A Response to Carrell
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:33:24 -0800 (00881904804, 2.2.32.19971211233324.006940c4@midwest.net)
At 08:49 AM 12/11/97 EST, Theoflus wrote:
>What aileth thee, Mr. Till!? You write:
<replied to separately; snipped>
CARRELL
>My previous post:
>
>>> May I briefly state what I believe the scenario MIGHT have been
>and which makes everything fit together perfectly. Matt 28:1ff
>says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the
>sepulchre as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.
<the rest of "previous post" snipped; already responded to>
CARRELL
>Your only objection to this was that the Gospel writers speak of the women as
>a group, and do not all say that Mary was not with them when Jesus appeared to
>them on the road. At first I thought you might have had a small point, and
>suggested that Mary might have rejoined the other women after she had seen
>Christ when she was alone at the tomb. If so, she would have seen him a
>second time.
TILL
My response to this is being forwarded to the Errancy list, so I would like
to ask those who were on the list when Carrell was a member if they recall
ever seeing his "previous post" or any exchange like what he describes
above. Carrell must surely have me confused with someone else that he may
have engaged in discussion, because some of his comments above are simply
not applicable to me. The Mary Magdalene Problem has been debated on the
Errancy list with several would-be apologists, and everyone who has followed
these discussions know that my PRIMARY argument always centers on Matthew's
account of what happened that morning. I don't recall ever having argued
with anyone that the fact that the synoptic narratives do not say that Mary
M was NOT with the other women when they met Jesus would be proof that she
WAS with them. I, in fact, have always argued that linguistic rules require
the readers of Matthew's account to understand that Mary M was present
throughout the narrative and therefore had to be one of the women who
encountered Jesus as they were running from the tomb. My reasons for taking
this position have been explained IN DETAIL twice in my responses to
Carrell's latest, so I suggest that he try to respond to the linguistic
arguments that I have posted in this matter. My position is simple: If
Matthew's narrative requires the presence of Mary M throughout the
resurrection morning scene, then the other narratives must agree with
Matthew or else the Bible is not inerrant.
CARRELL
>But upon reading the passages in Mark and Luke again I see that it is not
>necessary to assume that.
>
TILL
Well, I suggest that Carrell read MATTHEW'S account again and try to see the
linguistic requirements that necessitate the conclusion that Mary M was
present throughout the narrative. She was one of ONLY two women that
Matthew said went to the tomb on the first day of the week, so when the
angel spoke to THE WOMEN in verse 5, Mary Magdalene had to be included or
else Matthew's narrative is linguistically incoherent. When Matthew said
that THEY departed from the tomb and that Jesus met THEM, and THEY took hold
of his feet and worshiped him, Mary Magdalene has to be included in the
pronouns "they" and "them" or else Matthew's narrative is linguistically
incoherent. This is the problem that Carrell must confront, and he can't do
that by reading the passages in Mark and Luke again. He needs to read
Matthew's account again.
CARRELL
>Mark has Mary going to the tomb with the other women -- (16:1) -- but then
>says that He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, without explaining why she was
>not with the other women when he appeared. (Mark 16:9) John (20:1ff)
>enlarges on this, explaining what Mark covers in a single verse, about how
>Jesus appeared to Mary first.
>
TILL
For the sake of argument, I'll just concede that the "Marcan Appendix,"
which Carrell has quoted, was a part of "Mark's" original manuscript. Most
scholars don't think that it was, but let's put that issue aside for the
moment. If Mark 16:9 was indeed written by "Mark," then it would have to be
in agreement with the other three resurrection accounts or else the Bible is
not inerrant. Since Carrell wants the Bible to be inerrant, I assume that
he will agree that Mark 16:9 must be reconcilable without everything else
said about the resurrection in the other gospel accounts. That being true,
since the linguistic requirements of Matthew's version absolutely
necessitate Mary M's presence throughout the narrative, then the only way to
reconcile Mark 16:9 with Matthew's account would be to say that after the
women ran from the tomb (Matt. 28:8), Mary Magdalene was the first to
encounter Jesus. Hence, he appeared to her first. Were it not for John's
depiction of Mary M as one who thought the body had been stolen, this is no
doubt exactly what inerrantists like Carrell would argue to explain how Mary
M was the first in a group of women to see Jesus.
CARRELL
>Luke does not say that they remained in a tight little bunch until they had
>reported. If Mary had separated herself from the group, as John explains, she
>could have returned either before or after the other women came back.
>
TILL
John doesn't "explain" that Mary M "separated herself from the group"; he
merely says that "on the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene early,
while it was yet dark, to the tomb, and saw the stone taken away from the
tomb. She ran therefore and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple
whom Jesus loved, and said to them, 'They have taken away the Lord out of
the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him'" (John 20:1-2). Anyone
reading this and having no familiarity with the other gospel accounts would
understand that Mary M went to the tomb alone, so where does Carrell get
that John "explained" that Mary M "separated herself from the group." This
is something that Carrell is reading into the text in a desperate try to
make John's Mary M compatible with the Mary M of the synoptics. Since
Matthew's account will not linguistically allow anyone to separate Mary
Magdalene from the other Mary, Carrell has a big problem on his hands. We
will wait to see how he handles it.
CARRELL
>Luke 24:9-10 "When they came back from the tomb, they told all these
>things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna,
>Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the
>apostles." (NIV) This does not say that they CAME BACK TOGETHER. Luke
>simply does not explain what Mark and John both allude to, that Mary
Magdalene >left the group of women when she saw the stone over the tomb had
been rolled >back. Thus she was alone at the tomb when Jesus appeared to her
first. He then
>appeared to the other women on their way back.
>
TILL
I'd like for Carrell to produce a statement from Mark and one from John that
says that "Mary Magdalene left the group of women when she saw the stone
over the tomb had been rolled back." Neither text says this. It is simply
an assertion that Carrell is making in order to try to find a way around a
textual embarrassment. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the grammar of
Matthew's narrative will not permit the removal of Mary Magdalene from the
scene, so if the Bible is inerrant, what Matthew said happened must be in
agreement with what the other accounts said. That being true, Carrell must
find some other way to approach this problem. He can't make an arbitrary
declaration that has no textual support in ANY of the narratives and
certainly not one that contradicts what Matthew clearly said.
In an earlier response, I analyzed Luke's account and traced the pronoun
THEY from 23:55 through 24:1-10 to show that Mary Magdalene was one of the
"they," "them," and "their" referred to throughout the narrative. Now
Carrell is trying to argue that just because Luke said that the women named
went and told "this" to the apostles, he didn't necessarily mean that they
all went back TOGETHER.
Very well, I have said a great deal about the grammatical requirements of
Matthew's account, so now let's do a grammatical analysis of Luke's account.
I want to begin by asking Carrell if it would have been possible for Mary
Magdalene to tell the other disciples something that she did NOT know. This
is important, because Luke 24:10 says that "it was (or 'they were,'
depending on translation) Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James,
and the other women WITH THEM, who told these things to the apostles."
Now what were "these things" that the women told the apostles? Unless Luke
meant that the women told the apostles the things that he had just narrated
(the trip to the tomb, finding the stone rolled away, entering the empty
tomb, encountering the men in dazzling apparel, hearing the announcement of
the resurrection and the reminder that Jesus had promised he would rise
again, etc.), this statement makes no sense. Indeed, the verse just before
this says that "THEY returned from the tomb, and told ALL THESE THINGS to
the eleven, and to all the rest." So if THEY told the apostles ALL THESE
THINGS, then they told the apostles the things that Luke had just related in
his narrative, and IF Mary Magdalene was one of those who told the apostles
THESE THINGS, then that is very damaging to Carrell's position. In the
scenario that Carrell is trying to peddle, Mary Magdalene could not have
told the apostles "these things," because she didn't witness anything but
the rolled away stone and the empty tomb. She would have known practically
nothing to tell them. However, Luke clearly listed MARY MAGDALENE, Joanna,
Mary the mother of James, and other women and then said that they went to
the apostles and told them THESE THINGS (ALL these things in the prior
verse). So we see that, like Matthew's narrative, Luke's is linguistically
unfriendly to Carrell's attempt to explain the Mary Magdalene problem.
Finally let's notice that in his reference to "the other women," Luke said
that these women had been WITH THEM. Now what is the antecedent of the
pronoun "them"? It has to be Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of
James. In other words, Luke was saying that these other women had been with
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. Carrell, however,
wants to snatch Mary Magdalene immediately from the scene and get her out of
the picture. If Mary M was removed from the scene so quickly, how
appropriate would it be to say that these other women had been WITH Mary M?
Regardless, Luke clearly said that Mary M was one of the women who told the
apostles THESE THINGS, so Carrell needs to explain how she could have told
the apostles things that she couldn't have known because she wasn't present
when they happened.
CARRELL
>The explanation I gave, therefore, covers all objections which you made when
>you said the four reports in the Gospels contain glaring inconsistencies. The
>inconsistencies are only in your head.
>
TILL
This explanation "covers all objections"? Well, anyone reading my responses
to Carrell's postings can plainly see that this isn't so. If the
inconsistencies are only in my head, then Carrell should be able to explain
them away. We'll look forward to seeing him tackle the linguistic
requirements of Matthew's account.
CARRELL
>Why don't you publish this on your little list?
TILL
Oh, it's already there. I forwarded your "previous post" to the Errancy
list soon after I received it, and I have also posted my response. This
posting that I am now responding to has already been sent to Errancy, and
this response will soon follow. Carrell is fooling himself if he thinks
there is anything in his postings on this subject that I don't want the
Errancy list to see. Believe me, I want everyone there to see his complete
failure to resolve the problem.
CARRELL
>I don't want to rejoin your list, not because I am afraid of you, or
consider that the >Bible cannot be defended.
TILL
Oh, of course not. If Carrell thought for one minute that he could back me
into a corner on this issue or any other, he would already be on the list.
CARRELL
>You say, >> I will say one thing for Carrell: he is smart enough to know
not to >attempt the untenable. << HOW KIND OF YOU! >> Carrell was on it
>[the Errancy list] for a while, got his plowed cleaned thoroughly, and then
>left the list. << OH REALLY! It is because of a constant barrage of tripe
>like this that I do not consider it worth my time to rejoin your list.
TILL
I stand by my statement. I know too much about how Church-of-Christ
preachers welcome the opportunity to debate when they think they can prevail
to buy this excuse from Carrell. If what I have posted on this subject is a
"barrage of tripe," let's see him show where my counterarguments err.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net