NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/19556

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-14 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ncar!noao!arizona!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
From: [e-mail] (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:39:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <roelle.721501117@uars_mag>
 <[e-mail]> <roelle.721608957@uars_mag>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Lines: 59
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <roelle.721608957@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes...
>[e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
>
>>Eyewitnesses don't get everything right (unless, of course, they are
>>being divinely guided so that their every word is accurate).  But when
>>there are conflicts between eyewitnesses, it is clear that *at least
>>one of them is wrong*.  This conclusion is not one which a biblical
>>literalist is willing to draw.
>
>But for non-literalists four gospels are better than two.

But not much better, since three of them (the synoptics) are not independent
sources.

>
>EXAMPLE:  For flight hardware I specify a [3x] majority voting RAM
>because I know that when my software reads a bit while located in the
>Van-Allen Belts I can assume that one of the three bits has experienced
>a single event upset  -- and I can accept that, because the other two
>bits make a majority.
>
>>   Also, if one witness says an airplane's engine fell off while another
>>says the plane was shot down by an alien spacecraft, there is reason to
>>believe that more is going on than the typical errors of perception and
>>memory that plague eyewitness accounts.
>
>It is not clear what alien spacecraft have to do in this discussion of
>gospels and airline disasters.  When CNN had eyewitness accounts of the
>air crash at LAX a year or so ago, none of the eye-witnesses that I saw
>mentioned aliens.  Some saw a flaming plane descending onto the ruway,
>but others saw no flames until the crash and subsequent explosion.
>
>The point is any of these witnesses by themselves sounded plausible.  None
>had outlandish tales of marauding saucers firing phasers set to kill.  Put
>two reasonable though different eyewitness accounts side by side, and
>suddenly things start to look funny.  More information is needed, such
>accounts from from other witnesses.
>
>It seems that four gospels is as good as the 1st century can pass on.
>There were no videotapes, movies, or even (as far as I know) paintings
>made live on the scence of the crucifiction.  1st century evidence on
>its surface seems silly by 20th century standards.  The point is that
>discounting the gospels just because they are in harmony instead of in
>unison is not a good enough reason to reject all four as fiction.

But when one gospel (Matthew) inserts stories like the resurrection of
the saints at the time of the crucifixion, who traveled to the cities
and made their presence known, this does seem to be analogous to alien
spacecraft.  (Especially since this not only is unreported by any other
account, it doesn't seem to fit in well with what Matthew himself says.
If all these resurrected people were walking around prior to Jesus'
resurrection, why the surprise when Jesus himself showed up?)

>Curt Roelle

Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721