What happened on Easter?

[usregimechange]

Who were the women?

* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

I read each account in each Bible book and I am not sure what the hell happened.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Don't feel bad

In the last three elections, nobody is sure what the hell happened.

--p!

[freesqueeze]

2. Relax...Sit Down and Rest

What you are doing is thinking for yourself. This is not conducive with being a good church goer. Just bring your 10% by the Chapel on Sunday and someone there will make up your mind for you.

[usregimechange]

7. Yes! My salvation!

[aquart]

3. Or you could think of it as fan fiction.

[SPKrazy]

4. Now you are being as literal as the RWingers

The message is simply that "Christ died, Christ was risen, Christ will come again"

I don't take the bible literally.

These writers all wrote well after the fact.

Why is it important to challenge believers beliefs?

I could give a **** whether you, or anyone else chooses to believe or disbelieve.

The dogma is not important

The love is in my religion.

Thanks for your time

[onehandle]

5. Yep. nt

[usregimechange]

9. Good for you.

[noamnety]

11. On the word "literal"

I understand the use of the word literal when talking about the bible, when it's used to mean something didn't really happen, this is just a parable. I'm not sure I understand it as well when there are conflicting accounts of something people believe actually happened.

[jody]

6. Those are insignificant questions. Was Jesus actually dead & resurrected?

1 Cornithians 15:13-22
QUOTE
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching vain, and your faith also vain.

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

But now is Christ risen from the dead, become the firstfruits of them that slept.

For since by man death, by man also the resurrection of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
UNQUOTE

Believe what you will but Christians believe Jesus was resurrected.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

8. what happened was that the sun rose that day and then it set

that afternoon; then summer came and winter and then spring again.
rebirth is all around; you don't need to read the Bible to understand what it all means.
Peace

[madeline_con]

10. I thought it was the bunny? eom

[papau]

12. It is easy to show Barker is undereducated - but I'll let Tektonics do it

http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html

Harmonization

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Issue of Complementary Accounts - Part 1
James Patrick Holding

The Bible preserves two sets of accounts about the same set of historical events. The books of Chronicles, matched with the rest of the OT, is the first set, and the four Gospels provide the second set. On the one hand this is quite beneficial, but it has also proved a gold mine for critics looking to destroy the claim of Biblical inerrancy, for there are many who hold that the differences in reporting the same events in the Gospels should be classed as contradictions.
Robin Lane Fox, in his book The Unauthorized Version, has written:

Harmony is a misguided method: if we want the truth, we have to choose one of the three or none.
Nothing could be more incorrect. Harmony is an essential part of any attempt to find the truth where we have conflicting yet similar accounts. Skeptics, of course, view harmony as something illicit when applied to the Gospels or the OT. Jim Meritt complains mightily, describing harmony thusly:
"There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b" -which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they (sic) don't mind adding to verses.

In the same vein, Dan Barker writes:
Some apologists assert that since the writer of John does not say that there were not more women who visited the tomb with Mary, then it is wrong to accuse him of contradicting the other evangelists who say it was a group of women. But this is a non-argument. With this kind of thinking, I could claim that the people who accompanied Mary to the tomb included Mother Teresa, Elvis Presley, and Paul Bunyan. Since the writer of John does not specifically clude these people, then there is no way to prove that this is not true--if such fragile logic is valid.
Obviously, we cannot get overly creative when resolving seemingly contradictory accounts. When invoking speculative factors - which indeed, ultimately and by nature, are arguments from silence - only reasonable speculations that fit in with the characters, setting, the known facts of the situation, and human nature, can be used. "Litle (sic) green martians" or "Mother Teresa" etc. would indeed by ludicrous - but people who might have been there would not be unreasonable. Glenn Miller has answered these complaints succinctly in his own unique way:

For some reason, these arguments don't ever seem to be satisfied. If we have N witnesses to an event, they want "N+1"...And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event in EXACT detail, they are accused of "collusion" and "conspiracy". And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event, but uses different vocab, style, levels of precison, of selection of details, THEN the antagonists complain about 'contradictions' and 'disagreements'! What's a mother to do?!!!! (I am always amused at these 'argument from silence' literary positions and the ability to spoof it... ("Since Jesus never spoke his own name in the Gospels, he must not have known it!"). <snip>



General Assumption #1. If it is only mentioned in one Gospel, it is doubtful that it happened.
This is nothing more than an argument from silence at its core. Of course, the corollary and logical next steps would be that if it is mentioned in 2 Gospels, it may have happened; 3, it probably did happen, and if it is in all four, it definitely happened; so that would mean that the Resurrection definitely happened! But of course, critics never take these next steps because it upsets the apple cart.

General Assumption #2: If it reflects the needs, likely questions, or problems of the early church, it is doubtful that it was said or done by Jesus. Instead, the words and deeds were written back into the Gospel records.
In the words of the Seminar: "Sayings and parables expressed in 'Christian' language are the creation of the evangelists or their Christian predecessors...The Christian community developed apologetics statements to defend its claims and sometimes attributed such statements to Jesus." (pp. 24-5) No matter how you say it, the bottom line is : The Gospels writers were liars. They invented sayings of Jesus to address problems in the church. So:

CHURCH MEMBERS: Hey, Matthew, we've got a problem. We need to know if it's a sin to put the lid on a spaghetti pot before the water boils. Jesus never said anything about it, did He?
MATTHEW: Um......

CHURCH MEMBERS: We've searched all the writings you've given us, and none of us remembers any stories you told that would help.

MATTHEW: Can I see my writings again, please?

(CHURCH MEMBERS pass Matthew a copy of his writings. Matthew turns his back and begins scribbling furiously.)

CHURCH MEMBERS: What are you doing?

MATTHEW: Um...just correcting a scribal error I noticed! Hang on a minute, I think I found something! (Matthew stops scribbling after a moment, then turns around.) There you go! I found something! See? "Jesus said unto His disciples, 'Do not place the lid on the pot before it boils.' " There's your answer!

CHURCH MEMBERS: Gee! We never saw that before! Thanks, Matthew!


While the above is, of course, a parody, it does reflect the sort of ignorance and gullibility that is assumed to have been in the early church. Attempts have been made to downplay the "dishonesty" of the Gospel writers by authors such as Burton L. Mack, who indicates that it was a literary convention of the time to attribute statements falsely to people; but it was not considered dishonest as long as the statements were in keeping within a person's character. Of course, this does nothing more than change what the Gospel writers were lying about: If they attributed statements to Jesus that were not within Jesus' character, then they lied about His character! Nor is there any evidence that this practice that Mack cites was used without qualification, or used in the case of the Gospels; he and others merely assume that it was, by virtue of the assumption that such practice existed and was presumably widespread.
The Seminar, of course, assumes that Jesus was not trying to found a movement and did not claim to be divine; hence such statements by Jesus are fabricated. This issue will be discussed in more detail in another essay; but for now, we plan to demonstrate how easy - and absurd - it is to make such presuppositions.


General Assumption #3: If it reflects something that was already being taught in Judaism or some other philosophy at the time, it is doubtful that it was said or done by Jesus.
The Seminar puts it this way: "Words borrowed from the fund of common lore or the Greek scriptures are often put on the lips of Jesus." (p. 23) This is rather a stringent demand to place upon any literary work. To their credit, the Seminar does not ALWAYS say that such quotes are invented; they admit that at times Jesus may have used common lore and proverbs when speaking. (Actually, that Jesus did use common lore and such should be taken as authenticating the Gospel records; but in the wild world of the Seminar, this is not the case.) Skeptics often take this argument a bit further by asserting that elements of the Gospels (the virgin birth, for example) were borrowed from other religions or fables.

General Assumption #4: If it has a miraculous element, it didn't happen.
The Seminar says: "Sayings and narratives that reflect knowledge of events that took place after Jesus' death are the creation of the evangelists or the oral tradition before them." (p. 25)This is mentioned for the sake of completeness. Obviously, it will not be addressed here, and properly belongs in another discussion; but we will attempt something of a parallel to it later on. We should also note that to support this standard, the Seminar dates all of the Gospels (except maybe Mark) as late as 80-95 AD, a position which is quite arguable.

General Assumption #5: The Gospel writers added to or expanded upon Jesus' sayings with their own interpretations or comments, or attributed their own statements and/or stories to the Gospels.
This is easy to assume, but difficult to prove. The Jesus Seminar creates a variety of scenarios to explain how certain parts of the Gospels have been thusly altered, generally using elements of Assumptions 2 and 3.

General Assumption #6: Many saying of Jesus are invented for the occasion. (p. 30)
The Seminar applies this mainly to non-teaching words of Jesus. For example, where Jesus exorcises a demon and says, "Come out of him!" this is regarded as just being storytellers' license to fit the situation. (This is really rather petty - and may we ask what one does say to a demon one is trying to expel? "Upsy-daisy, demon!" perhaps?) It is also said that such sayings could not have been transmitted orally, in the context of a larger story, so they cannot be relied upon - ignoring the possibility that the story itself may have been transmitted in writing, or that oral tradition can indeed be reliable to the required extent!

General Assumption #7: Only sayings and actions that fit a specified portrait of Jesus are authentic.
The Seminar has a host of criteria in this regard which we will not recount here. However, it is noteworthy that one admonition to their members is to beware of finding a Jesus that is congenial to them - is this not what they are doing when they set arbitrary criteria beforehand? (Obviously, for them, this wipes out all of Jesus' claims to divinity.)

For the moment we will set aside these seven suppositions, and return purely to the principle of harmony. It is best proved by application; and to that end, we present two examples.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARMONY #1 - CURRENT EVENTS
To better illustrate how harmony can be helpful - and is indeed legitimate - let's consider a set of articles from two leading and trusted news magazines, Time and Newsweek. Below are excerpts from three stories from each magazine of the date September 30, 1996. The topics are:


The investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800;
Possible poison gas effects on Gulf War veterans; and,
The discovery of a North Korean sub off of a South Korean beach.
(I am painfully aware that I will be accused of misquoting, quoting out of context, etc. to prove my point. To those who say so: Find my sources and check 'em yourself. Then feel free to call me a liar to my face.)

Story #1:

TIME (P. 32): "A THEORY GONE TO THE DOGS"
"On Thursday investigators learned that on June 10 St. Louis airport police had used the plane as a testing facility for a bomb-sniffing dog, and that the tiny amount of chemicals used to test the dog could be the source of the residue found on the plane parts."
NEWSWEEK (P. 34): "GOING BACK TO SQUARE ONE"
"...senior officials at the Department of Justice admitted last week that the plane known as TWA Flight 800 had been used to train bomb-sniffing dogs only five weeks before its mysterious destruction July on July 17. That suggests an innocent explanation for the presence of RDX and PETN...in the wreckage of the doomed plane."

So let's play Bible critic and pick these apart. Was there just one dog (Time) or more than one (Newsweek)? Was it "investigators who learned" or "officials who admitted"? How could the date of the test been June 10 when five weeks before July 17 was June 12? Why are no chemicals named in Time where they are named in Newsweek? Why isn't St. Louis mentioned in Newsweek? It seems picky, but some of these are just like "errors" that Bible critics like to pounce on - such as the "women at the tomb" issue and the story of the healing of the blind men outside Jericho. As Matthew says "two blind men" where Luke and Mark say "a blind man," it is not said in the latter that there was ONLY one! Likewise, Time's story COULD be read to indicate just one dog, but not necessarily.

Story #2:

TIME (P. 42): "THE GULF WAR POISONS SEEP OUT"
"For five long years, the Pentagon steadfastly insisted there was no evidence that U.S. soldiers were exposed to poison gas during the Gulf War..."
"(Symptoms) includes chronic fatigue, joint ailments, rashes and memory loss."

NEWSWEEK (P.38): "A MYSTERIOUS MALADY"
"Is Gulf War syndrome a single illness? If so, what causes it, and how many veterans are afflicted? Government agencies have spent five years and $80 million pursuing those questions."

"(Symptoms) include joint pain, tremors, fatigue, memory loss, and intermittent diarrhea..."

Here's one for the government conspiracy theorists! Was the government denying the problem, or pursuing a solution? Obviously, it was doing both simultaneously, as we know. But a historian digging up copies of these magazines 2000 years from now might think that there was an error in the texts. And then there's the lists of symptoms - contradictory or complimentary? The latter, definitely; but in each case, the writers of the article just put down what they thought was most important - just as the Gospel writers sometimes did. Last story:

Story #3:

TIME (P.44): "THE SPIES FROM THE SEA"
"..one night last week, a South Korean taxi driver spotted something like a whale wallowing in the surf."
NEWSWEEK (P. 40): "REDS ON THE ROCKS"
"Just after midnight last Wednesday, a taxi chugging along the Kangnung highway on the east coast of South Korea threw its headlights briefly on a group of young men sitting by the roadside..."

"(After dropping off a passenger and returning to the site, the driver said he saw) 'something that looked like a dolphin or a submarine' and called police."


Note how quickly Time deals with this matter, whereas Newsweek delves into some intricate details - just as Mark gives short shrift to some stories that Matthew and Luke expand upon greatly. Note, too, this difference: Was what the driver saw like a whale, or like a dolphin, or like a submarine? Could the persons translating what the Korean taxi driver said have misunderstood or given their own interpretation to their respective reporters?
If skeptics accord these magazines the same treatment as they do the Bible, then to be consistent they must also say that these magazines are untrustworthy. (Of course, there are some skeptics who don't believe ANYTHING they read!) But isn't it more charitable to assume that we have misunderstood something, and look for the solutions to the alleged problems?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARMONY #2 - THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL LINCOLN
For this comparison, four biographies of Abraham Lincoln were chosen at random from the shelves of the public library, the only criteria being that they were:

Of equitable size to one another;
Focusing on Abraham Lincoln as their primary biographical subject - thus, for example, a dual biography of Lincoln and his wife was rejected.
Through this comparison, we will:

Demonstrate that the alleged discrepancies and differences in the Gospels are no more problematic than the differences that may be found in any comparison of biographies; and,
Use the seven presuppositions mentioned above to deduce what the "Historical Abraham Lincoln" was "really like." Thus, we will demonstrate the truly arbitrary and unscholarly nature of the presuppositions.
And now, to make the situation of these biographies more equitable with that of the Gospels - let's create the following fictional scenario:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to the year 3735.

Near the start of the 21st century, an asteroid some seven miles in diameter slammed into the mid-Atlantic ridge just south of Iceland, setting off a chain of destruction that nearly annihilated all life and culture on our planet.

Less than fifty thousand survived the resulting chaos. The technological societies of the Americas, Europe and Japan were wiped out.

Now, our reconstruction of society nearly complete, we seek to reconstruct our past - and that is where I come in.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am Teachminder Phonias J. Futz, and it is my ambition to reconstruct the history of one of Earth's foremost pre-20th century personages - Abraham Lincoln.

This turns out to be a more difficult task than you might imagine. The only things still known for certain about Lincoln in my time are:

That he was President over the major power in the Americas, sometimes called Usa;
That he presided over the country in a time of internecine conflict.
These were the core facts that were left to us.

Some less believable and non-authentic information we have relates to Lincoln taking some major action to end slavery. That this actually happened, at least as described, is doubtful. The extreme bigotry and prejudice known to have existed in the 19th and 20th centuries makes it unlikely that someone of that era would make an effort to end an institution that provided important economic stimulus and confirmed the prevailing (and of course incorrect) view that various races were somehow inferior to the dominant American race. All stories attributing the ending of slavery to Lincoln should be regarded as apocryphal, a mere creation of pro-Lincoln civil rights forces. If slavery ended at all, it ended in the early to mid-20th century, although many areas of America surely took an initiative and ended it well before then.

My mission began with scouring the globe, looking for any ancient sources about Lincoln that might have survived the Catastrophe. I was able to uncover only four biographies from the 20th century that had survived intact. They, and their apparent purposes, are (in chronological order):


Masters, Edgar Lee. Lincoln the Man. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1931. The purpose of this author was found on an attachment that was affixed to the inside text by some adhesive. This makes it of doubtful relevance, but it seems to adequately describe the contents:
"In the vast Lincoln literature this work of Mr. Masters is the first which deals with Lincoln by way of analysis of his mind and nature; and in terms of politico-legalistic criticism of Lincoln's theories respecting the nature of the Union, and of his acts and measures as President."

Masters' work is important because it is written closest to the time of Lincoln and in some cases may not having been colored by later influences. But it still is of sufficient distance from Lincoln's death - about 75 years - for legend and myth to have creeped in.


Basler, Roy P. The Lincoln Legend: A Study in Changing Conceptions. New York: Octagon Books, 1969. This sobering analysis turned out to be the most valuable of the four. It is both a biography and an explosive, provocative expose' of the many myths surrounding Lincoln.
Why is it therefore most valuable? It is known that the period between 1960 and the Catastrophe was a time of significant social upheaval. The civil rights movement coalesced, and much of their focus was upon groups that had been previously oppressed by slavery and were still being denied basic civil rights. Lincoln was selected as a hero for this movement, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that - with all good intentions - images of Lincoln after the formation of the movement reflected the desires and opinions of that movement. Basler's book appears to have been an attempt to counter the total absorption and remaking of Lincoln. This effort, as we shall see, failed miserably.


Oates, Stephen. With Malice Toward None. New York: New American Library, 1977. The self-description of this book tells all:
"Here is Lincoln in his bitter struggle to rise from poverty to self-made success in business and law. Lincoln, the politician who survived crushing defeat and disappointment; Lincoln, the husband and father who came to know both tender love and shattering loss...Here is Lincoln as he really was - and as we now come to know him for the first time. Lincoln - the man, not the myth."

1977 was at the heart of the civil rights movement, and here we see that Lincoln, despite Basler, has been taken over by it, and that the movement has asserted their own history for the man. The description is almost nauseating in its praise; and note the italicized words - apparently these authors recognized that their "version" of the life of Lincoln was going to be unique!

Did Oates get away with this abominable treachery? Yes, and worse - there are pages full of positive reviews for his book. This is suspicious, for how could the press praise a book that had just been published? Probably because the media, of course, was behind the civil rights movement (and rightly so). I view them as mostly unfortunate, unknowing pawns in the effort to remake Lincoln, at least at the time of Oates. But their participation and collusion went further by the time of our last author:


Donald, David Herbert. Lincoln. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995. The effusive self-praise and rhetoric in this book's self-description is almost deafening:
"This fully rounded biography..."

"In Donald's skillful hands, Lincoln emerges as a vigorous, youthful President."

"Donald's biography is written from Lincoln's point of view."

"Donald's strikingly original portrait of Lincoln..."

How "original" is Donald's portrait of Lincoln? So original that it is full of events and reports not mentioned in the other three biographies. This, and the stated purpose of the book, gives us ample cause to regard Donald's book with suspicion.

The media, at this time, was so deluded by the movement to recreate Lincoln that they awarded Donald a Pulitzer Prize!

The works of Oates and Donald are also clearly written in popular narrative style. This is strongly indicative of fabrication.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In all fairness, the movement to recreate Lincoln was one with noble intent. The 20th century was a barbaric time, when people around the world suffered oppression; some 90 percent of the population lived in desperate poverty. People needed a savior, and Lincoln was a natural choice, having been first of all a leader, and second of all being sufficiently distant from the 20th century for these writers to recreate a history that fit their needs. We, however, have no need for such a hero in our enlightened time. We may admire Lincoln for what he was in truth; but we may also freely strip him of the excess baggage attached to him in part by Masters and Basler, and in full by Oates and Donald.

Owing the variable taintedness of all four of these documents, we are constrained to adapt seven primary criteria for their evaluation:

If only one of the writers mentions it, it probably did not happen. As alluded to just before, this will apply mainly to Donald's biography.
Events and sayings expressed in language like that of the 20th century are the creation of the authors. The pro-Lincoln civil-rights community developed statements to defend its claims and attributed words and actions to Lincoln that backed up their claims.
Words or events that resemble those of the 20th century are often ascribed to Lincoln and his contemporaries.
Anything that seems incredible, probably didn't happen.
The writers, according to their own biases, added to or expanded upon Lincoln's deeds and words.
Many of Lincoln's words or deeds are invented for an occasion.
Only words or deeds that reflect our present knowledge and conception of Lincoln may be regarded as authentic.
In addition, we shall note contradictions between the accounts. These contradictions serve to warn us of the unreliability of these documents.

We will begin with an examination of Lincoln's early life.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.1.1 Lincoln's Mother (Nancy Hanks Lincoln) - Basic Description

Because Lincoln's mother died when he was young, there is comparatively little information about her.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.1 Her Lineage
Masters: Reports that Lincoln confided to a friend, William Herndon, that his mother was the natural child of Lucy Hanks and "a well-bred Virginia planter." Reports that Lucy had been indicted in Kentucky on a charge of "unbecoming conduct." (pp. 11-12)

Basler: "The illegitimacy of Nancy seems at last to be above suspicion." Basler notes that two different and varying genealogies were created in an attempt to prove her legitimacy. Masters' quote concerning the Virginia planter is repeated almost verbatim in a footnote. (p. 111)

Oates: Refers to her "confused and cloudy past" and says that "a controversy has long raged over Nancy's legitimacy, with many authorities insisting that she was born out of wedlock and others retorting that she was not." He also notes the notation from Herndon about Lincoln himself saying that his mother was illegitimate. (pp. 6-7)

Donald: Reports that a grand jury in Mercer County, Kentucky, "presented a charge of fornication" against Lucy Hanks, and that Lincoln thought that his mother was illegitimate. Says Lincoln believed that his mother was illegitimate, but rarely discussed it; one time that he did was with Herndon, when he also observed that "illegitimate children were 'oftentimes sturdier and brighter than those born in lawful wedlock,' " with his mother being a primary example, stating that she was the daughter of Lucy Hanks and "a well-bred Virginia farmer or planter." (pp. 19-20)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
This is but a small example of the changes wrought by the evolution of Lincoln. The overall effort seems to be to distance Lincoln from Nancy, while creating an image for him as a loving and forgiving son. Note these differences:
The "Virginia planter" (Masters, Basler) quote grows into "Virginia farmer or planter" (Donald) - apparently an effort to muddy the waters and keep anti-Lincoln forces from finding out about Nancy's true origins. This is an example of the writers adding on to information according to their pro-Lincoln bias.
The charge against Lucy grows mysteriously from "unbecoming conduct" (Masters) to a more serious charge of "fornication" (Donald). This effects to widen the distance between Lincoln and Nancy.
Note also these efforts to cloud Nancy's already clouded past: The two genealogies cited by Basler, and Oates' wishy-washy claim that experts are still debating the issue! In Masters' and Baslers' day, the issue seemed quite settled! Apparently this was realized by Donald to be a useless tactic; he instead invents a larger quote to Herndon, no hints of which are in the earlier accounts; at any rate, being that Herndon was an unreliable source (see his entry), we may assert that either he or these writers simply assumed that this is merely the sort of thing that Lincoln would have said on such an occasion. These words were created to back up the claim that Lincoln was a loving son, and as a corollary, that he was worthy of respect because he forgave his mother in spite of her questionable background.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.2 Her Appearance
Masters: Notes that there are a variety of reports of Nancy's appearance, including variations in her eye and hair color and stature. "...Lincoln himself left no description of her..." (pp. 12-13)

Basler: Also notes the varieties of description. (p. 107)

Oates: Asserts a brief yet definite appearance for Nancy: "thin, dark-haired...with eyes like pools of sadness..." (p. 5)

Donald: Cites a variety of descriptions, differing in respect to her height, build, and beauty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
There is little of note here, although it seems that Oates attempted to assert of definite appearance for Nancy in order to give his other, fallacious assertions about her more credence. The tactic obviously did not work, for Donald reverts to the variety of descriptions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.3 Her Education
Basler: Notes that while those who knew her thought of her as intellectual, "The matter of Nancy's education has never been and probably never will be settled." Basler compares on the one hand, images of Nancy "reading the Bible and teaching (Lincoln) to write" with the fact that there are no signed legal documents by her, and the evaluation of one biographer that she was "absolutely illiterate." (pp. 107-8)

Oates: "Unable to read, she recited prayers for the children and quoted memorized passages from the family Bible. Incapable of even writing her name, (she) signed legal documents with her mark." (p. 5)

Donald: "According to tradition, she was able to read, but, like many other frontier women, she did not know how to write and had to sign legal documents with an X." (p. 23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Here, it seems, was a clumsy attempt to give Abraham Lincoln some source for his intelligence while dealing with the obvious and incontrovertible fact that his mother has left no visible indication of literacy. Oates and Donald absolutely contradict each other (and Basler), one saying that Nancy couldn't read, the other saying that she could. Also, Donald's statement that she could read but not write is an absurdity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.4 Her Meeting with Lincoln's Father
Masters: Records that the two met during an ecstatic religious meeting, described exaggeratedly as an "orgy". (p. 14)

Donald: States only that she married Thomas Lincoln in 1806.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Masters' story was apparently too embarrassing for even Basler to report; it was quite likely violently suppressed. This is an obvious attempt to cover up Lincoln's sultry origins and make him a more adequate icon for the civil rights movement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.1.5 Lincoln's Opinion of His Mother
Masters: Lincoln was reportedly stung by his mother's illegitimacy (p. 66).

Basler: Reportedly Lincoln once said: "All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother." Basler writes of this: "It is such an expression as any man is likely to make, but...(it) has furnished the keynote of the Nancy Hanks legend." (p. 108)

Oates: Indicates that his mother's obscure origins, along with his general family history, was a "social albatross about his neck." (p. 60) Indicates that he left his mother's grave without a monument. (p. 104)

Donald: Says Lincoln rarely discussed his mother's illegitimacy. "(Lincoln) referred to her as his 'angel mother,' partly in recognition of her loving affection, but partly to distinguish her from his stepmother, who was very much alive. If he ever said, as Herndon reported, 'God bless my mother; all that I am or ever hope to be I owe to her,' it was a tribute not so much to her maternal care as to the genes that she allegedly transmitted from his unnamed grandfather." (p. 23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
This again shows an attempt to distance Lincoln from his mother while still allowing for him to have cared for her. The "angel mother" quote is subtly altered by Donald, and made into a reference to a supposed genetic gift - which is ridiculous, since the science of genetics had yet to be discovered in Lincoln's time. It, too, is put on Lincoln's lips to reflect what the writers believe that Lincoln would have said at the time. Three writers at least agree that Lincoln was uncomfortable with his mother's status.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2 Lincoln's Father (Thomas Lincoln)- Basic Description
Masters: "Thomas Lincoln had all the indicia of the Southern poor white...He was unmoral, shiftless, bound down in poverty, in spite of the fact that he had inherited enough from his father Abraham (Note: Abraham Lincoln's same-named grandfather) to have made him well circumstanced, if he had possessed ambition and prudence. He was described as a man five feet, ten and one-half inches in height, and of great strength, and in disposition rather good-natured and amiable..." (pp. 9-10)

Basler: "(His) life was rough and poor, but neither rougher nor poorer than were the lives of many others...the worst that can be said of him was that he was always poor..." (pp. 14-15)

Oates: Dennis Hanks "falsely characterized (Thomas Lincoln) as a slow and shiftless oaf a who neglected his family." (p. 8)

"...Thomas was a popular yarn-spinner and enjoyed considerable status as a skilled carpenter, whose cupboards and furniture enriched the cabins of his neighbors."(p.10)

Donald: His personal description: "...a stocky, well-built man of no more than average height, with a shock of straight black hair and an unusually large nose. 'He was an uneducated man, a plain unpretending plodding man,' a neighbor remembered; one who 'attended to his work, peaceable - quiet and good natured.' 'Honest' was the adjective most frequently used to describe Thomas Lincoln, and he was respected in his community, where he served in the militia and was called for jury duty." (p. 22)

States that Thomas Lincoln received no "patrimony" from his father, "all the money" having been taken by an older brother. "Abraham Lincoln never fully understood how hard his father had to struggle during his early years..." (p. 24)

"After an exceptional burst of energy at the time of his second marriage, (Thomas) began to slow down. He was probably not in good health, for one neighbor remembered that he became blind in one eye and lost sight in the other. He was not a lazy man, another settler reported, but 'a tinkler - a piddler - always doing but doing nothing great.' "


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
It is not difficult to discern a pattern of rehabilitation in the later accounts, to the point of fabrication: Donald ignores the inheritance reported by Masters because it does not suit his purposes. Note, also, the glowing descriptions of Thomas Lincoln in the latter two reports, compared to the moderate reports by the first two. Note how Thomas evolves from being shiftless and imprudent (Masters) to being convival and hard-working, and having stories of his laziness invented by a jealous relative (Oates), to not being lazy and, in fact, having good health reasons for not working (Donald).
One particular aspect demonstrates the paradigm shift even more aptly:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2.2 Thomas Lincoln's Attitude Towards Slavery
Masters: "In March of 1805 he was appointed a patroller of Hardin County, and by the duties of that office he became a slave catcher, empowered to catch and whip insubordinate negroes..." (pp. 9-10)

Basler: "(He) is not without his legendary aspects, however; one of the most persistent of which is that he was the first Abolitionist in Kentucky...It fitted well into the biography of his son...(but) an aversion to slavery did not keep Thomas from serving as slave 'patroller' in 1805." (Basler then recounts a legend of the young Thomas Lincoln setting free a slave that he inherited, and being ostracized as a result.) (p. 114-5)

Oates: "He stayed sober, accumulated land, paid his taxes, sat on juries, and served on the county slave patrol. Though he came from a family of small slaveholders and undoubtedly shared the anti-Negro prejudice of nearly all whites of his generation, he came to question the peculiar institution itself...In 1816 Thomas and Nancy Lincoln united with the separatist (antislavery) church and sang and prayed with its antislavery ministers." (p. 6)

Donald: Donald also mentions Thomas and Nancy's joining an antislavery church, the "Separate Baptist Church," and writes: "Thomas Lincoln's hostility to slavery was based on economic as well as religious grounds. he did not want to compete with slave labor...." (p. 24)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
A brief note, referring back to the earlier entry - did Thomas serve in the militia and get called for jury duty (Donald), or were accumulating land, paying taxes, and sitting on juries the fruits of his citizenship (Oates)? This is partially contradictory.
Note what happens to Thomas Lincoln's role as a slave patroller. Oates attempts to countermand this image of Thomas by portraying him as a basically good citizen and reporting what is probably a fictitious account of Thomas and Nancy joining an anti-slavery church. (This is a tale in line with the one cited by Basler; it is hardly credible that a former slave patroller who whipped escaped slaves would have such a reversal in temperament!) The account is further embellished by Donald, who proceeds to invent a name for the church, and neglects to even mention that Thomas was a patroller! Can there be any clearer evidence that history has been tampered with? All of this serves, of course, to buttress the claim that Abraham himself somehow was anti-slavery; if his father was, so it goes, it is reasonable to assume that he could have been too! But most of Lincoln's anti-slavery views and actions are a product of the 20th century, and so are Thomas'. Few 19th-century men would have been so enlightened, and certainly almost none from the oppressing race.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2.3 Thomas' Second Marriage
Masters: "In the winter of 1819 Thomas journeyed from Indiana back to Elizabethtown, Kentucky, where he married Sarah Bush Johnston, a widow, to whom he had proposed marriage before he married Nancy Hanks." (p. 10)

Basler: Notes the recorded marriage of Thomas to Sarah Bush Johnston in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. (p. 118)

Oates: "...(Sally Johnston and Thomas) had known each other for more than a decade...Since her husband's death, she had lived in a modest cabin she had bought herself. Thomas found her there, proposed, paid her debts, and married her in a Methodist ceremony." (p. 9)

Donald: "Within a year of Nancy's death, Thomas Lincoln recognized that he and his boys could not go one alone, and he went back to Kentucky to seek a bride. In Elizabethtown he found Sarah Bush Johnston, whom he had perhaps unsuccessfully courted before he wed Nancy." (p. 27)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
There is not much insidious here, although we may observe that the in the later biographies this second marriage to Sarah Johnston takes on the guise of an act of charity - an obvious attempt to rehabilitate Thomas Lincoln.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2.4 Abraham's Reaction to Thomas' Death
Masters: "Down at Goose Nest Prairie in Coles County, in the winter of 1850-51, Thomas Lincoln became ill, and showed signs of soon dying, as he did. Lincoln's stepbrother wrote him touching the aged man's condition. Lincoln did not answer. Then another letter was written Lincoln, this time by Harriet Hanks. Now in the extremity of death the old man wanted to see the son..."

Masters notes that Lincoln replied to this letter with his own, indicating that business and his wife's poor health would keep him from coming. (p. 140)

Lincoln much later "put up a stone to the long neglected grave of his father (p. 376)

Basler: "Then, too, there was general knowledge that Abraham Lincoln had never had much respect or love for his own father. Indeed, it would seem that he held not even the love of a friend for his father. He would not visit him during the lengthy illness that terminated the old man's life, and he did not attend the funeral..." (p. 114)

Oates: On Thomas Lincoln's death, Oates reports that it was Lincoln's stepbrother, John Johnston, who wrote to Lincoln of his father's deathly condition. Lincoln replied - to Johnston, in January 1851 - that he did not reply because 'it appeared to me I could write nothing which could do any good,' and that both his wife's illness and pressing business commitments made a visit impossible. Oates notes that Lincoln did not attend Thomas' funeral. (pp. 103-4)

After an emotional visit with his stepmother, Lincoln visited Thomas' grave and "ordered a stone marker for Thomas' grave. At least the old man should have a marker." (p. 223)

Donald: As Thomas neared death, he heard in May 1849 from John Johnston. Also, "At Johnston's request, Augustus H. Chapman, Dennis Hanks' son-in-law, reinforced the plea with a letter describing Thomas Lincoln's 'Seizure of the Heart' and his 'truly Heart-Rendering' cries to see his only son. Though Lincoln at the time was actively campaigning to secure appointment as commissioner of the General Land Office, he rushed off to Coles County to see his father, probably missing a second letter from Chapman assuring him that Thomas Lincoln had no heart disease and would 'doubtless be well in a Short time.' Lincoln's visit to Goosenest Prairie delayed by nearly a wekk his trip to Washington, and it may have cost him the Land Office appointment.

"The next winter, when John D. Johnston wrote him two more letter about Thomas Lincoln's declining health, Abraham Lincoln did not respond. He thought that his stepbrother was again crying wolf. Only after he heard independently from Harriet Chapman did he take the news seriously."

Lincoln cited business concerns and his wife's sickness as reasons that he could not visit; Donald notes that the business aspects could have been covered by Lincoln's law partners or put off, and that Lincoln's wife could have been left in the care of friends and neighbors; but says "Once again, the husband allowed his wife to take the blame for an uncomfortable decision." "Unable to simulate a grief that he did not feel or an affection that he did not bear, Lincoln did not attend his father's funeral. He was not heartless, but Thomas Lincoln represented a world that his son had long ago left behind him." (pp. 152-3)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
It is sad to see the pathetic extremes to which Oates and Donald stoop in an attempt to make both father and son look good in this matter. Notice, first, though, these irreconcilable contradictions as to who it was that wrote to Lincoln to inform him of his father's demise. Was it John Johnston and the single Harriet Hanks (Masters), Johnston only (Oates), or Johnston and Harriet Hanks, now married as Harriet Chapman (Donald)? Or was it indeed anyone (Basler)?
The accounts at least agree that it was business and his wife's health that Lincoln cited as reasons to not visit his father, although Oates attempts subtrefuge by reversing their order of priority. Apparently this attempt to excuse Lincoln's behavior was widely rebuffed, for Donald invents an incredible story, uncorroborated by any of the other writers, about Johnston "crying wolf" and Lincoln losing an important post as a result of rushing to see his father. Also, instead of properly blaming Lincoln, Donald blames Lincoln's wife - thus is inexcusable coldness made excusable by embellishment! And thus we demonstrate how, over time, history is added upon and embellished. Here is another embellishment:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2.5 Abraham and Thomas: Reason for their Poor Relations
Masters: Indicates that Abraham did help his father with "small doles" (p. 10) and that he "sent him money from time to time." (p. 140)

Basler: Says no more than the above.

Oates: Oates attributes the estrangement between Lincoln and his father to a difference in education: "Probably Thomas felt both respect and resentment for a son who read books and wrote poetry, moving toward a world of the mind Thomas could neither share nor comprehend. And young Lincoln, for his part, had considerable hostility - all mixed up with love, rivalry, and ambition - for his father's intellectual limitations. In later years Lincoln remarked that his father 'never did more in the way of writing than bunglingly sign his own name.' "

Donald: "But Abraham's pulling away from his father was something more significant than a teenage rebellion. Abraham had made a quiet reassessment of the life that Thomas lived. He kept his judgment to himself, but years later it crept into his scornful statements that his father 'grew up, literally without education,' that he 'never did more in the way of writing than to bunglingly sign his own name,' and that he chose to settle in a region where 'there was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education.' To Abraham Lincoln that was a damning verdict. In all his published writings, and, indeed, even in reports of hundreds of stories and conversations, he had not one favorable word to say about his father." (p. 33)

Donald notes a gift of $200 by Lincoln to his father after the latter suffered an unsuccessful business venture in Coles County, and another gift of $20 sent to prevent Thomas' farm being sold due to a legal judgment. However, "Thomas Lincoln's unambitious, unsuccessful way of life came to represent the values his son wanted to repudiate. He had reason, too, to believe that his father, as he reached seventy, was becoming a little senile and was too much under the influence of the unreliable (John) Johnston."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
How generous, understanding and tolerant Abraham Lincoln becomes in the skilled hands of Oates and Donald! Masters' "small doles" become an amazing (in that time)$200! Why? Because the amount is a late fabrication! That, and the reasoning based on the difference in educational level and ambition, are pure invention, meant to rehabilitate both Lincoln and his father for the purposes of the civil-rights movement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.3 Lincoln's Boyhood Living Conditions
1.1.3.1 The "Log Cabin" and Environs

An extended quote here from Masters is warranted.

Masters: "In Lincoln's day (log cabin) windows were fitted with greased paper to admit light, in lieu of glass, which was not obtainable. The floor of these cabins was of earth; the doors were of broad slabs hinged with wood or hide; the fireplace was built of stones and sticks held together by clay...The bed was made of poles resting in notched sticks, and covered with rags. From the crude rafters hung bacon and ham, if the family happened to have any...The kitchen utensils, pots, kettles, and the like, were scanty enough. The whole family, whether there were few or many children, slept in one room. In summer the heat was terrific in Kentucky and middle Indiana; in winter the cold was pitiless...Bathing was unknown, and washing was avoided rather than otherwise, especially in winter when the brook was frozen, or the well or spring afforded water stinging with ice.

"Living was in every way indecent. The cabins were filthy, and rats and other vermin abounded. Men and women undressed before each other; and the children were cognizant of the most intimate relationships carried on within a few feet of where they slept...The food was vile, consisting of pork and game, but much meat at any rate, and of corn and wheat bread which was made from meal ground in crude mortars. The cooking, too, was conducive to all stomach ailments, since nearly everything was fried and in over quantities of grease. People had bad colds in the winter, and fevers in the summer...Much whisky was drunk; and all weird superstitions abounded concerning the moon, the flight of birds, the bringing of a shovel into a room, which meant a near death and there were ghosts and witches about, whispering in dark corners and flying over the roofs. In this sort of cabin was Abraham Lincoln born, in an obscure back settlement of Kentucky of cane brake society, in no wise fit to be called the home of a human being." (pp. 15-16)

Basler: NOTEWORTHY COMMENT: "If (biographers) do not hesitate to paint what they consider an accurate picture of the squalor of (Lincoln's) early life, it is only because that background enhances the romance." (p. 103)

Nothing specific, however, is said of his boyhood living conditions.

Oates: "The truth was that Lincoln felt embarrassed about his log-cabin origins and never liked to talk about them." Lincoln himself said that his early life could be condensed into a single sentence: "The short and simple annals of the poor." (p. 4)

In his own autobiographical notes, Lincoln "Try as he might...could not remember much about Kentucky - and nothing at all about the log-cabin farm..." (p. 5)

Donald: "The land Thomas claimed was in an unbroken forest, so remote that for part of the distance from the Ohio (River) there was no trail and he had to hack out a path so that his family could follow. It was a wild region, and the forests were filled with bears and other threatening animals..."

The family began by living in a temporary camp, then with help "built a proper log cabin. It offered more protection, but because of the freezing weather the men could not work up the usual mixture of clay and grass for chinking between the logs and the winds still swept through."

"The family was able to get through the winter because they ate deer and bear meat...

"The first year in Indiana was a time of backbreaking toil and desperate loneliness for all the family, but by fall they were fairly settled...(p. 25)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Basler's admonition seems hauntingly accurate here. Gone are Masters' descriptions of squalor, and life as it really was for the young Lincoln, most likely suppressed by pro-Lincoln forces; the hero of Oates and Donald could not possibly have arisen in such dire circumstances! Instead, the facts are either lost in Lincoln's memory (Oates) or romanticized and made not to look so terrible as they seem (Donald).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.3.2 Lincoln's Early Education
Masters: Lincoln at age 6 or 7 attended a few weeks at the Knob Creek School; "according to his word, he attended school less than a year in his whole life." In Indiana he learned to read, to write and to cipher to the rule of three. From his tenth to his fourteenth year he had no schooling whatever. But about 1822 he came under the instruction of a teacher named Azel W. Dorsey...under Dorsey he learned the fine and characteristic penmanship which is conspicuous in the earliest document which we have in his hand. He also excelled in spelling from the first...He was not expert in arithmetic..." (pp. 16-17)

One Nathaniel Grigsby is cited as saying that Lincoln was always at school early. Lincoln is also characterized as a voracious reader, and several titles he read are listed. (p. 20)

Basler: "The life of young Lincoln as it was remembered in after years by his friends who had known him as a boy...was inevitably remembered in the spiritual presence of the savior of the nation, the martyr and saint...Every act became in some respect hallowed; as the man was great, so was the child...(p. 120)

"Thus is was recalled that he was never late to school...What a model for mothers to point out to their sons!" (p. 121)

Basler explains that the image of Lincoln as a voracious reader is merely the result of reports from his relatives and friends who were "of meager education and generally lowly ambitions in regard to study," so that in their eyes, he was a voracious reader. (p. 122) In fact, "Lincoln was never a consistent reader...That he read sufficiently and with comprehension goes without saying." (p. 123)

Oates: Notes that Lincoln's "first exhilirating brush with education" was "two brief sessions in 1815 and 1816" when he and his sister "could be spared from the family chores in the winter" to walk to "the log schoolhouse on the Cumberland Road," where he learned his alphabet, taught by an unnamed 52-year old Catholic slave owner. (p. 7)

"Between his eleventh and fifteenth years he went to school irregularly...All told, he accumulated about a year of formal education...In later years he scoffed at the instruction he received in Indiana, insisting that 'there was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education.' 'Still somehow, I could read, write and cipher to the rule of three: but that was all.' " (p. 11)

Oates mentions that Lincoln "took pride in his penmanship" and "enjoyed reading" so much that although "(b)ooks were rare in frontier Indiana...(he) consumed the few that he found, reading the same volume over and over. He would bring his book to the field and would read at the end of each plow furrow while the horse was getting its breath; and he would read again at the noon break." (pp. 12-14)

Donald: Cites a recollection of Lincoln, that he went "for two brief periods" to a nearby school, though mainly for company for his sister rather than to learn anything. "It was first taught by one Zachariah Riney, about whom little is known except that he was a Catholic, and then by Caleb Hazel, who, according to a contemporary, 'could perhaps teach spelling, reading and indifferent writing and perhaps could cipher to the rule of three, but had no other qualifications as a teacher...' " At this school, "Abraham probably mastered the alphabet, but he did not yet know how to write when the family left Kentucky." (p. 23)

In Indiana, Lincoln was enrolled in a school run by one Andrew Crawford, but attended only three months; the next year, he Attended a school run by a James Swaney, although only sporadically because of the distance from his house. "The next year, for about six months, he went to a school taught by Azel W. Dorsey...With that term, at the age of fifteen, his formal education ended. All told, he summarized, 'the aggregate of his schooling did not amount to one year.'

"In later years Lincoln was scornful of these 'schools, so called' which he attended: 'No qualification was ever required of a teacher, beyond readin', writin, and cipherin', to the Rule of Three. If a straggler supposed to understand Latin, happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizzard.' " (p. 30)

"Through constant repetition and drill (Lincoln) learned how to spell. indeed, he became so proficient that it was hard to stump him in the school spelling bees...So adept did he become that unlettered neighbors in the Pigeon Creek community often asked him to write letters for them.

Of Lincoln's reading habits: "he could never get enough" of reading. A relative, John Hanks, recalled that Lincoln would read during meals; his stepmother said that he would copy passages that struck him onto "boards if he had no paper and keep it there till he did get paper." Donald then describes several books that Lincoln read. (p. 30)

Concerning Lincoln's arithmetic skills, Donald says that Lincoln put together a notebook in which "he recorded complicated calculations involving multiplication (like 34,567,834 x 23,423) and division (such as 4,375,702 divided by 2,432), which he completed with exceptional accuracy, and he also solved problems concerning weights and measures, and figured discounts and simple interest." (p. 31)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
First let us cite the usual "evolutions" of Lincoln. From Masters to Donald, Lincoln has gone from being "not expert" in arithmetic to "extremely accurate" in it! In Donald also, as well as Oates by implication, poor Azel Dorsey is robbed of his specific contribution to Lincoln's education; instead of teaching Lincoln penmanship, these writers would lead us to believe that Lincoln taught it to himself, which is an invention that would suit that pro-Lincoln forces admirably! Three writers at least agree that he attended school no more than a year in total, that he was an avid reader (although Basler's comment should give us pause here), and that he was a good speller, though Oates' and Donald's anecdotes are probably fiction, since they are not mentioned by the other writers - or by each other!
This subject also presents us with some disturbing contradictions:

Masters: "From his tenth to his fourteenth year he had no schooling whatever."

Oates: "Between his eleventh and fifteenth years he went to school irregularly..."

In this time frame, did Lincoln not go to school, or go to school irregularly?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Masters: Lincoln at age 6 or 7 attended a few weeks at the Knob Creek School.
Oates: Lincoln's "first exhilirating brush with education" was "two brief sessions in 1815 and 1816" when he and his sister "could be spared from the family chores in the winter" to walk to "the log schoolhouse on the Cumberland Road," where he learned his alphabet, taught by an unnamed 52-year old Catholic slave owner.

Donald: Lincoln...went "for two brief periods" to a nearby school, though mainly for company for his sister rather than to learn anything. "It was first taught by one Zachariah Riney, about whom little is known except that he was a Catholic, and then by Caleb Hazel..."

Was it the "Knob Creek School," "the log schoolhouse on Cumberland Road," or an unnamed "nearby school"? Was the teacher an unnamed, 52-year old Catholic slave owner, or were there two teachers - a named Catholic (Riney) and Caleb Hazel?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, note the recurrence and shifting of this phrase:
Masters: "In Indiana he learned to read, to write and to cipher to the rule of three."

Oates: "In later years he scoffed at the instruction he received in Indiana, insisting that 'there was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education.' 'Still somehow, I could read, write and cipher to the rule of three: but that was all.' "

Donald: "In later years Lincoln was scornful of these 'schools, so called' which he attended: 'No qualification was ever required of a teacher, beyond readin', writin, and cipherin', to the Rule of Three. If a straggler supposed to understand Latin, happened to sojourn in the neighborhood, he was looked upon as a wizzard.' "

Masters does not make this a quote; Oates puts it in Lincoln's mouth; Donald seems to imply that it comes from Lincoln, although the peculiar form and the "wizzard" addition make it unlikely. As usual, it seems that Basler has the clearest eye on this issue, and that the later two writers are inventing stories to improve Lincoln's reputation. Oates' ridiculous story about Lincoln reading while plowing is especially humorous, but of course too incredible to be believed!

In summary, it seems that the subject of Lincoln's childhood education is one which we can not now, nor ever, speak of with any surety. The accounts simply contain too many contradictions and obfuscations. What little information we do have here is undoubtedly a creation of pro-Lincoln forces intended to make Lincoln look self-reliant and of such natural intelligence that he did not require schooling.

Also, the lists of books read by Lincoln, given by Masters and Donald, only partly agree.


http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln02.html

The Issue of Complimentary Accounts - Part 2
James Patrick Holding





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.3.3 Lincoln and Hunting, and Treatment of Animals
Masters: "He did not care for fishing and hunting..." (p. 20)

"He had a tenderness for animals, and wrote in those youthful days a composition denouncing cruelty to dumb beasts." (p. 23)

Basler: "The stories of Lincoln's kindness to animals are legion, and certainly many are fiction. Some of the more famous are doubtless fact, especially those which Lincoln himself related in later life...Terrapins, toads, fawns, dogs, hogs, pigeons - all were beholden to young 'Abe' for protection against the cruelties of mankind. The fact that he never cared for the one great sport of the frontier, hunting, gave rise to many sentimental and fantastic stories of his 'chicken-heartedness.' There are stories of boyhood speeches and essays against cruelty to animals..." (p. 121)

Basler adds a footnote on same page that expresses doubt over the authenticity of one incident in which Lincoln was said to have helped in sewing up the eyelids of some hogs that refused to be driven off of a flatboat.

Oates: Shortly after the move to Pigeon Creek, Lincoln "stood inside the doorway and shot a wild turkey as it approached. It was a traumatic experience, for he loved birds and animals, hated killing them for food. He never liked to hunt or fish again." (p. 8)

Donald: "In February 1817, just before his eighth birthday, he spied a flock of wild turkeys outside the new log cabin. He seized a rifle and, taking advantage of one of the chinks (in the wall), 'shot through a crack, and killed one of them.' But killing was not for him, and he did not try to repeat his exploit. Recalling the incident years later, he said that he had 'never since pulled a trigger on any larger game.' " (p. 25)

After his mother's death, Lincoln "began to reprove other children in the neighborhood for senseless cruelty to animals. He scolded them when they caught terrapins and heaped hot coals on their shells, to force the defenseless animals out of their shells, reminding them 'that an ant's life was to it as sweet as ours to us.' " (p. 27)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
There is common agreement among all authors, at least, that young Lincoln had some consideration for animals. However, there are still incredible problems with these accounts. Donald's p. 27 quote is cited as being recorded third-hand, reported from one Matilda Moore to William Herndon (p. 604). This makes it quite suspect, and likely a fabrication. At any rate, these quotes and stories are all probably invented; how could we expect that children - the only ones who would have witnessed the events described - would remember such stories? And do not these stories fit into the scheme of recreating Lincoln as someone who in future would bring an end to slavery?
A story with the same setting as the one told in Basler's footnote is related by Oates, but there is no mention of how the hogs were treated. Instead, there is a remarkable story of how Lincoln ingeniously saved a boat from sinking (p. 18). The same story is also related by Donald, though in greater detail (p. 38-9), which suggests embellishment, although the story is probably generally true.

Here again we are faced with insuperable contradictions:

Oates: Lincoln "stood inside the doorway and shot a wild turkey as it approached."

Donald: Lincoln "spied a flock of wild turkeys outside the new log cabin. He seized a rifle and, taking advantage of one of the chinks (in the wall), 'shot through a crack, and killed one of them.' "

Was there just one turkey, as Oates says, or a whole flock, per Donald? And was it shot from the doorway, or through a crack in the wall? Donald's version at least cites a third-hand source, but this could be easily fabricated. Indeed, the fact that these two authors so directly contradict each other is clear evidence of fabrication.

Masters: "He did not care for fishing and hunting..."

Basler: "The fact that he never cared for the one great sport of the frontier, hunting..."

Oates: "He never liked to hunt or fish again."

Donald: "But killing was not for him, and he did not try to repeat his exploit. Recalling the incident years later, he said that he had 'never since pulled a trigger on any larger game.' "

The first three authors more or less agree, but the last clearly indicates that Lincoln did hunt smaller g

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. The OT and the gospels are accounts about the same historical events?

That's a fairly bizarre claim. However, ignoring that oddity, I can see the author's point (not that I've waded through the tedious examination of stories about Lincoln - are you sure there aren't any copyright problems, by the way, with copying all that from a website that sells itself on CD?). Details of a story often don't agree. The only people that the contradictory details cause a problem for are those who insist every word of the bible is true, and inspired by god. But Holding does seem to be trying to leave that option available - he does, finally, say he is an inerrantist, but will accept that you don't have to be to be a Christian. Personally, I think he's just claiming the label of 'inerrantist' while not really holding to it - otherwise he wolnd't go into the extended comparison of Lincoln stories, which never claim to be inerrant.

[papau]

16. OT and Gospel are both rather "historical" - I agree on your "inerrant"

point.

I never could understand how the reader's understanding was "inerrant".

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. It was his claim that it's the same set of events that I found strange

"two sets of accounts about the same set of historical events" - while the OT has some prophesy in it, the periods it and the gospels describe as history are clearly separated in time, with no overlap at all. The whole point of dividing the Christian bible into OT and NT is to say they are separate, and not a continuous narrative.

[papau]

20. I agree - the fullfillment of the prophesy point is interesting but no way

critical to anything except the creed.

And even here the interpretation of what was the prophesy and how it was fullfilled is for the person thinking about it to decide - IMHO.

I read "two sets of accounts about the same set of historical events" as a prelude to the Lincoln example and not a claim that the OT and NT repeat of a discussion about the same events.

[trotsky]

17. Wow, that monstrous, possibly copyright-violating cut & paste,

and it does nothing to address the issue.

The discrepancies between the gospel accounts are significant if for no other reason than this is supposed to be the account of the central theme of Christianity. If there was just ONE thing that a god would have wanted to get down pat, it would be this, wouldn't it? But we don't know what time Jesus died, we don't know when he was raised, we don't know how many women discovered the tomb, we don't know how many disciples saw him afterwards. Huge holes in a story that's supposed to be for the salvation of humankind!

We don't even have extra-biblical confirmation that ANY of it happened at all!

papau, are you an inerrantist? Do you believe the world was created in six calendar days?

[papau]

21. Trotsky - I missed you over the holidays! And I enjoy your rule for God

behavior and getting the story out.

Heck - God should have made certain the story got out correctly!

And no, I am not an inerrantist! I do note that the Bible does not say the world was created in six "calendar" days.

I am into everyone their own priest - each judges how to interpret what is written.

[trotsky]

22. Not a "rule," it's only common sense.

Unless your god really meant to make things as obscure and difficult to understand as possible, just to trip people up for shits & giggles!

But if you're not an inerrantist, why do you care so deeply about the gospel contradictions? Why the desperation to try and explain them?

[papau]

23. Why do you try to see Gospel contradictions when you would not see

them in a discussion of books on Lincoln?

Perhaps "desperation" applies to neither or us, or to both of us?

:toast:

:-)

[trotsky]

24. Because there is no one that claims Lincoln is the Son of God.

A claim of how many turkeys he shot is mundane, irrelevant, and easily explained by that.

KEY FEATURES of the resurrection account of Christianity's central figure, yeah, those are just a little more important, aren't they?

[papau]

25. They are not more important if we are discussing quality of logic

Either the approach is reasonable as the logic to use in approaching all history - or it is not.

Pretty much a yes/no choice as to the logic of the approach.

[trotsky]

26. Hey, let's play that game then!

Either a claim is established with sufficient evidence, or it is not.

Whether Lincoln shot a lone turkey, or a turkey in a group, we do not have sufficient evidence. Accounts are contradictory. The claim is therefore suspect. Now in the case of the story of Lincoln, it's historically irrelevant. How and in what situation he shot a turkey has no bearing whatsoever on his presidency or establishment of him as a historical figure.

Similarly, the claims of the stories of crucifiction and resurrection do not have sufficient evidence. One of the many problems is that the accounts are contradictory. Their claims are therefore suspect. However, unlike with Lincoln, in the case of the story of Jesus, it's CRUCIAL for the establishment of the historicity of Christian myth that these details be accurate and verifiable. They are not.

Thanks for playing, papau. Here's your year's supply of Rice-a-Roni as a lovely parting gift.

[papau]

27. I love it when you assume something - like Victory for your thought!

"Either a claim is established with sufficient evidence, or it is not." is a great idea

And next you say "we do not have sufficient evidence. Accounts are contradictory." applies to both histories - implying all history is this way - and I can agree.

You then get lost in your "turkey" thought as you try to sell "irrelevant" as to "Accounts are contradictory" in one history and not the other. I thought you understood the point was that all history is of the same quality

Not good logic - but have some popcorn - it is always fun to post with you.

As to "CRUCIAL" for Christian myth that it have a basis better than is possible in any history - especially when four books that are exactly the same as to claims would be dismissed by atheists as a conspiracy made by rewrites (those liars, the early Christains, must have agreed on a story) well, I can only note that your premise was good for a laugh - and for that I thank you.

As to the Rice-a-Roni, I think you have a winner of an idea and I will indeed have Rice-a-Roni tonight!

:-)

[trotsky]

28. I'm sorry you missed the point.

As I said, the veracity and accuracy of the turkey story do not affect the historicity of Lincoln or his presidency. Not knowing what he had for breakfast on April 23, 1859 doesn't either. Those are trivial and inconsequential ideas.

The veracity and accuracy of the crucifiction and resurrection ARE central to establishing Christianity in a historical context. Four gospels that contradict each other on many points can hardly be called "exactly the same," and even the elements they have in common point more towards them evolving from a single unidentified source, as many educated bible scholars believe.

Enjoy the rice.

[papau]

30. Amazing how you miss the point! The only real fact in our discussion

is that you could not be convinced with a time machine vacation as you would no doubt run to a multiple universe question of Jesus or God in this universe, or to question the quality of technology being used.

Why do you have a hard time accepting that faith exists - you have faith that there is no God - or least that is what I see in you (feel free to use whatever words other than faith to describe your belief set - my word of choice based on what I see is "faith" that there is no God). One is a theist based on faith - not based on quality level of the historical record, however measured.

Indeed crucifiction and resurrection are central to Christianity - but not to "establishing" anything about it in a historical context.

The point is that one can not use the techniques used by Barker to cast doubt on the historical context unless one wants to agree that all history including yesterday is on very shaky grounds!

[trotsky]

31. papau, your posts are the electronic equivalent

of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA!"

[papau]

32. Funny - exactly what I thought - but was too nice to say about some

other posts on DU.

Everyone has a opinion - and DU is a great place to express it.

Now back to that rice!

:toast:

:-)

[crikkett]

36. Actually there is controversy surrounding Lincoln

a book was published and lots of speculation about his sexual orientation last year...
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041206/lincoln.html
Book Questions Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality
By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

[JDPriestly]

13. In my personal view,

the resurrection story symbolizes the fact that, because of Jesus' grace, wisdom and closeness to the power of God, His presence was so remarkable and it so touched the lives of those who knew him including the women who visited his grave, that he could not die for them. His soul transcended the bounds of His mortal body. Whether He returned in His physical body is not important to me. He returned in His spiritual body and revealed Himself in a spiritual sense to those who had known Him. That is the way I understand the meaning of Easter. I am a Unitarian. Each Unitarian is entitled to believe as he or she chooses.

For me, Jesus was important because of his qualities as a perfect or nearly perfect human being which allowed him to transcend the limits of ordinary human life. Jesus' message and teachings are what should be valued in my opinion. Whether the anecdotes about His life would stand up in a court of law is irrelevant. His good works and teachings are simply valid and stand on their own even if the stories about Him are contradictory or cannot be corroborated. I don't mean to insult you, but, in my view, to be concerned about whether the Bible accounts contradict each other is superficial.

[BOHICA06]

14. Some follower's of Jesus discovered ...

he had risen from the dead. Of course, details about a single Sunday morning 2000 plus years ago in a backwater Roman occupied land might not be as good as Video at 11 you have today.

Also, a Savior had atoned for my sins ... it was a happy day.

[Bloodblister Bob]

18. On Easter, Jesus walks out of his tomb...

...and if he sees his shadow, we have six more weeks of winter.

[grumpy old fart]

29. Guess the Italian courts will sort this out shortly....

This subject of the thread below seems to reveal that we'll have proof either way before another Easter falls....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=44135&mesg_id=44144

[CatholicEdHead]

33. Emporer Constitine said make it so to replace the Spring Equinox

pagan celebrations and then there was Easter.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blxtn_easter_dating.htm

[NAO]

34. "Dan Barker's Easter Challange"...honest, thorough, truthful

pick any two.

Of course you can always pull a "Judas hanged himself, but see, the rope, or possibly the branch, broke and he fell headlong and burst asunder, and his bowels gushed out." Yeah, that's it. You will need about 10 - 15 of these clever "apologetic ad-hocs" to "harmonize" the various resurrection accounts given in the infallible, authoritative Word of God.

***

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." - YHVH (aka Lord of Hosts), as quoted in His bestselling book, "The Bible", in Numbers 31:17-18.

[crikkett]

35. the other mary...

...meaning Mary, Jesus' mother? Kindof an offhandish way to refer to the character.