Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Spud]

Unless you have an unedited copy of the first draft, with sufficient provenance to confirm this, corroboration of what is claimed in the text and also a timeline of amendments and alterations with separate provenance for each case - then your 'essence' is that of a mixed bag of writings that are indistinguishable from fiction.

You can cite Christians apologists until the cows come home, and assert your own preparedness to take these texts seriously, but in doing so you are over-reaching to a ridiculous degree.

Have a look at this preview of "The First Gospel" by Harold Riley. Scroll down to "Chapter 8, Proto-Matthew" and point (2) on the first page of that chapter. Quote: "When we recognize that [the two doublets of Matthew 9:27-34] are later additions to the text, we see the plan of the Gospel more clearly".
That isn't what you ask for, I know. What would happen if the first draught of Bach's sonata in X was lost? Would it matter?

[ProfessorDavey]

Morning, fair point. Let me have a go at answering it: take the healing of blind Bartimaeus, and if you compare the three synoptic accounts you notice differences in detail, but it is recognizably the same incident in all three. Clearly there are at least two sources: two or one blind men? Leaving or approaching Jericho? Name? Crowd praising God? Jesus touches eyes or speaks only? The story is basically the same, though: a blind man is healed miraculously at Jericho. Are we going to suggest that this story is based on chapter 10 of "Twelve have a big adventure" in which a sleepy homeless man wakes up and becomes a follower?

None of which provides one iota of evidence that the incident actually happened - merely that through decades and centuries of handed down stories (with all the possibility of exaggerations, alterations etc etc) that a tradition arose that Jesus healed a blind man. And when we finally have some actual evidence (fragments and text) 200-300 years after the purported event that legend has been written down.

Do you believe that Icharus and Daedalus made wings and flew from Crete?

[ProfessorDavey]

How did they know to leave the city, flee to the mountains etc?

How did who know to flee?

You surely aren't talking about the so-called flight to Pella - a tradition without credible evidence that first arose in writings of Eusabuis in 312AD, nigh on 250 years after the event was supposed to have happened. This is despite there being many much more contemporaneous accounts (from both sides) about the first Jewish Roman war and the siege of Jerusalem.

[Spud]

None of which provides one iota of evidence that the incident actually happened - merely that through decades and centuries of handed down stories (with all the possibility of exaggerations, alterations etc etc) that a tradition arose that Jesus healed a blind man. And when we finally have some actual evidence (fragments and text) 200-300 years after the purported event that legend has been written down.

Do you believe that Icharus and Daedalus made wings and flew from Crete?

I've just showed what those exaggerations and alterations may have been (1 becomes 2 etc). It's also noteworthy that there is no evidence of any previous texts of the sort you are proposing (12 go down to Lake Galilee, for example).

[ProfessorDavey]

It's also noteworthy that there is no evidence of any previous texts of the sort you are proposing (12 go down to Lake Galilee, for example).

But that is the fundamental issue - there is an aching paucity of evidence for any of the claims in the gospels. All we have are many-generation handed down texts from hundreds of years after the events which are clearly partial (in other words written by believers). There is nothing contemporaneous nor near contemporaneous and nothing independent (i.e. non partial) - for example reports in contemporary Jewish or Roman texts indicating that Jesus existed and performed miracles etc etc. We have absolutely nothing.

Now were the claims completely run of the mill, then we'd perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt in the absence of any credible evidence. But that the claims are fundamentally implausible and extraordinary in the extreme then to accept them (to misquote Sagan) requires extraordinary evidence. Yet in reality we have effectively no credible evidence whatsoever.

[Spud]

Prof,
We do have a mention of John the Baptist in Josephus in the context of Herod's marital troubles, for the record. Then there is Tacitus who mentions Christ and his followers, and I think he remarks that Christ was worshipped as a god?

[Roses]

Prof,
We do have a mention of John the Baptist in Josephus in the context of Herod's marital troubles, for the record. Then there is Tacitus who mentions Christ and his followers, and I think he remarks that Christ was worshipped as a god?

Many charismatic leaders have been worshipped as gods by their followers over the centuries!

[SteveH]

Many charismatic leaders have been worshipped as gods by their followers over the centuries!

I'm sure you can justify that statement with examples...

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,
We do have a mention of John the Baptist in Josephus in the context of Herod's marital troubles, for the record. Then there is Tacitus who mentions Christ and his followers, and I think he remarks that Christ was worshipped as a god?

Neither Josephus nor Tacitus are contemporary - the former writing around 94AD, the latter around 116AD, so both writing 60 plus years after the death of Jesus.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sure you can justify that statement with examples...

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

[SteveH]

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

I asked LR, not you. I suspect that she was just guessing, as so often, and wouldn't have had an answer to a challenge.

[Roses]

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

Thanks Prof.

Many  of those awful evangelists are treated like gods by their very gullible followers. That Benny Hinn creature has people going on about the miracles of healing he is supposed to have carried out. I heard it claimed that someone's amputated leg miraculously re-attached itself, like as if. 

The ghastly, Trump, is looked upon as a godlike entity by some of his bonkers supporters.

[ProfessorDavey]

I asked LR, not you. I suspect that she was just guessing, as so often, and wouldn't have had an answer to a challenge.

Irrelevant and I suspect you are wrong.

Do you accept that over history all sorts of people have been considered to be and worshiped as gods.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither Josephus nor Tacitus are contemporary - the former writing around 94AD, the latter around 116AD, so both writing 60 plus years after the death of Jesus.

I never see the same reservations expressed in other circumstances where historians are writing after the event.

Verdict on this post? Humbug.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither Josephus nor Tacitus are contemporary - the former writing around 94AD, the latter around 116AD, so both writing 60 plus years after the death of Jesus.

I never see the same reservations expressed in other circumstances where historians are writing after the event.

Verdict on this post? Humbug.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Note a number of posts have been removed as they were merely comments about different posters posting style with no relevance to the thread. This is effectively a derail. Please note that such posts will continue to be removed.

[jeremyp]

I'm sure you can justify that statement with examples...

Jesus.

Any number of Roman emperors.

Elon Musk

[jeremyp]

I never see the same reservations expressed in other circumstances where historians are writing after the event.

Don't you?

Verdict on this post? Humbug.

It was factually correct.

[SteveH]

Irrelevant and I suspect you are wrong.

Do you accept that over history all sorts of people have been considered to be and worshiped as gods.

Yes - I didn't deny it.
Your second sentence should be terminated by a question mark.

[Owlswing]

Yes - I didn't deny it.

Your second sentence should be terminated by a question mark.

Another pedant!

The last resort of someone with nothing worthwhile to say! Just criticise others!

[ProfessorDavey]

Your second sentence should be terminated by a question mark.

Do you accept that over history all sorts of people have been considered to be and worshiped as gods?

[ProfessorDavey]

I never see the same reservations expressed in other circumstances where historians are writing after the event.

The proximity of the writing about an event to the actual event is a key issue for historians in all contexts. Specifically it requires historians to consider the source material when a commentary is written decades after an event.

Sometimes (as will be the case in current academic historical texts) the source material will be clear and referenced. But for ancient texts we are often completely in the dark as to the earlier sources used in the derivation of the final text. And in this case the weight that is placed on that text is consequentially diminished.

The issue with Josephus and Tacitus (amongst a range of issues) is we don't know what source material they are basing their very limited comments on Jesus. Was it genuinely independent, or were they simply using early christian texts that were floating around and editing it down to the bits they believed were true and relevant - namely there was a guy called Jesus, he was executed and people followed him (that's basically all we can  take from the texts of Josephus and Tacitus ignoring the obvious later christian alterations).

[Roses]

Whilst something that is considered historical is obviously written up after it has happened, it is wise to question the veracity of things, which aren't credible, like those attributed to Jesus.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whilst something that is considered historical is obviously written up after it has happened, it is wise to question the veracity of things, which aren't credible, like those attributed to Jesus.

Sometimes you get directly contemporaneous reports and evidence - while we may consider Kennedy's assassination as a historical event much of what we know happened is based on reports, film etc etc from the moment when it happened.

[Roses]

Sometimes you get directly contemporaneous reports and evidence - while we may consider Kennedy's assassination as a historical event much of what we know happened is based on reports, film etc etc from the moment when it happened.

Very true.

We can never be certain that historical events, especially ones that took place many centuries ago without the benefit of films and modern technology, were accurately reported. The problem in this day and age is that  modern technology can be used to alter photos and create images, which aren't factual.