Their witness does not agree

[Athetotheist]

"Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but found none. For many bore false witness against him, but their testimonies did not agree." (Mark 14:55-56)

If the testimony of those witnesses was to be rejected because it didn't agree, how can anyone be blamed for rejecting the resurrection accounts in the gospels for the same reason?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

One of the problems is that the original ending has Mark saying that the women fled from the tomb and "told nobody anything, for they were in fear". This contradicts the other gospels' claim that the women ran and told the disciples everything, and was probably the main reason for the amendment to Mark.

[marco]

One of the problems is that the original ending has Mark saying that the women fled from the tomb and "told nobody anything, for they were in fear". This contradicts the other gospels' claim that the women ran and told the disciples everything, and was probably the main reason for the amendment to Mark.

I admire your patient approach to this nonsense. I think when we read that an angel said: "Don't be frightened. I know you're looking for Jesus who was crucified" we can accept it is rubbish given Matthew wrote it. I love the explanatory relative clause "who was crucified" to distinguish between the Jesus who died of pneumonia.

Then when John tells us:
" 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." We are spoiled for choice as to which gospel writer tells the bigger lie. It is of course wonderfully helpful to have the exact positions of the seated angels. Would one note this detail if confronted with aliens in a sepulchre?
Surely all this talk of whether one or two or twenty angels happened to visit planet Earth in around 33AD, is a minor detail compared to the elephantine claim that Jesus folded up his funereal garments and walked off somewhere, wounds and all, looking for bed and breakfast accommodation until he could make his way to heaven, physically. Of course we are not told that address.

He didn't walk anywhere. Tacitus says he suffered the extreme penalty and doesn't add, "then rose from the dead." The inconsistencies in the tales themselves don't tell us there was no resurrection. Common sense does.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 39 by JehovahsWitness]

It's not part of the original text, but it was accepted into the canon.

Erroneously so until revealed as such. When discussing whether the gospel writers contradicted each other, logically one should focus on what the gospel writers actually wrote rather than what was added. Did you have another point to make about Mary or are you done with your line of reasoning?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

One of the problems is that the original ending has Mark saying that the women fled from the tomb and "told nobody anything, for they were in fear". This contradicts the other gospels' claim that the women ran and told the disciples everything ...

Does Mark say how long they kept the information to themselves for?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 39 by JehovahsWitness]

It's not part of the original text, but it was accepted into the canon.

Erroneously so until revealed as such. When discussing whether the gospel writers contradicted each other, logically one should focus on what the gospel writers actually wrote rather than what was added. Did you have another point to make about Mary or are you done with your line of reasoning?

If it was erroneous, its inclusion couldn't have happened under divine guidance, which renders the rest of the canon questionable.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

One of the problems is that the original ending has Mark saying that the women fled from the tomb and "told nobody anything, for they were in fear". This contradicts the other gospels' claim that the women ran and told the disciples everything ...

Does Mark say how long they kept the information to themselves for?

He doesn't. And since that's the end of his narrative, the implication is that, according to him, they kept it to themselves indefinitely. That would have lead people to ask, "If they didn't tell anyone, how did the author find out?" So it wouldn't be surprising if someone like Matthew felt a need to write a more satisfying account, and it wouldn't be surprising for someone else to feel a need to go back later and scribble in an epilogue to Mark to make them look more consistent.

Notice also that Mark's [earlier] version says nothing about Roman guards being at the tomb. So again, it wouldn't be surprising if the disciples took the body and wouldn't be surprising if Matthew invented the Roman guards to give his Christian audience something to hang onto in the face of that far more plausible conclusion.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1 by Athetotheist]

Because all four accounts testify that Jesus died and was subsequently resurrected. On that there is no disagreement.


JW

RESPONSE: Of course there is! The first account is Paul's letter in 1 Corinthians written 20 years after the fact by a nonwitnesses to people living 800 miles from Jerusalem.

And none of the 500 plus anyone else they may have told left any written record. Even the writers of the gospels didn't quote this fiction. And evidently no Romans that were there told Pilate.

[JehovahsWitness]

If it was erroneous, its inclusion couldn't have happened under divine guidance, which renders the rest of the canon questionable.

Let us not get sidetracked by theological arguments on divine will and permission and stay with what is accepted academically as authorized source text.

You may feel inclined to examine that issue under another thread.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

DID THE WOMEN TAKE THE NEWS OF THE RESSURECTION TO THEIR GRAVES ?

Does Mark say how long they kept the information to themselves for?

He doesn't. .

correct, so again we are simply left with deduction. One may argue the women kept the information to themselves indefinitely and took the secret to their graves but this is illogical for the following reasons.

a) someone presumably told the writer
b) human behaviour tends to sharing of important information
c) the stated convictions and beliefs of the individuals concernednas presented in the text

The writer obviously somehow obtained the information. If we take him to be describing real events then we are left with the writer being one of the women breaking her silence or someone that obtained the information.

• More significantly, when people experience lifechanging or extraordinary events they overwhelmingly feel compelled to share the information with somebody. Whether it be on their deathbed or to their nearest and dearest as soon as it happens, humans are communicative creatures and arguably women more so. To suppose the "told nobody" was absolute and endured for the rest of their lives without a single one in the group sharing any information is completely contrary to the way the majority of people behave.
  
  Another reason to suppose their silence was temporary, is that according to the text the women named were disciples of Jesus and therefore part of a group that had been taught to share information about their leader. As a group they are presented as being profoundly convinced of Jesus messiahship, convictions which would logically have suffered a crippling blow by his death. To suppose that, hopes restored by a supernatural message of that ones resurrection, they kept the information to themselves until they died, is out of harmony with the body of Marks text.
  
  While it might be argued they feared outside persecution/repurcussions of sharing what happened to them, this would hardly have been a consideration from their close friends and family that were also believers. To suppose the women watched their fellow disciples grieve withholding this essential information, knowing ghey had been instructed to share, is stretching incredulity to say the very least.

Marks style is fast moving and jumps from one event to another with startling speed. The narrative often skips months (sometimes years) of events and is not always in chronological order. Although evidently some were uncomfortable with his abrupt ending, writing it seems for a foreign readership, it is entirely characteristic of his dramatic style to end on a "cliffhanger". If we conclude that the women told no "outsiders" (none believers) but kept their silence until they were securely in the company of the male leadership, we can slip Mark's "ending" in after the angelic encounter at the tomb but before their personal encounter with the risen Christ, without any conflict with the other gospel narratives.

CONCLUSION Those that suppose the women told nobody, including the leaders of their own Christian community (disobeying direct instructions to report the matter and taking the information to their graves), do so only by ignoring human nature, the writers style and the themes and convictions of the women themselves as presented in the text. That the women kept silent until they felt calm and secure enough to share the information with members of their inner circle of intimate acquaintances is, for the reasons above, a much more logical reading.

RELATED POSTS THE WOMEN

Why did Mary and the others not see the angel sitting on the stone?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 388#986388

Could Mary Magdalene have left the group of women before their angelic encounter?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 635#986635

WHERE were the angels when the women first arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 523#986523

Why is Mary's name included in Luke's summary of events if she wasn't with the women when they met the angels?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 390#986390

Did the women remain silent FOREVER about their experience? (this post)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 713#986713

To learn more please go to posts related to...

BIBLICAL SEQUENCING, INERRANCY and ...THE RESSURECTION EVENTS

[Athetotheist]

DID THE WOMEN TAKE THE NEWS OF THE RESSURECTION TO THEIR GRAVES ?

Does Mark say how long they kept the information to themselves for?

He doesn't. .

correct, so again we are simply left with deduction. One may argue the women kept the information to themselves indefinitely and took the secret to their graves but this is illogical for the following reasons.

a) someone presumably told the writer
b) human behaviour tends to sharing of important information
c) the stated convictions and beliefs of the individuals concernednas presented in the text

The writer obviously somehow obtained the information. If we take him to be describing real events then we are left with the writer being one of the women breaking her silence or someone that obtained the information.

• More significantly, when people experience lifechanging or extraordinary events they overwhelmingly feel compelled to share the information with somebody. Whether it be on their deathbed or to their nearest and dearest as soon as it happens, humans are communicative creatures and arguably women more so. To suppose the "told nobody" was absolute and endured for the rest of their lives without a single one in the group sharing any information is completely contrary to the way the majority of people behave.
  
  Another reason to suppose their silence was temporary, is that according to the text the women named were disciples of Jesus and therefore part of a group that had been taught to share information about their leader. As a group they are presented as being profoundly convinced of Jesus messiahship, convictions which would logically have suffered a crippling blow by his death. To suppose that, hopes restored by a supernatural message of that ones resurrection, they kept the information to themselves until they died, is out of harmony with the body of Marks text.
  
  While it might be argued they feared outside persecution/repurcussions of sharing what happened to them, this would hardly have been a consideration from their close friends and family that were also believers. To suppose the women watched their fellow disciples grieve withholding this essential information, knowing ghey had been instructed to share, is stretching incredulity to say the very least.

Marks style is fast moving and jumps from one event to another with startling speed. The narrative often skips months (sometimes years) of events and is not always in chronological order. Although evidently some were uncomfortable with his abrupt ending, writing it seems for a foreign readership, it is entirely characteristic of his dramatic style to end on a "cliffhanger". If we conclude that the women told no "outsiders" (none believers) but kept their silence until they were securely in the company of the male leadership, we can slip Mark's "ending" in after the angelic encounter at the tomb but before their personal encounter with the risen Christ, without any conflict with the other gospel narratives.

CONCLUSION Those that suppose the women told nobody, including the leaders of their own Christian community (disobeying direct instructions to report the matter and taking the information to their graves), do so only by ignoring human nature, the writers style and the themes and convictions of the women themselves as presented in the text. That the women kept silent until they felt calm and secure enough to share the information with members of their inner circle of intimate acquaintances is, for the reasons above, a much more logical reading.

RELATED POSTS THE WOMEN

Why did Mary and the others not see the angel sitting on the stone?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 388#986388

Could Mary Magdalene have left the group of women before their angelic encounter?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 635#986635

WHERE were the angels when the women first arrived?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 523#986523

Why is Mary's name included in Luke's summary of events if she wasn't with the women when they met the angels?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 390#986390

Did the women remain silent FOREVER about their experience? (this post)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 713#986713

Remembering that the gospels were written decades after Jesus' death, we have to consider some things:

Someone obviously told the author of Mark about what supposedly happened, but it wasn't necessarily the women or anyone told by the women.

Human nature tends toward sharing important information, but it also tends toward embellishing stories over time.

Stated convictions and beliefs can be embellished as stories are retold.

The gospel accounts provide evidence of embellishment by starting with the low-key account of Mark and becoming more fantastic with the other Synoptic writers.

Some other points:

It's unconvincing to invoke the movement of characters to explain the inconsistencies in where the angels supposedly were. The accounts say that the women moved around, but there's no reason to assume that the angels would have done so; they would presumably have appeared, delivered their message and disappeared. The gospel writers placed them in specific locations and the burden of proof would be on anyone claiming they were elsewhere. Like you said, it's about concentrating on what they *wrote*.

The angel issue, along with others, is particularly problematic in the book of Luke. The differences between it and the other accounts are dispensed with by simply writing them off as some kind of lumpy synopsis on Luke's part, an attempt to squeeze all the details of all the accounts into one murky package and not minding if some get squeezed out. The Luke account is significant here because the author's claim in 1:3 to have researched and recorded everything with impeccable accuracy can be used as a measuring rod for the consistency between the accounts. The inconsistencies we subsequently find call into question the assumption that the author was divinely inspired to make that claim.

If we go by what the authors wrote, we have to accept what they wrote as their testimony in full. If their accounts require speculations to be pulled out of the air to make them harmonious, then their witness does not agree.