This is my reply to a video by Ja. Warner Wallace advertised as
Why Differences Between the Gospels Demonstrate Their Reliability (Video)
Posted: 20 Feb 2018 01:10 AM PST
Fat chance. In Matthew, Mary doesn't leave the tomb until she is made perfectly well aware of what happened to the body of Jesus:
NAU Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.
2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it.
3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow.
4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.
6 "He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.
7 "Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you."
8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. (Matt. 28:1-8 NAU)
But in John, Mary is at the tomb, then she runs and complains to Peter and John that she doesn't know what happened to Jesus' body:
NAU John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.Apologists dismiss this by speculating either a) Mary in Matthew split off from the group of other women before they got to the tomb, wasn't there to recieve the angelic report, and John is talking about Mary after she comes back from the detour having missed the show, or b) Mary was told what happened to Jesus' body along with the other women, but because of what's written in John, apparently the truth just hadn't "hit" her just yet (!?)
2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." (Jn. 20:1-2 NAU)
Here's how you stomp the guts out of these speculations and force inerrancy to reveal its ugly head:
All patristic sources and most modern Christian scholars agree that John was written later than the other 3 canonical gospels.
If then you read Matthew's account the way it was originally intended (i.e., by itself, without comparing it to other accounts), you discern not the slightest justification for supposing Mary split off from the group of women before they got to the tomb.
Concerning Gleason Archer's "the truth just hadn't hit her just yet" to explain her ignorance in John, again, if you read Matthew 28:7-8 as it was orignally intended to be read (without worrying about comparing it to or reconciling it with some other account), the statement in v. 8 would be taken by you to mean that Mary, after learning what happened to the body, left with the other women and told the men the same thing the angel said.
If you read Matthew objectively as it was originally intended by its author, you get not the slightest justification to think Mary either departed from the group before they hear the angel, nor that she experienced a failure of comprehension between the angelic announcement and her reporting to the other disciples.
hello
ReplyDeletehow would you address apologists who say that mark just said that the women kept silent when they left the tomb...
so the apologists spin is, "as they were leaving /when they went from the tomb...."
but this seems odd reply, mark seems to be saying that fear caused them to remain silent. even if they spoke, there is no indication they spoke on the same day. "they said nothing to anyone..."
that would indicate that matthew is lying when he says that the women spoke to jesus as they were going.
if jesus was the first person the women saw when they LEFT the tomb and mark knew this, why would he say the following :
8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.[a]
it did not say "good news" seized them like the other gospels say, it says they were in shock.
the "and" would imply a new sentence which implies that not only they were afraid but they were too afraid to talk.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"how would you address apologists who say that mark just said that the women kept silent when they left the tomb...so the apologists spin is, "as they were leaving /when they went from the tomb...."--but this seems odd reply, mark seems to be saying that fear caused them to remain silent. even if they spoke, there is no indication they spoke on the same day. "they said nothing to anyone..." "
Delete------------If the consensus of Christian scholars is correct that Mark originally ended at 16:8, then because Mark does not qualify his comment about the women's silence, it should not be taken in a qualified way, meaning that Mark did not want to answer the question of whether the women said anything about the matter at a later time. That's the responsible historical position. And in light of the Christian scholarly consensus that Mark was the earliest published of the 4 canonical gospels, any apologist who would use the extra information in Matthew, Luke and John to justify qualifying the words Mark chose to leave unqualified, is simply irresponsible and incorrect, and arises from a prior desire to promote bible inerrancy or accuracy, not a desire to let the chips fall where they actually do.
"that would indicate that matthew is lying when he says that the women spoke to jesus as they were going."
---------Indeed, there are many such instances of Matthew expanding on or correcting Mark's text. Matthew obviously did not believe in the "inerrancy" of Mark's original text, quite contrary to the "inerrant in the originals" stuff you get from the Chicago Statement on Bible Inerrancy. And I have quotes from recent evangelical commentators who admit that Matthew often changed Mark's text likely because the way Mark phrased things portrayed Jesus in a theologically or historically false light. If even "inerrantist" Christian scholars are admitting to such bullshit, apologists can hardly relegate the skeptic's denial of bible inerrancy to spiritual deadness or ignorance of the issues.
"if jesus was the first person the women saw when they LEFT the tomb and mark knew this, why would he say the following :
8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.[a]
--------I too have argued that if Mark knew about the details of the resurrection appearances and other matters related in the later gospels, there is no fucking way he would have "chosen to exclude" these matters. So Mark's silence with respect to all those other details actually implies that he didn't believe those things happened. Both modern historians and modern courts of law agree that in the right circumstances, the argument from silence is valid.
part two:
Delete"it did not say "good news" seized them like the other gospels say, it says they were in shock."
------That's precisely the problem: the resurrection story in the earliest form of the gospel would not have been impressive to anybody except the shockingly gullible, which is likely the reason the later gospel authors add all those other details. As time goes on, the original form of the story becomes less scintillating. Hence, the gospel story follows the typical expected pattern of embellishment, wherein the earliest form has less detail, and the later forms have more.
"the "and" would imply a new sentence which implies that not only they were afraid but they were too afraid to talk."
------------I don't know what you mean here: In the Greek, 'and' is και or kai;
'for' is γαρ (gar),
the last word in Mark 16:8 is γαρ.
Regardless, even if we concede that Mark's original ending was longer but now lost, that prevents Christians from supporting something they hold dear, the doctrinal that god magically 'preserved' his word. Even the canonical material can become lost to the ravages of time. There might be Christian apologists who hold less extreme views, but that doesn't mean the more gullible and ignorant inerrantists are unworthy of our help. If they choose to adopt a less fairytale view of inerrancy, we'll demolish that one too if it ever comes down the pike.
Since there is scholarly consensus that Mark intentionally ended at 16:8, and since it seems obvious that nobody could resolve these issues with greater precision even if they obtained their Ph.d in NT Greek, it is reasonable for the atheist to adopt the majority scholarly conclusion, and thus conclude that Mark's original said nothing about Jesus appearing to anybody, and to infer that the original form of the gospel offered the reader no 'eyewitness' accounts of Jesus rising from the dead.
When you take away the Christian apologist's eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, you take away Christianity's main pillar.