New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[jeremyp]

Some think Mark was written in Latin.

Well it wasn't.

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.

The Bible has been translated into many languages. Nobody has ever omitted The Sermon on the Mount because it didn't work in the target language.

Furthermore, you also have The Lord's Prayer and all the post resurrection appearances of Jesus to explain.

[ProfessorDavey]

Q is an imaginary document. The only knot here is created by Q.

Doesn't necessarily need to be a document - it is a term for an alternative source for the additional material in Luke and Matthew that isn't in Mark. It could be oral tradition. There is no problem with the notion if Q as there need to be source material for what is in the gospels unless you think that the gospel writers simply sat down decades after the events and made up their accounts completely from scratch.

Indeed the title of this thread is about source material - the OP suggesting that source material is eye witness accounts.

[Spud]

The Bible has been translated into many languages. Nobody has ever omitted The Sermon on the Mount because it didn't work in the target language.

Good point!

[Spud]

Doesn't necessarily need to be a document - it is a term for an alternative source for the additional material in Luke and Matthew that isn't in Mark. It could be oral tradition. There is no problem with the notion if Q as there need to be source material for what is in the gospels unless you think that the gospel writers simply sat down decades after the events and made up their accounts completely from scratch.

Indeed the title of this thread is about source material - the OP suggesting that source material is eye witness accounts.

I think that's probably what happened with Matthew: as an eyewitness he sat and wrote from scratch having probably written quite a lot down in note form already.

B. Ward Powers (2010) in The Progressive Publication of Matthew: An Explanation of the Writing of the Synoptic Gospels, argues that people in Jerusalem were writing short accounts of the life of Jesus, which Matthew collected, and which were also collected and distributed by visitors from further afield. Luke then and Matthew then published their gospels around the same time, Luke also using other eyewitness accounts; this explains how he has some similar and some differing material to Matthew.

When I mentioned Q, I was thinking more of your inferred source for Mark. The reason I said the latter is causing knots is because you used it as a way to avoid the conclusion from Mk 4:2,33 that Mark had quoted from Matthew. Then you implied it must exist, because Mark must have had a source. You said that source couldn't be Matthew because Mk wouldn't have left out Mt's extensive sermons. That seems a weak argument, because of course he could have left them out.

But another reason for thinking that Mark used both Matthew and Luke is the order of the pericopes. If Markan priority is true, then whenever Matthew deserted Mark's order, Luke always took it up at exactly that point. And whenever Luke deserted Mark's order, Matthew always took it up at that point. This happens dozens of times (I'll check how many), which would be a very big coincidence. It's easier to say that Mark had access to Mt and Lk, and whenever he came to material in one major gospel that he wanted to skirt around, he switched to using the other major gospel, or his independent source from whom his 4 unique pericopes come.

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.

But sometimes there are significant differences, explained only by their having different sources. In the scenario I just mentioned in this post, Mark would have used Luke's account of the same story instead of Matthew's. The Gaderene demoniac would be a good example, since Mark is almost the same as Luke there.

I hope I'm not coming across as being tied in knots. My view is that of Powers in the above book, which I'm reading. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that's probably what happened with Matthew: as an eyewitness he sat and wrote from scratch having probably written quite a lot down in note form already.

You have absolutely no evidence for this - there is no credible evidence that the person who wrote Matthew (in about AD90) was an eye witness or anything close to being.

Then you implied it must exist, because Mark must have had a source. You said that source couldn't be Matthew because Mk wouldn't have left out Mt's extensive sermons. That seems a weak argument, because of course he could have left them out.

It is, of course, a possibility that Mark used Matthew as a source, just as it is a possibility that Matthew used Mark as a source. To determine which possibility is most likely we need to look at the evidence, which countless academic scholars have done. And the evidence is overwhelming as is the consensus of experts, that Mark wrote first and Matthew used Mark as a source.

[jeremyp]

Doesn't necessarily need to be a document

I think it does, because the similarities in the wording between the Q material in Matthew and Luke are too great for it to have been transmitted orally.

Q may not have existed if Luke was, in fact, using Matthew as a source.

[ekim]

Long live the Gospel of Thomas!

[Spud]

...there is no occasion when what is found in a given pericope in Mark is not found next in either Matthew or Luke but is found elsewhere in Matthew's or Luke's sequence. There is no place where Mark places a pericope in an independent order of his own, an order that is not paralleled in either Matthew or Luke.

B. Ward Powers (2010), The Progressive Publication of Matthew: An Explanation of the Writing of the Synoptic Gospels, p.389.

[ProfessorDavey]

B. Ward Powers (2010), The Progressive Publication of Matthew: An Explanation of the Writing of the Synoptic Gospels, p.389.

He is a christian apologist rather than a serious academic historian with an interest in the analysis of ancient texts.

[ProfessorDavey]

...there is no occasion when what is found in a given pericope in Mark is not found next in either Matthew or Luke but is found elsewhere in Matthew's or Luke's sequence. There is no place where Mark places a pericope in an independent order of his own, an order that is not paralleled in either Matthew or Luke.

And?

Why would this provide any justification for Mark using Matthew as a source - it seems entirely consistent with both Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source.

[jeremyp]

...there is no occasion when what is found in a given pericope in Mark is not found next in either Matthew or Luke but is found elsewhere in Matthew's or Luke's sequence. There is no place where Mark places a pericope in an independent order of his own, an order that is not paralleled in either Matthew or Luke.

Which is solid evidence that Mark wrote first.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

Well, the Romans would certainly have known about the season for figs! Or perhaps he added this totally superfluous phrase for the benefit of potential converts in Scandinavia in the far distant future? (In fact figs will grow in most European countries, though they may not ripen.) All the phrase does is make the already petulant outburst of Jesus seem even more egregious.

But consider how the story is told in Mark: the first part of the anecdote is related in chap.11: 13-14; the conclusion does not get referred to until verses 20-23, where there is no eminently noticeable lesson pointed out about the power of faith. And what do we get in between - no less than the famous incident of the cleansing of the money-lenders from the Temple! I suspect most of his readers would have forgotten about the fig tree by this time - do you think this was his intention?

Matthew, on the other hand, tries to make the fig-tree incident totally coherent and internally consistent, by compressing it to one occasion, and having Jesus point out the lesson to be learned directly (in fact, it's not a particularly nice lesson, since it suggests that if you have faith in God, you can give free rein to your most childish whims and have them fulfilled). However, it seems perfectly obvious to me that this is a case of Matthew tidying up the rambling narrative of Mark, rather than Mark taking Matthew's coherent narration and splitting it into a rather meaningless mess.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's easier to say that Mark had access to Mt and Lk, and whenever he came to material in one major gospel that he wanted to skirt around, he switched to using the other major gospel, or his independent source from whom his 4 unique pericopes come.

In the case of the story of the fig tree (which in Matthew's version might qualify as a pericope), Luke omits it, so whatever 'skirting around' Mark did would have to have been out of his own head - and a right dog's breakfast he makes of it.

Luke does have a story about the potential demise of a fig tree - a far more wholesome one, in which the fig tree is saved from execution by a judicious horticulturalist. Maybe Luke did know the story of Jesus' cursing as told in Mark, but decided to omit it - this is typical of Luke's gentle touch, where he always tries to present Jesus in the most glowing colours possible.

[Spud]

In the case of the story of the fig tree (which in Matthew's version might qualify as a pericope), Luke omits it, so whatever 'skirting around' Mark did would have to have been out of his own head - and a right dog's breakfast he makes of it.

Luke does have a story about the potential demise of a fig tree - a far more wholesome one, in which the fig tree is saved from execution by a judicious horticulturalist. Maybe Luke did know the story of Jesus' cursing as told in Mark, but decided to omit it - this is typical of Luke's gentle touch, where he always tries to present Jesus in the most glowing colours possible.

Well spotted! This is one of two points in Mark where it isn't obvious that Mark is sticking to his policy of following the order of either Matthew or Luke (or both).

Starting with the triumphal entry, Mark follows Matthew's order up until Jesus curses the fig tree, but replaces the cleansing of the temple with Jesus going in and looking around the temple. Mark then follows Luke's order by recording the cleansing of the temple followed by the conspiracy of the chief priests and scribes. He then resumes Matthew's order with the disciples noticing the withered tree, and Jesus' response. Then all three record the authority of Jesus questioned.

[Spud]

And?

Why would this provide any justification for Mark using Matthew as a source - it seems entirely consistent with both Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source.

It justifies the idea of Mark using both Matthew and Luke.

If Matthew and Luke used Mark, then:

It certainly looks on the face of it as if Matthew and Luke are alternating in deserting Mark's order and rejoining it. And on a not insignificant number of occasions, the one deserts and the other rejoins Markan order at precisely the same point. And never do both Major Synoptics desert Mark's order at the same time. Yet we cannot seriously entertain the proposition that Matthew and Luke were working in collusion in treating Mark's sequence this way. So there is a very high order of coincidence involved here. Or should one postulate some miraculous supernatural intervention, some bewildering divine purpose, to ensure that each Major Synoptist returned to Markan order just where the other was deserting it, and thus to prevent Markan order being left at any time unsupposted by a second Synoptic Gospel?

(Powers, p 423)

[ProfessorDavey]

It justifies the idea of Mark using both Matthew and Luke.

If Matthew and Luke used Mark, then:
(Powers, p 423)

That is no more an argument for Mark following Luke and Matthew than for Luke and Matthew following Mark. And of course the very notion of the almost 100% commonality between what is in Mark and elements of Luke and Matthew, while Luke and Matthew include significant content not in Mark is exceptionally strong evidence that Luke and Matthew use Mark as a source, augmented by other material.

[ProfessorDavey]

It justifies the idea of Mark using both Matthew and Luke.

If Matthew and Luke used Mark, then:
(Powers, p 423)

And as I've said before B. Ward Powers isn't a serious historian of ancient scripts - he is a christian apologist. His interest is christian theology not historical accuracy and relationship between ancient texts.

[ProfessorDavey]

In a manner of speaking Mark is a bit like a demo that a band might make that eventually becomes an album. It's a bit rough and ready, not enough songs for a full album.

So it gets polished, altered - add a few strings here, some backing vocals there, get a good producer to re-mix it - to make it more palatable and commercially slick (appealing to its target audience). Add a few extra songs and low and behold you've got a full album - in other words Matthew or Luke.

[Roses]

In a manner of speaking Mark is a bit like a demo that a band might make that eventually becomes an album. It's a bit rough and ready, not enough songs for a full album.

So it gets polished, altered - add a few strings here, some backing vocals there, get a good producer to re-mix it - to make it more palatable and commercially slick (appealing to its target audience). Add a few extra songs and low and behold you've got a full album - in other words Matthew or Luke.

An interesting illustration.

[Spud]

In the case of the story of the fig tree (which in Matthew's version might qualify as a pericope), Luke omits it, so whatever 'skirting around' Mark did would have to have been out of his own head - and a right dog's breakfast he makes of it.

There is ambiguity in Lk over the number of days between the triumphal entry and 'the authority of Jesus questioned'. Mt has one day, Lk has an ambiguous number of one or more. Mark is thus free to rearrange intervening material. He spans the events over 3 days by inserting material of his own: 'Jesus looks around the temple and goes away for the night'. This necessitates being out of order with both Mt and Lk for cleansing the temple. But 'Jesus curses the fig tree' on the day after the triumphal entry is in sync with Mt, and the conspiracy of the scribes following the cleansing of the temple is in sync with Lk. Mark's placing of 'questioning of Jesus' authority' on the second day after the triumphal entry agrees with Lk, and from that point the three are back in sequence.

[Gordon]

Spud

If Mark is "thus free to rearrange intervening material. He spans the events over 3 days by inserting material of his own" how do you know he isn't just making stuff up?

[Roses]

If time travel was possible. it would be most interesting to go back 2000 years to see if Jesus was anything like the way the gospels portrayed him as being.

[Spud]

Spud

If Mark is "thus free to rearrange intervening material. He spans the events over 3 days by inserting material of his own" how do you know he isn't just making stuff up?

Well, it would make sense to say it was already late, as they had done quite a bit already that day.
Also, it wouldn't be very consistent to say Mark made this detail up since, generally when he gives extra details, they do tend to come across as authentic.
It's more likely that Matthew and Luke with their emphasis on Jesus' teaching, were less concerned about chronological accuracy (eg Lk
20:1) and either knowingly or unknowingly omitted that detail. I may be wrong.

[Gordon]

Well, it would make sense to say it was already late, as they had done quite a bit already that day.
Also, it wouldn't be very consistent to say Mark made this detail up since, generally when he gives extra details, they do tend to come across as authentic.
It's more likely that Matthew and Luke with their emphasis on Jesus' teaching, were less concerned about chronological accuracy (eg Lk
20:1) and either knowingly or unknowingly omitted that detail. I may be wrong.

On what basis can you claim "come across as authentic."?

If you can't establish that you are right, that you might be wrong is a given.

[Roses]

Well, it would make sense to say it was already late, as they had done quite a bit already that day.
Also, it wouldn't be very consistent to say Mark made this detail up since, generally when he gives extra details, they do tend to come across as authentic.
It's more likely that Matthew and Luke with their emphasis on Jesus' teaching, were less concerned about chronological accuracy (eg Lk
20:1) and either knowingly or unknowingly omitted that detail. I may be wrong.

In what way can you tell they are authentic? It is much more likely you wish to believe in their authenticity.