New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[Spud]

Which author - reference please.

Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, in "Why four Gospels" but he doesn't indicate where exactly! I've only recently got some idea of which verses he was referring to.

No it doesn't - it means Mark came first, no mention of resurrection appearances. Matthew and Luke come later, borrow from Mark but aren't impressed by the less than impressive ending to the gospel. So they add in some stories about appearances - interestingly they seem not to be working from the same playbook, as although they both include appearances they've made up different stories as the appearances are entirely different in each.

I guess I didn't fully answer your question of why, if Mark was quoting the other two, didn't he include any of their appearances.
Firstly, even if we don't know why Mark didn't include them, he might still have had a reason. Since in other places there are signs that he omitted a chunk, it is possible he might have done the same here.
Secondly, your suggestion doesn't take into account that if Mark did write first, under Peter's influence, and indicated in the angel's message a clear belief in the Church that Jesus had risen, then it would be highly unlikely for Mark to have had no knowledge of any of Jesus' appearances. If he was writing the first gospel, why didn't he include one or more of these? However, if he knew that previous accounts had a record of Jesus' appearances in them, it wouldn't matter if Mark omitted them.
So we are left with two realistic possibilities: either Mark deliberately ended abruptly, with the women failing because of their fear, as the men had done; or the 'long ending' must be authentic.

[Gordon]

So we are left with two realistic possibilities: either Mark deliberately ended abruptly, with the women failing because of their fear, as the men had done; or the 'long ending' must be authentic.

There is another possibility: which is that neither of these are true, be it due to mistakes and/or fabrication - and unless you can exclude these risks you don't have two realistic possibilities at all: you have zero realistic possibilities.

You can believe any of the NT stories are true as a matter of personal faith but you can't claim them to be historical facts, since you have no means of eliminating the risks of mistakes or lies.

[Roses]

Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, in "Why four Gospels" but he doesn't indicate where exactly! I've only recently got some idea of which verses he was referring to.

I guess I didn't fully answer your question of why, if Mark was quoting the other two, didn't he include any of their appearances.
Firstly, even if we don't know why Mark didn't include them, he might still have had a reason. Since in other places there are signs that he omitted a chunk, it is possible he might have done the same here.
Secondly, your suggestion doesn't take into account that if Mark did write first, under Peter's influence, and indicated in the angel's message a clear belief in the Church that Jesus had risen, then it would be highly unlikely for Mark to have had no knowledge of any of Jesus' appearances. If he was writing the first gospel, why didn't he include one or more of these? However, if he knew that previous accounts had a record of Jesus' appearances in them, it wouldn't matter if Mark omitted them.
So we are left with two realistic possibilities: either Mark deliberately ended abruptly, with the women failing because of their fear, as the men had done; or the 'long ending' must be authentic.

You are desperate to believe the gospel accounts to be accurate, don't you ever question their veracity?

[ProfessorDavey]

Eugene Rosenstock-Huessy, in "Why four Gospels" but he doesn't indicate where exactly! I've only recently got some idea of which verses he was referring to.

Yes - some simple Googling produced this.

But your quote is totally meaningless unless you provide the section of Mark's gospel where he clearly (bluntly) states that he is quoting from Matthew. I suspect you may be looking for a long time.

Come back to me when you've found it.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are desperate to believe the gospel accounts to be accurate, don't you ever question their veracity?

Clearly he doesn't. His sole motivation is to fit the 'evidence' to his beliefs, and with a starting point that the claims in the gospels are correct. He seems incapable of even contemplating that they may not be true.

[Roses]

Clearly he doesn't. His sole motivation is to fit the 'evidence' to his beliefs, and with a starting point that the claims in the gospels are correct. He seems incapable of even contemplating that they may not be true.

That appears to be the way of it. I wonder how Spud would react if it was ever proved beyond all shadow of  doubt that the gospels had no basis in fact?

[SteveH]

That appears to be the way of it. I wonder how Spud would react if it was ever proved beyond all shadow of  doubt that the gospels had no basis in fact?

How could that be proved?

[Roses]

How could that be proved?

I was asking Spud a hypothetical question, I doubt it could ever be proved or disproved.

[SteveH]

I was asking Spud a hypothetical question, I doubt it could ever be proved or disproved.

Well, it's a pretty pointless hypotheticsal question then, isn't it?

[jeremyp]

Tacitus does talk about christians and their fate at the hands of Nero so I suspect he had some understanding of what they believed.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. It doesn't really matter. What he writes is not evidence for the resurrection and, even if he had written "the Christians believe their leader rose from the dead", it doesn't mean he thought its was true, only that he thought the Christians believed it to be true.

This is no different than me saying "Spud believes Jesus rose from the dead". It's a true statement but it doesn't mean Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Most scholars accept that part as a forgery. Josephus makes another reference to Jesus as the brother of James. This appears to be nothing more than a factual statement of relationships.

Yes, but it is possible that that bit might be forged too.

[ippy]

Well, it's a pretty pointless hypotheticsal question then, isn't it?

Yes you could say that but realistically and I think L R was alluding to this as well P V J, what exactly is the point of a thread like this one, one of only to many like it, discussing supposed goings on in the past where there is virtually no, zero,  evidence to support the large element of magical mystical or superstitional based parts of this subject and only the very shakiest evidence to support any of the rest of it, so wouldn't it be better or more meaningful to establish the provable facts first and then it might be worth spending some time on a discussion about the rest of this subject.

ippy.
 

[Roses]

Well, it's a pretty pointless hypotheticsal question then, isn't it?

No it isn't, imo. BTW isn't your spellchecker working?

[Spud]

Clearly he doesn't. His sole motivation is to fit the 'evidence' to his beliefs, and with a starting point that the claims in the gospels are correct. He seems incapable of even contemplating that they may not be true.

To be fair, you do the same, having a starting point that miracles could not have happened, and attempting to make Mark the first gospel and finding embellishments of it by the other gospels.

Yes - some simple Googling produced this.

But your quote is totally meaningless unless you provide the section of Mark's gospel where he clearly (bluntly) states that he is quoting from Matthew. I suspect you may be looking for a long time.

Come back to me when you've found it.

Exhibit A is on its way...

[Spud]

Yes - some simple Googling produced this.

But your quote is totally meaningless unless you provide the section of Mark's gospel where he clearly (bluntly) states that he is quoting from Matthew. I suspect you may be looking for a long time.

Come back to me when you've found it.

Here is the first example. Remember that Matthew and Luke sometimes place their pericopes in a different order, so if Mark is quoting from both, he will have to switch between their orders from time to time.

Matthew 12 ends with Jesus in a house, and his mother and brothers arriving to take charge of him. Mark 3 ends with the same pericope.

Mark follows Matthew in placing the parable of the sower next. Matthew has Jesus coming out of the house and sitting by the lake, and then when crowds gather he teaches from a boat. Mark says the same thing, but doesn't mention the house. Matthew says (13:3), "Then he told them many things in parables, saying..." and he tells the parable of the sower. Mark at this point says, "He taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he was saying to them..." (Mk 4:2) So here is Mark stating that he has omitted some of Jesus' teaching.

Luke's account of this event (Lk 8 ) includes only two parables, the sower and the lamp, so we know that Mark is not referring to additional teaching given in Luke. Mark gives these two parables plus the mustard seed and one that Matthew and Luke do not, the parable of the growing seed.

Matthew, however, recounts seven. So the teaching that Mark implies he has omitted must be the other four that are in Matthew. John Chapman (1937) writes, "I had found (apparently) two definite statements by Mark that he had omitted some outdoor parables and indoor explanations." [The second apparent statement is in Mk 4:33, see below.]

Mark omits Matthew's parable of the weeds, which he told outside, and his explanation of this to the disciples, which he told inside the house.

Matthew says while Jesus is still outside, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables, he did not say anything to them without using a parable". Matthew then tells us Jesus went back inside and carried on teaching. Mark, however, says, "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything". (4:33-34)

Mark then switches back to Luke's sequence which he follows: the calming of the storm, and healing of the demoniac, dead girl and sick woman.

Hope that's fairly clear. The point here is that Mark somehow knew of the additional teaching which he implies Jesus gave on this particular occasion. It seems quite a stretch to assume that Mark mentioned these other parables, and Matthew came along later and decided to add them. The fact that Mark bookends the section with a reference to additional parables at the start and the finish, suggests that he is quoting from previous material. These references could even be, literally, quotation marks!

[Roses]

Here is the first example. Remember that Matthew and Luke sometimes place their pericopes in a different order, so if Mark is quoting from both, he will have to switch between their orders from time to time.

Matthew 12 ends with Jesus in a house, and his mother and brothers arriving to take charge of him. Mark 3 ends with the same pericope.

Mark follows Matthew in placing the parable of the sower next. Matthew has Jesus coming out of the house and sitting by the lake, and then when crowds gather he teaches from a boat. Mark says the same thing, but doesn't mention the house. Matthew says, "Then he told them many things in parables, saying..." and he tells the parable of the sower. Mark at this point says, "He taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he was saying to them..." So here is Mark stating that he has omitted some of Jesus' teaching.

Luke's account of this event includes only two parables, the sower and the lamp so we know that Mark is not referring to additional teaching by Luke. Mark gives these two parables and adds one that Matthew and Luke do not, the parable of the growing seed.

Matthew, however, recounts seven. So the teaching that Mark implies he has omitted must be the other five from Matthew. John Chapman (1937) writes, "I had found (apparently) two* definite statements by Mark that he had omitted some outdoor parables and indoor explanations."
(*The other I will post later)

Mark omits Matthew's parable of the weeds, which he told outside, and his explanation of this to the disciples, which he told inside the house.

Matthew says while Jesus is still outside, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables, he did not say anything to them without using a parable". Matthew then tells us Jesus went back inside and carried on teaching. Mark, however, says, "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything".

Mark then switches back to Luke's and follows his sequence in the calming of the storm, and healing of the demoniac, dead girl and sick woman.

Hope that's fairly clear!

So what? Whatever is the case about the order in which those books were written it doesn't give them anymore credibility.

[BeRational]

Let's say for the sake of argument that they were from eye witness testimonies.

So what?

Do you think that makes them true or more likely true?

[ippy]

So what? Whatever is the case about the order in which those books were written it doesn't give them anymore credibility.

L R, you're forgetting people like spud think they're gaining brownie points by still hanging on to belief in spite of how tenuous the evidence is, in fact I think you'll find they gain even more brownie points pendent on the scarcity of evidence.

Regards, ippy. 

[jeremyp]

To be fair, you do the same, having a starting point that miracles could not have happened, and attempting to make Mark the first gospel and finding embellishments of it by the other gospels.

Exhibit A is on its way...

You should read up on the history of how it came to be believed that Mark was the first gospel. It's a history of scholars following the evidence to its logical conclusion. The twist is that the scholars in question were all Christians. There was no trying to make it the first gospel. It's just the best explanation for the facts we know about the gospels.

And, if PD is anything like me*, he doesn't start from the starting point that the miracles could not have happened, he starts from the point of view that he doesn't know that they happened and then examines all the evidence - not just the stories in the Bible and comes to the conclusion that they didn't happen because the evidence for is just some stories and the evidence against is that the miracles require suspension of the laws of physics.

If this was any religion other than Christianity, you'd be on the same side of us. You just need to realise that your religion is no more special to anybody else than any other religion.

*Actually he is not like me. I started from the point of view that the miracles did happen and reversed my position over time as I realised that there were better more credible explanations.

[ProfessorDavey]

To be fair, you do the same, having a starting point that miracles could not have happened, and attempting to make Mark the first gospel and finding embellishments of it by the other gospels.

No I don't - my view that miracles don't happen is based on evidence (or rather lack of evidence) for miraculous occurrences that are proven not to be explainable by natural or physical laws. Further give that miracles are typically ascribed to a deity my views are also evidence based on that account to - namely that lack of evidence to support the existence of a deity.

On Mark - I'm not really giving an opinion on my own I'm basing the notion that Mark came first on the evidence that most scholars date Mark as the earliest gospel on the basis of their assessment of the available evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Here is the first example. Remember that Matthew and Luke sometimes place their pericopes in a different order, so if Mark is quoting from both, he will have to switch between their orders from time to time.

Matthew 12 ends with Jesus in a house, and his mother and brothers arriving to take charge of him. Mark 3 ends with the same pericope.

Mark follows Matthew in placing the parable of the sower next. Matthew has Jesus coming out of the house and sitting by the lake, and then when crowds gather he teaches from a boat. Mark says the same thing, but doesn't mention the house. Matthew says (13:3), "Then he told them many things in parables, saying..." and he tells the parable of the sower. Mark at this point says, "He taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he was saying to them..." (Mk 4:2) So here is Mark stating that he has omitted some of Jesus' teaching.

Luke's account of this event (Lk 8 ) includes only two parables, the sower and the lamp, so we know that Mark is not referring to additional teaching given in Luke. Mark gives these two parables plus the mustard seed and one that Matthew and Luke do not, the parable of the growing seed.

Matthew, however, recounts seven. So the teaching that Mark implies he has omitted must be the other four that are in Matthew. John Chapman (1937) writes, "I had found (apparently) two definite statements by Mark that he had omitted some outdoor parables and indoor explanations." [The second apparent statement is in Mk 4:33, see below.]

Mark omits Matthew's parable of the weeds, which he told outside, and his explanation of this to the disciples, which he told inside the house.

Matthew says while Jesus is still outside, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables, he did not say anything to them without using a parable". Matthew then tells us Jesus went back inside and carried on teaching. Mark, however, says, "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything". (4:33-34)

Mark then switches back to Luke's sequence which he follows: the calming of the storm, and healing of the demoniac, dead girl and sick woman.

Hope that's fairly clear. The point here is that Mark somehow knew of the additional teaching which he implies Jesus gave on this particular occasion. It seems quite a stretch to assume that Mark mentioned these other parables, and Matthew came along later and decided to add them. The fact that Mark bookends the section with a reference to additional parables at the start and the finish, suggests that he is quoting from previous material. These references could even be, literally, quotation marks!

Irrelevant.

You claimed (or rather quoted someone else claim) that "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". Nothing in your post indicates that "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew" - for that to be the case you will need to provide a verse or section from Mark in which he says something like 'the words I provide here come not from me but from my friend Matthew who came before me'.

Come back when you've found the relevant section in Mark please.

[ProfessorDavey]

Here is the first example. Remember that Matthew and Luke sometimes place their pericopes in a different order, so if Mark is quoting from both, he will have to switch between their orders from time to time.

Matthew 12 ends with Jesus in a house, and his mother and brothers arriving to take charge of him. Mark 3 ends with the same pericope.

Mark follows Matthew in placing the parable of the sower next. Matthew has Jesus coming out of the house and sitting by the lake, and then when crowds gather he teaches from a boat. Mark says the same thing, but doesn't mention the house. Matthew says (13:3), "Then he told them many things in parables, saying..." and he tells the parable of the sower. Mark at this point says, "He taught them many things in parables, and in his teaching he was saying to them..." (Mk 4:2) So here is Mark stating that he has omitted some of Jesus' teaching.

Luke's account of this event (Lk 8 ) includes only two parables, the sower and the lamp, so we know that Mark is not referring to additional teaching given in Luke. Mark gives these two parables plus the mustard seed and one that Matthew and Luke do not, the parable of the growing seed.

Matthew, however, recounts seven. So the teaching that Mark implies he has omitted must be the other four that are in Matthew. John Chapman (1937) writes, "I had found (apparently) two definite statements by Mark that he had omitted some outdoor parables and indoor explanations." [The second apparent statement is in Mk 4:33, see below.]

Mark omits Matthew's parable of the weeds, which he told outside, and his explanation of this to the disciples, which he told inside the house.

Matthew says while Jesus is still outside, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables, he did not say anything to them without using a parable". Matthew then tells us Jesus went back inside and carried on teaching. Mark, however, says, "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything". (4:33-34)

Mark then switches back to Luke's sequence which he follows: the calming of the storm, and healing of the demoniac, dead girl and sick woman.

Hope that's fairly clear. The point here is that Mark somehow knew of the additional teaching which he implies Jesus gave on this particular occasion. It seems quite a stretch to assume that Mark mentioned these other parables, and Matthew came along later and decided to add them. The fact that Mark bookends the section with a reference to additional parables at the start and the finish, suggests that he is quoting from previous material. These references could even be, literally, quotation marks!

But you could use the same information and argue in exactly the opposite manner, in other words that Mark proceeded Matthew and Luke. All you'd need to do is largely replace 'Mark omits' with 'Matthew adds'. And it is of course much easier to justify why Matthew might add as general scholarly opinion is of the view that Matthew and Luke use Mark and another (unknown) source for their information - hence Matthew would be adding to Mark using the other source material that appears unavailable to Mark.

 

[Spud]

But you could use the same information and argue in exactly the opposite manner, in other words that Mark proceeded Matthew and Luke.

In other words, Matthew reads, in Mark 4:2 and 12:38, "and in His teaching He was saying" and thinks this would be the ideal place to interpolate some more teaching.

By what mechanism can Mark be aware, as the above phrase implies he is, of additional teaching? Did Peter recite it by heart? Or was it written down already (hint: by Matthew)?

[ProfessorDavey]

In other words, Matthew reads, in Mark 4:2 and 12:38, "and in His teaching He was saying" and thinks this would be the ideal place to interpolate some more teaching.

By what mechanism can Mark be aware, as the above phrase implies he is, of additional teaching? Did Peter recite it by heart? Or was it written down already (hint: by Matthew)?

I simply don't understand what you are on about - in Mark 4.2 he says Jesus uses parables to tech things - he then goes on to provide examples of parables. Where on earth can you infer that Mark is deliberately omitting information.

You are simply making no sense.

[SteveH]

No it isn't, imo. BTW isn't your spellchecker working?

Well, yo is wrong, as usual. I don't use spellchecker, but sometimes suffer from fat finger syndrome.

[Robbie]

Yo Dude!