TS: We began to discuss the evidence for and against the empty tomb. In one of our previous dialogues, our liberal friend argued that he was skeptical of the empty tomb, suggesting that:
The stories of the empty tomb in the Gospels are full of holes and hopeless contradictions.
Right?
Liberal: Right.
TS: Can you expand this objection?
Liberal: Well, when you look upon the Gospels, the narratives regarding the empty tomb are full of contradictions, and therefore it implies that they're are false.
For example, how many women were present in the tomb? According to Mark, 3 women visited the tomb (Mark 16: 1-2), but according to John, Mary Magdalene was the only woman to visit the tomb (John 20: 1).
There is an obvious contradiction there, and therefore it is false.
TS: Before answering your objection, I'd like to discuss what is exactly a contradiction, because a lot of claims by liberal scholars about "contradictions" are not contradictions at all in a technical sense.
A contradiction occurs when one proposition is the exact denial of another one. Technically, when a proposition claims A, and another proposition claims Non-A, in the same respect, we have a contradiction between such two propositions.
So, atheism and theism are contradictory, since the former claims God's non-existence and the latter asserts God's existence.
Note that if a proposition claims A, and another proposition claims B, it is not necessarily a contradiction, since A and B could be logically compatible (only when A and B implies some contradiction, in the above sense, we can be sure they're logically incompatible and contradictory).
So, claiming that a man is Colombian (proposition A) and Venezuelan (proposition B) are two different descriptions of the same man, but both propositions could be true because both countries allow having multiple nationalities. They're not contradictory.
Liberal: And what the hell has that to do with the Gospels' narratives about the empty tomb?
TS: It has too much to do with them, because in the specific examples mentioned by you above, if we read them literally, there is not contradiction at all.
Let's compare them. In Mark 16: 1-2 we read:
When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.
In John 20:1 we read:
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb
Mark mentions 3 women, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Salome, and John mentions only Mary Magdalene.
Liberal: And there is the contradiction! You cannot have 3 women and simultaneously having just one. It is one case or the other.
TS: There is a contradiction only if you assume that John is claiming that ONLY Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, but he's not claiming that. He's just saying that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, a fact multiply attested by (and in full agreement with) Mark.
Liberal: But John is giving the impression that just Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, not the other women. The other women are not mentioned.
TS: Perhaps. But my point is that, in a accurate reading of the reports, there is not a straightforward technical contradiction between Mark and John´s accounts regarding the number of women that visited the tomb. The contradiction only appears if we ADD the word "only" to John's narrative, which is not part of it.
More specifically, the contradiction only exists if you assume that both accounts were meant to be EXHAUSTIVE accounts of the all the same facts. But as professional historians know, historical sources are selective regarding the facts (and the emphasis on the facts) that they choose to tell. (This selectivity is factually unavoidable, since you cannot recordn and tell absolutely all the facts of the physical universe in a given time. You have to select the facts that are relevant to the event you're narrating).
Suppose that I write: "I visited Michael Prescott's blog the day X, and there was commenting Zerdini, Vitor Moura and Keith Augustine".
And another person writes: "I also visited Prescott's blog the day X, and there was Augustine writing".
Is there a contradiction between the accounts of both persons? Clearly, no proper contradiction exists in such examples. The contradiction only appears if you assume that both accounts are meant to be exhaustive accounts of the same facts, in this case, of the people writing in Prescott's blog on day X.
The above two statements chose to report the facts in a different way, depending on what the author wanted to stress (perhaps, the first statement wanted to stress the ideological diversity of the people commenting on Prescott's blog, and the other statement to stress just the fact that a skeptic wrote there).
Both statements are incomplete and selective in their reporting, but they're both TRUE (and therefore, not contradictory).
Only an extremely prejudiced, biased and uncharitable reader would read the above two statements and conclude "What an amazing contradiction, both testimonies are hopeless contradictories, and therefore we can't believe them. Hence, it is fictional that Augustine (or Zerdini, or Vitor Moura) wrote that day".
This is what liberals do when reading the New Testament, specially the evidence for the resurrection.
The slightest difference on reporting is magnified and exaggerated into hopeless contradictions and inconsistencies, and not attempt to figuring out plausible harmonizations is made. Such liberals want and are desperate to find inconsistencies in order to disbelieve the information (specially the Christological information) found in the Gospels.
Liberal: I disagree. For me, John is implying that only a women visited the tomb. Period.
TS: Fine, but it is clear that John never says it. Mentioning one person doesn't mean discarding others, even if your emphasis is just in one person.
Liberal: But he's implying it. It is telling that you are free to speculate about tacit "implications" of the empty tomb when Paul didn't mention it, but are skeptical of the "implications" of John regarding the number of women who visited the tomb.
You're using a double standard to favor only the "implications" supporting the Christian view.
TS: I'm not using a double standard. In Paul's case, the "implication" comes from known historical facts (not assumptions) namely:
-Pharisees were believers in physical resurrections.
-Paul was a phrarisee (therefore, he believed in a physical resurrection).
-Paul used the language of the resurrection.
-Paul's contrast is between a natural body and a spiritual body, not between a physical body and a non-physical body.
This supports the conclusion that Paul, when saying that Jesus was "raised on the third day", is implying am empty tomb, since he's referring to the resurrection of the physical BODY.
This is why most scholars expert in Paul agree with this interpretation.
In the case of John, your "implication" is based on mere assumptions about what John meant, namely the assumption that John meant to exclude any other person except Mary Magdalene. And even though it is certainly a possibility, it is not "implied" by the language mentioned by John in the same way that Paul implies the empty tomb.
But let that pass.
Let's assume for the argument's sake that an actual, explicit, straightforward contradiction exists in Mark and John's reports on the number of women visiting the empty tomb.
Liberal: Right.
TS: In such case, both Mark and John AGREE that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb. No contradiction affects this core agreement.
If such traditions are independent, then one could argue that it is multiply attested by Mark and John that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, and hence this fact is likely to be historical.
Liberal: But if the sources are contradictories, we cannot trust them.
TS: But note that the (putative) contradiction doesn't affect the mention of Mary Magdalene as a witness of the empty tomb, it just affects the existence or identity of the other women.
The contradiction regarding the existence or presence of the other women don't refute that Mary Magdalene was a key figure in the discovering of the empty tomb.
Liberal: Perhaps John is dependent on Mark for the story of Mary Magdalene.
TS: But then you're conceding that regarding such fact, they're not contradictory, which is precisely my point! (At most, John dependence on Mark would refute the claim that such tradition is multiply attested, but in turn it would support my other contention that they're not contradictory, which destroys you claim of "hopeless" contradiction!).
You cannot have it both ways.
Liberal: I disagree. I said "perhaps", but my actual persuasion is that being both accounts contradictory, they're not reliable.
TS: You're misusing the sources, since you're assuming the contradiction affects the whole of the sources, not just parts of them. I'm astonished by such misuse of historical sources by so many liberal scholars.
Liberal: This is why you're credulous and extremely sympathetic to the Christian sources. Skeptical people like me will disagree.
TS: False. I'm arguing my acceptation of Mary Magdalene's visiting the tomb is agreed both by Mark and John, and hence not contradictory.
This suffices to refute your claim that they're "hopeless contradictory".
Moreover, if they're independent, it would provide an example of multiple attestation (and I haven't mentioned the criterion of embarassment, which independently also supports it).
This suffices to refute your claim that they're "hopeless contradictory".
Moreover, if they're independent, it would provide an example of multiple attestation (and I haven't mentioned the criterion of embarassment, which independently also supports it).
Also, it is false that only people "sympathetic" to Christianity accepts the evidence for the empty tomb.
For example, a world-renown critic of Christianity (who clearly has an axe to grind against the Christian sources) like Bart Ehrman, concedes:
"the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, so it's relatively reliable that that's what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later" (From Jesus to Constantine: Lecture 4, the teaching company, 2003).
Liberal: I disagree with Ehrman about it.
TS: Fine, but it is clear that your opinions about based on assumptions, not on facts. (Assumptions which are hostile to the Christian sources).
The evidence for the empty tomb is well-supported historically and the supposed "hopeless contradictions" (even if they were actual contradictions, which is not the case) don't affect the historical core of the tradition.
This is why atheist historian Michael Grant also concedes:
True, the discovery of the empty tomb is differently described by the various Gospels. But if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty (Jesus, An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, p. 176).
The reason why many "liberals" disagree with such conclusion is precisely because they are not consistent in the application of the historical criteria.
Liberals tend to use the criteria inconsistently in order to reach anti-Christian conclusions about the historical Jesus.
In future dialogues we'll continue to discuss these matters.
0 comments:
Post a Comment