Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

The orthodox church is the one established by the eyewitnesses.

Actually, it is pretty certain that it is not. The church established by the "eye witnesses"* was based in Jerusalem and had doctrinal differences with the wider church as established by Paul. The Jerusalem church disappeared when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70CE leaving just the Pauline version.

*by "eye witnesses" I mean those who knew Jesus. I don't think there were any eye witnesses to the resurrection.

[jeremyp]

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?

Here's the passage in Mark. I've added a bit more for context.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 ‘Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, ‘Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”, or to say, “Stand up and take your mat and walk”? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic— 11 ‘I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.’

So, in the first case, he was talking to the scribes. In the second case, he was talking to the paralytic. The story is as much about Jesus' relationship with the scribes and Judaism as it is about another miracle. The repetition is absolutely fine.

[Maeght]

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."

I did. It was the use of the word established I was questioning. Seems to me to imply too much certainty. But maybe that's just me. It was first used by Spud and it was his use of the word I was more aiming at than yours - it was his post I replied to after all - and he was referring to a different order than the consensus.

[Spud]

Here's the passage in Mark. I've added a bit more for context.

So, in the first case, he was talking to the scribes. In the second case, he was talking to the paralytic. The story is as much about Jesus' relationship with the scribes and Judaism as it is about another miracle. The repetition is absolutely fine.

Thanks. Imagine a doctor talking to a student in front of their patient, and the doctor says, "which treatment is less painful for the patient?" That would be acceptable use of the definite article. But in the scenario in Mark would Jesus have spoken to the scribes as a professional? Maybe, but would he have used the word paralytic? I think not. However, the narrator certainly would have used the word paralytic in referring to him, in verse 11.
There is also the odd use of 'pick up your mat' before 'and walk' (v9). Why would Jesus mention picking up the mat to the scribes? It only fits in the command to the man where it is linked with going home.
Seems obvious that Mark lifted the two phrases from what is in v10-11 and inserted them into v9.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Sorry Jeremy, you are wrong.

Orthodoxy, in its original Greek (the language most relevant to the development of the early church) means 'correct' 'true' or 'right' opinion - we might use the word in a slightly different way today, but during the battle for orthodoxy in the early church they would consider orthodox to be correct, true or right.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/orthodox

[ProfessorDavey]

Thanks. Imagine a doctor talking to a student in front of their patient, and the doctor says, "which treatment is less painful for the patient?" That would be acceptable use of the definite article. But in the scenario in Mark would Jesus have spoken to the scribes as a professional? Maybe, but would he have used the word paralytic? I think not. However, the narrator certainly would have used the word paralytic in referring to him, in verse 11.
There is also the odd use of 'pick up your mat' before 'and walk' (v9). Why would Jesus mention picking up the mat to the scribes? It only fits in the command to the man where it is linked with going home.
Seems obvious that Mark lifted the two phrases from what is in v10-11 and inserted them into v9.

Spud - can you stop writing as if it is clear that someone called Mark actually wrote any of this. We do not know who the authors were and attribution to Mark etc happened only about 200CE.

And if you are talking about the gospel attributed to Mark, then the sections you are describing will be from versions from the 4thC or later as there are no earlier extant fragments including these verses.

So how can you tell whether the anomalies you claim are due to the original (unknown) author or are down to edits, additions, deletions etc from much later copyists (also unknown).

[Spud]

Spud - can you stop writing as if it is clear that someone called Mark actually wrote any of this. We do not know who the authors were and attribution to Mark etc happened only about 200CE.

And if you are talking about the gospel attributed to Mark, then the sections you are describing will be from versions from the 4thC or later as there are no earlier extant fragments including these verses.

So how can you tell whether the anomalies you claim are due to the original (unknown) author or are down to edits, additions, deletions etc from much later copyists (also unknown).

Whether the author was Mark (that is, John Mark, mentioned in the epistles) or not is probably for another discussion? Can we call him Mark for now?

If there are three accounts which share some common material then one of the accounts had to be the originator of that  common material.
Having determined who was the original composer, you then examine his text to establish whether there is an underlying narrative. Having found one you will then look for interruptions in the continuity of the narrative. If extra material has been inserted, we can say it was done by either the author of the narrative, or by someone else. Having determined which parts have been edited in, we can then gather the rest  so as to compile a prototype. This has been done for the synoptics. The originator was found to be Matthew, and 'proto-Matthew' was then extrapolated from the Matthew that we have in our Bible.
Luke was found to have used Matthew (rearranging much of it and adding more from his other sources), and Mark then used the other two. The same process can be applied to Luke and Mark as was applied to Matthew, to find which parts they have added in.
In the case of Mark 2:9-12, the author clearly uses the two phrases 'to the paralytic' and 'pick up your mat' twice. We have to work out which of the instances is out of place and which fits the narrative.
So your question becomes, was proto-Matthew the original version of the synoptic trilogy, and because it is a coherent continuous narrative, we can say that it was indeed 'the first gospel'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whether the author was Mark (that is, John Mark, mentioned in the epistles) or not is probably for another discussion? Can we call him Mark for now?

Why should it be for another discussion. It seems critical to understand what we know (or do not know) about the author or authors of the gospel attributed later to Mark (and the other gospels of course).

This also relates to the timeline from the purported events of approx. CE30 to the potential original dates for the gospels (approx. 75-110CE) and on to the point where we actually have text to consider - from about 200CE onwards, and for the gospel attributed to Mark pretty well nothing until after CE300.

Only by understanding these issues can we really begin to understand the nature of what we are reading. To imply that the text we have is written by Mark in 75CE is completely lacking in evidence and naive in the extreme.

What we have is a multi-generational evolution, likely with numerous authors, editor and key decision makers who decided what should be in the 'orthodox' canon.

[Aruntraveller]

relatively undistorted.

Let's get those weights out and do some heavy lifting.

To borrow a word "pish".

[Spud]

Hi professor,
Are there two separate issues here? One, the identity of the author, which isn't necessarily important; two, whether the text we have was written in the AD60s, meaning it was within the lifetime of the witnesses and is relatively undistorted.

[Gordon]

Hi professor,
Are there two separate issues here? One, the identity of the author, which isn't necessarily important;

Don't be daft: it's essential, as is the where and when stuff was recorded/translated/edited.

two, whether the text we have was written in the AD60s, meaning it was within the lifetime of the witnesses and is relatively undistorted.

Even dafter: you presume far too much with justification.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi professor,
Are there two separate issues here? One, the identity of the author, which isn't necessarily important;

It is very important - any serious historical analysis of a textual source material will look to consider the following 'W' questions:

1. Who wrote the text (and that may not be a single person)
2. When was it written and
3. Whether we have the original and if not whether we can be sure that the copy we have is similar to the original
4. Where it was written
5. Why it was written

Only by considering these questions can a historian understand whether the text is a credible source and to what extent it may lack credibility - for example due being written in a biased manner (Who; Why), written a long time after the events with no clear sense of provenance and link to the events (When; Where; Whether).

two, whether the text we have was written in the AD60s, meaning it was within the lifetime of the witnesses and is relatively undistorted.

Several points.

First - serious scholars date the original of the gospel attributed to Mark first appeared around 70CE, so your claim of AD60s (albeit potentially correct) seems disingenuous as few scholars consider it to have been written in the early CE60s.

Secondly in answer to your specific question whether the text we have was written in the AD60s - the answer is definitively, no. The texts we have were written in the 3rdC and 4thC at the earliest. You are eluding to a different question which is whether the text we actually have is the same as the original and if not how dissimilar is it to the original. And here the answer is that we do not know and we cannot know unless much earlier versions turn up.

What we do know is that even as late as the 4thC and 5thC there were major variations in the texts of the gospels - so they were not settled. We also have evidence (e.g. the added to ending of the gospel attributed to Mark) that later writers had no qualms about making major alterations to the text, and if they were doing this in the 4thC then we can have a level of confidence that earlier writers and copyist were doing so too in the 200 years from CE70 when we have no texts to consider.

[Spud]

As long as we have what was originally written, then we don't need to know who wrote it. Correct?

[ProfessorDavey]

As long as we have what was originally written, then we don't need to know who wrote it. Correct?

Well firstly we don't - or rather we do not know (and currently cannot know) that we do have the original version, all we know is that we have versions from centuries later that may, or may not, be close to the original.

But even if we have the original it absolutely matters that we know who wrote it, as it is critical to the question Why. It may not be key to have an actual name, but their motivation and their intended audience in writing is absolutely critical. This will dictate firstly whether there is likely bias and secondly whether the are writing a history or a 'recruitment' document for example.

[Gordon]

As long as we have what was originally written, then we don't need to know who wrote it. Correct?

Incorrect (for fairly obvious reasons).

[Spud]

Well firstly we don't - or rather we do not know (and currently cannot know) that we do have the original version, all we know is that we have versions from centuries later that may, or may not, be close to the original.

Well let's deal with this first. I can make a case for the author of Mark being John Mark, at some point.
I say we do have the original version. I've given my working, but you haven't yet commented to show that you understand it.
First we have to work out the direction of copying between the Synoptics. We find that Matthew is the template for the other two. We must also work out which bits of Matthew were edited in later. Having taken them out, we see that we are left with a narrative that has a definite structure and coherent flow. This is the original foundation for the three finished products that are found in the codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
I suspect you haven't acknowledged this becaus of your belief that Mark was the first to be written?

[Outrider]

As long as we have what was originally written, then we don't need to know who wrote it. Correct?

If we could be confident that we had what was originally written, which we can't, then we'd still need to consider if what was written was true.

So no.

Twice.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Well let's deal with this first. I can make a case for the author of Mark being John Mark, at some point.
I say we do have the original version. I've given my working, but you haven't yet commented to show that you understand it.
First we have to work out the direction of copying between the Synoptics. We find that Matthew is the template for the other two. We must also work out which bits of Matthew were edited in later. Having taken them out, we see that we are left with a narrative that has a definite structure and coherent flow. This is the original foundation for the three finished products that are found in the codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
I suspect you haven't acknowledged this becaus of your belief that Mark was the first to be written?

Just out of interest, what makes you think any of this has anything at all to say to the veracity or otherwise of the Biblical miracle stories? Even if by some remarkable co-incidence a witness to an event had written it down, and even if his original record had survived intact, and even if we had a perfect understanding now of the meanings and nuances of the language involved, still you’d have a huge task ahead of you to establish first that supernaturalism is a phenomenon at all, and second that the witness wasn’t lying, duped or genuinely mistaken. How would you propose to do any of that even with a perfect record to hand?   

[Spud]

Spud,

Just out of interest, what makes you think any of this has anything at all to say to the veracity or otherwise of the Biblical miracle stories? Even if by some remarkable co-incidence a witness to an event had written it down, and even if his original record had survived intact, and even if we had a perfect understanding now of the meanings and nuances of the language involved, still you’d have a huge task ahead of you to establish first that supernaturalism is a phenomenon at all, and second that the witness wasn’t lying, duped or genuinely mistaken. How would you propose to do any of that even with a perfect record to hand?

By 'duped' do you mean deception or magic tricks?
I think the gospels rule out that possibility, because they confirm for example that the people who were healed really had been disabled by disease, and that Jesus really was dead on the cross. Or the walking on the water, which all the disciples saw.
That leaves us with mistakes and lies, or the stories being made up. Is that right?

[Gordon]

By 'duped' do you mean deception or magic tricks?
I think the gospels rule out that possibility, because they confirm for example that the people who were healed really had been disabled by disease, and that Jesus really was dead on the cross. Or the walking on the water, which all the disciples saw.
That leaves us with mistakes and lies, or the stories being made up. Is that right?

Leaving aside your apparent chronic gullibility, the risks of mistakes and lies (which includes people being 'duped') is your problem: it is for you to say how you have addressed these risks regarding the claims about Jesus that it seems you accept, since the burden of proof is yours.

If you haven't assessed these risks, or have concluded that it's now too late to do so, then these risks remain and are sufficient for some of us to just dismiss the supernatural claims (such as walking on water) out of hand.

[ekim]

If you haven't assessed these risks, or have concluded that it's now too late to do so, then these risks remain and are sufficient for some of us to just dismiss the supernatural claims (such as walking on water) out of hand.

Sorry I think you are wrong.  Here is the evidence ...... https://tinyurl.com/4ectx68h

[Maeght]

By 'duped' do you mean deception or magic tricks?
I think the gospels rule out that possibility, because they confirm for example that the people who were healed really had been disabled by disease, and that Jesus really was dead on the cross. Or the walking on the water, which all the disciples saw.
That leaves us with mistakes and lies, or the stories being made up. Is that right?

Of course the Gospels do that. Means nothing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

By 'duped' do you mean deception or magic tricks?

Yes.

I think the gospels rule out that possibility, because they confirm for example that the people who were healed really had been disabled by disease, and that Jesus really was dead on the cross. Or the walking on the water, which all the disciples saw.

No they don’t. What witnesses saw and what actually happened could be very different – that’s the whole point of a conjuring trick.

That leaves us with mistakes and lies, or the stories being made up. Is that right?

No – see above. It also leave you with the epic a priori problem of demonstrating that “supernatural” is a meaningful term to begin with. 

[Gordon]

Sorry I think you are wrong.  Here is the evidence ...... https://tinyurl.com/4ectx68h

Wow - I find that to be utterly convincing 

I've seen the evidence (and possibly the light!)

[Spud]

Leaving aside your apparent chronic gullibility, the risks of mistakes and lies (which includes people being 'duped') is your problem: it is for you to say how you have addressed these risks regarding the claims about Jesus that it seems you accept, since the burden of proof is yours.

If you haven't assessed these risks, or have concluded that it's now too late to do so, then these risks remain and are sufficient for some of us to just dismiss the supernatural claims (such as walking on water) out of hand.

Ok, I just wanted to clarify that being duped is included in mistakes and lies.

It's hard to claim that the gospel authors were mistaken. This is because they are accurate in so much of the fine detail. They know the most common men and womens' names in that place at that time (this has been confirmed by research). Common names are disambiguated (eg Simon of Cyrene), whereas uncommon names are not (eg Nathaniel). They know the types of tree that grew there, the times when grass would have been green, and when the barley harvest would have just happened.

So if they were competent in details like these, we can't accuse them of incompetence or gullibility in the area of witnessing miracles.

So that leaves dishonesty: were they very clever and making the stories up?
Incidental details can be evidence that they were simply telling us what they saw. For example, in the feeding of the 5000, in John 6, Jesus asks Philip where they could buy bread for the crowd. We wouldn't know why Jesus asked Philip in particular unless we had read Luke's account, which tells us that it took place near Bethsaida. We would also have to go back to John 1, which tells us that Philip was from Bethsaida (and so would know where to buy food).
For the two accounts to explain this otherwise irrelevant detail would be highly unlikely if they were making up the story.
Further, Mark and Luke tell us the method by which the 5000 were counted: sitting them in groups of 50 - about 8 groups per disciple. Would they be likely to make up this method of counting so as to make the story look authentic?

These examples suggest that they were writing what they, or their sources, saw happen.