Accuracy of the Scriptures Concerning Miracles and the Game of Telephone

[Thorolfr]

No that’s wrong.

The account in Matthew comes after Jairus has learned his daughter is dead.

Mark clearly states that “some people came from the house of Jairus” came to Jairus after he had already spoken to Jesus the first time. They told Jairus that it was pointless to continue bothering Jesus since the girl had died. The text clearly shows that members of Jairus’ house were aware he had already spoken to Jesus at least once.

It’s quite easy to reconcile the intervening miracle because Matthew does not compel us to think that this is the first time Jairus has ever spoken to Jesus.

So you’re saying that Jairus goes to Jesus twice? The First time he says, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live.” Then he goes to him a second time and says, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”

Except, of course, that neither Mark nor Matthew knew that Jairus went to Jesus twice and each only reported that he went to him once.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Thorolfr,
I’ve had a lot of bible debates about so-called ‘contradictions’.
And what I’ve found is that the textual ambiguity which bible skeptics exploit to try and show an alleged contradiction, is the self-same ambiguity which enables me to resolve the supposed contradiction.
I have NEVER seen an alleged ‘contradiction’ which I couldn’t harmonize.
If I did, I would abandon not only Christianity, and not only biblical theism, but I would abandon theism altogether.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr,
I’ve had a lot of bible debates about so-called ‘contradictions’.
And what I’ve found is that the textual ambiguity which bible skeptics exploit to try and show an alleged contradiction, is the self-same ambiguity which enables me to resolve the supposed contradiction.
I have NEVER seen an alleged ‘contradiction’ which I couldn’t harmonize.
If I did, I would abandon not only Christianity, and not only biblical theism, but I would abandon theism altogether.

Unfortunately, trying to harmonize everything in a our Scriptures (both the Old and New Testaments) which are made up of numerous books written by numerous different authors who lived over a period of many hundreds of years leads to results that strain credibility.

In the other example I gave of the women who put nard on Jesus in Mark and John, it’s just not historically credible that within a period of about a week, two different women in two different households put expensive oil worth a year’s wages on Jesus. It is much more likely that these two accounts represent slightly distorted memories of the same event. After all, these books were written down decades after the time of the events described and since almost no human being has a perfect memory, it is understandable that small errors would have crept in to these accounts. But some people often seem to believe that the writers of our Scriptures have accomplished superhuman feats of flawless memorization so that they have produced flawless books which is itself not very realistic.

 

[Lion_IRC]

WAIT!

Do you think that “the sinful woman” (former prostitute perhaps) in Simon the Lepers house, was mistakenly assumed to be the same woman Mary who the Gospel of John is writing about?

Please show me the verses which demonstrate Mary Magdalene is one and the same person as Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

That is a REAL stretch!

Also, why is it so difficult to think that this, now-celebrated Rabbi Jesus, whose popularity was rapidly growing, would not have been treated like royalty in this way? If anyone was going to be honoured as a guest in this way it would have been Him.

Your theory is surely based on ignorance of the fact that putting oil on the head of your honoured guest was quite common at the time.

If you’re going to be a skeptic, at least confine your skepticism to the stated value of the oil or the type used or the amount.

 

[Thorolfr]

WAIT!

Do you think that “the sinful woman” (former prostitute perhaps) in Simon the Lepers house, was mistakenly assumed to be the same woman Mary who the Gospel of John is writing about?

Please show me the verses which demonstrate Mary Magdalene is one and the same person as Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

That is a REAL stretch!

Also, why is it so difficult to think that this, now-celebrated Rabbi Jesus, whose popularity was rapidly growing, would not have been treated like royalty in this way? If anyone was going to be honoured as a guest in this way it would have been Him.

Your theory is surely based on ignorance of the fact that putting oil on the head of your honoured guest was quite common at the time.

If you’re going to be a skeptic, at least confine your skepticism to the stated value of the oil or the type used or the amount.

First of all, the story about the sinful woman who put something on Jesus’s feet is in Luke and this version takes place in the house of “Simon the pharisee,” not Simon the leper. The version with “Simon the leper” is from Mark. The version that takes place in the home of Lazarus and his sisters Martha and Mary is in John.

As for putting nard on the head or feet of honored guests being “quite common,” since the cost of the oil in the Mark and John versions was 300 denari, or about a year’s wages, wouldn’t someone quickly go broke if they put something this expensive on the head or feet of every honored guest?

 

[Peter_Plato]

First of all, the story about the sinful woman who put something on Jesus’s feet is in Luke and this version takes place in the house of “Simon the pharisee,” not Simon the leper. The version with “Simon the leper” is from Mark.

What Pharisees were immune to leprosy?

Just kidding.

I think there is an answer to your difficulty, but I don’t have time this evening.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Thorolfr,

I’m not mixing up the Gospels. It was you who specifically named Mark and John.
And those are the ones to which I’m directly referring.

And did you not express the view that these two Gospels were both referring to the exact same event? Same woman?

In one it is “the sinful woman”.
In the other it is righteous Mary - the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

The problem with your skepticism here is that it requires us to believe that only once was Jesus ever anointed AND that the two stories we see in the Gospels must therefore involve quasi-plagiarism or forgetfulness or invention.

If it was plagiarism why wouldn’t they retain the same woman in both?

And if it was forgetfulness, what exactly was being forgotten - whether or not Martha’s sister used to be a prostitute? LOL

If there really was confusion about which woman was which, then why not just go for the easier invention and simply resolve the difficulty by having both women anoint Jesus?

I argue that if, as you claim, the Gospel writer was confused/forgetful, it is more than likely because there really WERE two separate events - not one. One single event would make it LESS likely that people became confused because there is only ONE story to retell.

In any case, you have yet to show where the mutually exclusive fact statements are in Mark and John which preclude them both being right.

IOW - I’ll take the Gospels as factual until you can show otherwise.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…As for putting nard on the head or feet of honored guests being “quite common,” since the cost of the oil in the Mark and John versions was 300 denari, or about a year’s wages, wouldn’t someone quickly go broke if they put something this expensive on the head or feet of every honored guest?

300 denari could be 1 years wages or it could be 10 years wages or it could be 1 months wages. So what? None of this makes the story less plausible.

You don’t know whether the oil was paid for by a millionaire or donated or stolen or found.
You don’t know whether 10 people all kicked in to pay for it.
You don’t know whether the oil was diluted. You don’t know that ALL of it was used. Perhaps the entire contents of the jar was worth 300 denari and what difference does that make especially if only part of it was used.

In point of fact, you don’t even know if the contents of the jar actually DID cost 300 denari. The text doesn’t say it cost 300 denari.

The text merely says it MIGHT have been able to be sold for that amount.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr,

I’m not mixing up the Gospels. It was you who specifically named Mark and John.
And those are the ones to which I’m directly referring.

And did you not express the view that these two Gospels were both referring to the exact same event? Same woman?

In one it is “the sinful woman”.
In the other it is righteous Mary - the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

You’re mistaken. Neither the story in Mark nor the one in John mentions a sinful woman.

The story about the sinful woman comes from Luke 7:36:

36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus[j] to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.”

But John 12:3-7:

3 Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them[a] with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii** and the money given to the poor?”**

And Mark 14:

3 While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,** as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head. 4 But some were there who said to one another in anger, “Why was the ointment wasted in this way? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii,[c] and the money given to the poor.” And they scolded her. **

But most scholars believe that all three of these stories are memories of the same event, but the details became mixed up in transmission.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Yes you’re right I am mistaken. Sorry.
I was drawing from a commentary not the text itself.
Nonetheless, I’m still going to argue that there were two completely different women - as against your theory that the writers were referring to one and the same event.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

You’re mistaken. Neither the story in Mark nor the one in John mentions a sinful woman.

The story about the sinful woman comes from Luke 7:36:

But John 12:3-7:

And Mark 14:

But most scholars believe that all three of these stories are memories of the same event, but the details became mixed up in transmission.

You believe in God, do you not? So why do these apparent contradictions matter to you?

 

[Thorolfr]

You believe in God, do you not? So why do these apparent contradictions matter to you?

The topic of this thread is “Accuracy of the Scriptures” and contradictions certainly call the accuracy of Scripture into question. It’s not the existence of God that I question, but the accuracy of many Christian teachings that are derived from what I consider to be sometimes inaccurate Scriptures.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Thoroflr,
Can we please go back to your original issue with Mark and John because I’m now not clear what your contention actually is.
Could you please re-state what it is you claim about one Gospel that (supposedly) contradicts another.
Thanks.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’re mistaken. Neither the story in Mark nor the one in John mentions a sinful woman.

The story about the sinful woman comes from Luke 7:36:

36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus[j] to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.”

 

[Lion_IRC]

JB Brother 4446;13777844:

You believe in God, do you not? So why do these apparent contradictions matter to you?

The topic of this thread is “Accuracy of the Scriptures” and contradictions certainly call the accuracy of Scripture into question. It’s not the existence of God that I question, but the accuracy of many Christian teachings that are derived from what I consider to be sometimes inaccurate Scriptures.

I agree with Thoroflr on this part JB Brother.

If there are real contradictions - mutually exclusive fact claims - then that would very seriously challenge much of our theology.

I don’t find any contradictions in scripture, but I certainly want to investigate any allegations of same.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thoroflr,
Can we please go back to your original issue with Mark and John because I’m now not clear what your contention actually is.
Could you please re-state what it is you claim about one Gospel that (supposedly) contradicts another.
Thanks.

All I’m saying is that there appear to be three different versions of the same story, one in Mark, one in John and one in Luke. But because the details are different in each version, I believe that the memories of this event have been distorted in transmission. All I know for certain, is that the followers of Jesus remembered a story about how a woman put costly oil on his head or feet, but they have not accurately remembered the details of this event. But, of course, some people claim that these three different accounts describe three completely different events and the what happened at these three different events were accurately remembered. I just don’t find this convincing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All I’m saying is that there appear to be three different versions of the same story, one in Mark, one in John and one in Luke. But because the details are different in each version, I believe that the memories of this event have been distorted in transmission. All I know for certain, is that the followers of Jesus remembered a story about how a woman put costly oil on his head or feet, but they have not accurately remembered the details of this event. But, of course, some people claim that these three different accounts describe three completely different events. I just don’t find this convincing.

Nope, two accounts. Read my last post.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The topic of this thread is “Accuracy of the Scriptures” and contradictions certainly call the accuracy of Scripture into question. It’s not the existence of God that I question, but the accuracy of many Christian teachings that are derived from what I consider to be sometimes inaccurate Scriptures.

Well let me rephrase. You believe all Scripture is God-breathed. So why should all of these “contradictions” matter?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Salvete, omnes!

How do we defend against the argument that some make that the accounts of the miracles in Sacred Scripture come from a kind of “game of telephone” where something gets reported and then altered and then altered and then altered some more until it has been exaggerated to an incredible degree?

I’m thinking in particular about Jesus’ miracles. How can we be sure, apart from faith, that these were reported accurately? How do we convince someone outside the Faith that there is strong evidence to support this?

I mean, perhaps Christ was such a charismatic figure, a skeptic might say, that stories of “miracles” sprung up around him and even got exaggerated very quickly.

I mean, you look at other texts of the period and even those before and after that report various supernatural events such as omens and men/gods doing/experiencing extraordinary/supernatural things. Many of these we consider as inaccurate and many invoke the “game of telephone” argument to support these statements.

Gratias maximas.

Debunking the Telephone Game Analogy

What do you suppose happened to the stories [about Jesus] over the years, as they were told and retold, not as disinterested news stories reported by eyewitnesses but as propaganda meant to convert people to faith, told by people who had themselves heard them fifth- or sixth- or nineteenth-hand? Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 146-147)

Many non-Christians object to the reliability of the New Testament, and they often reference the children’s party activity known as the “Telephone Game” as an example of how oral transmission of a message can become distorted. But is this really the principle at work in the writing of the gospels? Let’s examine the rules of the game to see how closely the game may compare with the composing of the scriptures.

Rules of the Telephone Game:

1. 
   *]To play Telephone, you’ll need a group of players. More is better.
   
   *]Choose a phrase for the team to use or let them select one themselves. Phrases should be complicated, with plenty of detail and unfamiliar words – for instance, try using a phrase such as “Mahogany tables don’t look good painted fuchsia.” The phrase should never be a familiar expression; these are too easy to remember.
   
   *]Only one player should know what the phrase is.
   
   *]The player who created or received the phrase starts the game by whispering it into the ear of another player.
   
   *]She cannot repeat the phrase, so the second player needs to listen carefully. The second player then whispers the phrase to the third player, who whispers it to the fourth, and so on until the last player.
   
   *]Once all players have spoken, the last player repeats the phrase. Unless everyone on the team is a very clear speaker and a very attentive listener, the phrase will have changed.
   
   *]What began as “Mahogany tables don’t look good painted fuchsia” might end up as “Behold, any stables look good waiting on blue sand.” If you have time, go back through the players, asking each one what the original phrase was and p(name removed by moderator)ointing where the various changes occurred.
   
   Why the Telephone Game Analogy Fails:
   
   1. 
      *]The rules of the game recommend that a group of players is needed. The reason for this is that in order for the game to be entertaining, deviation from the original phrase is desirable. In contrast, the gospel writers were not playing a game nor were they the last in a long chain of children; they were either eyewitnesses or they relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive.
      
      *]The rules of the game suggest that the phrases should be complicated and contain unfamiliar words. In contrast, the gospel writers conveyed Jesus’ words in plain, simple language using names, places, prophetic writings and history that were familiar to their readers.
      
      *]The rules suggest that only one player should know the original phrase. In contrast, the gospel writers had access to many eyewitnesses who could corroborate the written accounts.
      
      *]The game begins with a single whisper. In contrast, the proclamation of the gospel began with Peter preaching openly to thousands on the day of Pentecost.
      
      *]The game limits each player to hearing and repeating the phrase once and from one source only. In contrast, the gospel of Luke states that “many have undertaken to draw up an account” of the events he also recorded in his gospel. Additionally, many eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive and both Luke and Paul make reference to this fact in their writings. Thus, the gospel writers were recording history that both they and their audiences knew well. Additionally, we know that Paul traveled to Jerusalem more than once to check his gospel with the Apostles there. In other words, he took great care to confirm that he was preaching what he had heard from them and from the Lord correctly.
      
      *]The rules assume that not all players will speak clearly or listen attentively. In contrast, the gospel writers took great pains to reproduce what they had seen and heard faithfully and with great clarity.
      
      *]The rules of the game suggest that it would be fun to go back to see exactly where all the changes took place. In contrast, if the gospel writers had changed or added to the accounts of Jesus’ life or to His parables that were known by oral tradition, the living witnesses would have objected strenuously to such novelties as mere fabrications.
      
      In conclusion, the gospel writers were not children being entertained by a party game. They saw themselves as passing on the very words of God just as they had received them, and the presence of many living witnesses would ensure that each author was held accountable for reproducing the facts accurately.