New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[jeremyp]

Neither Matthew nor Luke contain any healing of a deaf person, even though they list this kind of healing (Mt 11:5, Lk 7:22). They do record examples of healing the lame, the blind and the lepers, raising the dead and preaching to the poor. So we might expect at least one of them to record this miracle if they were copying from Mark.

Unless they  thought the whole spit thing was unseemly.

[Spud]

Unless they  thought the whole spit thing was unseemly.

If so, they missed or ignored another opportunity to record that Jesus drove out a deaf and dumb spirit, Mark 9. They both included this pericope but without any mention of that detail.

[Spud]

You haven't yet explained, despite my asking, how you've eliminated the risks that this story is wrong or is fiction.

Perhaps you're right, it can't be proved that Mark didn't make it up. There are one or two other examples, if you want one, of details in Mark that are characteristic of eyewitness, but are not conclusive proof. He states that the grass was green in the feeding of the five thousand. John tells us it was Passover, so we know that the grass would have been green.

[Gordon]

Perhaps you're right, it can't be proved that Mark didn't make it up. There are one or two other examples, if you want one, of details in Mark that are characteristic of eyewitness, but are not conclusive proof. He states that the grass was green in the feeding of the five thousand. John tells us it was Passover, so we know that the grass would have been green.

One characteristic of eye witnesses is that they can be wrong, and another is that they can lie. Noting that grass is green doesn't seem all that significant an observation

[ProfessorDavey]

One characteristic of eye witnesses is that they can be wrong, and another is that they can lie.

I think I'd go further than that - the research on this shows that eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable for a whole range of reasons. And that's just for genuine first-hand eye witnesses. Add in transmission of information to second, third-hand etc people and errors are compounded multiple fold.

[Roses]

I think I'd go further than that - the research on this shows that eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable for a whole range of reasons. And that's just for genuine first-hand eye witnesses. Add in transmission of information to second, third-hand etc people and errors are compounded multiple fold.

I agree with you.

[Spud]

I think I'd go further than that - the research on this shows that eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable for a whole range of reasons. And that's just for genuine first-hand eye witnesses. Add in transmission of information to second, third-hand etc people and errors are compounded multiple fold.

Which means the disagreement between Matthew and Mark on which day Jesus cleansed the temple suggests that it did happen.

[Gordon]

Which means the disagreement between Matthew and Mark on which day Jesus cleansed the temple suggests that it did happen.

Don't be so silly, Spud.

[Roses]

Which means the disagreement between Matthew and Mark on which day Jesus cleansed the temple suggests that it did happen.

No it doesn't.

[ippy]

How's it going with the dead sea scrolls anything there they might throw some light on the subject only it must be so frustrating for those that have to face the fact that there's nowhere near the amount of reliable evidence needed in support a belief you so want to be able to justify, a belief that up till now is just that a belief and nothing more than that. 

ippy.

[jeremyp]

Which means the disagreement between Matthew and Mark on which day Jesus cleansed the temple suggests that it did happen.

No, because Mark (or Matthew) wrote the story and Matthew (or Mark) copied it making the changes. You only have one source, not two.

[jeremyp]

How's it going with the dead sea scrolls anything there they might throw some light on the subject only it must be so frustrating for those that have to face the fact that there's nowhere near the amount of reliable evidence needed in support a belief you so want to be able to justify, a belief that up till now is just that a belief and nothing more than that. 

ippy.

What have the Dead Sea Scrolls got to do with this?

[ippy]

What have the Dead Sea Scrolls got to do with this?

I thought it might be a possibility there might be some new evidence to be found in them, I have no idea either way, just a suggestion.

ippy

[jeremyp]

I thought it might be a possibility there might be some new evidence to be found in them, I have no idea either way, just a suggestion.

ippy

There’s nothing about Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[ippy]

There’s nothing about Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Nothing been found so far?

ippy

[jeremyp]

Nothing been found so far?

ippy

I’m not aware of anybody expecting to find anything from them about Jesus.

[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.

I can't resist posting this page from the book I linked to earlier:
https://tinyurl.com/tyyqgsp
It has a table showing how, if Markan dependence is correct, Mark follows the order of Matthew then Luke then Matthew for the Temple/Fig Tree episode, while adding his own details at various points. It's worth a look.

[jeremyp]

I can't resist posting this page from the book I linked to earlier:
https://tinyurl.com/tyyqgsp
It has a table showing how, if Markan dependence is correct, Mark follows the order of Matthew then Luke then Matthew for the Temple/Fig Tree episode, while adding his own details at various points. It's worth a look.

Or how Matthew and Luke take elements from Mark which makes more sense when you consider other things like Mark leaving out the Lord’s Prayer, examples of editorial fatigue in both Matthew and Luke and Mark’s less literary style.

[Spud]

Or how Matthew and Luke take elements from Mark

If this were the case, then when either Matthew or Luke deserted Mark's order of pericopes, the other always continued or resumed it, so that one or both of them were following it at all times. This would be such a big coincidence that it is more realistic that Mark was drawing on the other two, making sure he was always in sequence with one or the other or both.
(There is a reference to this phenomenon in the wiki article on Markan Priority).

[ippy]

If this were the case, then when either Matthew or Luke deserted Mark's order of pericopes, the other always continued or resumed it, so that one or both of them were following it at all times. This would be such a big coincidence that it is more realistic that Mark was drawing on the other two, making sure he was always in sequence with one or the other or both.
(There is a reference to this phenomenon in the wiki article on Markan Priority).

Wow!!

ippy.

[jeremyp]

If this were the case, then when either Matthew or Luke deserted Mark's order of pericopes, the other always continued or resumed it, so that one or both of them were following it at all times. This would be such a big coincidence that it is more realistic that Mark was drawing on the other two, making sure he was always in sequence with one or the other or both.
(There is a reference to this phenomenon in the wiki article on Markan Priority).

No. It can be explained by either Matthew or Luke choosing to editorialize Mark. In most cases, of course, they both choose to follow Mark. And there are some cases where they both thought what Mark wrote is silly e.g. using spit to heal people, and both left it out.

Mark has no Lord’s Prayer. Mark has no post resurrection account. These are much bigger deals than the stuff you keep bringing up.

[Spud]

No. It can be explained by either Matthew or Luke choosing to editorialize Mark.

This is true, but I don't think you are understanding the problem here. There are 80 pericopes in Mark from start to finish (stats may vary depending on the source). In 36 of these, both Matthew and Luke agree with Mark concerning the positioning of them in the narrative (which means your statement, "In most cases, of course, they both choose to follow Mark" is not correct). In 4 of them, neither Luke nor Matthew has them, so that means that in the remaining 40 pericopes, one or the other of Mt and Lk has chosen to go out of sequence with Mark. That in itself is quite feasible. But the thing is that every time one of them goes out of sequence, the other is in sequence or goes back into sequence. In other words, they are never both out of sequence with Mark at the same time, despite one or other going out of sequence 40 times altogether. This would be an almighty coincidence if Mt and Lk had indeed used Mark.

As an example, take the "Rejection at Nazareth" pericope (Mk 6:1-6), which given Markan Priority, Luke decided to lift out of its context in Mark (after the raising of Jairus' daughter) and place at the beginning of Jesus' ministry in Lk 4. But at this point in Mark, Matthew, who has been out of sequence with Mark, suddenly goes back into sequence with Mark by placing the rejection at Nazareth pericope before John the Baptist's beheading. Imagine this happening every time either Lk or Mt deserts Mark's order, the other is either already in sequence or goes back into sequence with Mark. It's too much of a coincidence.

And there are some cases where they both thought what Mark wrote is silly e.g. using spit to heal people, and both left it out.

Mark has no Lord’s Prayer. Mark has no post resurrection account. These are much bigger deals than the stuff you keep bringing up.

All this is based on what you think Mark or the others would be most likely to include or not include.

[Spud]

The number of pericopes in Mark is actually more than 80 - more like 87 or more. The extra ones don't affect the stats for changes in sequence.

[jeremyp]

This is true, but I don't think you are understanding the problem here.

No. You are failing to understand the problem.

All this is based on what you think Mark or the others would be most likely to include or not include.

I think the Lord’s Prayer and the resurrection appearances are fundamental to Christianity. I think you cannot come up with a reason why Mark would leave them out that does not also raise the question of why he bothered to write a gospel at all.

You also fail to address the other reasons for Markan priority.

[Spud]

No. You are failing to understand the problem. I think the Lord’s Prayer and the resurrection appearances are fundamental to Christianity. I think you cannot come up with a reason why Mark would leave them out that does not also raise the question of why he bothered to write a gospel at all.

I'd say that Mark includes the most important elements of Mt;s and Lk's gospels, this being evident from comparison of sections of Mt and Lk where Mk only has a summary statement including the key elements, such as Mk 13:32-33 // Mt 24:36-44.

All the elements of the Lord's prayer are included at various points in Mk. Eg in Gethsemane Jesus addresses God as Father, prays for God's will to be done, and tells the disciples to pray that they will not be tempted. After the fig tree withers, Jesus tells the disciples to pray with faith for the removal of a mountain, figurative for earthly obstructions to be removed to make way for God's kingdom to come. When clearing the temple, Jesus refers to Jeremiah 7:11, "Has this house, which bears My name, become a den of robbers in your sight?" (hence, Hallowed be thy name).
In the same passage Jesus tells us to forgive anyone we hold a grudge against, so that we may also be forgiven.
At the feeding of the 5000 Jesus teaches the disciples to rely on God for food (Mk 6:52).

If Mark omitted Mt's Sermon on the Mount (and other long teaching sections in Mt and Lk) for brevity, then he would naturally omit the Lord's prayer, and not be concerned since it was available to read in his two sources anyway, and also indirectly in his own gospel.

Mk doesn't have the virgin birth either. Nor the ascension (but then, Matthew omits that as well).

It is possible to say that Mk included only the material that was important for evangelism. The cross and resurrection are the fundamentals of the Easter story, and both are reported in Mark. Given that Mark is in a hurry, we should not expect to find all the information shared by Mt and Lk.

Jesus' post-resurrection appearances are presupposed by the angel's instructions to meet him in Galilee, as well as by the raising of Jairus' daughter (names of key eyewitnesses included).

It's possible that Mark was intending to focus in on what Jesus had just done ('wrought salvation in complete isolation' - Rosenstock-Huessy). This is amplified by the way Mark leaves us with no indication that the disciples understood yet who Jesus is (the Son of God) - unless the long ending is authentic.

Mk 16:8 ends with the Greek word meaning 'for'. This is strange as it implies there is more to follow, but given Mark's style it can be understood to be the original wording. It is a similar situation to when Joseph identifies himself to his brothers in Genesis 45:3, where in the LXX the same word order is found ('gar' at the end of the sentence).

You also fail to address the other reasons for Markan priority.

Ok, I will address one now: The 'spitting miracles' are not in Mt or Lk. You have said that Mt and Lk considered these miracles inappropriate, but equally it is rather unlikely that Mt and Lk, copying Mk, would both independently decide to omit them both, but include all his other healing miracles.

Let me know which others you feel need addressing.