"The writers may indeed have had "different agendas" at a particular level, but if they were inspired by God, these agendas all anchored to God himself."
Recall, however, that a certain character asserted that he conducted a certain conflict because he had been divinely inspired to do so. Today, the veracity of such a divine revelation has been shown to be rather apocryphal.
When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent
~ Isaac Asimov
The four canonical gospels are irreconcilable, they all have different narratives and different theologies. For example, the passion narratives are different in each gospel. Jesus says different things on the way to his crucification, different people visit the tomb and there are different post-mortem reports in each gospel (Jesus only ascends in Luke and isn't seen at all in Mark for instance). To repeat what I repeated in my last post it's nothing against the Bible and the books in it. For further information I recommend listening to Prof Thomas Sheehan's lecture Call me Yeshua or Prof Bart D. Ehrman's lecture Misquoting Jesus: Scribes Who Altered Scripture and Readers Who May Never Know both on Stanford Itunes (In the Itunes Store, then Itunes U, then Stanford).Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
The problem of evil isn't a problem if you don't believe in an All powerful, All knowing and All good God. Also the Bible has contradictory responses to the problem of evil, with none of them providing a satisfactory rebuttal. As Prof Ehrman explains in an interview about his book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer.
The short response is that other scholars assert that the disparities (none of which affect the theology presented) reinforce the validity of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts. History books are not much different - except that we are given one of the possible views. Most people understand and accept that the story one tells is largely related to where one was standing at the time of the incident, and what one thought was important to record. Isn't it possible that the differing accounts complement (rather than contradict) each other?
Evil exists, even if you decide to a) wish it out of existence, or b) call it by a different name. Disbelieveing in God doesn't make murder, rape, child molestation, genocide, et al disappear. Those things are here - they are perpetuated by human beings, and I cannot think of a more appropriate term for such things than evil.
I'm curious about the Bible's "contradictory responses to the problem of evil" - can you elaborate?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Firstly let it be known I'm analysing the Bible textually, I'm not inferring historicity. I'm just examining what the texts say.
Short answer, no the texts don't complement each other. Because the books of the Bible have individual agendas which tell rich individual stories that should be appreciated as such. When Jesus is lead to be crucified in the Gospel of Mark Jesus is a sufferer, he's not in control. It's a relatively short passage where Jesus is lead to be crucified after his sentencing by Pilate and the Jewish mob. In the Gospel of Mark Jesus says nothing. He is sentenced to crucification and the only words he says, his last words are "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?", My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? He is mocked by the soldiers (Mark 15:16-20), robbed of his dirty clothes which he wore through his degrading (Mark 15:24) and mocked by passers-by and the priests (Mark 15:29, Mark 15:31). Jesus says nothing through all this until his final words. Compare this with the Gospel of Luke. Here Jesus is sentenced by Pilate, the Jewish mob and Herod. Jesus remains largely silent whilst being sentenced by these parties, but when he is lead to be crucified and is amongst people he says(Luke 23:28-31 New International Version)28Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' 30Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"
and to the hills, "Cover us!" ' 31For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?"
Jesus gives a lengthy monologue, saying don't worry about me worry about yourselves. He is in power, he talkatively says later "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34) while they are dividing up his clothes! He is actively focusing on others and not simply being a whipping-boy. Then Jesus and the thieves trade a few sentences of talk (Luke 23:39-43). Jesus can optimistically say "today you will be with me in paradise", not only feeling self secure but is reassuring to others. In the Gospel of Luke the final words of Jesus are "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46), in control and optimistic. Compared with Mark's Jesus who is questioning, feeling betrayed "why have you foresaken me?", written in Aramaic instead of Greek to emphasise how personal this expression is.
I do not have time for lengthy exegesis, but I'll finally compare the ends of Mark and Luke. In Mark three women go to the tomb, find a man in white who tells them to look for Jesus in Galilee and they flee never saying anything to anyone (Mark 16:8)! Makes you wonder how these details got recorded doesn't it? Compared with Luke, who narrates Jesus being found around the tomb, talking to people, talking to some more people then "while he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven" (Luke 24:51). Mark tells his unique story of it ending in the tomb, Luke tells his of lengthy interactions with an ascension into heaven. I have stressed this throughout my other posts and will say it again. I am not pointing out that there's conflict, that the stories don't add up, I'm just saying that they are individual, unique stories! And it is fitting to recognise and appreciate them as such. Otherwise you miss and talk over the rich nuances detailing what Mark had to say in his narrative and what Luke had to say in his narrative.
I think we may have our lines crossed. The problem of evil is what the first sentence of the problem of evil wikipedia article reads "in the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God, a force for infinite good" (problem of evil). Or this is what I presumed you meant by the problem of evil. You seem to be on the other hand referring to how can a person exist in a world with evil. My way for living in a world not free of evil is to do as little evil as I can and promote good. I am a clinical psychologist in training, I am conscious of the evil in this world and I'm doing what I can to reduce it. The Bible doesn't motivate me to live in this world with evil, I use a lot of other resources to get by.
But you've not supplied anything that invalidates the stories - and perhaps I misunderstand your post. When people suggest that the Gospels are "irreconcilable," that suggests to me that the person is implying that the "irreconcilability" is a mark of invalid accounts. What you've listed above strikes me as different writers offering different accounts and stressing different aspects of the topic. That is why 4 gospels are included in the Bible - if they all simply reiterated the same exact things, why bother? If I collect 6 different accounts of the Battle at Gettysberg from reliable sources, I would assume that their differing perspectives and "agendas" meant that they would stress different aspects of the battle.
Since they all purport to describe the same event, I don't see how they can be "irreconcilable" and valid at the same time.
The entire Bible - specifically the Gospels - suggests that Jesus Christ is the solution to the problem of evil in the universe. Evil exists because of man's fallen nature - a consequence of his choice to choose self-service over service to God. When you talk about different approaches to the problem of evil, that's what I'm thinking of - there is no contradiction: the Gospels all tell of God's solution to the problem of evil: Christ and his sacrifice on the cross.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote