Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Our Skeptical friend Ebon brings his next broadside of nonsense to bear on the question of the Trial of Jesus, specifically with respect to the reports of what was said and with reference to harmonizing of the accounts. Ebon lays some groundwork by confusing the meaning of the word "inerrant" with the doctrine of "inerrancy" (never mind imposing his own semantic contract upon an ancient document -- so that, in others words, Ebon, judges by the standards of precision-demand of the writers of the period, these are not "errors" at all, and whether they were inspired by God or not makes absolutely no difference in context, nor does it make a difference whether they were written by eyewitnesses or not) and tumbles to yet greater depths of buffoonery, such as the statement that accounts of fictional characters contain exaggeration. I'm still puzzling over that one, as it isn't clear what actual event is overstated for purposes of a completely fictional account. In the course of his meanderings, Ebon misconstrues the purpose of our Abraham Lincoln comparisons, the point of which was to emphasize that the reports, while differing in detail and presentation, are nevertheless accurate in what they relate, and may be harmonized easily and in ways that are just as applicable to the Gospels. Ebon makes clear that he misses the point by claiming that the issue of Jesus is different since there are claims of inerrancy and inspiration involved. What he actually makes clear is that he is exercising a special standard for evaluation of the Bible text. As for Ebon's alleged contradiction and how it relates to the Lincoln satire, perhaps we should add the observations of Luke:

Luke 22:70 (NIV) They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

No doubt if all we had were the accounts from Matthew and Mark, Ebon would rapidly conclude that a supposed marrying of the accounts such that the question of the high priest contained the answer that Jesus obliquely affirmed was an ad hoc hypothesis. Yet, that is just what Luke reports in his gospel. So, where's the slippery slope that Ebon warns us about? In each account, the priest grills Jesus, and in each account Jesus gives an oblique/affirmative answer to the question regarding his identity. Should there be any doctrinal or historical confusion regarding this point? Seemingly not, and I suspect that the slippery slope that Ebon want us to perceive is that if the accounts are not transcendentally amenable to interpretation, then the accounts cannot be trusted to accurately convey doctrine or history.

It is regrettable than Ebon cannot conceive of inerrancy in any other terms than primitive KJV Onlyism or of fundamentalist atheism. It is also regrettable that he misses the larger point of the Lincoln analogy, that it is a matter of simplicity for us to decide a priori that the Gospels are wrong, just as it was easy for Phonias Futz to conclude the Lincoln bios were wrong, based on nothing more than inherent and biased presupposition and ignorance. That Ebon cannot see his own face staring back at him in the mirror is bemusing indeed.

Ebon throws his next muffball by suggesting that Futz may as well conclude that James Bond, Captain Kirk, or L. Ron Hubbard's materials were non-fiction. If the comparison is meant to the Gospels, it fails from the start. The Gospels were written in the genre of narrative biography; there are no missing pieces (as one might suggest a Star Trek episode's commercials or credits may be missing) that would allow us to assume otherwise. Ebon, who pedantically tells us that the "lesson" is that there's "no shortcut to the right answer" and we "can't just skip over the tedious business of scientific investigation simply because we know (or think we know) ahead of time what the truth is" has himself committed (elsewhere as well) a boneheaded error resulting from his own "shortcut" around Biblical scholarship that he apparently took because he skipped the "tedious business" of looking into the appropriate background material. And so justifies our continued evaluation of him.

He may also wish to compare his impaired analogy to the parody done by a classical scholar of our acquaintance on Napoleon, considering the work of Raglan, and this Abe Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. He will come to see how easy it is to play games like this in ignorance.

We'd also recommend that for kicks he look up "Shatnerology" in Google.

Ebon also plugs the tired old screed:

And why don't these small discrepancies cast doubt on the core facts of Lincoln's life? Because the core facts of Lincoln's life are not in dispute. No biographer seeking to present a complete picture omits his most important deeds, such as the Emancipation Proclamation, nor does any one biographer record startling and significant stories of his life that no other knows of. The gospels, by comparison, are all over the map. Mark knows nothing of Jesus' childhood at all. Matthew records Herod's slaughter of the innocents, the family's flight to Egypt and the three wise men who followed the star, extraordinary events which no other source, secular or biblical, provides any corroboration for. Luke, by contrast, ignores all this and gives us the familar manger scene, again uncorroborated by any other source. John, like Mark, has no infancy narrative, but instead opens with a cosmic Logos hymn.

Ebon in his provincialism lacks knowledge of a few other differences: Notably, that unlike the Lincoln biographers, the Gospel authors did not have unlimited, cheap paper and ink to use. He can learn more about this, and about ancient procedures of composition that restrained ancient writers the way modern writers are not restricted, here.

In sum: The Lincoln "errors" are not errors, and neither are difference in the Gospels (other than by imposing a modern, precision-crazed definition of "error" that would also exclude any use of hyperbole, for example, if we wish to take that provinicialist view that the text must transcend all possible subjective definitions of error, even that of a hyper-literalist); both Lincoln's materials and the Gospels can be easily and readily harmonized (especially when ancient compositional issues are taken into account). As an amusing note, Ebon then waves the threat-flag of "Christians out there who do believe that the Bible can be 'read like a newspaper'" and "do believe that every single word, character and penstroke is the absolutely perfect and inerrant word of God. Minor contradictions such as this one are there for those people's benefit, not for his." So in essence Ebon is admitting that he doesn't mind putting up absolutely ridiculous suggestions of error for no other purpose than to disturb the faith of the less educated. No doubt Ebon gets even more jollies out of tripping old ladies on the bus and stealing gum from small children.

After this Ebon changes the subject and hoists a non-dilemma asking how Gospel writers knew certain events took place when they were not present. He preps for an answer by immediately supposing that only "elaborate ad hoc rationalizations which enjoy not one shred of support from the text could be conjured up to answer this." What makes a scenario "elaborate" is not laid out, and why we need textual support for a reasonable supposition is not answered. Historical detective work does not often require long reaches, and neither do any of the examples Ebon cites that I can readily identify. "The Garden of Gethsemane scene, in which Jesus prays alone while his disciples sleep, is another example." The heck it is. "So is the famous Temptation story, in which Jesus confronts Satan while completing a period of fasting alone in the desert." Whuh? Jesus didn't have the ability or time to tell his disciples about this incident afterwards? "The Jews go to Pilate in secret, asking him to set guards on Jesus' tomb." Blazes, man, Jesus had members of Herod's household (8:3) in his retinue, and members of the Sanhedrin as secret disciples, and converted priests (Acts 6:7); you don't think there was enough data in the heads to get this basic story, to say nothing of people who later "spilled the beans" when the "jig was up"? (Don't forget, Ebon, this was a collectivist society where everyone minded everyone else's business. If you don't know what that means, go find out before answering.) "Luke records the inner thoughts of a Pharisee." Presumably Ebon means Luke 7:39; I suppose he never would think that Luke might interview people to compile his account. This is no harder than a newsman getting someone to say, "I thought I was dead when I saw Ebon running towards me screaming and holding a mallet." "Matthew tells us that Judas threw his blood money back into the temple out of guilt before committing suicide. (How does he know what Judas did with the cash?)" Not hard at all; see Acts 6:7. "In short, the gospels show every sign of having been written in the omniscient third-person style of narration, which bolsters my claim that they were originally meant as elaborate religious allegories used for teaching and instruction - not as history." In short, Ebon is a one-dimensional provincialist who suffers from a severe case of fundamentalist atheism. Maybe he ought to run through Josephus and ask how that worthy knew of certain people's thoughts, frames of mind, or statements or events at private meetings or other points where he was not present -- and doesn't say how he found out.

Readers may send sympathy cards care of ebonmusings.com.