Old vs. New Testament?

Are we still on this? If you were to take the testimony of four reliable witnesses in Jury trial, you would certainly expect to find at least general agreement along with some identical observation.

I can't see the point of contention here.

0 Replies

And certainly if Matthew and Luke both used Mark as the foundation upon which they built their own manuscripts, which appears to be the case, it would not be unusual that they would eacj take and include the same quote from Mark's manuscript to incorporate verbatim into their own. Thus in some details all three will report the same words. All three disagreed sufficiently, however, to suggest that they were working from their own experience, understanding, and memories, and this in my opinion adds credibility, not doubt on the veracity of the texts.

I have been both newspaper/TV reporter and claims adjuster in my previous life and in both vocations had opportunity to interview lots of witnesses to various events. To get even most, much less all, to agree on all the facts just isn't going to happen.

0 Replies

I don't say that Matthew, Mark and Luke disagree.

They simply chose , or were led if you prefer, to emphasize different details and in some cases list them in a different order.

None of which means that they contradict each other because the case hasn't been made for that at all.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I don't say that Matthew, Mark and Luke disagree.

They simply chose , or were led if you prefer, to emphasize different details and in some cases list them in a different order.

None of which means that they contradict each other because the case hasn't been made for that at all.

Going back to an earlier post, you can find places where they do disagree on sequence of events, the number and/or specific people present at an event, etc. Matthew and Mark will sometimes disagree with Luke; Luke and Mark will sometimes disagree with Mathew; and in minor points Matthew and Luke will both disagree with Mark. But in no place do Matthew and Luke agree with each other against Mark.

We are talking about people, trained in oral tradition, who are reporting their own or other's eye witness accounts of events. Knowing the overwhelming unreliability of eye witness accounts when it comes to minor details, I would find it highly suspicious if the Synoptics were in perfect agreement. The fact that they are is not adds credibility in my opinion.

Years ago I was teaching a highschool Sunday School class. There was a large abstract tapestry hanging right behind the pulpit in the sanctuary and those kids had been looking at that tapestry every Sunday morning for years and years. As an illustration of the difficulty of working from memory, I asked them to describe that tapestry. They could all see it in their mind's eye, but every one of them remembered the detail in it differently.

Every one old enough to be aware can tell you exactly where they were and who they were with and what they were doing when they received word that JFK had been shot. The entire nation spent days in front of their TVs soaking in the nonstop news of Oswald and Ruby and the funeral and all the other events of those next days. The memory is still vivid, but no two people who wrote down their recollections would remember all the same things or put everything into the same sequence.

More currently, if any of us wrote down our memories of the attack on the World Trade Center, some would remember some details, others would remember other details, and we would be unlikely to agree exactly on the sequences that even the major events happened.

I believe the Gospels to be written by men of God who were telling it as honestly as they could. The fact that there are minor contradictions only adds to the authenticity.

0 Replies

Quote:

btw Even if one gospel writer DID decide to use the Centurion quote after reading it in an earlier gospel by another writer, and even if he DID quote it word for word, how is that proof that the event did not occur?

. You make the very point of why "Questioned documents" is an important forensic tool.
In Mark 15, the context is one of (with the exception of a "renting of the temple veil) that Jesus was crucified and cried out , not as one comfortable with his "staus". Then, almost as an afterthought a single centurion says that :surely this was the sone of God". How did the centurion know the temple veils were rent if he were up on a hill watching the prisoner die? Im not necessarily convinced on anything , Im just reporting what divinity scolars have written about the derivative nature and the "post documentary embellishments that have beensubjects of discussions for years".
InMatthew, Jesus is shown with a few more phenomena associated with his death, like earthquakes and rising bodies from the graves(all of which is silkent in Mark, who, as the earliest chronicler, maybe had a closer view of the situation..
As the4 Gospels progress, they add abit more to the story which was not included in the original Mark So by the time we get toLuke, the centurion only states that "this man was innocent " but the Gospel dwells more on fullfillment of prophecies.Then, by the time John is chronicled John, Jesus announces that (in a sense of how the CAtholic Bible interprets it) Jesus , says that "Its finished" meaning its fulfilled..So, its only Mark and then Mathhew that have the centurion statement , which,in many scholars opinions is actually an added statement madeafter the Gospel was written.

The entire story of the Passion is a mishmash of taking a little it from each Gospel, so there appears to be a continuity of evidence All Im saying is that instead of lumping, we must recognize that many scholars like to split the writings and view them in more historical context and compare the contemporary goings on that may have caused the Gospels to be written.

0 Replies

Quote:

Are we still on this? If you were to take the testimony of four reliable witnesses in Jury trial, you would certainly expect to find at least general agreement along with some identical observation.

Thats the problem neo. We dont have 4 reliable witnesses. We have 3 who were separated in time from the event , and one who, while slightly contemporary, got the story from others. You can ascribe no forensic weight to the Gospels because of thei separation in time, their derivative nature, the fact of later embellishment.
I dont believe that theres much hitorcal validity in the Gospels because they were written for a different purpose than "evidence"

Im amazed that rl and some others can be so demanding in the train of evidence that we supply in science, but dont question any of the veracity of the Gospels. We call that "critera ranking"

0 Replies

Farmerman writes

Quote:

The entire story of the Passion is a mishmash of taking a little it from each Gospel, so there appears to be a continuity of evidence All Im saying is that instead of lumping, we must recognize that many scholars like to split the writings and view them in more historical context and compare the contemporary goings on that may have caused the Gospels to be written.

While I give much more authority and authenticity to the New Testament Scriptures than you appear to give them, this is an astute observation. Not one of the Gospel writers (John included) was making any kind of attempt to write an accurate chronological history of the events related, but they were rather writing to offer a particular theological perspective. Each gathered up snippets and quotes of writings and oral tradition and edited them together into the documents we have. The similarities in the Synoptics are partly because Matthew and Luke built on Mark's original document, each included some of the same source material and Matthew and Luke each included material that is unique to their gospels.
John, writing decades after the synoptics were completed, was coming from an entirely different point of view and wrote for a much different purpose and this completed manuscript bears little or no resemblance to the synoptics.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

real life wrote:
I don't say that Matthew, Mark and Luke disagree.

They simply chose , or were led if you prefer, to emphasize different details and in some cases list them in a different order.

None of which means that they contradict each other because the case hasn't been made for that at all.

Going back to an earlier post, you can find places where they do disagree on sequence of events, the number and/or specific people present at an event, etc. Matthew and Mark will sometimes disagree with Luke; Luke and Mark will sometimes disagree with Mathew; and in minor points Matthew and Luke will both disagree with Mark. But in no place do Matthew and Luke agree with each other against Mark.

We are talking about people, trained in oral tradition, who are reporting their own or other's eye witness accounts of events. Knowing the overwhelming unreliability of eye witness accounts when it comes to minor details, I would find it highly suspicious if the Synoptics were in perfect agreement. The fact that they are is not adds credibility in my opinion.

Years ago I was teaching a highschool Sunday School class. There was a large abstract tapestry hanging right behind the pulpit in the sanctuary and those kids had been looking at that tapestry every Sunday morning for years and years. As an illustration of the difficulty of working from memory, I asked them to describe that tapestry. They could all see it in their mind's eye, but every one of them remembered the detail in it differently.

Every one old enough to be aware can tell you exactly where they were and who they were with and what they were doing when they received word that JFK had been shot. The entire nation spent days in front of their TVs soaking in the nonstop news of Oswald and Ruby and the funeral and all the other events of those next days. The memory is still vivid, but no two people who wrote down their recollections would remember all the same things or put everything into the same sequence.

More currently, if any of us wrote down our memories of the attack on the World Trade Center, some would remember some details, others would remember other details, and we would be unlikely to agree exactly on the sequences that even the major events happened.

I believe the Gospels to be written by men of God who were telling it as honestly as they could. The fact that there are minor contradictions only adds to the authenticity.

Perhaps I missed the earlier post that you refer to. Can you give a specific example of what you believe to be a genuine contradiction?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
btw Even if one gospel writer DID decide to use the Centurion quote after reading it in an earlier gospel by another writer, and even if he DID quote it word for word, how is that proof that the event did not occur?
. You make the very point of why "Questioned documents" is an important forensic tool.
In Mark 15, the context is one of (with the exception of a "renting of the temple veil) that Jesus was crucified and cried out , not as one comfortable with his "staus". Then, almost as an afterthought a single centurion says that :surely this was the sone of God". How did the centurion know the temple veils were rent if he were up on a hill watching the prisoner die? Im not necessarily convinced on anything , Im just reporting what divinity scolars have written about the derivative nature and the "post documentary embellishments that have beensubjects of discussions for years".
InMatthew, Jesus is shown with a few more phenomena associated with his death, like earthquakes and rising bodies from the graves(all of which is silkent in Mark, who, as the earliest chronicler, maybe had a closer view of the situation..
As the4 Gospels progress, they add abit more to the story which was not included in the original Mark So by the time we get toLuke, the centurion only states that "this man was innocent " but the Gospel dwells more on fullfillment of prophecies.Then, by the time John is chronicled John, Jesus announces that (in a sense of how the CAtholic Bible interprets it) Jesus , says that "Its finished" meaning its fulfilled..So, its only Mark and then Mathhew that have the centurion statement , which,in many scholars opinions is actually an added statement madeafter the Gospel was written.

The entire story of the Passion is a mishmash of taking a little it from each Gospel, so there appears to be a continuity of evidence All Im saying is that instead of lumping, we must recognize that many scholars like to split the writings and view them in more historical context and compare the contemporary goings on that may have caused the Gospels to be written.

I think we've covered this previously, but when Jesus 'cried out' there is nothing there to indicate that He is 'not comfortable with His status'. (Obviously, crucifixion is not PHYSICALLY comfortable, but Jesus had known all along that He would be killed, so He is not 'out of the loop' as you had tried to contend when we covered this.)

In fact, while on the cross, He quotes Psalm 22 which begins with "My God, my God why has thou forsaken Me?" and includes several rather striking physical descriptions of crucifixion.

As for your question how the centurion knew that the temple veil rent etc , I think that if you'll look carefully at the language, it does not indicate that the Centurion was responding to the tearing of the veil, but rather to the manner in which he saw Christ die.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Are we still on this? If you were to take the testimony of four reliable witnesses in Jury trial, you would certainly expect to find at least general agreement along with some identical observation.

Thats the problem neo. We dont have 4 reliable witnesses. We have 3 who were separated in time from the event , and one who, while slightly contemporary, got the story from others. You can ascribe no forensic weight to the Gospels because of thei separation in time, their derivative nature, the fact of later embellishment.
I dont believe that theres much hitorcal validity in the Gospels because they were written for a different purpose than "evidence"

Im amazed that rl and some others can be so demanding in the train of evidence that we supply in science, but dont question any of the veracity of the Gospels. We call that "critera ranking"

While you've expressed the opinion of others that the Gospels were later embellished, you have by no means established it as a 'fact', nor even offered any real evidence to support it.

You've alluded to 'differences in language/style' between the passage and the rest of the gospel.

What exactly are these differences and what is so compelling about them (assuming they can be shown) to indicate beyond reasonable doubt that the passage is a later insertion?

They must be beyond reasonable doubt, I would think, if you are willing to refer to it as a 'fact'.

0 Replies

RL writes

Quote:

Perhaps I missed the earlier post that you refer to. Can you give a specific example of what you believe to be a genuine contradiction?

Sure. One example is that in the accounts of the resurrection, Mark did not deal with this at all. (Most theologians believe the longer ending was added at a later time to correct that omission. But in that longer ending it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome who went to the tomb, encountered an angel who told them to go tell the disciples that Jesus would be in Galilee. They ran away and told nobody because they were afraid.)

In Matthew, the two Mary's went to the tomb and found it empty and the one angel present told them to go tell the Disciples that Jesus had arisen and was going to Galilee ahead of them. They were on their way to tell the Disciples when Jesus appeared to them and also told them to go tell the Disciples to go to Galilee where he would meet with them.

In Luke, the 'women' (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them) went to the tomb where they encountered two angels who told them that Jesus had risen and how that was a fulfillment of the prophecy. There is no indication that the angels told the women to tell the Disciples, but they did and were not believed. The first account of the resurrected Jesus appearing to anyone was to two disciples on the road to Emmaus just outside Jerusalem.

In John, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone and there is no indication she encountered an angel. She went to tell Peter and John who went to the tomb and they didn't encounter an angel either. Later, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene at the tomb and that night to the disciples who were together, presumably in Jerusalem, with their doors locked 'for fear of the Jews'.

In the Infancy narratives, Mark and John omit these entirely. In Matthew, the angel appears in Bethlehem and warns Mary and Joseph to escape from Herod to Egypt and presumably they went straight there.

In Luke, on the eighth day following the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem to be circumcised. There was no mention of a threat from Herod

These are all minor contradictions and all certainly relate to the same story but told from different perspectives and/or memories. I am not in the least troubled by the differences in accounts. All definitely agree that Jesus was born and was special, and Jesus was resurrected and there are eye witness accounts to verify it. I do, however, think intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge that there are differences in the accounts.

.

0 Replies

Someone recently pointed out that gospel means good news and not truth.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

RL writes

Quote:
Perhaps I missed the earlier post that you refer to. Can you give a specific example of what you believe to be a genuine contradiction?

Sure. One example is that in the accounts of the resurrection, Mark did not deal with this at all. (Most theologians believe the longer ending was added at a later time to correct that omission. But in that longer ending it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome who went to the tomb, encountered an angel who told them to go tell the disciples that Jesus would be in Galilee. They ran away and told nobody because they were afraid.)

In Matthew, the two Mary's went to the tomb and found it empty and the one angel present told them to go tell the Disciples that Jesus had arisen and was going to Galilee ahead of them. They were on their way to tell the Disciples when Jesus appeared to them and also told them to go tell the Disciples to go to Galilee where he would meet with them.

In Luke, the 'women' (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them) went to the tomb where they encountered two angels who told them that Jesus had risen and how that was a fulfillment of the prophecy. There is no indication that the angels told the women to tell the Disciples, but they did and were not believed. The first account of the resurrected Jesus appearing to anyone was to two disciples on the road to Emmaus just outside Jerusalem.

In John, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone and there is no indication she encountered an angel. She went to tell Peter and John who went to the tomb and they didn't encounter an angel either. Later, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene at the tomb and that night to the disciples who were together, presumably in Jerusalem, with their doors locked 'for fear of the Jews'.

In the Infancy narratives, Mark and John omit these entirely. In Matthew, the angel appears in Bethlehem and warns Mary and Joseph to escape from Herod to Egypt and presumably they went straight there.

In Luke, on the eighth day following the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem to be circumcised. There was no mention of a threat from Herod

These are all minor contradictions and all certainly relate to the same story but told from different perspectives and/or memories. I am not in the least troubled by the differences in accounts. All definitely agree that Jesus was born and was special, and Jesus was resurrected and there are eye witness accounts to verify it. I do, however, think intellectual honesty requires us to acknowledge that there are differences in the accounts.

.

The fact that some of the writers focus on one or two of the women who went to the grave does not exclude the possibility that others may have likely been in company with them(the probability really, when you consider that 'Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils.' so that it may have taken several of them to carry all that was needed for their purpose) .

The same is true of the angelic presence. If one angel spoke, it is not unusual that some writers might focus just on the speaker, while others mention that he was accompanied by another.

As for the Infancy narrative, since Mark and John omit these, you consider it a contradiction? Do you suppose Mark and John intended to convey the meaning that Jesus had no period of infancy? Of course not. An omission is not a contradiction by a long shot.

The flight into Egypt took place when Jesus was how old? We don't know. Matthew states that Joseph, Mary and Jesus were now in a 'house' not a stable and the wise men had taken some amount of time to search for him.

Bethlehem is only a few miles from Jerusalem and a day's journey there and back for the circumcision before the visit of the wise men or after is possible easily either way.

Again the lack of a time line does not make this into any kind of a contradiction. It simply means that different aspects of the event were emphasized by different writers.

Nothing at all unusual about that.

0 Replies

When you consider that it is the traditional job of women to prepare dead bodies for burial, there is nothing contradictory about the women doing this. As for the number of women, hey, they had to lift and turn a full grown, albeit dead, male.

0 Replies

to Reallife, no quarrel with your assessment at all, and I did not intend to imply that leaving out a story altogether was a contradiction, nor did I imply that every account was a complete account. My point is that failure to acknowledged that there are differences in the accounts only makes us Christians look foolish and dogmatically fanatical. And the omissions can be rather striking such as when one account presents grave danger from King Herod and the other makes no mention of this. That would be like a history book failing to mention a world war in a history of the 1940's.

And it is easier to explain the variances in the number of women and angels than ti explain away the differences in how the disciples were informed of the resurrection.

And there remain other minor points. Matthew 2:19-23 "After Herod died, an angel of the lord appeard in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead. . . .but when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. . .and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So it was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Luke 1:26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph. . . ." and Luke 2:39 (After Jesus had been presented at the Temple on the 8th day after the birth): "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. . . ."

Now we can try to spin this one to reconcile the two accounts, and indeed maybe Matthew didn't understand that Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth orginally, but there is no denying that the accounts are different and/or contradictory. Different enough to shake my faith? Absolutely not. Different enough to add credibility to the integrity of multiple sources for the accounts? Yes.

You see I don't see such contradictions as being a negative where the New Testament is concerned. If the accounts were essentially identical, I think they would be far more suspect in that they were all copied from one original document that could have been manufactured by one person. At the time the synoptics were written, there was insufficient time for myths and legends to have developed, at least those that would not be challenged by eye witnesses who still lived in those times.

Different writers, different memories, different emphasis, yes. Same events? Yes.

0 Replies

hi Foxfyre,

Yes I agree that the gospel accounts all differ significantly, but those differences IMHO do not amount to contradictions.

Some gospels also record the attempted stoning of Christ prior to His appointed time for crucifixion.

Some gospels do not.

Difference? Yes.

Contradiction? Not unless one of the gospels were to assert that such an event DID NOT occur. Now that would be a contradiction.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

hi Foxfyre,

Yes I agree that the gospel accounts all differ significantly, but those differences IMHO do not amount to contradictions.

Some gospels also record the attempted stoning of Christ prior to His appointed time for crucifixion.

Some gospels do not.

Difference? Yes.

Contradiction? Not unless one of the gospels were to assert that such an event DID NOT occur. Now that would be a contradiction.

No, I think without additional text to fill in the blanks, intellectual honesty requires that we have to see them as contradictions. We can explain HOW the accounts could logically be different without contradicting themselves, but we cannot do so with authority to one unschooled in the scriptures.

In these matters, I always try to look at the Bible through the eyes of somebody who didn't grow up with it. Those of us who can't remember a time when we didn't hear the Bible read or didn't know the stories of the Bible sort of automatically transpose the text to fit what we have come to believe about it. And I trust the Holy Spirit to not allow us to go too far out in left field in that regard.

When a non believer points out these 'contradictions', I think the wise course is to agree that yes, the accounts do not agree. But here is why I think that is. . . and explain it that way.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

real life wrote:
hi Foxfyre,

Yes I agree that the gospel accounts all differ significantly, but those differences IMHO do not amount to contradictions.

Some gospels also record the attempted stoning of Christ prior to His appointed time for crucifixion.

Some gospels do not.

Difference? Yes.

Contradiction? Not unless one of the gospels were to assert that such an event DID NOT occur. Now that would be a contradiction.

No, I think without additional text to fill in the blanks, intellectual honesty requires that we have to see them as contradictions. We can explain HOW the accounts could logically be different without contradicting themselves, but we cannot do so with authority to one unschooled in the scriptures.

In these matters, I always try to look at the Bible through the eyes of somebody who didn't grow up with it. Those of us who can't remember a time when we didn't hear the Bible read or didn't know the stories of the Bible sort of automatically transpose the text to fit what we have come to believe about it. And I trust the Holy Spirit to not allow us to go too far out in left field in that regard.

When a non believer points out these 'contradictions', I think the wise course is to agree that yes, the accounts do not agree. But here is why I think that is. . . and explain it that way.

hi Foxfyre,

I cannot concur. There is nothing even remotely dishonest about separate writers giving accounts which are not carbon copies of one another.

While the accounts may certainly differ, they do not disagree.

If all four gospels covered all of the same events, using the same words, then 3 of them are unnecessary.

There is nothing unusual with one gospel mentioning an entire event that another omits completely.

Likewise there is nothing unusual with two or more gospels that describe the same event but emphasize different details, or ignore certain details in order to emphasize a point.

A contradiction is when two texts give accounts that are or seem to be irreconcilable.

At least, that is my understanding of the common definition of contradiction.

Quote:

Main Entry: con·tra·dic·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'dik-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : act or an instance of contradicting
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>
3 a : logical incongruity b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

from merriamwebster.com

An example:

Quote:

Matt 20:29 Now as they went out of Jericho, a great multitude followed Him.

30 And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, "Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David!"

31 Then the multitude warned them that they should be quiet; but they cried out all the more, saying, "Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David!"

32 So Jesus stood still and called them, and said, "What do you want Me to do for you?"

33 They said to Him, "Lord, that our eyes may be opened."

34 So Jesus had compassion and touched their eyes. And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him.

Quote:

Mark 10:46 Now they came to Jericho. As He went out of Jericho with His disciples and a great multitude, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the road begging.

47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

48 Then many warned him to be quiet; but he cried out all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

49 So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be called.
Then they called the blind man, saying to him, "Be of good cheer. Rise, He is calling you."

50 And throwing aside his garment, he rose and came to Jesus.

51 So Jesus answered and said to him, "What do you want Me to do for you?"
The blind man said to Him, "Rabboni, that I may receive my sight."

52 Then Jesus said to him, "Go your way; your faith has made you well." And immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus on the road.

Quote:

Luke 18:35 Then it happened, as He was coming near Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the road begging.

36 And hearing a multitude passing by, he asked what it meant.

37 So they told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by.

38 And he cried out, saying, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

39 Then those who went before warned him that he should be quiet; but he cried out all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"

40 So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be brought to Him. And when he had come near, He asked him,

41 saying, "What do you want Me to do for you?"
He said, "Lord, that I may receive my sight."

42 Then Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has made you well."

43 And immediately he received his sight, and followed Him, glorifying God. And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.

19: 1 Then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.

These accounts of a miracle performed by Jesus seem to present us with accounts that are irreconcilable.

Are they?

Where did this miracle occur?

As Jesus was leaving Jericho, or as He was entering Jericho?

0 Replies

That I find the Biblical accounts to differ in the detail in no way suggests that the writers were in any way dishonest, disingenous, or even necessarily wrong.

The writers of the Gospels weren't following Jesus or his disciples around taking notes. They were writing well over a decade or more after the events and were no doubt editing together segments of testimony along with fragments of manuscripts to make a particular theological statement. I don't think they were at all interested in a chronlogically correct history nor were they concerned with painstaking detail. They wanted to get in the facts that proved who Jesus was and why he was there with them.

It is because the accounts differ somewhat that helps me accept their authenticity. Again, if they were all identical, I would think they were devised. No two people witnessing a spectacular accident or other unusual event are going to remember the exact same details or get everything in the same sequence or report exactly the same people present. Having taken a lot of accident reports from eye witnesses myself, I fully expect some of the details to contradict each other even when I am convinced the witnesses are telling the truth exactly as they remember it.

0 Replies

hi Foxfyre,

I guess we'll just agree to disagree in whether to call these differences 'a contradiction' or not. Smile

btw the example I gave is not a true contradiction and does have an interesting solution

0 Replies

Old vs. New Testament?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know