We Are The Change We Seek
"i got this" - Kenny Wyland
This isn't where I thought I was going to be when I looked forward into my life, but here I am....
Yes We Can
|:: HOME :: GET EMAIL UPDATES :: My Amazon Wish List :: Atlanta Atheist Campaign Donations :: My ThinkGeek Wish List :: My Flickr Photostream :: Informed Comment :: Google Blog! :: FromJournalScapeHQ :: Ken :: Snow Jam :: EMAIL ::
Read/Post Comments (2)
2012-03-24 3:58 PM
A-Week: Testimony of the Evangelists: No Evidence Found: Part 1
To finish off A-Week I am going to post a multi-part series about a book called The Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf. Todd Pitner is a Christian who uses Twitter to preach to atheists and you may be familiar with him if you follow me on twitter or have read my previous blog post which mentions him. When he first started preaching to me, I asked him for the first thing I ask any preacher:
Evidence of God's Existence
Todd asked if I would read a book that he'd buy and send and I said yes. He sent me a copy of the book mentioned above. He claimed this book contained evidence for the existence of God. The author, Simon Greenleaf, was a lawyer (died in 1853) and is supposedly providing evidence that would stand up in court. It took me awhile to start reading it because I was in the middle of reading the Qu'ran at the time. Greenleaf puts forward a set of criteria which are needed to be met by old documents/manuscripts for them to be admissible in court, so I'm going to address those criteria in these posts. It's a little different in tenor from my other A-Week posts, but since my reading of the book coincides with A-Week, I might as well post them as part of it.
However, I was disappointed that at the very beginning of the book, Greenleaf explicitly states that he won't even be addressing evidence for the existence of God.
The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. pg 13
So, no evidence is going to be presented in this book. Ah well. Let's move on to his requirements for accepting text as evidence.
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. pg 16
He admits in the following pages that discrepancies among copies of the Gospels have been introduced over time, but dismisses those discrepancies as "slight" and says they do not corrupt the original.
Slight? Let's take a look at the Gospel of Mark.
It is considered to be the first Gospel written, approximately 40 years after the death of Jesus and is no longer considered to be written by Mark. The author of this Gospel is generally considered to be unknown. Greenleaf didn't have access to the archaeology which changed our view of this Gospel. Not his fault, but still. However, his argument is primarily about the content, not the author.
Let's take a look at Mark Chapter 16:
1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
They said nothing to anyone.... so then how did anyone know that happened? Well, that's how the Gospel of "Mark" appeared in the 1st century. That's NOT how it appears today... at some point it was more than DOUBLED in size and had the ending completely changed.
9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
You can see this for yourself, just go grab your Bible off the shelf and check. There should be a footnote in there. It's in all of the Bibles I have. They all mention that the second half of the chapter does not exist in the oldest manuscripts.
Another example is the Gospel of John chapter 8:
1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
Everyone knows this story, right? The only problem is that it doesn't exist in the original manuscripts.
I can continue, but I think my point is clear. In a general sense, the stories presented in the Gospels have been changed over time, written by people not present for the events they describe, etc.
To respond to Greenleaf's particular rule of evidence: There is plenty of evidence of tampering with the stories in the years between original authoring and now.
Continue to Part 2...
Read/Post Comments (2)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
© 2001-2010 JournalScape.com. All rights reserved.
All content rights reserved by the author.