Back Page: summer 1992

DID...
tell "the things that happened in the way, and how he was known of them in 
the breaking of the bread" (v:34).  So why would the apostles have disbe-
lieved the report of the Emmaus disciples if by then they themselves were 
proclaiming  that Jesus had risen and appeared to Simon?

     What we have in the Marcan Appendix, then, is an obviously bungled 
attempt to harmonize the ending of Mark's gospel with other accounts of 
postresurrection appearances.  The failure is so apparent that the authentici-
ty of the appendix must be rejected. So the did-they-or-didn't-they problem 
is still with us.  As far as we know, "Mark" wrote nothing about postresur-
rection appearances and possibly ended his gospel at 16:8.  At that point, he 
said that the women ran from the tomb so frightened that they "said nothing 
to anyone."  Matthew, Luke, and John all disputed that.  So what is the 
truth in this matter?  Did the women go tell the disciples what they had seen 
or didn't they?  Both versions of the story can't be right.

     Somebody has to be wrong, and the inerrantists can take their pick. 
The version of Matthew, Luke, and John or the one by Mark--it doesn't 
matter.  If either version is wrong, then the Bible is not inerrant. One thing 
is sure: the four resurrection accounts are certainly not inerrant. 

               ************************************

SAINTS...
     Since then there is no such prophecy, but a pretended prophecy 
     of an old coat ["They parted my garments among them..."], the 
     proper deduction is, there were no such things... (An Examina-
     tion of the Passages in the New Testament... Called Prophecies 
     concerning Jesus Christ, pam., 1807).

Bible believers boast that Thomas Paine's best known work, The Age of 
Reason, has been repeatedly and soundly refuted, but in reality his ar-
guments against belief in divine inspiration of the Bible have never been 
satisfactorily rebutted.  In 1776, he wrote a political tract that he entitled 
Common Sense. Bibliolaters would do well to apply that title to the matters 
referred to in Paine's pamphlet just quoted.  The omniscient Yahweh had his 
prophets predict such piddling crucifixion events as casting lots for the 
Messiah's garments and giving him vinegar on a sponge but didn't have the 
prophets predict an earthquake that would resurrect many dead saints! Who 
can believe it?

   Inerrantists may cry argument from silence as loudly as they wish, but in 
all that he has said about these resurrected saints, Babinski has addressed 
some very serious problems in the inerrancy doctrine. They deserve a re-
sponse, not flippant dismissal.

   (Readers wishing to contact Tom Fishbeck about this subject or his news-
letter may do so at P. O. Box 105, Pasadena, MD 21122.  Ed Babinski's 
address is 109 Burwood Drive, Simpsonville, SC 29681-8768.) 

                *********************************

                  IF YOU MOVE... 

   If you wish to continue receiving TSR, change of address notices must be 
sent to us when you move.  Our nonprofit bulk rate does not provide for 
forwarding to new addresses.  We pay an address correction fee to keep us 
informed of those who have moved so that future issues will not be mailed to 
noncurrent addresses, where postal clerks will discard them.



                           1
   This fee lets us know only that addressees have moved, at which time we 
remove their names from our mailing list. To have your copy forwarded to 
your new address would add 52 to the original mailing fee.  The cost is 
prohibitive.              

              **************************************

                     BACK ISSUES 

   All ten back issues of TSR are available at $1 per copy. 

                 ********************************

     FREE SUBSCRIPTION: A free one-year subscription to The Skeptical 
Review can be obtained by writing to P. O. Box 617, Canton, IL 61520-0617.


















































                           2
