The Four Accounts
There are four resurrection accounts, a fact that causes some considerable consternation. The differing details seem to be the problem, something I’ve never quite understood.
From an epistemological point of view, we expect great certainty and precision toward objects that are poor in donation. Objects, mathematics: these provide certainty, yet unlike persons, they are poor in donation. That which is given does not saturate to the degree that persons or events do. Of course, this is why persons are so difficult to get to know and why complete certainty between a husband and a wife is always a goal, but never quite a reality. Love and trust overcome this gap.
I often tell my students that we should not be suprised at the fact that there are so many religions in the world. An “object” of knowledge like God saturates to a degree that the human mind cannot fathom. For this reason, it must be – without the aid of revelation – that many cultures search in their own ways for this god. Yet, unlike in mathematics, no perfect formula can ever identify him. Our knowledge is always inadequate.
The same is true of the resurrection. It is an event that saturates to such a degree, that we should expect many renditions. In fact, if there were only one, that is what would make us suspicious. A judge who hears the same exact story from every witness begins to suspect a conspiracy. It is when the events mostly line up, yet diverge in their very attempt to describe the indescrible, that we know a truth is present.
Such with the resurrection. It leaves its shadow behind: a shroud, a face cover, an unrolled stone. Yet John arrives and must believe. Thomas sees and learns to believe. Belief alone is adequate so such saturation.
Comments are closed.
Can you explain a little more why the different details of the empty tomb narrative are a problem? This isn’t so obvious to me, and I’d like to hear more about what you’re thinking.
Sorry. My phrasing is poor. i mean to say that the fact of four different accounts has never been a problem for me, but does cause consternation to many others.
Nathan
Have you ever read any Florensky? Your comments here would seem to indicate you go in a line of thought similar to his.
A judge who hears the same exact story from every witness begins to suspect a conspiracy.
Judges do not deal with anything at all similar to Gospel accounts, which are almost 2000 years old, were written decades after the events they describe, were selected as the authoritative accounts long, long after they were written, and were shaped by theological reflection in some places (particularly the Infancy Narratives) to the point where regarding them as at all historical is impossible.
It is when the events mostly line up, yet diverge in their very attempt to describe the indescrible, that we know a truth is present.
It seems to me a reasonable case can be made that one need not disbelieve Gospel accounts that “mostly line up, yet diverge.” But I don’t think any case can be made that any accounts of anything are believable merely because they “mostly line up, yet diverge.” Differing versions of legends or folk tales can be similar and yet entirely fictitious.
Henry, unfortunately I haven’t.
Nathan
Ok. I know there is always limits to what we study; Florensky is always a favorite of mine, and I’m reading a new biography on him, and what you wrote just looked similar to what I saw being described about him and how he got to grasp truth through love beyond the intellect which will only see truth split up in parts which are difficult (and impossible) for the human intellect to put together in a coherent whole.
David, depends what you mean by history, though I agree that the infancy narratives are probably the most fanciful.
The second point you make is true. I am not arguing that because they differ, they must be true. Just that, even though they differ, this does not make them untrue, and actually, because of the object they seek to explain, divergence should be what we expect.
I think there are arguments for the resurrection, but I was not raising any.
I’d be interested in this article if I understood it. You might want to write with the armchair epistemologist in mind.