A Response to Carrell

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 11:24 AM 12/12/97 EST, Theoflus wrote:

>In her [Mary M's] euphoria after that, with renewed energy, she well could

have >run after the other women and joined them in time to see Christ for
the second >time --(second for her, first for the others).   
   

>However I do not believe it is incumbent on us to make such assumptions.  Luke

>says that Peter "got up and ran to the tomb.  Bending over, he saw the strips

>of linen lying by themselves, and he went away wondering to himself what had

>happened."  (Luke 24:12)  According to John this happened when Mary M ran

>back the first time and informed them that the body was missing.  Luke does not

>mention that John was also with Peter when they ran to the tomb.  

>


TILL
Yes, and Luke states that Peter went to the tomb and found the linen cloths
after MARY MAGDALENE, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women
WITH THEM went to the apostles and told them ALL THESE THINGS (24:9-10).
Just as Carrell completely ignored my grammatical analysis of Matthew's
version of resurrection morning, so he has now evaded my analysis of Luke
24, which showed that Mary Magdalene was one of the "they," "them," and
"their," who were referred to throughout Luke's narrative and that Luke
clearly said that she was one of the women who went to the apostles and told
them ALL THESE THINGS.  Now I have asked Carrell to explain to us what "all
these things" could have been except the details that Luke had just included
in his narrative about the trip to the tomb and the encounter with men in
dazzling apparel.  What did Carrell say about this? NOTHING!  I asked him to
explain how that Mary Magdalene could have told the apostles things that she
didn't know by virtue of not having been present (as Carrell claims) when
"all these things" happened.  What did Carrell say about this?  NOTHING!  It
should be evident to everyone that Carrell has nothing to say about
arguments that show his "explanation" of the Mary M problem to be untenable.

CARRELL

>Mr. Till considers himself an expert on how the Bible should have been

>written, but unfortunately the writers did not have him to refer to when they

>wrote.  


TILL
No, I just consider myself reasonably informed in linguistic matters from
having taught college English for 30 years, and I know that the rules of
pronoun-antecedent reference and agreement require readers of Matthew's
narrative to understand that Mary Magdalene was on the scene throughout the
events related.  Rather than making snide comments about what I consider
myself to be, Carrell should try to address the linguistic argument that I
have posted repeatedly.  He hasn't answered it, and no other inerrantist has
answered it.  Does someone else on this list want to give Carrell some help?
He needs it.

CARRELL
In Matthew's account of the instituting of the Lord's Supper (Matt.

>26:26) he says that Jesus first gave his disciples the bread, then the cup.

>Mark 14:22ff agrees with this order.  Luke 22:17ff says he took the cup first,

>then the bread, and then again the cup.  I Cor. 11:23ff has the bread first,

>then the cup.

>

>I do not think there has ever been any serious question of the order of the

>elements the Lord instituted, even though Luke mentions the cup twice.  Luke

>seemingly placed less emphasis on the precise order of things, preferring to

>state that several things took place at approximately the same time.  Only

>someone looking for trouble can see inconsistency in this.


TILL
Does Carrell consider this even remotely parallel to the Mary Magdalene
problem? My argument in the Mary M matter is based on linguistic
requirements, and I see no linguistic elements or rules in the passages
cited above that would require one to understand that this ceremony (if it
happened) did not occur as Luke said, which would allow for one to conclude
that the other writers just didn't mention the first handling of the cup.
However, if Matthew's account should have said something like, "And BEFORE
he received a cup, Jesus took bread and blessed it..." then Carrell would
have a serious problem on his hands.  He would have to explain an obvious
inconsistency, supported by linguistic requirements, in Matthew's and Luke's
account of this event.  That is the problem that confronts him in the Mary
Magdalene problem.  He removes Mary M quickly from the scene in order to
force a reconciliation of her synoptic character with the one presented in
John's gospel, but the grammar of Matthew's account will not allow for her
removal from the scene.

WHEN IS CARRELL GOING TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM?


Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: A Response to Carrell
• Next message: A Response to Carrell
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]