[Pastor Parcel]

After thoroughly enjoying having a go at the "Belief-O-Matic" quiz in another thread on this forum, i decided to offer a quiz of my own - namely "The Gospel Story Quiz".

Think you know a few things about the gospel story? Then have a go. Answer just twenty quick multiple-choice questions and see how you rate. Post your results here, and check them against the others.


CLICK HERE for the Gospel Story Quiz



.

[cheesecakebobby]

Heh, took me about 3 questions to realise what was going on

[SolInvictus]

I love how it goes wrong either way. Perhaps Mark, John and Luke started to get a bit senile.

[ice_cube]

Took me so long to twig what was going on.... me silly.

[NathanL]

Oh dear. The first question shows the lack of study under the author's belt (which happens to be made from string).

I'll pass, thank you.

Nathan

[Robob]

lol, its gd, realised after the second one what was going on

[NathanL]

I've come across it before- the contradictions the author poses have been answered many times before.

It's not so much 'good' as it is 'outdated' and 'theologically simplistic'.

Nathan

[cheesecakebobby]

How can a contradiction be answered? Either it is or is not a contradiction; you could say the contradiction is not important but you would have to show how your process of arriving at that conclusion would not bring any other part of the text into doubt

[NathanL]

They're not a problem often because the contradiction is simply not there- removed by linguistic, socio-scientific, textual, and contextual exegesis.

For example, the one about the staff is removed by looking at Matthew's use of certain Greek phrases- the one about Judas buying a field is removed by looking at the cultural idioms of the day- the one about Judas dying by hanging or falling is removed by taking a common sense approach to the text (they don't contradict one another!- same applies to the Simon of Cyrene one and the angels one).

You get the idea.

Often we read the text too simplistically or just miss out points that are highlighted upon further study. I use to get in a big 'flap' about this sort of stuff, but it really ain't a problem heh heh

Nathan

[SolInvictus]

(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
How can a contradiction be answered? Either it is or is not a contradiction; you could say the contradiction is not important but you would have to show how your process of arriving at that conclusion would not bring any other part of the text into doubt

I agree.

Nathan......................


WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!! THIS IS NOT THE WAY YOU NORMALLY RESPOND TO THIS STUFF. I WANT A NICE DETAILED ARGUEMENT AND CRITICISM PRONTO!!!! I WANT SOMEONE TO ARGUE WITH!!!!!!!!!!

[NathanL]

Heh heh! It's late! Give me a break

Technically, I did just do about two paragraphs, but I think because of the timing you might have missed it.

[SolInvictus]

You are forgiven.

Back to the arguement.

The Gospels are third hand accounts. They were written by people listening to the Apostles, who were in their old age and may have been having memory issues.

In addition, there are many things that are not in the Gospel, but were later legends or stories (ie, three wise men, Mary Magdelene being a prostitute etc.)

[Tyler Durden]

(Original post by NathanL)
They're not a problem often because the contradiction is simply not there- removed by linguistic, socio-scientific, textual, and contextual exegesis.

Well, frankly they are a problem. Perhaps a few of them can be explained away, but the number and frequency of the inaccuracies of the Gospels cast a long shadow of doubt over the reliability of the texts are accurate narratives - let alone as the cornerstone of a huge religion.

[Robob]

(Original post by SolInvincitus)
You are forgiven.

Back to the arguement.

The Gospels are third hand accounts. They were written by people listening to the Apostles, who were in their old age and may have been having memory issues.

In addition, there are many things that are not in the Gospel, but were later legends or stories (ie, three wise men, Mary Magdelene being a prostitute etc.)

oh rite, cool, so you accept the the gospels are not accurate

--------------

(Original post by englishstudent)
Well, frankly they are a problem. Perhaps a few of them can be explained away, but the number and frequency of the inaccuracies of the Gospels cast a long shadow of doubt over the reliability of the texts are accurate narratives - let alone as the cornerstone of a huge religion.

seconded

[NathanL]

Sol, you assume that the Apostles lived in the same age as we do- instead, orality was alive and kicking, it was seen and practised as a discipline better endowed than writing! Memory as a result was strong, tradition was well kept to.

The Gospels are not third hand even in your description, but rather second hand (not that this is an issue- we should be grateful that they exist at all in an oral culture, written by those who were often poor with few materials to hand, expensive ones at that).

Moreover, the traditions the Gospels assert are uniform, they are strong, in written abundance (which in turn shows an even greater abundance of oral tradition), they are seen to be both textually and historically reliable (recent discussions on historical patterns and trends are useful here, they substantiate the details).

The rest of the NT documents are earlier than the Gospels, and if indeed the Gospels are figments of Simon Peter's imagination or a twisted version of historical truth, then these earlier traditions should be simple in nature- but they're not, they talk of a Divine Son of God who was historically present, historically crucified and historically raised from the dead- all coherent with tradition, with contemporary culture and so forth.

Whether one likes it or not, we are forced to approach the Gospels as at least somewhat reliable, in turn humbling us, bringing us to our proverbial bums and encouraging dialogue. As a result, we are again forced to ask 'Who is this Jesus?'

And that is the best question you can ask, and not one easily answered... after all, He ain't a tame lion

Nathan

---------------

To English Student,

You miss my argument- there is no 'frequency' nor 'inaccuracy', those that are most troublesome usually don't exist, the others disappear on further study, and those that exist are not contradictions at all but often factors in understanding Redaction Criticism, which Biblical Inerrancy has long embraced. They really aren't a problem!

To Sol,

Such later interpolations are neither textual in nature nor authoritative, they have as much say-so in an argument as the date of Christmas. They are, when discussing inerrancy, non-issues.

[cheesecakebobby]

Of course, if language and so on was so different back then, and if we can misinterpret parts of holy texts 'incorrectly', what is stopping us from misinterpreting other parts of the texts? 'Son of God' might have meant 'someone who loves God' (ok not really but you get the picture!)

I can understand some 'answers' to these contradictions but I honestly can't see how you can say that accounts which say "x was 1" and "x was 2" can both be true. You may think that it is on the important points they are generally in agreement, but it only adds to the speculation that these accounts derive from unreliable testimony or hearsay.

"The lizard was 3 metres long!" "It was 13 metres long!" "It was a dragon!" "The dragon was 40 metres tall and breathed fire!" etc...

[NathanL]

They can 'both be true' because the contradiction doesn't exist for whatever reason- for example, as I'm sure you're aware, the Gospels weren't written in English but rather in Greek. They were written in a time of orality. They were written in a very different culture. They were written in a very different era of history.

Just out of that very short list of differences, we have four separate factors which could lead one to misread a contradiction into the text:

1) Linguistic.

2) Textual vs. Oral.

3) Cultural difference.

4) Historical context.

It's very easy then, with such a vast and complicated text[strike], that we might put a contradiction in (or read one out) when it is inappropriate. There's no reason to cry 'foul play'.

As for being able to interpret something very badly, we only know of bad interpretations because standards exist by and through which we exegete a phrase, concept or passage- for example, with the Son of God, we have theological, historical, cultural and linguistic contexts to take into account. Like with textual criticism, the fact that we know of anomalies (of interpretation) is because we are aware of the overarching influence such contexts have on any given interpretation.

It's a complicated business, but no one said the Bible is as simple as a newspaper or a novel.

Nathan

[cheesecakebobby]

Without being a theologian I cannot address these issues directly, but I am inclined to wonder how there can be such complication and examples of linguistic difference in the bible, yet when we turn to official reports and classical texts we do not find the same issues of contention. We can study the accounts of Greek philosophers for example without having to pardon glaring contradictions at every turn- we are far more likely to encounter these when reading different versions of the same folk tales and myths. If we need to spend centuries explaining these problems, you can understand why many of us look at this collection of accounts written by very different people at different times, often long after the events apparently depicted, and doubt their value as pillars of humanity and of divine inspiration.

[Tyler Durden]

(Original post by NathanL)
To English Student,

You miss my argument- there is no 'frequency' nor 'inaccuracy', those that are most troublesome usually don't exist, the others disappear on further study, and those that exist are not contradictions at all but often factors in understanding Redaction Criticism, which Biblical Inerrancy has long embraced. They really aren't a problem!

Hehe, Nathan - it's all very well downplaying the significance. All I can say is that there are plenty of internal contradictions (you go on at some length about the possible reasons - orality etc - but this doesn't get rid of the fact) and these must make one wary in accepting anything within the Gospels as being "true". Seeing as the Gospels are a source of much (harmful) dogma, it would have been nice to smooth out the inconsistencies at some point. As much as you try to defend them, there are problems and a lot of the documentation is innaccurate. As someone studying English I do encounter textual problems all the time - obvious examples being with Beowulf or Homer. However they matter rather less when the document does not pretend to hold some inherent truth and people have not been killed for a belief which has arisen from the text.

[NathanL]

(Original post by cheesecakebobby)
I am inclined to wonder how there can be such complication and examples of linguistic difference in the bible, yet when we turn to official reports and classical texts we do not find the same issues of contention

Heh are you kidding, all documents written in similar ways to the Bible, and subsequently translated, have exactly the same issues as the Biblical documents, often to a greater extent! Of course there is a great ambiguity as to exactly which 'reports' and 'classical texts' you are referring to- for example, those texts which we can date to around the 18th Century, were published, printed in the UK and so forth, are in a completely different league of study to the New Testament documents. However, when one looks at similarly produced texts, such as Josephus' annals or even Homer's Iliad, we find similar factors to take into account. We also have in the Bible not one simple mass of literature, but rather 66 books of individual authorship, often written in vastly different cultures. All of these things, and many more, affect any given translation or transmission.

Such complications aren't widespread nor problematic; in my experience there is always a reason for an 'anomaly' to exist, and there is certainly no good reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To be honest, much of those New Testament 'contradictions' wouldn't matter squat even if they were real, it would prove further an independant authorship and community based faith, things we knew already. It wouldn't in any way change the vast body of text which is in agreement, and the unanimous consensus between the authors that there was a historical Christ, He was (and IS) the Son of God, He performed miracles, and that He was killed and later rose again.

But like I say, disagreement with the contradictions does not come out of a stubborn ideological resentment, but rather out of textual and theological honesty- they just don't exist! Why put up with bad exegetical conclusions?

We can study the accounts of Greek philosophers for example without having to pardon glaring contradictions at every turn

Again, Textual Criticism is in no way staring proud on the works of ancient philosophy, history and so on- there are many problems that do exist in one form or another and one must take into account. For example, on a basic level, we have Herodotus and Thucydides, both ancient, Near-Eastern historians writing in the 5th Century BC- but our earliest surviving copies of their works are dated to the 10th Century AD. In total, both have 8 surviving copies of their works (from said period) to their names. In comparison, the New Testament documents spill over the 20,000 mark, and earliest fragments date to approximately several decades after the time they were written. So as you can see, the same factors one must take into account when addressing the NT texts exist for other ancient works, even those written singularly- in fact the problems are far greater!

On a wider, similarly comparative note, to reference Greek philosophers is slightly out of context- 'contradictions' only arise once we begin to compare different works by different authors within the body of text known as the 'Bible itself. Therefore, the comparison between the Bible, a collective text, and Greek philosophers, single authors whose works we have very few early copies of, is not exactly appropriate.

we are far more likely to encounter these when reading different versions of the same folk tales and myths

The problem with this perspective, of course, as noted above the 'contradictions' even if they do exist are but aesthetic- they can easily be attributed to community authorship and oral tradition, affecting nothing of the widespread, and unanimous, tradition of Christ's existence, teachings, miracles, death and subsequent Resurrection. Read the so-called 'contradictions' again- do they concern major events? E.g. does one Gospel assert Christ's miraculous nature, and the other deny it? Does one accept Christ's Resurrection, and the other refute it? Try as one may to class it as myth, the core narrative of the Gospel texts would simply not be affected by any contradiction.

If we need to spend centuries explaining these problems, you can understand why many of us look at this collection of accounts written by very different people at different times, often long after the events apparently depicted, and doubt their value as pillars of humanity and of divine inspiration.

I can understand, but on an academic level I would say your arguing from a vacuum. I would suggest looking at those unanimous traditions- Christ living, healing, dying and rising, and the similarly unanimous traditions explaining exactly why and how those things occurred. Then ask yourself 'Do I have enough reason to reject these things, historically, spiritually and so forth?' No-one's asking you to accept the whole package just yet, the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy and all these buzz words are but phrases used to summarise vast chunks of theology and philosophy. They are pretty much for Christians to use so that we don't have to spend hours explaining ourselves to one another in conversation lol.

You wouldn't get on a stallion on your first horse riding lesson- address the basics, basics that do exist and can't be denied- such as unanimous tradition. Do you trust this man called Jesus? That's all you have to answer... for now

--------------------

(Original post by English Student)
Hehe, Nathan - it's all very well downplaying the significance. All I can say is that there are plenty of internal contradictions (you go on at some length about the possible reasons - orality etc - but this doesn't get rid of the fact) and these must make one wary in accepting anything within the Gospels as being "true".

And ES, it's all very well saying confidently that there are plenty of internal contradictions, but this doesn't get rid of the fact furthered study does at least remove the weight of the sceptical argument. If you simplistically dismiss reasons for a given 'contradiction' existing, that is just as dangerous as a Christian ignoring the possibility of one! For such factors are absolutely essential in Biblical interpretation, even when no problem exists and we but performing an exegesis. It makes me worry for your opinions on the text if you are so flippant about such overarching influences said factors have on an interpretation! Like I said to CCB (above), there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, contradictions even if they exist are aesthetic and do not get rid of the vast body of Gospel-based text referring to a historical Christ, who performed miracles, who was and is the Son of God, who died and rose again. Such tradition is unanimous, and any contradictions that do exist (they don't ) are nothing but the result of redaction and community interests- which can be identified in non-'anacronistic' passages, and do not in any way affect doctrine and 'truth'.

As much as you try to defend them, there are problems and a lot of the documentation is innaccurate

Blimey, why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'la la la' as I try to explain them, whilst your at it? The reality is that aforementioned factors do lead us to come to a more balanced interpretation, as opposed to just stomping our feet on the ground and wailing like a baby when we come to a textual 'problem'.

--------------

Anyhoo, take care guys,

Nathan