From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Re: THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS and Contradictions (?)
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:28:57 GMT


David Joslin writes...
 
"af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>I CHALLENGE you, Mr. Seiferman, and others who feel there are _contradictions_
>inn the accounts to post them one at a time, and I will do my best to 
>respond to them. This claim is made by those who do not understand what the
>word _contradiction_ means. Please look it up in a dictionary first.
 
("Contradiction:  Logical incongruity."   No surprise there.
What was your point?"
 
My reply...
_The American Heritage Dictionary_, 1983 (1989 printing), pg.153, 
"contradict...(1) To assert the opposite of. (2) To deny the statement of. (3)
To be contrary to or inconsistent with."
 
Notice the words "opposite", "deny", "contrary". None of the NT so-called 
`contradictions' pointed out by critics fit these definitions. And I believe,
as we go through the so-called `contradictions', we'll see that they do not 
fit these guidelines. Here's an example...
 
I and my friend Joe went to the mall. When we arrived back at my home, I 
told my wife I saw our friend Tim there. Joe told my wife we saw our friend 
Ralph there. As we were talking to my wife, our neighbor came in and said he 
heard we talked to our friend Larry there. 
 
Would my wife be confused, thinking there was a contradiction in these 
accounts, or could she assume that all the accounts are true and compliment 
one another? Would she believe I was lying or being deceitful because I 
didn't say I saw Ralph or talked to Larry at the mall? Or would she think our 
friend Joe and the neighbor were lying or being deceitful because they 
included elements I didn't mention? Or again, could she conclude, logically, 
that I saw Tim, we saw Ralph, and we talked to Larry? 
 
She would have to conclude the story was `contradictory' if I said, in the 
beginning, the only person we saw at the mall that we knew was Tim. Then Joe 
stated we saw Ralph and our neighbor said he heard we talked to Larry. If 
this occurred, I'd have some explaining to do. And even if I said I forgot 
about Ralph and Larry, my wife, examining my character, could conclude I did 
indeed forget; and Joe and our neighbor were correct. And if I pressed the 
issue, stating I was right and they were wrong, my wife could conclude they 
(Joe and the neighbor) were wrong/lying for some reason.
 
This analogy may need to be read a couple of times to catch the drift of what 
a contradiction is and isn't. I may refer to this in time or give other 
examples later. But the bottom line is this - we need to be very careful what 
we label as a contradiction, and what is a complimentary account.
 
DJ...
"Here is the first one I found in scanning the four gospel accounts.
 
        Mark 16.8:  Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and
        fled from the tomb.  They said nothing to anyone, because they
        were afraid.  [from 16.1, "the women" are Mary, Mary and Salome]
 
        John 20.2:  So she [Mary Magdalene] came running to Simon Peter
        and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said "They
        have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where
        they have put him!"
 
Mark has them saying "nothing to anyone."  But John has Mary M, 
at least, running straight to the disciples to tell them.  And just
to make it clear that Mary M wasn't alone in telling the disciples:
 
        Luke 24.9:  When they came back from the tomb, they told all
        these things to the Eleven and to all the others.  (10) It
        was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the
        others with them who told this to the apostles.
 
I don't see how to reconcile these passages without doing violence to
the text.  We could try to reconcile them by saying, for example, that
when Mark says "they [the women] said nothing to anyone" he only means
they didn't say anything *while they were running back to tell the
disciples.*   (This is clearly not what Mark was trying to say.)"
 
My reply...
I disagree. It isn't "clear" that Mark wasn't alluding to this, especially if 
we examine the mood of time at hand. Jesus, their leader, had just been 
crucified.
 
John 20:19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, 
when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the 
Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you."
 
Notice that this took place even after John 20:2, which you quoted above, and 
it shows that even though the fact of Jesus' resurrection was apparent to 
them, they were still fearful of the Jews. So it's not inconsistent to 
conclude...
 
Mark 16:7-8 "But go, tell His disciples--and Peter--that He is
going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to
you." So  they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled
and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
 
ON THE WAY TO TELL His disciples "they said nothing to anyone, for they were 
afraid." But once they arrived in the presence of the disciples...
Luke 24:9 Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the 
eleven and to all the rest.
 
Mark's account closes with the women leaving the tomb GOING to the disciples 
- the angel just told them to do it. They are recorded as doing it in the 
other gospels. On the way, they told no one. It doesn't say "they didn't tell 
the disciples", whom Mark just got done recording the angel told them to go to.
The women fled from the tomb determined not to tell anyone but the disciples, 
especially since their `leader', Jesus, had just been crucified. 
 
Another scholar gives this explanation...
"...it should be observed that Matthew does not actually say the women told 
the disciples, but they went back with the intention to tell them. Also, 
since Mark reveals that they did not speak because `they were afraid', it 
may be that at first they held their peace (as Mark indicated), and then 
later spoke up (as Matthew may imply). It is also possible that the women 
left the tomb in two groups at slightly different times, Mark referring to 
one, and Matthew to the other." (_When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook on 
Bible Difficulties_, Norman Geisler, Pg. 377)
 
DJ...
Or we could say that when Mark wrote "the women" and "they" in 16.8 he didn't
mean *all* the women, just some of them.  Even granting that there is no 
contradiction in Mark not naming every woman in the group, or even mentioning 
that there were other women in the group, can we at least assume that Mark 
could write well enough to know that using "they" to mean "Salome and some 
other women I haven't mentioned" would be misleading to his readers?  And 
that if this is what he had meant he would have said so clearly?
 
My reply...
How could it be misleading? Mark spoke the truth, and didn't contradict the 
other writers? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-- 
Frank
....
"Forever, O LORD, your word is settled in heaven."  PSALM 119:89
"The entirety of Your word is truth."  PSALM 119:160
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc