More on the gospels.

[Spud]

Your argument though – ie, that the added bit somehow has something to say to the veracity or otherwise of the original story – is false.

No. Mark's account helps to understand the problem Jesus had with what was happening at the temple, because he adds "My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations". He quotes Isaiah 56:7 more fully than Matthew, Luke or John. The temple, symbolic of God's presence and favour, was meant to be a beacon for the nations to draw them to the living God. To quote Stuart Bryan, "Israel had turned it into a nationalist symbol of Israel against the nations; they imagined that the temple made them superior in some intrinsic way to the rest of the nations on earth." They thought it protected them from God's wrath, hence Jesus' quote from Jeremiah 7:11.

J Warner Wallace's point is that an eyewitnesses account often raises questions, which are subsequently answered by another eyewitness. The addition here by Mark is suggestive of such a situation.

Not proof, but suggestive of.

Embellish, schembellish. The points made by blue etc are valid in themselves, but I can't see how in the particular instance you  cited. Mark's gospel was written first, and he quotes Isaiah (Septuagint version no doubt) pretty well. Matthew then uses Mark as the basis of his own gospel, and cuts out the bit referring to "for all nations" - for purposes of his own. In part, this is because Matthew's message is particularly directed towards Jews, though he doesn't portray them in a very rosy light.
The peculiarity of Matthew's gospel is that it seems to suggest that Jesus had a message for the Jews alone, and then at the end seems to have changed his mind and adopts a more universalist message. I'm not sure why this is so, but a number of theories have been put forward.

Would this not make more sense if Matthew was the earliest gospel written, during the time when the focus of the apostles' ministry was still Israel? The reason he seems to have changed his mind towards the end is, according to R. Huessy, because Matthew is the first person to write down the gospel and during the course of doing so he realizes that he can no longer call himself a Jew (in the sense that they were God's people) because they had rejected the Messiah.

All in all, these matters don't go any further to sustaining your idea about each gospel corroborating each other: what they do suggest is that each evangelist had his own agenda, through which he was quite prepared to manipulate the materials at his disposal (whether they reflected actual historical truth or not).

[jeremyp]

The addition here by Mark is suggestive of such a situation.

It is well nigh on certain that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied him. You should not be asking why Mark added "for all nations" but why Matthew omitted it.

Would this not make more sense if Matthew was the earliest gospel written

Maybe, but it is much easier to explain most features of the gospels if Mark was written first. For example, Mark has neither the Lord's Prayer nor the Sermon on the Mount. On the other hand, he goes into much more detail about the pigs of Gerasene. You have to ask why Mark would omit two really important pieces of Christian theology but decides more is needed on pigs. Wouldn't it be more likely that Matthew and Luke would edit that story down and add the Semon on the Mount (or Plain) and the Lord's Prayer?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

No. Mark's account helps to understand the problem Jesus had with what was happening at the temple, because he adds "My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations". He quotes Isaiah 56:7 more fully than Matthew, Luke or John. The temple, symbolic of God's presence and favour, was meant to be a beacon for the nations to draw them to the living God. To quote Stuart Bryan, "Israel had turned it into a nationalist symbol of Israel against the nations; they imagined that the temple made them superior in some intrinsic way to the rest of the nations on earth." They thought it protected them from God's wrath, hence Jesus' quote from Jeremiah 7:11.

You’re missing the point still. Adding another detail to an existing story tells you nothing at all about whether or not that original story was true. Whether for example there ever was (or is) a “living God” isn’t elucidated by the bits Mark changed. 

J Warner Wallace's point is that an eyewitnesses account often raises questions, which are subsequently answered by another eyewitness. The addition here by Mark is suggestive of such a situation.

Only if the subsequent author was “another witness” rather than someone who was simply drawing on an existing account, and in any case even if he was he would also have been prone to the risk of mistake. For something prosaic like throwing over the tables of the money lenders it doesn’t matter much, but when you want to claim miracles then it matters a lot.     

Not proof, but suggestive of.

No – see above.

Would this not make more sense if Matthew was the earliest gospel written, during the time when the focus of the apostles' ministry was still Israel? The reason he seems to have changed his mind towards the end is, according to R. Huessy, because Matthew is the first person to write down the gospel and during the course of doing so he realizes that he can no longer call himself a Jew (in the sense that they were God's people) because they had rejected the Messiah.

This has no relevance to the basic problem – subsequent reporting and amendment tell you nothing about the veracity or otherwise of the story that’s been amended. Whether the later author was working to an agenda, just fancied adding a bit more colour, thought he was illuminating what he thought the characters to have intended or just made a transcription error doesn’t matter for that purpose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

J Warner Wallace's point is that...

Incidentally, on the basis of the quick look I had at this chap's website I'd be very cautious if I were you about relying on his ability to reason his way to a conclusion. The quick replies sections I looked at were all flawed in their thinking at best and flat wrong at worst. I can tell you why if you like, but it's not a good idea to build your house on sand. 

[jeremyp]

Spud,

Incidentally, on the basis of the quick look I had at this chap's website I'd be very cautious if I were you about relying on his ability to reason his way to a conclusion. The quick replies sections I looked at were all flawed in their thinking at best and flat wrong at worst. I can tell you why if you like, but it's not a good idea to build your house on sand.

The first article I picked on there to read begin with:

“Christian leaders have been preaching Easter messages for over two thousand years.”

So literally the first sentence of his that I read contains a pretty obvious factual error. It doesn’t bode well.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

The first article I picked on there to read begin with:

“Christian leaders have been preaching Easter messages for over two thousand years.”

So literally the first sentence of his that I read contains a pretty obvious factual error. It doesn’t bode well.

And that's a good as it gets!

[Spud]

Spud,

Incidentally, on the basis of the quick look I had at this chap's website I'd be very cautious if I were you about relying on his ability to reason his way to a conclusion. The quick replies sections I looked at were all flawed in their thinking at best and flat wrong at worst. I can tell you why if you like, but it's not a good idea to build your house on sand.

He does mix up Luke, Matthew and John when talking about the feeding of 5000 and blindfolding episodes in an interview. But the points were otherwise accurate. Also it's tempting to interpret his points as arguments for definitive proof that the gospels are eyewitness testimony - which they are not.

[Spud]

It is well nigh on certain that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke copied him. You should not be asking why Mark added "for all nations" but why Matthew omitted it.
Maybe, but it is much easier to explain most features of the gospels if Mark was written first. For example, Mark has neither the Lord's Prayer nor the Sermon on the Mount. On the other hand, he goes into much more detail about the pigs of Gerasene. You have to ask why Mark would omit two really important pieces of Christian theology but decides more is needed on pigs. Wouldn't it be more likely that Matthew and Luke would edit that story down and add the Semon on the Mount (or Plain) and the Lord's Prayer?

When I write posts here I usually waffle a lot and cut bits out to make them more concise afterwards. Maybe that's what Mark does with Matthew? I won't get stressed about it.

I heard the other day that Mark does have a sort of "Lord's Prayer". It's after Peter notices that the fig tree has withered. Jesus says, "have faith in God etc". See in particular Mark 11:25.

[Roses]

When I write posts here I usually waffle a lot and cut bits out to make them more concise afterwards. Maybe that's what Mark does with Matthew? I won't get stressed about it.

I heard the other day that Mark does have a sort of "Lord's Prayer". It's after Peter notices that the fig tree has withered. Jesus says, "have faith in God", particularly Mark 11:25.

Faith in god can often leave people up the creek without a paddle!

[Spud]

Faith in god can often leave people up the creek without a paddle!

When he also says "believe in your heart that what you ask will happen and it will happen", that doesn't mean what some people think. It does mean that for example, if Brexit is wrong then we should pray for God to overturn it, and he will (not necessarily now but at some point). Satan cannot unite the nations against the church during the millennium, which is now. Meaning God will not allow evil to triumph, so we can indeed pray confidently for something in line with his will.

[Spud]

Spud,

You’re missing the point still. Adding another detail to an existing story tells you nothing at all about whether or not that original story was true. Whether for example there ever was (or is) a “living God” isn’t elucidated by the bits Mark changed. 

Only if the subsequent author was “another witness” rather than someone who was simply drawing on an existing account, and in any case even if he was he would also have been prone to the risk of mistake. For something prosaic like throwing over the tables of the money lenders it doesn’t matter much, but when you want to claim miracles then it matters a lot.     

No – see above.

This has no relevance to the basic problem – subsequent reporting and amendment tell you nothing about the veracity or otherwise of the story that’s been amended. Whether the later author was working to an agenda, just fancied adding a bit more colour, thought he was illuminating what he thought the characters to have intended or just made a transcription error doesn’t matter for that purpose.

Yes I get that. Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.
2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.

[Roses]

When he also says "believe in your heart that what you ask will happen and it will happen", that doesn't mean what some people think. It does mean that for example, if Brexit is wrong then we should pray for God to overturn it, and he will (not necessarily now but at some point). Satan cannot unite the nations against the church during the millennium, which is now. Meaning God will not allow evil to triumph, so we can indeed pray confidently for something in line with his will.

Belief is god has done much more harm than belief in Satan.

[BeRational]

Yes I get that. Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.
2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.

No it doesn't, unless you allow this sort of thing for ALL.

You only think this gives a degree of confidence (which it does not) when it coincides with your beliefs. You would be quick to dismiss claims of equal uselessness if they supported some belief you do not share.

[Spud]

No it doesn't, unless you allow this sort of thing for ALL.

You only think this gives a degree of confidence (which it does not) when it coincides with your beliefs. You would be quick to dismiss claims of equal uselessness if they supported some belief you do not share.

Could you give some examples?

[BeRational]

Could you give some examples?

Do you believe in alien abduction?

[Gordon]

Yes I get that. Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.

How do you know that claims about ordinarily events are always recounted accurately?

Even if they are then they are just trivially true, and if not then it doesn't really matter very much. For example, if I claim that yesterday afternoon I motorcycled to a local supermarket (Tesco) and bought wine and coffee then in the great scheme of things it doesn't really matter much if I was lying: either way it isn't of major consequence whether I'm telling the truth or not.

However, if I then develop this account to add that while in Tesco I met someone who I knew to have died last year then the matter isn't quite so trivial any more: either I am wrong, and I have misunderstood or been misinformed so I need to check the details, or I am correct and that I did indeed encounter a dead person, and this would be a remarkable claim. I'd be surprised, Spud, that just because you believed my account of motorcycling to Tesco (which is actually true) you'd then conclude that my claim to have met a dead person must also be true just because you believed my true (but trivial) account about motorcycling to Tesco.

As Carl Sagan said 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.

See above.

[Enki]

Yes I get that. Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.
2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.

Plenty of people could describe a magic trick accurately from their point of view without realising it is a magic trick. The same people could, no doubt, describe ordinary events accurately. Why should this suggest that what they had seen was not a magic trick?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Yes I get that.

But if you do get that, why suggest that changes to the story made by subsequent authors in some way had something to say to the veracity or otherwise of the original story?

Re: your point about something prosaic, the thing is that if the gospels combine to give an overall picture of ordinary events that makes sense, as put forward here, then:
1. We can view them as reliable in their ability to relay information accurately.
2. This begs the question, why would they be accurate in describing ordinary events, but inaccurate in describing a miracle? Yes I know, nothing is proved by this but it does inspire a degree of confidence.

Simple really. If there are lots of independent accounts of, say, what people had for breakfast, maybe someone has found an ancient bowl of cornflakes etc and the event itself was prosaic then there’s no particular reason to doubt the account. There could of course have been a comprehensive conspiracy to make us think they had cornflakes when in fact they had porridge – by planting lots of fake stories about cornflakes, hiding half-eaten bowls of cornflakes in caves etc – but in general there’d be no good reason to doubt the story “these people had cornflakes for breakfast”.

Now consider a miracle story that contradicts entirely everything we observe about the way the world works, that no-one wrote down at the time and was only eventually recorded decades later by people who weren’t there, that could be explained instead by various non-miraculous options, that occurred when supernatural answers of various sorts were considered credible and so were commonplace, and that even if they weren’t deliberately corrupted in the various re-tellings and translations could still be the result of honest mistake etc. Can you see now why there’d be very good reasons to doubt the veracity of the conclusion “it was a miracle” that you wouldn’t have to do for the story “we had cornflakes for breakfast”?       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

He does mix up Luke, Matthew and John when talking about the feeding of 5000 and blindfolding episodes in an interview. But the points were otherwise accurate. Also it's tempting to interpret his points as arguments for definitive proof that the gospels are eyewitness testimony - which they are not.

Have a look at the quick answer boxes where he tries various arguments go for "god" and gets his basic reasoning wrong. 

[Spud]

Thanks chaps, give me a second, there's one of me and several of you!

[Spud]

Spud,

But if you do get that, why suggest that changes to the story made by subsequent authors in some way had something to say to the veracity or otherwise of the original story?

You said, "Only if the subsequent author was “another witness” rather than someone who was simply drawing on an existing account" - well, possibly there was copying between the evangelists but they may have used other written documents; it's fairly obvious though that the additional material supplied by each would have other witnesses as its source.

Now if this was an account of how Cleopatra committed suicide we would expect discrepancies as to the details, but if two sources agreed that her death was suicide then you would accept that as beyond reasonable doubt, since there were two accounts telling us that. We have four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, two of which give details that suggest that the event did happen (whether miraculous or not). Those were, Jesus asking Philip where they could buy food, and Philip and Andrew both answering; also Luke supplying the information that these two were from the town at which it happened, which makes sense of why they were singled out by the author of John.
In other words, we believe with a reasonable degree of certainty that Cleopatra committed suicide. If the evangelists wanted to convey a lesson in the actions of Jesus in the temple or with the 5000, then the fact that they all include the story is significant and suggests a higher likelihood of truth.

Simple really. If there are lots of independent accounts of, say, what people had for breakfast, maybe someone has found an ancient bowl of cornflakes etc and the event itself was prosaic then there’s no particular reason to doubt the account. There could of course have been a comprehensive conspiracy to make us think they had cornflakes when in fact they had porridge – by planting lots of fake stories about cornflakes, hiding half-eaten bowls of cornflakes in caves etc – but in general there’d be no good reason to doubt the story “these people had cornflakes for breakfast”.

Great example, which shows why we can't prove the miracles of Jesus happened.

Now consider a miracle story that contradicts entirely everything we observe about the way the world works, that no-one wrote down at the time

Point of order: we don't know that.

and was only eventually recorded decades later by people who weren’t there

POO - they were written within the generation that witnessed it, see Paul's reference to the 500 who were still alive and his reference to the Lord's supper, the resurrection appearances,

that could be explained instead by various non-miraculous options, that occurred when supernatural answers of various sorts were considered credible and so were commonplace, and that even if they weren’t deliberately corrupted in the various re-tellings and translations could still be the result of honest mistake etc. Can you see now why there’d be very good reasons to doubt the veracity of the conclusion “it was a miracle” that you wouldn’t have to do for the story “we had cornflakes for breakfast”?     

Point noted. One answer is that there were many many miracles described in detail, so if they were actually corrupted forms of original events then this has taken place on a very large scale. Is that likely to have happened through the process you describe?
Also, could anyone be clever enough to invent the miracle stories, getting all most of the ordinary geographical and temporal, cultural and historical details correct at the same time?
Or were they simply recording accurately what they saw or were told had been seen?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder at want point an independent observer becomes a bias observer when their view becomes opposed to one's own.

[Spud]

No it doesn't, unless you allow this sort of thing for ALL.

You only think this gives a degree of confidence (which it does not) when it coincides with your beliefs. You would be quick to dismiss claims of equal uselessness if they supported some belief you do not share.

Thanks BR, the example isn't quite appropriate as it's not miraculous.

[BeRational]

Thanks BR, the example isn't quite appropriate as it's not miraculous.

That should make it easier to believe!

Do you just believe anything as long as it is a miracle?

I was dead for 3 days once and came back to life. Do you believe that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

You said, "Only if the subsequent author was “another witness” rather than someone who was simply drawing on an existing account" - well, possibly there was copying between the evangelists but they may have used other written documents; it's fairly obvious though that the additional material supplied by each would have other witnesses as its source.

Several problems there. First, that’s not fairly obvious at all. If they weren’t just fabricated ad hoc then “other written documents” must have come from somewhere, and you have no way of telling whether that somewhere is a multiply re-told account from one witness or from several. Second, even if there was more than one witness unless those witnesses and their stories were somehow made not to comingle after the event (standard police practice by the way – that’s why they don’t let witnesses confer) then you have no way of knowing whether any one version influenced any another. Third, you’re still stuck with the basic problem that even if one or more than one person sincerely thought they saw a miracle, there’d be no way to know that one of the other possible (but less thrilling) explanations for what actually happed wasn’t the real one. Fourth…well, you get the picture by now I’m sure.       

Now if this was an account of how Cleopatra committed suicide we would expect discrepancies as to the details, but if two sources agreed that her death was suicide then you would accept that as beyond reasonable doubt, since there were two accounts telling us that.

But only if the accounts were independent of each other, and besides suicide is a (tragic but) unremarkable real world occurrence. Unwittingly, that’s quite a helpful analogy though – there’s generally considered enough evidence to think that Cleopatra existed, and that she probably committed suicide too. There isn’t though enough evidence to treat the asp story as historically accurate so it’s treated as myth. Now imagine that the story was that she committed suicide by being eaten by a dragon or some other supernatural cause – how much better still would the evidence have to be for that story to be treated as nothing but a myth too do you think?     

We have four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, two of which give details that suggest that the event did happen (whether miraculous or not). Those were, Jesus asking Philip where they could buy food, and Philip and Andrew both answering; also Luke supplying the information that these two were from the town at which it happened, which makes sense of why they were singled out by the author of John.

That “whether miraculous or not” is rather important here don’t you think? If the story was just “Jesus got the caterers in” that’d be interesting but having more than one witness wouldn’t matter much. Think cornflakes for breakfast again. If though the story was “Then Jesus performed a miracle” you be back to same problems of non-conferring witnesses, non-co-mingling stories, elimination of other explanations, honest mistake etc.     
 

In other words, we believe with a reasonable degree of certainty that Cleopatra committed suicide.

Yes, but not with reasonable certainty that an asp did it, let alone that a supernatural agency was in play. “Cleopatra killed herself” is no more remarkable than, “people had cornflakes for breakfast” so there’s no particular reason to doubt the story. 

If the evangelists wanted to convey a lesson in the actions of Jesus in the temple or with the 5000, then the fact that they all include the story is significant and suggests a higher likelihood of truth.

No it doesn’t – see above. “The story” is fine when it’s throwing over a few tables, but you need an awful lot more than “fine” when the supposed explanation for an event is “it’s a miracle”. 

Great example, which shows why we can't prove the miracles of Jesus happened.

Or even think they were more likely to have happened than the non-miraculous alternative explanations for them. That’s your problem. 

Point of order: we don't know that.

Yes we do. Everything we’ve ever observed, investigated and validated about the world is naturalistic in nature. If you want to posit a non-natural that’s fine, but you have all your work ahead of the you to validate that claim, or even to indicate how you’d validate it.   

POO - they were written within the generation that witnessed it, see Paul's reference to the 500 who were still alive and his reference to the Lord's supper, the resurrection appearances,

I was referring to the resurrection story, and “a generation” is decades.

Point noted. One answer is that there were many many miracles described in detail, so if they were actually corrupted forms of original events then this has taken place on a very large scale. Is that likely to have happened through the process you describe?

There were many, many more miracles than you realise when you include the miracles of Neptune, Thor, Zeus, Ra etc. All that tells you though is that your and these other miracle stories came from more credulous times. How does that help you? 

Also, could anyone be clever enough to invent the miracle stories, getting all most of the ordinary geographical and temporal, cultural and historical details correct at the same time?

No-one would have need to invent them in the sense you imply. Rather reaching for explanations that satisfied what they thought they saw would have been good enough. Some caught the wind and are believed to this day (at least by some people); others have been relegated to that status of myth and fable. There’s no reason to think though that the “winners” won because of anything inherently more credible about them than the losers. Had Constantine chosen a different religion rather than Christianity for example, no doubt to this day people like you would be talking approvingly about the miracles of Poseidon and differently about the myths of Jesus.     

Or were they simply recording accurately what they saw or were told had been seen?

Again, you can’t record an explanation – you can record an event, but the explanation for it is only the narrative that makes most sense to you at the time using the methods and tools available to you.