New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[Spud]

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.

OK, will try and explain later...

[ProfessorDavey]

OK, will try and explain later...

Please ensure you don't provide a circular argument - in other words one that takes as its starting point an assumption that Mark was written later than Matthew/Luke and then uses that assumption to provide evidence that ... err ... Mark was written later than Matthew/Luke.

[Spud]

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.

Mark must have had a source for the examples he gives. By selecting some from it, he is omitting others.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mark must have had a source for the examples he gives.

True but we are unclear what this source is. Or as Gordon points out Mark could have made them up himself.

By selecting some from it, he is omitting others.

Given that we don't know what his source was how can you know that he selected only some of it - the parables he chose may be the entirety of what was in that source material. You have no evidence that he only selected some of the examples rather than all of them. And therefore you have no evidence that he omitted some examples.

[Gordon]

Mark must have had a source for the examples he gives. By selecting some from it, he is omitting others.

Or he could just have made it up - how could you ever know the circumstances from this distance and with no basis to assess provenance?

[Spud]

Given that we don't know what his source was how can you know that he selected only some of it - the parables he chose may be the entirety of what was in that source material.

By reading his conclusion to that section, verse 33: "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear,"
(Note also that he uses the same verb as Matthew in Matthew's introduction to his equivalent section: "And He spoke to them many things in parables, saying", Mt 13:3)

[Roses]

By reading his conclusion to that section, verse 33: "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear,"
(Note also that he uses the same verb as Matthew in Matthew's introduction to his equivalent section: "And He spoke to them many things in parables, saying", Mt 13:3)

You have not provided any evidence to support your claim the gospels are factual, and not creative fiction.

[Spud]

You have not provided any evidence to support your claim the gospels are factual, and not creative fiction.

At this point I'm just trying to establish which of Matthew and Mark quoted from the other. Bit of a derail, yes.

[ProfessorDavey]

By reading his conclusion to that section, verse 33: "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear,"

And?!?

I'm struggling to see how you can use that verse to conclude that Mark had only selected some of a greater number of parables to report. Given that in the previous few verses Mark recounts four separate parables then that is entirely consistent with "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear," - note also that mark later includes further parables.

But I think you are missing the point, which links to the next verse "But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples."

So effectively what Mark is saying is that Jesus is only teaching ordinary people through parables and therefore without having a parable he isn't going to teach. I has absolutely nothing to do with your rather bizarre notion that this somehow means Mark is omitting parables.

[ippy]

At this point I'm just trying to establish which of Matthew and Mark quoted from the other. Bit of a derail, yes.

Should have read: 'At this point I'm just trying to establish which of Matthew and Mark are supposed to have quoted from the other.

No not a derail Spud, you insist on referring to these people as though they were genuine living breathing historical characters when surly you or anyone else should at least establish whether they were other than fictional before continuing I would have thought, bit of an empty pastime otherwise.

Wouldn't the faith shearing area be more suited for this kind of discussion? Have a word with Alan or Sassy.

ippy.

[Spud]

And?!?

I'm struggling to see how you can use that verse to conclude that Mark had only selected some of a greater number of parables to report. Given that in the previous few verses Mark recounts four separate parables then that is entirely consistent with "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear," - note also that mark later includes further parables.

But I think you are missing the point, which links to the next verse "But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples."

So effectively what Mark is saying is that Jesus is only teaching ordinary people through parables and therefore without having a parable he isn't going to teach. I has absolutely nothing to do with your rather bizarre notion that this somehow means Mark is omitting parables.

But it does have to do with what source Mark was using, as it must have included more parables. The only possible source known to us is Matthew.

Just to add that in the other thread on this, Jeremy suggested that Mark could not have known about the Sermon on the Mount if he said that Jesus always used parables. No, Matthew (who wrote down the SOM) says the same in 13:34.

If you don't mind I will bring in some other examples where it looks as though Mark has omitted or summarized material from Matthew.

[ProfessorDavey]

But it does have to do with what source Mark was using, as it must have included more parables.

Why must it include more parables - you keep making this point but there is nothing in the section you highlighted that indicates that whatsoever.

[jeremyp]

By reading his conclusion to that section, verse 33: "And with many such parables He kept speaking the word to them, as they were able to hear,"

That sounds like he just got bored of having to invent new parables and write them down.

[jeremyp]

At this point I'm just trying to establish which of Matthew and Mark quoted from the other. Bit of a derail, yes.

Matthew was  quoting Mark.

[jeremyp]

But it does have to do with what source Mark was using, as it must have included more parables. The only possible source known to us is Matthew.

Is this meant to be a serious argument? The only possible source known to us for Matthew is Mark. Therefore they both copied the other? Or maybe it is possible that one of them used a source that is unknown to us.

Just to add that in the other thread on this, Jeremy suggested that Mark could not have known about the Sermon on the Mount if he said that Jesus always used parables. No, Matthew (who wrote down the SOM) says the same in 13:34.

Well I actually said it is unlikely that Mark would omit the Sermon on the Mount if he had known about it. Ditto the Lord's Prayer.

On the other hand, he has lots of extra detail on the pigs of Gerasene. Is it more plausible that Matthew would cut out the irrelevant pig stuff and put in the Lord's Prayer or that Mark would cut out the Lord's Prayer and put in loads of irrelevant pig stuff. Be honest! You know it is the former.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well I actually said it is unlikely that Mark would omit the Sermon on the Mount if he had known about it. Ditto the Lord's Prayer.

On the other hand, he has lots of extra detail on the pigs of Gerasene. Is it more plausible that Matthew would cut out the irrelevant pig stuff and put in the Lord's Prayer or that Mark would cut out the Lord's Prayer and put in loads of irrelevant pig stuff. Be honest! You know it is the former.

Or the post resurrection appearances. Always more important to prioritise pig stuff than what I thought was the most important element of christianity.

[Spud]

Is this meant to be a serious argument? The only possible source known to us for Matthew is Mark. Therefore they both copied the other? Or maybe it is possible that one of them used a source that is unknown to us.

Simple: Matthew the disciple took notes, and wrote them up under the guidance of other apostles - James (who wrote the epistle) has some similar content. The original source were the apostles themselves, the same with Luke, except much of his material is supplied by the named women, hence the differences between Luke and Matthew. Mark weaved Mt and Lk together, adding material from his other source.

[jeremyp]

Simple: Matthew the disciple took notes, and wrote them up under the guidance of other apostles - James (who wrote the epistle) has some similar content.

Or Mark did. Or neither of them did.

The original source were the apostles themselves, the same with Luke, except much of his material is supplied by the named women, hence the differences between Luke and Matthew. Mark weaved Mt and Lk together, adding material from his other source.

Have you got any evidence whatsoever of who Luke used as his sources - other than Mark which he copied almost verbatim?

[ProfessorDavey]

Simple: Matthew the disciple took notes, and wrote them up under the guidance of other apostles - James (who wrote the epistle) has some similar content. The original source were the apostles themselves, the same with Luke, except much of his material is supplied by the named women, hence the differences between Luke and Matthew. Mark weaved Mt and Lk together, adding material from his other source.

Just non-sense and that's not just my view but the views of the overwhelming majority of expert scholars for over 100 years.

Let's just think this through Spud.

Imagine is your notion was correct and Mark, when writing his gospel, had Matthew and Luke in front of him. So he's a bit worried about the cost of papyrus so wants to trim some stuff, presumably things he feels aren't really important.

So - Sermon on the mount - nope, in the bin - we need space for pig stories
Lord's prayer - hmm, can't see that being important - get rid of that.
Nativity stories - irrelevant to christianity - gone
Post-resurrection appearances - nope can't see how those are important to christianity - in the bid.
Great plenty of space for the pigs.

I simply beggars belief that he would have done that - the only conclusion is that Mark didn't have to hand knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount, the lords prayer, the nativity or the post-resurrection appearances or they would have undoubtedly been in his gospel. Or if he was aware of them (perhaps some knowledge of the Q tradition and Paul), he didn't believe them.

[SteveH]

Just non-sense and that's not just my view but the views of the overwhelming majority of expert scholars for over 100 years.

Let's just think this through Spud.

Imagine is your notion was correct and Mark, when writing his gospel, had Matthew and Luke in front of him. So he's a bit worried about the cost of papyrus so wants to trim some stuff, presumably things he feels aren't really important.

So - Sermon on the mount - nope, in the bin - we need space for pig stories
Lord's prayer - hmm, can't see that being important - get rid of that.
Nativity stories - irrelevant to christianity - gone
Post-resurrection appearances - nope can't see how those are important to christianity - in the bid.
Great plenty of space for the pigs.

I simply beggars belief that he would have done that - the only conclusion is that Mark didn't have to hand knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount, the lords prayer, the nativity or the post-resurrection appearances or they would have undoubtedly been in his gospel. Or if he was aware of them (perhaps some knowledge of the Q tradition and Paul), he didn't believe them.

Or parts of his gospel have gone missing?

[Spud]

Or Mark did. Or neither of them did.


Have you got any evidence whatsoever of who Luke used as his sources - other than Mark which he copied almost verbatim?

There's a view that Luke and Mark used a device called an inclusio to show that Simon Peter is their primary source. Richard Baukham describes it here: https://tinyurl.com/rxq7qau (he believes Mark was written first but I don't think that affects the inclusio theory). In both Mark and Luke, Simon is mentioned at the beginning and his name is repeated, for no apparent reason. His name is also mentioned in passing at the end of both gospels.
Baukham also says that Luke has an inclusio for the women he names, and thinks this is evidence that they were also his sources.

[Spud]

Just non-sense and that's not just my view but the views of the overwhelming majority of expert scholars for over 100 years.

Let's just think this through Spud.

Imagine is your notion was correct and Mark, when writing his gospel, had Matthew and Luke in front of him. So he's a bit worried about the cost of papyrus so wants to trim some stuff, presumably things he feels aren't really important.

So - Sermon on the mount - nope, in the bin - we need space for pig stories
Lord's prayer - hmm, can't see that being important - get rid of that.
Nativity stories - irrelevant to christianity - gone
Post-resurrection appearances - nope can't see how those are important to christianity - in the bid.
Great plenty of space for the pigs.

I simply beggars belief that he would have done that - the only conclusion is that Mark didn't have to hand knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount, the lords prayer, the nativity or the post-resurrection appearances or they would have undoubtedly been in his gospel. Or if he was aware of them (perhaps some knowledge of the Q tradition and Paul), he didn't believe them.

Mark's aim is to reveal the person of Jesus. We know he excluded some of Jesus' teaching, through the clauses mentioned yesterday in ch.4 and 12. In the 'Markan dependence' view, he also knows that these (now famous) passages are available in Matthew and Luke, so he is free to concentrate more on what Jesus did that demonstrated who he is.

[Spud]

Evidence that Matthew relied on an eyewitness source to follow.

[ProfessorDavey]

We know he excluded some of Jesus' teaching, through the clauses mentioned yesterday in ch.4 and 12.

No we don't because we don't know the source material Mark was basing his gospel on. You can only conclude that he excluded material if you assume he wrote after Luke and Matthew and had their material to hand. That is putting your conclusion before the evidence, in other words it is a circular argument.

We have no evidence whatsoever that Mark excluded material.

[Spud]

No we don't because we don't know the source material Mark was basing his gospel on. You can only conclude that he excluded material if you assume he wrote after Luke and Matthew and had their material to hand. That is putting your conclusion before the evidence, in other words it is a circular argument.

We have no evidence whatsoever that Mark excluded material.

I see that you are also making an assumption, which is that Mark could have had a source that is unknown to us. My reasoning is based on the fact that there is no physical or written evidence for such a source.

In the light of this, if we take the clause, "and in his teaching he was saying" (Mk 4:2b) and Matthew's equivalent, "saying..." (Mt 13:3b), then comparing the two will tell us which is the original, and therefore who has copied who.