Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Spud on August 03, 2020, 02:59:32 PM
-
In response to the theory that editorial fatique can be seen in Matthew and Luke as they copied Mark, here is evidence that Mark used Matthew as a main source. Mark sometimes puts a word in an inappropriate place in a sentence. We would expect when someone is rewriting a text that the original text would have the more logical word order. Copying while trying not to copy word for word forces the writer to change the meaning of the original text very slightly.
1. Compare Matthew 26:22 with Mark 14:19, where began fits better where Matthew puts it:
Matthew: And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?"
Mark: They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?"
2. The phrases to the paralytic and take up your mat in Mark 2:9 are out of place and appear to have been taken from their original context in Matthew 9:6.
Matthew: For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”
Mark: Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your mat, and walk’?
(ESV)
3. The word immediately in Matthew 4:22 is in a better position than in Mark 1:20: Matthew has "and he called them, and immediately having left the boat and their father....". Mark changes this to "And immediately He called them, and having left their father..."
Compare Matthew 4:20-22
And immediately having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mt 4:20)
and immediately having left the boat and their father they [James and John] followed Him (Mt 4:22)
with Mark 1:18-20:
And immediately, having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mk 1:18).
And immediately He called them, and having left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, they [James and John] went away after Him. (Mk 1:20)
-
In response to the theory that editorial fatigue can be seen in Matthew and Luke as they copied Mark, here is evidence that Mark used Matthew as a main source. Mark sometimes puts a word in an inappropriate place in a sentence. We would expect when someone is rewriting a text that the original text would have the more logical word order. Copying while trying not to copy word for word forces the writer to change the meaning of the original text very slightly.
1. Compare Matthew 26:22 with Mark 14:19, where began fits better where Matthew puts it:
Matthew: And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?"
Mark: They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?"
2. The phrases to the paralytic and take up your mat in Mark 2:9 are out of place and appear to have been taken from their original context in Matthew 9:6.
Matthew: For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”
Mark: Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your mat, and walk’?
(ESV)
3. The word immediately in Matthew 4:22 is in a better position than in Mark 1:20: Matthew has "and he called them, and immediately having left the boat and their father....". Mark changes this to "And immediately He called them, and having left their father..."
Compare Matthew 4:20-22
And immediately having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mt 4:20)
and immediately having left the boat and their father they [James and John] followed Him (Mt 4:22)
with Mark 1:18-20:
And immediately, having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mk 1:18).
And immediately He called them, and having left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, they [James and John] went away after Him. (Mk 1:20)
And this PROVES nothing!
Unless and until the ORIGINAL documents can be accurately dated the Bible is still a document to be treated with the utmost suspicion.
I seem to remember being taught in R E lessons at school that most/a large percentage of the originals are in the hands/vaults of the Vatican, I can't see any chance of them being available for scrutiny by anyone any time soon!
-
We would expect when someone is rewriting a text that the original text would have the more logical word order.
I wouldn't. I would expect the copier to fix any errors he or she notices in the original.
Copying while trying not to copy word for word forces the writer to change the meaning of the original text very slightly.
The gospel authors weren't trying to do that. They were copying plain and simple and making edits when they wanted to change the meaning.
-
I seem to remember being taught in R E lessons at school that most/a large percentage of the originals are in the hands/vaults of the Vatican, I can't see any chance of them being available for scrutiny by anyone any time soon!
You were taught wrongly. There are no original gospel texts left. The earliest gospel manuscript we have is a small fragment of John's gospel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52) that has been dated to some time in the first half of the second century.
-
Spud
Are you not just revisiting the thread you had on this last year:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16604.0
Why does it matter anyway?
-
I wouldn't. I would expect the copper to fix any errors he or she notices in the original.
The gospel authors weren't trying to do that. They were copying plain and simple and making edits when they wanted to change the meaning.
I think owlswing may be using the term 'originals' here to mean the original papyri, documents that people use copies of rather than original gospels and epistles.
-
You were taught wrongly. There are no original gospel texts left. The earliest gospel manuscript we have is a small fragment of John's gospel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52) that has been dated to some time in the first half of the second century.
I was under the impression that a few/quite a few years ago some clay pots of some sort were found in a cave that had papyrus's (papyri ?) that had what were reported to be gospels not previously known about which were snatched by Catholic members of the teams that found them and never seen again.
I am perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong - I just wish my memory could throw up the date of the reports mentioned above.
-
Yawneroony. Does it matter one iota, even if you're a Christian, and does anyone in their right mind care?
-
In response to the theory that editorial fatique can be seen in Matthew and Luke as they copied Mark, here is evidence that Mark used Matthew as a main source. Mark sometimes puts a word in an inappropriate place in a sentence. We would expect when someone is rewriting a text that the original text would have the more logical word order. Copying while trying not to copy word for word forces the writer to change the meaning of the original text very slightly.
1. Compare Matthew 26:22 with Mark 14:19, where began fits better where Matthew puts it:
Matthew: And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?"
Mark: They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?"
2. The phrases to the paralytic and take up your mat in Mark 2:9 are out of place and appear to have been taken from their original context in Matthew 9:6.
Matthew: For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”
Mark: Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your mat, and walk’?
(ESV)
3. The word immediately in Matthew 4:22 is in a better position than in Mark 1:20: Matthew has "and he called them, and immediately having left the boat and their father....". Mark changes this to "And immediately He called them, and having left their father..."
Compare Matthew 4:20-22
And immediately having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mt 4:20)
and immediately having left the boat and their father they [James and John] followed Him (Mt 4:22)
with Mark 1:18-20:
And immediately, having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mk 1:18).
And immediately He called them, and having left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, they [James and John] went away after Him. (Mk 1:20)
What amazes me, Spud, is that these Middle Eastern gentlemen, two thousand years ago, were able to write in such exquisite, expressive English.
Cearly, divine inspiration - a miracle!
The errors, differences in interpretation and mistranslations clearly occurred when they were translated into Aramaic and Koine Greek.
-
Yawneroony. Does it matter one iota, even if you're a Christian, and does anyone in their right mind care?
I agree.
-
I wouldn't. I would expect the copper to fix any errors he or she notices in the original.
The gospel authors weren't trying to do that. They were copying plain and simple and making edits when they wanted to change the meaning.
The example from the healing of the paralytic stands out to me as showing Mark to be using second hand testimony. Picture the original scene - would Jesus have said, in front of the paralyzed man, "which is easier, to say to the paralytic..."? No, he'd have said, "which is easier: to say to someone, your sins are forgiven..." etc. Mark clearly is reciting words from an earlier tradition. Why do we need to look further than Matthew's account for that source?
Edit: If I changed what I just wrote to "why look further than Matthew's account...", that would be like Matthew removing a redundant phrase from Mark. So I agree with you that it's possible Matthew could have done that.
-
Spud
Are you not just revisiting the thread you had on this last year:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16604.0
Why does it matter anyway?
Yes, sorry. I felt it justified a new thread because a seemingly robust argument for the opposite view, that Matthew copied Mark, came up on that thread - that argument was to do with editorial fatigue. I wanted to put the case that a similar phenomenon can be detected in Mark's account.
-
Yes, sorry. I felt it justified a new thread because a seemingly robust argument for the opposite view, that Matthew copied Mark, came up on that thread - that argument was to do with editorial fatigue. I wanted to put the case that a similar phenomenon can be detected in Mark's account.
Even so: why does it matter?
After all the provenance of the NT is largely uncertain, and since the risks of lies, mistakes and bias remain unaddressed then surely the content is indistinguishable from fiction: on that basis, and whichever way around they were written/copied, doesn't resolve these risks or add any credibility (which is absent as things stand).
-
I think you replied to the wrong post of mine.
I think owlswing may be using the term 'originals' here to mean the original papyri, documents that people use copies of rather than original gospels and epistles.
That's what I assumed he meant. There are no originals left, only copies, some of which are on papyrus. There are manuscript copies i.e. ones that are written by hand and there are printed copies i.e. ones that have been typeset and printed. In the last hundred years or so, there are also photographs of manuscripts. The term "original" doesn't really have ny meaning except as a reference tio the first manuscript written by the evangelist or epistle writer.
-
I was under the impression that a few/quite a few years ago some clay pots of some sort were found in a cave that had papyrus's (papyri ?) that had what were reported to be gospels not previously known about which were snatched by Catholic members of the teams that found them and never seen again.
You may be talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls) which contain no Christian writings or, more likely, the Nag Hammadi Library (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library) which contains no canonical Christian texts.
-
The errors, differences in interpretation and mistranslations clearly occurred when they were translated into Aramaic and Koine Greek.
The entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.
-
Mark clearly is reciting words from an earlier tradition. Why do we need to look further than Matthew's account for that source?
Because the weight of evidence makes it more probable that Matthew was copying Mark rather than the other way around.
Why is it important to you that Matthew was written first? As Steve says above, it has no impact on Christian faith which one came first. How the gospels were constructed is important from a historical perspective but not really from a faith perspective.
-
The entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.
Apart from one or two short bits of Aramaic.
-
The entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.
I suspect HH is taking the piss here (in #8).
-
Apart from one or two short bits of Aramaic.
Which short bits? I know Jesus is sometimes quoted in Aramaic but I assume you don't mean those.
-
Which short bits? I know Jesus is sometimes quoted in Aramaic but I assume you don't mean those.
Yes, I did mean those.
-
The entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.
Tradition says that Matthew wrote something called the 'logia' in Aramaic.
-
Tradition says that Matthew wrote something called the 'logia' in Aramaic.
What does it matter? There is no verifiable evidence that much of what is written in the documents making up the gospels has any veracity.
-
Because the weight of evidence makes it more probable that Matthew was copying Mark rather than the other way around.
Assuming the weight of evidence does point to Markan priority, it is easy to see how Matthew simply cut out or repostitioned a redundant phrase or awkwardly placed word. But then there is the problem of why Mark wrote awkwardly to start with. There are some mistakes that can arise naturally, but in the examples I've given it's quite hard to see how Mark could have arrived at the wording.
-
But then there is the problem of why Mark wrote awkwardly to start with. There are some mistakes that can arise naturally, but in the examples I've given it's quite hard to see how Mark could have arrived at the wording.
Perhaps the author (or authors) of Mark weren't particularly good writers!
More charitably the author may have been the first person taking disparate snippets of information, purported quotes from Jesus etc etc and trying to weave them into a coherent narrative. It may well be more challenging to dot hat the first time, rather than for a later writer who may be working from a coherent (albeit clunky) narrative in the first place, plus some additional sources.
-
Perhaps the author (or authors) of Mark weren't particularly good writers!
More charitably the author may have been the first person taking disparate snippets of information, purported quotes from Jesus etc, etc. and trying to weave them into a coherent narrative. It may well be more challenging to dot hat the first time, rather than for a later writer who may be working from a coherent (albeit clunky) narrative in the first place, plus some additional sources.
Or maybe they were making it up as they went along, rather like Hans Christian Anderson?
-
Tradition says that Matthew wrote something called the 'logia' in Aramaic.
You're referring to a comment by Eusebius quoting a guy called Papias (c.60 - 130) who was told by somebody called "John the Presbyter" that Matthew wrote a "logia".
The problems are that
1. Matthew the Apostle is not the person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
2. A logia is a sayings gospel so it is not referring to any surviving writing about Jesus.
3. The text we have now was originally written in Greek. It was composed in Greek, probably by copying large parts of Mark's gospel.
-
What does it matter?
It's interesting.
In a world in which you can have massive flame wars about which way round to hang a toilet roll, I think it's fine.
-
Or maybe they were making it up as they went along, rather like Hans Christian Anderson?
Indeed that it is entirely possible.
But even if they aren't simply making up fiction there are entirely plausible explanations why an author writing decades after an event and using snippets of information (that may of course be contradictory or even entirely fictitious) may struggle to create a polished coherent narrative.
-
You're referring to a comment by Eusebius quoting a guy called Papias (c.60 - 130) who was told by somebody called "John the Presbyter" that Matthew wrote a "logia".
The problems are that
1. Matthew the Apostle is not the person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
2. A logia is a sayings gospel so it is not referring to any surviving writing about Jesus.
3. The text we have now was originally written in Greek. It was composed in Greek, probably by copying large parts of Mark's gospel.
Yes, the problem is that the 'Elder' said the 'Logia' were written in Hebrew. Matthew appears to have been written in Greek. I'm not sure this affects the issue of the order of the Synoptics though.
-
Perhaps the author (or authors) of Mark weren't particularly good writers!
More charitably the author may have been the first person taking disparate snippets of information, purported quotes from Jesus etc etc and trying to weave them into a coherent narrative. It may well be more challenging to do that the first time, rather than for a later writer who may be working from a coherent (albeit clunky) narrative in the first place, plus some additional sources.
I'm not sure how to answer this, except by using more examples. So with(out) your permission I'll look at another one, from the Olivet Discourse. Here, the disciples point out to Jesus the magnificent Temple building. Jesus replies that it will be demolished, and the disciples then ask when. I think the way Matthew and Mark report the conversation shows that Matthew's must have been the first account.
Matthew alone includes the disciples asking in addition what would be the sign of Jesus' coming and of the end of the age. Mark has, instead of "the sign of your coming and of the end of the age", "the sign that all these things will be about to take place". How can Mark write, "all these things" unless he has read Matthew, who tells us what "all these things" refers to (the temple's destruction, the second coming and the end of the age)?
The alternative is that Mark wrote first and for some reason refers to one thing, the temple's destruction, as 'all these things'; then Matthew thinks he can make this sound more coherent by adding two extra 'things' to the temple's destruction. I think this is less likely.
-
Yes, the problem is that the 'Elder' said the 'Logia' were written in Hebrew. Matthew appears to have been written in Greek. I'm not sure this affects the issue of the order of the Synoptics though.
No it doesn't. I don't think any modern scholar links the logia mentioned by Papias with the document we now call the Gospel According to Matthew. This therefore tells us nothing about the order of the gospels, but I think it is the reason why Matthew appears first in the Bible.
-
No it doesn't. I don't think any modern scholar links the logia mentioned by Papias with the document we now call the Gospel According to Matthew. This therefore tells us nothing about the order of the gospels, but I think it is the reason why Matthew appears first in the Bible.
I'm getting quite interested in the idea of something written by Matthew in Hebrew. Two books I've bought in the last year take the view that the gospel of Matthew was added to, either by Matthew himself or by others. The main evidence is that Luke appears to be familiar with some parts of it (which he copies from) but not others. Also that it contains doublets - a sentence or paragraph repeated in a different context elsewhere in the book.
But the style in some places looks as though what we have today was written in Greek. The Beatitudes, for example, contain quite a lot of alliteration when read in Greek.
But if it did originate as a shorter version of our gospel of Matthew, perhaps that is the part that was written in Hebrew?
One of the authors I'm reading, Harold Riley, thinks Matthew originally ended at 28:8, which is similar to Mark 16:8. That could make Luke the first to write about the resurrection appearances.
He doesn't see a problem with the subsequent editing of Matthew. He thinks it happened because the original, being the first account, was highly esteemed in the church, and people simply wanted to add stories from their own memories.
-
He doesn't see a problem with the subsequent editing of Matthew. He thinks it happened because the original, being the first account, was highly esteemed in the church, and people simply wanted to add stories from their own memories.
If so, that should worry you a great deal.
-
If so, that should worry you a great deal.
A better summary than mine would be that the author's "accomplishment was of such value that other authors were inspired to build upon this foundation in order to meet other needs." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-first-gospel/
Two examples of the phenomena of doublets in Matthew:
The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10, spoken by John the Baptist)
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19 spoken by Jesus)
whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens (Mat 16:19)
Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18)
There are about 20 of these in all. Riley thinks that in 12 of them, one of each pair must have been added to the original gospel. He argues on other grounds that Mark and Luke are secondary to Matthew, and thus that the doublets did not result from Matthew copying Mark and another source.
-
A better summary than mine would be that the author's "accomplishment was of such value that other authors were inspired to build upon this foundation in order to meet other needs." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-first-gospel/
Two examples of the phenomena of doublets in Matthew:
The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10, spoken by John the Baptist)
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19 spoken by Jesus)
whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens (Mat 16:19)
Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18)
There are about 20 of these in all. Riley thinks that in 12 of them, one of each pair must have been added to the original gospel. He argues on other grounds that Mark and Luke are secondary to Matthew, and thus that the doublets did not result from Matthew copying Mark and another source.
Doesn't remove the risks that what has been added could be lies or mistake - how have you assessed these risks?
-
A better summary than mine would be that the author's "accomplishment was of such value that other authors were inspired to build upon this foundation in order to meet other needs." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-first-gospel/
Two examples of the phenomena of doublets in Matthew:
The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10, spoken by John the Baptist)
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19 spoken by Jesus)
Whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens (Mat 16:19)
Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18)
There are about 20 of these in all. Riley thinks that in 12 of them, one of each pair must have been added to the original gospel. He argues on other grounds that Mark and Luke are secondary to Matthew, and thus that the doublets did not result from Matthew copying Mark and another source.
Spud
Can you please point me to proof positive, preferably proof found in the last fifty years, that ANY of the four Apostles actually existed to write the Gospels that bear their names!
Then can you please provide me similar proof positive found in the last fifty years that the other eight apostles ever existed.
These proofs should bear the names of people whose credentials, as historians, I can examine and, if possible, they should be atheist or agnostic thus being historians without religious bias.
-
Doesn't remove the risks that what has been added could be lies or mistake - how have you assessed these risks?
First, identify which bits are added. Then, see whether they agree with the rest of the Bible, for example do they assert the deity of Christ - the gnostic gospels do not so they are not reliable; they do however provide some evidence that the apostles were real people.
Another reason why the gospels can be trusted is because they were written before AD 70 at a time when, according to Matthew, people would routinely go to the temple to offer a sacrifice, would pray on street corners and would 'swear by the temple'. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple within his generation and it happened.
-
First, identify which bits are added. Then, see whether they agree with the rest of the Bible, for example do they assert the deity of Christ - the gnostic gospels do not so they are not reliable; they do however provide some evidence that the apostles were real people.
Another reason why the gospels can be trusted is because they were written before AD 70 at a time when, according to Matthew, people would routinely go to the temple to offer a sacrifice, would pray on street corners and would 'swear by the temple'. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple within his generation and it happened.
You clearly have a bad case of confirmation bias, Spud: how do you know that the bits that seem to 'agree' with earlier bits or predict later events (easy to do if the events have already occurred) weren't contrived to read that way and that these earlier bits are themselves free of the risks of mistakes or lies?
-
First, identify which bits are added. Then, see whether they agree with the rest of the Bible, for example do they assert the deity of Christ - the gnostic gospels do not so they are not reliable; they do however provide some evidence that the apostles were real people.
Another reason why the gospels can be trusted is because they were written before AD 70 at a time when, according to Matthew, people would routinely go to the temple to offer a sacrifice, would pray on street corners and would 'swear by the temple'. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple within his generation and it happened.
It is generally accepted that only Mark's Gospel was probably written around 70 AD. The dates for the others range from 85 AD TO 11O AD.
He also predicted the end of the world within the generation of his followers, which didn't happen.
-
First, identify which bits are added. Then, see whether they agree with the rest of the Bible, for example do they assert the deity of Christ - the gnostic gospels do not so they are not reliable;
Why on earth are the gnostic gospels less reliable because they don't indicate that Jesus is a deity. Seems you have used your own conclusion to justify a position that supports your own (pre-judged) conclusion.
-
It is generally accepted that only Mark's Gospel was probably written around 70 AD. The dates for the others range from 85 AD TO 11O AD.
True - but we don't have any actual pieces of the written gospels (fragments and then entire gospels) until much later. This makes it very difficult to determine what was actually written at the time of the initial writing of the gospels, rather than what those gospels had become some decades, if not centuries later. How the gospels were edited or altered during this period is very challenging to determine. Occasionally we have obvious evidence on additional or alterations - e.g. the revised ending of Mark which is absent in the earliest versions.
-
Why on earth are the gnostic gospels less reliable because they don't indicate that Jesus is a deity. Seems you have used your own conclusion to justify a position that supports your own (pre-judged) conclusion.
I think you'll find poor old Spud is just another one of those victims of childhood indoctrination, I'm sure he sincerely believes the stuff he posts and thinks it's the truth Proff.
Like Alan I doubt he's receiving either.
Regards, ippy
-
from: Spud on 16-08-2020, 16:43:10
A better summary than mine would be that the author's "accomplishment was of such value that other authors were inspired to build upon this foundation in order to meet other needs." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-first-gospel/
Two examples of the phenomena of doublets in Matthew:
The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10, spoken by John the Baptist)
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19 spoken by Jesus)
Whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens (Mat 16:19)
Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18)
There are about 20 of these in all. Riley thinks that in 12 of them, one of each pair must have been added to the original gospel. He argues on other grounds that Mark and Luke are secondary to Matthew, and thus that the doublets did not result from Matthew copying Mark and another source.
[/quote}
Spud
Can you please point me to proof positive, preferably proof found in the last fifty years, that ANY of the four Apostles actually existed to write the Gospels that bear their names!
Then can you please provide me similar proof positive found in the last fifty years that the other eight apostles ever existed.
These proofs should bear the names of people whose credentials, as historians, I can examine and, if possible, they should be atheist or agnostic thus being historians without religious bias.
Your ignoring my requests for proofs above would seem to me to prove that no such proofs exist and therefore your Bible is probably nonsense and very possibly fiction!
Come on Spud, Man Up and either provide the poofs or admit you are following and trying to defend a book that has no basis in truth!
You could even go so far as to admit, as I do, that your religious beliefs are nothing more than faith with no provable basis in fact!
-
True - but we don't have any actual pieces of the written gospels (fragments and then entire gospels) until much later.
A fragment of John's gospel survives that is dated to the first half of the second century.
This makes it very difficult to determine what was actually written at the time of the initial writing of the gospels, rather than what those gospels had become some decades, if not centuries later.
There are various methods for dating the gospels although they are generally probabilistic. Nevertheless, I think it is likely (as do most scholars of the subject) that enki's dating is probably correct.
How the gospels were edited or altered during this period is very challenging to determine. Occasionally we have obvious evidence on additional or alterations - e.g. the revised ending of Mark which is absent in the earliest versions.
Challenging but not impossible.
Again, I would say the gospels were substantially as they are now within enki's window, although, there are some interesting exceptions. The revised ending of Mark is one but my favourite is the story in John 8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8&version=NRSV) about the adulterous woman. This story does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and when it does start appearing, it starts appearing in different places. The theory is that it wasn't in the original gospel but then somebody wrote it in the margin of a manuscript and was then added to the text accidentally - several times in different places.
-
Again, I would say the gospels were substantially as they are now within enki's window, although, there are some interesting exceptions. The revised ending of Mark is one but my favourite is the story in John 8 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8&version=NRSV) about the adulterous woman. This story does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and when it does start appearing, it starts appearing in different places. The theory is that it wasn't in the original gospel but then somebody wrote it in the margin of a manuscript and was then added to the text accidentally - several times in different places.
I'm not sure the notion of modification post original writing but pre-earliest fragments can be batted away so readily.
Certainly scholars will look for internal inconsistencies in writing style and also more obvious evidence such as sections that only appear in later fragments. But none of this precludes subtle editing over decades, perhaps to make the overall text seem more consistent and coherent. That may have no meaningful effect on the overall narrative being portrayed, but if those who are re-transcribing plus editing also have an agenda then is it pretty easy to see how the meaning can change from that intended by the original author.
-
You clearly have a bad case of confirmation bias, Spud: how do you know that the bits that seem to 'agree' with earlier bits or predict later events (easy to do if the events have already occurred) weren't contrived to read that way and that these earlier bits are themselves free of the risks of mistakes or lies?
A bad case indeed. But if bits are added, like the long ending of Mark, then I don't see why they are necessarily less reliable than what they're added to. There's no reason why a later editor shouldn't do that, if the account is true. The full ending of Matthew, for example, talks about the Great Commission to go into all the world and make disciples. In the main body of Matthew, a heavy emphasis is placed on Jesus' and his disciples' mission to the Jews in Palestine. The Great Commission falls outside that theme, and hence it looks like it may have been added by someone later on, when the Church's priority for mission had expanded to the Gentile world. I haven't got very far with the book in which the claim about later additions is made, though; it takes quite a long time to look up the references and understand what he is on about.
Regarding the risk of lies and mistakes, I don't know any way of absolutely eliminating them, as that would require me to have been there. The best we can do is to look at the text. Why for example would anyone making up the Olivet Discourse add the phrase, 'nor the son' to 'nobody knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven' unless Jesus had actually said it? If they believed Jesus to be divine, it would not help their case that Jesus didn't know the time of his second coming. Other features of the gospels point towards authenticity, such as the disciples 'stubbornness and hardness of heart' which is not something they would advertise had they been trying to sell their story about a messiah. Perhaps when you say that it reads like fiction, you haven't taken that into account?
-
Why on earth are the gnostic gospels less reliable because they don't indicate that Jesus is a deity. Seems you have used your own conclusion to justify a position that supports your own (pre-judged) conclusion.
I'm not very up on the gnostic gospels. One criteria they apparently they might be assessed by is the doctrine of Jesus as Saviour, and the need for repentance. I think it would be hard to find something that had been added to the canonical gospels which did not agree with that.
-
A bad case indeed.
That is obvious.
But if bits are added, like the long ending of Mark, then I don't see why they are necessarily less reliable than what they're added to.
There seems to be no basis for presuming any of it, be it additions or preceding text, is accurate if you can't address the risks of mistakes or lies.
There's no reason why a later editor shouldn't do that, if the account is true.
You are a propagandist's dream.
The full ending of Matthew, for example, talks about the Great Commission to go into all the world and make disciples. In the main body of Matthew, a heavy emphasis is placed on Jesus' and his disciples' mission to the Jews in Palestine. The Great Commission falls outside that theme, and hence it looks like it may have been added by someone later on, when the Church's priority for mission had expanded to the Gentile world. I haven't got very far with the book in which the claim about later additions is made, though; it takes quite a long time to look up the references and understand what he is on about.
Which says nothing about the accuracy, or otherwise, of these texts or interpretations of them.
Regarding the risk of lies and mistakes, I don't know any way of absolutely eliminating them, as that would require me to have been there.
Then you'd agree that scepticism is required?
The best we can do is to look at the text. Why for example would anyone making up the Olivet Discourse add the phrase, 'nor the son' to 'nobody knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven' unless Jesus had actually said it? If they believed Jesus to be divine, it would not help their case that Jesus didn't know the time of his second coming. Other features of the gospels point towards authenticity, such as the disciples 'stubbornness and hardness of heart' which is not something they would advertise had they been trying to sell their story about a messiah. Perhaps when you say that it reads like fiction, you haven't taken that into account?
That they were telling a story about an alleged Messiah is clearly a risk: how have you addressed this possibility that doesn't involve confirmation bias on your part?
-
I'm not sure the notion of modification post original writing but pre-earliest fragments can be batted away so readily.
Acknowledging and discussing issues with later editing is not “batting away”.
Certainly scholars will look for internal inconsistencies in writing style and also more obvious evidence such as sections that only appear in later fragments. But none of this precludes subtle editing over decades, perhaps to make the overall text seem more consistent and coherent. That may have no meaningful effect on the overall narrative being portrayed, but if those who are re-transcribing plus editing also have an agenda then is it pretty easy to see how the meaning can change from that intended by the original author.
John Mill wrote a Greek New Testament in the 18th century. He had a hundred manuscripts to choose from but he found thirty thousand textual variations between those manuscripts. Today, we have more manuscripts and, unsurprisingly, more textual variations. In fact there are more different variations than there are words in the NT. most are trivial, but there are still quite a few that alter the meaning of the Bible.
However, because we have so many manuscripts, it is possible to reconstruct the text that the author wrote with some degree of confidence even if we can’t be 100% certain we have got it right.
Still, the picture is very far from inerrant.
-
Why on earth are the gnostic gospels less reliable because they don't indicate that Jesus is a deity. Seems you have used your own conclusion to justify a position that supports your own (pre-judged) conclusion.
In fact, the gnostic gospels come just as close to asserting that Jesus is a deity as the Gospel of Mark does. In fact, by asserting that Jesus is a purely spiritual being, somewhat more so. But as you say, Spud has no argument on that account in any case.
-
A bad case indeed. But if bits are added, like the long ending of Mark, then I don't see why they are necessarily less reliable than what they're added to. There's no reason why a later editor shouldn't do that, if the account is true. The full ending of Matthew, for example, talks about the Great Commission to go into all the world and make disciples. In the main body of Matthew, a heavy emphasis is placed on Jesus' and his disciples' mission to the Jews in Palestine. The Great Commission falls outside that theme, and hence it looks like it may have been added by someone later on, when the Church's priority for mission had expanded to the Gentile world. I haven't got very far with the book in which the claim about later additions is made, though; it takes quite a long time to look up the references and understand what he is on about.
Regarding the risk of lies and mistakes, I don't know any way of absolutely eliminating them, as that would require me to have been there. The best we can do is to look at the text. Why for example would anyone making up the Olivet Discourse add the phrase, 'nor the son' to 'nobody knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven' unless Jesus had actually said it? If they believed Jesus to be divine, it would not help their case that Jesus didn't know the time of his second coming. Other features of the gospels point towards authenticity, such as the disciples 'stubbornness and hardness of heart' which is not something they would advertise had they been trying to sell their story about a messiah. Perhaps when you say that it reads like fiction, you haven't taken that into account?
Is the book you refer to 'Jesus the Jew' by Geza Vermes - or perhaps one of Vermes' other works on the NT?
-
However, because we have so many manuscripts, it is possible to reconstruct the text that the author wrote with some degree of confidence even if we can’t be 100% certain we have got it right.
I don't think that is correct. Sure we understand the levels of change in manuscripts from the earliest existent fragments and copies onwards, but we still have decades-centuries with nothing at all - for example for Mark from approx 70AD when the gospel is believed to have been written, through to perhaps 100 years later when the first fragments are available, and then these may contain tiny amounts of content - we have to go further still until we have enough for the entire gospel. Just because the texts might have changed little from perhaps 200-300 doesn't mean it changed little from 70-200. You cannot assume that and therefore we remain very much in the dark about changes from the point of writing to earliest existent copies.
Indeed it is common that documents change significantly during early iterations as they are edited, amended and 'sanitised' - once they become 'mature', final agreed versions changes may slow down considerably. To assume that the rate of change in that 'mature phase' - e.g. post 300, somehow necessarily reflects the rate of change in the earliest phase (70-200) cannot be justified.
Still, the picture is very far from inerrant.
Indeed it is - and the notion that the big edits we know about are often determined from comparisons of existent fragments containing different content means that we can know very little about changes prior to the point where we have that key evidence of fragments.
-
I don't think that is correct. Sure we understand the levels of change in manuscripts from the earliest existent fragments and copies onwards, but we still have decades-centuries with nothing at all - for example for Mark from approx 70AD when the gospel is believed to have been written, through to perhaps 100 years later when the first fragments are available, and then these may contain tiny amounts of content - we have to go further still until we have enough for the entire gospel. Just because the texts might have changed little from perhaps 200-300 doesn't mean it changed little from 70-200. You cannot assume that and therefore we remain very much in the dark about changes from the point of writing to earliest existent copies.
Indeed it is common that documents change significantly during early iterations as they are edited, amended and 'sanitised' - once they become 'mature', final agreed versions changes may slow down considerably. To assume that the rate of change in that 'mature phase' - e.g. post 300, somehow necessarily reflects the rate of change in the earliest phase (70-200) cannot be justified.
Even taking all that into account, scholars are confident they have more or less reconstructed something like the original text. Obviously, you can't be 100% certain but it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that what we have got is OK.
From other writings, we know the gospels existed by the end of the second century and Matthew and Luke bear witness to the text of Mark being more or less right since they copied him with some editing and we can identify the edit points.
-
Surely it'd be more to the point getting hold of some evidence that actually supports this general god/Jesus idea first and then if there was any found, it might then be worth the effort of sorting through the detail, in the mean time what's the point of threads like this one?
ippy.
-
In fact, the gnostic gospels come just as close to asserting that Jesus is a deity as the Gospel of Mark does. In fact, by asserting that Jesus is a purely spiritual being, somewhat more so. But as you say, Spud has no argument on that account in any case.
According to the canonical gospels and rest of NT, Jesus is both fully man and also divine Son of God. So the gnostics don't line up with them.
-
According to the canonical gospels and rest of NT, Jesus is both fully man and also divine Son of God. So the gnostics don't line up with them.
Sounds and looks like something really useful to know about Spud.
ippy.
-
Surely it'd be more to the point getting hold of some evidence that actually supports this general god/Jesus idea first
I'm pretty happy to concede that there isn't any of that so there's no point in trying.
and then if there was any found, it might then be worth the effort of sorting through the detail
I think it's interesting to understand how the Bible came to be written even with Jesus not being God.
in the mean time what's the point of threads like this one? .
Do you only do things that have a point? If I had just said "Jesus wasn't God so I'm not interested" I wouldn't know anything like as much as I do about the history of 1st century Palestine - or history generally, or archaeology or a lot of other things. Discussions like this thread are interesting for their own sake and also for lots of tangential reasons. I can understand why you might not be interested, but it is not compulsory to read every thread on this board, nor comment on them.
-
Even taking all that into account, scholars are confident they have more or less reconstructed something like the original text.
Which scholars - references please.
...scholars are confident they have [ib]more or less[/ib] reconstructed [ib]something like[/ib] the original text
That's quite a lot of caveats JP.
Obviously, you can't be 100% certain but it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that what we have got is OK.
Is it - sure we don't have anything other to go on, but I don't think we can come close to assuming that the earliest extant text we have is the same as that which the author of the gosels actually wrote. And of course it doesn't have to be massive differences, huge chunks of text added or removed, subtle rewording (with and agenda) can make a huge difference to meaning without a major difference in the actual text.
From other writings, we know the gospels existed by the end of the second century and Matthew and Luke bear witness to the text of Mark being more or less right since they copied him with some editing and we can identify the edit points.
Which doesn't really advance the argument really as the earliest fragments of Matthew and Luke are also decades after Mark was purportedly written so we don't really know which of the early versions (if there were variant versions) of Mark Luke and Matthew borrowed from.
-
It is generally accepted that only Mark's Gospel was probably written around 70 AD. The dates for the others range from 85 AD TO 11O AD.
That's because they assume Jesus couldn't have predicted AD70.
He also predicted the end of the world within the generation of his followers, which didn't happen.
OK, it may come across like that in Matthew 24, but Luke 21:31 is a clue that the things that would happen before that generation passed away did not include the end of the world. Luke says, "So also, when you see these things taking place, you will know that the kingdom of God is near."
-
Is the book you refer to 'Jesus the Jew' by Geza Vermes - or perhaps one of Vermes' other works on the NT?
The First Gospel, by Harold Riley.
-
That they were telling a story about an alleged Messiah is clearly a risk: how have you addressed this possibility that doesn't involve confirmation bias on your part?
I thought that was what I had just explained?
-
Even taking all that into account, scholars are confident they have more or less reconstructed something like the original text. Obviously, you can't be 100% certain but it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that what we have got is OK.
The way in which scholars tend to uncover alterations broadly falls into two categories.
The first is down to direct evidence of variants - a good example of this is the ending of Mark 16 - early extant versions do not contain the last few verse and the they suddenly start to appear in later versions. It is pretty clear there has been come alteration.
The second is linguistic and contextual - in other words a section is written differently to other sections, or is clunky in context, for example the author would not have written in a particular manner or could not have known about a particular thing when originally writing. A good example of this from antiquity is Josephus on Jesus specifically the text 'if indeed one ought to call him a man' and 'He was the Christ' which are anomalous linguistically and contextually.
But the end of Mark 16 doesn't seem to be flagged up in the latter manner - it is no more linguistically anomalous not clunky that many other sections of Mark. Indeed were it not for early fragments without the section it is unlikely to be flagged up as an addition.
The point is that we really cannot know how many equivalents of Mark 16 (or much more subtle alterations) exist which don't set linguistic and contextual alarm bells ringing from the period prior to extant fragments being available. And don't forget that additions are more easily stopped linguistically than sections removed.
-
Which scholars - references please.
I suggest you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrmann.
-
I'm pretty happy to concede that there isn't any of that so there's no point in trying.
I think it's interesting to understand how the Bible came to be written even with Jesus not being God.
Do you only do things that have a point? If I had just said "Jesus wasn't God so I'm not interested" I wouldn't know anything like as much as I do about the history of 1st century Palestine - or history generally, or archaeology or a lot of other things. Discussions like this thread are interesting for their own sake and also for lots of tangential reasons. I can understand why you might not be interested, but it is not compulsory to read every thread on this board, nor comment on them.
I take your perfectly legitimate point j p, perhaps I should have been a bit more precise and premised that post with something like 'from my point of view'.
My observation was more aimed toward addressing the credibility of bronze age, or there abouts, scribblings than such as yourself taking a purely open minded interest in ancient documents and how they sit with history.
Regards, ippy.
-
I suggest you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrmann.
How is one person scholars, sounds more like scholar to me.
-
How is one person scholars, sounds more like scholar to me.
Because the book cites scholars?
-
Because the book cites scholars?
Whose views may or may not align with Ehrmann's overall thesis.
-
Whose views may or may not align with Ehrmann's overall thesis.
But may be cited in the book in support
-
But may be cited in the book in support
In which case I'm sure JP will provide those names and refs too - otherwise it remain scholar, not scholars.
-
In which case I'm sure JP will provide those names and refs too - otherwise it remain scholar, not scholars.
No, if the book covers multiple scholars that is just your assumption.
-
My observation was more aimed toward addressing the credibility of bronze age, or there abouts, scribblings than such as yourself taking a purely open minded interest in ancient documents and how they sit with history.
Here's a case in point. The documents we are talking on about this thread are not bronze age scribblings, but most likely written by fairly sophisticated people between 70 and 125CE. In fact, almost certainly nothing in the Christian canon was written in the Bronze Age. It's likely that even the earliest documents in the Bible were written in the eighth or seventh century BCE which is firmly in the Iron Age (in the Middle East).
The above is all stuff I learned through having an interest in how the Bible was written.
-
In which case I'm sure JP will provide those names and refs too - otherwise it remain scholar, not scholars.
It's actually a popular book written by a well respected scholar that summarises the current consensus position. It is well annotated with references to the academic work it quotes from. I could quote a few but I doubt they would mean anything to you and they probably wouldn't be much use to you anyway, unless you can read Koine Greek.
Another respected scholar who has written books for the popular audience is Mark Goodacre. I recommend The Synoptic Problem. It is also copiously annotated with references.
I haven't read any of the academic papers on which these books are based because I don't read Koine Greek (or German: Germany is where a lot of the research was done) but I've read these books by people who do know what they are talking about and I've read many articles online about the same. You don't have to accept what I say, but I reckon, unless you are a scholar in the field, your level of expertise is no better than mine.
-
It's actually a popular book written by a well respected scholar that summarises the current consensus position.
I know who he is and overnight I'm (albeit superficially) read the most relevant section of the 'for popular audience' Misquoting Jesus, but also his more scholarly text 'The New Testament - a Historical introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
Having done so I don't think that he is either claiming that we can come close to the real original text (the so called autograph) nor that there is a consensus amongst scholars as to whether you can. In reality he is talking about ascertaining which of the earliest available extant text and fragment is most likely to accord with earlier, but lost, versions - which of course may not be close to the original version.
So on the former the 'headline' of the original is typically caveated by oldest or earliest attainable version - so at the start of chapter 5 we have:
"In this chapter we will examine the methods that scholars have de vised to identify the "original" form of the text (or at least the "oldest attainable" form) and the form of the text that represents a later scribal alteration."
And on consensus he is clear that many scholars believe it to be impossible to get further back that the extant fragments etc we have:
"In fact, it is such an enormous problem that a number of textual critics have started to claim that we may as well suspend any discussion of the "original" text, because it is inaccessible to us."
In terms of timelines he covers the period from original writing to about 1500 - so in that context first half of 2nd century is early and likely earliest attainable version - but I'm talking about changes in the decades from original writing to that point. I don't think he is really claiming that you can reach all the way back, but that you can make judgements about those early fragments and texts most likely to be similar to earlier, but lost versions - but these may themselves be many generations (and changes from the original).
He actually illustrates the intractable problem very well using the example of Paul's letter to the Galatians (see from p58); the earliest version we have is from about AD200. He point out that even at the very earliest stage a scribe working directly with Paul may have produces several versions - and may have produced the letter from direct dictation or by taking basic points and filling in the rest:
"Now, if Paul dictated the letter, did he dictate it word for word? Or did he spell out the basic points and allow the scribe to fill in the rest? Both methods were commonly used by letter writers in antiq uity.16 If the scribe filled in the rest, can we be assured that he filled it in exactly as Paul wanted? If not, do we actually have Paul's words, or are they the words of some unknown scribe? But let's suppose that Paul dictated the letter word for word. Is it possible that in some places the scribe wrote down the wrong words? Stranger things have happened. If so, then the autograph of the letter (i.e., the origi nal) would already have a "mistake" in it, so that all subsequent copies would not be of Paul's words (in the places where his scribe got them wrong)."
And a couple of paragraphs later:
"What survives today, then, is not the original copy of the letter, nor one of the first copies that Paul himself had made, nor any of the copies that were produced in any of the towns of Galatia to which the letter was sent, nor any of the copies of those copies. The first reasonably complete copy we have of Galatians (this manuscript is fragmentary; i.e., it has a number of missing parts) is a papyrus called P46 (since it was the fortysixth New Testament papyrus to be catalogued), which dates to about 200 C.E. That's approximately 150 years after Paul wrote the letter. It had been in circulation, being copied sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly, for fifteen decades before any copy was made that has survived down to the present day. We cannot reconstruct the copy from which P46 was made. Was it an accurate copy? If so, how accurate? It surely had mistakes of some kind, as did the copy from which it was copied, and the copy from which that copy was copied, and so on.
In short, it is a very complicated business talking about the "original" text of Galatians. We don't have it. The best we can do is get back to an early stage of its transmission, and simply hope that what we reconstruct about the copies made at that stage—based on the copies that happen to survive (in increasing numbers as we move into the Middle Ages)—reasonably reflects what Paul himself actually wrote, or at least what he intended to write when he dictated the letter."
I've added some emphasis. This doesn't really seems to align with your (or his) headline claim that "scholars are confident they have more or less reconstructed something like the original text".
-
Here's a case in point. The documents we are talking on about this thread are not bronze age scribblings, but most likely written by fairly sophisticated people between 70 and 125CE. In fact, almost certainly nothing in the Christian canon was written in the Bronze Age. It's likely that even the earliest documents in the Bible were written in the eighth or seventh century BCE which is firmly in the Iron Age (in the Middle East).
The above is all stuff I learned through having an interest in how the Bible was written.
Yes there's also a lot of people that take a similar interest in the works of Homer that seem equally as credible as bible stories are to me.
Nothing wrong with the study of either one of those subjects although I might find it a bit more worrisome with people that actually take the magical, mysterious and superstitional elements to seriously.
Regards, ippy.
-
Yes there's also a lot of people that take a similar interest in the works of Homer that seem equally as credible as bible stories are to me.
That's a fair comparison. I don't think The Iliad was written down in the Bronze Age either.
Nothing wrong with the study of either one of those subjects although I might find it a bit more worrisome with people that actually take the magical, mysterious and superstitional elements to seriously.
Regards, ippy.
Taking the magicking seriously is different from taking the documents seriously as pieces of literature.
-
I suggest you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrmann.
But from what I've read and seen Ehrmann seems to be arguing exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Check out his piece at the start of the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRHjZCKRIu4
He is constantly and continually stating that we do not and cannot know what the original gospel texts were - the best we can achieve is to use the earliest extant fragments and text but that we have no way of know how loose these were to the originals. Indeed he goes further in stating that alternations, mistakes, additions, deletions in the first decades following from the original texts was far more likely than later as the people doing the transcribing and copying were, effectively, well meaning amateurs rather than professional scribes or monks as happened later.
His argument in this video (more recent than Misquoting Jesus) seems to align pretty well perfectly with the points I have been making about the possibility of changes in text from original writing to earliest extant copy.
-
But from what I've read and seen Ehrmann seems to be arguing exactly the opposite of what you claim.
Check out his piece at the start of the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRHjZCKRIu4
He is constantly and continually stating that we do not and cannot know what the original gospel texts were - the best we can achieve is to use the earliest extant fragments and text but that we have no way of know how loose these were to the originals. Indeed he goes further in stating that alternations, mistakes, additions, deletions in the first decades following from the original texts was far more likely than later as the people doing the transcribing and copying were, effectively, well meaning amateurs rather than professional scribes or monks as happened later.
His argument in this video (more recent than Misquoting Jesus) seems to align pretty well perfectly with the points I have been making about the possibility of changes in text from original writing to earliest extant copy.
Check out the particular section around 1hr 18mins in which Ehrmann is responding to Wallace's point that most of the changes don't matter. Ehrmann is very clear that although we might know about changes that arose after the first extant manuscipts that we do not and cannot know what changes occurred prior to the earliest existing manuscripts. My point exactly.
-
That's a fair comparison. I don't think The Iliad was written down in the Bronze Age either.Taking the magicking seriously is different from taking the documents seriously as pieces of literature.
At the end of your post j p, you wrote: 'Taking the magicking seriously is different from taking the documents seriously as pieces of literature'.
I was wondering j p, why you've repeated back to me, in this post, something I had said previously, O K I worded it differently to you?
Regards, ippy
-
At the end of your post j p, you wrote: 'Taking the magicking seriously is different from taking the documents seriously as pieces of literature'.
I was wondering j p, why you've repeated back to me, in this post, something I had said previously, O K I worded it differently to you?
Regards, ippy
Maybe the distinction needed to be reiterated because your position seems confused. After all, you had earlier stated that you didn't see the point of threads such as this one.
The thread is essentially concerned with academic questions, though Spud approaches the problems from the point of view of a believer and is therefore subject to a lot of confirmation bias. Conversely, Spud would claim that JP and the Prof are also biased by their non-belief over what conclusions they come up with.
However, your earlier assertion that supernatural claims should be established as fact before such a discussion can begin is just silly.
-
The thread is essentially concerned with academic questions, though Spud approaches the problems from the point of view of a believer and is therefore subject to a lot of confirmation bias.
Absolutely - note Spuds claim that the gnostic gospels could not be reliable as they don't claim Jesus to be a deity.
Conversely, Spud would claim that JP and the Prof are also biased by their non-belief over what conclusions they come up with.
I don't think that claim is sustainable at all. Was bias am I confirming. All I have been saying is that because we do not have gospel texts earlier than about 200AD, with the exception of some small fragments we cannot reasonable claim that the evidence we have (the extant fragments or texts) necessary reflects what was originally written decades or centuries earlier.
I'd make the same claim about any similar ancients texts.
And actually the fact that we do or do not know what was originally written in the gospels has no bearing on whether the claims in those texts are actually true. Even if the earliest fragments or text are completely unaltered from the original gospel tells us nothing about the veracity of the claims therein.
-
Absolutely - note Spuds claim that the gnostic gospels could not be reliable as they don't claim Jesus to be a deity.
I don't think that claim is sustainable at all. Was bias am I confirming. All I have been saying is that because we do not have gospel texts earlier than about 200AD, with the exception of some small fragments we cannot reasonable claim that the evidence we have (the extant fragments or texts) necessary reflects what was originally written decades or centuries earlier.
I'd make the same claim about any similar ancients texts.
And actually the fact that we do or do not know what was originally written in the gospels has no bearing on whether the claims in those texts are actually true. Even if the earliest fragments or text are completely unaltered from the original gospel tells us nothing about the veracity of the claims therein.
You seem to be missing DU's point and answering something he didn't say.
-
Absolutely - note Spuds claim that the gnostic gospels could not be reliable as they don't claim Jesus to be a deity.
If that was wrong, sorry. I wanted to mention them because they could be evidence that the apostles existed, which owlswing was asking for. Apart from that, I probably shouldn't have mentioned them as I haven't read or studied them.
-
And actually the fact that we do or do not know what was originally written in the gospels has no bearing on whether the claims in those texts are actually true. Even if the earliest fragments or text are completely unaltered from the original gospel tells us nothing about the veracity of the claims therein.
The question is, were they written pre-AD70. If the internal evidence suggests they were, then this is a pretty serious thing because the temple's destruction would have been impossible to predict. You will all continue to be wrong about the gospels as long as you cling on to this assumption that they were written post-70, because you won't trust them.
-
The question is, were they written pre-AD70. If the internal evidence suggests they were, then this is a pretty serious thing because the temple's destruction would have been impossible to predict. You will all continue to be wrong about the gospels as long as you cling on to this assumption that they were written post-70 because you won't trust them.
This is all very well if you can PROVE that they were written pre-AD70, which you can't.
Until you can PROVE that they were written pre-AD70 it is a reasonable assumption that they are complete and utter rubbish made up to con money out of a gullible public, a con that the Christian churches still pursue to the tune of milllions, if not billions. of pounds per year.
-
The question is, were they written pre-AD70. If the internal evidence suggests they were, then this is a pretty serious thing because the temple's destruction would have been impossible to predict. You will all continue to be wrong about the gospels as long as you cling on to this assumption that they were written post-70, because you won't trust them.
Your silliness seems boundless, Spud. The reason the 'gospels' can't be trusted is that their provenance (including later additions or revisions) is for the most part unknown.
-
Even if the gospels were written when Jesus was alive, which is unlikely, the less than credible stories they contain could be highly exaggerated or untrue.
-
Even if the gospels were written when Jesus was alive, which is unlikely, the less than credible stories they contain could be highly exaggerated or untrue.
Havent you heard it's alright in atheists circles to believe a universe can pop out of nowhere?
-
Havent you heard it's alright in atheists circles to believe a universe can pop out of nowhere?
Haven't you heard in Christian circles it's ok to bugger children?
-
Havent you heard it's alright in atheists circles to believe a universe can pop out of nowhere?
Whereas the religious think god popped out of nowhere.
-
Whereas the religious think god popped out of nowhere.
Though Vlad's post is a complete misrepresentation, don't think I've ever encountered any religious person who thinks that
-
Though Vlad's post is a complete misrepresentation, don't think I've ever encountered any religious person who thinks that
Many think god was always there, nothing created it.
-
Many think god was always there, nothing created it.
So your claim that God popped out of nowhere is in error, if they think "God was always there".
-
Many think god was always there, nothing created it.
Which is precisely not 'popped out of nowhere'
-
Which is precisely not 'popped out of nowhere'
So from where did it come?
-
So from where did it come?
Everlasting, eternal. A bit like lies from Conservative governments.
-
So from where did it come?
I don't believe in a god. But saying something is eternal does not equal 'popped out of nowhere'.
-
I don't believe in a god. But saying something is eternal does not equal 'popped out of nowhere'.
I disagree.
-
I disagree.
Logically you are just wrong.
-
The question is, were they written pre-AD70. If the internal evidence suggests they were, then this is a pretty serious thing because the temple's destruction would have been impossible to predict. You will all continue to be wrong about the gospels as long as you cling on to this assumption that they were written post-70, because you won't trust them.
Spud - regardless of when the original might have been written we know with absolute certainty that every single copy of the gospels, whether fragment or full text, was written long after 70AD. As such they could easily have been amended retrospectively with hindsight knowledge of the destruction of the second temple.
But lets, for the sake of argument, assume we have an original text (we don't of course) that we know for certain was written prior to AD70 (we don't of course) that predicted the destruction of the second temple. So what. All sorts of texts make predictions and sometimes those predictions turn out to be correct - in those countless other examples we don't assume that the predictor must be a god, so why should we in this case.
But I'll go back to my first point - regardless of when the gospels were originally written the ones we have available to us were, at the earliest, written decades or centuries later and we have no way of knowing how the versions we have compare to the original.
-
Logically you are just wrong.
According to your idea of logic. ;D ;D ;D
-
According to your idea of logic. ;D ;D ;D
Your inability to think clearly is reminiscent of both Alan Burns and Vlad.
-
According to your idea of logic. ;D ;D ;D
You are the one that posted:
Many think god was always there, nothing created it.
Surely you can see that is logically inconsistent with an assertion that God "popped out of nowhere" that you also make on behalf of Christians.
Three smileys don't cut it as an argument.
-
Maybe the distinction needed to be reiterated because your position seems confused. After all, you had earlier stated that you didn't see the point of threads such as this one.
The thread is essentially concerned with academic questions, though Spud approaches the problems from the point of view of a believer and is therefore subject to a lot of confirmation bias. Conversely, Spud would claim that JP and the Prof are also biased by their non-belief over what conclusions they come up with.
However, your earlier assertion that supernatural claims should be established as fact before such a discussion can begin is just silly.
If you were to go back on my posts to j p, you'll see where I said, 'I take your point j p', in other words yes you're right and this a reference to the part of a previous post of mine you're referring to, I can see why you're saying this as it seems to me more than likely you hadn't seen that other post of mine.
Regards, ippy.
-
You are the one that posted:
Surely you can see that is logically inconsistent with an assertion that God "popped out of nowhere" that you also make on behalf of Christians.
Three smileys don't cut it as an argument.
I don't see that at all, anyway I have better things to do than argue about it, I am sure you do too.
-
This is all very well if you can PROVE that they were written pre-AD70, which you can't.
Until you can PROVE that they were written pre-AD70 it is a reasonable assumption that they are complete and utter rubbish
I've already said here that all we can do is assess them rationally, and in #37 I posted this: "Another reason why the gospels can be trusted is because they were written before AD 70 at a time when, according to Matthew, people would routinely go to the temple to offer a sacrifice, would pray on street corners and would 'swear by the temple'. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple within his generation and it happened."
This article (https://www.dannyzacharias.net/blog/2016/8/16/arguments-for-a-pre-70-ce-dating-of-matthews-gospel) gives 6 reasons, with verses from Matthew why a pre-AD70 date for that book is likely. I disagree on one detail - I think Mark's sources included Matthew and Luke.
made up to con money out of a gullible public, a con that the Christian churches still pursue to the tune of milllions, if not billions. of pounds per year.
I agree, the amount of money spent seems astronomical. But as long as they account for every penny, that's what counts as it means the money is more likely to be used in the way the people who give want it to be.
-
I've already said here that all we can do is assess them rationally, and in #37 I posted this: "Another reason why the gospels can be trusted is because they were written before AD 70 at a time when, according to Matthew, people would routinely go to the temple to offer a sacrifice, would pray on street corners and would 'swear by the temple'. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple within his generation and it happened."
This article (https://www.dannyzacharias.net/blog/2016/8/16/arguments-for-a-pre-70-ce-dating-of-matthews-gospel) gives 6 reasons, with verses from Matthew why a pre-AD70 date for that book is likely. I disagree on one detail - I think Mark's sources included Matthew and Luke.
I agree, the amount of money spent seems astronomical. But as long as they account for every penny, that's what counts as it means the money is more likely to be used in the way the people who give want it to be.
HUGE GROAN!
-
HUGE GROAN!
When did you first notice the pain?
-
When did you first notice the pain?
When I started trying to understand the logic behind your attempts to justify the unjustifiable!
Go join Vlad in the "Ignored" box!
-
When I started trying to understand the logic behind your attempts to justify the unjustifiable!
Go join Vlad in the "Ignored" box!
Maybe this will help, as it goes into
a bit more depth (https://jimmyakin.com/2018/11/was-matthew-written-before-a-d-70.html)
-
All conjecture.
-
According to your idea of logic. ;D ;D ;D
Logic is objective. There's no "your logic" and "my logic"
-
Spud - regardless of when the original might have been written we know with absolute certainty that every single copy of the gospels, whether fragment or full text, was written long after 70AD. As such they could easily have been amended retrospectively with hindsight knowledge of the destruction of the second temple.
But lets, for the sake of argument, assume we have an original text (we don't of course) that we know for certain was written prior to AD70 (we don't of course) that predicted the destruction of the second temple. So what. All sorts of texts make predictions and sometimes those predictions turn out to be correct - in those countless other examples we don't assume that the predictor must be a god, so why should we in this case.
But I'll go back to my first point - regardless of when the gospels were originally written the ones we have available to us were, at the earliest, written decades or centuries later and we have no way of knowing how the versions we have compare to the original.
Re: your point about prophecies being retrospectively inserted: the analysis I'm reading shows that they actually fit into the narrative naturally, and thus are most likely part of the original text.
-
Re: your point about prophecies being retrospectively inserted: the analysis I'm reading shows that they actually fit into the narrative naturally, and thus are most likely part of the original text.
Or were inserted by someone who wanted the narrative to appear natural: some people can be quite effective at writing you know, such as authors, and especially so when they wish to emphasise something.
The plain fact is that there is no extant copy of this narrative that predates 70CE and, as such, a clear risk that any elements in its current form could have been added later, such as 'predictions' that have already occurred - how does your analysis address this risk?
-
Re: your point about prophecies being retrospectively inserted: the analysis I'm reading shows that they actually fit into the narrative naturally, and thus are most likely part of the original text.
But what do you mean by 'the original' - we have no idea what 'the original' looked like as all the extant texts and fragments are from, at best decades and typically centuries after the original was purported to have been written. Certainly everything we have is way after the temple destruction. So what you describe as 'the original will have been subject to change, addition and deletion over those decades and centuries - some of those changes (probably the vast majority) will simply be copying errors, but there will also be some deliberate changes.
-
the analysis I'm reading shows that they actually fit into the narrative naturally, and thus are most likely part of the original text.
Exactly the opposite is likely to be the case - in the field of textual criticism a very coherence and 'smoothed' narrative is considered to be evidence that the text is more recent rather than older. This from Bart Ehrman's Historical introduction to the early christian writings, in which he sets out six criteria for considering that a text is more or less likely to resemble the original (when we don't have the original as is the case here):
"The Difficulty of the Reading. Scholars have found this criterion to be extraordinarily useful. We have seen that scribes sometimes eliminated possible contradictions and discrepancies, harmonized stories, and changed doctrinally questionable statements. Therefore, when we have two forms of a text, one that would have been troubling to scribes—for example, one that is possibly contradictory to another passage or grammatically inelegant or theologically problematic—and one that would not have been as troubling, it is the former form of the text, the one that is more “difficult,” that is more likely to be original. That is, since scribes were far more likely to have corrected problems than to have created them, the comparatively smooth, consistent, harmonious, and orthodox readings are more likely to have been created by scribes. Our earliest manuscripts, interestingly enough, are the ones that tend to preserve the more difficult readings."
-
Exactly the opposite is likely to be the case - in the field of textual criticism a very coherence and 'smoothed' narrative is considered to be evidence that the text is more recent rather than older. This from Bart Ehrman's Historical introduction to the early Christian writings, in which he sets out six criteria for considering that a text is more or less likely to resemble the original (when we don't have the original as is the case here):
"The Difficulty of the Reading. Scholars have found this criterion to be extraordinarily useful. We have seen that scribes sometimes eliminated possible contradictions and discrepancies, harmonized stories, and changed doctrinally questionable statements. Therefore, when we have two forms of a text, one that would have been troubling to scribes—for example, one that is possibly contradictory to another passage or grammatically inelegant or theologically problematic—and one that would not have been as troubling, it is the former form of the text, the one that is more “difficult,” that is more likely to be original. That is, since scribes were far more likely to have corrected problems than to have created them, the comparatively smooth, consistent, harmonious, and orthodox readings are more likely to have been created by scribes. Our earliest manuscripts, interestingly enough, are the ones that tend to preserve the more difficult readings."
Come on, Prof, you know as well as I that the only way you are going to get a resolution to the arguments of Spud and his ilk is to build a time-machine and carry them back to sit next to the scribes who wrote the originals!
Probably men who were paid per page by the priests to create something that would be believed by the gullible 2,000 years later!
)O(
-
Come on, Prof, you know as well as I that the only way you are going to get a resolution to the arguments of Spud and his ilk is to build a time-machine and carry them back to sit next to the scribes who wrote the originals!
Probably men who were paid per page by the priests to create something that would be believed by the gullible 2,000 years later!
)O(
Spud seems so desperate to accept that the gospels were originally written prior to the destruction of the temple - but I don't understand why this really helps him. To my view there remains three intractable problems.
1. As mentioned before even if the gospel was written prior to AD70 (the autograph) the version we have are way, way later and won't be the same as the autograph (and we cannot know how close or otherwise they are).
2. Just because the gospels (even if originally written in the AD60s) say that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, that doesn't mean he actually did as there is decades of time between when Jesus was alive, and possibly making that prediction, and the writing of the gospels.
3. Even if Jesus did predict it - so what - why would that prove he was a deity. All sorts of people have made all sorts of predictions that came true.
https://www.rd.com/list/historical-predictions-that-came-true/
Are all these people gods?
-
I see that Stephen Fry enjoys Greek Mythology and has published a couple of book on the subject it's good to see such an enthusiast about this subject giving it his all.
What a shame those that follow the religious stories and seem unable to differentiate between the myth, mystical, superstitious nonsense and reality, whilst so many of the stories are so good and almost believable, just like some of the Greek myths are.
It's the total lack of viable evidence for the magical, mystical and superstitious material in the religions, that makes one wonder about the people that label themselves as believers, although of course there's no harm studying these stories a la Stephen Fry mode, none at all.
-
Or were inserted by someone who wanted the narrative to appear natural: some people can be quite effective at writing you know, such as authors, and especially so when they wish to emphasise something.
The plain fact is that there is no extant copy of this narrative that predates 70CE and, as such, a clear risk that any elements in its current form could have been added later, such as 'predictions' that have already occurred - how does your analysis address this risk?
If there was some editing of Matthew's account of the Olivet discourse, the essence of the original account was preserved in Mark, who (as I believe we can know for other reasons) made use of it, and in Luke, who had an independent source and possibly used Matthew as well. It is possible to identify parts of Matthew that could be insertions to an earlier text, and these include the references to the final judgment in Matthew 25. Neither Mark nor Luke have this. But they do have the prophecy of the temple's destruction.
2. Just because the gospels (even if originally written in the AD60s) say that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, that doesn't mean he actually did as there is decades of time between when Jesus was alive, and possibly making that prediction, and the writing of the gospels.
How did they know to leave the city, flee to the mountains etc?
3. Even if Jesus did predict it - so what - why would that prove he was a deity. All sorts of people have made all sorts of predictions that came true.
https://www.rd.com/list/historical-predictions-that-came-true/
Are all these people gods?
I don't think I have claimed that it shows Jesus was divine, but rather that the gospels can be trusted as honest reports. The point of them writing down the prophecy was to warn readers to be ready for it. If someone had warned some Jews to leave Germany in the 1930s, those Jews that did heed the warnings would know that person could be taken seriously.
-
If there was some editing of Matthew's account of the Olivet discourse, the essence of the original account was preserved in Mark, who (as I believe we can know for other reasons) made use of it, and in Luke, who had an independent source and possibly used Matthew as well. It is possible to identify parts of Matthew that could be insertions to an earlier text, and these include the references to the final judgment in Matthew 25. Neither Mark nor Luke have this. But they do have the prophecy of the temple's destruction.
Unless you have an unedited copy of the first draft, with sufficient provenance to confirm this, corroboration of what is claimed in the text and also a timeline of amendments and alterations with separate provenance for each case - then your 'essence' is that of a mixed bag of writings that are indistinguishable from fiction.
You can cite Christians apologists until the cows come home, and assert your own preparedness to take these texts seriously, but in doing so you are over-reaching to a ridiculous degree.
-
If there was some editing of Matthew's account of the Olivet discourse, the essence of the original account was preserved in Mark, who (as I believe we can know for other reasons) made use of it, and in Luke, who had an independent source and possibly used Matthew as well. It is possible to identify parts of Matthew that could be insertions to an earlier text, and these include the references to the final judgment in Matthew 25. Neither Mark nor Luke have this. But they do have the prophecy of the temple's destruction.
But all you have to base this on are fragments and full texts from the early 200sAD, so perhaps 150 years after the original is considered to have been written. Neither you nor I, nor anyone, can know what alterations, additions and deletions occurred in those 150 years - we are completely in the dark. All we can say is that a many-generations copy that is the earliest extant version we have includes these words - there is no guarantee that the original did.
-
I don't think I have claimed that it shows Jesus was divine, but rather that the gospels can be trusted as honest reports.
So you are using extant texts written perhaps 150 years after the destruction of the temple as a guide to then honesty of the report :o Neither you, nor I, nor anyone knows whether this claim was in the original texts or even if it were whether it is an accurate representation of a claim Jesus actually made.
And doesn't the gospel also claim that there would be a second coming in generations - hmm - don't think that happened. By your own argument that would make the gospels dishonest reports. And further the honesty of a report of someone making a prophecy is surely whether it accurately reports that prophecy, not whether the prophecy actually came to pass.
-
How did they know to leave the city, flee to the mountains etc?
Because the City was being surrounded and besieged by the Romans.
-
But all you have to base this on are fragments and full texts from the early 200sAD, so perhaps 150 years after the original is considered to have been written. Neither you nor I, nor anyone, can know what alterations, additions and deletions occurred in those 150 years - we are completely in the dark. All we can say is that a many-generations copy that is the earliest extant version we have includes these words - there is no guarantee that the original did.
Morning, fair point. Let me have a go at answering it: take the healing of blind Bartimaeus, and if you compare the three synoptic accounts you notice differences in detail, but it is recognizably the same incident in all three. Clearly there are at least two sources: two or one blind men? Leaving or approaching Jericho? Name? Crowd praising God? Jesus touches eyes or speaks only? The story is basically the same, though: a blind man is healed miraculously at Jericho. Are we going to suggest that this story is based on chapter 10 of "Twelve have a big adventure" in which a sleepy homeless man wakes up and becomes a follower?
-
Unless you have an unedited copy of the first draft, with sufficient provenance to confirm this, corroboration of what is claimed in the text and also a timeline of amendments and alterations with separate provenance for each case - then your 'essence' is that of a mixed bag of writings that are indistinguishable from fiction.
You can cite Christians apologists until the cows come home, and assert your own preparedness to take these texts seriously, but in doing so you are over-reaching to a ridiculous degree.
Have a look at this preview of "The First Gospel" by Harold Riley (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DfiijGB4NJkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false). Scroll down to "Chapter 8, Proto-Matthew" and point (2) on the first page of that chapter. Quote: "When we recognize that [the two doublets of Matthew 9:27-34] are later additions to the text, we see the plan of the Gospel more clearly".
That isn't what you ask for, I know. What would happen if the first draught of Bach's sonata in X was lost? Would it matter?
-
Morning, fair point. Let me have a go at answering it: take the healing of blind Bartimaeus, and if you compare the three synoptic accounts you notice differences in detail, but it is recognizably the same incident in all three. Clearly there are at least two sources: two or one blind men? Leaving or approaching Jericho? Name? Crowd praising God? Jesus touches eyes or speaks only? The story is basically the same, though: a blind man is healed miraculously at Jericho. Are we going to suggest that this story is based on chapter 10 of "Twelve have a big adventure" in which a sleepy homeless man wakes up and becomes a follower?
None of which provides one iota of evidence that the incident actually happened - merely that through decades and centuries of handed down stories (with all the possibility of exaggerations, alterations etc etc) that a tradition arose that Jesus healed a blind man. And when we finally have some actual evidence (fragments and text) 200-300 years after the purported event that legend has been written down.
Do you believe that Icharus and Daedalus made wings and flew from Crete?
-
How did they know to leave the city, flee to the mountains etc?
How did who know to flee?
You surely aren't talking about the so-called flight to Pella - a tradition without credible evidence that first arose in writings of Eusabuis in 312AD, nigh on 250 years after the event was supposed to have happened. This is despite there being many much more contemporaneous accounts (from both sides) about the first Jewish Roman war and the siege of Jerusalem.
-
None of which provides one iota of evidence that the incident actually happened - merely that through decades and centuries of handed down stories (with all the possibility of exaggerations, alterations etc etc) that a tradition arose that Jesus healed a blind man. And when we finally have some actual evidence (fragments and text) 200-300 years after the purported event that legend has been written down.
Do you believe that Icharus and Daedalus made wings and flew from Crete?
I've just showed what those exaggerations and alterations may have been (1 becomes 2 etc). It's also noteworthy that there is no evidence of any previous texts of the sort you are proposing (12 go down to Lake Galilee, for example).
-
It's also noteworthy that there is no evidence of any previous texts of the sort you are proposing (12 go down to Lake Galilee, for example).
But that is the fundamental issue - there is an aching paucity of evidence for any of the claims in the gospels. All we have are many-generation handed down texts from hundreds of years after the events which are clearly partial (in other words written by believers). There is nothing contemporaneous nor near contemporaneous and nothing independent (i.e. non partial) - for example reports in contemporary Jewish or Roman texts indicating that Jesus existed and performed miracles etc etc. We have absolutely nothing.
Now were the claims completely run of the mill, then we'd perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt in the absence of any credible evidence. But that the claims are fundamentally implausible and extraordinary in the extreme then to accept them (to misquote Sagan) requires extraordinary evidence. Yet in reality we have effectively no credible evidence whatsoever.
-
Prof,
We do have a mention of John the Baptist in Josephus in the context of Herod's marital troubles, for the record. Then there is Tacitus who mentions Christ and his followers, and I think he remarks that Christ was worshipped as a god?
-
Prof,
We do have a mention of John the Baptist in Josephus in the context of Herod's marital troubles, for the record. Then there is Tacitus who mentions Christ and his followers, and I think he remarks that Christ was worshipped as a god?
Many charismatic leaders have been worshipped as gods by their followers over the centuries!
-
Many charismatic leaders have been worshipped as gods by their followers over the centuries!
I'm sure you can justify that statement with examples...
-
Prof,
We do have a mention of John the Baptist in Josephus in the context of Herod's marital troubles, for the record. Then there is Tacitus who mentions Christ and his followers, and I think he remarks that Christ was worshipped as a god?
Neither Josephus nor Tacitus are contemporary - the former writing around 94AD, the latter around 116AD, so both writing 60 plus years after the death of Jesus.
-
I'm sure you can justify that statement with examples...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities
I asked LR, not you. I suspect that she was just guessing, as so often, and wouldn't have had an answer to a challenge.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities
Thanks Prof. :)
Many of those awful evangelists are treated like gods by their very gullible followers. That Benny Hinn creature has people going on about the miracles of healing he is supposed to have carried out. I heard it claimed that someone's amputated leg miraculously re-attached itself, like as if. ::)
The ghastly, Trump, is looked upon as a godlike entity by some of his bonkers supporters.
-
I asked LR, not you. I suspect that she was just guessing, as so often, and wouldn't have had an answer to a challenge.
Irrelevant and I suspect you are wrong.
Do you accept that over history all sorts of people have been considered to be and worshiped as gods.
-
Neither Josephus nor Tacitus are contemporary - the former writing around 94AD, the latter around 116AD, so both writing 60 plus years after the death of Jesus.
I never see the same reservations expressed in other circumstances where historians are writing after the event.
Verdict on this post? Humbug.
-
Neither Josephus nor Tacitus are contemporary - the former writing around 94AD, the latter around 116AD, so both writing 60 plus years after the death of Jesus.
I never see the same reservations expressed in other circumstances where historians are writing after the event.
Verdict on this post? Humbug.
-
Moderator Note a number of posts have been removed as they were merely comments about different posters posting style with no relevance to the thread. This is effectively a derail. Please note that such posts will continue to be removed.
-
I'm sure you can justify that statement with examples...
Jesus.
Any number of Roman emperors.
Elon Musk
-
I never see the same reservations expressed in other circumstances where historians are writing after the event.
Don't you?
Verdict on this post? Humbug.
It was factually correct.
-
Irrelevant and I suspect you are wrong.
Do you accept that over history all sorts of people have been considered to be and worshiped as gods.
Yes - I didn't deny it.
Your second sentence should be terminated by a question mark.
-
Yes - I didn't deny it.
Your second sentence should be terminated by a question mark.
Another pedant!
The last resort of someone with nothing worthwhile to say! Just criticise others!
-
Your second sentence should be terminated by a question mark.
Do you accept that over history all sorts of people have been considered to be and worshiped as gods?
-
I never see the same reservations expressed in other circumstances where historians are writing after the event.
The proximity of the writing about an event to the actual event is a key issue for historians in all contexts. Specifically it requires historians to consider the source material when a commentary is written decades after an event.
Sometimes (as will be the case in current academic historical texts) the source material will be clear and referenced. But for ancient texts we are often completely in the dark as to the earlier sources used in the derivation of the final text. And in this case the weight that is placed on that text is consequentially diminished.
The issue with Josephus and Tacitus (amongst a range of issues) is we don't know what source material they are basing their very limited comments on Jesus. Was it genuinely independent, or were they simply using early christian texts that were floating around and editing it down to the bits they believed were true and relevant - namely there was a guy called Jesus, he was executed and people followed him (that's basically all we can take from the texts of Josephus and Tacitus ignoring the obvious later christian alterations).
-
Whilst something that is considered historical is obviously written up after it has happened, it is wise to question the veracity of things, which aren't credible, like those attributed to Jesus.
-
Whilst something that is considered historical is obviously written up after it has happened, it is wise to question the veracity of things, which aren't credible, like those attributed to Jesus.
Sometimes you get directly contemporaneous reports and evidence - while we may consider Kennedy's assassination as a historical event much of what we know happened is based on reports, film etc etc from the moment when it happened.
-
Sometimes you get directly contemporaneous reports and evidence - while we may consider Kennedy's assassination as a historical event much of what we know happened is based on reports, film etc etc from the moment when it happened.
Very true.
We can never be certain that historical events, especially ones that took place many centuries ago without the benefit of films and modern technology, were accurately reported. The problem in this day and age is that modern technology can be used to alter photos and create images, which aren't factual.
-
And doesn't the gospel also claim that there would be a second coming in generations - hmm - don't think that happened. By your own argument that would make the gospels dishonest reports. And further the honesty of a report of someone making a prophecy is surely whether it accurately reports that prophecy, not whether the prophecy actually came to pass.
It would help if you could specify which verse(s) you think claim this?
-
It would help if you could specify which verse(s) you think claim this?
I touched upon the same thing in post 39. However here are some of the references:
Matthew 16:28
Luke 9::27
Mark 9:1
Clearly Jesus was talking to the people standing there, not future generations.
Again:
Matthew 10:23
Matthew 24:29-34
Mark 13:29-33
Luke 21:31-34
Clearly Paul(or whoever wrote the Philippians, Hebrews and Thessalonians) thought that Jesus would make his second coming within their lifetimes, as suggested by:
Philippians 4:1-5
Hebrews 1:1-3
Thessalonians 4:15-18
Thessalonians 2:1-2
Other references from John, from Peter, from James all resonate that Jesus's second coming and the end of the world were soon to be here.
No doubt it was because of the failure of those prophesies to hold water that later generations tried to subtly alter the significance of references to Daniel, tried to alter the meaning of 'generation' to 'age' and basically tried to modify the original message so that it would stand the test of time.
-
I touched upon the same thing in post 39. However, here are some of the references:
Matthew 16:28
Luke 9::27
Mark 9:1
Clearly Jesus was talking to the people standing there, not future generations.
Again:
Matthew 10:23
Matthew 24:29-34
Mark 13:29-33
Luke 21:31-34
Clearly Paul(or whoever wrote the Philippians, Hebrews and Thessalonians) thought that Jesus would make his second coming within their lifetimes, as suggested by:
Philippians 4:1-5
Hebrews 1:1-3
Thessalonians 4:15-18
Thessalonians 2:1-2
Other references from John, from Peter, from James all resonate that Jesus's second coming and the end of the world were soon to be here.
No doubt it was because of the failure of those prophesies to hold water that later generations tried to subtly alter the significance of references to Daniel, tried to alter the meaning of 'generation' to 'age' and basically tried to modify the original message so that it would stand the test of time.
Nice one!
-
And doesn't the gospel also claim that there would be a second coming in generations - hmm - don't think that happened.
Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".
Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.
Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfillment of Psalm 110).
By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.
So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."
Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).
We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).
-
Spud,
You are doing exactly what I intimated in my last paragraph. Nothing could be plainer than 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.' His prophesy failed and has led to the rather unseemly attempt at watering down which you seem(quite naturally of course given your faith) to favour.
-
Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".
Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.
Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfillment of Psalm 110).
By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.
So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."
Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).
We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).
The very human, Jesus, had no more idea about the so called 'end times' than anyone else, he thought it would happen in the lifetime of his supporters. Our planet might be destroyed one day, possibly due to some cosmic event, but no one knows when that is likely to occur.
-
Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".
Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.
Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfillment of Psalm 110).
By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.
So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."
Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).
We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).
This ramble is nothing more than a mishmash of self-referential bollocks with the intention, no doubt, of trying to make the mishmash of self-referential bollocks that is 'scripture' and/or 'theology' (take you pick) somehow seem obvious, reasonable and rational: in that, it fails.
-
Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".
Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.
Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfilment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfilment of Psalm 110).
By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.
So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the Son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."
Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).
We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).
All this proves is that you are a far worse example of the brainwashed churchgoer, since infancy in all probability, than even I was willing to suggest previously.
You are a truly hopeless case of the totally and irrevocably indoctrinated.
-
I've Australian family members just as far gone on religion as Spud and they're always clutching at the very smallest of straws too.
-
The other day I had a lecture from an extreme Biblical literalist, a member of my extended family. I was told as I wasn't getting any younger, I should consider my death and get right with god, otherwise I would burn in hell. When I told them I had my asbestos coated clothing ready for such an eventuality, it didn't go down too well. ::)
-
The other day I had a lecture from an extreme Biblical literalist, a member of my extended family. I was told as I wasn't getting any younger, I should consider my death and get right with God, otherwise, I would burn in hell. When I told them I had my asbestos coated clothing ready for such an eventuality, it didn't go down too well. ::)
Score one for the non-Christians!
A non-christian friend of mine told me of a Pagan who died and arrived at the Gates of Heaven to be met by St Peter who was wearing a disgruntled scowl as he informed the man that he had been sent to Heaven in error and, as a non-Christian, he was meant to be in Hell! He pointed to the left of the gates to a path that obviously led downward and told him to follow the path and that he would find his rightful place in Hell.
He walked down the path for what seemed like hours and came to a set of gates that looked exactly like those he had just been prevented from entering except for the fact that they were wide open and led to a landscape of trees, flowers, sunshine. He walked in and along the path for more than an hour before he saw, coming from behind a tree a plume of what smelled like cigar smoke. He walked over to the tree and found a man with horns and a forked tail smoking the cigar, who, as soon as he saw the man, jumped to his feet, held out his hand and said, "Welcome to Hell, let me show you around."
He was shown swimming pools, snooker halls, football pitches, in fact, he was shown just about everything that he could ever have had a wish to find in Heaven! The Devil, for his guide admitted that he was Satan, explained that the whole idea of Hell . . . at this point there was a huge crash of thunder and forks of lightning and the sky opened, and below that an opening the ground appeared and flames rose out of the hole, and then a body, that of a screaming man, dropped through the hole in the sky, dropped into the firey hole in the ground which, along with the hole in the sky, closed up and peace reigned again.
"What was that?" asked the man.
With a grin, Satan said, "Oh, that's just for the Christians, they wouldn't have it any other way!"
-
The other day I had a lecture from an extreme Biblical literalist, a member of my extended family. I was told as I wasn't getting any younger, I should consider my death and get right with god, otherwise I would burn in hell. When I told them I had my asbestos coated clothing ready for such an eventuality, it didn't go down too well. ::)
Like it L R, try the next time you meet them by asking them 'have you heard the bad news' I'll bet that'll go down a bundle.
I find these kinds of religionists so patronising that they deserve, in fact earn any retort of the appropriate kind you had to offer well done.
;D ;D ;D
-
Spud,
You are doing exactly what I intimated in my last paragraph. Nothing could be plainer than 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.' His prophesy failed and has led to the rather unseemly attempt at watering down which you seem(quite naturally of course given your faith) to favour.
Sorry enki, but you are assuming a worldwide judgment all at once 'in that generation', but this doesn't agree with Psalm 110:1. Matthew 23:36 is clear that Jerusalem's fall was immanent, but the overall picture is of the ongoing process, starting with Israel, of all nations being brought under Christ's rule. Then, as per 1 Cor. 15, will come the last judgment. "All these things" relates to the destruction of the temple, and the events preceding it.
-
Sorry enki, but you are assuming a worldwide judgment all at once 'in that generation', but this doesn't agree with Psalm 110:1. Matthew 23:36 is clear that Jerusalem's fall would was immanent, but the overall picture is of the ongoing process, starting with Israel, of all nations being brought under Christ's rule. Then, as per 1 Cor. 15, will come the last judgment. "All these things" relates to the destruction of the temple, and the events preceding it.
No need to be sorry, Spud. I'm not assuming anything. You asked for verses from the Gospels which claimed a second coming. I gave you plenty. His prophesy failed. Live with it.
Incidentally, in your Post 153, you refer to non gospel sources, such as Revelations. I'm afraid my view of Revelations is more in line with that of Thomas Jefferson, Robert Ingersoll and George Bernard Shaw(who considered it as "a peculiar record of the visions of a drug addict"), but even so it abounds with references to God's judgement 'coming quickly' and the 'time being at hand'.
E.g.
Revelations:
1:1 2:5 2:16 3:3 22:6-7 22:18-21
Such warnings were clearly meant for those living at the time I suggest rather than for the inhabitants of the entire world nowadays.
You also, by using phrases such as 'Thus we can see that..." and "We can see..." assume by the definition of 'we' that the reader of your post is in agreement with you. This, of course, doesn't necessarily follow. so perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.
-
You also, by using phrases such as 'Thus we can see that..." and "We can see..." assume by the definition of 'we' that the reader of your post is in agreement with you. This, of course, doesn't necessarily follow. so perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.
"Thus we can see..." and similar phrases are a common way of introducing a conclusion to an argument, and assumes nothing of the sort. It depends who is meant by "we". It could be considered, anyway, to be inviting the reader to agree, rather than assuming that they do. There is also the pluralis modestiae (https://studyboss.com/literary-devices/pluralis-modestiae.html) to consider.
Adding a sneer about the poster's literary style detracts from the force of your main argument. Perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.
-
"Thus we can see..." and similar phrases are a common way of introducing a conclusion to an argument, and assumes nothing of the sort. It depends who is meant by "we". It could be considered, anyway, to be inviting the reader to agree, rather than assuming that they do. There is also the pluralis modestiae (https://studyboss.com/literary-devices/pluralis-modestiae.html) to consider.
Adding a sneer about the poster's literary style detracts from the force of your main argument. Perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.
Except that Spud had already introduced the conclusion of his argument at the beginning of his 5th paragraph with the words "So it is clear that..."
Somehow I don't think Spud's argument is all that clear. Whereas Enki's argument, which is basically Schweitzer's and that of any honest biblical critic ever since, is a model of clarity.
-
"Thus we can see..." and similar phrases are a common way of introducing a conclusion to an argument, and assumes nothing of the sort. It depends who is meant by "we". It could be considered, anyway, to be inviting the reader to agree, rather than assuming that they do. There is also the pluralis modestiae (https://studyboss.com/literary-devices/pluralis-modestiae.html) to consider.
Adding a sneer about the poster's literary style detracts from the force of your main argument. Perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.
Using the first person makes an argument clearer and is much more appropriate than the way in which Spud used 'we' in post 153, where the 'we' looked as if it was used merely for rhetorical emphasis, as it had no clear defining group and therefore tended to assume that the person reading agreed with his position.
In my view you also need to examine your own assumptions as no sneering was intended. Perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.
Therefore, after considering your criticism, I reject it and will continue to criticise the word 'we' when I consider that it is an inappropriate word to use.
-
No need to be sorry, Spud. I'm not assuming anything. You asked for verses from the Gospels which claimed a second coming. I gave you plenty. His prophesy failed. Live with it.
Incidentally, in your Post 153, you refer to non gospel sources, such as Revelations. I'm afraid my view of Revelations is more in line with that of Thomas Jefferson, Robert Ingersoll and George Bernard Shaw(who considered it as "a peculiar record of the visions of a drug addict"), but even so it abounds with references to God's judgement 'coming quickly' and the 'time being at hand'.
E.g.
Revelations:
1:1 2:5 2:16 3:3 22:6-7 22:18-21
Such warnings were clearly meant for those living at the time I suggest rather than for the inhabitants of the entire world nowadays.
You also, by using phrases such as 'Thus we can see that..." and "We can see..." assume by the definition of 'we' that the reader of your post is in agreement with you. This, of course, doesn't necessarily follow. so perhaps you may bear that in mind in future posts.
Hi enki,
Two of the verses you quoted, Revelation 2:5, 3:3 illustrate the point I've been making in that in both, Jesus says he will soon come and judge, but I think it's clear that this doesn't involve him coming in bodily form.
The fact that I've assumed that you agree with me illustrates the OP; a lot of what I wrote in #153 was stolen from a talk I listened to to get some ideas. In copying I've written it in a way that doesn't work and comes across as a mishmash of ideas as Gordon puts it, a bit like what Mark sometimes does in copying from Matthew and Luke.
I've just listened to the first 10 minutes again and stopped it because he notes the following: in the olivet discourse at Matthew 24:30, the coming of Christ involves him receiving a kingdom. This must I think be what is in view when it says, "they (the nation's of the earth) will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." The language here is reminiscent of Daniel 7:13-14, in which the son of man comes on the clouds to the ancient of days and is given authority, glory and power.
In 1 Corinthians 15:24 it says that at his coming, those who belong to him will be made alive (resurrected as Christ was). Then at the end, after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power, Christ will hand the kingdom back to the Father. So this chap is saying that there appears to be a period of time implied between the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30 and 25:31.
This is the sermon, it's free to download. (Note what he says at 9.50).
https://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=30327
-
Revelation is the craziest book in the Bible, it is sad anyone takes it seriously.
-
the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".
That happened.
No second coming.
-
Luke 21 is fairly clear that there will be an undefined period of time before the second coming, that includes the destruction of Jerusalem. During it, the Jews would "fall by the sword, be taken prisoner into all nations, and Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled".
Matthew 10 conflates the sending out of the 12 on a temporary mission, with the more general sending out into Israel after Jesus' ascension during which they should expect persecution and betrayal; they would not have finished this mission before the Son of Man came.
Matthew goes further in 16:27-28 adding that "The Son of Man will come in his father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done". This seems to describe the final second coming and judgment of the world, but then Matthew adds that some of them would still be alive to see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. This refers to Jesus' ascension into heaven. Mark 16:19 tells us that Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. This was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13 in which Daniel has a vision of the Son of Man going into heaven with the clouds, approaching the Ancient of Days and receiving the kingdom. "In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty one and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mt 26:64) refers to the same event, it is not the second coming but the revelation of his ascension into heaven. From that time onward, Jesus began to judge the nations, starting with the Jews and sorting out the righteous from the unrighteous. This is referred to in Acts 2 as Jesus "sitting at my [God's] right hand while I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". (In fulfillment of Psalm 110).
By the way, being a footstool for Jesus' feet means being under his rule. It comes from the saying, "heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool", which implies people being under God's rule.
So it is clear that Jesus' judgment of the nations, beginning with AD 70, is in view when we read the phrase, "coming of the son of Man". But also in view is the final judgment, when the last of Jesus' enemies to be destroyed will be death:
1 Corinthians 15:25-26,
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death."
Matthew 24-25 conflates the judgment on the nations, starting with the Jews - called the revealing of the kingdom of God (Luke's phrase) or coming of the Son of Man (into heaven to receive the kingdom and reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet) - with the final judgment of each individual:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."
Thus we can see that there are two sides to the same "second coming" coin. One is a coming not in a physical sense, but Jesus' presence is manifest in some way, eg Revelation 2:5,
"Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."
The other side of the coin is Jesus' final coming back physically with the clouds, in the same way that he was taken into heaven (Acts 1:11).
We can see that although Matthew seems to confuse these two (like how he mixes two separate things in Chapter 10 - see above), there are clear references elsewhere to an undefined period during which Jesus rules in heaven before he finally hands the kingdom back to the Father (1 Cor 15) and everyone will go either to eternal punishment or eternal life (Mt 25:46).
Spud - anyone making an unbiased appraisal of the various versions of the olivet discourse will reasonably conclude that the authors believed (and stated) that the second coming would be imminent:
"this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." (Mark 13:30)
Not just some of these things, but all of these things including the second coming.
Now I understand that prophecy failed to come to pass and that christians feel the need to tie themselves up in knots to reinterpret what is frankly a simply and obvious claim of the imminence of the prophecy. But that is only because they are clearly biased in not being able to accept that a clear prophesy of a second coming expected during the generation around at the time of writing did not, in fact, happen.
-
They don't like to admit Jesus got it wrong.
-
They don't like to admit Jesus got it wrong.
We've no idea whether Jesus got it wrong (as we cannot know whether he actually made the claim) - all we know is that the gospel writers from decades later got it wrong.
It is all classic cult playbook - make a series of prophetic claims supposedly made by a person decades previously, the first of which happened and you likely know it happened as you are writing after that event. Hook into those prophetic claims one which means that unless you join the cult you will be judged in the second coming and guess what that's happening any time soon so you and your family better get on board right now.
Cult leaders have been using the same "imminent apocalypse which only cult followers will survive" mantra throughout history.
-
We've no idea whether Jesus got it wrong (as we cannot know whether he actually made the claim) - all we know is that the gospel writers from decades later got it wrong.
It is all classic cult playbook - make a series of prophetic claims supposedly made by a person decades previously, the first of which happened and you likely know it happened as you are writing after that event. Hook into those prophetic claims one which means that unless you join the cult you will be judged in the second coming and guess what that's happening any time soon so you and your family better get on board right now.
Cult leaders have been using the same "imminent apocalypse which only cult followers will survive" mantra throughout history.
I agree. I was just going with the assumption made by Christians that Jesus had made the statements stated by the gospel writers. We will never know for sure how much was factual, and how much was concocted.
-
We've no idea whether Jesus got it wrong (as we cannot know whether he actually made the claim) - all we know is that the gospel writers from decades later got it wrong.
Actually they got bits of it right. The destruction of Jerusalem happened as "predicted". That's one of the reasons why we think the gospels were written decades later. It's a little bit like the prophecies of Daniel. We can date that book fairly precisely by examining when his prophecies started going wrong (in the 160's BCE)
-
Actually they got bits of it right. The destruction of Jerusalem happened as "predicted". That's one of the reasons why we think the gospels were written decades later. It's a little bit like the prophecies of Daniel. We can date that book fairly precisely by examining when his prophecies started going wrong (in the 160's BCE)
Yes that's my point really.
That the gospels included 'retrospective' prophecies that they knew had come true at the time of writing - e.g. the temple destruction - and in doing so hoped this would persuade people that the real prospective prophecies (e.g. second coming in this generation) would also come true.
-
Daniel gets three mentions in Ezekiel: 14:14,20, 28:3
-
Daniel gets three mentions in Ezekiel: 14:14,20, 28:3
Why not quote these sections, Spud, then we can see just how clear these mentions of Daniel are in Ezekiel.
Bearing in mind, as far as I'm aware, that the presumed dates for these two books are around four centuries apart, it would be interesting to see just how clearly the later one is specifically referenced in the earlier one.
-
Spud - anyone making an unbiased appraisal of the various versions of the olivet discourse will reasonably conclude that the authors believed (and stated) that the second coming would be imminent:
"this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." (Mark 13:30)
Not just some of these things, but all of these things including the second coming.
Now I understand that prophecy failed to come to pass and that christians feel the need to tie themselves up in knots to reinterpret what is frankly a simply and obvious claim of the imminence of the prophecy. But that is only because they are clearly biased in not being able to accept that a clear prophesy of a second coming expected during the generation around at the time of writing did not, in fact, happen.
And yet as I've shown, several other verses indicate an undefined time period before the end of the world. Another one is Hebrews 10:13
"Day after day every priest stands to minister and to offer again and again the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time, He waits for His enemies to be made a footstool for His feet, 14because by a single offering He has made perfect for all time those who are being sanctified."
Regarding the second coming being included in "all these things", that is the son of man coming on the clouds etc.
Ezekiel has a vision in ch 9-10 talks about a man dressed in linen who is told to throw fire down onto Jerusalem to destroy it. Then in 43:3 it says
"And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city:"
The word for "when I came" is usually translated "when he came" but the verb is in the first person singular, indicating that Ezekiel believed that the man clothed in linen he had seen in his earlier vision was himself.
If so, Ezekiel, the son of man, came to destroy Jerusalem through Nebuchadnezzar. So it's logical that in saying he was coming back within that generation, Jesus the Son of Man meant that he would be returning to destroy the city. That's what "these things" means.
-
Why not quote these sections, Spud, then we can see just how clear these mentions of Daniel are in Ezekiel.
Bearing in mind, as far as I'm aware, that the presumed dates for these two books are around four centuries apart, it would be interesting to see just how clearly the later one is specifically referenced in the earlier one.
as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.
even if these three men—Noah, Daniel a and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord.
re you wiser than Daniel?
Is no secret hidden from you?
-
as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.
even if these three men—Noah, Daniel a and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord.
re you wiser than Daniel?
Is no secret hidden from you?
Not exactly very clear, is it?
What precisely do these three statements actually mean in terms of facts that can be checked? They seem awfully imprecise so how do you guard against people reading into them what they'd like them to mean?
-
Not exactly very clear, is it?
What precisely do these three statements actually mean in terms of facts that can be checked? They seem awfully imprecise so how do you guard against people reading into them what they'd like them to mean?
As Spud does on a regular basis. Every time you point out to him that the words he quotes can be made to mean absolutely anything, he just repeats the exercise on a different verse.
-
Not exactly very clear, is it?
What precisely do these three statements actually mean in terms of facts that can be checked? They seem awfully imprecise so how do you guard against people reading into them what they'd like them to mean?
In the book of Daniel, Daniel refuses to worship Babylonian gods, interprets the king's dream and also interprets the 'writing on the wall'. He was also alive at the same time as Ezekiel, and could well have become famous in a short time.
Ezekiel's 'Daniel' is said to be righteous, wise and 'knows secrets'. Three very specific and accurate details linking the two.
-
In the book of Daniel, Daniel refuses to worship Babylonian gods, interprets the king's dream and also interprets the 'writing on the wall'. He was also alive at the same time as Ezekiel, and could well have become famous in a short time.
Ezekiel's 'Daniel' is said to be righteous, wise and 'knows secrets'. Three very specific and accurate details linking the two.
You must be using your own definition of 'accurate'.
How do know the stuff about dreams, writing on walls and that this Daniel chap was righteous and knew secrets isn't just made up fiction?
-
Daniel gets three mentions in Ezekiel: 14:14,20, 28:3
even if Noah, Daniel, and Job, these three, were in it, they would save only their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord God.
...
even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, says the Lord God, they would save neither son nor daughter; they would save only their own lives by their righteousness.
...
You are indeed wiser than Daniel;
no secret is hidden from you
I'm not sure what your point is. Is it an attempt to show that the book of Daniel must have existed earlier than the second century BCE simply because the purported author existed at an earlier date? Very few of the Bible books were written by the people they are named for.
-
Ezekiel has a vision in ch 9-10 talks about a man dressed in linen who is told to throw fire down onto Jerusalem to destroy it. Then in 43:3 it says
"And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city:"If so, Ezekiel, the son of man, came to destroy Jerusalem through Nebuchadnezzar. So it's logical that in saying he was coming back within that generation, Jesus the Son of Man meant that he would be returning to destroy the city. That's what "these things" means.
But Ezekiel was around from about 620BCE to 570BCE and those comments refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the first temple by the Babylonians in around 587BCE.
I'm struggling to see how this has anything to do with the destruction of the second temple over 600 years later, let alone provides any insight into the dating and veracity of the gospels.
-
And yet as I've shown, several other verses indicate an undefined time period before the end of the world. Another one is Hebrews 10:13
What you have got to remember is that the New Testament was written over a long period of time. When Paul wrote the genuine letters, the idea that Christ would come again soon was still tenable. This still applied at a stretch when the gospels were written although some doubts were beginning to creep in. By the time the later letters were written, it would have been obvious to most people that Christ was not coming within a generation and so you see lots of dissembling, like the infamous "a thousand years is a day and a day is a thousand years" nonsense.
-
What you have got to remember is that the New Testament was written over a long period of time. When Paul wrote the genuine letters, the idea that Christ would come again soon was still tenable. This still applied at a stretch when the gospels were written although some doubts were beginning to creep in. By the time the later letters were written, it would have been obvious to most people that Christ was not coming within a generation and so you see lots of dissembling, like the infamous "a thousand years is a day and a day is a thousand years" nonsense.
Indeed and I suspect much of the prophetic elements within the bible (both OT and NT) are written with or modified with hindsight.
Spud has mentioned Elekiel's prophecies, which are clearly about the destruction of the first temple, in 587BCE. Those prophecies, regardless of whether they are claimed to have been made prior then only actually appear in text written well after the event had come to pass. It is easy to use hindsight to cherry pick the prophecies you know have come to pass, while quietly losing those that didn't come to pass or trying to twist them into something entirely different.
-
Indeed and I suspect much of the prophetic elements within the bible (both OT and NT) are written with or modified with hindsight.
Spud has mentioned Ezekiel's prophecies, which are clearly about the destruction of the first temple, in 587BCE. Those prophecies, regardless of whether they are claimed to have been made prior then only actually appear in text written well after the event had come to pass. It is easy to use hindsight to cherry-pick the prophecies you know have come to pass, while quietly losing those that didn't come to pass or trying to twist them into something entirely different.
Let's face it, the truth is the very last thing that Spud is interested in when the truth relates to what he already believes from the bIble.
If it is in the Bible that is quite sufficient to prove to Spud that it is the pure and unvarnished truth.
I would pity him if it weren't so pathetic!
-
You must be using your own definition of 'accurate'.
How do know the stuff about dreams, writing on walls and that this Daniel chap was righteous and knew secrets isn't just made up fiction?
How do you know the chair will stay together when you sit on it?
You don't, but you have enough evidence to take the step of faith and sit on it.
-
How do you know the chair will stay together when you sit on it?
You don't, but you have enough evidence to take the step of faith and sit on it.
Don't be so silly: the chair is to hand, and if I'm unsure about its viability as a chair I can examine it, and I can test it if required to ensure it is safe to sit on and, moreover, I have lots of previous experience of sitting in chairs and so I can make informed judgements when it comes to my interactions with furniture.
-
What you have got to remember is that the New Testament was written over a long period of time. When Paul wrote the genuine letters, the idea that Christ would come again soon was still tenable. This still applied at a stretch when the gospels were written although some doubts were beginning to creep in. By the time the later letters were written, it would have been obvious to most people that Christ was not coming within a generation and so you see lots of dissembling, like the infamous "a thousand years is a day and a day is a thousand years" nonsense.
You're entitled to think that, but I think the NT was complete before 70AD, as it contains no record of the fall of the city. Jesus had told them that "you will not have finished going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes"; and on the other hand, "and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached to all nations, and then the end will come".
This is typical conflation of a near and a far fulfillment. We see this with Isaiah's prophecy of a virgin giving birth, and with God's promise to David of a son who would both build the temple and reign over his kingdom for ever (initially fulfilled by Solomon).
-
You're entitled to think that, but I think the NT was complete before 70AD,
You are perfectly entitled to think what you like Spud - but your suggestion flies in the face of the evidence and the vast, vast majority of scholarly opinion on the matter. What we do know for certain is that the NT texts we actually have (extant fragments and manuscripts) are from decades, if not centuries after 70AD.
... as it contains no record of the fall of the city.
Why would they - firstly the gospels deal with events from around 4BCE (those that include the nativity) to about 30AD, albeit were written decades later. Why would they slot in events from decades later than the time frame they are supposed to be reporting on.
Secondly, is it beyond your understanding that the most compelling way to claim prophecy is to write about a prophecy that you know came to pass while trying to make it appear that you were writing without that knowledge. We see this with Ezekiel - where the book containing the prophecy of the destruction of the first temple was undoubtedly written after that destruction but only talks of the prophecy, not the actual event - the writer leaves the reader to fill in the gaps. And I think this is the same for the gospels - we know that the texts we have are from way after 70AD so why wouldn't they be edited to include the destruction of the second temple - simple, because to do so would make it obvious that you are claiming a prophecy only after you knew it came to pass, which rather negates the whole point of prophecy.
-
You're entitled to think that, but I think the NT was complete before 70AD, as it contains no record of the fall of the city.
Apart from the fact that it does.
-
You are perfectly entitled to think what you like Spud - but your suggestion flies in the face of the evidence and the vast, vast majority of scholarly opinion on the matter. What we do know for certain is that the NT texts we actually have (extant fragments and manuscripts) are from decades, if not centuries after 70AD.
Why would they - firstly the gospels deal with events from around 4BCE (those that include the nativity) to about 30AD, albeit were written decades later. Why would they slot in events from decades later than the time frame they are supposed to be reporting on.
Acts goes right up to Paul in Rome, around AD 60, and mentions at least one fulfilled prophecy. Matthew mentions several OLd Testament ones. If Acts was written after AD70 it would surely say something about it.
Secondly, is it beyond your understanding that the most compelling way to claim prophecy is to write about a prophecy that you know came to pass while trying to make it appear that you were writing without that knowledge. We see this with Ezekiel - where the book containing the prophecy of the destruction of the first temple was undoubtedly written after that destruction but only talks of the prophecy, not the actual event - the writer leaves the reader to fill in the gaps.
Yes, the book of Ezekiel looks like it was compiled after the events, but how did it become canon scripture if this was false:
"And the Spirit lifted me up and carried me back to Chaldea,b to the exiles in the vision given by the Spirit of God. After the vision had gone up from me, 25I told the exiles everything the LORD had shown me." - Ezekiel 11:24
?
It mentions the fulfillment of the above, too:
"In the twelfth year of our exile, on the fifth day of the tenth month, a fugitive from Jerusalem came to me and reported, “The city has been taken!”" - Ezekiel 33:21
And I think this is the same for the gospels - we know that the texts we have are from way after 70AD so why wouldn't they be edited to include the destruction of the second temple - simple, because to do so would make it obvious that you are claiming a prophecy only after you knew it came to pass, which rather negates the whole point of prophecy.
This depends on knowing the original texts were post-AD70. But you don't know this; there are no references to the fall of Jerusalem that couldn't have been written before the events and based on Old Testament texts.
Eg Luke's "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20) and "For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side" (Luke 19:43) could be a development of "And I will encamp against you all around, and will besiege you with towers and I will raise siegeworks against you." from Isaiah 29:3.
"They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." (Luke 19:44) could be developed from "Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets." - Micah 3:12.
-
This depends on knowing the original texts were post-AD70.
Spud we have absolutely no idea what the original texts of the gospels said. We do know what the various extant fragments and manuscripts say, but we know with certainly that every one of those fragments and manuscripts is from decades if not centuries after AD70.
You mention Luke 21:20 and 19:43, but I believe we have no fragments of Luke earlier than 200AD and those earliest fragments don't include those verses. What we know of Luke 21:20 and 19:43 is based on text written down hundreds of years after the destruction of the temple in AD70.
-
Spud we have absolutely no idea what the original texts of the gospels said.
That's not true. We have a pretty good idea of what they said. The very fact that we can identify texts as Luke or Matthew or Mark shows that they haven't changed that much since they were written down.
For historians, the fact that you have no original manuscripts is not really considered a huge problem. The earliest extant manuscripts for Caesar's Gallic Wars date from the ninth century. The earliest Iliad manuscripts date to the fourth or third century BCE. Nobody seems to be concerned that we have "absolutely no idea" what Julius Caesar or Homer were saying.
-
That's not true. We have a pretty good idea of what they said. The very fact that we can identify texts as Luke or Matthew or Mark shows that they haven't changed that much since they were written down.
We've been through this earlier in the thread - you claimed that Ehrman implied that we can deduce the originals (the autograph) from the earliest fragments/manuscripts, yet his view is the opposite. See the video link (reply 76) where time and again Ehrmann constantly and continually states that we do not and cannot know what the original gospel texts were.
I think you are misunderstanding Ehrman's thesis - he is not saying that we can deduce the originals. What he is saying is that we can use textual criticism to deduce which of the many versions from 200AD onwards are more likely to be closer to the original - how close to the original we cannot say just that manuscript A is closer to the original than manuscript B. It could be (although very unlikely) that manuscript A is identical to the original - it may be that manuscript A is wildly different from the original. We cannot know which - just that manuscript A is closer to the original than manuscript B.
-
We've been through this earlier in the thread
No. Then I was claiming that we have pretty much exactly reconstructed the text. Now you are claiming that we have no knowledge of what they said at all. There are more possibilities than an exact word for word transcript and complete ignorance.
-
No. Then I was claiming that we have pretty much exactly reconstructed the text. Now you are claiming that we have no knowledge of what they said at all. There are more possibilities than an exact word for word transcript and complete ignorance.
Fair enough - my claim of we have absolutely no idea what the original texts of the gospels said - in somewhat exasperation at Spud should have been better phrased as:
We do know know what the original texts of the gospels said.
We can use textual criticism to infer which of the extant manuscripts/fragments is likely to be closest to the original, but we do not know how close to the original. And as Ehrman points out, while most of the variances in the early texts are minor/typos as it were, there are some absolute humdingers of variances involving inclusion or not of key sections with major doctrinal significance.
-
Fair enough - my claim of we have absolutely no idea what the original texts of the gospels said - in somewhat exasperation at Spud should have been better phrased as:
We do know know what the original texts of the gospels said.
We can use textual criticism to infer which of the extant manuscripts/fragments is likely to be closest to the original, but we do not know how close to the original. And as Ehrman points out, while most of the variances in the early texts are minor/typos as it were, there are some absolute humdingers of variances involving inclusion or not of key sections with major doctrinal significance.
How close to the original do you think our extant manuscripts for the Gallic Wars are?
-
How close to the original do you think our extant manuscripts for the Gallic Wars are?
I have no idea and nor do you.
-
I have no idea and nor do you.
And yet somehow, historians have managed to construct a narrative from it. How on earth could they do that if they have no idea what it originally said?
-
And yet somehow, historians have managed to construct a narrative from it. How on earth could they do that if they have no idea what it originally said?
A narrative about what? If you mean what happening in the Gallic wars - well historians have a wealth of other evidence, including archeological, independent commentaries etc etc. So we can piece together what likely happened. However none of that means we can know how the text we actually compares to the original.
-
Jeremy, you're a scholar and a gentleman. Davy, isn't the view you're putting forward a bit extreme? Haven't the scholars who think that Mark was written first worked on the basis that the texts we have are basically what was originally written?
I agree that some of Matthew could have been added to an original proto-gospel, either by Matthew himself or a later editor. But it is possible to identify these bits: for example, when there is a sentence or paragraph that occurs in two places, it is often the case that one of the two doesn't fit into its context very well, but the other one does, indicating that the former was a later addition.
When all the potential additions have been identified, we are left with a proto-gospel that appears to have been written for the early Jewish converts, with additions by a later editor that would be relevant to Gentiles, and seem to have been added because the Church was expanding its mission to the wider world.
-
Davy, isn't the view you're putting forward a bit extreme?
No - while it may be the case that much of the text in some of the earliest extant copies is the same as in the original we cannot know that for sure. And indeed because there is so much variation in those early copies, comparing one to another it becomes even more challenging. Ehrman considers that textual criticism helps in being able to determine which of the early version is most likely to be closest to the original but that is a long way away from considering that it is the same as, or very similar to, the original.
Haven't the scholars who think that Mark was written first worked on the basis that the texts we have are basically what was originally written?
No they haven't - indeed Ehrman considers that he is at the dovish end of scholarly opinion on this and even he considers that we don't know what the original text was. In his own words:
"In fact, it is such an enormous problem that a number of textual critics have started to claim that we may as well suspend any discussion of the "original" text, because it is inaccessible to us."
And in relation to Galatians (the argument is just as applicable to other parts of the NT):
"What survives today, then, is not the original copy of the letter, nor one of the first copies that Paul himself had made, nor any of the copies that were produced in any of the towns of Galatia to which the letter was sent, nor any of the copies of those copies. The first reasonably complete copy we have of Galatians (this manuscript is fragmentary; i.e., it has a number of missing parts) is a papyrus called P46 (since it was the fortysixth New Testament papyrus to be catalogued), which dates to about 200 C.E. That's approximately 150 years after Paul wrote the letter. It had been in circulation, being copied sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly, for fifteen decades before any copy was made that has survived down to the present day. We cannot reconstruct the copy from which P46 was made. Was it an accurate copy? If so, how accurate? It surely had mistakes of some kind, as did the copy from which it was copied, and the copy from which that copy was copied, and so on.
In short, it is a very complicated business talking about the "original" text of Galatians. We don't have it. The best we can do is get back to an early stage of its transmission, and simply hope that what we reconstruct about the copies made at that stage—based on the copies that happen to survive (in increasing numbers as we move into the Middle Ages)—reasonably reflects what Paul himself actually wrote, or at least what he intended to write when he dictated the letter."
-
I agree that some of Matthew could have been added to an original proto-gospel, either by Matthew himself or a later editor. But it is possible to identify these bits: for example, when there is a sentence or paragraph that occurs in two places, it is often the case that one of the two doesn't fit into its context very well, but the other one does, indicating that the former was a later addition.
No, you cannot make that assumption. Textual critics commonly conclude that where a narrative is derived from a number of sources (as we consider to be the case for the gospels) then text which is the most slick, the least clunky is often the most edited and the furthest from the original. The difficulty therefore becomes differentiating between something that is seamless, because it alway was even in the original, and something with is seamless because it has been repeatedly edited to make it so.
I reiterate from reply 115 from from Bart Ehrman's Historical introduction to the early christian writings, in which he sets out six criteria for considering that a text is more or less likely to resemble the original (when we don't have the original as is the case here):
"The Difficulty of the Reading. Scholars have found this criterion to be extraordinarily useful. We have seen that scribes sometimes eliminated possible contradictions and discrepancies, harmonized stories, and changed doctrinally questionable statements. Therefore, when we have two forms of a text, one that would have been troubling to scribes—for example, one that is possibly contradictory to another passage or grammatically inelegant or theologically problematic—and one that would not have been as troubling, it is the former form of the text, the one that is more “difficult,” that is more likely to be original. That is, since scribes were far more likely to have corrected problems than to have created them, the comparatively smooth, consistent, harmonious, and orthodox readings are more likely to have been created by scribes. Our earliest manuscripts, interestingly enough, are the ones that tend to preserve the more difficult readings."
-
A narrative about what?
The Roman conquest of Gaul.
If you mean what happening in the Gallic wars - well historians have a wealth of other evidence, including archeological, independent commentaries etc etc. So we can piece together what likely happened
No, not really. The archaeology of Alesia can't tell you what happened there beyond "there was a battle". Similarly, you can infer the Roman conquest of Gaul from archaeological remains but not detail about the campaigns that made it happen.
However none of that means we can know how the text we actually compares to the original.
And yet you are the only one obsessing about that.
-
Jeremy, you're a scholar
No I'm not. I've read a lot around the subject from actual scholars though.
The problem with PD's argument is that it invokes a nuclear option. If we assume that we know nothing about what ancient documents really said unless we have the originals or close contemporaries, then almost everything we know about ancient history is wiped out.
-
The problem with PD's argument is that it invokes a nuclear option. If we assume that we know nothing about what ancient documents really said unless we have the originals or close contemporaries, then almost everything we know about ancient history is wiped out.
No it isn't a nuclear option - it is the appropriate starting point for academic scholarship. To look for corroborating evidence, whether that be independent reports or perhaps archeological evidence.
You also have to ask questions about the transmission of the material generation to generation - some routes will be more robust than others. So, for example, verbal transmission is likely to be the least effective in preserving the original. Also you need to ask question about motive during transmission - someone with an agenda or effectively using information as propaganda is likely to be more suspect than someone with no axe to grind.
You also need to ask about the significance of accepting or not accepting the writing as close to original. Undoubtedly there are elements of Caesar's accounts (whether written by Caesar or someone else and/or substantially altered later) which are propaganda and hyperbole. We can treat these elements with grave scepticism, but ultimately we are being asked to gain a broad understanding of the gallic wars - the details are of limited consequence.
This is not the same as the discussion over gospels and temple - where Spud is claiming that:
1. what we have now (and in early fragments) represents what was originally written (we do not know this)
2. that they were written before the temple destruction and therefore represent a real prophecy (except possibly for Mark most scholars reject this and even for Mark we cannot know whether an original written perhaps a couple of years before the temple destruction contained that section)
3. and therefore the gospels should be trusted (presumably including all the other claims)
It is therefore critically important to be confident about what was in any pre-AD70 gospel (if one even existed), yet we cannot know that. I'm struggling to see why there is a similar critical importance in knowing what was in Caesar's original and we quite reasonably treat what is in the versions of Gallic wars with a significant pinch of salt unless independently corroborated.
-
No it isn't a nuclear option - it is the appropriate starting point for academic scholarship. To look for corroborating evidence, whether that be independent reports or perhaps archeological evidence.
No, your proposal says no document where the originals have been lost has any value unless the archaeology supports it. There's no archaeological evidence for a lot of the events in ancient history that we know only from documents. Was Socrates a real person? What archaeological evidence backs up Herodotos?
You also have to ask questions about the transmission of the material generation to generation - some routes will be more robust than others. So, for example, verbal transmission is likely to be the least effective in preserving the original.
By definition a written document is not transmitted orally. I think Mark was probably working from oral sources but the variation - or lack thereof - in the copies we have suggest that they all came from a single written source.
Also you need to ask question about motive during transmission - someone with an agenda or effectively using information as propaganda is likely to be more suspect than someone with no axe to grind.
And we see examples of that: the ending tacked on to Mark would be the obvious one. But scholars seem to be able to identify the bits that are suspect.
You also need to ask about the significance of accepting or not accepting the writing as close to original. Undoubtedly there are elements of Caesar's accounts (whether written by Caesar or someone else and/or substantially altered later) which are propaganda and hyperbole.
Well since the motive for writing the Gallic Wars was Caesar's aggrandisement in Rome, we can be sure that some of it s propaganda and hyperbole, but that is not the same as claiming we don't have any idea of what he wrote, which is your claim.
the details are of limited consequence.
Quite. And they are of limited consequence wen discussing the gospels. This is really an academic exercise. Does it matter in the great scheme of things whether Matthew or Mark was written first? No not really. Does the date of the gospels matter? Again, not really. If Spud proved that the gospels were written in the 30's we would still not accept the claims of Christianity. We might assign more credibility to the non supernatural elements of the story and the Jesus mythicists might have to eat their words but we wouldn't say "oh yes, Jesus was resurrected".
1. what we have now (and in early fragments) represents what was originally written (we do not know this)
We do not know for certain, but we are confident we have something approaching the originals.
2. that they were written before the temple destruction and therefore represent a real prophecy (except possibly for Mark most scholars reject this and even for Mark we cannot know whether an original written perhaps a couple of years before the temple destruction contained that section)
Mark has that section. Perhaps there was an earlier version without that section, but it's gone if it existed. The version of Mark that had that section was used by both Matthew and Luke as a source. So I think we can provisionally accept the section being in early versions of Mark, although I would agree that they probably date from after the destruction of the Temple or close enough to its destruction that it was highly probable that it was going to happen when Mark was written.
3. and therefore the gospels should be trusted (presumably including all the other claims)
[/quote]
I think there's good reason not to trust the content of the gospels even if we prove that we have verbatim copies of the originals. I think there is enough internal and external evidence to demonstrate they are not reliable at all without having to question the modern reconstructions of the text.
It is therefore critically important to be confident about what was in any pre-AD70 gospel (if one even existed), yet we cannot know that.
No it isn't. If it could be proved that somebody in 40CE predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70CE it doesn't mean they were the son of God any more than my prediction in 2015 that there would be a global pandemic proves I am the son of God. It does invalidate Spud's argument but Spud's argument doesn't meet the standard for such extraordinary claims anyway.
-
We do not know for certain, but we are confident we have something approaching the originals.
Really - justification please.
This doesn't seem to be the view of Ehrman, nor others using textual criticism. The original is the autograph - I don't think anyone using textual criticism is claiming we can get to the autograph (indeed textual criticism never claims to be able to do this, when the original is missing). At best we are aiming at the archetype but even that is extremely difficult and even were we to be confident that we have the archetype we do not, and cannot, know how the archetype differs from the autograph.
-
No, you cannot make that assumption. Textual critics commonly conclude that where a narrative is derived from a number of sources (as we consider to be the case for the gospels) then text which is the most slick, the least clunky is often the most edited and the furthest from the original. The difficulty therefore becomes differentiating between something that is seamless, because it alway was even in the original, and something with is seamless because it has been repeatedly edited to make it so.
I reiterate from reply 115 from from Bart Ehrman's Historical introduction to the early christian writings, in which he sets out six criteria for considering that a text is more or less likely to resemble the original (when we don't have the original as is the case here):
"The Difficulty of the Reading. Scholars have found this criterion to be extraordinarily useful. We have seen that scribes sometimes eliminated possible contradictions and discrepancies, harmonized stories, and changed doctrinally questionable statements. Therefore, when we have two forms of a text, one that would have been troubling to scribes—for example, one that is possibly contradictory to another passage or grammatically inelegant or theologically problematic—and one that would not have been as troubling, it is the former form of the text, the one that is more “difficult,” that is more likely to be original. That is, since scribes were far more likely to have corrected problems than to have created them, the comparatively smooth, consistent, harmonious, and orthodox readings are more likely to have been created by scribes. Our earliest manuscripts, interestingly enough, are the ones that tend to preserve the more difficult readings."
Sure, a copyist or a translator will smooth out mistakes. But Mark wasn't merely copying or translating Matthew; he was paraphrasing him.
And it came to pass, He is passing through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples began to make their way, plucking the heads of grain. (Mark 2:23, Berean Literal Translation)
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat them. (Matthew 12:1, BLT)
I would say the only way Mark could have arrived at this sentence is by expanding Matthew, and in the process, attached 'began' to the wrong verb.
-
Sure, a copyist or a translator will smooth out mistakes. But Mark wasn't merely copying or translating Matthew; he was paraphrasing him.
How do you know that. Leaving aside the standard view that Matthew used Mark as a source rather than the other way around how do you know that the differences we see in Mark and Matthew (which come from texts from AD200 onwards) aren't due to copyists gently rephrasing things from each generation to the next, either by error in copying or deliberately because they felt the new phraseology was better/more pleasing etc.
I would say the only way Mark could have arrived at this sentence is by expanding Matthew, and in the process, attached 'began' to the wrong verb.
But what you are reading isn't Mark's words but a many, many generation copy of what was originally written.
-
And it came to pass, He is passing through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples began to make their way, plucking the heads of grain. (Mark 2:23, Berean Literal Translation)
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat them. (Matthew 12:1, BLT)
You need to understand that neither phrase is the original (the autograph), nor the archetype but an English translation of an earlier version which will have been written itself centuries after the original first appeared.
-
You need to understand that neither phrase is the original (the autograph), nor the archetype but an English translation of an earlier version which will have been written itself centuries after the original first appeared.
He obviously doesn't or he wouldn't have populated about 100 posts to this thread that are expressions of opinions which are total rubbish - as he has been told over a 100 times in response by yourself and others!
The pity of it is that he is terminally incapable of understanding that what you are saying is not biased by a religion that cannot see the faults in the damn book!
-
No, your proposal says no document where the originals have been lost has any value unless the archaeology supports it.
Wrong - that isn't what I said. Evidence alone from ancient texts is weakened without corroboration of some form (either independent reports or archeological). Also scholars need to understand the context and mode of transmission of the writing. Some will be more or less susceptible to alterations over time.
-
Really - justification please.
Because the manuscripts we have certainly agree on many things.
I don't think anyone using textual criticism is claiming we can get to the autograph
No, but the evidence we have in the form of extant manuscripts makes us confident that we have a good idea of what was in them.
-
Sure, a copyist or a translator will smooth out mistakes. But Mark wasn't merely copying or translating Matthew; he was paraphrasing him.
Incorrect. Matthew was copying Mark and smoothing out mistakes plus adding a spin of his own.
-
Wrong - that isn't what I said.
Yes it is. It's exactly what you said.
Evidence alone from ancient texts is weakened without corroboration of some form (either independent reports or archeological). Also scholars need to understand the context and mode of transmission of the writing. Some will be more or less susceptible to alterations over time.
What's the archaeological evidence that Archimedes existed?
-
Yes it is. It's exactly what you said.
No it isn't - you claimed I said an ancient document had no value unless supported by other evidence. I never said that.
-
Because the manuscripts we have certainly agree on many things.
Which suggests we may be able to understand broadly what was in the archetype (although that probably doesn't exist). Just because we know what was in the archetype does not guarantee we know what was in the original (the autograph) as we do not know how detached (in terms of time, content and generations of copies) the archetype is from the autograph.
Effectively all scholars are doing is saying we may be able to get close to the archetype - that is not the same as saying we can have confidence in knowing what was in the original. Indeed many scholars struggle with this very concept, of an original, preferring to accept that the nature of recording material at the time means there may have been many variant 'originals'.
-
What's the archaeological evidence that Archimedes existed?
Why are you so fixated by the existence of certain people.
There is probably no confirmatory archeological evidence that Archimedes actually existed and indeed there is scholarly debate as to whether Socrates actually existed or was a fictional narrative construct. Frankly I think that is missing the point - the importance of Archimedes and Socrates isn't whether they were 6' tall or had curly hair or had bad teeth. No their importance is linked to the works attributed to them - it seems of little importance whether they actually existed as described or not as that makes no difference to the nature of the work attributed to them.
-
No it isn't - you claimed I said an ancient document had no value unless supported by other evidence. I never said that.
Effectively you did, by claiming we cannot know what it originally said.
-
Why are you so fixated by the existence of certain people.
These are examples, PD.
They are meant to make you realise the stupidity of your position that we don't know what ancient documents said. If we don't know what ancient documents said, we don't know that Archimedes existed and yet, here we are all assuming he did, for some reason.
-
Incorrect. Matthew was copying Mark and smoothing out mistakes plus adding a sin of his own.
Most translations do this with Mark 2:23. They move 'began' to where Matthew has it:
https://biblehub.com/mark/2-23.htm
That could create the impression that Matthew was copying Mark, and smoothing it. It doesn't explain how Mark came to write something illogical in the first place, though.
-
Most translations do this with Mark 2:23. They move 'began' to where Matthew has it:
https://biblehub.com/mark/2-23.htm
That could create the impression that Matthew was copying Mark, and smoothing it. It doesn't explain how Mark came to write something illogical in the first place, though.
And which version of Mark 2:23 was the source the the translation Spud. I may be wrong but I don't think this particular verse appears in any of the earliest fragments.
-
Most translations do this with Mark 2:23. They move 'began' to where Matthew has it:
https://biblehub.com/mark/2-23.htm
That could create the impression that Matthew was copying Mark, and smoothing it. It doesn't explain how Mark came to write something illogical in the first place, though.
Nor would it explain how he would copy it off Matthew and move it to the wrong place, unless it was an error. If it was an error, it doesn't seem like it is any more or less likely than if Mark wrote it rather than copied it.
Anyway, PD is right bout this one: when you're arguing about word placement at this level, using an English translation is meaningless.
-
Effectively you did, by claiming we cannot know what it originally said.
Non-sense - it is perfectly true that in most cases for ancient texts that we cannot know what was originally written. This doesn't mean they have no value, just that their value and the strength of those texts in evidential terms needs to be considered with that knowledge.
And that judgement needs to take account of the broad brush or highly detailed nature that may be in those texts. So we may have corroboratory evidence sufficient to accept a broad brush element to be true on the balance of probabilities (e.g. Archimedes existed). However we may not accept the same evidence as sufficient for a highly detailed claim - 'On Tuesday Archimedes decided to have fish for tea saying "I love fish on Tuesdays but cannot abide it on Thursdays".
It is all about understanding the relative strengths of pieces of evidence, looking for corroboration, the standards of evidence applicable and academic judgement.
-
And which version of Mark 2:23 was the source the the translation Spud. I may be wrong but I don't think this particular verse appears in any of the earliest fragments.
Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, from the fourth century.
-
Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, from the fourth century.
The oldest of which appears to be approx 325AD, so 250 years since the originals were thought to have been written.
And I think this is the earliest extant copy that has these verses, so we have nothing prior to this.
How many earlier versions, copied one from another, existed in the preceding 250 years? How many alterations crept into those copyings (either just error or deliberate changes? How can you be sure that these verses even existed in the earlier versions?
The point is that the Codex Vaticanus (the older of the two I think) represents the archetype for this particular stemma (in textual criticism speak). Being generous and suggesting papyrus copies typically lasted 25 years then this would mean it is detached from the original (the autograph) by 10 generations. That's a lot of changes, errors and alterations that we are completely in the dark about.
-
Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, from the fourth century.
Codex Vaticanus is missing a whole range of verses from the gospels, e.g.
Matthew 12:47; 16:2b-3; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14
Mark 7:16; 9:44.46; 11:26; 15:28
Mark 16:9–20]
Luke 17:36, 22:43–44
John 5:4, John 7:53–8:11
So if this version is considered 'gospel', as it were, for translation of Mark 2:23, why is it OK to ignore all those omissions. And how do you know that Mark 2:23 is not missing from the version that was copied to produce Codex Vaticanus (or from one of the earlier generation copes) and that Mark 2:23 isn't just a more recent addition (i.e. sometime in those 250 years in which we have no evidence).
-
Nor would it explain how he would copy it off Matthew and move it to the wrong place, unless it was an error. If it was an error, it doesn't seem like it is any more or less likely than if Mark wrote it rather than copied it.
Yes, either scenario is possible, though to me, Matthew's wording seems more likely to be original, because I would be more likely to say they began to pluck grain than to say that they began to make their way without qualifying where to.
This can be confirmed by comparing the whole paragraph with Luke's version of it. When Matthew and Mark disagree as to the wording of a phrase, Luke and Mark are in agreement. And when Luke and Mark disagree, Matthew and Mark are in agreement. If you're ready for a brain-bending challenge, read on:
And it came to pass (Mk)
And it came to pass (Lk)
At that time (Mat)
He is passing through (Mk)
He is passing along through (Lk)
Jesus went through (Mat)
the grainfields (Mk)
the grainfields (Mat)
grainfields (Lk)
on the Sabbaths (Mk)
on the Sabbaths (Mat)
on a Sabbath (Lk)
and His disciples (Mk)
and His disciples (Mat)
and His disciples (Lk)
were hungry (Mat)
began to make their way (Mk)
and they began (Mat)
plucking (Mk)
to pluck (Mat)
were plucking (Lk)
and eating (Lk)
the heads of grain (Mk)
the heads of grain (Mat)
the heads of grain (Lk)
and to eat them (Mat)
rubbing them in their hands (Lk)
And the Pharisees, having seen, said to Him (Mat)
And the Pharisees were saying to Him, (Mk)
But some of the Pharisees said (Lk)
Behold, why do they (Mk)
Behold, Your disciples are doing (Mat)
Why are you doing (Lk)
that which is unlawful on the Sabbaths? (Mk)
that which is not lawful on the Sabbaths? (Lk)
what it is not lawful to do on Sabbath (Mat)
The above comparison shows that if Matthew and Luke are secondary to Mark, then whenever either Matthew or Luke decided to change Mark's wording significantly (seven times, by my count), the other followed Mark's wording closely. It's as if Matthew and Luke collaborated so that at least one of them would be copying Mark at all times (except when they added their own detail or omitted detail).
That could be coincidental; my suggestion, an extension of the 'Griesbach hypothesis' and proposed by Harold Riley, is that Luke had used Matthew and made changes to his wording, then Mark used Matthew and Luke, and conflated their wording.
As to how 'began' was moved to the wrong place: Riley thinks that Mark copied 'began' from Matthew, and added 'making their way' which is the same sort of action as 'passing through' and seems to be a tautology, possibly for dramatic effect. In doing so, 'began' became attached to 'to make their way' rather than 'to pluck'.
-
Yes, either scenario is possible, though to me, Matthew's wording seems more likely to be original, because I would be more likely to say they began to pluck grain than to say that they began to make their way without qualifying where to.
This can be confirmed by comparing the whole paragraph with Luke's version of it. When Matthew and Mark agree as to the wording of a phrase, Luke and Mark do not. And when Luke and Mark agree, Matthew and Mark do not. If you're ready for a brain-bending challenge, read on:
And it came to pass (Mk)
And it came to pass (Lk)
At that time (Mat)
He is passing through (Mk)
He is passing along through (Lk)
Jesus went through (Mat)
the grainfields (Mk)
the grainfields (Mat)
grainfields (Lk)
on the Sabbaths (Mk)
on the Sabbaths (Mat)
on a Sabbath (Lk)
and His disciples (Mk)
and His disciples (Mat)
and His disciples (Lk)
were hungry (Mat)
began to make their way (Mk)
and they began (Mat)
plucking (Mk)
to pluck (Mat)
were plucking (Lk)
and eating (Lk)
the heads of grain (Mk)
the heads of grain (Mat)
the heads of grain (Lk)
and to eat them (Mat)
rubbing them in their hands (Lk)
And the Pharisees, having seen, said to Him (Mat)
And the Pharisees were saying to Him, (Mk)
But some of the Pharisees said (Lk)
Behold, why do they (Mk)
Behold, Your disciples are doing (Mat)
Why are you doing (Lk)
that which is unlawful on the Sabbaths? (Mk)
that which is not lawful on the Sabbaths? (Lk)
what it is not lawful to do on Sabbath (Mat)
The above comparison shows that if Matthew and Luke are secondary to Mark, then whenever either Matthew or Luke decided to change Mark's wording significantly (seven times, by my count), the other followed Mark's wording closely. It's as if Matthew and Luke collaborated so that at least one of them would be copying Mark at all times (except when they added their own detail or omitted detail).
That could be coincidental; my suggestion, an extension of the 'Griesbach hypothesis' and proposed by Harold Riley, is that Luke had used Matthew and made changes to his wording, then Mark used Matthew and Luke, and conflated their wording.
As to how 'began' was moved to the wrong place: Riley thinks that Mark copied 'began' from Matthew, and added 'making their way' which is the same sort of action as 'passing through' and seems to be a tautology, possibly for dramatic effect. In doing so, 'began' became attached to 'to make their way' rather than 'to pluck'.
You really aren't listening are you Spud.
Presumably the 'original' for these translations is Codex Vaticanus of around 325AD. Now let's assume that the translation is genuinely faithful to the wording in the Codex.
I don't think there are any earlier fragments including these verses so all we are able to say is that this is what these verses looked like in a many generation copy of the autographs for Mark, Matthew and Luke.
You seem to be implying that these words can be used to ascertain whether Mark copied Luke or Matthew coped Mark etc etc - presumably meaning the original authors of the texts back in the late 1stC. But we have no idea what the wording was in those autographs, nor indeed whether this verse appears in all, some or any of the autographs. All we know is that after about 250 years of regular copying (with its inherent errors, additions, deletions and alterations) we end up with what we see in the Codex.
And as the gospels were all floating around together for much of this time (sufficiently for them to be collated into the Codex) and that presumably copyists wouldn't restrict themselves to a single gospel that cross-fertilisation, so to speak, is likely over hundreds of years. So rather than talking about Matthew copying Mark, are we not better asking about whether a late 2ndC copyist when working on Matthew also slipped in a bit of Mark's wording as he'd previously copied it and thought it better. Or even added it lock, stock and barrel as it better fitted with the developing theology.
-
Non-sense
"Nonsense" isn't hyphenated.
Say it as much as you like, but you did claim we do not know what was in the original gospels. Since the same problems apply to all ancient documents, unless you are happy with an accusation of special pleading, it is your position.
-
"Nonsense" isn't hyphenated.
Ah but it might have been in the original gospel autographs ;)
-
Ah but it might have been in the original gospel autographs ;)
That made me laugh.
UNFORTUNATELYDOCUMENTSOFTHATPERIODRARELYHADANYFORMOFPUNCTUATIONOREVENSPACESBETWEEN
WORDSALSOLOWERCASEHADNTBEENINVENTEDYET
-
Say it as much as you like, but you did claim we do not know what was in the original gospels.
I did and I stand by that claim - are you going to contradict me, in other words claiming that we know for certain what the original text (the autograph) of the gospels was?
Since the same problems apply to all ancient documents, unless you are happy with an accusation of special pleading, it is your position.
I agree and have made that clear previously. We cannot know what the original versions of ancient texts actually said. However this may be more, or less, important depending on context and the relative importance of the 'big picture' message and the 'minutia of language/text'. So it becomes less important what the actual words were if there is corroboration from some source or other. Also if the precise nature of the words has little impact on the meaning.
But overall, yes, we do need to treat ancient texts with significant scepticism and need to recognise that what we are actually reading may be from centuries later and therefore we must consider the fidelity (or otherwise) of copying in the intervening years, plus also any potential motivation for later copyists to deliberately change the text for a particular purpose, often political.
-
I did and I stand by that claim - are you going to contradict me, in other words claiming that we know for certain what the original text (the autograph) of the gospels was?
I agree and have made that clear previously. We cannot know what the original versions of ancient texts actually said. However this may be more, or less, important depending on context and the relative importance of the 'big picture' message and the 'minutia of language/text'. So it becomes less important what the actual words were if there is corroboration from some source or other. Also if the precise nature of the words has little impact on the meaning.
But overall, yes, we do need to treat ancient texts with significant scepticism and need to recognise that what we are actually reading may be from centuries later and therefore we must consider the fidelity (or otherwise) of copying in the intervening years, plus also any potential motivation for later copyists to deliberately change the text for a particular purpose, often political.
Have you an example of where you or others have applied the methodologies and assumptions of this post?
-
Have you an example of where you or others have applied the methodologies and assumptions of this post?
I'm not an academic historian so it isn't really what I do. But academic scholars of ancient texts do this all the time. Indeed any serious academic scholar will consider the provenance (where it comes from and when) and veracity (to what extent it is likely to reflect an orginal and how/why it may have been altered) of an ancient document. Not to do so means you cannot distinguish between a genuinely important document that tells us something valuable about the ancient world and a pile of worthless propaganda from more recent times. The latter will tell us something about the time it was written but not about the time it relates to.
A few easy-readers on the subject (not limited to biblical texts):
https://www.historynet.com/can-trust-ancient-texts.htm
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/4742.1-textual-criticism-as-applied-to-biblical-and-classical-texts
https://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Archetype.html
-
You really aren't listening are you Spud.
Presumably the 'original' for these translations is Codex Vaticanus of around 325AD. Now let's assume that the translation is genuinely faithful to the wording in the Codex.
I don't think there are any earlier fragments including these verses so all we are able to say is that this is what these verses looked like in a many generation copy of the autographs for Mark, Matthew and Luke.
You seem to be implying that these words can be used to ascertain whether Mark copied Luke or Matthew coped Mark etc etc - presumably meaning the original authors of the texts back in the late 1stC. But we have no idea what the wording was in those autographs, nor indeed whether this verse appears in all, some or any of the autographs. All we know is that after about 250 years of regular copying (with its inherent errors, additions, deletions and alterations) we end up with what we see in the Codex.
And as the gospels were all floating around together for much of this time (sufficiently for them to be collated into the Codex) and that presumably copyists wouldn't restrict themselves to a single gospel that cross-fertilisation, so to speak, is likely over hundreds of years. So rather than talking about Matthew copying Mark, are we not better asking about whether a late 2ndC copyist when working on Matthew also slipped in a bit of Mark's wording as he'd previously copied it and thought it better. Or even added it lock, stock and barrel as it better fitted with the developing theology.
I don't think we can assume that errors, additions, deletions and alterations would necessarily occur over those first few centuries between the autographs and the codex. Here's why: If you look at the link in #225 there is a clear distinction between translations which slip in extra words or rearrange wording to make it more readable, and those that translate the Greek text literally and stick to the original wording despite resulting difficulties with the reading (eg Young's Literal Translation).
This would suggest that there were copyists before the Codex who rearranged wording and copyists who did not. The early fragments seem to contain the same words as the codex (or at least I haven't heard otherwise), thus we can be fairly confident that the rest of the missing autographs were also transmitted accurately.
-
If you look at the link in #225 there is a clear distinction between translations which slip in extra words or rearrange wording to make it more readable, and those that translate the Greek text literally and stick to the original wording despite resulting difficulties with the reading (eg Young's Literal Translation).
Looking at Mark 2:23 in the various translations I can see that even YLT doesn't quite get it right. It says
"And it came to pass — he is going along on the sabbaths through the corn-fields — and his disciples began to make a way, plucking the ears"
'Make a way' implies that the disciples were making a path through the corn by plucking the ears - in other words, it was nothing to do with them being hungry or eating the grain, which Mark doesn't mention.
Yet it is clear from the context that their hunger was the reason for plucking the ears; Jesus talks about King David and his men being hungry in the next few verses.
The phrase as rendered by the Berean Literal Translation is, 'His disciples began to make their way'. This agrees with the context of the disciples being hungry, which Mark doesn't mention but is evident from what Jesus says to the Pharisees.
So we can be fairly certain that the BLT is sticking to the true meaning of the Greek, in this case. If this has been kept up for 16 centuries, then it's fairly safe to say that it could be done for the first few centuries.
-
I don't think we can assume that errors, additions, deletions and alterations would necessarily occur over those first few centuries between the autographs and the codex.
What was magical about the first few centuries before the earliest manuscripts that meant that copyists never made mistakes?
and those that translate the Greek text literally
What Greek text? We don't have the original Greek text, we only have a reconstruction based on the many manuscripts that still exist. Unlike PD I am fairly confident that the reconstructed text is somewhat like the original, but nobody can say it is the original.
This would suggest that there were copyists before the Codex who rearranged wording and copyists who did not. The early fragments seem to contain the same words as the codex (or at least I haven't heard otherwise), thus we can be fairly confident that the rest of the missing autographs were also transmitted accurately.
Here's a conundrum for you. Let's say somebody digs up a fragment of papyrus with some Greek text on it and the text does not match any text from the gospels. How do you know that it isn't part of a gospel rather than a piece of a gospel that has since been deleted or changed?
Your argument is circular.
-
Codex Vaticanus is missing a whole range of verses from the gospels, e.g.
Mark 7:16;
Matthew 15:11 contains a similar saying. So do we need to worry?
-
What was magical about the first few centuries before the earliest manuscripts that meant that copyists never made mistakes?
Sorry, I wasn't meaning there could not have been occasional mistakes, but that since the Codex, the wording has been preserved by some translators to a high degree of accuracy, so we can be confident the earliest copyists preserved the original with a similarly high accuracy.
What Greek text?
What we have today from the 4th Century.
We don't have the original Greek text, we only have a reconstruction based on the many manuscripts that still exist. Unlike PD I am fairly confident that the reconstructed text is somewhat like the original, but nobody can say it is the original.
I agree with that.
Here's a conundrum for you. Let's say somebody digs up a fragment of papyrus with some Greek text on it and the text does not match any text from the gospels. How do you know that it isn't part of a gospel rather than a piece of a gospel that has since been deleted or changed?
That's complicated, but I've heard that people base a claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene on extremely fragmented text of a conversation between Jesus and his disciples, that could be reconstructed in other ways. The context would be the key factor I guess.
Your argument is circular.
-
I don't think we can assume that errors, additions, deletions and alterations would necessarily occur over those first few centuries between the autographs and the codex.
Why not? There are countless errors, alterations, additions, deletions etc when we compare early extant copies and fragments one to another. Why on earth would you think that somehow variations suddenly started appearing from 200AD (when we begin to see the earlier fragments) to 400AD and beyond, yet none happened between 70AD and 200AD.
Indeed there is a strong argument that the greatest changes and alterations would have occurred in the most recent period post-first writing. This is because.
1. There tends to be more 'churn' in early drafting and editing of any document compared to its later more settled period.
2. Early copyists were unlikely to be trained 'professionals' (as was the case later) so would be more likely to simply make errors,
3. Early manuscripts were on papyrus which didn't last long so more copying was required.
4. The early church was pretty nomadic, covering a wide range so likely very many copies would be needed - more copies, more likelihood of coming error.
But don't take my word for it - this from Koester, a leading scholar of early biblical texts:
"The text of the synoptic gospels was very unstable during the first and second centuries. With respect to Mark, one can be fairly certain that only its revised text has achieved canonical status, while the original text (attested by Matthew and Luke) has not survived. With respect to Matthew and Luke, there is no guarantee that the archetypes of the manuscript tradition are identical with the original text of each gospel. ...
New Testament textual critics have been deluded by the hypothesis that the archetypes of the textual tradition which were fixed around AD200 ... are (almost) identical with the autographs. This cannot be confirmed by any external evidence. on the contrary, whatever evidence there is indicated that not only minor, but also substantial revisions of the original texts have occurred during the first hundred years of the transmission"
My emphasis
-
This would suggest that there were copyists before the Codex who rearranged wording and copyists who did not.
Absolutely - and some that missed out bits and others that added bits. Some for whom changes in copying were entirely due to errors, others who deliberately made changes. Copyists who were accurate and great, copyists who were rubbish or simply not focussed on the job.
That's what happens when, over a period of 150 years plus, you need to generate countless copies to support the needs of the developing church with a wide geographic range and you are using papyrus (good because it was cheap, bad because it typically lasted for a short period of time with normal use, perhaps a decade or two).
-
I'm not an academic historian so it isn't really what I do.
Thank you for your efforts in any case.
-
Thank you for your efforts in any case.
You are welcome :)
-
Absolutely - and some that missed out bits and others that added bits. Some for whom changes in copying were entirely due to errors, others who deliberately made changes. Copyists who were accurate and great, copyists who were rubbish or simply not focussed on the job.
So if some were accurate at each stage of the transmission, then the original text, or most of it, would have been transmitted to us.
That's what happens when, over a period of 150 years plus, you need to generate countless copies to support the needs of the developing church with a wide geographic range and you are using papyrus (good because it was cheap, bad because it typically lasted for a short period of time with normal use, perhaps a decade or two).
I think Jeremy said earlier that having three gospels which most of the time agree on the details, is itself evidence that they have been transmitted accurately. If there had been major errors then they wouldn't agree. And even if some parts were added by later editors, often these parts agree with another gospel: for example, Mark 16:9-20 agree with another gospel or Acts. Agreed?
-
So if some were accurate at each stage of the transmission, then the original text, or most of it, would have been transmitted to us.
Not true.
Try this simple example. Imagine a document which needs to be copied every 20 years as the original falls apart (as is the case usually with papyrus). Lets say the likelihood of the copying being completely accurate is 50% - so 50% of the tme the copy is identical to the original, 50% of the time errors creep in. Now I think this is being massively optimistic in the context of copying the gospels in the early decades as this was done by people with no real skills or training. But regardless lets work with the 50% assumption.
So fast forward 200 years (the earliest when we start to see any meaningful extant gospel copies) - so 10 generations of copy (once every 20 years). The likelihood that the 10th generation copy is identical to the original is less than one in a thousand.
And this is a simply, linear example. The early transmission of the gospels is much more complex than that - with multiple copies created and distributed across a wide geographic region, copied more and spread more. So by the time you've reached 200 years after the original you will have hundreds, maybe thousands of copies. If we had all of those copies from 250AD onwards then perhaps one of them would be the same as the original (quite likely none of them will be) but how would you know which is the same and which are different - you couldn't, unless you have all the prior copies back to the original (which we don't). But of course we do not have all the copies - we have just a tiny proportion of them so the chances that just by luck the copies that happed to survive happen also to be the incredibly rare ones that are faithful to the original is, frankly, vanishingly small.
Now I fully accept that all I am talking about here is changes - not the significance of those changes. In that context I think we can be pretty confident that none of the extant fragments from decades and centuries after the gospels were written are vanishingly unlikely to be identical to the original. But of course changes can be minor and irrelevant to meaning or major edits, omissions and deletions which have a marked change in meaning and interpretation. We can be pretty confident that there are changes and given that the extant copies we have from the 4thC have major differences - whole sections in some that aren't in others, significant changes in wording then we can conclude that at least some of the changes from the original are pretty major.
-
So if some were accurate at each stage of the transmission, then the original text, or most of it, would have been transmitted to us.
I think Jeremy said earlier that having three gospels which most of the time agree on the details, is itself evidence that they have been transmitted accurately.
Fairly accurately.
If there had been major errors then they wouldn't agree.
If I gave you the impression I meant that, I apologise.
What I was trying to refute was the assertion that we do not know what they said. PD implies that we can have no idea at all what was in the original gospels. However, that would require the ability of copyists to make accurate copies over the two or three hundred years for which we have no complete manuscripts to be much worse than for the succeeding thousand years.
The Codex Sinaiticus was written in the fourth century and has a number of variations over what we would think of as being in the Bible and yet it is recognisable as being the same Bible as existed a thousand years later but with some variations. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the original documents (for the NT at least) were very similar to the Codex Sinaiticus.
Furthermore, the Synoptic gospels probably diverged and became separate documents very early in their history- before the end of the first century. After that, they would have evolved independently, but we can still identify the sections in Matthew and Luke that were copied from Mark (or vice versa) and we can still identify the sections where Matthew and Luke had a common source.
All of those factors together tell us that we do have a pretty good idea of what was in the original gospels, contrary to what PD asserted.
And even if some parts were added by later editors, often these parts agree with another gospel: for example, Mark 16:9-20 agree with another gospel or Acts. Agreed?
The trouble with that specific example is that whoever wrote the ending of Mark had access to the other gospels and Acts. It's pretty clear that it is written as a précis of the post resurrection stories in those books. i.e. it is not independent.
-
Not true.
Try this simple example. Imagine a document which needs to be copied every 20 years as the original falls apart (as is the case usually with papyrus). Lets say the likelihood of the copying being completely accurate is 50% - so 50% of the tme the copy is identical to the original, 50% of the time errors creep in. Now I think this is being massively optimistic in the context of copying the gospels in the early decades as this was done by people with no real skills or training. But regardless lets work with the 50% assumption.
So fast forward 200 years (the earliest when we start to see any meaningful extant gospel copies) - so 10 generations of copy (once every 20 years). The likelihood that the 10th generation copy is identical to the original is less than one in a thousand.
Yep, good maths, not sure I agree with the theory. Each time something is copied, different mistakes will be made. Suppose Mark gave his document to a church and moved on. Two people made copies: one missed out one word, the other copied the same word correctly but missed out another. The original perished so that they only had the two copies, and they found that there were two differences in the wording between them. Unless the context for each difference made it clear when a word had been missed out (which is likely), they wouldn't know which copy was accurate in the two places where they were different. But if three copies had been made then it's probable that two would have the original wording and one a different wording, hence they would know that the rendering given by the two would most likely be correct. If ten copies were made of the original, the ability to distinguish where errors were creeping in would be a lot better when it came to making the next generation of copies.
-
Yep, good maths, not sure I agree with the theory. Each time something is copied, different mistakes will be made. Suppose Mark gave his document to a church and moved on. Two people made copies: one missed out one word, the other copied the same word correctly but missed out another. The original perished so that they only had the two copies, and they found that there were two differences in the wording between them. Unless the context for each difference made it clear when a word had been missed out (which is likely), they wouldn't know which copy was accurate in the two places where they were different. But if three copies had been made then it's probable that two would have the original wording and one a different wording, hence they would know that the rendering given by the two would most likely be correct. If ten copies were made of the original, the ability to distinguish where errors were creeping in would be a lot better when it came to making the next generation of copies.
The flaw in your argument is that the ten copies would almost certainly be distributed around the Roman Empire. The person who makes a second generation from one of the ten copies won't have the other nine to check against and probably won't have the original either because they's probably all be several days or weeks journey away.
-
I think Jeremy said earlier that having three gospels which most of the time agree on the details, is itself evidence that they have been transmitted accurately. If there had been major errors then they wouldn't agree. And even if some parts were added by later editors, often these parts agree with another gospel: for example, Mark 16:9-20 agree with another gospel or Acts. Agreed?
That might be an argument if the gospels were being transmitted independently of each other and with no opportunity for one to be aligned with the other during the transmission phase.
But that isn't the case - from pretty early the gospels (and other texts) were being collated into a folio - effectively what we now know as the New Testament. One of the most important early papyrus (p45), likely from earlier than 300AD contains fragments of all the gospels and acts. Now there is very little text to go on - it is estimated that there would have originally been 200 pages and 170 of those are completely absent, with the rest so damaged that I don't think an entire single line is intact. So if cannot tell us much about the text as over 90% is missing, but it does tell us that transmission of the gospels even at this early stage wasn't independent, but in a collected folio.
This means that the copyists won't have just been copying Mark or Matthew, but all four gospels. This means that it would have been very easy (and perhaps even directed) to gently manipulate the gospel texts to create sufficient alignment to provide coherence gospel to gospel. Whether they originally were so aligned is anyone's guess as we don't have the earliest texts (the autograph) - that a couple of hundred years later there is alignment doesn't really help us as the gospels were being transmitted and copied together.
-
The flaw in your argument is that the ten copies would almost certainly be distributed around the Roman Empire. The person who makes a second generation from one of the ten copies won't have the other nine to check against and probably won't have the original either because they's probably all be several days or weeks journey away.
I'm not sure if anyone has estimated the numbers of copies circulating between the time of the original autographs (perhaps 70-90AD) and the point when we finally get complete, or near complete versions available to us - around 350AD.
Given that around 70 'early' (before around 400AD) papyri have survived and papyrus very rarely lasts beyond a few decades, I think these 70 are probably just the tip of the iceberg.
-
That might be an argument if the gospels were being transmitted independently of each other and with no opportunity for one to be aligned with the other during the transmission phase.
But that isn't the case - from pretty early the gospels (and other texts) were being collated into a folio - effectively what we now know as the New Testament. One of the most important early papyrus (p45), likely from earlier than 300AD contains fragments of all the gospels and acts. Now there is very little text to go on - it is estimated that there would have originally been 200 pages and 170 of those are completely absent, with the rest so damaged that I don't think an entire single line is intact. So if cannot tell us much about the text as over 90% is missing, but it does tell us that transmission of the gospels even at this early stage wasn't independent, but in a collected folio.
This means that the copyists won't have just been copying Mark or Matthew, but all four gospels. This means that it would have been very easy (and perhaps even directed) to gently manipulate the gospel texts to create sufficient alignment to provide coherence gospel to gospel. Whether they originally were so aligned is anyone's guess as we don't have the earliest texts (the autograph) - that a couple of hundred years later there is alignment doesn't really help us as the gospels were being transmitted and copied together.
But there are still conradicting details in the gospels. Why weren't these harmonized?
-
But there are still conradicting details in the gospels. Why weren't these harmonized?
Not everything is going to be changed or you'd end up with one, rather than four, gospels - having four gospels would have helped the early church communicate their message as the notion of four narratives inherently implies independent corroboration (when of course three of those gospels, at least, aren't independent of each other. Also the synoptic gospels are considered to have been written for different audiences, so useful to keep some differences in tone even if the main elements become harmonised.
I think also you get to a point when an orthodox version of the NT is established - but that took some time to occur.
But we have clear evidence of the harmonisation - so the early versions of Mark have no resurrection witness narratives, yet Matthew and Luke of the same time do. Fast forward a little and Mark has been harmonised with the other synoptic gospels by the addition of extra verses to chapter 16 to include post-resurrection appearances.
The fundamental point is that by the time we have any meaningful extant textual evidence of the gospels they are not independent (if they ever were - that we don't know) - they are being copied and transmitted alongside each other.
-
Not everything is going to be changed or you'd end up with one, rather than four, gospels - having four gospels would have helped the early church communicate their message as the notion of four narratives inherently implies independent corroboration (when of course three of those gospels, at least, aren't independent of each other.
Yes, if everything was changed there would only be one gospel. I find it hard to believe that details such as whether Jairus' daughter was alive when her Dad first came to Jesus would have been deliberately manipulated. It is possible that the contrast between Matthew's and Mark/Luke's versions could be due to copying error, but even then the essence of the story doesn't change - Jesus brought her back to life. Similarly with most other contradictions, they don't change the essence of the story.
Also the synoptic gospels are considered to have been written for different audiences, so useful to keep some differences in tone even if the main elements become harmonised.
Fair enough.
I think also you get to a point when an orthodox version of the NT is established - but that took some time to occur.
From what I can tell, not very long.
But we have clear evidence of the harmonisation - so the early versions of Mark have no resurrection witness narratives, yet Matthew and Luke of the same time do. Fast forward a little and Mark has been harmonised with the other synoptic gospels by the addition of extra verses to chapter 16 to include post-resurrection appearances.
That is evidence of someone, possibly Mark, finishing off the story at a later date, it doesn't mean Mark wasn't aware of any resurrection appearances. The NT is clear that he was an active member of the early believers.
That's one example, there are others where some verses or words are omitted by the early manuscripts, but they don't change the meaning of the text.
The fundamental point is that by the time we have any meaningful extant textual evidence of the gospels they are not independent (if they ever were - that we don't know) - they are being copied and transmitted alongside each other.
The retired homicide detective Warner Wallace answers this by citing the writings of the early church fathers who taught the same message as that of the earliest of our manuscripts. He says there's a chain of students including Polycarp, Irenaeus etc linking back to the apostles, and that their message did not change over time, which it would have if the original message was different.
-
That is evidence of someone, possibly Mark, finishing off the story at a later date ...
Blimey he must have lived to a ripe old age, noting that the original is considered to have been written in about 70AD and all copies up to about 400AD don't include the additional verses, so they were likely added in the 5thC. So if Mark added them he'd have been about 400 years old by then!
And of course it goes without saying that we have no idea who the author (or authors) of the gospel attributed to Mark was (or were).
-
Blimey he must have lived to a ripe old age, noting that the original is considered to have been written in about 70AD and all copies up to about 400AD don't include the additional verses, so they were likely added in the 5thC. So if Mark added them he'd have been about 400 years old by then!
And of course it goes without saying that we have no idea who the author (or authors) of the gospel attributed to Mark was (or were).
I have just read that codex Vaticanus was aware of the longer ending. It apparently has a blank space at the end, the only such space it contains.
Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 around 200 AD:
Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;
http://gnosis.org/library/advh3.htm
Note in this writing, all the other quotes from the gospels which agree with our text.
-
I have just read that codex Vaticanus was aware of the longer ending. It apparently has a blank space at the end, the only such space it contains.
Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 around 200 AD: http://gnosis.org/library/advh3.htm
Note in this writing, all the other quotes from the gospels which agree with our text.
Maybe Mark 16:19 quotes from Irenaeus.
-
You need to understand that neither phrase is the original (the autograph), nor the archetype but an English translation of an earlier version which will have been written itself centuries after the original first appeared.
Better, "it is not certain that either phrase is the original".
One reason why we could be looking at the original phrases is that this kind of discrepancy, where Matthew makes more sense than Mark and it's hard to see why Mark would have written as he did when writing before Matthew, occurs often. Here is another:
And having stripped Him, they put a scarlet robe around Him.
And having twisted together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand - Matthew 27:28,29
And they put on Him purple, and having twisted together a crown of thorns, they placed it on (literally, 'around') Him - Mark 15:17
Matthew uses the verb peritithemi (to place around) in a coherent way, Mark's use is less coherent: he says that they placed the crown of thorns around him, substituting 'him' for 'his head', thinking it meant 'on him'. Mark also uses the word 'reed' less coherently, mentioning it only when the soldiers strike Jesus with it.
It is more likely that Mark used 'place around' because he had read it in Matthew's text, than that, writing before Matthew, it came into Mark's mind some other way.
It's hard not to see a pattern of error in Mark's work that must have come about through a sort of editorial fatigue on his part.
-
Better, "it is not certain that either phrase is the original".
Except it is entirely sure since the original was not written in English.
-
It's hard not to see a pattern of error in Mark's work that must have come about through a sort of editorial fatigue on his part.
That's not how editorial fatigue works. Editorial fatigue occurs when you make a deliberate change to a text but you do not carry it consistently through the whole text.
-
Fairly accurately.
If I gave you the impression I meant that, I apologise.
What I was trying to refute was the assertion that we do not know what they said. PD implies that we can have no idea at all what was in the original gospels. However, that would require the ability of copyists to make accurate copies over the two or three hundred years for which we have no complete manuscripts to be much worse than for the succeeding thousand years.
The Codex Sinaiticus was written in the fourth century and has a number of variations over what we would think of as being in the Bible and yet it is recognisable as being the same Bible as existed a thousand years later but with some variations. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the original documents (for the NT at least) were very similar to the Codex Sinaiticus.
Furthermore, the Synoptic gospels probably diverged and became separate documents very early in their history- before the end of the first century. After that, they would have evolved independently, but we can still identify the sections in Matthew and Luke that were copied from Mark (or vice versa) and we can still identify the sections where Matthew and Luke had a common source.
All of those factors together tell us that we do have a pretty good idea of what was in the original gospels, contrary to what PD asserted.
I forgot to thank you for this.
The trouble with that specific example is that whoever wrote the ending of Mark had access to the other gospels and Acts. It's pretty clear that it is written as a précis of the post resurrection stories in those books. i.e. it is not independent.
Yes and just to note that some think much of the rest of Mark shows signs of having Matthew and Luke as its sources!
-
That's not how editorial fatigue works. Editorial fatigue occurs when you make a deliberate change to a text but you do not carry it consistently through the whole text.
OK.
I'm not sure what it would be called, but there is still a pattern of error in Mark, where because he makes deliberate changes, his sentences become less coherent than his source (Matthew or Luke, according to Markan dependence).
PD quoted Bart Ehrman as saying, I think, that when there are two texts describing the same event, the one that is the more difficult reading is the original. I wonder if this applies when one of the texts is written by an eyewitness? If Matthew was written by eyewitnesses then the author would relate events as he recalls them and they would be likely to be coherent. Someone using Matthew as a source who was not an eyewitness could slip into the habit of changing bits and disturbing the flow of thought.
-
PD quoted Bart Ehrman as saying, I think, that when there are two texts describing the same event, the one that is the more difficult reading is the original.
"Difficult reading" in this instance means less in accord with received theology, not hard to read or clumsily written. For example, a reading that shows Jesus to be fallible might be more difficult than one that shows him to be infallible.
Also, the rule is probabilistic. It's not guaranteed that the difficult reading is the easier one, only more likely.
I wonder if this applies when one of the texts is written by an eyewitness? If Matthew was written by eyewitnesses
Matthew wasn't written by an eye witness.
then the author would relate events as he recalls them and they would be likely to be coherent. Someone using Matthew as a source who was not an eyewitness could slip into the habit of changing bits and disturbing the flow of thought.
Not necessarily. The memory might not be coherent and the next person could smooth out the inconsistencies.
-
"Difficult reading" in this instance means less in accord with received theology, not hard to read or clumsily written. For example, a reading that shows Jesus to be fallible might be more difficult than one that shows him to be infallible.
Actually Ehrmann's view on what 'difficult reading' means goes beyond that -in his words:
Therefore, when we have two forms of a text, one that would have been troubling to scribes—for example, one that is possibly contradictory to another passage or grammatically inelegant or theologically problematic—and one that would not have been as troubling, it is the former form of the text, the one that is more “difficult,” that is more likely to be original. That is, since scribes were far more likely to have corrected problems than to have created them, the comparatively smooth, consistent, harmonious, and orthodox readings are more likely to have been created by scribes.
So it also includes clunky grammar, disjointed narratives in addition to elements that may be problematic theologically.
-
Actually Ehrmann's view on what 'difficult reading' means goes beyond that -in his words:
Therefore, when we have two forms of a text, one that would have been troubling to scribes—for example, one that is possibly contradictory to another passage or grammatically inelegant or theologically problematic—and one that would not have been as troubling, it is the former form of the text, the one that is more “difficult,” that is more likely to be original. That is, since scribes were far more likely to have corrected problems than to have created them, the comparatively smooth, consistent, harmonious, and orthodox readings are more likely to have been created by scribes.
So it also includes clunky grammar, disjointed narratives in addition to elements that may be problematic theologically.
But then when one tries to explain how the inelegant or disjointed narrative came to be like that, the only way I can think of other than if he was borrowing it from his source and rearranging some of it, is that he writes things as they come to him and doesn't self-edit. I would like to see any examples Ehrman can give for his claim.
-
But then when one tries to explain how the inelegant or disjointed narrative came to be like that, the only way I can think of other than if he was borrowing it from his source and rearranging some of it, is that he writes things as they come to him and doesn't self-edit. I would like to see any examples Ehrman can give for his claim.
The most obvious reason being that the author was ramming together bits and pieces from multiple sources which were themselves transmitted to the author in written or oral format in different styles. The narrative equivalent of a cut and shut car. The earlier versions would be disjointed but over time and rewriting the clunkiness gets smoothed over to create a more coherent narrative style.
-
The most obvious reason being that the author was ramming together bits and pieces from multiple sources which were themselves transmitted to the author in written or oral format in different styles. The narrative equivalent of a cut and shut car. The earlier versions would be disjointed but over time and rewriting the clunkiness gets smoothed over to create a more coherent narrative style.
That sounds something like the Griesbach hypothesis: Mark used two written sources (Matthew and Luke) and added to them information from other oral sources (eg names such as Levi being the son of Alphaeus, Bartimaeus). Matthew and Luke have material in common but in a different order; Mark always follows the order of one or the other or both.
-
That sounds something like the Griesbach hypothesis: Mark used two written sources (Matthew and Luke) and added to them information from other oral sources (eg names such as Levi being the son of Alphaeus, Bartimaeus). Matthew and Luke have material in common but in a different order; Mark always follows the order of one or the other or both.
Ehrmann in making his comment is not focussing on who borrowed from who. Rather he is using his 'difficult' criterion as one of a range of tools to help scholars determine which of two (or more) versions of the same document is likely to be the closer to the original.
The problem with the who borrowed from who discussions is that we do not have independent versions of the gospels - pretty well everything we have is from dates when the gospels were being copied together and transmitted together in a collected folio (what we now know as the New Testament) - so throughout copying and transmission generation to generation of versions the copyists will have all of the gospels available to them.
-
I've been working on the assumption that what we have now is close to the original...
-
I've been working on the assumption that what we have now is close to the original...
Beyond wishful thinking and special pleading what justification have you for that assertion.
We have virtually nothing in terms of text for about 150 years and most sections of the gospels aren't available to us until the 4thC. We do not, and cannot know, how the texts we have, even the earliest texts available compared to the 'original'. Indeed many scholars aren't sure the notion of an 'original' is even valid, as there were likely a number of copies produced at the very earliest stage, which may not have been the same, nor may they be faithful to the intentions of the purported author, as they were likely written down by scribes, not be the purported author (or authors) himself (or themselves).
In reality all we can really say is that we know how the texts of the gospels had settled by 4thC (which includes many, many variations) - we can use tools to predict which of those variants is closer to the original compared to others - however that is only relative - variant X is likely closer to the original than variant Y. Whether variant X is identical to, similar to, or massively different from the original cannot be determined even if we think it is closer than variant
-
Beyond wishful thinking and special pleading what justification have you for that assertion.
Our earliest complete text of the New Testament is from about 200 - 300 years after after the individual documents were first set on paper. We have manuscripts from various dates from then until the invention of printing and even the latest ones seem substantially very similar to the Codex Sinaiticus.
What evidence do you have that the process of copying manuscripts was so much more error prone between 100 and 300 than between 300 and 1000?
-
Our earliest complete text of the New Testament is from about 200 - 300 years after after the individual documents were first set on paper. We have manuscripts from various dates from then until the invention of printing and even the latest ones seem substantially very similar to the Codex Sinaiticus.
What evidence do you have that the process of copying manuscripts was so much more error prone between 100 and 300 than between 300 and 1000?
But there are almost countless variants in the manuscripts in those later centuries. I think Ehrmann estimates between 200,000 and 400,000 variants, others think it is much higher - Eldon Epp suggests 750,000 and Peter Gurry suggests 500,000 non spelling variants.
So there probably need not be a greater rate of variant for us not to be able to know what the original said with surety.
However to answer your question as to why there may have been a greater rate of variation in the earliest period compared to later, it is not just me who thinks this likely but also mainstream and respected scholars, including Ehrmann. Some reasons.
1. There is typically much greater 'churn' in the earliest drafts of just about any document than in later iterations once the narrative becomes more settled.
2. The earliest copyists were non professionals; later the copying became more professionalised, involving people trained (often Monks) specifically to dot he job).
3. The earliest years are ones where orthodoxy was being established, while in later centuries orthodoxy was being maintained. The latter drives preservation of the word, while the former lends to alteration to fit with a developing political/theological position.
4. The nature of the earliest church is that it was effectively homeless - largely nomadic. Accordingly there was no base to check back to. Later the church had a settled centre where major documents would be held, and cold be used as reference to the network of churches and copyists out in the field (so to speak).
5. The early versions were on papyrus which normally lasts just a couple of decades in use (we are very fortunate to have anything left), therefore the trail of earlier version, for reference, is rapidly lost. Later parchment was used which lasts much, much longer so copyists could check back several generations for accuracy which was impossible with papyrus. (see 4 also).
6. The earliest versions would be less likely to have been seen as sacred documents, prior to formal establishment of church structures, and therefore would have been considered easier to change. Later the absolute and sacred nature of the works became established meaning that changes (other than simply errors) would have been much more difficult to be altered. You need formal structures to police maintaining a narrative - that was in place later, but not in the earliest decades. In those early days who was going to rip up a new copy deliberately changed by a copyist for political/theological purposes. No-one. The notion of heretical and heresy comes only with orthodoxy and that wasn't established from the get-go.
There you go - just a few examples.
-
But there are almost countless variants in the manuscripts in those later centuries. I think Ehrmann estimates between 200,000 and 400,000 variants, others think it is much higher - Eldon Epp suggests 750,000 and Peter Gurry suggests 500,000 non spelling variants.
But they are variants i.e. they are recognisable as the same texts.
So there probably need not be a greater rate of variant for us not to be able to know what the original said with surety.
It depends on what you mean by surety. We certainly know enough of what they say to be sure that Matthew and Luke copied Mark (or, if you are Spud, Mark copied Matthew and Luke). We can't be certain that Matthew used this word there but we can be confident in probabilistic terms of what words he used in most of the gospel.
However to answer your question as to why there may have been a greater rate of variation in the earliest period compared to later, it is not just me who thinks this likely but also mainstream and respected scholars, including Ehrmann. Some reasons.
1. There is typically much greater 'churn' in the earliest drafts of just about any document than in later iterations once the narrative becomes more settled.
2. The earliest copyists were non professionals; later the copying became more professionalised, involving people trained (often Monks) specifically to dot he job).
3. The earliest years are ones where orthodoxy was being established, while in later centuries orthodoxy was being maintained. The latter drives preservation of the word, while the former lends to alteration to fit with a developing political/theological position.
4. The nature of the earliest church is that it was effectively homeless - largely nomadic. Accordingly there was no base to check back to. Later the church had a settled centre where major documents would be held, and cold be used as reference to the network of churches and copyists out in the field (so to speak).
5. The early versions were on papyrus which normally lasts just a couple of decades in use (we are very fortunate to have anything left), therefore the trail of earlier version, for reference, is rapidly lost. Later parchment was used which lasts much, much longer so copyists could check back several generations for accuracy which was impossible with papyrus. (see 4 also).
6. The earliest versions would be less likely to have been seen as sacred documents, prior to formal establishment of church structures, and therefore would have been considered easier to change. Later the absolute and sacred nature of the works became established meaning that changes (other than simply errors) would have been much more difficult to be altered. You need formal structures to police maintaining a narrative - that was in place later, but not in the earliest decades. In those early days who was going to rip up a new copy deliberately changed by a copyist for political/theological purposes. No-one. The notion of heretical and heresy comes only with orthodoxy and that wasn't established from the get-go.
There you go - just a few examples.
But you are saying we have no idea what the early versions say at all. You are saying that the gospels could have changed out of all recognition over two centuries but managed somehow to remain more or less unchanged over the subsequent ten centuries.
I'd like to call out your point 3 for particular attention. It's correct and we know it's correct because we can see the results of the changes in orthodoxy and theology because we have four distinct gospels. Each was written with a its own emphasis that makes them different and we can compare and contrast them and make educated guesses as to the ideas and motivations of the authors. The changes that result from point 3 are so significant that we regard the outcome as a separate document.
-
So assuming that we know more or less what the earliest versions said, back to the subject of the thread - if nobody minds! I've now bought the three books by Harold Riley on the Synoptic gospels, and having read some of "Preface to Luke", I can provide some internal evidence that Luke used Matthew as one of his sources. Unless you guys are fed up with the subject and would rather I didn't keep on about it.
-
So assuming that we know more or less what the earliest versions said, back to the subject of the thread - if nobody minds! I've now bought the three books by Harold Riley on the Synoptic gospels, and having read some of "Preface to Luke", I can provide some internal evidence that Luke used Matthew as one of his sources. Unless you guys are fed up with the subject and would rather I didn't keep on about it.
Can I safely assume, dear Spud, that you do not know the meaning of the expression "flogging a dead horse"?
-
Can I safely assume, dear Spud, that you do not know the meaning of the expression "flogging a dead horse"?
I don't expect anyone will want me to go into detail, but I mention it in case. You know the book name if you want to sample it online,
-
So assuming that we know more or less what the earliest versions said, back to the subject of the thread - if nobody minds! I've now bought the three books by Harold Riley on the Synoptic gospels, and having read some of "Preface to Luke", I can provide some internal evidence that Luke used Matthew as one of his sources. Unless you guys are fed up with the subject and would rather I didn't keep on about it.
Even if you did assume that you knew, more or less, what these earliest versions said how could you then know that what you assumed these versions said was an accurate record?
The problem of excluding the risks of mistakes or lies in what you assume were the earliest versions, and also in any subsequent versions, and especially given their uncertain provenance, surely reduces the value of the NT as an accurate record of events: best taken with a pinch of salt.
-
So assuming that we know more or less what the earliest versions said, ...
But you cannot make that assumption Spud - that's the whole point.
Firstly there are almost countless variances in the earliest copies we have - most minor, of course, but some humdingers with major doctrinal significance, e.g. trinity, unique god, atonement, resurrection appearances etc. We do not, and cannot, know which of those variants is the original - indeed whether any of them are. Check out the following from about 31 mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRHjZCKRIu4
But also by the time we have actual fragments and whole documents to look at the gospels had been circulated together as a folio and would have been copied together for centuries. The notion of who borrowed from whom becomes moot when you have had the possibility of cross fertilisation one gospel to another every time they are copied.
-
But you cannot make that assumption Spud - that's the whole point.
That depends on what you mean by "more or less".
Firstly there are almost countless variances in the earliest copies we have
Actually, by definition there are not countless variations in the earliest copies. There are a lot of variations in later manuscripts.
- most minor, of course, but some humdingers with major doctrinal significance, e.g. trinity, unique god, atonement, resurrection appearances etc. We do not, and cannot, know which of those variants is the original - indeed whether any of them are.
Not within individual gospels. The theological differences between Mark and John are significant, but not within Mark or within John.
-
That depends on what you mean by "more or less".
Indeed it does, but as an example I don't think there are any post-resurrection accounts from the synoptic gospels available to us until centuries after their purported original writing. We know that the post-resurrection account in Mark is likely to be a later addition, because by good luck we have variant copies with the earliest having no post resurrection appearance. How do we know that the accounts in Luke and Matthew aren't also later editions as the first time we see them in an extant version is 4thC I believe.
Actually, by definition there are not countless variations in the earliest copies. There are a lot of variations in later manuscripts.
Did you miss the word almost
Not within individual gospels. The theological differences between Mark and John are significant, but not within Mark or within John.
Not true - listen to the link where Erhman is clear that the variants within gospel versions have major doctrinal significance.
So as just one of his examples - does John doctrinally support the notion of the trinity. Well it depends on which version of John you read - apparently this doesn't appear in the early Greek versions, but appears in later Latin ones. So depending on which version of John you select from the early copies you may conclude that John supports the notion of the trinity or does not supports the notion of the trinity.
Same with Luke on doctrine of atonement. Does he teach this - depends on which early version you read. Which one is the original is anyone's guess - we don't know.
-
Indeed it does, but as an example I don't think there are any post-resurrection accounts from the synoptic gospels available to us until centuries after their purported original writing. We know that the post-resurrection account in Mark is likely to be a later addition, because by good luck we have variant copies with the earliest having no post resurrection appearance.
I would say we know it is a later addition. You're never 100% certain but it's pretty much beyond doubt. Apart from the fact that it doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts, if you read it, it's fairly obviously a synthesis of the other three post resurrection accounts. Somebody came along and was disturbed that Mark didn't have a "happy ending" and cobbled one together by mashing the other stories together.
How do we know that the accounts in Luke and Matthew aren't also later editions as the first time we see them in an extant version is 4thC I believe.
We don't know. We assume, because there's no evidence that they were not part of the original gospels. This is history, not maths or science. If you didn't make "good faith" assumptions, there would be very little actual ancient history.
So as just one of his examples - does John doctrinally support the notion of the trinity. Well it depends on which version of John you read - apparently this doesn't appear in the early Greek versions, but appears in later Latin ones.
I've always believed that the notion of the Trinity arose after the first century. If, as you say, early Greek versions of John didn't have it, the supports my case.
Latin manuscripts are problematic anyway because they have to be translated from the Greek. There's room for all kinds of problems when doing translations.
The text are clearly not as fluid as you are trying to represent. When fragments of manuscripts turn up or texts are quoted in other documents, scholars have no problem identifying which of the four gospels they are from. They could only do this if the gospels are substantially (in a textual sense, not a doctrinal sense) stable.
-
I would say we know it is a later addition. You're never 100% certain but it's pretty much beyond doubt. Apart from the fact that it doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts, if you read it, it's fairly obviously a synthesis of the other three post resurrection accounts. Somebody came along and was disturbed that Mark didn't have a "happy ending" and cobbled one together by mashing the other stories together.
Actually the main reason we know it is a later addition is because we have (by luck) variant versions. The distinction in writing is no greater than in many other sections.
The earliest versions we have of the post resurrection appearances in Luke and Matthew are (I believe) 4thC - how do you know there weren't earlier versions (now lost) of Matthew and Luke that had no post resurrection appearances and that they were added to those gospels too to provide a 'happy ending'.
We do not, and cannot know. What evidence do you have Jeremy that versions of Matthew and Luke from, say 120AD, definitely included post resurrection appearances.
-
But you cannot make that assumption Spud - that's the whole point.
I think I can, so long as before I proceed to give the evidence I've come across I state any assumptions.
-
Even if you did assume that you knew, more or less, what these earliest versions said how could you then know that what you assumed these versions said was an accurate record?
The problem of excluding the risks of mistakes or lies in what you assume were the earliest versions, and also in any subsequent versions, and especially given their uncertain provenance, surely reduces the value of the NT as an accurate record of events: best taken with a pinch of salt.
We read in the ending of Mark that Jesus confirmed his word with signs as the apostles preached. So we can expect God to do the same for us now.
-
We read in the ending of Mark that Jesus confirmed his word with signs as the apostles preached. So we can expect God to do the same for us now.
I'll try again: how do you know that what is said in the ending of Mark about there being "signs" hasn't been made up by those promoting the cause of Jesus?
-
Actually the main reason we know it is a later addition is because we have (by luck) variant versions. The distinction in writing is no greater than in many other sections.
The earliest versions we have of the post resurrection appearances in Luke and Matthew are (I believe) 4thC - how do you know there weren't earlier versions (now lost) of Matthew and Luke that had no post resurrection appearances and that they were added to those gospels too to provide a 'happy ending'.
We do not, and cannot know. What evidence do you have Jeremy that versions of Matthew and Luke from, say 120AD, definitely included post resurrection appearances.
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul summarizes the resurrection appearances, indicating that the church believed them to have happened by AD 50-ish. Papyrus 46 (AD 175-225) contains that passage, as far as I know.
-
I'll try again: how do you know that what is said in the ending of Mark about there being "signs" hasn't been made up by those promoting the cause of Jesus?
Through answered prayer, where you get definite signs that are basically God revealing himself.
-
Through answered prayer, where you get definite signs that are basically God revealing himself.
I really don't understand people that make statements like this, they're not joking, deadly serious and often amiably well functioning in all other aspects of their lives?
ippy.
-
Through answered prayer, where you get definite signs that are basically God revealing himself.
Smashing: but even if that makes you feel better, you're saying nothing here about how you've assessed the risks that these claims of 'signs' in the text aren't mistakes or lies, which is what I asked you.
What is it that you checked, and how, regarding the text that I could replicate?
-
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul summarizes the resurrection appearances, indicating that the church believed them to have happened by AD 50-ish. Papyrus 46 (AD 175-225) contains that passage, as far as I know.
Firstly Paul's accounts are very different to those in the gospels, and include the ridiculous hyperbole of '500 people' which would undoubtedly have generated contemporaneous and independent record, had it happened.
But p46 doesn't solve the problem - we have a version, likely from the first half of the 3rdC of 1 Corinthians 15, some 200 years after the event and probably a many-generation copy. All this tells us is that by the early 3rdC a tradition had arisen of post resurrection appearances - whether this was in the original Paul or added, altered or exaggerated later we have no idea.
-
Firstly Paul's accounts are very different to those in the gospels, and include the ridiculous hyperbole of '500 people' which would undoubtedly have generated contemporaneous and independent record, had it happened.
Acts 1 would corroborate the 500 claim, as it says they chose a replacement for Judas from those who had witnessed the ascension. 120 brothers were present at the meeting in Jerusalem. Add to that women, and some who had gone home and you can get 500.
But p46 doesn't solve the problem - we have a version, likely from the first half of the 3rdC of 1 Corinthians 15, some 200 years after the event and probably a many-generation copy. All this tells us is that by the early 3rdC a tradition had arisen of post resurrection appearances - whether this was in the original Paul or added, altered or exaggerated later we have no idea.
The actual tradition and document from which p46 was copied must have arisen well before it was written, so 200 years actually doesn't seem a long time. And it's close enough to the gospel narrative to be significant: appearance to Simon, then the 12.
Smashing: but even if that makes you feel better, you're saying nothing here about how you've assessed the risks that these claims of 'signs' in the text aren't mistakes or lies, which is what I asked you.
What is it that you checked, and how, regarding the text that I could replicate?
Bear in mind that the signs in the text are the result of the disciples preaching, confirming the truth of that. So belief in their written testimony will, if true, be accompanied by signs.
-
Acts 1 would corroborate the 500 claim, as it says they chose a replacement for Judas from those who had witnessed the ascension. 120 brothers were present at the meeting in Jerusalem. Add to that women, and some who had gone home and you can get 500.
Do you have the CCTV footage to hand?
You do realise, Spud, that people can exaggerate and lie in support of a cause they support (or to denigrate one they don't) - how have you checked these details independently of the NT stories.
You do seem awfully gullible.
-
I'll write a summary of what I've found in Preface to Luke, by Harold Riley, since it will help verify the concept of Matthew being the first gospel.
In Luke 5-9 the material Luke has in common with Matthew is sometimes in the same sequence, other times out of sequence with Matthew. Whenever a pericope is out of sequence, we find that whereas Matthew places it in a definite setting, Luke is careful not to do this, and instead gives it a vague setting. However, when Luke is in sequence with Matthew, he gives a similar setting to Matthew. This indicates the direction of use to be Luke using Matthew.
Note that because Matthew was edited, not all of it was available to Luke. Luke also omitted parts of Matthew and added others from a different source.
-
A list of the occurrences of the above (from notes made on the book):
Mt 8:1 When he came down from the mountainside
Lk 5:12 When Jesus was in one of the towns
Mt 9:1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his home town
Lk 5:17 One day as he was preaching
(In both the above Mt and Lk are out of sequence.)
Mt 9:9 As Jesus went on from there
Lk 5:27 After these things
Mt 9:14 Then John's disciples came and asked him
Lk 5:33 They said to him
(In both the above Mt and Lk are in sequence)
Mt 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the cornfields
Lk 6:1 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the cornfields
Mt 12:9 Going on from that place he went into their synagogue
Lk 6:6 On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue
(In both the above Mt and Lk are out of sequence)
The Great Sermon is followed in Mt by the healing of the leper, which Luke omits as he has recorded it already, and then the healing of the Centurion's servant, which Luke also records next. Since they are in sequence, Matthew's "When Jesus had finished saying these things...when Jesus had entered Capernaum" is mirrored by Luke's "When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum".
Mt 13:1 On that day Jesus went out of the house, and sat by the sea side. And great crowds were gathered...
Lk 8:4 And when a great multitude had gathered
(Luke and Matthew out of sequence here)
-
Do you have the CCTV footage to hand?
You do realise, Spud, that people can exaggerate and lie in support of a cause they support (or to denigrate one they don't) - how have you checked these details independently of the NT stories.
You do seem awfully gullible.
And sometimes the exaggeration is so ridiculous that it demonstrates its own non-sense.
Had 500 people all together seen a person they had known to be dead suddenly be alive again it would have spread like wildfire - they'd have told their families and friends etc etc. Within no time it would have been pretty well common knowledge across the area - if we assume Jerusalem then at the time this had perhaps a few tens of thousand population.
No doubt this event would have come to the attention of the jewish and roman authorities and therefore there would be some record of this in contemporary and non partial records as corroboration, noting that both the jewish and roman authorities were fastidious record keepers - yet there is none.
Secondly - had this happened surely the event would have been so remarkable that the local population would have turned to christianity (in its earliest form) in huge numbers and the growing religion would have gained a significant foothold in the local area. Yet it didn't - the followers of Jesus remained a minor cult (not consistent with all those people seeing miracles, not just the purported post-resurrection appearance to 500 people) and were soon relegated to a nomadic existence as the local populace rejected their claims. How on earth could the claims have been so unbelievable to the bast majority of the local population if so many people had actually witnessed them first hand.
-
The actual tradition and document from which p46 was copied must have arisen well before it was written, so 200 years actually doesn't seem a long time. And it's close enough to the gospel narrative to be significant: appearance to Simon, then the 12.
p46 might have been copied from an earlier version that also contained the claim and that from an earlier version again that contained the claim etc etc.
However p46 might have been copied from an earlier version that did not contain the claim and the copyist added it for the first time in p46 (as we see later for ending of Mark, as we have before/after versions by luck).
So you have no idea how long the claim had been present in Paul, nor when the tradition first arose - presumably orally rather than in writing to start with.
And of course untrue traditions can arise very rapidly after an event and are often exaggerated in the re-telling.
That in about AD225 a papyrus contains a claim tells us very little about whether that claim appeared in much earliest versions of that document, and even if it did that tells us nothing about whether that claim is actually true.
-
How do you know that. Leaving aside the standard view that Matthew used Mark as a source rather than the other way around how do you know that the differences we see in Mark and Matthew (which come from texts from AD200 onwards) aren't due to copyists gently rephrasing things from each generation to the next, either by error in copying or deliberately because they felt the new phraseology was better/more pleasing etc.
Well, as you say, most scholars believe that Matthew used Mark rather than the differences between them being due to editing by scribes over centuries. If scholars are correct that the originator of one copied the original text of the other (in their opinion, Matthew copying Mark), then the question is could it be the other way round.
But what you are reading isn't Mark's words but a many, many generation copy of what was originally written.
-
To paraphrase John Chapman (1937): "If Mark abbreviated Matthew, omitting much, then wherever Mark makes long omissions we shall find some sign of the gap - perhaps merely want of sequence (for Mt is very systematic) or even illogical sequence."
An example is the repetition of the names Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses, in Mark 15:47 and 16:1 (the next verse). The best explanation would be that Mark copied from Mathew 27:61, omitted the section about the posting of guards at the tomb (62-66), then carried on copying from Mt 28:1.
-
To paraphrase John Chapman (1937): "If Mark abbreviated Matthew, omitting much, then wherever Mark makes long omissions we shall find some sign of the gap - perhaps merely want of sequence (for Mt is very systematic) or even illogical sequence."
An example is the repetition of the names Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses, in Mark 15:47 and 16:1 (the next verse). The best explanation would be that Mark copied from Mathew 27:61, omitted the section about the posting of guards at the tomb (62-66), then carried on copying from Mt 28:1.
Except that the first mention occurs in a scene at the end of the day on Friday and the second mention occurs two days later on the following Sunday. The repetition is entirely natural.
-
Except that the first mention occurs in a scene at the end of the day on Friday and the second mention occurs two days later on the following Sunday. The repetition is entirely natural.
The implication of this is that Matthew also thought it was fine, so accidentally created what is actually a better arrangement by inserting the guards in between.
-
The implication of this is that Matthew also thought it was fine, so accidentally created what is actually a better arrangement by inserting the guards in between.
I don't see the problem. Matthew fabricated the guards story and wanted to insert it somewhere and the place he put is the natural place.
-
I don't see the problem. Matthew fabricated the guards story and wanted to insert it somewhere and the place he put is the natural place.
In suspect that the process of fabrication, exaggeration and insertion of 'detail' for effect was an ongoing process through the years from the purported events until the gospel orthodoxy became largely settled around 300-400AD.
So Matthew (or rather the author of Matthew) may not have fabricated this element of the story himself - potentially it could have been swirling around in the mix as a 'tradition' before he wrote the original version of the gospel. Or it might not have included it in the original gospel, only for it to be added by later copyists and interpolators.
-
In suspect that the process of fabrication, exaggeration and insertion of 'detail' for effect was an ongoing process through the years from the purported events until the gospel orthodoxy became largely settled around 300-400AD.
I have never heard any mainstream scholar claim the gospels were still unsettled in the fourth century, only crackpot ones who think Eusebius forged the whole New Testament.
So Matthew (or rather the author of Matthew)
When we say "Matthew wrote" that's shorthand for "the author(s) of the Gospel now known as Matthew wrote". There's no need to keep emphasising the point that the gospel is anonymous. Even Spud, who doesn't accept it, knows that nobody else agrees with him.
may not have fabricated this element of the story himself - potentially it could have been swirling around in the mix as a 'tradition' before he wrote the original version of the gospel. Or it might not have included it in the original gospel, only for it to be added by later copyists and interpolators.
So? That's irrelevant to Spud's point. He says it was originally part of the gospel and Mark omitted it when copying Matthew. I think Matthew is copied from Mark and the passage has been inserted.
-
I have never heard any mainstream scholar claim the gospels were still unsettled in the fourth century, only crackpot ones who think Eusebius forged the whole New Testament.
Err Ehrman - is he a crackpot, I don't think so.
I didn't say that everything was changed, but there is ample evidence of significant alterations and interpolations through until 300-400AD, from the record of extant fragments etc. So it is perfectly reasonable to say that the gospels remained unsettled until a point at which we confident that there were few additional changes, and that is about that time.
-
I wasn't going to mention it, but the books I'm reading by H Riley contradict each other on this section. In his book on Matthew he says that the section on posting the guards is an insertion to an earlier 'proto-Matthew', and that Mark wasn't aware of it. This would mean that 'Proto-Matthew' repeated the names of the women with nothing in between. But in his book on Mark, Riley says that Mark's copy of Matthew included the guards story, which Mark omitted.
What is interesting is that Luke mentions 'the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee' during the burial, then continues, 'they came to the tomb'. This would contradict the idea that the passing of time between the two verses merits repeat of the women's names by Mark.
Also, instead of the guards story, Mark includes the detail about the women buying spices, which is also in Luke but not Matthew. So on the Markan priority hypothesis, Matthew takes one part of Mark (the naming of the women) and Luke takes another (the preparation of spices). But assuming Markan dependence, he conflated details from Matthew and Luke.
-
Err Ehrman - is he a crackpot, I don't think so.
Ehrmann agrees with the majority of scholars that the gospels were written between about 70 and the end of the first century.
I didn't say that everything was changed, but there is ample evidence of significant alterations and interpolations through until 300-400AD, from the record of extant fragments etc.
Fragments being the operative word. That's all we have of Matthew before the third century. I don't know where you think the evidence of "significant alterations and interpolations" comes from.
Nevertheless, this passage we are discussion is an interpolation, in my opinion - into Mark by Matthew. In Spud's opinion, it was edited out by Mark when he copied Matthew. If you've got any evidence that it is an even later addition than I think, then great, let's hear it.
-
I wasn't going to mention it, but the books I'm reading by H Riley contradict each other on this section. In his book on Matthew he says that the section on posting the guards is an insertion to an earlier 'proto-Matthew', and that Mark wasn't aware of it. This would mean that 'Proto-Matthew' repeated the names of the women with nothing in between. But in his book on Mark, Riley says that Mark's copy of Matthew included the guards story, which Mark omitted.
What is interesting is that Luke mentions 'the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee' during the burial, then continues, 'they came to the tomb'. This would contradict the idea that the passing of time between the two verses merits repeat of the women's names by Mark.
Why would it?
Also, instead of the guards story, Mark includes the detail about the women buying spices, which is also in Luke but not Matthew. So on the Markan priority hypothesis, Matthew takes one part of Mark (the naming of the women) and Luke takes another (the preparation of spices). But assuming Markan dependence, he conflated details from Matthew and Luke.
But you are claiming that Mark put in one story but not the other. It seems to me that your version has exactly the same problems.
-
Why would it?
Why would what (sorry, not sure what you're referring to)
-
Why would it?
But you are claiming that Mark put in one story but not the other. It seems to me that your version has exactly the same problems.
I think we can say that mark ought to have substituted a pronoun for the women's names in 16:1. Matthew didn't need to (assuming the guards section is not a later addition).
-
Why would what (sorry, not sure what you're referring to)
Why would it " contradict the idea that the passing of time between the two verses merits repeat of the women's names by Mark."
-
I think we can say that mark ought to have substituted a pronoun for the women's names in 16:1.
Why ought he? It's a new scene so it would be natural to restate the names of the main actors. In fact, we may infer that Luke made the same mistake as you and decided pronouns would be better.
You are arguing that Mark had both Matthew and Luke in front of him and decided to follow Luke but chose to put the names of the women in for no good reason when the gospel he was following didn't have them..
-
Ehrmann agrees with the majority of scholars that the gospels were written between about 70 and the end of the first century.
That's not what I said - I wasn't talking about when they might have been originally written, but when they were settled - in other words the point at which an orthodoxy of the content of the gospels was agreed and that there were few changes to content thereafter.
And Ehrman is completely in agreement with me that in the first couple of centuries after the gospels were originally written they weren't 'settled' as there are all sorts of changes evident within the earliest extant copies. And these are just in the period from about 200-300AD. We do not know, and cannot know, what changes occurred earlier that that. That is exactly Ehrman's view.
So Ehrman may accept that the original gospels might have been written between 70 and 110AD, but his view is that until the 4thC there was considerable 'churn' in their content and they therefore weren't settled.
-
Why ought he?
Because Matthew and Luke agree on when you normally repeat a noun and when you use a pronoun. Matthew necessarily names the women a second time due to the material in between; Luke uses a pronoun because there is no material in between. You say Mark repeats the names because it's a new scene, and this could well be true, but it's not standard literary procedure.
So you can still claim that Mark naturally renamed the women for his own reason. However, that he is conflating Matthew and Luke is still a more simple explanation, because the text turns out to follow Griesbach's hypothesis. Luke's 'they' in 24:1 is defined in 23:55 as 'the women who had come with him out of Galilee'. These include Salome, the mother of Zebedee's sons, Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40-41. So if Mark also has Luke in front of him he has good reason to include Salome, though he is following Matthew in actually naming the women.
If we were to view this from the Markan priority perspective, one thing stands out as strange: Matthew would be following Mark in naming the women, and Luke would not. Luke would be following Mark in speaking of 'those who followed him from Galilee', but Matthew only gives two of the three women, so he is not following Mark in this respect.
This is just what the Griesbach hypothesis shows - that with Markan priority, in a given passage, Matthew frequently includes material that Luke doesn't, and Luke includes other material that Matthew doesn't. Another example would be "when evening came, after sunset" (Mark); "when evening came" (Matthew); "when the sun was setting" (Luke).
Since it is unlikely that this would happen so often in a real life scenario, the simplest explanation is that Mark was switching between Matthew and Luke.
-
That's not what I said - I wasn't talking about when they might have been originally written, but when they were settled - in other words the point at which an orthodoxy of the content of the gospels was agreed and that there were few changes to content thereafter.
What evidence have you got for any specific changes between 100 and 300?
-
Because Matthew and Luke agree on when you normally repeat a noun and when you use a pronoun.
This is language. There are no hard and fast rules about when you use a pronoun or not. It's often a matter of style.
Matthew necessarily names the women a second time due to the material in between; Luke uses a pronoun because there is no material in between. You say Mark repeats the names because it's a new scene, and this could well be true, but it's not standard literary procedure.
Is it not? Can you cite a rule in any language that says "do not use the full name of a person who you named in the previous paragraph"?
If we were to view this from the Markan priority perspective, one thing stands out as strange: Matthew would be following Mark in naming the women, and Luke would not. Luke would be following Mark in speaking of 'those who followed him from Galilee', but Matthew only gives two of the three women, so he is not following Mark in this respect.
Luke could agree with you that it's bad style to repeat the names and could have changed it. That seems eminently more likely than Mark having both Luke and Matthew in front of him and choosing to copy Luke but adding the names in thus making the style worse (in your opinion).
If Mark were copying one of the other two gospels, he has clearly chosen Luke to copy because he omits the story of the guards but he includes the buying of spices etc as Luke does. Thus, you've got to explain how Mark did something that you think makes the literary style worse.
-
What evidence have you got for any specific changes between 100 and 300?
The variations in the texts in extant gospel fragments from those dates. Most are minor - some are very significant. And we only know about changes from the latter part of that period as we have no extant documents earlier than about 200. So while it is pretty clear that there would have been variations in the period 70-200 we are in the dark as to what those variations might be.
And we also know that changed continued beyond that point - so perhaps the best example being the altered ending of Mark, which only appears in extant versions from later than about 350AD.
The point is that in the early decades and centuries the gospels (and indeed the whole nature of the NT) was in a state of flux and only became settled in the 4thC via a series of ecumenical councils that determined not only the books that would be included in the NT but the accepted versions of the texts.
-
This is language. There are no hard and fast rules about when you use a pronoun or not. It's often a matter of style.
Is it not? Can you cite a rule in any language that says "do not use the full name of a person who you named in the previous paragraph"?
I'm talking more about normal writing practice than hard and fast rules
Luke could agree with you that it's bad style to repeat the names and could have changed it. That seems eminently more likely than Mark having both Luke and Matthew in front of him and choosing to copy Luke but adding the names in thus making the style worse (in your opinion).
If Mark were copying one of the other two gospels, he has clearly chosen Luke to copy because he omits the story of the guards but he includes the buying of spices etc as Luke does. Thus, you've got to explain how Mark did something that you think makes the literary style worse.
You seem to be assuming that because Mark missed out the relatively big section on the guards, then it must have been Luke he was copying (if he was copying one or the other). This is like the reasoning you applied regarding the sermon on the mount. It's fair to think that way, but we can't escape the pattern of alternating between both Mt and Lk in both the sequence of pericopes and more minor details.
If we go back to the death and burial sections, there are suggestions that there as well Mark is conflating both Matthew and Luke.
Matthew and Mark name the women when describing them watching Jesus' death. Then they both say, "and evening having come".
Then Mark adds that it was the day of preparation, (which Luke also states) before describing Joseph as a prominent Council member, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God. Luke describes him as a Council member, a good and righteous man...who was waiting for the kingdom of God.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I would continue giving examples until the forum exploded but am aware it might annoy people! Thanks for discussing it with me.
-
I'm talking more about normal writing practice than hard and fast rules
By the standards of normal writing practices in Ancient Greek, Mark was considered relatively unsophisticated. He does the equivalent of starting a lot of sentences with "and", for instance. This is one of the reasons why people assume Mark was writing first. It's more likely that later writers would improve his style than Mark would copy more sophisticated writing, but make it worse.
You seem to be assuming that because Mark missed out the relatively big section on the guards, then it must have been Luke he was copying (if he was copying one or the other). This is like the reasoning you applied regarding the sermon on the mount. It's fair to think that way, but we can't escape the pattern of alternating between both Mt and Lk in both the sequence of pericopes and more minor details.
Luke has the story about buying spices. Matthew has the story about the guards. If Mark were copying and you note he has Luke's story, but not Matthew's, it's obvious he chose Luke as his primary source for this section.
If we go back to the death and burial sections, there are suggestions that there as well Mark is conflating both Matthew and Luke.
Matthew and Mark name the women when describing them watching Jesus' death. Then they both say, "and evening having come".
Then Mark adds that it was the day of preparation, (which Luke also states) before describing Joseph as a prominent Council member, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God. Luke describes him as a Council member, a good and righteous man...who was waiting for the kingdom of God.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I would continue giving examples until the forum exploded but am aware it might annoy people! Thanks for discussing it with me.
But it works just as well to say Mark wrote first and the other two edited the text to their satisfaction. Together with other points of evidence, I'm afraid the balance of probability is against you.
-
But it works just as well to say Mark wrote first and the other two edited the text to their satisfaction.
Okay: suppose, for now, that Matthew copied Mark in saying that it was evening, and Luke copied Mark in describing Joseph as a councilor who was waiting for the kingdom of God.
-
By the standards of normal writing practices in Ancient Greek, Mark was considered relatively unsophisticated.
Agreed.
He does the equivalent of starting a lot of sentences with "and", for instance.
So do Matthew and Luke. Compare Mk 15:46-7 (3 times) with Mt 27:59-61 (3 times).
This is one of the reasons why people assume Mark was writing first. It's more likely that later writers would improve his style than Mark would copy more sophisticated writing, but make it worse.
That makes sense, but bear in mind Mark uses colloquial language, with more description and a story-telling style. We need more concrete grounds to discern whether he is expanding his source(s) or others are condensing his account.
The main evidence that Mark is secondary to both Matthew and Luke is the high number of instances where Mark contains words, phrases or sentences that occur in either Matthew or Luke but not both. This cannot be explained as Matthew and Luke taking separate words, phrases or sentences from Mark, because it happens too often.
Here is Mark's account of the feeding of the 5,000, blue = words in common with Matthew, red = words in common with Luke. (Some are not identical but similar to either Mt or Lk). The remainder of the words either occur in all three synoptics or are peculiar to Mark.
And the apostles are gathered together to Jesus, and they related to him all things, what they had done and what they had taught. 31And He said to them, “You yourselves come apart to a solitary place, and rest a little.” For those coming and those going were many, and not even did they have opportunity to eat.
32And they went away by the boat into a solitary place by themselves. 33And many saw them going, and recognized, and ran together there on foot from all the cities, and went before them. 34And having gone out, He saw a great crowd and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were like sheep not having a shepherd. And He began to teach them many things.
35And the hour already being late, having come to Him, his disciples were saying, “The place is desolate, and the hour already is late. 36Dismiss them, that having gone to the surrounding region and villages, they might buy for themselves something to eat.”
37But answering, He said to them, “You give to them to eat.”
And they say to Him, “Having gone, shall we buy two hundred denariib of bread and give them to eat?”
38And He says to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go, see.”
And having known, they say, “Five, and two fish.”
39And He commanded them to make them all recline, groups by groups, on the green grass. 40And they sat down groups by groups, by hundreds and by fifties.
41And having taken the five loaves and the two fish, having looked up to the heaven, He blessed and broke the loaves, and He kept giving them to His disciples, that they might set before them. And He divided the two fish among all.
42And all ate and were satisfied. 43And they took up twelve hand-baskets full of fragments, and also of the fish. 44And those having eaten of the loaves were five thousand men.
To produce Matthew and Luke's accounts from Mark, they would have had to take the words peculiar to each of them out of Mark independently of each other. This seems less likely than Mark conflating the two.
-
Okay: suppose, for now, that Matthew copied Mark in saying that it was evening, and Luke copied Mark in describing Joseph as a councilor who was waiting for the kingdom of God.
If Mark is primary, the great coincidence is that Luke has omitted that it was evening but Matthew included it. And Matthew omitted the description of Joseph as waiting for the kingdom of God, but Luke included it. Likewise with for example Luke including the reference to the disciples buying food for everyone, but Matthew omitting it, and with Matthew including the reference to Jesus having compassion on the crowd, but Luke omitting it.
-
Agreed.So do Matthew and Luke. Compare Mk 15:46-7 (3 times) with Mt 27:59-61 (3 times).That makes sense, but bear in mind Mark uses colloquial language, with more description and a story-telling style. We need more concrete grounds to discern whether he is expanding his source(s) or others are condensing his account.
The main evidence that Mark is secondary to both Matthew and Luke is the high number of instances where Mark contains words, phrases or sentences that occur in either Matthew or Luke but not both. This cannot be explained as Matthew and Luke taking separate words, phrases or sentences from Mark, because it happens too often.
Here is Mark's account of the feeding of the 5,000, blue = words in common with Matthew, red = words in common with Luke. (Some are not identical but similar to either Mt or Lk). The remainder of the words either occur in all three synoptics or are peculiar to Mark.
And the apostles are gathered together to Jesus, and they related to him all things, what they had done and what they had taught. 31And He said to them, “You yourselves come apart to a solitary place, and rest a little.” For those coming and those going were many, and not even did they have opportunity to eat.
32And they went away by the boat into a solitary place by themselves. 33And many saw them going, and recognized, and ran together there on foot from all the cities, and went before them. 34And having gone out, He saw a great crowd and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were like sheep not having a shepherd. And He began to teach them many things.
35And the hour already being late, having come to Him, his disciples were saying, “The place is desolate, and the hour already is late. 36Dismiss them, that having gone to the surrounding region and villages, they might buy for themselves something to eat.”
37But answering, He said to them, “You give to them to eat.”
And they say to Him, “Having gone, shall we buy two hundred denariib of bread and give them to eat?”
38And He says to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go, see.”
And having known, they say, “Five, and two fish.”
39And He commanded them to make them all recline, groups by groups, on the green grass. 40And they sat down groups by groups, by hundreds and by fifties.
41And having taken the five loaves and the two fish, having looked up to the heaven, He blessed and broke the loaves, and He kept giving them to His disciples, that they might set before them. And He divided the two fish among all.
42And all ate and were satisfied. 43And they took up twelve hand-baskets full of fragments, and also of the fish. 44And those having eaten of the loaves were five thousand men.
To produce Matthew and Luke's accounts from Mark, they would have had to take the words peculiar to each of them out of Mark independently of each other. This seems less likely than Mark conflating the two.
And all the bits that aren't red or blue are in all three gospels. The red and blue bits are easily explained by each of Matthew and Luke including the majority of Mark and just leaving out some bits. Where they left out bits differently, you have your red and blue. It's much easier to explain this way than by assuming that Mark assiduously harmonised two accounts but chose to leave out huge tracts of Matthew and Luke, for example, tneither the Sermon on the Mount, nor the Lord's prayer appears in Mark. You're asking me to believe that Mark chose to leave out the Lord's Prayer. That's just not credible, I'm afraid.
-
And all the bits that aren't red or blue are in all three gospels.
Not all of them, eg "For those coming and those going were many, and not even did they have opportunity to eat" is only in Mark.
The red and blue bits are easily explained by each of Matthew and Luke including the majority of Mark and just leaving out some bits.
So why do each of Matthew and Luke keep leaving out the bits that the other includes? The law of averages would suggest that there ought to be a lot more instances where Matthew and Luke both leave out the same bit of Mark, like in the above example from Mk 6:31.
Where they left out bits differently, you have your red and blue. It's much easier to explain this way than by assuming that Mark assiduously harmonised two accounts but chose to leave out huge tracts of Matthew and Luke, for example, tneither the Sermon on the Mount, nor the Lord's prayer appears in Mark. You're asking me to believe that Mark chose to leave out the Lord's Prayer. That's just not credible, I'm afraid.
It's easy to decide to leave out a huge chunk of material. It's not easy to repeatedly leave out material another copier has included, and include things he has left out, unless you have some sort of arrangement with him.
-
So why do each of Matthew and Luke keep leaving out the bits that the other includes?
They don't. 76% of Mark is in both Matthew and Luke.
The law of averages would suggest that there ought to be a lot more instances where Matthew and Luke both leave out the same bit of Mark, like in the above example from Mk 6:31.It's easy to decide to leave out a huge chunk of material. It's not easy to repeatedly leave out material another copier has included, and include things he has left out, unless you have some sort of arrangement with him.
You're mischaracterising things a little. Matthew leaves out only a small fraction of Mark, about 6%. Matthew essentially copies all of Mark minus a few bits and pieces. That doesn't leave much opportunity for Luke to include bits of Mark that Matthew excluded.
-
I do not understand the necessity to debate this editorial incident, an incident for which there is nothing written at the time of the incidents to prove they ever happened.
From my school days, I remember being advised that no written mention of Jesus exists prior to AD 100-AD200. This being the case the authors would almost certainly only be working from word of mouth, not from personal experience. Being told stories by someone who, in all probability, never heard or saw "Jesus" do or say anything.
The Vatican had a vast amount of material destroyed with which it did not agree with including several versions of the Bible, parts of which were rewritten several times over in the first four or five centuries AD and I read somewhere on the Net, keeps and an enormous amount of written matter in its vaults which it allows no-one to see from outside the Curia as it is considered too "dangerous" to the continued existence of the Church as it currently exists!
The amount of time for which there is no accurate written history of Jesus Christ makes it very likely. to my mind, anyway, that Jesus is a fictional character.
Owlswing
)O(
-
I do not understand the necessity to debate this editorial incident, an incident for which there is nothing written at the time of the incidents to prove they ever happened.
You mean apart from the documents themselves?
From my school days, I remember being advised that no written mention of Jesus exists prior to AD 100-AD200. This being the case the authors would almost certainly only be working from word of mouth, not from personal experience. Being told stories by someone who, in all probability, never heard or saw "Jesus" do or say anything.
The orthodox view (I mean that in the sense of "normal", not the branch of Christianity) is that Paul was writing in the 50's, Mark in the late 60's or early 70's and the other gospels between then and about 110. What you were taught might not be wrong but it goes against the orthodox view.
The Vatican had a vast amount of material destroyed with which it did not agree with including several versions of the Bible, parts of which were rewritten several times over in the first four or five centuries AD and I read somewhere on the Net, keeps and an enormous amount of written matter in its vaults which it allows no-one to see from outside the Curia as it is considered too "dangerous" to the continued existence of the Church as it currently exists!
Oooh, a conspiracy theory. Lovely.
The amount of time for which there is no accurate written history of Jesus Christ makes it very likely. to my mind, anyway, that Jesus is a fictional character.
What we are discussing here is how the gospels were written, not whether what is in them is fiction.
-
That doesn't leave much opportunity for Luke to include bits of Mark that Matthew excluded.
Sure, there may not be as many instances as I thought, but there seem to be plenty that when analysed from the point of view of both Markan priority and Markan dependence, suggest greater likelihood that Mark was conflating the other two.
In the account of Gethsemane, Mark and Matthew are very closely parallel, and there seems to be just one instance where a clause from Luke creeps in. Luke's version of Gethsemene appears to come from a different source to Mark and Matthew, or to be a substantially re-worded version of one or other or both. At one point, Mark uses a clause that is different from Matthew but is found in Luke: "take this cup from me" (Matthew: "let this cup pass from me"). Did Luke know this phrase from Mark and use it at the same point where Matthew, having been in parallel with Mark throughout the section, departs from Mark's wording? Or did Mark, following Matthew, know the clause from Luke's account and insert it instead of Matthew's equivalent?
In some sentences, such as Mk 14:1(b), Mark has one half in common with Matthew and the other half in common with Luke:
Mk/Lk: 'And were seeking the chief priests and the scribes how'
Mk/Mt: 'by guile they might seize and kill (him/Jesus)'
Here, either Matthew and Luke pick opposite halves of Mark's sentence ???, or Mark conflates his two sources.
I've been finding some other examples like this, though I've not always found them when I thought (and admittedly hoped) I might. There are also the previous type, where you get a long passage in Mark in common with with either Matthew or Luke but occasionally a clause creeping in that seems to have been taken from the other of the two.
-
You mean apart from the documents themselves? The orthodox view (I mean that in the sense of "normal", not the branch of Christianity) is that Paul was writing in the 50's,
How many of these documents are still in existence in their totality? Ane which are available to the public?
Mark in the late 60's or early 70's and the other gospels between then and about 110. What you were taught might not be wrong but it goes against the orthodox view.
Oooh, a conspiracy theory. Lovely.
See my comment above about the availability of original documents used to create the Bible as we now know it
What we are discussing here is how the gospels were written, not whether what is in them is fiction.
The whole discussion (argument) would be unnecessary if the Christians did not have the Bible rammed down their throats as fact and non-Christians had it rammed in their faces as fact rather than fiction is what is being argued about on this Forum in one way or another.
If it could be proven that the Bible is pure unadulterated fiction the Christian Church would crumble and cease to exist!
Owlswing
-
How many of these documents are still in existence in their totality?
That's an interesting question. We can't be 100% sure we have any of them in totality.
Ane which are available to the public?
All of them. You've heard of the Bible, I presume?
See my comment above about the availability of original documents used to create the Bible as we now know it
Do you understand that we don't have the originals of any ancient documents? For example, the earlier extant manuscripts of the Iliad are about a thousand years after its probable date of composition.
The whole discussion (argument) would be unnecessary if the Christians did not have the Bible rammed down their throats as fact and non-Christians had it rammed in their faces as fact rather than fiction is what is being argued about on this Forum in one way or another.
Please do us the courtesy of reading what we are talking about on this thread. This is not a discussion about whether the gospels are are fact or fiction: it's a discussion about what order they were written in.
If it could be proven that the Bible is pure unadulterated fiction the Christian Church would crumble and cease to exist!
I seriously doubt that. Firstly, the fact that Genesis has been proven to be fiction doesn't seem to have had any crumbling effect. Secondly, some parts of the Bible are not fiction.
-
That's an interesting question. We can't be 100% sure we have any of them in totality.
All of them. You've heard of the Bible, I presume?
Do you understand that we don't have the originals of any ancient documents? For example, the earlier extant manuscripts of the Iliad are about a thousand years after its probable date of composition.
Please do us the courtesy of reading what we are talking about on this thread. This is not a discussion about whether the gospels are are fact or fiction: it's a discussion about what order they were written in.
I seriously doubt that. Firstly, the fact that Genesis has been proven to be fiction doesn't seem to have had any crumbling effect. Secondly, some parts of the Bible are not fiction.
I think I can save myself a lot of hassle and heartache by leaving this topic to those who, for reasons that I do not understand, wish to believe in a fairy tale and dismiss any arguments against it based upon fact rather than fiction.
Owlswing
-
We can't be 100% sure we have any of them in totality.
While that statement is perhaps not incorrect in fact, it is pretty disingenuous at it implies that although we cannot be 100% sure we can be close to that. That is simply untrue.
A better way of putting it is that we can be 100% sure that we do not have any of the original gospel documents available to us, on the basis that the earliest extant fragments are from perhaps 150AD (and mostly tiny pieces) and the earliest entire gospels are significantly later still.
Now it is possible that one of the later entire documents is 100% identical to the original version of that gospel. However given the massive array of variations between the early fragments and versions that we have that possibility is vanishingly small.
There is also the rather inconvenient view that there actually isn't a 'single' original version of the gospels, based on the hypothesis that there would have been multiple copies made at the earliest point (for distribution) and that they wouldn't have been taken from a single 'master' version - hence we might have had numerous variants from the get go.
So we know what the earliest extant version from hundreds and more years later say. We do not know and we cannot know (unless a version dated from end of 1stC appears) what the original said, even if there was a single original version.
-
They don't. 76% of Mark is in both Matthew and Luke.
You're mischaracterising things a little. Matthew leaves out only a small fraction of Mark, about 6%. Matthew essentially copies all of Mark minus a few bits and pieces. That doesn't leave much opportunity for Luke to include bits of Mark that Matthew excluded.
We only know that from the extant version we have available. We have no way of knowing the level of similarity between original versions.
And, of course, we have extant versions from fairly early which include all four gospels so we can be pretty confident that the gospels were circulating as a combined folio from fairly early on. And unless you can make a case for a specific 'Mark copyist' who is a different person from a 'Luke copyist' etc then it would be the same person making the copies of all of the gospels. That being the case there is plenty of opportunity (and plenty of evidence from variant analysis) for copyists to vary text in one gospel to be similar, or identical to, another gospel.
So rather than arguing about whether Luke copied Mark (or vice versa), we should be focusing on the processes of alignment and non-alignment of the gospels by copyists in the 200 or so years before we have extant versions of sufficient length to be able seriously to compare gospel texts.
-
I think I can save myself a lot of hassle and heartache by leaving this topic to those who, for reasons that I do not understand, wish to believe in a fairy tale and dismiss any arguments against it based upon fact rather than fiction.
Owlswing
This isn't about believing fairytales or not. It's just about how the gospels came to be written and why they are the way they are.
-
While that statement is perhaps not incorrect in fact, it is pretty disingenuous at it implies that although we cannot be 100% sure we can be close to that. That is simply untrue.
A better way of putting it is that we can be 100% sure that we do not have any of the original gospel documents available to us, on the basis that the earliest extant fragments are from perhaps 150AD (and mostly tiny pieces) and the earliest entire gospels are significantly later still.
Now it is possible that one of the later entire documents is 100% identical to the original version of that gospel. However given the massive array of variations between the early fragments and versions that we have that possibility is vanishingly small.
There is also the rather inconvenient view that there actually isn't a 'single' original version of the gospels, based on the hypothesis that there would have been multiple copies made at the earliest point (for distribution) and that they wouldn't have been taken from a single 'master' version - hence we might have had numerous variants from the get go.
So we know what the earliest extant version from hundreds and more years later say. We do not know and we cannot know (unless a version dated from end of 1stC appears) what the original said, even if there was a single original version.
The earlier extant manuscripts of all our ancient documents (at least the ones not written on stone) come from hundreds of years after they were written. If you go about saying "we can't know anything about what the gospels said" then we don't know anything about the ancient world except what archaeology tells us.
-
The earlier extant manuscripts of all our ancient documents (at least the ones not written on stone) come from hundreds of years after they were written. If you go about saying "we can't know anything about what the gospels said" then we don't know anything about the ancient world except what archaeology tells us.
You are completely correct that we cannot be certain what the originals of other ancient documents said either.
However we can look at the provenance of later copies which may have fewer or greater steps between extant versions and the likely original. And time isn't necessarily the key factor here. One of the issues with the gospels is that we know that there were many, many copies with significant variations drifting around ion the 3rdC, coupled with the use of papyrus we can reasonably assume these are multiple generation copies. By contrast you may have a document retained in one place and written on parchment, so that a version from hundred of years later could easily be a first generation copy.
We can also look for other archeological corroboration too.
However this is really only relevant if the document is being considered as a historical document. You mentioned the Iliad earlier - no one really suggests that the Iliad is a historical document based on eye witness accounts in the manner that Spud claims of the gospels. So it really makes no difference whether the document has changed markedly or not at all in the 1000 years from purported writing to the first document we have. We value the first document we have, and indeed merely suggest it is attributed to Homer. It is a work of literature, and it really doesn't matter if the version we study is similar to, or dissimilar from the original.
-
This isn't about believing fairytales or not. It's just about how the gospels came to be written and why they are the way they are.
Yes! It is!
What we call the Bible is a mish-mash of bits and pieces put together by various people from various authors, copyists, translators, and Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all over an extended period of time!
The newest original writing of any part of the Bible is 100 years after his crucifixion and therefore unlikely to have been written by an eye-witness.
Continue deluding yourself if you must but please stop deluding children with your questionable religious writings!
Owlswing
-
Yes! It is!
What we call the Bible is a mish-mash of bits and pieces put together by various people from various authors, copyists, translators, and Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all over an extended period of time!
The newest original writing of any part of the Bible is 100 years after his crucifixion and therefore unlikely to have been written by an eye-witness.
Continue deluding yourself if you must but please stop deluding children with your questionable religious writings!
Owlswing
Jeremy is not a believer. So your tirade is misapplied.
-
Jeremy is not a believer. So your tirade is misapplied.
JEREMY
In which case I offer my sincere apologies for my words.
Owlswing
-
JEREMY
In which case I offer my sincere apologies for my words.
Owlswing
I should also point out that Professor Davey isn't a believer either. Neither am I, and I too continue to have some interest in these matters. It's a pretty niche area of study, this critical analysis of ancient texts, but as they say, it's "whatever floats your boat".
-
I should also point out that Professor Davey isn't a believer either. Neither am I, and I too continue to have some interest in these matters. It's a pretty niche area of study, this critical analysis of ancient texts, but as they say, it's "whatever floats your boat".
I am, as I have posted before, an old man who lives on his own in sheltered accommodation, the majority of the population either speaks no English or prefers to speak its native tongues.
The Forum is one of my few outside contacts - I do NOT deliberately antagonise those on it!
There may be others who are not Christian, or who are not of any religion, I am, so far as I am aware, the only Pagan since Rhiannon left.
I am fully aware that to a large percentage of the population, including one or two m=embers of this Forum, who see my beliefs as a huge joke, hence my reticence in sharing the details of what I believe.
What I will not and do not do is to take the piss out of the beliefs of others for the sheer fun of it If I think they are talking bollocks I will say so.
If I make an error of fact in any of my posts I will welcome correction.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Re: the feeding of the 5,000, I was just looking at the note by Mark that the reason Jesus had compassion on the great crowd was because they were 'like sheep without a shepherd'.
Since this is not in Matthew's version, I wondered whether its inclusion in Mark points to or away from Markan priority.
The note does occur in Matthew 9:36, "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."
8 verses later in Matthew 10:6 Jesus sends out the disciples saying, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."
This follows naturally on from Matthew 9:36, so that we can say Matthew is the original, and Mark, not having a parallel to Matthew 9:36-37, has inserted the comment about sheep without a shepherd into his account of the feeding, after describing Jesus' compassion on the crowd as in Matthew.
-
Re: the feeding of the 5,000, I was just looking at the note by Mark that the reason Jesus had compassion on the great crowd was because they were 'like sheep without a shepherd'.
Since this is not in Matthew's version, I wondered whether its inclusion in Mark points to or away from Markan priority.
The note does occur in Matthew 9:36, "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."
8 verses later in Matthew 10:6 Jesus sends out the disciples saying, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."
This follows naturally on from Matthew 9:36, so that we can say Matthew is the original, and Mark, not having a parallel to Matthew 9:36-37, has inserted the comment about sheep without a shepherd into his account of the feeding, after describing Jesus' compassion on the crowd as in Matthew.
But unless I am mistaken the key sections you mention (Matthew 9:36 and Mark 6:34) do not appear in any of the early versions we have - so the first time we have evidence of these words in either Mark or Matthew is probably as late as the 4thC when the two gospels had been circulating together, and being copied together, for hundreds of years. So rather than discuss the rather sterile notion of Mark copying Matthew or vice versa which we cannot really address as we don't have anything remotely close to the original, we should be discussing how and why the texts we have (from perhaps 400) came to end up in this form.
-
Re: the feeding of the 5,000, I was just looking at the note by Mark that the reason Jesus had compassion on the great crowd was because they were 'like sheep without a shepherd'.
Since this is not in Matthew's version, I wondered whether its inclusion in Mark points to or away from Markan priority.
The note does occur in Matthew 9:36, "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."
8 verses later in Matthew 10:6 Jesus sends out the disciples saying, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."
This follows naturally on from Matthew 9:36, so that we can say Matthew is the original, and Mark, not having a parallel to Matthew 9:36-37, has inserted the comment about sheep without a shepherd into his account of the feeding, after describing Jesus' compassion on the crowd as in Matthew.
Or Matthew borrowed the phrase from Mark's account of feeding the 5000. It works either way around, it seems to me.
-
Or Matthew borrowed the phrase from Mark's account of feeding the 5000. It works either way around, it seems to me.
Or some 3rdC copyist popped in a bit of Mark into Matthew as he thought is added something to the account (noting that both Matthew and Mark are known to be part of the same portfolio text from pretty early on so the same copyist is likely to have been copying both texts). Or a 2ndC copyist decided that something wasn't really needed so omitted it, or even made an error and failed to copy it from one version to the next.
-
But unless I am mistaken the key sections you mention (Matthew 9:36 and Mark 6:34) do not appear in any of the early versions we have - so the first time we have evidence of these words in either Mark or Matthew is probably later than the 4thC when the two gospels had been circulating together, and being copied together, for hundreds of years. So rather than discuss the rather sterile notion of Mark copying Matthew or vice versa which we cannot really address as we don't have anything remotely close to the original, we should be discussing how and why the texts we have (from perhaps 400) came to end up in this form.
Codex Sinaiticus does have the verses in question, so that suggests they are authentic.
-
Codex Sinaiticus does have the verses in question, so that suggests they are authentic.
Codex Sinaiticus is from the 4thC - hence my point. I don't believe there are any earlier copies of Matthew or Mark that include these sections. So we cannot know what alterations arose in the earlier copies that ultimately led to Codex Sinaiticus and as Matthew and Mark would have been circulating as part of a folio for perhaps 200 years prior to its writing there are numerous opportunities for copyists to add to delete from one or other gospel as they copied.
-
Codex Sinaiticus is from the 4thC - hence my point. I don't believe there are any earlier copies of Matthew or Mark that include these sections. So we cannot know what alterations arose in the earlier copies that ultimately led to Codex Sinaiticus and as Matthew and Mark would have been circulating as part of a folio for perhaps 200 years prior to its writing there are numerous opportunities for copyists to add to delete from one or other gospel as they copied.
You did say 'later than the 4th century', but yes I suspected you meant the 4th century itself. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I'm not mistaken, most of the contents of the papyri that are earlier than Codex Sinaiticus contain verses that are the same or similar to the same verses in it. That is, they are described as containing this or that verse but not that those verses are different. We occasionally have notes in our Bible margins that a verse is sometimes added to or omitted in some manuscripts, but the majority of the early manuscripts don't deviate.
-
You did say 'later than the 4th century', but yes I suspected you meant the 4th century itself.
I did and I've changed the original post. But that doesn't change my point.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I'm not mistaken, most of the contents of the papyri that are earlier than Codex Sinaiticus contain verses that are the same or similar to the same verses in it.
Except they don't - there are huge number of changes and variations between early versions of the gospels that we have available. Some are minor and some very significant (e.g. the end of Mark). And of course this is only from fragments etc we have from approx 200AD onwards as there is pretty well nothing from earlier than that. So we cannot know what changes occurred in those most early versions and copies that are completely lost to us.
That is, they are described as containing this or that verse but not that those verses are different. We occasionally have notes in our Bible margins that a verse is sometimes added to or omitted in some manuscripts, but the majority of the early manuscripts don't deviate.
That's not what people who actually know what they are talking about and are experts think Spud - in other words textual scholars. They know there are huge numbers of variations - the standard approach being to indicate that there are more variations between early versions of the gospels than there are words in the entire new testament. I think the current view is that there are about 400,000 variations between early versions.
-
Or Matthew borrowed the phrase from Mark's account of feeding the 5000. It works either way around, it seems to me.
If we go back to the Griesbach hypothesis regarding the sequence of the pericopes, I think what happened is that Mark was following Matthew at the point where he describes the rejection at Nazareth (Luke brought this pericope forward to the beginning of the ministry). Mark then notices that both Matthew and Luke are about to be in sequence with the story of Herod being perplexed thinking Jesus is John the baptist, followed by the beheading of John and feeding of the 5,000. So Mark briefly follows Luke by describing the mission of the apostles (which he omitted before when Matthew had it), before giving an amplified account of Matthew's version of John the Baptist's beheading. He then returns to Luke, saying that the apostles reported back to Jesus. Then he conflates Mt's and Lk's accounts of feeding the 5,000.
By combining Luke's account of the mission of the 12 with Matthew's lengthy account of the beheading of John, Mark has successfully created a break during which the disciples are off preaching and healing. However, at the point at which he joins the two (Mk 6:14), the line of thought is broken: "And King Herod heard (about the disciples activities, parallel to Luke's "And Herod the Tetrarch heard of all the things being done"), but then Mark says, "for 'his' name had become well known", which is parallel to Matthew's "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the news of Jesus".
Then Mark follows Luke's threefold description of who people thought Jesus was, before returning to Matthew's account of the beheading of John, at which point he repeats himself: "And Herod having heard...".
By calling Herod 'King', and amplifying the role of Herod's wife in John's death, Mark may be linking him with King Ahab, who took Naboth's vineyard after his wife Jezebel had him killed.
Following that event, the prophet Micaiah prophesied Ahab's death, saying he saw Israel 'like sheep without a shepherd' ie without a king.
Following the account of John's death, Mark returns to Luke saying that the apostles returned, and Jesus took them to a solitary place to rest. This does not flow as smoothly as in Matthew, where it is because Jesus hears about John's death that he withdraws to a solitary place with the disciples. Mark's conflation has created interruptions in the flow of thought.
At this point Jesus has compassion on the crowd. In Matthew he heals the sick, but Mark may be associating Herod's treatment of the sheep with Ahab's, and then showing that Jesus is the good shepherd who feeds his sheep.
Ezekiel 34 is about God's judgment on the shepherds of Israel. This chapter highlights the need for a shepherd who goes after lost sheep, heals wounded sheep and feeds hungry sheep. Matthew brings this out in 9:35; 10:6; 14:14,16; 15:30-32; Mark in the basic act of feeding the crowds.
If Mark's aim was to link Herod with Ahab, he must have been building on a source or sources which have already shown Jesus to be the shepherd and creating another theological layer to the story. This is confirmed by observing the interruptions in Mark's line of thought as he conflates two sources with different sequences.
-
I did and I've changed the original post. But that doesn't change my point.
Except they don't - there are huge number of changes and variations between early versions of the gospels that we have available. Some are minor and some very significant (e.g. the end of Mark). And of course this is only from fragments etc we have from approx 200AD onwards as there is pretty well nothing from earlier than that. So we cannot know what changes occurred in those most early versions and copies that are completely lost to us.
That's not what people who actually know what they are talking about and are experts think Spud - in other words textual scholars. They know there are huge numbers of variations - the standard approach being to indicate that there are more variations between early versions of the gospels than there are words in the entire new testament. I think the current view is that there are about 400,000 variations between early versions.
Most of those are completely inconsequential.
On the one hand you argue that a primary account is usually more clunky than a secondary one, but on the other, that the text we have is so corrupted we can't know what it originally said. You can't really argue both.
-
Most of those are completely inconsequential.
Most are, some aren't.
However you and Jeremy are arguing over the specific wording and positioning of comments about shepherds and sheep. This sits absolutely in the inconsequential box as the exact phrasing an position in the text has no effect on its actual meaning. So this sits comfortably in the type of variations common amongst those 400,000 variations.
The point is that neither you, nor Jeremy can be sure whether the phraseology and positioning that you are arguing over appears in that manner in the original versions of Matthew or Mark (the autograph). Without that confidence you are making totally unjustified assumptions and to my mind any discussion of whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa is completely pointless unless you can be confident that those phrases and their positions actually appear in the autograph - and you cannot be. All you can say is that about 275 years later those phrases and their positioning are present in a multiple generation copy.
On the one hand you argue that a primary account is usually more clunky than a secondary one, but on the other, that the text we have is so corrupted we can't know what it originally said. You can't really argue both.
Actually I'm merely the conduit for these views - they are actually the views of textual scholars, you know experts in this type of scholarship and analysis.
And no it isn't inconsistent. The point about clunkiness is one of a number of analytical tools used by scholars in a situation where you have later copies that don't agree with each other, but you don't have the original. It helps you to determine which of those variations is most likely to be closer to the original - note closer to the original - not doesn't tell you how close let alone that it is identical to the original. So it is perfectly possible to use that approach to determine that one or other later copy is closer to the original, yet to also accept that there is so much variation going on that it is a fools errand to think you know what the original actually said. This is particularly the case where there appear to be huge numbers of copies floating around (note only a tiny, tiny proportion of papyrus copies are likely to have survived) and those that we have including hundreds of thousands of variants so the actual number of variants for all copies (including those lost to us) would be many, many times that.
And add to that all these variant are appearing in copies from about 250-400 - you can expect at least as many (probably more as texts tend to 'settle' over time) in the years from the autograph to about 250. Those variants are completely lost to us so we are totally in the dark expect to make a reasonable assumption (unlike your unreasonable assumption that text in a 350AD document is the same as the autograph) that there are huge numbers of further variations unknown to us.
-
It helps you to determine which of those variations is most likely to be closer to the original - note closer to the original - not doesn't tell you how close let alone that it is identical to the original.
Yes: we are trying to establish which gospel is closer to the original events, the later ones adding additional material.
-
Yes: we are trying to establish which gospel is closer to the original, the later ones adding additional material.
But that isn't what you and Jeremy have been arguing over - your discussion has been all about whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa, but you are using text from about 350AD that had been circulating for hundreds of years (with unknown variants) and probably for much of that time both gospels were circulating together and being copied together.
That being the case, then the notion of whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa is completely moot as it assumes you are comparing the originals - the autographs - and we don't have those and we don't know how close to the autographs the 350AD text of Mark is, not the 350AD text of Matthew is for those passages.
-
To quote from 'Preface to Luke', by H. Riley, page 20:
The narrative in Matt 14:3-12 follows naturally on Matt 14:1-2, which deals with Herod's opinion of Jesus as "John the Baptist, raised from the dead." The narrative in Mark 6:17-29 follows on the longer text of Mark 6:14-16 (which is closer to that of Luke 9:7-9)* which with its inclusion as in Luke of references to Elijah and the prophets, makes a less natural connection with what follows.
[Brief discussion about the title of John in each Synoptic]
At the close of the story, Matthew resumes with a natural connection: John's disciples "went and told Jesus; now when Jesus heard this he withdrew." Luke, who has not used the story of the Baptist's death, has an equally natural continuation, as he has been dealing with the mission of the Twelve, with the words "the apostles returned." Mark, who like Matthew has had the same reference to John's disciples burying him, surprisingly continues not as in Matthew but as in Luke, with "the apostles returned." The natural inference is that Mark has turned from Luke to Matthew at 6:17 and back again from Matthew to Luke at 6:30. The awkwardness of Mark's transitions both before and after the account of the Baptist's death points to his dependence on both Matthew and Luke, the story itself being derived from Matthew and told in a more expanded form.
(*My brackets, replacing commas to make more sense)
I just think this is brilliant.
-
But that isn't what you and Jeremy have been arguing over - your discussion has been all about whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa, but you are using text from about 350AD that had been circulating for hundreds of years (with unknown variants) and probably for much of that time both gospels were circulating together and being copied together.
That being the case, then the notion of whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa is completely moot as it assumes you are comparing the originals - the autographs - and we don't have those and we don't know how close to the autographs the 350AD text of Mark is, not the 350AD text of Matthew is for those passages.
I suppose I should have said we are trying to establish which is closer to the events they describe.
-
But that isn't what you and Jeremy have been arguing over
One of them sourced the other. We know this because the texts are very similar to the point that one of the gospel writers must have been copying the other.
That being the case, then the notion of whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa is completely moot as it assumes you are comparing the originals - the autographs - and we don't have those and we don't know how close to the autographs the 350AD text of Mark is, not the 350AD text of Matthew is for those passages.
Until you have evidence that we haven't reconstructed something close to the originals, we can ignore you, just as the scholars who study ancient texts ignore you. Nobody goes round wailing about how we can't know what Homer wrote because we don't have anything close to the originals, or what Herodotos wrote or what Archimedes wrote or what Julius Caesar wrote. Similarly, we don't do that with the gospels. We proceed (well, secular scholars proceed) on the basis of the balance of probabilities.
-
A little more insight into the Lord's Prayer. If on certain other grounds we can show that Matthew was written before Mark, it would be enough that Mark knew of Matthew's section on prayer (Mt 6:5-15), even if he didn't include all of it.
Shortly after Jesus' comments about the fig tree and subsequent challenge by the elders and chief priests at the temple in Mt 21 and Mark 11, there is the parable of the two sons, which Mark omits but is integral to the discussion, indicating that Matthew's is the more original account.
Mt 6:5 says "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men."
Mk 11:25 says, "And when you stand to pray"
Then Mt 6:9,12,14 says, "Our Father in heaven...And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors....For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you"
Mk 11 25 says, "if you hold anything against another, forgive it, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your trespasses as well".
Spot the similarities...
-
If on certain other grounds we can show that Matthew was written before Mark
But we can't. That makes everything else you wrote moot.
-
But we can't. That makes everything else you wrote moot.
We can - the example I gave of the parable of the two sons, comes shortly after the withered fig tree, where Mark quotes phrases from the Lord's prayer. The parable, which symbolises the Jewish leaders not believing John the Baptist's testimony, is part of Jesus' response to the Jewish leaders' challenge about his authority. Do you think it is more likely that Matthew added it or that Mark omitted it?
-
We can
No we can't. If you could show that Matthew was written before Mark, you'd be the most celebrated New Testament scholar in the World.
- the example I gave of the parable of the two sons, comes shortly after the withered fig tree, where Mark quotes phrases from the Lord's prayer. The parable, which symbolises the Jewish leaders not believing John the Baptist's testimony, is part of Jesus' response to the Jewish leaders' challenge about his authority. Do you think it is more likely that Matthew added it or that Mark omitted it?
I think Matthew added it. Why do you think it is more likely that somebody would excise a teaching of Jesus rather than add one in? What would Mark's motive be for removing a teaching from his religion's founder?
-
No we can't. If you could show that Matthew was written before Mark, you'd be the most celebrated New Testament scholar in the World.
I doubt the majority would believe it, but let's see.
I think Matthew added it. Why do you think it is more likely that somebody would excise a teaching of Jesus rather than add one in?
There can be valid reasons both to shorten or to lengthen an account - indeed if either of them did shorten parts of the other, he also lengthened other parts.
What would Mark's motive be for removing a teaching from his religion's founder?
If his purpose for writing was more evangelical than instructive, he might not include all the teaching available.
The main clue, I think, is narrative continuity. According to Matthew Henry, the parable of the two sons is the continuation of Jesus' answer to the reply they gave him to his question, from where did John's baptism come? ("We do not know"). He tells them how they might know from where it came: firstly, John came in the way of righteousness, which would suggest heaven, and secondly, the tax collectors and sinners believed him and repented, which would also suggest heaven.
Given such a tight continuity of the narrative, then, doesn't this suggest that Matthew is closer to the source of the material - or might even be the source (given also its emphasis on tax collectors)? It's hard to imagine that Matthew would have copied Mark 11:27-33 and added to it, had that been the case. Easier to imagine Mark and Luke omitting Matthew 21:28-32 and focusing on the parable of the tenants which was more relevant to Gentile readers.
-
I doubt the majority would believe it, but let's see. There can be valid reasons both to shorten or to lengthen an account - indeed if either of them did shorten parts of the other, he also lengthened other parts. If his purpose for writing was more evangelical than instructive, he might not include all the teaching available.
The main clue, I think, is narrative continuity. According to Matthew Henry, the parable of the two sons is the continuation of Jesus' answer to the reply they gave him to his question, from where did John's baptism come? ("We do not know"). He tells them how they might know from where it came: firstly, John came in the way of righteousness, which would suggest heaven, and secondly, the tax collectors and sinners believed him and repented, which would also suggest heaven.
Given such a tight continuity of the narrative, then, doesn't this suggest that Matthew is closer to the source of the material - or might even be the source (given also its emphasis on tax collectors)? It's hard to imagine that Matthew would have copied Mark 11:27-33 and added to it, had that been the case. Easier to imagine Mark and Luke omitting Matthew 21:28-32 and focusing on the parable of the tenants which was more relevant to Gentile readers.
The problem for any argument that Mark wanted to shorten the account is that his decisions about what to leave out are baffling. For example, the Beatitudes and the Lords Prayer are missing from Mark? Why would any Christian leave those out? On the other hand his section on the pigs of Gerasene is longer than that of Matthew or Luke. Why would he leave out the Lord's Prayer but decide you couldn't have enough pigs? It doesn't make sense.
Why are you so invested in the order of the gospels being the traditional one anyway? It doesn't make any difference to your faith.
-
The problem for any argument that Mark wanted to shorten the account is that his decisions about what to leave out are baffling. For example, the Beatitudes and the Lords Prayer are missing from Mark? Why would any Christian leave those out? On the other hand his section on the pigs of Gerasene is longer than that of Matthew or Luke. Why would he leave out the Lord's Prayer but decide you couldn't have enough pigs? It doesn't make sense.
I can only offer a few (brain-bending) ideas that I've found in Harold Riley's three books. In "The First Gospel" he points out that Lord's Prayer in Matthew appears to interrupt Jesus' teaching about false piety (Matthew 6:1-18). The three examples (giving, prayer and fasting) each end with the refrain "and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you". Verses 7-8, and 9-15 (the Lord's prayer) appear to be an insertion. If the material in those verses had been part of the original text, then 6:5-15 would logically have been the last of the three examples, so as to preserve the structure of the section as a whole.
Luke's copy of Matthew must have not included the Lord's Prayer, because Luke has a slightly different version and puts it in a precise context (Luke 11:1). Possibly, the prayer was inserted into Matthew once the original form of that gospel was being more widely used in the early church.
That Mark made reference to the lord's prayer (Mark 11:25 - missing in Luke) suggests that it was in Mark's copy of Matthew. It would also have been in his copy of Luke. John did not include it. Mark had different objectives from Matthew and Luke. For a start he was writing for Christians from a Gentile background. He explained Jewish customs where Matthew didn't need to. He may have decided that the sermon on the mount/plain, like other chunks of material, wasn't needed,
As to the Gerasene demoniac, Mark at that point is in sequence with Luke, so his account of that story is closer to Luke's, who has an additional source as well as Matthew's account. Mark follows Luke, but characteristically adds extra detail including the number of pigs.
-
If Matthew was used by Luke and Mark, then it would not be surprising if we found a discrepancy in the description they give of a particular event. In Appendix 3 of The Making Of Mark, Harold Riley shows that Matthew agrees with John on the chronology of the Last Supper, whereas Luke, using Matthew, and Mark, using Matthew and Luke, both use wording that makes it look like the last supper was the official Passover.
Matthew gives 5 consecutive days. Chapter 27 accurately fulfills 26:2, making it the third day of the five. Matthew calls this 'the Passover' (26:2). The day in between he calls 'the first day of unleavened bread' (26:17). Riley thinks that this is how Matthew referred to the day when preparations were made, rather than the actual day of Passover, in describing the day in between the prophecy of 26:2 and it's fulfillment two days later.
Luke and Mark, misunderstanding Matthew's meaning, assume that 'the first day of unleavened bread' (Mt 26:17) refers to the same day as the Passover. Hence when we read their accounts it reads as though the last supper was the official Passover.
-
I can only offer a few (brain-bending) ideas that I've found in Harold Riley's three books.
I think the source of Harold Riley's later obsessive studies - and indeed confirmation bias - can be found in a few of his biographical details, which he provides online. It seems that he started his studies in theology with the now well-known (and widely accepted) order of priority in the writing of the Gospels i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. He also accepted the developing 'Christology' implied in this order of composition - from low to high, with John exhibiting the highest Christology. This apparently began to bring on a crisis of faith, and he felt himself falling into an abyss of atheism which terrified him. I suspect he envisioned the ultimate eclipse of Christianity, which he found equally unsettling.
Thus the retreat into traditional theological assertions and the excessive attempt to restore some security in his belief system.
Better to have followed the arguments leading to atheism to the end - atheism is not lethal in itself. Millions seem to be able to live with it.
And was it Riley who has argued for the long ending of Mark's gospel to be genuine all along? Do me a favour guv'.
-
I think the source of Harold Riley's later obsessive studies - and indeed confirmation bias - can be found in a few of his biographical details, which he provides online. It seems that he started his studies in theology with the now well-known (and widely accepted) order of priority in the writing of the Gospels i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. He also accepted the developing 'Christology' implied in this order of composition - from low to high, with John exhibiting the highest Christology. This apparently began to bring on a crisis of faith, and he felt himself falling into an abyss of atheism which terrified him. I suspect he envisioned the ultimate eclipse of Christianity, which he found equally unsettling.
Thus the retreat into traditional theological assertions and the excessive attempt to restore some security in his belief system.
Better to have followed the arguments leading to atheism to the end - atheism is not lethal in itself. Millions seem to be able to live with it.
And was it Riley who has argued for the long ending of Mark's gospel to be genuine all along? Do me a favour guv'.
Oh that's interesting, where online did you find his biographical details? I'd imagine that pretty much everyone who studies the gospels starts out believing Markan priority, as it's widely taught. If that leads logically to atheism, then maybe it would prompt someone to look at other possible theories for the relationship between the Synoptics. I thought what was underlying Riley's argument for Matthean priority is the Griesbach hypothesis, which I doubt many are aware of. If he comes across as confirmation biased, I think it's more that he is testing that hypothesis.
The long ending of Mark, I recall, is quoted several times by early church fathers, although the manuscripts in which the quotes are found date to much later, so aren't conclusive evidence.
-
Alas, I found the information on a public computer, so haven't been able to check my search history.
Googling on my phone (my only other source of internet) has come up with nothing.
-
I'd imagine that pretty much everyone who studies the gospels starts out believing Markan priority, as it's widely taught.
It is widely taught because this is where the available evidence lead us.
If that leads logically to atheism, then maybe it would prompt someone to look at other possible theories for the relationship between the Synoptics.
Why on earth would Markan priority lead to atheism - why would you cease to believe in god just because Mark was written first? But for the sake of arguments let's assume it does, why would any sensible person try to alter an accepted ordering of the gospels - surely that would be simply about altering the evidence to fit a pre-judged assertion.
-
The long ending of Mark, I recall, is quoted several times by early church fathers, ...
Evidence please - and be sure to be clear that the extant copy of the manuscript quoting this predates the earliest extant copy of Mark with the longer ending.
... although the manuscripts in which the quotes are found date to much later, so aren't conclusive evidence.
But nor would an earliest extant copying claiming early church fathers quote the longer ending that isn't from, say the 2ndC.
So evidence please - which document claims early church fathers quoted the longer Mark ending and what is the date of the earliest extant copy of this documents.
-
If [Markan priority] leads logically to atheism, then maybe it would prompt someone to look at other possible theories for the relationship between the Synoptics.
Can you explain why Markan priority leads logically to atheism? It's a bit of a shallow faith that rests on which order certain books are written, isn't it?
-
Alas, I found the information on a public computer, so haven't been able to check my search history.
Googling on my phone (my only other source of internet) has come up with nothing.
All I have managed to get from googling is links to an artist by the same name, so it's interesting that you found something.
-
It is widely taught because this is where the available evidence lead us.
Why on earth would Markan priority lead to atheism - why would you cease to believe in god just because Mark was written first?
Dicky was saying in #369 that there is a "developing 'Christology' implied in this order of composition - from low to high, with John exhibiting the highest Christology". If this were correct, to my mind that would weaken the evidence that Jesus is God's son.
But for the sake of arguments let's assume it does, why would any sensible person try to alter an accepted ordering of the gospels - surely that would be simply about altering the evidence to fit a pre-judged assertion.
Mark, who was not as far as we know a member of Jesus' closest disciples, must have had sources for his information. What if Matthew's gospel was one of them? And depending on when Luke was written, his gospel too?
Riley outlines the Griesbach hypothesis in his books, as the basis for his 'exploration'. This is the observation that when you set out the pericopes of Mark in a list, it is evident that he is always in sequence with either Matthew or Luke or both. This would be unlikely to happen if Matthew and Luke had been using Mark, as it would mean that when one of them abandons Mark's sequence, the other always takes it up.
Riley has shown that Matthew arranges his material around several quotes from Isaiah, showing how Jesus fulfilled them. Luke uses Matthew as his main source, but rearranges the material to show "all that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1), and in a way that portrays his rejection first in his home town, then in Galilee, and finally Jerusalem.
Mark not only follows the sequence of either or both his sources in his arrangement of pericopes, but frequently combines them to form a sentence or a phrase. It's a kind of microcosm of the Griesbach hypothesis, and can be seen when reading through Riley's commentary on Mark.
-
Mark not only follows the sequence of either or both his sources in his arrangement of pericopes, but frequently combines them to form a sentence or a phrase. It's a kind of microcosm of the Griesbach hypothesis, and can be seen when reading through Riley's commentary on Mark.
A good example of this:
Matthew
Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill [him].
Luke
And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him;
Mark
and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put [him] to death.
As we can see by comparing the Greek for the words in red and blue, Mark combines phrases from Matthew and Luke. Had Matthew and Luke been using Mark, they must have coincidentally taken different words from Mark.
NB Luke uses a different word for 'kill' from Matthew and Mark. Matthew and Mark use the same Greek words for 'subtlety' and 'kill'. Luke and Mark use identical wording for the phrase in red.
This phenomenon occurs frequently. There are quite a few well known phrases in Mark which combine Matthew and Luke's parallel phrases (such as "When evening came, as the sun was setting"), but there are others that are not so obvious, such as the one above.
-
I should have thought that unless the writers of Matthew, Luke and Mark (whoever they were) were present in the palace of the High Priest, it would have been hearsay or guesswork anyway.
-
Dicky was saying in #369 that there is a "developing 'Christology' implied in this order of composition - from low to high, with John exhibiting the highest Christology". If this were correct, to my mind that would weaken the evidence that Jesus is God's son.
Not sure why you'd come to that conclusion Spud - but if that is your view then you need to accept you evidence that Jesus is God's son is weakened, because the objective evidence does suggest that order for the gospels in terms of original writing.
You cannot simply hunt for alternative evidence if the accepted evidence doesn't fit your faith. The whole point is that you conclusion should fit the evidence, not that you rework your evidence to fit your pre-judged conclusion.
-
Mark, who was not as far as we know a member of Jesus' closest disciples ...
There is no credible evidence that any of the gospels were actually written by a member of Jesus' closest disciples, so this point applies equally to Matthew, Luke and John.
, must have had sources for his information.
True, and the same applies to all the other gospels as none are close to being contemporary accounts, the best estimates being that the earliest versions of the gospels appeared between 30 and 80 years after Jesus' death.
What if Matthew's gospel was one of them? And depending on when Luke was written, his gospel too?
But you can simply turn that on its head - what if Mark was one of the sources for Matthew and Luke. And of course that is exactly what most objective biblical scholars consider - that Luke and Matthew were written after Mark, used Mark as a source, but also included other source information.
-
I should have thought that unless the writers of Matthew, Luke and Mark (whoever they were) were present in the palace of the High Priest, it would have been hearsay or guesswork anyway.
Exactly - the notion that the direct quotations in the gospels are in any way accurate lacks any sort of credibility. There is no evidence of anyone talking notes nor is it correct to claim that the oral tradition at the time results in absolutely verbatim transmission of the actual words said. That isn't how oral tradition works - it is based on the derivation of accepted phrases, quotes, stories, songs etc that are easily transmitted and wrote learned. And those accepted phrases, quotes, stories, songs are designed to convey a message acceptable to those transmitting that message. They are not, and do not, reflect exactly what was said and exactly what happed. They represent an acceptable, but whole or partly fabricated narrative for the purposes of promulgation of a message deemed important to those in control of that message.
It is also worth noting that the earliest followers of Jesus believed that he'd be back in their lifetime so probably didn't put much effort into the generational transmission of their message for the first few decades. Only when it became clear that the prophecy wouldn't come to pass did it become important that their accepted message could be passed on. So there seems little evidence that the very earliest christians were accurate or fastidious custodians of the literal account of Jesus' life.
-
Not sure why you'd come to that conclusion Spud - but if that is your view then you need to accept you evidence that Jesus is God's son is weakened, because the objective evidence does suggest that order for the gospels in terms of original writing.
You cannot simply hunt for alternative evidence if the accepted evidence doesn't fit your faith. The whole point is that you conclusion should fit the evidence, not that you rework your evidence to fit your pre-judged conclusion.
I'd originally noted that this was the impression I gained from the (now vanished) quote from Harold Riley, one of the Christian apologists Spud cited. I didn't think that Spud would automatically draw such a conclusion.
-
I'd originally noted that this was the impression I gained from the (now vanished) quote from Harold Riley, one of the Christian apologists Spud cited. I didn't think that Spud would automatically draw such a conclusion.
Without the quote it is hard to see how Riley concluded that Markan priority leads to atheism (if I've got that right?).
Off the top of my head, the developing Christology is the thought that Jesus is YHWH, which is most pronounced in John, right?
What if it is simply a matter of, one might be focusing on Jesus as the Messiah, another on Jesus as divine (eg the I am sayings). I don't see a development from one to the other, which could then indicate they were made up over time.
-
Not sure why you'd come to that conclusion Spud - but if that is your view then you need to accept you evidence that Jesus is God's son is weakened, because the objective evidence does suggest that order for the gospels in terms of original writing.
You cannot simply hunt for alternative evidence if the accepted evidence doesn't fit your faith. The whole point is that you conclusion should fit the evidence, not that you rework your evidence to fit your pre-judged conclusion.
But if the evidence you cite is stuff like, "Mark is shortest, and omits the most important prayer in the church so is more likely to be earliest" then that is to ignore other possible reasons for those features of Mark. The editorial fatigue and hard sayings can be explained differently. So it is quite ok to hunt for alternative evidence to support a different conclusion, right?
-
But if the evidence you cite is stuff like, "Mark is shortest, and omits the most important prayer in the church so is more likely to be earliest" then that is to ignore other possible reasons for those features of Mark. The editorial fatigue and hard sayings can be explained differently. So it is quite ok to hunt for alternative evidence to support a different conclusion, right?
The problem for you is that "Mark came first and Matthew and Luke had another source" immediately explains all of those observations but you have to come up with all sorts of different theories for the observations if you want to argue that Matthew and Luke came first.
As an aside, would you claim that Mark knew Luke? If so, why is Mark not the third gospel?
-
So it is quite ok to hunt for alternative evidence to support a different conclusion, right?
Not if your objectivity is compromised - in other words that you are only hunting for alternative evidence because you have already decided that Mark has to come after Matthew due to your faith and regardless of the evidence.
You either accept evidence or you simply take a faith-based approach in which case evidence becomes irrelevant.
-
The problem for you is that "Mark came first and Matthew and Luke had another source" immediately explains all of those observations but you have to come up with all sorts of different theories for the observations if you want to argue that Matthew and Luke came first.
If some examples of editorial fatigue suggest (on the surface) that Matthew copied Mark, such as "the king was grieved" (Mk 6/Mt 14), what do we do if there are also examples suggesting Mark copied Matthew? For example, Mark 8:14-16 and Matthew 16:5-7 (how much bread did the disciples take in the boat?).
Or, thinking about Mark's omission of the Lord's prayer, what about Matthew's omission of certain details in Mark such as names of eyewitnesses, like Jairus or Alexander and Rufus?
Some criteria pointing to Markan priority can also point to Matthean priority.
As an aside, would you claim that Mark knew Luke? If so, why is Mark not the third gospel?
Yes I would - hence my view that Mark used both Matthew and Luke. I don't know why Luke is third.
-
If some examples of editorial fatigue suggest (on the surface) that Matthew copied Mark, such as "the king was grieved" (Mk 6/Mt 14), what do we do if there are also examples suggesting Mark copied Matthew? For example, Mark 8:14-16 and Matthew 16:5-7 (how much bread did the disciples take in the boat?).
But this thinking seems to be based on an assumption that what we now read as Matthew or Mark is the same as the original Matthew or Mark. But it isn't - what has come down to us are much later versions that are likely to have been edited and amended numerous times throughout the period when we don't have any copies (or just tiny fragments) and for centuries after.
And as that period includes time when both Matthew and Mark as gospels were circulating together and being copied together, probably by the same copyists, it is hardly surprising that there will have been significant 'cross-editing' going on. This doesn't really help us understand which came first, albeit given that most of have is consistent with a position where the orthodox versions of the gospels didn't really 'settle' until the early 3rdC, then it becomes hard to say that Matthew copied Mark, as we don't really know what the original Mark looked like, nor for that matter the original Matthew.
-
If some examples of editorial fatigue suggest (on the surface) that Matthew copied Mark, such as "the king was grieved" (Mk 6/Mt 14), what do we do if there are also examples suggesting Mark copied Matthew? For example, Mark 8:14-16 and Matthew 16:5-7 (how much bread did the disciples take in the boat?).
Or, thinking about Mark's omission of the Lord's prayer, what about Matthew's omission of certain details in Mark such as names of eyewitnesses, like Jairus or Alexander and Rufus?
Some criteria pointing to Markan priority can also point to Matthean priority.
Yes I would - hence my view that Mark used both Matthew and Luke. I don't know why Luke is third.
It's one thing to omit a few irrelevant names. It's quite another to omit the most important Christian prayer.
-
It's one thing to omit a few irrelevant names. It's quite another to omit the most important Christian prayer.
Indeed - the names of some purported eyewitnesses has no bearing whatsoever on the key aspects of the narrative. Omitting an element key to the developing theology and practice of the early church does.
-
Yes I would - hence my view that Mark used both Matthew and Luke. I don't know why Luke is third.
Why is Luke third, except for a completely irrelevant ordering in a traditional bible.
Most historians and proper bible scholars see Mark as earliest, Matthew and Luke to be likely contemporaneous with each other (probably 80-90CE) with John as the latest. So Luke isn't third, but equal second.
-
Why is Luke third, except for a completely irrelevant ordering in a traditional bible.
Most historians and proper bible scholars see Mark as earliest, Matthew and Luke to be likely contemporaneous with each other (probably 80-90CE) with John as the latest. So Luke isn't third, but equal second.
Although it is a minority view that Luke knew Matthew ("knew" as in "had read a copy of") and that the Q material is just the bits of Matthew that Luke copied that Matthew didn't get from Mark. It, has the advantage of not hypothesising a separate document that has left no trace in history.
-
Although it is a minority view that Luke knew Matthew ("knew" as in "had read a copy of") and that the Q material is just the bits of Matthew that Luke copied that Matthew didn't get from Mark. It, has the advantage of not hypothesising a separate document that has left no trace in history.
I think somewhere along the line you need some lost material. Even if you take a view that Luke got from Matthew the stuff he didn't get from Mark, then you sill have Matthew getting stuff from somewhere other than Mark.
I also think it is important to recognise that the gospels were circulating for some while as a collected portfolio prior to us actually having any extant copies. So the gospels will have been copied together (presumably by the same people) providing no end of opportunities for 'cross contamination' one to another. So I suspect that the established orthodox cannon from 4thC onwards probably has rather more in common gospel to gospel than the actual originals. This is of course speculation as we do not have the originals, and indeed anyone claiming to know what was in the originals is engaging in speculation as we simply do not know, thought we do know that the earliest extant versions from about 200CE onwards have almost countless minor (and major) discrepancies version to version.
-
It's one thing to omit a few irrelevant names. It's quite another to omit the most important Christian prayer.
In the Markan Dependence view, Mark passes over Matthew 5-7 and Luke 9:51-18:14, both of which contain the prayer in different contexts. That may explain why it is absent from Mark.
-
In the Markan Dependence view, Mark passes over Matthew 5-7 and Luke 9:51-18:14, both of which contain the prayer in different contexts. That may explain why it is absent from Mark.
It doesn't explain it at all.
Sure to explain this you'd have to either:
Claim that the author or Mark had access to Matthew 5-7 and Luke 9:51-18:14 but for some reason chose to ignore them - perhaps because of a major schism in the early church as to the importance of the Lord's Prayer. Or.
The early versions of Matthew and Luke that the author or Mark had access to did not include these sections and they are later interpolations. We, of course, have no idea what was in the earliest versions of the gospels as the earliest fragments we have are from 100 years after their purported writing - in the case of most of the content several hundreds of years later.
-
I think somewhere along the line you need some lost material. Even if you take a view that Luke got from Matthew the stuff he didn't get from Mark, then you sill have Matthew getting stuff from somewhere other than Mark.
It doesn't have to be a written document though. The Q document is hypothesised as a written document because the material shared between Matthew and Luke is almost word for word identical. That wouldn't happen if they had both independently transcribed the same oral source.
I also think it is important to recognise that the gospels were circulating for some while as a collected portfolio prior to us actually having any extant copies.
I don't know that there is any evidence of that.
So the gospels will have been copied together (presumably by the same people) providing no end of opportunities for 'cross contamination' one to another.
It doesn't seem to have been happening since they were verifiably collected together in the Bible, so why would it happen before? And don't forget we do have some evidence of "patching up" the gospels to agree with each other: Mark has an ending grafted on that is pretty clearly a précis of the resurrection stories from the other gospels, but they weren't copied word for word.
-
It doesn't have to be a written document though. The Q document is hypothesised as a written document because the material shared between Matthew and Luke is almost word for word identical. That wouldn't happen if they had both independently transcribed the same oral source.
True - but there must have been some alternative source material whichever way around you order the gospels.
I don't know that there is any evidence of that.
I think there is. Some of the very earliest papyrus contain parts of more than one of the gospels, which confirms that they were circulating as a collected portfolio. It is pretty hard to argue that (for example papyrus 43, dated to as early as 200-300) was somehow the very first document with more than one gospel (it contains portions of all four gospels) when the preservation of papyrus is a pretty well random process with preservation effectively just by luck. While there are earlier fragments, most of these are simply single pages with barely more than a few dozen words so it is impossible to know there elsewhere in the original document other gospels were included.
So effectively as early as we have gospel fragments we have evidence of gospels collected together.
-
It doesn't explain it at all.
Sure to explain this you'd have to either:
Claim that the author or Mark had access to Matthew 5-7 and Luke 9:51-18:14 but for some reason chose to ignore them - perhaps because of a major schism in the early church as to the importance of the Lord's Prayer. Or.
The early versions of Matthew and Luke that the author or Mark had access to did not include these sections and they are later interpolations. We, of course, have no idea what was in the earliest versions of the gospels as the earliest fragments we have are from 100 years after their purported writing - in the case of most of the content several hundreds of years later.
I think Mark did have access to those sections of Matthew and Luke. As Riley says, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) is placed where it is in order to show how the part of Isaiah's prophecy concerning 'Galilee of the Gentiles' - "the people living in darkness have seen a great light" (Mt 4:16) - is fulfilled through Jesus' teaching (Riley, The First Gospel, p.24,72). So it must have been part of Matthew's original book.
Luke says in Acts 1:1 that in his first book he wrote about "all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day that he was taken up." Luke appears to have divided his Gospel into three, concentrating first on "all that Jesus began to do" and then on "all that Jesus began to teach", then on the events culminating with "the day that he was taken up".
"At Luke 9:51 Luke begins the next main division of his Gospel, in which he sets out more fully the teaching of Jesus" (Riley, Preface to Luke, p.56).
"As the day of His ascension approached, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem." (Note the reference in Acts 1:1 and Luke 9:51 to Jesus' ascension).
The reason I thought Mark did not lift the Lord's Prayer out from either of these sections is that when you read Matthew's and Luke's contexts, the prayer seems no more or less important than what is said in those contexts.
As to Mark's main purpose: "... it is clear that Mark has selected his material on a definite plan. While there is inevitably an element of Jesus' teaching involved in speaking of his activities (and Mark frequently refers to Jesus as Teacher and to his activity in teaching) and an element of narrative involved in setting out what Jesus taught, there is a broad distinction between the proclamation of what Jesus did and the exposition of his teaching. Mark has concentrated on the former. His book is strictly kerygmatic: its purpose is to call men to "repent, and believe the gospel" (1:15). It is a book of appeal to Christian commitment, the consequences of which could be worked out in the continuing life in the church. That was a limited purpose but a noble one, fitting for what we may deduce to have been Mark's own ministry from the references to him in the New Testament. (Riley, The Making of Mark, p.214).
-
The reason I thought Mark did not lift the Lord's Prayer out from either of these sections is that when you read Matthew's and Luke's contexts, the prayer seems no more or less important than what is said in those contexts.
Firstly I think the reason Mark did not lift these sections is because Mark came first and he didn't have access to Matthew and Luke.
However, for the sake of argument let's assume the author of Mark did have access to Matthew and Luke. If, as you claim, he didn't see the Lord's prayer as important suggests a major schism in the early church as clearly others considered it to be incredibly important and those people clearly won the day as the Lord's prayer became a central component of the developing church doctrine.
-
Firstly I think the reason Mark did not lift these sections is because Mark came first and he didn't have access to Matthew and Luke.
However, for the sake of argument let's assume the author of Mark did have access to Matthew and Luke. If, as you claim, he didn't see the Lord's prayer as important suggests a major schism in the early church as clearly others considered it to be incredibly important and those people clearly won the day as the Lord's prayer became a central component of the developing church doctrine.
Looks like the Lord's Prayer was recited alongside the Eucharist and baptism from an early stage. But that doesn't mean it would necessarily be included in a gospel. John didn't include it. That the four were circulated together shows that they complimented, rather than superseded, each other.
-
Looks like the Lord's Prayer was recited alongside the Eucharist and baptism from an early stage. But that doesn't mean it would necessarily be included in a gospel. John didn't include it. That the four were circulated together shows that they complimented, rather than superseded, each other.
Which also raises the question as to why these four were selected rather than other texts which were circulating at the time and were ultimately deemed non-canonical.
The reality is that what we are offered within the orthodox new testament is a carefully curated set of texts, selected and likely amended with very clear purpose in mind. These are not in any way some kind of eye witness accounts, but what the early church wanted to bring across in a highly politicised manner - their spin, if you like.
-
It doesn't have to be a written document though. The Q document is hypothesised as a written document because the material shared between Matthew and Luke is almost word for word identical. That wouldn't happen if they had both independently transcribed the same oral source.
You seem to be arguing against yourself here - or maybe I've just misunderstood you. Q doesn't have to be a written document, but as you say, the shared material is almost word for word identical, and in the same order in the Greek language. Since Q is largely a 'sayings gospel', we're dealing with original speech in Aramaic mostly, and then translated into Greek. This puts a heavy burden on the idea on there being a more or less unified oral source, which then gets translated orally into Koine Greek, before Matthew and Luke become aware of it and commit it to papyrus.
Frankly, I've just about given up on the Q idea in all its differing explanations. None of them seem entirely satisfactory. The idea of a single written document would resolve many issues, but it would be nice to have at least one copy, instead of zilch, apart from the shared stuff in M and L.
-
Which also raises the question as to why these four were selected rather than other texts which were circulating at the time and were ultimately deemed non-canonical.
Well, at least we know, pace Irenaeus, why there are only four: there are four corners to the earth, and four winds :)
The reality is that what we are offered within the orthodox new testament is a carefully curated set of texts, selected and likely amended with very clear purpose in mind. These are not in any way some kind of eye witness accounts, but what the early church wanted to bring across in a highly politicised manner - their spin, if you like.
It is evident that each evangelist had a different agendum, regardless of how the early church wished to spin things. Mark was obsessed with Jesus expelling demons (the supposed cause of disease), Matthew writing with a Jewish audience in mind (although thoroughly castigating them), Luke appealing more to the Roman empire, and toning down matters of an imminent Armageddon etc.
In reference to the latter, the early Church certainly whipped up a lot of spin. As it became evident that the Son of Man was not about to come again in the clouds and setting up his Kingdom any day soon, as the gospels had clearly stated, they (particularly Augustine) set about interpreting these things in a very metaphorical way, concluding that the arrival of the 'Kingdom' had come in the form of the established Church.
-
Well, at least we know, pace Irenaeus, why there are only four: there are four corners to the earth, and four winds :)
It is evident that each evangelist had a different agendum, regardless of how the early church wished to spin things. Mark was obsessed with Jesus expelling demons (the supposed cause of disease), Matthew writing with a Jewish audience in mind (although thoroughly castigating them), Luke appealing more to the Roman empire, and toning down matters of an imminent Armageddon etc.
In reference to the latter, the early Church certainly whipped up a lot of spin. As it became evident that the Son of Man was not about to come again in the clouds and setting up his Kingdom any day soon, as the gospels had clearly stated, they (particularly Augustine) set about interpreting these things in a very metaphorical way, concluding that the arrival of the 'Kingdom' had come in the form of the established Church.
I like reading these ideas of yours, they present a nice challenge. What comes to mind is you haven't factored in the difference between the Jewish and Church dispensations. That is that the sacrificial system ended because of Jesus' sacrifice; also the priesthood that was dependent on Levitical ancestry was transferred to the apostles and church. The priesthood of the descendants of Jacob in the temple in the land of Canaan, through which the Gentiles would come to know God, turned into (partly beginning at the Exile) mission to the Gentiles beginning in Jerusalem and Judea and spreading out into the Empire and eventually the four corners of the earth.
The delay of the second coming of Christ is a difficult one, agreed, but less so if understood in this light.
-
You seem to be arguing against yourself here - or maybe I've just misunderstood you. Q doesn't have to be a written document, but as you say, the shared material is almost word for word identical, and in the same order in the Greek language. Since Q is largely a 'sayings gospel', we're dealing with original speech in Aramaic mostly, and then translated into Greek. This puts a heavy burden on the idea on there being a more or less unified oral source, which then gets translated orally into Koine Greek, before Matthew and Luke become aware of it and commit it to papyrus.
Frankly, I've just about given up on the Q idea in all its differing explanations. None of them seem entirely satisfactory. The idea of a single written document would resolve many issues, but it would be nice to have at least one copy, instead of zilch, apart from the shared stuff in M and L.
Or we could assume the original source to be Jesus, and as Luke tells us, the ministers of the word handed down the good news orally and 'many' undertook to write down an account. Matthew was written before the Temple was destroyed, when they (the chief priests, teachers of the law etc) were still praying on street corners and paying the temple tax. Luke is based in Matthew but re-words some of it and has another source - that's the real Q for me. Mark then drew from both of them.
-
Which also raises the question as to why these four were selected rather than other texts which were circulating at the time and were ultimately deemed non-canonical.
As I understand it, they were considered to be written under the authority of the apostles.
Incidentally, someone on YouTube did a presentation arguing against Markan priority; he mentioned your view that where there is evidence of copying, the clunkier of the two is the more primitive. He said that the Gnostic gospels, which pretended to be by some of Jesus' disciples, were more clunky, yet were written later than the four canonical ones. Thought that might interest you.
The reality is that what we are offered within the orthodox new testament is a carefully curated set of texts, selected and likely amended with very clear purpose in mind. These are not in any way some kind of eye witness accounts, but what the early church wanted to bring across in a highly politicised manner - their spin, if you like.
Can you elaborate a bit?
-
You seem to be arguing against yourself here - or maybe I've just misunderstood you. Q doesn't have to be a written document
Yes it does. The parts of Matthew and Luke that are alleged to be Q are too similar (i.e. the wording is almost identical) for Matthew and Luke to have received them independently by oral means. Either one copied the other (probably Luke copying Matthew) or they both copied another written source.
-
As I understand it, they were considered to be written under the authority of the apostles.
There's no evidence that that is the case.
-
Yes it does. The parts of Matthew and Luke that are alleged to be Q are too similar (i.e. the wording is almost identical) for Matthew and Luke to have received them independently by oral means. Either one copied the other (probably Luke copying Matthew) or they both copied another written source.
Hence my confusion - since you began your post #396 by saying it doesn't. And as I went on to explain, the chances of it not being a written document are so unlikely as to be easily dismissed. So I basically agree with you here.
-
Incidentally, someone on YouTube did a presentation arguing against Markan priority; he mentioned your view that where there is evidence of copying, the clunkier of the two is the more primitive. He said that the Gnostic gospels, which pretended to be by some of Jesus' disciples, were more clunky, yet were written later than the four canonical ones.
I suspect the perceived 'clunkiness' in the Gnostic gospels is due to their attempt to incorporate extremely complicated theological ideas in bizarre and cryptic language. There is a certain amount of arcane stuff (beyond the nature of Christ's divine sonship) in the synoptics, but generally they are more straightforward. Besides, is there any extensive evidence of direct copying between the Gnostic gospels, beyond attempting to present a similar theological schema?
-
Hence my confusion - since you began your post #396 by saying it doesn't. And as I went on to explain, the chances of it not being a written document are so unlikely as to be easily dismissed. So I basically agree with you here.
That was just a badly worded comment. What I meant was that it doesn't have to be a written document independent of Matthew or Luke. Given that the Q material in the two gospels is almost identical, there are only three possibilities:
1. Q was a separate document that Matthew and Luke both had access to (but is now lost and not mentioned anywhere else in early Christian writings)
2. Q is an oral source that Matthew incorporated in his gospel and Luke copied
3. Q is an oral source that Luke incorporated in his gospel and Matthew copied
There are apparently reasons to think that option 3 is unlikely, so most people go for option 1 and a few go for option 2. I lean towards option 2.
-
That was just a badly worded comment. What I meant was that it doesn't have to be a written document independent of Matthew or Luke. Given that the Q material in the two gospels is almost identical, there are only three possibilities:
1. Q was a separate document that Matthew and Luke both had access to (but is now lost and not mentioned anywhere else in early Christian writings)
2. Q is an oral source that Matthew incorporated in his gospel and Luke copied
3. Q is an oral source that Luke incorporated in his gospel and Matthew copied
There are apparently reasons to think that option 3 is unlikely, so most people go for option 1 and a few go for option 2. I lean towards option 2.
Yes, option 2 has a fair amount of literature about it. Seems fairly persuasive. But I'm not going to get into a sweat about it these days.
-
As I understand it, they were considered to be written under the authority of the apostles.
But who made that decision and for what reasons and why not others who could just as easily have been considered to have been written under the authority of the apostles (noting that we don't even know who wrote the gospels). The point remains that the selection of four (rather than more or less) and which four was a quasi-political decision of the early church - there isn't some kind of objective threshold that these four gospels reached and others didn't.
-
Can you elaborate a bit?
It is pretty obvious really - what we see as the gospels is the orthodox cannon is the product of careful selection and likely amendment and interpolation to fit a particular set of agendas from the early church.
The NT gospels are most definitely not simply a collected set of known early texts about Jesus collated in the form they were written.
-
Professor,
If you mean by agendas, showing Jesus' life, death and resurrection to be the fulfilment of Jewish scripture, he is the saviour of the world etc then I'd agree.
-
Professor,
If you mean by agendas, showing Jesus' life, death and resurrection to be the fulfilment of Jewish scripture, he is the saviour of the world etc then I'd agree.
Indeed agendas - as most of those things are subjective faith claims, not objective historical fact and hence a decision to include those, and how to include them is, in effect, the action of a political agenda. Had the early church focused on differing faith claims (and we know there wasn't consensus, hence so-called 'heretical' claims) then they'd have chosen, or created, alternative narratives that fitted their agenda.
And there are, of course, other gospels that also describe similar things that were rejected for inclusion, even though some have no more, nor less, claim to be accurate compared to the four gospels that were selected.
The point is firstly why these four, rather than more or less or different. And secondly to what extent the four that were selected were subject to alteration etc to create a more compelling narrative that aligned with the early church's political agenda. And we know of some hum-dinger alterations, most notably the addition to the end of Mark. That's just by chance and given that we simply don't have any actual textual evidence for the first 150 year or so from their purported writing we simply do no, and cannot know how many other alterations were made prior to the first actual manuscripts we have available. Given the huge number of inconsistencies and alterations in extant manuscript we have from about 250-400AD we can surely infer that there must have been many alterations from 100-250. Otherwise you have to claim that the gospels were unaltered up to 250 and then suddenly started getting altered post-250. That argument isn't credible.
This quote from Ehrman sums it up rather nicely:
'The victors in the struggles to establish Christian Orthodoxy not only won their theological battles, they also rewrote the history of the conflict; later readers then naturally assumed that the victorious views had been embraced by the vast majority of Christians from the very beginning ... The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history ... the debate lasted three hundred years ... even within "orthodox" circles there was considerable debate concerning which books to include.'
So Spud, not only are you uncritically accepting the orthodox narrative thereby failing to recognise that alternative narratives existed in the early church, you are also failing to recognise that history was re-written by the victors (as it usually is). The very notion that we use the term heretical to describe those who took an alternative view emphasises that political rewriting to expunge and discredit those who lost the debate. The reality is that neither the 'orthodox' nor the 'heretical' stood their arguments one firmer ground than the others - both involved faith claims that had no credible evidence to support them.
-
It is pretty obvious really - what we see as the gospels is the orthodox cannon is the product of careful selection and likely amendment and interpolation to fit a particular set of agendas from the early church.
The NT gospels are most definitely not simply a collected set of known early texts about Jesus collated in the form they were written.
I'd possibly argue with you, but, given the fragment of gospel - Mark - found as filler for a Roman period Egyptian mask which cannot have dated to beyond 90 AD, the time for succh collation, copying, and use of such a gospel to the point of destruction is limited.
-
I'd possibly argue with you, but, given the fragment of gospel - Mark - found as filler for a Roman period Egyptian mask which cannot have dated to beyond 90 AD, the time for succh collation, copying, and use of such a gospel to the point of destruction is limited.
Evidence please - as far as I'm aware the earliest confirmed fragments of Mark are papyrus 45 and 137 both likely dated about 200CE and not earlier than 150CE.
Actually although Mark is considered to have been written first on the basis of content we have the fewest actual early fragments/manuscripts compared to the other gospels.
-
I'd possibly argue with you, but, given the fragment of gospel - Mark - found as filler for a Roman period Egyptian mask which cannot have dated to beyond 90 AD, the time for succh collation, copying, and use of such a gospel to the point of destruction is limited.
I've not seen any credible claim for a fragment of Mark dated earlier than 150CE (more likely 200CE).
But for the sake of argument, let's assume there is a fragment from 90CE. These early fragments don't contain the whole of the gospel, they don't even contain complete pages or verses. No, typically the earliest may contain just a few words, often not even sequential words. So even if these few words also exist in a later version that provides no evidence that there aren't alterations elsewhere in the 99.9% of the gospel that you don't have available in the early fragment, were you to compare the 99.9% (which you can't as your don't have it) to the comparable sections in a later and more complete manuscript.
-
Evidence please - as far as I'm aware the earliest confirmed fragments of Mark are papyrus 45 and 137 both likely dated about 200CE and not earlier than 150CE.
Actually although Mark is considered to have been written first on the basis of content we have the fewest actual early fragments/manuscripts compared to the other gospels.
He's talking about P137: https://art-crime.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-gospel-truth-how-laundering-of.html
-
He's talking about P137: https://art-crime.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-gospel-truth-how-laundering-of.html
Ah yes - I was suspecting as much.
So a teeny, tiny fragment accepted to be from about 200CE that someone claimed was a completely different fragment from 80CE. Until it was pointed out that they were, in fact, the same fragment, accepted to be from about 200CE. At which point the people who claimed this to be a new and earlier fragment were forced to retract their claims and apologise.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/oldest-manuscript-of-mark-is-nonetheless-a-disappointment/129500.htm
-
Ah yes - I was suspecting as much.
So a teeny, tiny fragment accepted to be from about 200CE that someone claimed was a completely different fragment from 80CE. Until it was pointed out that they were, in fact, the same fragment, accepted to be from about 200CE. At which point the people who claimed this to be a new and earlier fragment were forced to retract their claims and apologise.
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/oldest-manuscript-of-mark-is-nonetheless-a-disappointment/129500.htm
Well now, it's nice to see such worthy Christian scholars taking to heart the words from St Paul's letter to the Phillippians, read by Boris Johnson at the Platinum Jubilee service (and of course BJ is himself such an admirable practitioner of such precepts):
"Finally, brothers, whatever is TRUE, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things."
Of course, all things considered, we can't even be sure that St Paul ever wrote those words, considering the doubt that has been cast on the authenticity of a number of the Epistles.
-
Well now, it's nice to see such worthy Christian scholars taking to heart the words from St Paul's letter to the Phillippians, read by Boris Johnson at the Platinum Jubilee service (and of course BJ is himself such an admirable practitioner of such precepts):
"Finally, brothers, whatever is TRUE, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things."
Of course, all things considered, we can't even be sure that St Paul ever wrote those words, considering the doubt that has been cast on the authenticity of a number of the Epistles.
Not sure whether this is a case of overt out and out lying. I think the issue, as we keep seeing with Spud, is that these folk so, so desperately want something to be true that their judgement and faculties become so compromised that they will grasp anything that seems to back up their prejudged faith position however, implausible, un-evidenced and, frankly, untrue it is.
As soon as you stop basing your conclusions on the evidence but start desperately cherry picking any possible grain of evidence to back up your prejudice then we are in real trouble.
-
Evidence please - as far as I'm aware the earliest confirmed fragments of Mark are papyrus 45 and 137 both likely dated about 200CE and not earlier than 150CE.
Actually although Mark is considered to have been written first on the basis of content we have the fewest actual early fragments/manuscripts compared to the other gospels.
I'm choosing to post a non-religious link, as most 'Biblical archaeology' sites give me a headache.
The Roman Period isn't my speciality, but a friend of mine, Prof Salima Ikram, an expert in mummification and evolution of funerary practices, assures me that the mummy case itself is nothing particularly special; simply a bog -standard middle ranking burial. Apparently scrap papyrus fragments such as used shopping lists, or legal documents, were frequently incorporated into carton age, the precursor to papier mmache.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/papyrus-found-mummy-mask-may-be-oldest-known-copy-gospel-180953962/
-
I'm choosing to post a non-religious link, as most 'Biblical archaeology' sites give me a headache.
The Roman Period isn't my speciality, but a friend of mine, Prof Salima Ikram, an expert in mummification and evolution of funerary practices, assures me that the mummy case itself is nothing particularly special; simply a bog -standard middle ranking burial. Apparently scrap papyrus fragments such as used shopping lists, or legal documents, were frequently incorporated into carton age, the precursor to papier mmache.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/papyrus-found-mummy-mask-may-be-oldest-known-copy-gospel-180953962/
Scrap bits of papyrus may indeed have regularly been included into mummy cases in the 1st century, but this case in question appears to be a proven fraud.
-
Indeed agendas - as most of those things are subjective faith claims, not objective historical fact and hence a decision to include those, and how to include them is, in effect, the action of a political agenda. Had the early church focused on differing faith claims (and we know there wasn't consensus, hence so-called 'heretical' claims) then they'd have chosen, or created, alternative narratives that fitted their agenda.
And there are, of course, other gospels that also describe similar things that were rejected for inclusion, even though some have no more, nor less, claim to be accurate compared to the four gospels that were selected.
The point is firstly why these four, rather than more or less or different. And secondly to what extent the four that were selected were subject to alteration etc to create a more compelling narrative that aligned with the early church's political agenda. And we know of some hum-dinger alterations, most notably the addition to the end of Mark. That's just by chance and given that we simply don't have any actual textual evidence for the first 150 year or so from their purported writing we simply do no, and cannot know how many other alterations were made prior to the first actual manuscripts we have available. Given the huge number of inconsistencies and alterations in extant manuscript we have from about 250-400AD we can surely infer that there must have been many alterations from 100-250. Otherwise you have to claim that the gospels were unaltered up to 250 and then suddenly started getting altered post-250. That argument isn't credible.
This quote from Ehrman sums it up rather nicely:
'The victors in the struggles to establish Christian Orthodoxy not only won their theological battles, they also rewrote the history of the conflict; later readers then naturally assumed that the victorious views had been embraced by the vast majority of Christians from the very beginning ... The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history ... the debate lasted three hundred years ... even within "orthodox" circles there was considerable debate concerning which books to include.'
So Spud, not only are you uncritically accepting the orthodox narrative thereby failing to recognise that alternative narratives existed in the early church, you are also failing to recognise that history was re-written by the victors (as it usually is). The very notion that we use the term heretical to describe those who took an alternative view emphasises that political rewriting to expunge and discredit those who lost the debate. The reality is that neither the 'orthodox' nor the 'heretical' stood their arguments one firmer ground than the others - both involved faith claims that had no credible evidence to support them.
If the four gospels are authentic, then someone who lived after Christ but witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem would know this, since those gospels had predicted this event. It's interesting that the longest (therefore most important, to his mind) section of teaching that Mark recorded is the Olivet Discourse.
So we cannot assume as you do that the people who were involved in selecting those four gospels, such as Papias, were unable to know if they were written under apostolic authority.
I don't deny that the gospels were added to. We can get a good idea of which parts may have been edited: for example Matthew 10 begins with the disciples being sent out to preach to the lost sheep of Israel and not to the Gentiles. But Jesus goes on to warn them of persecutions, which doesn't seem to fit: it seems more appropriate where Mark has it in the Olivet discourse, indicating that it was not originally part of Matthew's account of the sending out of the twelve.
This editing doesn't mean the gospels are not authentic. People could have made the editions in order to include genuine events and teaching not in the original.
-
Scrap bits of papyrus may indeed have regularly been included into mummy cases in the 1st century, but this case in question appears to be a proven fraud.
There are several schools of opinion on the authenticity of the fragment. C14 dating is impractical; however the writing style is certainly contemporary with similar late first century documents.
Similar fragments from another mask, of a letter from a Christian to his cousin, dating to around 11o AD, were recovered by the Egypt Exploration Society - a respected, impartial source - in the late 1990s, again, from a mummy board.
-
I'm choosing to post a non-religious link, as most 'Biblical archaeology' sites give me a headache.
The Roman Period isn't my speciality, but a friend of mine, Prof Salima Ikram, an expert in mummification and evolution of funerary practices, assures me that the mummy case itself is nothing particularly special; simply a bog -standard middle ranking burial. Apparently scrap papyrus fragments such as used shopping lists, or legal documents, were frequently incorporated into carton age, the precursor to papier mmache.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/papyrus-found-mummy-mask-may-be-oldest-known-copy-gospel-180953962/
But this is the same non-sense story that I referred to above.
There was no new fragment - this was some bizarre story cooked up about p137 which was already sitting in a museum and dated to about CE200.
If you click on one of the links in your article you get this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2012/02/27/fragments-of-marks-gospel-may-date-to-1st-century/
Which links to Daniel B Wallace the person who cooked up the story but has since had to retract it and has apologised for his non-sense claims to other scholars - as I indicated in my link (linked to again).
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/oldest-manuscript-of-mark-is-nonetheless-a-disappointment/129500.htm
Note from the article:
'Daniel Wallace immediately apologised openly and unreservedly, not least to Bart Ehrman. He is sorry that, on the basis of incorrect information, he said things which have turned out to be inaccurate.
Someone who has so far remained silent is Dirk Obbink. Despite his Dutch family name Obbink is an American papyrologist who works with the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in Oxford. This month's publication of the fragment of Mark in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri is his work. And it was he who initially dated the manuscript to the first century AD back in 2012, although he now rather thinks it was around AD 200. There also stubborn rumours that he put the manuscript up for sale to some rich Americans like the Green family, although it is of course not his personal property at all.'
So the guy who claimed this to be 1stC now accepts it is from 200CE.
-
There are several schools of opinion on the authenticity of the fragment.
Nope in this case it is accepted to be a fraud, or at least completely untrue. Even the people who cooked up the story (Wallace and Obbink) accept variously that no such fragment exists (Wallace) and that the fragment incorrectly indicated as a new fragment, but was actually p137, is from 200CE.
-
Of course, all things considered, we can't even be sure that St Paul ever wrote those words, considering the doubt that has been cast on the authenticity of a number of the Epistles.
Philippians is generally considered to be one of the genuine ones.
-
Nope in this case it is accepted to be a fraud, or at least completely untrue. Even the people who cooked up the story (Wallace and Obbink) accept variously that no such fragment exists (Wallace) and that the fragment incorrectly indicated as a new fragment, but was actually p137, is from 200CE.
It's definitely an authentic fragment. The falsehood is the claim that it dates from the first century rather than the second century.
-
It's definitely an authentic fragment. The falsehood is the claim that it dates from the first century rather than the second century.
Yes that is correct. But the original claim was that there was another fragment, distinct from p137, that was from first C. It turned out that they were actually referring to p137 all along - so there is only one, rather than two, fragments - and p137 is likely dated to around 200CE.
-
It's definitely an authentic fragment. The falsehood is the claim that it dates from the first century rather than the second century.
And that it was found in a mummy case, now located in the USA (whereas it has been sitting in a basket in Oxford for over 100 years).
-
It doesn't have to be a written document though. The Q document is hypothesised as a written document because the material shared between Matthew and Luke is almost word for word identical. That wouldn't happen if they had both independently transcribed the same oral source.
I don't know that there is any evidence of that.
It doesn't seem to have been happening since they were verifiably collected together in the Bible, so why would it happen before? And don't forget we do have some evidence of "patching up" the gospels to agree with each other: Mark has an ending grafted on that is pretty clearly a précis of the resurrection stories from the other gospels, but they weren't copied word for word.
Mark could have written the appendix (16:9-20) to complement his introduction (1:1-13). The introduction summarizes John's ministry and the preparation for Jesus' ministry. It's roughly the same length as the long ending and contains almost the same number (16) of words that are not found in the rest of the gospel. Vv 9-20 contain 15 such words. By contrast, the short ending is almost entirely made up of words and phrases not found elsewhere in the gospel, indicating that someone other than Mark wrote it. 16:9-20 is a summary of the resurrection appearances and the disciples' disbelief and subsequent ministry. So the two form a "framework of two summaries, between which the body of the Gospel is set" (Riley).
-
Mark could have written the appendix (16:9-20) to compliment his introduction (1:1-13).
Unlikely, if Mark was writing in the first century. The longer ending probably comes from the second century.
-
Unlikely, if Mark was writing in the first century. The longer ending probably comes from the second century.
Indeed - it is very hard to argue credibly that the longer ending of Mark is contemporaneous with the original with the shorter ending, but somehow didn't get included. Given that the earliest extant copies have the shorter ending and only later ones have the longer ending we can conclude that the longer ending is a later addition.
But Spud is correct that linguistically it is difficult to see the longer ending as different from the main writing style, so we know it is an addition due to the extant copies we have rather than writing style. Why this is important is that it casts doubt on all sorts of aspects of the original gospels. Had we not had the good fortune of 'before/after' versions of the ending of Mark we'd be none the wiser that the longer ending wasn't original. How many other examples might there be of similar alteration that we simply don't know about because we don't have, by luck, 'before/after' versions.
-
But Spud is correct that linguistically it is difficult to see the longer ending as different from the main writing style,
I don't think that this is the case. The Wikipedia article suggests that it is at least in doubt
Critical questions concerning the authenticity of verses 9–20 (the "longer ending") often center on stylistic and linguistic issues. On linguistics, E. P. Gould identified 19 of the 163 words in the passage as distinctive and not occurring elsewhere in the Gospel.[49] Dr. Bruce Terry argues that a vocabulary-based case against Mark 16:9–20 is indecisive, inasmuch as other 12-verse sections of Mark contain comparable numbers of once-used words.
Robert Gundry mentions that only about 10% of Mark's γαρ clauses (6 out of 66) conclude pericopes. Thus he infers that, rather than concluding 16:1–8, verse 8 begins a new pericope, the rest of which is now lost to us. Gundry therefore does not see verse 8 as the intended ending; a resurrection narrative was either written, then lost, or planned but never actually written.
Concerning style, the degree to which verses 9–20 aptly fit as an ending for the Gospel remains in question. The turn from verse 8 to 9 has also been seen as abrupt and interrupted: the narrative flows from "they were afraid" to "now after he rose", and seems to reintroduce Mary Magdalene. Secondly, Mark regularly identifies instances where Jesus' prophecies are fulfilled, yet Mark does not explicitly state the twice predicted reconciliation of Jesus with his disciples in Galilee (Mark 14:28, 16:7). Lastly, the active tense "he rose" is different from the earlier passive construction "[he] has been risen" of verse 6, seen as significant by some.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Longer_ending
-
Given that the earliest extant copies have the shorter ending and only later ones have the longer ending we can conclude that the longer ending is a later addition.
As I've mentioned before, Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD.
-
The turn from verse 8 to 9 has also been seen as abrupt and interrupted: the narrative flows from "they were afraid" to "now after he rose"
In several other places Mark omits Jesus' name and uses 'he' when beginning a new episode.
-
I don't think that this is the case. The Wikipedia article suggests that it is at least in doubt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Longer_ending
The substance of the long ending may reflect that Mark's (if Mark was the author) sources (including John) diverged after the empty tomb.
-
As I've mentioned before, Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD.
There is a surprising amount of evidence that it existed in the mid to late second century, but the consensus is that it was not part of the Gospel of Mark.
-
As I've mentioned before, Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD.
Do you honestly believe that the longer ending at 16:18 is consistent with the rest of the gospel? Jesus advocating his followers to drink deadly poison and take up (presumably venomous) snakes as a sign of their faith in him? Maybe he taught that their faith would sustain them through their times of trial, but it doesn't seem likely he would tell them to do things which were downright stupid.
-
As I've mentioned before, Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD.
As Jeremy indicates, just because a section of text appears somewhere else doesn't mean it was originally part of Mark - merely that this text was circulating.
But I have to ask the obvious question - when you claim that 'Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD' do you mean that we have an extant version of Against Heresies from 185AD that includes this text or that later copies of Against Heresies include it but we don't have any actual evidence that it appeared in the original Against Heresies? I think I know the answer to this - as I suspect you do, given that the early copies of Against Heresies that we have are (just as for the gospels) tiny fragments - and guess what ... they don't include this section.
-
Do you honestly believe that the longer ending at 16:18 is consistent with the rest of the gospel? Jesus advocating his followers to drink deadly poison and take up (presumably venomous) snakes as a sign of their faith in him? Maybe he taught that their faith would sustain them through their times of trial, but it doesn't seem likely he would tell them to do things which were downright stupid.
It doesn't come across to me the way you are interpreting it. Maybe it means people might try to poison them?
-
As Jeremy indicates, just because a section of text appears somewhere else doesn't mean it was originally part of Mark - merely that this text was circulating.
But I have to ask the obvious question - when you claim that 'Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD' do you mean that we have an extant version of Against Heresies from 185AD that includes this text or that later copies of Against Heresies include it but we don't have any actual evidence that it appeared in the original Against Heresies? I think I know the answer to this - as I suspect you do, given that the early copies of Against Heresies that we have are (just as for the gospels) tiny fragments - and guess what ... they don't include this section.
And conversely if it doesn't appear somewhere that doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original. Which is why it may be better t base a judgment as to its belonging to the original on the text itself?
-
And conversely if it doesn't appear somewhere that doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original. Which is why it may be better t base a judgment as to its belonging to the original on the text itself?
Nope - faulty thinking.
We have early copies of Mark (the earliest that have the ending) where the longer ending is missing. Note missing, not just that we don't have that section in the copy. The gospel ends and ends at 16:8. So we can be confident that at the very least some early versions of Mark didn't include 16:9-20. Conversely we have no early copies of Mark that include 16:9-20. Could be, of course, that we haven't found an early copy with 16:9-20, but that these exist or existed.
So at best you may be able to argue that early on there were variants circulating, one without 16:9-20 (we know this for sure) and one with 16:9-20 (we cannot be sure about this. So if you argue this, then you'd have to try to discern which was more likely to be the original. So if the one including 16:9-20 was the original then you'd have to argue that it was removed from some copies. But this is a pretty hard ask because:
1. We don't even know for sure that any early versions of Mark included 16:9-20, but we know that some didn't.
2. It is easier to argue for 16:9-20 to have been added, rather than removed on the basis that its addition adds theoretical kudos to the gospel, while removing it would weaken claims.
3. As Jeremy points out there is also linguistic evidence that is isn't original.
So taken together we have strong evidence that 16:9-20 are later additions and not in the original. The evidence that they were in the original (which would mean they were somehow removed from some early versions) is very weak.
-
My one and only contribution to this thread is to note that;
a) Whoever it was who wrote and/or edited NT documents, and when they did so, and what their motivations were, is now unknowable (at least until time travel is invented).
(b) I can't see that it matters very much anyway (bald men and combs come to mind).
-
Nope - faulty thinking.
We have early copies of Mark (the earliest that have the ending) where the longer ending is missing. Note missing, not just that we don't have that section in the copy. The gospel ends and ends at 16:8. So we can be confident that at the very least some early versions of Mark didn't include 16:9-20. Conversely we have no early copies of Mark that include 16:9-20. Could be, of course, that we haven't found an early copy with 16:9-20, but that these exist or existed.
So at best you may be able to argue that early on there were variants circulating, one without 16:9-20 (we know this for sure) and one with 16:9-20 (we cannot be sure about this. So if you argue this, then you'd have to try to discern which was more likely to be the original. So if the one including 16:9-20 was the original then you'd have to argue that it was removed from some copies. But this is a pretty hard ask because:
1. We don't even know for sure that any early versions of Mark included 16:9-20, but we know that some didn't.
2. It is easier to argue for 16:9-20 to have been added, rather than removed on the basis that its addition adds theoretical kudos to the gospel, while removing it would weaken claims.
3. As Jeremy points out there is also linguistic evidence that is isn't original.
So taken together we have strong evidence that 16:9-20 are later additions and not in the original. The evidence that they were in the original (which would mean they were somehow removed from some early versions) is very weak.
Perhaps my argument in #445 was weak, yes, but given quotes from Early Church Fathers and inclusions by some sources on the one hand, as well as omissions in other sources on the other hand, isn't the point that some regarded the verses as authentic and some didn't or were unsure?
We do however have the text itself, so I suggest that to be what decides for an individual whether it's part of the original.
If someone thinks that Mark as a whole was the first to be written, because it looks like Matthew and Luke copied him, then because 16:9-20 clearly has them as its sources, it must be a later addition. But if one takes the general view of Markan dependence on Matthew and Luke, then one would have more reason to believe that 16:9-20 is the original ending to it.
I'm quite interested in the comparison between it and Mark's introduction, with which it could form an inclusio for the whole book.
-
.. isn't the point that some regarded the verses as authentic and some didn't or were unsure?
We do however have the text itself, so I suggest that to be what decides for an individual whether it's part of the original.
No - the issue isn't whether some people regarded the longer ending of Mark as authentic, the issue is whether the long ending of Mark is authentic (i.e. not a later addition). This is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion, ultimately. Of course we use evidence to try to determine the truth of the matter and individuals will differ in their interpretations of that evidence, but ultimately we are trying to determine a matter of fact.
And the evidence strongly suggests that the long ending of Mark was a later addition.
-
(b) I can't see that it matters very much anyway (bald men and combs come to mind).
Like people who can't afford the train, and rail strikes?
-
No - the issue isn't whether some people regarded the longer ending of Mark as authentic, the issue is whether the long ending of Mark is authentic (i.e. not a later addition).
I suggest all we can know is that Irenaeus regarded it to be genuine, but the author of Vaticanus didn't (or didn't know it existed). You can add weight to your view in that we don't have the original of Irenaeus' quote, but I can add weight to mine because his quote, if it is genuine, was earlier. I don't really see one argument as better than the other.
-
My one and only contribution to this thread is to note that;
a) Whoever it was who wrote and/or edited NT documents, and when they did so, and what their motivations were, is now unknowable (at least until time travel is invented).
(b) I can't see that it matters very much anyway (bald men and combs come to mind).
The reason why it matter is firstly the basic matter that some people like to know actually truth (rather than what people want to be the truth) - that's a fundamental point.
But, perhaps more significantly, it also matters because a proportion of christians seems to need to rely on a claimed veracity of the gospels to support their beliefs, and in doing so support practices that impact on the lives of people today - e.g. treatment of gay people. And that is why these issues matter more for the gospels than, say, Homer or Julius Caesar's Gaiic wars, as (as far as I'm aware) there aren't people in society today justifying discriminatory behaviour against minorities on the basis that the words attributed to Homer are his actual words, or those attributed to Caesar are his actual words.
-
I suggest all we can know is that Irenaeus regarded it to be genuine, but the author of Vaticanus didn't. You can add weight to your view in that we don't have the original of Irenaeus' quote, but I can add weight to mine because his quote, if it is genuine, was earlier. I don't really see one argument as better than the other.
But we don't know that because you just head into the same argument.
We don't know whether the Mark quote was in the original Irenaeus at all, or whether it was added later to align the early church father view with the settled orthodox gospel view. In a debate about orthodoxy versus heresy (the terms are themselves highly non neutral) that the winners of that debate will want to rewrite the history of the battle. This is what happens all the time - so we cannot be certain that what we have from Irenaeus (remembering that we have, at best tiny fragments of contemporary documents) isn't highly edited to align with the political agenda of the winners of the orthodoxy versus heresy battle. Note that we have virtually nothing of Irenaeus in its original greek - what we have largely are later translated versions in latin from significantly later - likely 4th-5thC.
So rather than describing these as writings of Irenaeus in 180CE, we'd be better describing them as writings attributed to Irenaeus, from about 380CE - these are different things.
-
The reason why it matter is firstly the basic matter that some people like to know actually truth (rather than what people want to be the truth) - that's a fundamental point.
I'm afraid with documentary evidence, unless you have the original, you can never know the truth, you can only know what is probable.
But, perhaps more significantly, it also matters because a proportion of christians seems to need to rely on a claimed veracity of the gospels to support their beliefs, and in doing so support practices that impact on the lives of people today - e.g. treatment of gay people. And that is why these issues matter more for the gospels than, say, Homer or Julius Caesar's Gaiic wars, as (as far as I'm aware) there aren't people in society today justifying discriminatory behaviour against minorities on the basis that the words attributed to Homer are his actual words, or those attributed to Caesar are his actual words.
True, but this is an academic discussion, divorced from the effects on the real world of which I would suggest there are none. It doesn't make any difference to Christianity as a whole if Mathew and Luke copied Mark or Mark synthesised Matthew and Luke. I know many Christians who completely accept Markan priority - in fact, I did when I was a Christian. Of course, I wasn't aware of the wholesale copying until many years after I lost my faith.
-
I'm afraid with documentary evidence, unless you have the original, you can never know the truth, you can only know what is probable.
Indeed, but I think my point is that somewhere there is an actual truth - for example Mark was either first or it wasn't; Mark did or did no contain the longer ending) - while we might not be able to ascertain which is the case there is an objective truth there. This isn't a kind of subjective 'true for me' as Spud seems to imply that whether or not Mark came first is determined by whatever you think is the case or even whatever you want to be the case.
-
True, but this is an academic discussion, divorced from the effects on the real world of which I would suggest there are none. It doesn't make any difference to Christianity as a whole if Mathew and Luke copied Mark or Mark synthesised Matthew and Luke. I know many Christians who completely accept Markan priority - in fact, I did when I was a Christian. Of course, I wasn't aware of the wholesale copying until many years after I lost my faith.
I didn't say it was important for all christians, but it certainly seems to important to some, including Spud. He has been clear that convincing himself that Matthew comes before Mark is important to his faith and that were he to be convinced that Mark came first would undermine his faith. This seems to be a feature of bible literalists who may be more likely to pick on aspects of the bible to support discrimination, e.g. against gay people.
So you are correct that there are plenty of christians that won't care one iota which gospel came first, but there are others that care a lot - and will bend the evidence to align with their faith position. And once people go down the mind-set of cherry picking evidence to support a predetermined faith position then that mindset leads in all kinds of directions that are deeply, deeply problematic.
-
PD,
I have read through the page containing Irenaeus' mention of Mark 16:19. If I am honest I'd say i had a brief moment before I read the whole chapter, where I thought it could have been edited in, but re-reading it, it certainly looks like it fits the context well if you understand what he was writing about.
-
PD,
I have read through the page containing Irenaeus' mention of Mark 16:19. If I am honest I'd say i had a brief moment before I read the whole chapter, where I thought it could have been edited in, but re-reading it, it certainly looks like it fits the context well if you understand what he was writing about.
Of course you're convinced Spud - you will be convinced by anything that appears to back up your pre-judged faith based position, and unconvinced by anything that counters you're pre-judged faith based position, regardless of the evidence.
So let's ask a couple of questions.
1. I presume when you are talking about 'fitting with the context' you are basing this on the original Greek text, perhaps from 200CE ... oops, bit of an issue - there are no versions of that part of Against Heresies in the original Greek and indeed only tiny fragment of any part of the text in Greek, so very difficult to assess alignment with original context.
2. So I guess when you are talking about 'fitting with the context' you are considering the Latin translations that appeared in the late 4thC at pretty well the same time as the overall orthodoxy of christianity was being embedded. And of course a point of translation is the perfect time for tweaking, adding, editing of a text without it appearing completely clunky as the very process of translation takes the translated text away from the original. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect you aren't basing your comments on the later Latin translation.
3. So perhaps you are basing your comment on an English translation of a Latin translation of an original Greek text, with the original of that section completely unavailable to us.
So realistically all you can say is that a translation produced by the people responsible for the embedding of orthodoxy in the church at the time it was embedded seems to fit with the agreed orthodox view - no shit Sherlock.
Come on Spud - get real - victors rewrite history in the manner that suits their agenda. So it is hardly surprising that when those who saw themselves as diligent custodians of a church orthodoxy that had been hard won through a couple of centuries of debate and battle end up ensuring that texts, purportedly from smack in the middle of that battle end up seeming to fit with their orthodox view.
Bottom line - we don't know what Irenaeus originally wrote - what we do know is what writings were attributed to Irenaeus by later translators and custodians of that text who had a very clear agenda, and included plenty of serial interpolators or earlier texts - step forward Eusebius.
-
I didn't say it was important for all christians, but it certainly seems to important to some, including Spud. He has been clear that convincing himself that Matthew comes before Mark is important to his faith and that were he to be convinced that Mark came first would undermine his faith. This seems to be a feature of bible literalists who may be more likely to pick on aspects of the bible to support discrimination, e.g. against gay people.
So you are correct that there are plenty of christians that won't care one iota which gospel came first, but there are others that care a lot - and will bend the evidence to align with their faith position. And once people go down the mind-set of cherry picking evidence to support a predetermined faith position then that mindset leads in all kinds of directions that are deeply, deeply problematic.
It is interesting to me why Spud is so invested in the order of the gospels. Even if he believes them to be literally true, the ordering doesn't mean anything. Perhaps it's important to him that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name and the idea that Matthew had to copy Mark is not really supportive of that hypothesis.
-
It is interesting to me why Spud is so invested in the order of the gospels. Even if he believes them to be literally true, the ordering doesn't mean anything. Perhaps it's important to him that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name and the idea that Matthew had to copy Mark is not really supportive of that hypothesis.
I don't know why it is so important to Spud, but it clearly is.
And you may be correct about the reason. But, of course, we have no certainty as to who wrote the gospels and scholars think that it wasn't until about about 200CE that the authorship attributions that we know now began to be used. So the naming of the gospels, along with their ordering, seems to be another element of the embedding of what we now consider as orthodoxy in the church. And I guess if you consider this orthodox view to be correct and divinely inspired then anything that casts doubt on that orthodoxy is a challenge to faith.
-
Perhaps it's important to him that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name and the idea that Matthew had to copy Mark is not really supportive of that hypothesis.
I think that is correct.
According to the orthodox tradition of the four gospels two (Matthew and John) were written by one of the twelve disciples, while Mark and Luke were written by individuals more detached from the inner circle, were not around at the time, and in the case of Luke wasn't even born when Jesus was alive.
In which case it is extremely inconvenient if Matthew (who according to tradition was there at the time) needs to borrow from Mark, who wasn't. Why would Matthew have to borrow information from some guy not around at the time rather than rely on his own personal eye witness recollection.
The ordering of John doesn't really matter as it is distinct from the synoptic gospels, but for the synoptic gospels it is important to the orthodox tradition that they are ordered Matthew, Mark, Luke as that reflects the orthodox tradition of their closeness to the purported events.
-
I don't know why it is so important to Spud, but it clearly is.
And you may be correct about the reason. But, of course, we have no certainty as to who wrote the gospels
No, we actually have no idea. Christians obviously have hypotheses but I don't think any of them even rise to the level of probable.
-
No, we actually have no idea. Christians obviously have hypotheses but I don't think any of them even rise to the level of probable.
Yes you are correct - I was being far too charitable when I suggested that we had no certainty.
The reality is that the attribution of authorship didn't occur until over 100 years after the originals were purported to have been written. And that attribution wasn't really based on any real evidence but on tradition and a developing orthodoxy. However once that tradition and orthodoxy had been established it becomes undermined if it is implied that the author of Matthew (by orthodox tradition one of the 12) had to borrow much of what he wrote about the life of Jesus from Mark (who by orthodox tradition never met Jesus).
-
Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "Irenaeus also polemicized against Marcion of Sinope, who preached that the creator God of the Hebrew Bible and the Father of Jesus Christ were two different gods. Irenaeus argues that the same god who sent Jesus to the Earth also led man through history by way of the Jewish law and prophets."
The chapter of Against Herisies that references Mark 16:19 seems to be teaching the above.
When I talk about the context of that reference, I mean the whole chapter, with which it is entirely consistent, suggesting that the quote from 16:19 is not an addition.
Taken as it stands, the evidence points to the Longer Ending being known in the 2nd century and then subsequently removed by some.
-
Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "Irenaeus also polemicized against Marcion of Sinope, who preached that the creator God of the Hebrew Bible and the Father of Jesus Christ were two different gods. Irenaeus argues that the same god who sent Jesus to the Earth also led man through history by way of the Jewish law and prophets."
The chapter of Against Herisies that references Mark 16:19 seems to be teaching the above.
When I talk about the context of that reference, I mean the whole chapter, with which it is entirely consistent, suggesting that the quote from 16:19 is not an addition.
Taken as it stands, the evidence points to the Longer Ending being known in the 2nd century and then subsequently removed by some.
No it doesn't - what we do know is that text from the late 4thC, attributed to Irenaeus appears to indicate knowledge of the longer ending of Mark. This is hardly surprising as by that stage Mark 16:9-20 has routinely being added to the end of Mark and had become orthodox. Hardly surprising that the custodians of orthodoxy are likely to ensure that an earlier champion of orthodoxy needs to sign from the same orthodox song sheet.
We don't know (and cannot know unless an earlier extant copy of Against Heresies turns up containing this section) whether Irenaeus actually wrote this at all or whether this is merely later attribution and interpretation of what he was considered to have taught.
-
No it doesn't - what we do know is that text from the late 4thC, attributed to Irenaeus appears to indicate knowledge of the longer ending of Mark. This is hardly surprising as by that stage Mark 16:9-20 has routinely being added to the end of Mark and had become orthodox. Hardly surprising that the custodians of orthodoxy are likely to ensure that an earlier champion of orthodoxy needs to sign from the same orthodox song sheet.
We don't know (and cannot know unless an earlier extant copy of Against Heresies turns up containing this section) whether Irenaeus actually wrote this at all or whether this is merely later attribution and interpretation of what he was considered to have taught.
Can I ask if you've read the chapter containing the Mark 16;19 quote (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm)? You don't appear to have understood my point. If you haven't read the chapter in the link you won't be able to because you need to understand what ideas Irenaeus was refuting and how his reference to Jesus sitting down at the right hand of God fulfills the words of psalm 110 which is about the God of king David; his point being that David's God and the New Testament God are the same. Marcion apparently claimed they were not the same. The whole chapter is full of similar examples, which indicates that it is consistent for him to use the mark 16:19 quote where he does.
As for orthodoxy, Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was instructed by the apostle John. Irenaeus was concerned that the doctrine taught by the apostles was preserved. It's not some 4th century writer making up "orthodox doctrine ".
-
It's not some 4th century writer making up "orthodox doctrine ".
If I understand this at all (and I'm not sure I do), it's not about 'making up orthodox doctrine'; I think the Prof is saying that the inclusion of the long ending has become 'orthodox'. I don't doubt that the doctrine expressed in the verse you mentioned (quoting the psalm) refutes Marcion. Marcion was argued against by many before Irenaeus brought out the big guns, and no doubt the author of the longer ending believed that Christ was the true fulfiller of the OT prophecies, and believed in the same God as the one written about in the OT. That doesn't mean to say that the longer ending was written by the same writer as the rest of the gospel, and nor indeed does it mean that we can be certain that Irenaeus' text is genuine (but that's a secondary point).
-
If I understand this at all (and I'm not sure I do), it's not about 'making up orthodox doctrine'; I think the Prof is saying that the inclusion of the long ending has become 'orthodox'. I don't doubt that the doctrine expressed in the verse you mentioned (quoting the psalm) refutes Marcion. Marcion was argued against by many before Irenaeus brought out the big guns, and no doubt the author of the longer ending believed that Christ was the true fulfiller of the OT prophecies, and believed in the same God as the one written about in the OT. That doesn't mean to say that the longer ending was written by the same writer as the rest of the gospel, and nor indeed does it mean that we can be certain that Irenaeus' text is genuine (but that's a secondary point).
Thanks. I think we have a high degree of certainty that what we have is what Irenaeus wrote. Hence I suggest that the evidence 'points towards' the Long Ending being 'orthodox' in the 2nd century.
That it is missing from the earliest complete manuscript of Mark could be because it was removed for critical reasons, like to avoid misinterpretation of the snakes and poison saying.
My point is that we need to look at the text itself to see if it could have been written by the same author as the body of Mark. That is quite a big study so I won't say more than what I've recently said about it. I think it's not a coincidence that with Mark 1:1-13 it forms a framework of two summaries for the main Gospel account.
I think the Prof needs to realise that he's the one with the pre-formed judgment who tries to incriminate doubt over the authenticity of Irenaeus so as to validate that judgment.
-
Thanks. I think we have a high degree of certainty that what we have is what Irenaeus wrote.
No we don't - we have some tiny fragments that are near contemporary and in the original language. But the text contained therein is so sparse that these fragments give no indication whatsoever of the broader narrative within Against Heresies.
We do have some more extensive texts, but these aren't contemporary (they are late 4thC) and are also translations into Latin. And these come from a time and place where we know significant textural changes were made to supposed earlier texts (see amending of Josephus as an example) so there is a significant possibility that the late 4thC Latin texts are markedly different to what Irenaeus might actually have written (if indeed he wrote them at all).
So we cannot say that we have a high degree of certainty that what we have is what Irenaeus wrote at all. What we can say is that we have a high degree of certainty that we know what was attributed to Irenaeus by late 4thC writers and translators.
-
... Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was instructed by the apostle John.
When in a hole stop digging.
And how exactly do we know this Spud - presumably from some highly credible contemporary writing from this chap Polycarp.
Well, err, no. We actually know virtually nothing about Polycarp, and that which we know is from much later (and rather biased) sources.
So the only text we have from Polycarp (or rather attributed to him) is the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians - everything else is lost. But the earliest extant versions of this claimed text are from the 11thC in its original language, and 9thC for a translation - so that's not far off 1000 years after its apparent writing. So with this level of detachment we can have no real confidence that our 800-1000 year after the event copies/translations bear much resemblance to the original (if there even was an original).
There is also the so-called biographical text Martyrdom of Polycarp - but the earliest we have for this is (again) late 4thC and there is strong evidence that this a much later mish-mash of more that one earlier tradition and its authenticity had been strongly challenged as it gets all sorts of aspects of Roman legal proceedings wrong. So this looks to be a retrospective, late 4thC largely fictional account based on tradition rather than accuracy. It appears to be one of a number of texts created or edited to fit with the developed orthodoxy of the church at that point, rather than something which casts much light on the earlier historicity of the early church from the 2ndC.
-
No we don't - we have some tiny fragments that are near contemporary and in the original language. But the text contained therein is so sparse that these fragments give no indication whatsoever of the broader narrative within Against Heresies.
We do have some more extensive texts, but these aren't contemporary (they are late 4thC) and are also translations into Latin. And these come from a time and place where we know significant textural changes were made to supposed earlier texts (see amending of Josephus as an example) so there is a significant possibility that the late 4thC Latin texts are markedly different to what Irenaeus might actually have written (if indeed he wrote them at all).
So we cannot say that we have a high degree of certainty that what we have is what Irenaeus wrote at all. What we can say is that we have a high degree of certainty that we know what was attributed to Irenaeus by late 4thC writers and translators.
Presumably you think the same way about Tatien's Diatessaron? He is said to have written it in the second century. Here's the chapter containing the resurrection appearances, including Mark's long ending:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/100255.htm
-
Presumably you think the same way about Tatien's Diatessaron? He is said to have written it in the second century. Here's the chapter containing the resurrection appearances, including Mark's long ending:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/100255.htm
Not a convincing example. No original text - we don't even know whether Tatian wrote in Greek or Syriac. Earliest version found is the recension of Ephrem the Syrian (4th C) which itself is only available in two later translations. Endless versions in translations through the centuries, but no full text in any of them. An attempt was made in the 19th century to reconstruct the original text from a number of versions in many languages (which sounds like a bit of a fool's errand to me). I'm afraid that's not going to convince me about the authenticity of texts supposedly written in the 1st century.
-
Not a convincing example. No original text - we don't even know whether Tatian wrote in Greek or Syriac. Earliest version found is the recension of Ephrem the Syrian (4th C) which itself is only available in two later translations. Endless versions in translations through the centuries, but no full text in any of them. An attempt was made in the 19th century to reconstruct the original text from a number of versions in many languages (which sounds like a bit of a fool's errand to me). I'm afraid that's not going to convince me about the authenticity of texts supposedly written in the 1st century.
I was going to say something very similar - we don't know what Tatian wrote at all - what Spud has provided is an attempt to reconstruct the original text from 1881, by a 19thC German theologian (note not a academic historian or linguist) who is clearly non neutral - this from Wiki "Theologically, Zahn was conservative and approached New Testament theology from the perspective of a theological emphasis called Heilsgeschichte (usually translated into English as "Salvation History").
Credible - I think not.
-
I was going to say something very similar - we don't know what Tatian wrote at all - what Spud has provided is an attempt to reconstruct the original text from 1881, by a 19thC German theologian (note not a academic historian or linguist) who is clearly non neutral - this from Wiki "Theologically, Zahn was conservative and approached New Testament theology from the perspective of a theological emphasis called Heilsgeschichte (usually translated into English as "Salvation History").
Credible - I think not.
What makes it credible is that there are other second century writings quoting the Long Ending. One on its own wouldn't be enough but when there's Irenaeus, Tatien, Hippolytus, and others you can't really appeal to 'lost in translation' and that the LE was known at that time becomes the logical conclusion.
-
What makes it credible is that there are other second century writings quoting the Long Ending.
But there aren't are there - as far as I am aware there is no extant copy or fragment of any of the texts you mention that is dated to the second century that contains the long ending. Maybe you know different - in which case please share.
What we have are much, much later versions, often translations which purport to be copies of documents originally written in the second century. However we do not and cannot (unless an earlier copy turns up) know whether these versions from the 4thC through to centuries later actually contain text which was in the original.
Realistically I'm unclear whether there is any extant fragment or document from earlier than the earliest version of Mark itself containing the longer ending - which I think is the 5thC Codex Alexandrinus. If the longer ending had been added by then (as we know it was) then it isn't surprising if, in the interests of orthodoxy, references to it start appearing in 5thC versions purporting to be versions of works by the early church fathers.