Family Man

When they say that they saw a young man. If they saw more than one young man, the text should have read young men.

Unless, of course, it is your claim that the gospel writers were incompetent when they reported the number of young men they allegedly saw.

JohnV

Nope, no 'only' in there.
You can see two young men and yet choose to focus on one in telling of it. Without the "only," there's no contradiction.
Nope - there are other reasonable explanations. A pretty simple one is that the witness and/or the writer didn't consider the number to be particularly important. Again, without the "only," the accounts are complementary, not contradictory.

Kosh

Now, why do you say that Peter and John ran to the tomb? According to Luke, only Peter ran to the tomb.

Family Man

No only is required. The authors used the singular. The singular is only used when one of an item is present. Otherwise, the plural is required.

In fact, for the author to say that they entered the tomb and saw only one man would be linguisiticaly odd. It would suggest that they were expecting more than one man, and since they weren't expecting any, there is simply no way that 'only' could have been part of that account.

The only other explanation is that there were more than one but the authors chose to write in a way that suggests there was only one. I'd call that incompetence.

You also might notice how many times I've used only in this post. To emphasis singularity is only one of only's uses. To suggest it is required to indicate that only one of something is present is absurd.

The contradiction stands.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

JohnV

Nope, no "only" in Luke. Because the more detailed account in John has two running to the tomb. Look at some prior posts, we've already discussed that more detailed accounts are used to interpret less detailed accounts. No one disputed it, and we saw how we must do this to Barker's challenge(s) to make sense of them.

Kosh

And as Family Man pointed out, your argument doesn't hold water.

That contradiction stands as well.

so far you're 0/2

JohnV

Incorrect. It's quite common for a news report to say that a speaker gave a talk at such and such meeting or event, when in fact several speakers actually gave talks at the event. The writer is merely focusing on one speaker, not implying that he was the only speaker. That was pretty weak.
Yes, I'll agree with most of this, but it doesn't help you. Explaining why "only" shouldn't be expected doesn't put one in there.
So if a reporter says that a senator spoke at a labor rally today and criticized Bush, when in fact two senators spoke at the rally, the reporter is incompetent? I don't think many people would share your interpretation. Most would interpret that the reporter didn't mention the second senator because it added little to the main intent of the account. In short, the gospel writers aren't incompetent. Rather, your methods of interpretation are outside the norm.
Hehe.

JohnV

Hehe. On the contrary, when posters from the board's majority have to resort to pronouncing victory for themselves and one another, I know I'm on to something!

But, in a way, you two are right. IF we insert words like "only" into the text that just aren't there, it IS difficult to reconcile. However, if we just go by the actual text, it reconciles very nicely.

Now, does anyone have an argument that doesn't rely on words that aren't there?

JohnV

"Family Man" is singular. However, more than one person has alleged that my arguments fail. You, sir, are, by Family Man's methods of interpretation, incompetent. It was "required" for you to say 'we,' or 'Family Man and others,' or some other plural!

Of course, 'Family Man and others' would only be proper with three or more. If exactly two, 'Family Man and another' would be required to demonstrate your competence.

Kosh

Was I attempting to give a comprehensive witness of this thread? You're really reaching now.