Tuesday, April 03, 2012

The Titanic Sank: He is Risen Indeed!

Ahh…Easter. When it becomes popular to dredge up some “new” facet to improve readership. “Jesus Tomb Found!” “Pilate’s Ancestors Finally Speak Out On Trial!” “Peter was a Pimp!” Those sorts of things. And the requisite apologetic defenses on the Resurrection make the blogsphere rounds.

This year, Reclaiming the Mind is doing a ten part series of short (2 minute) videos from Dr. Licona “dispelling” Myths surrounding the resurrection.

The first dealing with contradictions falsifying the account. As this month marks the 100 year anniversary of the Titanic sinking, it only appropriate Dr. Licona raises the following familiar canard:

“No credible historian believes contradictions within the account discredit the account itself. For example, when the Titanic sank in 1912 there were some survivors that said the Titanic broke in half before sinking and others who said, ‘Nuh-uh, it sank in one piece.’

“You are out there in a lifeboat—how do you get that wrong? We really don’t know. However one thing is for sure, historians didn’t conclude the Titanic didn’t sink. We just knew there was a peripheral detail we didn’t know what happened.”

[I did not transcribe this precisely word-for-word, but this is extremely close. If you want precision, go watch the video. It will cost you two minutes.]

For non-historian buffs, a long debate raged as to Titanic’s final moments—specifically whether (as some claimed) it sank in one piece or whether it broke into two, as others claimed. Once the wreck was discovered…in primarily two (2) pieces…the debate ceased. Those claiming it broke up were avenged. If you want further details, this site provides the various witness accounts.

This month’s National Geographic has a long article regarding the Titanic. Based upon the statements, and the condition of the wreck, it is believed the bow (front) filled with so much water, it lifted the stern (back) fully out of the water. Unable to sustain its back (stern) weight, the ship broke almost in two, only the very bottom still connected at the break point. At this point, the bow (front) tore free (the stern did not have enough buoyancy to hold it up) and plunged relatively straight down to the ocean floor. The Stern section re-righted, but now filled with water from the gaping hole, and sank. Because the stern was not aerodynamic, it cork-screwed down, twisting its own metal.

There are three (3) points to consider regarding the differences between the Titanic sinking and the Resurrection:

(1) We have multiple lines of independent evidence regarding the Titanic sinking; not just conflicting statements.
(2) Even within the debate, historians agreed one of the claims was incorrect; the ship either sunk in one piece or two.
(3) The witness’ conflicting statements were weighed for credibility.

1. Multiple lines of independent evidence.

Dr. Licona is unclear, unperceptive or disingenuous on this point. Why do historians say the Titanic Sank? We have a ship leaving harbor, and not arriving at its destination. It sent out a distress signal. Other ships arrived on scene with multiple lifeboats in water. The water was frigid, not a place people voluntarily get out of a perfectly good ship to ride around in water and/or lifeboats. 1,514 people on the ship “disappeared” that night. Wreckage washed up on shore. Multiple independent people agree the ship was sinking.

Oh, and we found two great big pieces of it on the bottom of the ocean.

Notice we are NOT solely relying upon conflicting witness statements—we have multiple independent, observable data points all leading to the conclusion the Titanic sank.

But what do we have with the Resurrection? We have conflicting unattributed witness accounts. That is it. No tomb to observe. No body walking around still.

Rather than compare the Resurrection to the Titanic, it is much more akin to Bigfoot. We have multiple conflicting statements regarding size, locale, shape, habitat, etc. Would Dr. Licona agree with me contradictions within the accounts do not discredit the accounts themselves? That there really must be a Bigfoot, even those these accounts contradict?

Or what about alien snatching? Many people claim to be snatched by aliens for a time—there is disagreement about the ships, the aliens, the purpose, the time, etc.? Sure…multiple conflicting accounts—but do all these “credible historians” think aliens are snatching people?

See, people agree the Titanic sank from all these multiple data points. There is disagreement (by human nature) as to minor details such as precise timing, or the manner it occurred. But people go into the research already presuming it sank—that is not a question on the table.

The same way Christians approach the Resurrection—they already presume it happened. So details as to what day, or who was there, or what was said are “peripheral details”—Christians cannot see the difference between the conflicting accounts in the Titanic and the Resurrection. (Yet would immediately reject Bigfoot and Alien abductions.)

2. One (or more) of the conflicting statements were wrong.

In the Titanic account, the very cause of debate was that one statement was wrong. Those holding to a whole ship sinking claimed the statements regarding it breaking up were wrong. Those claiming it broke up said the whole ship people were wrong.
Even those “credible historians” were not claiming everyone was correct. Yet how does Dr. Licona approach the Resurrection account? He claims these contradictions are “harmonizable.” (his words.) Unlike historians with the Titanic, he performs no task, makes no method to determine under the contradictions, whether one (or both) are incorrect.

He presumes all accounts can be harmonized.

3. Witness credibility weighed.

It was noted the ship’s officers tended to be the ones on the “whole ship” side to support the engineering of the ship, whereas passengers, with no such agenda tended to be on the “break up” position. Where people were in relation to the ship was reviewed—where they at the rear, the side, the bow? The ability to see (it was night, of course) as well as the difficulty of reviewing at horizon level.

These were questions brought in by historians reviewing the Titanic sinking.

Is such inquiry going on in Christian apologetics as discussed by Dr. Licona? The problem is we have no credibility weighing. We agree some Gospel authors copied others, but cannot agree who copied who. We agree Gospels were written down—disagree as to when and by whom. We agree myths developed surrounding Jesus’ life, death and resurrection—cannot agree when or what.

We don’t have enough data to perform the types of witness credibility evaluation we could with the Titanic.

In short, the next time someone raises this simple statement, I would ask them this, “If you believe conflicting accounts do not discredit the account as a whole—do you believe Bigfoot exists despite the conflicting accounts? Do you believe aliens are abducting people? Because that is precisely the type of evidence we have for the Resurrection, and you are telling me to ignore the contradictions in the Resurrection accounts—why don’t you ignore the contradictions in Bigfoot and Aliens?”

30 comments:

  1. If some of the witnesses thought that the Titanic sank in the North Atlantic and some of them thought it sank in the South Pacific, that might raise some red flags.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the Bigfoot analogy.

    Growing up, I thought one of our jobs as Christians was to harmonize biblical passages as we came to an "apparent" contradiction. It was assumed it could be done. Therefore, it was.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Has Licona ever addressed the whole question of harmonization? I suppose that secular historians might harmonize apparently contradictory statements if the resolution were pretty simple, but I've certainly never seen one go through the kind of contortions that apologists use to address the contradictions in the Bible. When reports differ about the details of an event, it seems to me that historians start with the assumption that the reporters thought that things had occurred differently (or that they were lying in which case they wanted the recipients of their reports to think things had occurred differently). I know that Christians are taught not to think that way about the Bible, but do they even know or care how everyone else does things?

    ReplyDelete
  4. DoOrDoNot,

    Harmonizing may be theology (albeit bad theology) but it is not historical study. If the historical claims cannot withstand even the same scrutiny we perform on secular writing—why believe they come from a higher standard? Always amazes me people want to claim Holy Script comes from the smartest, most knowledgeable, most perfect being in the universe, but then demand we treat it like the frailest glass, as it can so easily be broken.

    Vinny,

    The only discussion I recall Dr. Licona talking about harmonization was the snafu he go into regarding the resurrected saints. He still wanted to harmonize scripture as a whole, while conceding it may not have actually happened. Like many current scholars, he likes to straddle the fence by not proclaiming rock-hard inerrancy, while managing to maintain and sound exactly like a rock-hard inerrantist. Dr. Wallace has the same tendency. (and because of his institution, occasionally suffers the same accusations by the more hard-core inerrantists. His research almost sounds like conceding contradictions, while Dr. Wallace continues to maintain his inerrancy position.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is Wallace's inerrancy position though? My impression after reading his contribution to The Case for the Real Jesus was that he was going through intellectual contortions to get to some sort of position that he could profess to be a belief in inerrancy, but which probably didn't look much like what anyone else thought of when they used the word.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're misusing Licona's argument here. He is arguing for the single point that eyewitness accounts of actual events can and do contain outright contradictions. The point is that even outright contradictions in the Gospel accounts would not prove that it didn't happen. Yet this is something that skeptics often try to cite as proof that the accounts were made up. What you have done is to throw out a lot of red herrings here.

    And Licona is right, the details can be harmonized. I'm sure he's done so himself, just like I have.

    ReplyDelete
  7. John Fraser: He is arguing for the single point that eyewitness accounts of actual events can and do contain outright contradictions.

    Sure, but what he fails to address is how we weigh credibility due to those contradictions, that in events like the Titanic we have other evidences to support certain claims, and that one or both of those eyewitness accounts are incorrect. There is no such analysis done regarding the Resurrection (either in the video or Licona’s book.)

    John Fraser: The point is that even outright contradictions in the Gospel accounts would not prove that it didn't happen.

    True…but it is strong evidence at least some of the accounts contain events that didn’t happen. The trick is developing a method to consistently make determinations if possible. The outright contradictions in alien abduction accounts do not prove they don’t happen (to use your wording) but it does cause us to scratch our heads.

    John Fraser: And Licona is right, the details can be harmonized..

    Yep, if one uses a rotten theological methodology like “any logical possibility.” Not if one uses the same method we use on other historical accounts when no one’s theological belief is at stake, of course. Or at least one’s OWN theological belief—I see creedal Christians more than willing to critique Mormon’s historical claims, for example, with more skepticism than applied to their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DagoodS

      You said, "Sure, but what he fails to address is how we weigh credibility due to those contradictions, that in events like the Titanic we have other evidences to support certain claims, and that one or both of those eyewitness accounts are incorrect."

      I don't think you're getting my point. Licona is just focusing on the argument used by skeptics that "the stories can't be true because they have contradictions in them." The fact that there is other evidence for the Titanic actually strengthens that point. That the Titanic sunk is not in question - but the eyewitness accounts still have contradictions. And there are no outright contradictions in the Gospel narratives this bad. You can't reply to that by saying that "we have other evidence for believing the Titanic sank," because nobody is challenging that.

      You said, "There is no such analysis done regarding the Resurrection (either in the video or Licona’s book.)"

      I really don't understand what you mean by this, although I have only read the first chapter of Licona's book. What exactly do you think is lacking?

      You said, "True…but it is strong evidence at least some of the accounts contain events that didn’t happen."

      Is that really the point, though? The skeptical argument (as I have seen it used and as Licona is using it) is that the accounts contain contradictions, therefore the whole thing is made up. But that's not a good argument, and that's what the Titanic illustration is meant to show. You can have contradictions in some of the peripheral details (which is where all of the alleged discrepancies are in the Resurrection accounts), but the event still happened. That's not an argument for it, it's simply a refutation of a bad argument AGAINST it.

      You said, "The outright contradictions in alien abduction accounts do not prove they don’t happen (to use your wording) but it does cause us to scratch our heads."

      Let's not start with the UFO red herring so soon, eh? BTW, do you have any particular multiple accounts of a particular alien abduction that you're thinking of?

      You said, "Yep, if one uses a rotten theological methodology like “any logical possibility.” Not if one uses the same method we use on other historical accounts when no one’s theological belief is at stake, of course."

      Actually it looks to me like the alleged discrepancies used by skeptics are the kinds of things that would never be called contradictions in any other historical account. Almost all of them are arguments from silence. John's Gospel says Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, so it's assumed he means she went by herself. But then when she returns to the disciple she says, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE do not know where they have laid him." So John didn't mean she was by herself, he just didn't give the detail of who was with her. Nobody would call that a contradiction with other similar accounts, but with the hyper-skepticism that is applied to the Gospels means suddenly it's a contradiction.

      You said, "Or at least one’s OWN theological belief—I see creedal Christians more than willing to critique Mormon’s historical claims, for example, with more skepticism than applied to their own."

      So now we've covered UFOs and we're on to Mormons. I think I see an appearance by Elvis, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster on the way.

      Delete
  8. John Fraser,

    Perhaps it would help (so we know precisely what Licona is addressing) if you could cite some skeptic who said [paraphrased] "the stories can't be true because they have contradictions in them."

    Thanks.

    (I will answer your other questions tomorrow…off to soccer! Yeah!)

    ReplyDelete
  9. DagoodS,

    I don't know who Licona is addressing, but I hear this a lot. Here is Bart Ehrman on the Gospels:

    "Stories are in circulation year after year after year, and as a result of that, the stories get changed. How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another."

    I don't know if you need something more specific than that, but I have to ask: have you really never seen this objection?

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is worth noting that "got changed" differs substantially from "cannot be true."

    Informal conversation is not really interesting; people speak colloquially, metaphorically, imprecisely, and sometimes just stupidly when we're making up our words as we go along.

    I am not nearly as well-informed on biblical scholarship as DagoodS, but I cannot imagine any careful scholar ever saying in print that any story (biblical or otherwise) "can't be true" because it has contradictions, except perhaps in the most trivial sense of cannot be exactly true.

    You want, I think, to make sure you're addressing an extant controversy.

    I'm seeing some parallels between this thread and the thread on Simon Greenleaf (and a pattern I see in a lot of apologetic discussions): The focus on some extremely narrow, limited side point that is (for one reason or another) not really a matter of controversy.

    Just as there's no real controversy about the the precise way that contemporary lawyers use Greenleaf's Treatise on Evidence (as DagoodS notes in that thread, there's no controversy that ToE is no longer a primary, authoritative reference, there seems to be no controversy that scholars can accept the overall truth of some event notwithstanding some contradictions in the account. In Greenleaf, you are picking nits; here you seem to be setting up a blatant straw man.

    (Of course, it might not be a total straw man, hence DagoodS's request for citations. Perhaps some scholars really have said something this apparently mistaken. If so, I would really like to see their actual arguments; it is sometimes the justification for the apparently obviously wrong that leads to profound insights. Or perhaps they really are wrong and need correction.)

    You can, of course, speak as you please, but I recommend that you avoid the intellectual vice of having to be right. Advocacy is fine, but an intellectual who apparently must be right, at all costs and about every single point, is not only tedious and annoying, but is also often judged by readers as too biased to be reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Larry,

    You said, "It is worth noting that "got changed" differs substantially from "cannot be true.""

    I don't think that really is a substantial difference. If it got changed, then it can't be true. Is that not how you see it? Or do you think it's possible for it to get changed but still somehow be true? How would that work? The original story wasn't true but then it got changed so that it was true? I don't think that's what Ehrman's argument is. And in any case, the statement by Ehrman is false. The differences in the eyewitness testimony of the Titanic was not proof that the stories had been changed.

    You said, "You want, I think, to make sure you're addressing an extant controversy."

    Then let's talk about Ehrman's point and say that the contradictions allegedly prove that the stories have been changed, allowing for the odd possibility that they were changed but are still true. Can we discuss that point? Or not?

    You said, "I'm seeing some parallels between this thread and the thread on Simon Greenleaf (and a pattern I see in a lot of apologetic discussions): The focus on some extremely narrow, limited side point that is (for one reason or another) not really a matter of controversy."

    I think this is pretty irrelevant. This somewhat dismissive comment of yours here doesn't seem to further discussion to me - actually it looks like you're simply trying to brush me off. Which is fine, if you guys just want to have your own echo chamber and not be bothered with other perspectives, I can leave you to it. But since you're talking about Christian apologists it might help to hear the perspective of an apologist. Just maybe.


    You said, "In Greenleaf, you are picking nits; here you seem to be setting up a blatant straw man."

    If you want to discuss the Greenleaf thread, maybe you should do it on that thread instead of this one. It might make things less complicated. But your contention that this is a strawman is not only unconvincing, it's also not relevant to the main point that I was making.

    You said, "(Of course, it might not be a total straw man, hence DagoodS's request for citations. Perhaps some scholars really have said something this apparently mistaken. If so, I would really like to see their actual arguments; it is sometimes the justification for the apparently obviously wrong that leads to profound insights. Or perhaps they really are wrong and need correction.)"

    Your contention that Ehrman isn't making that argument isn't convincing. If he isn't making that argument, he is coming awfully close to it. But here's the thing - even if I can't find someone making that argument to your satisfaction, it's still the case that that's how Licona was using the example. And it's still a misuse of it to try to make him say something else with it. Do you agree with that point? That to me is the main one. The point we're arguing about now seems to be with whether or not Licona was arguing against a straw man.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dagoods and Larry,

    As far as I can recall, John Fraser is the only person whose comments I have ever deleted from my blog. Your experience may of course be different, but if you start to get the feeling that maybe discussing anything with him is utterly pointless, I suggest that you trust that feeling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting approach to discussion, Vinny. Does the fact that you removed some of my arguments from your blog prove something other than that you removed them?

      I actually posted some of that on my own blog, because you deleted a comment of mine which pointed out where you said that Sherwin-White though that all ancient sources contained both fact and legend when he never said any such thing. Your charge of incivility against me was unjustified, and indeed you were attacking Christian apologists saying they were "abusing" Sherwin-White (which they weren't) and "bloviating" and so forth.

      You said, "Your experience may of course be different, but if you start to get the feeling that maybe discussing anything with him is utterly pointless, I suggest that you trust that feeling.

      Wow. In other words, start deleting my comments ASAP. I guess you guys do want your own echo chamber, then.

      Delete
    2. Dagoods and Larry may draw some inference from the fact that you are the only person whose comments I have ever removed, but you are quite correct that the mere fact that I removed them doesn't prove much of anything. I saw what you posted on your own blog, but I really didn't care. Time is too precious.

      Delete
  13. DagoodS,

    Never mind responding. I've decided this isn't worth it for me. You guys obviously have a cozy little group here, and you enjoy being able to talk about Christian apologists without any of them responding. I don't want to deprive you of that, and already I'm seeing personal attacks start here from your fellow posters rather than dealing with the arguments. I saw your post on Greeleaf from a link on another site, and felt the need to comment. Then I noticed this post on Licona and thought I should comment on that as well, because I think you're mistaken in a couple of important areas. You can consider my thoughts or not, but I see no value in anything further than that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Never mind responding. I've decided this isn't worth it for me.

    Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

    ReplyDelete
  15. **"Stories are in circulation year after year after year, and as a result of that, the stories get changed. How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another."**

    Is Bart Ehrman using this to argue against an event not occurring, or that the "eyewitness accounts" of the event cannot be inerrant?

    There is a huge difference between saying that it couldn't have happened at all, and it couldn't have happened in the way all the eyewitnesses describe.

    Yes, if a story is changed, then it can't be *exactly* true word for word. But that doesn't mean the whole story is false.

    ReplyDelete
  16. John Fraser,

    Dr. Licona says, “The Gospels contradict themselves and so therefore we can’t believe it [sic] on the Resurrection of Jesus. Now a lot of Skeptics raise this point, but no credible historian believes contradictions within an account discredit the account itself.”

    No, I do not recall ever seeing a skeptic claim the contradictions mean the entire account is discredited. I have seen skeptics claim the contradiction raises questions of credibility regarding the witnesses (in many historical accounts, including biblical accounts.) I have seen skeptics use the contradictions in conjunction with the lack of identified authors, the timing, the genre, the intended recipients, the culture, other similar accounts, and the uniqueness of the claimed supernatural event—sure. But SOLELY the fact there are contradictions makes the whole thing untrue? Nope. (Even skeptics agree Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was Tetrarch, Caiaphas was high priest, there were centurions, crucifixions, tombs, the Sea of Galilee, etc. Some things, even with the contradictions, are true.)

    Dr. Ehrman does not say, “The contradictions make the accounts untrue.” Dr. Ehrman relies upon multiple points of evidence, not the least being textual criticism.

    There is a common theme among:

    1) The Titanic Sinking;
    2) The Resurrection;
    3) UFO Abductions; and
    4) Bigfoot.

    What is it? These are all claimed events happening in history. They may have different amounts/types of evidence; they all have conflictions within the accounts. But every one is claimed (by someone) to have happened. Now Dr. Licona believes the Titanic Sinking is comparable to the Resurrection. I think the latter two—UFO’s and Bigfoot—are more comparable to the Resurrection because all three rely solely on witness statements, just like the Resurrection. Curiously, though, you claim my comparisons are “red herring” whereas, apparently, Dr. Licona’s is dead on. If one is a “red herring” all are.

    I would like to see Dr. Licona (just like we do with the Titanic witnesses) compare the author’s motivations, ability to observe, time for reflection, etc. Like how Mark & Matthew place the appearances in Galilee, pursuant to the angel’s statement at the tomb in Mark, but Luke (copying Mark) modifies the angel’s statement to conform the Luke’s intention to have the appearances in Jerusalem.

    Or Matthew’s inclusion of soldiers contradicting Mark and Luke. (And no, it is NOT just an Argument from Silence.) Or John’s modifying the day Jesus died, to put it on the day of preparation. Or John’s including multiple resurrection appearances from different sources.

    But alas, we don’t see it…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DagoodS,

      I decided to check back and see if there was a possibility of salvaging the conversation. So I'll make a couple of comments, but will probably have to ignore some of the other posters on here.

      You said, "Now Dr. Licona believes the Titanic Sinking is comparable to the Resurrection."

      This is mistaken. The only point that Licona is making is that even outright contradictions in eyewitness accounts do not discredit the accounts. They don't even show (contra Ehrman) that the accounts have been altered over time. You're taking his point and using it as part of an argument that he isn't making.

      You said, "Like how Mark & Matthew place the appearances in Galilee, pursuant to the angel’s statement at the tomb in Mark, but Luke (copying Mark) modifies the angel’s statement to conform the Luke’s intention to have the appearances in Jerusalem."

      First of all, the appearances in Mark are probably not original. The original ending of Mark ends at 16:8 and almost no Bible scholar uses the appearances in Mark. Second, Matthew includes an appearance to the women near the tomb and and appearance to the disciples in Galilee. Luke has appearances in Jerusalem and vicinity, while John (an independent tradition from the Synoptics) has appearances in Jerusalem AND Galilee. But Luke also indicates in the first chapter of Acts that there were many appearances over a 40 day period. Each author was choosing their material for a particular purpose, but that doesn't constitute a contradiction. Luke doesn't say that there were no appearances in Galilee, and the 40-day window certainly makes allowance for it. So this is an argument from silence (Luke doesn't narrate any appearance in Galilee so he affirms there were none).

      You said, "Or Matthew’s inclusion of soldiers contradicting Mark and Luke. (And no, it is NOT just an Argument from Silence.)"

      Of course it is. Neither Mark nor Luke say there were no soldiers, so how is it not an argument from silence?

      You said, "Or John’s modifying the day Jesus died, to put it on the day of preparation."

      All four Gospel writers put the crucifixion on the day of preparation (see Mat. 27:62, Mark 15:42, Lk. 23:54, John 19:31) but there is vast confusion about this. The day of preparation was Friday, the day before the Sabbath. In fact the Greek word paraskeue ("preparation") is still the modern Greek name for Friday.

      You said, "But alas, we don’t see it…"

      What don't you see?

      Delete
    2. If your first point is going to be that even though Licona used the sinking of the Titanic as an analogy, he really didn't believe it was comparable, I think your chances of salvaging the conversation are greatly reduced.

      Delete
  17. John Fraser: The only point that Licona is making is that even outright contradictions in eyewitness accounts do not discredit the accounts.

    Fine—but contradictions DO raise issues, such as credibility, that one account is incorrect, and how to align with other evidences. How disappointing Dr. Licona wants to only touch a very surface point, without any desire to dig into the real issues and study as I laid out in my blog entry. And I have yet to see a quote from a skeptic who relies SOLELY upon contradictions to claim it didn’t happen. Raising the question how strawish this whole claim is.

    I find discussing contradictions with inerrantists to be a waste of time. I find it extremely rare to be beneficial to anybody—and the only reason say “extremely rare” is that it must have been beneficial once; I just can’t recall any such instance. Resolving contradictions by “any logical possibility” may be a theological tactic, but it is NOT what historians do—the branch of study Dr. Licona is allegedly using with his Titanic Example. There are plenty of credible historians who find contradictions in these accounts, and based on those contradictions, do the hard analysis regarding credibility, which is correct, etc.

    For the benefit of any lurkers—the issue with the Galilean vs. Jerusalem appearances is Luke’s deliberate modification of what the angels says at the tomb from “Jesus will see the Disciples at Galilee” (Mark 16:7; Matthew 28:7) to “Remember what Jesus said in Galilee.” (Luke 24:6). Luke (after reading at least Mark) wants to avoid Galilean appearances and place all the appearances in Judea. Humorously, if one plugs in the order of John, when Jesus and angels say, “Go to Galilee” the disciples stay in Judea. When Jesus tells them to stay in Judea, the Disciples go to Galilee! They constantly do the exact opposite.

    I have previously written on the soldier issue with indications of contradictory claims between Matthew’s soldiers, and Mark’s women wondering who will remove the stone, as well as Luke’s priests inability to remember bribing the soldiers to accuse the Disciples of a crime.

    I confess, I was a little surprised you claimed Jesus was killed on the day of preparation—I thought you would be more familiar with the accounts. In any event, I previously wrote on what day Jesus died.

    And I should note there are other contradictions (some using the argument from silence), I only listed a few.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DagoodS,

      You said, "Fine—but contradictions DO raise issues, such as credibility, that one account is incorrect, and how to align with other evidences. How disappointing Dr. Licona wants to only touch a very surface point, without any desire to dig into the real issues and study as I laid out in my blog entry"

      Um, it looks like this was a short video clip (out of 10) dealing with specific myths about the Resurrection. Your complaint is that he didn't say more? He has a rather large book about it.

      You said, "I find discussing contradictions with inerrantists to be a waste of time."

      I don't know if I even count as an inerrantist. I think inerrancy is a bit useless, because what counts as an error to us might not have to an ancient writer.

      You said, "There are plenty of credible historians who find contradictions in these accounts, and based on those contradictions, do the hard analysis regarding credibility, which is correct, etc."

      I've read countless skeptics on this one. The kinds of things that are called "contradictions" here would never be called a contradiction anywhere else.

      You said, "Luke (after reading at least Mark) wants to avoid Galilean appearances and place all the appearances in Judea."

      But Luke most likely didn't read the appearances in Mark because those were added later. It's certainly possible that Luke decided to limit himself to appearances in and around Jerusalem, possibly for space. I have no problem with that.

      You said, "Humorously, if one plugs in the order of John, when Jesus and angels say, “Go to Galilee” the disciples stay in Judea."

      I think that is the case - the disciples didn't believe the initial report of the women and so locked themselves inside instead of risking going out in public. The Romans had a history of executing revolutionary leaders and then rounding up and executing the followers as well.

      You said, "When Jesus tells them to stay in Judea, the Disciples go to Galilee!"

      The only place I know where they were told to stay in Judea was in Luke/Acts, and that was at the last appearance 40 days after the Resurrection (Luke compressed the chronology at the end of his gospel but then explained it in more detail in Acts 1). They actually obeyed that command.

      You said, "I confess, I was a little surprised you claimed Jesus was killed on the day of preparation—I thought you would be more familiar with the accounts."

      Did you not read the verses I gave? They all say that Jesus died on the day of preparation. Trust me when I say I am thoroughly familiar with this issue. I'm gathering you read some Bart Ehrman or something, but Ehrman is off on this one.

      Delete
    2. "Your complaint is that he didn't say more? He has a rather large book about it."

      When someone makes a strawman out of his opponents' arguments by omitting enough description to accurately portray those arguments, then yes, "not saying more" is a legitimate complaint.

      Delete
  18. Lurker? Present and accounted for. If it wasn't for the lurkers DagoodS might stop blogging. *grin*

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, John Fraser, my complaint is that the Titanic is a poor comparison to the Resurrection due to the differing types of evidence. That the better analogy would be to Bigfoot or Alien Abduction, because these claimed events are based on witness accounts rather than independent data. AND that we compare the accounts.

    The reason I said “Fine” was that even conceding your point about Dr. Licona’s argument, it still avoids these greater issues. And I have read Dr. Licona’s extrapolated work, and it doesn’t deal with witness credibility in light of contradictions (like the Titanic), does not deal with which contradiction is correct (like the Titanic) and treats contradictions with theological method, rather than historical.

    As for your replies to the contradictions…as expected…I am looking at historical methodology; not theological doctrine.

    ReplyDelete