Quote (poulgaragr @ Mar 24 2013 07:30am)
I talked about supposed contradictions in another thread. They are not evidences that contradict one another, but simply reiterations for a specific audience.
Hard to understand and easily misinterpreted. Take it for what you want. I'l leave it here.
Quote (dajusta @ Mar 14 2013 03:14pm)
A classic example. Check out the perspectives from both writers. Although they documented the events in different order, it does not mean they put the same intended meaning in the order of events. How do I know that? Check out the language.
Luke 23:44-49 -It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[e] When he had said this, he breathed his last. The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.
It may seem that these words should be read in chronological order. But you have to ask yourself, was the order important to Luke? Is it important enough to have written in such literal detail? Luke didn't think it was, so he puts less emphatic language into describing it because it did not relate to his audience. You can even verify this claim at the beginning of Luke. He says he writes his account so that people know the teachings of Jesus (luke 1:1). The next sentence of the Centurion also gives indication of Luke's perspective.
Contrast this with Matthew's audience who, are not like Luke's audience (primarily Greek), but are predominantly Jewish and need to know that Jesus came also for gentiles too. I know this because the introduction of Matthew includes a long genaeology only applicable to Jewish audiences. It sets the tone of the Christ, as he came from a lineage of King David.
Matthew 27:50-53 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Check out Matthew's emphasis! Language so specific, hand written, copied thousands of times yet seemingly redundant. Why would need to write those words "at that time"? Isn't it inferred? The words "At that moment.." Matthew's words and emphatic language puts emphasis on the proximity and power of Christ' death. It was his death that tore the veil! Jesus' death is destroying the symbolic separation of Jews and Gentiles (the veil separated high ranking priests from other gentiles). Matthew is really trying to reach his Jewish audience to know that Christ is here for both Jew and gentiles! Not just to further the traditions of the Pharisees!
The tools I used for this kind of study is called the grammatical/historical approach and narrative criticism. You can search them up to read more about them, but this is just one example of how perspective and audience plays a huge role in interpreting scripture.
Quote (dajusta @ Mar 15 2013 11:23am)
The two scripture passages have similar natures to the other supposed contradiction on the curtain ripping. By analyzing both passages in the way they were meant to be understood, there isn't any contradiction at all. Only by misreading the Greek text and reading with our own 21st century lens, we read meaning that is extraneous.
Luke 24:1-8 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then they remembered his words.
And compare with Matthew's account
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.” So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
Looking at both accounts, it isn't very precise on the order of events. Luke's account said they found the stone rolled away, and in Matthew's account, they went off to see the tomb despite the description of "there was a violent earthquake" and the "stone was rolled away". Although it was documented in this order, Matthew's account didn't say the women arrived before the tomb was opened, but rather Matthew pointed out that the women went to see the tomb. It's undocumented if the tomb was opened or closed upon their arrival. To read these sentences in its chronologically written order and to perceive them happening in chronological order is a fallacy. It is considered a fallacy for two reasons. The first reason is due to the ambiguous nature of the women going to see vs arriving to see. The second reason it should not be read chronologically is because that wasn't the major focus of the story! It is plain fact that when people tell parts of stories, they focus on the big details. To be precise on every superficial detail is not the practice of 1st century pre-modern scribes.
So, what was the big focus in this story?
The big focus in the story is the resurrection! and the women were the witnesses! In both accounts, the description of the angel (or two men) are very distinct. They appeared as lightning in both accounts. Luke and Matthew both testify to the supernatural event that has happened to Jesus. Some might see a "contradiction" in the appearance of one mentioned angel vs the mention of two men. Again, I will say that is a bit extraneous, especially when you consider the audience. To the witnesses, the appearance of one or two or three angels do not matter. It was the theophany that mattered most. Why might women becoming the witnesses an important detail in both accounts? The focus is to raise the sanctity of women in their culture. Women were treated almost as second class citizens and their testimony would also be considered "unreliable". By witnessing first to Mary and Mary Magdalene, Jesus raises their honor and weight of their words.
Well, why are they different?
Again, Matthew's audience is primarily Jewish in nature, which is why a description of "angel" was only necessary to an audience that already understood what angels looked like. Luke's audience is towards a Greek scholar, Theophilus, who has no extensive culture of angels. So the appearance of "two men that appeared like lightning" was more helpful. Matthew's account had an addition to the description: not only was the angel "appeared like lightning" but he was also "white as snow". This is a HUGE reference to the prophet Isaiah who documents the contrast of sin and holiness.. sin being red like scarlet and holiness being "white as snow". It's almost verbatim in Isaiah 1:18 “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow". Matthew's audience of primarily Jewish descent would have picked this up INSTANTLY. There's more of these "differences" to be found in the passages, but I think explaining a few was enough.
The "differences" in the two accounts are not contradictions that discredit the authenticity or truth of the gospels, but they are two different accounts of the SAME event written to convey to two DIFFERENT AUDIENCES.