April 12, 2009

ANSWERING EASTER CONTRADICTION

Our guest blogger wrote an answer to Dan Barker’s “Easter Challenge.”

By Stephen Kingsley, pastor, Craigmont, Idaho


When considering statements about things that are said to have happened, contradiction is a simple logical test for truth. Say you strike up a conversation with a man you meet at the coffee shop and he says, “I was in Chicago yesterday at noon.” But then a moment later he says, “I was in L.A. yesterday at noon.” You raise your eyebrows and start looking for an exit. One of his statements might be true, but one is certainly false. Not only that, his integrity is so diminished, you’re not likely to trust anything else he says.


Now what if this same truth-tester is applied to the Bible’s most important story? Dan Barker is the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In his 1992 book, Losing Faith in Faith (FFRF, Inc.), he challenged Christians to assemble the various resurrection accounts in the Bible together as one consistent narrative. I was personally confronted with this in April of 2003 when a skeptic in a nearby university town published his own abbreviated version of Barker's “Easter Challenge” in the Letters to the Editor section of our regional paper. Barker and Nielsen’s ultimate hope is the de-conversion of Christians, or at the very least a de-spiriting of our Evangelical zeal. However, their challenge has had the opposite effect on this small town pastor—I am more persuaded than ever. Although I am not a scholar, I will add this claim too: I have succeeded in answering their challenge. This article contains a foundational piece of my argument.




The resurrection of Jesus is central to Christ, and Christ is central to Christianity. If indeed the details of the first century records surrounding the great claim Christianity is founded upon are contradictory, their reliability is tarnished. The thrust of this article is to introduce the reader to a unique way of reconciling what seems to be the most difficult problem concerning what happened on Easter morning. It is fair to examine the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances for contradiction, but given their importance, the charge of contradiction should not be leveled against these witnesses unless it can be proved with certainty. The prosecution has made its case. I’m writing to offer mine.


It should be clearly noted what Barker is and is not asking for. Had his challenge limited a solver to a juxtaposition of the texts—laying them out side-by-side—and explaining the conflicts, it would be impossible to champion. Here is why. When each account is read as its own complete telling of the story, our natural assumptions are imposed upon the intended meaning of each writer’s timeline. The clearest example of this is found in Luke’s Gospel, near the end of chapter 24. Jesus appeared to the disciples on the afternoon of Easter, something no critic disputes. However, following the record of his speech to the group, in vs. 50 and 51, Luke writes, “And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” If a rule were invented that required Luke’s narrative to be considered as its own complete story, as if it were indivisible and encased in steel, we would be bound to conclude that the ascension of Jesus happened on the afternoon of Easter, immediately after his appearance to the group. That puts Luke’s record in absolute contradiction to Acts 1, which states that Jesus appeared to the disciples over a forty-day period and then ascended to heaven. Nevertheless, on this point and numerous others contradiction can only stand as long as a rule of indivisibility might be imposed. Were such constraints enforced it would be a violation to add the data from the accounts together to form a complete picture. There really is no such rule—not here or in any learning situation. It is only natural to gather information in pieces and make adjustments in our understanding as knowledge is added to knowledge, but critics, eager to prove contradiction in the Bible, would love to make this rule a requirement. This impossibly high standard, they might suggest is justified when it comes to the Bible because it is held to be divinely inspired. Even if inspired, it is yet of human speech with all its natural limitations and cultural norms.


Considered together, it is easily observed that the literary method of the Gospel writers was to list events according their interests without noting the passing of time in-between. Here, the writer of Luke jumped from the Easter afternoon group appearance of Jesus to his ascension forty days into the future. It is evident then that his interest was not when it happened, but that it did. It is dishonest to insist that Luke’s failure to specify when the ascension happened is equal to his having begun vs. 50 with the words, “And that same day …” He did not. The same weakness exists in trying to argue that because Matthew only mentions one resurrection appearance of Jesus to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee that it is equal to his having used words to the effect of: “Jesus only appeared to the disciples once ….” Likewise, with trying to argue that because Paul failed to list the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, the other women, or the two men on the road to Emmaus in his list in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 that this is equal to his having used the word “first” with his listing of the appearance of Jesus to Peter as the first one on his list. He did not. If he had, contradiction would be proved, case closed, and we would be left to deal with whatever that may be taken to mean. You can argue that the word “first” is implied, but contradiction is too serious an issue concerning something so important to allow the accusation to stand as valid where it cannot be proved.


When specifying the conditions of his Easter Challenge in his book Losing Faith in Faith (1992 FFRF, Inc.), Barker places no restrictions which would limit the matter to one of a mere comparison of the accounts. It is as if he is saying: “Even if I allow you the greatest possible liberties, you still can not produce a successful answer.” His challenge is generous in its fairness. He writes:


The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book— Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20–21. Also, read Acts 1:3–12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3–8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. (Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith, 1992 FFRF Inc., “Leave No Stone Unturned,” p. 178.)



The method Barker requires takes us beyond wrestling with the assumptions we might be prone to impose upon the timeline of each account when read separately. We are to take all the data from all the accounts, all 165 verses, and bring it all together into one list—“a simple chronological narrative.” Beyond being fair, it is the only legitimate test for contradiction that could bypass suppositions about the intent of the writers and get down to the actual details, the exact words and specific phrases the five writers used in their compositions.


Dan calls himself “your friendly neighborhood atheist,” and having worked on answering his challenge for several years, his fairness in issuing the Easter Challenge is something I’ve come to appreciate. Having answered his challenge, I sent him my solution in February of 2008, fourteen months ago as I am writing now (April 2009). He has not yet dealt with whether the pieces logically fit (in his judgment) as I put them together. I hope he’ll judge fairly according to the rules he made, but I’m not sure. He was promising to get around to a serious response, but in his latest e-mail he said that he had read enough of my book to see I had done such great damage to the intended meaning of the text that he was not so excited as to make answering me a priority. When he does respond, I can hope he will deal with the one issue his challenge concerns, the “single chronological narrative” he asked for with all the details of all the events woven together consistently.


While the previous example about the ascension of Jesus in Luke and Acts can be resolved with simple addition, there are more difficult contradiction issues to confront in the resurrection accounts. In this article, I will deal with what many would consider the most troublesome—the problem of Mary Magdalene. The resurrection is the subject of the Easter story, but Mary Magdalene is the protagonist and tracking her footprints through the breadth of the story is challenging. At the heart of the difficulty is the difference between John’s account and the Synoptics.


The conflicts begin to pile up in classic harmonies when John’s account of Mary is taken to somehow coincide with the other records of what the women did on Easter morning. Under this common view, the women begin their trip towards the tomb together at “as it began to dawn” (Mt. 28:1) and “early … while it was still dark (Jn. 20:1).” The angel descends and rolls away the stone (Mt. 28:2–4) and by the time the full group of women arrive at sunrise (Mk. 16:1–4 and Lk. 24:1,2) they find the stone missing. So far, no real problem presents itself. However, it is at this point where the accounts diverge into two different stories. In nearly all exegesis through history the explanation is that Mary left the other women (either upon seeing the missing stone or having entered the tomb) and ran to tell Peter the alarming news that Jesus’ body was missing (Jn. 20:2). With this, John’s storyline contains a lengthy and detailed record of Mary’s solo adventure apart from the other women. Meanwhile, per Matthew, Mark and Luke the women encounter the angel(s) in the tomb, run from the tomb, etc.


At the very least, we’re confronted with the trouble of trying to excuse all three Synoptic writers for strongly implying Mary’s presence with the other women, when clearly, under the model commonly presented in telling the story, she fled the scene after they arrived at the tomb. Nevertheless, if we are to believe Matthew (as we should), Mary is clearly implicated as being present and accounted for in all he describes. This includes her listening to the angel’s speech, running from the tomb with great joy to go tell the disciples, and even seeing Jesus with the other women and holding him by the feet as they worshipped him. We cannot simply strip her from Matthew’s account unless we are willing to say his portrayal is inaccurate and his reporting careless. This problem pleads for a solution.


When the details are compared in each Gospel the standard sunrise Easter story clashes like our family cat pouncing on the keyboard of the piano. The complexity is not the problem; it is the difficulty of saying with certainty what exactly happened. And if there is any single place in the Bible we could wish for clarity, it is here. Among Christian scholars, the problem has been labeled as “notorious” and for many, impossible to reconcile. It does not leave the accounts absent of historical relevance, but casts a shadow nevertheless upon the reliability of the biblical record of what really happened on Easter, the day Christianity was born.


I would like to propose a new approach to the problem and a different model, one that appears to be unique to others and offers what may be a simple solution that is more fully developed in my book The Easter Answer. Rather than dealing with a tight knot of activities piled atop one another at the site of the tomb shortly after sunrise, reasons exist to support the view that John’s narrative of Mary Magdalene’s experiences (without the other women) happened before sunrise. Then, afterwards she later met up with the other women and went along as a full participant in their famous Easter sunrise epiphany. It requires the allowance of gaps of times between some of the events and a careful re-thinking of both temporal phrases supplied by the writer of Matthew in 28:1.


The premise of The Easter Answer is that the resurrection event described in Matthew 28:2–4 happened between midnight and 3:00 a.m. on Easter morning. This position can be reasonably supported in Scripture from several angles. The exact time is not so important as is the fact that if the removal of the stone (indicative of the resurrection) by the angel happened earlier than is commonly held, it allows for John's accounting of Mary's Easter experience to commence, quite naturally, at the time he plainly describes in 20:1: “Now on the first day of the week [Easter Sunday] Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.” Commonly, “while it was still dark” is bent towards sunrise. A common explanation might go like this: “Well it wasn’t really dark, but still somewhat dark when the women began their trip to the tomb. It was likely a long walk and it was more dark than light when they started out. By the time they arrived it was just after sunrise.” But notice John 20:1 is quite explicit in that it does not say Mary was starting her trip, but rather “came early to the tomb, while it was still dark ….” Let’s start here with a fresh view and consider that John means exactly what he says, that Mary was alone and came to the tomb early in the morning when there was no evidence of daylight in the sky. For the sake of discussion, let’s assign our modern timekeeping to the plainest meaning of the writer’s words and assign her arrival at the tomb at 4:00 a.m. and place sunrise at 6:00 a.m. This 4:00 a.m. guess is consistent with John’s temporal phrase in 20:1. The next step is to examine the other Gospels for agreement.


Initially, Matthew 28:1 seems to present a formidable obstacle to this view. Quite plainly it seems to state the women (Mary Magdalene and the other Mary) “came to see” the tomb just before daylight on Sunday morning. This is followed by vss. 2–4 which describe the angel’s appearance and his rolling away of the stone. We could try to solve this problem by rearranging the sequencing, moving vs. 1 below vss. 2–4 so that it follows the angel’s rolling away of the stone. However, such a move would invalidate the case we are trying to make in favor of the accounts. Such a maneuver is unnecessary anyway once we dig deeper into the temporal phrases of vs. 1. Here it is from the Updated NASB of 1995:


(Mt. 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.


We are going to take a careful look at the two back-to-back temporal phrases in verse one. First things first: “after the Sabbath,“ and then the second: “as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.“ A review of various English translations reveals a problem with the first phrase. It is translated two very different ways. When I first began studying this, I started with my personal favorite, the King James Version. Here is how it begins the verse:


(Mt. 28:1 KJV) In the end of the Sabbath....


“In the end of the Sabbath” has a decidedly different meaning than the “after the Sabbath” from in the U-NASB. The Jewish Sabbath ended then with the setting of the sun; then “the first day of the week,” began. This is yet true for orthodox Jews. Rabbis teach that the switch from one 24-hour day to the next happens as soon as three stars can be counted in the evening sky. This is especially true for observant Jews marking the beginning and ending of the Sabbath day. “Sabbath” is a Jewish term and must be reckoned accordingly and the phrase “in the end of the Sabbath” must be taken to mean the closing moments of the Sabbath day, just before the sun dropped below the horizon.


If we reach far back into ancient English Bible translations, this first phrase in Mt. 28:1 was supplied as “in the evening of the Sabbath” by Wycliffe and in the Cloverdale Bible. There are others to consider. For example in the 1901 American Standard Version the first phrase is translated:


(Mt. 28:1 ASV) Now late on the Sabbath day....


The original source material for the NASB was the ASV. It is not too surprising then that when the NASB first hit the market in 1971 it too supplied the first temporal phrase of Mt. 28:1 as “Now late on the Sabbath....” However, by the time the Updated-NASB was published in 1995 the translation was changed to “Now after the Sabbath….” This is also how the first phrase appears in the New King James Version and the New International Version. Which is right, “late on the Sabbath” or “after the Sabbath?” One certainly indicates the described event happened before sunset on the Sabbath, and the other some time after it ended.


At issue for translators in Mt. 28:1 is the Greek opse, used here as a preposition with the genitive. Upon discovering the translators of the NASB had changed opse here from “late” to “after” I wrote to the owners of the copyright, the Lockman Foundation, and asked its editorial board why the decision was made. I received permission to quote their answer and put it in my book. They say translators were attempting to find reasons to justify the change so that the phrase would be consistent with the other Gospel accounts. It is obvious then they were looking at the description made by Mark and Luke of the trip by the women to the tomb at sunrise, and trying to find a legitimate way from the Greek to make Matthew agree. This is understandable, and even commendable if such a change is warranted. In Mark 11:19 and 13:35, and in the Septuagint in Genesis 24:11 opse is used to indicate evening. According to the Lockman Foundation, Greek Lexicons allow it to be translated “after” when used as a preposition, but there is no evidence in Greek literature that this appeared until the second century. What is clear from their comment is there was nothing that required the change.


Clearly, deciding how opse should be translated in Mt. 28:1 is difficult. Given the lack of certainty, it is reasonable to allow exegetical considerations and the statements of other Gospel writers to influence the decision. “Late on the Sabbath” does not fit with Mark 16 and Luke 24 (the women arriving at the tomb after sunrise Sunday morning), but what if “late,” “in the end,” or “evening” is the right translation after all? What if Matthew really was writing about a different trip by the Marys “to see” the tomb just before the Sabbath ended; a similar kind of trip, but one distinctly independent and specifically unrelated to the trip at sunrise described by Mark and Luke?


As for the Aramaic, Murdock (1851) translated the first phrase: “And in the close [evening] of the Sabbath …” Lamsa (1940) has: “In the evening of the Sabbath …” And Murdock’s revised NT reads: “And in the evening of the Sabbath as it was dusk …”


Let’s now take a look at the second phrase and see if it is of any help in deciding between “late on the Sabbath” or “after the Sabbath” in the first phrase. In nearly all English Bibles, it reads the same: “as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.” A casual reading certainly seems to be referencing Sunday morning just before sunrise. This is the meaning usually granted the phrase, but is that what it is really saying?


The five words, “as it began to dawn,” are from the Greek word epiphosko. In Mt. 28:1 as an active participle, it is epiphoskouse. The etymology of epiphosko is easily discerned: epi—upon, phosko—light, quite literally, “upon-light.” Knowing this, it is easy to see why translators chose “as it began to dawn.” The word “dawn” seems an excellent choice here, and it is, but do not jump to the conclusion that “just before daylight” is its required meaning. Amazingly, while epiphosko could easily be used of the approach of daylight in the morning, it turns out to be quite similar to our use of the word “dawn.” We use “dawn” for the rise of any new thing; even an idea as in “it dawned on me.” We speak of “the dawn of history,” or “the dawn of a new era.” None of these common uses for dawn have anything to do with the rising of the sun in the sky. In the only other use of epiphosko in the New Testament, like our use of the word “dawn” it is used idiomatically concerning the arrival of a new period of time, a 24-hour day. It appears in a temporal phrase in Luke 23:54. Here the writer is narrating the scene of two men hastily burying the body of Jesus. Since the Sabbath was approaching, it was important that they finished the job before sunset. Luke carefully indicates the day and time as follows:


(Luke 23:54) And it was the day of the Preparation [Friday] and the Sabbath drew on.


“Drew on” above is the Greek epiphosko, the same word translated “as it began to dawn” in Mt. 28:1. In Lk. 23:54 other translations provide it as “drew near.” Darby has it as “was coming on.” In Luke the subject of the verb epiphosko is the Sabbath. In Mt. 28:1 the subject of epiphosko is “the first day of the week [Sunday].” Both are important temporal phrases. In Luke the action being indicated is that the Sabbath was about to begin, which we know to be at sunset. What do we do then with Matthew? It seems consistent to allow it to influence its subject (the first day of the week) in the same way. “As it began to dawn” is quite appropriate. The 24-hour day, the new day, was beginning to “dawn” with the setting of the sun.


One other point is worth noting. Knowing the day ended at sunset, if the second temporal phrase of Mt. 28:1 was really a description of the moments just prior to daylight in the sky Sunday morning, it would not say “dawn toward the first day of the week,” it would say “dawn on the first day of the week.”


Still unconvinced? Let me tip the scales further by pointing out that the women’s purpose in going to the tomb at sunrise on Easter morning as described by Mark and Luke was to complete the task of spicing the body of Jesus. However, Matthew makes no mention of spices. He describes their purpose as “to see the grave.” A minor distinction, but worth noting.


So clearly, from the Greek text we have ample reason to see the two back-to-back temporal phrases of Mt. 28:1 as standing in agreement with one another in depicting, that near the end of the weekly Sabbath, the two Marys went “to see” the tomb, just before the beginning of the new 24 hour day, the “first day of the week,” was about to “dawn” with the setting of the sun.


Assigning that meaning to the timing of the trip by the Marys to see the tomb Sabbath evening, Matthew’s style emerges as overtly choppy in manner of reporting in the first several verses of the chapter 28. Comparing his account to the others, the arrangement is complex, but it can be shown he supplied no detail that cannot be suited to the facts of the other texts. In verses five through seven, Matthew records the speech of the angel to the women, but this can easily be shown to be the identical speech (with a few added words) spoken by the angel as recorded in Mark’s account (Mk. 16:6.7). It’s complicated, but the details from both accounts compliment one another concerning this angelic being with the appearance of a young man. At some point (Matthew doesn’t say when) he rolled away the stone and sat on it; but by the time the women entered the tomb after sunrise, he was seen (likely less fearsome in appearance) sitting on the right side (Mk. 16:5) where the body of Jesus had laid. Any supposed conflict resolves with a recognition that several hours passed between Matthew 28:1 (just before sunset Sabbath evening) and the actual delivery of the angel’s speech to the women. Mark confirms the speech as identical to Matthew’s and that both Marys were present (with other women by that time) to hear it. Matthew’s facts may be seen as true, and so can Mark’s. Both compliment, confirm, and complete one another. There is no unbearable contradiction here, only the melody of orchestrated harmony.


What was the writer of Matthew’s Gospel trying to accomplish with such a specific double-duty description of the day and time in 28:1? He is establishing an important fact—at the end of the Sabbath the women looked upon the tomb and without any reaction from them at that time we may safely infer that they found everything as expected. In 28:1, Matthew establishes the watchful concern of the women, certifies to us that they knew where the tomb was located; that they could make their way to it and identify it; and that it was sealed as the Sabbath day ended. In this way, in one verse, the writer dressed the stage for history’s most important day and the event that has affected the world as none other, the resurrection of Jesus.


As an aside, it is worth noting here that there are some Bible-studying groups around that, discerning the strong possibility that Mt. 28:1 depicts the closing moments of the Sabbath, take the position the resurrection happened then, as the two Marys walked to the tomb that evening. This theory breaks down for several reasons:


1) There is no tradition to support such a claim

2) Mark 16:9 plainly states, “Jesus was risen early the first day of the week.”

3) Proponents of the Saturday afternoon resurrection theory believe Jesus died and was buried on Wednesday afternoon, but that does not square with the reckoning of the Emmaus witnesses who said: “Besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass (Lk. 24:21).” Had Jesus been crucified on Wednesday, by the common reckoning of that day the witnesses would have said it was the fifth day since these things (the crucifixion of Jesus), not the third.


If it may be granted from what we know about Mt. 28:1 that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb (with the other Mary) and looked upon it at say 5:45 on the evening of the Sabbath just prior to sunset (6:00 p.m.), and from Jn. 20:1 that she returned to find the stone missing at 4:00 a.m. the next morning (Easter Sunday), when then did the angel of Mt. 28:2–4 make his earth-quaking entrance and bright showing? Matthew does not specify when this happened, only that it did. Granting that Mary found it open by 4:00 a.m. Sunday morning, there is more data to consider. Mark 16:9 plainly states: “Jesus was risen early the first day of the week….” and this can be taken to have happened just before the angel rolled away the stone. Jewish reckoning allows that part of a day could count for a full day. Jesus died on Friday afternoon, was dead from about 3:00 p.m. until sunset (enough of the day to count as a whole), and in the grave the full 24 hours of the Sabbath, and rose “the third day.” (See: Mt. 16:21, Mt. 17:23, Mt. 20:19, Mt. 27:64, Mk. 9:31, Mk. 10:34, Lk. 9:22, Lk. 13:32, Lk. 18:33, Lk. 24:7, Lk. 24: 46, Jn. 2:1, Acts 10:40, Acts 27:19, and 1 Co. 15:4). Pinning the angels’ rolling away of the stone to the resurrection event between midnight and 3:00 a.m. covers “early the first day of the week” of Mk. 16:9 and puts the event far enough into the first day of the week (Easter Sunday) to easily qualify for reckoning it as a day, i.e., “the third day.” If we are looking for the story to make the best sense possible (and why not?), it’s reasonable to allow that the Mt. 28:2–4 event happened long enough before Mary came to the tomb (proposed as 4:00 a.m.) for the soldiers to regain consciousness (having passed-out for fear of the angel) and to flee the scene. That too makes for a more plausible picture than if Matthew 28 is read as its own independent complete story. Doing so requires seeing the two women bravely walking through the midst of the fallen soldiers and up to the angel sitting on the rock he had just rolled away. Breaking Matthew’s narrative into pieces and weaving it in with the others, makes much more sense.


From the model I’m proposing, Mary Magdalene’s action-packed Easter morning began with her alarming discovery of the stone missing from the tomb when she came to it on Easter morning “early … while it was still dark (20:1).” Then, all that John records of her down through vs. 18 (and confirmed in Mark 16:9–11) may easily be seen as happening before sunrise, before she joined the other women and made the journey with spices to the tomb, arriving after the sun had risen. There are other questions to be raised here and other complications to sort through, but, for now, suffice it to say that, by carefully noting the temporal phrases from the text, the greatest difficulty of the Easter story may be unraveled. The tight knot of complications under the traditional model with so many things happening among the women just after sunrise can be stretched out over a long period of time. From this beginning, it is possible, using the same approach, to ultimately bring all 165 verses from all five writers together and demonstrate the consistency that has always been there.


In closing, we would do well to remember that the ancients had no modern timekeeping devices, no easy way to measure hours or communicate the passing of time. Given our strictly regimented schedules, deadlines, and expectations for punctuality, it is difficult to imagine life without the modern 24 hour clock. However, such was their world and the writers dealt with it as best they could. As previously stated and reasonably observed, the writers listed the events that occurred to them (or that the Holy Spirit inspired) while jumping from one to a distant other without favoring the reader with any simple means of knowing such a leap through time was being made. As moderns, we expect more. We can easily criticize their style and express our disappointment, but is that really fair? Regardless of our bias, it seems our task is to honestly evaluate their words and try to understand their best meaning. Clearly, each writer gave us a partial report and each lacks specificity. The overall arrangement is extremely complex and puzzle-like. Personally, I find the complexity far more compelling and of stronger evidential value than if it was all quite simple and boring. The tension felt as the accounts seem to clash with one another when merely compared, finds resolution as they are carefully brought together into one narrative. I hope you find it as amazing as I do.


For more on reconciling the resurrection accounts visit www.easteranswer.com. The “Solve It Yourself” page provides more help for Bible students, including a free PDF file with a chart from the book that lists all the resurrection appearances of Jesus, including times and Scripture references. “The Easter Answer” book is 81 pages. To see what readers of the book are saying about its success or failure in answering Barker’s “Easter Challenge” see the page titled “Cast Your Vote.”

tinyurl.com/ANSWERING-EASTER

33 comments:

  1.      So, you're not going to try to reconcile "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid" (from Mark) with "And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest" (from Luke)? That is a flat contradiction. Of course, you could try inserting time into "Luke's" narrative. Perhaps a couple days went by between returning from the sepulchre and telling the things. But it is worded as a direct sequence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What about the bit about the saints coming out of their graves and wandering around town. Why did only one gospel mention that? Why does no-one else mention these zombies? You'd think it'd be big news!

    Anyway, it's amazing to see how far you have to bend to try and flatten out all the contradictions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You want to know how my morning went? Well, it just so happens I wrote a song about it:

    Up from the bed I arose,
    With a mighty triumph o'er pillows.
    I arose the victor of the dream-like state,
    Where my lucid visions made me sleep in late...

    I arose! Eschewed pillows!
    Took a shower, and wore some clothes.


    --
    Stan


    P.S.: About the article...

    Too long, didn't read.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pvblivs: Simple addition. Take each piece and put it together. Contradiction requires logical impossibility. There's none here. Mark says why they didn't speak "they were afraid." Is it reasonable to think they never recovered from this fear? Or that they never spoke of their epiphany in the tomb? Of course not. Mark's point? They were too frightened to stop and talk about what they had just experienced. Now add in Matthew. As they were running to tell the disciples (where else would they go?) Jesus appeared to them. It seems safe to infer this a comfort to them. And Luke confirms that indeed they went and told the others. Just another point of complexity, but nothing contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Flute wrote "Anyway, it's amazing to see how far you have to bend to try and flatten out all the contradictions." Nothing being bent in my article. Just taking scripture for what it says and putting the pieces together. Complex? Yep. But that makes it all the more amazing that it really fits together.

    ReplyDelete
  6. the charge of contradiction should not be leveled against these witnesses unless it can be proved with certainty.
    Everything is true unless proven false and you're willing to s t r e t c h until anything is possible.

    a juxtaposition of the texts—laying them out side-by-side—and explaining the conflicts, it would be impossible to champion.
    Yes, because they are contradictory.

    Jesus appeared to the disciples on the afternoon of Easter, something no critic disputes.
    No critic?

    This impossibly high standard, they might suggest is justified when it comes to the Bible because it is held to be divinely inspired. Even if inspired, it is yet of human speech with all its natural limitations and cultural norms.
    It's just a human book, full of the errors and contradictions that humans make.

    ...John’s narrative of Mary Magdalene’s experiences (without the other women) happened before sunrise. Then, afterwards she later met up with the other women and went along as a full participant in their famous Easter sunrise epiphany. It requires the allowance of gaps of times between some of the events and a careful re-thinking of both temporal phrases supplied by the writer of Matthew in 28:1.
    "Careful rethinking"? Wishful thinking.

    They say translators were attempting to find reasons to justify the change so that the phrase would be consistent with the other Gospel accounts.
    Now that doesn't surprise me!

    ...the word “dawn” it is used idiomatically concerning the arrival of a new period of time
    Stretch!

    The overall arrangement is extremely complex and puzzle-like. Personally, I find the complexity far more compelling and of stronger evidential value than if it was all quite simple and boring.
    Really, I believe if the stories were not contradictory, (sorry, "difficult" and "complex"), you would be trumpeting their simple straightforwardness.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Excellent article Pastor.

    Chag Sameach Pesach!

    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stephen, I believe Flute asked you a question: What about the bit about the saints coming out of their graves and wandering around town. Why did only one gospel mention that? Why does no-one else mention these zombies? You'd think it'd be big news!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Flute's question, what about the saints seen wandering around ...? Matthew 27:52 and 53 are odd for several reasons. But Flute knows that, hence the question. I wouldn't be the first to suspect the verses were not original even though it's difficult to prove. If it's of any comfort to you, I've never chosen these two verses as my text for Sunday morning. Anyway, if we're dealing with the resurrection accounts, Barker's EC is limited to a set of specific verses; in Matthew beginning at 28:1.

    As for my comment "Jesus appeared to the disciples on the afternoon of Easter, something no critic disputes." I'm not referring to the claim of historicity, but what the text says. Does anyone dispute that by reading Luke that the resurrection appearance of Jesus beginning in 24:36 is recorded to have happened on the afternoon of Easter?

    In this case, we're dealing with whether the accounts are consistent, not whether the alleged events happened. I believe they're real history, but that's beside the point. Even if the supernatural things are taken as fictional, it's yet possible to fairly judge whether the actual words used by the writers agree.

    One more thing. The tax man cometh or his day anyway. I'm not going to have time to wrangle with too much here this week. So, be patient with me. Thanks for all the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stephen:

         Not so simple. Both accounts report a series of events. In Mark the report states that they didn't say anything to any man. This would be during the series of events. It does not rule out saying something days, weeks, or months later. In Luke, they tell everyone upon their return (if you take a plain reading.) If Luke's account is correct, Mark's is false. As near as I can tell, you are trying to imply that their fear left as soon as they got back and so they told the eleven right away. But then the reason for not speaking is moot because the "told no man" claim is false. Essentially, if they tell people right away (i.e. when they get back from the tomb) Mark is false outright. If they do not, the meaning of Luke is strained at best. The indication of a gap in events is missing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Flute's question, what about the saints seen wandering around ...? Matthew 27:52 and 53 are odd for several reasons. But Flute knows that, hence the question. I wouldn't be the first to suspect the verses were not original even though it's difficult to prove.
    That's why evolutionary biologists and other physical scientists have a hard time accepting genesis, I suspect.

    No evidence for, and (in the case of evolution and the age of the earth) too much evidence against such wild claims.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pvblivs: "In Mark the report states that they didn't say anything to any man. This would be during the series of events." This is good reasoning on your part, up to this point anyway. The series of events includes their experience in the tomb, and their not saying anything relates to the event at hand and the action being described: their running from the tomb. They didn't run for hours (of course). Acc. to Matt they stopped when they saw Jesus. "The series" Mark is recording doesn't go beyond the action he describes here (their fleeing the tomb). Nothing from the other accounts proves anything Mark says false. It's reasonable to allow that seeing Jesus was a game changer. From the place the saw him, they went on and told that same day just as Luke records. Again, contradiction requires the proof of a logical impossibility. You're certainly not proving any thing impossible here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stephen:

         If your willing to be flexible enough in interpretations, you can deny contradictions in just about anything. But in order to do your reconciliation, you needed to say that the "said nothing to any man" only applied while they were not in contact with any man. The claim of "because they were afraid" is then superfluous. I submit that someone unfamiliar with christianity, presented with those accounts (possibly as a fictional tale) and asked if they were consistent, would rule that they were not. I submit further that your reinterpretation (to assert that there is no logical impossibility) is not reasonable. I have stated what a plain reading of each text would imply. It is logically impossible for both plain readings to be accurate. Those do conflict.
         I am going to try to illustrate the idea. Let's say we have two accounts of Alice's trip to the store. Account 1: "Alice went to the store without buying anything." Account 2: "Alice went to the store and bought a loaf of bread." Now, when faced with the prospect of reconciling the two accounts as consistent representations of the same trip to the store, you could claim that "without buying anything" only applies to the span up until entering the store and that going down the aisles is a "game changer." After all, the account doesn't explicitly say that she left without buying anything. But that is not a plain reading. To a plain reading, stating that they said nothing carries the implication that they encountered people that they would otherwise have told, but did not (Mark says out of fear.) Luke's account (plainly read) is that they told the people that they would normally be expected to tell as soon as they encountered them.
         It is not reasonable to claim that Mark's account doen not cover actually returning to their larger group.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "If your willing to be flexible enough in interpretations, you can deny contradictions in just about anything. But in order to do your reconciliation, you needed to say that the "said nothing to any man" only applied while they were not in contact with any man."

    Not true. I'm applying your "series of events" reasoning to the matter and saying the "said nothing to any man" only applies to the moment the writer is describing, their sprint (due to fear) from the tomb. Mark's point is obvious, their angelic experience in the tomb was so dramatic that they ran away, scared speechless. Not that they never told any man about what happened.

    If Providence had gifted us with no Gospel but Mark, we still have to conclude they began talking at some point. You even granted they could have "days, weeks, or months later." So clearly, we're not imposing a they-never-spoke judgment on Mark. The only issue is when did they tell and to whom? Mark certainly left us hanging. But, we're not dealing with just Mark, and acc. to Barker's requirement in his Easter Challenge we're not trying to keep each account separate and read as its own complete story with whatever "plain meaning" we might each subjectively arrive at. The challenge is to bring the pieces together, if reasonably possible, by adding the data together. This is a good test to see if any claim of fact in any one account is genuinely destructive to a claim of fact in any other.

    Your illustration about Alice isn't suited to this discussion. Your two statements, A. and B. are contradictory and there's no reasonable way to undo the conflict.

    This would be more suited: A. "Alice went to the store and left without buying anything because nothing looked good to her." B. "On the way home from the store, Alice met a man with a cart selling hot bratwurst sandwiches. She bought one and ate it."

    Taken alone at face value we would naturally conclude Alice returned home from the store without buying any food. But, with the addition of B we know more, adjust our initial understanding of A, and move on wishing we too had a hot bratwurst sandwich.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Stephen:

         "Your illustration about Alice isn't suited to this discussion. Your two statements, A. and B. are contradictory and there's no reasonable way to undo the conflict."
         Actually, that makes the illustration perfectly suited to this discussion. I agree that there is no reasonable way to undo the conflict. In the same manner, there is no reasonable way to undo the conflict between Mark and Luke. So I gave an unreasonable way, completely analogous to the way you are trying to resolve the conflict between Mark and Luke.
         "'If your willing to be flexible enough in interpretations, you can deny contradictions in just about anything. But in order to do your reconciliation, you needed to say that the 'said nothing to any man' only applied while they were not in contact with any man.'
         "Not true. I'm applying your 'series of events' reasoning to the matter and saying the 'said nothing to any man' only applies to the moment the writer is describing, their sprint (due to fear) from the tomb."
         Their sprint would be a time in which they were not in contact with any man. To any resonable interpretation, the "said nothing" and the "said something" claims cover the same time period -- when they first got back with their main group. Reinterpreting the "said nothing" to cover only the sprint and not the arrival amongst the eleven and the others is just like reinterpreting the "bought nothing" to cover only the walk up to the store and not going inside and walking down the aisles.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Two things I get from this, it's far too long to read all the way through but I got far enough to figure out what you are doing and trying to acheive.

    Two things struck me, firstly the amount of work it takes to "attempt" to reconcile these Biblical dificulties.

    And your statement that don't you think Matthew 52,52 belongs in the New Testament. What makes you think it doesn't belong? And if it doesn't belong why is it there?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scary: I didn't say that Mt. 27:52,53 don't belong. That's a judgment beyond my pay grade. I said I *suspect* they are not original. It's subjective, my personal opinion. I'd try to explain my reasons, but its off topic and you probably would be too disinterested to read it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's fair, but actually I would be interested why you would "suspect" a passage didn't belong, especially one I think got in there because of the zeal of the author of Matthew. I'm speculating that you might not be a Biblical inerrantist, which if you're not, would be refreshing.

    And my question was in was in response to one of your comments, so I think that's fair game. After all this is the blogoshpere.

    ReplyDelete
  19. John 20 v12 two angels
    Luke 24 v4 two men
    Just another example of having to twist the bible to fit.
    Were they men or angels?
    If they were men why doesn't the bible just say that. If they were angels,why doesn't it just say so.
    The ten commandments. The ones Moses smashed or the second set god gave him.
    (Magic Carpet Ride slides quietly into the v.short dusk in that neck of the woods (palms)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dax, the Angels are male.

    Luk 1:19 And the angel answered and said to him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings.

    גּבריאל
    gabrîy'êl
    gab-ree-ale'
    From H1397 and H410; man of God; Gabriel, an archangel: - Gabriel.

    Gabri' El, meaning "man of God"


    And even Satan, the fallen angel, when all his power is taken away, as he is chained up in the pit-

    Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
    Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
    Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
    Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
    Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

    So the angels, being males, are called men, but not sons of Adam, but sons of God.

    Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks Dani'El I was just going to answer that. Thanks for doing a better job then I envisioned.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pvblis wrote: "Their sprint would be a time in which they were not in contact with any man." Okay, let's grant that and agree that according to Mark's Gospel they didn't say anything to any man while they ran from the tomb. Okay, but they did stop running. When? From there, we pick up the storyline in Matthew and discover that they did come in contact with a man, Jesus. It doesn't say they said anything to him, but it reasonable to say that by being with him they overcame their temporary sudden fear (acc. to Mark the cause of their not speaking to anyone) and from there went and told. From Luke we learn that they did indeed (that same day) go tell the disciples.

    Again, a contradiction is a logical impossibility. When the facts of these accounts of what the women experienced on Easter, after leaving the tomb, are added to one another to form a complete story, there is nothing contradictory. If so, please prove the alleged fact of any one statement destructive to an alleged fact of any other.

    Pvblivs also wrote: "If your willing to be flexible enough in interpretations, you can deny contradictions in just about anything." Flexibility isn't the issue, just intellectual honesty and simple logic. If Mark had written, "and they *never* said nothing to anyone..." THEN, contradiction would be granted.

    Earlier the issue of Mt. 27:52 and 53 came up. Given that they're describing the resurrection of saints at the time Jesus died, these verses are in contradiction to Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15 that Christ is the firstfruits from the dead. There may be a way to explain that, but it escapes me. There are a few places in the Bible where valid contradiction exists. But here, in the resurrection accounts, there's an appearance of contradiction, but that's it. The proper test is to respect the temporal phrases, make sure you're dealing descriptions of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same respect, and see if the pieces can be reasonably added together. If they can, they are consistent. If not, they are contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Okay, I read it finally. Not impressed.

    All I see is the same convenient gerrymandering of the interpretation to produce the desired outcome. It's the same schtick that Christian apologists everywhere do every day, and it's not original. It's this sort of ex post facto, ad hoc explanation that annoys us so. It's because you Christians seem to think the practice of gerrymandering eisegesis is legitimate that tools like Dan will claim an English translation of a Genesis verse proves its author was inspired as to the double-helical shape of the DNA molecule.

    I'll grant that you have met the terms of Barker's "challenge," but that was never the actual goal of the challenge, and I think everyone knows it. The true challenge was to get unwitting and ignorant Christians to see that an honest "plain reading" of various biblical passages produces an apparent contradiction, or at the least scientifically inaccurate statements. The "challenge," then, was to get these Christians to think about the aspects of their religion about which many are quite unaware -- in the hopes that, in doing so, they might reconsider their reasons for joining it.

    Since there are no actual references to time, aside from the ambiguous (and exploited by you) references to "night," "dawn," and "daybreak," so a dishonest person -- that is, a person with an agenda, and a willingness to twist the storyline pretzelous in order to see that agenda realized -- can easily reconstruct the story to suit his own ends. An equally dishonest person would reconstruct the story to come to a completely different conclusion, too, so don't think Christian apologists are being singled out -- anyone who takes the stories here discussed and rearranges them so that they are not obviously contradictory (however implausible) is guilty of this dishonesty.

    No, the honest approach is to take the "plain reading," and note that it belies a harmonious account. In addition to a "plain reading," the honest reader will also consider any extant evidence, such that even a completely coherent account, given a "plain reading," would be rejected as contradicting the evidence, where appropriate.

    Of course, this is not what Christians do -- they instead constantly reinterpret the bible to conform to their preconceived notions, and they gerrymander any such interpretations to "fit" with the evidence available at the time.

    You know what I would love to see happen? I would love to see a body found, which appeared to be that of Jesus. Of course, the Christians would understandably deny it to be Jesus' body, but if such a thing were to happen, and DNA testing found that the body had some incomprehensibly improbable genetic structure, both sides of the argument would have to rethink their positions. That would be fun.

    In any case, history has shown, time and again, that Christians have no compunctions against "reinterpreting" the bible to "fit" new data, while simultaneously having the audacity to claim that any preceding "interpretations" which don't "fit" the same new data were erroneous "interpretations," and not that the bible itself is erroneous.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  24. Stephen:

         "Okay, let's grant that and agree that according to Mark's Gospel they didn't say anything to any man while they ran from the tomb."
         I am not agreeing to that interpretation. I have identified it as an unreasonable interpretation and intellectually dishonest. The fact that he says that they didn't say anything to any man (he states out of fear) rationally implies that, in the applicable time frame, they were in a position that they would otherwise have said something. Besides, if they did not reach anyone they would otherwise have told while they were afraid, then fear is not the reason they didn't tell anyone. Lack of opportunity supersedes fear as an explanation.
         "Flexibility isn't the issue, just intellectual honesty and simple logic."
         And I find that attempts to reconcile the stories require intellectual dishonesty. You are willing to use a twisted meaning so that you can insert a "fear remover." It doesn't matter. If the fear was removed before they reached the eleven and the others, the plain meaning of Mark's account is false. So, again, I reiterate. To any reasonable interpretation of the accounts, they are contradictory. "To any resonable interpretation, the 'said nothing' and the 'said something' claims cover the same time period -- when they first got back with their main group." If they met Jesus and lost their fear before getting back with the group, Mark's account is false. The fear never had place to be an issue over whether they spoke.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pvblivs: You are straining to insist on contradiction where it cannot be proved. This is as simple previously illustrated:

    A. "Alice went to the store and left without buying anything because nothing looked good to her."

    It is easily granted that by any "reasonable interpretation" of statement A. we quite naturally conclude that Alice did not buy any food. In just the same way, by reading Mark, we would naturally conclude the women didn't tell anyone, at least not right away. But, returning to our illustration, now comes another statement to factor in:

    B. "On the way home from the store, Alice met a man with a cart selling hot bratwurst sandwiches. She bought one and ate it."

    You want to assert a reasonable interpretation--me too. In no way does the addition of statement B. to statement A. prove contradiction. But it DOES require we adjust our previously held understanding of statement A. This kind of common adjustment in our understanding as information is added together is the way reasonable people process any collection of statements, whether from one source or several.

    Obviously, as concerns the statements of what the women experienced after leaving the tomb you do not want to make this simple adjustment. You don't have to, but your bias is showing. No matter how you try to spin this, there is nothing about Mark's statement in this matter that is logically destructive to any claim found in the additional statements in Matthew or Luke.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have read Stephen R. Kingsley's booklet, The Easter Answer, and my conclusion is that it not only contains a great deal of ignorance about how the gospels were written in the first place (see Luke 1:1-4; he quotes from the discredited longer ending of Mark), but also the scenario he presents is quite flawed in several places.

    Take for example Matthew 28:1-7:

    1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

    2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook 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 was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
    According to Kinglsey, with a little exegetical gerrymandering, verse 1 describes events that took place on 5:45 PM, BEFORE the Sabbath day began right after Jesus was buried. Then he claims verses 2-4 describes events that took place at about 3 AM Saturday morning (which, BTW, means Jesus was emphatically not raised on Sunday morning). And finally he claims verses 5-7 took place at 6:30 AM when women first discover the tomb empty.

    The problems are inherent just in these short verses, for when reading Matthew they are meant to describe a flow to the events he narrates. It requires Kingsley to rewrite the Gospel to produce one of his own, which as it stands disagrees with all four of them individually. As Bart Ehrman argues, what happened that morning depends on which Gospel we read!

    Kingsley has Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb four times, telling the disciples on three separate occasions about it, and having Peter run to discover the empty tomb not once, but twice. On Mary’s third visit to the empty tomb she encounters Jesus himself and touches him (John 20:10-17). But on her fourth visit to the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1-2) Mary Magdalene goes with other women to anoint the dead body of Jesus keeping silent about that she has already knew the tomb was empty and that Jesus had arisen! Kingsley suggests Mary kept silent here, presumably because Peter and the other disciples told her to, without any Biblical support, or that Jesus ONLY told her to tell the “brethren” and did not require her to tell women, or because the other women might have been jealous and accused her delusion, even though she was emphatically NOT afraid of telling men who would’ve been more skeptical of her as a woman!

    Kingsley documents five appearances of Jesus to his disciples in the four Gospels. In order to reconcile the appearances with Paul's completely different list of six appearances in I Corinthians 15, Kingsley merely adds them together to make eleven appearances, discounting the fact that Paul never mentions any appearance of women because of cultural prejudices against them, and discounting that the four Gospels never make mention of 500 hundred people seeing Jesus at one time.

    I think Kingsley should take heed of what several Christian scholars were quoted by him (on page 200 as saying about attempting such a project. Dr. Daniel Wallace said: “No plausible solution has presented itself.” Dr. J. Lyle Story said, “I do know that it’s next to impossible to provide the sequence of events in the post-Resurrections…there’s no way that they can all be harmonized.” Dr. Donald Hagner said the problem is a “notorious” one.

    Kingsley has emphatically not harmonized the accounts by far.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Since I mischaracterized Kingsley and do not want to do that to anyone I've revised my critique of his book right here. In fact one of the paragraphs was written by him for which I am thankful.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Loftus: Barker's Challenge is to logically fit the resurrection accounts together without contradiction, NOT to put together a story that is going to solve all the mysteries of the universe, or meet with your approval.

    Face it. The accounts were written too soon after the witnesses testified to seeing Christ alive for the whole thing to have developed as a legend. You might succeed in making a convincing argument if the gospels were second century, and if Christianity had slowly trickled into being in its first hundred years, and especially IF the accounts could be proven as grossly contradictory as critics like Barker imagine. They are not. They were written within the faith communities of the original eye-witnesses, read by, and circulated by them. If the accounts had the basic who did what, when, and where facts wrong, they would have been fixed or tossed. But they quickly became famous best sellers--and still are--worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And BTW John, thank you for sticking with it till you had the basic facts right, even if cast in the worst possible light and without the evidence to support my claims (space is limited after all). But really...did you actually read The Easter Answer or just give it ol' ten minute skim? Just curious.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>