The Gospels

Who said I subscribed to inerrancy?

Also, I was referring to the shock of the WOMEN, not St Matthew. No-one ever suggested he was there that morning.

Originally posted by orfeo
Who said I subscribed to inerrancy?

I took for granted that you did, since you were trying to harmonize the disparate
accounts. My apologies for misunderstanding.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I took for granted that you did, since you were trying to harmonize the disparate
accounts. My apologies for misunderstanding.

Nemesio

The point really is that I DON'T subscribe to saying that there are errors, contradictions and so on without testing those claims pretty rigorously. I am trying to reconcile the accounts to see if they can be reconciled. Why should I take your word for it that they can't?

I have reason (1) to believe in God (2) to believe that Jesus died to save us from our sins and therefore (3) to believe that the Bible is a pretty reliable guide until proven otherwise. With the emphasis on proven. Because it sets out SOME things that I have concluded are true, I'm prepared to give the rest some credence.

It also means that I'm not going to throw out the entire thing just because someone raises serious doubts in my mind about a particular section. I don't have a simple belief in inerrancy of the whole that could be destroyed by one proven fault. LOL, I have a belief in 'complex inerrancy' maybe!

I'm not blind to the difficulties. Heck, my Bible quite happily points out that the ending to Mark appears to be tacked on, that the last chapter of John appears to be tacked on and has editorial "we" comments that quite obviously don't belong to the original author, that the story of the woman caught in adultery appears in Luke rather than John in many early manuscripts and even back then they weren't quite sure where it belonged...

I have already said to you that I have serious difficulties with Matthew's account of the resurrection, because it all seems very over the top. I don't know if you know the book "Who Moved the Stone". It really is a very good read for the most part, and it's great strength is in piecing together the different accounts of the TRIAL of Jesus. It sets out a quite convincing case that he had SAID he would rise from the dead, and that this was regarded as blasphemous. It makes it very hard to argue that the accounts are not historical to that degree.

But the closing part of the book dealing with the resurrection is less convincing in establishing what happened.

Despite that, despite all the seeming contradictions, I can't shake the impression that SOMETHING happened, because the subsequent actions of the disciples are completely mad. I've yet to hear a persuasive reason why they put up with all that they did to establish the church, other than they believed in a physical resurrection. You can try arguing they got it horribly wrong if you want, which presents its own problems (who else had the body and why did they not produce it), but I find that more likely than suggesting it was all a big story.

And really, if I believe that Jesus rose from the dead then the exact details of the narrative of how that happened (one angel or two, etc) really fade into insignificance.

Tell me I'm making sense, regardless of whether you AGREE with me!

A couple of more specific points:

1. Regarding John 19:42 (and also 19:14). My Bible suggests that "Day of Preparation" is a term used for Fridays generally (preparing for the Sabbath) and doesn't have to have any relationship to Passover whatsoever.

Which makes sense in that the Sabbath would be a reason for a hurried burial. Would the Passover be a reason for a hurried burial?

2. I noticed that that table referred to the sixth hour/third hour inconsistency for the time of Jesus' crucifixion. One explanation is that the Jews and Romans used different time systems, or so I'm told. My Bible's study notes also give the quite frank possibility that there has been a copyists error because it wasn't hard to mix up "III" with "VI" if you weren't tidy.

Originally posted by orfeo
A couple of more specific points:

1. Regarding John 19:42 (and also 19:14). My Bible suggests that "Day of Preparation" is a term used for Fridays generally (preparing for the Sabbath) and doesn't have to have any relationship to Passo ...[text shortened]... t wasn't hard to mix up "III" with "VI" if you weren't tidy.

In my American Standard Version and the King James Version, John 19:14 specifically mentions preparation for the Passover. What version are you using, orfeo?

ASV: 14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the
sixth hour.

KJV: 14And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour

Originally posted by no1marauder
In my American Standard Version and the King James Version, John 19:14 specifically mentions preparation for the Passover. What version are you using, orfeo?

ASV: 14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the
sixth hour.

KJV: 14And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour

Could it be the NewSpeak Version where Passover is merely another Saturday afternoon?

Mathew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the
feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Mark 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

Luke 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

My understanding is that the Lamb had to be consumed before dawn

John 18:26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall,
lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In my American Standard Version and the King James Version, John 19:14 specifically mentions preparation for the Passover. What version are you using, orfeo?

ASV: 14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about t ...[text shortened]... it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour

It's the New International Version.

Jn 19:14

"It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour".

They quite deliberately say in the notes that they believe it is (1) day of Preparation (Friday) (2) of Passover Week, a bit like saying "the Friday of the week of 4th of July" or something.

Unfortunately I have no knowledge of Greek to know if this is legitimate, treating as "day of Preparation of Passover Week" and not "day of Preparation FOR Passover". I notice both your versions say "of" and not "for", I'm wondering if that's significant.

What about John 19:42? NIV says:

"Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."

Originally posted by orfeo
It's the New International Version.

Jn 19:14

"It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour".

They quite deliberately say in the notes that they believe it is (1) day of Preparation (Friday) (2) of Passover Week, a bit like saying "the Friday of the week of 4th of July" or something.

Unfortunately I have no knowledge of ...[text shortened]... use it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."

Orfeo: 1. Regarding John 19:42 (and also 19:14). My Bible suggests that "Day of Preparation" is a term used for Fridays generally (preparing for the Sabbath) and doesn't have to have any relationship to Passover whatsoever.


I was responding to this point; John 19:14 does specifically mention the Passover. I can add nothing to Nemesio's post of the other page; John 18:28 clearly states they hadn't ate the Passover meal yet; while the other Gospels say they did. Contradiction and a major one regarding the most important event in Christianity.

I'm leery of the NIV. According to Biblegateway.com, this translation was commissioned in the mid-1960's by evangelical Christians who believed in the authority and infallibility of the Bible. As Nemesio states, this contradiction has long been known. Translation is in some sense an art rather than a science and it's fairly easy to translate terms to get to the "correct" result (assuming the NIV resolves the contradiction, which it apparently does not). This is not to say that the translators of the NIV are deliberately falsifying; only that their translation is a product of their belief systems. The traditional translations are all fairly consistent on this point.

Originally posted by orfeo
The point really is that I DON'T subscribe to saying that there are errors, contradictions and so on without testing those claims pretty rigorously. I am trying to reconcile the accounts to see if they can be reconciled. Why should I take your word for it that they can't?

This is where Ockham's Razor comes in. Take for example Judas's
death. Did he throw the money in back into the temple and go hang
himself (St Matthew)? Or, did he buy a field with it and eviscerate
himself (Acts)? Darfius would content that both are 'Reconcilable.'
He says that Judas threw the money in the temple, the priests bought
the land, he hung himself and, when his body hit the ground, it
blew open.

Which is more probable: at least one of the two accounts is wrong or
Darfius's improbable explanation?

Did Jesus give two versions of the 'Our Father' and 'The Beatitudes'
or did St Matthew edit the original version to conform to his
understanding of Jesus's theo-philosophy?

Did St Matthew and St Luke record two totally different birthing
accounts for Jesus because they didn't want to duplicate each other
(even though they duplicate each other all the time) or was (at least)
one a creative embellishment on the events?

This is what I mean, Orfeo: if you work off of the assumption that the
Bible is always going to record the Truth until what you call a 'rigorous'
examination takes place, then you are setting up an a priori
assumption about what the Bible is. That is, you are going to find
that you create outrageous and illogical explanations for events when
simple explanations (involving error or contradiction) would suffice. I
believe that such lying to one's self leads to an unhealthy faith.

Despite that, despite all the seeming contradictions, I can't shake the impression that SOMETHING happened, because the subsequent actions of the disciples are completely mad. I've yet to hear a persuasive reason why they put up with all that they did to establish the church, other than they believed in a physical resurrection. You can try arguing they got it horribly wrong if you want, which presents its own problems (who else had the body and why did they not produce it), but I find that more likely than suggesting it was all a big story.

I have no doubt that 'something' happened. However, St Matthew
(especially) cannot be considered reliable for establishing precisely
what that something was. I genuinely believe that 'something' very
important happened and, as time went on, second-hand and third-
hand recorders began to fill in the blanks with their own understanding
of the events. Even if these events are not historically true, they
reveal the truth as the Gospel writers understood it.

This is the big point:
The Gospel of St Matthew (e.g.) is not about what happened, but
about how St Matthew understood what happened. St Matthew
obviously had a deep reverence for who Jesus was and what He taught.
The way in which St Matthew understood the great mystery of Jesus's
life, death, and Resurrection is what the Gospel tells us, not historical
truth.

And really, if I believe that Jesus rose from the dead then the exact details of the narrative of how that happened (one angel or two, etc) really fade into insignificance.

I agree, but in a totally different way. I think that the historical truth
is insignificant and, as such, the details which purport to be a historical
account have no meaning. However, the details are very significant
because they give insight into what the Gospel writers were thinking,
feeling and believing.

This is why I feel that faith should be absolutely unchallenged to find
out that any and all events in the Bible may not have happened.

Nemesio

Originally posted by orfeo
Unfortunately I have no knowledge of Greek to know if this is legitimate, treating as "day of Preparation of Passover Week" and not "day of Preparation FOR Passover". I notice both your versions say "of" and not "for", I'm wondering if that's significant.

It's not legitimate. The word which is translated as 'Passover' is
(every single time) Pascha. The 'week of passover' is simply
the week that begins on Passover night until the seven-day celebration
is over. Passover always begins on the night of 14 Nissan.

On the morning of 14 Nissan, the paschal lamb is sacrificed. If you
notice in St Luke's account (22:7), he records this event which
acclimates us. The Last Supper (according to St Luke) is the Passover
Seder. There can be no dispute of this. Thus, Jesus was crucified
during the week of Passover after the Seder (on 15 Nissan).

However St John 19:14 and 19:42 has a problem: the Jewish people
are still preparing! This makes no sense; if the Passover had started,
preparations would have been over. This is reinforced by St John 13:1
where in it explicitly states that the supper was 'before the feast of
Passover.'

Again, these contradictions ought not to weaken faith. They provide
an insight into the way in which St John understood Jesus's ministry.
St John chose to depict Jesus as the Paschal Lamb for the world. This
image is one that would be very powerful and meaningful to the
(early) people who read his Gospel.

The Gospels are not about History. They are about Faith. They are
not about a record of events. They are about the Divine Truth
embedded in those events.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
It's not legitimate. The word which is translated as 'Passover' is
(every single time) Pascha. The 'week of passover' is simply
the week that begins on Passover night until the seven-day celebration
is over. Passover always begins on the night of 14 Nissan.

The issue is not with the translation of the words "the week of passover". The issue is with the meaning of "day of preparation". Preparation FOR WHAT?

You say it's obvious it's for the actual passover meal. I'm merely pointing out it COULD also be preparation for the Sabbath, during the week of the seven-day celebration.

I'd be interested to know what the NRSV says, I'll be able to have a look later today my time.

Whatever. I don't think I'm being particularly tortuous about that. You keep coming up with OTHER examples which, if I considered them carefully I might well agree with you on. This happened to be the one I picked because it interested me, not because I'm trying to defeat your general argument!

I think I would be reluctant to go to the lengths some people do to reconcile the different accounts. I'm perfectly happy to say it's a record of their UNDERSTANDING of what happened. It's really a question of how accurate they were in their understanding.

Well, the NRSV is very much against the NIV, it actually uses the word "for". As in:

The Day of Preparation for the Passover.


It still seems very ODD. On one level I understand what you're saying Nemesio, about changing the day for a theological purpose.

But I don't really see how having him die on the day before the Passover meal makes the link between Christ and the Passover lamb any more strongly than having the Passover as his last meal and being arrested and put to death shortly afterwards.

Maybe I'm not thinking enough like Jew or something. But wouldn't they still get the connection with either way?

Originally posted by orfeo
Well, the NRSV is very much against the NIV, it actually uses the word "for". As in:

The Day of Preparation for the Passover.


It still seems very ODD. On one level I understand what you're saying Nemesio, about changing the day for a theological purpose.

But I don't really see how having him die on the day before the Passover meal makes the link ...[text shortened]... king enough like Jew or something. But wouldn't they still get the connection with either way?

I think what John is saying is that Christ is a sacrifice just as the Passover Lamb is. Having him crucified before the Seder makes the analogy perfect as that would be the same day the lamb is sacrificed.

Originally posted by orfeo
The issue is not with the translation of the words "the week of passover". The issue is with the meaning of "day of preparation". Preparation FOR WHAT?

You say it's obvious it's for the actual passover meal. I'm merely pointing out it COULD also be preparation for the Sabbath, during the week of the seven-day celebration.

I'd be interested to know what the NRSV says, I'll be able to have a look later today my time.

Whatever. I don't think I'm being particularly tortuous about that. You keep coming up with OTHER examples which, if I considered them carefully I might well agree with you on. This happened to be the one I picked because it interested me, not because I'm trying to defeat your general argument!

What is obvious is that the Passover meal had not been eaten in St John's Gospel:

St John 18:28 -- It was morning. And they [the Jews] themselves did not enter
the praetorium, in order not to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover.

This is not 'the week of Passover' or 'a meal during Passover.' This is The Pascha.

Furthermore, St John 19:14 reads explicitly, 'It was preparation day for Passover...' not the
Sabbath.

This is in complete contradiction with the Synoptic accounts. We know this definitively
because before the Last Supper, the Passover Lamb was sacrificed (St Luke 22:7) and
that Jesus is eating the Passover (St Luke 22:15).

The 'day of preparation' is only further corroborating evidence. In another context without
any other evidence, you may be right. But given the circumstances it really isn't reasonable
to think that the Gospel didn't mean preparation for the Passover (especially given St John
18:28 and 19:14).

I know you aren't arguing per se but you are trying to introduce doubt -- like maybe
it is reconcilable -- but I think, especially in this case, it fails because both St Luke and St
John are very clear about the chronology of events.

I think I would be reluctant to go to the lengths some people do to reconcile the different accounts. I'm perfectly happy to say it's a record of their UNDERSTANDING of what happened. It's really a question of how accurate they were in their understanding.

Here's the 64,000 dollar question: If we can say that they were even occasionally inaccurate,
how do we treat anything they say as accurate? If we accept that St Matthew embellished
the Crucifixion and Resurrection account with earthquakes, splitting rocks, saints rising from
the dead and angels moving stones, how do we know that he didn't embellish, say, the birth
account which doesn't line up with St Luke's?

This fear is at the root of literal inerrancy. If you say part of it was erroneous, how do we
know what parts are and are not in error (historically)?

If you say 'It's right until proven wrong,' by what basis do you make this claim?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
If you say 'It's right until proven wrong,' by what basis do you make this claim?
[/b]

Sheer personal preference. There isn't any 'basis' for it. You want to start with the assumption of falsity, I want to start with the assumption of truth. Fine.

It's for the same reason that when I meet people in everyday life, I assume they're truthful until they give me reason to think otherwise. I find it makes life a lot more pleasant than eyeing everyone with immediate suspicion.

As for the rest of your post, it seems that I am listening to you but you are not listening to me at all. I've moved on, you're repeating the same things over and over like a brick wall. What do you want me to do, get down on my knees and confess that the Bible is historically inaccurate?

You also have a nasty habit of saying things are clear or obvious. I have NEVER said these things are clear or obvious, all I have been doing is discussing whether there is room for doubt or interpretation. YOU are the one being dogmatic, which is rather ironic!