Contradiction: Matthew vs. John

[Josephene]

But that can’t be true.

In Matthew’s version, Mary arrives at the grave and an angel opens the grave in front of her eyes. In John’s version, Mary arrives and the grave is already open. Those are two different stories.

In Matthew’s version Mary is told immediately after the grave is opened that Jesus had risen. In John’s version Mary looks in the empty grave and then weeps because she doesn’t know where Jesus’ body is. Those are two different stories.

Be careful about trying to add words to The Word ( the enemy started that in The Garden ) ; it does NOT say that the angel removed the stone ’ in front of her eyes’ ;
in the timelessness of God’s realm, the Apostle is describing what was happening simuntaneoulsy almost - Mary and the women , on the way to the tomb and the stone being removed , while they were still on the way ;
similar style of presentation , of events being reported , from the realm of timelessness , is what makes esp. Old Tesatment and Book of Rev .also very mysterious but also can help to strenghten faith when , as mentioned by The Lord, one can see enough of the fulfillement of predicted events , if truthful in the search , asking for pardon , even for ancestors who might have done things agaiinst The Church

( Fr.Yozefu , in Family Healing minsitry, mentions , how grandchildren of persons who were in Freemasonry were esp. afflicted by loss of faith ! )

Peace !

 

[praestat_fides]

Be careful about trying to add words to The Word ( the enemy started that in The Garden ) ; it does NOT say that the angel removed the stone ’ in front of her eyes’

After going back and re-reading the text I can see what you mean. It is possible to interpret it as you have done. Perhaps Matthew simply stated that Mary went to the tomb and then he recounted the events of the earthquake and the stone being rolled away that happened before Mary arrived. However, that doesn’t appear to be what Matthew is trying to say in my opinion. I think that most people (after having read the text) would walk away with the idea that Mary saw with her own eyes both the earthquake and the angel push the stone away.

However, even if your interpretation is correct:

That still doesn’t reconcile the fact that in Matthew’s version, the angel gives Mary the good news vs. John’s version it is Jesus himself who delivers the good news.

In Matthew’s version, the angel assures Mary that all is well and by the time Jesus arrives on the scene, Mary is no longer confused because she knows that he is alive. When she sees him on the way to Galilee, she is already overjoyed because she learned the good news prior to encountering Jesus.

In contrast, we see that in John’s version Jesus himself has to calm Mary down because she is weeping. Clearly when Jesus arrives on the scene, Mary is still unaware that Jesus is alive. She still doesn’t know what happened to him. The two angels that Mary saw did not report any good news to her. It is Jesus who reports to Mary that he is alive and we see her emotions change from sad and weeping to joyful and elated.

 

[Josephene]

After going back and re-reading the text I can see what you mean. It is possible to interpret it as you have done. Perhaps Matthew simply stated that Mary went to the tomb and then he recounted the events of the earthquake and the stone being rolled away that happened before Mary arrived. .

Thank yoi for acknowledging the above ; gives some assurance that you are searching for truth , not just for excuses to bring unbelief ( which St.Paul equates with wickedness ! )

Now, one more favor - please try to use your kindle and go to pages 366 - 367 of the 4th volume mentioned in the previous post ( apologies , had given the wrong page # before ) and you will see that it is two sets of women and all that ; it would be worth a bit of effort on your part , for the joy of knowing that The Word does not decieve !

Good to keep this in mind too - Lord 's words about the blind seeing and those who think they see, being blind -

catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=3349

May The Lord have mercy on us all and help to open the eyes of our hearts , to know even a bit , how much we need Him , how much we owe Him !

God bless !

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What is the subject of the narrative in these 2 passages?

Christ’s body is not there. He is Risen.

When you look at the elements of the events, you will see discrepancies as the passage is narrated by 2 different people, none of which was there. So we look at both of these writers: John and Matthew. From these 2 we know that John was charged to look after Blessed Virgin Mary and John took her to his own home (John 19:25-29).

Mark writes about this as well, but what Mark is writing he is hearing from Peter.

On face value John’s testimony carries the most weight due to him having the most direct access to the women.

Even though the details around the event not being consistent, the event itself does not change:

Christ is Risen!

Let’s do an analogy here:

A person is found dead in the house.

One person reports that the witnesses say that the door was open, when another reporter say that the door was closed.
One person reports that the witnesses say that they someone said something to them when they arrived at the house; when another reporter say that there was someone at the door but didn’t report that someone saying something to them.

3 elements don’t change:

1. There’s a dead person.
2. There was someone at the door.
3. The witnesses were there.

Another factors that we have to take into consideration when dealing with testimonies is shock and trauma.

Consider what happened:

1. Christ is risen from the dead.

Emotions run high, there will be blank moments from the events in the minds of the witnesses as they relate what happened to different people and emotions can go even higher depending on the person they are telling the events to.

Let’s look at another aspect.

Contrary to the analogy of a dead person, where you have to determine if it was murder, suicide and other factors; this event is the opposite: Christ is Risen!

The events take a radical turn at this, where a forensic approach is not needed anymore. But one of joy and miracle and an extraordinary event. The entire approach goes from Christ’s death to Christ’s Alive!!!

Another factor has to be taken as well. The texts have not been doctored to resolve these different narratives. Why? Because the purpose of the text is not to support a police investigation but to witness to the biggest event in mankind: Christ is Risen!!!

That is the focus my friend:

Christ is Risen!!!

 

[1newcatholic]

If you never read anything, you will always be ignorant. Augustine explains it perfectly, and his explanation is totally relevant in the 21st century. Each of the gospels tells different parts of the SAME story.

Augustine makes an effort to harmonize all four gospel accounts, but he does so by breaking the story up and rearranging major components, and adding some. Importantly, he inserts a large break into Matthew’s account, between the rolling away of the stone and the declaration of the angel, and the instructions given to the women by the angel. In section 69, he also suggests that Mark affirms the presence of two angels, in harmony with John:

*In Mark we also find a passage similar in tenor to the above. At these words, Mary, still weeping, bent down and looked forwards into the sepulchre, and beheld the two angels, who are introduced to us in John’s narrative, sitting in white raiment, one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been deposited.
*

This is sketchy at best. Mark records one witness, an anonymous young man sitting inside the tomb who talks to the women. Only Luke and John have two witnesses inside the tomb, and in Luke they are men, and in John they are angels. (Augustine also cites the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16.9-end), which is absent from the oldest manuscripts we have, and clearly synthesized out of the other three gospels, which Augustine recognizes as an “appended” section).

Augustine is trying to prove that the accounts can be harmonized, but–despite the fact that he pretends success–there are several inadequacies in his own account. Primarily, he imagines that the women encountered Jesus multiple times; no gospel suggests this:

*For thus we gather that, on coming to the sepulchre, they were twice addressed by the angels; and, again, that they were also twice addressed by the Lord Himself, namely, at the point at which Mary took Him to be the gardener, and a second time at present, when He meets them on the way, with a view to strengthen them by such a repetition, and to bring them out of their state of fear.
*

Moreover, he inserts the Johannine account into the synoptic timeline by delaying the angelic declarations in Matthew and Mark, despite the fact that the gospels suggest no break in the story:

*Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping, — that is to say, before the place in the rock in which the sepulchre was constructed, but at the same time within that space into which they had now entered; for there was a garden there, as the same John mentions. Then they saw the angel sitting on the right side, upon the stone which was rolled away from the sepulchre; of which angel both Matthew and Mark discourse.
*

Augustine SAYS he harmonized the gospels, but what he did was create a fifth account–his own. Mark describes one human being inside the tomb; Matthew describes an angel on top of the stone; Luke describes two men inside the tomb; John describes two angels inside the tomb. Augustine’s harmony conveniently disregards these distinctions.

 

[NotAllHere]

OK fair enough. I can see your point. If we’re talking about weather Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one donkey or two donkeys. Perhaps one author forgot to mention that there were two animals, so another author astutely inserts the second donkey to clear up the matter.

However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile the fact that in Matthew’s gospel, Mary witnesses an angel moving back the stone and THEN she sees the empty tomb. That angel then tells her the whole story and she is overjoyed. vs. John’s gospel which reports that when she got there the tomb was already opened and she has no clue where the body is so she weeps! How can you reconcile those two versions??

I think Jesus may have rode in on a Colt with its Mother leading it. Thus one author refers to the Colt alone, the other included the mother.

Matthew 28 Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag′dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. Lo, I have told you.” 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

John 20:1-13Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

The Resurrection of Jesus
20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag′dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. 4 They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; 5 and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went back to their homes.

Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb; 12 and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”

I see these passages as a compiling of snap shots in each authors mind, memory. It was years between the events and writings. From reading the passages we know the missing body upset her, then the talk with one or two angels gave her or them joy. Each was working with snap shots, not a movie and each had hindsight in some things. I think the angel rolling the stone back was a conclusion, what something she saw. He did see the angel(s) because of conversations.

 

[NotAllHere]

Logically she was upset when she saw the tomb was open.

Mark 16 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

The Resurrection of Jesus
16 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo′me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.[a] 2 And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; for it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
9 Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Mag′dalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went out and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.

Jesus Appears to Two Disciples
12 After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 13 And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

Luke 24:1-12Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

The Resurrection of Jesus
24 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in they did not find the body.[a] 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel; 5 and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. 6 Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise.” 8 And they remembered his words, 9 and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Mag′dalene and Jo-an′na and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told this to the apostles; 11 but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home wondering at what had happened.[c]

The facts that the stone was already rolled back and the angels in one passage is simply called two men in another demonstrates hindsight interpretations of the story. None of the texts directly says they saw the stone being moved. It is reasonable to think she cried at first before talking with the angel inside the tomb. I don’t see them as contradictions, just snap shots in time, not a full movie of the events in sequence.

 

[NotAllHere]

But that can’t be true.

In Matthew’s version, Mary arrives at the grave and an angel opens the grave in front of her eyes. In John’s version, Mary arrives and the grave is already open. Those are two different stories.

In Matthew’s version Mary is told immediately after the grave is opened that Jesus had risen. In John’s version Mary looks in the empty grave and then weeps because she doesn’t know where Jesus’ body is. Those are two different stories.

The four texts clearly indicate that the tomb was opened before they got there. John does not say they saw the stone move. That is simply a conclusion based on hindsight or reflection. They did speak with the angel(s), but that was in the tomb.

As far as I can tell the guards had already split from the tomb area.

Matthew 28
11 While they were going, behold, **some of the guard went into the city **and told the chief priests all that had taken place. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers 13 and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.

 

[NotAllHere]

The visions of Bl.Emmerch , a German nun , who was illiterate but to whom The Lord revealed many scenes of the world events from its creation on down , might be an easier read for some ;

I am always suspicious of illiterate prophets when it comes to understanding scriptures.

examples: Muhammad, Joseph Smith

I for one would want scholarly sources that either confirm or refute their visions — just trying to use discernment.

Prove all Things,… I Thess something.

 

[NotAllHere]

After going back and re-reading the text I can see what you mean. It is possible to interpret it as you have done. Perhaps Matthew simply stated that Mary went to the tomb and then he recounted the events of the earthquake and the stone being rolled away that happened before Mary arrived. However, that doesn’t appear to be what Matthew is trying to say in my opinion. I think that most people (after having read the text) would walk away with the idea that Mary saw with her own eyes both the earthquake and the angel push the stone away.

However, even if your interpretation is correct:

That still doesn’t reconcile the fact that in Matthew’s version, the angel gives Mary the good news vs. John’s version it is Jesus himself who delivers the good news.

In Matthew’s version, the angel assures Mary that all is well and by the time Jesus arrives on the scene, Mary is no longer confused because she knows that he is alive. When she sees him on the way to Galilee, she is already overjoyed because she learned the good news prior to encountering Jesus.

In contrast, we see that in John’s version Jesus himself has to calm Mary down because she is weeping. Clearly when Jesus arrives on the scene, Mary is still unaware that Jesus is alive. She still doesn’t know what happened to him. The two angels that Mary saw did not report any good news to her. It is Jesus who reports to Mary that he is alive and we see her emotions change from sad and weeping to joyful and elated.

As you said, it is just my opinion and I am only guessing. Possibilities concerning did she speak with Jesus or an Angel, I simply don’t know. I was not there. I can only guess.

Maybe, she did not recognize him until later thus a hindsight reflection, thus thought he was the gardener or angel at the time. We do know that Jesus kept other disciples from recognizing him while walking along with them on the road. Her not recognizing him right away could be simply because of the grief of his death.

I know that when I was seriously depressed over my Uncle’s death, while driving from Brighton (west to east) to Westland (north to south), I ended up in Farmington which is way north east of Westland with no idea, how I got there. So, we can not forget the emotional roller coaster that the women and disciples were undergoing that day. The fact that their stories don’t exactly line up on all points does not bother me because I know what it is like to be on a very large emotional roller coaster. One can be trying to understand events from a specific time period while depressed and come up with odd interpretations. But, that does not mean the basics of events did not happen.

 

[tafan]

In Matthew’s Gospel, the women come to the tomb, watch the angel roll the stone away and then are told by that angel that Jesus had risen. They are told to spread the good news to the 12 and they leave with fear and joy.

In John’s Gospel, Mary arrives at the tomb which is already open and empty. She is weeping because she has no idea where the body is. She then tells the disciples that she doesn’t know where Jesus’ body is. There is no mention of an angel. Then she sees the gardener who eventually reveals himself to be the Risen Jesus.

These two stories sound so contradictory and that has always puzzled me. CAF:What are your thoughts?

There are many differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. For example: was the last supper a Passover meal?

They were written years after the fact and not all of the literal details have to be accurate for the Gospels to represent the Truth.

I had one priest explain it this way once: if you ever talk to law enforcement personnel, they will tell you eye-witness accounts of an event almost never match. When two people’s retelling of a story match perfectly, it can many times be a red flag. The priest said if all of the Gospel stories matched perfectly, they would be actually be harder to believe.

 

[juliamajor]

There are many differences between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. For example: was the last supper a Passover meal?

They were written years after the fact and not all of the literal details have to be accurate for the Gospels to represent the Truth.

I had one priest explain it this way once: if you ever talk to law enforcement personnel, they will tell you eye-witness accounts of an event almost never match. When two people’s retelling of a story match perfectly, it can many times be a red flag. The priest said if all of the Gospel stories matched perfectly, they would be actually be harder to believe.

Exactly! When I teach the difference among the Gospels I pick out 4 paintings with the same subject but in different styles of art-Impressionism, Expressionism, Cubist, Primitive-whatever. Each equally beautiful in their way, all narrating the truth through a variety of experiences.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Don’t forget that the stories were passed along verbally for many decades–40-60 years after Jesus died–and in separate regions. And there was approx 10 years in-between these two, i think, when they were written.
Two of the gospels have Jesus dying on different days as well…one before Passover, one after…three days apart/difference.
When information is passed along verbally, there will be changes, omissions, additions that happen along the way.
Remember the kids’ game “Broken Telephone”?

.

You still haven’t read ***Jesus and the Eyewitnesses ***by Richard Bauckham, have you? Otherwise you wouldn’t be dragging out these irrelevancies.

I would suggest to all the posters on this thread that they read Cold Case Christianity by J Warner Wallace, a cold case detective who has assembled a layman’s guide to evidence and uses it to show that inconsistencies like those brought up in this thread are part and parcel of witness testimonies and actually attest to the reliability of the Gospel accounts.

A free ebook version of Cold Case Christianity can be found here:

krizma-ebooks.com/books/Cold-Case%20Christianity.pdf

Pay attention to the section “So, Why Can’t They Agree?” on p. 74 which provides insight into why eyewitness testimony seems, on the surface, discordant, but makes complete sense and adds to reliability of the witnesses when other facts about the witnesses (breadth of knowledge, location, time, etc.) are taken into account.

J Warner Wallace has an active website here:

coldcasechristianity.com

 

[fnr]

I’m not concerned with Augustine…I’m concerned with what YOU say. As someone living in the 21st century who is reading the two texts, how can one reconcile it?

There is no reconciling the two texts. There is not a single “harmonized” narrative that allows you to (1) create agreement between the events in space-time between the two texts and (2) retain the theological emphases of the authors. In insisting that an empirically-satisfying narrative exists between them is intellectually problematic and possibly dishonest.

Actually, I’ll expand it to five texts, including Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

Starting with the earliest, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 includes no mention of women whatsoever. To me, it’s easy to explain why there’s no mention of women here (though harder to explain why it says that Jesus appeared to “the Twelve” after Judas’ betrayal). That text is written in a stylized, rhythmic Greek that almost certainly came from teaching illiterate people the basic tenets of the faith. That text almost certainly originated around 36-37 AD, where Peter taught it to Paul (or perhaps Paul or James translated it into Greek, since Peter spoke Aramaic and possibly not Greek). The message of that “gospel” was that Jesus was risen, and that he had been witnessed by his disciples.

The next-completed version is the Gospel of Mark. The oldest manuscripts end at 16:8, with the women being afraid and not telling anyone. The “longer” endings, including the “official” one and the “Freer Logion”, I’m not sure are original. There are good editorial reasons within Mark that the gospel might end as it does in 16:8. The irony in Mark of the women being silent about Jesus’ resurrection echoes the nameless woman in 14:1-8, whom Jesus says will be remembered wherever the gospel is proclaimed throughout the world. Also, Jesus tells his disciples many times between Mark 8 and Mark 10 that he needed to die and be raised again. So it’s not as though Mark is written as a “mystery” about what is going to happen to Jesus… he keeps telling his disciples about it all throughout. In a way, the ending of Mark at 16:8 actually harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 15 pretty well, because it attests only to the public witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, who also happen to be men. Another peculiarity of Mark is the “young man” at the tomb, which echoes back to the “young man” in 14:51-52, who the guards tried to capture but ran off naked after the guards seized the “sindon” (burial cloth) he was wearing. I don’t think it’s coincidental that the “young man” shows up in a different garment.

Within the Synoptic tradition, there is Matthew and Luke. Matthew includes a lot of characteristically Jewish writing styles, including the practice of midrash. Midrash is a means of understanding scriptures by elaborating on the earlier works. It’s present in many of the Rabbinical works of the time, including the targumim, in which authors paraphrased and elaborated on the sayings and stories of works of the Old Testament. Targumim appear as early as the middle first century AD, so it appears that Matthew’s midrash fits very well into the practice of Jewish scriptural exegetes of the time. What that means is that when Matthew adds detail to a narrative from Mark (over 95% of the content of which is in Matthew), it’s done for the purpose of theological explanation. For example, Matthew transforms the “young man” in Mark into an angel.

Luke is interesting, because he also includes the Emmaus Road appearance of Jesus to Cleopas and his companion (wife?). This is a notable placement here, because (1) it reflects an appearance outside of the “empty tomb / women / apostles” continuum as suggested in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and (2) it reinforces that Christianity is not a political threat to the Roman empire. On that latter point, Luke 24:21 mentions that “we were hoping that he would be the one to redeem Israel,” and their destination implies what they meant by redemption. Emmaus is the battlefield is where Judas Maccabeus won a pivotal battle against the Seleucid army of Antiochus IV about 150 years earlier, and it was a symbol of Jewish military victory over foreign occupation. Rome was the new occupier, and clearly, from all four gospels, Jesus’ followers were armed (e.g., the cutting of the ear of the high priest’s slave in all four gospels). They thought Jesus was going to be the “redeemer” by restoring the temporal Kingdom of David. Even in Acts 1:6, we see the apostles asking Jesus if he is “going to restore the kingdom to Israel.” Consistently, Luke shows how the disciples just didn’t get it!

John’s resurrection account is interesting, because IMHO it is the most intimate and most human of the resurrection accounts.

Given Matthew’s tendency to elaborate on Mark, the most historically-likely explanation is that the stone rolling away in his account is actually midrash, intended to illustrate the theological point that God is the one who raised Jesus. Mark is a pretty dark story all throughout, and Matthew brings a lot more light. To me, the stone was gone.

I doubt this explanation is satisfactory, but it illustrates the difficulty in trying to force harmony between the gospels.

 

[MarkInOregon]

But that can’t be true.

In Matthew’s version, Mary arrives at the grave and an angel opens the grave in front of her eyes. In John’s version, Mary arrives and the grave is already open. Those are two different stories.

Are you sure? I’m not sure the way you are reading John is the only way to read it–though I guess I’d want to see the original language and it’s meaning. The english translations of John that I have read give some version of “saw the stone taken away”–that does not have to mean that it was already taken away does it? Couldn’t it mean they saw i.e observed the stone being taken away by the angel? Now if it said “saw that the stone had been taken away” --that would be a different story.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[romanus]

The authority of the Fathers of the Church is binding when together they bear witness to Tradition. Here, on the other hand, St Augustine offers his personal approach to reconciling the Gospel accounts. With all due respect to this great Father, his harmonizing tendency is not the only way to explain the relation of those accounts to the historical event. The view that the successive evangelists all knew the work of their predecessors is also a matter of opinion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course I’ve read it.
As I said, the discrepancies and inconsistencies re details and facts in the different gospels are natural, considering how the stories were gathered and put together.

Why do you say the differences that I mention are “irrelevant”…and then go on to say these very same “inconsistencies” “add to the reliability” of the witnesses"?

You are saying two opposing things. Which is it?

It is not the “inconsistencies” in the pages of the Gospels that are irrelevant, it is the other claims about transmission and Gospel dating you were making - some of which are clearly false and disproven by the work of Bauckham - which ARE irrelevant.

Thus is a subtle point, but stay with me here.

The stories were not “passed along verbally for many decades,” many were compiled and written at early dates, perhaps less than a decade, according to Bauckham.

Don’t forget that the stories were passed along verbally for many decades–40-60 years after Jesus died–and in separate regions. And there was approx 10 years in-between these two, i think, when they were written.
Two of the gospels have Jesus dying on different days as well…one before Passover, one after…three days apart/difference.
When information is passed along verbally, there will be changes, omissions, additions that happen along the way.
Remember the kids’ game “Broken Telephone”?
.

Bauckham writes about the oral transmission of eye witness testimony and how that was done in a formal way so that the “Broken Telephone” analogy is not even remotely apt to describe what was happening in the Early Church because the eye witness testimony was carefully safeguarded because it was understood to be crucial and sacrosanct. There were procedures in place that safeguarded against “changes, omissions, additions.” That is why “Broken Telephone” and some temporal distance between events and written accounts are irrelevant. Bauckham shows both of these are irrelevant to the manner that eye witness testimony was transmitted in the early Church. That was a key feature of his book - to demonstrate how Gospel accounts ought to be considered accurate and authentically recorded eye witness testimonies - historiographies, in fact.

In other words, it wasn’t a “broken” telephone transmission, but one that had fail safe mechanisms in place to insure the message didn’t get degraded. Somewhat like playing broken telephone where the message is repeatedly listened to, checked and confirmed by the scrutiny of the entire community including those “who were there” before it is allowed to be transmitted. The fact that it is possible to play “broken telephone” is irrelevant to how the Gospel message was transmitted.

As to Passover times, there are explanations about how different backgrounds in Judaism (Essene vs Pharisaic) viewed the term Passover (one day or one week) and there are explanations regarding the different calendar that was likely used by the Essenes. To raise this point as a “contradiction” when it has clear resolving explanations is somewhat archaic, given that it appears that you have looked into the issue with some diligence before trotting it out as a point beyond dispute.

So, I am not “saying opposing things.” I am claiming you are raising irrelevancies (late Gospel dates, the likelihood of corruption of testimony, the “Broken Telephone” game) to raise an archaic point that Bauckham’s work has put to rest. I am NOT denying that apparent inconsistencies add to the reliability of the Gospels, they do and Wallace clearly shows why different reliable witnesses will very often provide accurate, but superficially inconsistent testimony. It is in deeper analysis that apparent inconsistencies can be reconciled and that the truth will be found - NOT in dismissing the testimonies by the pretext that they are superficially “inconsistent.” That is where your irrelevant points are, indeed, irrelevant.

The fact that you can still raise them AFTER reading Bauckham makes me wonder whether you understood the depth and importance of his work. Of course, you confused what I was getting at with what you thought I was getting at in my post, so, perhaps, eisigesis is a problem for you.

 

[1newcatholic]

It is not the “inconsistencies” in the pages of the Gospels that are irrelevant, it is the other claims about transmission and Gospel dating you were making - some of which are clearly false and disproven by the work of Bauckham - which ARE irrelevant.

Thus is a subtle point, but stay with me here.

The stories were not “passed along verbally for many decades,” many were compiled and written at early dates, perhaps less than a decade, according to Bauckham…

The fact that you can still raise them AFTER reading Bauckham makes me wonder whether you understood the depth and importance of his work. Of course, you confused what I was getting at with what you thought I was getting at in my post, so, perhaps, eisigesis is a problem for you.

Bauckham is one scholar who is at odds with a great number of other scholars. One thing you might want to take into account is that his reconstruction of the early formation of the gospels is entirely hypothetical and somewhat imaginative. His work has NOT “put to rest” any longstanding controversies of interpretation, and in some cases his reconstructions are somewhat questionable. Remember, NONE OF THE SYNOPTIC AUTHORS WERE EYEWITNESSES, and although Bauckham may argue that their works represents “historiographical” accounts of what happened on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, that particular issue is far, far, far from settled.

You say, “There were procedures in place that safeguarded” against errors of transmission. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to prove that thesis, (regardless of what Bauckham proposes MIGHT be true) and the final product (the canonical gospels, which vary significantly in detail, especially concerning the resurrection) suggest that the gospels are not strict historical biographies in the modern sense, but idealized evangelical accounts in the ancient sense–written “so that you might believe,” not “so that you would know every minute detail in unbroken and perfected harmony.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Bauckham is one scholar who is at odds with a great number of other scholars. One thing you might want to take into account is that his reconstruction of the early formation of the gospels is entirely hypothetical and somewhat imaginative. His work has NOT “put to rest” any longstanding controversies of interpretation, and in some cases his reconstructions are somewhat questionable. Remember, NONE OF THE SYNOPTIC AUTHORS WERE EYEWITNESSES, and although Bauckham may argue that their works represents “historiographical” accounts of what happened on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, that particular issue is far, far, far from settled.

You say, “There were procedures in place that safeguarded” against errors of transmission. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to prove that thesis, (regardless of what Bauckham proposes MIGHT be true) and the final product (the canonical gospels, which vary significantly in detail, especially concerning the resurrection) suggest that the gospels are not strict historical biographies in the modern sense, but idealized evangelical accounts in the ancient sense–written “so that you might believe,” not “so that you would know every minute detail in unbroken and perfected harmony.”

Resorting to “there is absolutely no way of proving” regarding historical events and accounts is a cop out especially since you don’t actually take up any of the points except to cite disagreement among scholars and engage in nebulous gestures regarding “not strict historical biographies.”

So what?

The point of scholarship is to engage with a thesis and show where it fails not raise tedious points about how “it might be wrong.”

If you have something substantial, then pony up. Take one of Bauckham’s points and show where “other scholars” have a better explanation or account.

The Resurrection accounts are not irreconcilable and the Synoptic authors were very likely recording the testimonies of Apostles or “elders” (disciples who had been with Jesus through his entire ministry.)

The authors of the Gospels most likely were as follows:
Mark - Peter’s interpretor and scribe
Matthew - an Apostle
John - an Apostle or “elder,” John the Elder
Luke - close associate of Paul and a number of other elders, disciples and Apostles.

Where do we get “none of the authors were eye witnesses,’” when two most definitely were and the other two were close to very important early Church figures and Apostles?

The “idealized evangelical accounts” notion is itself an “idealized evangelical account” for writings that are far closer to being careful renderings of eyewitness accounts than the far more unbelievable explanation of their existence that you are suggesting.

I’m not sure who you are reading, but scholarship is moving in Bauckham’s direction because of the case he assiduously builds for all of his points.

 

[1newcatholic]

“The point of scholarship is to engage with a thesis and show where it fails not raise tedious points about how “it might be wrong.””

I’m fairly certain that “the point of scholarship” is a little bit broader than that. What you have described sounds like deconstructionism, although I’m not sure how you yourself can say with a straight face that “the point… is to show where it fails” and immediately follow with "not raise tedious points about “how it might be wrong.” Those are the same things: “demonstrating failures” and “raising particular issues of potential error or distortion” are part of the same scholarly package; the latter is a means of accomplishing the former.

“If you have something substantial, then pony up. Take one of Bauckham’s points and show where “other scholars” have a better explanation or account.”

I decline your invitation to get into a citation war.

“The Resurrection accounts are not irreconcilable…”

That depends on how you define reconciliation. If you mean “harmonized,” then yes–it is POSSIBLE to harmonize the various resurrection traditions by adding in extra details, and conflating other details. I don’t think of that as reconciliation, but you are free to do what you want.

“And the Synoptic authors were very likely recording the testimonies of Apostles or “elders” (disciples who had been with Jesus through his entire ministry.)”

“The authors of the Gospels most likely were as follows:
Mark - Peter’s interpretor and scribe
Matthew - an Apostle
John - an Apostle or “elder,” John the Elder
Luke - close associate of Paul and a number of other elders, disciples and Apostles.” (emphasis added)

Those are all traditions. Not many modern scholars would evaluate the material in the same way, although I’m willing to entertain the notion that John is behind the fourth gospel, and Mark does feel somewhat Petrine.

“Where do we get “none of the authors were eye witnesses,’” when two most definitely were and the other two were close to very important early Church figures and Apostles?”

Do you see what happened there? You went from “very likely” to “most likely” to “most definitely” all on your own authority. Although you may believe your perspective is plausible, you did not demonstrate it as definite. (In quoting my own statement, you also dropped the qualifier “synoptic,” which excludes the fourth gospel). Let me amend my statement to be clearer: the authors of the synoptic gospels do not represent themselves as eyewitnesses to any of the events they record. Of course, this is not true of the Johannine gospel.

“The “idealized evangelical accounts” notion is itself an “idealized evangelical account” for writings that are far closer to being careful renderings of eyewitness accounts than the far more unbelievable explanation of their existence that you are suggesting.”

In what way? It’s more believable that the church carefully preserved 4-5 contradictory eyewitness accounts than that the evangelical authors of the gospels idealized their presentations of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, in order to communicate the spiritual reality behind the kerygmatic particulars for their respective audiences? Is that what you mean? Because I can see how your proposal is more attractive in its simplicity.

“I’m not sure who you are reading, but scholarship is moving in Bauckham’s direction because of the case he assiduously builds for all of his points.”

l’ll have to take your word for it.

The tone of your posts seem a little unnecessarily aggressive. It’s great that you’re reading academic resources, but the field is pretty wide, and the observations of one contemporary theologian may not represent the majority opinion of the academy.