The Nativity and, in particular, the virgin birth has increasingly come under attack from liberal scholarship in recent years. Those committed to a naturalistic worldview dismiss the virgin birth of Jesus as fanciful. Some have even questioned whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem and whether Mary and Joseph’s venture to this town was prompted by the Roman census as recorded by Luke.

Does Luke Get the Date of the Nativity Right?

One argument that is often brought to bear in discussions of the Nativity relates to the apparent discrepancy between Matthew and Luke’s narration and what we know from other sources. Matthew’s gospel tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. Luke recounts the story, with which we are all familiar, of Mary and Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to register as part of the census which was taken. The skeptic typically objects upon reading those accounts and complains that these two things are actually a decade removed from each other. According to Luke, Jesus was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria — a census which was recorded by the Romans as occurring in 6 A.D. But Herod’s death — whom Matthew asserts was alive at the time of Jesus’ birth — occurred in 4 B.C.According to Luke 2:1-3,

¹ In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. ² (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) ³ And everyone went to their own town to register.

Moreover, the skeptic argues, we know that the first census of the entire Roman empire was ordered by the emperor Vaspasian in A.D. 74, well after the events reported by Luke.

But just how sound are these objections?

The first thing to take notice of is Luke’s remarkable accuracy as an historian in other areas. He gets many titles of rulers correct (in one case he got the title of an Asian leader right which Cicero gets wrong), has cities in the right place, in addition to various other incidental historical details. In light of this, it would be unwise to immediately jump to the conclusion that Luke is historically in error at this point. Before we reach that conclusion, we should first look to see whether there are any plausible alternatives which are not strained or ad hoc.

Second, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicate that Luke 2:2 can be translated, “This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” In fact, if you turn to this verse in your Bible you will likely see a footnote indicating that this is so.

Third, as has been suggested by some, it is possible that Quirinius reigned twice. In 1764, a Latin inscription (the Lapis Tiburtinus) was discovered which recorded the career of a distinguished Roman officer. Unfortunately, the inscription is mutiliated such that the name of the individual concerned is missing. But some have interpreted the surviving details as descriptive of Quirinius. It states that when he became imperial legate of Syria, he entered upon that office “for the second time”. Another view is that this Latin inscription actually refers to Quintillius Varus, who was the governor of Syria at two separate times, reigning from 6 to 4 B.C. and again from 2 B.C. to 1 A.D. Between 4 and 2 B.C. reigned Sentius Saturninus. It is interesting that Tertullian (Against Marcion 4:7), in the third century A.D., notes that the imperial records show the occurrence of censuses in Judea during the reign of Sentius Saturninus. It is also noteworthy that, in the second century A.D., Justin Martyr (Apology 1:34) states that Quirinius was only a procurator of the province. Thus, some have argued, Quirinius was only an assistant to the governor Saturninus.

In light of these plausible resolutions to Luke’s account of the census which, on first brush, appears paradoxical, it seems that the evidence would compel us to give Luke the benefit of the doubt on this issue, particularly when considered in the context of his exceptional historical accuracy on other matters.

Regarding the date of the census of the Roman empire, we know from historical sources that Augustus ordered the census to be taken every twelve years, and we have records of those taking place in 8 B.C. and 6 A.D. Some have argued that, if we assume that it probably took two or three years for a census to be completed, then it is not inconceivable that the census Luke has in mind was the one ordered in 8 B.C.. Herod died in 4 B.C., and so Jesus’ birth probably took place in 6 or 5 B.C. or thereabouts. The problem with this argument is that this census only affected Roman citizens, not Jews of Nazareth. It seems unlikely therefore that this is the census that Luke has in mind.

Luke 2 actually doesn’t state that the census was taken of the entire Roman empire. Some modern translations (e.g. the NIV) say that the census was taken of the “entire Roman world”. But the word “Roman” does not appear in the Greek. What this verse actually says is that the whole land was to be registered. This same phrase is used by Luke in Acts 11:28 when he states, ^“One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire world.” But this clearly refers to the land of Judea. Was the census recorded in Luke 2 restricted to the land of Judea? There would seem to be one problem with this suggestion — the consus is apparently ordered by Caesar Augustus, but surely a census of the land of Judea would be ordered by King Herod the Great. What’s interesting in this regard is that, according to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Antiquities 16.9.3), Herod fell out with Augustus a few years before Herod’s death in 4 B.C. over Herod having taken an army into Arabia. When the report of Herod’s actions reached Caesar, Josephus reports that,

“Caesar was provoked when this was said, and asked no more than one question, both of Herod’s friends that were there, and of his own friends, who were come from Syria, Whether Herod had led an army thither? And when they were forced to confess so much, Caesar, without staying to hear for what reason he did it, and how it was done, grew very angry, and wrote to Herod sharply. The sum of his epistle was this, that whereas of old he had used him as his friend, he should now use him as his subject.”

Herod was demoted from rex socius to rex amicus and thereby lost the authority to conduct taxing. Indeed, Antiquities 17.2.4 tells us that citizens of Herod’s domain were required to swear an oatch of allegiance to Caesar. This accounts for why a census in Judea would be ordered by Caesar Augustus rather than Herod.

Why Doesn’t Josephus Mention the Slaughter of the Infants?

Another point which is frequently made relates to the fact that Josephus never mentions the alleged slaughter of the Bethlehem infants, despite the fact that Josephus frequently records Herod’s misdemeanors. It is argued that, if this incident had taken place, surely Josephus and other historians of the day would not have missed it. This objection loses much of its potency, however, when you consider that the town of Bethlehem was actually very small and peripheral. The tally of slaughtered infants was probably half-a-dozen to a dozen.

But are there any positive circumstantial lines of evidence for the historicity of the Nativity accounts? I submit that there are a few. Let’s briefly examine them.

Matthew’s mention of Archelaus

In Matthew 2:22, we are told:

But when [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in an dream, he left for the regions of Galilee…

This is a classic example of an external undesigned coincidence. The narrative raises the natural question ‘why is Joseph afraid to go to Judea when he learns that Archelaus in reigning there?’ The answer is given by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.

Josephus’ Antiquities 17.3.1 tells us that the domain of Herod the Great was divided among his sons, with Archelaus having authority in Judea but not in Galilee, which was governed by his younger brother, Herod Antipas.

We also know that Archelaus had acquired quite a bloody reputation (e.g. Antiquities 17.13.1-2 and 17.9.3). The latter of these references describes how Archelaus slaughtered 3,000 Jews at Passover. Following a riot of the Jews upon the soldiers, Josephus reports,

“Now Archelaus thought there was no way to preserve the entire government but by cutting off those who made this attempt upon it; so he sent out the whole army upon them, and sent the horsemen to prevent those that had their tents without the temple from assisting those that were within the temple, and to kill such as ran away from the footmen when they thought themselves out of danger; which horsemen slew three thousand men, while the rest went to the neighbouring mountains. Then did Archelaus order proclamation to be made to them all, that they should retire to their own homes; so they went away and left the festival out of fear of somewhat worse which would follow, although they had been so bold by reason of their want of instruction.”

Thus, Joseph decides not to return to Judea and, instead, goes further north to the regions of Galilee, governed by Herod Antipas.

The Virgin Birth and the Criterion of Embarassment

The virgin birth fulfils the historical criterion of embarassment. According to Jewish law, the penalty for being found pregnant outside of marital union was death by stoning. In addition, Joseph, her fiancé, also had reason to be afraid because he would be suspected as the culprit. Furthermore, if Joseph were to marry his fiancé, it would be seen as an admission on his part that he was responsible for the pregnancy. It thus seems unlikely that the virgin birth is an invention. Indeed, there is no evidence that Isaiah 7:14 (which is cited in Matthew 1:23) was interpreted as a Messianic prophecy prior to Christ: Thus it is unlikely that this detail was manufactured due to theological motivations.

The Nativity Accounts in Matthew and Luke Are Independent

The nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke are strikingly different. The account in Matthew relays the incident of the wise men coming to Herod in Jerusalem, Herod ordering the massacre of Bethlehem infants, the escape to Egypt etc; whereas the account in Luke highlights the Roman census that was ordered by Caesar Augustus. This suggests that Matthew and Luke are independent at this point.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the virginal conception of Jesus may not enjoy a comparably large body of support to that which the resurrection enjoys, there are nonetheless plausible historical reasons for taking the virgin birth seriously. While the one who is committed to a naturalistic worldview will never be content with any level of evidence to the contrary, the evidence discussed here adds one further argument to the cumulative consilience of evidence which points to the general historical reliability of the gospel accounts and the credibility of the Christian worldview.

What’s in a name?  More than you might imagine when it comes to establishing the credibility of historical accounts.  Since names change dramatically over a relatively short period of time, historians can help discover whether an historical document accurately reflects the time it purports to describe by examining the names found in the text.

As revealed in Dr. Richard Bauckham’s book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, (which N.T. Wright describes as a “remarkable piece of detective work”), the frequency of names found in the Gospels and Acts is exactly what one would expect to find if those documents were written in the First Century by eyewitnesses or those that knew eyewitnesses.   Here are some relevant facts unpacked in detail by Dr. Bauckham in chapters 3 and 4:

41.5% of men in First Century Palestine bore one of the nine most popular male names, while 40.3% of men in the Gospels and Acts bore one of those names– a remarkable correlation.

The most common names for Jews living outside of Palestine in the First Century were dramatically different than those living in Palestine (and thus different from those found in the Gospels and Acts).

The names found in the Apocryphal Gospels (such as the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas) are not congruent with First Century Jewish names in Palestine, which is another reason why we know that such “gospels” were forgeries written much later.

To discover how much common names change over just fifty years, I went to the Social Security Administration to see what were the most common names of babies born in the 1950’s vs. the 2000’s (click on that link– it’s one of the few things the government does that is actually fun to see!).  Of the top ten male names in the 1950’s, only two made the top ten in the 2000’s.  Of the top ten female names in the 1950’s, none were in the top ten in the 2000’s.  In fact, “Mary”– the most popular female name in the 1950’s– had dropped to number 65 just fifty years later!

Moreover, as we point out in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, it isn’t just the frequency of names that the New Testament gets right, but also the names of specific individuals known to live in the First Century. Non-biblical writers and archaeology confirm the existence and location of about 30 New Testament characters including: Agrippa I, Agrippa II, Ananias, Annas, Aretas, Augustus, Bernice, Caiaphas, Claudius, Drusilla, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Gamaliel, Herod Anitpas, Herod Archelaus, Herod the Great, Herod Philip I, Herod Philip II, Herodias, James, Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Judas of Galilea, Lysanias, Pilate, Quirinius, Porcius Fesus, Sergius Paulus, and Tiberius Caesar.

How did the New Testament authors, without the aid of modern research tools, get all these names right if they did not have access to eyewitness testimony from the First Century?  It takes more faith to believe in the late dating of the New Testament that liberals assert (without evidence by the way) then to just follow the evidence where it leads– right back to where Jesus walked in First Century Palestine.

For more on this topic, listen to my 5/21/2012 CrossExamined radio podcast here, and read a short article by Dr. Craig Hazen of BIOLA university here.

Frank Turek and Bob Cornuke (the REAL Indiana Jones) will be leading a “Footsteps of Paul” cruise in July 2012!  Our ship will be Oceania’s beautiful “Regatta.”  We’ll present evidence and insights about the New Testament while we tour the Biblical sites of:

• Ephesus (Ephesians, Paul’s home for three years, and his confrontation with Diana worshipers in Acts 19)
• Athens (Paul’s Acts 17 speech)
• Corinth (1 and 2 Corinthians)
• Malta (See the site and anchors of Paul’s shipwreck from Acts 27)
• Rome (Romans, and where Paul was imprisoned and executed)

We’ll also visit other beautiful and interesting sites such as Istanbul, Sicily, Pompeii, Sardinia and Santorini.

Douglas Gresham, stepson of C.S. Lewis, will join us in Malta and give us a special presentation there! 

We hope you can join us! Go here for all the details http://www.livingpassages.org/tours/footstepsofpaul.htm or call 1-888-771-8717. Space is limited so sign up soon!

The Zeitgeist movie has been circulating on the internet since 2007. In the video its director, Peter Joseph, seeks to persuade viewers that the authors of the New Testament essentially plagiarized the concept of the virgin birth, December 25 as Christ’s birth date, the twelve disciples, the miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection from astrological sources and pagan mythology.

The focus of this article is to address the allegation that Jesus is a mythological amalgamation of pagan deities invented by various ancient cultures. I will deal primarily with Horus, as he is the first major mythological figure presented as a forerunner of Jesus. I will subsequently deal with the other allegations in brief.

False claims about Horus

The Zeitgeist movie makes the following claims:

Claim: “This is Horus. He is the Sun God of Egypt of around 3000 BC.”

Response: Horus is not just the sun god. He was also the falcon god whose name means ‘the far-off one’. Ra was the sun god who came to be identified with the mid-day sun. In addition, Horus was also the sky god, whose good or sound eye was the sun, and injured eye the moon.

Claim: “He is the sun, anthropomorphized, and his life is a series of allegorical myths involving the sun’s movement in the sky.”

Response: This is inaccurate. Horus was not the sun, but came to be identified with the position of the rising sun. Later, he was associated with the sun-god Ra. Atum was the god of the setting sun.

Claim: “From the ancient hieroglyphics in Egypt, we know much about this solar messiah. For instance, Horus, being the sun, or the light, had an enemy known as Set and Set was the personification of the darkness or night.”

Response: Seth — Horus’ brother — was Horus’ rival (and usurper of the throne of Egypt). There is debate as to whether the struggle between Horus and Seth was primarily geo-political or symbolic in nature. When the full Osiris complex becomes visible, Seth appears as the murderer of Osiris and would-be killer of the child Horus.

Claim: “And, metaphorically speaking, every morning Horus would win the battle against Set — while in the evening, Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld. It is important to note that ‘dark vs. light’ or ‘good vs. evil’ is one of the most ubiquitous mythological dualities ever known and is still expressed on many levels to this day.”

Response: The movie’s claim is dead wrong. Horus was never sent to the underworld. It was Osiris who was killed and became Lord of the underworld, while Horus was king of the living.

Claim: “Broadly speaking, the story of Horus is as follows: Horus was born on December 25…”

Response: This simply isn’t the case. At any rate, neither the Bible nor Christianity claim Jesus was born on December 25, so any parallels with ancient legends are completely inconsequential. The December 25 date only came into prominence under Emperor Aurelian in the third century A.D. But when was the date of Horus? It was during the Egyptian month of Khoiak (which corresponds to November on our calendar).

Claim: “…of the virgin Isis-Meri.”

Response: Again, the claim is simply in error. Horus was born of Isis. And there is absolutely no mention in any Egyptian literature of the trailing name ‘Mary’ as the movie would have us believe. Moreover, Isis was certainly not a virgin, but the widow of Osiris, the father of Horus.

Claim: “His birth was accompanied by a star in the east.”

Response: The video continues to make stuff up as it goes along. There is simply no mention of any stars pertaining to the birth of Horus.

Claim: “…which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born Savior.”

Response: First up, there are no ‘three kings’ mentioned in the birth account of Horus, nor is there a mention there ‘three kings’ in the New Testament account. Rather, it is wise-men, with the number not being specified.

Claim: “At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher.”

Response: Wrong again. Horus was never a child prodigal teacher. In fact, he was kept hidden away by his mother in the papyrus marshes, until he was ready to be ruler of Egypt.

Claim: “…and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry.”

Response: Again, there is no evidence of any such baptism concerning Horus, nor are there any facts which suggest any form of ‘ministry’ of Horus.

Claim: “Horus had 12 disciples he travelled around with.”

Response: Horus did not have 12 disciples he travelled around with. It really is as simple as that.

Claim: “…performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water.”

Response: While it is true that some healing ‘miracles’ are associated with Horus, this is with Horus the Child as opposed to Horus the elder or his adult forms.

Claim: “Horus was known by many gestural names such as The Truth, The Light, God’s Anointed Son, The Good Shepherd, The Lamb of God, and many others.”

Response: Again, this is simply false. The only forms of the Horus-god are (1) Horus the Child; (2) Horus as son of Isis and Osiris (“pillar of his mother”; “savior of his father”); and (3) Horus as a sun-god (“lord of the sky; “god of the east”; “Horus of the horizon”).

Claim: “After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.”

Response: Wrong again. There exists no accounts of Horus being betrayed, nor a death by crucifixion. There is an incident described in one account whereby Horus is torn to pieces, with Isis requesting that the crocodile god pull him out of the water — not quite crucifixion. Moreover, seeing how the movie puts the account of Horus at around 3000 B.C., this predates the invention and practice of crucifixion by thousands of years!

Other Claims

The Zeitgeist movie continues in the same vein as above with all the other mythological pagan gods. The Zeitgeist movie makes the claim that Hindu’s Krishna was also crucified and resurrected. However, again, the Zeitgeist is in error. Hinduism very clearly teaches that Krishna was killed by a wound inflicted from an arrow shot from a hunter who mistakenly hit him in his heal. Following his death, he ascended to be with Brahman. This can hardly be compared to the Christian concept of Christ’s resurrection.

The Zeitgeist movie claims, for example, that Mithras was born of a virgin. But this is in error. Rather, he emerged from a rock. It is also claimed that Mithras rose from the dead, but there is no textual evidence of his death, so there could be no resurrection. Mithras was not a teacher, and was not followed by twelve disciples, as Zeitgeist claims.

Neither is there any evidence of a bodily resurrection of Attis, the Phrygian god of vegetation, nor the virgin birth of Dionysus or Krishna (the latter of whom was his mother’s eighth son, so a virgin birth is not likely).

Conclusion

Sadly, the Zeitgeist movie has become widely circulated on the Internet, deceiving many people with misinformation. As Peter writes in his first epistle, “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves.”

According to their own testimony, the New Testament writers “did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty,” (2 Peter 1:16). They were testifying not to myths, but to ‘sober truth’ about events that had ‘not been done in a corner’ (Acts 26:25-26).

This article was originally published on AllAboutTruth.org.

 

A few years ago on an email list that is populated mainly by liberal Christians and non believers, I was challenged by an Atheist (Charles) to explain why there were so many inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts. His complaint was that for example some gospel accounts talk about Mary Magdalene going to the grave of Jesus, another has Mary M and Mary the mother of James. Another has Salome joining the two Marys. One talks about 1 angel, the other about 2 angels and so on.

Rather than waste too much effort on Charles (knowing he didn’t really care and in fact had just blindly copied and pasted the complaints from an atheist site without doing any research himself); I decided to wait a few months until it had slipped out of their collective memory and then use a indirect teaching method to show why there are actually no problems with the gospel accounts; even though they don’t always seem to match word for word.

Now note that my goal was not to “prove” that the Gospels are accurate (for that I refer you to http://reclaimingthemind.org/product/the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels-audio-download/). My goal was simply to eliminate the silly argument that just because one Gospel report talks about 2 angels while an other only mentions 1 angel and so on, that did not mean they were pure fabrications as Charles maintained. In fact that may actually indicate that they are actual first or second hand reports.

It seems to have done its job; as no one on that email list has ever brought up this feeble excuse since then. Make sure you read through to my “explanation.”

December 2005

Neil writes:

Hi all,

I was just reading the news last night about that tragic accident in Chicago. One thing occurred to me. I don’t think there really was a crash. Because when I read the story from these 5 different sources they all seemed to disagree with each other. Just shows how the liberal media twists things.

AP – Sat Dec 10,

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 rests in the middle of Central Ave. Saturday, Dec. 10, 2005 in Chicago. The jetliner, trying to land in heavy snow slid off the runway Thursday at Midway Airport, crashed through a boundary fence and slid out into the street, hitting one car and pinning another beneath it. A child in one of the vehicles was killed. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)

– What we know from this: there were only 2 cars, 1 boundary fence and only 1 child was hurt/killed.

Radio@UPEI December 9, 2005

A snowy runway caused a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 to skid off the runway in Chicago Thursday evening. Nobody on the plane was seriously injured, but a 6-year old boy was killed as the plane skid onto the intersection of 55th Street and Central Avenue, and hit the vehicle he was traveling in.

– This one must be false because it only mentions 1 vehicle being hit (the last one had 2) and nothing about going through any fence, but we know there were fences from the first report.

AFP/Getty Images – Fri Dec 9,

Southwest Airlines jet sits on a roadway after it crashed through a security wall the evening before at Midway Airport in Chicago, Illinois. US authorities launched an investigation after the jet skidded off a Chicago airport runway and into a street where it hit two cars and killed a child (AFP/Getty Images)

– This also must be made up because it says the plane went thru a security wall, not a boundary fence like the last one said it did? If a plane went through a brick wall it would have exploded or at least caught on fire don’t you think? Ah you are thinking a boundary/security wall what’s the difference? Well one is a fence the other a wall.

Reuters – Fri Dec 9,

A Southwest Airlines plane bound from Baltimore, Maryland, sits on a road along Chicago’s Midway Airport December 9, 2005, after crashing through a safety barrier while trying to land during a snowstorm in Chicago on December 8, 2005. (Frank Polich/Reuters)

-This story doesn’t mention that someone was killed in this crash. Which is kinda important don’t you think? It talks about a safety barrier not a wall, it also doesn’t talk about any cars being hit. So were NO cars hit? This story totally contradicts ALL the others. What liars these Reuters guys are.

AP Canadian Press – Fri Dec 9,

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 rests nose first at the intersection of W.55th Street and Central Ave. in Chicago Friday after it skidded off the runway at Midway Airport Thursday. (AP/Charles Rex Arbogast)

– This is a second AP source that doesn’t agree even with the first source. It doesn’t say anything about any cars (forget about 2 of them), it doesn’t mention a fence of any sort, nor does it mention anybody dying. This whole situation sounds like it was made up from the start.

So folks can you help? Are we being snowed by the media? Did this event really happen? Can we trust that it really happened?

Question 1: Did any cars get hit. Two reports don’t mention it, the others do.

Question 2: How many cars did get hit? One report only says 1 car, some say 2 cars.

Question 3: Did anyone really die? Two reports don’t mention any deaths at all.

Question 4: What did the plane crash through, did it crash through anything? Some reports say it crashed through “a security wall,” another “a boundary fence,” and others “a safety fence.” Some don’t say anything about crashing through any sort of wall or fence.

So my conclusion is:

This story is a lie and made up by the liberal media.

There may be some semblance of truth to it, but on the whole it is inaccurate and should not be given any credence. Probably a superstitious myth.

Each of these news “mediums” are deliberately colluding to create a false story and they can’t even get their lies straight.

Besides we all know that if a plane crashes into a car it will explode in a big fireball, so this whole story is just unacceptable. If this was a true story every story would sound identical to the other story. That’s the ONLY way I’d believe it.

Another example of the lies put out by the liberal media. : ) It’s time we wake up.

Neil

First response to my email:

Neil

You have used the term “liberal media” 3 times as if that were something negative. In my understanding, “liberal” means being open to consider a variety of events, ideas, and opinions (it doesn’t necessarily mean acceptance of them), which any worthwhile news media should do. I certainly want to be liberal in my approach to life and to other people. The best news media are open to reporting a variety of events and ideas which have more than sensational or passing importance, mostly the NY Times and Wash Post. The best international news magazine is The Economist (don’t be misled by its title) which I read every week. Unfortunately, most US radio and TV news (even CBS now) now is just sensational and consists of sound bites without depth (except PBS), so I prefer BBC.

Further, 5 reporters under pressure to report sensational news fast are certainly going to differ in their dispatches. Don’t you think that you and I, suddenly observing something and under pressure to send a dispatch, would emphasize or neglect certain aspects?

Your emphasis on logical deduction here has caused you to deny the essence of what actually occurred.

Carl

Second Response:

Neil why don’t you ask the mother of the boy that died!!

Get a better example!! That seems to be your way!! Jesh!!

John

(looks like this guy John fell hook line and sinker for my little trap)

Third Response:

Neil, We all know that the press always contains inaccuracies, anyone who has had anything about them or their families in a local paper knows that even names come out wrong. I think Carl’s reply put it very succinctly, but I would also add that where you are raging against the so called “liberal” press, I must say that I find the right-wing press is not blame- free of inaccurate reporting, particularly that run by Rupert Murdoch.

I won’t bother listing the inaccuracies and omissions of the right wing press on the Iraq war, but I think we all understand that politicians and the press are not reliable sources, and that its always worth checking as many versions of any news story as you can.

Here in the UK we have a variety of broadcast and written media , and I find BBC radio one of the best sources of news, they had a programme about “rendition” about four months ago.

I was also surprised to discover how little the USA is reporting the kidnap of Norman Kember and Tom Fox

Kat

My Response to Kat:

Kat. So which is it? A total fabrication? One car or two? A dead boy or a dead child or none? Some truths some lies some errors? Or all lies? Or all errors? What is it? A myth? Legend?

Neil

My response to Carl and John:

Wait are you saying that despite the slightly different versions that different people gave, the stories are actually true? But don’t they contradict each other? One has 2 cars, the other only has 1 car, one has a wall the other has barrier, one has a dead boy the other has a dead child? Isn’t this contradictory?

Neil

Kat Responds:

a dead boy is a dead child, a wall is a barrier .

Kat

My response to that:

So you are saying they are telling the truth?

Neil

Another person joins in:

Neil,

I think you overrate contradiction.

Ruann

My response:

Ruann,

Are you saying the stories contradict each other? Is API right and Reuters wrong? Is API US accurate and API Canada a lie? Or are you saying there’s no real contradiction?

Neil

Response from Rebecca who has seen right through it all.

C’mon Neil, just spring that trap and get it over with! The tension is too much!

(Also smiling),

Rebecca

I finally explain:

Hi folks,

OK OK Thank you all (and Rebecca): So to summarize what we have garnered from this exercise:

1. Multiple eye witnesses and accounts can emphasize different aspects of the story but the story can still be true (thanks Carl).
2. Some people may say there were two items of something (e.g. two kids or two/three walls/fences), others may talk about one of the items (one kid)– but neither is contradictory unless one was to say there was ONLY one item (i.e. ONLY ONE kid). Again this does not indicate the story is a fabrication but in fact may indicate the validity of the story and the validity that multiple witnesses were at the event each noting a different portion of the entire event. Certain reporters may have come late and only seen the one kid in the stretcher while his brother was already on the way to the hospital.
3. It is possible that there were multiple of some events sometimes given slightly differing descriptions. E.g. there actually was a wall which was both a security barrier and a noise barrier. There was an additional metal fence that it ALSO crashed through. Some witnesses talked about the metal boundary fence, others saw the bricks or also knew the layout better and talked about the security barrier wall. Again the differing witnesses add to the entirety of the account and do not invalidate the event. Note that there were multiple barriers, security fences, boundary fences, walls. They were ALL there. None of the reports were wrong in any of these details!
4. If you go back to the actual reports and read the entire news report, some accounts gave estimates e.g. The boy was ABOUT 8 years old (I did not include this in my above snippets but was in some of the reports). Which was correct but not detailed enough. Since the boy was really 6 years old plus a few months. So 8 is “about” there and was based on what they saw. Technically saying the boy was 6 years old would be wrong too, but we realize that 6 means up to 6 years and 11 months and 29/30 days. Again it does not invalidate the account or indicate that it’s made up, but actually indicates more of an authenticity given the intensity of the event.
5. Later accounts of the same event may add additional information e.g. Joshua had 2 siblings with him who survived, He was singing a carol at the time of impact. He was from Indiana. There were 4 other people in another vehicle who were also injured (not mentioned in these reports as I didn’t want to go on and on). Thus though earlier accounts are sparse and later accounts more full it does not indicate the accounts are false. Similarly, I also saw later accounts that were paraphrases of the earlier accounts so you can ALSO get a later summary that is less detailed but just as true.
6. Some accounts may call something by a different name depending on their background or inclinations e.g. A wall, a barrier. (Thanks Kat). In each case however this does not mean the account is false but that the vernacular is different. A wall IS a barrier after all.
7. [Added later] A deeper reading of each of the entire news reports still reflect various facts that were just not included. Someone was arguing that I was only reading the captions. I was not. I read the entire reports and just used these few items as examples. I can only get so much reader attention on an email list. I can’t write three volumes and expect them to follow along. Stay on task buddy.

So we all agree the event really happened. No one was lying and in fact no one was mistaken (i.e. sadly a boy actually died -Thanks John). The facts were all correct. In an event like this it’s natural for differing witnesses to focus on different facts. Had API been the only news service there, ALL the news we read would have been almost identical. The fact that we had multiple sources of the info all slightly different from each other but none contradicting each other both verified that the event probably really happened and that no collusion was taking place (that’s collusion not collision).

Sorry, the rant about the “Liberal Media” was just a red herring; yes this is NOT an example of media bias. I am not that desperate, as there’s plenty of clear examples of bias readily available (read Bernard Goldberg’s book “Bias” for a real example of media bias). As Rebecca said: Let’s spring the trap already…. Of course Bob T and Ruann of course saw right through it. And I want to thank all of you who chimed in to tell me that I was wrong for assuming the story was false thus helping me make the point I want to make now (thanks John, Kat, Chris etc etc and all those who held their tongues but were thinking it : )).

And in case anyone is confused like any rational person I DO believe the story of the SWA accident is true.

I only used it – as Ruann said as a “teaching device”.

Now my point – what was the purpose of my whole “liberal media” silliness?

Well a few months ago Charles (note: Charles is a Missionary Kid who hates the God that his parents dedicated their lives to) had argued the following:

“OK Neil, you have inspired me to search for, and examine some basic truths about the religion into which I was indoctrinated Can you explain the contradictions to the resurrection story, in the Gospels, and why there might be any differences in the telling of the story which forms the BASIS of Christian belief. “

And he gave me a number of what he considered contradictions in the Gospels regarding the resurrection, for instance one angel vs. two angels. Asking how many women went to the tomb etc.

Most of these “apparent contradictions” have been answered by the kind folks on this web site for me indirectly. They aren’t contradictions anymore than the “contradictions” I pretended to make a big stink about on the SWA crash. They were all true.

The above example of multiple witnesses probably answers at least 70% of the questions. Of the remaining, Charles, please pick one or two that isn’t solved by one of the points above and I can deal with those specifically and we can go through the list till we are done. (Neils’ note: Of course Charles never did.)

Meanwhile I’ve included a chronology below that may help: Also please refer to http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm for more details. I’ll attempt to answer or find a new source for any questions that are not answered there.

I should also ask you Charles to read the entire Gospel account because in some places the question you asked indicates you didn’t read the passage. Why do I say that? Because you ask for something in vs. 8 of Mark 16 when it’s answered in the very next verse (vs. 9). So please make sure you read the entire passage instead of blindly copying stuff from anti-theists websites. Do consider doing your OWN research first for crying out loud. Don’t be a blind faith atheist or a mindless fan copying other people’s stuff without doing your own research.

Charles in the past I’ve written you off line, after you made similar statements and I asked you if you were really interested in real solid historical and factual answers, I said I’d be quite happy to go over them one by one with you. But in each case you’ve ignored me. So my suspicion is that you may not really care about answers at this time (either because you are too busy or perhaps indicating that you may be close minded about this despite any evidentiary proof I may provide). Can you validate that for me? But you did say: “Neil, you have inspired me to search for, and examine some basic truths about the religion into which I was indoctrinated.” So based on that with the listing of the accounts side by side from: http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm and let me know if you see any apparent contradictions that are not explained by the “multiple news reporters phenomenon”.

So in conclusion and summary thanks all for helping me.

To emphasize I’ll repeat my points:

1. Multiple eye witnesses and accounts can emphasize different aspects of the story but the story can still be true.
2. Some people may say there were 2 items, others may talk about one of the items – but neither is contradictory unless one was to say there was ONLY 1 item. In this case all the reporters got it right. None of them had 100% of the story, as we’d expect from any human agent. Again this does not indicate the story is a fabrication but in fact may indicate the validity of the story and the validity that multiple witnesses were at the event each noting a different portion of the entire event.
3. It is possible that there were multiple of some events, like the numerous types of barriers. Again the differing witnesses add to the entirety of the account and do not invalidate the event.
4. Some accounts gave estimates rather than exacts which do not invalidate the account or indicate that it’s made up.
5. Later accounts of the same event may add additional information. Thus though earlier accounts are sparse and later accounts more full it does not indicate the accounts are false. In fact in some cases later accounts may be paraphrases of parts of the earlier accounts so you can get a later summary that is less detailed. And then the reporter can spend the extra space he/she has describing something they think is more important.
6. Some accounts may call something by a different name depending on their background or inclinations. In each case however this does not mean the account is false but that the vernacular of that writer/viewer/news reporter is different.

Thanks

Neil

After that one last response came in:

So Neil, let’s grant you that you have very cleverly shown that inconsistent accounts of an event do not necessarily “invalidate the event” itself. And let’s put aside for the moment that we are talking about THE single most important event upon which a religion is based (the accounts of which one could realistically expect not to be riddled with inconsistencies). It seems to me that in your list of conclusions you fail to recognize the possibility that one or more of the writers could simply have got it wrong (e.g. 8 is not 6; one angel is not two angels). If that is a possibility, are we faced with the possibility that the Gospels contain flaws? Are you as content to live with that possibility as you are with the existence of numerous inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts? Or are you not one who believes in the inerrancy of the Gospel accounts?

Bob

Neil’s Response.

Hi Bob,

Actually let me re-repeat my self. In my example there were NO inconsistencies. If you re-read it carefully (and I suggest you do) you’ll see all the stories were correct. Let me say that again. All the facts were correct all the details were correct. Only some emphasized certain parts. For instance some accounts mentioned 2 cars, others only mentioned the car with the 6 year old that died. They said “about 8 years old” which was correct. Some mentioned his brother who was OK, yet others did not mention him. Yet all the accounts were correct. They were not inconsistent since no account says there were no OTHER cars or no brother etc or that he was exactly 8 years old. This is similar in the account of the Gospel. Nobody said there was ONLY 1 angel etc. The overriding facts in the news story were the plane and the child dying. All other events were subsequent to this and thus each witness could choose to mention it or not without any inconsistency. Similarly in the Gospel events on the resurrection for example, the overriding facts are that he died and that he rose. All other events are noted or not, similar to the newspaper accounts when noted they are correct but not necessarily the complete picture. There is no inconsistency nor are there any contradictions – only apparent ones that can be as easily resolved as the SWA flight.

So far the example you gave is not an inconsistency.

Finally let me reiterate. I am NOT I repeat NOT trying to use this to prove the Gospels are accurate. I am only saying that you cannot use that feeble excuse that they don’t match 100% to show that it is a fraud as Charles was claiming. Do not take this blog out of context. I do believe the Gospels are accurate, but I don’t use the contents in this article to prove that.  If you want prove that the Bible is accurate go get and listen to this series: http://reclaimingthemind.org/product/the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospels-audio-download/.

Then you can write a rebuttal to it, and if you leave me a comment with the rebuttal, I’d be glad to review it.

I hope that helps.

Neil

I’ve since updated this for clarity and spelling errors etc.

Names have been changed to protect those who would have egg on their faces.

After all that I had yet another blogger still misunderstand my point.

Apparently this reader seemed to keep missing my point in this article. I think that’s because many of skeptics just skim the story without reading it carefully. They may have also gotten confused by the original title of this article. So I renamed the blog to clarify a few things and I thought I’d clarify yet again on the off chance that having 3 clarifications will somehow get noticed by those who are just skimming.

So here is the point again:

1. My point has NEVER been to show how reporters get things wrong. It has been to show rather how reporters who while getting it RIGHT, may report on a story and either only highlight what they know at the time or what they think is important at the time. In otherwords, partial facts about a story do not prove or invalidate the story or the facts. Nor do they prove that the story was fabricated later. Remember I’m trying to point out how the Gospel writers just wrote what they knew about and what they considered important.
   In this argument it would be silly for me to start accusing reporters of getting the story wrong and use that as the example, because it would imply that the Gospels were wrong too. The Gospels maybe wrong, but the variation on the focus of the report is not a basis for judging accuracy. In fact it helps determine accuracy if all the reports put together never contradict each other, just like the news reports I showed, NONE contradicted each other at all. None! They all merely added and filled out the whole story.
2. And remember don’t create any strawmen.  I know the Gospels may well have been written 30 years after the events while the news reports were written hours after the events.  But recall, I clearly stated that this argument does NOT attempt to prove the Gospel records are correct. It only shows that you can’t invalidate the Gospels for this issue of alleged contradictions as the atheist Charles was trying to do. Because they are not contradictions but merely a partial but fully correct report of the events. I repeat: I am not trying to prove the Gospels are true. I am only dispensing with that feeble argument that because one Gospel does not mention one detail but the other Gospel does, that does not prove they are wrong. To prove the Gospel is accurate see the links I provided earlier.
3. Note too that all this DOES indeed reflect what the original complaint was by the Atheist Charles who originally challenged me. His point was that some accounts said that there were 2 angels, some only noted 1, others had the only Mary Magdalene coming to the tomb, vs. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James  vs both Marys and Salome. Note how there were three barriers in the SWA event, but some reports only mentioned 1 of them others mentioned only two of them. All were correct and some of them may have even known about the other barriers but felt them to be inconsequential to the event or perhaps knew that those had already been mentioned.  So John writing perhaps 60 years after the event vs 5-30 for other Gospels may have interviewed Mary Magdalene and knew that Mark and Matthew had already described the other women, so he just focused on Mary Magdalene’s story.

So please remember I’m not using this to prove anything else BUT this point. So stay on task.

And one more time: Remember none of the reports I showed were wrong in any of the reported facts, all the facts were 100% correct, but none were 100% complete (and none will ever be complete because all accounts will be limited in space and reader’s time and interest thus every recorder/reporter/Gospel writer will have to pick and choose with items to report on).

Take a look at the link for a chronology of what probably happened that reconciles most of the issues. The rest we can deal with one by one.

Resurrection Chronology

from http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties_5.htm

Also see http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/resurrection-chronology specifically.