Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Adrift]

"Discrepancy" does not necessarily mean "mistake" (it might be reconcilable), and "mistake" does not necessarily mean "untrue" - just a small error in the record. What would be untrue would be the pretence that there are no mistakes in the Biblical record.

For example:
Mark (third hour) and John (sixth hour) differ with regard to the actual time of day that Jesus was crucified. No extant manuscripts of those records say otherwise. Someone made a mistake. That the mistake is trivial doesn't change the fact that it exists. The fact of the crucifixion is not called into question by that error - but it does mean that no statement about the actual time of the crucifixion can be asserted. Given that they both record the time of death as the ninth hour, they can't be using different "clocks".

This is provided as an example only - discussion of the point belongs on the other thread.

Again going back to Licona, he makes the suggestion that seeming discrepancies like the time of the crucifixion is neither a mistake nor that it can/should be necessarily reconciled. Rather he suggests a third way...that, in keeping with contemporary literary devices of the day, John's narrative may intentionally differ from the Synoptics to highlight a theological point.

Source: Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient by Michael R. Licona

The largest difference in this pericope pertains to the time at which Jesus was crucified. Mark 15:25 says it was the third hour (i.e., 9 a.m.). However, in John 19:14, Jesus was still on trial before Pilate at the sixth hour (i.e., noon). Moreover, recall that a discrepancy likewise appears to exist pertaining to the day on which Jesus had his Last Supper with his disciples (see #13). The Synoptics appear to narrate Jesus being crucified after the Passover meal, while John speaks of a Passover meal to be eaten on the day of Jesus's crucifixion. Thus, there are discrepancies pertaining to both the time and day of Jesus's crucifixion.

Bock refers to this as "one of the most complex chronological issues in the NT," while Raymond Brown writes, "This is perhaps the most disputed calendric question in the NT." Some have proposed that John is following the time used by the romans for their civil day while the Synoptics are following a different timetable in which the workday begins at 6 a.m. Others suggest the Passover was often celebrated on different days, since there were disputes over the proper day on which the Passover fell or because of the different times at which days started and ended for Galilean and Jerusalem Jews. Still others suggest that any meal during the week of Passover could be referred to as a Passover meal and that the discrepancy in time (i.e., third versus sixth hour) could result from John rounding up and Mark rounding down. Robert Stein considers these as well as a few other explanations and concludes, "[I]t is doubtful that any of the explanations has a particularly high degree of certainty."

Some scholars think John altered the day and time of Jesus's crucifixion in order to emphasize theological points, specifically that Jesus is the burnt offering for sins and the Passover Lamb. In this view, John has displaced the day and time of Jesus's crucifixion. Plutarch may have made a similar chronological move in reference to Julius Caesar. Plutarch, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio report how Caesar once wept while at the statue of Alexander. When asked why he wept, Caesar answered that he was now the same age as was Alexander when he had conquered the world while he, Caesar, had yet to accomplish any great deed. Suetonius and Dio place the event in Spain during Caesar's quaestorship in 69-68 BCE. Plutarch also locates the event in Spain; however, he places it immediately after Caesar's praetorship, which ended six years later in December 62.

Since Alexander was thirty when he invaded India during his final campaign, and Caesar was thirty-one or thirty-two when quaestor and thirty-eight when his term as praetor expired, the timing of the event is more at home in the context described by Suetonius and Dio. Pelling thinks that "Plutarch may well be up to something here," for it is here and the period that follows when Caesar's ambitions for power became central in Plutarch's Caesar. Thus, it appears that Plutarch has displaced the story and transplanted it around seven years later in order to draw attention to the beginning of Caesar's quest for power. If Plutarch can alter the year in which Caesar wept when considering the inferiority of his own accomplishments in comparison to those of Alexander in order to emphasize Caesar's ambitious character, John could alter the day and time of Jesus's crucifixion to symbolize the sacrificial quality of Jesus's death. And we have previously observed how either Mark or John changed the day when the woman anointed Jesus.

© Copyright Original Source

Now I'm not saying I completely agree with Licona's third way here, or at least for this particular discrepancy, but I think it provides food for thought. Lincona himself admits that these sorts of parallels do have limitations, and that there are hints and clues for those passages that are using particular literary devices. He (along with scholars like Burridge) also point out that it's anachronistic to think these literary devices are somehow dishonest reckonings of the events in question. The need and desire for the type of exactitude we expect in modern biographies is a modern convention. Readers in the ancient world didn't see things that way. Biographers were much more interested in using true events to create a literary portrait. To this point Licona writes,

Source: Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient by Michael R. Licona

The objective of Greco-Roman biography was to reveal the character of the subject through the person's sayings and deeds. Writing around the same time as some of the Gospels were written, Plutarch provided the clearest statement in this regard in his Life of Alexander:

For it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, nay, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of character than battles where thousands fall, or the greatest armaments, or sieges of cities. Accordingly, just as painters get the likenesses in their portraits from the face and the expression of the eyes, wherein the character shows itself, but makes very little account of the parts of the body, so I must be permitted to devote myself rather to the signs of the soul of men, and by means of these to portray the life of each, leaving to others the description of their great contests. (Alex. 1.2-3 [Perrin, LCL])

© Copyright Original Source

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It doesn't matter, memories fade, one might not remember exactly when and where they met their once dead friend, but what they never would forget is that they actually did meet their once dead friend - alive again...

Unfortunately, from the linguistic evidence - ὤφθη "appeared" and Paul's own testimony saying that the Risen Jesus was only experienced through "visions" and "revelations" there's no evidence in the earliest report that they actually had a "physical" meeting with him. You're letting your knowledge of the later accounts (which are not firsthand) affect your reading of Paul.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

A minor but important correction: the earliest account is the early creed, 1 Cor 15:5-7, written within just a few years of the events. Vv 8ff were Paul's add-on, some 20 years or so later.

Right and no single gospel report matches Paul's chronology.

So far, so good. But you have completely ignored Luke's second volume! In Acts 1:1-11, Luke adds that there were multiple appearances to the apostles over the space of 40 days. Luke strongly implies in Acts 1:21-26 that at least two other non-apostles had been with them during this period and had seen Jesus.

Besides Paul, none of the appearances are narrated and the whole "40 day appearance period followed by ascension" scheme is nowhere corroborated in any of the earlier reports. That's a pretty significant thing to leave out if it was actually believed by the earliest Christians.

Acts 10:40-41 says "God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear, not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."

That sounds quite strange if Jesus was literally raised from the grave and walking around on earth for 40 days. You'd think more people would have noticed him. Instead, Luke has to give a theological explanation for why he was only "seen" by certain people.

Do you REALLY expect every eyewitness account to be identical?? Different observers and reporters focus on different things.

They don't have to be identical but they should at least be more consistent than what they are! There are irreconcilable contradictions and how do you square the reports being "eyewitness testimony" when none of them even come close to resembling the primitive appearance chronology mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 15:5-8?

The early creed (quoted by Paul) and Luke agree that Peter saw Jesus before the rest of the 11 apostles did so.

It's possible that Luke believed the appearance to Peter was first, however, he first narrates an appearance to the two disciples on the Emmaus Road. I admit that Luke comes closest to resembling Paul's list however he is still pretty far off. Notice how the appearance to Peter in Luke looks like it's just been lifted directly from 1 Cor 15:5.

(The early creed uses the term "the twelve" even though there were only 11 remaining original disciples. Either "the twelve" was a technical moniker, synonymous with "the apostles", or the creed meant to include Matthias, who was Judas' replacement.)

In Acts, the replacement of Judas by Matthias happens after the resurrection appearances and ascension.

Luke focuses on Jerusalem, where the apostles resided. He doesn't DENY appearances elsewhere, but this is not his focus.

Yes he does DENY them. First of all, we know that he had access to Mark's gospel yet he rewrites the prediction the angels give at the tomb.

Here's what the angels say at the tomb in Mark and Matthew.

Mark 16:7
He is going ahead of you into Galilee

Matthew 28:7
is going ahead of you into Galilee

Now watch how Luke deliberately alters the prediction.

Luke 24:6
He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee:

Luke changes the prediction of an appearance in Galilee to a remembrance of Jesus' past teaching in Galilee.

In fact, Luke leaves no room for any appearances in Galilee because he has the disciples "stay in the city" (Jerusalem) until Pentecost - Lk. 24:49, "do not leave Jerusalem" - Acts 1:4.

Luke is determined to exclude any resurrection appearances in Galilee. It follows that we can't trust Luke's appearances.

Matthew and John mention women. The other accounts don't DENY appearances to the women; they simply don't mention them.

Actually, Luke does DENY there were any appearances to the women.

Luke 24:22-24
Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.

This explicitly contradicts that the women saw him as Matthew and John say.

The early creed adds a group of 500. The other accounts don't DENY this; they simply don't mention it.

And why do you think the appearance to the 500 went unmentioned? Sounds kind of strange doesn't it? I mean, if you're trying to convince your audience of the truth of these matters then that seems like a very important detail to include in your report.

Yes, the details in the accounts are different. But they are complementary, not contradictory.

Sorry, they're still contradictory and they're so inconsistent with one another that it is reasonable to doubt these are historical reports. Combine that with how the reports tell us the Resurrected Jesus was experienced http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post449602 in chronological order then you have a pretty strong case that we're not dealing with history here, but rather, embellished legends that grew over time.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Licona (and Burridge) warn that to read the Bible, and particularly the Gospels, as though they're modern biographies (as both many Christians and skeptics do) is anachronistic and will only lead to frustration. Licona gives an example to a type of literary device he discusses in his book in this interview with Christianity Today...

I think Licona's entire premise is flawed because he is attempting to equate the contradictions and inconsistencies observed by one author to the contradictions and inconsistencies observed between different authors. We can assume that there might be rhetorical or literary reasons why a single author would give contradictory or inconsistent accounts. But here's the catch, it really does not matter what the reasoning is (whether rhetorical, literary, or accidental) as it gets us no closer to establishing the historical veracity of the events described in the narrative. Establishing that it was "normal" to be somewhat contradictory and to change narrative facts for rhetorical purposes in ancient writings does not do anything to further establish these texts as being historically reliable. Also, it is beyond reasonable dispute that there is shared material between the synoptics. Thus, they cannot be truly viewed as independent reports. So when we see overlap and corroboration, this is not in itself evidence supporting historical reliability.

In discussing the agreement between the 1 Corinthian tradition and the Gospels, Licona has this to say,

Source: The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael R. Licona

. . . The appearances listed in the (1 Corinthian) tradition are multiply attested. The appearance to Peter in 1 Corinthians 15:5 may be alluded to in Mark 16:7 and is specifically mentioned in Luke 24:34, though not narrated. In fact, Luke agrees with the tradition in placing the appearance to Peter chronologically prior to the group appearance to the disciples. "The fact that the name Peter is used in Luke 24:12 while Simon is used in 24:34 again points to different sources or traditions." (Allison, Resurrecting Jesus) The appearance to the Twelve in 1 Corinthians 15:5 is clearly narrated by Luke and John. Allison provides another chart of this appearance in Matthew, Pseudo-Mark (Mk 16:9-20), Luke, and John showing similar setting, appearance, response, commissioning, and promise of assistance.

Some scholars think that the appearance to the more than five hundred is the appearance in Galilee mentioned in Matthew 28:16-18. Although Matthew does not specify how many were present, the text does not clearly state that such a large number was present. We may have an indicator that Matthew knew of others there who did not belong to the close group of Jesus' disciples. Matthew 28:17 reads καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν. ("And seeing him they worshipped but some doubted.") The οἱ δὲ may indicate that those doubting are other than the disciples of Jesus. We will discuss this "doubting" below. Another candidate is Luke 24:33-53/Acts 1:6-11, although there is nothing in the text that makes this clear. Accordingly, possible is as far as we can go.

As noted above, the appearance to James is not mentioned elsewhere except in the Gospel According to the Hebrews, which is not regarded by most scholars as being credible. Its presence in this tradition and nowhere else indicates the presence of tradition independent of the canonical Gospels. The same may be said of the appearance to the more than five hundred. The appearance to all of the apostles may also be reported in Luke 24:33-53 and Acts 1:6-11. The appearance to Paul is reported in Luke (Acts 9; 22; 26) and elsewhere by Paul (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8).

Even many of the events themselves reported in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 are multiply attested. Jesus' death is reported in 1 Corinthians 15:3 and in all of the sources mentioned in the previous section. Jesus' burial is reported in 1 Corinthians 15:4 and all of the canonical Gospels. Jesus' resurrection and appearances are reported in the tradition of 1 Corinthians 15:4-7 and in multiple sources, as explained above.

In summary, the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is quite early, very probably based on eyewitness testimony, and is multiply attested in terms of a general outline of the sequence of events. Also, many of the events themselves are multiply attested. We may not know why the Evangelists did not narrate the appearances to James and to the group of more than five hundred. We can only speculate. Since this was part of the tradition that was being passed along by the apostles, claiming that the Evangelists were unaware of these appearances is a tough pill to swallow. Perhaps the canonical Gospels only narrate the appearances that occurred until Jesus' ascension. We know Paul's occurred afterward, and the appearance to James may have as well. For reasons unknown to us, the Evangelists did not include them in their narratives. However, this does not eliminate the fact that these appearances are present in the earliest known material on the resurrection of Jesus and can be traced to the Jerusalem apostles.

© Copyright Original Source

Despite this valiant attempt, Licona stills fails in reconstructing anything that remotely resembles the earliest appearance chronology. Sure, he can mishmash all the accounts into one but then it no longer looks like what any of the individual accounts say.

[Adrift]

I think Licona's entire premise is flawed because he is attempting to equate the contradictions and inconsistencies observed by one author to the contradictions and inconsistencies observed between different authors.

Licona highlights seeming discrepancies by both single and multiple contemporary authors in his book, so your rebuttal fails on that point. But it fails on another point because we know that Matthew and Luke are familiar with Mark and a Q source. And John has at least some familiarity with the Synoptics. They demonstrate at least some degree of inter-reliance. At any rate, I think showing that a single author can exhibit discrepancies within his own works is a perfect illustration for Licona's thesis.

We can assume that there might be rhetorical or literary reasons why a single author would give contradictory or inconsistent accounts. But here's the catch, it really does not matter what the reasoning is (whether rhetorical, literary, or accidental) as it gets us no closer to establishing the historical veracity of the events described in the narrative. Establishing that it was "normal" to be somewhat contradictory and to change narrative facts for rhetorical purposes in ancient writings does not do anything to further establish these texts as being historically reliable.

You could not be more wrong. Licona's whole point is that, because we know that literary devices were often used within ancient literature, apparent discrepancies do not disprove historicity (contrary your assertion), rather, acknowledging the use of literary devices actually strengthens the likelihood of a core historicity. Unless you're willing to say that all ancient histories/biographies that demonstrate discrepancy are also ahistorical, but even a super fan of Carrier/brojangles wouldn't want to say that, I don't think. (Though now that I think of it, throwing all of ancient history under the bus to disprove the Gospel narrative is probably something Carrier would do).

Also, it is beyond reasonable dispute that there is shared material between the synoptics. Thus, they cannot be truly viewed as independent reports. So when we see overlap and corroboration, this is not in itself evidence supporting historical reliability.

Thanks for demolishing your own rebuttal against Licona's thesis.

Despite this valiant attempt, Licona stills fails in reconstructing anything that remotely resembles the earliest appearance chronology. Sure, he can mishmash all the accounts into one but then it no longer looks like what any of the individual accounts say.

You're free to your opinion.

[psstein]

This is a thread that I really want to kill with fire. 218 pages of the same thing over and over again.

[tabibito]

If the OPs object to further discussion of this matter on this thread, I'll drop the discussion.

Again going back to Licona, he makes the suggestion that seeming discrepancies like the time of the crucifixion is neither a mistake nor that it can/should be necessarily reconciled. Rather he suggests a third way...that, in keeping with contemporary literary devices of the day, John's narrative may intentionally differ from the Synoptics to highlight a theological point.

Converting times to the familiar format: Mark (15:25) says: at 9am, John (19:14) says: sentence was pronounced around 12 noon. Both statements can be taken as approximations, rather than being precise, but a three hour discrepancy can't be absorbed even by a generous approximation. Luke's account is more exhaustive than the others: Starting at about 6am, a meeting of the full council, then going to Pilate, then to Herod, then returning to Pilate and then to Golgotha ... it would seem that a time of around mid-day would be the more likely. So if either of the times is correct, that would be John's account.

[cite]Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient by Michael R. Licona]The largest difference in this pericope pertains to the time at which Jesus was crucified. Mark 15:25 says it was the third hour (i.e., 9 a.m.). However, in John 19:14, Jesus was still on trial before Pilate at the sixth hour (i.e., noon).[/cite]

The facts are correctly stated.

[cite]Moreover, recall that a discrepancy likewise appears to exist pertaining to the day on which Jesus had his Last Supper with his disciples (see #13). The Synoptics appear to narrate Jesus being crucified after the Passover meal, while John speaks of a Passover meal to be eaten on the day of Jesus's crucifixion. Thus, there are discrepancies pertaining to both the time and day of Jesus's crucifixion.[/cite]

Appearances are deceptive it seems. How often did John need to say it? John
19: 14, 31, 42 Day of Preparation 19: 31 for the Sabbath 19: 14 for the Passover. Luke (22:15) also identifies the meal as the Passover meal.

[cite]Bock refers to this as "one of the most complex chronological issues in the NT," while Raymond Brown writes, "This is perhaps the most disputed calendric question in the NT." Some have proposed that John is following the time used by the romans for their civil day while the Synoptics are following a different timetable in which the workday begins at 6 a.m. Others suggest the Passover was often celebrated on different days, since there were disputes over the proper day on which the Passover fell or because of the different times at which days started and ended for Galilean and Jerusalem Jews.

[/cite] The Old Testament stipulates that the Passover lamb be sacrificed during the evening of the 14th and eaten that night. Problem arises because a day in Hebrew has separate evenings, allowing for the sacrifice to be made just after the start of the day (around 6pm) or towards the end of the day (between 3pm ie the ninth hour and 6pm).

[cite]Still others suggest that any meal during the week of Passover could be referred to as a Passover meal and that the discrepancy in time (i.e., third versus sixth hour) could result from John rounding up and Mark rounding down.

[/cite] Passover is eaten only on the first day (depending on the time of sacrifice, the start of the 14th or start of the 15th ... with a deutero Passover on the 14th of the second month for those who were disqualified from participating on the set day.

[cite]Robert Stein considers these as well as a few other explanations and concludes, "[I]t is doubtful that any of the explanations has a particularly high degree of certainty."

[/cite] Robert Stein is being polite, it seems - The most generous possible allowance for rounding up of the third hour would not extend later than the fourth, the most generous allowance for rounding down of the 6th hour would not extend to earlier than the fifth. The most generous possible roundings then still leave a discrepancy of at least one hour.

[cite]Some scholars think John altered the day and time of Jesus's crucifixion in order to emphasize theological points, specifically that Jesus is the burnt offering for sins and the Passover Lamb. In this view, John has displaced the day and time of Jesus's crucifixion.

[/cite] John's statements regarding the day are in accord with the synoptics.

[cite]If Plutarch can alter the year in which Caesar wept when considering the inferiority of his own accomplishments in comparison to those of Alexander in order to emphasize Caesar's ambitious character, John could alter the day and time of Jesus's crucifixion to symbolize the sacrificial quality of Jesus's death. And we have previously observed how either Mark or John changed the day when the woman anointed Jesus. [/cite]

The actual time of crucifixion is not an issue when it comes to that sacrifice. Matthew and Mark state the time of death to be the ninth hour: the beginning of the second evening of the day (14th of Nisan) on which the Passover lamb is sacrificed. The time set for sacrifice of the Passover lamb is ... evening. Mark has the woman anointing Jesus two days before Passover. Matthew 26:6 says that it was in the house of Simon the Leper two days before Passover (as per Mark). John's account might be a record of the same event. It isn't as though this was the only occasion when some woman or other did much the same.

Now I'm not saying I completely agree with Licona's third way here, or at least for this particular discrepancy, but I think it provides food for thought. Lincona himself admits that these sorts of parallels do have limitations, and that there are hints and clues for those passages that are using particular literary devices. He (along with scholars like Burridge) also point out that it's anachronistic to think these literary devices are somehow dishonest reckonings of the events in question. The need and desire for the type of exactitude we expect in modern biographies is a modern convention. Readers in the ancient world didn't see things that way. Biographers were much more interested in using true events to create a literary portrait. To this point Licona writes,

Source: Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient by Michael R. Licona

The objective of Greco-Roman biography was to reveal the character of the subject through the person's sayings and deeds. Writing around the same time as some of the Gospels were written, Plutarch provided the clearest statement in this regard in his Life of Alexander:

For it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, nay, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of character than battles where thousands fall, or the greatest armaments, or sieges of cities. Accordingly, just as painters get the likenesses in their portraits from the face and the expression of the eyes, wherein the character shows itself, but makes very little account of the parts of the body, so I must be permitted to devote myself rather to the signs of the soul of men, and by means of these to portray the life of each, leaving to others the description of their great contests. (Alex. 1.2-3 [Perrin, LCL])

© Copyright Original Source

Mistakes are acceptable. Deliberates though ...

[Adrift]

If the OPs object to further discussion of this matter on this thread, I'll drop the discussion.

Converting times to the familiar format: Mark (15:25) says: at 9am, John (19:14) says: sentence was pronounced around 12 noon. Both statements can be taken as approximations, rather than being precise, but a three hour discrepancy can't be absorbed even by a generous approximation. Luke's account is more exhaustive than the others: Starting at about 6am, a meeting of the full council, then going to Pilate, then to Herod, then returning to Pilate and then to Golgotha ... it would seem that a time of around mid-day would be the more likely. So if either of the times is correct, that would be John's account.

The facts are correctly stated.

Appearances are deceptive it seems. How often did John need to say it? John
19: 14, 31, 42 Day of Preparation 19: 31 for the Sabbath 19: 14 for the Passover. Luke (22:15) also identifies the meal as the Passover meal.


[/cite] The Old Testament stipulates that the Passover lamb be sacrificed during the evening of the 14th and eaten that night. Problem arises because a day in Hebrew has separate evenings, allowing for the sacrifice to be made just after the start of the day (around 6pm) or towards the end of the day (between 3pm ie the ninth hour and 6pm). [/cite] Passover is eaten only on the first day (depending on the time of sacrifice, the start of the 14th or start of the 15th ... with a deutero Passover on the 14th of the second month for those who were disqualified from participating on the set day.
[/cite] Robert Stein is being polite, it seems - The most generous possible allowance for rounding up of the third hour would not extend later than the fourth, the most generous allowance for rounding down of the 6th hour would not extend to earlier than the fifth. The most generous possible roundings then still leave a discrepancy of at least one hour.

[/cite] John's statements regarding the day are in accord with the synoptics.

The actual time of crucifixion is not an issue when it comes to that sacrifice. Matthew and Mark state the time of death to be the ninth hour: the beginning of the second evening of the day (14th of Nisan) on which the Passover lamb is sacrificed. The time set for sacrifice of the Passover lamb is ... evening. Mark has the woman anointing Jesus two days before Passover. Matthew 26:6 says that it was in the house of Simon the Leper two days before Passover (as per Mark). John's account might be a record of the same event. It isn't as though this was the only occasion when some woman or other did much the same.



Mistakes are acceptable. Deliberates though ...

Like I said, it's a third way. You don't have to accept it of course, but I'm slightly confused by your response. I figured you might at least roll this one over in your mind a bit, and at least find the solution interesting, if not probable. I see no reason anyone would find a deliberate mistake on John or the Synoptic's part preferable to some sort of literary device used by John to highlight theological significance, nor why a self-proclaimed non-literalist would bristle at the mere suggestion. But whatever you like I guess.

[tabibito]

I rolled that one over in my mind substantially more than a bit more than 20 years ago.

[One Bad Pig]

This is a thread that I really want to kill with fire. 218 pages of the same thing over and over again.

And RhinestoneCowboy's still banging away at it.

[37818]

. . .

For example:
Mark (third hour) and John (sixth hour) differ with regard to the actual time of day that Jesus was crucified. No extant manuscripts of those records say otherwise. Someone made a mistake. That the mistake is trivial doesn't change the fact that it exists. The fact of the crucifixion is not called into question by that error - but it does mean that no statement about the actual time of the crucifixion can be asserted. Given that they both record the time of death as the ninth hour, they can't be using different "clocks".

. . .

Well, many interpreters suppose John is using Hebrew reckoning of hours of the day which would be noon. But it has also been understood by other interpreters that John used Roman reckoning for the hours of the day which would correspond to our 6 AM. Mark's usage of (the Hebrew reckoning) the 3rd hour (about 9 AM) would be about 3 hours later.

[tabibito]

Well, many interpreters suppose John is using Hebrew reckoning of hours of the day which would be noon. But it has also been understood by other interpreters that John used Roman reckoning for the hours of the day which would correspond to our 6 AM. Mark's usage of (the Hebrew reckoning) the 3rd hour (about 9 AM) would be about 3 hours later.

Iiiy see. So according to some commentators, John is saying that Jesus was crucified at 6am - three hours earlier than the time according to Mark - instead of three hours after the time according to Mark. John would be saying that Jesus was crucified before he was taken to Pilate.

[37818]

Iiiy see. So according to some commentators, John is saying that Jesus was crucified at 6am - three hours earlier than the time according to Mark - instead of three hours after the time according to Mark. John would be saying that Jesus was crucified before he was taken to Pilate.

No. A span of about 3 hours. (From John 19:14 to Mark 15:25 being about 3 hours.)

[tabibito]

Romans basically used two systems of time-keeping. The traditional count started at dawn - which would make the time 12:00 (BEFORE the crucifixion) by our system of time keeping in both Hebrew and Roman count ... or by the relatively new (in the first century) system of time-keeping, which began the count at midnight. In that system, the time would have been roughly 6.00 am in our time system. Either way, the difference is three hours.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Licona highlights seeming discrepancies by both single and multiple contemporary authors in his book, so your rebuttal fails on that point. But it fails on another point because we know that Matthew and Luke are familiar with Mark and a Q source. And John has at least some familiarity with the Synoptics. They demonstrate at least some degree of inter-reliance. At any rate, I think showing that a single author can exhibit discrepancies within his own works is a perfect illustration for Licona's thesis.



You could not be more wrong. Licona's whole point is that, because we know that literary devices were often used within ancient literature, apparent discrepancies do not disprove historicity (contrary your assertion), rather, acknowledging the use of literary devices actually strengthens the likelihood of a core historicity. Unless you're willing to say that all ancient histories/biographies that demonstrate discrepancy are also ahistorical, but even a super fan of Carrier/brojangles wouldn't want to say that, I don't think. (Though now that I think of it, throwing all of ancient history under the bus to disprove the Gospel narrative is probably something Carrier would do).



Thanks for demolishing your own rebuttal against Licona's thesis.



You're free to your opinion.

I still don't see how "look at all the discrepancies and literary devices used" necessarily supports the conclusion "therefore, we're dealing with historically reliable documents."

That is a non-sequitur. We already have good reason to dispute that the New Testament was actually recording history. It certainly doesn't meet the proper criteria. https://celsus.blog/2013/08/18/ancie...new-testament/