Dan Barker, president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, has issued a challenge to Christians that is especially relevant today: Explain the Easter story—the story of Christ’s death and resurrection.
Sounds reasonable and easy enough, no? Well, the challenge has proved extraordinarily difficult for those Christians who hold to an inerrantist reading of the Bible. The Gospel accounts about the resurrection contain many discrepancies among them. Here are but a few:
Who were the women who visited the tomb?
- Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
- Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
- Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
- John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
- Matthew: No (28:2)
- Mark: Yes (16:4)
- Luke: Yes (24:2)
- John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
- Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
- Mark: One young man (16:5)
- Luke: Two men (24:4)
- John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
- Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
- Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
- Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
- John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
- Matthew: “Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.” (28:5-7)
- Mark: “Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.” (16:6-7)
- Luke: “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” (24:5-7)
- John: “Woman, why weepest thou?” (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
- Matthew: Yes (28:8)
- Mark: No. “Neither said they any thing to any man.” (16:8)
- Luke: Yes. “And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.” (24:9, 22-24)
- John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
- Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
- Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
- Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
- John: No (20:2)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
- Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
- Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
- John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
- Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Kleiner, that was Anselm, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think you said it best once, “faith should be built in wonder, not doubt.” I think the problem of hyper reduction is that it neglects the fundamental wisdom of some unreasonable experiences (John Kass mentioned this in his fascinating article The Wisdom of Repugnance). When we love and are loved, we could say there’s a bunch of chemicals firing away, but the experience isn’t that simple. I don’t grant lightning to Thor because I have no understanding of electrons, I do so because of the majesty of the storm that goes way past its scientific origins (but perhaps that is what my good friend and follower of this blog calls my “silly naive romanticism”
Historical point: Anselm is famous for the faith seeking understanding phrase (and he very eloquently states it in the Proslogion (around 1078). But St. Anselm actually based it on Augustine (354-430) and his credo ut intelligam.
Anyway, great point on the need to recognize the wisdom in “unreasonable” experiences”. I have not seen that Wisdom in Repugnance article but will look it up. This is a large part of my attraction to certain postmodern philosophy. Levinas is right, whole fields of human experience (particularly “the face of the other”) have been marginalized by “technological” philosophy and her historical obsession with absolute reason (scientism being but a side effect of this root problem). Levinas’ critique can be carried to far and can turn into misology, but it need not. I always think of Aquinas, who I take as my model and hero in so many different ways. Here is the great philosopher who is often accused of being too rationalistic – but yet the mystic Pseudo-Dionysius is the most cited person in the Summa (not Aristotle!) and he asked that the most erotic book of the Bible – the Song of Songs – be read to him as he lay dying.
D’oh! I’ll take my wrapping on the knuckles for that one
As long as we’re rapping on knuckles, I’d like to point out that the “Wisdom of Repugnance” guy was Leon Kass.
YES SOURCE I REMEMBERED THAT!
When the Titanic sank, some witnesses reported that the ship broke in half, and others reported that it sank in one piece. Such an emotional and incredible event to experience, and witnesses can’t even get such basic details correct.
Therefore, we should not believe that the Titanic sank.
Point taken, but the Titanic and a resurrection can’t really be compared.
And really, the Titanic cracked along its bow, but it didn’t actually sever into two separate pieces until it had fully sank. This depends on a witness’s definition of “broke in half”. So witnesses in lifeboats on the surface of the water could plausibly have seen both versions.
And a boat hitting an iceberg and sinking is not a supernatural event.
“. . . until it had fully sank”
Or is that ‘sunk’?
Ben,
Sure, but Barker’s objection seems to be that we should reject the Resurrection because of witness discrepancy. I call “bad atheist argument” on this one.
I think we should reject the resurrection because it violates everything we know about chordate biology.
Again, Barker is arguing against “Christians who hold to an inerrantist reading of the Bible.” It’s a good argument against them.
No its not. Fr one thing, most of his Objections seem rather strained.
Just look at the first question in the Easter Challenge.
Who were the women who visited the tomb?
* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
Basically they all agree that Mary Magdalene went. John doest’ mention other women, but also doesn’t specify Mary M went alone. So it doesn’t contradict the other three accounts which says she went in a Group of Women.
Luke specifies Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James, and other women.
This doesn’t contradict John as it still says Mary Magdalene went, and John still didn’t say she went alone.
Mark names Salome, then “The Mother of James”, which in Luke is mentioned as Mary. Again Mary Magdalene comes. So they simply tell the name of another woman who happens to be along.
Mathew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, which agrees with Mark and Luke and doesn’t contradict John. It didn’t mention anyone else but, who cares? its still not a contradiction.
Lets make a Hypothetical. Suppose History has been changed and in this Alternate Timeline one of the Gospels recorded Jesus giving a Sermon , but only records the content of the Sermon. The next Gospel records it, and says 78 people were in attendance, but only gives you the highlights of the sermon, a sort of condensed version, or what it was about. The Third Gospel references the Sermon, gives the full Sermon, and mentions Jesus wore Sandles that day and a white Robe, but doesn’t mention how many people came to hear him. It just says “Many”. The fourth mentions Jesus preaching that day but doesn’t tell the Sermon much less anything else.
Is this really contradictory?
A Similar problem occurs the “Did they tell what they saw” question. Of course three of them say yes and one no. This is an obvious contradiction, right? Not really, because it assumes the reader is too stupid to realise that Mark means “They left the tomb and on the way back didn’t tell anyone until they got round to the Apostles like Peter.”
I mean, they had to tell peter in Mark or else he’d not be at the tomb, right?
( Spare me the usual claim that Mark’s real ending is Verse 9. If this is a Biblical innerrenist disproof and they accept the remaining verse sin their 16th chapter of Mark then its really not convincing.)
I mean, even those who take the Bible literally don’t take it hyperliterally like this, and neither should an Atheist who is trying to discredit it.
Other questions,such as the length of time Jesus remained on Earth, are really not valid. Barker actually thinks that because no specified time is mention to have passed in Luke that this means it all happened on a Sunday? Thats hardly Logical.
Main point is that discrepancy is expected in eye witness account even for events that happened mere hours ago and is understood and accounted for in modern police investigation. (the BBC had an excellent documentary where an eyewitness got the assailant and victim reversed but new techniques are still able to glean the real story). The coherent retelling after years of verbal history and multiple translations may actually point to the exact opposite conclusion, that the accounts are too similar to have been real.
I still think this is something that Christians need to realize however and for that I thank you. Most are minor, but some are quite severe. The Bible is not infallible, there certainly are discrepancies, and any informed Christian needs to be able to reconcile this fact with their faith. But as mentioned previously this is by no means proof that the general story is false.