-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
errors in the New Testament
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
exchemist
Veteran Member
I think you need to explain what you mean by "error". As the bible is a literary work, written by multiple authors over an extended period of time, and not a science or law textbook, it is to be expected that it will contain some inconsistencies. Most people would not classify these inconsistencies as "errors".
There could be true errors, if for instance one of the evangelists got the order of Roman Emperors wrong or something. But I am not aware of any of these in the NT.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Earthling
David Henson
That is n't correct. First of all the term Old Testament is a Latin mistranslation of the word covenant, and there is no division between the two "testaments" they are one and the same. And secondly, they are harmonious throughout.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It would seem to me that Judaism is in disagreement there. Christianity has all but hijacked the Old Testament narratives into something completely different.
Earthling
David Henson
There are spurious scriptures, for example Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11 and the last 7 words in the KJV John 5:3 and all of John 5:4.
Any specific allegations of errors would have to be presented for me to address those and would most likely be misinterpretations or something of that nature.
Earthling
David Henson
Well, that's because after waiting for thousands of years for the Messiah, their religious tradition had mislead them into thinking the messiah was going to be just another political messiah like David and they ended up killing him just like their prophecies foretold they would.
Add to this 6 of the Epistles attributed to Paul to get the list growing even bigger. So, are these not "errors" too?
Or, the misinterpretation is reading them as not a contradiction?
Earthling
David Henson
On what basis do you suggest Paul's writings were errors? And what do you mean by the second half of your response, that the so called OT and NT contradict one another?
On the basis of scholarship which looks at many factors that show they are not all written by Paul. Here is a great place to start your research: https://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/texts/new testament/paul/deutero.html
Also, this is a great resource which cites all the various research and scholarly details on the various time frame and purported authorship of the other scriptures and writings of the time period of early Christianity: https://www.umass.edu/wsp/alpha/texts/new testament/paul/deutero.html
From one of the articles in the last link you'll find this talking about 1 Timothy:
Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):
Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.
Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel adds a few more considerations.
Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.
The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.
The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.
The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel adds a few more considerations.
It continues on with more detail. Now, I do not see any of the above as a problem of a "bad interpretation". It's a whole lot more credible than a misreading. Most modern scholars accept the veracity of this. Now, you may choose to balk at modern scholarship and dismiss it as some high-minded BS, but I don't. I respect the tools of modern science and scholarship as a greater examination of the facts than "faith" without critical examination when it comes to things like the manuscripts we have inherited as part of our canon of scripture.
No. Internal to the NT itself you have contradictory statements, places and dates, sequences of events, facts about the events themselves between the different authors, etc., that are not explainable as a matter of simple misinterpretation of the reader. They aren't reconcilable, such as who was at the tomb, who did Jesus appear to first, etc. These are all perfectly understandable however when we accept that these were stories passed on through the mouths of storytellers, each spinning it their own ways, and not acting as supposed historians.
It works great as a mythology, but not at all as matters of scientific and historical facts. Christians get quite confused between the two it seems, and want the NT to be something the way a modern would expect it to be, which that alone is the "misinterpretation".
Yohanan ben Yaaqov
Member
The most glaringly obvious error in the chr-stian texts is the two completely opposing birth myths.
The story in Matthew has the family living in Bethlehem of Judah during the reign of Herod the Great. There is no big birth story of any kind in Matthew, only “So he brought her home and did not have sex with her until after the child was born.” The second chapter begins two years later. They run away to Egypt and live there for some undisclosed amount of time; until they receive news of Herod the Great’s death.
Herod the Great died on approximately April 1 of 4 BCE. At that time they were living in Egypt for however long, plus the travel time to get there. They had been living in Bethlehem of Judah for two years prior to fleeing to Egypt. The latest the child from this story could have been born is the latter part of 7 BCE.
The story in Luke has the primary people involved living in Nazareth of Galilee before, during and after the pregnancy. At the very tail end of the pregnancy they travel 120 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Judaea, because Joseph’s ancestor from 1,100 years earlier was born there, to register for the Tax Census.
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed Governor of the Roman District of Syria on the seventh day of September of 6 CE. They had the customary three day celebration; followed by the customary day of recuperation; followed by the first official day of work. On September 12 of 6 CE, Quirinius ordered a Tax Census of the entire District of Syria.
Without even touching any details of the ridiculous story, the child is automatically born sometime after September 20 of 6 CE.
One family lives in Bethlehem, flees to Egypt and lives there, and finally comes back to settle in Nazareth of Galilee; timeframe: >/= 7BCE – 4 BCE.
The other family lives in Nazareth of Galilee; timeframe ~ June of 5 CE – September/October of 6 CE. They travel 120 miles across rough terrain to Bethlehem of Judaea so he could register for the census. They remain they encamped in some type of animal enclosure for 40 days, travel to Jerusalem to perform their necessary rituals, and the head back home to Nazareth.
Two entirely different stories; about two entirely different families; who lived in two entirely different places; at two entirely different periods of time; with two entirely different sets of events.
There is no way to reconcile the fact that these are two entirely different stories.
Then of course there is the infamous seventh chapter of Acts. A person supposedly possessed by one of the chr-stian gods, makes a big speech, does not get one single thing correct. Obviously the chr-stian god that they call “the holy ghost/spirit” does not know how to read either Hebrew or Greek, because everything about Acts chapter 7 is wrong.
The story in Matthew has the family living in Bethlehem of Judah during the reign of Herod the Great. There is no big birth story of any kind in Matthew, only “So he brought her home and did not have sex with her until after the child was born.” The second chapter begins two years later. They run away to Egypt and live there for some undisclosed amount of time; until they receive news of Herod the Great’s death.
Herod the Great died on approximately April 1 of 4 BCE. At that time they were living in Egypt for however long, plus the travel time to get there. They had been living in Bethlehem of Judah for two years prior to fleeing to Egypt. The latest the child from this story could have been born is the latter part of 7 BCE.
The story in Luke has the primary people involved living in Nazareth of Galilee before, during and after the pregnancy. At the very tail end of the pregnancy they travel 120 miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Judaea, because Joseph’s ancestor from 1,100 years earlier was born there, to register for the Tax Census.
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed Governor of the Roman District of Syria on the seventh day of September of 6 CE. They had the customary three day celebration; followed by the customary day of recuperation; followed by the first official day of work. On September 12 of 6 CE, Quirinius ordered a Tax Census of the entire District of Syria.
Without even touching any details of the ridiculous story, the child is automatically born sometime after September 20 of 6 CE.
One family lives in Bethlehem, flees to Egypt and lives there, and finally comes back to settle in Nazareth of Galilee; timeframe: >/= 7BCE – 4 BCE.
The other family lives in Nazareth of Galilee; timeframe ~ June of 5 CE – September/October of 6 CE. They travel 120 miles across rough terrain to Bethlehem of Judaea so he could register for the census. They remain they encamped in some type of animal enclosure for 40 days, travel to Jerusalem to perform their necessary rituals, and the head back home to Nazareth.
Two entirely different stories; about two entirely different families; who lived in two entirely different places; at two entirely different periods of time; with two entirely different sets of events.
There is no way to reconcile the fact that these are two entirely different stories.
Then of course there is the infamous seventh chapter of Acts. A person supposedly possessed by one of the chr-stian gods, makes a big speech, does not get one single thing correct. Obviously the chr-stian god that they call “the holy ghost/spirit” does not know how to read either Hebrew or Greek, because everything about Acts chapter 7 is wrong.
syo
Well-Known Member
historical error and if there are teachings that contradict each other. are the teachings of christ consistent?
Earthling
David Henson
Science? Ridiculous. All of the above is complete BS. You could take any of those four observations and apply them to my writings all over the Internet and come to the conclusion that I couldn't have wrote them. I've already read those "scientific" or "scholarly" criticisms and I think they speak for themselves. I think anyone with any sense, let alone faith, could see that if they truly had an open mind. It's what you want to think. Now if YOU can think for yourself or at least take the time to present some examples that a person with limited time could address we could do that and I could show you how "science and scholars" aren't really a good place to put your faith, but I doubt it's important enough for you to do that or you already would have instead of dumping a heap of text on me that means absolutely nothing.
That's because an account of actual events are changing throughout a steady stream of time.
See the follow up post I will make to this post. The message is too big for this one.
Sounds impressive but actually isn't.
I do not believe there is a prophesy that the messiah, Jesus Christ would be killed by Jews. The fact is he was convicted and executed by Rome for basically claiming to be the King of the Jews.
In claim of prophesy in this case is highly interpretive and a stretch of the imagination.
Earthling
David Henson
Some so-called discrepancies are noted here Part 1
1. Matthew was the only one to mention dead people emerging from their graves upon Jesus' death. It is assumed that these resurrected dead were walking around.
The omission of the dead people emerging from the graves by the other writers does not, of course, mean anything. Matthew was, contrary to scholarly opinion, the first gospel to be written. In De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." So this (Matthew having been the first gospel) might be a reason for the others having not included the dead people emerging from their graves.
Any serious scholar of the Bible could tell you that at Matthew 27:52-53 the Greek egeiro means simply raised up rather than resurrected back to life, and in addition to this "they" (meaning the bodies that were walking around) is a pronoun, and in Greek all pronouns have gender and "they" is masculine whereas bodies" (the bodies that were lifted up) is in the neuter. They are not the same.
Adam Clarke: "It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in verses 52 and 53. Some have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this: - by the earthquake several bodies that had been buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ's resurrection, and were seen by many persons in the city."
Theobald Daechsel's translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up."
Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."
2. At Matthew 28:2 there was an "earthquake" and an angel rolled back the stone slab that closed the tomb off. The other gospel writers don't mention this. Some Bible defenders suggest past perfect, but as the skeptic points out the passage is in the aorist (past) tense.
The Greek word seismos means quaking, shaking or trembling. (Matthew 27:51, 54; 28:4; Revelation 6:13) The earth quaking from the moving of a rather large stone, for example, might have been trivial enough for some not to mention it.
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James H. Moulton, Vol. I, 1908, p. 109, "the Aorist has a 'punctiliar' action, that is, it regards action as a point: it represents the point of entrance . . . or that of completion . . . or it looks at a whole action simply as having occurred, without distinguishing any steps in its progress."
Aorist is a peculiar tense in the koiné Greek which means "not bounded" as to time. Verbs in the aorist tense can be rendered in a variety of ways depending upon the context. They could mark a definite occurrence of something at an unstated time in the past, such as with Matthew 28:2. An example of a similar case would be in Matthew 17:3 where the voice announced that the son had been approved. Many translations often miss the exact meaning of texts where the aorist tense is used. Matthew, understood correctly, indicates that the stone had been rolled back before the women arrived, he only mentioned that the stone had been moved and how it was moved whereas the other gospel writers do not.
Some critics consider the following as discrepancies. Each of them will be addressed below.
What time did the women visit the tomb?
They all convey the idea that it was dark and getting light. Dawn.
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the Women?
Some Bible writers mentioned the names of certain women, others do not. The various accounts do not indicate any of the women were not present, they only vary in which names are given.
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Mark 15:47 and Luke 23:55-56 clearly state that the women were there the night before and rested for the Sabbath, then the following morning (the ancient Hebrew night was divided into "watches" each about 4 hours long. The third and final watch was from about 2:00 a.m. to sunrise. Called the morning watch. By Jesus' time they had adopted the Roman division of 4 watches, the final one being from about 3:00 a.m. to sunrise, though the Hebrew day began at sunset or evening and ended the following sunset or evening.) These verses, as well as John 19:39-40 took place before the morning of Jesus' rising from the dead. They are considered here, because the skeptic often has confused them for having taken place that morning. At John 19:39-40 upon Jesus' burial it is mentioned that the body had been spiced, but since it was a Sabbath, and the burial was done in haste, the women had returned to do a more thorough job.
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew gives the account of the stone being moved before the women arrived where the others do not. See 2. above.
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Angels are spirit form and so in order for them to be seen by humans they have to assume physical form, so some see them as men and others know that they are actually angels. They are, in a sense, both angels and men. (Genesis 29:1-5) Many of the details of the account given by the four writers of the gospel differ in a way that depends upon who is telling the account to them. There were people coming and going over an indeterminate amount of time, and where one person would see one thing another would see something different from their own perspective of where they fit in the stream of time.
For example, the guards were there during the night, and some of the women were there. The women left first and then the soldiers left sometime not long before the women returned. The soldiers left when the angels arrived and moved the stone. Mary arrived but left to tell the others what had happened; the apostles arrived - John being younger and faster arrived first, before Peter. The arrival of the others isn't specifically mentioned but they were there. If the Bible skeptic, who seems to expect all four of these accounts to be identical thus defeating the purpose of giving a varied witness account, was set down at any given point within my brief description of a part of what happened it would differ from any other point. Was Mary there or not? Depends upon when you got there. The same applies to Peter and John, and the angels and the guards and Jesus. And their positions.
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
1. Matthew was the only one to mention dead people emerging from their graves upon Jesus' death. It is assumed that these resurrected dead were walking around.
The omission of the dead people emerging from the graves by the other writers does not, of course, mean anything. Matthew was, contrary to scholarly opinion, the first gospel to be written. In De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." So this (Matthew having been the first gospel) might be a reason for the others having not included the dead people emerging from their graves.
Any serious scholar of the Bible could tell you that at Matthew 27:52-53 the Greek egeiro means simply raised up rather than resurrected back to life, and in addition to this "they" (meaning the bodies that were walking around) is a pronoun, and in Greek all pronouns have gender and "they" is masculine whereas bodies" (the bodies that were lifted up) is in the neuter. They are not the same.
Adam Clarke: "It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in verses 52 and 53. Some have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this: - by the earthquake several bodies that had been buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ's resurrection, and were seen by many persons in the city."
Theobald Daechsel's translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up."
Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."
2. At Matthew 28:2 there was an "earthquake" and an angel rolled back the stone slab that closed the tomb off. The other gospel writers don't mention this. Some Bible defenders suggest past perfect, but as the skeptic points out the passage is in the aorist (past) tense.
The Greek word seismos means quaking, shaking or trembling. (Matthew 27:51, 54; 28:4; Revelation 6:13) The earth quaking from the moving of a rather large stone, for example, might have been trivial enough for some not to mention it.
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James H. Moulton, Vol. I, 1908, p. 109, "the Aorist has a 'punctiliar' action, that is, it regards action as a point: it represents the point of entrance . . . or that of completion . . . or it looks at a whole action simply as having occurred, without distinguishing any steps in its progress."
Aorist is a peculiar tense in the koiné Greek which means "not bounded" as to time. Verbs in the aorist tense can be rendered in a variety of ways depending upon the context. They could mark a definite occurrence of something at an unstated time in the past, such as with Matthew 28:2. An example of a similar case would be in Matthew 17:3 where the voice announced that the son had been approved. Many translations often miss the exact meaning of texts where the aorist tense is used. Matthew, understood correctly, indicates that the stone had been rolled back before the women arrived, he only mentioned that the stone had been moved and how it was moved whereas the other gospel writers do not.
Some critics consider the following as discrepancies. Each of them will be addressed below.
What time did the women visit the tomb?
They all convey the idea that it was dark and getting light. Dawn.
Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the Women?
Some Bible writers mentioned the names of certain women, others do not. The various accounts do not indicate any of the women were not present, they only vary in which names are given.
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
Mark 15:47 and Luke 23:55-56 clearly state that the women were there the night before and rested for the Sabbath, then the following morning (the ancient Hebrew night was divided into "watches" each about 4 hours long. The third and final watch was from about 2:00 a.m. to sunrise. Called the morning watch. By Jesus' time they had adopted the Roman division of 4 watches, the final one being from about 3:00 a.m. to sunrise, though the Hebrew day began at sunset or evening and ended the following sunset or evening.) These verses, as well as John 19:39-40 took place before the morning of Jesus' rising from the dead. They are considered here, because the skeptic often has confused them for having taken place that morning. At John 19:39-40 upon Jesus' burial it is mentioned that the body had been spiced, but since it was a Sabbath, and the burial was done in haste, the women had returned to do a more thorough job.
Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew gives the account of the stone being moved before the women arrived where the others do not. See 2. above.
Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Angels are spirit form and so in order for them to be seen by humans they have to assume physical form, so some see them as men and others know that they are actually angels. They are, in a sense, both angels and men. (Genesis 29:1-5) Many of the details of the account given by the four writers of the gospel differ in a way that depends upon who is telling the account to them. There were people coming and going over an indeterminate amount of time, and where one person would see one thing another would see something different from their own perspective of where they fit in the stream of time.
For example, the guards were there during the night, and some of the women were there. The women left first and then the soldiers left sometime not long before the women returned. The soldiers left when the angels arrived and moved the stone. Mary arrived but left to tell the others what had happened; the apostles arrived - John being younger and faster arrived first, before Peter. The arrival of the others isn't specifically mentioned but they were there. If the Bible skeptic, who seems to expect all four of these accounts to be identical thus defeating the purpose of giving a varied witness account, was set down at any given point within my brief description of a part of what happened it would differ from any other point. Was Mary there or not? Depends upon when you got there. The same applies to Peter and John, and the angels and the guards and Jesus. And their positions.
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Last edited by a moderator:
Earthling
David Henson
Discrepancies part 2
Where were these messengers situated?
See the point directly above. In seeing these small details that differ among various witnesses one could either come to the conclusion that these things didn't take place as the Bible says they did, or that there was an attempt to give accurate accounts from various perspectives in the stream of time which must have been a tremendously exciting and confusing period. And they differed slightly. It would have been easy enough for four Christians to come together and create one account that didn't differ in any way, but what would have been the point? The skeptic would have to take the position that they were so similar they must be fraudulent, and in thinking this they would be right.
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
Each of the accounts that are given convey the same message. If one tells another what yet another says the words may become ones own but the message is the same. These quotes themselves change over time and translation but the message is the same.
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
There are two things to consider here. First of all, the possibility that since Mary had left to tell the apostles what she had seen, these other women are the ones that Mark is referring to. Mark's account of the events that took place are somewhat more limited than the others and he doesn't mention Mary having left, but the others do. That doesn't mean that he meant to imply that she hadn't, but only that he didn't mention it. Also note that the second half of verse 8 it seems to contradict itself saying that the women did tell Peter. This brings us to the second point of consideration. The second half of verse 8 of Mark chapter 16 to the conclusion of the book is spurious. It was added on later.
The Codex Regius of the eighth century includes both the short and the long ending adding that they are current in some quarters while not recognizing either as authoritative.
The Greek Codex Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi rescriptus from the fifth century C.E., as well as the Greek and Latin Bezae Codices from the fifth and sixth centuries C.E., Jerome's Latin Vulgate c. 400 C.E., Curetonian Syriac, Old Syriac and Syriac Pe****ta, Christian Aramaic both from the fifth century C.E. add the long conclusion, but the Greek Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican ms 1209, both from the fourth century C.E. as well as the Cinaitic Syriac codex from the fourth and fifth century C.E., and Armenian Version from the fourth to thirteenth century C.E. omits them. It would seem, especially when examining the context, that these verses were added sometime during this period.
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
During the confusion of the events at the tomb Mary may have had, at any given point, some confusion about what was going on. That is completely understandable. Another point to consider is the body of Jesus itself. Jesus had one body which was sacrificed for all time. That body was now lifeless and taken away by angels, because, what is the point of sacrificing the body only to bring it back 3 days later? The man Jesus had died and was no more, but the spirit form that had existed before the man was alive again and had to take on another body in a similar way as all of the angels that were there at the tomb. This is why Mary and others didn't recognize him at first; she thought that he was the gardener.
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Notice that Mathew 28:9 doesn't mention Mary, only the women, and John mentions that Mary had left to tell Peter what had happened.
Mark 16:9-10 are spurious. (See above "Did the women tell what happened?")
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
In some older translations the Greek hapto which can mean "touch," but also "cling to, lay hold of" in English. Since Jesus allowed others to touch him it appears that in the case of Mary, she had been clinging to Jesus. She no doubt had been upset that he had died and didn't want to let him go, not understanding that he was going to go to Heaven with his Father to fulfill the purpose he had told them about, which is why he explained to her that that is what he needed to do. The German Elberfelder and Luther translations, the French Crampon and Liénar Bibles, Italian Riveduta and Diodati and Spanish Moderna, Valera and Nácar-Colunga translations all use the term "touching" as well. The New English Bible, Catholic La Bible de Jérusalem (The Jerusalem Bible) in French and English use the more contextually accurate "stop clinging" or "let go of" terminology which agrees with An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, Vol. IV, p. 145. The Spanish Ediciones Paulinas uses "Suéltame," meaning "Let go of me."
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
Where were these messengers situated?
See the point directly above. In seeing these small details that differ among various witnesses one could either come to the conclusion that these things didn't take place as the Bible says they did, or that there was an attempt to give accurate accounts from various perspectives in the stream of time which must have been a tremendously exciting and confusing period. And they differed slightly. It would have been easy enough for four Christians to come together and create one account that didn't differ in any way, but what would have been the point? The skeptic would have to take the position that they were so similar they must be fraudulent, and in thinking this they would be right.
Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
Each of the accounts that are given convey the same message. If one tells another what yet another says the words may become ones own but the message is the same. These quotes themselves change over time and translation but the message is the same.
Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
There are two things to consider here. First of all, the possibility that since Mary had left to tell the apostles what she had seen, these other women are the ones that Mark is referring to. Mark's account of the events that took place are somewhat more limited than the others and he doesn't mention Mary having left, but the others do. That doesn't mean that he meant to imply that she hadn't, but only that he didn't mention it. Also note that the second half of verse 8 it seems to contradict itself saying that the women did tell Peter. This brings us to the second point of consideration. The second half of verse 8 of Mark chapter 16 to the conclusion of the book is spurious. It was added on later.
The Codex Regius of the eighth century includes both the short and the long ending adding that they are current in some quarters while not recognizing either as authoritative.
The Greek Codex Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi rescriptus from the fifth century C.E., as well as the Greek and Latin Bezae Codices from the fifth and sixth centuries C.E., Jerome's Latin Vulgate c. 400 C.E., Curetonian Syriac, Old Syriac and Syriac Pe****ta, Christian Aramaic both from the fifth century C.E. add the long conclusion, but the Greek Codex Sinaiticus and Vatican ms 1209, both from the fourth century C.E. as well as the Cinaitic Syriac codex from the fourth and fifth century C.E., and Armenian Version from the fourth to thirteenth century C.E. omits them. It would seem, especially when examining the context, that these verses were added sometime during this period.
Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
During the confusion of the events at the tomb Mary may have had, at any given point, some confusion about what was going on. That is completely understandable. Another point to consider is the body of Jesus itself. Jesus had one body which was sacrificed for all time. That body was now lifeless and taken away by angels, because, what is the point of sacrificing the body only to bring it back 3 days later? The man Jesus had died and was no more, but the spirit form that had existed before the man was alive again and had to take on another body in a similar way as all of the angels that were there at the tomb. This is why Mary and others didn't recognize him at first; she thought that he was the gardener.
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
Notice that Mathew 28:9 doesn't mention Mary, only the women, and John mentions that Mary had left to tell Peter what had happened.
Mark 16:9-10 are spurious. (See above "Did the women tell what happened?")
Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
In some older translations the Greek hapto which can mean "touch," but also "cling to, lay hold of" in English. Since Jesus allowed others to touch him it appears that in the case of Mary, she had been clinging to Jesus. She no doubt had been upset that he had died and didn't want to let him go, not understanding that he was going to go to Heaven with his Father to fulfill the purpose he had told them about, which is why he explained to her that that is what he needed to do. The German Elberfelder and Luther translations, the French Crampon and Liénar Bibles, Italian Riveduta and Diodati and Spanish Moderna, Valera and Nácar-Colunga translations all use the term "touching" as well. The New English Bible, Catholic La Bible de Jérusalem (The Jerusalem Bible) in French and English use the more contextually accurate "stop clinging" or "let go of" terminology which agrees with An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, Vol. IV, p. 145. The Spanish Ediciones Paulinas uses "Suéltame," meaning "Let go of me."
Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
So denialism is how you respond to challenges to your way of thinking. "Scientists and modern scholars are all idiots! I know the real truth because I believe!". You deal with contradictions by denying they exist. That doesn't work for me. It can't work for me. My rational mind will not allow that to work for me. My faith in God will not allow that to work for me.
I have no problem with the findings of credible science and modern scholarship. I very much believe in the reality of God. I find no conflict at all. Quite the contrary actually.
Why does your faith need to defend your beliefs so much?
Earthling
David Henson
Maybe check your reading comprehension skill first. I was addressing the OP, not all science and scholars, only the ones presented therein. Then check out my follow up which demonstrates that I was right, they were wrong.
