Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

I say we do have the original version.

No we don't - not even close. The earliest version we have for virtually all of Mark is from about CE350 and we have no idea how this version has been altered, edited, amended compared to the original purportedly from about 250 years earlier.

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?

Complete unevidenced speculation and effectively a faith based position rather than an evidenced one.

We do have the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, but these are from CE350 at the earliest and they are certainly not the 'finished products' as the editing process continues into even later manuscripts, with these Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus missing significant amounts of material that suddenly appear later. The most notable being the ending of Mark, but there are numerous other omissions etc. So we know that the process of adapting, editing and amending the gospels was still going strong well into the 4th and 5thC. Why on earth would you conclude that these documents tell us what was in the original from 250 years earlier still.

Bottom line - we don't have the original. We do have much later versions which demonstrate a huge amount of variations, editing, additions, deletions etc so it is reasonable to conclude that this process of varying, editing, additions, deletions occurred also in the hundreds of years where we don't have actual text and therefore that the original is likely to have been very different to the versions we actually have.

So until and unless we get earlier versions we do not know and cannot know what was originally written.

[Maeght]

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 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 could not be a coincidence or the result of collusion.
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.

Because we don't have the originals we don't know what stories were woven into them to make them more convincing in an attempt to convert more people. Often when people tell stories they exaggerate and/or misremember. If an exaggerated story is more effective then that continues and gets passed on and exaggerated further in the retelling. Just because stories contain some accurate factual details it doesn't mean that all details are factual.

[Spud]

Complete unevidenced speculation and effectively a faith based position rather than an evidenced one....So until and unless we get earlier versions we do not know and cannot know what was originally written.

If we can work out the most primitive form of the gospel story and it turns out to have a recognizable structure whose continuity is intact, it is not reasonable to speculate that it has been modified over time.

[Spud]

Because we don't have the originals we don't know what stories were woven into them to make them more convincing in an attempt to convert more people. Often when people tell stories they exaggerate and/or misremember. If an exaggerated story is more effective then that continues and gets passed on and exaggerated further in the retelling. Just because stories contain some accurate factual details it doesn't mean that all details are factual.

The corruption process (like Chinese Whispers) is not selective - it doesn't allow fine detail to be preserved and at the same time, the accounts of events to be exaggerated so that they become miracles.

[jeremyp]

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.

Of course not. The narrator would have used a Greek word. But I don't see anything wrong with the story as written and as translated by Mark.

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.

This is ridiculous. He was making a deliberate point to the scribes. He's bound to use the exact same words to the paralytic man. It's part of his point.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's hard to claim that the gospel authors were mistaken. This is because they are accurate in so much of the fine detail.

Actually the level of detail, including the use of direct quotes strikes me as highly suspicious and actually provides support for the notion that the accounts were highly embellished rather than being accurate.

So the accounts include all these names of people, all these direct quotes etc. So that could only be plausible if there was someone systematically taking down these details in live time. Going around checking who this person was or that person was. Accurately writing down the exact words spoken. So who on earth was doing this - you cannot create the written equivalent of a fly on the wall documentary, without a fly on the wall accurately recording everything.

And it goes further - there are passages in the gospels where there was only a couple of people present, yet still we are led to believe that someone was accurately recording what was said - not just in general terms, but as direct quotes.

[jeremyp]

Sorry Jeremy, you are wrong.

Don't talk bollocks. You pretty much agree with me judging by your previous posts.

Orthodoxy, in its original Greek (the language most relevant to the development of the early church) means 'correct' 'true' or 'right' opinion

But we in the 21st century are using it in our current sense. The etymology is of no import. My dictionary says "authorised or generally accepted theory or doctrine or practice". That seems to me to for the orthodox version of Christianity i.e. the one that all of today's factions stems from.

[jeremyp]

Whether the author was Mark (that is, John Mark, mentioned in the epistles)

Which epistle mentions John Mark as the author of the eponymous gospel?

Having determined who was the original composer, you then examine his text to establish whether there is an underlying narrative.

Well that's a bit of a problem: we do not know who the authors of the gospels are, nor most of the other books of the Bible. You haven't got to the end of step 1 yet.

[ProfessorDavey]

The corruption process (like Chinese Whispers) is not selective - it doesn't allow fine detail to be preserved and at the same time, the accounts of events to be exaggerated so that they become miracles.

See my post above.

It is extremely common for the process of translation of events by word of mouth to add details that didn't exist and weren't part of the original account. In fact the inclusion of huge amounts of detail even in first hand eye witness accounts is often a sign that the account is inaccurate or has been embellished - simply because people tend to remember the key elements but don't remember (or misremember) fine detail.

[jeremyp]

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

No it isn't.

If you don't know the author, you just reduce your estimate of how reliable it is.

[ProfessorDavey]

But we in the 21st century are using it in our current sense. The etymology is of no import. My dictionary says "authorised or generally accepted theory or doctrine or practice". That seems to me to for the orthodox version of Christianity i.e. the one that all of today's factions stems from.

But we aren't discussing how the word orthodox might be defined and used now, but how it would have been used in the first few centuries CE - and those people would have defined orthodox as being right, true or correct - because that's what it means in Greek, the very language they would have been using.

That we have a different meaning nigh on 2000 years later is irrelevant - the battle was around which version of the early church was able to claim that their version was right, true or correct (i.e. orthodox), and each side would believe their version was orthodox and the alternative versions were heterodox or heretical. Only once that battle had been won was the notion of one of those versions being orthodox and the others heterodox or heretical settled - hence survivorship bias. Prior to that battle being won you couldn't reasonable conclude which version was orthodox (i.e. right, true or correct) - because they all genuinely thought they were.

[jeremyp]

Further on the subject of authorship:

If you read an account of 9/11 by a named author who was verifiably present on the day or an anonymous account that doesn't cite any sources and was probably written in 2023, which would you trust more to get the details correct?

[jeremyp]

But we aren't discussing how the word orthodox might be defined and used now

No, we were actually just using it to describe a particular branch of Christianity, that survived the first few decades. Nobody claimed they were using the term in any antiquated sense.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, we were actually just using it to describe a particular branch of Christianity, that survived the first few decades. Nobody claimed they were using the term in any antiquated sense.

I was - hence the notion that the 'winners' in the battle of orthodoxy then wrote about their opponents as being heretics. And we know that history is written by the winners. Had the other side won, no doubt we would describe them as orthodox and view that we consider orthodox to be heretical.

I'm struggling to understand why a discussion about the development of the early church would not consider the definition of orthodox to be what the early church would consider it to be, rather than what it may have evolved to be defined as in a different language 2000 years later.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

"accurate in so much fine detail" - and inaccurate in thousands of other cases. 'Mark's' geography is all wrong, Jesus' ideas about how a farmer goes to sow valuable seed is ludicrous, and the 'fine detail' of the Resurrection accounts contradict each other in every instance. Matthew describes the 'miracle' of the angel coming down in front of the women and rolling away the stone, and causing the guards to faint in the process, whereas Mark doesn't mention this at all. The women (different quantity) just see the stone rolled away, and a young man sitting there. So who witnessed the miracle of the descending angel, and why did Mark not describe his dazzling, supernatural appearance (particularly if he was borrowing his material from Mattthew, which is your other hobby-horse)?

[Spud]

Of course not. The narrator would have used a Greek word. But I don't see anything wrong with the story as written and as translated by Mark.
This is ridiculous. He was making a deliberate point to the scribes. He's bound to use the exact same words to the paralytic man. It's part of his point.

I think the best I can do to explain this is to refer you to my source. I'm attaching a photo showing a page from The Making of Mark (H Riley), with the relevant section highlighted.

[Spud]

Which epistle mentions John Mark as the author of the eponymous gospel?

I'll come back to this.

Well that's a bit of a problem: we do not know who the authors of the gospels are, nor most of the other books of the Bible. You haven't got to the end of step 1 yet.

I meant which of the three Synoptics was composed first.

[Maeght]

The corruption process (like Chinese Whispers) is not selective - it doesn't allow fine detail to be preserved and at the same time, the accounts of events to be exaggerated so that they become miracles.

Disagree.

[Gordon]

The corruption process (like Chinese Whispers) is not selective - it doesn't allow fine detail to be preserved and at the same time, the accounts of events to be exaggerated so that they become miracles.

How can you know this? How can you know that any 'fine detail' isn't a later addition? How can you know what is or isn't an exaggeration or lie?

The downside of having no real provenance is that you really don't know very much at all.

[Spud]

"accurate in so much fine detail" - and inaccurate in thousands of other cases.

Thousands?

'Mark's' geography is all wrong, Jesus' ideas about how a farmer goes to sow valuable seed is ludicrous, and the 'fine detail' of the Resurrection accounts contradict each other in every instance. Matthew describes the 'miracle' of the angel coming down in front of the women and rolling away the stone, and causing the guards to faint in the process, whereas Mark doesn't mention this at all. The women (different quantity) just see the stone rolled away, and a young man sitting there. So who witnessed the miracle of the descending angel, and why did Mark not describe his dazzling, supernatural appearance (particularly if he was borrowing his material from Mattthew, which is your other hobby-horse)?

John Mark's mother lived in Jerusalem, and the disciples used her house to meet in. See the account in Acts where Peter escapes from prison and goes there. It's possible therefore that John Mark had limited knowledge of Galilee, where many of the events took place. In the account attributed to him, we are given details such as the name Bartimaeus and the two sons of Simon of Cyrene (one of whom, Rufus, may have been known to the church in Rome, for whom Mark is said to have written. Paul also refers to a man called Rufus in Romans 16); both occur during Jesus' final weeks in the region in and around Jerusalem, and both are absent from Matthew and Luke. If the author of Mark was John Mark, that he was from Jerusalem would explain why he could give details that would have been known in the church there. However, we would expect that details relating to regions he did not know might be inaccurate.
The parable of the sower isn't meant to be a farming lesson. The word is actually "one sowing", not farmer.
Regarding Matthew's resurrection account: where do angels come from, and who else would have rolled away the stone? The women only needed to see him sitting on the stone for it to be inferred that he came down from heaven, rolled the stone away and sat on it; so there is no contradiction. Mark's description of the stone is less natural than Matthew's, and is a reference back to that. Mark's 'young man dressed in white' is a description similar to the description of the angels in Acts 1; the white clothing, as well as sitting posture and his words to the women, are in agreement with Matthew. Remember that Mark conflated Matthew and Luke and at times hints that he has knowledge of John's gospel.

[Spud]

How can you know this? How can you know that any 'fine detail' isn't a later addition? How can you know what is or isn't an exaggeration or lie?

The downside of having no real provenance is that you really don't know very much at all.

From Peter Williams' lecture entitled, "New evidence the gospels were based on eyewitness accounts" here is a list of the types of detail which, he argues, the gospels "get right":
Place names
Peoples' names
Plants
Shape of the houses
Shape of the temple
Coinage
Social stratification
Religious setting.
This indicates that the sources were not physically or temporally distant from the events.

Aside from his material, I would add that the later gospels, Luke and Mark, do add material to the earlier one, Matthew. Also, Matthew has itself been edited. But when looking at these additions, we can see that extra detail is sometimes  authentic and sometimes not. In Mark, for example, the author often expands a text. For example, in the healing of the paralytic, Mark says that the man was carried by four men, whereas Matthew and Luke don't give that detail. There isn't any way of knowing whether Mark has assumed that there were four, one for each corner of the bed he was on, or whether he got the detail from an eyewitness. Either way it doesn't necessarily affect the truth of the story, he could just have been glossing it up for his readers.
The detail in the list above however is verifiably correct, so I am sure that although some of the detail in the gospels is a later addition, the conclusion that Peter Williams makes still seems justified.
An example he gives, which I shared a few days ago, is how, in the feeding of the 5000, some incidental details in John and Luke that would not convey any meaning if taken in isolation, do in fact explain each other when one is read in the light of the other. This would indicate that it isn't an exaggeration or lie, but was what the people telling the story saw. I'm referring to the disciples making the people sit down in groups of 50, which practically speaking enabled them to be fed, but also it tells us how they knew there were 5000. Also how the location of the incident, stated by Luke, explains Jesus' question to Philip, who was from that town, recorded in John's account.

[Gordon]

From Peter Williams' lecture entitled, "New evidence the gospels were based on eyewitness accounts" here is a list of the types of detail which, he argues, the gospels "get right":
Place names
Peoples' names
Plants
Shape of the houses
Shape of the temple
Coinage
Social stratification
Religious setting.
This indicates that the sources were not physically or temporally distant from the events.

For crying out loud Spud - there is nothing in this list of stuff that is remarkable: I spent a lot of time in Edinburgh over 30 years ago and could give a fairly good account of similar stuff about the place and people I knew back then. I could also ask someone to tell me about Edinburgh and just repeat what they said. But so what? If, however, I chucked in a few miracles as well you'd be stupid to believe them on the basis that I knew stuff about Edinburgh.

Aside from his material, I would add that the later gospels, Luke and Mark, do add material to the earlier one, Matthew. Also, Matthew has itself been edited. But when looking at these additions, we can see that extra detail is sometimes  authentic and sometimes not. In Mark, for example, the author often expands a text. For example, in the healing of the paralytic, Mark says that the man was carried by four men, whereas Matthew and Luke don't give that detail. There isn't any way of knowing whether Mark has assumed that there were four, one for each corner of the bed he was on, or whether he got the detail from an eyewitness. Either way it doesn't necessarily affect the truth of the story, he could just have been glossing it up for his readers.
The detail in the list above however is verifiably correct, so I am sure that although some of the detail in the gospels is a later addition, the conclusion that Peter Williams makes still seems justified.
An example he gives, which I shared a few days ago, is how, in the feeding of the 5000, some incidental details in John and Luke that would not convey any meaning if taken in isolation, do in fact explain each other when one is read in the light of the other. This would indicate that it isn't an exaggeration or lie, but was what the people telling the story saw. I'm referring to the disciples making the people sit down in groups of 50, which practically speaking enabled them to be fed, but also it tells us how they knew there were 5000. Also how the location of the incident, stated by Luke, explains Jesus' question to Philip, who was from that town, recorded in John's account.

How do you know the so-called 'feeding of the 5,000' isn't just fictional propaganda? You're begging the question here and are presuming far too much.

[Aruntraveller]

JK Rowling does a very good description of a Railway station, ergo Hogwarts is real.

[Spud]

For crying out loud Spud - there is nothing in this list of stuff that is remarkable: I spent a lot of time in Edinburgh over 30 years ago and could give a fairly good account of similar stuff about the place and people I knew back then. I could also ask someone to tell me about Edinburgh and just repeat what they said. But so what? If, however, I chucked in a few miracles as well you'd be stupid to believe them on the basis that I knew stuff about Edinburgh.

How do you know the so-called 'feeding of the 5,000' isn't just fictional propaganda? You're begging the question here and are presuming far too much.

You've ruled out mistakes then, with your example from your memory of experiences in Edinburgh.
The example I just explained from the feeding of the 5000 rules out that they made the story up.
So that's mistakes and lies dealt with.
The last theory is legend - professor Davey's preferred one. Well if you told your stories to your children, would they be able to write out all the details, or would they just remember the basics?

[Gordon]

You've ruled out mistakes then, with your example from your memory of experiences in Edinburgh.

No it doesn't: I could have very vivid memories of stuff that happened in Edinburgh 30 odd years ago - and I could still be mistaken.

The example I just explained from the feeding of the 5000 rules out that they made the story up.
So that's mistakes and lies dealt with.

Nope: that story could well be fiction and you can't exclude that, and then there is the unbelievable nature of the claim (of feeding 5000 people using the equivalent of a large packet of fish fingers and a loaf). The problem you have is that you believe this claim as a matter of religious faith and as such you are reluctant, or unable, to consider that it might not be true.

The last theory is legend - professor Davey's preferred one. Well if you told your stories to your children, would they be able to write out all the details, or would they just remember the basics?

If I told the same story often enough and stressed the points I wanted them to remember then I sure they could - and I've no doubt they would elaborate too. I take it you do understand that people can write incredibly detailed fiction?