New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd say that Mark includes the most important elements of Mt;s and Lk's gospels, ...

Really?!?

Surely the most important aspect of christianity is the resurrection so purported evidence of the resurrection must surely be considered the most important element in any gospel. Yet Mark does not include the post resurrection appearances that are in Matthew and Luke. Surely these would have been the first things Mark would have made sure he included in his gospel were he using Matthew and Luke and sources.

Not to do so suggests one of 2 things - either he was unaware of these details (i.e. didn't use Matthew and Luke as sources because he wrote earlier than them), or he was aware of these claims but didn't believe them. Neither possible explanation is particularly palatable to christian apologists I suspect, but surely the former is more palatable than the latter.

[Spud]

Really?!?

For the purpose of evangelism, yes. You omitted most of my post, btw!

[ProfessorDavey]

For the purpose of evangelism, yes. You omitted most of my post, btw!

I did - because it is rather irrelevant to discuss what might be in Mark because surely the most important purported event in the gospels (the post resurrection appearances) are missing from Mark.

[jeremyp]

I'd say that Mark includes the most important elements of Mt;s and Lk's gospels,

Really? No post resurrection accounts? No Lord's Prayer?

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.

Almost everything in Mark except the weird bits about saliva, pigs and naked men is available in Matthew and Luke. Why did Mark bother with a gospel at all?

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.

How do you know Mark is in a hurry? Why isn't the Lord's Prayer important for evangelism?

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).

But not actually reported in Mark.

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.

You're missing the point. Mark omitted some material that Christians consider central to their faith and the practice of their religion but included some weird stuff. It makes more sense that he was writing first and Matthew and Luke dropped the weird stuff than the other way around.

Let me know which others you feel need addressing.

The editorial fatigue would be good.

[Spud]

Really? No post resurrection accounts?

Been thinking about this. Agreed, the appearance of Jesus after his death was essential for the disciples to believe, since seeing is believing. This is why Mark's epilogue is a perfect ending.

Without the epilogue, Mark hasn't said anything about how the disciples came to believe in the resurrection. Yet we know Mark himself believes in it, otherwise why did he tell us about the young man's message? If he intended to end at 16:8, perhaps he is asking us to trust the message of the angel, since we do not have the experience the disciples had that led them to believe.

Looking at the trial/crucifixion/burial narrative in Mark and Matthew they are almost identical except in the sections Mark omits (or Matthew adds) - Judas' suicide and the guards at the tomb. But if we had to decide whether Matthew added or Mark omitted Judas' suicide, I would say it would make more sense that Mark omitted it, given its natural positioning in Matthew between verses 2 and 11 of Mt 27, between the trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Matthew and Mark both contain details about the rendezvous in Galilee, Matthew the complete story and Mark only up to the angel's message. We could ask: if Matthew has the complete story, why does Mark only have half of it? To me it reads as though Mark is aware of the actual rendezvous in Galilee, even though he doesn't tell us about it. If Mark was third (and if the epilogue was his own work), maybe he was faced with the two different accounts of resurrection appearances in Mt and Lk, and decided to use both of them, hence he omits Mt's record of the Galilee rendezvous (having recorded the promise of it) and instead gives Luke's three appearances.

In a way, this is what we would expect ot find if Mark was conflating two different narratives. We would see signs of discontinuity at the points where he switches from one source to the other.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is why Mark's epilogue is a perfect ending.

What you are talking about is a much later addition, obviously not by the same author as the original gospel. It isn't an epilogue in the normal sense of the term at all. In the sense of scholarly consideration of ancient texts it can be (and is) ignored as it isn't in ny way an original part of the gospel.

The rest of your post is therefore irrelevant.

[jeremyp]

Without the epilogue, Mark hasn't said anything about how the disciples came to believe in the resurrection. Yet we know Mark himself believes in it, otherwise why did he tell us about the young man's message? If he intended to end at 16:8, perhaps he is asking us to trust the message of the angel, since we do not have the experience the disciples had that led them to believe.

Why would he do that if he was copying off Matthew or Luke?

Looking at the trial/crucifixion/burial narrative in Mark and Matthew they are almost identical except in the sections Mark omits (or Matthew adds) - Judas' suicide and the guards at the tomb. But if we had to decide whether Matthew added or Mark omitted Judas' suicide, I would say it would make more sense that Mark omitted it, given its natural positioning in Matthew between verses 2 and 11 of Mt 27, between the trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

You mean Matthew was incapable of picking the right place to insert his story.

We could ask: if Matthew has the complete story, why does Mark only have half of it?

Yes we could. It seems  reasonable  to me that Matthew made up the second half of the story because he didn't like Mark's abrupt ending.

To me it reads as though Mark is aware of the actual rendezvous in Galilee, even though he doesn't tell us about it. If Mark was third (and if the epilogue was his own work), maybe he was faced with the two different accounts of resurrection appearances in Mt and Lk, and decided to use both of them, hence he omits Mt's record of the Galilee rendezvous (having recorded the promise of it) and instead gives Luke's three appearances.

The  epilogue wasn't his own work. It doesn't appear in any copy of the gospel for several hundred years.

In a way, this is what we would expect ot find if Mark was conflating two different narratives. We would see signs of discontinuity at the points where he switches from one source to the other.

It is clear to me that whoever did write the epilogue was summarising all three of  the  other gospel post resurrection stories.

[ProfessorDavey]

(and if the epilogue was his own work)

It wasn't - unless you believe he live to the ripe old age of several hundred.

[Spud]

You mean Matthew was incapable of picking the right place to insert his story.

Interestingly, Luke also inserts, at the same point between Mk 15:1 and 2 (according to Markan Priority): "And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation, and forbidding tribute to be given to Caesar, and declaring Himself to be Christ, a king.”"
Luke also says, 'Pilate', in contrast with Matthew's 'Pilate the governor' (Mark says, ('Pilate' too).

[Spud]

It wasn't - unless you believe he live to the ripe old age of several hundred.

Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in 177 AD.

[Spud]

The editorial fatigue would be good.

Three examples:
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/how-editorial-fatigue-shows-that-matthew-and-luke-copied-mark/

In the first, (Herod's concern) Herod is afraid of the people, hence his distress. Thus no contradiction, no need to infer editorial fatigue.

In the second (the parable of the sower), Luke could have used Matthew as his source.

In the third (the trial before the sanhedrin), Luke says 'witness' meaning testimony, not 'witnesses' as in Mt and Mk. So there is no contradiction, and no need to infer editorial fatigue.

[jeremyp]

Three examples:
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/how-editorial-fatigue-shows-that-matthew-and-luke-copied-mark/

In the first, (Herod's concern) Herod is afraid of the people, hence his distress. Thus no contradiction, no need to infer editorial fatigue.

You have completely misunderstood the point. Mark incorrectly calls Herod Antipas a king instead of “tetrarch”. Matthew corrects the first mention as he copies Mark but fails to correct the subsequent mention.

In the second (the parable of the sower), Luke could have used Matthew as his source.

I’m not sure why you think this helps your case.

In the third (the trial before the sanhedrin), Luke says 'witness' meaning testimony, not 'witnesses' as in Mt and Mk. So there is no contradiction, and no need to infer editorial fatigue.

You missed out the feeding of the 5000.

[Spud]

You have completely misunderstood the point. Mark incorrectly calls Herod Antipas a king instead of “tetrarch”. Matthew corrects the first mention as he copies Mark but fails to correct the subsequent mention.

This could be Matthew distinguishing him from King Herod in ch. 2. More historical accuracy would indicate the document being earlier.

I’m not sure why you think this helps your case.

The point is that Matthew and Mark are similar for this parable, so if you say that Luke used Mark it is equally feasible that he used Matthew.

You missed out the feeding of the 5000.

Luke apparently didn't know that Jesus and the disciples went to Bethsaida by boat, so it may be that neither Matthew nor Mark were his source for this story, or at least the first part of it. And he could have got the part containing the word 'desolate' from Matthew, not Mark.

[Owlswing]

Ye Gods and little fishes!

Just how long are people going to continue to put their faith in a book that contradicts itself again and again and again ad infinitum ad absurdam ad nauseam!

The Bible and the God it represents are discredited by the number of times adherants are instructed that for such and such a reason/action/thought/offence such and such a person shall be put to death in such and such a barbaric manner and yet the Sixth Commandment states that Thou Shalt Not Kill!

Of course from a personal point of view The Sixth and Exodus 22:18 are the most relvant to the possibility that the Bible could well have been written by the historical precursor of the modern breakfast cereal advertising executive. 

[Spud]

Ye Gods and little fishes!

Just how long are people going to continue to put their faith in a book that contradicts itself again and again and again ad infinitum ad absurdam ad nauseam!

The Bible and the God it represents are discredited by the number of times adherants are instructed that for such and such a reason/action/thought/offence such and such a person shall be put to death in such and such a barbaric manner and yet the Sixth Commandment states that Thou Shalt Not Kill!

Of course from a personal point of view The Sixth and Exodus 22:18 are the most relvant to the possibility that the Bible could well have been written by the historical precursor of the modern breakfast cereal advertising executive.

Not sure what the problem with Exodus 22:18 is.
Re: the sixth commandment: if you interpret it as no killing whatsoever, then it not only contradicts the passages on capital punishment, but also Genesis 9:2-3, where God allows killing animals for food. Maybe we have to look at the context and work out what a statement in the Bible does not mean, so we can know more accurately what it does mean? For example, Genesis 9:6 tells us both not to kill and to kill in one sentence.

[Owlswing]

Not sure what the problem with Exodus 22:16 is.

Of course you are not! You are very probably the only poster on this Forum that doesn't know, as I have never made a secret of it, that I am Pagan, Priest and WITCH  and, as such. consider that, from your posts, you were probably born about 500 years too late to take up your true vocation and a leading member of the Inquisition of the Burning Times!

Oh, and as a by-the-way - it should be Exodus 22:18 not 16!

Re: the sixth commandment: if you interpret it as no killing whatsoever, then it not only contradicts the passages on capital punishment but also Genesis 9:2-3, where God allows killing animals for food. Maybe we have to look at the context and work out what a statement in the Bible does not mean, so we can know more accurately what it does mean? For example, Genesis 9:6 tells us both not to kill and to kill in one sentence.

The Sixth Commandment NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION - it is, supposedly, the revealed word of your God and he states in the Sixth that THOU SHALT NOT KILL! No excuses, No exceptions, No ifs, No buts and No maybes!

If it is not saying what is written you might as well use the whole Bible as toilet paper!

)O( 

[jeremyp]

Of course you are not! You are very probably the only poster on this Forum that doesn't know, as I have never made a secret of it, that I am Pagan, Priest and WITCH  and, as such. consider that, from your posts, you were probably born about 500 years too late to take up your true vocation and a leading member of the Inquisition of the Burning Times!

{quote}

Re: the sixth commandment: if you interpret it as no killing whatsoever, then it not only contradicts the passages on capital punishment but also Genesis 9:2-3, where God allows killing animals for food. Maybe we have to look at the context and work out what a statement in the Bible does not mean, so we can know more accurately what it does mean? For example, Genesis 9:6 tells us both not to kill and to kill in one sentence.



The Sixth Commandment NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION - it is supposedly, the revealed word of your God and he states in the Sixth that THOU SHALT NOT KILL! No excuses, No exceptions, No ifs, No buts and No maybes!

If it is not saying what is written you might as well use the whole Bible as toilet paper!

)O(

I wouldn't put too much store in the KJV translation. Exodus 22:18 reads "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live" in the NRSV. As a non female, you'd be OK.

[Outrider]

The Sixth Commandment NEEDS NO INTERPRETATION - it is supposedly, the revealed word of your God and he states in the Sixth that THOU SHALT NOT KILL! No excuses, No exceptions, No ifs, No buts and No maybes!

Except that, in the original, it's not as clear cut as that - I'm not an expert on Aramaic or Greek by any stretch, but it's a long-running discussion as to whether the word that's translated as 'kill' in the common English translation actually should be read as 'kill' or 'murder' (or, even, 'execute') in the original.

Thou shalt not murder, admittedly, is self-evident, given that murder is 'unjustified' killing, but nevertheless - you're reading with a modern English interpretation things that were linguistically and culturally from a fundamentally different culture, and which have been translated more with an eye to poetry than to accuracy.  Every single element of it needs interpretation, it's more worrying when people take it word-for-word true in the English translations, those sort of fundamentalists need watching!

If it is not saying what is written you might as well use the whole Bible as toilet paper!

You're as well doing that, but not only because the translation introduces some significant issues.

O.

[Owlswing]

I wouldn't put too much store in the KJV translation. Exodus 22:18 reads "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live" in the NRSV. As a non-female, you'd be OK.

Funny you should say that, while I was researching my 'Year-and-a-day' task I tried to find out what the Hebrew word used that was 'untranslatable' was and what it actually meant and, as luck would have it, there was a display relating to Jewish culture on in Trafalgar Square and I figured that there might be someone there able to assist.

I asked at the first stall I saw and was directed to a Rabbi who was willing to try to help me; when I showed him the I word wanted translating (found in a Hebrew Bible that was so old and fragile that I wasn't even allowed to turn the pages, one of the staff wearing white kid gloves had to do it for me!) he laughed and said that if he had a quid for every time he had been asked about it he would be a rich man and he told me the story of the Septuagint and its problems with Hebrew and "female sorcerer" was one of the possibilities in Greek that could have been used but 'poisoner' or 'potion maker' was used instead.

Incidentally, the woman referred to as the Witch of Endor is rarely called a witch in the Bible, she is usually referred to as a 'communicator with spirits'.   

 

[Owlswing]

Except that, in the original, it's not as clear cut as that - I'm not an expert on Aramaic or Greek by any stretch, but it's a long-running discussion as to whether the word that's translated as 'kill' in the common English translation actually should be read as 'kill' or 'murder' (or, even, 'execute') in the original.

Thou shalt not murder, admittedly, is self-evident, given that murder is 'unjustified' killing, but nevertheless - you're reading with a modern English interpretation things that were linguistically and culturally from a fundamentally different culture, and which have been translated more with an eye to poetry than to accuracy.  Every single element of it needs interpretation, it's more worrying when people take it word-for-word true in the English translations, those sort of fundamentalists need watching!

You're as well doing that, but not only because the translation introduces some significant issues.

O.

As it happens I was referring to the KJV which is not a 'modern English interpretation', KJV VI and I died 399 years ago, so hardly modern.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

............. KJV VI and I died 399 years ago,

You're sounding pretty chipper for someone who's been gone these past four centuries though.

[Roses]

As it happens I was referring to the KJV which is not a 'modern English interpretation', KJV VI and I died 399 years ago, so hardly modern.

You died 399 years ago, WOW! 

[Owlswing]

I am sure that you should both be aware what a weak joke that is!


OK - translation for the pathetic "I've got proof that God exists the several people on this forum will negate because of my constant reliance on fallacies"

James the Sixth (VI in Roman numerals) of Scotland and the First (I in Roman numerals) of England and Scotland died 399 years ago! 

Littleroses - please never take "Your friendly illusion of self" as a lead for a joke!

[Nearly Sane]

I am sure that you should both be aware what a weak joke that is!


OK - translation for the pathetic "I've got proof that God exists the several people on this forum will negate because of my constant reliance on fallacies"

James the Sixth (VI in Roman numerals) of Scotland and the First (I in Roman numerals) of England and Scotland died 399 years ago! 

Littleroses - please never take "Your friendly illusion of self" as a lead for a joke!

They understood that which is why the joke is funny, well at least the first time. Indeed that's why it is a joke.

[Owlswing]

They understood that which is why the joke is funny, well at least the first time. Indeed that's why it is a joke.

I may be wrong, but I very much doubt if one of the two responders was joking!

But, NS, I bow to your longer standing judgement on the matter.