We're probably not as far apart as you might feel, and as for myself, I will work toward limiting my responses to Baruq's opening post. Otherwise, this will easily veer off into the topic of inspiration and canonicity, I feel.

I am in full agreement that the writers of the Bible did not sugar-coat things, but here with even the rending of the curtain of the Sanctuary in the Temple, we're identifying a conflict of technical facts.

Was the curtain torn before or after Jesus died— and if I'm reading what you wrote correctly, this is a proof of accuracy and fact.

It is technically and physically impossible, as I understand it, for a curtain to be rent in half both before AND after an event. It's got to be one or the other.

We can argue our way around it to the end of days, but there it is.

For me, this is a resounding reason to take the writer's theology into consideration. The writer of Luke wanted to establish a particular point in describing the curtain as being torn in two as a prelude to Jesus' death. Suddenly, there is no conflict to be found here. Instead, we have the writer of the Lukan gospel trying to bring his listeners to a theological view about Jesus by telling his listeners that the curtain was torn in two, and when this took place, Jesus' life had fulfilled its purpose, and he exhaled the last breath of his life.

It also introduces an interesting theological argument, because the writer of Luke's belief is that the way to our Creator was opened before Jesus' sacrifice— not opened as a result of that sacrifice. But that's a whole other topic.

I try to draw distinctions between a technical contradiction and a theological one. But I'm not sure what you mean with what you wrote above.

Without switching the discussion to canonization and inspiration, yes, I find sufficient evidence to believe that Mark was the earliest written Jewish-Christian gospel, providing later generations with a "snapshot" of then-current memories and beliefs about Jesus and his ministry. Likewise, the writers of both Matthew and Luke adopted this Markan gospel, and then contributed their respective community's memories and beliefs, providing gospels that are intertwined with the traditions of Mark.

Technically, literally, yes, there are contradictions among the synoptic gospels. They don't bother me. In light of what I was saying a moment ago, I am reminded that these are not modern-day investigative reports and findings. Just the facts, ma'am... so to speak.

Anyhow, when I use the term "contradict," I am speaking in the literal, technical sense. If it's a theological difference, though, I will always try to make certain I state as much.

Hope that helps?

Nobody is calling anyone a liar here. And certainly not Matthew and Mark.

From the start of my responses to Baruq's question tried to draw attention to the absence of the earthquake in the accounts of Mark and Luke. I know you've tried to establish your take on the discrepancy, but it doesn't change the reality that the discrepancy is there, and if there had actually been an earthquake as described by Matthew, and a subsequent exhumation of the sort he describes, then common sense, rationality, logic, and sound, scriptural reasoning tell me that Mark and Luke would have mentioned it. Secular records would have mentioned it. The later writers of our Gentile Christian Bible never so much as whisper of it.

It wasn't a literal event.

And for me, as a believer, it doesn't need to be, because, from what I can discern— just like Luke's theological argument involving the opening of access once again to our Creator— Matthew is likewise making a theological argument or statement about the significance of Jesus' death by adding the earthquake and the opened graves to the events surrounding his death as points of emphasis.

I mean, I think I get the consternation, because it seems like it goes back to the canonicity and inspiration issue.

Except that it doesn't, because I believe the writers of the Gentile and Hebrew Bible were inspired by God to write what they wrote. I see no conflict here.

Two responses:

One, we surely know that the Bible is not a science textbook.

Second, I guess I differ from you in respect to needing the Bible to be as you describe. I guess I don't personally need that for me to believe and be a believer. I'm okay with the technical discrepancies, incongruities, and contradictions, because I'm far more interested in what lies behind those things.

I mean, I can't even write a simple post without leaving behind certain gaffs— but the gaffs don't diminish or undermine the message I'm working to convey through a given post. Plus, I have spellcheck!!

And, yes, I know that the writers of the Bible far surpass anything I could ever say or write. Apples and oranges.

My point being, my faith doesn't seem to require that the Bible be the written, inerrant, infallible Word of God that has survived down to us precisely as Jehovah God intended. I believe that Jesus is that Word of God, not our Bible, and I suspect that Christians tend to get the two confused.

The Bible we have is what we have, and thankfully we have men and women who felt moved to devote their lives to searching for earlier and earlier manuscripts and scrolls, and we have men and women who dedicate endless hours and their entire careers to the labor of examinations and translations of the discovered writings! I am thankful that we have the privilege to read the Bible, and examine it, and discuss it openly. I am thankful for the broad range of available translations we have today.

Let there be no question about the esteem and value I place on the Hebrew and Jewish-Christian writings found in our Gentile Christian Bibles today.

Likewise, I hope I have not seemed like I am trying to explain away the inconsistencies and contradictions, because it would have been unintentional.

For Matthew, the addition of the earthquake and the opened tombs bears a theological significance in association with the death of Christ. As an example, we learn early on that earthquakes are part of the "apocalyptic" language of Jewish and Hebrew history, associated with a judgment and unsettling of an established system.

And, just like that, I'm no longer trying to account for or explain away the overly-obvious technical fact that nobody else mentions this earthquake and a number of dead ones laying alive in their tombs for three days before coming out following the resurrection of Jesus. It doesn't seem to matter to the writer of Matthew, so why should it to me? He's trying to make a point— what is it? (Remember: Bible is not a science book or textbook)

This approach has helped deepen my appreciation for that "great cloud of witnesses" we have, and for those who left us a written record so we might know a little about each of them.

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

As I think I mentioned last evening in my post, I don't see any problems or discrepancies or contradictions, either. Where we seem to differ is in how we arrive at our conviction. Two sides of the same coin, as the saying goes.

Again, I would agree with you on this. We just appear to be coming at things from two different origins.

It might sound strange, but I've resigned from trying to teach my beliefs to someone else with the intent of convincing them to believe as I do. I'm not even sure anymore that we can teach someone else our belief— because Jehovah, His holy spirit, and our High Priest all work with each person as a unique individual.

We're to give testimony and witness to our reasons for faith and belief, of that I have no question from the commission of discipleship. We're to teach what Jesus taught and said, of course. But it is a person's own responsibility to believe and come to believe. Now, factor in the reality that faith is not the possession of all people, and we can begin to appreciate that when it comes to believing and having faith, it is our Father who handles that department through personal revelation (for lack of a better word before I've finished my first cup of coffee this morning). We plant, we water. We do not sow seeds of belief. We sow our witness. We sow our testimony. And we sow the seeds of the same from those who have come and gone before us. We sow what we have learned.

But we cannot force, compel, or persuade a person to believe or have faith. Some individuals are, of course, persuaded. But we know that many more are not. It is Jehovah, not us, who makes a seed grow.

I think you'd mentioned elsewhere, in a separate topic? how various Bible translations are available for those at various stages of growth in their belief and faith, ranging from the paraphrased Bible all the way to interlinear translations and full-on original language translations. Neither would we drop something like the Revelation book (for the sake of this argument) in the laps of our children— we'd give them something appropriate to their current level of understanding (My Book of Bible Stories, for example). Still, even as parents, we cannot teach our children beliefs— we can only impart to them why we believe and are convinced in our faith. Jehovah willing, Jesus willing, they will develop their own belief and faith as shaped and molded by God and the head of the Christian body, Jesus. I cannot be dismissive of the believer who feels that the Message Bible is how they are helped to understand the witness and testimony left to us by the "great cloud of Witnesses," just because I feel they need to know (read: believe) the what's-what that only a more exacting translation can provide. (I can still cringe at how the Message handles certain passages, however!!)

And before any responses come back to the above with the accusation that I'm suggesting that everyone can believe whatever they want, that everything can be reduced to relativity— that is not what I am asserting or suggesting. If I look at a row of oak trees, they are not clones of each other. They do not have the same number of branches, leaves, mass, etc. Yet they all share certain common characteristics that allow me to identify them as oak trees. The oak tree on left side of the road has two broad lower boughs, whereas the oak tree across the road from it doesn't, instead bearing several powerful branches that only begin to taper off as you move further up the tree. It's silly of me to say that only those oak trees who have broad lower boughs are truly oak trees. Yet when it comes to the followers of Jesus, this is what we see happening: a true Christian is known by two lower boughs as far as some are concerned. Doesn't matter if they share innumerable other characteristics with other "oak trees" as far as these (gatekeepers of men) are concerned.

Hmm, I think I'm digressing, aren't I? I think the coffee is beginning to kick in, lol!

Alright, I need to get around for the work day...

Maybe @Baruq can weigh in on what he feels hasn't really been addressed up to this point, or that he remains unconvinced concerning?

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
Timothy

 

On the way in to work this morning, I realized I should've also pointed out that I never go into the (advanced) stuff with someone anyhow. Nor do I believe you start laying out your current understanding of chronology to someone who hasn't even progressed beyond the basics or intermediates.

I am discussing such matters here because I felt it would be appropriate to this site's level of discussions, having read here from early on and from occasion to occasion. I would not go onto a site and go into any of this, in general, nor would I feel it necessary to do so (to set someone straight, for example, as far as I define "straight"). This (level) of discussion, as far as I currently understand and believe, is non-salvational anyhow, and fairly niche. In other words, I do not believe Jesus is going to declare someone a "goat" because they are convinced that the curtain was torn before or after he gave up his life. Or because they are discussing it. Imposing a view, on the other hand, turns the subject into a doctrine by which one's "trueness" is measured, and that is where I would personally balk.

I can appreciate an oak tree without knowing or needing to know what genus the tree is, or how it performs the conversion of carbon dioxide into oxygen— but all of that insight is there for those moved to explore the awe-inspiring creation that does more than provide some amazing shade on a hot, lazy afternoon.

--Tim

 

I agree !

Those resurrections were also and foremost a type of a future antitype.

Hi Tsaphah,

On the one hand, it would have been unlikely to see Jews hanging around in cemeteries just before and during the Passover, lest they become impure. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that corpses thrown out of their graves would remain lying there in the open for three days before being brought back to life. However, if said corpses were those of saints from the days of yore, only a few bones would have remained and therefore been thrown out.

Matthew 27:45-56

We are not told who these saints were; they were simply believers who had died. The King James Version suggests that they did not come out of the graves until after His resurrection; the New American Standard Bible agrees with this. It is difficult to believe that they were given life on Friday afternoon and yet remained in their tombs until Sunday. The New International Version suggests that these saints were resurrected immediately and came out of their tombs, but that they did not visit in Jerusalem until after Jesus had been raised from the dead. It is not likely that many Jews would be in the cemetery on Passover, since they might be defiled by the dead. These resurrections could have taken place with nobody finding out at that time.

(from The Bible Exposition Commentary. Copyright © 1989 by Chariot Victor
Publishing, and imprint of Cook Communication Ministries. All rights reserved. Used by permission.)​

Matthew 27:53

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

And came out of the graves after his resurrection. These sleeping saints (see the note at 1 Thess 4:14) were Old Testament believers, who-according to the usual punctuation in our version-were quickened into resurrection-life at the moment of their Lord's death, but lay in their graves until His resurrection, when they came forth. But it is far more natural, as we think, and consonant with other scriptures, to understand that only the graves were opened, probably by the earthquake, at our Lord's death, and this only in preparation for the subsequent exit of those who slept in them, when the Spirit of life should enter into them from their risen Lord, and along with Him they should come forth, trophies of His victory over the grave. Thus, in the opening of the graves at the moment of the Redeemer's expiring, there was a glorious symbolical proclamation that the Death which had just taken place had "swallowed up death in victory;" and whereas the saints that slept in them were awakened only by their risen Lord, to accompany Him out of the tomb, it was fitting that "the Prince of Life" "should be the First that should rise from the dead" (Acts 26:23; 1 Cor 15:20,23; Col 1:18; Rev 1:5).

(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic
Database. Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006. All rights reserved.)​

 

Yes ! Although I don't share this point of view (mainly out of circumspection), these verses may also be either a later interpolation (as you say) because of the way it is phrased and its relative concision or may be a mere prophetic utterance, not having taken place in real life (yet) but announcing a future event linked to Jesus' death and resurrection (See please Luke 10:18).

We must understand that people back then didn't write books, stories and history the way we do. We tend to follow rigorously the chronological sequence of events as they took place and really stick to the facts. Back then, chronology was relative and the facts were what was relevant to the message they wanted to convey at a certain moment and for a certain purpose, that is God's will and purpose and the way God was intervening in Israel's history. We definitely must be cautious and try not to read what's written in the Bible as an historic account, stricto sensu.