradictions within the Gospels, and how we can reconcile the differences, without creating a "fifth Gospel" by just adding them all together - or is that what some Christians do?
[/quote]

Some scholars might suggest Q.

There is also the Augustinian hypothesis .

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Synoptic_problem_-_Augustinian_hypothesis.png/250px-Synoptic_problem_-_Augustinian_hypothesis.png

the two gospel hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis

The four source hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Document_Hypothesis

The Farrier hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrer_hypothesis

Pierson Parker and his followers argue (Parker 1953) that a Hebrew proto-Matthew was the first gospel to be written and it was the basis for later gospels.

Other hypotheses that have been proffered in order to deal with the synoptic problem include, the Oral transmission (synoptic problem), the Lindsey hypothesis (1963), Jerusalem school hypothesis (1973), and the Logia Translation hypothesis (1998)

Here is a comparison chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#Comparison_chart_of_the_major_gospels


When you have looked into them you can move on tho John.

I am just wondering are there any other contradictions in the Gospels that you have wrestled with and what conclusions did you make?

Not really but one can emphasise different aspects of the same event. the history of Preal Harbour for example is entirely different for Japaneese people then for americans. I mean not how they feel but the actual written history. Each records their own side as the honourable people. the american history defines the Japs as sneaky and devious. the Japaneese view it as a well planned and houourably executed raid totally outwitting the Us and giving them advance notice.

The attack happened. the histories are different.

My final question is if the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, why did they change some parts of the story and omit other parts?

Dealt with above.

marty1985

ISAW wrote: »

so it would seem.


that is a contradiction! Reading on your own IS study!

Thanks for the responses everyone, they were informative and heartening.

ISAW, I am not a troll, not playing word games, and I'm not sure if your initial response is mocking me a little. I have not attended any bible school or anything like that and only recently began reading the bible for myself.

I did enjoy reading the responses, and it helps me make sense of some things I have been curious about. To answer antiskeptic's question, there are no particular examples that I wanted to thrash out here, but will use one for the sake of argument.

I understand that different accounts give different emphases, but there are some incidents that to my mind contradict each other, and both cannot be true at the same time. Another one that bothered me is the particular day that Jesus died. Was it on the day of the Passover meal or the day of preparation? Isn't the reason John didn't mention the meal with the disciples because he is maintaining that it was not the Passover meal. I understand this has significance, as it can mean that Jesus himself became the sacrificial lamb on the day of Passover. This runs throughout the story of the crucifixion. I stand to be corrected here, but I think the trial before Pilate involves a lot of running in and out by Pilate to address the crowds and then to talk to Jesus, because the high priests could not enter on the day of preparation for the Passover meal. I know the Gospel according to John is imbued with symbolism, but I guess I am looking at this (for the time being) from a perspective that is not devotional. I am looking for contradictions, so I can find the truth and the reasons for the them. John obviously wants to teach us something, but isn't still a contradiction? How then can we take each story of the Gospel's to be true? This is something I find fascinating and hope we can discuss and I hope responses match the spirit in which the question is asked. I am only looking for reassurances and information.

robindch

marty1985 wrote: »

if the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, why did they change some parts of the story and omit other parts?

Get your hands on a copy of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" which reviews the NT texts from the perspective of modern textual and critical analysis:

http://www.bartdehrman.com/books/misquoting_jesus.htm

It explains firstly how the texts are different in so many ways, as well as a few tentative suggestions as to why they're so different.

Whether you believe that the texts are "inerrant" in some way or not, the book is a thought-provoking read.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Get your hands on a copy of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" which reviews the NT texts from the perspective of modern textual and critical analysis:

http://www.bartdehrman.com/books/misquoting_jesus.htm

It explains firstly how the texts are different in so many ways, as well as a few tentative suggestions as to why they're so different.

Whether you believe that the texts are "inerrant" in some way or not, the book is a thought-provoking read.

Speaking of bart's misquoting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQPNrQxqmo&feature=related

Fanny Cradock

There are a number of really interesting discussions to be found on the foundations of the NT.

Do we have the original writings of the New Testament? - Ehrman and Williams


Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - a two part discussion held over two weeks between Richard Bauckham and Mark Crossley

For those who have read Ehrmans' other book, Jesus Interrupted, Ben Witherington III (AKA Elton John) offers a detailed critique on his blog. Part 1 Part 2 and there are a number of other parts.

I could dig up a few other suggestions if people are interested.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Speaking of bart's misquoting... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQPNrQxqmo&feature=related

Took this guy seven minutes of energetic huffing and puffing to come out with his earth-and-ehrman-shattering piece-de-resistance. Namely, that at one point somewhere deep in the book, Ehrman referred to some quotation as coming from "Acts 28" when it actually came from a few sentences before, in "Acts 26". I stopped the video at that point.

If this triviality is the best refutation of Ehrman's arguments, then Ehrman clearly has nothing to worry about -- his points and his conclusions stand completely uncontested, by this guy anyway.

BTW, while watching him huff and puff, I couldn't decide which he needed more -- somebody to twirl his bowtie for him, or somebody to give him a big wet kiss on his forehead (he really looked like he needed one). And what's it with the lava lamps and electrical zippity-zap things in the background? Trippy!

ISAW

marty1985 wrote: »

Thanks for the responses everyone, they were informative and heartening.

ISAW, I am not a troll,

I didn't claim you were did I?

not playing word games,

Did I assert you were?

and I'm not sure if your initial response is mocking me a little.

I don't know how you got that idea. I do tend to be taken up like that probably because I hasve a direct posting style.
But for the record I am not mocking you. I don't personally attack people unless they attack me. Even then i rarely if ever resort to ad hominem

I have not attended any bible school or anything like that

Nor have I! I am not a Biblical Scholar nor a moral theologian by qualification. My qualifications are in science technology and education. But so what?

and only recently began reading the bible for myself.

Good for you. You posed a question in which I was interested and in fact i only really started looking into in the last few years. I began from a science perspective i.e. the historicity of the Bible. did Jesus exist? How old are biblical sources or other religious artifacts and sources? are they historically comparable to other history sources?
I am also interested in hermenutics. Not just in religious terms but in political interpretations as well.

Another one that bothered me is the particular day that Jesus died. Was it on the day of the Passover meal or the day of preparation?

No it was several days later.

Isn't the reason John didn't mention the meal with the disciples because he is maintaining that it was not the Passover meal. I understand this has significance, as it can mean that Jesus himself became the sacrificial lamb on the day of Passover.

The sacrifice idea is i believe a repetition and refinement of the carrying of his own funeral pyre by Isaac in Genesis. - Genesis 22:1-19

note the three days delay as well

This runs throughout the story of the crucifixion. I stand to be corrected here, but I think the trial before Pilate involves a lot of running in and out by Pilate to address the crowds and then to talk to Jesus, because the high priests could not enter on the day of preparation for the Passover meal. I know the Gospel according to John is imbued with symbolism, but I guess I am looking at this (for the time being) from a perspective that is not devotional. I am looking for contradictions, so I can find the truth and the reasons for the them. John obviously wants to teach us something, but isn't still a contradiction? How then can we take each story of the Gospel's to be true? This is something I find fascinating and hope we can discuss and I hope responses match the spirit in which the question is asked. I am only looking for reassurances and information.

The Passover meal happened BEFORE the Arrest of Jesus. it had to since Judas leaves the meal to tell the Jewish leaders. the Romans are then told and later arrest Jesus. So your point is anachronistic.
Take a look at this chronology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_harmony
Note John is fitted into the synoptic gospels.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There are a number of really interesting discussions to be found on the foundations of the NT.

I could dig up a few other suggestions if people are interested.

In fixing the satellite during the summer i discovered france 24 had been replaced by an Islamic channel. I watched it for a while. A Scholar in one presentation talked abouyt missing verses in the Bible which i hadent heard of i.e. wher a book goes verse 1,2,3 etc but then somewhere there is a 27,29 and verse 28 is missing.

I think he stated that there were several examples and some were not agreed on and different verses existed and others just simply missing.

Acts 8:37 in the NIV you will read,

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
38And he ordered the chariot to stop. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

also:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_miss.htm

Theologian Morton Smith discovered a copy of an ancient letter in a monastery near Jerusalem in the 1940s. The original letter was apparently written by Clement of Alexandria (circa 150-213 CE). It referred to three versions of the Gospel of Mark circulating during the second century CE:
bullet A full version "....for those who are advancing with respect to knowledge," and
bullet A shorter version for the common believers who were new to Christianity.
bullet A forgery based on the full version which was circulated by a Christian group in the second century.

Here is another list but IIR the source is a fundamentalist.
http://www.fillthevoid.org/Versions/Differences-1.html

Pompey Magnus

I was under the impression that Morton Smith's discovering of a Secret Gospel of Mark is generally accepted as being a clever hoax commited by Smith? The style of Clement in the letter is incredibly similar to what Clement himself wrote like, except it sounds actually more like Clement than Clement himself sounds in his undisputed letters.

PDN

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I was under the impression that Morton Smith's discovering of a Secret Gospel of Mark is generally accepted as being a clever hoax commited by Smith?

I personally find the evidence that it is a hoax to be convincing. But there are a suprising number of people who disagree. The matter is far from settled.

marty1985

ISAW wrote: »

No it was several days later.

What do you mean by this? I was talking about the last supper, which I thought was the Passover meal, and hence Jesus imbued new meaning into the meal with his body and blood etc. My understanding was that the synoptic gospels agree with this, but John doesn't, and hence he has Jesus washing the disciples' feet instead of having a meal, because the crucifixion in his Gospel happens on the day of the Passover meal, not the day after. Therefore, Jesus himself was the sacrificial lamb. Help me understand this in your own words if you can.

Fanny Cradock, thanks for your discussion links. I found a treasure trove of podcasts called Unbelievable, which are just music to my ears, so thank you.

Fanny Cradock

marty1985 wrote: »

What do you mean by this? I was talking about the last supper, which I thought was the Passover meal, and hence Jesus imbued new meaning into the meal with his body and blood etc. My understanding was that the synoptic gospels agree with this, but John doesn't, and hence he has Jesus washing the disciples' feet instead of having a meal, because the crucifixion in his Gospel happens on the day of the Passover meal, not the day after. Therefore, Jesus himself was the sacrificial lamb. Help me understand this in your own words if you can.

Fanny Cradock, thanks for your discussion links. I found a treasure trove of podcasts called Unbelievable, which are just music to my ears, so thank you.

No problem. There are some excellent shows to be found there. Actually, I might go off and listen to the latest one.

ISAW

marty1985 wrote: »

What do you mean by this? I was talking about the last supper, which I thought was the Passover meal, and hence Jesus imbued new meaning into the meal with his body and blood etc. My understanding was that the synoptic gospels agree with this, but John doesn't, and hence he has Jesus washing the disciples' feet instead of having a meal, because the crucifixion in his Gospel happens on the day of the Passover meal, not the day after. Therefore, Jesus himself was the sacrificial lamb. Help me understand this in your own words if you can.

Interesting point. i was not aware of the chronological difference!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#The_date_of_the_crucifixion

In the Jewish calendar, each day runs from sunset to sunset, and hence the Last Supper (on the Thursday evening), and Jesus's crucifixion (on Friday afternoon), both fell on the same day. In John, this day was the 14th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar; that is the day on the afternoon of which the Passover victims were sacrificed in the Temple, which was also known as the Day of Preparation. The Passover meal itself would then have been eaten on the Friday evening (i.e. the next day in Jewish terms), which would also have been a Sabbath. In the Synoptic accounts, the Last Supper is a Passover meal, and so Jesus's trial and crucifixion must have taken place during the night time and following afternoon of the festival itself, the 15th of Nisan. In favour of the Synoptic chronology is that in the earliest Christian traditions relating to the Last Supper in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, there is a clear link between Passion of Jesus, the Last Supper and the Passover lamb. In favor of John's chronology is the near universal modern scholarly agreement that the Synoptic accounts of a formal trial before the Sanhedrin on a festival day are historically impossible. By contrast, an informal investigation by the High Priest and his cronies (without witnesses being called), as told by John, is both historically possible in an emergency on the day before a festival, and accords with the external evidence from Rabbinic sources that Jesus was put to death on the Day of Preparation for the Passover. Astronomical reconstruction of the Jewish Lunar calendar tends to favor John's chronology, in that the only year during the governorship of Pontius Pilate when the 15th Nisan is calculated as falling on a Wednesday/Thursday was 27 CE, which appears too early as the year of the crucifixion, whereas the 14th of Nisan fell on a Thursday/Friday in both 30 CE and 33 CE.

Here's another : from the next section in that wiki

The Temple incident appears near the beginning of Jesus' ministry. In the synoptics this occurs soon before Jesus is crucified.

marty1985

Now we're on the same page. These are what I've been trying to make sense of. I have listened to a lot of discussions on the topic, and have been reading some books, but it's hard to resolve it. And not many people are willing to try to discuss it. Other Christians I know claim to take the bible at it's word, and yet they overlook this, and create what Bart Ehrman calls a fifth Gospel. Like the Christmas pageant, with the wise men and the shepherds. Was the Gospel of John written for us to combine it with the synoptics? No. And I think the same goes for each of the others. PDN has already pointed out that it's important to remember that each Gospel was being written at a time and a place for a certain audience. But I've also heard people like Bishop John Shelby Spong say that if you really believe something is the Word of God, why would you change it? So I cannot understand why the author of a later Gospel than Mark, living in a different place and time would change it to suit his audience, or for it to make more sense.

On the other hand, there's the issue of how the Bible was put together, and other gnostic gospels that were almost included but weren't. I know there are many books on this, also by people like Ehrman, but I haven't looked into this yet.

Fanny Cradock

marty1985 wrote: »

Now we're on the same page. These are what I've been trying to make sense of. I have listened to a lot of discussions on the topic, and have been reading some books, but it's hard to resolve it.

Yes, there is a reluctance at certain levels to discuss matters - whether this is because people aren't interested or if it something else I'm not sure. However, in my experience, there is a good deal of engagement at lay level and also at scholarly level.

I've encountered a number of discussions over the years that attempt to square the dates of the Easter events. Some of these are more satisfying than others. About the only link I can recall is one by Colin Humphreys. Again, I can't quite recall the names but Don Carson and Richard Bauckham are ringing some bells as people who might offer some food for thought.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

The Temple incident appears near the beginning of Jesus' ministry. In the synoptics this occurs soon before Jesus is crucified.

Indeed. Some have tried to harmonise this by suggesting that there were two cleansings of the Temple. But such an artificial solution is trying to impose our methods of storytelling on people of 2000 years ago.

The author of John's Gospel does not pretend to give a chronological biography of Jesus. He lists various events and discourses according to his theological priorities.

It might help to think of it as being like the series of Star Wars or Batman movies where you get sequels and prequels, or a drama that uses flashbacks.

marty1985 wrote:

Now we're on the same page. These are what I've been trying to make sense of. I have listened to a lot of discussions on the topic, and have been reading some books, but it's hard to resolve it. And not many people are willing to try to discuss it. Other Christians I know claim to take the bible at it's word, and yet they overlook this, and create what Bart Ehrman calls a fifth Gospel. Like the Christmas pageant, with the wise men and the shepherds. Was the Gospel of John written for us to combine it with the synoptics? No. And I think the same goes for each of the others.

While recognising that each Gospel was written for a specific purpose, it can still be profitable to combine them to get a fuller picture. Christians first started doing this in the Second Century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

But I've also heard people like Bishop John Shelby Spong say that if you really believe something is the Word of God, why would you change it?

Spong is a looper.

But he's rather spectacularly missing the point. Nobody changed something that they thought was the word of God.

What they did was to take some of Mark's material and then add material from other sources, and anyone that cares to think about this for even a moment will readily see that is very different from changing anything.

So I cannot understand why the author of a later Gospel than Mark, living in a different place and time would change it to suit his audience, or for it to make more sense.

And I can't understand why you can't understand something that is rather simple and eminently sensible.

Let's imagine that I am Luke. I want to tell my friend Theophilus about Jesus. Not wanting to reinvent the wheel, I use Mark as a basis. But, during the time I've spent chatting with Peter and James, I've heard some stories that I know would really interest Theolphilus, but which Mark didn't include. So, quite reasonably, I add these stories to my account.

But there's another problem. Mark wrote his Gospel for Romans (who were really rather dumb and were more interested in professional wrestling than in literature or theology) and Mark even has to keep translating and explaining Jewish terms and practices for them. If I include all that then Theophilus is going to feel a bit patronised that I'm treating a smart guy like him as if he were a dumb Roman - so it makes perfect sense for me to omit some of that stuff.

Then again, I'm aware that Theophilus has been influenced by some enemies of the faith who have tried to portray Christianity as narrowly Jewish, not worthy of consideration by anyone else. So I include a few incidents (not from Mark, but gleaned through my apostolic contacts) that stress the times when Jesus evidenced a concern for non-Jews.

So, given such circumstances, it makes great sense why Luke handled Mark the way he did. The really sad thing is that Spong is educated enough to understand that, but chooses instead to play to the gallery with superficial, yet intellectually bereft, arguments such as the one you cite.

marty1985

PDN wrote: »

Spong is a looper.

But he's rather spectacularly missing the point. Nobody changed something that they thought was the word of God.

What they did was to take some of Mark's material and then add material from other sources, and anyone that cares to think about this for even a moment will readily see that is very different from changing anything.

And I can't understand why you can't understand something that is rather simple and eminently sensible.

Let's imagine that I am Luke. I want to tell my friend Theophilus about Jesus. Not wanting to reinvent the wheel, I use Mark as a basis. But, during the time I've spent chatting with Peter and James, I've heard some stories that I know would really interest Theolphilus, but which Mark didn't include. So, quite reasonably, I add these stories to my account.

But there's another problem. Mark wrote his Gospel for Romans (who were really rather dumb and were more interested in professional wrestling than in literature or theology) and Mark even has to keep translating and explaining Jewish terms and practices for them. If I include all that then Theophilus is going to feel a bit patronised that I'm treating a smart guy like him as if he were a dumb Roman - so it makes perfect sense for me to omit some of that stuff.

Then again, I'm aware that Theophilus has been influenced by some enemies of the faith who have tried to portray Christianity as narrowly Jewish, not worthy of consideration by anyone else. So I include a few incidents (not from Mark, but gleaned through my apostolic contacts) that stress the times when Jesus evidenced a concern for non-Jews.

So, given such circumstances, it makes great sense why Luke handled Mark the way he did. The really sad thing is that Spong is educated enough to understand that, but chooses instead to play to the gallery with superficial, yet intellectually bereft, arguments such as the one you cite.

I have gathered already that Bishop Spong is a bit of a million miles more to the liberal side that anyone else and therefore will be viewed by some as a sensible guy, and by a lot of others as a looper. But although I'm not really trusting anyone at the moment, I do think he speaks a lot of sense in some of the things I've heard, but on other subjects than what we're discussing here.

The Gospel was basically written for different people, some smarter than others, some pretty dumb, and some stories included to persuade and convince, and others omitted for the same reason. This argument doesn't feel like the truth that I'm looking for. To me, the answer seems intellectually bereft, not my question. When the chronology differs, the chronology is not important (but this could cause the thread to go off topic - I don't want to get into the specific example of the cleansing of the temple.) I feel like I'm asking for someone to explain something that just can't be explained. You also said there is no contradiction in the gospels, but whether He died on the day of Passover or the day of preparation for Passover seems to be the definition of a contradiction. I am trying to resolve these problems in a way I can understand them, but most of my fellow Christians say I'm just not reading the Bible properly. But I do want to understand this better. I am not trying to provoke anyone, I am saying this with the greatest of respect because I know from reading this forum for a long time that we have an educated and sensible group here.

hivizman

There was a discussion of whether the crucifixion took place on the day of the Passover in this forum earlier this year (actually in Holy Week):

Passover feast and the Last Supper

Several attempted reconciliations of the apparent inconsistency of the gospels relating to whether the Last Supper was a passover seder are considered in that discussion.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

I stopped the video at that point.

Pity. Had you kept watching you would have seen that he actually does a pretty good job on Ehram's exegesis. Ehram claims that in Mark's gospel Jesus was surprised by (as in not expecting) His death and cried out etc etc, whereas in Luke it would seem that He knew what was coming before it happened. But when you actually read ALL of Mark then you will notice that Jesus also knew what was to come in that record too. So Ehram needs to research his material a bit better before spouting off. But like the guy said, he's not trying to convince people who are well versed in the Word, rather his target audience seems to be those who are totally ignorant of the text in order to destroy any belief they might get by actually reading it. I think he's an annoying little prat.

marty1985

Soul Winner wrote: »

Pity. Had you kept watching you would have seen that he actually does a pretty good job on Ehram's exegesis. Ehram claims that in Mark's gospel Jesus was surprised by (as in not expecting) His death and cried out etc etc, whereas in Luke it would seem that He knew what was coming before it happened. But when you actually read ALL of Mark then you will notice that Jesus also knew what was to come in that record too. So Ehram needs to research his material a bit better before spouting off. But like the guy said, he's not trying to convince people who are well versed in the Word, rather his target audience seems to be those who are totally ignorant of the text in order to destroy any belief they might get by actually reading it. I think he's an annoying little prat.

From what I can gather, the guy in the video does miss the point. Ehrman isn't claiming that Jesus is surprised as such in Mark's Gospel, but that he was in agony. Using Mark's Gospel as the basis for his own, the author of Luke has decided to omit all the references to the suffering and agony of Christ.

And I don't think Ehrman needs to research his material better. He seems to have spent his life studying it, going to theological universities and writing dozens of books about it.

Finally, Ehrman's motives might be up for a debate, but nobody is going to write books about inconsistencies or contradictions within the bible and conclude by saying "but these don't matter." If people take the bible to be the literal word of God, then obviously the words and letters and translations and spelling mistakes or whatever they may be matter.

The man in the video comes across as a lot more annoying than Ehrman, and also paranoid. In a video about Sean Penn, he claims youtube are basically out to get him and censor his videos because he's a Christian. He just comes across as angry, whereas Ehrman brings a balance to his argument by saying that faith is still possible. He also points out that most of what he writes about is not new - it's standard stuff in most seminaries, and yet most people just aren't aware of it. It's left behind in the seminaries and not brought to the pews. I think perhaps people just don't want to have the discussion.

philologos

marty1985 wrote: »

From what I can gather, the guy in the video does miss the point. Ehrman isn't claiming that Jesus is surprised as such in Mark's Gospel, but that he was in agony. Using Mark's Gospel as the basis for his own, the author of Luke has decided to omit all the references to the suffering and agony of Christ.

Or the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. Luke noticing some details moreso than Mark and emphasising these accordingly.

If I go to a film with my friend, I may comment on different parts of the film with more detail and vice versa. This doesn't mean that either one of our comments is invalid for this reason, it just means we noticed different things when reviewing the same event.

More detail in sections than others != contradiction.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Or the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. Luke noticing some details moreso than Mark and emphasising these accordingly.

Not sure exactly what you mean here as even in the unlikely event that Luke and Mark did write the Gospels ascribed to them, neither were eye-witnesses and therefore when Luke changed Mark he was not doing so based on anything he personally experienced or witnessed.

Ehrman also doesn't simply argue that Luke provided more details than Mark, therefore there is a contradiction. He argues that the very character and demeanor of Jesus is noticeably different. Its hard to reconcile how a man can be portrayed as being utterly dejected and feeling completely abandoned whilst at the same time being fully confident and assured that everything will work out.

How does your explanation of Luke noticing more details than Mark explain the question of what the women did after the resurrection. Mark is explicit, the last sentence of the Gospel (prior to the forged endings) is that the women said nothing to anyone, Luke is equally explicit, they told everything first to the eleven and then to the rest.

Now the author of Luke, before writing his Gospel, would have read this last sentence in Mark. He would have been fully aware that the anonymous author who had wrote that Gospel in front of him had made a definite claim that the women had told no one, yet you believe he dropped this completely from his Gospel and inserted a sentence which goes against this claim whilst still believing it to be true?

But I'm sure there is some unlikely explanation Christians have dreamed up to get around this, I'll give it a try...maybe they ran to the disciples and told them what happened through the medium of some form of non-verbal expressive dance or charades, thus not saying anything. Utterly unlikely explanation but it seems to be the thinking of some Christians that if any possible alternative explanation can be provided it therefore proves there is no contradiction.

philologos

Actually a lot of the theology comes down to a source Q for the synoptic Gospels. Q coming from the German word Quelle for source. There is no reason to believe that this Q could not have been a common experience of Jesus. Luke's letter clearly mentions that his writing is based on eye witness testimony, Luke is also mentioned as being with Paul during his journeys in both Paul's letters and indeed from the Acts of the Apostles which he also authored. Mark is commonly thought to have been a contemporary of Peter.

There is no reason why they cannot both have been based on eyewitness testimony.

Again the argument that differing detail of the same event is a contradiction is an invalid one. Contradiction means one text saying something completely opposite to another. It is not a contradiction if both can be held in harmony with one another as they can in the vast majority of these so called "contradictions" that people are raising.

It is a strength of the Gospels that we are able to read about Jesus' life from many perspectives.

Fanny Cradock

marty1985 wrote: »

From what I can gather, the guy in the video does miss the point. Ehrman isn't claiming that Jesus is surprised as such in Mark's Gospel, but that he was in agony. Using Mark's Gospel as the basis for his own, the author of Luke has decided to omit all the references to the suffering and agony of Christ.

I'm not sure I see the problem. As a Christian, I don't think that the suffering of Jesus is central to the Gospel or indeed to Christianity. Undoubtedly it is a component (and a rather large component to some eyes) but it is the resurrection that seems to be the central defining moment within Christianity. This is why I always think that people who say "well Jesus didn't suffer than much therefore..." are completely missing the point.

marty1985 wrote: »

And I don't think Ehrman needs to research his material better. He seems to have spent his life studying it, going to theological universities and writing dozens of books about it.

Agreed. And I think you will find that his academic peers give him the respect he deserves. At least in my observation.

marty1985 wrote: »

Finally, Ehrman's motives might be up for a debate

Indeed. I think motivation and bias are a couple of areas that Witherington , for example, hones in upon.

marty1985 wrote: »

If people take the bible to be the literal word of God, then obviously the words and letters and translations and spelling mistakes or whatever they may be matter.

But even amongst Christians there is debate about whether the Bible is the "literal word of God" and what that word "literal" actually means.

marty1985 wrote: »

I think perhaps people just don't want to have the discussion.

I agree. Some people don't want to have the discussion, and that is their choice. Maybe they are uninterested. Maybe they are scared. Maybe they have investigated the issues and found satisfactory answers. However, I think your generalisation quite unfair given that a number of resources to those who are quite willing to discuss the issues has been provided. Most importantly, these are links to people who, like Ehrman, are actually qualified to have the discussion.

By way of providing more areas for you to spark further debate, I would suggest that you pop along to here. Yes, I'm pimping another forum but you will find some interesting discussions there.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Again the argument that differing detail of the same event is a contradiction is an invalid one. Contradiction means one text saying something completely opposite to another. It is not a contradiction if both can be held in harmony with one another as they can in the vast majority of these so called "contradictions" that people are raising.

This is incorrect, a contradiction between two passages lies with the intent of the authors, not on whether a possible explanation can be provided.

For example, if "Mark" specifically intended to claim that the women at the tomb really did tell no-one anything, and if "Luke" specifically intended to claim that the women did tell the eleven followed by the rest, then the contradiction exists irregardless of whether some Christian scholar in the last hundred year has come up with a some kind of linguistic loop hole exploiting the deficiencies of written texts as a means of communication to provide an alternative to a contradiction.

Christians can throw as many possible alternative scenarios to the suggested contradictions as they like, they will never be able to prove those contradictions don't exist until such a time as the authors of the Gospels can be sat down together and asked to read each other's work to decide if every single detail provided by the other three fits precisely with what they themselves wrote.

Of course the reverse can be thrown at skeptics that a contradiction can't be proven either, but then skeptics did not make the original claim. If some Christians in the last few hundred years suddenly decided one day to claim the Bible is inerrant then the impossible burden is on them to prove it.

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

This is incorrect, a contradiction between two passages lies with the intent of the authors, not on whether a possible explanation can be provided.

For example, if "Mark" specifically intended to claim that the women at the tomb really did tell no-one anything, and if "Luke" specifically intended to claim that the women did tell the eleven followed by the rest, then the contradiction exists irregardless of whether some Christian scholar in the last hundred year has come up with a some kind of linguistic loop hole exploiting the deficiencies of written texts as a means of communication to provide an alternative to a contradiction.

Christians can throw as many possible alternative scenarios to the suggested contradictions as they like, they will never be able to prove those contradictions don't exist until such a time as the authors of the Gospels can be sat down together and asked to read each other's work to decide if every single detail provided by the other three fits precisely with what they themselves wrote.

Of course the reverse can be thrown at skeptics that a contradiction can't be proven either, but then skeptics did not make the original claim. If some Christians in the last few hundred years suddenly decided one day to claim the Bible is inerrant then the impossible burden is on them to prove it.

This is an interesting link. It appears to me that those who present such questions to Christians are expecting all Christians to be Bible scholars. If we had the time to be Bible scholars we'd all be priests or nuns. However you did make an intersting comment but with a major mistake. The contraction lies with the intent of the Author. It was mans hand that wrote down the words but the words are the words of God.

The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions inHis Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).


If an ungodly man refuses to humble himself and obey the gospel, and instead desires to build a case against the Bible, God gives him enough material to build his own gallows.

Pompey Magnus

Festus wrote: »

However you did make an intersting comment but with a major mistake. The contraction lies with the intent of the Author. It was mans hand that wrote down the words but the words are the words of God.

Unfortunately we have no access to whether that is true or not, all we know is that four anonymous men sat down to write the Gospels and that is all I can discuss about. If you want we can get into the question of whether God also inserted the forged elements to the Gospels e.g. the endings of Mark after 16:8, the Johannine Comma, the story of Jesus and the adulteress and the Pastoral Epistles, did God inspire those forgers also to insert lies into his Book and if he didn't then why did he not perform the miracle of preserving the pristine condition of his Book after going to the bother of inspiring it in the first place? It kind of defeats the purpose of having a divinely inspired book when it becomes quickly contaminated with deceit.

As you mentioned the quote from 2 Timothy, “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”, this brings up an interesting question. As 2 Timothy itself is widely believed to be a forgery in the name of Paul then just how reliable can that claim for divine inspiration be? If the author lied in one part of his epistle can he be trusted when making such a significant claim in another part of the epistle? Indeed could making that claim actually be bordering on blasphemous as if 2 Timothy was written by someone other than Paul yet that person claimed to be Paul to mislead its readers then to say God inspired it is to say that God inspired a lie to fool his flock. Why would your God want to lie to you?

So maybe God did inspire the authors, but that is a claim based fully on faith as there is absolutely no more internal evidence in the Gospels to suggest they are divinely inspired than there is in any book.

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Unfortunately we have no access to whether that is true or not, all we know is that four anonymous men sat down to write the Gospels and that is all I can discuss about. If you want we can get into the question of whether God also inserted the forged elements to the Gospels e.g. the endings of Mark after 16:8, the Johannine Comma, the story of Jesus and the adulteress and the Pastoral Epistles, did God inspire those forgers also to insert lies into his Book and if he didn't then why did he not perform the miracle of preserving the pristine condition of his Book after going to the bother of inspiring it in the first place? It kind of defeats the purpose of having a divinely inspired book when it becomes quickly contaminated with deceit.

As you mentioned the quote from 2 Timothy, “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”, this brings up an interesting question. As 2 Timothy itself is widely believed to be a forgery in the name of Paul then just how reliable can that claim for divine inspiration be? If the author lied in one part of his epistle can he be trusted when making such a significant claim in another part of the epistle? Indeed could making that claim actually be bordering on blasphemous as if 2 Timothy was written by someone other than Paul yet that person claimed to be Paul to mislead its readers then to say God inspired it is to say that God inspired a lie to fool his flock. Why would your God want to lie to you?

So maybe God did inspire the authors, but that is a claim based fully on faith as there is absolutely no more internal evidence in the Gospels to suggest they are divinely inspired than there is in any book.

maybe the answer you are seeking is hidden from you.

Pompey Magnus

Festus wrote: »

maybe the answer you are seeking is hidden from you.

Perhaps. Or maybe this is just a convenient answer to explain away every problem that believers face. Its amazing how its always on the awkward issues that God seems to hide his reasoning or that he "acts in mysterious ways".

philologos

Pompey Magnus - The very idea of a contradiction is when one passage says the polar opposite to another. It is not a contradiction when one passage contains less detail about one event than the other.

contradiction - opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas

If the ideas do not conflict, or in this case if the passages do not, it is not a contradiction.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Pompey Magnus - The very idea of a contradiction is when one passage says the polar opposite to another.

Is it a contradiction when Mark clearly and unequivocally stated that after fleeing from the tomb the women said nothing to anyone compared to when Matthew, knowing that Mark had ended his Gospel in a way which posed obvious problems, decided to claim that women ran straight away to tell the disciples? How is saying nothing to anyone in one instance and running directly to tell as many people as possible in another instance NOT two passages saying polar opposites to one another?

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Perhaps. Or maybe this is just a convenient answer to explain away every problem that believers face. Its amazing how its always on the awkward issues that God seems to hide his reasoning or that he "acts in mysterious ways".

suit yourself, it's not me you have to convince.

There is much more to be found by exploring the Bible but if your sole intention is to fault find and nit-pick...

Pompey Magnus

Festus wrote: »

There is much more to be found by exploring the Bible but if your sole intention is to fault find and nit-pick...

Well if someone is going to claim that a book was inspired by the all mighty creator of everything that is, has been and ever will be then I don't think its being unreasonable for me to check to see if this book fits in with all the rest of his work and ya know what, I just don't think it does.

If there is a God I am a massive fan of his work, Milky Way...amazing, the Grand Canyon...stunning, the Double Helix...genius, but the Bible must have been a minor side project of his because obviously he didn't proof read it before release and he wasn't committed to his work enough to reject significant alterations and improvements to his work from later editors. If he had a bit more interest in his Bible he would have said to the forger who made up the story of Jesus and the Adulteress: "You know what, I'm God almighty. If I wanted a story about Jesus forgiving an adulteress I would have actually put that in the first edition myself, thanks very much."

JimiTime

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Is it a contradiction when Mark clearly and unequivocally stated that after fleeing from the tomb the women said nothing to anyone compared to when Matthew, knowing that Mark had ended his Gospel in a way which posed obvious problems, decided to claim that women ran straight away to tell the disciples?

All you display is a bias leaning towards trying to discredit scripture. You make assumptions in favour of your bias. You assume with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, that Matthew hacked together a story to get around 'problems' in Mark.

Now, even if from 16.9 onwards is not authentic (a fair position to hold), there are still other positions to consider, like the common held view is that due to the abrupt nature of the ending, that the end of the manuscript was lost. If this is the case, then you don't have a contradiction, as you don't have the ending. IF the Mark we have, up to 16:8, is Mark in full, then in isolation, it 'could' be interpreted that there is a conflict. Though, logically thought through, this would seem highly unlikely. For your position (its a contradiction), you would need to look at Marks words as an absolute, i.e. They never told anyone, ever. The fact that Mark is telling the story would contradict this position though, as they obviously told someone at some stage. So a more logical view would be to see this statement as a temporary fear induced, 'told no-one'. Maybe it referred to their journey to Peter etc.

Whatever way its spun though, the arguement for contradiction is weak in the extreme.

Festus

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Well if someone is going to claim that a book was inspired by the all mighty creator of everything that is, has been and ever will be then I don't think its being unreasonable for me to check to see if this book fits in with all the rest of his work and ya know what, I just don't think it does.

If there is a God I am a massive fan of his work, Milky Way...amazing, the Grand Canyon...stunning, the Double Helix...genius, but the Bible must have been a minor side project of his because obviously he didn't proof read it before release and he wasn't committed to his work enough to reject significant alterations and improvements to his work from later editors. If he had a bit more interest in his Bible he would have said to the forger who made up the story of Jesus and the Adulteress: "You know what, I'm God almighty. If I wanted a story about Jesus forgiving an adulteress I would have actually put that in the first edition myself, thanks very much."

I think the problem is you can't get God to fit with what you want Him to be, match your logic and allow you the lifestyle you want and are looking for excuses.

Read the Bible properly and you will see thatit contains things than no human author could have conceived.

What Jew was going to write "Love your enemies" and think he could get away with it? If you told a Jew in AD 30 that they had to love the Romans, turn the other cheek and forgive them you'ld have been killed.
Try telling a Jew today to love the Arabs as themselves and you'll be killed.

If you have no interest in Christianity other than to knock it and God why are you in this forum?

Fanny Cradock

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Is it a contradiction when Mark clearly and unequivocally stated that after fleeing from the tomb the women said nothing to anyone

They obviously said something to somebody at some stage or you wouldn't be reading about it.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

There is much more to be found by exploring the Bible but if your sole intention is to fault find and nit-pick...

This is a tragic but true observation. It would call one to reflect on this passage:

John 5:39-40 wrote:

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

One could easily regard this as referring to the current situation if one considers that instead of thinking in them you have eternal life one could have instead of thinking in them you find contradiction.

The sad thing is that people could read the Scriptures and seek the truth of the Gospel, but they refuse to.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They obviously said something to somebody at some stage or you wouldn't be reading about it.

Plagiariser!

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Plagiariser!

?

Pompey Magnus

JimiTime wrote: »

All you display is a bias leaning towards trying to discredit scripture. You make assumptions in favour of your bias. You assume with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, that Matthew hacked together a story to get around 'problems' in Mark.

Sorry but there is in fact evidence evidence that Matthew and Luke altered Mark to get around problems. Another example is the question of Jesus losing his temper. This occurs in a few passages in Mark, every single time these passages were copied by Matthew and Luke they both independently dropped the word anger. The emotion did not fit with their agenda, for example Luke portrayed a Jesus who was imperturbable, when he came across a passage in which Jesus showed such a base emotion as anger this posed a problem and therefore he simply changed the passage to suit himself. Now this isn't a direct example of a contradiction (although one can ask if a character can be both emotional, reactive, charismatic and authoritative as Jesus is in Mark whilst at the same time being unflappable and nonchalant as he is in Luke?), this is simply an example of how Matthew and Luke did indeed notice problems in Mark's account and how they got around it.

Now, even if from 16.9 onwards is not authentic (a fair position to hold), there are still other positions to consider, like the common held view is that due to the abrupt nature of the ending, that the end of the manuscript was lost. If this is the case, then you don't have a contradiction, as you don't have the ending.

The problem is with the suggestion that the ending is lost that it would have had to have been lost almost immediately as the evidence weighs heavily against it being in existence within 10 or so years of Mark being written, neither Matthew or Luke share any textual similarities in their stories post resurrection, unlike their accounts prior to the resurrection, such a break between Luke and Matthew indicates that at this stage they were no longer employing Mark as their versions of Mark ended at the same point as the Mark existing today. They also share no textual similarities with the supposed "fake" endings to Mark and so its a safe bet that these too were not authentic.

For your position (its a contradiction), you would need to look at Marks words as an absolute, i.e. They never told anyone, ever. The fact that Mark is telling the story would contradict this position though, as they obviously told someone at some stage.

The words are absolutes. Mark does not say "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid...for half an hour, then they calmed down and told everyone everything that had happened". Marks ending is absolute and the problem of how Mark found out can't be gotten around by assuming he meant something different to what he said. To work around the problem of how Mark's ending does not make sense unless you reword it to say something that the text itself does not say then you have to first be working off the conclusion that the Gospel is inerrant and then working backwards from this conclusion to make the evidence fit, I instead am looking at the evidence first and then drawing my conclusion based on it.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They obviously said something to somebody at some stage or you wouldn't be reading about it.

Or how about this mad alternative...Mark made it up? Its a problem thats also found in Luke's story of the Garden of Gethsemane. How did Luke know exactly what Jesus' prayed, his demeanor and the visitation of an angel when the disciples present, the only witnesses, were all asleep?

Soul Winner

Here's what Mark's account says:

"And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." Mark 16:8

Mark's account doesn't say that the never told anyone ever after. The reason Mark gives for them not saying anything to any man was because they were afraid. But would they have been afraid to tell the disciples? No.

Mark 9 to 19 is simply not supported by the oldest manuscripts but that doesn't mean that the original hadn't got those verse in it, although I doubt it had myself. Anyway, be that as it may. Let's say that the original hadn't got it in there then it was obviously added by someone else at a later time. So if this was the case then how can you say that it was a fraud perpetrated by the original writer? If the original ends at verse 8 then from verse 9 to 19 had nothing to with it. But even if that is the case, that doesn't mean that from verse 9 to 19 is not necessarily a false account. That could still be factual even though it wasn't intended to be there by Mark. Maybe someone reading it later on added the extra information because they viewed it as an incomplete record and just wanted to finished it off. But whatever might have happened we will never know but you cannot accuse the inspired writer of fraud when it had nothing to do with him in the first place. And you can't accuse the one who added it on as adding falsities to the account unless you can show that what he added didn't actually happen.

JimiTime

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Or how about this mad alternative...Mark made it up? Its a problem thats also found in Luke's story of the Garden of Gethsemane. How did Luke know exactly what Jesus' prayed, his demeanor and the visitation of an angel when the disciples present, the only witnesses, were all asleep?

Bloody hell, this is tedious. You've made your assumptions, and decided what your conclusions are, so i wont ask you to dig yourself a deeper spiritual hole.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

?

I just made that point, but in my usual rambling style:) I don't actually believe you were plagiarising, I was just extremely annoyed and frustrated that you got 2 thank you's and I only got 1!!:mad:*



*May not actually represent how I was feeling:)

philologos

Indeed, one has to ask how does one know that the disciples were the only ones present?

Jimi - I thanked ye both

Soul Winner

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

...I instead am looking at the evidence first and then drawing my conclusion based on it.

No your not. You assume its all a fake from the get go and try to support your position but citing stuff that can be easily explained. The fact that you don't like the explanations shows your unwillingness to believe the story.

Soul Winner

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Or how about this mad alternative...Mark made it up? Its a problem thats also found in Luke's story of the Garden of Gethsemane. How did Luke know exactly what Jesus' prayed, his demeanor and the visitation of an angel when the disciples present, the only witnesses, were all asleep?

Jesus was seen by them for up to 40 days after the resurrection. He spoke with them often and they could have asked Him what He prayed in the garden. Ever think of that? No of course not, because you've already concluded that the resurrection didn't happen and therefore Jesus couldn't have had any kind of dialog with them after His death. You're bias is laid bare for all to see.