New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[ProfessorDavey]

I see that you are also making an assumption, which is that Mark could have had a source that is unknown to us.

Of course he could have had a source that is unknown to us - that is beyond debate. I'm not saying that he definitely did, but the evidence suggests that the possible known possible alternative sources (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John) cannot be justified as sources for Mark as they were written later than Mark and in the case of Luke and Matthew there is overwhelming evidence that they used Mark as a source not the other way around (according to expert scholars - not me or you as armchair non expert message board posters).

So if Mark didn't use Matthew, Luke or John (as experts suggest based on evidence) then his source materials remains unknown to us.

[Spud]

At this point I'll show the other instance where Mark uses the phrase, "and in his teaching he was saying". It's Mark 12:38, "38And in His teaching He was saying, “Beware of the scribes, desiring to walk about in robes, and greetings in the marketplaces, 39and first seats in the synagogues, and first places at the feasts; 40those devouring the houses of widows, and praying at great length as a pretext. These will receive greater judgment.”"

If we look at Matthew's equivalent section, following the section, Whose son is the Christ?, Mt 23: "1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat down on Moses’ seat; 3therefore keep and observe all things whatsoever they might tell you. But do not do according to their works, for they preach and do not act. 4And they tie up burdens heavy and hard to bear and lay them on the shoulders of men; but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

5And they do all their deeds in order to be seen by men. For they broaden their phylacteries and enlarge their tassels, 6and they love the chief place at the banquets, and the first seats in the synagogues, 7and the greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by men.

8But you shall not be called ‘Rabbi,’ for your Teacher is One, and you are all brothers. 9And call no one your father on the earth; for One is your Father, who is in heaven.

Look at the similarities between Mark's and Matthew's. Again, assuming no evidence for any other source for this material, Matthew's seems to be the original, as it is a continuous statement. So when Mark says, "in his teaching..." he is probably referring to all the teaching given in Matthew 23 (Ten Woes included). This, Mark has briefly summarized (12:38-40).

[Spud]

Of course he could have had a source that is unknown to us - that is beyond debate. I'm not saying that he definitely did, but the evidence suggests that the possible known possible alternative sources (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John) cannot be justified as sources for Mark as they were written later than Mark and in the case of Luke and Matthew there is overwhelming evidence that they used Mark as a source not the other way around (according to expert scholars - not me or you as armchair non expert message board posters).

So if Mark didn't use Matthew, Luke or John (as experts suggest based on evidence) then his source materials remains unknown to us.

OK... you haven't said why Matthew and Luke were written later than Mark, and I don't agree that the overwhelming evidence according to the scholars is all that overwhelming.

Now check out Mark's version of the parable of the tenants, and Matthew's equivalent section. There is no denying that Matthew is the original version here, because he has an additional parable that is so apt for the context that it has to be a record of the original conversation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. That is the parable of the Two Sons, which continues the conversation about John the Baptist started in the pericope before. In your scenario, Matthew noticed that Mark said, "He then began to speak to them in parables", and that Mark only recorded one parable (the parable of the Tenants), so he thought it would be fitting to record some more. It just so happened that Matthew had the exact parable spoken by Jesus at that time, in his stock of parables (or Matthew had an eyewitness who recalled that parable).
This is feasible, however the situation arises where Matthew has exactly the right material to add to Mark's, so often, that it becomes less and less likely that Matthew was adding to Mark and more logical that Mark was quoting from Matthew.

[ProfessorDavey]

OK... you haven't said why Matthew and Luke were written later than Mark, and I don't agree that the overwhelming evidence according to the scholars is all that overwhelming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcan_priority

Of course it isn't universally accepted, but the broad and overwhelming consensus of expert scholars (not christian apologists) is that Mark was written first.

'Most scholars since the late nineteenth century have accepted the concept of Marcan priority. It forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory, although a number of scholars support different forms of Marcan priority or reject it altogether'.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no denying that Matthew is the original version here ...

Yes there is - I deny it - because the evidence points overwhelmingly to Mark having been written first with Matthew borrowing from Mark.

here, because he has an additional parable that is so apt for the context that it has to be a record of the original conversation between Jesus and the Jewish leaders

But that is an argument for Mark being first and not having the further parable as available evidence. If Mark had that additional parable and is was so apt why on earth wouldn't he have included it. You even seem to be arguing against yourself as you describe the further parable in Matthew as additional (i.e. added) which is of course correct as Matthew used the material in Mark and added to it - hence additional.

[Roses]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcan_priority

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

Why on earth do you think this would be better in the faith sharing area? Since the believer Spud is here being challenged strongly on his beliefs by at least four atheists (including me), there sure ain't a helluva lot of "faith sharing" going on.
You may want to have a discussion on whether the characters involved were historical or not (that has also been raised in the course of the conversations), but it is certain that the evangelists existed, since we have their accounts (even though it is highly unlikely that the writers were called by the names given to them in Bible translations). The title of the thread clearly directs the whole tenor of the discussion, with most of the opposition believing either that the accounts are not written from eyewitness testimony or that such a scenario is unlikely. That being so, what's your beef?
I can assure that just coming here to say "the whole thing is a load of baloney" (which you do again and again) is not likely to alter the attitude of believers such as Spud one iota. If anyone really wants to persuade Spud of the error of his beliefs, then they have to go halfway to meeting him where he is, which is what Prof Davey and Jeremy are doing.
If you have no interest in such discussions - well you know the options open to you.

[ProfessorDavey]

Matthew noticed that Mark said, "He then began to speak to them in parables", and that Mark only recorded one parable (the parable of the Tenants),

Presumably because that was all Mark had from his source.

so he thought it would be fitting to record some more.

As Matthew had both Mark as a source and another source of parables.

It just so happened that Matthew had the exact parable spoken by Jesus at that time

You have no idea whether that parable was skin by Jesus or not - all we know is that Matthew claims he did.

, in his stock of parables (or Matthew had an eyewitness who recalled that parable).

Or Matthew had a set of traditional parables (let's face it these are often kind of folk tales handed down over hundreds of years) and found one that would make a good addition to the story regardless of whether he had any evidence of Jesus having told it.

This is feasible, however the situation arises where Matthew has exactly the right material to add to Mark's, so often, that it becomes less and less likely that Matthew was adding to Mark and more logical that Mark was quoting from Matthew.

On the contrary - why time and again would Mark fail to include material in Matthew that was exactly right if he had Matthew as source material. So much more likely that Matthew finds Mark's account somewhat lacking so embellishes it a touch - polishes it by providing some carefully selected additional material.

[Dicky Underpants]

OK... you haven't said why Matthew and Luke were written later than Mark, and I don't agree that the overwhelming evidence according to the scholars is all that overwhelming.

Apart from the material being discussed here, another important area is the question of 'hard sayings' in Mark, where these are almost invariably toned down in Matthew and Luke. Instances in Mark include Jesus' family thinking he'd gone mad, the cursing of the fig tree, even one instance (Mark 1:41) when Jesus is recorded as being angry that a leper has asked to be healed*.

*The translation in question depends upon only one early manuscript: the Codex Bezae (late 3rd century), and has been adopted by a number of modern versions, including the NIV. The reasoning for this is that the earliest and truest versions of biblical texts would necessarily contain wordings that do not cast Jesus in the rosiest light, and that these uncomfortable details would often be given a more agreeable presentation in later texts. The principle is certainly valid for quite a number of 'embarrassing' details in Mark which appear to have been given a rosier gloss (or omitted) in Matthew and Luke. However, in the Codex Bezae case, there are a number of other explanations which may be valid, so I'm not going to argue that this instance really supports the point.

[jeremyp]

There's a view that Luke and Mark used a device called an inclusio to show that Simon Peter is their primary source.

There's a problem with all of these techniques. Any technique open to somebody who was using eye witness sources is also open to people pretending they had eye witness sources.

[Spud]

Presumably because that was all Mark had from his source.
As Matthew had both Mark as a source and another source of parables.

So that would mean two sources for which we have no evidence, other than the experts' opinion (eg on hard sayings) which is based on their own views as to how Mark or Matthew ought to write?

You have no idea whether that parable was skin by Jesus or not - all we know is that Matthew claims he did.
Or Matthew had a set of traditional parables (let's face it these are often kind of folk tales handed down over hundreds of years) and found one that would make a good addition to the story regardless of whether he had any evidence of Jesus having told it.

The parable of the Two Sons is part of Jesus' answer to the chief priests and elders when they asked him where he got his authority from: it compares them (who claimed to obey God but didn't believe John, the prophet) to the second son (who said he would obey his father but didn't). Bearing this in mind, which is more likely: Matthew has a full record of the original conversation, or he took the parable from a set of traditional ones and interpolated it (or he made it up)?

On the contrary - why time and again would Mark fail to include material in Matthew that was exactly right if he had Matthew as source material.

Good question. Someone shortening another piece of writing is bound to omit material that is exactly right. What he omits will depend on his purpose in writing.
He might have been omitting things that were more relevant to Matthew's Jewish readers than to his own. In this case he and Luke both give only the parable of the tenants.

So much more likely that Matthew finds Mark's account somewhat lacking so embellishes it a touch - polishes it by providing some carefully selected additional material.

But he happens to have very appropriate material every time. Eg in 13:13 he gives the reason why Jesus spoke in parables (to fulfill Ps. 78) and Mark does not. Doesn't this mean that Matthew or his source was an eyewitness? Again, is it more likely that Matthew would be able to embellish Mark in such a meaningful way or that Mark was cutting out certain chunks?

[ProfessorDavey]

Someone shortening another piece of writing is bound to omit material that is exactly right.

Why on earth would Mark feel the need to be shortening another piece of writing - Mark is by some margin the shortest gospel at just 11,000 words compared with Matthew and Luke at 18,000 and 19,000 respectively (John is 15,000). So if he had Matthew and Luke available why would he feel he needed to not far off halve the number of words in each of them?

What would be his motivation for writing a gospel barely half the length of other existing and available ones - it makes no sense.

[jeremyp]

What would be his motivation for writing a gospel barely half the length of other existing and available ones - it makes no sense.

It could be an abridgement.

However, it would be an abridgement that omitted the Lord's Prayer and any post resurrection appearances but with more about the Pigs of Gerasene.

[ProfessorDavey]

It could be an abridgement.

However, it would be an abridgement that omitted the Lord's Prayer and any post resurrection appearances but with more about the Pigs of Gerasene.

Indeed - but as you point out it would be bizarre to cut out such key elements to the developing christian church while leaving in a lot of eminently trimmable guff.

Also what would be the motivation for an abridgement? Shortage of papyrus, overzealous publishing editor, Mark's audience having a lower attention span?!?

[Spud]

Indeed - but as you point out it would be bizarre to cut out such key elements to the developing christian church while leaving in a lot of eminently trimmable guff.

Also what would be the motivation for an abridgement? Shortage of papyrus, overzealous publishing editor, Mark's audience having a lower attention span?!?

The Jews of the time used what is our Old Testament. Jeremiah didn't repeat everything that Isaiah had written. If the Lord's prayer had been recorded by both Matthew and Luke, there was no necessity for Mark to record it again. From the Wiki link above, "Powers argues that Mark's purpose is fundamentally kerygmatic, needing to hold the attention of outsiders hearing the Gospel preached for the first time, so he focused on who Jesus was and what he did, eschewing the sort of lengthy teachings that dominate the double tradition and most of Special Matthew.[32] So, with Mark's selection process better understood, his omissions per se are no longer viewed as such compelling evidence for Marcan priority."

[Spud]

It could be an abridgement.

However, it would be an abridgement that omitted the Lord's Prayer and any post resurrection appearances but with more about the Pigs of Gerasene.

Mark emphasized the Gerasene demoniac story as he did other miracles, because they revealed how Jesus was more than just a man. Mark is opening the reader's eyes to who Jesus is; this could be why his narrative is more animated and detailed than Mt and Lk.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Jews of the time used what is our Old Testament. Jeremiah didn't repeat everything that Isaiah had written. If the Lord's prayer had been recorded by both Matthew and Luke, there was no necessity for Mark to record it again.

So if you argument is that stories aren't repeated in the bible and therefore if Mark comes after Matthew and Luke he wont repeat what is in their gospels then there would be nothing left in Mark (or nearly nothing). Point being that 97% of the material in Mark also appears in either Mathew or Luke or both. Under your argument none of that should be there because there was no necessity for Mark to record it again.

[Spud]

So if you argument is that stories aren't repeated in the bible and therefore if Mark comes after Matthew and Luke he wont repeat what is in their gospels then there would be nothing left in Mark (or nearly nothing). Point being that 97% of the material in Mark also appears in either Mathew or Luke or both. Under your argument none of that should be there because there was no necessity for Mark to record it again.

Maybe the Isaiah/Jeremiah example wasn't good. I meant that Mark didn't have to use all of Matthew's and Luke's material, as the OT books didn't have to repeat material from others. The sermon on the mount, having been recorded by both Mt and Lk, wasn't essential to Mark, if he knew Mt and Lk would be available to read.

Regarding the 97% figure: this depends on how you look at it. True, pericope-wise, Mark only adds four that neither of the others have. But he also adds many additional sentences and phrases which take the figure down as far as 75% of his material that appears in Mt and/or Lk.

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe the Isaiah/Jeremiah example wasn't good. I meant that Mark didn't have to use all of Matthew's and Luke's material, as the OT books didn't have to repeat material from others. The sermon on the mount, having been recorded by both Mt and Lk, wasn't essential to Mark, if he knew Mt and Lk would be available to read.

Regarding the 97% figure: this depends on how you look at it. True, pericope-wise, Mark only adds four that neither of the others have. But he also adds many additional sentences and phrases which take the figure down as far as 75% of his material that appears in Mt and/or Lk.

It makes no meaningful difference to the argument if it is 75% or 97% - the point remains that most of what is in Mark is also in Matthew and Luke, which is totally inconsistent with your argument that Mark comes after Matthew and Luke and Mark omits stuff because he wont duplicate what is in Matthew and Luke.

I'm sorry but you are tying yourself up in knots - of course a simple explanation that unties you is to accept (as the vast majority of scholars do) that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke had Mark as source material and added to it material from another lost source, typically known as Q.

[Dicky Underpants]

Mark emphasized the Gerasene demoniac story as he did other miracles, because they revealed how Jesus was more than just a man. Mark is opening the reader's eyes to who Jesus is; this could be why his narrative is more animated and detailed than Mt and Lk.

You also quoted the view that Mark's intention was "fundamentally kerygmatic". Let's examine these comments in the light of just one of the 'difficult' passages I alluded to above - the notorious cursing of the fig tree (and for the moment let's ignore the fig tree's supposed metaphorical significance).

Mark bluntly records the incident as follows:

And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.
 And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it.

Mark 11:13,14.

Mark somewhat later goes on to talk about the strength of faith when asked about the fig tree.

However

When Matthew relates the incident, he directly connects the withering of the fig tree to the idea of what the disciples may do if their faith is strong enough:

And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once.
 When the disciples saw it they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?"
 And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and never doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will be done.

Matthew 21: 19-21
 
You will note the undisguised petulance in the Mark account, the gratuitous cursing, especially since Mark records it was not the season for figs in any case.
You will also note that the latter phrase is omitted in Matthew, and that he directly relates the incident to what it is supposed to demonstrate about faith.
Now I say unto you - which is the more likely - that Mark read Matthew's gospel and decided to obfuscate Matthew's clear interpretation and replace it with blunt language which shows Jesus in a very poor light, or that Matthew read Mark's gospel and was appalled, and decided to tidy things up to give the most appealing gloss on the whole incident, and thus give the whole thing a decidedly kerygmatic thrust which is absent in Mark?

The thing is, these incidents are not uncommon in Mark - showing Jesus to be angry, petulant and emotionally unbalanced. This may indeed point to something close to eye-witness testimony, because such incidents may have been too well attested to go unrelated. It is also reasonable to assume, because of their embarrassing nature, that they may be a true record of what was said and done. But Mark would have been most unlikely to write in this way if his gospel relied on Matthew's and not the other way round.

Apply Occam's Razor, as the Professor implied.

[jeremyp]

The Jews of the time used what is our Old Testament. Jeremiah didn't repeat everything that Isaiah had written. If the Lord's prayer had been recorded by both Matthew and Luke, there was no necessity for Mark to record it again.

On that basis, why does Mark's gospel exist at all? Something like 95% of Mark is in Matthew and Luke.

[Spud]

It makes no meaningful difference to the argument if it is 75% or 97% - the point remains that most of what is in Mark is also in Matthew and Luke, which is totally inconsistent with your argument that Mark comes after Matthew and Luke and Mark omits stuff because he wont duplicate what is in Matthew and Luke.

But as I pointed out early in the other thread, if Matthew was using Mark then he made some significant changes to it, such as the changes from Gerasene to Gaderene, two men to one men. Or the timing of the death of Jairus daughter. This is better explained as two eyewitnesses (perhaps Matthew and Peter) giving independent accounts and Peter being closer to the action than Matthew.

I'm sorry but you are tying yourself up in knots - of course a simple explanation that unties you is to accept (as the vast majority of scholars do) that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke had Mark as source material and added to it material from another lost source, typically known as Q.

Mark 4:2,33, 12:1 are real verses. Q is an imaginary document. The only knot here is created by Q.

[Spud]

You will note the undisguised petulance in the Mark account, the gratuitous cursing, especially since Mark records it was not the season for figs in any case.
You will also note that the latter phrase is omitted in Matthew, and that he directly relates the incident to what it is supposed to demonstrate about faith.
Now I say unto you - which is the more likely - that Mark read Matthew's gospel and decided to obfuscate Matthew's clear interpretation and replace it with blunt language which shows Jesus in a very poor light, or that Matthew read Mark's gospel and was appalled, and decided to tidy things up to give the most appealing gloss on the whole incident, and thus give the whole thing a decidedly kerygmatic thrust which is absent in Mark?

Mark could have added the phrase about figs because he was writing for Gentiles. And his more rough language could have appealed more to a Roman reader or hearer.

[Spud]

Some think Mark was written in Latin. This could explain his omission of the sermon on the mount (in the Markan dependence view), the Greek translation of which apparently appears to be the original, because it has quite a bit of alliteration. If so then when translated into Latin it would not sound poetic.

[jeremyp]

This is better explained as two eyewitnesses (perhaps Matthew and Peter) giving independent accounts and Peter being closer to the action than Matthew.

No it isn't. You really can't get away from the fact  that one of them copied the other. Matthew and Mark are not independent.