Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

Once the order in which the gospels were written is established, and which contains the most primitive narrative, we can work on establishing what changes have been made to it. There is no need to postulate any versions predating Matthew's account.

The order hasn't been established.

[jeremyp]

I think I agree with you ... if I'm reading this as being a bit of a circular argument.


Effectively that history is written by the winners - or in this case orthodoxy is determined by the winners of the competing views. So of course there will be texts from early that align with a view determined later to be orthodox. But there are (e.g. the apocryphal gospels and other documents) text from similar times that were not determined to be orthodox and were rejected by the 'winning side'.

Yes that is pretty much my position, except that, there are no surviving non orthodox documents from the early days i.e. from the first or early second century.

And we need to be aware that the winning side will often eradicate evidence that doesn't support their view, or at least fail to preserve it. So the lack of extant texts for opposing views doesn't mean they didn't exist - just that they may have been destroyed due to they being considered heretical or not preserved. Now we may not be able to know what actually was in those text except by reference to second hand account, but then we don't have anything from many of the 'orthodox' early church fathers except from later second hand accounts.

And it is worth noting that what is in the 'orthodox' NT canon took hundreds of years to become settled.

I count Paul as orthodox and his genuine letters were probably written in the mid first century. And I reiterate that the orthodox church is the one that survived. The original church - the one that was closest to Jesus - was based in Jerusalem and led by Peter and James. It didn't survive the destruction of Jerusalem and we know they definitely had disagreements with Paul on matters of doctrine because he tells us about them.

[jeremyp]

Once the order in which the gospels were written is established, and which contains the most primitive narrative, we can work on establishing what changes have been made to it. There is no need to postulate any versions predating Matthew's account.

Mark, Matthew, Luke, John.

That is the order agreed by almost all real scholars. Most of those real scholars, by the way, are or were Christians. The arguments for that order are not irrefutable but they point to it as being highly probable.

Why are you so invested in the idea that Matthew came first?

The order hasn't been established.

It has to the satisfaction of almost everybody except the envangelicals*.

*I'm not going to call them scholars, their approach is deeply dishonest and not at all scholarly.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I reiterate that the orthodox church is the one that survived.

But isn't that classic survivorship bias. We consider it to be orthodox because it is the version that survived. If a different version of Christianity had been the one that survived we'd consider that to be the orthodox.

[jeremyp]

But isn't that classic survivorship bias.

No.

It's how I define "orthodox". When I say "the orthodox church" I mean the one that survived, no more or less. I'm not claiming it was better or more true than any of the branches that are dead.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

1:The two statements don't look mutually exclusive

Statements don’t need to be mutually exclusive for you to infer or imply the wrong conclusion nonetheless. Some historians likely do believe miracles happened, but not because they’re historians. You may as well have said that some historians are jugglers too for all the two parts of that statement have to do with each other

2: You've committed another horses laugh fallacy with your guff about Tooth fairies and physicists.

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the difference between a horse’s laugh fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum fallacy? The physicists and Tooth Fairy example is an analogy – a concept you’ve never been able to grasp either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Statements don’t need to be mutually exclusive for you to infer or imply the wrong conclusion nonetheless. Some historians likely do believe miracles happened, but not because they’re historians. You may as well have said that some historians are jugglers too for all the two parts of that statement have to do with each other

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the difference between a horse’s laugh fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum fallacy? The physicists and Tooth Fairy example is an analogy – a concept you’ve never been able to grasp either.

If it's analogy H, then we can add a third problem with your post....Bad analogy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If it's analogy H, then we can add a third problem with your post....Bad analogy.

The first two supposed "problems" weren't problems for the reasons I explained to you and you have ignored, and the third "problem" isn't a problem because you've made no argument to justify that claim. 

[ProfessorDavey]

No.

It's how I define "orthodox". When I say "the orthodox church" I mean the one that survived, no more or less. I'm not claiming it was better or more true than any of the branches that are dead.

But then why don't you just call it the surviving doctrine or surviving church rather than using the term orthodox, which has a rather different definition - specifically in religious terms meaning the 'true' or 'correct' doctrine, as opposed to heterodox or heretical doctrines. To consider something to be orthodox (in the sense of being true) simply because it survived is surely a classic example of survivorship bias.

[Maeght]

Mark, Matthew, Luke, John.

That is the order agreed by almost all real scholars. Most of those real scholars, by the way, are or were Christians. The arguments for that order are not irrefutable but they point to it as being highly probable.

Why are you so invested in the idea that Matthew came first?
It has to the satisfaction of almost everybody except the envangelicals*.

*I'm not going to call them scholars, their approach is deeply dishonest and not at all scholarly.

I understand that the scholarly consensus is that Mark was first followed by Mathew and Luke with Q as another source for them (two source hypothesis). I'm also aware that there are other hypothesis such as the Two Gospel hypothesis. understand there are non evangelical scholars who don't accept the two source hypothesis. I don't think i would say that the order had been established exactly - and certainly Spud hasn't in his posts, which were what i was really referring to.

[Spud]

The orthodox church is the one established by the eyewitnesses.

[Nearly Sane]

The orthodox church is the one established by the eyewitnesses.

Bollocks

[Spud]

Mark, Matthew, Luke, John.

That is the order agreed by almost all real scholars. Most of those real scholars, by the way, are or were Christians. The arguments for that order are not irrefutable but they point to it as being highly probable.

Why are you so invested in the idea that Matthew came first?
It has to the satisfaction of almost everybody except the envangelicals*.

*I'm not going to call them scholars, their approach is deeply dishonest and not at all scholarly.

Have you studied the wording of Mark 2:9-11 and compared it with the equivalent verses in Matthew? In particular the words "to the paralytic" and "take up your bed".
Mark uses both phrases twice. The question is, how did he come to insert them in verse 9 where they are out of place, and then in verses 10-11 where they fit perfectly?

[Maeght]

Have you studied the wording of Mark 2:9-11 and compared it with the equivalent verses in Matthew? In particular the words "to the paralytic" and "take up your bed".
Mark uses both phrases twice. The question is, how did he come to insert them in verse 9 where they are out of place, and then in verses 10-11 where they fit perfectly?

How is it out of place in verse 9?

[Spud]

How is it out of place in verse 9?

It would be odd for Jesus to use the phrase "to the paralytic" in the presence of the person he was referring to, while speaking to the scribes: "which is easier: to say to the paralytic, your sins are forgiven...". Rather, Jesus would have used the words recorded in Matthew: "Which is easier: to say, 'your sins are forgiven...'. The phrase belongs in v10 where the narrator uses it: "he said to the paralytic...".

"Pick up your mat" doesn't make sense placed before "and walk":
"...or to say, rise, pick up your mat and walk?".
But it was clearly part of Jesus' command in v11: "rise, pick up your mat and go home".

It would be very odd for Mark, if he was composing the story, to use two phrases first in their wrong context and then in their correct context! It's much more likely that his source used the phrases correctly and that Mark inserted them incorrectly by mistake or in trying to expand his source.

In which case why would we look any further for Mark's source, than Matthew?

Edit: Actually, Mark at this point is following Luke not Matthew, so his source is therefore Luke, who added the details about letting the man down through the roof. But Luke has copied Matthew's wording for the dialogue in the passage.

[Maeght]

It would be odd for Jesus to use the phrase "to the paralytic" in the presence of the person he was referring to, while speaking to the scribes: "which is easier: to say to the paralytic, your sins are forgiven...". Certainly Jesus would have used the words given in Matthew: "Which is easier: to say, 'your sins are forgiven...'. The phrase belongs in v10 where the narrator uses it: "he said to the paralytic...".

"Pick up your mat" doesn't make sense placed before "and walk":
"...or to say, rise pick up your mat and walk?".
But it was clearly part of Jesus' command in v11: "rise, pick up your mat and go home".

It would be very odd for Mark, if he was composing the story, to use two phrases first in their wrong context and then in their correct context! It's much more likely that his source used the phrases correctly and that Mark inserted them incorrectly by mistake or in trying to expand his source.

In which case why would we look any further for Mark's source, than Matthew?

Don't think referring to the paralytic is odd at all if it was referring to paralytics in general rather than just that one who was there.

Pick up your mat before walking away makes sense.

Don't see anything out of context or odd.

[Spud]

Don't think referring to the paralytic is odd at all if it was referring to paralytics in general rather than just that one who was there.

Pick up your mat before walking away makes sense.

Don't see anything out of context or odd.

Sure - if you change the wording, like some contemporary translations have done, you can get it to make sense.

[Maeght]

Sure - if you change the wording, like some contemporary translations have done, you can get it to make sense.

The wording you have quoted makes sense.

[Spud]

The wording you have quoted makes sense.

Then why have some translations changed the wording?

You guys talk about not knowing what the originals said and how they might have changed over time, yet when presented with a real life example of that happening, you deny it.

[Maeght]

Then why have some translations changed the wording?

You guys talk about not knowing what the originals said and how they might have changed over time, yet when presented with a real life example of that happening, you deny it.

You'll have to ask the people who translated it.

You haven't made a convincing argument, that 's why.

[ProfessorDavey]

The orthodox church is the one established by the eyewitnesses.

That would be judaism then - given that the most of the claimed eyewitnesses didn't establish a new religion, they comfortably continued to follow judaism.

[ProfessorDavey]

I understand that the scholarly consensus is that Mark was first followed by Mathew and Luke with Q as another source for them (two source hypothesis). I'm also aware that there are other hypothesis such as the Two Gospel hypothesis. understand there are non evangelical scholars who don't accept the two source hypothesis. I don't think i would say that the order had been established exactly - and certainly Spud hasn't in his posts, which were what i was really referring to.

True, but a couple of points.

First the textual analysis theories seem to be predicated on an assumption that we are comparing originals - but we aren't as we don't have the originals. We are comparing fragments and complete texts from much later and we know that versions of the gospels were co-circulating together within a single folio from family early on (as we have early sets of fragments including more than one gospel).

So this would provide ample opportunity for cross reference and editing to occur one to another. We also can be pretty certain that copyists won't just have been copying a single gospel but possibly all of them at the same time. Again ample opportunity for a bit of 'neatening up' or even making errors based on the text in one of the other gospels (that they'd just copied).

Second point - we have the most extensive set of early fragments from John, the gospel considered to have been written last. And we have the fewest early fragments from Mark, the gospel written first. Please understand that I'm not making a claim that the standard scholarly order (Mark, Matthew/Luke, John) isn't correct, but we need to recognise that we have virtually nothing of Mark, in terms of actual text that is earlier than about 350-400.

[Maeght]

True, but a couple of points.

First the textual analysis theories seem to be predicated on an assumption that we are comparing originals - but we aren't as we don't have the originals. We are comparing fragments and complete texts from much later and we know that versions of the gospels were co-circulating together within a single folio from family early on (as we have early sets of fragments including more than one gospel).

So this would provide ample opportunity for cross reference and editing to occur one to another. We also can be pretty certain that copyists won't just have been copying a single gospel but possibly all of them at the same time. Again ample opportunity for a bit of 'neatening up' or even making errors based on the text in one of the other gospels (that they'd just copied).

Second point - we have the most extensive set of early fragments from John, the gospel considered to have been written last. And we have the fewest early fragments from Mark, the gospel written first. Please understand that I'm not making a claim that the standard scholarly order (Mark, Matthew/Luke, John) isn't correct, but we need to recognise that we have virtually nothing of Mark, in terms of actual text that is earlier than about 350-400.

Indeed - all factors as to why I think it is going too far to say the order has been established. Lots of hypothesis and lots of room for speculation. On a wider point I think the Gospels need to be seen in the context of other writings of the time, commonly beliefs of the time and the understanding of phrases such as Son of God and Messiah at the time.

[jeremyp]

But then why don't you just call it the surviving doctrine or surviving church

Well it's not my term. It's what Christians call it. Obviously, they do imbue their v version of Christianity with some special truth. But the reality is it is just the version of Christianity that has survived.

rather than using the term orthodox, which has a rather different definition - specifically in religious terms meaning the 'true' or 'correct' doctrine, as opposed to heterodox or heretical doctrines. To consider something to be orthodox (in the sense of being true) simply because it survived is surely a classic example of survivorship bias.

"Orthodox" does not mean "true". I would agree that many Christians assume it does and that they apply survivorship bias to their assessment.

[jeremyp]

I understand that the scholarly consensus is that Mark was first followed by Mathew and Luke with Q as another source for them (two source hypothesis). I'm also aware that there are other hypothesis such as the Two Gospel hypothesis. understand there are non evangelical scholars who don't accept the two source hypothesis. I don't think i would say that the order had been established exactly - and certainly Spud hasn't in his posts, which were what i was really referring to.

You didn't read all of my post. I qualified my assertion thus:

"The arguments for that order are not irrefutable but they point to it as being highly probable."