Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Spud on December 18, 2019, 05:38:05 PM
-
For LR
https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/new-evidence-the-gospels-were-based-on-eyewitness-accounts
-
Same video on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8
-
Spud
This is from the same chap you linked to on the Matthean thread, and since he went straight into the Lewis nonsense I doubt this is much of an improvement - perhaps you should try a scholar who isn't a Christian apologist.
-
I haven't had a chance to watch the video yet, but if the comments both here and on the Youtube site are any indication, it's not looking promising.
Furthermore, the video is of a lecture from 2011. It's not new and the fact that we aren't all aware of it suggests that serious scholars have pretty much dismissed it.
-
I haven't had time to read through it all, but what I have read so far doesn't change my view, that eyewitnesses who claim to have been present at events, which have no verifiable evidence to support them, should not be taken seriously.
-
Since the second sentence in the main page reads ' If the authors were eyewitnesses, one could assume greater reliability.', I think we can dismiss this without further consideration.
-
My thoughts so far:
The trilemma bit at the beginning. I don't have a problem with that he says about that. His addition of "legend" is fine by me. The only thing I would say is that the trilemma only ever worked as an argument if there is some sort of strange taboo about calling Jesus a liar or a lunatic. I don't think either of those possibilities are infeasible.
The analogy to karate is interesting. I don't know much about karate but it wouldn't surprise me if it hasn't evolved over the years. Even if it hasn't, as he says, karate is taught very carefully. There's no evidence that early Christians applied any such care to transmitting their teachings.
The name thing doesn't work. The sample of names in the NT is too small to draw reliable conclusions from. And also, if you'd not been to Palestine but you wanted to write a story about it, you are going to pick names from the region you've heard before, which are likely to be the common ones.
-
I liked his point about the disambiguation of common names eg Simon of Cyrene. Also his point about how it's easy to remember stories about people or events, but harder to recall names, so assuming the gospel writers got the names right, wouldn't they have got the other details of the story right?
-
I liked his point about the disambiguation of common names eg Simon of Cyrene. Also his point about how it's easy to remember stories about people or events, but harder to recall names, so assuming the gospel writers got the names right, wouldn't they have got the other details of the story right?
I can see it now, Spud: 'light fingers' Freddie is in the dock being asked where he was between 8pm and 10pm on the night of the 5th - "I was in the Nag's Head, your honour, met this lovely chap called Simon", says Freddie, "and very distinctive he was too, especially his facial scars, so I know for sure I was nowhere near No. 10 Acacia Avenue that evening, so it weren't me wot burgled it."
No doubt any reasonable jury would immediately acquit him - after all, he remembered he had bumped into Simon so the rest of his story must be true.
-
I liked his point about the disambiguation of common names eg Simon of Cyrene. Also his point about how it's easy to remember stories about people or events, but harder to recall names, so assuming the gospel writers got the names right, wouldn't they have got the other details of the story right?
spud
Why did I never think of this , it's so obvious doh !
FFS stop embarrassing yourself . What the fuck is wrong with you !?
-
I liked his point about the disambiguation of common names eg Simon of Cyrene. Also his point about how it's easy to remember stories about people or events, but harder to recall names, so assuming the gospel writers got the names right, wouldn't they have got the other details of the story right?
How do you know they got the names right?
-
How do you know they got the names right?
Because if they distinguished a particular person from everyone else, it means they remembered the name accurately - unless they were inventing it, which the speaker Peter Williams says is unlikely because the pattern of names is so complex. For example, Matthew 14:1, it's not just Herod but Herod the tetrarch who has John beheaded; thereafter it's just 'Herod'. Then in verse 2 he refers to a specific John, the Baptist, but thereafter it's just 'John', until we get to the daughter of Herodias who specifically wants the head of John the Baptist. This is the standard pattern in the four gospels, which we would not expect if they were made up.
As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?
-
Because if they distinguished a particular person from everyone else, it means they remembered the name accurately - unless they were inventing it, which the speaker Peter Williams says is unlikely because the pattern of names is so complex. For example, Matthew 14:1, it's not just Herod but Herod the tetrarch who has John beheaded; thereafter it's just 'Herod'. Then in verse 2 he refers to a specific John, the Baptist, but thereafter it's just 'John', until we get to the daughter of Herodias who specifically wants the head of John the Baptist. This is the standard pattern in the four gospels, which we would not expect if they were made up.
What? You are claiming that naming somebody specifically and then using a shortened version of the name after establishing who they are means that the stories are not fictional? So if I say "Blackadder the Fourth was a captain in the British Army in the First World War" and then go on to describe howe Blackadder killed the Red Baron and evaded being shot for disobeying orders, it makes the story true.
As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?
Maybe he never really said it and it was a device invented by the gospel authors.
-
Because if they distinguished a particular person from everyone else, it means they remembered the name accurately - unless they were inventing it, which the speaker Peter Williams says is unlikely because the pattern of names is so complex. For example, Matthew 14:1, it's not just Herod but Herod the tetrarch who has John beheaded; thereafter it's just 'Herod'. Then in verse 2 he refers to a specific John, the Baptist, but thereafter it's just 'John', until we get to the daughter of Herodias who specifically wants the head of John the Baptist. This is the standard pattern in the four gospels, which we would not expect if they were made up.
As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?
We have no idea what Jesus was actually like, I suspect in reality he had nothing in common with the Jesus character created by the gospel writers.
-
We have no idea what Jesus was actually like, I suspect in reality he had nothing in common with the Jesus character created by the gospel writers.
But what you fail to realise is that he has the sixth most common given name in 1st century Palestine (according to the lecture), therefore everything in the Gospels must be true.
That seems like a completely watertight argument. I can't see a massive gaping hole in it anywhere /sarcasm.
-
But what you fail to realise is that he has the sixth most common given name in 1st century Palestine (according to the lecture), therefore everything in the Gospels must be true.
That seems like a completely watertight argument. I can't see a massive gaping hole in it anywhere /sarcasm.
You are right of course. ;D
-
Because if they distinguished a particular person from everyone else, it means they remembered the name accurately - unless they were inventing it, which the speaker Peter Williams says is unlikely because the pattern of names is so complex.
This chap may say this but on what basis should we regard him (or any Christian apologist) as being authoritative?
For example, Matthew 14:1, it's not just Herod but Herod the tetrarch who has John beheaded; thereafter it's just 'Herod'. Then in verse 2 he refers to a specific John, the Baptist, but thereafter it's just 'John', until we get to the daughter of Herodias who specifically wants the head of John the Baptist. This is the standard pattern in the four gospels, which we would not expect if they were made up.
Don't be silly: in general conversation about politics if you said 'Boris' to most people in the UK they would know who you were referring to - but using a shortened version like this would make his lies no more or less believable than if you used his full moniker. Apparently 'Boris' refers to himself by another of his forenames when dealing with family and friends - so what?
As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?
If you mention just the forenames of made-up characters many people will be able to identify them and go on to describe them as having certain attributes even though they are wholly fictitious - try it with 'Harry' or 'Sherlock'.
-
But what you fail to realise is that he has the sixth most common given name in 1st century Palestine (according to the lecture), therefore everything in the Gospels must be true.
That seems like a completely watertight argument. I can't see a massive gaping hole in it anywhere /sarcasm.
I watched a bit of the video and he is a rather engaging speaker but his arguments are very weak.
He seems to fail to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient in term of the correct details in the gospels and they being based on eye witness accounts, let alone true.
Sure if the gospels were riddled with names and cultural/societal details that are demonstrably not consistent with 1stC palestine then we would easily dismiss they as being completely detached from eye witnesses. But that is only a necessary step, not a sufficient one to give credence to eye witnesses. Being able to include the right names and cultural details provides no positive evidence that the stories are based on eye witness accounts - the details might be correct, but the story completely made up as is often the case in fiction.
But even were the stories to be based on eye witness account, we know that untrained observers of events can be incredibly poor at recounting what actually happened, even if asked straight away. Add to that the 'lost in translation' of decades and the selection of narratives to suit a faith position rather than a historically accurate position and the accounts in the gospels are likely to be massively different to what actually happened, even if based on some original eye witness accounts.
And the final point is the implausibility - if the gospels made entirely plausible claims (e.g. Jesus died, the end), while we might still be uncertain of the eye witness veracity we may give the account the benefit of the doubt. But the gospels made implausible and extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence if we are to accept them. That evidence does not exist and is no stronger just because the gospels got the names of people right.
-
I watched a bit of the video and he is a rather engaging speaker but his arguments are very weak.
He seems to fail to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient in term of the correct details in the gospels and they being based on eye witness accounts, let alone true.
Sure if the gospels were riddled with names and cultural/societal details that are demonstrably not consistent with 1stC palestine then we would easily dismiss they as being completely detached from eye witnesses. But that is only a necessary step, not a sufficient one to give credence to eye witnesses. Being able to include the right names and cultural details provides no positive evidence that the stories are based on eye witness accounts - the details might be correct, but the story completely made up as is often the case in fiction.
But even were the stories to be based on eye witness account, we know that untrained observers of events can be incredibly poor at recounting what actually happened, even if asked straight away. Add to that the 'lost in translation' of decades and the selection of narratives to suit a faith position rather than a historically accurate position and the accounts in the gospels are likely to be massively different to what actually happened, even if based on some original eye witness accounts.
And the final point is the implausibility - if the gospels made entirely plausible claims (e.g. Jesus died, the end), while we might still be uncertain of the eye witness veracity we may give the account the benefit of the doubt. But the gospels made implausible and extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence if we are to accept them. That evidence does not exist and is no stronger just because the gospels got the names of people right.
Exactly. The distinction between necessary and sufficient is very nicely put.
I've only watched the bit about people's names so far. I think there's a bit coming up about place names. I'll be interested to see if he confronts the geographical errors in Mark.
-
As another example, quite often Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. If Jesus' character had been made up, why wasn't that name used more, decades later, in the epistles or early church writings?
"Son of Man" seems to have at least a couple of meanings. The first, used in Aramaic and Hebrew, seems to be a way of avoiding saying "I" directly, just as anyone of us might say "Yours truly had a really rough night - I'm sure the town foxes had a better sleep". The other sense, which Jesus may or may not have used to refer to himself, occurs typically at Matthew 16:27, and obviously refers back to the Son of Man figure coming in judgment in the Book of Daniel. Since in neither sense is it a name, I don't see why the writers of the epistles or the early church fathers should have used the term much - by that time Paul and had decided that he was Jesus Messiah, Lord and Saviour, and the church fathers had decided that he was God the Son, second person of the Trinity.
-
Jesus was a the son of a man.
-
Jesus was a the son of a man.
do-dah
do-dah
-
"Son of Man" seems to have at least a couple of meanings. The first, used in Aramaic and Hebrew, seems to be a way of avoiding saying "I" directly, just as anyone of us might say "Yours truly had a really rough night - I'm sure the town foxes had a better sleep". The other sense, which Jesus may or may not have used to refer to himself, occurs typically at Matthew 16:27, and obviously refers back to the Son of Man figure coming in judgment in the Book of Daniel. Since in neither sense is it a name, I don't see why the writers of the epistles or the early church fathers should have used the term much - by that time Paul and had decided that he was Jesus Messiah, Lord and Saviour, and the church fathers had decided that he was God the Son, second person of the Trinity.
I think that "son of" is a Hebrew idiom, like 'father of', 'mother of', 'daughter of'. For example 'father of God' meant pious, 'mother of the arm' meant forearm, 'daughter of' music meant singer. I believe two of the followers of Jesus were called boanerges - 'sons of thunder' which meant impetuous. 'Son of man' probably referred to the human aspect of a man and 'son of God' to the believed divine aspect of a man.
-
I think that "son of" is a Hebrew idiom, like 'father of', 'mother of', 'daughter of'. For example 'father of God' meant pious, 'mother of the arm' meant forearm, 'daughter of' music meant singer. I believe two of the followers of Jesus were called boanerges - 'sons of thunder' which meant impetuous. 'Son of man' probably referred to the human aspect of a man and 'son of God' to the believed divine aspect of a man.
well I'm glad we got that cleared up ::)
-
I've only watched the bit about people's names so far.
I've done a bit more delving on the people's names thing and it falls apart.
The argument is that the names in the gospels match to the known most popular names in Palestine at the time - the inference being that there is a clear independent data source to compare to.
Williams gives his source - academic work entitled 'LEXICON OF JEWISH NAMES IN LATE ANTIQUITY, PART 1'.
Indeed this source exists - as luck would have it I've just downloaded a copy (the joys of academic life). The problem for Williams is that the name source for working out the popularity of names for this academic research is ... err ... the bible, including, of course the gospels. So in fact all we have here is a correlation between the popularity of names in the bible with a paper which looks at the popularity of names largely in the bible.
It would be pretty astonishing if the main data source didn't correlate with ... err ... itself.
-
I've done a bit more delving on the people's names thing and it falls apart.
The argument is that the names in the gospels match to the known most popular names in Palestine at the time - the inference being that there is a clear independent data source to compare to.
Williams gives his source - academic work entitled 'LEXICON OF JEWISH NAMES IN LATE ANTIQUITY, PART 1'.
Indeed this source exists - as luck would have it I've just downloaded a copy (the joys of academic life). The problem for Williams is that the name source for working out the popularity of names for this academic research is ... err ... the bible, including, of course the gospels. So in fact all we have here is a correlation between the popularity of names in the bible with a paper which looks at the popularity of names largely in the bible.
It would be pretty astonishing if the main data source didn't correlate with ... err ... itself.
That wasn't his only source though. He also listed some stats from ossuary inscriptions. I'll have to go back and watch that bit again to see if the correlation works for ossuaries.
-
That wasn't his only source though. He also listed some stats from ossuary inscriptions. I'll have to go back and watch that bit again to see if the correlation works for ossuaries.
The above being said, it doesn't say much for his scholarship credentials if he failed to notice that his data set partly depended on itself. It's a pretty egregious error.
-
I've done a bit more delving on the people's names thing and it falls apart.
The argument is that the names in the gospels match to the known most popular names in Palestine at the time - the inference being that there is a clear independent data source to compare to.
Williams gives his source - academic work entitled 'LEXICON OF JEWISH NAMES IN LATE ANTIQUITY, PART 1'.
Indeed this source exists - as luck would have it I've just downloaded a copy (the joys of academic life). The problem for Williams is that the name source for working out the popularity of names for this academic research is ... err ... the bible, including, of course the gospels. So in fact all we have here is a correlation between the popularity of names in the bible with a paper which looks at the popularity of names largely in the bible.
It would be pretty astonishing if the main data source didn't correlate with ... err ... itself.
The most popular male name amongst Palestinian Jews at the time was Simon/Simeon: 243 instances, 8 of which were in the NT, 29 in Josephus, 59 in ossuaries, and 72 in the dead sea scrolls.
In the table of the top 11 male names among Palestinian Jews, quoted from Bauckham, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" (see 9 minutes in), each name occurs between 1 and 8 times in the NT, out of total numbers of occurrances between 40 and 243. So I shouldn't worry too much about the source including NT names.
-
"Son of Man" seems to have at least a couple of meanings. The first, used in Aramaic and Hebrew, seems to be a way of avoiding saying "I" directly, just as anyone of us might say "Yours truly had a really rough night - I'm sure the town foxes had a better sleep". The other sense, which Jesus may or may not have used to refer to himself, occurs typically at Matthew 16:27, and obviously refers back to the Son of Man figure coming in judgment in the Book of Daniel. Since in neither sense is it a name, I don't see why the writers of the epistles or the early church fathers should have used the term much - by that time Paul and had decided that he was Jesus Messiah, Lord and Saviour, and the church fathers had decided that he was God the Son, second person of the Trinity.
It occurs firstly in Ezekiel, whom God calls "Son of man", when speaking to him. Daniel sees in his vision, 'one like a son of man' - hence, one like Ezekiel.
So Jesus is describing himself as like 'Ezekiel', which is probably to do with the role he played in prophesying the invasion of Israel by the Babylonians, which is mirrored by Jesus who is prophesying AD 70.
-
This chap may say this but on what basis should we regard him (or any Christian apologist) as being authoritative?
Don't be silly: in general conversation about politics if you said 'Boris' to most people in the UK they would know who you were referring to - but using a shortened version like this would make his lies no more or less believable than if you used his full moniker. Apparently 'Boris' refers to himself by another of his forenames when dealing with family and friends - so what?
If you mention just the forenames of made-up characters many people will be able to identify them and go on to describe them as having certain attributes even though they are wholly fictitious - try it with 'Harry' or 'Sherlock'.
Boris isn't a common name, neither is Sherlock. So neither have to be disambiguated by adding their other name. I had to think which Harry you meant, because I don't read or watch Harry Potter.
The four gospel narrators initially disambiguate Jesus' name, eg Matthew 1:1, Mk 1:9, Lk 1:32, Jn 1:45.
From then on, the narrators call him just, Jesus, or 'he', since the reader knows who he's talking about. However, in quoted speech, his name is qualified. Jesus was a common name, so the other characters would have had to qualify it when talking about him or to him.
I think the point is that someone writing a long time later in a neighbouring country, would not necessarily have known that 'Jesus' was such a common name, and therefore would not have been so thorough in the disambiguation of his name in quoted speech.
The same with Simon, which is also disambiguated because it was a popular name. Simon Peter, Simon the Leper, Simon the Tanner, etc.
If the narrators did write their gospels while outside Israel and some time later, we can infer that they would not have written this way unless they were recording what was actually said.
-
Boris isn't a common name, neither is Sherlock. So neither have to be disambiguated by adding their other name. I had to think which Harry you meant, because I don't read or watch Harry Potter.
Come to Scotland, have a conversation with someone about politics and mention 'Nicola'.
The four gospel narrators initially disambiguate Jesus' name, eg Matthew 1:1, Mk 1:9, Lk 1:32, Jn 1:45.
From then on, the narrators call him just, Jesus, or 'he', since the reader knows who he's talking about. However, in quoted speech, his name is qualified. Jesus was a common name, so the other characters would have had to qualify it when talking about him or to him.
I think the point is that someone writing a long time later in a neighbouring country, would not necessarily have known that 'Jesus' was such a common name, and therefore would not have been so thorough in the disambiguation of his name in quoted speech.
The same with Simon, which is also disambiguated because it was a popular name. Simon Peter, Simon the Leper, Simon the Tanner, etc.
So what? Bearing in mind the character of 'Jesus' is the key player in the story, had they called him 'Big J', or even just 'J', the reference would be clear - but no matter how they referred to him that alone would not make any anecdotal claims about him true.
If the narrators did write their gospels while outside Israel and some time later, we can infer that they would not have written this way unless they were recording what was actually said.
You can't infer that at all: it could just as easily be fictitious propaganda to convince the gullible, and all you can really infer that they wrote it that way because that is the particular story they wanted to tell: but that doesn't mean that the story is free of mistakes or lies, and then there are the additional problems of uncertain and timely provenance, along with possible bias.
In other words the NT comes with risks attached, and without a basis to address and negate these risks the key details involving Jesus being divine, doing miracles and being resurrected etc are indistinguishable from fiction.
-
So I shouldn't worry too much about the source including NT names.
Yes we should. The fact that he makes the basic mistake of counting the New Testament names twice is a sign of poor scholarship. It doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong, but it is an indicator that he is careless about his methodology. It means we c an't take what he says at face value.
-
Yes we should. The fact that he makes the basic mistake of counting the New Testament names twice is a sign of poor scholarship. It doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong, but it is an indicator that he is careless about his methodology. It means we c an't take what he says at face value.
Indeed - and there is a further problem with Williams' argument relating to another of the major sources, Josephus.
Williams claim is that because the gospels weren't written in palestine and weren't written at the time they must have been based on eye witness accounts due to the 'correct' use of names. But along with the NT itself the other major source of the names information is Josephus which also wasn't written in palestine and indeed was written for the communities which likely also included the writers of the gospels. And indeed written at very similar times.
So in reality the gospel 'correlation' here is largely with itself and another document written at the same time and in a similar distant location to the actual place the events took place.
-
Boris isn't a common name, neither is Sherlock. So neither have to be disambiguated by adding their other name. I had to think which Harry you meant, because I don't read or watch Harry Potter.
The four gospel narrators initially disambiguate Jesus' name, eg Matthew 1:1, Mk 1:9, Lk 1:32, Jn 1:45.
From then on, the narrators call him just, Jesus, or 'he', since the reader knows who he's talking about. However, in quoted speech, his name is qualified. Jesus was a common name, so the other characters would have had to qualify it when talking about him or to him.
I think the point is that someone writing a long time later in a neighbouring country, would not necessarily have known that 'Jesus' was such a common name, and therefore would not have been so thorough in the disambiguation of his name in quoted speech.
The same with Simon, which is also disambiguated because it was a popular name. Simon Peter, Simon the Leper, Simon the Tanner, etc.
If the narrators did write their gospels while outside Israel and some time later, we can infer that they would not have written this way unless they were recording what was actually said.
I'm sorry this is just non-sense and also the nonsense that Williams uses.
If you are writing a narrative and you are telling stories that include more than one person with the same name you will need to do something to clarify which one you are talking about to make the text make sense. It tells us nothing about the accuracy of the narrative whatsoever.
And I suspect this is merely a requirement for the narrative to make sense - I doubt the people at the time did the same. Do you really think that someone in 1stC Palestine would have have walked up to someone they knew and said 'Good morning Simon the Tanner' - of course not, they'd simply say 'Good morning Simon'.
-
Indeed - and there is a further problem with Williams' argument relating to another of the major sources, Josephus.
Williams claim is that because the gospels weren't written in palestine and weren't written at the time they must have been based on eye witness accounts due to the 'correct' use of names. But along with the NT itself the other major source of the names information is Josephus which also wasn't written in palestine and indeed was written for the communities which likely also included the writers of the gospels. And indeed written at very similar times.
So in reality the gospel 'correlation' here is largely with itself and another document written at the same time and in a similar distant location to the actual place the events took place.
There are claims that Luke knew Josephus and that he got some of his historical information from Josephus' writing. If that is the case, then the Gospels aren't independent of Josephus.
-
I seem to recall that one of the signs that someone is lying is that they embellish otherwise unimportant elements of the tale, and sell short the focal issues - having precised details of exact names of individuals might be considered to be an example of trying to hard to establish authenticity...
O.
-
There are claims that Luke knew Josephus and that he got some of his historical information from Josephus' writing. If that is the case, then the Gospels aren't independent of Josephus.
Which was exactly my thought that the two may have borrowed from each other.
-
I seem to recall that one of the signs that someone is lying is that they embellish otherwise unimportant elements of the tale, and sell short the focal issues - having precised details of exact names of individuals might be considered to be an example of trying to hard to establish authenticity...
O.
A view which Williams completely ignores.
His argument is effectively - if they got names right, and places and knew the type of tree that grows in the area qv what they say about miracles must be correct too. That is errant nonsense of the first order.
There are countless 'legends' which do exactly the same in terms of small details of places people, times of year etc etc that are much more easily verified than for the gospels. Yet that provides no credible evidence that an incredible and implausible claim in those legends is actually true.
And while I'm not sure I'd describe it as lying - it is an excellent approach if you want to persuade someone that something is true to embed it in narrative that is inherently plausible.
Once you strip away the clunky and non justified argument of Williams that effectively says because the gospel writers were correct that sycamore trees grew in Jericho they must have also been correct that Jesus made dead people come alive again, what are you left with. Well the notion that the gospels are probably based on accounts of events that took place in a particular time (early 1stC) and place (Palestine) that arose at that time and place but were not written down in a form we have until decades later in a different place. Big deal - we can all agree on that - but none of that provides one iota of justification that the claimed miracles etc in the gospels are true.
And there is, of course, the elephant in the room. Williams argument is all about the credibility of eye witnesses. So using his argument that because they were right about trees and names etc their witness of miracles must be correct too why on earth didn't those eye witnesses (the people in that time and place) accept the miracles, which we know they didn't as Christianity failed to gain a foothold in that time and place. The actual eye witnesses, the people around at the time (by and large) rejected the claims in the gospels. Had they accepted them they would have surely have rejected Judaism and accepted Christianity - but they didn't.
And Christianity is alone amongst the major religions in failing to persuade those about in the time and place of its forming that their religion was correct.
-
A view which Williams completely ignores.
His argument is effectively - if they got names right, and places and knew the type of tree that grows in the area qv what they say about miracles must be correct too. That is errant nonsense of the first order.
I'm not sure it's even that robust, given that there is no way of being definitive on whether the names are genuine or not - it seems as though the argument is that because the names are plausible there must be a degree of truth to the claim.
O.
-
I'm not sure it's even that robust, given that there is no way of being definitive on whether the names are genuine or not - it seems as though the argument is that because the names are plausible there must be a degree of truth to the claim.
O.
Indeed - which brings me back to my necessary, but not sufficient statement. Were the details of names, places, trees etc to be all wrong (or not plausible) then we wouldn't get over the necessary hurdle. But just because they are right (or plausible) that provides no justification that the stories or claims are true.
The world is full of works of fiction which are meticulously accurate in every detail of place, time, people etc - yet are entirely works of fiction.
-
Indeed - and there is a further problem with Williams' argument relating to another of the major sources, Josephus.
Williams claim is that because the gospels weren't written in palestine and weren't written at the time they must have been based on eye witness accounts due to the 'correct' use of names. But along with the NT itself the other major source of the names information is Josephus which also wasn't written in palestine and indeed was written for the communities which likely also included the writers of the gospels. And indeed written at very similar times.
So in reality the gospel 'correlation' here is largely with itself and another document written at the same time and in a similar distant location to the actual place the events took place.
The data for ossuaries and the dead sea scrolls is significant on its own, though: For Simon, ranking first: NT - 8; Ossuaries - 59; DSS - 72
-
The data for ossuaries and the dead sea scrolls is significant on its own, though: For Simon, ranking first: NT - 8; Ossuaries - 59; DSS - 72
In what way significant?
-
A view which Williams completely ignores.
His argument is effectively - if they got names right, and places and knew the type of tree that grows in the area qv what they say about miracles must be correct too. That is errant nonsense of the first order.
There are countless 'legends' which do exactly the same in terms of small details of places people, times of year etc etc that are much more easily verified than for the gospels. Yet that provides no credible evidence that an incredible and implausible claim in those legends is actually true.
And while I'm not sure I'd describe it as lying - it is an excellent approach if you want to persuade someone that something is true to embed it in narrative that is inherently plausible.
Once you strip away the clunky and non justified argument of Williams that effectively says because the gospel writers were correct that sycamore trees grew in Jericho they must have also been correct that Jesus made dead people come alive again, what are you left with. Well the notion that the gospels are probably based on accounts of events that took place in a particular time (early 1stC) and place (Palestine) that arose at that time and place but were not written down in a form we have until decades later in a different place. Big deal - we can all agree on that - but none of that provides one iota of justification that the claimed miracles etc in the gospels are true.
And there is, of course, the elephant in the room. Williams argument is all about the credibility of eye witnesses. So using his argument that because they were right about trees and names etc their witness of miracles must be correct too why on earth didn't those eye witnesses (the people in that time and place) accept the miracles, which we know they didn't as Christianity failed to gain a foothold in that time and place. The actual eye witnesses, the people around at the time (by and large) rejected the claims in the gospels. Had they accepted them they would have surely have rejected Judaism and accepted Christianity - but they didn't.
And Christianity is alone amongst the major religions in failing to persuade those about in the time and place of its forming that their religion was correct.
He does state that it's not conclusive proof.
In what way significant?
Simon is a common name in the NT (8 people) and is common in the extra-NT sources.
-
I'm sorry this is just non-sense and also the nonsense that Williams uses.
If you are writing a narrative and you are telling stories that include more than one person with the same name you will need to do something to clarify which one you are talking about to make the text make sense. It tells us nothing about the accuracy of the narrative whatsoever.
And I suspect this is merely a requirement for the narrative to make sense - I doubt the people at the time did the same. Do you really think that someone in 1stC Palestine would have have walked up to someone they knew and said 'Good morning Simon the Tanner' - of course not, they'd simply say 'Good morning Simon'.
You miss a second point he makes: the disambiguation of common names is not just for intratextual clarification. It occurs in dialogue where there are lots of people present. When blind Bartimaeus calls out to Jesus and a crowd is present, he adds Son of David. If the author made it up, he was clever enough to anticipate that there were possibly other people called Jesus in the crowd, and that in real life the man would have added something to distinguish Jesus from any others with that name. Not just in this example, but this happens in every similar situation recorded. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't expect an author who invented the story to think to do this.
-
Indeed - which brings me back to my necessary, but not sufficient statement. Were the details of names, places, trees etc to be all wrong (or not plausible) then we wouldn't get over the necessary hurdle. But just because they are right (or plausible) that provides no justification that the stories or claims are true.
The world is full of works of fiction which are meticulously accurate in every detail of place, time, people etc - yet are entirely works of fiction.
as in the ITV long running drama Coronation Street
( which I thought was a documentary for many years ) 😉
-
You miss a second point he makes: the disambiguation of common names is not just for intratextual clarification. It occurs in dialogue where there are lots of people present. When blind Bartimaeus calls out to Jesus and a crowd is present, he adds Son of David. If the author made it up, he was clever enough to anticipate that there were possibly other people called Jesus in the crowd, and that in real life the man would have added something to distinguish Jesus from any others with that name. Not just in this example, but this happens in every similar situation recorded. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't expect an author who invented the story to think to do this.
Many authors have very good imaginations.
-
It occurs firstly in Ezekiel, whom God calls "Son of man", when speaking to him. Daniel sees in his vision, 'one like a son of man' - hence, one like Ezekiel.
So Jesus is describing himself as like 'Ezekiel', which is probably to do with the role he played in prophesying the invasion of Israel by the Babylonians, which is mirrored by Jesus who is prophesying AD 70.
Oh, cummon! This instance of 'Son of Man' is just another colloquial use of the phrase in Hebrew and Aramaic. It means nothing more than 'human being', Joe Bloggs, John Doe etc. There's nothing special about it. Jesus' use of it is obviously two-fold, and neither have anything to do with Ezekiel. One is an Aramaic colloquialism, the other refers to the passage in Daniel, which simply says that "one like a Son of Man" ,whoever this judgmental figure "appearing in the clouds" might be, bore the appearance of a human.
-
You miss a second point he makes: the disambiguation of common names is not just for intratextual clarification. It occurs in dialogue where there are lots of people present. When blind Bartimaeus calls out to Jesus and a crowd is present, he adds Son of David. If the author made it up, he was clever enough to anticipate that there were possibly other people called Jesus in the crowd, and that in real life the man would have added something to distinguish Jesus from any others with that name. Not just in this example, but this happens in every similar situation recorded. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't expect an author who invented the story to think to do this.
Let me get this straight: you doubt that an author creating an account that they want to be convincing (whether it is true or not) couldn't also ensure that any names used were convincing in relation to the context of the story?
Really!!
-
In what way significant?
He hasn't answered yet, but I think he means statistically significant.
-
You miss a second point he makes: the disambiguation of common names is not just for intratextual clarification. It occurs in dialogue where there are lots of people present. When blind Bartimaeus calls out to Jesus and a crowd is present, he adds Son of David. If the author made it up, he was clever enough to anticipate that there were possibly other people called Jesus in the crowd, and that in real life the man would have added something to distinguish Jesus from any others with that name. Not just in this example, but this happens in every similar situation recorded. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't expect an author who invented the story to think to do this.
Why not?
-
He hasn't answered yet, but I think he means statistically significant.
If so, I'd love to see his workings-out.
-
as in the ITV long running drama Coronation Street
( which I thought was a documentary for many years ) 😉
And the Blackberry Farm series, in which there is a duck called Walter.
-
If so, I'd love to see his workings-out.
You can say that Josephus and the gospels correlate with the ossuaries and dead sea scrolls.
-
You can say that Josephus and the gospels correlate with the ossuaries and dead sea scrolls.
Spud
Correlation is a measure of association between two variables, expressed as a value between 1 and -1, and of course you need the calculation of random chance - so what are your workings out/methods.
Unless of course by 'correlation' you mean something other than statistical correlation.
-
Oh, cummon! This instance of 'Son of Man' is just another colloquial use of the phrase in Hebrew and Aramaic. It means nothing more than 'human being', Joe Bloggs, John Doe etc. There's nothing special about it. Jesus' use of it is obviously two-fold, and neither have anything to do with Ezekiel. One is an Aramaic colloquialism, the other refers to the passage in Daniel, which simply says that "one like a Son of Man" ,whoever this judgmental figure "appearing in the clouds" might be, bore the appearance of a human.
If one use (Matthew 24) can be a reference to Daniel 7:13, why can't another be a reference to Ezekiel, who went to Jerusalem with a message of destruction, and brought it about.
-
Let me get this straight: you doubt that an author creating an account that they want to be convincing (whether it is true or not) couldn't also ensure that any names used were convincing in relation to the context of the story?
Really!!
Those names also had to fit into the context of the culture of the time and place in question.
-
And the Blackberry Farm series, in which there is a duck called Walter.
well it must be true then 👍
-
I seem to recall that one of the signs that someone is lying is that they embellish otherwise unimportant elements of the tale, and sell short the focal issues - having precised details of exact names of individuals might be considered to be an example of trying to hard to establish authenticity...
O.
Take the list of 12 disciples. All the common names are disambiguated, the four uncommon ones (Philip, BArtholomew, Thomas, Thaddaeus) aren't.
2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Does this look like the author is distinguishing those that needed it, or that he is trying too hard to make it look authentic?
-
Spud
Correlation is a measure of association between two variables, expressed as a value between 1 and -1, and of course you need the calculation of random chance - so what are your workings out/methods.
Unless of course by 'correlation' you mean something other than statistical correlation.
You need to read the table at 8.45. The name Simon occurs more times in the Ossuaries and DSS than any other name. It also occurs the most in the NT and Josephus.
-
Those names also had to fit into the context of the culture of the time and place in question.
So what?
It would be trivial for someone writing a narrative about events in, say, deepest Greenock to use names common to that area - where 'Andrew' would be more likely that, say, 'Athelstan' - since to use unusual names would probably be less credible.
That doesn't exclude there being anyone called Athelestan in Greenock, but if I was writing a story about Greenockians I'd tend to avoid that particular name (but I will ask a native to confirm this).
-
You need to read the table at 8.45. The name Simon occurs more times in the Ossuaries and DSS than any other name. It also occurs the most in the NT and Josephus.
So what?
You can calculate correlation using frequency counts - so did you?
-
So what?
It would be trivial for someone writing a narrative about events in, say, deepest Greenock to use names common to that area - where 'Andrew' would be more likely that, say, 'Athelstan' - since to use unusual names would probably be less credible.
That doesn't exclude there being anyone called Athelestan in Greenock, but if I was writing a story about Greenockians I'd tend to avoid that particular name (but I will ask a native to confirm this).
I knew a Constantine and an Elvis, no Athelstans
-
Ok, it seems the number of instances of NT names in the list is mostly quite low: 2 or 1per name. So the correlation may not be significant. But the point about disambiguating the names that we know from the other sources were common, is still relevant, as in the example of the list of 12 disciples.
So what?
It would be trivial for someone writing a narrative about events in, say, deepest Greenock to use names common to that area - where 'Andrew' would be more likely that, say, 'Athelstan' - since to use unusual names would probably be less credible.
That doesn't exclude there being anyone called Athelestan in Greenock, but if I was writing a story about Greenockians I'd tend to avoid that particular name (but I will ask a native to confirm this).
But writing in England, 40 years later, I wouldn't have a clue which name was more popular in Greenock.
-
I knew a Constantine and an Elvis, no Athelstans
Athelstan works down the chip shop , Saney !
-
Ok, it seems the number of instances of NT names in the list is mostly quite low: 2 or 1per name. So the correlation may not be significant. But the point about disambiguating the names that we know from the other sources were common, is still relevant, as in the example of the list of 12 disciples.
So we needn't worry about correlation or statistical significance - I think you are over-reaching as regards corruptions of names: for example, I'm sure your parents didn't name you 'Spud', but we here all know that when a 'Spud' is mentioned it refers to you and not a randomly selected potato enthusiast.
But writing in England, 40 years later, I wouldn't have a clue which name was more popular in Greenock.
Then do visit Greenock: and then pop along to Glasgow where these is a pub that is regularly visited by 3 wise men (how seasonal is that!).
-
Athelstan works down the chip shop , Saney !
No - that's definitely Elvis.
-
You need to read the table at 8.45. The name Simon occurs more times in the Ossuaries and DSS than any other name. It also occurs the most in the NT and Josephus.
This line of thought is about as useful as close in depth study of used teabags, in fact the teabag study might show a bit more promise due to the fact at least we would have the teabags to hand and be able to study something that's actually self evident.
By the way I've been using the Sparks teabags lately the ones that come in a gold coloured box absolutely super duper tea, I would recommend them.
There you go another one, trying to make a serious post out of nonsense?
Regards, ippy.
-
He does state that it's not conclusive proof.
But it isn't proof of anything, let along conclusive proof.
Simon is a common name in the NT (8 people) and is common in the extra-NT sources.
So what - all that indicates is that those people who wrote the gospels had some link, probably second, third of fourth hand to people living in Palestine at the time and who were aware of the kinds of names that existed there and places, geography etc. No-one denies that. It provides no evidence that the stories in the bible represent eye witness accounts, and certainly doesn't provide any evidence that the miracles were true.
-
He does state that it's not conclusive proof.
Addressed this one in my last post.
Spud - would you now like to address the elephant in the room please. To quote:
'And there is, of course, the elephant in the room. Williams argument is all about the credibility of eye witnesses. So using his argument that because they were right about trees and names etc their witness of miracles must be correct too why on earth didn't those eye witnesses (the people in that time and place) accept the miracles, which we know they didn't as Christianity failed to gain a foothold in that time and place. The actual eye witnesses, the people around at the time (by and large) rejected the claims in the gospels. Had they accepted them they would have surely have rejected Judaism and accepted Christianity - but they didn't.
And Christianity is alone amongst the major religions in failing to persuade those about in the time and place of its forming that their religion was correct.'
And Williams use of the feeding of the 5,000 is a fantastic example of that. Note too that I think in the gospels 5000 is only the men, so perhaps double that number were (if you believe the gospels) direct eye witnesses to an incredible miracle. Assume each told another 4 people about this amazing thing they had witnesses. So straight away you'd have 50,000 people who are either direct witnesses or told first hand by a direct witness. And that's jus tone 'miracle' - as Williams states there are countless purported miracles.
Given this - surely, if what was claimed was actually witnesses by the people, the developing Christianity would have spread like wildfire. But it didn't - it failed to take a foothold amongst the people there in the place and time. So in effect those eye witnesses, by and large, rejected the claims of Jesus despite all these 'miracles' they'd witnessed. So either they were bizarrely unimpressed by incredible 'miracles' which seems totally implausible if they'd actually seen them as claimed. Or, of course, they didn't witness anything of the sort - the miracles as claimed in the gospels never happened.
-
You miss a second point he makes: the disambiguation of common names is not just for intratextual clarification. It occurs in dialogue where there are lots of people present. When blind Bartimaeus calls out to Jesus and a crowd is present, he adds Son of David. If the author made it up, he was clever enough to anticipate that there were possibly other people called Jesus in the crowd, and that in real life the man would have added something to distinguish Jesus from any others with that name. Not just in this example, but this happens in every similar situation recorded. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't expect an author who invented the story to think to do this.
The author would have referred to him as Son of David to ensure that his intended readers were reminded that Jesus fulfilled old testament prophecies. Pretty well all of the additional titles attributed to him in the gospels are emphasising his importance e.g.:
Christ
Lord
Master
Logos (the Word)
Son of God
Son of man
Son of David
Lamb of God
New Adam / Second Adam / Last Adam
Light of the World
King of the Jews
None of these are the equivalent of Simon the Tanner are they.
-
But it isn't proof of anything, let along conclusive proof.
So what - all that indicates is that those people who wrote the gospels had some link, probably second, third of fourth hand to people living in Palestine at the time and who were aware of the kinds of names that existed there and places, geography etc. No-one denies that. It provides no evidence that the stories in the bible represent eye witness accounts, and certainly doesn't provide any evidence that the miracles were true.
Hi Prof, thanks for helping me study the lecture, always good to have other opinions.
Your previous point about distinguishing one Simon from another Simon within the same gospel may render the whole attempt to correlate names with other sources a bit redundant. What it does indicate though is that the authors were not incompetent. To be able to remember and disambiguate someone's name shows competence. Still, it doesn't rule out fiction.
The author would have referred to him as Son of David to ensure that his intended readers were reminded that Jesus fulfilled old testament prophecies. Pretty well all of the additional titles attributed to him in the gospels are emphasising his importance e.g.:
Christ
Lord
Master
Logos (the Word)
Son of God
Son of man
Son of David
Lamb of God
New Adam / Second Adam / Last Adam
Light of the World
King of the Jews
None of these are the equivalent of Simon the Tanner are they.
You can't rule out that the blind man did indeed call out, Jesus Son of David. All three Synoptics record this. The man may have perceived that Jesus was the fulfillment of God's promise to David.
Mark tells us the names of Simon of Cyrene's two sons. This could indicate that the two sons were able to verify the event described.
-
Then do visit Greenock: and then pop along to Glasgow where these is a pub that is regularly visited by 3 wise men (how seasonal is that!).
I may do one day - will come by camel. I may need a star to follow though.
-
Addressed this one in my last post.
Spud - would you now like to address the elephant in the room please. To quote:
'And there is, of course, the elephant in the room. Williams argument is all about the credibility of eye witnesses. So using his argument that because they were right about trees and names etc their witness of miracles must be correct too why on earth didn't those eye witnesses (the people in that time and place) accept the miracles, which we know they didn't as Christianity failed to gain a foothold in that time and place. The actual eye witnesses, the people around at the time (by and large) rejected the claims in the gospels. Had they accepted them they would have surely have rejected Judaism and accepted Christianity - but they didn't.
And Christianity is alone amongst the major religions in failing to persuade those about in the time and place of its forming that their religion was correct.'
And Williams use of the feeding of the 5,000 is a fantastic example of that. Note too that I think in the gospels 5000 is only the men, so perhaps double that number were (if you believe the gospels) direct eye witnesses to an incredible miracle. Assume each told another 4 people about this amazing thing they had witnesses. So straight away you'd have 50,000 people who are either direct witnesses or told first hand by a direct witness. And that's jus tone 'miracle' - as Williams states there are countless purported miracles.
Given this - surely, if what was claimed was actually witnesses by the people, the developing Christianity would have spread like wildfire. But it didn't - it failed to take a foothold amongst the people there in the place and time. So in effect those eye witnesses, by and large, rejected the claims of Jesus despite all these 'miracles' they'd witnessed. So either they were bizarrely unimpressed by incredible 'miracles' which seems totally implausible if they'd actually seen them as claimed. Or, of course, they didn't witness anything of the sort - the miracles as claimed in the gospels never happened.
You haven't factored in the reaction to Jesus from the religious leaders, who weren't just in Israel but the diaspora too, so a lot of converts soon renounced their faith because of persecution. There was also the Neronic persecution.
-
You haven't factored in the reaction to Jesus from the religious leaders, who weren't just in Israel but the diaspora too, so a lot of converts soon renounced their faith because of persecution. There was also the Neronic persecution.
But surely with so many miracles and so many witnesses the religious leaders would also be amongst those eye witnesses or receive first hand testimony. And given that much of what is suggested aligned with classic jewish prophecy why wouldn't they too have accepted Jesus given such overwhelming evidence of eye witness miraculous occurrence.
And even if they were resistant the strength of numbers (tens of thousands) of eye witnesses would easily be sufficient to embed the new religion where it arose - just as occurred for all the other major religions which gained initial traction and a foothold where they arose and supplanted the existing religious cultures that were previously prevalent in that area.
It simply beggars believe that were the stories in the gospels true and were witnesses by the numbers claimed that these people would have failed to follow Jesus, which by and large they didn't. The miraculous claims and their hyperbole is in fact the biggest achilles heal of the whole story.
-
Your previous point about distinguishing one Simon from another Simon within the same gospel may render the whole attempt to correlate names with other sources a bit redundant. What it does indicate though is that the authors were not incompetent. To be able to remember and disambiguate someone's name shows competence. Still, it doesn't rule out fiction.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the authors of the gospels were incompetent - quite the reverse. But they may have been incredible competent in telling exaggerated stories in a highly compelling manner. That seems the most likely explanation as the people who were around at the time and place (the actual eye witnesses) failed, by and large, to accept Jesus. Yet those who received the stories only through the lens of later, not contemporaneous, second, third etc-hand story-tellers were able to persuade people.
If I wanted to know whether something was true without objective evidence I'd want to know whether the people around at the time, the eye witnesses, believed it. And in this case they didn't. Their lack of belief in the stories really holes the gospels below the water line as far as I'm concerned.
-
You haven't factored in the reaction to Jesus from the religious leaders, who weren't just in Israel but the diaspora too, so a lot of converts soon renounced their faith because of persecution. There was also the Neronic persecution.
This lot's about as useful and relevant as my version of studying used teabags.
Just a thought if these religious leaders were there as you have assumed wouldn't it have been in their interests to spread the word or as I would prefer to say, spread the delusion?
Regards, ippy.
-
But surely with so many miracles and so many witnesses the religious leaders would also be amongst those eye witnesses or receive first hand testimony. And given that much of what is suggested aligned with classic jewish prophecy why wouldn't they too have accepted Jesus given such overwhelming evidence of eye witness miraculous occurrence.
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea did not oppose him. The scribe in Mark 12:32-33 also.
The gospels explain why the leaders did not accept him but sought to catch him out and eventually kill him. They had been waiting for the completion of Herod's temple and were not likely to accept Jesus as their messiah if he condemned it as a den of thieves.
And even if they were resistant the strength of numbers (tens of thousands) of eye witnesses would easily be sufficient to embed the new religion where it arose - just as occurred for all the other major religions which gained initial traction and a foothold where they arose and supplanted the existing religious cultures that were previously prevalent in that area.
It simply beggars believe that were the stories in the gospels true and were witnesses by the numbers claimed that these people would have failed to follow Jesus, which by and large they didn't. The miraculous claims and their hyperbole is in fact the biggest achilles heal of the whole story.
We are told in Acts that thousands of Jews were converted in one day.
-
We are told in Acts that thousands of Jews were converted in one day.
We might be told that, but it doesn't mean it is true.
And why would anyone believe such an implausible claim knowing that christianity failed to gain a foothold in Palestine. If christianity was really gaining thousands of new converts a day it would undoubtedly have swept all other religions aside. In fact at that rate the entire population of Palestine would have been converted in about a year.
This is another of the exaggerated and hyperbolic claims which don't add to the credibility of the new testament - rather they critically undermine it.
And just as an aside, how on earth would they count these 'new converts' - as far as I'm aware they didn't have membership lists in 1stC Palestine.
The bottom line is that were the claims in the gospels and acts true then it is simply impossible to countenance that christianity wouldn't have rapidly become the dominant religion in 1stC Palestine, in other words amongst those purported eye witnesses to those claimed events. That it didn't tells you everything you need to know about the credibility of those claims.
-
The gospels explain why the leaders did not accept him but sought to catch him out and eventually kill him. They had been waiting for the completion of Herod's temple and were not likely to accept Jesus as their messiah if he condemned it as a den of thieves.
That is a ridiculous argument.
If the claims are true - in other words daily miracles performed in front of tens of thousands of eye witnesses presumably including themselves (with countless more hearing first hand about them) by a person who fulfils jewish prophecy after jewish prophecy - why would the religious leaders choose a completely hum-drum expectation over what they were seeing before their very eyes. Again it completely lacks any sort of credibility. They'd have been swept along the same as everyone else. Yet they weren't and nor, by and large were the ordinary people who are purported witnesses to the claimed events.
-
Prof,
Because, and it sounds a bit rhetorical, they were expecting him to overthrow the Romans. It even says in John's account of the feeding of the 5000, that Jesus knew they were about to try and make him king by force (John 6:15). Clearly that wasn't on his agenda, so they wouldn't believe he was the Messiah, despite the miracles.
-
Ps Josephus relates just how desperate the Jews were to regain control of their land from the Romans.
-
It even says in John's account of the feeding of the 5000, that Jesus knew they were about to try and make him king by force (John 6:15). Clearly that wasn't on his agenda, so they wouldn't believe he was the Messiah, despite the miracles.
But if they believed he was the Messiah they would believe that he would free them, and that is, of course something in the future. What they actually had to base their view on his Messianic claims is the evidence that had to hand in the present and the past. And if you are to believe the claims in the gospels, that would have been overwhelming - not just the countless eye witnessed miracles, but the fulfilment of earlier prophecy. That they didn't accept him as the messiah tells us that they weren't convinced by what they saw. Had they been convinced they would have believe he would have freed them and restored the temple (both in the future).
You are effectively using their rejection of his claims as evidence for why they rejected his claims. Classic theological circular argument.
-
Ps Josephus relates just how desperate the Jews were to regain control of their land from the Romans.
Most Jews didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah.
-
Most Jews didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah.
Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?
-
Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?
Why wouldn't they have believed that if they'd witnessed the incredible daily miracles claimed in the gospels? Surely with the 'evidence' of such unbelievable feats they's have believed whatever he said, particularly as it aligned with the prophecies they were expecting to be fulfilled.
Point is that the actual eye witnesses, largely rejected his claims, as set out in the gospels - they did not believe him. With very few exceptions the people who accepted the claims in the gospels were not eye witnesses.
-
Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?
More likely the eye witnesses never witnessed the things claimed to have happened in texts written decades later.
-
Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?
All humans are more equal than any god, as they created them, imo.
-
It even says in John's account of the feeding of the 5000, that Jesus knew they were about to try and make him king by force (John 6:15). Clearly that wasn't on his agenda ...
We have absolutely no idea what Jesus' agenda was. A quote from John tells us nothing about Jesus' agenda - it does tell us something about the agenda of the author of that text, written probably 70-80 years after the event. And we know that the different gospels have differing agendas in terms of their purpose and audience.
Spud you need to get beyond your default position, being that because it is written in the gospels it must be true and represent what happened.
-
I refer the honourable gentleman and lady to the gospels.
-
I refer the honourable gentleman and lady to the gospels.
Many of the stories in those documents defy any credibility. So called eyewitness accounts cannot be taken seriously if the events the describe defy the laws of nature.
-
Many of the stories in those documents defy any credibility. So called eyewitness accounts cannot be taken seriously if the events the describe defy the laws of nature.
So the vision of angels in Luke 2:13.
If Luke is telling the truth when he initially says his sources were eyewitnesses, then we would expect his account to reflect this. Are the three uses of the verb "see" in the story of the shepherds,
a) deliberate, to make it agree with his initial statement,
b) mistakes, they only thought they saw a baby in a manger,
c) evidence that he is telling the truth?
d) literary incompetence (repetition)
-
I refer the honourable gentleman and lady to the gospels.
So in a discussion about the veracity of the gospels we are referred to ... err ... the gospels as evidence of their veracity.
Priceless.
-
Could this be because he claimed to be equal with God?
According to Mark, most people didn't know that.
-
According to Mark, most people didn't know that.
Indeed - and Mark and John (as examples) have very different agendas in terms of in terms of their purpose and audience. They can't both be Jesus' agenda can they and they tell us nothing about Jesus' agenda. What the accounts do tell us is the agendas of those distinct authors writing decades later.
-
So the vision of angels in Luke 2:13.
If Luke is telling the truth
He wasn't.
when he initially says his sources were eyewitnesses
He doesn't. What he says is:
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
then we would expect his account to reflect this. Are the three uses of the verb "see" in the story of the shepherds,
a) deliberate, to make it agree with his initial statement,
b) mistakes, they only thought they saw a baby in a manger,
c) evidence that he is telling the truth?
d) literary incompetence (repetition)
The story is fiction. The totally implausible description of the census is a big red flag, never mind the choirs of angels.
-
So the vision of angels in Luke 2:13.
If Luke is telling the truth when he initially says his sources were eyewitnesses, then we would expect his account to reflect this. Are the three uses of the verb "see" in the story of the shepherds,
a) deliberate, to make it agree with his initial statement,
b) mistakes, they only thought they saw a baby in a manger,
c) evidence that he is telling the truth?
d) literary incompetence (repetition)
As I have pointed out on many occasions soldiers claimed to have actually seen the Angel of Mons when it was merely a story created by an author.
-
He wasn't.
He doesn't. What he says is:
The story is fiction. The totally implausible description of the census is a big red flag, never mind the choirs of angels.
so we've got ads on the telly asking us to send 2 quid for Water Aid
And god can't even supply a tap and a length of pipe !
What a cunt !
-
If Luke is telling the truth when he initially says his sources were eyewitnesses,
All we know is that Luke claims his account originated with eye witnesses - we have no idea whatsoever whether that is true or not. Indeed Luke couldn't possibly know this himself writing decades after the events.
And even he admits that the accounts are 'handed on to us' - which allows for countless exaggeration and misrepresentation of the original account even were that based on eye witnesses. And in the case of the nativity story that 'handed on to us' will have been over a period of 80-90 years from original event to Luke's account. You'd have to be astonishingly naive to think that what was finally written down must be what actually happened under those circumstances, particularly where Luke wasn't writing an impartial historical account, but effectively a piece of propaganda to support his beliefs and their promulgation.
-
Steve , if you're watching or what ever you call your self
If you really want to.go to Wigtown I'll pick you up and take you there
Yes , really
-
According to Mark, most people didn't know that.
The important people, the Sanhedrin, did though. During his trial they asked him "are you the Son of the blessed one" and he affirmed it, so that they said he had blasphemed and deserved the death penalty.
They also heard him declare the sins of the paralytic to be forgiven, which would ordinarily have required him to make sacrifices in the temple.
He also offended them by both healing somebody, and letting the disciples pick ears of corn, on the Sabbath.
Neither did they wash their hands before eating: before eating, their hands they did not wash. Etc.
-
We are told in Acts that thousands of Jews were converted in one day.
We are also told in Acts that Philip was told by God to go and convert an Ethiopian eunuch on the road due south of Jerusalem. After the conversion, Philip was spirited away (on a magic carpet?) to a town which lay on the coast to the west:
"And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
But Philip was found at Azo'tus, and passing on he preached the gospel to all the towns till he came to Caesare'a."
-
He also offended them by both healing somebody... on the Sabbath.
If the illness is severe enough, I believe that all good Jewish doctors etc are obliged to try to heal people on the Sabbath, and have been allowed to do so from at least the mid 2nd century BCE . Unless they are anally retentive fundamentalists of the worst kind.
Many of the words of Jesus on the subject of healing are, in fact, derived from arguments used by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (of Haggadah fame), Rabbi Akiva and especially Rabbi Ishmael, who was the first to be associated with the phrase pikuach nefesh, a phrase which he apparently invented for any action that saved life at the expense of any Jewish law.
https://www.thejc.com › judaism › features › why-doctors-can-heal-on-sha...
-
If the illness is severe enough, I believe that all good Jewish doctors etc are obliged to try to heal people on the Sabbath, and have been allowed to do so from at least the mid 2nd century BCE . Unless they are anally retentive fundamentalists of the worst kind.
https://www.thejc.com › judaism › features › why-doctors-can-heal-on-sha...
Your link implies that the gospel writers got their ideas from the three sages you quote (who were all from the second half of the first century AD onward), and attributed them to Jesus.
Do you have anything suggesting the debate had begun prior to the time of Jesus?
I know there was a problem with not fighting on the Sabbath, dating back to the Maccabean wars.
-
Your link implies that the gospel writers got their ideas from the three sages you quote (who were all from the second half of the first century AD onward), and attributed them to Jesus.
Do you have anything suggesting the debate had begun prior to the time of Jesus?
I know there was a problem with not fighting on the Sabbath, dating back to the Maccabean wars.
The link contains this:
This simple interpretation finally justified healing on the Sabbath. It is, however, important to note that all through the centuries of the Jewish debate — from the mid-second century BCE to the end of the second century CE— there is evidence that the Jewish sages always allowed healing on the Sabbath day, even though this was apparently prohibited by Torah law.
In other words, it would seem that the ancient Hebrews had long had a pragmatic attitude to such matters, irrespective of what the Torah actually said. But they were obviously perplexed by this anomaly and the debate continued until the matter could be officially codified.
It does relate to the Maccabean wars, where realistic pragmatism obviously took precedence over dusty legalities. If a people weren't prepared to fight on the Sabbath, that was an invitation to their enemies to wipe them out.
Not sure whether the Sanhedrin (which apparently contained both Pharisees and Sadducees) would have been quite so uptight about 'infringements' of the Torah, when it was able to accommodate people with such diverse views on the resurrection of the dead, for example.
-
If the illness is severe enough, I believe that all good Jewish doctors etc are obliged to try to heal people on the Sabbath, and have been allowed to do so from at least the mid 2nd century BCE . Unless they are anally retentive fundamentalists of the worst kind.
https://www.thejc.com › judaism › features › why-doctors-can-heal-on-sha...
I missed that part of the quote, so thanks. I had a look at what some online commentaries had to say about this, and found that they do acknowledge that the duty to heal on the Sabbath, if as you say the illness is severe enough, was recognized in Jesus' day.
What is clear is that the people whom Jesus healed on the Sabbath (man with a withered hand man born blind, healing by the pool) could have waited until the next day. As Meyer puts it, "The traditions forbade healing on the Sabbath, except in cases where life was in danger."
So it seems they would have used this as a way of accusing him.
-
I missed that part of the quote, so thanks. I had a look at what some online commentaries had to say about this, and found that they do acknowledge that the duty to heal on the Sabbath, if as you say the illness is severe enough, was recognized in Jesus' day.
What is clear is that the people whom Jesus healed on the Sabbath (man with a withered hand man born blind, healing by the pool) could have waited until the next day. As Meyer puts it, "The traditions forbade healing on the Sabbath, except in cases where life was in danger."
So it seems they would have used this as a way of accusing him.
The healings attributed to Jesus, are not credible and more than likely didn't happen.
-
As I have pointed out on many occasions soldiers claimed to have actually seen the Angel of Mons when it was merely a story created by an author.
What about Simeon, who meets Joseph and Mary and sees the baby Jesus... More evidence that Luke is relying on eyewitnesses! (Edit: if second or third hand, as Simeon would have died soon after this)
-
What about Simeon, who meets Joseph and Mary and sees the baby Jesus... More evidence that Luke is relying on eyewitnesses! (Edit: if second or third hand, as Simeon would have died soon after this)
Second hand and eye witness are mutually exclusive.
-
Second hand and eye witness are mutually exclusive.
The point is more general in that Luke mentions eyewitnesses in his intro, then goes on to record what people saw. Of course this doesn't prove he is genuine, but it is what we'd expect if he was.
-
The point is more general in that Luke mentions eyewitnesses in his intro, then goes on to record what people saw. Of course this doesn't prove he is genuine, but it is what we'd expect if he was.
He may have been genuine and convincing, in the expectation that others would accept his account, and he may well have believed he was telling the truth - however, he could have been mistaken and honestly wrong, or he could have been lying for Jesus: from this distance how could you ever be sure enough so as to eliminate the risks of mistakes or lies?
-
The point is more general in that Luke mentions eyewitnesses in his intro, then goes on to record what people saw. Of course this doesn't prove he is genuine, but it is what we'd expect if he was.
So what, just because Luke claims, when writing 60 or more years after the event, that his writings are based on eye witness accounts doesn't mean they are. And even if they did trace back to eye witnesses the gap in time (and life expectancy plus geographic distance between events and writing) means they'd not be based on eye witnesses but second, third or more hand. And as such Luke cannot know himself whether the stories he'd heard trace back to eye witnesses so his very claim in unverifiable, even by himself.
So Luke saying that his gospel is based on eye witnesses provides no actual evidence that it did.
-
So Luke saying that his gospel is based on eye witnesses provides no actual evidence that it did.
It's not conclusive evidence, but think from a jury's perspective. If a witness initially claims he saw an event but in a written statement about it, says nothing about what he saw, you would not trust his initial claim.
Internal evidence from Acts and Luke's gospel suggests the gospel was written just before AD 60.
-
It's not conclusive evidence,
It isn't evidence at all - anyone can make any claim regardless of whether it is true or not. And frankly how could Luke know given that he is generations away from the event in time and thousands of miles in geography.
but think from a jury's perspective. If a witness initially claims he saw an event but in a written statement about it, says nothing about what he saw, you would not trust his initial claim.
If someone who was very clearly not a witness came forward about an event from 1960 and made a claim about that event, it would be laughed out of court by any Jury without independent corroboratory evidence.
Internal evidence from Acts and Luke's gospel suggests the gospel was written just before AD 60.
The consensus view amongst historians is that Luke was written about AD80-90, while others claim even later, perhaps as late as 110.
-
The point is more general in that Luke mentions eyewitnesses in his intro, then goes on to record what people saw.
But Luke wasn't there so at best he is taking on trust the claim of people he spoke to that they were eye witnesses. Far more likely he is taking on trust people he spoke to (who also weren't eyewitnesses), taking on trust the word of other people they had spoken to (who also weren't eyewitnesses), taking on trust people they had spoken to who claimed to have been eyewitnesses.
And guess what - people lie about being present at events:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/four-dozen-people-witness-the-gig-that-changed-the-world
In the words of the inimitable Oyster band: 'I met a man whose brother said he knew a man who knew the Oxford girl'
-
But Luke wasn't there so at best he is taking on trust the claim of people he spoke to that they were eye witnesses. Far more likely he is taking on trust people he spoke to (who also weren't eyewitnesses), taking on trust the word of other people they had spoked to (who also weren't eyewitnesses), taking on trust people they had spoken to who claimed to have been eyewitnesses.
And guess what - people lie about being present at events:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/four-dozen-people-witness-the-gig-that-changed-the-world
In the words of the inimitable Oyster band: 'I met a man whose brother said he knew a man who knew the Oxford girl'
In a nutshell! Fake news even back in those days.
What you have said is pretty relevant to the Harry and Meghan thread, full of tittle tattle and speculation, nothing concrete. Daily Mail fodder, that thread is Mumsnet level.
-
Just so we all know what we are talking about, here is Luke's introduction:
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.
When a Christian makes a claim about something in the Bible, it is always wise to check the reference and the surrounding context.
There's nothing in the above that confirms that Luke ever spoke to any eye witnesses. In fact, the phrase "... handed on to us..." suggests to me that the eye witnesses were gone by the time Luke wrote his account. This fits well with the normal dating of Luke to the 80's or 90's.
-
Just so we all know what we are talking about, here is Luke's introduction:
When a Christian makes a claim about something in the Bible, it is always wise to check the reference and the surrounding context.
There's nothing in the above that confirms that Luke ever spoke to any eye witnesses. In fact, the phrase "... handed on to us..." suggests to me that the eye witnesses were gone by the time Luke wrote his account. This fits well with the normal dating of Luke to the 80's or 90's.
The eyewitnesses being gone (dead) doesn't preclude them being his source. Luke describes three generations in his introduction: the eyewitnesses, the 'us' to whom the eyewitnesses delivered the word, and Theophilus, who presumably hadn't met the eyewitnesses and for whom this account was written in order that he could be certain of what he had been told. (The 'us' among whom these things had been accomplished seems to include everyone).
-
The eyewitnesses being gone (dead) doesn't preclude them being his source.
Yes it does. They are dead. How can they be his source? It is possible he had writings that purported to be by them, but how would he know. In fact, we do know his main source was Mark. Not an eye witness even according to tradition.
-
Yes it does. They are dead. How can they be his source? It is possible he had writings that purported to be by them, but how would he know. In fact, we do know his main source was Mark. Not an eye witness even according to tradition.
It's quite important to understand what Luke means. I think he means that many have set about writing down what they have been told by the eyewitnesses, and that it seemed good for him to do so too, as he has "been aquatinted with all things from the first", ie he knows the original testimony. Meyer says,
By ἩΜῖΝ ['to us'] the writer places himself in the second generation; the first were the immediate disciples of Christ, οἱ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται [eyewitnesses and servants of the word].
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/luke/1.htm
-
It's quite important to understand what Luke means.
But we have no real idea what he means as he has been dead for 2000 years, give or take.
And regardless of what he means what we need to know is what is actually the case in terms of the link between Luke's writing and original eye witnesses to the events he claims happened. We do not know that and nor could Luke as the time difference and geographical distance means it is pretty well impossible for him to have any meaningful ideas of the route between, for example the shepherds he claimed saw angels, and his writing.
Something else which I don't think has been mentioned is the additional time before any verifiable fragments of gospels exist and even the writing of the gospels. The earliest know fragment of Luke's gospel is believed to date from around 175-225 (and it is just a small fragment) - so even if we accept that Luke originally write his gospel in about 90AD we have no meaningful idea as to how that writing was edited, altered, amended etc until the point at which we have actual written fragments, hundreds of years later.
-
But we have no real idea what he means as he has been dead for 2000 years, give or take.
And regardless of what he means what we need to know is what is actually the case in terms of the link between Luke's writing and original eye witnesses to the events he claims happened. We do not know that and nor could Luke as the time difference and geographical distance means it is pretty well impossible for him to have any meaningful ideas of the route between, for example the shepherds he claimed saw angels, and his writing.
What about if he wrote Luke around 58 and then Acts a year or two after 60 when Paul was in Rome. Jesus' mother may have been alive, and he may have had some contact with her, or at least access to documents containing her testimony given his inclusion of the song she wrote. She could have provided the information about the shepherds.
Something else which I don't think has been mentioned is the additional time before any verifiable fragments of gospels exist and even the writing of the gospels. The earliest know fragment of Luke's gospel is believed to date from around 175-225 (and it is just a small fragment) - so even if we accept that Luke originally write his gospel in about 90AD we have no meaningful idea as to how that writing was edited, altered, amended etc until the point at which we have actual written fragments, hundreds of years later.
But there are events we would expect Luke to have included had he written later, because they were significant for the Church and for the Jewish nation. The events of the mid 60s to 70AD, the deaths of Peter and Paul, are the obvious ones that Luke is silent about.
-
What about if he wrote Luke around 58 and then Acts a year or two after 60 when Paul was in Rome. Jesus' mother may have been alive, and he may have had some contact with her, or at least access to documents containing her testimony given his inclusion of the song she wrote. She could have provided the information about the shepherds.
But there are events we would expect Luke to have included had he written later, because they were significant for the Church and for the Jewish nation. The events of the mid 60s to 70AD, the deaths of Peter and Paul, are the obvious ones that Luke is silent about.
Take it up with the professionals - in other words proper historians (not christian apologists) who believe the evidence supports Luke (or rather the original version of Luke) being written 80AD at the earliest - the consensus being 80-90, but with some historians arguing as late as 110.
But Mary wasn't there when the shepherds apparently met the angel, was she. She most certainly wasn't an eye witness to that purported event.
-
It's quite important to understand what Luke means. I think he means that many have set about writing down what they have been told by the eyewitnesses, and that it seemed good for him to do so too
But we know he copied Mark's writing. Mark wasn't an eye witness.
-
What about if he wrote Luke around 58 and then Acts a year or two after 60 when Paul was in Rome. Jesus' mother may have been alive, and he may have had some contact with her, or at least access to documents containing her testimony given his inclusion of the song she wrote. She could have provided the information about the shepherds.
I see a lot of speculation and "what ifs" there.
But there are events we would expect Luke to have included had he written later, because they were significant for the Church and for the Jewish nation. The events of the mid 60s to 70AD, the deaths of Peter and Paul, are the obvious ones that Luke is silent about.
Arguably he did know about the destruction of Jerusalem.
Why would he know about the deaths of Peter and Paul? When did they die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?
-
I see a lot of speculation and "what ifs" there.
Absolutely.
Arguably he did know about the destruction of Jerusalem.
So wouldn't he be likely to mention it?
Why would he know about the deaths of Peter and Paul? When did they die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?
In 2 Tim 4:6 Paul writes that he already is being poured out like a drink offering and the time has come for his departure. He goes on to say, v 11, that 'only Luke is with me'.
Luke was also with him earlier, when he sent his greetings to the Colossians (2 Col 4:14).
Two clues that Luke wrote his gospel under Paul's influence are:
- 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 cf Luke 22:17-20 where there are several similar phrases in their descriptions of the last supper.
- Luke 24:34 cf 1 Corinthians 16:4,5 where they both mention that Peter was the first man to whom Jesus appeared after he rose.
So Luke is the author of Luke/Acts and journeyed with Paul, who had met the apostles. He stayed with Paul during his imprisonment, up until the time Paul was aware of his impending execution. Luke concludes Acts abruptly without saying what happened to Paul after the two year house arrest.
Luke could, then, have waited a long time to write Acts, but we know that he wrote his gospel before that, so it was some time during Luke's life. The main point is that he was in the inner circle of Paul's companions from Acts 16 onwards. He met the brothers, the elders and James in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18). Notably he appears to have witnessed Paul bringing Eutychus back to life (Acts 19:10). Surely, then, he had access to eyewitness accounts, oral and written, and witnessed a miracle himself.
-
Absolutely.So wouldn't he be likely to mention it?
He did mention it.
Read chapter 21.
In 2 Tim 4:6 Paul writes
No he doesn't. Somebody pretending to be Paul writes.
that he already is being poured out like a drink offering and the time has come for his departure. He goes on to say, v 11, that 'only Luke is with me'.
And your evidence that this Luke was the one who wrote the gospel is...?
Luke was also with him earlier, when he sent his greetings to the Colossians (2 Col 4:14).
Two clues that Luke wrote his gospel under Paul's influence are:
- 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 cf Luke 22:17-20 where there are several similar phrases in their descriptions of the last supper.
- Luke 24:34 cf 1 Corinthians 16:4,5 where they both mention that Peter was the first man to whom Jesus appeared after he rose.
So Luke is the author of Luke/Acts and journeyed with Paul, who had met the apostles. He stayed with Paul during his imprisonment, up until the time Paul was aware of his impending execution. Luke concludes Acts abruptly without saying what happened to Paul after the two year house arrest.
Luke could, then, have waited a long time to write Acts, but we know that he wrote his gospel before that, so it was some time during Luke's life. The main point is that he was in the inner circle of Paul's companions from Acts 16 onwards. He met the brothers, the elders and James in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18). Notably he appears to have witnessed Paul bringing Eutychus back to life (Acts 19:10). Surely, then, he had access to eyewitness accounts, oral and written, and witnessed a miracle himself.
You seem to have forgotten to answer my questions:
Why would he know about the deaths of Peter and Paul? When did they die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?
You might think you have answered the first one but there is really no evidence that the Luke you are talking about is also the one that wrote the gospel and Acts. In fact, as Acts gets so many of the details of Paul's travels wrong, we can rule its author out as one of Paul's travelling companions.
-
He did mention it.
Read chapter 21.
Sorry, I can't see any mention of it.
No he doesn't. Somebody pretending to be Paul writes.
And your evidence that this Luke was the one who wrote the gospel is...?
You seem to have forgotten to answer my questions:
Why would he know about the deaths of Peter and Paul?
Because he knew about other significant events, like Stephen and James' deaths. He wouldn't know about the deaths of Peter and Paul if he brought his account up to date while Paul's trial was concluding.
When did they die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?
You might think you have answered the first one but there is really no evidence that the Luke you are talking about is also the one that wrote the gospel and Acts. In fact, as Acts gets so many of the details of Paul's travels wrong, we can rule its author out as one of Paul's travelling companions.
I gave evidence that the author of Luke was Luke. He was the only one with Paul in Rome (2 Tim 4:11), and so the only person who could say what Paul did there, at the end of Acts. Your view depends on 2 Timothy being made up.
-
I gave evidence that the author of Luke was Luke. He was the only one with Paul in Rome (2 Tim 4:11), and so the only person who could say what Paul did there, at the end of Acts. Your view depends on 2 Timothy being made up.
Paul's travels in Acts contradicted by his own words in Galatians 1:16.
-
Paul's travels in Acts contradicted by his own words in Galatians 1:16.
Paul in Galatians is talking about conferring with the apostles about something specific. Luke is talking about meeting them.
-
Paul in Galatians is talking about conferring with the apostles about something specific. Luke is talking about meeting them.
How on earth do you know that Spud - have you chatted to the pair of them about their intentions when writing those sections?
-
How on earth do you know that Spud - have you chatted to the pair of them about their intentions when writing those sections?
I googled "Galatians 1 contradicts Acts"
-
How on earth do you know that Spud - have you chatted to the pair of them about their intentions when writing those sections?
I have to go along with this comment of yours Proff, this sort of statement of Spud's certainly pushes up the eyebrows and makes a few more wrinkles in the brow and I can fully understand your incredulity.
Where this kind of comment is made it gives me the impression he really does think he actually was there, if this wasn't Spud's intention it certainly comes over just as you have described, even though Spud seems to switch over to other planet mode whenever religion is mentioned surely nobody catches religion as badly as that?
ippy
-
I googled "Galatians 1 contradicts Acts"
:o
-
Sorry, I can't see any mention of it.
It's right there:
When some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to God, he said, ‘As for these things that you see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down.’
...
‘Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom;
...
‘When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those inside the city must leave it,
...
Because he knew about other significant events, like Stephen and James' deaths. He wouldn't know about the deaths of Peter and Paul if he brought his account up to date while Paul's trial was concluding.
What if Peter and Paul both just retired and died in old age?
I gave evidence that the author of Luke was Luke.
No you didn't. You gave evidence that Paul knew somebody called Luke. You gave no evidence that Luke-that-Paul-knew wrote the gospel and Acts.
He was the only one with Paul in Rome (2 Tim 4:11), and so the only person who could say what Paul did there, at the end of Acts.
Your view depends on 2 Timothy being made up.
It certainly wasn't written by Paul.
You still haven't answered my questions:
When did Peter and Paul die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?
I'm going to add "how did they die?" to the list.
-
Paul in Galatians is talking about conferring with the apostles about something specific. Luke is talking about meeting them.
But the travels don't work whatever Paul was talking about. You can't reconcile Paul's movements as described by himself with his movements as described in Acts.
-
Spud, I recommend you watch this lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQaOlxhg8xg&list=PL279CFA55C51E75E0&index=5
It goes into the contradictions between Galatians and Acts in some detail. The case is pretty damning, I'm afraid.
-
It's right there:
Pants, I was looking at Acts 21. Are you saying that because Luke has different wording (when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies instead of when you see the abomination) he knew what had happened? Fair point, but it could be that he had a different, more specific, source to Matthew and Mark.
It certainly wasn't written by Paul.
Even if it wasn't, 2 Timothy claims to give historical fact and thus cannot be dismissed out of hand.
You still haven't answered my questions:
When did Peter and Paul die? Where did they die? What documentary evidence do you have for your answers?
I'm going to add "how did they die?" to the list.
I realize there is no biblical evidence for a date of either, only a reference in John 21 to Peter's death as a martyr and Paul's anticipation of his death in 2 Timothy.
All the above does not prove that the author of Luke and Acts didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts.
-
All the above does not prove that the author of Luke and Acts didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts.
It isn't for us to prove that they didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts, it is for you to provide that they did.
-
It isn't for us to prove that they didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts, it is for you to provide that they did.
Precisely!
ippy.
-
It isn't for us to prove that they didn't meet eyewitnesses or use eyewitness accounts, it is for you to provide that they did.
Bingo.
But even though the above is true, the evidence against Luke having eye witness sources is pretty strong. Luke's main source is Mark and, even in Christian tradition, Mark was not an eye witness. Also, Acts of the Apostles gets key facts surrounding Paul's travels wrong. You'd think Paul's fellow traveller would be able to get these things right.
-
Spud, I recommend you watch this lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQaOlxhg8xg&list=PL279CFA55C51E75E0&index=5
It goes into the contradictions between Galatians and Acts in some detail. The case is pretty damning, I'm afraid.
Thanks for the link. I watched three quarters of it, as the volume's not too good. Enough to get his gist. So here's the thing. At the tomb does the angel say, "he is not here, he is risen" or does he say "he is risen, he is not here"? The gospel writers contradict each other!!! They must be wrong, it's all false!!! Now consider an incident which is reported by three separate newspapers, like a plane crash, or a motorway accident. The following day they all give different numbers of dead. Does that mean the incident didn't happen?
A more sensible approach is to look for similarities in the different reports. If both newspapers got the name of the aircraft or motorway right, we would be able to be fairly certain that the incident happened. The fact that three different authors record similar sayings by angels at the tomb suggests that the women saw someone who reported that Jesus was not there and was alive, but that the authors differ in the minor details for some reason.
Regarding Paul's account versus Luke's of his conversion and journeys. Don't just pick out the contradictions and assume Luke was written decades later by someone else. It's normal for witnesses to disagree on details. Look for similarities, like Damascus, Jerusalem. Even some verses in Luke/Acts are word for word the same as in Paul's letters.
Bingo.
But even though the above is true, the evidence against Luke having eye witness sources is pretty strong. Luke's main source is Mark and, even in Christian tradition, Mark was not an eye witness. Also, Acts of the Apostles gets key facts surrounding Paul's travels wrong. You'd think Paul's fellow traveller would be able to get these things right.
But Luke didn't travel with Paul until Acts 16. He wasn't there at his conversion and subsequent activity.
-
Now consider an incident which is reported by three separate newspapers, like a plane crash, or a motorway accident. The following day they all give different numbers of dead. Does that mean the incident didn't happen?
But we aren't talking about a series of reports the next day, but a series of reports that first appeared perhaps 50-80 years later. Also a plane crash or motorway accident are perfectly plausible things that we know can happen so we may take a starting presumption of accepting the basic notion - a dead man suddenly coming alive again is not a plausible occurrence so our starting point should not be to accept the basic notion. Finally we know the writers of the gospels are highly partial - they aren't a neutral observer.
So the equivalent would be reports from people who were passionate supporters of a particular aircraft manufacture who believe that no-one could ever die on one of their planes claiming that although one of their planes crashed from 30,000 ft that no-one died. In other words an implausible claim from a partial reporter - exactly what we see in the gospels.
-
So here's the thing. At the tomb does the angel say, "he is not here, he is risen" or does he say "he is risen, he is not here"? The gospel writers contradict each other!!! They must be wrong, it's all false!!! Now consider an incident which is reported by three separate newspapers, like a plane crash, or a motorway accident. The following day they all give different numbers of dead. Does that mean the incident didn't happen?
Spud
Are you serious?
Where there has been a plane crash there is evidence: the plane, the crew and passengers, the airport, the flight plan, air traffic control and the wreckage - so even if at some point there are confused or inaccurate reports the details are knowable. Claims about angels that are made post hoc, are based on anecdotal reports of uncertain provenance and where the risks of mistakes or lies are obvious and not comparable - you can't even address the risks of mistake or lies (and that is without dealing with the issue of evidence for angels).
A more sensible approach is to look for similarities in the different reports. If both newspapers got the name of the aircraft or motorway right, we would be able to be fairly certain that the incident happened. The fact that three different authors record similar sayings by angels at the tomb suggests that the women saw someone who reported that Jesus was not there and was alive, but that the authors differ in the minor details for some reason.
You're effectively attempting to compare apples with concrete mixers: an approach that is doomed to failure for fairly obvious reasons.
-
Thanks for the link. I watched three quarters of it, as the volume's not too good. Enough to get his gist. So here's the thing. At the tomb does the angel say, "he is not here, he is risen" or does he say "he is risen, he is not here"? The gospel writers contradict each other!!! They must be wrong, it's all false!!! Now consider an incident which is reported by three separate newspapers, like a plane crash, or a motorway accident. The following day they all give different numbers of dead. Does that mean the incident didn't happen?
I asked you to watch the lecture to get an idea of how Acts contradicts Paul's own writings, the resurrection stories are a different can of worms which we can get into if you like.
A more sensible approach is to look for similarities in the different reports. If both newspapers got the name of the aircraft or motorway right, we would be able to be fairly certain that the incident happened. The fact that three different authors record similar sayings by angels at the tomb suggests that the women saw someone who reported that Jesus was not there and was alive, but that the authors differ in the minor details for some reason.
Yes, they are not eye witnesses and the accounts they received have been distorted either by the eye witnesses or the retelling.
Except it doesn't really make sense. Luke, for example, had the text of Mark or Matthew to copy off, but he still made changes. It suggests he wasn't as interested in getting the facts 100% correct so much as pushing his own theology.
Regarding Paul's account versus Luke's of his conversion and journeys. Don't just pick out the contradictions and assume Luke was written decades later by someone else. It's normal for witnesses to disagree on details. Look for similarities, like Damascus, Jerusalem. Even some verses in Luke/Acts are word for word the same as in Paul's letters.
We are not talking about details, we are talking about Pul's whole itinerary.
But Luke didn't travel with Paul until Acts 16. He wasn't there at his conversion and subsequent activity.
So your solution is that Acts, at least before chapter 16, is unreliable.
-
So your solution is that Acts, at least before chapter 16, is unreliable.
Unreliable if you want the exact, precise details- yes, since Luke's source for that part of Acts may not have been Paul himself.
As I mentioned above, the apparent contradictions could be due to differences in context. Paul is specifically refuting the idea that his gospel was second hand, taught him by the apostles. Luke however is showing how Paul's preaching in Damascus was given as evidence to the apostles that he had been converted.
Some details Paul gives are missing from Luke's account. But some are included, such as staying in Damascus, a visit later on to see Peter in Jerusalem, and being sent off to Tarsus (Acts 9:30, cf Gal 1:30, "Then I went to Syria and Cilicia." Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia). Acts 9 also agrees with Galatians 1:22, which refers to the churches in Judea, as opposed to just Jerusalem.
Paul says in Galatians 2 that he was in Jerusalem 14 years later, with Barnabas. The details he gives here appear to confirm Luke's story in Acts 15.
I know there are details from both versions missing from the other, but different sources would have recalled different things, and as I say, the contexts of the two are different.
-
Unreliable if you want the exact, precise details- yes, since Luke's source for that part of Acts may not have been Paul himself.
So if Acts 1-15 is unreliable, we can assume the same shoddy scholarship went into the gospel. After all the gospel writer never tells us his sources for the first half of Acts are unreliable, why should we believer his sources for any of the rest are reliable?
As I mentioned above, the apparent contradictions could be due to differences in context. Paul is specifically refuting the idea that his gospel was second hand, taught him by the apostles. Luke however is showing how Paul's preaching in Damascus was given as evidence to the apostles that he had been converted.
Why would that lead Luke to make up facts about Paul's travels?
I know there are details from both versions missing from the other, but different sources would have recalled different things, and as I say, the contexts of the two are different.
You need to watch the lecture I linked and play closer attention to it this time. The time line of Paul cannot be reconciled with that of Luke.
Also, what evidence do you have that the writer of Acts ever knew Paul personally?
-
So if Acts 1-15 is unreliable, we can assume the same shoddy scholarship went into the gospel. After all the gospel writer never tells us his sources for the first half of Acts are unreliable, why should we believer his sources for any of the rest are reliable?
Why would that lead Luke to make up facts about Paul's travels?
You need to watch the lecture I linked and play closer attention to it this time. The time line of Paul cannot be reconciled with that of Luke.
The gentleman in the video thinks the lack of a reference in Galatians to Saul persecuting the church in Jerusalem, means that Saul didn't ever go to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion, and therefore that Luke is wrong in saying Saul obtained letters from the high priest (in Jerusalem) in order to arrest Christians in Damascus (Acts 9:2). He gets this idea by the phrase, "later I returned to Damascus" (Gal. 1:17) which he says indicates that Saul was nowhere except in Damascus. But the verb 'returned' is not to be interpreted as saying that Saul was only in Damascus before going to Arabia, so that he was not in Jerusalem until three years later. Instead it refers back to Paul's being called on the road to Damascus, which he doesn't describe and which apparently the Galatians knew about already.
Luke is not "making up facts about Paul's travels": Paul just omits to mention going to Jerusalem to obtain the letters from the high priest.
Also, what evidence do you have that the writer of Acts ever knew Paul personally?
The "we" in the narrative from Acts 16 onward (possibly not conclusive evidence though).
-
The gentleman in the video thinks the lack of a reference in Galatians to Saul persecuting the church in Jerusalem, means that Saul didn't ever go to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion, and therefore that Luke is wrong in saying Saul obtained letters from the high priest (in Jerusalem) in order to arrest Christians in Damascus (Acts 9:2). He gets this idea by the phrase, "later I returned to Damascus" (Gal. 1:17) which he says indicates that Saul was nowhere except in Damascus. But the verb 'returned' is not to be interpreted as saying that Saul was only in Damascus before going to Arabia, so that he was not in Jerusalem until three years later. Instead it refers back to Paul's being called on the road to Damascus, which he doesn't describe and which apparently the Galatians knew about already.
Luke is not "making up facts about Paul's travels": Paul just omits to mention going to Jerusalem to obtain the letters from the high priest.
You still aren't understanding the lecture. The events after Paul's conversion are not reconcilable.
The "we" in the narrative from Acts 16 onward (possibly not conclusive evidence though).
To say the least.
Do you think The Eagle Has Landed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eagle_Has_Landed_(novel)) is truth or fiction?
-
You still aren't understanding the lecture. The events after Paul's conversion are not reconcilable.To say the least.
Do you think The Eagle Has Landed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eagle_Has_Landed_(novel)) is truth or fiction?
Can we go one step at a time, then? How about we start with the chronology of Saul's trip to Arabia? The lecturer knows the story like the back of his hand, but I don't.
So I found Meyer's commentary helpful because it goes word by word through the NT, in the Greek.
Meyer looks at possible places where the trip to Arabia could be inserted in the Acts 9 narrative, and concludes that from verses 18-22 the text is too continuous to allow for this - Saul is in Damascus with the disciples for a short time, then is described preaching among the Jews that Jesus is the Son of God and Christ.
Then Luke says, 'after many days' (9:23) which is a phrase that he uses elsewhere to mean an indefinite period, which he may or may not know the exact length of - in Acts 18:11,18 it refers to Paul's year-and-a-half stay in Corinth. Meyer says that this is where the trip to Arabia and the rest of the three year period before going to Jerusalem, would fit, with the plot to kill him occurring near the end of it.
Paul's mission to the Gentiles is not Luke's focus in Acts 9. Not until after the Peter's vision, and the worldwide famine, was Paul commissioned to go to them. Saul is shown to be preaching to Jews in Damascus and Jerusalem, but in Galatians his own awareness of his calling is immediate, so that he describes his trip to Arabia as immediate.
On top of all this, we have confirmation that Luke's account is accurate in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33. "In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands."
This King Aretas was king of the Nabateans, which was apparently he Arabia to which Paul went.
-
NB when Saul preaches to the Jews in Damascus, he shows that he doesn't wait around to be given the go ahead by the apostles. He baffles the Jews by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.
Thus Luke's account agrees with Paul's claim that he didn't consult anyone about his gospel.
-
Thus Luke's account agrees with Paul's claim that he didn't consult anyone about his gospel.
They both agree that his name was Paul too. That doesn't mean Luke knew Paul.
Even if he did, if Paul didn't consult with anybody about his gospel (I agree that Paul claimed his message was revealed rather than learned from Jesus' earlier followers), where does that leave Luke's source for the gospel?
-
They both agree that his name was Paul too. That doesn't mean Luke knew Paul.
The evidence points to it, unless there is good evidence to the contrary.
Even if he did, if Paul didn't consult with anybody about his gospel (I agree that Paul claimed his message was revealed rather than learned from Jesus' earlier followers), where does that leave Luke's source for the gospel?
As I understand it, Luke tells us his source for his gospel in his introduction: the eyewitnesses.
-
The evidence points to it, unless there is good evidence to the contrary.
The only evidence you have so far is that Luke sometimes wrote in the first person.
As I understand it, Luke tells us his source for his gospel in his introduction: the eyewitnesses.
We've already gone through that. There's no evidence he used eye witness sources. He doesn't say he does. In fact, we know his main source for the gospel is Mark.
-
It's right there:
Contrast Luke 21's prophecy with the epistle of Barnabas, which openly states that the temple had been destroyed:
"So it came to pass; for because they went to war [the temple] was pulled down by their enemies" (Barnabas 16:4).
Considering the above, why would Luke not mention that Jesus' prophecy had been fulfilled, if he was writing after the event?
It's plausible that Jesus talked about both the 'desolating sacrilege' and the armies surrounding the city.
Luke 21:20 and Luke 19:43 closely resembles Isaiah 29:3, which contains very similar language, but in the context of the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem.
So it's conceivable that Jesus referred to the siege of the city by both Antiochus (hence in Matthew 24 the sign is the desolating sacrilege from Daniel) and the Babylonians.
-
Contrast Luke 21's prophecy with the epistle of Barnabas, which openly states that the temple had been destroyed:
"So it came to pass; for because they went to war [the temple] was pulled down by their enemies" (Barnabas 16:4).
Considering the above, why would Luke not mention that Jesus' prophecy had been fulfilled, if he was writing after the event?
If I write "Spud prophesied that terrorists would fly planes into the World Trade Centre", you wouldn't expect me to have to put "and they did" on the end because everybody knows they did.
-
If I write "Spud prophesied that terrorists would fly planes into the World Trade Centre", you wouldn't expect me to have to put "and they did" on the end because everybody knows they did.
You had me for a while there. I couldn't think of a reply last night.
But I just thought, some of the disciples would have had something to say about Ad70 and the prophecy of it, which would find its way into Acts, Luke's gospel or one of the others, as it does with the epistle of Barnabas.
Especially given Ad70 is linked with the end of the world and second coming in Jesus' prophecy, I think we would expect to find some mention of it.
-
Also, Acts contains other predictions and their fulfillments.
-
But I just thought, some of the disciples would have had something to say about Ad70 and the prophecy of it, which would find its way into Acts,
Why would it? The events of Acts take place before AD70.
Luke's gospel or one of the others, as it does with the epistle of Barnabas.
It does make it into Luke's gospel in the form of a prophecy by Jesus - much like your prophecy of 9/11 made it onto this message board.
-
much like your prophecy of 9/11 made it onto this message board.
We would expect someone to comment about that in a way that would reveal that it had happened.
-
On the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, an interesting point is that all three synoptics have the word 'desolate' (eremosis), and this indicates it to be likely that Jesus did actually say that word:
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that her desolation is near - Luke
So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination of desolation' - Mat.
So when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be - Mark
The three have independent sources, with some copy and pasting mixed in, but the idea of desolation was in the mind of all three of them.
-
I meant to say that Luke's version of the Olivet discourse is quite different to Matthew and Mark, suggesting that he had not seen their versions. So for him to have the same idea of desolation shows that all three originate with Jesus.
-
More evidence that Luke, Acts, Matthew and Mark were all written before Ad70:
Acts 23:7 "As soon as he had said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8For the Sadducees say there is neither a resurrection [they were sad,you see], nor angels, nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all."
The Saducees as a formal group didn't exist after Ad70, but are always referred to in the present tense as though they were in existence at the time of writing.
"And certain of the Sadducees, who are denying that there is a rising again, having come near, questioned him," Luke 20:27 YLT
-
Have you considered, Spud, that anyone writing about events in the past might deliberately use the present tense to convey the times they are writing about: thus someone currently writing a novel set in, say, WW2 might in the narrative mention seeing Spitfires flying and Barrage Balloons aloft although neither are around today.
-
We would expect someone to comment about that in a way that would reveal that it had happened.
People did comment on it, so much so that, when I pointed out that you prophesied the destruction of the World Trade Centre, I did not have point out that it actually happened.
-
The three have independent sources, with some copy and pasting mixed in, but the idea of desolation was in the mind of all three of them.
Or Luke and Matthew copied Mark, which is what probably happened really.
-
People did comment on it, so much so that, when I pointed out that you prophesied the destruction of the World Trade Centre, I did not have point out that it actually happened.
fair enough.
-
Or Luke and Matthew copied Mark, which is what probably happened really.
If so, where did Luke get 21:24 and all the other parts of the speech that diverge from Mark?
-
Have you considered, Spud, that anyone writing about events in the past might deliberately use the present tense to convey the times they are writing about: thus someone currently writing a novel set in, say, WW2 might in the narrative mention seeing Spitfires flying and Barrage Balloons aloft although neither are around today.
I don't suppose you could find an actual case of this use of the present tense by a narrator, as it seems like an unnatural thing to do. For example, I could write a story about the blitz from the POV of someone in Surrey, and (edit: that character says:) "we are lucky here in Surrey - few bombers can get through, as they are intercepted by spitfires from Biggin Hill, where there are now four squadron of them."
But if the narrator said, "few bombers can reach Surrey. There are four squadrons of spitfires at Biggin Hill to intercept them" it would be an unnatural thing to write unless it was said by a character. That's from my limited reading of novels - maybe I'm wrong?
-
I don't suppose you could find an actual case of this use of the present tense by a narrator, as it seems like an unnatural thing to do. For example, I could write a story about the blitz from the POV of someone in Surrey, and say, "we are lucky here in Surrey - few bombers can get through, as they are intercepted by spitfires from Biggin Hill, where there are now four squadron of them."
But if the narrator said, "few bombers can reach Surrey. There are four squadrons of spitfires at Biggin Hill to intercept them" it would be an unnatural thing to write unless it was said by a character. That's from my limited reading of novels - maybe I'm wrong?
I'm sure there is a point you're trying to make here, Spud, but I've no idea what it is.
I'll try again: someone writing a narrative post-hoc could decide to use the present tense to make it seem they were writing at the time being portrayed. For example, in the well-known 1955 film 'The Dam Busters' the characters speak and act as if it were still 1943.
As such, your point that "The Saducees as a formal group didn't exist after Ad70, but are always referred to in the present tense as though they were in existence at the time of writing" doesn't confirm that anything written that mentions the Saducees had to have been written before CE70.
-
There's no narrator in the Dam Busters :)
-
There's no narrator in the Dam Busters :)
Do you understand the difference between a narrative and a narrator?
-
There's no narrator in the Dam Busters :)
Whoosh.
-
I'm sure there is a point you're trying to make here, Spud, but I've no idea what it is.
I'll try again: someone writing a narrative post-hoc could decide to use the present tense to make it seem they were writing at the time being portrayed. For example, in the well-known 1955 film 'The Dam Busters' the characters speak and act as if it were still 1943.
As such, your point that "The Saducees as a formal group didn't exist after Ad70, but are always referred to in the present tense as though they were in existence at the time of writing" doesn't confirm that anything written that mentions the Saducees had to have been written before CE70.
Apologies - the narrator of "The World At War" part 4 uses present tense in the introduction - "British and French troops wait for rescue on the beach at Dunkirk" etc, then he uses past tense for the rest of the documentary.
The parallel verse to Luke 20:27 in Matthew also uses the present tense, then reverts back to past tense. Mark uses present, but is all over the place, tense-wise. I think it looks like they are speaking from a pre 70 perspective, personally.
-
Apologies - the narrator of "The World At War" part 4 uses present tense in the introduction - "British and French troops wait for rescue on the beach at Dunkirk" etc, then he uses past tense for the rest of the documentary.
The parallel verse to Luke 20:27 in Matthew also uses the present tense, then reverts back to past tense. Mark uses present, but is all over the place, tense-wise. I think it looks like they are speaking from a pre 70 perspective, personally.
And yet they refer to things that happened in 70. I think that is a better indicator than which tense they use.
Sorry: "used".
and "referred". My tenses are all over the place. That must mean I am writing contemporaneously to Mark.
-
Or Luke and Matthew copied Mark, which is what probably happened really.
For those verses in particular, Luke didn't copy Mark. The details are quite different, yet the same idea of desolation is there. Did they both come from the same source (J.C.)?
-
The details are quite different, ...
yet the same idea of desolation is there.
Which is it Spud - are they different or are they the same - you seem constantly to argue in both directions claiming that both similarities and differences are somehow proof that they were based on eye witness accounts.
Did they both come from the same source (J.C.)?
Huge leap - they may have both come from the same source, but given the time (and place) of writing it is pretty well inconceivable that that source would have been Jesus who had been dead for nigh on 40 years and lives thousands of miles away.
-
For those verses in particular, Luke didn't copy Mark. The details are quite different, yet the same idea of desolation is there. Did they both come from the same source (J.C.)?
If "the details are quite different", how did they all get it from the same source?
-
If "the details are quite different", how did they all get it from the same source?
Jesus could have talked about both Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation and the approach of armies. The word 'desolation' stuck in the mind of the different sources (the apostles).
One problem for a post-70 date of writing is, why did the three Synoptists say so much about not following false messiahs, not being alarmed at rumours of rebellions or natural disasters, warning them of arrest and persecution, then about fleeing the city, and keeping watch, if these had already happened?
-
One problem for a post-70 date of writing is, why did the three Synoptists say so much about not following false messiahs, not being alarmed at rumours of rebellions or natural disasters, warning them of arrest and persecution, then about fleeing the city, and keeping watch, if these had already happened?
You might think that, but the vast majority of serious historians disagree.
But actually the date of the original writing of the gospels isn't the key here as there may have been all sorts of alterations in the decades following their writing for all kinds of purposes. So really the first point at which we can be definitive about what the gospels actually say is when we actually have fragments that can be read (or in really a complete intact version). We don't have anything of that nature until about 200AD - so we are largely in the dark for the period from the dates of the events in the gospels until their likely drafting some 40-50+ years later, and are also in the dark about edits, alterations, additions, removals from those drafts until we have actual physical written gospels a further 120+ years later again.
-
You might think that, but the vast majority of serious historians disagree.
But actually the date of the original writing of the gospels isn't the key here as there may have been all sorts of alterations in the decades following their writing for all kinds of purposes. So really the first point at which we can be definitive about what the gospels actually say is when we actually have fragments that can be read (or in really a complete intact version). We don't have anything of that nature until about 200AD - so we are largely in the dark for the period from the dates of the events in the gospels until their likely drafting some 40-50+ years later, and are also in the dark about edits, alterations, additions, removals from those drafts until we have actual physical written gospels a further 120+ years later again.
Ok, there are a lot of fragments by the looks of it, and as you say, date mostly to post-200. How similar are they to the more complete copies from the 4th century? That would tell us something about how close the fragments were to the originals.
-
Jesus could have talked about both Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation and the approach of armies. The word 'desolation' stuck in the mind of the different sources (the apostles).
So you're basically saying their sources all had different versions of the same event. You aren't making a good case for the accuracy of the gospels.
One problem for a post-70 date of writing is, why did the three Synoptists say so much about not following false messiahs, not being alarmed at rumours of rebellions or natural disasters, warning them of arrest and persecution, then about fleeing the city, and keeping watch, if these had already happened?
Because they had already happened. It would be a fair bet they would be happening again.
Plus of course they might have been bigging up Jesus' powers ofd prophecy. There's nothing like putting a prophecy that has already been fulfilled into the mouth of your hero from the past to make them look like a really good prophet. The writer of Daniel did a pretty good job of it in about 164BC.
-
Ok, there are a lot of fragments by the looks of it, and as you say, date mostly to post-200. How similar are they to the more complete copies from the 4th century? That would tell us something about how close the fragments were to the originals.
No it wouldn't - just because the gospels didn't change much from 200-400 doesn't meant they didn't change much from 80-200. It is extremely common for narratives to change markedly in their earliest series of iterations, but to settle on a more standard and broadly unchanging form later.
We know nothing really about how closely the fragments we have from 200 onwards align with what was written in AD80, let alone how what was written in AD80 related to what is purported to happen in AD30.
-
So you're basically saying their sources all had different versions of the same event.
Yep, since people see things from different angles, and remember different details of the same event. But similarities mixed in with the differences show they are describing the same event.
Like with the resurrection appearances: lots of differences, but also similarities, for example, when the women see Jesus, they try to touch him. This comes out in both Matthew, who says that they clasped his feet, and John, where Jesus says to Mary, "do not hold on to me". But as you say,
You aren't making a good case for the accuracy of the gospels.
Because they had already happened. It would be a fair bet they would be happening again.
Plus of course they might have been bigging up Jesus' powers ofd prophecy. There's nothing like putting a prophecy that has already been fulfilled into the mouth of your hero from the past to make them look like a really good prophet. The writer of Daniel did a pretty good job of it in about 164BC.
Are you happy to say that Daniel was canonized in 40 years, since a dead sea scrolls manuscript containing a small part of Daniel was dated to 125 BC?
-
Yep, since people see things from different angles, and remember different details of the same event. But similarities mixed in with the differences show they are describing the same event.
So we can't rely on any of them.
Like with the resurrection appearances: lots of differences, but also similarities, for example, when the women see Jesus, they try to touch him. This comes out in both Matthew, who says that they clasped his feet, and John, where Jesus says to Mary, "do not hold on to me".
A lot of the details of the stories of the resurrection cannot be mutually reconciled. It's not that they are different details of the same story, they are different stories.
Are you happy to say that Daniel was canonized in 40 years, since a dead sea scrolls manuscript containing a small part of Daniel was dated to 125 BC?
Some bits of Daniel might be older but the prophecies were definitely written in the 160's BC
-
So we can't rely on any of them.
A lot of the details of the stories of the resurrection cannot be mutually reconciled.
Can they be reconciled if the various witnesses got separated and arrived at the tomb at different times?
It's not that they are different details of the same story, they are different stories.
Different stories about the same event? It has to be admitted that there are many details that agree, such as the words spoken by the angel(s), eg "he is not here, he has risen, see where they laid him".
Some bits of Daniel might be older but the prophecies were definitely written in the 160's BC
...because they are prophecies?
-
Can they be reconciled if the various witnesses got separated and arrived at the tomb at different times?
How do you reconcile the women arriving before dawn and at dawn?
How do you reconcile the women witnessing the stone being rolled back and it already being rolled back?
How do you reconcile one man and two men being present?
That's just for starters. If you then look at the stories of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you see there are three stories (Mark originally has none) and they are all different. Then, if you look at Acts, you see Luke even walks back some of the details of his own earlier account.
Different stories about the same event? It has to be admitted that there are many details that agree, such as the words spoken by the angel(s), eg "he is not here, he has risen, see where they laid him". ...because they are prophecies?
It's quite telling the gospel accounts are similar (but with inconsistency of detail) right up to the point of the original ending of Mark. After the, each of the remaining three authors tells a different story. It's almost as if they were following Mark in general terms and all decided to make something different up for after his rather abrupt ending.
-
How do you reconcile the women arriving before dawn and at dawn?
How do you reconcile the women witnessing the stone being rolled back and it already being rolled back?
How do you reconcile one man and two men being present?
That's just for starters. If you then look at the stories of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you see there are three stories (Mark originally has none) and they are all different. Then, if you look at Acts, you see Luke even walks back some of the details of his own earlier account.
It's quite telling the gospel accounts are similar (but with inconsistency of detail) right up to the point of the original ending of Mark. After the, each of the remaining three authors tells a different story. It's almost as if they were following Mark in general terms and all decided to make something different up for after his rather abrupt ending.
Mary magdalene
Mary mother of James
Joanna
Susanna
The others with them who had followed Jesus from Galilee (Lk 8:2, 24:10)
So, a minimum of 5, possibly a crowd of them if you include the 'many others' Lk mentions in 8:2.
So they may not have all gone at the same time and all together, which would allow for different numbers and locations of angels, locations of the stone, different conversations, descriptions, etc.
-
Mary magdalene
Mary mother of James
Joanna
Susanna
The others with them who had followed Jesus from Galilee (Lk 8:2, 24:10)
So, a minimum of 5, possibly a crowd of them if you include the 'many others' Lk mentions in 8:2.
So they may not have all gone at the same time and all together, which would allow for different numbers and locations of angels, locations of the stone, different conversations, descriptions, etc.
OH DEAR!!!!
-
Mary magdalene
Mary mother of James
Joanna
Susanna
The others with them who had followed Jesus from Galilee (Lk 8:2, 24:10)
So, a minimum of 5, possibly a crowd of them if you include the 'many others' Lk mentions in 8:2.
So they may not have all gone at the same time and all together, which would allow for different numbers and locations of angels, locations of the stone, different conversations, descriptions, etc.
Straw ... clutch
-
Mary magdalene
Mary mother of James
Joanna
Susanna
The others with them who had followed Jesus from Galilee (Lk 8:2, 24:10)
So, a minimum of 5, possibly a crowd of them if you include the 'many others' Lk mentions in 8:2.
So they may not have all gone at the same time and all together, which would allow for different numbers and locations of angels, locations of the stone, different conversations, descriptions, etc.
Except that Mary Magdalene is mentioned in Matthew's gospel as witnessing the angel rolling back the stone, and in Mark's gospel arrives to find it already rolled back....
-
I wonder what substance people who claim to see angels are imbibing?
-
Except that Mary Magdalene is mentioned in Matthew's gospel as witnessing the angel rolling back the stone, and in Mark's gospel arrives to find it already rolled back....
Although the interlinear of Mt 28:2 says that the angel "was sitting" on the stone, possibly implying that the action of rolling it away had taken place?
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-2.htm
-
Although the interlinear of Mt 28:2 says that the angel "was sitting" on the stone, possibly implying that the action of rolling it away had taken place?
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-2.htm
How do you know the stone could even be 'rolled' - got a pic?
-
A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it. I'd be interested in Dicly's view on the Greek.
-
A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it. I'd be interested in Dicly's view on the Greek.
They may well do, but how do you know the story is true? After all, a fabrication in Greek (or any language) would still be a fabrication, so you'd need to exclude the possibility of fabrication before accepting the story - so, have you, and how?
-
A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it. I'd be interested in Dicly's view on the Greek.
So what? If something defies credibility, as does much of the Bible, it is wise to be very sceptical unless it can be proved to be true.
-
A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it.
And many do not (not even the NIV*). I suspect that the link you gave to an interlinear translation was one of those versions of which evangelicals are fond, which attempt to reconcile the glaring discrepancies between the gospels. My own interlinear Revised Standard Version of the Greek gives the simple temporal sequence of "descending...rolling back...SAT". I checked with three other modern language versions that I have, in Spanish, French and German. They all have the same sequence of tenses, ending with the simple past, meaning "SAT".
And even if it were possible to objectively ascertain which of the myriad translations were correct, this would still not negate the even more fundamental points that Gordon has made.
*I mention the NIV, because it gets up to these kind of tricks right from Genesis 2, where it mistranslates the tenses in order to try and reconcile G2 with G1.
-
And many do not (not even the NIV*). I suspect that the link you gave to an interlinear translation was one of those versions of which evangelicals are fond, which attempt to reconcile the glaring discrepancies between the gospels. My own interlinear Revised Standard Version of the Greek gives the simple temporal sequence of "descending...rolling back...SAT". I checked with three other modern language versions that I have, in Spanish, French and German. They all have the same sequence of tenses, ending with the simple past, meaning "SAT".
And even if it were possible to objectively ascertain which of the myriad translations were correct, this would still not negate the even more fundamental points that Gordon has made.
*I mention the NIV, because it gets up to these kind of tricks right from Genesis 2, where it mistranslates the tenses in order to try and reconcile G2 with G1.
Thanks for checking. You may be right, but I tend to go by either the Berean Literal Bible or Young's Literal Translation, both of which translate as "having descended...having come...rolled...was sitting". The word for 'sitting' is ekatheto, of which there are 11 instances. The Biblos Interlinear Bible always translates it as, 'was sitting', and in most of the instances it clearly does indicate the imperfect:
https://biblehub.com/greek/ekathe_to_2521.htm
-
Thanks for checking. You may be right, but I tend to go by either the Berean Literal Bible or Young's Literal Translation, both of which translate as "having descended...having come...rolled...was sitting". The word for 'sitting' is ekatheto, of which there are 11 instances. The Biblos Interlinear Bible always translates it as, 'was sitting', and in most of the instances it clearly does indicate the imperfect:
https://biblehub.com/greek/ekathe_to_2521.htm
The above may be of academic interest, Spud, but whatever the tenses used there is still the issue of whether or not the story is true.
For example, whether I say I 'am sitting' on horse or I recently 'was sitting' on a horse requires that there was indeed a horse present, and if there was no horse then the story is false irrespective of what tense I used - now, substitute 'horse' with 'rock that could be rolled'.
After all, I could be telling porkies.
-
Thanks for checking. You may be right, but I tend to go by either the Berean Literal Bible or Young's Literal Translation, both of which translate as "having descended...having come...rolled...was sitting". The word for 'sitting' is ekatheto, of which there are 11 instances. The Biblos Interlinear Bible always translates it as, 'was sitting', and in most of the instances it clearly does indicate the imperfect:
https://biblehub.com/greek/ekathe_to_2521.htm
It would be sensible to QUESTION whether the less than credible things the Biblical authors have written actually happened.
-
Thanks for checking. You may be right, but I tend to go by either the Berean Literal Bible or Young's Literal Translation, both of which translate as "having descended...having come...rolled...was sitting". The word for 'sitting' is ekatheto, of which there are 11 instances. The Biblos Interlinear Bible always translates it as, 'was sitting', and in most of the instances it clearly does indicate the imperfect:
https://biblehub.com/greek/ekathe_to_2521.htm
Spud - do you understand how absurd a discussion of the tense is in the context of an angel sitting on a stone, given that there is no evidence that angels exist so until that is confirmed the notion of whether the angel is sitting or was sitting on a stone is completely moot and as relevant as whether a unicorn is sitting or was sitting under a tree.
-
Spud - do you understand how absurd a discussion of the tense is in the context of an angel sitting on a stone, given that there is no evidence that angels exist so until that is confirmed the notion of whether the angel is sitting or was sitting on a stone is completely moot and as relevant as whether a unicorn is sitting or was sitting under a tree.
Looks like it's going to be a long time before the age of indoctrination passes by, they've managed to trap A B, and who's that other particularly bad case now?
ippy.
-
I am of the opinion some people are too scared to question their faith in case their version of god delivers horrific retribution.
-
I am of the opinion some people are too scared to question their faith in case their version of god delivers horrific retribution.
And it would effect a lot of their, more than likely long held relationships within their full of delusional thinking clubs.
ippy.
-
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9
The stone had already been rolled back when the women arrived; Matthew 28:2 does not contradict Mark, Luke and John. The verb for sit is kathémai. According to section 1.4.1., "The perfect and pluperfect function as the verb's present and imperfect tenses." The 3rd person singular pluperfect is ekathēto (given in the grey table in 1.4.1. of the link), which is the word used in Mt 28:2. This pluperfect must be functioning as the imperfect, then.
The context of 4 of the 11 instances of ekathēto in the New Testament clearly indicates the imperfect tense ('was sitting'). The 4 instances are Acts 14:8 (a lame man sitting), Luke 18:35 (a blind man sitting), Mark 10:46 (a blind man sitting) and Mark 3:32 (crowds sitting).
-
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9
The stone had already been rolled back when the women arrived; Matthew 28:2 does not contradict Mark, Luke and John. The verb for sit is kathémai. According to section 1.4.1., "The perfect and pluperfect function as the verb's present and imperfect tenses." The 3rd person singular pluperfect is ekathēto (given in the grey table in 1.4.1. of the link), which is the word used in Mt 28:2. This pluperfect must be functioning as the imperfect, then.
The context of 4 of the 11 instances of ekathēto in the New Testament clearly indicates the imperfect tense ('was sitting'). The 4 instances are Acts 14:8 (a lame man sitting), Luke 18:35 (a blind man sitting), Mark 10:46 (a blind man sitting) and Mark 3:32 (crowds sitting).
The unicorn sits on the stone.
The unicorn sat on the stone.
-
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%AC%CE%B8%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%B9
The stone had already been rolled back when the women arrived; Matthew 28:2 does not contradict Mark, Luke and John.
They could all be lying or in some way wrong, Spud - have you excluded these risks, and if so how?
The verb for sit is kathémai. According to section 1.4.1., "The perfect and pluperfect function as the verb's present and imperfect tenses." The 3rd person singular pluperfect is ekathēto (given in the grey table in 1.4.1. of the link), which is the word used in Mt 28:2. This pluperfect must be functioning as the imperfect, then.
The context of 4 of the 11 instances of ekathēto in the New Testament clearly indicates the imperfect tense ('was sitting'). The 4 instances are Acts 14:8 (a lame man sitting), Luke 18:35 (a blind man sitting), Mark 10:46 (a blind man sitting) and Mark 3:32 (crowds sitting).
If the story isn't true then none of this grammatical stuff matters a jot.
-
If the story isn't true then none of this grammatical stuff matters a jot.
And when the claim in question involves ... err ... angels then I suggest discussion of grammatical stuff is rather ahead of itself until we are provided with credible evidence that angels exist.
-
And when the claim in question involves ... err ... angels then I suggest discussion of grammatical stuff is rather ahead of itself until we are provided with credible evidence that angels exist.
I agree with you Proff at the moment discussing the inns an outs of any religion is no more useful than say a discussion held at a Sherlock Holms society meeting.
ippy
-
A lot of the translations say the angel had come and had rolled the stone and was sitting on it. I'd be interested in Dicly's view on the Greek.
An angel? Not a man then? Or two angels or two men?
-
I'll repeat what I put into a reply to Spud sometime ago .... 'The problem I see that the doctrine of Christianity has is that it is heavily dependant upon the cult status of Jesus rather than what he attempted to teach. If the focus was upon the teachings, it wouldn't matter who uttered them as long as they worked for the followers. Perhaps one day, somebody will discover some manuscripts written in Aramaic at the time of his ministry rather than at the time the early church was trying to organise itself.' This discussion shows the futility of trying to defend a cultist situation.
-
I'll repeat what I put into a reply to Spud sometime ago .... 'The problem I see that the doctrine of Christianity has is that it is heavily dependant upon the cult status of Jesus rather than what he attempted to teach. If the focus was upon the teachings, it wouldn't matter who uttered them as long as they worked for the followers.
Indeed, I agree.
Perhaps one day, somebody will discover some manuscripts written in Aramaic at the time of his ministry rather than at the time the early church was trying to organise itself.' This discussion shows the futility of trying to defend a cultist situation.
I would not be surprised if they had already been found and discarded as worthless :)
Ekim, have you ever come across the book Illusions by Richard Bach?
-
Two Angels or two men?
Could two men have rolled the stone from a sealed tomb which would be very much a boulder.
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
When Christ died his death caused the saints who had died at that time to rise.
If as a none believer you knew he healed the sick, raised the dead and even the dead saints raised at his own death. What would the account of those who wrote about these things for
the believer really matter to you? The fact is that useless arguments lead nowhere and are unfruitful
King James Bible Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
The truth about Jesus Christ (as acts 10) show are the only facts that matter.
People are not raised from the dead about who rolled the stone away or the first witnesses. It is the love, power and truth about Jesus Christ and God which are important to believers then and
now. Useless arguments such as above will never result in anything positive for believer or atheist. You just have to accept the fact it is Christ or no way.
-
Two Angels or two men?
Could two men have rolled the stone from a sealed tomb which would be very much a boulder.
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
When Christ died his death caused the saints who had died at that time to rise.
If as a none believer you knew he healed the sick, raised the dead and even the dead saints raised at his own death. What would the account of those who wrote about these things for
the believer really matter to you? The fact is that useless arguments lead nowhere and are unfruitful
King James Bible Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
The truth about Jesus Christ (as acts 10) show are the only facts that matter.
People are not raised from the dead about who rolled the stone away or the first witnesses. It is the love, power and truth about Jesus Christ and God which are important to believers then and
now. Useless arguments such as above will never result in anything positive for believer or atheist. You just have to accept the fact it is Christ or no way.
What's the point of picking out quotes from a book full of unqualified magical, mystical and superstition based assertions, stories etc?
ippy.
-
Indeed, I agree.
I would not be surprised if they had already been found and discarded as worthless :)
Ekim, have you ever come across the book Illusions by Richard Bach?
No, sorry. The only book of his that I did read was 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull', which seems like a century ago.
-
That's just for starters. If you then look at the stories of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you see there are three stories (Mark originally has none) and they are all different. Then, if you look at Acts, you see Luke even walks back some of the details of his own earlier account.
It's quite telling the gospel accounts are similar (but with inconsistency of detail) right up to the point of the original ending of Mark. After the, each of the remaining three authors tells a different story. It's almost as if they were following Mark in general terms and all decided to make something different up for after his rather abrupt ending.
Luke answers the point about the different stories of appearances in Acts 1:2-3, by simply saying that Jesus appeared to his disciples over 40 days and gave them many convincing proofs that he was alive.
Mark, in my opinion, reached the point at which he had completed the 'good news' begun in 1:1. "He is risen, he is not here" spoken by a witness to the resurrection, the young man at the tomb, and in reverse order to Matt and Luke's "He is not here, he is risen", is the good news Mark intended to convey. No other appearances are required for evidence that he had risen, and Mark's aim was to get the message across concisely and dramatically.
-
Two Angels or two men?
Or one man or one angel.
Could two men have rolled the stone from a sealed tomb which would be very much a boulder.
Actually, no. IT would have been a slab. And, of course, men would have put it in position, so men could remove it too.
In fact, that is one of the plot holes of the story. The women apparently went to the tomb thinking they wouldn't be able to get in to it because of the stone. Why would they do that?
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.[/b]
It's a zombie invasion! It surprises me that nobody at the time thought to write down that all the dead people were wandering around. It's almost as if the story is made up...
The truth about Jesus Christ (as acts 10) show are the only facts that matter.
People are not raised from the dead about who rolled the stone away or the first witnesses. It is the love, power and truth about Jesus Christ and God which are important to believers then and
now. Useless arguments such as above will never result in anything positive for believer or atheist. You just have to accept the fact it is Christ or no way.
We are arguing about the accuracy of the gospels. It's not useless at all because, if you can't trust them, you have no evidence for your religion.
And you can't trust them.
-
Luke answers the point about the different stories of appearances in Acts 1:2-3, by simply saying that Jesus appeared to his disciples over 40 days and gave them many convincing proofs that he was alive.
Yeah, he certainly changed his tune after writing the gospel. In the gospel, all of Jesus' appearances between the resurrection and the ascension happen in no more than a couple of days. If Luke is rewriting his own story, how trustworthy can he be?
Mark, in my opinion, reached the point at which he had completed the 'good news' begun in 1:1. "He is risen, he is not here" spoken by a witness to the resurrection, the young man at the tomb, and in reverse order to Matt and Luke's "He is not here, he is risen", is the good news Mark intended to convey. No other appearances are required for evidence that he had risen, and Mark's aim was to get the message across concisely and dramatically.
What do you mean "no other appearances are required"? There are no resurrection appearances in Mark if we discount the manufactured endings added later by other people.
-
No, sorry. The only book of his that I did read was 'Jonathan Livingston Seagull', which seems like a century ago.
It's a nice little story about a modern (well 70s or earlier) messiah reluctantly getting on knowing full well what always happens.
-
Yeah, he certainly changed his tune after writing the gospel. In the gospel, all of Jesus' appearances between the resurrection and the ascension happen in no more than a couple of days. If Luke is rewriting his own story, how trustworthy can he be?
http://actsapologist.blogspot.com/2018/04/resurrection-contradiction-lukes.html
What do you mean "no other appearances are required"? There are no resurrection appearances in Mark if we discount the manufactured endings added later by other people.
What about to the young man in the white robe?
-
http://actsapologist.blogspot.com/2018/04/resurrection-contradiction-lukes.html
What about to the young man in the white robe?
Interpreted by Matthew as being an angel, apparently.
He is supposed to have said something to the women about Jesus' whereabouts and his being alive. They then ran off, terrified...
Then according to John, Mary M goes back to the tomb and sees two angels (apparently having forgotten all about what she was told by the 'young man in white'), and then sees Jesus who she thinks is the gardener.
Lots of Chinese Whispers.
-
Spud - do you understand how absurd a discussion of the tense is in the context of an angel sitting on a stone, given that there is no evidence that angels exist so until that is confirmed the notion of whether the angel is sitting or was sitting on a stone is completely moot and as relevant as whether a unicorn is sitting or was sitting under a tree.
Your points are perfectly valid, but unlikely to shake Spud's faith (after all, wasn't it Tertullian who said "Credo quia imposibile est". Spud does believe the impossible, and that is why I (and it seems Jeremy) tend to write about matters which point out the absurdity of the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture, where the contradictions are so glaring that one would think nobody could reconcile them.
Fool's errand, maybe.
-
Interpreted by Matthew as being an angel, apparently.
'Young man' seems to be a literary device in Mark, as with the words 'linen cloth' and 'white'. These each occur 2 or 3 times only.
-
Your points are perfectly valid, but unlikely to shake Spud's faith (after all, wasn't it Tertullian who said "Credo quia imposible est". Spud does believe the impossible, and that is why I (and it seems Jeremy) tend to write about matters which point out the absurdity of the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture, where the contradictions are so glaring that one would think nobody could reconcile them.
Fool's errand, maybe.
True enough.
However there is a danger in getting sucked into semantics on grammar, dating etc etc in the gospels. The point being that it is possible that Spud is correct on the grammar, it is plausible that his very early dating for writing of the gospels could be correct, he may indeed be right that there is a relatively short set of connections between eye witnesses to the purported events and the gospel writers. But even if Spud is correct on all those points it makes no difference to the fact that the key purported events of the gospels are entirely implausible and remain so even if the gospels were actually written by eye witnesses (not that that is plausible in itself).
Getting sucked into Spud's game is the classic christian apologist ploy - to claim that if they were right on some small detail it somehow proves that the claims are right too. Don't go there ;)
-
True enough.
However there is a danger in getting sucked into semantics on grammar, dating etc etc in the gospels. The point being that it is possible that Spud is correct on the grammar, it is plausible that his very early dating for writing of the gospels could be correct, he may indeed be right that there is a relatively short set of connections between eye witnesses to the purported events and the gospel writers. But even if Spud is correct on all those points it makes no difference to the fact that the key purported events of the gospels are entirely implausible and remain so even if the gospels were actually written by eye witnesses (not that that is plausible in itself).
Getting sucked into Spud's game is the classic christian apologist ploy - to claim that if they were right on some small detail it somehow proves that the claims are right too. Don't go there ;)
You wrote:
" the key purported events of the gospels are entirely implausible and remain so even if the gospels were actually written by eye witnesses (not that that is plausible in itself)".
As an aside, I note that Tertullian's purported statements have been claimed by a pundit of Zen Buddhism, the venerable and unutterably boring Deisetz Teitaro Suzuki:
"A noted Christian Father (he means Tertullian) of the early Middle Ages once exclaimed: "O poor Aristotle! Thou who has discovered for the heretics the art of dialectics, the art of building up and destroying, the art of discussing all things and accomplishing nothing!" So much ado about nothing, indeed! See how philosophers of all ages contradict one another after spending all their logical acumen and analytical ingenuity on the so-called problems of science and knowledge. No wonder the same old wise man, wanting to put a stop once for all to all such profitless discussions, has boldly thrown the following bomb right into the midst of those sand-builders: "Certum est quia impossible est"; or, more logically, Credo quia absurdum est. I believe because it is irrational; is this not an unqualified confirmation of Zen?"
Where's wiggi? Does he think there is wisdom in this?
-
You wrote:
" the key purported events of the gospels are entirely implausible and remain so even if the gospels were actually written by eye witnesses (not that that is plausible in itself)".
As an aside, I note that Tertullian's purported statements have been claimed by a pundit of Zen Buddhism, the venerable and unutterably boring Deisetz Teitaro Suzuki:
Where's wiggi? Does he think there is wisdom in this?
There is something in it that I feel some admiration for. There's a sort of blind honesty in it. It feels to me better than people like William Lane Craig who create a set of 'reasons' for their beliefs that never seem to acknowledge that those are post hoc attempts to give a respectable glaze to their doughnut of belief.
-
'Young man' seems to be a literary device in Mark, as with the words 'linen cloth' and 'white'. These each occur 2 or 3 times only.
The question is, did Mark think the personage was an angel? We know the words attributed to him are almost exactly the same as in Matthew 28: 5-7 (though the 'young man' spoke them from the inside of the tomb on the right side, where he already was, whereas Matthew's angel, as we know was 'sitting on the stone' when he spoke them :) )
And according to your theory of the priority of Matthew, why the complete toning down of the language in Mark?
More understandable to think that Matthew read Mark and thought: "Oh this is all a bit prosaic, let's have a bit of melodrama - that'll get the hoi polloi worked up and ready to believe all the more quickly!"
American evangelists have been cashing in on this melodramatic technique to impress the gullible right to this day.
-
What about to the young man in the white robe?
Are you claiming he was Jesus?
-
And according to your theory of the priority of Matthew, why the complete toning down of the language in Mark?
If you mean Mark's toning down the language in Matthew and Luke, I'm not sure why Mark would change angel to young man. I can think of several possible reasons, but wouldn't want to say for sure before thinking through it properly. What does stand out to me as evidence against Markan priority is this: where in Matthew and Luke the angel says, 'He is not here, he has risen', it would be more likely for Mark to reverse the order if he was using the other two as sources, than for both Matthew and Luke to reverse Mark's order if they were using Mark.
-
Are you claiming he was Jesus?
No, just that he is an eyewitness of the resurrection.
-
What does stand out to me as evidence against Markan priority is this: where in Matthew and Luke the angel says, 'He is not here, he has risen', it would be more likely for Mark to reverse the order if he was using the other two as sources, than for both Matthew and Luke to reverse Mark's order if they were using Mark.
Eh - don't understand the logic.
Why on earth do you think the reverse order in Mark is evidence that he wrote later than Matthew and Luke rather than vice versa. Frankly the ordering seems irrelevant as it doesn't change the meaning of the purported claim. However if there was anything to support order of writing it is surely the other way around - a later writer would be less likely to revere the order of two earlier writers as the order had become more fixed by then.
-
Eh - don't understand the logic.
Why on earth do you think the reverse order in Mark is evidence that he wrote later than Matthew and Luke rather than vice versa.
Because the likelihood of two deciding, probably independently, to make the same alteration to their source seems quite low.
-
The question is, did Mark think the personage was an angel?
Acts 1:10, 10:30 both contain angels which are called men. So I think yes, but because the angel looked like a man he described him as one.
-
More understandable to think that Matthew read Mark and thought: "Oh this is all a bit prosaic, let's have a bit of melodrama - that'll get the hoi polloi worked up and ready to believe all the more quickly!"
American evangelists have been cashing in on this melodramatic technique to impress the gullible right to this day.
I prefer to believe the authors were not being so dishonest. Try reading it from the perspective that Mark took his material from both Matthew and Luke, and filled it out with testimony from other eyewitnesses. You may be surprised!
-
References to angels as 'young men' in Jewish literature:
Josephus (Antiquities Book 5 Chapter 8:2,3) describes the angel who appeared to the parents of Samson as a young man.
2 Maccabees 3:26,33
Tobit 5:5-10
From Tobit 5:4 it appears possible that the women in Mark 16 did not recognize the young man as an angel.
"So Tobias went out to look for a man to go with him to Media, someone who was acquainted with the way. He went out and found the angel Raphael standing in front of him; but he did not perceive that he was an angel of God."
-
Because the likelihood of two deciding, probably independently, to make the same alteration to their source seems quite low.
Non-sense - perfectly likely and more so, in my opinion, than someone deciding to reverse the order despite their being two previous examples with the opposite wording.
But in a big picture context this is all totally irrelevant - the ordering is irrelevant to the meaning. But the biggest picture, of course, is whether the claim is actually true and there is simply zero credible evidence that it is. Partial accounts (i.e written by believers with an agenda) written decades after the event (and we only actually have actual records of what they wrote hundreds of years after the purported event) and geographically distant from the purported events provide no credible evidence of the veracity of the claims whatsoever. And as the claim is, in itself, implausible makes the gospels no more credible that J K Rowling claiming that Harry Potter walked though a wall at Kings Cross station to get the Hogwarts Express.
-
I prefer to believe the authors were not being so dishonest.
They don't have to be dishonest to be wrong. Merely relying on misinterpretations compounded by re-telling and exaggeration prior to reaching them.
And indeed to be dishonest implies they knew what they were saying was wrong. I have no reason to believe that they didn't themselves genuinely believe what they wrong was correct, but that doesn't mean it was. And as they themselves weren't first hand witnesses they couldn't actually know themselves as they necessarily relied on second, third, fourth etc etc hand retelling.
And frankly I'm less interested in the honesty of the writers than the objective evidence that their claims are correct - and on that count they are solely lacking as there is no credible evidence that the miraculous claims in the gospels are correct, regardless of how many people then and now believe.
-
Non-sense - perfectly likely and more so, in my opinion, than someone deciding to reverse the order despite their being two previous examples with the opposite wording.
Fair enough. As I mentioned in the matthean priority thread, Mark's pericope order is always supported by either Matthew or Luke.
Some periscopes in Mark seem to be a conflation of the other two's versions. So for the women at the tomb pericope: Matt and Luke write "he is not here, he has risen". Mark writes, "He has risen, he is not here". When placed in the context of "you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified", and "why do you look for the living among the dead?" it is clear that Matthew and Luke flow smoothly, as they say, "you are looking for....he is not here". Mark's "you are looking for....he has risen" is less smooth, since "he has risen" is not related to where Jesus is. This suggests that Mark has taken the part of the message to the disciples ("tell them he has risen") from Matthew and put it in the slightly awkward position, ahead of, "he is not here".
If Mark were using Matthew and Luke, we would expect this kind of disjointedness. And if Matthew was writing directly from an eyewitness, he would compose his sentences so that the ideas flowed smoothly, as here.
-
Fair enough. As I mentioned in the matthean priority thread, Mark's pericope order is always supported by either Matthew or Luke.
Some periscopes in Mark seem to be a conflation of the other two's versions. So for the women at the tomb pericope: Matt and Luke write "he is not here, he has risen". Mark writes, "He has risen, he is not here". When placed in the context of "you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified", and "why do you look for the living among the dead?" it is clear that Matthew and Luke flow smoothly, as they say, "you are looking for....he is not here". Mark's "you are looking for....he has risen" is less smooth, since "he has risen" is not related to where Jesus is. This suggests that Mark has taken the part of the message to the disciples ("tell them he has risen") from Matthew and put it in the slightly awkward position, ahead of, "he is not here".
If Mark were using Matthew and Luke, we would expect this kind of disjointedness. And if Matthew was writing directly from an eyewitness, he would compose his sentences so that the ideas flowed smoothly, as here.
But you are basing the order of the two phrases not on necessarily what Mark or Matthew or Luke actually wrote, but on evidence from fragments of the gospels and then whole versions from hundreds of years later.
Noting that the fragments we have were produced by individuals hand copying an earlier version we can presume that a version written in 200-300 is perhaps a third, fourth, fifth (or even more) copied version. So rather than tying yourself up in knots about what they actually wrote (which we have no evidence for) and what this means (which we can say nothing about as we don't know what they actually wrote) surely a far more logical explanation is a scrambling of the order during copying with that error being replicated in later copies.
-
And if Matthew was writing directly from an eyewitness, he would compose his sentences so that the ideas flowed smoothly, as here.
J K Rowling's writing about Harry Potter accessing Platform 9 and 3/4 at Kings Cross flows smoothly too - presumably you think that means she was writing directly from an eye witness too.
But even if this is what an eye witness actually said that doesn't mean it it true. If someone slides on they bike commuting this morning in the wet snow and I grab some eye witnesses later in the morning and ask them what happened, guess what, I'd get a range of accounts - likely they wouldn't agree on the colour of the bike or what the cyclist said as he hit the ground, or how many people stopped to check whether he was OK etc etc. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.
Ask the same questions, not 3 hours after the event but 60 years and the likelihood of getting anything remotely reliable is close to zero.
-
So called 'eye witnesses' who claim to have seen events, which are much less than credible like the resurrection of Jesus, have to be treated with the utmost scepticism, as do most of the gospel accounts of what Jesus is supposed to have said and done.
-
No, just that he is an eyewitness of the resurrection.
The statement was that Jesus makes no appearances in Mark’s gospel after being put in the tomb.
Not that the young man claimed to have seen him.
-
Because the likelihood of two deciding, probably independently, to make the same alteration to their source seems quite low.
The gospel accounts of the resurrection are not independent.
-
The statement was that Jesus makes no appearances in Mark’s gospel after being put in the tomb.
Not that the young man claimed to have seen him.
Mark is very interesting in terms of the reliability of the gospels as it is well accepted that it was doctored later to include additional material that made his original, rather unconvincing, claim of resurrection (an empty tomb and no other evidence) more 'compelling' in the partial eyes of people who wanted to convince others to believe.
So if we know that Mark has clearly been doctored in that manner how much of the rest of the gospels is similarly doctored - effectively to make the 'evidence' (i.e. what is written in the gospels, which isn't really evidence at all) fit the beliefs rather than allowing beliefs to be genuinely informed by the evidence.
-
The statement was that Jesus makes no appearances in Mark’s gospel after being put in the tomb.
Not that the young man claimed to have seen him.
We can assume the young man has seen him because he knows about the arrangement Jesus had made to meet them in Galilee.
-
The gospel accounts of the resurrection are not independent.
There is independent material, such as the guards (Matthew), Jesus explaining the scriptures, Peter running to the tomb (Luke).
-
J K Rowling's writing about Harry Potter accessing Platform 9 and 3/4 at Kings Cross flows smoothly too - presumably you think that means she was writing directly from an eye witness too.
But even if this is what an eye witness actually said that doesn't mean it it true. If someone slides on they bike commuting this morning in the wet snow and I grab some eye witnesses later in the morning and ask them what happened, guess what, I'd get a range of accounts - likely they wouldn't agree on the colour of the bike or what the cyclist said as he hit the ground, or how many people stopped to check whether he was OK etc etc. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.
Ask the same questions, not 3 hours after the event but 60 years and the likelihood of getting anything remotely reliable is close to zero.
But they'd agree that the cyclist hit the ground, right?
The disagreements about the number and locations of angels are what we could expect from different eyewitnesses, but they would agree on the key facts, such as the empty tomb.
-
J K Rowling's writing about Harry Potter accessing Platform 9 and 3/4 at Kings Cross flows smoothly too - presumably you think that means she was writing directly from an eye witness too.
The point is that the original author would have been writing so that each clause is linked in some way with the previous one. A later copier [edit: I mean someone using the original as a source for his gospel], wanting to emphasize a particular detail or shorten the material, would look disjointed in places where he had rearranged or omitted stuff.
-
We can assume the young man has seen him because he knows about the arrangement Jesus had made to meet them in Galilee.
You make too many assumptions, instead of questioning the credibility of things you believe to be factual.
-
But they'd agree that the cyclist hit the ground, right?
Not necessarily - it depends on their level of engagement with the events. It is perfectly likely that someone walking past at the time looking at their phone with headphones on would be blissfully unaware that a cyclist had even slipped.
The disagreements about the number and locations of angels are what we could expect from different eyewitnesses,
err before even engaging on the notion of angels you'll need to provide evidence that they even exist. The equivalent in my analogy would be an eye witness claiming that the cyclist didn't in fact slip on the ice, but was tripped by a unicorn.
but they would agree on the key facts, such as the empty tomb.
They might do, but an empty grave provides no meaningful evidence for a resurrection as there are huge numbers of plausible reasons why people might find a grave empty, none of which involve resurrection.
-
The point is that the original author would have been writing so that each clause is linked in some way with the previous one. A later copier, wanting to emphasize a particular detail or shorten the material, would look disjointed in places where he had rearranged or omitted stuff.
Isn't that exactly what you claimed, that the ordering in Mark is disjointed. So thanks very much you had just provided corroboration for the notion of copying error.
Of interest, while Mark is considered to be the first gospel written there are very few early copies or fragments. So I'm not sure when we actually have the first fragment with this ordering of Mark 16:6, I think no earlier than 300-400AD. Huge amounts of time for copying errors etc to creep in.
-
Not necessarily - it depends on their level of engagement with the events. It is perfectly likely that someone walking past at the time looking at their phone with headphones on would be blissfully unaware that a cyclist had even slipped.
The gospels emphasize that the women saw where the body was laid, so we can be confident on a high level of engagement with the events.
What if two eyewitnesses to the accident gave independent statements without consulting each other and agreed on what the cyclist said as he hit the ground, while disagreeing on where in the road he was? We could be more confident that they both heard the accident, and having looked around, possibly at different times, saw the cyclist on the ground. So Matthew and Luke agree on what the women heard, "he is not here, he has risen" and some other words, but disagree on what they saw because, as Luke says, they bowed down and looked at the ground. That they focus on different aspects of the story (guards, explaining scripture fulfillment) shows they wrote independently, but their agreement on the angels' words shows their sources witnessed the same event. We can thus know that the tomb was empty and that they had seen someone who was dazzling white and told them Jesus had risen.
err before even engaging on the notion of angels you'll need to provide evidence that they even exist. The equivalent in my analogy would be an eye witness claiming that the cyclist didn't in fact slip on the ice, but was tripped by a unicorn.
Yes I realize I've made assumptions, angels existing, no copying errors etc. neither of which I can prove. But is it unreasonable to set out to falsify theories such as that Matthew embellished Mark?
They might do, but an empty grave provides no meaningful evidence for a resurrection as there are huge numbers of plausible reasons why people might find a grave empty, none of which involve resurrection.
So then we can move on to the appearances, which coupled with the empty tomb would be stronger evidence for a resurrection.
-
Isn't that exactly what you claimed, that the ordering in Mark is disjointed. So thanks very much you had just provided corroboration for the notion of copying error.
In Mark's case, no because (assuming the gospels were not all written independently, being based on oral tradition) he deliberately changed the order, not in error.
Of interest, while Mark is considered to be the first gospel written there are very few early copies or fragments. So I'm not sure when we actually have the first fragment with this ordering of Mark 16:6, I think no earlier than 300-400AD. Huge amounts of time for copying errors etc to creep in.
Fair enough.
-
The gospels emphasize that the women saw where the body was laid, so we can be confident on a high level of engagement with the events.
What if two eyewitnesses to the accident gave independent statements without consulting each other and agreed on what the cyclist said as he hit the ground, while disagreeing on where in the road he was? We could be more confident that they both heard the accident, and having looked around, possibly at different times, saw the cyclist on the ground. So Matthew and Luke agree on what the women heard, "he is not here, he has risen" and some other words, but disagree on what they saw because, as Luke says, they bowed down and looked at the ground. That they focus on different aspects of the story (guards, explaining scripture fulfillment) shows they wrote independently, but their agreement on the angels' words shows their sources witnessed the same event. We can thus know that the tomb was empty and that they had seen someone who was dazzling white and told them Jesus had risen.Yes I realize I've made assumptions, angels existing, no copying errors etc. neither of which I can prove. But is it unreasonable to set out to falsify theories such as that Matthew embellished Mark?So then we can move on to the appearances, which coupled with the empty tomb would be stronger evidence for a resurrection.
You can't rely on the gospels to give you reliable factual information, they were written well after Jesus was dead, and no doubt most of his followers were dead too.
-
In Mark's case, no because (assuming the gospels were not all written independently, being based on oral tradition) he deliberately changed the order, not in error.
Sorry Spud, you do know and cannot know this, because:
1. The earliest fragments containing the wording in this order are from about 300AD and you do not and cannot know how that relates to what was originally written.
2. Even if we assume the original had the wording in that order you do no and cannot know Mark's motivation in writing it in that order - indeed we don't even know who Mark was.
Further you are assuming he changed the order, therefore was basing his origin on earlier oral or written tradition with a different order - you have no evidence for this.
-
What if two eyewitnesses to the accident gave independent statements without consulting each other and agreed on what the cyclist said as he hit the ground, while disagreeing on where in the road he was? We could be more confident that they both heard the accident, and having looked around, possibly at different times, saw the cyclist on the ground. So Matthew and Luke agree on what the women heard, "he is not here, he has risen" and some other words, but disagree on what they saw because, as Luke says, they bowed down and looked at the ground. That they focus on different aspects of the story (guards, explaining scripture fulfillment) shows they wrote independently, but their agreement on the angels' words shows their sources witnessed the same event. We can thus know that the tomb was empty and that they had seen someone who was dazzling white and told them Jesus had risen.Yes I realize I've made assumptions, angels existing, no copying errors etc. neither of which I can prove. But is it unreasonable to set out to falsify theories such as that Matthew embellished Mark?So then we can move on to the appearances, which coupled with the empty tomb would be stronger evidence for a resurrection.
I'm sorry Spud, but your level of credulity verges on gullibility.
The equivalent example of the bike would be if in 300 years time we read a newly written fragment of a document which we believe is a multiple generation hand copied version of a document written in 2080 (but we have nothing to base anything on between 2080 and 2300 purporting to claim to know what people said at an event today, well it would be laughed out of court.
People (now and then) do not have photographic and perfect memories which is why the 'direct quotes' in the bible are so totally unbelievable - some of which, let's not forget a written about behind closed doors, quasi private events where there was no-one around to report what was said - e.g. gabriel and mary, angel and shepherds. There is simply no way that the purported words could have been accurately recorded and transmitted unaltered across (in these cases) 80-90 years. It is simply not credible.
-
So then we can move on to the appearances, which coupled with the empty tomb would be stronger evidence for a resurrection.
You are so desperate to believe things despite there being no credible evidence. This, I suspect, is because you put your existing belief in christianity above any rational judgement on evidence.
But just to check that you aren't being even handed and believing any miraculous claim regardless of the evidence (or lack therefore), do you apply the same judgement to the following which comes from the Buddhist tradition:
'Ichadon prophesied to the king that at his execution a wonderful miracle would convince the opposing court faction of Buddhism's power. Ichadon's scheme went as planned, and the opposing officials took the bait. When Ichadon was executed on the 15th day of the 9th month in 527, his prophecy was fulfilled; the earth shook, the sun was darkened, beautiful flowers rained from the sky, his severed head flew to the sacred Geumgang mountains, and milk instead of blood sprayed 100 feet in the air from his beheaded corpse.'
Note that the recording of these purported events was much more contemporaneous to the date of the events than for the gospels and there is far more objective, independent contemporaneous evidence about who Ichadon was, what he did etc etc than there is for Jesus.
So I presume you also accept that his head did fly to mountains and milk flowed from his severed neck - or are you merely cherry picking as you aren't actually interested in evidence, merely you pre-judged un-evidenced belief.
-
You are so desperate to believe things despite there being no credible evidence. This, I suspect, is because you put your existing belief in christianity above any rational judgement on evidence.
But just to check that you aren't being even handed and believing any miraculous claim regardless of the evidence (or lack therefore), do you apply the same judgement to the following which comes from the Buddhist tradition:
'Ichadon prophesied to the king that at his execution a wonderful miracle would convince the opposing court faction of Buddhism's power. Ichadon's scheme went as planned, and the opposing officials took the bait. When Ichadon was executed on the 15th day of the 9th month in 527, his prophecy was fulfilled; the earth shook, the sun was darkened, beautiful flowers rained from the sky, his severed head flew to the sacred Geumgang mountains, and milk instead of blood sprayed 100 feet in the air from his beheaded corpse.'
Note that the recording of these purported events was much more contemporaneous to the date of the events than for the gospels and there is far more objective, independent contemporaneous evidence about who Ichadon was, what he did etc etc than there is for Jesus.
So I presume you also accept that his head did fly to mountains and milk flowed from his severed neck - or are you merely cherry picking as you aren't actually interested in evidence, merely you pre-judged un-evidenced belief.
When these believers are so ingrained into their narrow little worlds as Spud seems to be it usually dates back to indoctrination somewhere in their earlier years otherwise most would take a more rational course.
ippy.
-
You are so desperate to believe things despite there being no credible evidence. This, I suspect, is because you put your existing belief in christianity above any rational judgement on evidence.
But just to check that you aren't being even handed and believing any miraculous claim regardless of the evidence (or lack therefore), do you apply the same judgement to the following which comes from the Buddhist tradition:
'Ichadon prophesied to the king that at his execution a wonderful miracle would convince the opposing court faction of Buddhism's power. Ichadon's scheme went as planned, and the opposing officials took the bait. When Ichadon was executed on the 15th day of the 9th month in 527, his prophecy was fulfilled; the earth shook, the sun was darkened, beautiful flowers rained from the sky, his severed head flew to the sacred Geumgang mountains, and milk instead of blood sprayed 100 feet in the air from his beheaded corpse.'
Note that the recording of these purported events was much more contemporaneous to the date of the events than for the gospels and there is far more objective, independent contemporaneous evidence about who Ichadon was, what he did etc etc than there is for Jesus.
So I presume you also accept that his head did fly to mountains and milk flowed from his severed neck - or are you merely cherry picking as you aren't actually interested in evidence, merely you pre-judged un-evidenced belief.
Well, as you know, I believe the gospels and new testament are the evidence for Christianity. The alternatives to their being true are mistakes or lies, neither of which can be demonstrated - you just have to assume mistakes or lies. You call this the Christian apologist's game... no, it's just looking at the evidence. Can you provide any documentation of the miracle associated with this Buddhist monk?
-
Well, as you know, I believe the gospels and new testament are the evidence for Christianity. The alternatives to their being true are mistakes or lies, neither of which can be demonstrated - you just have to assume mistakes or lies. You call this the Christian apologist's game... no, it's just looking at the evidence.
But there is no more evidence in the gospels for its claims as there is for Ichadon's flying head or, for that matter, Icharus' fateful flight in their related texts. You aren't looking at the evidence - you are merely attempting to ram evidence into your prejudged belief. That isn't how you use evidence - evidence should inform views and opinions not be used to justify views and opinions already formed.
Can you provide any documentation of the miracle associated with this Buddhist monk?
Yes - it is in Haedong Kosung-jon which reports and collates earlier records of the lives of eminent Korean monks. Just like the gospels it makes claims with no credible evidence that those claims are true and also the claims (like those in the gospels) are completely implausible.
So if you are being consistent (on the evidence or lack thereof) you should either accept both sets of claims or reject both (as I do). You are inconsistent in accepting the claims in the gospels yet (I assume) rejecting the claims in Haedong Kosung-jon.
-
Well, as you know, I believe the gospels and new testament are the evidence for Christianity. The alternatives to their being true are mistakes or lies, neither of which can be demonstrated - you just have to assume mistakes or lies. You call this the Christian apologist's game... no, it's just looking at the evidence. Can you provide any documentation of the miracle associated with this Buddhist monk?
The gospels were written a long time after Jesus died, and they read like fantasy land, the miracles attributed to Jesus have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I believe that con man and so called 'healer', Benny Hinn, claims amputated limbs have grown back thanks to his healing powers!
-
But there is no more evidence in the gospels for its claims as there is for Ichadon's flying head or, for that matter, Icharus' fateful flight in their related texts. You aren't looking at the evidence - you are merely attempting to ram evidence into your prejudged belief. That isn't how you use evidence - evidence should inform views and opinions not be used to justify views and opinions already formed.
Yes - it is in Haedong Kosung-jon which reports and collates earlier records of the lives of eminent Korean monks. Just like the gospels it makes claims with no credible evidence that those claims are true and also the claims (like those in the gospels) are completely implausible.
So if you are being consistent (on the evidence or lack thereof) you should either accept both sets of claims or reject both (as I do). You are inconsistent in accepting the claims in the gospels yet (I assume) rejecting the claims in Haedong Kosung-jon.
Sorry but when you have four+ independent accounts based on eyewitness testimony that is more than one biography. What we haven't discussed is the one miracle we are all witness to, our existence. If you don't believe this is a miracle, then you won't believe other miracles can happen. I would have to read the full account of Ichadon rather than a wikipedia quote in order to comment properly...
-
The gospels were written a long time after Jesus died
Can you back this up. A link, maybe.
-
Can you back this up. A link, maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition_and_authorship
Under the section 'Composition and authorship':
'The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[3] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[30] and John AD 90–110.[5] Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses'
Are you really claiming to be unaware that serious historians consider the gospels to have been written decades after Jesus' death. Also as I've pointed our previously even with the gospels being written between about 70-110 we have complete 'radio silence' for decades more until we actually have fragments, let alone complete gospels, that we can actually see and read. We are really completely in the dark about changes that might have occurred from the original writing the the 'final' versions we see some hundreds of years later. That said we are aware of edits, additions and major changes - the most obvious being Mark which was doctored to include additional material at the end to add to the rather unconvincing original ending of just an empty tomb with no resurrection or appearances of Jesus post death.
-
Sorry but when you have four+ independent accounts ...
No you don't - at the very least Mark, Matthew and Luke are interlinked and not independent of each other. See again the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Non-canonical_gospels
Mark, Matthew and Luke are most definitely not independent accounts, so at best we have two independent accounts. But even then they are extremely weak in terms of credibility of evidence - failing on the test of being contemporary, failing on the test of being independent (i.e. not written by people with a biased agenda), failing on there being zero corroboratory evidence from other contemporary sources, e.g. Roman, Jewish even on the most basic of issues, for example whether Jesus even existed, failing in that they don't arise from the place whether the events are supposed to take place, failing on the lack of any physical archeological evidence to support the claims.
And that is before you add in the implausibility of the claims and of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
based on eyewitness testimony that is more than one biography.
They are not written by eye witnesses and I don't understand what 'based on eyewitness testimony' really means in any meaningful sense - in this case the likelihood is that the gospels are based on stories past down over several generations of believers (that point is key) - so whether or not if we trace back we get to an eye witness (we have no idea whether we do) is totally irrelevant to the veracity of the stories. The ancient world is full of myths and fantasy stories which similarly are 'based on eyewitness testimony' - that doesn't mean they are true.
-
We can assume the young man has seen him because he knows about the arrangement Jesus had made to meet them in Galilee.
Hat’s not the point. Mark contains no post resurrection appearance of Jesus.
-
There is independent material, such as the guards (Matthew), Jesus explaining the scriptures, Peter running to the tomb (Luke).
You don’t understand what “independent” means in this context. It means there are several independent witnesses for the same event. There’s only one source for the guards and one source for Peter running to the tomb. I.e. the authors of the respective accounts. It’s most likely that Matthew and John made up those details because nobody else talked about them, even though they were copying off each other.
-
Sorry Spud, you do know and cannot know this, because:
1. The earliest fragments containing the wording in this order are from about 300AD and you do not and cannot know how that relates to what was originally written.
2. Even if we assume the original had the wording in that order you do no and cannot know Mark's motivation in writing it in that order - indeed we don't even know who Mark was.
Further you are assuming he changed the order, therefore was basing his origin on earlier oral or written tradition with a different order - you have no evidence for this.
Actually, scholars are reasonably confident that they have got the order correct through textual criticism. The modern reconstructed Greek text is probably fairly close to the original.
It's normal not to have the originals or anything close to the originals for ancient texts. For example, there are no extant copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars from anything like as early as the fourth century.
We can't be certain of anything but it is reasonably likely that
- we have more or less reconstructed the original gospels
- Mark was the earliest with Matthew and Luke using it as the basis for their gospels
- we do not know who any of the authors are
- there are no other sources that can corroborate anything except the broadest details of Jesus' life
- dead men don't come alive again.
Actually, that last one is not "reasonably likely", it's pretty much a racing certainty. Any argument Spud makes has that mountain to scale. There is a hypothesis, for example, that Christianity was manufactured by Eusebius in the fourth century. This is a ridiculous theory with a load of huge problems but it is still more credible than a man actually rising from the dead.
-
Actually, scholars are reasonably confident that they have got the order correct through textual criticism. The modern reconstructed Greek text is probably fairly close to the original.
My point was just one of interest - that although Mark is considered to be the first gospel written we have fewer early fragment than for the other gospels. That doesn't imply it was written later, merely I suspect chance.
It's normal not to have the originals or anything close to the originals for ancient texts. For example, there are no extant copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars from anything like as early as the fourth century.
True - but that means we can only be certain of what it is in the extant copy - assuming it is the same as the earliest (but lost) version is speculation.
We can't be certain of anything but it is reasonably likely that
- we have more or less reconstructed the original gospels
No - I don't agree - we have reconstructed the earliest extant versions and fragment, but I do not think we can be confident that those earliest extant versions are the same as those written some 100 years earlier at the least. We know of changes later than that - notably the alteration to the end of Mark, but that is largely known not through a different and inconsistent writing style but because consistently the earliest fragments and copies don't include the addition and then later it starts to appear. From the point of the original writing to the earliest extant copies and fragments we are completely in the dark.
- Mark was the earliest with Matthew and Luke using it as the basis for their gospels
I agree.
- we do not know who any of the authors are
I agree.
- there are no other sources that can corroborate anything except the broadest details of Jesus' life
I'd go further than that - we have no near contemporary corroboratory source that even confirms that Jesus existed, let alone what he did.
- dead men don't come alive again.
True
-
- we have more or less reconstructed the original gospels
Just to give some context, I gather that when comparisons are made of the earliest fragments and full extant gospels there are several hundreds of thousands of variants between them. It is unclear to what extent this reflects simple copying error (it is likely, due to the nature of the early church, that copying may have been done by inexperienced non-professional copyists) or reflects deliberate alterations to align better with the current theological view. Scholars appear to believe both was going on.
With such a vast proliferation of variations with a few hundreds of years it is very challenging to be clear which variants (indeed if any) actually reflect the original version as we can reasonable anticipate that similar levels of variation would have been occurring between the original version and the earliest extant fragments and entire gospels. While we can see the levels of variation from about 150-300 we cannot see this from 70-150 as we have no physical evidence.
-
What we haven't discussed is the one miracle we are all witness to, our existence. If you don't believe this is a miracle, then you won't believe other miracles can happen.
Let's use a fairly standard definition of a miracle:
'an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency' - my emphasis
So no our existence is not a miracle as it is clearly and demonstrably explicable by natural and scientific laws.
Sure our physiology and biology is remarkable with astonishing levels of complexity that never cease to amaze me - and let's not forget that I've spent the last 33 years researching aspects of that biology. But that doesn't mean it is a 'miracle' and it certainly doesn't mean that some purported god had anything to do with it.
Actually the notion that god (who in most traditions is in effect a super-human entity, with the emphasis on the human) created the astonishing complexities that we see in nature is both insulting to nature and hugely arrogant - in effect, man creating god broadly in his own image and then saying that god created this wonderful natural world.
-
True - but that means we can only be certain of what it is in the extant copy - assuming it is the same as the earliest (but lost) version is speculation.
No, you assume a linear inheritance for all extant copies, which is to say, you assume the second earliest copy was copied from the oldest copy (with intermediate steps potentially), the third oldest from the second oldest etc. In reality, we have many copies that all inherit from the original source but not necessarily from an existing extant copy. We use the discrepancies in the various copies to reconstruct an earlier version that they do all inherit from. This is not necessarily the original, but we can make estimates as to how old it must have been.
No - I don't agree - we have reconstructed the earliest extant versions and fragment, but I do not think we can be confident that those earliest extant versions are the same as those written some 100 years earlier at the least.
You can't be 100% certain, but the experts do have some confidence.
We know of changes later than that - notably the alteration to the end of Mark, but that is largely known not through a different and inconsistent writing style but because consistently the earliest fragments and copies don't include the addition and then later it starts to appear. From the point of the original writing to the earliest extant copies and fragments we are completely in the dark.
No we aren't completely in the dark as I explained above. There is a lot of speculation, but it not complete guesswork.
I'd go further than that - we have no near contemporary corroboratory source that even confirms that Jesus existed, let alone what he did.
We have one from 20 years later - Paul's letters, but it's pretty sketchy in that there are very few details given beyond Jesus' existence and crucifixion.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition_and_authorship
Under the section 'Composition and authorship':
'The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[3] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[30] and John AD 90–110.[5] Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses'
Are you really claiming to be unaware that serious historians consider the gospels to have been written decades after Jesus' death.
Thanks - no, I was interested to know if LR understands why these dates are assigned. But the New Testament contains eyewitness testimony, whether or not it was written decades after the events. For example, John 21:24, Luke 1:1-3 as obvious mentions of written and oral first-hand accounts used by John and Luke.
Also as I've pointed our previously even with the gospels being written between about 70-110 we have complete 'radio silence' for decades more until we actually have fragments, let alone complete gospels, that we can actually see and read. We are really completely in the dark about changes that might have occurred from the original writing the the 'final' versions we see some hundreds of years later. That said we are aware of edits, additions and major changes - the most obvious being Mark which was doctored to include additional material at the end to add to the rather unconvincing original ending of just an empty tomb with no resurrection or appearances of Jesus post death.
We know that in many places, some ancient manuscripts do not have certain words, phrases sentences or whole paragraphs, as noted in modern bibles. Yet the message is not changed by these possible omissions: they do not cause doubt as to the claims of the gospels.
-
Thanks - no, I was interested to know if LR understands why these dates are assigned. But the New Testament contains eyewitness testimony, whether or not it was written decades after the events. For example, John 21:24, Luke 1:1-3 as obvious mentions of written and oral first-hand accounts used by John and Luke.
We know that in many places, some ancient manuscripts do not have certain words, phrases sentences or whole paragraphs, as noted in modern bibles. Yet the message is not changed by these possible omissions: they do not cause doubt as to the claims of the gospels.
Oh for pity's sake Spud, the gospel writers more than likely made up the stories featured in their accounts, including those attributed to 'eye witnesses'. There is no independent evidence to support the resurrection or any of the other accounts of what Jesus is supposed to have done whilst alive. Besides which, 'eye witness' accounts of less than credible events cannot be taken at face value. As I have mentioned quite a number of times, many 'eye witnesses' claimed to have seen the 'Angel of Mons' on the battle field during WW1, when in actual fact it was merely a fairy story created by a journalist.
-
We have one from 20 years later - Paul's letters, but it's pretty sketchy in that there are very few details given beyond Jesus' existence and crucifixion.
True but I was thinking of sources independent from the developing christian church, so for example Jewish or Roman records from the first few decades of the 1stC that indicate that Jesus existed. There are none as far as I'm aware - people often refer to Tacitus and Josephus, but they were writing no earlier than 90-110 so later than the earliest gospels. And it isn't clear whether they are really independent voices or just referring to what the early christians were saying.
-
Thanks - no, I was interested to know if LR understands why these dates are assigned. But the New Testament contains eyewitness testimony, whether or not it was written decades after the events. For example, John 21:24, Luke 1:1-3 as obvious mentions of written and oral first-hand accounts used by John and Luke.
For crying out loud Spud - just because a gospel writer claims his writing is based on eye witness testimony doesn't mean it is - you are using a circular argument.
And as I've said several times I cannot see how the gospel writers decades after the events could know that their writing was based on eye witness account. They'd merely have had to take this on trust as they'd be receiving the information second, third, fourth etc hand.
To use the Oxford Girl by Oyster Band as an example again:
'I met a man whose brother said he knew a man who knew the Oxford girl'
Can be certain that the final man knew the Oxford girl - of course not - I am taking on trust that what I have been told by the first man is true and he is taking what his brother said on trust and his brother is taking on trust what the final man says.
-
I have been an 'eye witness' on a number of occasions to remarkable things which defy any credibility. For a second or two I thought I witnessed an image resembling the Virgin Mary in the field belonging to our previous property, where sightings of her had been claimed by quite a number of people. I am of the opinion I was seeing something I wished to see in that instance. That image resembled the picture book version of Mary, as no paintings were done of the woman whilst alive, she would not have looked anything like that in reality.
-
True but I was thinking of sources independent from the developing christian church, so for example Jewish or Roman records from the first few decades of the 1stC that indicate that Jesus existed. There are none as far as I'm aware
Correct. Although this is what we would expect of an itinerant preacher whose fame arises from many decades after his life ended.
- people often refer to Tacitus and Josephus, but they were writing no earlier than 90-110 so later than the earliest gospels. And it isn't clear whether they are really independent voices or just referring to what the early christians were saying.
Well at least some of what Josephus wrote is forged. Anyway, it's likely both his source and Tacitus's source where the local Christians. They prove that Christians existed and broadly believed what's in the Bible, but not that their beliefs were based on facts.
-
Hat’s not the point. Mark contains no post resurrection appearance of Jesus.
But the angel's announcement still shows that when Mark wrote, the resurrection was believed by the church to have happened. If Mark wanted to make the point that Jesus was victorious although his opponents had apparently succeeded in destroying him, he does so effectively without resurrection appearances.
-
I have been an 'eye witness' on a number of occasions to remarkable things which defy any credibility. For a second or two I thought I witnessed an image resembling the Virgin Mary in the field belonging to our previous property, where sightings of her had been claimed by quite a number of people. I am of the opinion I was seeing something I wished to see in that instance. That image resembled the picture book version of Mary, as no paintings were done of the woman whilst alive, she would not have looked anything like that in reality.
This is slightly different from having breakfast with someone who was recently executed.
-
For crying out loud Spud - just because a gospel writer claims his writing is based on eye witness testimony doesn't mean it is - you are using a circular argument.
Not just claimed eyewitness sources. They are apparent from a straight reading. Eg would they have quoted Jesus as saying, "no-one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son" if he had not actually said it? They are claiming that the Son of God did not know a simple thing like when his return was to be!
-
But the angel's announcement still shows that when Mark wrote, the resurrection was believed by the church to have happened.
So what?
If Mark wanted to make the point that Jesus was victorious although his opponents had apparently succeeded in destroying him, he does so effectively without resurrection appearances.
The point is that Mark doesn't document any resurrection appearances so when the other gospel writers - who were copying him - got to that bit, they decided to each make up their own resurrection appearances, none of which are consistent with each other. This is strongly indicative that there was no real oral tradition of specific appearances.
-
Not just claimed eyewitness sources.
Yes, just claimed sources.
They are apparent from a straight reading. Eg would they have quoted Jesus as saying, "no-one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son" if he had not actually said it? They are claiming that the Son of God did not know a simple thing like when his return was to be!
There's a difference between a claim that somebody said something and a claim that they died and came alive again.
-
Not just claimed eyewitness sources. They are apparent from a straight reading. Eg would they have quoted Jesus as saying, "no-one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son" if he had not actually said it? They are claiming that the Son of God did not know a simple thing like when his return was to be!
The use ion direct quotes, for me, is a clear sign that this isn't accurate. Eye witnesses do not remember detail in that way - they might remember the general gist of what somewhat said, perhaps the basis meaning. But they simply wont remember word for word accurate direct quotes - people aren't some kind of recording machine.
And there are examples whether the 'people in the room' - so to speak have no further involvement in the later events, so how on earth could direct quotes have ever been collected. A couple of good examples are in the nativity story, firstly the shepherds and the angel - no one else was there and the only witnesses (the shepherds) have no further part in the ongoing story of Jesus' later life, yet apparently we have direct quote of the words of the angel.
Secondly the Magi in the presence of Herod - how on earth would direct quotes have arisen and been recorded to be inserted into a gospel some 90 years later. It makes no sense and the only explanation is that the direct quotes were made up for narrative effect.
-
Correct. Although this is what we would expect of an itinerant preacher whose fame arises from many decades after his life ended.
Well at least some of what Josephus wrote is forged. Anyway, it's likely both his source and Tacitus's source where the local Christians. They prove that Christians existed and broadly believed what's in the Bible, but not that their beliefs were based on facts.
Yes certainly a chunk of Josephus is generally considered to be a christian addition.
Also I think the nature of the brief sections on Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus read as if they are describing the presence of early christians (no-one is going to deny they existed at the time of writing) and what those christians believed (again no-one denies what they believed). However neither really give and independent credence to details of Jesus' life, even less so to the veracity of the claims. I'd go further - had Josephus or Tacitus actually believed the claims, surely they'd have converted to christianity - they didn't of course.
-
The use ion direct quotes, for me, is a clear sign that this isn't accurate. Eye witnesses do not remember detail in that way - they might remember the general gist of what somewhat said, perhaps the basis meaning. But they simply wont remember word for word accurate direct quotes - people aren't some kind of recording machine.
And there are examples whether the 'people in the room' - so to speak have no further involvement in the later events, so how on earth could direct quotes have ever been collected. A couple of good examples are in the nativity story, firstly the shepherds and the angel - no one else was there and the only witnesses (the shepherds) have no further part in the ongoing story of Jesus' later life, yet apparently we have direct quote of the words of the angel.
Secondly the Magi in the presence of Herod - how on earth would direct quotes have arisen and been recorded to be inserted into a gospel some 90 years later. It makes no sense and the only explanation is that the direct quotes were made up for narrative effect.
It's a bit like those historical dramas where the characters, who are real people have private conversations that nobody else could possibly know. Usually such dramas have a disclaimer to tell you that the said conversations have been "re-imagined" or something.
Anyway, as regards the Nativity story, there is also a story in Luke about Jesus as a twelve year old.
And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival. When the festival was ended and they started to return, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it. Assuming that he was in the group of travellers, they went a day’s journey. Then they started to look for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, ‘Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.’ He said to them, ‘Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’ But they did not understand what he said to them.
I remember being told this in school as a child aged seven and even then having difficulty understanding how Mary and Joseph could have forgotten about the events surrounding Jesus' birth. Of course they forgot about it because the nativity story is a fiction. Come to think of it, the above story is almost certainly a fiction too.
-
If Jesus had been everything claimed for him, he wouldn't have conveniently disappeared skywards as the gospels say he did. His presence is still needed down here to convince non believers that he resurrected, his work wasn't done as some Christians state when asked why he didn't remain here on Earth.
-
had Josephus or Tacitus actually believed the claims, surely they'd have converted to christianity
Tacitus says this:
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus
He reports what he thinks are facts. He doesn't even mention the resurrection. And he doesn't say what his source is.
Josephus, on the other hand, writes:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.
I don't see how anybody could write that and not be a Christian. Josephus was not a Christian, so the only conclusion is that the text above is forged.
-
Tacitus says this:
He reports what he thinks are facts. He doesn't even mention the resurrection. And he doesn't say what his source is.
Tacitus does talk about christians and their fate at the hands of Nero so I suspect he had some understanding of what they believed.
Josephus, on the other hand, writes:
I don't see how anybody could write that and not be a Christian. Josephus was not a Christian, so the only conclusion is that the text above is forged.
Most scholars accept that part as a forgery. Josephus makes another reference to Jesus as the brother of James. This appears to be nothing more than a factual statement of relationships.
-
Anyway, as regards the Nativity story, there is also a story in Luke about Jesus as a twelve year old.
I remember being told this in school as a child aged seven and even then having difficulty understanding how Mary and Joseph could have forgotten about the events surrounding Jesus' birth. Of course they forgot about it because the nativity story is a fiction. Come to think of it, the above story is almost certainly a fiction too.
And yet Joseph and Mary remembered word for word what the shepherds told them the angel had said.
Point being that the only plausible way in which the direct quote of the angel to the shepherds could have been passed on to the gospel writers would be if they told Mary and Joseph and they retained the information long enough to pass on to others at the time of Jesus' ministry and then to others ultimately to the gospel writer. Point being that the shepherds are never heard of again in the bible.
-
It's a bit like those historical dramas where the characters, who are real people have private conversations that nobody else could possibly know. Usually such dramas have a disclaimer to tell you that the said conversations have been "re-imagined" or something.
Absolutely - without some mechanism of actually recording quotes, which would require them to be written down, there is simply no way that a direct quote could be remembered and passed on multiple times accurately.
And the gospels are stuffed with them, not just statements from Jesus (which I could plausibly see could be recorded in some manner) but conversations with others. Who on earth was tasked with jotting down every last word that was said. It stretches credulity to breaking point.
-
So what?
The point is that Mark doesn't document any resurrection appearances so when the other gospel writers - who were copying him - got to that bit, they decided to each make up their own resurrection appearances, none of which are consistent with each other. This is strongly indicative that there was no real oral tradition of specific appearances.
Except they weren't copying him.
It is clear to me that Matthew and possibly Luke were Mark's sources, if there was inter-dependence.
-
It is clear to me that Matthew and possibly Luke were Mark's sources, if there was inter-dependence.
Weird that because academic scholars with expertise in the matter (i.e. people who know what they are talking about) are consistently of the opinion that Mark was written first with Luke and Matthew coming late and using Mark as one source.
-
It is clear to me that Matthew and possibly Luke were Mark's sources, if there was inter-dependence.
Which makes no sense in relation to Jeremy P's comment.
If Mark was borrowing from Matthew and Luke (both of whom claim appearances of the resurrected Jesus) why on earth would he leave that out. Sure that would be the very first thing he'd want to include.
-
I don't see how anybody could write that and not be a Christian. Josephus was not a Christian, so the only conclusion is that the text above is forged.
Indeed - but lets get back to Ichadon and his head flying to mountains, milk from severed neck routine. His reason for doing this was to persuade Korea to adopt Buddhism - and guess what it worked - so impressed were the people who were witnesses to the miracles they converted to Buddhism en mass and Korea made it their state religion.
Bit like christianity where the witnesses to the miracles, the Jewish and Roman populations of Palestine converted en mass to christianity ... hmm ... there's something wrong here, can't quite work out what ;)
-
Which makes no sense in relation to Jeremy P's comment.
If Mark was borrowing from Matthew and Luke (both of whom claim appearances of the resurrected Jesus) why on earth would he leave that out. Sure that would be the very first thing he'd want to include.
It means that Jeremy's theory in his comment is wrong.
See post #278 where I explained the point Mark wanted to make, and how his abrupt ending makes it effectively without the need for more. Mark habitually omits large chunks of material, and where he does we find signs that he has done so - one author even says, "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". The scholars seem to have missed this.
-
It means that Jeremy's theory in his comment is wrong.
No it doesn't - it means Mark came first, no mention of resurrection appearances. Matthew and Luke come later, borrow from Mark but aren't impressed by the less than impressive ending to the gospel. So they add in some stories about appearances - interestingly they seem not to be working from the same playbook, as although they both include appearances they've made up different stories as the appearances are entirely different in each.
-
one author even says, "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew"
Which author - reference please.
The scholars seem to have missed this.
Not necessarily - they may be aware of that view but do not agree with it based on the available evidence.
-
I have been an 'eye witness' on a number of occasions to remarkable things which defy any credibility. For a second or two I thought I witnessed an image resembling the Virgin Mary in the field belonging to our previous property, where sightings of her had been claimed by quite a number of people. I am of the opinion I was seeing something I wished to see in that instance. That image resembled the picture book version of Mary, as no paintings were done of the woman whilst alive, she would not have looked anything like that in reality.
Never heard of a Muslim having a vision of Mary or a Catholic, having a vision of Mohamed I wonder why?
ippy.
-
Never heard of a Muslim having a vision of Mary or a Catholic, having a vision of Mohamed I wonder why?
ippy.
True - people tend to see visions that reflect their upbringing and traditions rather than those that don't. And if those visions were genuinely 'external' rather than manifestations of internal, but subconscious states, then there would surely be no reason why the virgin mary shouldn't appear to anyone, including of course people who might never have encountered christianity before, e.g. indigenous tribes prior to colonialism. But that doesn't seem to happen does it.
LR's point about seeing the classical picture book versions is also very telling - if these were real in an external manner then the appearance would be the real one, which is highly unlikely to resemble the picture book one.
-
Which author - reference please.
Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, in "Why four Gospels" but he doesn't indicate where exactly! I've only recently got some idea of which verses he was referring to.
No it doesn't - it means Mark came first, no mention of resurrection appearances. Matthew and Luke come later, borrow from Mark but aren't impressed by the less than impressive ending to the gospel. So they add in some stories about appearances - interestingly they seem not to be working from the same playbook, as although they both include appearances they've made up different stories as the appearances are entirely different in each.
I guess I didn't fully answer your question of why, if Mark was quoting the other two, didn't he include any of their appearances.
Firstly, even if we don't know why Mark didn't include them, he might still have had a reason. Since in other places there are signs that he omitted a chunk, it is possible he might have done the same here.
Secondly, your suggestion doesn't take into account that if Mark did write first, under Peter's influence, and indicated in the angel's message a clear belief in the Church that Jesus had risen, then it would be highly unlikely for Mark to have had no knowledge of any of Jesus' appearances. If he was writing the first gospel, why didn't he include one or more of these? However, if he knew that previous accounts had a record of Jesus' appearances in them, it wouldn't matter if Mark omitted them.
So we are left with two realistic possibilities: either Mark deliberately ended abruptly, with the women failing because of their fear, as the men had done; or the 'long ending' must be authentic.
-
So we are left with two realistic possibilities: either Mark deliberately ended abruptly, with the women failing because of their fear, as the men had done; or the 'long ending' must be authentic.
There is another possibility: which is that neither of these are true, be it due to mistakes and/or fabrication - and unless you can exclude these risks you don't have two realistic possibilities at all: you have zero realistic possibilities.
You can believe any of the NT stories are true as a matter of personal faith but you can't claim them to be historical facts, since you have no means of eliminating the risks of mistakes or lies.
-
Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, in "Why four Gospels" but he doesn't indicate where exactly! I've only recently got some idea of which verses he was referring to.
I guess I didn't fully answer your question of why, if Mark was quoting the other two, didn't he include any of their appearances.
Firstly, even if we don't know why Mark didn't include them, he might still have had a reason. Since in other places there are signs that he omitted a chunk, it is possible he might have done the same here.
Secondly, your suggestion doesn't take into account that if Mark did write first, under Peter's influence, and indicated in the angel's message a clear belief in the Church that Jesus had risen, then it would be highly unlikely for Mark to have had no knowledge of any of Jesus' appearances. If he was writing the first gospel, why didn't he include one or more of these? However, if he knew that previous accounts had a record of Jesus' appearances in them, it wouldn't matter if Mark omitted them.
So we are left with two realistic possibilities: either Mark deliberately ended abruptly, with the women failing because of their fear, as the men had done; or the 'long ending' must be authentic.
You are desperate to believe the gospel accounts to be accurate, don't you ever question their veracity?
-
Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, in "Why four Gospels" but he doesn't indicate where exactly! I've only recently got some idea of which verses he was referring to.
Yes - some simple Googling produced this.
But your quote is totally meaningless unless you provide the section of Mark's gospel where he clearly (bluntly) states that he is quoting from Matthew. I suspect you may be looking for a long time.
Come back to me when you've found it.
-
You are desperate to believe the gospel accounts to be accurate, don't you ever question their veracity?
Clearly he doesn't. His sole motivation is to fit the 'evidence' to his beliefs, and with a starting point that the claims in the gospels are correct. He seems incapable of even contemplating that they may not be true.
-
Clearly he doesn't. His sole motivation is to fit the 'evidence' to his beliefs, and with a starting point that the claims in the gospels are correct. He seems incapable of even contemplating that they may not be true.
That appears to be the way of it. I wonder how Spud would react if it was ever proved beyond all shadow of doubt that the gospels had no basis in fact?
-
That appears to be the way of it. I wonder how Spud would react if it was ever proved beyond all shadow of doubt that the gospels had no basis in fact?
How could that be proved?
-
How could that be proved?
I was asking Spud a hypothetical question, I doubt it could ever be proved or disproved.
-
I was asking Spud a hypothetical question, I doubt it could ever be proved or disproved.
Well, it's a pretty pointless hypotheticsal question then, isn't it?
-
Tacitus does talk about christians and their fate at the hands of Nero so I suspect he had some understanding of what they believed.
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. It doesn't really matter. What he writes is not evidence for the resurrection and, even if he had written "the Christians believe their leader rose from the dead", it doesn't mean he thought its was true, only that he thought the Christians believed it to be true.
This is no different than me saying "Spud believes Jesus rose from the dead". It's a true statement but it doesn't mean Jesus actually rose from the dead.
Most scholars accept that part as a forgery. Josephus makes another reference to Jesus as the brother of James. This appears to be nothing more than a factual statement of relationships.
Yes, but it is possible that that bit might be forged too.
-
Well, it's a pretty pointless hypotheticsal question then, isn't it?
Yes you could say that but realistically and I think L R was alluding to this as well P V J, what exactly is the point of a thread like this one, one of only to many like it, discussing supposed goings on in the past where there is virtually no, zero, evidence to support the large element of magical mystical or superstitional based parts of this subject and only the very shakiest evidence to support any of the rest of it, so wouldn't it be better or more meaningful to establish the provable facts first and then it might be worth spending some time on a discussion about the rest of this subject.
ippy.
-
Well, it's a pretty pointless hypotheticsal question then, isn't it?
No it isn't, imo. BTW isn't your spellchecker working?
-
Clearly he doesn't. His sole motivation is to fit the 'evidence' to his beliefs, and with a starting point that the claims in the gospels are correct. He seems incapable of even contemplating that they may not be true.
To be fair, you do the same, having a starting point that miracles could not have happened, and attempting to make Mark the first gospel and finding embellishments of it by the other gospels.
Yes - some simple Googling produced this.
But your quote is totally meaningless unless you provide the section of Mark's gospel where he clearly (bluntly) states that he is quoting from Matthew. I suspect you may be looking for a long time.
Come back to me when you've found it.
Exhibit A is on its way...
-
Yes - some simple Googling produced this.
But your quote is totally meaningless unless you provide the section of Mark's gospel where he clearly (bluntly) states that he is quoting from Matthew. I suspect you may be looking for a long time.
Come back to me when you've found it.
Here is the first example. Remember that Matthew and Luke sometimes place their pericopes in a different order, so if Mark is quoting from both, he will have to switch between their orders from time to time.
Matthew 12 ends with Jesus in a house, and his mother and brothers arriving to take charge of him. Mark 3 ends with the same pericope.
Mark follows Matthew in placing the parable of the sower next. Matthew has Jesus coming out of the house and sitting by the lake, and then when crowds gather he teaches from a boat. Mark says the same thing, but doesn't mention the house. Matthew says (13:3), "Then he told them many things in parables, saying..." and he tells the parable of the sower. Mark at this point says, "He taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he was saying to them..." (Mk 4:2) So here is Mark stating that he has omitted some of Jesus' teaching.
Luke's account of this event (Lk 8 ) includes only two parables, the sower and the lamp, so we know that Mark is not referring to additional teaching given in Luke. Mark gives these two parables plus the mustard seed and one that Matthew and Luke do not, the parable of the growing seed.
Matthew, however, recounts seven. So the teaching that Mark implies he has omitted must be the other four that are in Matthew. John Chapman (1937) writes, "I had found (apparently) two definite statements by Mark that he had omitted some outdoor parables and indoor explanations." [The second apparent statement is in Mk 4:33, see below.]
Mark omits Matthew's parable of the weeds, which he told outside, and his explanation of this to the disciples, which he told inside the house.
Matthew says while Jesus is still outside, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables, he did not say anything to them without using a parable". Matthew then tells us Jesus went back inside and carried on teaching. Mark, however, says, "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything". (4:33-34)
Mark then switches back to Luke's sequence which he follows: the calming of the storm, and healing of the demoniac, dead girl and sick woman.
Hope that's fairly clear. The point here is that Mark somehow knew of the additional teaching which he implies Jesus gave on this particular occasion. It seems quite a stretch to assume that Mark mentioned these other parables, and Matthew came along later and decided to add them. The fact that Mark bookends the section with a reference to additional parables at the start and the finish, suggests that he is quoting from previous material. These references could even be, literally, quotation marks!
-
Here is the first example. Remember that Matthew and Luke sometimes place their pericopes in a different order, so if Mark is quoting from both, he will have to switch between their orders from time to time.
Matthew 12 ends with Jesus in a house, and his mother and brothers arriving to take charge of him. Mark 3 ends with the same pericope.
Mark follows Matthew in placing the parable of the sower next. Matthew has Jesus coming out of the house and sitting by the lake, and then when crowds gather he teaches from a boat. Mark says the same thing, but doesn't mention the house. Matthew says, "Then he told them many things in parables, saying..." and he tells the parable of the sower. Mark at this point says, "He taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he was saying to them..." So here is Mark stating that he has omitted some of Jesus' teaching.
Luke's account of this event includes only two parables, the sower and the lamp so we know that Mark is not referring to additional teaching by Luke. Mark gives these two parables and adds one that Matthew and Luke do not, the parable of the growing seed.
Matthew, however, recounts seven. So the teaching that Mark implies he has omitted must be the other five from Matthew. John Chapman (1937) writes, "I had found (apparently) two* definite statements by Mark that he had omitted some outdoor parables and indoor explanations."
(*The other I will post later)
Mark omits Matthew's parable of the weeds, which he told outside, and his explanation of this to the disciples, which he told inside the house.
Matthew says while Jesus is still outside, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables, he did not say anything to them without using a parable". Matthew then tells us Jesus went back inside and carried on teaching. Mark, however, says, "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything".
Mark then switches back to Luke's and follows his sequence in the calming of the storm, and healing of the demoniac, dead girl and sick woman.
Hope that's fairly clear!
So what? Whatever is the case about the order in which those books were written it doesn't give them anymore credibility.
-
Let's say for the sake of argument that they were from eye witness testimonies.
So what?
Do you think that makes them true or more likely true?
-
So what? Whatever is the case about the order in which those books were written it doesn't give them anymore credibility.
L R, you're forgetting people like spud think they're gaining brownie points by still hanging on to belief in spite of how tenuous the evidence is, in fact I think you'll find they gain even more brownie points pendent on the scarcity of evidence.
Regards, ippy.
-
To be fair, you do the same, having a starting point that miracles could not have happened, and attempting to make Mark the first gospel and finding embellishments of it by the other gospels.
Exhibit A is on its way...
You should read up on the history of how it came to be believed that Mark was the first gospel. It's a history of scholars following the evidence to its logical conclusion. The twist is that the scholars in question were all Christians. There was no trying to make it the first gospel. It's just the best explanation for the facts we know about the gospels.
And, if PD is anything like me*, he doesn't start from the starting point that the miracles could not have happened, he starts from the point of view that he doesn't know that they happened and then examines all the evidence - not just the stories in the Bible and comes to the conclusion that they didn't happen because the evidence for is just some stories and the evidence against is that the miracles require suspension of the laws of physics.
If this was any religion other than Christianity, you'd be on the same side of us. You just need to realise that your religion is no more special to anybody else than any other religion.
*Actually he is not like me. I started from the point of view that the miracles did happen and reversed my position over time as I realised that there were better more credible explanations.
-
To be fair, you do the same, having a starting point that miracles could not have happened, and attempting to make Mark the first gospel and finding embellishments of it by the other gospels.
No I don't - my view that miracles don't happen is based on evidence (or rather lack of evidence) for miraculous occurrences that are proven not to be explainable by natural or physical laws. Further give that miracles are typically ascribed to a deity my views are also evidence based on that account to - namely that lack of evidence to support the existence of a deity.
On Mark - I'm not really giving an opinion on my own I'm basing the notion that Mark came first on the evidence that most scholars date Mark as the earliest gospel on the basis of their assessment of the available evidence.
-
Here is the first example. Remember that Matthew and Luke sometimes place their pericopes in a different order, so if Mark is quoting from both, he will have to switch between their orders from time to time.
Matthew 12 ends with Jesus in a house, and his mother and brothers arriving to take charge of him. Mark 3 ends with the same pericope.
Mark follows Matthew in placing the parable of the sower next. Matthew has Jesus coming out of the house and sitting by the lake, and then when crowds gather he teaches from a boat. Mark says the same thing, but doesn't mention the house. Matthew says (13:3), "Then he told them many things in parables, saying..." and he tells the parable of the sower. Mark at this point says, "He taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he was saying to them..." (Mk 4:2) So here is Mark stating that he has omitted some of Jesus' teaching.
Luke's account of this event (Lk 8 ) includes only two parables, the sower and the lamp, so we know that Mark is not referring to additional teaching given in Luke. Mark gives these two parables plus the mustard seed and one that Matthew and Luke do not, the parable of the growing seed.
Matthew, however, recounts seven. So the teaching that Mark implies he has omitted must be the other four that are in Matthew. John Chapman (1937) writes, "I had found (apparently) two definite statements by Mark that he had omitted some outdoor parables and indoor explanations." [The second apparent statement is in Mk 4:33, see below.]
Mark omits Matthew's parable of the weeds, which he told outside, and his explanation of this to the disciples, which he told inside the house.
Matthew says while Jesus is still outside, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables, he did not say anything to them without using a parable". Matthew then tells us Jesus went back inside and carried on teaching. Mark, however, says, "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything". (4:33-34)
Mark then switches back to Luke's sequence which he follows: the calming of the storm, and healing of the demoniac, dead girl and sick woman.
Hope that's fairly clear. The point here is that Mark somehow knew of the additional teaching which he implies Jesus gave on this particular occasion. It seems quite a stretch to assume that Mark mentioned these other parables, and Matthew came along later and decided to add them. The fact that Mark bookends the section with a reference to additional parables at the start and the finish, suggests that he is quoting from previous material. These references could even be, literally, quotation marks!
Irrelevant.
You claimed (or rather quoted someone else claim) that "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". Nothing in your post indicates that "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew" - for that to be the case you will need to provide a verse or section from Mark in which he says something like 'the words I provide here come not from me but from my friend Matthew who came before me'.
Come back when you've found the relevant section in Mark please.
-
Here is the first example. Remember that Matthew and Luke sometimes place their pericopes in a different order, so if Mark is quoting from both, he will have to switch between their orders from time to time.
Matthew 12 ends with Jesus in a house, and his mother and brothers arriving to take charge of him. Mark 3 ends with the same pericope.
Mark follows Matthew in placing the parable of the sower next. Matthew has Jesus coming out of the house and sitting by the lake, and then when crowds gather he teaches from a boat. Mark says the same thing, but doesn't mention the house. Matthew says (13:3), "Then he told them many things in parables, saying..." and he tells the parable of the sower. Mark at this point says, "He taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he was saying to them..." (Mk 4:2) So here is Mark stating that he has omitted some of Jesus' teaching.
Luke's account of this event (Lk 8 ) includes only two parables, the sower and the lamp, so we know that Mark is not referring to additional teaching given in Luke. Mark gives these two parables plus the mustard seed and one that Matthew and Luke do not, the parable of the growing seed.
Matthew, however, recounts seven. So the teaching that Mark implies he has omitted must be the other four that are in Matthew. John Chapman (1937) writes, "I had found (apparently) two definite statements by Mark that he had omitted some outdoor parables and indoor explanations." [The second apparent statement is in Mk 4:33, see below.]
Mark omits Matthew's parable of the weeds, which he told outside, and his explanation of this to the disciples, which he told inside the house.
Matthew says while Jesus is still outside, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables, he did not say anything to them without using a parable". Matthew then tells us Jesus went back inside and carried on teaching. Mark, however, says, "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything". (4:33-34)
Mark then switches back to Luke's sequence which he follows: the calming of the storm, and healing of the demoniac, dead girl and sick woman.
Hope that's fairly clear. The point here is that Mark somehow knew of the additional teaching which he implies Jesus gave on this particular occasion. It seems quite a stretch to assume that Mark mentioned these other parables, and Matthew came along later and decided to add them. The fact that Mark bookends the section with a reference to additional parables at the start and the finish, suggests that he is quoting from previous material. These references could even be, literally, quotation marks!
But you could use the same information and argue in exactly the opposite manner, in other words that Mark proceeded Matthew and Luke. All you'd need to do is largely replace 'Mark omits' with 'Matthew adds'. And it is of course much easier to justify why Matthew might add as general scholarly opinion is of the view that Matthew and Luke use Mark and another (unknown) source for their information - hence Matthew would be adding to Mark using the other source material that appears unavailable to Mark.
-
But you could use the same information and argue in exactly the opposite manner, in other words that Mark proceeded Matthew and Luke.
In other words, Matthew reads, in Mark 4:2 and 12:38, "and in His teaching He was saying" and thinks this would be the ideal place to interpolate some more teaching.
By what mechanism can Mark be aware, as the above phrase implies he is, of additional teaching? Did Peter recite it by heart? Or was it written down already (hint: by Matthew)?
-
In other words, Matthew reads, in Mark 4:2 and 12:38, "and in His teaching He was saying" and thinks this would be the ideal place to interpolate some more teaching.
By what mechanism can Mark be aware, as the above phrase implies he is, of additional teaching? Did Peter recite it by heart? Or was it written down already (hint: by Matthew)?
I simply don't understand what you are on about - in Mark 4.2 he says Jesus uses parables to tech things - he then goes on to provide examples of parables. Where on earth can you infer that Mark is deliberately omitting information.
You are simply making no sense.
-
No it isn't, imo. BTW isn't your spellchecker working?
Well, yo is wrong, as usual. I don't use spellchecker, but sometimes suffer from fat finger syndrome.
-
Yo Dude!
-
I simply don't understand what you are on about - in Mark 4.2 he says Jesus uses parables to tech things - he then goes on to provide examples of parables. Where on earth can you infer that Mark is deliberately omitting information.
You are simply making no sense.
OK, will try and explain later...
-
OK, will try and explain later...
Please ensure you don't provide a circular argument - in other words one that takes as its starting point an assumption that Mark was written later than Matthew/Luke and then uses that assumption to provide evidence that ... err ... Mark was written later than Matthew/Luke.
-
I simply don't understand what you are on about - in Mark 4.2 he says Jesus uses parables to tech things - he then goes on to provide examples of parables. Where on earth can you infer that Mark is deliberately omitting information.
You are simply making no sense.
Mark must have had a source for the examples he gives. By selecting some from it, he is omitting others.
-
Mark must have had a source for the examples he gives.
True but we are unclear what this source is. Or as Gordon points out Mark could have made them up himself.
By selecting some from it, he is omitting others.
Given that we don't know what his source was how can you know that he selected only some of it - the parables he chose may be the entirety of what was in that source material. You have no evidence that he only selected some of the examples rather than all of them. And therefore you have no evidence that he omitted some examples.
-
Mark must have had a source for the examples he gives. By selecting some from it, he is omitting others.
Or he could just have made it up - how could you ever know the circumstances from this distance and with no basis to assess provenance?
-
Given that we don't know what his source was how can you know that he selected only some of it - the parables he chose may be the entirety of what was in that source material.
By reading his conclusion to that section, verse 33: "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear,"
(Note also that he uses the same verb as Matthew in Matthew's introduction to his equivalent section: "And He spoke to them many things in parables, saying", Mt 13:3)
-
By reading his conclusion to that section, verse 33: "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear,"
(Note also that he uses the same verb as Matthew in Matthew's introduction to his equivalent section: "And He spoke to them many things in parables, saying", Mt 13:3)
You have not provided any evidence to support your claim the gospels are factual, and not creative fiction.
-
You have not provided any evidence to support your claim the gospels are factual, and not creative fiction.
At this point I'm just trying to establish which of Matthew and Mark quoted from the other. Bit of a derail, yes.
-
By reading his conclusion to that section, verse 33: "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear,"
And?!?
I'm struggling to see how you can use that verse to conclude that Mark had only selected some of a greater number of parables to report. Given that in the previous few verses Mark recounts four separate parables then that is entirely consistent with "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear," - note also that mark later includes further parables.
But I think you are missing the point, which links to the next verse "But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples."
So effectively what Mark is saying is that Jesus is only teaching ordinary people through parables and therefore without having a parable he isn't going to teach. I has absolutely nothing to do with your rather bizarre notion that this somehow means Mark is omitting parables.
-
At this point I'm just trying to establish which of Matthew and Mark quoted from the other. Bit of a derail, yes.
Should have read: 'At this point I'm just trying to establish which of Matthew and Mark are supposed to have quoted from the other.
No not a derail Spud, you insist on referring to these people as though they were genuine living breathing historical characters when surly you or anyone else should at least establish whether they were other than fictional before continuing I would have thought, bit of an empty pastime otherwise.
Wouldn't the faith shearing area be more suited for this kind of discussion? Have a word with Alan or Sassy.
ippy.
-
And?!?
I'm struggling to see how you can use that verse to conclude that Mark had only selected some of a greater number of parables to report. Given that in the previous few verses Mark recounts four separate parables then that is entirely consistent with "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear," - note also that mark later includes further parables.
But I think you are missing the point, which links to the next verse "But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples."
So effectively what Mark is saying is that Jesus is only teaching ordinary people through parables and therefore without having a parable he isn't going to teach. I has absolutely nothing to do with your rather bizarre notion that this somehow means Mark is omitting parables.
But it does have to do with what source Mark was using, as it must have included more parables. The only possible source known to us is Matthew.
Just to add that in the other thread on this, Jeremy suggested that Mark could not have known about the Sermon on the Mount if he said that Jesus always used parables. No, Matthew (who wrote down the SOM) says the same in 13:34.
If you don't mind I will bring in some other examples where it looks as though Mark has omitted or summarized material from Matthew.
-
But it does have to do with what source Mark was using, as it must have included more parables.
Why must it include more parables - you keep making this point but there is nothing in the section you highlighted that indicates that whatsoever.
-
By reading his conclusion to that section, verse 33: "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear,"
That sounds like he just got bored of having to invent new parables and write them down.
-
At this point I'm just trying to establish which of Matthew and Mark quoted from the other. Bit of a derail, yes.
Matthew was quoting Mark.
-
But it does have to do with what source Mark was using, as it must have included more parables. The only possible source known to us is Matthew.
Is this meant to be a serious argument? The only possible source known to us for Matthew is Mark. Therefore they both copied the other? Or maybe it is possible that one of them used a source that is unknown to us.
Just to add that in the other thread on this, Jeremy suggested that Mark could not have known about the Sermon on the Mount if he said that Jesus always used parables. No, Matthew (who wrote down the SOM) says the same in 13:34.
Well I actually said it is unlikely that Mark would omit the Sermon on the Mount if he had known about it. Ditto the Lord's Prayer.
On the other hand, he has lots of extra detail on the pigs of Gerasene. Is it more plausible that Matthew would cut out the irrelevant pig stuff and put in the Lord's Prayer or that Mark would cut out the Lord's Prayer and put in loads of irrelevant pig stuff. Be honest! You know it is the former.
-
Well I actually said it is unlikely that Mark would omit the Sermon on the Mount if he had known about it. Ditto the Lord's Prayer.
On the other hand, he has lots of extra detail on the pigs of Gerasene. Is it more plausible that Matthew would cut out the irrelevant pig stuff and put in the Lord's Prayer or that Mark would cut out the Lord's Prayer and put in loads of irrelevant pig stuff. Be honest! You know it is the former.
Or the post resurrection appearances. Always more important to prioritise pig stuff than what I thought was the most important element of christianity.
-
Is this meant to be a serious argument? The only possible source known to us for Matthew is Mark. Therefore they both copied the other? Or maybe it is possible that one of them used a source that is unknown to us.
Simple: Matthew the disciple took notes, and wrote them up under the guidance of other apostles - James (who wrote the epistle) has some similar content. The original source were the apostles themselves, the same with Luke, except much of his material is supplied by the named women, hence the differences between Luke and Matthew. Mark weaved Mt and Lk together, adding material from his other source.
-
Simple: Matthew the disciple took notes, and wrote them up under the guidance of other apostles - James (who wrote the epistle) has some similar content.
Or Mark did. Or neither of them did.
The original source were the apostles themselves, the same with Luke, except much of his material is supplied by the named women, hence the differences between Luke and Matthew. Mark weaved Mt and Lk together, adding material from his other source.
Have you got any evidence whatsoever of who Luke used as his sources - other than Mark which he copied almost verbatim?
-
Simple: Matthew the disciple took notes, and wrote them up under the guidance of other apostles - James (who wrote the epistle) has some similar content. The original source were the apostles themselves, the same with Luke, except much of his material is supplied by the named women, hence the differences between Luke and Matthew. Mark weaved Mt and Lk together, adding material from his other source.
Just non-sense and that's not just my view but the views of the overwhelming majority of expert scholars for over 100 years.
Let's just think this through Spud.
Imagine is your notion was correct and Mark, when writing his gospel, had Matthew and Luke in front of him. So he's a bit worried about the cost of papyrus so wants to trim some stuff, presumably things he feels aren't really important.
So - Sermon on the mount - nope, in the bin - we need space for pig stories
Lord's prayer - hmm, can't see that being important - get rid of that.
Nativity stories - irrelevant to christianity - gone
Post-resurrection appearances - nope can't see how those are important to christianity - in the bid.
Great plenty of space for the pigs.
I simply beggars belief that he would have done that - the only conclusion is that Mark didn't have to hand knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount, the lords prayer, the nativity or the post-resurrection appearances or they would have undoubtedly been in his gospel. Or if he was aware of them (perhaps some knowledge of the Q tradition and Paul), he didn't believe them.
-
Just non-sense and that's not just my view but the views of the overwhelming majority of expert scholars for over 100 years.
Let's just think this through Spud.
Imagine is your notion was correct and Mark, when writing his gospel, had Matthew and Luke in front of him. So he's a bit worried about the cost of papyrus so wants to trim some stuff, presumably things he feels aren't really important.
So - Sermon on the mount - nope, in the bin - we need space for pig stories
Lord's prayer - hmm, can't see that being important - get rid of that.
Nativity stories - irrelevant to christianity - gone
Post-resurrection appearances - nope can't see how those are important to christianity - in the bid.
Great plenty of space for the pigs.
I simply beggars belief that he would have done that - the only conclusion is that Mark didn't have to hand knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount, the lords prayer, the nativity or the post-resurrection appearances or they would have undoubtedly been in his gospel. Or if he was aware of them (perhaps some knowledge of the Q tradition and Paul), he didn't believe them.
Or parts of his gospel have gone missing?
-
Or Mark did. Or neither of them did.
Have you got any evidence whatsoever of who Luke used as his sources - other than Mark which he copied almost verbatim?
There's a view that Luke and Mark used a device called an inclusio to show that Simon Peter is their primary source. Richard Baukham describes it here: https://tinyurl.com/rxq7qau (he believes Mark was written first but I don't think that affects the inclusio theory). In both Mark and Luke, Simon is mentioned at the beginning and his name is repeated, for no apparent reason. His name is also mentioned in passing at the end of both gospels.
Baukham also says that Luke has an inclusio for the women he names, and thinks this is evidence that they were also his sources.
-
Just non-sense and that's not just my view but the views of the overwhelming majority of expert scholars for over 100 years.
Let's just think this through Spud.
Imagine is your notion was correct and Mark, when writing his gospel, had Matthew and Luke in front of him. So he's a bit worried about the cost of papyrus so wants to trim some stuff, presumably things he feels aren't really important.
So - Sermon on the mount - nope, in the bin - we need space for pig stories
Lord's prayer - hmm, can't see that being important - get rid of that.
Nativity stories - irrelevant to christianity - gone
Post-resurrection appearances - nope can't see how those are important to christianity - in the bid.
Great plenty of space for the pigs.
I simply beggars belief that he would have done that - the only conclusion is that Mark didn't have to hand knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount, the lords prayer, the nativity or the post-resurrection appearances or they would have undoubtedly been in his gospel. Or if he was aware of them (perhaps some knowledge of the Q tradition and Paul), he didn't believe them.
Mark's aim is to reveal the person of Jesus. We know he excluded some of Jesus' teaching, through the clauses mentioned yesterday in ch.4 and 12. In the 'Markan dependence' view, he also knows that these (now famous) passages are available in Matthew and Luke, so he is free to concentrate more on what Jesus did that demonstrated who he is.
-
Evidence that Matthew relied on an eyewitness source to follow.
-
We know he excluded some of Jesus' teaching, through the clauses mentioned yesterday in ch.4 and 12.
No we don't because we don't know the source material Mark was basing his gospel on. You can only conclude that he excluded material if you assume he wrote after Luke and Matthew and had their material to hand. That is putting your conclusion before the evidence, in other words it is a circular argument.
We have no evidence whatsoever that Mark excluded material.
-
No we don't because we don't know the source material Mark was basing his gospel on. You can only conclude that he excluded material if you assume he wrote after Luke and Matthew and had their material to hand. That is putting your conclusion before the evidence, in other words it is a circular argument.
We have no evidence whatsoever that Mark excluded material.
I see that you are also making an assumption, which is that Mark could have had a source that is unknown to us. My reasoning is based on the fact that there is no physical or written evidence for such a source.
In the light of this, if we take the clause, "and in his teaching he was saying" (Mk 4:2b) and Matthew's equivalent, "saying..." (Mt 13:3b), then comparing the two will tell us which is the original, and therefore who has copied who.
-
I see that you are also making an assumption, which is that Mark could have had a source that is unknown to us.
Of course he could have had a source that is unknown to us - that is beyond debate. I'm not saying that he definitely did, but the evidence suggests that the possible known possible alternative sources (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John) cannot be justified as sources for Mark as they were written later than Mark and in the case of Luke and Matthew there is overwhelming evidence that they used Mark as a source not the other way around (according to expert scholars - not me or you as armchair non expert message board posters).
So if Mark didn't use Matthew, Luke or John (as experts suggest based on evidence) then his source materials remains unknown to us.
-
At this point I'll show the other instance where Mark uses the phrase, "and in his teaching he was saying". It's Mark 12:38, "38And in His teaching He was saying, “Beware of the scribes, desiring to walk about in robes, and greetings in the marketplaces, 39and first seats in the synagogues, and first places at the feasts; 40those devouring the houses of widows, and praying at great length as a pretext. These will receive greater judgment.”"
If we look at Matthew's equivalent section, following the section, Whose son is the Christ?, Mt 23: "1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat down on Moses’ seat; 3therefore keep and observe all things whatsoever they might tell you. But do not do according to their works, for they preach and do not act. 4And they tie up burdens heavy and hard to bear and lay them on the shoulders of men; but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.
5And they do all their deeds in order to be seen by men. For they broaden their phylacteries and enlarge their tassels, 6and they love the chief place at the banquets, and the first seats in the synagogues, 7and the greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by men.
8But you shall not be called ‘Rabbi,’ for your Teacher is One, and you are all brothers. 9And call no one your father on the earth; for One is your Father, who is in heaven.
Look at the similarities between Mark's and Matthew's. Again, assuming no evidence for any other source for this material, Matthew's seems to be the original, as it is a continuous statement. So when Mark says, "in his teaching..." he is probably referring to all the teaching given in Matthew 23 (Ten Woes included). This, Mark has briefly summarized (12:38-40).
-
Of course he could have had a source that is unknown to us - that is beyond debate. I'm not saying that he definitely did, but the evidence suggests that the possible known possible alternative sources (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John) cannot be justified as sources for Mark as they were written later than Mark and in the case of Luke and Matthew there is overwhelming evidence that they used Mark as a source not the other way around (according to expert scholars - not me or you as armchair non expert message board posters).
So if Mark didn't use Matthew, Luke or John (as experts suggest based on evidence) then his source materials remains unknown to us.
OK... you haven't said why Matthew and Luke were written later than Mark, and I don't agree that the overwhelming evidence according to the scholars is all that overwhelming.
Now check out Mark's version of the parable of the tenants, and Matthew's equivalent section. There is no denying that Matthew is the original version here, because he has an additional parable that is so apt for the context that it has to be a record of the original conversation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. That is the parable of the Two Sons, which continues the conversation about John the Baptist started in the pericope before. In your scenario, Matthew noticed that Mark said, "He then began to speak to them in parables", and that Mark only recorded one parable (the parable of the Tenants), so he thought it would be fitting to record some more. It just so happened that Matthew had the exact parable spoken by Jesus at that time, in his stock of parables (or Matthew had an eyewitness who recalled that parable).
This is feasible, however the situation arises where Matthew has exactly the right material to add to Mark's, so often, that it becomes less and less likely that Matthew was adding to Mark and more logical that Mark was quoting from Matthew.
-
OK... you haven't said why Matthew and Luke were written later than Mark, and I don't agree that the overwhelming evidence according to the scholars is all that overwhelming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcan_priority
Of course it isn't universally accepted, but the broad and overwhelming consensus of expert scholars (not christian apologists) is that Mark was written first.
'Most scholars since the late nineteenth century have accepted the concept of Marcan priority. It forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory, although a number of scholars support different forms of Marcan priority or reject it altogether'.
-
There is no denying that Matthew is the original version here ...
Yes there is - I deny it - because the evidence points overwhelmingly to Mark having been written first with Matthew borrowing from Mark.
here, because he has an additional parable that is so apt for the context that it has to be a record of the original conversation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders
But that is an argument for Mark being first and not having the further parable as available evidence. If Mark had that additional parable and is was so apt why on earth wouldn't he have included it. You even seem to be arguing against yourself as you describe the further parable in Matthew as additional (i.e. added) which is of course correct as Matthew used the material in Mark and added to it - hence additional.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcan_priority
-
Should have read: 'At this point I'm just trying to establish which of Matthew and Mark are supposed to have quoted from the other.
No not a derail Spud, you insist on referring to these people as though they were genuine living breathing historical characters when surly you or anyone else should at least establish whether they were other than fictional before continuing I would have thought, bit of an empty pastime otherwise.
Wouldn't the faith shearing area be more suited for this kind of discussion? Have a word with Alan or Sassy.
ippy.
Why on earth do you think this would be better in the faith sharing area? Since the believer Spud is here being challenged strongly on his beliefs by at least four atheists (including me), there sure ain't a helluva lot of "faith sharing" going on.
You may want to have a discussion on whether the characters involved were historical or not (that has also been raised in the course of the conversations), but it is certain that the evangelists existed, since we have their accounts (even though it is highly unlikely that the writers were called by the names given to them in Bible translations). The title of the thread clearly directs the whole tenor of the discussion, with most of the opposition believing either that the accounts are not written from eyewitness testimony or that such a scenario is unlikely. That being so, what's your beef?
I can assure that just coming here to say "the whole thing is a load of baloney" (which you do again and again) is not likely to alter the attitude of believers such as Spud one iota. If anyone really wants to persuade Spud of the error of his beliefs, then they have to go halfway to meeting him where he is, which is what Prof Davey and Jeremy are doing.
If you have no interest in such discussions - well you know the options open to you.
-
Matthew noticed that Mark said, "He then began to speak to them in parables", and that Mark only recorded one parable (the parable of the Tenants),
Presumably because that was all Mark had from his source.
so he thought it would be fitting to record some more.
As Matthew had both Mark as a source and another source of parables.
It just so happened that Matthew had the exact parable spoken by Jesus at that time
You have no idea whether that parable was skin by Jesus or not - all we know is that Matthew claims he did.
, in his stock of parables (or Matthew had an eyewitness who recalled that parable).
Or Matthew had a set of traditional parables (let's face it these are often kind of folk tales handed down over hundreds of years) and found one that would make a good addition to the story regardless of whether he had any evidence of Jesus having told it.
This is feasible, however the situation arises where Matthew has exactly the right material to add to Mark's, so often, that it becomes less and less likely that Matthew was adding to Mark and more logical that Mark was quoting from Matthew.
On the contrary - why time and again would Mark fail to include material in Matthew that was exactly right if he had Matthew as source material. So much more likely that Matthew finds Mark's account somewhat lacking so embellishes it a touch - polishes it by providing some carefully selected additional material.
-
OK... you haven't said why Matthew and Luke were written later than Mark, and I don't agree that the overwhelming evidence according to the scholars is all that overwhelming.
Apart from the material being discussed here, another important area is the question of 'hard sayings' in Mark, where these are almost invariably toned down in Matthew and Luke. Instances in Mark include Jesus' family thinking he'd gone mad, the cursing of the fig tree, even one instance (Mark 1:41) when Jesus is recorded as being angry that a leper has asked to be healed*.
*The translation in question depends upon only one early manuscript: the Codex Bezae (late 3rd century), and has been adopted by a number of modern versions, including the NIV. The reasoning for this is that the earliest and truest versions of biblical texts would necessarily contain wordings that do not cast Jesus in the rosiest light, and that these uncomfortable details would often be given a more agreeable presentation in later texts. The principle is certainly valid for quite a number of 'embarrassing' details in Mark which appear to have been given a rosier gloss (or omitted) in Matthew and Luke. However, in the Codex Bezae case, there are a number of other explanations which may be valid, so I'm not going to argue that this instance really supports the point.
-
There's a view that Luke and Mark used a device called an inclusio to show that Simon Peter is their primary source.
There's a problem with all of these techniques. Any technique open to somebody who was using eye witness sources is also open to people pretending they had eye witness sources.
-
Presumably because that was all Mark had from his source.
As Matthew had both Mark as a source and another source of parables.
So that would mean two sources for which we have no evidence, other than the experts' opinion (eg on hard sayings) which is based on their own views as to how Mark or Matthew ought to write?
You have no idea whether that parable was skin by Jesus or not - all we know is that Matthew claims he did.
Or Matthew had a set of traditional parables (let's face it these are often kind of folk tales handed down over hundreds of years) and found one that would make a good addition to the story regardless of whether he had any evidence of Jesus having told it.
The parable of the Two Sons is part of Jesus' answer to the chief priests and elders when they asked him where he got his authority from: it compares them (who claimed to obey God but didn't believe John, the prophet) to the second son (who said he would obey his father but didn't). Bearing this in mind, which is more likely: Matthew has a full record of the original conversation, or he took the parable from a set of traditional ones and interpolated it (or he made it up)?
On the contrary - why time and again would Mark fail to include material in Matthew that was exactly right if he had Matthew as source material.
Good question. Someone shortening another piece of writing is bound to omit material that is exactly right. What he omits will depend on his purpose in writing.
He might have been omitting things that were more relevant to Matthew's Jewish readers than to his own. In this case he and Luke both give only the parable of the tenants.
So much more likely that Matthew finds Mark's account somewhat lacking so embellishes it a touch - polishes it by providing some carefully selected additional material.
But he happens to have very appropriate material every time. Eg in 13:13 he gives the reason why Jesus spoke in parables (to fulfill Ps. 78) and Mark does not. Doesn't this mean that Matthew or his source was an eyewitness? Again, is it more likely that Matthew would be able to embellish Mark in such a meaningful way or that Mark was cutting out certain chunks?
-
Someone shortening another piece of writing is bound to omit material that is exactly right.
Why on earth would Mark feel the need to be shortening another piece of writing - Mark is by some margin the shortest gospel at just 11,000 words compared with Matthew and Luke at 18,000 and 19,000 respectively (John is 15,000). So if he had Matthew and Luke available why would he feel he needed to not far off halve the number of words in each of them?
What would be his motivation for writing a gospel barely half the length of other existing and available ones - it makes no sense.
-
What would be his motivation for writing a gospel barely half the length of other existing and available ones - it makes no sense.
It could be an abridgement.
However, it would be an abridgement that omitted the Lord's Prayer and any post resurrection appearances but with more about the Pigs of Gerasene.
-
It could be an abridgement.
However, it would be an abridgement that omitted the Lord's Prayer and any post resurrection appearances but with more about the Pigs of Gerasene.
Indeed - but as you point out it would be bizarre to cut out such key elements to the developing christian church while leaving in a lot of eminently trimmable guff.
Also what would be the motivation for an abridgement? Shortage of papyrus, overzealous publishing editor, Mark's audience having a lower attention span?!?
-
Indeed - but as you point out it would be bizarre to cut out such key elements to the developing christian church while leaving in a lot of eminently trimmable guff.
Also what would be the motivation for an abridgement? Shortage of papyrus, overzealous publishing editor, Mark's audience having a lower attention span?!?
The Jews of the time used what is our Old Testament. Jeremiah didn't repeat everything that Isaiah had written. If the Lord's prayer had been recorded by both Matthew and Luke, there was no necessity for Mark to record it again. From the Wiki link above, "Powers argues that Mark's purpose is fundamentally kerygmatic, needing to hold the attention of outsiders hearing the Gospel preached for the first time, so he focused on who Jesus was and what he did, eschewing the sort of lengthy teachings that dominate the double tradition and most of Special Matthew.[32] So, with Mark's selection process better understood, his omissions per se are no longer viewed as such compelling evidence for Marcan priority."
-
It could be an abridgement.
However, it would be an abridgement that omitted the Lord's Prayer and any post resurrection appearances but with more about the Pigs of Gerasene.
Mark emphasized the Gerasene demoniac story as he did other miracles, because they revealed how Jesus was more than just a man. Mark is opening the reader's eyes to who Jesus is; this could be why his narrative is more animated and detailed than Mt and Lk.
-
The Jews of the time used what is our Old Testament. Jeremiah didn't repeat everything that Isaiah had written. If the Lord's prayer had been recorded by both Matthew and Luke, there was no necessity for Mark to record it again.
So if you argument is that stories aren't repeated in the bible and therefore if Mark comes after Matthew and Luke he wont repeat what is in their gospels then there would be nothing left in Mark (or nearly nothing). Point being that 97% of the material in Mark also appears in either Mathew or Luke or both. Under your argument none of that should be there because there was no necessity for Mark to record it again.
-
So if you argument is that stories aren't repeated in the bible and therefore if Mark comes after Matthew and Luke he wont repeat what is in their gospels then there would be nothing left in Mark (or nearly nothing). Point being that 97% of the material in Mark also appears in either Mathew or Luke or both. Under your argument none of that should be there because there was no necessity for Mark to record it again.
Maybe the Isaiah/Jeremiah example wasn't good. I meant that Mark didn't have to use all of Matthew's and Luke's material, as the OT books didn't have to repeat material from others. The sermon on the mount, having been recorded by both Mt and Lk, wasn't essential to Mark, if he knew Mt and Lk would be available to read.
Regarding the 97% figure: this depends on how you look at it. True, pericope-wise, Mark only adds four that neither of the others have. But he also adds many additional sentences and phrases which take the figure down as far as 75% of his material that appears in Mt and/or Lk.
-
Maybe the Isaiah/Jeremiah example wasn't good. I meant that Mark didn't have to use all of Matthew's and Luke's material, as the OT books didn't have to repeat material from others. The sermon on the mount, having been recorded by both Mt and Lk, wasn't essential to Mark, if he knew Mt and Lk would be available to read.
Regarding the 97% figure: this depends on how you look at it. True, pericope-wise, Mark only adds four that neither of the others have. But he also adds many additional sentences and phrases which take the figure down as far as 75% of his material that appears in Mt and/or Lk.
It makes no meaningful difference to the argument if it is 75% or 97% - the point remains that most of what is in Mark is also in Matthew and Luke, which is totally inconsistent with your argument that Mark comes after Matthew and Luke and Mark omits stuff because he wont duplicate what is in Matthew and Luke.
I'm sorry but you are tying yourself up in knots - of course a simple explanation that unties you is to accept (as the vast majority of scholars do) that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke had Mark as source material and added to it material from another lost source, typically known as Q.
-
Mark emphasized the Gerasene demoniac story as he did other miracles, because they revealed how Jesus was more than just a man. Mark is opening the reader's eyes to who Jesus is; this could be why his narrative is more animated and detailed than Mt and Lk.
You also quoted the view that Mark's intention was "fundamentally kerygmatic". Let's examine these comments in the light of just one of the 'difficult' passages I alluded to above - the notorious cursing of the fig tree (and for the moment let's ignore the fig tree's supposed metaphorical significance).
Mark bluntly records the incident as follows:
And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.
And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it.
Mark 11:13,14.
Mark somewhat later goes on to talk about the strength of faith when asked about the fig tree.
However
When Matthew relates the incident, he directly connects the withering of the fig tree to the idea of what the disciples may do if their faith is strong enough:
And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once.
When the disciples saw it they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?"
And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and never doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will be done.
Matthew 21: 19-21
You will note the undisguised petulance in the Mark account, the gratuitous cursing, especially since Mark records it was not the season for figs in any case.
You will also note that the latter phrase is omitted in Matthew, and that he directly relates the incident to what it is supposed to demonstrate about faith.
Now I say unto you :) - which is the more likely - that Mark read Matthew's gospel and decided to obfuscate Matthew's clear interpretation and replace it with blunt language which shows Jesus in a very poor light, or that Matthew read Mark's gospel and was appalled, and decided to tidy things up to give the most appealing gloss on the whole incident, and thus give the whole thing a decidedly kerygmatic thrust which is absent in Mark?
The thing is, these incidents are not uncommon in Mark - showing Jesus to be angry, petulant and emotionally unbalanced. This may indeed point to something close to eye-witness testimony, because such incidents may have been too well attested to go unrelated. It is also reasonable to assume, because of their embarrassing nature, that they may be a true record of what was said and done. But Mark would have been most unlikely to write in this way if his gospel relied on Matthew's and not the other way round.
Apply Occam's Razor, as the Professor implied.
-
The Jews of the time used what is our Old Testament. Jeremiah didn't repeat everything that Isaiah had written. If the Lord's prayer had been recorded by both Matthew and Luke, there was no necessity for Mark to record it again.
On that basis, why does Mark's gospel exist at all? Something like 95% of Mark is in Matthew and Luke.
-
It makes no meaningful difference to the argument if it is 75% or 97% - the point remains that most of what is in Mark is also in Matthew and Luke, which is totally inconsistent with your argument that Mark comes after Matthew and Luke and Mark omits stuff because he wont duplicate what is in Matthew and Luke.
But as I pointed out early in the other thread, if Matthew was using Mark then he made some significant changes to it, such as the changes from Gerasene to Gaderene, two men to one men. Or the timing of the death of Jairus daughter. This is better explained as two eyewitnesses (perhaps Matthew and Peter) giving independent accounts and Peter being closer to the action than Matthew.
I'm sorry but you are tying yourself up in knots - of course a simple explanation that unties you is to accept (as the vast majority of scholars do) that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke had Mark as source material and added to it material from another lost source, typically known as Q.
Mark 4:2,33, 12:1 are real verses. Q is an imaginary document. The only knot here is created by Q.
-
You will note the undisguised petulance in the Mark account, the gratuitous cursing, especially since Mark records it was not the season for figs in any case.
You will also note that the latter phrase is omitted in Matthew, and that he directly relates the incident to what it is supposed to demonstrate about faith.
Now I say unto you :) - which is the more likely - that Mark read Matthew's gospel and decided to obfuscate Matthew's clear interpretation and replace it with blunt language which shows Jesus in a very poor light, or that Matthew read Mark's gospel and was appalled, and decided to tidy things up to give the most appealing gloss on the whole incident, and thus give the whole thing a decidedly kerygmatic thrust which is absent in Mark?
Mark could have added the phrase about figs because he was writing for Gentiles. And his more rough language could have appealed more to a Roman reader or hearer.
-
Some think Mark was written in Latin. This could explain his omission of the sermon on the mount (in the Markan dependence view), the Greek translation of which apparently appears to be the original, because it has quite a bit of alliteration. If so then when translated into Latin it would not sound poetic.
-
This is better explained as two eyewitnesses (perhaps Matthew and Peter) giving independent accounts and Peter being closer to the action than Matthew.
No it isn't. You really can't get away from the fact that one of them copied the other. Matthew and Mark are not independent.
-
Some think Mark was written in Latin.
Well it wasn't.
This could explain his omission of the sermon on the mount (in the Markan dependence view), the Greek translation of which apparently appears to be the original, because it has quite a bit of alliteration. If so then when translated into Latin it would not sound poetic.
The Bible has been translated into many languages. Nobody has ever omitted The Sermon on the Mount because it didn't work in the target language.
Furthermore, you also have The Lord's Prayer and all the post resurrection appearances of Jesus to explain.
-
Q is an imaginary document. The only knot here is created by Q.
Doesn't necessarily need to be a document - it is a term for an alternative source for the additional material in Luke and Matthew that isn't in Mark. It could be oral tradition. There is no problem with the notion if Q as there need to be source material for what is in the gospels unless you think that the gospel writers simply sat down decades after the events and made up their accounts completely from scratch.
Indeed the title of this thread is about source material - the OP suggesting that source material is eye witness accounts.
-
The Bible has been translated into many languages. Nobody has ever omitted The Sermon on the Mount because it didn't work in the target language.
Good point!
-
Doesn't necessarily need to be a document - it is a term for an alternative source for the additional material in Luke and Matthew that isn't in Mark. It could be oral tradition. There is no problem with the notion if Q as there need to be source material for what is in the gospels unless you think that the gospel writers simply sat down decades after the events and made up their accounts completely from scratch.
Indeed the title of this thread is about source material - the OP suggesting that source material is eye witness accounts.
I think that's probably what happened with Matthew: as an eyewitness he sat and wrote from scratch having probably written quite a lot down in note form already.
B. Ward Powers (2010) in The Progressive Publication of Matthew: An Explanation of the Writing of the Synoptic Gospels, argues that people in Jerusalem were writing short accounts of the life of Jesus, which Matthew collected, and which were also collected and distributed by visitors from further afield. Luke then and Matthew then published their gospels around the same time, Luke also using other eyewitness accounts; this explains how he has some similar and some differing material to Matthew.
When I mentioned Q, I was thinking more of your inferred source for Mark. The reason I said the latter is causing knots is because you used it as a way to avoid the conclusion from Mk 4:2,33 that Mark had quoted from Matthew. Then you implied it must exist, because Mark must have had a source. You said that source couldn't be Matthew because Mk wouldn't have left out Mt's extensive sermons. That seems a weak argument, because of course he could have left them out.
But another reason for thinking that Mark used both Matthew and Luke is the order of the pericopes. If Markan priority is true, then whenever Matthew deserted Mark's order, Luke always took it up at exactly that point. And whenever Luke deserted Mark's order, Matthew always took it up at that point. This happens dozens of times (I'll check how many), which would be a very big coincidence. It's easier to say that Mark had access to Mt and Lk, and whenever he came to material in one major gospel that he wanted to skirt around, he switched to using the other major gospel, or his independent source from whom his 4 unique pericopes come.
No it isn't. You really can't get away from the fact that one of them copied the other. Matthew and Mark are not independent.
But sometimes there are significant differences, explained only by their having different sources. In the scenario I just mentioned in this post, Mark would have used Luke's account of the same story instead of Matthew's. The Gaderene demoniac would be a good example, since Mark is almost the same as Luke there.
I hope I'm not coming across as being tied in knots. My view is that of Powers in the above book, which I'm reading.
-
I think that's probably what happened with Matthew: as an eyewitness he sat and wrote from scratch having probably written quite a lot down in note form already.
You have absolutely no evidence for this - there is no credible evidence that the person who wrote Matthew (in about AD90) was an eye witness or anything close to being.
Then you implied it must exist, because Mark must have had a source. You said that source couldn't be Matthew because Mk wouldn't have left out Mt's extensive sermons. That seems a weak argument, because of course he could have left them out.
It is, of course, a possibility that Mark used Matthew as a source, just as it is a possibility that Matthew used Mark as a source. To determine which possibility is most likely we need to look at the evidence, which countless academic scholars have done. And the evidence is overwhelming as is the consensus of experts, that Mark wrote first and Matthew used Mark as a source.
-
Doesn't necessarily need to be a document
I think it does, because the similarities in the wording between the Q material in Matthew and Luke are too great for it to have been transmitted orally.
Q may not have existed if Luke was, in fact, using Matthew as a source.
-
Long live the Gospel of Thomas!
-
...there is no occasion when what is found in a given pericope in Mark is not found next in either Matthew or Luke but is found elsewhere in Matthew's or Luke's sequence. There is no place where Mark places a pericope in an independent order of his own, an order that is not paralleled in either Matthew or Luke.
B. Ward Powers (2010), The Progressive Publication of Matthew: An Explanation of the Writing of the Synoptic Gospels, p.389.
-
B. Ward Powers (2010), The Progressive Publication of Matthew: An Explanation of the Writing of the Synoptic Gospels, p.389.
He is a christian apologist rather than a serious academic historian with an interest in the analysis of ancient texts.
-
...there is no occasion when what is found in a given pericope in Mark is not found next in either Matthew or Luke but is found elsewhere in Matthew's or Luke's sequence. There is no place where Mark places a pericope in an independent order of his own, an order that is not paralleled in either Matthew or Luke.
And?
Why would this provide any justification for Mark using Matthew as a source - it seems entirely consistent with both Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source.
-
...there is no occasion when what is found in a given pericope in Mark is not found next in either Matthew or Luke but is found elsewhere in Matthew's or Luke's sequence. There is no place where Mark places a pericope in an independent order of his own, an order that is not paralleled in either Matthew or Luke.
Which is solid evidence that Mark wrote first.
-
Mark could have added the phrase about figs because he was writing for Gentiles. And his more rough language could have appealed more to a Roman reader or hearer.
Well, the Romans would certainly have known about the season for figs! Or perhaps he added this totally superfluous phrase for the benefit of potential converts in Scandinavia in the far distant future? (In fact figs will grow in most European countries, though they may not ripen.) All the phrase does is make the already petulant outburst of Jesus seem even more egregious.
But consider how the story is told in Mark: the first part of the anecdote is related in chap.11: 13-14; the conclusion does not get referred to until verses 20-23, where there is no eminently noticeable lesson pointed out about the power of faith. And what do we get in between - no less than the famous incident of the cleansing of the money-lenders from the Temple! I suspect most of his readers would have forgotten about the fig tree by this time - do you think this was his intention?
Matthew, on the other hand, tries to make the fig-tree incident totally coherent and internally consistent, by compressing it to one occasion, and having Jesus point out the lesson to be learned directly (in fact, it's not a particularly nice lesson, since it suggests that if you have faith in God, you can give free rein to your most childish whims and have them fulfilled). However, it seems perfectly obvious to me that this is a case of Matthew tidying up the rambling narrative of Mark, rather than Mark taking Matthew's coherent narration and splitting it into a rather meaningless mess.
-
It's easier to say that Mark had access to Mt and Lk, and whenever he came to material in one major gospel that he wanted to skirt around, he switched to using the other major gospel, or his independent source from whom his 4 unique pericopes come.
In the case of the story of the fig tree (which in Matthew's version might qualify as a pericope), Luke omits it, so whatever 'skirting around' Mark did would have to have been out of his own head - and a right dog's breakfast he makes of it.
Luke does have a story about the potential demise of a fig tree - a far more wholesome one, in which the fig tree is saved from execution by a judicious horticulturalist. Maybe Luke did know the story of Jesus' cursing as told in Mark, but decided to omit it - this is typical of Luke's gentle touch, where he always tries to present Jesus in the most glowing colours possible.
-
In the case of the story of the fig tree (which in Matthew's version might qualify as a pericope), Luke omits it, so whatever 'skirting around' Mark did would have to have been out of his own head - and a right dog's breakfast he makes of it.
Luke does have a story about the potential demise of a fig tree - a far more wholesome one, in which the fig tree is saved from execution by a judicious horticulturalist. Maybe Luke did know the story of Jesus' cursing as told in Mark, but decided to omit it - this is typical of Luke's gentle touch, where he always tries to present Jesus in the most glowing colours possible.
Well spotted! This is one of two points in Mark where it isn't obvious that Mark is sticking to his policy of following the order of either Matthew or Luke (or both).
Starting with the triumphal entry, Mark follows Matthew's order up until Jesus curses the fig tree, but replaces the cleansing of the temple with Jesus going in and looking around the temple. Mark then follows Luke's order by recording the cleansing of the temple followed by the conspiracy of the chief priests and scribes. He then resumes Matthew's order with the disciples noticing the withered tree, and Jesus' response. Then all three record the authority of Jesus questioned.
-
And?
Why would this provide any justification for Mark using Matthew as a source - it seems entirely consistent with both Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source.
It justifies the idea of Mark using both Matthew and Luke.
If Matthew and Luke used Mark, then:
It certainly looks on the face of it as if Matthew and Luke are alternating in deserting Mark's order and rejoining it. And on a not insignificant number of occasions, the one deserts and the other rejoins Markan order at precisely the same point. And never do both Major Synoptics desert Mark's order at the same time. Yet we cannot seriously entertain the proposition that Matthew and Luke were working in collusion in treating Mark's sequence this way. So there is a very high order of coincidence involved here. Or should one postulate some miraculous supernatural intervention, some bewildering divine purpose, to ensure that each Major Synoptist returned to Markan order just where the other was deserting it, and thus to prevent Markan order being left at any time unsupposted by a second Synoptic Gospel?
(Powers, p 423)
-
It justifies the idea of Mark using both Matthew and Luke.
If Matthew and Luke used Mark, then:
(Powers, p 423)
That is no more an argument for Mark following Luke and Matthew than for Luke and Matthew following Mark. And of course the very notion of the almost 100% commonality between what is in Mark and elements of Luke and Matthew, while Luke and Matthew include significant content not in Mark is exceptionally strong evidence that Luke and Matthew use Mark as a source, augmented by other material.
-
It justifies the idea of Mark using both Matthew and Luke.
If Matthew and Luke used Mark, then:
(Powers, p 423)
And as I've said before B. Ward Powers isn't a serious historian of ancient scripts - he is a christian apologist. His interest is christian theology not historical accuracy and relationship between ancient texts.
-
In a manner of speaking Mark is a bit like a demo that a band might make that eventually becomes an album. It's a bit rough and ready, not enough songs for a full album.
So it gets polished, altered - add a few strings here, some backing vocals there, get a good producer to re-mix it - to make it more palatable and commercially slick (appealing to its target audience). Add a few extra songs and low and behold you've got a full album - in other words Matthew or Luke.
-
In a manner of speaking Mark is a bit like a demo that a band might make that eventually becomes an album. It's a bit rough and ready, not enough songs for a full album.
So it gets polished, altered - add a few strings here, some backing vocals there, get a good producer to re-mix it - to make it more palatable and commercially slick (appealing to its target audience). Add a few extra songs and low and behold you've got a full album - in other words Matthew or Luke.
An interesting illustration. ;D
-
In the case of the story of the fig tree (which in Matthew's version might qualify as a pericope), Luke omits it, so whatever 'skirting around' Mark did would have to have been out of his own head - and a right dog's breakfast he makes of it.
There is ambiguity in Lk over the number of days between the triumphal entry and 'the authority of Jesus questioned'. Mt has one day, Lk has an ambiguous number of one or more. Mark is thus free to rearrange intervening material. He spans the events over 3 days by inserting material of his own: 'Jesus looks around the temple and goes away for the night'. This necessitates being out of order with both Mt and Lk for cleansing the temple. But 'Jesus curses the fig tree' on the day after the triumphal entry is in sync with Mt, and the conspiracy of the scribes following the cleansing of the temple is in sync with Lk. Mark's placing of 'questioning of Jesus' authority' on the second day after the triumphal entry agrees with Lk, and from that point the three are back in sequence.
-
Spud
If Mark is "thus free to rearrange intervening material. He spans the events over 3 days by inserting material of his own" how do you know he isn't just making stuff up?
-
If time travel was possible. it would be most interesting to go back 2000 years to see if Jesus was anything like the way the gospels portrayed him as being.
-
Spud
If Mark is "thus free to rearrange intervening material. He spans the events over 3 days by inserting material of his own" how do you know he isn't just making stuff up?
Well, it would make sense to say it was already late, as they had done quite a bit already that day.
Also, it wouldn't be very consistent to say Mark made this detail up since, generally when he gives extra details, they do tend to come across as authentic.
It's more likely that Matthew and Luke with their emphasis on Jesus' teaching, were less concerned about chronological accuracy (eg Lk
20:1) and either knowingly or unknowingly omitted that detail. I may be wrong.
-
Well, it would make sense to say it was already late, as they had done quite a bit already that day.
Also, it wouldn't be very consistent to say Mark made this detail up since, generally when he gives extra details, they do tend to come across as authentic.
It's more likely that Matthew and Luke with their emphasis on Jesus' teaching, were less concerned about chronological accuracy (eg Lk
20:1) and either knowingly or unknowingly omitted that detail. I may be wrong.
On what basis can you claim "come across as authentic."?
If you can't establish that you are right, that you might be wrong is a given.
-
Well, it would make sense to say it was already late, as they had done quite a bit already that day.
Also, it wouldn't be very consistent to say Mark made this detail up since, generally when he gives extra details, they do tend to come across as authentic.
It's more likely that Matthew and Luke with their emphasis on Jesus' teaching, were less concerned about chronological accuracy (eg Lk
20:1) and either knowingly or unknowingly omitted that detail. I may be wrong.
In what way can you tell they are authentic? It is much more likely you wish to believe in their authenticity.
-
On what basis can you claim "come across as authentic."?
If you can't establish that you are right, that you might be wrong is a given.
Here's one. If you were making up a story about the Messiah, would you make up that he used his own spit to heal a deaf mute person? Details in Mk 7:33.
-
Here's one. If you were making up a story about the Messiah, would you make up that he used his own spit to heal a deaf mute person? Details in Mk 7:33.
Quite possibly.
-
Here's one. If you were making up a story about the Messiah, would you make up that he used his own spit to heal a deaf mute person? Details in Mk 7:33.
If I was writing fantasy fiction, where the lead character had special powers, then anything goes, Spud.
The problem for you though is to exclude the risk that this example is fiction.
-
I was watching the BBC programme 'The Big Questions' this morning Spud, I was wondering if that Barrister was you, 'Mark Mullins', he could be you, was there today in full flow as usual, he sounds very much how you write on the forum, I was just wondering?
Regards, ippy.
-
If I was writing fantasy fiction, where the lead character had special powers, then anything goes, Spud.
The problem for you though is to exclude the risk that this example is fiction.
Mark isn't a fantasy fiction writer. You yourself suggested he is writing propaganda. So he would probably avoid diminishing the Messiah's reputation by having him spreading his germs. The gnostic gospels have fantasy fiction and they are distinct from the four gospels.
-
Mark isn't a fantasy fiction writer, you yourself suggested he is writing propaganda so he would probably avoid diminishing the Messiah's reputation by having him spreading his germs. The gnostic gospels have fantasy fiction and they are distinct from the four gospels.
No I didn't: I said that if you are to portray the NT as being history and not fantasy (or propaganda), then you need to explain how you've excluded the risks of errors or lies, since unless you have then some of the contents of the Christian bible (such as the miracle claims attributed to Jesus) are indistinguishable from fiction.
So, how have you dealt with these risks - since you seem to take the bible seriously I'm presuming you have?
-
Mark isn't a fantasy fiction writer. You yourself suggested he is writing propaganda. So he would probably avoid diminishing the Messiah's reputation by having him spreading his germs. The gnostic gospels have fantasy fiction and they are distinct from the four gospels.
The gospels are full of fantasy fiction, imo.
-
Here's one. If you were making up a story about the Messiah, would you make up that he used his own spit to heal a deaf mute person? Details in Mk 7:33.
But the spit story doesn’t appear in Matthew or Luke, so Mark was making it up either way.
-
Mark isn't a fantasy fiction writer. You yourself suggested he is writing propaganda. So he would probably avoid diminishing the Messiah's reputation by having him spreading his germs. The gnostic gospels have fantasy fiction and they are distinct from the four gospels.
Mark didn’t know anything about germs. He and the other gospel authors seem to think disease is caused by evil spirits.
-
That is an old joke or challenge, why didn't Jesus tell people to wash their hands? Think of all the lives saved, e.g., in childbirth.
-
That is an old joke or challenge, why didn't Jesus tell people to wash their hands? Think of all the lives saved, e.g., in childbirth.
A hint of the germ theory of disease would have saved millions of lives had it appeared in the OT
-
But the spit story doesn’t appear in Matthew or Luke, so Mark was making it up either way.
It's unlikely anyone would have made it up, as it's the sort of thing that might put people off Jesus.
-
They didn't know about germs, but they would have known from practical experience that some diseases could be passed on by contacnt, and that basic cleanliness was a useful counter-measure. The Romans knew that vinegar was an antiseptic: Roman soldiers used to wipe their arses with sponges soaked in vinegar.
-
It's unlikely anyone would have made it up, as it's the sort of thing that might put people off Jesus.
Well somebody made it up because you can’t cure people by spitting on them. In any case, if Mark was precisiing Matthew And Luke why would he put such a thing in? It makes more sense that he wrote first and they took the embarrassing bits out.
-
Well somebody made it up because you can’t cure people by spitting on them. In any case, if Mark was precisiing Matthew And Luke why would he put such a thing in? It makes more sense that he wrote first and they took the embarrassing bits out.
Checking the context in Mark and Matthew shows that after the healing of the Gentile woman's daughter, Mark has the one healing of the deaf and mute man, near the Sea of Galilee; Matthew has a statement that Jesus was near the Sea of Galilee and healed many, including mute. This definitely looks like one got his idea from the other.
Matthew 15:28 And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
29And having departed from there, Jesus went along the Sea of Galilee, and having gone up on the mountain, He was sitting there. 30And great crowds came to Him, having with them the lame, crippled, blind, mute, and many others. And they placed them at His feet, and He healed them, 31so that the crowd marveled, seeing the mute speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel.
Mark 8:30 And having gone away to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, and the demon having gone out.
31And again having departed from the region of Tyre, He came through Sidon, to the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the region of the Decapolis.j 32And they bring to Him a man who was deaf and who spoke with difficulty, and they implore Him that He might lay the hand on him.
33And having taken him away from the crowd privately, He put His fingers to his ears, and having spit, He touched his tongue, 34and having looked up to heaven He sighed deeply, and He says to him, “Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be opened!”). 35And immediately his ears were opened, and the band of his tongue was loosed, and he began speaking plainly.
36And He instructed them that they should tell no one. But as much as He kept instructing them, they were proclaiming it more abundantly. 37And they were astonished above measure, saying, “He has done all things well. He makes both the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.”
If Matthew copied Mark, then he must have come to Mark's healing story and decided to include it in a list of four types of healing that Jesus did at that point.
If Mark copied Matthew, then he came to Matthew's list and decided to include a full account of one miracle from the list.
Either scenario seems plausible.
The background is Isaiah 35:5,
Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
6Then will the lame leap like a deer,
and the mute tongue shout for joy.
-
It's unlikely anyone would have made it up, as it's the sort of thing that might put people off Jesus.
That might be the reaction today, since we know about germs and cross infection, but that might not be the reaction in antiquity - do you think such stories might portray Jesus as having special powers? If so, that would be propaganda, and since you've highlighted this particular story perhaps you could explain how you excluded the risk of propaganda.
That charismatic people could heal by physical contact is an idea that was around throughout history until recent times: but we know better now and don't take such superstitious beliefs, or claims that they were effective, too seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch
-
Checking the context in Mark and Matthew shows that after the healing of the Gentile woman's daughter, Mark has the one healing of the deaf and mute man, near the Sea of Galilee; Matthew has a statement that Jesus was near the Sea of Galilee and healed many, including mute. This definitely looks like one got his idea from the other.
Matthew 15:28 And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
29And having departed from there, Jesus went along the Sea of Galilee, and having gone up on the mountain, He was sitting there. 30And great crowds came to Him, having with them the lame, crippled, blind, mute, and many others. And they placed them at His feet, and He healed them, 31so that the crowd marveled, seeing the mute speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel.
Mark 8:30 And having gone away to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, and the demon having gone out.
31And again having departed from the region of Tyre, He came through Sidon, to the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the region of the Decapolis.j 32And they bring to Him a man who was deaf and who spoke with difficulty, and they implore Him that He might lay the hand on him.
33And having taken him away from the crowd privately, He put His fingers to his ears, and having spit, He touched his tongue, 34and having looked up to heaven He sighed deeply, and He says to him, “Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be opened!”). 35And immediately his ears were opened, and the band of his tongue was loosed, and he began speaking plainly.
36And He instructed them that they should tell no one. But as much as He kept instructing them, they were proclaiming it more abundantly. 37And they were astonished above measure, saying, “He has done all things well. He makes both the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.”
If Matthew copied Mark, then he must have come to Mark's healing story and decided to include it in a list of four types of healing that Jesus did at that point.
If Mark copied Matthew, then he came to Matthew's list and decided to include a full account of one miracle from the list.
Either scenario seems plausible.
The background is Isaiah 35:5,
Then will the eyes of the blind be opened
and the ears of the deaf unstopped.
6Then will the lame leap like a deer,
and the mute tongue shout for joy.
Yes but which scenario is the more plausible, especially in conjunction with all the other points of evidence that mean Mark was most likely to have been written first?
-
That might be the reaction today, since we know about germs and cross infection, but that might not be the reaction in antiquity - do you think such stories might portray Jesus as having special powers? If so, that would be propaganda, and since you've highlighted this particular story perhaps you could explain how you excluded the risk of propaganda.
That charismatic people could heal by physical contact is an idea that was around throughout history until recent times: but we know better now and don't take such superstitious beliefs, or claims that they were effective, too seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch
Sensible people don't take it seriously, but sadly even to this day there are the gullible who can be conned into believing that con artists, who claim to be healers, can make you well.
-
That might be the reaction today, since we know about germs and cross infection, but that might not be the reaction in antiquity - do you think such stories might portray Jesus as having special powers? If so, that would be propaganda, and since you've highlighted this particular story perhaps you could explain how you excluded the risk of propaganda.
That charismatic people could heal by physical contact is an idea that was around throughout history until recent times: but we know better now and don't take such superstitious beliefs, or claims that they were effective, too seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_touch
Couldn't find the word 'spit' on that page, except in the word 'despite' ;)
-
Yes but which scenario is the more plausible, especially in conjunction with all the other points of evidence that mean Mark was most likely to have been written first?
Neither Matthew nor Luke contain any healing of a deaf person, even though they list this kind of healing (Mt 11:5, Lk 7:22). They do record examples of healing the lame, the blind and the lepers, raising the dead and preaching to the poor. So we might expect at least one of them to record this miracle if they were copying from Mark.
-
Couldn't find the word 'spit' on that page, except in the word 'despite' ;)
Don't be silly - the point is that people once believed that certain special people had 'powers' that could heal, and your Jesus spitting story is an example of this, and the 'royal touch' is another.
Of course, given the relative ignorance of these times as regards medical matters, people then might be excused for believing such stories, though it is hard to imagine that people would be naive enough to believe such things today.
-
It might be hard to believe but unfortunately they do. That con artist, Benny Hinn, has quite a following.
-
Don't be silly - the point is that people once believed that certain special people had 'powers' that could heal, and your Jesus spitting story is an example of this, and the 'royal touch' is another.
Of course, given the relative ignorance of these times as regards medical matters, people then might be excused for believing such stories, though it is hard to imagine that people would be naive enough to believe such things today.
The distinction is between healing and miracle. This was an incurable disease and hence a miracle.
-
The distinction is between healing and miracle. This was an incurable disease and hence a miracle.
Your god chooses to murder people. You worship a thug.
-
The distinction is between healing and miracle. This was an incurable disease and hence a miracle.
You haven't yet explained, despite my asking, how you've eliminated the risks that this story is wrong or is fiction.
Chucking words such as 'healing' or 'miracle' doesn't get away from the underlying problem that this story might be just that - a story. Stories like this might have had currency back in the relative ignorance of antiquity, but I doubt there are many that are stupid enough to believe such nonsense today.
-
Neither Matthew nor Luke contain any healing of a deaf person, even though they list this kind of healing (Mt 11:5, Lk 7:22). They do record examples of healing the lame, the blind and the lepers, raising the dead and preaching to the poor. So we might expect at least one of them to record this miracle if they were copying from Mark.
Unless they thought the whole spit thing was unseemly.
-
Unless they thought the whole spit thing was unseemly.
If so, they missed or ignored another opportunity to record that Jesus drove out a deaf and dumb spirit, Mark 9. They both included this pericope but without any mention of that detail.
-
You haven't yet explained, despite my asking, how you've eliminated the risks that this story is wrong or is fiction.
Perhaps you're right, it can't be proved that Mark didn't make it up. There are one or two other examples, if you want one, of details in Mark that are characteristic of eyewitness, but are not conclusive proof. He states that the grass was green in the feeding of the five thousand. John tells us it was Passover, so we know that the grass would have been green.
-
Perhaps you're right, it can't be proved that Mark didn't make it up. There are one or two other examples, if you want one, of details in Mark that are characteristic of eyewitness, but are not conclusive proof. He states that the grass was green in the feeding of the five thousand. John tells us it was Passover, so we know that the grass would have been green.
One characteristic of eye witnesses is that they can be wrong, and another is that they can lie. Noting that grass is green doesn't seem all that significant an observation
-
One characteristic of eye witnesses is that they can be wrong, and another is that they can lie.
I think I'd go further than that - the research on this shows that eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable for a whole range of reasons. And that's just for genuine first-hand eye witnesses. Add in transmission of information to second, third-hand etc people and errors are compounded multiple fold.
-
I think I'd go further than that - the research on this shows that eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable for a whole range of reasons. And that's just for genuine first-hand eye witnesses. Add in transmission of information to second, third-hand etc people and errors are compounded multiple fold.
I agree with you.
-
I think I'd go further than that - the research on this shows that eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable for a whole range of reasons. And that's just for genuine first-hand eye witnesses. Add in transmission of information to second, third-hand etc people and errors are compounded multiple fold.
Which means the disagreement between Matthew and Mark on which day Jesus cleansed the temple suggests that it did happen.
-
Which means the disagreement between Matthew and Mark on which day Jesus cleansed the temple suggests that it did happen.
Don't be so silly, Spud.
-
Which means the disagreement between Matthew and Mark on which day Jesus cleansed the temple suggests that it did happen.
No it doesn't.
-
How's it going with the dead sea scrolls anything there they might throw some light on the subject only it must be so frustrating for those that have to face the fact that there's nowhere near the amount of reliable evidence needed in support a belief you so want to be able to justify, a belief that up till now is just that a belief and nothing more than that.
ippy.
-
Which means the disagreement between Matthew and Mark on which day Jesus cleansed the temple suggests that it did happen.
No, because Mark (or Matthew) wrote the story and Matthew (or Mark) copied it making the changes. You only have one source, not two.
-
How's it going with the dead sea scrolls anything there they might throw some light on the subject only it must be so frustrating for those that have to face the fact that there's nowhere near the amount of reliable evidence needed in support a belief you so want to be able to justify, a belief that up till now is just that a belief and nothing more than that.
ippy.
What have the Dead Sea Scrolls got to do with this?
-
What have the Dead Sea Scrolls got to do with this?
I thought it might be a possibility there might be some new evidence to be found in them, I have no idea either way, just a suggestion.
ippy
-
I thought it might be a possibility there might be some new evidence to be found in them, I have no idea either way, just a suggestion.
ippy
There’s nothing about Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
-
There’s nothing about Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Nothing been found so far?
ippy
-
Nothing been found so far?
ippy
I’m not aware of anybody expecting to find anything from them about Jesus.
-
In the case of the story of the fig tree (which in Matthew's version might qualify as a pericope), Luke omits it, so whatever 'skirting around' Mark did would have to have been out of his own head - and a right dog's breakfast he makes of it.
Luke does have a story about the potential demise of a fig tree - a far more wholesome one, in which the fig tree is saved from execution by a judicious horticulturalist. Maybe Luke did know the story of Jesus' cursing as told in Mark, but decided to omit it - this is typical of Luke's gentle touch, where he always tries to present Jesus in the most glowing colours possible.
I can't resist posting this page from the book I linked to earlier:
https://tinyurl.com/tyyqgsp
It has a table showing how, if Markan dependence is correct, Mark follows the order of Matthew then Luke then Matthew for the Temple/Fig Tree episode, while adding his own details at various points. It's worth a look.
-
I can't resist posting this page from the book I linked to earlier:
https://tinyurl.com/tyyqgsp
It has a table showing how, if Markan dependence is correct, Mark follows the order of Matthew then Luke then Matthew for the Temple/Fig Tree episode, while adding his own details at various points. It's worth a look.
Or how Matthew and Luke take elements from Mark which makes more sense when you consider other things like Mark leaving out the Lord’s Prayer, examples of editorial fatigue in both Matthew and Luke and Mark’s less literary style.
-
Or how Matthew and Luke take elements from Mark
If this were the case, then when either Matthew or Luke deserted Mark's order of pericopes, the other always continued or resumed it, so that one or both of them were following it at all times. This would be such a big coincidence that it is more realistic that Mark was drawing on the other two, making sure he was always in sequence with one or the other or both.
(There is a reference to this phenomenon in the wiki article on Markan Priority).
-
If this were the case, then when either Matthew or Luke deserted Mark's order of pericopes, the other always continued or resumed it, so that one or both of them were following it at all times. This would be such a big coincidence that it is more realistic that Mark was drawing on the other two, making sure he was always in sequence with one or the other or both.
(There is a reference to this phenomenon in the wiki article on Markan Priority).
Wow!!
ippy.
-
If this were the case, then when either Matthew or Luke deserted Mark's order of pericopes, the other always continued or resumed it, so that one or both of them were following it at all times. This would be such a big coincidence that it is more realistic that Mark was drawing on the other two, making sure he was always in sequence with one or the other or both.
(There is a reference to this phenomenon in the wiki article on Markan Priority).
No. It can be explained by either Matthew or Luke choosing to editorialize Mark. In most cases, of course, they both choose to follow Mark. And there are some cases where they both thought what Mark wrote is silly e.g. using spit to heal people, and both left it out.
Mark has no Lord’s Prayer. Mark has no post resurrection account. These are much bigger deals than the stuff you keep bringing up.
-
No. It can be explained by either Matthew or Luke choosing to editorialize Mark.
This is true, but I don't think you are understanding the problem here. There are 80 pericopes in Mark from start to finish (stats may vary depending on the source). In 36 of these, both Matthew and Luke agree with Mark concerning the positioning of them in the narrative (which means your statement, "In most cases, of course, they both choose to follow Mark" is not correct). In 4 of them, neither Luke nor Matthew has them, so that means that in the remaining 40 pericopes, one or the other of Mt and Lk has chosen to go out of sequence with Mark. That in itself is quite feasible. But the thing is that every time one of them goes out of sequence, the other is in sequence or goes back into sequence. In other words, they are never both out of sequence with Mark at the same time, despite one or other going out of sequence 40 times altogether. This would be an almighty coincidence if Mt and Lk had indeed used Mark.
As an example, take the "Rejection at Nazareth" pericope (Mk 6:1-6), which given Markan Priority, Luke decided to lift out of its context in Mark (after the raising of Jairus' daughter) and place at the beginning of Jesus' ministry in Lk 4. But at this point in Mark, Matthew, who has been out of sequence with Mark, suddenly goes back into sequence with Mark by placing the rejection at Nazareth pericope before John the Baptist's beheading. Imagine this happening every time either Lk or Mt deserts Mark's order, the other is either already in sequence or goes back into sequence with Mark. It's too much of a coincidence.
And there are some cases where they both thought what Mark wrote is silly e.g. using spit to heal people, and both left it out.
Mark has no Lord’s Prayer. Mark has no post resurrection account. These are much bigger deals than the stuff you keep bringing up.
All this is based on what you think Mark or the others would be most likely to include or not include.
-
The number of pericopes in Mark is actually more than 80 - more like 87 or more. The extra ones don't affect the stats for changes in sequence.
-
This is true, but I don't think you are understanding the problem here.
No. You are failing to understand the problem.
All this is based on what you think Mark or the others would be most likely to include or not include.
I think the Lord’s Prayer and the resurrection appearances are fundamental to Christianity. I think you cannot come up with a reason why Mark would leave them out that does not also raise the question of why he bothered to write a gospel at all.
You also fail to address the other reasons for Markan priority.
-
No. You are failing to understand the problem. I think the Lord’s Prayer and the resurrection appearances are fundamental to Christianity. I think you cannot come up with a reason why Mark would leave them out that does not also raise the question of why he bothered to write a gospel at all.
I'd say that Mark includes the most important elements of Mt;s and Lk's gospels, this being evident from comparison of sections of Mt and Lk where Mk only has a summary statement including the key elements, such as Mk 13:32-33 // Mt 24:36-44.
All the elements of the Lord's prayer are included at various points in Mk. Eg in Gethsemane Jesus addresses God as Father, prays for God's will to be done, and tells the disciples to pray that they will not be tempted. After the fig tree withers, Jesus tells the disciples to pray with faith for the removal of a mountain, figurative for earthly obstructions to be removed to make way for God's kingdom to come. When clearing the temple, Jesus refers to Jeremiah 7:11, "Has this house, which bears My name, become a den of robbers in your sight?" (hence, Hallowed be thy name).
In the same passage Jesus tells us to forgive anyone we hold a grudge against, so that we may also be forgiven.
At the feeding of the 5000 Jesus teaches the disciples to rely on God for food (Mk 6:52).
If Mark omitted Mt's Sermon on the Mount (and other long teaching sections in Mt and Lk) for brevity, then he would naturally omit the Lord's prayer, and not be concerned since it was available to read in his two sources anyway, and also indirectly in his own gospel.
Mk doesn't have the virgin birth either. Nor the ascension (but then, Matthew omits that as well).
It is possible to say that Mk included only the material that was important for evangelism. The cross and resurrection are the fundamentals of the Easter story, and both are reported in Mark. Given that Mark is in a hurry, we should not expect to find all the information shared by Mt and Lk.
Jesus' post-resurrection appearances are presupposed by the angel's instructions to meet him in Galilee, as well as by the raising of Jairus' daughter (names of key eyewitnesses included).
It's possible that Mark was intending to focus in on what Jesus had just done ('wrought salvation in complete isolation' - Rosenstock-Huessy). This is amplified by the way Mark leaves us with no indication that the disciples understood yet who Jesus is (the Son of God) - unless the long ending is authentic.
Mk 16:8 ends with the Greek word meaning 'for'. This is strange as it implies there is more to follow, but given Mark's style it can be understood to be the original wording. It is a similar situation to when Joseph identifies himself to his brothers in Genesis 45:3, where in the LXX the same word order is found ('gar' at the end of the sentence).
You also fail to address the other reasons for Markan priority.
Ok, I will address one now: The 'spitting miracles' are not in Mt or Lk. You have said that Mt and Lk considered these miracles inappropriate, but equally it is rather unlikely that Mt and Lk, copying Mk, would both independently decide to omit them both, but include all his other healing miracles.
Let me know which others you feel need addressing.
-
I'd say that Mark includes the most important elements of Mt;s and Lk's gospels, ...
Really?!?
Surely the most important aspect of christianity is the resurrection so purported evidence of the resurrection must surely be considered the most important element in any gospel. Yet Mark does not include the post resurrection appearances that are in Matthew and Luke. Surely these would have been the first things Mark would have made sure he included in his gospel were he using Matthew and Luke and sources.
Not to do so suggests one of 2 things - either he was unaware of these details (i.e. didn't use Matthew and Luke as sources because he wrote earlier than them), or he was aware of these claims but didn't believe them. Neither possible explanation is particularly palatable to christian apologists I suspect, but surely the former is more palatable than the latter.
-
Really?!?
For the purpose of evangelism, yes. You omitted most of my post, btw!
-
For the purpose of evangelism, yes. You omitted most of my post, btw!
I did - because it is rather irrelevant to discuss what might be in Mark because surely the most important purported event in the gospels (the post resurrection appearances) are missing from Mark.
-
I'd say that Mark includes the most important elements of Mt;s and Lk's gospels,
Really? No post resurrection accounts? No Lord's Prayer?
If Mark omitted Mt's Sermon on the Mount (and other long teaching sections in Mt and Lk) for brevity, then he would naturally omit the Lord's prayer, and not be concerned since it was available to read in his two sources anyway, and also indirectly in his own gospel.
Almost everything in Mark except the weird bits about saliva, pigs and naked men is available in Matthew and Luke. Why did Mark bother with a gospel at all?
It is possible to say that Mk included only the material that was important for evangelism. The cross and resurrection are the fundamentals of the Easter story, and both are reported in Mark. Given that Mark is in a hurry, we should not expect to find all the information shared by Mt and Lk.
How do you know Mark is in a hurry? Why isn't the Lord's Prayer important for evangelism?
Jesus' post-resurrection appearances are presupposed by the angel's instructions to meet him in Galilee, as well as by the raising of Jairus' daughter (names of key eyewitnesses included).
But not actually reported in Mark.
Ok, I will address one now: The 'spitting miracles' are not in Mt or Lk. You have said that Mt and Lk considered these miracles inappropriate, but equally it is rather unlikely that Mt and Lk, copying Mk, would both independently decide to omit them both, but include all his other healing miracles.
You're missing the point. Mark omitted some material that Christians consider central to their faith and the practice of their religion but included some weird stuff. It makes more sense that he was writing first and Matthew and Luke dropped the weird stuff than the other way around.
Let me know which others you feel need addressing.
The editorial fatigue would be good.
-
Really? No post resurrection accounts?
Been thinking about this. Agreed, the appearance of Jesus after his death was essential for the disciples to believe, since seeing is believing. This is why Mark's epilogue is a perfect ending.
Without the epilogue, Mark hasn't said anything about how the disciples came to believe in the resurrection. Yet we know Mark himself believes in it, otherwise why did he tell us about the young man's message? If he intended to end at 16:8, perhaps he is asking us to trust the message of the angel, since we do not have the experience the disciples had that led them to believe.
Looking at the trial/crucifixion/burial narrative in Mark and Matthew they are almost identical except in the sections Mark omits (or Matthew adds) - Judas' suicide and the guards at the tomb. But if we had to decide whether Matthew added or Mark omitted Judas' suicide, I would say it would make more sense that Mark omitted it, given its natural positioning in Matthew between verses 2 and 11 of Mt 27, between the trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate.
Matthew and Mark both contain details about the rendezvous in Galilee, Matthew the complete story and Mark only up to the angel's message. We could ask: if Matthew has the complete story, why does Mark only have half of it? To me it reads as though Mark is aware of the actual rendezvous in Galilee, even though he doesn't tell us about it. If Mark was third (and if the epilogue was his own work), maybe he was faced with the two different accounts of resurrection appearances in Mt and Lk, and decided to use both of them, hence he omits Mt's record of the Galilee rendezvous (having recorded the promise of it) and instead gives Luke's three appearances.
In a way, this is what we would expect ot find if Mark was conflating two different narratives. We would see signs of discontinuity at the points where he switches from one source to the other.
-
This is why Mark's epilogue is a perfect ending.
What you are talking about is a much later addition, obviously not by the same author as the original gospel. It isn't an epilogue in the normal sense of the term at all. In the sense of scholarly consideration of ancient texts it can be (and is) ignored as it isn't in ny way an original part of the gospel.
The rest of your post is therefore irrelevant.
-
Without the epilogue, Mark hasn't said anything about how the disciples came to believe in the resurrection. Yet we know Mark himself believes in it, otherwise why did he tell us about the young man's message? If he intended to end at 16:8, perhaps he is asking us to trust the message of the angel, since we do not have the experience the disciples had that led them to believe.
Why would he do that if he was copying off Matthew or Luke?
Looking at the trial/crucifixion/burial narrative in Mark and Matthew they are almost identical except in the sections Mark omits (or Matthew adds) - Judas' suicide and the guards at the tomb. But if we had to decide whether Matthew added or Mark omitted Judas' suicide, I would say it would make more sense that Mark omitted it, given its natural positioning in Matthew between verses 2 and 11 of Mt 27, between the trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate.
You mean Matthew was incapable of picking the right place to insert his story.
We could ask: if Matthew has the complete story, why does Mark only have half of it?
Yes we could. It seems reasonable to me that Matthew made up the second half of the story because he didn't like Mark's abrupt ending.
To me it reads as though Mark is aware of the actual rendezvous in Galilee, even though he doesn't tell us about it. If Mark was third (and if the epilogue was his own work), maybe he was faced with the two different accounts of resurrection appearances in Mt and Lk, and decided to use both of them, hence he omits Mt's record of the Galilee rendezvous (having recorded the promise of it) and instead gives Luke's three appearances.
The epilogue wasn't his own work. It doesn't appear in any copy of the gospel for several hundred years.
In a way, this is what we would expect ot find if Mark was conflating two different narratives. We would see signs of discontinuity at the points where he switches from one source to the other.
It is clear to me that whoever did write the epilogue was summarising all three of the other gospel post resurrection stories.
-
(and if the epilogue was his own work)
It wasn't - unless you believe he live to the ripe old age of several hundred.
-
You mean Matthew was incapable of picking the right place to insert his story.
Interestingly, Luke also inserts, at the same point between Mk 15:1 and 2 (according to Markan Priority): "And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation, and forbidding tribute to be given to Caesar, and declaring Himself to be Christ, a king.”"
Luke also says, 'Pilate', in contrast with Matthew's 'Pilate the governor' (Mark says, ('Pilate' too).
-
It wasn't - unless you believe he live to the ripe old age of several hundred.
Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in 177 AD.
-
The editorial fatigue would be good.
Three examples:
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/how-editorial-fatigue-shows-that-matthew-and-luke-copied-mark/
In the first, (Herod's concern) Herod is afraid of the people, hence his distress. Thus no contradiction, no need to infer editorial fatigue.
In the second (the parable of the sower), Luke could have used Matthew as his source.
In the third (the trial before the sanhedrin), Luke says 'witness' meaning testimony, not 'witnesses' as in Mt and Mk. So there is no contradiction, and no need to infer editorial fatigue.
-
Three examples:
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/how-editorial-fatigue-shows-that-matthew-and-luke-copied-mark/
In the first, (Herod's concern) Herod is afraid of the people, hence his distress. Thus no contradiction, no need to infer editorial fatigue.
You have completely misunderstood the point. Mark incorrectly calls Herod Antipas a king instead of “tetrarch”. Matthew corrects the first mention as he copies Mark but fails to correct the subsequent mention.
In the second (the parable of the sower), Luke could have used Matthew as his source.
I’m not sure why you think this helps your case.
In the third (the trial before the sanhedrin), Luke says 'witness' meaning testimony, not 'witnesses' as in Mt and Mk. So there is no contradiction, and no need to infer editorial fatigue.
You missed out the feeding of the 5000.
-
You have completely misunderstood the point. Mark incorrectly calls Herod Antipas a king instead of “tetrarch”. Matthew corrects the first mention as he copies Mark but fails to correct the subsequent mention.
This could be Matthew distinguishing him from King Herod in ch. 2. More historical accuracy would indicate the document being earlier.
I’m not sure why you think this helps your case.
The point is that Matthew and Mark are similar for this parable, so if you say that Luke used Mark it is equally feasible that he used Matthew.
You missed out the feeding of the 5000.
Luke apparently didn't know that Jesus and the disciples went to Bethsaida by boat, so it may be that neither Matthew nor Mark were his source for this story, or at least the first part of it. And he could have got the part containing the word 'desolate' from Matthew, not Mark.
-
Ye Gods and little fishes!
Just how long are people going to continue to put their faith in a book that contradicts itself again and again and again ad infinitum ad absurdam ad nauseam!
The Bible and the God it represents are discredited by the number of times adherants are instructed that for such and such a reason/action/thought/offence such and such a person shall be put to death in such and such a barbaric manner and yet the Sixth Commandment states that Thou Shalt Not Kill!
Of course from a personal point of view The Sixth and Exodus 22:18 are the most relvant to the possibility that the Bible could well have been written by the historical precursor of the modern breakfast cereal advertising executive.
-
Ye Gods and little fishes!
Just how long are people going to continue to put their faith in a book that contradicts itself again and again and again ad infinitum ad absurdam ad nauseam!
The Bible and the God it represents are discredited by the number of times adherants are instructed that for such and such a reason/action/thought/offence such and such a person shall be put to death in such and such a barbaric manner and yet the Sixth Commandment states that Thou Shalt Not Kill!
Of course from a personal point of view The Sixth and Exodus 22:18 are the most relvant to the possibility that the Bible could well have been written by the historical precursor of the modern breakfast cereal advertising executive.
Not sure what the problem with Exodus 22:18 is.
Re: the sixth commandment: if you interpret it as no killing whatsoever, then it not only contradicts the passages on capital punishment, but also Genesis 9:2-3, where God allows killing animals for food. Maybe we have to look at the context and work out what a statement in the Bible does not mean, so we can know more accurately what it does mean? For example, Genesis 9:6 tells us both not to kill and to kill in one sentence.
-
Not sure what the problem with Exodus 22:16 is.
Of course you are not! You are very probably the only poster on this Forum that doesn't know, as I have never made a secret of it, that I am Pagan, Priest and WITCH and, as such. consider that, from your posts, you were probably born about 500 years too late to take up your true vocation and a leading member of the Inquisition of the Burning Times!
Oh, and as a by-the-way - it should be Exodus 22:18 not 16!
Re: the sixth commandment: if you interpret it as no killing whatsoever, then it not only contradicts the passages on capital punishment but also Genesis 9:2-3, where God allows killing animals for food. Maybe we have to look at the context and work out what a statement in the Bible does not mean, so we can know more accurately what it does mean? For example, Genesis 9:6 tells us both not to kill and to kill in one sentence.
The Sixth Commandment NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION - it is, supposedly, the revealed word of your God and he states in the Sixth that THOU SHALT NOT KILL! No excuses, No exceptions, No ifs, No buts and No maybes!
If it is not saying what is written you might as well use the whole Bible as toilet paper!
)O(
-
Of course you are not! You are very probably the only poster on this Forum that doesn't know, as I have never made a secret of it, that I am Pagan, Priest and WITCH and, as such. consider that, from your posts, you were probably born about 500 years too late to take up your true vocation and a leading member of the Inquisition of the Burning Times!
{quote}
Re: the sixth commandment: if you interpret it as no killing whatsoever, then it not only contradicts the passages on capital punishment but also Genesis 9:2-3, where God allows killing animals for food. Maybe we have to look at the context and work out what a statement in the Bible does not mean, so we can know more accurately what it does mean? For example, Genesis 9:6 tells us both not to kill and to kill in one sentence.
The Sixth Commandment NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION - it is supposedly, the revealed word of your God and he states in the Sixth that THOU SHALT NOT KILL! No excuses, No exceptions, No ifs, No buts and No maybes!
If it is not saying what is written you might as well use the whole Bible as toilet paper!
)O(
I wouldn't put too much store in the KJV translation. Exodus 22:18 reads "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live" in the NRSV. As a non female, you'd be OK.
-
The Sixth Commandment NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION - it is supposedly, the revealed word of your God and he states in the Sixth that THOU SHALT NOT KILL! No excuses, No exceptions, No ifs, No buts and No maybes!
Except that, in the original, it's not as clear cut as that - I'm not an expert on Aramaic or Greek by any stretch, but it's a long-running discussion as to whether the word that's translated as 'kill' in the common English translation actually should be read as 'kill' or 'murder' (or, even, 'execute') in the original.
Thou shalt not murder, admittedly, is self-evident, given that murder is 'unjustified' killing, but nevertheless - you're reading with a modern English interpretation things that were linguistically and culturally from a fundamentally different culture, and which have been translated more with an eye to poetry than to accuracy. Every single element of it needs interpretation, it's more worrying when people take it word-for-word true in the English translations, those sort of fundamentalists need watching!
If it is not saying what is written you might as well use the whole Bible as toilet paper!
You're as well doing that, but not only because the translation introduces some significant issues.
O.
-
I wouldn't put too much store in the KJV translation. Exodus 22:18 reads "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live" in the NRSV. As a non-female, you'd be OK.
Funny you should say that, while I was researching my 'Year-and-a-day' task I tried to find out what the Hebrew word used that was 'untranslatable' was and what it actually meant and, as luck would have it, there was a display relating to Jewish culture on in Trafalgar Square and I figured that there might be someone there able to assist.
I asked at the first stall I saw and was directed to a Rabbi who was willing to try to help me; when I showed him the I word wanted translating (found in a Hebrew Bible that was so old and fragile that I wasn't even allowed to turn the pages, one of the staff wearing white kid gloves had to do it for me!) he laughed and said that if he had a quid for every time he had been asked about it he would be a rich man and he told me the story of the Septuagint and its problems with Hebrew and "female sorcerer" was one of the possibilities in Greek that could have been used but 'poisoner' or 'potion maker' was used instead.
Incidentally, the woman referred to as the Witch of Endor is rarely called a witch in the Bible, she is usually referred to as a 'communicator with spirits'.
-
Except that, in the original, it's not as clear cut as that - I'm not an expert on Aramaic or Greek by any stretch, but it's a long-running discussion as to whether the word that's translated as 'kill' in the common English translation actually should be read as 'kill' or 'murder' (or, even, 'execute') in the original.
Thou shalt not murder, admittedly, is self-evident, given that murder is 'unjustified' killing, but nevertheless - you're reading with a modern English interpretation things that were linguistically and culturally from a fundamentally different culture, and which have been translated more with an eye to poetry than to accuracy. Every single element of it needs interpretation, it's more worrying when people take it word-for-word true in the English translations, those sort of fundamentalists need watching!
You're as well doing that, but not only because the translation introduces some significant issues.
O.
As it happens I was referring to the KJV which is not a 'modern English interpretation', KJV VI and I died 399 years ago, so hardly modern.
-
............. KJV VI and I died 399 years ago,
You're sounding pretty chipper for someone who's been gone these past four centuries though.
-
As it happens I was referring to the KJV which is not a 'modern English interpretation', KJV VI and I died 399 years ago, so hardly modern.
You died 399 years ago, WOW! ;D
-
I am sure that you should both be aware what a weak joke that is!
OK - translation for the pathetic "I've got proof that God exists the several people on this forum will negate because of my constant reliance on fallacies"
James the Sixth (VI in Roman numerals) of Scotland and the First (I in Roman numerals) of England and Scotland died 399 years ago!
Littleroses - please never take "Your friendly illusion of self" as a lead for a joke!
-
I am sure that you should both be aware what a weak joke that is!
OK - translation for the pathetic "I've got proof that God exists the several people on this forum will negate because of my constant reliance on fallacies"
James the Sixth (VI in Roman numerals) of Scotland and the First (I in Roman numerals) of England and Scotland died 399 years ago!
Littleroses - please never take "Your friendly illusion of self" as a lead for a joke!
They understood that which is why the joke is funny, well at least the first time. Indeed that's why it is a joke.
-
They understood that which is why the joke is funny, well at least the first time. Indeed that's why it is a joke.
I may be wrong, but I very much doubt if one of the two responders was joking!
But, NS, I bow to your longer standing judgement on the matter.
-
You're sounding pretty chipper for someone who's been gone these past four centuries though.
That's probably why he is angry all the time.
-
I may be wrong, but I very much doubt if one of the two responders was joking!
Which one of the two responders are you claiming thinks you literally died 399 years ago?
By the way, if they hadn't made that joke, I would be posting asking you who King James the fifth, sixth and first was.
-
Which one of the two responders are you claiming thinks you literally died 399 years ago?
By the way, if they hadn't made that joke, I would be posting asking you who King James the fifth, sixth and first was.
HO HO HO HO HO HO
-
Of course you are not! You are very probably the only poster on this Forum that doesn't know, as I have never made a secret of it, that I am Pagan, Priest and WITCH
Yes I was aware.
and, as such. consider that, from your posts, you were probably born about 500 years too late to take up your true vocation and a leading member of the Inquisition of the Burning Times!
Which posts?
Oh, and as a by-the-way - it should be Exodus 22:18 not 16!
Sorry
The Sixth Commandment NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION - it is, supposedly, the revealed word of your God and he states in the Sixth that THOU SHALT NOT KILL! No excuses, No exceptions, No ifs, No buts and No maybes!
If it is not saying what is written you might as well use the whole Bible as toilet paper!
)O(
Had a look at the Hebrew word used in Ex 20:13 for 'kill', and it is used throughout the OT to describe the killing of people, accidentally and deliberately, including in warfare.
I had a look at a few random articles on your question, and found the one below, which seems to explain it. It states that that God prohibits all taking of human life, except when he has authorized it. It says, "God can give a commandment, and then authorize exceptions to the commandment."
http://www.wordsfitlyspoken.org/gospel_guardian/v16/v16n13p5,13a.html