A Challenge I Found Online

[tonsofquestions]

Hey, I am a Catholic, but am having huge struggles with atheism right now due to the many seeming inconsistencies in scripture. One thing I found online is the famous Dan Barker challenge, which is supposed to show the inconsistencies in the chronology of the events following the Resurrection. I assumed someone would have refuted this already, but I can’t seem to find anything. The few people who try simply seem to sidestep the issue, and I can’ find anyone who presents a logical explanation. Could anyone show me a link to a site that has refuted this already? Thanks!

"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 1 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.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. "

 

[survive]

Unless it’s the absolutely narrowest kind of Fundamentalism you’re hoping to defend, it’s a non sequitur. It’s like the lawyer who demands that all the witnesses to a car crash give identical details: “What time was it, seven or ten after, when the van came around the corner? Just answer the question. Was he wearing an aqua suit or was it turquoise? So he wasn’t wearing an aqua suit? So why should this court believe there was a crash at all?” :yawn:
Studies of witnesses to high-emotion evetns have always found that the unneeded details (who heard a sound first, whether the light flashed while the witness was on the stairs or after reaching the landing, whether it was a sweet potato pie or a pecan pie on the table) scramble in people’s memories immediately, but the key facts (someone yelled, “Run!”; the lights dimmed; the lottery ticket shook faster and faster as Dad scratched the winning numbers; a TV helicopter swept around the house overhead) remain firm for years, even a lifetime, for most witnesses. So don’t sweat it; if the Gospels were made-up, they would be more identical, because they all would have come from the same hand over a short period.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I agree with survive that inconsistencies like this don’t show that Catholicism is false. But since you asked, and I have also come across the Easter Challenge, I thought I’d share what I know. There is only one person I know of who claims to have successfully answered the challenge. Stephen Kingsley sells a booklet at easteranswer.com/ that is his attempt at reconciling the various accounts. I have not purchased the booklet myself, but based on critiques of it that I have read, his answer doesn’t really seem to be satisfactory. I guess you could always buy it and make up your own mind. But if you want to look at a critique of it before buying it, you might want to Google this: Easter Answer Debunking Christianity. It’s obviously a non-Catholic site, so I didn’t want to link to it.

 

[DavidFilmer]

One thing I found online is the famous Dan Barker challenge, which is supposed to show the inconsistencies in the chronology of the events following the Resurrection. I assumed someone would have refuted this already, but I can’t seem to find anything.

That’s because no refutation is possible. The Gospel events simply cannot be reconciled in every detail.

The main point of difference is the specific chronology of when Mary Magdalene saw the figure who spoke to her. There are some other less significant variances.

I’m a skeptic by nature. But, to me, these differences in Gospel accounts lend credibility to the validity of Christianity.

We all know that even eyewitness accounts can vary. But, of the Gospel writers, only one (John) was an eyewitness. Mark and Luke were gentile converts after the Resurrection, and Matthew was a Jew, but is not normally regarded to be the same Matthew who was the Apostle.

If the Church was fake, and built upon the lies of the Gospel writers, don’t you suppose those writers would taken care to insure they got the story straight?

Suppose you are a police detective investigating an incident. You interview four witnesses at length – three of whom got their information secondhand. And their accounts all agreed in each and every detail. Wouldn’t you get suspicious? That simply doesn’t happen in the real world.

If the stories matched up in every way, I would not believe them. They don’t match up, so they are more credible.

Of course, as a Catholic, I have a different idea of how Biblical Inspiration works than many protestants. If one accepts the “dictation” view of inspiration, then these discrepancies disprove inspiration. But I don’t accept this view, so I have no problem with these discrepancies.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If the Church was fake, and built upon the lies of the Gospel writers, don’t you suppose those writers would taken care to insure they got the story straight?

Well personally I don’t believe that the resurrection took place, but I also don’t think the Gospel writers were lying (they could have been, but I don’t think they were). I think that even many of the apostles may have believed that Jesus appeared to them because they had visions or dreams of him. If the disciples had vivid dreams or visions of Jesus, and I think there’s a good chance that they would have given the mental state they were probably in after Jesus’ death, they may have fully believed that Jesus had appeared to them. Their stories could have eventually been embellished upon when spread by word of mouth. So I just wanted to make clear that there are other possibilities besides the authors being liars or Catholicism being true.

 

[DavidFilmer]

So I just wanted to make clear that there are other possibilities besides the authors being liars or Catholicism being true.

You opened this discussion with a challenge to reconcile the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, which differ in some details (mainly specific chronology).

It’s perfectly reasonable (and expected) that accounts won’t agree in every aspect. I remember my high school graduation, but I’m sure my account would not agree with everyone else.

But it seems you’ve moved far beyond this topic. It’s almost as rational as suggesting that my high school graduation never took place, simply because my account of it would not exactly agree with everyone else. But I’m pretty sure I graduated, even if I’m not clear on the exact details and chronology.

I said I’m a skeptic, and I’m skeptical of your theory. If several (12, 40, 400) people tell me a story which is essentially the same, then I tend to believe it. Especially if none of them has anything to gain (and everything to loose – including their lives) in telling me.

I don’t believe in “mass hypnosis” or “mass delusion” or any other such nonsense. You seem to be considering such a hypothesis. Do you really believe these people collectively imagined the whole thing, and were then tortured and killed because they refused to renounce it? Sorry, as a skeptic, I find that considerably harder to believe than the Resurrection.

 

[taylor2]

I think that even many of the apostles may have believed that Jesus appeared to them because they had visions or dreams of him. If the disciples had vivid dreams or visions of Jesus, and I think there’s a good chance that they would have given the mental state they were probably in after Jesus’ death, they may have fully believed that Jesus had appeared to them.

I disagree. My dad was around 14 yrs old during WW2 (in the middle of Italy) and he recently wrote a detailed autobiography of his and his family’s experience during the war. He can recall things with absolute clarity of the events (time, place, names of people, what they said, how they reacted, etc) all this he can write about more than 60 years after the event. But, if you were to ask him to recall exactly what happened to him 5 years ago, he probably couldn’t tell you with the same clarity as his WW2 experience. The reason is that that most monumental event has etched itself in his memory unlike any other event in his life. The same can be said for the gospel writers / apostles. They were simple people living simple lives and if the things that ended up happening to them didn’t happen, they would have lived the rest of their lives doing the things that they had always done. The fact is that that monumental event, Jesus, coming into their lives had etched itself into their memory so much so that they could never forget what happened during that time and the rest of the New Testament tells us of what they did afterwards.

Also, I would be curious if you could tell me if their were no photographic evidence or video of the holocaust during WW2, would you believe the survivors account of that event or would you dismiss their accounts as exaggeration?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Hey, I am a Catholic, but am having huge struggles with atheism right now due to the many seeming inconsistencies in scripture. One thing I found online is the famous Dan Barker challenge, which is supposed to show the inconsistencies in the chronology of the events following the Resurrection. I assumed someone would have refuted this already, but I can’t seem to find anything. The few people who try simply seem to sidestep the issue, and I can’ find anyone who presents a logical explanation. Could anyone show me a link to a site that has refuted this already? Thanks!

"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 1 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.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. "

Hey, tons.

The proper answer is, “Don’t get caught up in Bible literalism. It doesn’t work. The Bible talks about different things, fictional and non-fictional, to teach different elements of theology.”

 

[rciadan]

We all know that even eyewitness accounts can vary. But, of the Gospel writers, only one (John) was an eyewitness. Mark and Luke were gentile converts after the Resurrection, and Matthew was a Jew,** but is not normally regarded to be the same Matthew who was the Apostle**

Where do you get this assertion from?

 

[LilyM]

You might well have the Chinese whispers factor going too - these accounts are in at least two of the gospels heard second-hand from the Apostles, who in any case weren’t there at the tomb with Mary Magdalene and heard it from her as well. And all written down decades post the events. So the insignificant (spiritually speaking, since the Gospels are books of faith and not history) details might well get muddled up.

As has been pointed out above, that witness accounts don’t agree in every particular about an event is not to say that event didn’t happen. In fact if the four Gospels HAD all agreed, scholars would’ve most likely assumed that they were all copied from the same source and probably ditched three or synthesised them into a single Gospel.

 

[tonsofquestions]

All right, I’ll try to answer the one point that everyone seems to make, that it’s expected that there would be discrepancies in the account, as the witnesses were second hand. This would make perfect sense, if these were regular writings. But these were divinely inspired scripture! How can they be inconsistent? While I can understand there being inconsistencies in the account of the witnesses, how did this creep into scripture? And if scripture can be wrong about this, can’t it be wrong about anything?

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think anyone has mentioned that the Gospel accounts were written maybe 30-50 years after the original event(s). It would be a curious thing indeed, were all the accounts be identical in detail, and give rise to the suspicion that the Gospel writers simply made up the story.

If you’ve been out of high school for at least 10 years, and are in contact with a few of your friends, try this: Ask them about a specific significant event. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that their account differs from yours. Then ask again when you’ve 50 years from having graduated.

As far as being divinely inspired, tons, that doesn’t mean the writer wrote the words in some sort of trance. Scripture is a human work, written by human hands, divinely inspired. (don’t misunderstand my charactorization of “human work”) Man wrote the words, God inspired them, and God inspired those who chose which “made it” into the canon.

There’s a recent movie out about an assination attempt (was it the President?) where the event is recalled from different points of view, from different people. Their accounts are much different, and that’s their recollection immediately after the event, not 50 years later.

 

[Ocarm]

But these were divinely inspired scripture! How can they be inconsistent? While I can understand there being inconsistencies in the account of the witnesses, how did this creep into scripture? And if scripture can be wrong about this, can’t it be wrong about anything?

The answer can be found, albeit couched in complex language, in the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Scripture is inerrant, but not always literally true; and inerrancy only relates to the matters that are significant in delivering the salvific intent of scripture. Historical details can often be wrong, because they are rarely key to understanding the theological truth therein contained. Broad strokes are always true, but fine details may be wrong.

Literary genre also plays a major part - some books of the bible are historical or quasi-historical, others are fables, others are poetry, some are collections of wisdom sayings, some are letters to friends and associates. The theological intent has to be determined through these prisms.

Or so the infallible teaching of Dei Verbum states. And I for one don’t argue with it.

 

[LilyM]

All right, I’ll try to answer the one point that everyone seems to make, that it’s expected that there would be discrepancies in the account, as the witnesses were second hand. This would make perfect sense, if these were regular writings. But these were divinely inspired scripture! How can they be inconsistent? While I can understand there being inconsistencies in the account of the witnesses, how did this creep into scripture? And if scripture can be wrong about this, can’t it be wrong about anything?

‘Divinely inspired’. Those words say it all. Ever seen a Hollywood movie that was ‘inspired by’ such and such a book - a la ‘Clueless’ and the book ‘Emma’ by Jane Austen? Does the movie stick slavishly to the original in every unimportant particular? Of course not. Would the author of the original book who gets the credit EXPECT an ‘inspired by’ movie to be a slavish copy in every comma and digit? No again.

Is the one an accurate representation of the essential truths and happenings in the other? Well, yes, actually, as someone who’s read the book and laughed my head off at the movie multiple times, it is.

The scriptures are consistent about the things that matter - about faith, about our relations with God. Why do they need to be consistent about things that *don’t *matter? How many people were at the tomb on Easter, for example - what does it matter to our faith whether it was just Mary or the other women as well? What matters is that there were witnesses who saw both the Risen Lord and the empty tomb!

Why are you expecting the book to be an authority on history, archeology, or science? It’s meant to be an authority on faith and God’s relationship with His people …

 

[Thing]

All right, I’ll try to answer the one point that everyone seems to make, that it’s expected that there would be discrepancies in the account, as the witnesses were second hand. This would make perfect sense, if these were regular writings. But these were divinely inspired scripture! How can they be inconsistent? While I can understand there being inconsistencies in the account of the witnesses, how did this creep into scripture? And if scripture can be wrong about this, can’t it be wrong about anything?

I think it is written somewhere that the Holy Spirit was sent, among other things, to recall to the minds of the Apostles everything Jesus said and did. None of the Apostles were present at the moment of the Ressurrection. So I conclude that the Holy Spirit could not recall to the minds and memories of the Apostles something they did not see or events they were not present to witness themselves.
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only two people present near the time of the Ressurrection, apart from the guards set at the tomb that night. So the Apostles rely on what each heard afterwards, possibly from different people, about that short but interesting scene when the tomb was discovered empty. The Apostles, presumably, consciously decided to preserve the accounts they themselves had heard, I suppose, aware of the differences very nicely and honestly and simply recorded what they knew of it.

(If any or none of this is correct someone will correct me)

 

[tonsofquestions]

‘Divinely inspired’. Those words say it all. Ever seen a Hollywood movie that was ‘inspired by’ such and such a book - a la ‘Clueless’ and the book ‘Emma’ by Jane Austen? Does the movie stick slavishly to the original in every unimportant particular? Of course not. Would the author of the original book who gets the credit EXPECT an ‘inspired by’ movie to be a slavish copy in every comma and digit? No again.

You’re right in terms of movies inspired and written be humans. But I guess I expected a little more from something inspired, and protected from error, by God.

The scriptures are consistent about the things that matter - about faith, about our relations with God. Why do they need to be consistent about things that *don’t *matter? How many people were at the tomb on Easter, for example - what does it matter to our faith whether it was just Mary or the other women as well? What matters is that there were witnesses who saw both the Risen Lord and the empty tomb!

Scriptures are only correct about things that matter? I was not aware that the Catholic Church taught that some parts of scripture didn’t matter. If you’re claiming that the Bible can be wring about historical details, just not teaching, then isn’t it possible that Mary wasn’t really there at the foot of the cross, that Jesus didn’t really give her to John and/or the Church? Is it possible that the massacre of the infants never happened, that the wise men never came to see Jesus, that there wasn’t really a star that led them there? How much else of scripture “doesn’t matter”? And who defines what does and doesn’t matter?

The answer can be found, albeit couched in complex language, in the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Scripture is inerrant, but not always literally true; and inerrancy only relates to the matters that are significant in delivering the salvific intent of scripture. Historical details can often be wrong, because they are rarely key to understanding the theological truth therein contained. Broad strokes are always true, but fine details may be wrong.

Literary genre also plays a major part - some books of the bible are historical or quasi-historical, others are fables, others are poetry, some are collections of wisdom sayings, some are letters to friends and associates. The theological intent has to be determined through these prisms.

Or so the infallible teaching of Dei Verbum states. And I for one don’t argue with it.

I skimmed the link you sent me, maybe I’m wrong, but this is talking about literary forms. As far as I know, the account of events following Easter was not meant to be poetry or symbolic, it was meant to be a historical account. Unless you’re claiming that the Easter story was symbolic, as some so called Christians do.

 

[Ocarm]

I skimmed the link you sent me, maybe I’m wrong, but this is talking about literary forms.

You are, as you concede the possibility, wrong.

It’s not just talking about literary forms. A dense document like Dei Verbum will be better understood by a detailed examination. It is, by the way, the most recent and most comprehensive dogmatic statement from the Church on scripture, so it’s importance can’t really be overstated in terms of understanding the Catholic perspective on the bible.

As far as I know, the account of events following Easter was not meant to be poetry or symbolic, it was meant to be a historical account. Unless you’re claiming that the Easter story was symbolic, as some so called Christians do.

Although the gospels contain history, their primary purpose is theological, not to provide a detailed historical report. No books of the bible have an absolutely historical function, as can be inferred from the fact that they are included in the bible, which is not a history textbook.

The Easter story is not just symbolic, but it is told using literary forms. For instance, I might write a poem about the passion, which would not abrogate the historical nature of the events I was writing about, but it would mean that the history therein revealed would need to be understood in the context of poetical form; or at the very least, that an understanding of poetical form might enhance what specifically was being said about the historical events.

 

[Newbie2]

You’re right in terms of movies inspired and written be humans. But I guess I expected a little more from something inspired, and protected from error, by God.

The entire reason for scripture is to aid in our salvation. Scripture is inerrant when it comes to our salvation. If it was a book handed to us by the Almighty himself, your expectations would be met. For whatever reason, he chose to have us humans put it together.

Scriptures are only correct about things that matter? I was not aware that the Catholic Church taught that some parts of scripture didn’t matter. If you’re claiming that the Bible can be wring about historical details, just not teaching, then isn’t it possible that Mary wasn’t really there at the foot of the cross, that Jesus didn’t really give her to John and/or the Church? Is it possible that the massacre of the infants never happened, that the wise men never came to see Jesus, that there wasn’t really a star that led them there? How much else of scripture “doesn’t matter”? And who defines what does and doesn’t matter?

That’s where scriptural study comes in. Taken at face value, many biblical accounts or teachings are puzzling. Once one ventures into a little deeper water, they make more sense. Perhaps it’s better stated that some parts of Scripture are more important than others. For example it’s really not important that the Israelites slew 6,834 instead of the 5,000 stated in a particular battle. (Don’t quote me on the numbers…I’m going from memory ). It’s not particularly important that Jesus feed 5,000 instead of maybe closer to 6,000 or 4,000.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hey, I am a Catholic, but am having huge struggles with atheism right now due to the many seeming inconsistencies in scripture. One thing I found online is the famous Dan Barker challenge, which is supposed to show the inconsistencies in the chronology of the events following the Resurrection. I assumed someone would have refuted this already, but I can’t seem to find anything. The few people who try simply seem to sidestep the issue, and I can’ find anyone who presents a logical explanation. Could anyone show me a link to a site that has refuted this already? Thanks!

"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 1 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.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture–it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. "

Why is it necessary for the events to be written in chronic logical order before one considers them to be true?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Or how is chronology a determiner of truth?