Please Make This Make Sense?

[POI]

According to John 20, Mary went to the tomb and finds it empty. It is clear that she is presented to be alone here, as John 20:1 only mentions Mary, and also that John 20:2 states that she ran, rather than stating that they ran. Alternatively, Matthew 28:1 states Mary was with another, and also that Matthew 28:8 states that they left.

Theists will argue, "well, some of these (small) details don't really matter. All that really matters is that Jesus was found missing and later appeared to others." For which a skeptic might reply... "It does matter because Christians argue that THIS collection of events is said to be the most important storyline presented within mankind's history. If the believers cannot even get the basic set of accounts consistent, then why should the skeptic lend credence to ANY of the Bible's claims?"

For debate: Since the Biblical accounting of events is not reliable, where it is argued to matter the most, (via the storyline surrounding a resurrection event), why should a skeptic still take this collection of books seriously?

[Jester]

[Replying to POI in post #10]

So far, you've been pretty good at responding to everything I say. I have to wonder why you skipped THIS part?

I would have thought that should have been obvious.
That was written in response to the "minimal facts" apologetic argument, which I explicitly said I wasn't addressing. I was trying to steer the conversation back to your actual argument: that we should read the passages in this particular way, and that this should be our basis for our entire approach to reading the Bible. That seemed like the way to stay on topic.

If it helps, I'll respond directly:

Just imagine if there was a claim to a rotting corpse which popped out of its grave and you stumble upon (4) claimed eyewitnesses. John (20:1-2) states that one woman saw it (before dawn) and ran. Matthew (28:1 & 8) states that two women saw it (after dawn) and left. Mark (16 1 & 2 & 8) instead states that three women saw it (after dawn) and left. And Luke (24 1 & 10) alternatively states that there was maybe four women, (early morning), and then left.

I'd ask the same two questions I've been asking:
How do you know your interpretation of these passages is the correct one?
Assuming your reading is correct, why is this a good reason to dismiss everything else that is written?

With respect to the first question, I've presented other readings, and have yet to receive any reason at all why they might be wrong.
With respect to the second, I've presented other contexts in which this method of "reject the entire collection" would be uncalled for, and have yet to receive a reason why this case is any different.

More plainly, I see no more reason why I should take your approach here than that I should reject the idea that Rutherford actually performed his famous gold foil experiment.

Being that this is not just some mundane claim, in where maybe it did happen, but no one really cares to remember any of the details, we are instead talking about THE most important event in human history.

This keeps being emphasized, but I don't see how this does anything to help your case.
To be sure, it is very important to determine whether a claim this big is correct. But that only makes it more important to use a reasonable approach—rather than a prejudicial one, which, in other contexts, we'd dismiss as an obviously poor method.

Clear thinking means more than emphasizing something that one dislikes. At a minimum, it means presenting a more reasonable view—and being able to explain why it is more reasonable.

[POI]

Sorry Jester.. My prior response was cut way short, as this website gets a little janky sometimes. I have to re-type it all again.

I'm not sure why they are key, here. I keep trying to find the argument that your interpretation is the correct one, but am at a loss for what it is.
I once (honestly) told a person that I went to a particular concert. I mentioned enjoying a certain song (using the singular pronoun "I"). Come to think of it, I never mentioned that I didn't go alone. Is my "contradiction" there proof that I was never at that concert?

You made a claim that the canonical Gospels were written to convince others, but that John was not. Well, I disagree, as ironically, within the same chapter expressed in the OP, John 20:30-31 states it's purpose:

The Purpose of This Book

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

************************

Believers are continuously speaking about the number of eyewitnesses and also how the Bible maintains consistency.

1) It becomes quite counterintuitive to omit any expressed eyewitnesses from the storyline.
2) Consistency is a relative term; ranging from the Biblical literalist, all the way to the 'minimal facts' believer. Where do (you) fall within this spectrum, so I know exactly where the goalposts lie?

I can't think of much it would say. Even assuming an error, is one error in a book a reason to dismiss every book in a collection? I'm trying to think of a syllogism that would support that claim, but can't seem to come up with one.

You would have some kind of a point if this was the only "error" and you also are not a Biblical literalist. But it's not just John vs, Matthew - and this one identified discrepancy alone. On this one very specific topic alone, all four accounts vary with their claims in both numbers and timeframe.

I already relate. You seem to think that I have no skepticism here. My intent was
I'm not sure why that matters. Are we doing the team sports thing—where we charitably consider challenges, but only if we're on the same "side"?
I'm asking about a specific pair of claims: that this is the correct reading, and that it means something catastrophic for the Bible.

It matters, especially if you claim the Bible is inerrant. Knowing your starting position lets me know where the goalposts lay.

Whether I'm a passionate Christian set on defending the Bible, an atheist trying to improve the quality of my fellow atheists' arguments, or something else entirely, the reasoning is the same.

Well, if you are Biblical literalist, the conversation is already over. Again, I need to know your position, so I know where the goal line resides.

************************************************************************

I'd ask the same two questions I've been asking:
1) How do you know your interpretation of these passages is the correct one?
2) Assuming your reading is correct, why is this a good reason to dismiss everything else that is written?

1) Because, just like the other three Gospels, John is also to convince/persuade others. To not emphasize all witnesses would be doing the claim a dis-service. So yea, at best, in support of the claim, maybe John 'goofed' or got incorrect information? Heck, maybe they all goofed, as none of them really align. quite damning, in and of itself, if you are a literalist. This one observation alone still lends to the Gospels account being less reliable than infallible. Further, are we to be taking these accounts with the same level as any other claim, as we are now talking about 'the Bible'?
2) I'm merely bringing forth one flaw. There are others... How many flaws, and to what magnitude, does one start to doubt the claim to the supernatural?

This keeps being emphasized, but I don't see how this does anything to help your case.

Is the Bible supposed to be just like any other book? If you think so, then maybe you are not really a Christian after all?

[Mr E]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I don't think we are going to need to enlist the services of Sherlock Holmes on this one.

Matthew 28 clearly states that Mary Mags was at the tomb before sunrise with 'the other Mary.'

John 20 is clearly talking about the same instance-- 'Very early in the morning, while it was still dark.' It mentions Mary Mags as being there as in Matt 28, AND it doesn't exclude 'the other Mary' as being there too. It doesn't mention her, but it doesn't exclude her either. Of note, John 20 mentions Mary Mags running back to tell Peter and John that the tomb is empty, while Matt 28 doesn't mention this at all. Again, Matt 28 doesn't exclude the idea that this is what happened.

It's two different accounts of the same event, each with detail that the other doesn't mention. As mentioned by others, this lends to authenticity and credibility of each account as independent recollections rather than some sort of supposed controversy. This one is at best a mystery Scooby-Do could have solved for you.

[POI]

[Replying to Mr E in post #13]

Kool. So your pushback here is to stand behind the "argument from silence". In that John does not go out of its way to state that Mary was alone. And further, when she left, John 20 again purposefully mentions her in the single tense, rather than the plural tense. Okay

I'm also curious to know how you might tackle the notion, (from some scholarship), that maybe Mary went to the tomb twice? Many biblical scholars, theologians, and commentators tend to want to harmonize the accounts by concluding that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb more than once on that first Easter morning. What say you here?

[Jester]

[Replying to POI in post #12]

Sorry Jester.. My prior response was cut way short, as this website gets a little janky sometimes. I have to re-type it all again.

Been there. I know that's frustrating. Sorry.

I'm not sure why they are key, here. I keep trying to find the argument that your interpretation is the correct one, but am at a loss for what it is.
I once (honestly) told a person that I went to a particular concert. I mentioned enjoying a certain song (using the singular pronoun "I"). Come to think of it, I never mentioned that I didn't go alone. Is my "contradiction" there proof that I was never at that concert?

You made a claim that the canonical Gospels were written to convince others, but that John was not. Well, I disagree, as ironically, within the same chapter expressed in the OP, John 20:30-31 states it's purpose:

The Purpose of This Book

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.

We may be getting our wires crossed here.
First, I didn't actually claim that. I simply threw it out as a possibility. I really mean to make clear that I'm not insisting on any particular read.
Second, I agree that persuasion is part of John's gospel. My suggestion (not claim) was just that he was less focused on this than the writers of the synoptics.
Third, as long as I'm throwing out possibilities, I suppose that I should mention that I don't consider this to be a very likely explanation. I doubt that including more women in the narrative really would have meant much to John's original audience either way.

Believers are continuously speaking about the number of eyewitnesses and also how the Bible maintains consistency.

I'm aware that many do that, but I'd like to be clear that I'm not. If I accidentally gave you the impression that this is where I was going, I should say that it wasn't. I really was just thinking of how I'd read any historical text.

1) It becomes quite counterintuitive to omit any expressed eyewitnesses from the storyline.
2) Consistency is a relative term; ranging from the Biblical literalist, all the way to the 'minimal facts' believer. Where do (you) fall within this spectrum, so I know exactly where the goalposts lie?

In terms of this discussion? I'd say that "biblical literalist" and "minimal facts" are not on the same spectrum. One is a method of reading and the other is a claim about accuracy. Those are different spectrums.

I'd say that these texts seem to be written in the general style of ancient biography, and should, therefore, be read that way. In general, this means that we'll have varied confidence about particular statements, including how literally they were meant, but whether that includes high confidence in the "minimal facts" is a different discussion. So, the discrepancies in the resurrection narratives don't seem to tell us much either way about the "minimal facts" discussion.

In fact, I've heard the argument that the synoptic gospels should be thrown out as valid on the grounds that they agree too much—and are therefore the result of collaboration. The OP argues vehemently against that idea. Personally, I suspect that the truth is somewhere between.

I can't think of much it would say. Even assuming an error, is one error in a book a reason to dismiss every book in a collection? I'm trying to think of a syllogism that would support that claim, but can't seem to come up with one.

You would have some kind of a point if this was the only "error" and you also are not a Biblical literalist. But it's not just John vs, Matthew - and this one identified discrepancy alone. On this one very specific topic alone, all four accounts vary with their claims in both numbers and timeframe.

That's an interesting thought. I can't say I know how many errors one would have to see before a text should be considered completely undermined (let alone two texts). As some errors are to be expected in any text, I'd think it would need to be quite a few. What leads you to believe that it is fewer than we see in this set of texts?

Also, this seems to be conflating "literalist" and "inerrantist". I'm responding as if this word means "one who reads literally, regardless of whether he thinks there are errors". Apologies in advance if I guessed wrong about that.

I already relate. You seem to think that I have no skepticism here. My intent was
I'm not sure why that matters. Are we doing the team sports thing—where we charitably consider challenges, but only if we're on the same "side"?
I'm asking about a specific pair of claims: that this is the correct reading, and that it means something catastrophic for the Bible.

It matters, especially if you claim the Bible is inerrant. Knowing your starting position lets me know where the goalposts lay.

Then I'll let you know that I don't claim that the Bible is inerrant.
As for goalposts, I'd say that they are here:
1) A sound argument that one should read John as asserting that Mary was the only one at the tomb (as opposed to the alternative reads).
2) A sound argument that this undermines the validity of the book of John as a whole (or the entire Bible, depending on what your specific claim is).

Those would meet the goalposts of this debate as far as I'm concerned. If you are talking "goalposts" in terms of what would cause me to adopt your general view of the Christian religion, or theism, then we'll have to go through each point one at a time, and see where the difference lies. I'm happy to move on to something else, once we're done with this topic, but that's certainly a massive discussion.

Well, if you are Biblical literalist, the conversation is already over. Again, I need to know your position, so I know where the goal line resides.

It's definitely relevant to say that I'm not arguing for biblical literalism. I had thought I was promoting skepticism about a literal approach. Personally, I've never encountered anyone who actually reads the Bible literally at every point.
It seems like I may have guessed wrong about what is meant by "biblical literalist".

1) How do you know your interpretation of these passages is the correct one?

1) Because, just like the other three Gospels, John is also to convince/persuade others. To not emphasize all witnesses would be doing the claim a dis-service. So yea, at best, in support of the claim, maybe John 'goofed' or got incorrect information? Heck, maybe they all goofed, as none of them really align. quite damning, in and of itself, if you are a literalist. This one observation alone still lends to the Gospels account being less reliable than infallible. Further, are we to be taking these accounts with the same level as any other claim, as we are now talking about 'the Bible'?

I'm not sure why adding more women at the tomb would help John's case much (in context). That wouldn't have impressed his early readers. I also never took "know the certainty" to mean "persuade the undecided". I was under the impression that the early church didn't even show people John's book until after they had converted.
Either way, this seems less a reason to avoid taking John's book seriously than an argument against literalism. In that case, I tend to agree with you. A literal reading will lead to strange contradictions.

This leads me back to my example of Rutherford. I don't find it particularly odd that one book I read failed to mention his assistants, in spite of the fact that mentioning other witnesses and help with his experiment might have bolstered the case that he really did observe the alpha particle pattern he claimed to have observed. This leads me to wonder how we can be certain that John wouldn't have taken the same basic approach in his book.

2) Assuming your reading is correct, why is this a good reason to dismiss everything else that is written?

2) I'm merely bringing forth one flaw. There are others... How many flaws, and to what magnitude, does one start to doubt the claim to the supernatural?

Fair enough. If we're assuming both a very literal reading, and including everything odd that a literal reading would present, then I'd agree that the text would be unreliable in several places.
But I wouldn't say that this is a reason for the reader to doubt some general claim of the supernatural. It seems more a reason to doubt either specific historical claims, or the literal reading itself. I don't know of any scholar who actually reads these texts completely literally (or any text, for that matter).

This keeps being emphasized, but I don't see how this does anything to help your case.

Is the Bible supposed to be just like any other book? If you think so, then maybe you are not really a Christian after all?

I'd read it in the way that I'd read any other book: look at the genre, then interpret accordingly. That's generally the best way to understand what a given text is actually saying. I'm definitely not suggesting that it be taken completely literally.

[POI]

That's an interesting thought. I can't say I know how many errors one would have to see before a text should be considered completely undermined (let alone two texts). As some errors are to be expected in any text, I'd think it would need to be quite a few. What leads you to believe that it is fewer than we see in this set of texts?

Since you seem not to care as to whether or not the claim in question is (ordinary vs extraordinary), I will bring up a quote from an oldie-but-goodie movie: "Unforgiven":

"Now Ned, them whores are going to tell different lies than you. And when their lies ain't the same as your lies... Well, I ain't gonna hurt no woman. But I'm gonna hurt you. And not gentle like before... but bad."

***************************

If you were an investigator and/or interrogator, and called to the scene of a claimed very miraculously event, and upon arrival, gather 4 people's independent testimonials, for which all 4 of these testimonials mention a differing number of people as well as differing details, should the investigator be convinced that the claimed very miraculous event in question still happened anyways?

Also, this seems to be conflating "literalist" and "inerrantist". I'm responding as if this word means "one who reads literally, regardless of whether he thinks there are errors". Apologies in advance if I guessed wrong about that.

Allow me to clarify, as I was a bit sloppy here. I more-so meant Biblical "inerrantist". Further, knowing which parts are meant to be literal verses knowing which parts are not, would be a descent prerequisite. Theists wish to argue that John's account is not meant to be literal in John 20:1-2, as John wanted to place the spotlight more-so upon Mary. I guess this would mean that had John's Gospel never made it into the cannon, then Mary would instead not be revered enough? Which means we needed John to bolster Mary some more?

It's definitely relevant to say that I'm not arguing for biblical literalism.

Well, pardon my prior response, as I meant to say that we need to know which parts are literal and which parts aren't. Along with basic hermeneutics and all...

I'm not sure why adding more women at the tomb would help John's case much (in context). That wouldn't have impressed his early readers.

I disagree. The Gospel of John was written for a broad, universal audience that not only included early Christians, but also Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, and Gentiles. Its primary purpose was to evangelize non-believers and strengthen the faith of existing believers by emphasizing Jesus' divine identity as the Son of God. This means that if John thought that more person(s) than Mary first spotted the empty tomb, he would have mentioned it... Especially if this early audience wished to press the said witness(es) personally. Again, the more the marrier, which would only further 'substantiate' such a claim.

I also never took "know the certainty" to mean "persuade the undecided". I was under the impression that the early church didn't even show people John's book until after they had converted.

I disagree. John was not strictly reserved for those already converted. In fact, many biblical scholars consider it to be the most evangelistic of the four Gospels, designed specifically to introduce the message of Jesus to non-believers and lead them to faith.

Fair enough. If we're assuming both a very literal reading, and including everything odd that a literal reading would present, then I'd agree that the text would be unreliable in several places.

But I wouldn't say that this is a reason for the reader to doubt some general claim of the supernatural. It seems more a reason to doubt either specific historical claims, or the literal reading itself. I don't know of any scholar who actually reads these texts completely literally (or any text, for that matter).

All claims aren't equal. Claim: I drove to the store and got into a fender-bender. (Alternative) claim: While driving to the store, I saw Jesus floating in the sky, which caused me to have a fender-bender.

Claims to any supernatural event are already more highly unlikely verses natural claims. Attaching many conflicting details to these already less-than-likely supernatural claims(s) doesn't help and instead only hurts such already less-probable claim(s).

I'd read it in the way that I'd read any other book: look at the genre, then interpret accordingly. That's generally the best way to understand what a given text is actually saying. I'm definitely not suggesting that it be taken completely literally.

Okie dokie.

[OneJack]

For debate: Since the Biblical accounting of events is not reliable, where it is argued to matter the most, (via the storyline surrounding a resurrection event), why should a skeptic still take this collection of books seriously?

Who says a skeptic should take seriously a collection of books whose account of events isn’t even reliable to begin with? That doesn’t make sense at all. Even many Christians don’t take the Bible that seriously, because for them only the Lord Jesus Christ matters—not the Bible or any other scripture.

[Jester]

Since you seem not to care as to whether or not the claim in question is (ordinary vs extraordinary),

I don't really see an objective difference between "ordinary" and "extraordinary" claims. I know these terms are used a lot on the internet, but it seems at best a difference of degree, rather than kind. But I suspect that difference has more to do with one's background assumptions than the claim itself.

Is the claim of the resurrection more or less "extraordinary" than the claim of materialism? I don't think the answer is clear enough that either side can rightly claim that the other is making extraordinary claims.

If you were an investigator and/or interrogator, and called to the scene of a claimed very miraculously event, and upon arrival, gather 4 people's independent testimonials, for which all 4 of these testimonials mention a differing number of people as well as differing details, should the investigator be convinced that the claimed very miraculous event in question still happened anyways?

I suppose that would depend a lot on the details. Frankly, any event is miraculous by some understandings of the word.

Allow me to clarify, as I was a bit sloppy here. I more-so meant Biblical "inerrantist".

Fair enough. Thanks.

Further, knowing which parts are meant to be literal verses knowing which parts are not, would be a descent prerequisite.

That's always a bit tricky. I think the place to start is "What is common for this genre?", followed by "What is the core point being made here?".
No writing is completely literal, even in our culture (which is probably the most literal in human history). I think we're just going to have to live with that.

I'm not sure why adding more women at the tomb would help John's case much (in context). That wouldn't have impressed his early readers.

I disagree. The Gospel of John was written for a broad, universal audience that not only included early Christians, but also Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, and Gentiles.

I was (admittedly obliquely) referring to the fact that these cultures weren't particularly impressed by the testimony of women. If John were trying to pad his book with impressive testimony, I'm not convinced that this is the place he'd have chosen to do it. This is doubly true, given how many unknown variables there are with respect to the genesis of this text.

I also never took "know the certainty" to mean "persuade the undecided". I was under the impression that the early church didn't even show people John's book until after they had converted.

I disagree. John was not strictly reserved for those already converted. In fact, many biblical scholars consider it to be the most evangelistic of the four Gospels, designed specifically to introduce the message of Jesus to non-believers and lead them to faith.

I'm certainly not claiming to know John's mind here, so that is possible in the sense that any of a number of readings are possible. But I've never found this claim to be a very strong one—certainly not strong enough that one can be deeply confident about exactly how John would narrate the empty tomb story.

All claims aren't equal. Claim: I drove to the store and got into a fender-bender. (Alternative) claim: While driving to the store, I saw Jesus floating in the sky, which caused me to have a fender-bender. Claims to any supernatural event are already more highly unlikely verses natural claims. Attaching many conflicting details to these already less-than-likely supernatural claims(s) doesn't help and instead only hurts such already less-probable claim(s).

This is an excellent example of my point about background information. All events are, in a very real sense, mathematically improbable. The only reason to say that the second claim is not equal is if it contradicts one's pre-existing beliefs about what is likely enough for testimony to become relevant.

To the point of the discussion, the general claim of the resurrection is astronomically improbable from the perspective of one assuming materialist atheism. There would be no way for any testimony, no matter how credible, to overcome that intrinsic improbability (this is basically Hume's argument against miracles). However, if one begins with assumption of some form of monotheism, the claim is much more plausible, and reasonable testimony may be relevant.

That really has less to do with it being intrinsically "extraordinary" than it being intrinsically opposed to certain viewpoints.

To broaden this out a bit, then, I'd agree that the claims of the resurrection story should be rejected out of hand if we can first establish modern materialistic atheism. My skepticism is in that I've yet to see that philosophy established.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Wow. Here we go again. Just can't help yourself, can you?

Just can't stay away, can you?

Here we have it; a fresh, new thread...straight from the bakers oven.

So, POI..

If someone makes this make sense, as the OP requires...will you become a Christian?

If the answer is no, then what's the point?

The aim is to attempt to lead unbelievers to conversion...and if that's not gonna happen regardless of the outcome of your question being answered...then all we're doing is satisfying your compulsive, obsessive need to involve yourself in things which simply doesn't concern you.

You seriously need to detox yourself off Christianity, bruh.

[Mr E]

[Replying to POI in post #14]

Again, the confusion is your own.

Kool. So your pushback here is to stand behind the "argument from silence". In that John does not go out of its way to state that Mary was alone. And further, when she left, John 20 again purposefully mentions her in the single tense, rather than the plural tense. Okay

There's no "argument from silence" in the scriptural explanations. We know there were two Mary's at the tomb that early morning because Matthew stipulates this. We know that one of the Mary's ran back to tell the other disciples that the tomb was empty, because John states the fact. Why doesn't it say "they" ran back (YOUR argument from silence)-- ? Because without adding or taking anything away from the account- we know ONE of the Mary's who were there that morning, ran back. The other one, for all we know- walked back. Or maybe she hopped, skipped and jumped. Or maybe she remained right there at the tomb. See, those things would be speculating-- or arguing from silence if you are fixated on that. But the scripture in both cases is quite clear, despite your manufactured confusion.

I'm also curious to know how you might tackle the notion, (from some scholarship), that maybe Mary went to the tomb twice? Many biblical scholars, theologians, and commentators tend to want to harmonize the accounts by concluding that Mary Magdalene visited the tomb more than once on that first Easter morning. What say you here?

Clearly so.

She was there with the other Mary when they discovered the tomb empty. She ran back to tell Pete and the boys. Then Pete and John ran to the tomb to see for themselves. John was faster than Peter and arrived first-- and Mary went back as well, running with, or following after them.

Well, read it for yourself...

The two were running together, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down and saw the strips of linen cloth lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who had been following him, arrived and went right into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen cloth lying there, and the face cloth, which had been around Jesus’ head, not lying with the strips of linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, came in, and he saw and believed. (For they did not yet understand the scripture that Jesus must rise from the dead.)

So the disciples went back to their homes. But Mary stood outside the tomb weeping.

There's Mary, back at the tomb a second time while Peter and John are inside. (ps- the account doesn't say if she was also faster or slower than Peter, or if she ran or called an Uber, but she definitely went back)