Possible Discrepancy: Simon of Cyrene

What happens when someone uses categorical evidence spamming in a debate? Unfortunately there isn't usually time to address each argument individually. However, after the debate there is plenty of time!

Dr. Ehrman listed off over a dozen discrepancies in his debate with Dr. Craig. In this post we will examine whether or not there is a difference between the Synoptics (Matt, Mark, Luke) and John with reference to the question- who carried the cross?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Evidence:

Note: As always, I encourage everyone to at least read the surrounding chapters in order to get some context.

1. Simon of Cyrene
• (Matthew 27:31-32) - "And after they had mocked Him, they took His robe off and put His garments on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him. 32And as they were coming out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross."
• (Mark 15:20-21) - "And after they had mocked Him, they took the purple off Him, and put His garments on Him. And they led Him out to crucify Him. 21And they pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross."
• (Luke 23:26) - "And when they led Him away, they laid hold of one Simon of Cyrene, coming in from the country, and placed on him the cross to carry behind Jesus."

1. Jesus
• (John 19:17) - "They took Jesus therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha."

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

Discussion:
The apparent error exists because John seems to indicate that only Jesus carried the cross. However, the phrase "and He went out" (highlighted green) indicates that John is not implicitly saying that Jesus carried the cross the entire way. John 19:17 says that Jesus went out carrying the cross towards towards Golgotha, not that he carried it the entire way.

In the Synoptic gospels, it is quite obvious that Simon played a role in carrying the cross. However, it would appear that Jesus carried the cross while they "led him away," and "as they were coming out (highlighted purple)." The phrase that comes just before the mention of Simon in each Synoptic indicates that Jesus started to carry the cross- and after this Simon helps him.

The key phrase seems to be "to the place called the Place of a Skull" (highlited red). There are two ways in which this phrase can be taken.

1. Jesus bore the cross to Golgotha (arrived there)
2. Jesus started out in the direction of Golgotha (did not necessarily arrive there with the cross)

---------------------------------------------------------------
Because the important phrase is found in John 19:17, and the presence of an error hinges upon the grammar of the sentence, let's check out multiple translations and try to get some Greek action going!

(to do your own hunting check out http://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+19:14)

John 19:17: 

• NET©19:17 and carrying his own cross ¹ he went out to the place called “The Place of the Skull” ² (called in Aramaic ³ Golgotha). ⁴
• NIV© 19:17 Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
• NASB© 19:17 They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha.
• ESV© 19:17 and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called the place of a skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.
• NLT© 19:17 Carrying the cross by himself, he went to the place called Place of the Skull (in Hebrew, Golgotha). 

We can now narrow our examination to just one Greek word- εισ (pronounced "ice"), which has thus far been translated in each passage as the word "to."

The essential question: Does "εισ" indicate that Jesus went to golgotha and arrived, or that he merely went "towards" Golgotha?
Definitions of εισ according to NetBible: into, unto, to, towards, for, among

Here are the top 15 ways in which εισ is translated in NetBible, followed by the number of times it is translated each way: to 513, into 326, in 180, for 145, on 36, forever 30, as 28, at 26, against 18, so that 16, toward 15, among 11, entered 8, until 7, with 7

Now then, what does this information tell us? Well, the best translation of εισ in John 19:17 is "to" and not "toward" (This clarification has been added in response to a readers comment. The reason I think "to" is the best translation is because that is the way all 5 versions translate it, not because εισ is translated "to" the most times). The simplest reading of the verse with the word "to" carries the meaning that Jesus took the cross all the way by himself according to John. However, "toward" is a possible meaning of εισ.

Conclusion:
There is a minor discrepancy between John and the Synoptic Gospels. When the best translation of John 19:17 is compared with the Synoptics, we find a difference. John says that Jesus took the cross to Golgotha, as in he went all the way there (not toward, and not that he merely set out in the direction of Golgotha). The Synoptics say that Jesus may have started out carrying the cross, but that Simon jumped in and helped him.

The discrepancy is minor. The reason for this is that "toward," while not the best translation of "εισ" in John 19:17, is a possible translation.
On an abstract and personal scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being the slightest discrepancy ever (example- one account says someone ran versus another that says someone walked briskly) and 10 being the worst discrepancy ever (example- one account says Jesus died on the cross versus another saying that Jesus never went to the cross at all and died at an old age from a heart attack) I would rate this discrepancy a 3. As such, I think that it weakens the historical reliability of the gospels ever so slightly. Only in conjunction with other discrepancies of similar or greater blatancy would the difference between John and the Synoptics here mean anything.

Note: The number "3" only has significance for me personally. I encourage all of you to consider as much evidence as possible and come to your own conclusion. But remember- don't just assume that the translation which either hides an error (if you have Christian bias) or creates an error (if you have an anti-Christian bias) is the best translation! Just because one explanation or interpretation is possible, does NOT mean that it is the best one!

Possible Discrepancy: The Angel(s) and The Women's Intentions

Sorry that I haven't posted in so long! This series of posts is examining a list of 'discrepancies' mentioned by Dr. Ehrman in his debate with William Lane Craig. So far, the discrepancies have not been compelling in the least. In this post two additional discrepancies are examined.

Possible Discrepancies 

Below you will find four parallel passages from the gospels. After each passage, I have included a brief list of what occurred during the passage. The first topic I wish to examine (highlighted blue) has to do with the angels at the tomb. The second topic (highlighted yellow) has to do with what the women did after their visit to the tomb. I encourage everyone to read the material surrounding the texts I am quoting!

Matthew 28:1-10

28:1 Now after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 28:2 Suddenly there was a severe earthquake, for an angel of the Lord ¹  descending from heaven came and rolled away the stone and sat on it. 28:3 His ²  appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 28:4 The ³  guards were shaken and became like dead men because they were so afraid of him. 28:5 But the angel said ⁴  to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know ⁵  that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. ⁶  28:6 He is not here, for he has been raised, ⁷  just as he said. Come and see the place where he ⁸  was lying. 28:7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead. He ⁹  is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there.’ Listen, I have told you!” 28:8 So ¹⁰  they left the tomb quickly, with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 28:9 But ¹¹  Jesus met them, saying, “Greetings!” They ¹²  came to him, held on to his feet and worshiped him. 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee. They will see me there.”

http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+28:1

1. Time- after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week
2. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb
3. Suddenly there was an earthquake, for an angel came and rolled away the stone
4. After rolling the stone away, the angel sat on it
5. The angel speaks to them
6. The women leave to tell the disciples what happened
7. Jesus meets them on the way

Mark 16:1-8

16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought aromatic spices ¹  so that they might go and anoint him. 16:2 And very early on the first day of the week, at sunrise, they went to the tomb. 16:3 They had been asking each other, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” 16:4 But ²  when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled back. 16:5 Then ³  as they went into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe ⁴  sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. 16:6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. ⁵  He has been raised! ⁶  He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. 16:7 But go, tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.” 16:8 Then ⁷  they went out and ran from the tomb, for terror and bewilderment had seized them. ⁸  And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Mark+16

1. Time- When the Sabbath was over, at sunrise on the first day of the week
2. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb.
3. When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back
4. Then, as they went into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side.
5. The man (angel) speaks to them
6. The women run out of the tomb
7. The women said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid

Luke 24:1-12

24:1 Now on the first day ¹  of the week, at early dawn, the women ²  went to the tomb, taking the aromatic spices ³  they had prepared. 24:2 They ⁴  found that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb, ⁵  24:3 but when they went in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. ⁶  24:4 While ⁷  they were perplexed ⁸  about this, suddenly ⁹  two men stood beside them in dazzling ¹⁰  attire. 24:5 The ¹¹  women ¹²  were terribly frightened ¹³  and bowed ¹⁴  their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living ¹⁵  among the dead? 24:6 He is not here, but has been raised! ¹⁶  Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, ¹⁷  24:7 that ¹⁸  the Son of Man must be delivered ¹⁹  into the hands of sinful men, ²⁰  and be crucified, ²¹  and on the third day rise again.” ²²  24:8 Then ²³  the women remembered his words, ²⁴  24:9 and when they returned from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven ²⁵  and to all the rest. 24:10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, ²⁶  Joanna, ²⁷  Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles. 24:11 But these words seemed like pure nonsense ²⁸  to them, and they did not believe them. 24:12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb. ²⁹  He bent down ³⁰  and saw only the strips of linen cloth; ³¹  then he went home, ³²  wondering ³³  what had happened. ³⁴ 

http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Luke+24

1. Time- On the first day of the week at early dawn
2. The women went to the tomb
3. They found that the stone had been rolled away
4. They went into the tomb, and did not find Jesus
5. While perplexed about not finding Jesus, two men stood beside them in dazzling attire.
6. The men (angels) spoke to them
7. The women return and tell the disciples what happened
8. Peter ran to the tomb
9. Peter goes home

John 20:1-13

20:1 Now very early on the first day of the week, ¹  while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene ²  came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been moved away from the entrance. ³  20:2 So she went running ⁴  to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved and told them, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” 20:3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out to go to the tomb. ⁵  20:4 The two were running together, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter ⁶  and reached the tomb first. ⁷  20:5 He bent down ⁸  and saw the strips of linen cloth lying there, ⁹  but he did not go in. 20:6 Then Simon Peter, who had been following him, arrived and went right into the tomb. He saw ¹⁰  the strips of linen cloth lying there, 20:7 and the face cloth, ¹¹  which had been around Jesus’ head, not lying with the strips of linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. ¹²  20:8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, came in, and he saw and believed. ¹³  20:9 (For they did not yet understand ¹⁴  the scripture that Jesus ¹⁵  must rise from the dead.) ¹⁶ 

20:10 So the disciples went back to their homes. 20:11 But Mary stood outside the tomb weeping. As she wept, she bent down and looked into the tomb. 20:12 And she saw two angels in white sitting where Jesus’ body had been lying, one at the head and one at the feet. 20:13 They said ¹⁷  to her, “Woman, ¹⁸  why are you weeping?” Mary replied, ¹⁹  “They have taken my Lord away, and I do not know where they have put him!”

http://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+20:6

1. Time- Very early on the first day of the week (still dark)
2. Mary goes to the tomb
3. She sees that the stone has been rolled away
4. Mary runs and tells the disciples
5. Peter and the other disciple run to the tomb
6. The disciples go back to their homes
7. Mary stays outside the tomb
8. While weeping, she looks into the tomb
9. She sees two angels sitting where Jesus’ body was
10. The angels speak to her

Discussion:

I find the differences between the accounts concerning the angel(s) to be compelling. I cannot think of a legitimate justification for the differences in location and timeline.

The difference concerning whether or not the women left with the intention to tell others about what they had seen seems to be black and white- two opposite claims are made. However, it is difficult to determine the degree to which this discrepancy weakens the historical reliability of the gospels.

Possible Discrepancy: Passover

Possible Discrepancy:

According to Luke (and the other Synoptics), Jesus ate the Passover meal. This means that Passover occurred the day before his trial, crucifixion, and death (Luke 22:7-20 and Luke 23).

According to John, Jesus had been betrayed and arrested. After this, when the Jews are bringing Jesus before Pilate, they refrain from entering the governor’s residence so that they will not become defiled- which would disqualify them from partaking of the Passover meal that evening (John 18:28-30).

At this point it seems to me that John is in conflict with the other Gospels. The Synoptics claim that Jesus died the day after Passover, while John indicates that Jesus died on the same day as Passover. Anyone have thoughts?

Here are the Bible verses I referenced:

Luke: http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Luk&chapter=22

John: http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Joh&chapter=18

Why the Prayer Study Fails

After having read the entire study, I found a few major problems which introduced unknown variables. It may be interesting to note that the writers of the study were completely aware of this, acknowledged it, and were the ones who pointed it out to me. (Again shoot me an email for the entire study, tomsilvertyre@hotmail.com)

Here are the reasons that I do not find the prayer study's conclusions compelling.

1. According to the study, "The overall daily mean of intercessors was 33
   (range 10-58). Intercessors reported praying from 30 seconds
   to several hours, from 1 to 4 times per day."
2. There was likely a large amount of non-study prayer which was not recorded- Prayer from family, friends, and congregations, prayer for 'the sick in general' from people all over the world, and prayer for one's self.
3. There were three groups which prayed. Two of the groups were Catholic nuns and friars (this is not a problem). The third group was listed as 'Protestant,' but after further examination I do not think they are Christians. I discount prayers from the third group because I am interested in the question "do Christian's prayers effect healing," not "do prayers from non-Christian groups effect healing." I realize there could be debate on this third point, and if so let me know! I will do a post on it for clarification.

I think the study says it the best. (Does anyone know if I am infringing on copyright for making such a large quote? )

We did not request that subjects alter any plans for

family, friends, and/or members of their religious

institutions to pray for them, because to do so would

have been unethical and impractical. At enrollment,

most subjects did expect to receive prayers from others

regardless of their participation in the study. We also

recognize that subjects may have prayed for themselves.

Thus, our study subjects may have been exposed to a

large amount of non–study prayer, and this could have

made it more difficult to detect the effects of prayer

provided by the intercessors.

The finding that intercessory prayer, as provided in

this study, had no effect on complication-free recovery

from CABG may be due to the study limitations.

Understanding why certainty of receiving intercessory

prayer was associated with a higher incidence of

complications will require additional study.

Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence

recovery from illness, and the results of this study do not

challenge this belief. Our study focused only on

intercessory prayer as provided in this trial and was

never intended to and cannot address a large number of

religious questions, such as whether God exists,

whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether

prayers from one religious group work in the same way

as prayers from other groups.

Conclusion:
I do not find the study to be compelling evidence against the power of prayer due to key limitations. The number of intercessors (22-33 per day) is small enough to be subject to the introduction of significant error based on prayers from outside sources (unknown per day).

Other questions such as 'does the intercessor's relationship to the patient correlate to the effectiveness of prayer?' 'Does the amount of time praying have an effect on God's response?' and 'Does the intensity with which one prays effect God's response?' have been unanswered at this point.

I would love to see the results of future studies on prayer. Hopefully the problems that occurred in this study will not be repeated, and better conclusions can be drawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me know what you think!

Prayer Study, Part 2

After having read the comments on "Just the Evidence" for the prayer study, I have realized that my summary did not do it justice. As a result, I would encourage everyone (especially those who commented), to actually read the study. It is not long, and it is the best explanation of itself. It addresses some of the comments, and renders some of them obsolete.

The full study can be found online, but if you have any trouble send me an email and I will forward it to you.

Best,

Josh
tomsilvertyre@hotmail.com

Prayer Study, Just the Evidence- "Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer"

Back in 2006, a scientific study on the therapeutic effects of prayer appeared in the American Heart Journal. See the full text here: http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(05)00649-6/abstract

In this post, I will provide a concise summary of the study and it's conclusions. In the following posts in this series we will see if any errant fundamental assumptions are made, and attempt to determine whether or not the study means anything.

Summary:
The purpose of the study was to determine whether or not receiving intercessory prayer or having the knowledge that one was being prayed for influenced recovery following coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

According to the study, the following methods were used:
"Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality."

The study found the following:

• In the group that was uncertain about receiving prayer, and received prayer, 52% of the patients had complications.
• In the group that was uncertain about receiving prayer, and did not receive prayer, 51% of the patients had complications.
• In the group that was aware of receiving prayer, and received prayer, 59% of the patients had complications.

Another way of saying this is:

• The patients who were prayed for and knew it fared worse than the others- 59% had complications
• The two groups in which the patients were uncertain (one prayed for and one not) were about the same- 51% and 52% had complications.

In addition "Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups."

----------------------------------------------------------
Here are the conclusions of the study:
"Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

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

Let me know what you think!

Active Listening

I hope I don't seem too soap-boxy on this post- but I feel that this is an essential part of making forward progress which does not take place in 90% of deep/meaningful/religious conversations. So, I feel that I have to say something.
---------------------------------------------------------------

When having conversations about controversial matters, it seems to me that people stop listening to each other and only think about what their response to the other person will be. They may even get into 'I've already decided that I disagree with you- it doesn't matter what you say' mode.

If one or both people are only looking for ways to prove the other person wrong, then they may as well just pick up a couple wooden poles and take turns whacking each other until they get tired or someone gets hurt.

I have found that it is much better to employ active listening. This means paying attention to what the other person is saying, attempting to understand it, asking questions for clarification, and summarizing the other person's point. When the other person finishes a thought, say something like "I just heard you say X, is that correct?" or "could you rephrase that, or state it again? I'm not sure I understood what you meant."

After listening to the other person, honestly consider whether or not what they said has merit. If you disagree, point out why. Then, if the other person is also actively listening, the two can bounce ideas back and forth in a constructive way.

1 Question for Christians

Here is the question I have for Christians:

If you were to be presented with compelling evidence that Christianity were false, would you forsake Christianity?

I'm not asking whether or not you think evidence like this would ever be found, or whether or not you would double and triple check it (let's assume you spend 40 years checking it and become an expert in the field). I'm also not asking whether or not you can imagine what this evidence would be like. Let's say that the evidence is as strong as the evidence against Mormonism. (see http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/mormonism-anachronism-2.html)

This is a hypothetical question and we are assuming the evidence is valid!

Please let me know what your response to this question is!!!

Testimonium Flavianum: Just the Evidence

This post is another in the series of "Just the Evidence." This means that I will provide the readers with easy access to resources and leave out any interpretation. In future posts I will examine the evidence and attempt to draw conclusions.

 

The Testimonium Flavianum

 

Authorship: Several possibilities- Josephus, Eusebius, a Christian copyist, or unknown

 

Summary: The text is found in chapter 3 of book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews, written by the Jewish historian Josephus around 93 AD. It speaks favorably of Jesus Christ, and if authentic, provides early outside testimony for the historical Jesus. The earliest quotation of the Testimonium Flavianum comes from the Father of Church History, Eusebius. (Please check the statements I make in this summary!)

 

The Text: I have included a small amount of the material surrounding the Testimonium for context. The Testimonium itself is in bold type.

 

The following is a translation by William Whiston from https://mail.ttu.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=12ba06f39a4b4442a94f86e65660b421&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ccel.org%2fj%2fjosephus%2fworks%2fant-18.htm

 

"2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty. She was married to Saturninus, one that was every way answerable to her in an excellent character. Decius Mundus fell in love with this woman, who was a man very high in the equestrian order; and as she was of too great dignity to be caught by presents, and had already rejected them, though they had been sent in great abundance, he was still more inflamed with love to her, insomuch that he promised to give her two hundred thousand Attic drachmae for one night's lodging; and when this would not prevail upon her, and he was not able to bear this misfortune in his amours, he thought it the best way to famish himself to death for want of food, on account of Paulina's sad refusal; and he determined with himself to die after such a manner, and he went on with his purpose accordingly."

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

 

Coming soon- posts concerning the authenticity and authorship of the Testimonium Flavianum and any possible relationship to the Christian historian Eusebius.