Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. The lists of discrepancies only challenges strict inerrancy - a God - dictated perfect text without error and maintained in that state of perfection.
Even if the battle with those who insist that there is no error (and we have seen many ingenious arguments intended to show that 'errors' are simply misunderstood) that would only show that God wasn't micromanging his Book. 'God's Word' has long since been reinterpreted as people inspired to write a book,accurate and reliable despite some inevitable faults of memory or transmission on the part of the human authors.
We might expect a preface.
'We would wish to thank the human authors for writing down My ineffable Words so that My Creation May Know what it is that I Plan for Them. We name Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, in particular not forgetting David, Daniel and Ezekiel, and the Evangelists including Paul, who interpreted my Word so correctly. I thank them All. Any errors in the text are theirs.'
From my point of view, I see the Bible as so false and wrong as to be unacceptable as a reliable document even compared with -say, Caesar's Gallic war or Xenophon - or indeed Flavius Josephus. If that is shown to be a correct assessment, then even the rather tenuous rubber -stamping endorsement of God - inspiration looks unbelievable.
Quite apart from that, the Gospel problem has become a fascinating nut to crack - was there a Jesus? Was he as described in the Gospels. Are they eyewitness? Reliable? Believable?
Ir it it all fake, invented and Jesus no more than a myth based on the god -figures current at the time? Was even Paul a fabrication with his epistles faked by Marcion?
Good questions which, as Josh said, deserve an answer.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
Every one of the gospels has been repeatedly rewritten and tweaked over the centuries. None of them are as they were when they were first written. Just look how different they are from earlier contemporary former scripture like the Gospel of Thomas that was dumped from bible and survived the centuries far more intact because of it!
I smell centuries of Midevil European thinking all over Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It's "damaged goods" to begin with, so a comparative analysis between them essentially is pointless.
We have many, many texts and fragments going back to almost the time when they were written. For the most part, the differences are minute - mainly typos. The only big discrepancy that I know of between say, the King James Version and the oldest codices, which has had a big influence on some theologies, was the ending of Mark
Quote:
16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
This definitely seems to have been added on later. Most scholarly modern translations will indicate that.
... , the Gospel problem has become a fascinating nut to crack - was there a Jesus? Was he as described in the Gospels. Are they eyewitness? Reliable? Believable?
' Hey, I like that. That is sharp. That's sharp, eh, boys?'
'Sharp, Boss.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
We have many, many texts and fragments going back to almost the time when they were written. For the most part, the differences are minute - mainly typos. The only big discrepancy that I know of between say, the King James Version and the oldest codices, which has had a big influence on some theologies, was the ending of Mark
This definitely seems to have been added on later. Most scholarly modern translations will indicate that.
Well, this is a John' thread rather than Mark, but, as I said, John can't be assessed without looking at the others. In fact, the 'lost' ending of Mark is not discrepancy at all, but just doesn't have the ending. That was provided by cobbling together a summary of the other accounts, one as a stopgap and another more expanded with that stuff about handling snakes which accounts for as many deaths as Fugo in Japan. Both were added later.
There are more discrepancies in John. Forgive me (especially the Christians) is I repeat myself
but
No Nativity - Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is effectively denied.
disciples recruited at the Jordan (or before) not at lake Galilee
No Sabbath wrangles,
No wholesale healings - John just has a handful of 'signs'.
Temple cleansing shifted to before the arrest of John
No transfiguration. That's a biggie.
No Parables. Instead long, long theological sermons.
lots of minor discrepancies in the arrest, trial and crucifixion accounts, but the big one is that the women do not see any angels when they first go to the tomb and only Mary sees the angels and Jesus after they reported to the disciples. (1) This is big in that it is too different to be explained away as a slip of memory, but is different enough to the synoptic accounts (as though they did not contradict each other) to be string evidence that the resurrection accounts - like the nativities -and the death of Judas -are fabrications. Thanks to John we can say with some confidence that there is no reliable evidence for a physical resurrection of Jesus. It is often the smaller clues that make a case.
(1) some may recall an effort to reconcile the resurrection accounts. It was an admirable effort though I described it as disgraceful at the time because it relied on ripping apart the angels at the tomb and stuffing Mary, the angels and Jesus in between. In fact it was shown not to work - unless one is effectively going to ignore the evidence and just rely on belief that the resurrection happened, and never mind what is reported. But that is a faith -claim, not an evidence- claim.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-23-2012 at 04:47 AM..
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Well, Arequippa, what I wrote was an aside in response to Chango's concern that manuscripts might actually have been seriously changed over the centuries, so that our books of the Bible would be substantially different from the books as originally written. I pointed out that we have many codices and fragments of texts going way back to near the time the originals were written down, and the earliest texts are about the same as the most recent ones, except for what amount to typos, and a few phrases that might have been notes that got incorporated into the text. The only really big change of more recent texts is the ending of Mark, as far as I know.
This gospel also contains by far the most material equating Jesus with God - as they say in the trade, it has the "highest christology". This concept wouldn't have been as foreign to the Greeks who wrote it down and who assembled it, as it was to the Jewish authors of the synoptics. John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." That sort of thing wasn't found in the other 3 books.
RESPONSE:
Of course, the Greeks were not witnesses and were quite removed from the events. Perhaps it isn't included by the Jewish writers of the Gospels because Jesus never said it!
The Gospel of John was written by four or more writers after 95 AD. By this time the "sect" of Christians had been anathmatized as heretics ("minim") by the Jews and excluded from the Jewish synanogues. (Look up the history of the 18 Benedictions.)
Well, Arequippa, what I wrote was an aside in response to Chango's concern that manuscripts might actually have been seriously changed over the centuries, so that our books of the Bible would be substantially different from the books as originally written. I pointed out that we have many codices and fragments of texts going way back to near the time the originals were written down, and the earliest texts are about the same as the most recent ones, except for what amount to typos, and a few phrases that might have been notes that got incorporated into the text. The only really big change of more recent texts is the ending of Mark, as far as I know.
I take your point. Yes, the Gospels we have are the same, pretty much, as the the earliest ones - what, 3rd or 4th century? I see no reason to believe that Constantine ordered a substantial rewriting of the gospel story to encompass Christian beliefs (I have seen the argument made) but merely selected the scriptures that reflected the doctrine decided upon.
The question is, and really has always been, 'were they correct when written down?' Were they eyewitness? I say they are not and were not and provably not. The discrepancies rule out eyewitness validity. Understanding of how they were written undermines accurate relaying of report. The strong evidence of addition of material which could never credibly be what Jesus said and did or others would have reported it too, means that we have to ask how much, if any of it, was true when written down.
That, rather than looking for subsequent scribal errors, is the real meat of the Bible quest, even though very few Bible critics seems to be willing to go back to the beginning and ask 'Is any of this true?'.
Of course, the Greeks were not witnesses and were quite removed from the events. Perhaps it isn't included by the Jewish writers of the Gospels because Jesus never said it!
The Gospel of John was written by four or more writers after 95 AD. By this time the "sect" of Christians had been anathmatized as heretics ("minim") by the Jews and excluded from the Jewish synanogues. (Look up the history of the 18 Benedictions.)
Like I say, John in an interesting Gospel. While the Christology seems to have moved on from the human manipulated almost without volition we find in the Synoptics, I do wonder just what, if anything, this eyewitness who tells the truth passed on to the 'John' writer?
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
I think it's entirely possible that John the apostle was ultimately responsible for most of the material, but that it was written down by his disciples after his death (tradition had it he lived long). I don't believe that they would have felt free to consciously make up material, after all they thought Jesus was the son of God, and John his favorite apostle. Some of them probably had faulty memories about what he said, and John himself probably didn't have a perfect memory, thus the contradictions.
I think it's entirely possible that John the apostle was ultimately responsible for most of the material, but that it was written down by his disciples after his death (tradition had it he lived long). I don't believe that they would have felt free to consciously make up material, after all they thought Jesus was the son of God, and John his favorite apostle. Some of them probably had faulty memories about what he said, and John himself probably didn't have a perfect memory, thus the contradictions.
Well, I guess this is the right thread for me to argue that, whatever their names were, somebody took the basic same story as the basis of the synoptics - baptism, healing of the Official's boy, feeding at Bethsaida, trip to Jerusalem and Anointing, Donkey - ride, Last Supper and temple cleansing (alphabetical order ) arrest, grilling by the High Priest, trial by Pilate, crucifixion, women going to the tomb and finding it empty. End.
They then variously fiddled, adapted, amended, added to and edited the basic text o produce the Gospels we have now. And that's why they are seriously discrepant. It isn't faulty memories. The discrepancies are so massive that faulty memory is not the adequate explanation. Examination of the text and how it has been added to (with quotemined OT material, the views of Paul on the mosaic law, the Greek dislike of Jews combined with the Christian dislike of Pharisees, and the theological ideas of the writers themselves), is the explanation and evidence for where these contradictions came from.
Take the temple cleansing in John. There isn't one where there should be, but there is one where there shouldn't be. Reason should show that it has been moved. Examination of the text shows that it evidently is the same bit of text, moved.
Faulty memory doesn't account for that. There was a reason for it. It wasn't a page getting out of order, either. John wrote a link (4.45) to refer back to the, supposedly earlier, temple - cleansing. There is only one conclusion unless one wants to ignore the evidence - John as we now have it was intentionally amended, altered. fiddled, re-written and added to, enormously, to suit the writer's wishes and purposes.
And that is why I never, ever, use the abbreviation 'St.' when referring to Mark, Matthew, Luke or Paul, and certainly not to John.
P.s. I have long had a sneaking suspicion that the John - writer really did have some eyewitness account which he drew on for his amended gospel. The introduction of Jesus to Andrew and Simon by John, the interesting intention of the Bethsaida 5,000 to make Jesus a King, the reference to the feast of tabernacles (when John has a virtual obsession with passover) and the singular exhibition of the bringing of Lazarus out of the tomb, the curious matter of the temple ephod stripped from Jesus and the intriguing matter of the leg -breaking and stab -wound. Regretfully, I have to consider the possibility that the fellow who invented that discussion with Nicodemus and the exchange in the Capernaum synagogue about licking cream off his thighs suggested that John was as capable of writing screenplay as he was at writing long sermons and argument with the theological opposition.
But I do wonder about that seamless robe.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-25-2012 at 05:08 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess this is the right thread for me to argue that, whatever their names were, somebody took the basic same story as the basis of the synoptics - baptism, healing of the Official's boy, feeding at Bethsaida, trip to Jerusalem and Anointing, Donkey - ride, Last Supper and temple cleansing (alphabetical order 
) arrest, grilling by the High Priest, trial by Pilate, crucifixion, women going to the tomb and finding it empty. End.
