I grew up in a very Bible-based literalistic church. In fact, looking back on it now, I’d have to say my faith was balanced almost entirely on the concept of biblical inerrancy. I was taught that 1) the Bible was the inspired WORD OF GOD as dictated to it’s authors 2) It was the inerrant source of truth on all topics it spoke of and 3) any apparent contradictions or mistakes were due to human error in publication, translation or interpretation. Period.
If that sounds familiar to you, or even reassuring, I invite you to complete the following exercise. All you need is a copy of the Bible (KJV, NLT, NIV, NKVD, whatever) and a piece of paper and a writing implement. Or you can just print out this blog post and follow along.
We, or rather, you are going to do a little detective work. Easter has once again come and gone. If there is any holiday or event that is central and crucial to the Christian Church, it is Easter (we’ll leave it’s pagan origins alone for the time being). The death and resurrection of Jesus is covered by all four gospels equally, giving us four “eye-witness” accounts of the Easter story. You’re going to take a closer look at these and answer some specific questions about the resurrection only for me (and yourself)
Here’s what to do. On your paper make five columns :
Question: / Matthew’s answer (ch 28) / Mark’s answer (ch 16)/Luke’s answer (ch 24)/ John’s (ch 20) answer
Under the questions column, fill in the following rows
1. What time of day did the “witnesses” arrive at the tomb?
2. How many witnesses came to the tomb?
3. Who were they? (names if possible)
4. How many beings were there when the witnesses first arrived (human or otherwise?)
5. Did any beings appear during the time of the witnesses visit? If so, how many?
6. What position was the stone in when the witnesses got there?
7.Finally, where did the witnesses go after they discovered that there was nobody in the tomb? (name a specific place if possible)
8. Who did they talk to? (Names if possible)
9. Did anyone else visit the tomb after the witnesses testimony?
10) if so, who got there first?
Once you’ve finished this exercise, (if you’ve done it with any amount of integrity), I think you will notice something interesting.
We’ll talk about it a little later this week. Hope you had a happy and sexy Eostre!
(thanx to The Reasonable Doubts podcast for the inspiration for this little quiz)
p.s. anyone know how to integrate digg buttons into WordPress pages?
8 Comments
March 25, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Here are two comments from Xanga-World:
from egagnon
“Hi Scott. Interesting quiz. While the answers to the quiz certainly highlight differences in the gospel accounts, I don’t feel that they automatically support a conclusion that the Bible can’t be trusted.
Yes, the gospels give four accounts of Jesus’ death/resurrection, but not necessarily eye witness accounts. For example the Gospel of Luke makes it clear at its outset that his work is not an eye witness telling, but rather the results of its author researching the claims of the early Christians and presenting his findings to Theopolus (believed to be Luke’s publisher). The author of Mark’s gospel is believed by many scholars to have been a disciple of the apostle Peter, Thereby presenting the Gospel through Peter’s eyes.
While the differences in the accounts present obvious challenges for those studying the Bible, the debate is nothing new, having been argued by scholars and critics for as long as the Bible has been in the hands of the public.
Inerrancy and literalism (or how one might understand/interpret the Bible) is a different discussion altogether and perhaps it is closer to the argument that you’re presenting (not wanting to presume your argument, of course)? Along those lines, there are many non-literalist Christians (and many Jews and Muslims for that matter) who find the Bible trustworthy because of its central messages rather than how its authors might agree or disagree on times of day or how many people were standing around at a particular event.”
…and from BBKinMaine
“Let’s say that you, Amanda, and Zoe all attend the Macy’s Parade on Thanksgiving. You’re all standing fairly close together, watching the very same parade. However, you might be really noticing the clowns and the jugglers. Amanda might be focusing on the floats. And, Zoe is probably really watching the balloons. Afterward, you all write down your report on the parade. Because you were concentrating on a different part of the parade, your reports will all be different, even if they might contain some of the same facts. Different viewpoints — not less “true,” “correct,” or “factual” — just different. That’s what we see in the Gospels. You have to read them together, putting all the viewpoints together to see the “big picture” — more of the character and life of Jesus than we might have had with only one eye-witness account of his life. We get a fuller, more accurate picture of who Jesus is based on how people “saw” him. Just as each gospel writer gave a different account of the birth of Jesus, they each give a slightly different “bent” on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Or, they talk about his healing, or his miracles, or the “business” of each day, or whatever. All accurate from the perspective they have chosen. Luke was a doctor — his gospel tells more of the healing ministry of Jesus. And, so forth. Don’t try to “de-construct” Scripture to try to explain why it can’t possibly be “true.” Instead, try to put it all together and explain why it can’t possibly be “false,” “unreliable” and give cause for a choice to be an atheist.”
March 25, 2008 at 2:18 pm
and my reply to BBKinMaine:
@BBKinMaine -
I’m not trying to “de-construct” anything. I don’t think your parade analogy really holds. Yes, there are details in which our accounts would differ, but the major details should match up. For instance, I would remember the names and number of people who were there with me, whether or not there were angels there and so on. Besides that, we’re not talking about a parade. We’re talking about the most pivotal event in the Christian world view! One would think that if any part of the Bible was going to be internally consistent, God would make sure that it would be this.
My main point is not to deny the truth of the event, rather to ask a few simple questions. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and no the work of fallible men, how can there be ANY mistakes or confusion? If it is the work of men, (even small parts of it) then how can we know which parts are divinely writ, and which are fabricated or confused? If there are different and logically inconsistent descriptions of the same event, which one should we take to be the “gospel truth” ? With what measure are we to decide.
My point is NOT that biblical inconsistencies lead to atheism, (that’s quite a large leap), but that the problems with the Bible lead the truly honest student to one inescapable conclusion. Biblical Literalism is a dead end. It’s playing fast and loose with logic and theology, and is just as prone to the bias of the interpreter as any other attempts at making sense of the Bible. Therefore, it cannot be trusted.
March 25, 2008 at 9:40 pm
These differences are not small, like whether the Snoopy float came after or before the Linus float. And they can’t be reconciled into one story, like if Scott were watching the floats and Amanda was watching the jugglers. The stories contradict each other rather than complement each other. This doesn’t decimate Christianity, of course (as you already mentioned, Scott), but it does cast strong doubt on the idea of Biblical inerrancy. I think Bob Price does an excellent job of taking on the historicity of the resurrection; I don’t know if you heard it or not, Scott, but anyone interested can hear a one-hour interview with Dr Price on the issue at http://reasondriven.blogspot.com.
April 8, 2008 at 12:29 am
From WOTM:
“How many angels were at the tomb—one or two?”
The question has arisen simply because Matthew and Mark mention one angel, whereas Luke and John refer to two. There is no conflict if there were two angels but Matthew and Mark quote the one who was a spokesperson.
“There are contradictions in the resurrection accounts. Did Christ appear first to the women or to His disciples?”
Both Matthew and Mark list women as the first to see the resurrected Christ. Mark says, “He appeared first to Mary Magdalene” (16:9). But Paul lists Peter (Cephas) as the first one to see Christ after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5). Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, then to the other women, and then to Peter. Paul was not giving a complete list, but only the important one for his purpose. Since only men’s testimony was considered legal or official in the first century, it is understandable that the apostle would not list the women as witnesses in his defense of the resurrection here. The order of the appearances of Christ is as follows:
CHRIST’S RESURRECTION APPEARANCES
APPEARED TO: REFERENCES:
1. Mary John 20:10–18
2. Mary and women Matthew 28:1–10
3. Peter 1 Corinthians 15:5
4. Two disciples Luke 24:13–35
5. Ten apostles Luke 24:36–49; John 20:19–23
6. Eleven apostles John 20:24–31
7. Seven apostles John 21
8. All apostles Matthew 28:16–20; Mark 16:14–18
9. 500 brethren 1 Corinthians 15:6
10. James 1 Corinthians 15:7
11. All apostles Acts 1:4–8
12. Paul Acts 9:1–9; 1 Corinthians 15:8
March 3, 2009 at 7:28 am
Hello webmaster
I would like to share with you a link to your site
write me here preonrelt@mail.ru
April 15, 2009 at 9:22 am
I read your blog for quite a long time and should tell you that your posts always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.
April 17, 2009 at 3:01 am
I think it would be easy if skeptics just say they CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE in God or the bible, instead of wasting time trying to justify their true intents. I look at the same evidence( the bible), yet I BELIEVE IT. The Macy’s Parade analogy holds true in my eyes.What if everyone gave the same, exact eyewitness account? Is that realistic? I suck at remembering names, so the person who said that the eye witnesses would have at least remembered the names of those who were there, no necessarily true. I think it would be easier if skeptics would just get it off their chest and admit that THEY CHOOSE not to believe, or just call God a liar, because it is HE Who inspired the writings of the bible but the so-called “educated” of this world would like to think they can outsmart God. Wasn’t it the bible which declared, ” The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God?”. So please explain, anyone, if the bible is “made-up”, how in the world was it put together? Think about what it would take to “make-up” the bible???. And here we go, scrutinizing every little detail, instead of focusing on the true message behind it. Is it really that HARD to see how much God loves and cares for us, or are our hearts so hardened that we’re blinded in our own prejudices…
April 17, 2009 at 4:46 am
Timely comment. I guess a year late is better than never.
I think it would be easy if skeptics just say they CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE in God or the bible, instead of wasting time trying to justify their true intents.
It would be easier, it just wouldn’t be true. Skeptics evaluate the evidence and base their opinions on the available facts. Their “true intent” is to find the truth, whatever it may be.
. I look at the same evidence( the bible), yet I BELIEVE IT. The Macy’s Parade analogy holds true in my eyes. What if everyone gave the same, exact eyewitness account? Is that realistic?
No, but neither is it realistic for witnesses of such a crucially important event to forget details such as who was there with them and whether or not there was an ANGEL waiting for them.
I suck at remembering names, so the person who said that the eye witnesses would have at least remembered the names of those who were there, no necessarily true.
You suck at remembering names, that doesn’t mean they did. This isn’t some random group of people. They were close friends, part of a tight-knit community. There’s sufficient reason to believe they would be able to remember who was there.
Maybe they I think it would be easier if skeptics would just get it off their chest and admit that THEY CHOOSE not to believe, or just call God a liar, because it is HE Who inspired the writings of the bible but the so-called “educated” of this world would like to think they can outsmart God. Wasn’t it the bible which declared, ” The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God?”.
So…if I believe the Bible isn’t true, why would I care if it called me names? Similarly, if I don’t believe in a god, then who am I calling a liar?
So please explain, anyone, if the bible is “made-up”, how in the world was it put together? Think about what it would take to “make-up” the bible???.
It would take writers and time. Do you believe the Qu’ran, Bhagavad Gita and/or Book of Mormon were divinely inspired? No? They are at least as complex and historical as the Christian Bible. In fact, two of them only claim one author, divinely inspired. The Bible is historically proven to be a hodge-podge of documents written by many different authors, in different languages over centuries then assembled by a committee that voted on which books to include and which to ignore.
And here we go, scrutinizing every little detail, instead of focusing on the true message behind it. Is it really that HARD to see how much God loves and cares for us, or are our hearts so hardened that we’re blinded in our own prejudices…
Yes, it’s crucially important to scrutinze the details when we’re deciding whether or not to stake our lives, our beliefs and our happiness on a document.
One last question. You imply that I’m blinded by my prejudices. Did you give this excercise an honest try? Really? If you follow through with the investigation objectively, there is no way around the fact that the Bible varies significantly on crucially important details. Only the prejudices and pre-conditioning of dogmatic indocrination can shield you from the fact that the Bible has errors and is inconsistent. Does that mean you need to throw out your central beliefs? I dont know, I can’t answer that for you. But you do need to decide what’s more important, being honest with yourself or thinking that your pre-existing beliefs are right.