Amaleq13

That seems contrary to the Blue Letter Bible entry on the word, every translation I've read (with the possible exception of NASB), and the expressed view of one our resident Greek-knowledgeables.

Toto

Easter Enigma (or via: amazon.co.uk) from the second review on Amazon: So he is not just a conservative, but an apologist determined to justify the accounts.

Wenham wrote a highly regarded NT Greek textbook.

robto

IANAGS, but Wenham apparently is, and a "highly regarded" one at that. So is this explanation at least plausible? That seems to be all that Barker is asking for. JW's motivations and denominational affiliation are irrelevant. If the terms of the challenge have been met (even before the challenge was issued, I might add) he should pay up.

Julian

I disagree with that assessment. The aorist tense is by its nature undefined. When used in the indicative it is translated as past tense but not perfect or pluperfect since that would be contrary to the aorist undefined meaning. The aorist tense is genwerally hard to translate since the form doesn't exist in English (or any other language I know of).

Julian

buckshot23

I am suggesting a possible interpretation based upon all of the evidence. If you don't like fine but please stop impugning my motivations.

The gospel accounts can contradict one another but if they do I think it prudent to be fair and allow possibilities of reconciliation.
Or Matthew was trying provide more detail in a spot where all other accounts simply have in effect "the stone was rolled away".
Assuming an alteration. If you want to interpret it in your "wooden" be my guest, but please don't act like that carries any weight.
I have offered a reasonable explanation and nothing more. Personal preference cuts both ways.
I treat the text like I treat people. I assume the best until otherwise convinced. I'm sure you do the same thing in your every day life.
They did see the angel but not the act of the stone being rolled away.:huh: I do not think it is reasonable to demand an interpretation based upon what it appears to be implying upon others.
I noticed you ignored my question about whether you personally would be shocked by the fact of a dead relative being absent from their grave when you go to visit it. I sure would be. The angel told the women that Jesus was not in his grave and he felt the need to do this because of the reaction to the missing body and rolled away stone.
It's about fairness. I offer a possibility that you cannot even begin to accept as possible. Not as probable but possible.
What? That makes no sense. So the women witness all of these events and that is all the angel has to say? Jesus is gone? I don't buy it. How about the women come up to a tomb they are fully expecting to be sealed and then find the stone removed and the body of the person they are coming to visit gone. Why is that not enough to be shocked over? How would you react to an empty tomb of a person you are visiting?

Again, that is your opinion and I believe that you should be open to the possibility that the accounts do not contradict on this point based upon my interpretation.
I agree, but being true does.
You are ignoring that Matthew does not explicitly have the women witnessing this event. There ARE other possible interpretations available. You ignoring the fact that you probably engage in the same activity you will not allow Matthew on a daily basis.
Correct, it isn't necessary, but with one the interpretation I have suggested would be less likely. Remember I do not say my interpretation is the only possible one. Why won't you be even open to another interpretation? Why won't you be fair to Matthew like you probably are with people you talk to every day?

Amaleq13

Even if the translation is plausible, that is not the only problem for any effort to harmonize the accounts.

I wonder if Wenham addresses the implications of the angel's "apokrinomai"?

Atheos

I have assembled what I believe to be a reasonably complete list of details that have to be included and placed in order before one has successfully met the "Easter Challenge". One might argue whether or not Matthew has M&M actually observing the rolling away of the stone based on the text but nobody can realistically argue that someone having nothing but a copy of the book of Matthew would reasonably come to this conclusion. The remainder of the points are non-negotiable, however the wording can be changed if it offends one's sensitivities to sacrilege.

If you move an event chronologically, remember you must preserve the location at which that event occurred. No cheating.

I can only imagine that defense attorneys have wet dreams about cross examining four "witnesses" whos testimonies are so blatantly contradictory.

I'm particularly interested in reconciling the following:

Had Mary Magdalene seen Jesus and/or an angel before visiting the disciples the first time?

How many trips from the tomb to the disciples (and back) did Mary Magdalene make that day?

Where did Mary Magdalene first see the resurrected Jesus? At the tomb by herself (John's version) or along the road back with her companions (Matthew's version).

Was it one angel (Matthew/Mark) or two (Luke/John)? If it was ONE, was the angel sitting on the stone or sitting in the tomb off to the right? If it was two angels were they discovered by Mary Magdalene alone (John) or by the at least 5 women in Luke?

Did Jesus command the disciples to remain in Jerusalem (Luke/Acts) or go to Galilee (Matthew/Mark)? This is irreconcilable IMO.

Happy reconciling... :wave:

-Atheos

Easter Challenge – Details that must be included:

• Mary Magdalene comes to the sepulchre while it was still dark and sees that the stone has been taken away. – John.
  
• Mary and Mary Magdalene come to see the sepulchre. – Matt.
  
• Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome bring sweet spices, hoping to anoint Jesus. – Mark.
  
• When Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome reach the tomb the sun is rising and the stone had already been rolled away. – Mark.
  
• Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women that were with them arrive with spices early in the morning to find the stone had already been rolled away from the sepulchre. – Luke.
  
• Mary Magdalene runs to Simon Peter and the BD (Beloved Disciple) and tells them "They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." At this point she has clearly not seen any angel nor has she seen Jesus. – John.
  
• Peter and the BD run to the sepulchre. The BD gets there first, looks in but doesn’t enter. When Peter gets there they both go in, see the linen clothes and leave. Mary Magdalene has also come back to the tomb and waits outside while they are inside. – John.
  
• Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome go into the tomb. – Mark.
  
• Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome see a young man in the tomb, sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment and are afraid. – Mark.
  
• Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women that were with them enter the tomb and do not find a body. Evidently two men suddenly appear in shining garments while they were standing around perplexed. – Luke.
  
• Mary and Mary Magdalene observe an angel descend, roll back the stone and sit on the stone. – Matt.
  
• Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women that were with them were afraid, bow down to the earth before the two men in shining garments. - Luke
  
• The keepers see the angel, shake with fear and become as dead men. – Matt.
  
• The angel answers Mary and Mary Magdalene, saying "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 ye shall see him: lo I have told you". – Matt.
  
• The young man sitting on the right side of the tomb tells Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome, "Be not affrighted. 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 and tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: There ye shall see him, as he said unto you." - Mark.
  
• The two men tell Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women that were with them "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." – Luke.
  
• Mary and Mary Magdalene depart quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy and run to bring his disciples word. – Matt.
  
• Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome flee from the sepulchre, tremble and are amazed. They do not say anything to any man, for they are afraid. – Mark. (The original text of Mark ends here).
  
• Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women that were with them remember Jesus’s words, return from the sepulchre and tell all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. - Luke.
  
• While Mary and Mary Magdalene are on their way to see the disciples, Jesus meets them, saying "All Hail". They come and hold him by the feet and worship him. – Matt.
  
• Jesus tells Mary and Mary Magdalene to go and tell his brethren to go to Galilee and there they will see him. – Matt.
  
• After Mary and Mary Magdalene leave Jesus and go to meet the disciples (while they are still on their way) some of the men who were watching the tomb go and tell the chief priests all the things that were done. The chief priests bribe the watchers to lie about the happenings and claim that the disciples came and stole the body while they were asleep. – Matt.
  
• The eleven disciples think the women are telling them idle tales and do not believe them. – Luke.
  
• Peter goes (alone?) to the sepulchre, stoops down (doesn't go inside), beholds the linen clothes laying by themselves and departs, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. – Luke.
  
• Mary Magdalene was standing outside the tomb while Peter and the BD went in. When they leave for their home she remains behind, weeping. As she weeps she stoops down and looks into the sepulchre and sees two angels in white, sitting inside (one at the head and the other at the feet) where the body of Jesus had lain. The angels asks her why she’s weeping and she says "Because they have taken away my LORD and I know not where they have laid him". After saying this she turns around and sees Jesus but doesn’t recognize him. Jesus asks her why she weeps. She believes he’s the gardener and asks him if he knows where the body is. He says "Mary". She recognizes him and calls him, "Rabboni" (Master). He tells her to quit hanging on him because he is not yet ascended (no idea what this has to do with anything). He tells her to go to his brethren and say "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." – John.
  
• Mary Magdalene goes and tells the disciples that she has seen Jesus and what he had told her. – John.
  
• Two men (Simon and Cleopas) are walking towards the village called Emmaus, talking about these things. Jesus meets them and begins talking with them but they do not recognize him. During the conversation it is revealed that the women had apparently seen angels but nobody had seen Jesus himself yet. – Luke.
  
• The sun goes down on Easter Sunday. Everything from Luke below this line cannot be moved above this line. - Luke.
  
• Jesus allows himself to be constrained into staying with Simon and Cleopas in Emmaus. He blesses the food, breaks the bread and hands it to them. Suddenly they realize that it’s Jesus. As soon as they realize this he vanishes from their sight. – Luke.
  
• When Jesus vanishes from their sight, Simon and Cleopas go the same hour back to Jerusalem, find the eleven disciples and tell them about what had happened. While they are talking to the eleven Jesus himself magically appears and says, "Peace be unto you." They’re doubtful, Jesus encourages them to touch him and see that he is not a ghost, and even eats so they can see that he’s real. All this happens on Sunday evening after sundown. – Luke.
  
• Jesus magically appears in the locked room with the disciples, says "Peace be unto you." Encourages them to poke and prod and they’re glad he’s alive. Thomas is not with them during this appearance and he doubts. – John.
  
• Eight days later Jesus pulls his magical appearing act again, but this time Thomas is there and gets to poke and prod for his own enlightenment. – John.
  
• Jesus tells them to just stay right where they are (in Jerusalem) until they are endued with power from on high. All of them walk together out to Bethany, Jesus lifts up his hands, blesses all of them and while he’s blessing them he floats up into heaven. – Luke.
  
• The eleven go back to Jerusalem and are continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. – Luke.
  
• The eleven disciples go into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. – Matt.
  
• IN GALILEE The eleven disciples see Jesus and worship him but some still doubt. – Matt.
  
• IN GALILEE Jesus commissions the disciples to preach the gospel to all the world. – Matt.

Anat

Had the earthquake taken place before the women came to the tomb wouldn't they have expected to see some disturbance? Or at least be prepared to see some disturbance?

Amaleq13

No, you are not. You are ignoring the plain reading of the story as well as the specific vocabulary chosen by the author. Other versions of the story are irrelevant to understanding the story the author wrote though they are relevant to any effort to meet the challenge.

It is not a question of whether I "like" it or not. You have offered your desire to obtain harmony as support for your interpretation and I have pointed out that this makes no sense. If you want me to stop pointing it out, stop appealing to your desire for harmony as justification for your interpretation.

I have not denied the possibility of reconciliation. I have only pointed out that a desire to obtain reconciliation does not constitute support for the effort.

Yes, the author provides more details. Whether you like it or not, however, those details appear to create a conflict with the other versions.

No, observing alteration. It is clear that, assuming Matthew used Mark as a source, the former has changed the story. The question relevant to Barker's challenge is whether, despite all the changes, the four versions can be reconciled into a single, coherent story.

Following the plain meaning of the story and the specific vocabulary chosen by the author is simply common sense. If you want to characterize this as "wooden", be my guest but don't act like that carries any weight. It just sounds like sour grapes.

Again, ignoring the plain meaning and specific vocabulary choices of the author is not "reasonable".

My only preference is that the interpretation be supported by the text. Yours is not. It requires one to ignore the plain meaning and vocabulary while appealing to other versions in an effort to create harmony.

You missed my point. Where does the text explicitly state that the women saw the angel? It doesn't. Just as it doesn't explicitly state that the women saw the earthquake, etc. That shouldn't stop a reasonable individual from recognizing that both are strongly implied by the text.

Yes, I tend to ignore irrelevant comments.

There is no missing body mentioned prior to his "answer" and the text clearly indicates the women have yet to look into the tomb so your statement has no connection to the text. Interpretations that do not deal with the actual text are simply not credible. The notion that the women are reacting to the absence of the body is clearly denied by the text:

"He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay."(28:6 KJV, emphasis mine)

Have you read the story lately?

What does "fairness" mean in the context of interpreting a story? I cannot accept any interpretation as legitimate that ignores the plain meaning, specific vocabulary, and actual contents of a story. Such an interpretation doesn't even approach the level of "possible".

That is what the story states. Clearly, they were afraid after seeing an angel descend, an earthquake roll away the stone, and the guards fall unconscious. Wouldn't you be? The angel reassures them by showing he magically knows their purpose and informing them that, as he predicted, Jesus has risen. He goes on to invite them to see for themselves. To suggest that their fear was due to something that had not yet happened or only one of the preceding events makes no sense.

Sure but that isn't what the story says. It is painfully clear that, prior to the angel's answer, the women had no yet seen that the body was missing.

Get back to me when you are prepared to offer an interpretation that deals with the text as it exists. :wave:

buckshot23

That is your opinion and it seems that this will go around in circles until one of us gets tired.
Well maybe I could be more clear. I do not ignore the "plain reading" however "plain reading" of texts do not always portray what the author intended.
I don't see how. If I can't compare all accounts when trying to meet this challenge then where am I left to look!? This is evidence of the sham nature of the challenge right here folks. "Reconcile these accounts but do not refer to outside accounts when doing so.":huh:

You have expressed your opinion on the matter.
Again a possibility and nothing more.
Who suggested otherwise?

Just so happens to be in a spot from the other accounts(sorry I forgot I can't refer to them) where they talk about a pre-rolled stone when the women arrive. Matthew explains how that happened instead of repeating what was already written in at least one other place.

Riiiight.
I am not sure how I can do that if I can't refer to the other accounts in doing so.
Ignoring the other accounts when interpreting Matthew is the classic pitfall skeptics fall into.
Who ignores the "plain meaning". I do not say this is the absolute correct way to interpret these verses. That seems to be your area. I offer a possible explanation. "Plain meaning" must also include context and Matthew was not written in a skeptics vacuum.

Disagreed.
If I can't appeal to other versions then there is nothing to harmonize with. We can all go home now and Barker can remove his sham of a challenge.

The interact with him ie. talk to. Where do they interact with the earthquake or gaurds?
Problem with this comparison is highlighted above the angel actually talks to the women thus flushing this point down the toilet.
I don't know how it is irrelevant. Makes sense that it would be shocking to most people seeing what I described thus requiring a comment from the angel about it.
Again the "skeptics vacuum" was not available for Matthew to write his account. If we have to ignore the other accounts then there is nothing to reconcile.
Sure I have.

You ignore the other accounts when relying on those accounts to establish that there is a problem. Why can't I refer to these other accounts also?
Yes I would be. (Notice, I will answer irrelevant questions.)
Of course ignoring the other accounts. One last time, if I cannot refer to other accounts in reconciling them there is nothing for me to do. We can close this thread and go live our lives.

Assuming that the body being missing is later the fact that the stone is rolled away would be shocking enough requiring an explanation.
I won't continue to join in this charade for your pleasure. I think I have provided enough for people to decide on their own.