Some supernatural claims

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. I.m pointing out that Paul thought his non physical encounter was as valid as everybody else's. Therefore he probably assumed that everybody's encounters were similar to his.No it doesn't.

Yes it does, Acts 9,3-9 Paul is blinded by his encounter with the risen Jesus.Acts 9 13-19 scales fall from his eyes and his sight is regained. This makes a psychosomatic blindness less likely.

[jeremyp]

Yes it does, Acts 9,3-9 Paul is blinded by his encounter with the risen Jesus.Acts 9 13-19 scales fall from his eyes and his sight is regained. This makes a psychosomatic blindness less likely.

Do you think scales literally fell from his eyes? Is there any evidence that his corneas were literally scaled over? Is that even a real thing?

Paul says he was blind. I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing your claim that his corneas literally scaled over.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you think scales literally fell from his eyes? Is there any evidence that his corneas were literally scaled over? Is that even a real thing?

Paul says he was blind. I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing your claim that his corneas literally scaled over.

No it says in Acts and I have no reason to disbelieve it.

The diagnosis of psychosomatic or post fit blindness was formalised centuries later. Somebody making it up would have to be a genius to weirdly think ''just in case centuries if future they might put this down as psychosomatic i'll put the scales in''. Or there really were scales on the cornea or inner eyelid from the encounter?

[ProfessorDavey]

No it says in Acts and I have no reason to disbelieve it.

So do you believe everything that is written in texts from antiquity Vlad? Sounds like special pleading to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So do you believe everything that is written in texts from antiquity Vlad? Sounds like special pleading to me.

Obviously most people believe some of it that's why we have history.

[jeremyp]

No it says in Acts and I have no reason to disbelieve it.

The diagnosis of psychosomatic or post fit blindness was formalised centuries later. Somebody making it up would have to be a genius to weirdly think ''just in case centuries if future they might put this down as psychosomatic i'll put the scales in''. Or there really were scales on the cornea or inner eyelid from the encounter?

Acts was written probably 60 years after Paul's conversion and it was written by an anonymous author and we don't know what his sources were.

It's hardly mind blowing evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Acts was written probably 60 years after Paul's conversion and it was written by an anonymous author and we don't know what his sources were.

It's hardly mind blowing evidence.

Histories are often written years after the event Jeremy in fact it’s pretty usual.

[jeremyp]

Histories are often written years after the event Jeremy in fact it’s pretty usual.

Yes, but when they are written by anonymous authors after 60 years  and give no indication of who their source was, we treat them with scepticism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but when they are written by anonymous authors after 60 years  and give no indication of who their source was, we treat them with scepticism.

You have to judge whether you are reading a history or reportage or whatever. History has more incidents of uncertain authorship than I think you give it credit for. Have you actually read the book of Acts? Are you a pre frontal lobe epilepsy exponent?

[jeremyp]

You have to judge whether you are reading a history or reportage or whatever. History has more incidents of uncertain authorship than I think you give it credit for. Have you actually read the book of Acts? Are you a pre frontal lobe epilepsy exponent?

Yes I've read it. I've also read some of Paul's letters. Acts and Paul diverge on some salient points of fact, so we know it isn't completely reliable.

[Spud]

The evolution of textual evidence as to how the resurrection was described. The earliest writers, e.g. Paul and Mark don't suggest a physical resurrection - the former is pretty clear that he isn't describing a physical resurrection, more a vision. The latter has no indication of the nature of the resurrection whatsoever in the earliest form. Later writers, e.g. Luke, Matthew, John move in the direction of describing a physical resurrection.

Unless Mark was written later than the others and made use of their accounts of the resurrection appearances. That he incorrectly adds "as he said to you" to "there you will see him" in 16:7 (cf. Mk 14:28) would be consistent with Mark having in the back of his mind Matthew's, "he is risen, as he said" and conflating it with Matthew's "Behold, I have told you".

[Spud]

Even if the long ending of Mark was written by another author, it is still quite obvious that Mark 16:1-8 is secondary. According to Matthew, Jesus was not in the tomb because he had risen. According to Luke, Jesus was not there but he had risen. According to Mark, the angel said "He is risen, he is not here", which is less natural. It is improbable that Matthew and Luke were quoting from Mark and both changed the order of the two phrases.

That Mark was quoting from Matthew and Luke and reversed the phrases would be consistent with him knowing the phrase "he is risen" as the part of the angel's message which people would have remembered long afterwards.

[jeremyp]

Almost nobody who has studied the matter thinks Mark was written after Matthew and Luke.

[Spud]

Almost nobody who has studied the matter thinks Mark was written after Matthew and Luke.

Argumentum ad populum? Can they explain why Mark names the two Marys twice in a row, at 15:47 and 16:1? Markan dependence on Matthew explains it: Matthew necessarily names them twice, before and after mentioning the guards at the tomb, but Mark is copying from Matthew but omitting his section on the guards.

[Sebastian Toe]

Argumentum ad populum? Can they explain why Mark names the two Marys twice in a row, at 15:47 and 16:1? Markan dependence on Matthew explains it: Matthew necessarily names them twice, before and after mentioning the guards at the tomb, but Mark is copying from Matthew but omitting his section on the guards.

Or Matthew is copying from Mark and adding in the guards for effect.

[Spud]

Or Matthew is copying from Mark and adding in the guards for effect.

But that doesn't explain Mark's odd repetition of the two names in 16:1.

[Spud]

Or Matthew is copying from Mark and adding in the guards for effect.

There is a hypothesis that originally, Matthew began at 3:1 and ended at 28:8, with the women doing as they had been instructed by the angel. If the posting of the guards, as well as the rest from 28:9 onward, were added by an editor, then the repetition of the two Mary's names seems to have occurred in the original, whether Matthew or Mark. Interestingly, however, Luke refers to the women without naming them until a later point.
This hypothesis would mean that Prof was correct that the earliest form of any of the four gospels did not include a resurrection appearance.

[jeremyp]

Argumentum ad populum? Can they explain why Mark names the two Marys twice in a row, at 15:47 and 16:1? Markan dependence on Matthew explains it: Matthew necessarily names them twice, before and after mentioning the guards at the tomb, but Mark is copying from Matthew but omitting his section on the guards.

No. A scholarly consensus.

[ProfessorDavey]

No. A scholarly consensus.

Indeed - scholarly consensus, and I mean proper scholars rather than christian apologists and theologians, is pretty clear that Mark comes first, and also that originally Mark did not include any resurrection appearance.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is a hypothesis that originally, Matthew began at 3:1 and ended at 28:8, with the women doing as they had been instructed by the angel.

This isn't a theory I'm aware of so can you link to some scholarly evidence for this please.

It is, of course, perfectly plausible as we don't have anything earlier than I think about 350 in terms of extant texts. So plenty of opportunity for edits, additions, changes etc. However, unlike the additions to the end of Mark, I don't think we have obvious before/after versions as a smoking gun to demonstrate alteration.

This hypothesis would mean that Prof was correct that the earliest form of any of the four gospels did not include a resurrection appearance.

But that doesn't require any alteration to Matthew, as Mark is considered to have been written before Matthew and with the original not containing a resurrection appearance.

[jeremyp]

Indeed - scholarly consensus, and I mean proper scholars rather than christian apologists and theologians, is pretty clear that Mark comes first, and also that originally Mark did not include any resurrection appearance.

It’s worth pointing out that the majority of scholars who have formed this consensus would describe themselves as Christian.

[ProfessorDavey]

It’s worth pointing out that the majority of scholars who have formed this consensus would describe themselves as Christian.

True - but also worth pointing out that to be worthy of the term a scholar needs to derive conclusions from the evidence, not hunt for evidence to support pre-determined conclusions.

That's the challenge - there are so-called "bible scholars" who clearly are simply looking to cherry pick or shoehorn 'evidence' to support their pre-existing religious beliefs. That isn't scholarship as it is hamstrung by confirmation bias.

[Spud]

This isn't a theory I'm aware of so can you link to some scholarly evidence for this please.

"The First Gospel" by Harold Riley is where I came across it. He seems quite scholarly to me (eg he quotes Greek words in places); there's a chapter at page 69 of the above preview describing what he thinks was in 'Proto-Matthew'.

It is, of course, perfectly plausible as we don't have anything earlier than I think about 350 in terms of extant texts. So plenty of opportunity for edits, additions, changes etc. However, unlike the additions to the end of Mark, I don't think we have obvious before/after versions as a smoking gun to demonstrate alteration.

One possibility (though not as obvious a smoking gun) is that if we accept that Luke used Matthew, and Mark used them both, we an see that the common end point after which Luke and Mark diverge, is Mt 28:8. Also a common beginning before which Luke diverges and Mark says nothing, is the preaching of John the Baptist.

But that doesn't require any alteration to Matthew, as Mark is considered to have been written before Matthew and with the original not containing a resurrection appearance.

From what I have read, the arguments in favour of this can be reversed in favour of Matthew being written first. There is no hard proof of Markan priority.

[ProfessorDavey]

"The First Gospel" by Harold Riley is where I came across it. He seems quite scholarly to me (eg he quotes Greek words in places); there's a chapter at page 69 of the above preview describing what he thinks was in 'Proto-Matthew'.

I will have a look.
 
One possibility (though not as obvious a smoking gun) is that if we accept that Luke used Matthew, and Mark used them both, we an see that the common end point after which Luke and Mark diverge, is Mt 28:8.

The 'smoking gun' is that we have early Mark texts without the longer ending and then it suddenly appears in later texts - which strongly suggests the longer ending to be a later addition.

Given that Mark originally ends with nothing further than an empty tomb I'm struggling to see how it could have diverged from either Matthew or Luke which have further narratives.

From what I have read, the arguments in favour of this can be reversed in favour of Matthew being written first. There is no hard proof of Markan priority.

There is no 'hard proof' as you suggest that Mark came first - however there is strong scholarly evidence and a broad consensus amongst serious scholars for that to be the case. There is nothing like as strong evidence nor consensus that Matthew came first. Most of the arguments (and you are a case in point) appear to be based on trying to find evidence to support a pre-judged, and faith-based, conclusion that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John must be the order.

[ProfessorDavey]

"The First Gospel" by Harold Riley is where I came across it. He seems quite scholarly to me (eg he quotes Greek words in places); there's a chapter at page 69 of the above preview describing what he thinks was in 'Proto-Matthew'.

But your claim was of a theory that Matthew originally ended at 28:8 - I can't seen anything in the link in support of this - perhaps it isn't in the available chapter.

But on that - his argument seems to be that Mark borrowed not from Matthew, but from some lost proto-Matthew. To which the easy repost is - well if there is a proto-Matthew, surely there will also be a proto-Mark. It seems again like cherry picking.

There must be texts or other forms of narrative that existed before the gospels arose and that were used by various gospel authors alone, or in combination with the earlier gospels. The most obvious being the elusive Q - but we don't have these so this is all conjecture. From what we do have I think there is a consensus around the following:

1. Mark likely came first, with John the latest.
2. What we have from extant versions of the texts is not the original (the so called autograph) and there is amply evidence for numerous major and minor changes to the texts in those earliest extant texts suggesting likely significant change from the autograph to what we consider to be the 'settled' gospel texts.