Steven Avery

FM, This has been discussed in depth in threads such as

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=126355
Do we have the Original NT ?

On that thread you can read more exposition of the issues above (including my examining the unbelieving paradigmic base of modern textcrit forcing an errant text). And thus understand why I have a conviction that true NT apologetics needs be based on the TR/KJB text. And related is the belief that this is in fact the purest text in conformity with the unextant 'originals autographs'. For that we would go into all sorts of discussions, including the early church writer analysis of Dean John Burgon.

However, I generally find it a bit unproductive discussing these issues with folks who view the NT text as full of errors, late, redacted, forgeries, or whatever, anyway. Generally they are taking the alexandrian position for convenience, not conviction or depth of analysis or consistency. Skeptics do have a vested interest, whether they consciously realize it or not, in promoting a duck-shoot text for the believers to be using.

However they do not provide me with my pure and preserved word of God. Although they can work at a clerk at Strands and be involved in the Bible that way. Maybe they can sell me a King James Bible.

Above I discussed the Bible text for the context on this thread on Mary Magdalene. What Bible I would be using, and what 200 versions I would not be using. To give backdrop, but not to divert the dialog.

The moderator is welcome to move FM and my last two posts ... somewhere

Or we can simply continue on the Mary Magdalene consistency concern.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Now working with the shortened version of Farrell's question,
it is a bit easier to discuss the issues.

The Resolution is fine, as long as it is understood that 'inconsistent' implies contradictory. (Yes I am a third-party to a debate that may be in process, or bogged down .. so I am trying to fill in some glaring gaps in the discussion and believe I might be able to help keep the focus on real issues rather than pseudo-issues.)

We all do all sorts of seemingly 'inconsistent' actions (eg. I research the resurrection chronology to understand the Bible harmony while also dismissing much pseudo-scholasticism, Christian seminary scholarship, supposed apologetics). We need the big picture for consistency. So the emphasis here is harmony vs. contradiction.

Now there is one very significant point that I want to emphasize in this post.

A curiosity in the way that Farrell presents his position, giving to the forum a severe mischaracterization about what may well be the single most important aspect of the chronology of the post-resurrection visits.

Farrell comes up with the very dubious repeated accusation of 'speculation' against a simple and clear scriptural exposition. He writes as if Christian apologists came up with 'two-visits-to-the tomb' as a convoluted speculative harmony, when it fact two Mary Magdalene visits are very clearly describe in John ! Amazing.

While Farrell covers in depth various less-consequent issues (such as confusion and panicking commentaries which rightfully deserve the designation of speculation or worse) he misrepresents the basics of the discussion and hopes his card-shuffling gets hidden in the blizzard of verbiage.

Farrell tries to pretend that two-visits-to-the-tomb is only a speculative theory, just an interpretation of convenience, similar to Mary being confused and forgetting what the Lord Jesus has said !

Watch as Farrell accuses inerrantists of "speculative solutions", as follows.

And please, feel free to go back to his OP to confirm that he was accusing two-visits-to-the-tomb as being speculation

Nope, there is nothing even remotely speculative about two-visits-to-the-tomb. This is clearly stated in the Gospels, by John (in his 'characterization'). So it is deceptive of Farrell to say that the inerrantists take John's account as one to be 'reconciled' to a new or creative or speculative two-visits scenario.

Let's go to the scriptures.
We will omit some of the Johannine narrative detail and add a little bold.

John 20
1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

2 Then she runneth,and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,

12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Super clear.
Those who accept John immediately have a two-visits-to-the-tomb scenario, prima facie.

Please note that 'two-visits-to-the-tomb', as described in John, is the salient feature of the Mary Magdalene post-resurrection chronology. The central focus, the key to the harmony. Verses in the synoptics are to be viewed from this lens.

Notice the omission by Farrell that John's narrative related both visits.
Hmmm... Curious.
Farrell is straining to fabricate an accusation of "speculation" where John writes clearly.

Was Farrell unawares that John's narrative references both visits ? This is truly hard to imagine. The only other explanation I can see is that Farrell was hoping to catch the unwary with a cheap debating trick, poisoning the well, trying to mark the sound and sure harmonistic base of two-visits-to-the-tomb as unwarranted speculation.

(Yes, Farrell in the conclusion of the OP does raise legitimate questions about the two-visits scenarios. That is not the emphasis of the current post -- simply how Farrell tried to falsely make two-visits into something that is not clear scripture, the pshat, the simple reading of the text.)

Two-visits-to-the-tomb is an evident and easily discernible aspect of the Johannine account, not even remotely "speculation". Farrell's improper characterization should be noted and the attempted tinge rejected.

As pointed out John very clearly reported this second visit to the tomb.
There is nothing speculative or theoretical about the two visits.

And it is really a bit of a surprise that his spinning about 'speculation' Farrell did not once have the gumption to point out that John includes both visits.

Farrell was strongly implying that, to the inerrantist, John recorded one visit and the synoptics another (which could easily be seen as contradictory accounts of the same one visit). Yes, if that were true, one might say that two-visits-to-the-tomb is "speculation" and "theory". Farrell, to his discredit, had to completely ignore or misread or hide the actual narrative of John's account in order to make this accusation of "speculation".

And if anyone does have a theory of John being one visit, and the synoptics without John relating another visit, I would be surprised. Any names ?

A bit more about the last part above.

Surely the synoptics need to be examined carefully from our base of understanding, two-visits-to-the-tomb, one of the salient facts (not speculations) of the post-resurrection chronology. We can look ourselves at the synoptics and determine if the other gospels only recorded the second visit to the tomb which Farrell above asserts is the Bible believer (inerrantist) two-visits view.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Farrell Till

You don't understand what the two-visits-to-the-tomb theory is, Steve. According to this theory, Mary Magdalene made a trip to the tomb while it was yet dark, and this was the visit reported by John. Later, she made a trip to the tomb in the company of other women, after the sun had risen, and this was the visit that was recorded in the synoptics. I know, of course, that John's account had Mary go to the tomb, find it empty, run to tell Peter and John that the body had been stolen, and then come back to the tomb, but in the two-visits theory, these are events that happened on her first visit. The second visit, recorded in the synoptics, came later in the day.

The "panic theory" is yet another "solution" entirely.

If you care to debate any resurrection issues, I will be glad to do so after I have finished the debate with McDonald. All I would ask is that you try to explain yourself better, because I have found a lot of ambiguity in your posts.

Chili

John is where Magdalene saw angels in the dark who dazzled her this time. One was a the head and one at the feet of where Jesus had lain inside the tomb that Joseph had hewn as if with his own hands. These angels spell faith and charity wherein hope has found its completion

Magdalene still did not know the favorite disciple even though he had just been introduced as the son of Mary, who we would call Christ, I guess, instead of Jesus whom they had crucified in effort to liberate this Christ. This liberation left Magdalene in the dark but also left Matthew in the dark who reported that the body had been stolen without an apology to anyone of them.

That it was dark for Magdalene testifies that Jesus was sinless and that it was light in Matthew indicates that Mary the mother of Christ was sinless, or Magdalene would have known her by name.

So yes, I am a one visit theorist who agrees that Matthew was not very just and should be replaced soon.

Chili

Oh right, Peter is faith and Christ is charity with love being the greatest of all.

Peter was seated at the feet. He is the motivator of the Jew that was crucified here and it was this Jew who had taken Magdalene to be his wife when he first left Eden. The promise was that the woman (we call her Mary) would strike at the head of the serpent (called Magdalene here) who in her turn would strike at the heel of Joseph to move him along until she finally had seen the Lord (the light).

In archetypal criticism one must contemplate these kind of things to explain why there would be one angel at the head and one at the feet, etc.

Matthew_Green

I wanted to comment on something John Kesler brought up:

"Oh. Oh. So Skeptic X thinks this is a real problem. I know now why people ran: They thought he was nuts and feared it was contagious. The deal is twofold: 1) Skeptic X assumes that when Matthew names ONLY Mary Mag and Mary II, he is giving a comprehensive list of who was present; 2) by that token, Mary Mag must be someone who departed and ran into the rezzed Jesus (28:9-11) since the two Mary-belles are the only known antecedent for "the women" in vss. 9-10. Well, honky dory. Skeptic X wastes some space rebutting the most common explanation he has heard -- some unnecessary drivel about two tomb visits by Mary Mag which we won't waste time on, but sorry, no dice. Skeptic X's English-grammar lesson about how "'THE WOMEN' in verse 5 to whom the angel said that Jesus had risen must have necessarily included Mary Magdalene" is pure hokum in context; his spar that "otherwise, Matthew's text is incoherent" a load from a Western literalist from a fundamentalist denomination; his complaint that it thereby "would not have conveyed an accurate picture of what had happened to early Christians who may have lived and died having had access only to this one gospel account" a load of bull-dusted, panic-button polemic (that once again, assumes that the written account is all that they had or were concerned with, whether Mark and the others were around or not). We'll say it one more time for the provincial in Skeptic X: ma besay-il. It doesn't matter. Each writer chose women representative of the party, based perhaps on their own knowledge or on that of their audience, and that Skeptic X can't see what difference this would make is his own one-dimensional problem. Matthew had points to establish to make his story -- women went to the tomb; they saw the Risen Jesus; the message was given to skeedaddle to Galilee (thus setting up his "Great Commission" picture -- and the fact that the same message is partially given twice, by the angel and by Jesus, should clue Skeptic X in) -- and he had only a few lines to do it. The rez appearance recorded in 28:9-10 is short, stereotyped, and contrived, and it is meant to be; it is ridiculous to assert a "mechanical inspiration" perspective rooted in "it had to be written the way Skeptic X would have written it". Skeptic X's gafunga statement that, "the picture [readers] formed in their minds after reading Matthew's gospel could not have included anything that was written in gospels that came after Matthew's" comes from the wrong side of the tracks of fundaliteralism, in non-knowledge of the interaction and purposes of orality and literacy in the ancient world, and after years of using the Gospels as evangelistic documents they were never intended to be. Skeptic X can therefore take his non-relevant English-grammatical argument, and all the panic buttons he presses, and make pizza pie out of them. Whether Matthew did know of other women, and did not name them; whether he really did write in such a way as to imply that Mary Mag was one of the women in 28:9-10 -- the answer is the same: ma besay-il. To the people who read and wrote this, it didn't matter. They could see as well as we can that 28:9-10 is a contrivance; just as it easy to see that Matthew's five blocks of Jesus' teachings are a structured contrivance. Skeptic X can cool his jets and wash his socks: We prefer to read the text as the people who wrote it understood it -- not as a fundaliterist preacher with a case of pathological literalism does."

It never fails to amaze me the lengths that Robert Turkel will go through to try and resolve biblical discrepancies. He appeals to the cultural indifference of Middle Easterners in regards to precision. While I have nothing against accepting that Middle Easteners are and have been indifferent to precision- the problem is that Turkel is just like most other Christian apologists when it comes to defending inerrancy. Turkel uses explanations like "ma besay-il" indiscriminately.

Many apologists don't even bother to demarcate criteria by which an explanation might legitimately apply. In not doing this, they give readers no way to tell whether or not an explanation is a valid and legitimate one or whether it's just a far-fetched scenario that has been pulled out of one's ass. Turkel seems to suffer from this problem as well. He doesn't suggest any criteria by which readers can discriminate between legitimate scenarios and far-fetched ones. His constant appeal to "ma besay-il" is a perfect example.

I have no problem agreeing that Middle Easterners may be indifferent to precision. But Turkel doesn't answer questions that would even begin to make "explanations" like these legitimate. If Turkel believes that a discrepancy didn't matter, fine. When does a discrepancy matter? Does it ever matter? Has it ever mattered? If it doesn't matter to Middle Easterners generally speaking, does it matter to the author writing the particular gospel narrative? Does it matter to an omni-max deity like Yahweh, who supposedly inspired the text?

Here lies the problem: in my judgement Robert Turkel is essentially rationalizing discrepancies away. He is, in effect, resolving discrepancies as far as he can and then when it hits upon one that he cannot possibly resolve, he says "Oh well, it probably wouldn't have mattered anyways". This strikes me as being lazy on Turkel's part. Oh sure, it matters when Turkel is successful but he allows himself that lazy way out when he cannot resolve a discrepancy.

If it never has and doesn't matter- why does Turkel even bother with defending inerrancy? He is, in my opinion, just another spin-doctor, another snake oil salesman out to make a living by tickling the ears of the faithful.

Matthew

Farrell Till

I have had a work in progress for several months to reply point by point to Turkel's article http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillmagged.html "Magdalene Magilla" in which he danced around the Mary-Magdalene problem, which he was presumably solving. John Kesler's quotation of the only part of this lengthy article in which Turkel actually tried to address this problem caused me to take my article off the back burner and complete it. I have just posted it http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JF...agMagilla.html. It is necessarily long, because I wanted to reply to Turkel point by point even to his barrages of insults and his points that were irrelevant to the Mary-Magdalene Problem.

I also have had a reply to McDonald's first negative ready for over a week now that I will post when he replies to my rebuttal article. If he doesn't post it within the next two days, I will post my reply on http://iierrancy.com the Errancy list, where interested parties can go to read it.

Matthew_Green

Farrell,

I have been trying to keep track of your debate with Jerry MacDonald on the Mary Magdalene problem. I agree with you about the problem and I think your analysis is superb, especially the grammatical problem which destroys any possibility that Mary Magdalene could've panicked and ran to Peter and the "disciple whom Jesus loved". I wanted to mention as a way of observation that not only is your analysis rock solid here, but when one reads the gospel of Luke, Luke's resurrection narrative puts MacDonald and Turkel in a worse position than when Matthew and John do, when they are juxtaposed. In Luke's narrative, Luke explicitly mentioned Mary Magdalene as one of the women who "reported all these things" to the Eleven. Furthermore, on the road to Emmaus, when the risen Jesus supposedly talked with the two, they said that there were some women who amazed them, who said that they had seen a vision of angels at the tomb who said that Jesus was alive!

The grammatical structure of Luke's resurrection narrative makes it so that it's impossible to divorce Mary Magdalene from not only having been there the whole time but also, necessarily makes her one of the women who saw a vision of angels who said that Jesus was alive!

I went back through your article "Bobby Grabs More Straws" and I realize how much Turkel evaded your article's points. I did some of my own research on a number of your examples and I used my findings in my own rebuttal to a Christian apologist Jason Engwer, a Turkel admirer, who defied me to produce examples of biblical discrepancies in the resurrection narratives. I posted my response to Engwer on the blog "Debunking Christianity" which is owned by my pal John Loftus.

I have even written a reply to Robert Turkel's "it doesn't matter" argument, showing that even if one did accept Abraham Rihbany's comments, it in no way helps Turkel's case. I can send you the file and the essay for you to read if you wish.

Matthew

Farrell Till

Yes, I agree that Luke's resurrection narrative is irreconcilable with John's, but my tactic in the Mary-Magdalene problem was to limit the discussion to just Matthew's and John's versions. That gives inerrantists less wiggling room. I am, of course, ready to debate Turkel or McDonald or anyone else concerning other discrepancies in the resurrection narratives besides the Mary-Magdalene problem.

I have yet to see Turkel write a "reply" that doesn't evade far more than he addresses. I can't believe that his admirers can't see this themselves.

I'd like to read it, so send it to me.

Matthew_Green

Farrell,

Let me know what you think of the essay that I wrote up. If you notice any errors or any points that could be made stronger- I am definitely open to constructive criticism. I recall Turkel one time mentioning in a reponse to Brooks Trubee that Tekton ministries gets many many e-mails from "desperately hurting people" and so it doesn't surprise me that his followers don't take notice of what he evades. Hell, I recall being 16 years old and having gotten Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict. I had no intention of reading it critically- I was just desperate for some miracle tylenol to quench my doubts. It worked for some time until I read the "Jury is In" anthology.

We just cannot expert Turkelites to be critical of anything Turkel himself writes.

Matthew