Long Island Abundant Life Church 長島豐盛生命教會
  • Home
  • About Us 關於教會
    • Mission Statement - 使命宣言
    • Statement of Faith - 信仰立場
    • Biblical Marriage - 合乎聖經的婚姻
    • Church Leadership - 教會同工
    • Directions - 路線圖
    • Documents - 表格與文件下載
    • Contact Us - 聯絡我們
    • Ministry openings
  • Chinese Ministry 華語事工
    • 崇拜
    • 講道集 >
      • 主日信息
      • 特會 / 講座
    • 主日學
    • 門訓小組 >
      • 門訓小組介紹
    • 團契
    • 讀經
  • English Ministry 英文事工
  • Youth 少年事工
    • Worship
    • Sunday School
    • Youth Fellowship
    • Events
    • Our Vision
    • Connect with Us
    • Parent Resources
    • Youth Prayer Requests
  • Children's Ministry 兒童事工
    • Children's Worship - 兒童崇拜 >
      • Children's Songs - 歌曲
      • Junior Worship, Archive - 學習內容
      • Junior Worship, Current - 學習內容
      • Preschool Worship, Archive - 幼兒崇拜
    • Sunday School - 主日學 >
      • Preschool - 低年級
      • Middlers, Current - 高年級
      • Elementary, Archive - 高年級
    • VBS-特别暑期聖經班 >
      • EVENTS- 特別活動
    • Nursery - 幼兒照顧
    • Resources - 資源
  • Missions/Evangelism 宣教/佈道
    • Global Mission 全球宣教
    • Missions Ministry 宣教事工
  • Chinese School 中文學校
  • Church Activities / News / Calendar 教會活動 / 消息 / 行事曆
    • Special/urgent 特別/緊急
    • Calendar 教會行事曆
    • Bulletin 週報
    • Archive 檔案 >
      • Pray for Hindus 2018 為印度人禱告
      • Seek God 2019 尋求神
      • Misc. 其他
  • Chinese Student Ministry 学生事工
    • Campus Ministry 校园事工
    • CSF 衣
    • CSF 食
    • CSF 住
    • CSF 行
  • Links 资源鏈接
  Long Island Abundant Life Church 長島豐盛生命教會

Luke 24:1–12

5/11/2012

 
Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

Resurrection Accounts
Today we're going to be dealing with an issue that takes a bit of work and thinking, so bear with me.  I'll be quoting extensively today from Hard Sayings of the Bible, which has a very helpful entry about the resurrection accounts.  So what's the big deal about today's passage?  It's definitely a pretty short reading for us today, but this entry will probably be pretty long.  The issue is this:  now that we're in Luke, you've probably noticed some differences between the resurrection accounts in the different Gospels.  Here's a helpful chart comparing them (click to enlarge):
Resurrection Accounts
"What can we conclude from this data? First, it is possible to make this data into a coherent story. If we assume that the pre- or postdawn timing depends on whether one gives the time of the women starting their trip or their arrival at the tomb, if we assume that the earthquake and angelic descent happened before the women arrived at the tomb, if we merge what the angels say into one account, if we assume that the angels moved around, and if we assume that Mary Magdalene remained behind at the tomb while the others went and reported (and thus had a separate meeting with Jesus), one can make a single coherent account out of the various stories. Obviously, if there were two angels, one writer could report only one. Not every writer has to report all of the details another mentions. In other words, these are different stories but not necessarily conflicting stories. All could be true at the same time." [1] (emphasis mine)

Also,

"...these stories are exactly what one would expect to discover after a significant event like the resurrection. The chancellor of this author’s university died at the end of an address to the student body. Within an hour of the event a sociology professor had his thirty students each write down their own account of what had happened. Each was instructed to write as honest and detailed account as they could, given the limited time of the class period. When the accounts were later compared, there were numerous differences in detail, although all agreed that the chancellor had died at the end of his address. Presumably each Gospel writer had a series of stories about the resurrection to sort through. For example, we know that Matthew knows and values Mark’s account, but in the resurrection story he obviously has some independent information as well. The Evangelists selected and combined data to get the accounts that they give us. But even the beloved disciple in John is not an eyewitness of most of the events, so we are not surprised to find a lot of differences in their reporting what happened." [2] (emphasis mine)

This last quote sums it up well I think:
"Finally, when we try to put the stories together, we miss the point of the authors. The church accepted into its canon four separate Gospels, viewing each as inspired by God. It did not put into the canon a harmony of these Gospels (although such existed). The fact is that each writer is trying to bring out his unique perspective and theological insights by the details he includes or leaves out... Matthew wants to underline the miraculous and also explain a rumor that the body of Jesus was stolen. Luke stresses the fulfillment of the words of Jesus and yet the disbelief of the apostles. John, by focusing on a single character and her intimate discussion with Jesus, points out that in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus the promises of John 13–16 are fulfilled. Jesus cannot be held, for it is better for him to go to the one who is not only his Father but is now also our Father. It is when we look at the resurrection through such eyes, informed by the perspective of each Gospel writer, that we see not simply a miracle, nor even the fact of the resurrection, but the message the church has believed that God wanted to communicate in and through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." [3] (emphasis mine)

I think this last point is the most important to make.  It is absolutely possible to create a "harmony" of the events that occurred, though it would be difficult to know if we have "harmonized" things correctly.  I think that we can have credible belief that none of the Gospel writers are lying about events that occurred, and that is vital.  We expect the Gospels sometimes to be like a history book (which aren't always accurate and have biases as well!) and tell us everything about a given event.  What we miss when we expect that is something that I've mentioned many times in our study:  each Gospel writer has a purpose for their work and filters the stories they choose to tell through it.  That is EXACTLY what we are seeing here.  The accounts are different because they come from different people that noticed different things.  Just as we often notice differing things about a particular passage of scripture, so the writers feel that differing things are important to portray about certain events.  These are not contradictions, but evidence of differing personalities and purposes.  Rather than expect four completely identical historical accounts, we should rejoice that we have four accounts that show the power of Jesus and His resurrection in from different perspectives.  What we have here are four changed lives that are trying to communicate that change to others in the best way possible.  

Questions?  Comments?

[1] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 1997), 507-08.
[2] Ibid, 508.
[3] Ibid.

Andrew S
5/11/2012 05:53:22 am

I was wondering what the bible means by "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20" in Mark's gospel. It seems like it makes a huge difference if that gospel ended with verse 8. I assume that we are to believe verses 9-20 were inspired portions and are part of Mark's gospel?

Greg
5/11/2012 06:10:31 am

In a lot of the Bibles it says "SOME of the earliest manuscripts". I dealt with this issue in the comments of my end of Mark post. Here's what I said:

"...is what is called a "textual critical" issue. This is a somewhat complex topic to deal with in a comment, so this is just a summary. I'll probably do a full post on in when we get into John. My Bible has this note after verse 8:

"Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9–20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. These manuscripts then continue with verses 9–20."

In a nutshell, there are thousands of NT manuscript copies that we have. They are RIDICULOUSLY in agreement: there are very few differences between them, which is amazing considering they are all hand-copied and there are so many. Usually in a doctrinal statement you'll see something like this about the Bible: "We believe the the Bible is inerrant in its ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS." This recognizes that there is debate about some things, but that overwhelmingly (over 95% of it) there is absolutely no doubt. This passage is one of the HUGE ones because there is some doubt. Earliest copies don't have the "oddly specific" end to Mark, which leads a some to believe that it wasn't originally there. The thought is that it was added later because the ending is so abrupt without the final part.

Personally, I'm not a professional textual critic, but I'm in the middle. I lean toward the view that it wasn't originally there, but I could definitely be convinced otherwise given the right evidence."

We'll deal with this issue in more detail in John because there's another similar section there. My particular personal bent is that if there is a lot of doubt to just leave it out, but that doesn't mean that I'm right. Obviously there is enough evidence for it that they made a decision to keep it in modern Bibles (albeit with a note).

I think a perhaps more interesting question is this: what difference does it make to us personally? If you don't think that it's original, how does that make a difference in how you view it? Do you dismiss everything in the contentious passage straight out? Do you see it as still helpful but with out the "breath of God" on it? How we think of passages like this really challenges us to get our thoughts straight on what exactly we believe and mean by "inspired" and "inerrancy" I think. I know that's not a full answer to your question, but a full answer would be a whole other blog post. Hopefully I can deal with the issue in more detail in John.

Andrei
5/11/2012 06:22:33 pm

Thanks for the post. I never thought of the fact that each person has his/her own spin of what happened. Wow.

As I was reading this, I was wondering about how the Bible was put together. I don't know much at all about it. I found this website, do you think this is a legitimate explanation(?): http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

Can you recommend any other websites that would go into this?

Is there anything you would say or add about how the Bible was put together?

Thanks.

Greg
5/12/2012 01:21:31 pm

Very good questions as usual. First of all, I just want to clear up that what you're asking about is usually called "Canon Studies", which is different than this issue that Andrew brought up, which is called "Textual Criticism".

Second, I would be in very general agreement with the website you linked to. I would differ on dates (I would put many of them earlier) and I think the way some of it was stated was a little misleading. I think most of that was due to trying to simplify the issue, so I can't be too hard on the writer.

As for more information, that's a little difficult because this is a very deep and complicated issue. The article is a good overview, but there are just so many details that it's not generally something you see handled well in web format. There is A LOT of history involved, A LOT of pretty deep theology, and even a bit of philosophy thrown in, so it's not for the faint of heart. If you're interested, you'll definitely learn a lot and I think your faith will really deepen, but it will take some patience and probably a lot of correction.

Resources: I would echo the article. The standard title for Canon for a number of years has been "The Canon of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce. It's brutally detailed, particularly on the history side of things. I have the book if you'd like to borrow it. There is also a new and very excellent book that just came out that approaches the issue from the theological/philosophical side of things called "Canon Revisited" by Michael Kruger. I have this book in Kindle format, but not print. Kruger is the happy exception to what I said about not finding good stuff on the web about canon. He has an excellent blog called "Canon Fodder" that deals with a lot of these issues. He's in the middle of a series called "10 Misconceptions About the Canon", which might be a good place to start if you're interested. His site is http://michaeljkruger.com/ . I hope that helps!

I actually had a good conversation with Uncle I-Hsiu the other day about this topic and how important it is. It would be cool to teach a class on it, but it would take time and a lot of thinking - and I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't be terribly interested in it, even if they should be!

Greg
5/12/2012 01:25:52 pm

Also, just one last thought. It's pretty minor, but I want to make sure I was clear. I'm not sure that "spin" is the correct word to use about the different Gospel viewpoints. It really depends on how you're using the word. I would maybe use "flavor" or "perspective" - I think those indicate a more objective reality, whereas "spin" might give more of an idea of purposely manipulating/changing the portrayal of events in a way that changes the truth instead of just giving perspective. Like I said, it depends on how you're using the word, but I want to be clear that all of the accounts are absolutely true, but portray that truth from differing perspectives.


Comments are closed.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.