> The writer of Spiderman used NYC as a setting, but he gave no illusions that he considered himself to be writing history
So the strength of evidence should be weighted based on whether the author is trying to appear sincere? If marvel comics behaved as if they thought spiderman was real, then the evidence in the comics would suddenly be as convincing as all this common-knowledge judean minutiae you're so impressed by?
> the Church Fathers attribute Mark to Mark
Okay, so, a bunch of guys who never met Mark chose not to undercut their authority by discussing whether there could be elements of forgery in a gospel.
Then your points continue with two repetitions of the criterion of embarrassment (which seem to be based on the assumption that the book of mark was somehow commissioned by the apostles?!), an irrelevant note about two other gospel writers which had nothing to do with identity of the author, and then you wrap up your list with "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
And none of that typing would do a thing to contradict the opposition position, "It's just a collection of anecdotes by an unknown author, and whoever wrote it, or a very nearby scribe, just slapped a name on for a reason that some random guy on the internet doesn't understand." If the very first author had written and said "Look at this thing Mark wrote", it would have fallen out the same way. It's just not compelling.
That's why I agree with what wikipedia says, with footnotes, "Most scholars also reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative." But I get that you disagree. Knock yourself out.
> So I beg to differ that "there is almost zero overlap."
You forgot "Jesus is male" and "his mother is a jew". The opposition claim is that the nativity stories were independently manufactured in order to fulfill a checklist of purported prophecies. Pointing out that they work off the same list is hardly helpful. You might as well point out the similarities between the sherlock stories of Benedict Cumberbatch and Robert Downey Jr. There is, as I said, almost zero overlap in the events of the story, but those few check-marked factoids are certainly among those few points of overlap.
> Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew
Ah, okay, could easily have been. Or could have been a contemporary, or a later jew, who the hell knows. You sure don't, you just point out ways in which it could be, and convince yourself "The evidence is heavily in Matthew's favor." Again, you believe whatever you want to, you're not even pretending to be impartial.
Once again, I'll side with the majority of scholars, but thanks for all the extraordinary amount of effort you've put in to weakly defending a minority position.
> One doesn't need the Internet to know the truth. One doesn't need newsprint to know the truth about a story. Why, even newsprint can be FAKE NEWS
wtf are you going on about? Remember, I'm accusing you of being unable to glean the lewinsky story from only non-mass-media primary sources, i.e. personal interviews or hand-written letters, enough to write an authoritative account. The rest of this paragraph is unhinged and has nothing to do with what I said.
> No, an abundance of references. For instance, in just the first 15 verses of Luke...
-1.1 It's true that we have a plurality of records about Jesus' life
sigh. Calm down. No, it's not true that we have a plurality of records about Jesus's life. We have 4, with a great degree of plagiarism, all written long after his death, by anonymous authors (although I certainly admit that some uncredentialed randos on the internet dispute the majority opinion on this topic). The rest of your screed is on exactly the level of my spiderman analogy. All you're proving is that Luke wasn't written by someone from another culture, centuries later. Background details are not what anybody is disputing, nor are they enough to make the controversial parts of the story true.
It's fine that you have a zealot's minority opinion, I really have no objection to you believing whatever you want to believe. But I don't trust you, because you are contradicting the majority of educated scholars, and because your argument is presented sloppily, with repetition and irrelevant side notes. The fact that you can draw such confident conclusions that contradict the scholarly consensus by using every-f***ing-single verse of Luke, as if scholars had never read them, is not something that makes you sound more credible.
And, again, to be abundantly clear - f***ing fine, I don't give a shit. Clearly this is something you feel passionately about. You said your piece, and unless you started with your weakest argument, I doubt any additional rambling on this topic is going to be more convincing. The community walking by now has enough information to form their own opinions about whether you've justified your claims. Thanks for contributing.
Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:33 pm
> So the strength of evidence should be weighted based on whether the author is trying to appear sincere?
Oh, not at all. The strength of evidence should be based on the strength of evidence, not because a comic book writer puts the name of a real city in his comic book. It's not a fair comparison with the Gospels on any level.
> Okay, so, a bunch of guys who never met Mark...
The point is that the evidence we have all points to Mark. The only thing that points away from Mark is modern day scholars who are far further removed from Mark than the Church Fathers.
> "It's just a collection of anecdotes by an unknown author, and whoever wrote it, or a very nearby scribe, just slapped a name on for a reason that some random guy on the internet doesn't understand."
But this is against all the evidence we have. All the evidence we have points to Mark as the author. You can make up whatever you want to try to make me look stupid, but the evidence is in the favor of traditional authorship.
But maybe we should go in this direction. Give me the evidence you have for a writer other than Mark. I'll be glad to read it.
> Ah, okay, could easily have been. Or could have been a contemporary, or a later jew, who the hell knows.
Of course it could easily have been. And, consequently, the evidence is stronger for Matthew than for a contemporary or a later Jew. We have to follow the evidence. It's disingenuous to disregard the evidence we have for wilder theories about authorship. The evidence we have all points to Matthew.
But maybe we should go in this direction. Give me the evidence you have for a writer other than Matthew. I'll be glad to read it.
> with a great degree of plagiarism, all written long after his death, by anonymous authors
Yes, this is what you're missing. Much of the accounts are NOT plagiarized, they were not written long after his death, and we have good evidence that the authors are Mt. Mk, Lk, and John. We just need to follow the evidence we have rather than make up something contrary.
Oh, not at all. The strength of evidence should be based on the strength of evidence, not because a comic book writer puts the name of a real city in his comic book. It's not a fair comparison with the Gospels on any level.
> Okay, so, a bunch of guys who never met Mark...
The point is that the evidence we have all points to Mark. The only thing that points away from Mark is modern day scholars who are far further removed from Mark than the Church Fathers.
> "It's just a collection of anecdotes by an unknown author, and whoever wrote it, or a very nearby scribe, just slapped a name on for a reason that some random guy on the internet doesn't understand."
But this is against all the evidence we have. All the evidence we have points to Mark as the author. You can make up whatever you want to try to make me look stupid, but the evidence is in the favor of traditional authorship.
But maybe we should go in this direction. Give me the evidence you have for a writer other than Mark. I'll be glad to read it.
> Ah, okay, could easily have been. Or could have been a contemporary, or a later jew, who the hell knows.
Of course it could easily have been. And, consequently, the evidence is stronger for Matthew than for a contemporary or a later Jew. We have to follow the evidence. It's disingenuous to disregard the evidence we have for wilder theories about authorship. The evidence we have all points to Matthew.
But maybe we should go in this direction. Give me the evidence you have for a writer other than Matthew. I'll be glad to read it.
> with a great degree of plagiarism, all written long after his death, by anonymous authors
Yes, this is what you're missing. Much of the accounts are NOT plagiarized, they were not written long after his death, and we have good evidence that the authors are Mt. Mk, Lk, and John. We just need to follow the evidence we have rather than make up something contrary.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Spiderman » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:40 pm
> There is far more to the authorship of the Gospels than what Eusebius says Papias wrote. .. The oldest traditions (with no external evidence to the contrary) uniformly associate Mark with the Gospel.
based on eusebius, yes.
> It doesn't make a shred of sense that anyone would attach Mark's name as a pseudonym. He was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas. He was not viewed as a significant character in 1st-c. Christianity.
he was peter's scribe, according to john the elder, according to papias, according to the eusebius. that's a pretty relevant position in the early church, even if it's anti-paul. regardless, that narrative is taken from acts, which we have reason to be skeptical of. acts contradicts paul's own accounts of his conversion.
the problem, however, is that mark is anti-petrine. why would a source that is against peter end up with the name of peter's scribe on it?
> The number of Aramaic words and phrases lend credence that the author was from Jerusalem, and his numerous biblical quotations and allusions suggest he is Jewish. And the quality of Greek is not terribly high, consistent with Palestinian Jews.
and the number of latinisms suggest he was from elsewhere, after the fall of jerusalem. he names the legion that destroyed jerusalem in an unrelated passage.
> The Gospel has similarities to things emphasized in the writings of Paul, commensurate with someone who had traveled with Paul.
then, again, how did it end up with the name of peter's scribe?
> Papias of Hierapolis, writing in about AD 125-130 attributed it to Matthew,
this is literally the reference i discussed above -- eusebius said that papias said that john the elder said. the book he describes is not matthew as we know it today. it is a sayings document, in aramaic. matthew is a narrative in greek.
> There has been no debate over authorship until modern times.
yes, when it became clear that the tradition about the hebrew gospel of matthew couldn't possibly be true.
> Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew:
most of these, if accurate (they are debatable, but i won't bother here), establish that the author of matthew was jewish. this shouldn't be a surprise -- most of the early christian church was jewish.
> Mark is not necessarily a source. Recent scholarship has called into question both the traditional view that Matthew got his material from Mark, and even got it from Q. Some scholars now are positing that Matthew was written before Mark.
no, this is the tradition of matthean priority defended with apologetics. almost no one in scholarship takes it seriously; the two source hypothesis is by far the consensus among NT scholars. one of the reasons how we can know this is editorial fatigue. matthew diverges from mark in ways that only make sense if matthew is copying mark, rather than vice versa.
> A new book by Mike Licona shows that in the first century many authors circulated their works without attribution for review and comment, and only in the last phase was a name put on them, sometimes. That the Gospel writers circulated their works anonymously is in keeping with the era.
regardless, we can be pretty sure that some works were circulated with incorrect names.
> i assure you, there is more pericope than that. in some sense, matthew and luke are themselves evidence of those -- they are primarily mark with a bunch of added content.
> This isn't true. If you want to assert it, you have to give evidence. Matthew includes 5 large sections of Jesus teaching that isn't in any of the other Gospels.
i'm confused here. i assert that there is more pericope, and you attempt to refute this by giving another example of pericope? okay.
> One might even think this is the logia to which Papias refers.
it could be! Q could be too! but what john the elder (in papias, in eusebius) is talking about is not is the gospel of matthew.
It's no debate that the synoptists used each other's material, but that's likely because there was a collection of circulating material to draw from, and there's good reason to think that circulating material came from the apostles themselves. Mark lived in Jerusalem, and evidence is that Matthew lived there also. It's not a problem that Matthew had a version of the Jesus story in Hebrew that was partially the source for Q (if there was a Q, since no manuscript or evidence of it has ever been discovered), and therefore then the source material for Mark and Matthew (using his own material).
matthew and luke's shared content is more or less verbatim in greek. if they have a common source (as scholars pretty universally think), that source would almost certainly be in greek, and not aramaic. they should have more differences if they were both translating the work, and matthew already uses the LXX for his old testament citations, rather than translating from hebrew himself. which, btw, is a strike against him being a well educated jew. hardly definitive -- maybe the LXX was just more convenient when he was already writing in greek. but some of his citations seem to rely specifically on mistranslations of the hebrew that a well educated jew probably wouldn't fall for. it's likely that matthew, therefore, didn't know hebrew.
> Quirinius is still being strongly debated. The jury is still out. Some scholars wonder if Josephus mis-dated Quirinius (since Josephus is doubted on some other important matters).
the date doesn't matter, really -- the census was in response to the failed ethnarchy of herod archelaus, which is necessarily after the death of his father, herod the great. the other story is set prior to the death of herod. the dates could be off, but the sequence really can't be. there is no reason for a census of judea/samaria under herod the great. rome just taxed the client king directly, as they did with herod antipas, herod philip 2, and herod archelaus before he lost control. the reason to take a census was so that rome could tax their new citizens directly.
> Craig Blomberg writes, "Literal translation: 'This census proete Quirinius [was] ruler of Syria.' The text certainly can mean, 'This census was the first while Quirinius was governing Syria,' but one would normally expect an article before ἀπογραφὴ (census)
αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου
that definite article?
> and again before πρώτη (first; before) if that were Luke’s intention.
you're correct that it should have another definite article, as far as i can tell.
> But we could translate 'This census was before [one] when Quirinius was governor.'
i don't know if that's tenable. is πρώτη ever used to mean "before"? does greek imply objects like that? i'm not overly familiar with greek. the standard translation, assuming luke or a copyist made a scribal error, is the most likely.
> The census in AD 6 under Quirinius was particularly infamous because it provoked the railed rebellion by Judas the Galilean.
ironically, that is the part that is debated among josephus scholars. no one doubts the census or when it happened, but there's some discussion about whether his causal link between the census and judas's revolt (and the later zealots) is based on anything.
> As you say, he [antipas] was not actually a king, but a tetrarch appointed by the Romans. "King" was most likely a title that was the reflection of common custom and courtesy, even though he was not technically a king. Even so, calling him a king fits well into Mark's thesis of contrasting the false kings of this world and the true King Jesus.
er, no, rather the opposite. jesus is meant to be the true king of the jews, and having antipas accurately demoted from that title would have only bolstered mark's point.
based on eusebius, yes.
> It doesn't make a shred of sense that anyone would attach Mark's name as a pseudonym. He was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas. He was not viewed as a significant character in 1st-c. Christianity.
he was peter's scribe, according to john the elder, according to papias, according to the eusebius. that's a pretty relevant position in the early church, even if it's anti-paul. regardless, that narrative is taken from acts, which we have reason to be skeptical of. acts contradicts paul's own accounts of his conversion.
the problem, however, is that mark is anti-petrine. why would a source that is against peter end up with the name of peter's scribe on it?
> The number of Aramaic words and phrases lend credence that the author was from Jerusalem, and his numerous biblical quotations and allusions suggest he is Jewish. And the quality of Greek is not terribly high, consistent with Palestinian Jews.
and the number of latinisms suggest he was from elsewhere, after the fall of jerusalem. he names the legion that destroyed jerusalem in an unrelated passage.
> The Gospel has similarities to things emphasized in the writings of Paul, commensurate with someone who had traveled with Paul.
then, again, how did it end up with the name of peter's scribe?
> Papias of Hierapolis, writing in about AD 125-130 attributed it to Matthew,
this is literally the reference i discussed above -- eusebius said that papias said that john the elder said. the book he describes is not matthew as we know it today. it is a sayings document, in aramaic. matthew is a narrative in greek.
> There has been no debate over authorship until modern times.
yes, when it became clear that the tradition about the hebrew gospel of matthew couldn't possibly be true.
> Here are some factors that show that Matthew could easily have been the author of Matthew:
most of these, if accurate (they are debatable, but i won't bother here), establish that the author of matthew was jewish. this shouldn't be a surprise -- most of the early christian church was jewish.
> Mark is not necessarily a source. Recent scholarship has called into question both the traditional view that Matthew got his material from Mark, and even got it from Q. Some scholars now are positing that Matthew was written before Mark.
no, this is the tradition of matthean priority defended with apologetics. almost no one in scholarship takes it seriously; the two source hypothesis is by far the consensus among NT scholars. one of the reasons how we can know this is editorial fatigue. matthew diverges from mark in ways that only make sense if matthew is copying mark, rather than vice versa.
> A new book by Mike Licona shows that in the first century many authors circulated their works without attribution for review and comment, and only in the last phase was a name put on them, sometimes. That the Gospel writers circulated their works anonymously is in keeping with the era.
regardless, we can be pretty sure that some works were circulated with incorrect names.
> i assure you, there is more pericope than that. in some sense, matthew and luke are themselves evidence of those -- they are primarily mark with a bunch of added content.
> This isn't true. If you want to assert it, you have to give evidence. Matthew includes 5 large sections of Jesus teaching that isn't in any of the other Gospels.
i'm confused here. i assert that there is more pericope, and you attempt to refute this by giving another example of pericope? okay.
> One might even think this is the logia to which Papias refers.
it could be! Q could be too! but what john the elder (in papias, in eusebius) is talking about is not is the gospel of matthew.
It's no debate that the synoptists used each other's material, but that's likely because there was a collection of circulating material to draw from, and there's good reason to think that circulating material came from the apostles themselves. Mark lived in Jerusalem, and evidence is that Matthew lived there also. It's not a problem that Matthew had a version of the Jesus story in Hebrew that was partially the source for Q (if there was a Q, since no manuscript or evidence of it has ever been discovered), and therefore then the source material for Mark and Matthew (using his own material).
matthew and luke's shared content is more or less verbatim in greek. if they have a common source (as scholars pretty universally think), that source would almost certainly be in greek, and not aramaic. they should have more differences if they were both translating the work, and matthew already uses the LXX for his old testament citations, rather than translating from hebrew himself. which, btw, is a strike against him being a well educated jew. hardly definitive -- maybe the LXX was just more convenient when he was already writing in greek. but some of his citations seem to rely specifically on mistranslations of the hebrew that a well educated jew probably wouldn't fall for. it's likely that matthew, therefore, didn't know hebrew.
> Quirinius is still being strongly debated. The jury is still out. Some scholars wonder if Josephus mis-dated Quirinius (since Josephus is doubted on some other important matters).
the date doesn't matter, really -- the census was in response to the failed ethnarchy of herod archelaus, which is necessarily after the death of his father, herod the great. the other story is set prior to the death of herod. the dates could be off, but the sequence really can't be. there is no reason for a census of judea/samaria under herod the great. rome just taxed the client king directly, as they did with herod antipas, herod philip 2, and herod archelaus before he lost control. the reason to take a census was so that rome could tax their new citizens directly.
> Craig Blomberg writes, "Literal translation: 'This census proete Quirinius [was] ruler of Syria.' The text certainly can mean, 'This census was the first while Quirinius was governing Syria,' but one would normally expect an article before ἀπογραφὴ (census)
αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου
that definite article?
> and again before πρώτη (first; before) if that were Luke’s intention.
you're correct that it should have another definite article, as far as i can tell.
> But we could translate 'This census was before [one] when Quirinius was governor.'
i don't know if that's tenable. is πρώτη ever used to mean "before"? does greek imply objects like that? i'm not overly familiar with greek. the standard translation, assuming luke or a copyist made a scribal error, is the most likely.
> The census in AD 6 under Quirinius was particularly infamous because it provoked the railed rebellion by Judas the Galilean.
ironically, that is the part that is debated among josephus scholars. no one doubts the census or when it happened, but there's some discussion about whether his causal link between the census and judas's revolt (and the later zealots) is based on anything.
> As you say, he [antipas] was not actually a king, but a tetrarch appointed by the Romans. "King" was most likely a title that was the reflection of common custom and courtesy, even though he was not technically a king. Even so, calling him a king fits well into Mark's thesis of contrasting the false kings of this world and the true King Jesus.
er, no, rather the opposite. jesus is meant to be the true king of the jews, and having antipas accurately demoted from that title would have only bolstered mark's point.
- Spiderman
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:38 pm
> Mark, ... based on Eusebius
Here's what we have about Mark. The oldest manuscript containing a text of Mark is a small papyrus from AD 100-150. Then we have what Eusebius says Papias wrote (about AD 125). In about AD 150 Justin Martyr makes a reference to something only in Mark ("sons of thunder"), conveying knowledge of the writing. Then in about 180 Irenaeus and Clement both quote from Mark. Irenaeus mentions a Gospel of Mark and includes it in the canon as authentic. All of the evidence we have attributes Mark to Mark.
> he was peter's scribe, according to john the elder, according to papias, according to the eusebius. that's a pretty relevant position in the early church, even if it's anti-paul.
Then it would have made far more sense to attribute it to Peter, and yet it isn't. That's significant. Why Mark instead of Peter? And the Gospel isn't anti-Paul, but that's another discussion.
> the problem, however, is that mark is anti-petrine. why would a source that is against peter end up with the name of peter's scribe on it?
Yes, that's right. I take it as another evidence of its authenticity (factor of embarrassment).
> and the number of latinisms suggest he was from elsewhere
Since Justin Martyr and Eusebius put Mark with Peter in Rome in the late 50s, that's where the latinisms could come from. And if we accept the first Clementine tradition as genuine (which is questionable), and put it alongside the testimony of Justin, Hippolytus, and Eusebius, we are left with the date of AD 55 for the first draft of Mark, in Rome, as Peter's amanuensis, so to speak.
> after the fall of jerusalem
And yet the book of Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem or even the death of Peter (AD 65ish), which makes many believe that Acts was written in the early 60s. And since Luke was written before Acts, and Mark was written before Luke, that puts Mark in the late 50s. Mark and Luke were both traveling companions of Paul, so the collaboration could make sense.
> he names the legion that destroyed jerusalem in an unrelated passage.
????
> most of these, if accurate (they are debatable, but i won't bother here), establish that the author of matthew was jewish. this shouldn't be a surprise -- most of the early christian church was jewish.
That's true, but there are 5 massive speeches by Jesus in the book of Matthew, possible evidence of an eyewitness author.
> regardless, we can be pretty sure that some works were circulated with incorrect names.
That's reasonable. But every attribution to the 4 Gospels is Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn. There are no competing attestations. That counts for something, too.
> what john the elder (in papias, in eusebius) is talking about is not is the gospel of matthew.
It's true that we don't know exactly what the logia to which Papias refers are, but we cannot say conclusively that they were not precursors to the Gospel we have. What we do know is that Matthew wrote something, in Hebrew or Aramaic, perhaps a collection of Jesus' teachings, which could have eventually resulted in part of all of what we know as Matthew's Gospel.
> matthew and luke's shared content is more or less verbatim in greek.
Yes, more or less. Circulating stories in an oral culture often took on fairly set forms. Q may have been a set form. For all we know Matthew contributed to what we think we know was Q.
> matthew already uses the LXX for his old testament citations, rather than translating from hebrew himself. which, btw, is a strike against him being a well educated jew.
Not necessarily, but maybe. Not many of the 1st-c. Jews were fluent in Hebrew. It was being flushed out by Greco-Roman influence. The lingua franca was Aramaic. Hebrew was not lost, but it wasn't necessarily the language of common use, as were Greek and Aramaic.
> the census was in response to the failed ethnarchy of herod archelaus
As I was saying, there are many theories about the census, and the jury is still out. I've heard...
- It was a census, not a taxing (though taxes often resulted). The process of a census often took years. We know of one in AD 6. If they took place every 14 years, this one may have started in about 9 BC. (Jesus is thought to have been born in 7-6 BC.)
- Luke was referring to a registration, not a taxation census. There is a record of Caesar Augustus referring to a registration not long before 2 BC: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 BC] the senate and the equestrian order *and the entire Roman people* gave me the title Father of my Country" (*Res Gestae* 35, italics added). Orosius, in the 5th c. AD, says this census was in 3 BC.
- Based on the word used in Lk, Caesar Augustus laid down the requirements for an ongoing census, not one massive poll taking. Clement of Alexandria mentions an ongoing census in Egypt at the time of Jesus' birth. So there may have been in Palestine as well.
- *The Deeds of the Divine Augustus* (par. 8 lines 2-4) confirm that Augustus himself ordered a census in 8 BC.
- Maybe Josephus was wrong (previously mentioned)
- Maybe we're not translating accurately (previously mentioned, and will address later)
- Luke doesn't call Quirinius a governor but a *hegemon*, and notes that the census to which he refers is the *first* in which Quirinius was somehow involved; he was clearly aware of the second in AD 6 (Acts 5.37).
And on and on. This stuff never ends.
> that definite article?
Yeah. The article's not in the SBL, Nestle-Aland text, the Westcott and Hort, or the Tischendorff. It's in the Byzantine Majority, Greek Orthodox, Scrivner's, and Stephanus Texts Receptus. The weight of evidence is hugely in the favor of its not being authentic.
> King Herod Antipas
Herod the Great was known as the king of Judea. It was decreed to hi by the Roman Senate. He ruled for about 36 years, and then turned the kingdom over to his sons. It wouldn't surprise me that the label "king" just continued on, even though his sons were not technically kings.
As far bolstering Mark's point, I see what you're saying, but it could go either way. To call Antipas less than a king demotes him, agreed. But if the people refer to him as king, Mark's thesis of Jesus being the real king and Antipas being a poser still works for me.
Here's what we have about Mark. The oldest manuscript containing a text of Mark is a small papyrus from AD 100-150. Then we have what Eusebius says Papias wrote (about AD 125). In about AD 150 Justin Martyr makes a reference to something only in Mark ("sons of thunder"), conveying knowledge of the writing. Then in about 180 Irenaeus and Clement both quote from Mark. Irenaeus mentions a Gospel of Mark and includes it in the canon as authentic. All of the evidence we have attributes Mark to Mark.
> he was peter's scribe, according to john the elder, according to papias, according to the eusebius. that's a pretty relevant position in the early church, even if it's anti-paul.
Then it would have made far more sense to attribute it to Peter, and yet it isn't. That's significant. Why Mark instead of Peter? And the Gospel isn't anti-Paul, but that's another discussion.
> the problem, however, is that mark is anti-petrine. why would a source that is against peter end up with the name of peter's scribe on it?
Yes, that's right. I take it as another evidence of its authenticity (factor of embarrassment).
> and the number of latinisms suggest he was from elsewhere
Since Justin Martyr and Eusebius put Mark with Peter in Rome in the late 50s, that's where the latinisms could come from. And if we accept the first Clementine tradition as genuine (which is questionable), and put it alongside the testimony of Justin, Hippolytus, and Eusebius, we are left with the date of AD 55 for the first draft of Mark, in Rome, as Peter's amanuensis, so to speak.
> after the fall of jerusalem
And yet the book of Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem or even the death of Peter (AD 65ish), which makes many believe that Acts was written in the early 60s. And since Luke was written before Acts, and Mark was written before Luke, that puts Mark in the late 50s. Mark and Luke were both traveling companions of Paul, so the collaboration could make sense.
> he names the legion that destroyed jerusalem in an unrelated passage.
????
> most of these, if accurate (they are debatable, but i won't bother here), establish that the author of matthew was jewish. this shouldn't be a surprise -- most of the early christian church was jewish.
That's true, but there are 5 massive speeches by Jesus in the book of Matthew, possible evidence of an eyewitness author.
> regardless, we can be pretty sure that some works were circulated with incorrect names.
That's reasonable. But every attribution to the 4 Gospels is Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn. There are no competing attestations. That counts for something, too.
> what john the elder (in papias, in eusebius) is talking about is not is the gospel of matthew.
It's true that we don't know exactly what the logia to which Papias refers are, but we cannot say conclusively that they were not precursors to the Gospel we have. What we do know is that Matthew wrote something, in Hebrew or Aramaic, perhaps a collection of Jesus' teachings, which could have eventually resulted in part of all of what we know as Matthew's Gospel.
> matthew and luke's shared content is more or less verbatim in greek.
Yes, more or less. Circulating stories in an oral culture often took on fairly set forms. Q may have been a set form. For all we know Matthew contributed to what we think we know was Q.
> matthew already uses the LXX for his old testament citations, rather than translating from hebrew himself. which, btw, is a strike against him being a well educated jew.
Not necessarily, but maybe. Not many of the 1st-c. Jews were fluent in Hebrew. It was being flushed out by Greco-Roman influence. The lingua franca was Aramaic. Hebrew was not lost, but it wasn't necessarily the language of common use, as were Greek and Aramaic.
> the census was in response to the failed ethnarchy of herod archelaus
As I was saying, there are many theories about the census, and the jury is still out. I've heard...
- It was a census, not a taxing (though taxes often resulted). The process of a census often took years. We know of one in AD 6. If they took place every 14 years, this one may have started in about 9 BC. (Jesus is thought to have been born in 7-6 BC.)
- Luke was referring to a registration, not a taxation census. There is a record of Caesar Augustus referring to a registration not long before 2 BC: "While I was administering my thirteenth consulship [2 BC] the senate and the equestrian order *and the entire Roman people* gave me the title Father of my Country" (*Res Gestae* 35, italics added). Orosius, in the 5th c. AD, says this census was in 3 BC.
- Based on the word used in Lk, Caesar Augustus laid down the requirements for an ongoing census, not one massive poll taking. Clement of Alexandria mentions an ongoing census in Egypt at the time of Jesus' birth. So there may have been in Palestine as well.
- *The Deeds of the Divine Augustus* (par. 8 lines 2-4) confirm that Augustus himself ordered a census in 8 BC.
- Maybe Josephus was wrong (previously mentioned)
- Maybe we're not translating accurately (previously mentioned, and will address later)
- Luke doesn't call Quirinius a governor but a *hegemon*, and notes that the census to which he refers is the *first* in which Quirinius was somehow involved; he was clearly aware of the second in AD 6 (Acts 5.37).
And on and on. This stuff never ends.
> that definite article?
Yeah. The article's not in the SBL, Nestle-Aland text, the Westcott and Hort, or the Tischendorff. It's in the Byzantine Majority, Greek Orthodox, Scrivner's, and Stephanus Texts Receptus. The weight of evidence is hugely in the favor of its not being authentic.
> King Herod Antipas
Herod the Great was known as the king of Judea. It was decreed to hi by the Roman Senate. He ruled for about 36 years, and then turned the kingdom over to his sons. It wouldn't surprise me that the label "king" just continued on, even though his sons were not technically kings.
As far bolstering Mark's point, I see what you're saying, but it could go either way. To call Antipas less than a king demotes him, agreed. But if the people refer to him as king, Mark's thesis of Jesus being the real king and Antipas being a poser still works for me.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Farmer 77 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:21 pm
> Oh, not at all. The strength of evidence should be based on the strength of evidence,
Terrific. But it seems to contradict your previous statement, "he gave no illusions that he considered himself to be writing history. The Gospel writers, on the other hand, consider themselves to be writing history. It's a completely different thing." See, in that statement, you seem to be arguing that we can dismiss all the "setting-based evidence" from spiderman because the author wasn't trying to fool anybody, but we should accept setting-based evidence from Mark because 31% of the world population think's he's writing non-fiction.
> The point is that the evidence we have all points to Mark
Right. Weak evidence, but sure. I'm never said it's impossible that it was a guy named Mark, just that our degree of certainty is very low.
> The only thing that points away from Mark is [the professional opinions of the majority of experts who are massively more educated than me] who are far further removed from Mark than [a bunch of biased guys who can't explain their reasoning who never met mark and never explained why they trust that name].
There. Fixed it for you. Although now that I've translated sneer-speak into plain english, it's not as impressive a claim.
> But maybe we should go in this direction. Give me the evidence you have for a writer other than Mark. I'll be glad to read it.
Ah ha, there's that sloppy logic I was referring to. False dichotomy. Nobody's claiming another author by name, true - but that's a vacuous point. You're the only one acting like there's some requirement to authoritatively decide on an author by name. This isn't a courtroom where we have declare either [Mark] or [Joey The Forger], and then once we declare it it's enshrined in precedent for all time. It's just a matter of [Mark] vs [Not enough information to justify a confident decision].
> The evidence we have all points to Matthew.
And yet! The majority of highly-educated professionals who have made a career of studying this topic disagree with your uncredentialed bluster. What, I wonder, do these people know that you do not? I'll give you 4 years to answer, although I bet most of them have more than just a bachelor's degree.
> Much of the accounts are NOT plagiarized
Again, what exactly do you think you're disputing? I said much was plagiarized, not all, or the majority.
>they were not written long after his death
Oh yeah? Show me the dates they were written, subtract the date of Jesus's death, and then come back in that many years and see how well you remember this conversation without prompting.
> We just need to follow the evidence we have rather than make up something contrary.
What you're really claiming is, "We just have to accept the flimsy shreds of evidence we have, instead of remaining undecided." Which is, of course, bullshit.
Terrific. But it seems to contradict your previous statement, "he gave no illusions that he considered himself to be writing history. The Gospel writers, on the other hand, consider themselves to be writing history. It's a completely different thing." See, in that statement, you seem to be arguing that we can dismiss all the "setting-based evidence" from spiderman because the author wasn't trying to fool anybody, but we should accept setting-based evidence from Mark because 31% of the world population think's he's writing non-fiction.
> The point is that the evidence we have all points to Mark
Right. Weak evidence, but sure. I'm never said it's impossible that it was a guy named Mark, just that our degree of certainty is very low.
> The only thing that points away from Mark is [the professional opinions of the majority of experts who are massively more educated than me] who are far further removed from Mark than [a bunch of biased guys who can't explain their reasoning who never met mark and never explained why they trust that name].
There. Fixed it for you. Although now that I've translated sneer-speak into plain english, it's not as impressive a claim.
> But maybe we should go in this direction. Give me the evidence you have for a writer other than Mark. I'll be glad to read it.
Ah ha, there's that sloppy logic I was referring to. False dichotomy. Nobody's claiming another author by name, true - but that's a vacuous point. You're the only one acting like there's some requirement to authoritatively decide on an author by name. This isn't a courtroom where we have declare either [Mark] or [Joey The Forger], and then once we declare it it's enshrined in precedent for all time. It's just a matter of [Mark] vs [Not enough information to justify a confident decision].
> The evidence we have all points to Matthew.
And yet! The majority of highly-educated professionals who have made a career of studying this topic disagree with your uncredentialed bluster. What, I wonder, do these people know that you do not? I'll give you 4 years to answer, although I bet most of them have more than just a bachelor's degree.
> Much of the accounts are NOT plagiarized
Again, what exactly do you think you're disputing? I said much was plagiarized, not all, or the majority.
>they were not written long after his death
Oh yeah? Show me the dates they were written, subtract the date of Jesus's death, and then come back in that many years and see how well you remember this conversation without prompting.
> We just need to follow the evidence we have rather than make up something contrary.
What you're really claiming is, "We just have to accept the flimsy shreds of evidence we have, instead of remaining undecided." Which is, of course, bullshit.
- Farmer 77
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:44 pm
> See, in that statement, you seem to be arguing...
I'm arguing far more than setting. As I think about it, I didn't argue from setting at all. I argued from ancient attestation, the consensus of ancient sources, the some internal evidences suitable to Markan authorship. There are other internal evidences that i didn't write, but enough to give the thought. I know there are others who feel the internal evidences lead in other directions, but it's still a fact that all the external evidences lead to Mark as the author.
> Right. Weak evidence, but sure.
No, it's not really that weak. It's decently strong. We wish we had more information, obviously, but it's all we have, and it's far stronger than the opposing position, which has almost nothing to its credit. There is no external ancient evidence pointing to anyone other than Mark. There is no competing evidence for a different author. All we have is "It's an anonymous work unanimously attributed to Mark in the ancient world."
> Ah ha, there's that sloppy logic I was referring to. False dichotomy.
Here's the rub. You think my evidence is weak, but it's reasonably strong. But there is zero evidence in any other direction. There is no competing evidence, therefore the evidence for traditional authorship is by far the strongest case out there. While you feel it's not enough to justify a confident decision, I feel that the sum total of evidence, such that it is, gives enough credibility to the traditional view of authorship. It was the accepted answer without dispute in the first several centuries and beyond. To me that carries a lot of weight. They were far closer to the evidence and information than we are, and they probably had a lot more to go by than we do. Many things they had at their disposal have doubtlessly not survived.
> The majority of highly-educated professionals who have made a career of studying this topic disagree with your uncredentialed bluster.
Well, I don't appreciate the smackdown. You have no idea what credentials I have. I know that academically there is a concerted effort to discredit the Gospels. I know there are a lot of voices out there ridiculing them. I can't promise you that all of those voices are objective, or that even most of them are. (Such a generalization would be unfair.) I can tell you that a bunch of them are quite subjective and biased. Objectivity is a difficult ideal to achieve.
> Show me the dates they were written, subtract the date of Jesus's death, and then come back in that many years and see how well you remember this conversation without prompting.
I think there's good reason to believe the Synoptics were all written by about AD 60. That would be 30 years after Jesus' death, but remember that the stories were starting to be assembled quite early (within a few years at most). They were also an oral culture, so they were trained to remember. Third, Jesus was so significant that they were motivated to remember. I read a biography of Abe Lincoln that was about 600 pages long. How do have all that material 150 years later? It's because Abe was important.
> What you're really claiming is, "We just have to accept the flimsy shreds of evidence we have, instead of remaining undecided."
What I'm claiming is that the evidence may be far less than we would like, but it's substantial enough to infer a reasonable conclusion.
I'm arguing far more than setting. As I think about it, I didn't argue from setting at all. I argued from ancient attestation, the consensus of ancient sources, the some internal evidences suitable to Markan authorship. There are other internal evidences that i didn't write, but enough to give the thought. I know there are others who feel the internal evidences lead in other directions, but it's still a fact that all the external evidences lead to Mark as the author.
> Right. Weak evidence, but sure.
No, it's not really that weak. It's decently strong. We wish we had more information, obviously, but it's all we have, and it's far stronger than the opposing position, which has almost nothing to its credit. There is no external ancient evidence pointing to anyone other than Mark. There is no competing evidence for a different author. All we have is "It's an anonymous work unanimously attributed to Mark in the ancient world."
> Ah ha, there's that sloppy logic I was referring to. False dichotomy.
Here's the rub. You think my evidence is weak, but it's reasonably strong. But there is zero evidence in any other direction. There is no competing evidence, therefore the evidence for traditional authorship is by far the strongest case out there. While you feel it's not enough to justify a confident decision, I feel that the sum total of evidence, such that it is, gives enough credibility to the traditional view of authorship. It was the accepted answer without dispute in the first several centuries and beyond. To me that carries a lot of weight. They were far closer to the evidence and information than we are, and they probably had a lot more to go by than we do. Many things they had at their disposal have doubtlessly not survived.
> The majority of highly-educated professionals who have made a career of studying this topic disagree with your uncredentialed bluster.
Well, I don't appreciate the smackdown. You have no idea what credentials I have. I know that academically there is a concerted effort to discredit the Gospels. I know there are a lot of voices out there ridiculing them. I can't promise you that all of those voices are objective, or that even most of them are. (Such a generalization would be unfair.) I can tell you that a bunch of them are quite subjective and biased. Objectivity is a difficult ideal to achieve.
> Show me the dates they were written, subtract the date of Jesus's death, and then come back in that many years and see how well you remember this conversation without prompting.
I think there's good reason to believe the Synoptics were all written by about AD 60. That would be 30 years after Jesus' death, but remember that the stories were starting to be assembled quite early (within a few years at most). They were also an oral culture, so they were trained to remember. Third, Jesus was so significant that they were motivated to remember. I read a biography of Abe Lincoln that was about 600 pages long. How do have all that material 150 years later? It's because Abe was important.
> What you're really claiming is, "We just have to accept the flimsy shreds of evidence we have, instead of remaining undecided."
What I'm claiming is that the evidence may be far less than we would like, but it's substantial enough to infer a reasonable conclusion.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Spiderman » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:05 pm
> Here's what we have about Mark. The oldest manuscript containing a text of Mark is a small papyrus from AD 100-150. Then we have what Eusebius says Papias wrote (about AD 125).
the fragment, of course, does not have attribution to mark. none of them do; they don't even have the beginning of the book.
> In about AD 150 Justin Martyr makes a reference to something only in Mark ("sons of thunder"), conveying knowledge of the writing.
yes, justin martyr had the document we are calling "the gospel of mark". that much is not in contention -- mark was probably written about 80 years prior. note that justin martyr does not say this reference comes from mark.
> Then in about 180 Irenaeus and Clement both quote from Mark. Irenaeus mentions a Gospel of Mark and includes it in the canon as authentic. All of the evidence we have attributes Mark to Mark.
no, none of these actually connect the text of mark to the title of mark. we know there was a gospel called mark, and we know they had this gospel. you have to do a little bit more to say that those two things are identical.
> Then it would have made far more sense to attribute it to Peter, and yet it isn't. That's significant. Why Mark instead of Peter?
i agree, that is peculiar. it could be explanation for why it's not first person, or it could be that there was already a known tradition that peter's scribe wrote down some stuff.
> And the Gospel isn't anti-Paul, but that's another discussion.
i wasn't saying it was, i was saying attributing it to mark/peter was anti-paul. and why is it anti-petrine with an anti-paul title?
the problem, however, is that mark is anti-petrine. why would a source that is against peter end up with the name of peter's scribe on it?
> Yes, that's right. I take it as another evidence of its authenticity (factor of embarrassment).
or it could have been written to intentionally embarrass peter.
> Since Justin Martyr and Eusebius put Mark with Peter in Rome in the late 50s, that's where the latinisms could come from.
potentially, yes, but in this scenario mark would still be roman, and not overly familiar with palestine.
> after the fall of jerusalem ... And yet the book of Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem or even the death of Peter (AD 65ish), which makes many believe that Acts was written in the early 60s. And since Luke was written before Acts, and Mark was written before Luke, that puts Mark in the late 50s. Mark and Luke were both traveling companions of Paul, so the collaboration could make sense.
> you've got the cart before the horse. mark does mention the fall of jerusalem, and since luke was written after mark...
> the names the legion that destroyed jerusalem in an unrelated passage. ... ????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legio_X_Fretensis. one of their symbols is a boar. jesus casts a demon named "legion" into a herd of boars.
> That's true, but there are 5 massive speeches by Jesus in the book of Matthew, possible evidence of an eyewitness author.
eh. that's a stretch.
> There are no competing attestations. That counts for something, too.
sure -- a very early tradition. i'm not sure it counts for much more, though.
> "what john the elder (in papias, in eusebius) is talking about is not is the gospel of matthew." ... It's true that we don't know exactly what the logia to which Papias refers are, but we cannot say conclusively that they were not precursors to the Gospel we have. What we do know is that Matthew wrote something, in Hebrew or Aramaic, perhaps a collection of Jesus' teachings, which could have eventually resulted in part of all of what we know as Matthew's Gospel.
well, we know that eusebius said that papias said that john the elder said that matthew wrote something in aramaic. to me, this sounds like the source material for Q, which may have been a greek translation of an aramaic document, which in turn is the sort of thing an actual disciple might have written. this content is contained in matthew, and may be the origin for this tradition.
similarly, mark may be based on traditions related by peter to mark, but neither of these seem to refer to the documents at present.
> Not necessarily, but maybe. Not many of the 1st-c. Jews were fluent in Hebrew.
the educated ones were, though. hebrew was still the liturgical language in jerusalem.
> It was being flushed out by Greco-Roman influence. The lingua franca was Aramaic. Hebrew was not lost, but it wasn't necessarily the language of common use, as were Greek and Aramaic.
just a quibble, greek would the lingua franca, aramaic the vernacular.
> And on and on. This stuff never ends.
sure, but the standard historical model is that josephus is more or less correct. this was just before his own lifetime, and concerned things he had direct relation to.
> Yeah. The article's not in the SBL, Nestle- Aland text, the Westcott and Hort, or the Tischendorff. It's in the Byzantine Majority, Greek Orthodox, Scrivner's, and Stephanus Texts Receptus. The weight of evidence is hugely in the favor of its not being authentic.
okay, fair. i'm not that familiar with the greek manuscripts.
> Herod the Great was known as the king of Judea. It was decreed to hi by the Roman Senate. He ruled for about 36 years, and then turned the kingdom over to his sons. It wouldn't surprise me that the label "king" just continued on, even though his sons were not technically kings.
the jews at the time barely called herod the great "king", due to his roman appointment, and the fact that he was from edom and not judea.
the fragment, of course, does not have attribution to mark. none of them do; they don't even have the beginning of the book.
> In about AD 150 Justin Martyr makes a reference to something only in Mark ("sons of thunder"), conveying knowledge of the writing.
yes, justin martyr had the document we are calling "the gospel of mark". that much is not in contention -- mark was probably written about 80 years prior. note that justin martyr does not say this reference comes from mark.
> Then in about 180 Irenaeus and Clement both quote from Mark. Irenaeus mentions a Gospel of Mark and includes it in the canon as authentic. All of the evidence we have attributes Mark to Mark.
no, none of these actually connect the text of mark to the title of mark. we know there was a gospel called mark, and we know they had this gospel. you have to do a little bit more to say that those two things are identical.
> Then it would have made far more sense to attribute it to Peter, and yet it isn't. That's significant. Why Mark instead of Peter?
i agree, that is peculiar. it could be explanation for why it's not first person, or it could be that there was already a known tradition that peter's scribe wrote down some stuff.
> And the Gospel isn't anti-Paul, but that's another discussion.
i wasn't saying it was, i was saying attributing it to mark/peter was anti-paul. and why is it anti-petrine with an anti-paul title?
the problem, however, is that mark is anti-petrine. why would a source that is against peter end up with the name of peter's scribe on it?
> Yes, that's right. I take it as another evidence of its authenticity (factor of embarrassment).
or it could have been written to intentionally embarrass peter.
> Since Justin Martyr and Eusebius put Mark with Peter in Rome in the late 50s, that's where the latinisms could come from.
potentially, yes, but in this scenario mark would still be roman, and not overly familiar with palestine.
> after the fall of jerusalem ... And yet the book of Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem or even the death of Peter (AD 65ish), which makes many believe that Acts was written in the early 60s. And since Luke was written before Acts, and Mark was written before Luke, that puts Mark in the late 50s. Mark and Luke were both traveling companions of Paul, so the collaboration could make sense.
> you've got the cart before the horse. mark does mention the fall of jerusalem, and since luke was written after mark...
> the names the legion that destroyed jerusalem in an unrelated passage. ... ????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legio_X_Fretensis. one of their symbols is a boar. jesus casts a demon named "legion" into a herd of boars.
> That's true, but there are 5 massive speeches by Jesus in the book of Matthew, possible evidence of an eyewitness author.
eh. that's a stretch.
> There are no competing attestations. That counts for something, too.
sure -- a very early tradition. i'm not sure it counts for much more, though.
> "what john the elder (in papias, in eusebius) is talking about is not is the gospel of matthew." ... It's true that we don't know exactly what the logia to which Papias refers are, but we cannot say conclusively that they were not precursors to the Gospel we have. What we do know is that Matthew wrote something, in Hebrew or Aramaic, perhaps a collection of Jesus' teachings, which could have eventually resulted in part of all of what we know as Matthew's Gospel.
well, we know that eusebius said that papias said that john the elder said that matthew wrote something in aramaic. to me, this sounds like the source material for Q, which may have been a greek translation of an aramaic document, which in turn is the sort of thing an actual disciple might have written. this content is contained in matthew, and may be the origin for this tradition.
similarly, mark may be based on traditions related by peter to mark, but neither of these seem to refer to the documents at present.
> Not necessarily, but maybe. Not many of the 1st-c. Jews were fluent in Hebrew.
the educated ones were, though. hebrew was still the liturgical language in jerusalem.
> It was being flushed out by Greco-Roman influence. The lingua franca was Aramaic. Hebrew was not lost, but it wasn't necessarily the language of common use, as were Greek and Aramaic.
just a quibble, greek would the lingua franca, aramaic the vernacular.
> And on and on. This stuff never ends.
sure, but the standard historical model is that josephus is more or less correct. this was just before his own lifetime, and concerned things he had direct relation to.
> Yeah. The article's not in the SBL, Nestle- Aland text, the Westcott and Hort, or the Tischendorff. It's in the Byzantine Majority, Greek Orthodox, Scrivner's, and Stephanus Texts Receptus. The weight of evidence is hugely in the favor of its not being authentic.
okay, fair. i'm not that familiar with the greek manuscripts.
> Herod the Great was known as the king of Judea. It was decreed to hi by the Roman Senate. He ruled for about 36 years, and then turned the kingdom over to his sons. It wouldn't surprise me that the label "king" just continued on, even though his sons were not technically kings.
the jews at the time barely called herod the great "king", due to his roman appointment, and the fact that he was from edom and not judea.
- Spiderman
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:47 pm
> the fragment, of course, does not have attribution to mark.
That's correct. It's a fragment. All it shows is that Mark was in existence by that time.
> mark was probably written about 80 years prior.
I think it was written earlier than that, but the dating of Mark is still under great debate. As far as the dating, we have nothing solid to go on, but only inferences, clues, and assumptions.
> note that justin martyr does not say this reference comes from mark.
Correct, but it's a fair assumption since he had in his possession the document we are calling the Gospel of Mark.
> no, none of these actually connect the text of mark to the title of mark.
This you are wrong about. In Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book 3, chapter 10, section 5: "Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God.' Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the ..."
> potentially, yes, but in this scenario mark would still be roman, and not overly familiar with palestine.
Except that Mark was a native Jerusalemite (Acts 12.12).
> mark does mention the fall of jerusalem
He mentions it as future, not past (Mk. 13.2). It's another evidence Mark was written before AD 70. And since Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (70), the death of Peter (65), or the martyrdom of James (brother of Jesus, not brother of John) (62), and since Luke was written before Acts, and since Mark was written before Luke...
> The 10th Legion ... one of their symbols is a boar. jesus casts a demon named "legion" into a herd of boars.
Oh my. That interpretation breaks every rule of hermeneutics that exist. Similarity of terms doesn't imply derivation. It's a real "out there" interpretation of the text, not at all in keeping with Mark's point in the chapter, and certainly not one of his emphases in the book. Mark's emphases were Messiahship, the suffering servant, the fulfillment of prophecy, and Jesus as the Son of God. It's a story of covenant jeopardy (obstacles to the plan of salvation), just like Genesis. It's about deity falsely construed, and the scandal of the cross. To make it about political machinations is a rather spurious interpretation at best.
You said that my attributing the 5 large speeches in Matthew to an eyewitness was a stretch (though it seems reasonable to me). In that case, claiming that Mark was talking about the 10th Legion in Mark 5 is an extended elastic stretch.
That's correct. It's a fragment. All it shows is that Mark was in existence by that time.
> mark was probably written about 80 years prior.
I think it was written earlier than that, but the dating of Mark is still under great debate. As far as the dating, we have nothing solid to go on, but only inferences, clues, and assumptions.
> note that justin martyr does not say this reference comes from mark.
Correct, but it's a fair assumption since he had in his possession the document we are calling the Gospel of Mark.
> no, none of these actually connect the text of mark to the title of mark.
This you are wrong about. In Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book 3, chapter 10, section 5: "Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God.' Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the ..."
> potentially, yes, but in this scenario mark would still be roman, and not overly familiar with palestine.
Except that Mark was a native Jerusalemite (Acts 12.12).
> mark does mention the fall of jerusalem
He mentions it as future, not past (Mk. 13.2). It's another evidence Mark was written before AD 70. And since Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (70), the death of Peter (65), or the martyrdom of James (brother of Jesus, not brother of John) (62), and since Luke was written before Acts, and since Mark was written before Luke...
> The 10th Legion ... one of their symbols is a boar. jesus casts a demon named "legion" into a herd of boars.
Oh my. That interpretation breaks every rule of hermeneutics that exist. Similarity of terms doesn't imply derivation. It's a real "out there" interpretation of the text, not at all in keeping with Mark's point in the chapter, and certainly not one of his emphases in the book. Mark's emphases were Messiahship, the suffering servant, the fulfillment of prophecy, and Jesus as the Son of God. It's a story of covenant jeopardy (obstacles to the plan of salvation), just like Genesis. It's about deity falsely construed, and the scandal of the cross. To make it about political machinations is a rather spurious interpretation at best.
You said that my attributing the 5 large speeches in Matthew to an eyewitness was a stretch (though it seems reasonable to me). In that case, claiming that Mark was talking about the 10th Legion in Mark 5 is an extended elastic stretch.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by Farmer 77 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:38 pm
> I'm arguing far more than setting
You are also arguing from setting.
> As I think about it, I didn't argue from setting at all.
Sure you did. I'll paste an example for you: "It's true that Herod was king of Judea from 40-4 BC, as recorded by Josephus and acknowledge by scholar", "Incense offerings ... has been standard in ancient Near Eastern temples, and also in the Herod's temple, so this is historical", and so on.
>1) It was the accepted answer without dispute in the first several centuries and beyond. 2) To me that carries a lot of weight. 3) They were far closer to the evidence and information than we are, 4) and they probably had a lot more to go by than we do. 5) Many things they had at their disposal have doubtlessly not survived.
This is humorous on a couple of levels. I broke your comment into verses for reference sake. #1 draws a conclusion based on lack of refuting information, and yet #4 and #5 acknowledge that tons of information from back then has not survived. Ha. #3 claims that being temporally closer to an event gives you automatic credibility, above all other considerations. If my grandfather was in the air force and claims the moon landing was fake, does that give him more credibility than me, since he was "closer to the evidence and information"? Ha. And #4 is an assumption based solely on wishful thinking, because #5 already explains that there's no evidence for #4. Ha.
> Well, I don't appreciate the smackdown. You have no idea what credentials I have.
You're right, I don't.
credential: a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something.
You are uncredentialed until you present credentials. Some people have a certificate from Webster's allowing them to conclusively settle disputes about the usage of words. Maybe I have one of those certificates. I won't appreciate you telling me I don't.
> I know that academically there is a concerted effort to discredit the Gospels.
Please, tell me more about this conspiracy you've uncovered among bible scholars.
> I can tell you that a bunch of them are quite subjective and biased. Objectivity is a difficult ideal to achieve.
Excellent! I agree wholeheartedly! Now, with that fact in mind, show me how you've determined the objectivity of the church fathers on the subject of whether there were falsehoods in their gospel manuscripts.
> I think there's good reason to believe the Synoptics were all written by about AD 60.
Impressive! Show me the evidence you've used to arrive at yet another conclusion that contradicts the overwhelming majority of published scholarship.
> the stories were starting to be assembled quite early (within a few years at most).
Huh. Wonder why the stories didn't already exist? After all, there are twelve apostles, and many wealthy and educated disciples during his life. Nevertheless, I'm willing to be convinced of this claim of yours, that the stories were being assembled within 3 or fewer years from Jesus's death. Support this impressive claim.
> They were also an oral culture, so they were trained to remember.
They were a storytelling culture. Some of them were trained to embellish. Now prove that the people who preserved the gospel stories were pro-accuracy and anti-embellishment.
> Third, Jesus was so significant that they were motivated to remember.
This only applies to people who knew or heard Jesus. Paul, for instance, never met the man, and he only claims to have met some of the apostles long after his ministry was established. But it's also just a naked assumption, that the people who remembered Jesus a.) had no motive to exaggerate, and b.) are actually the ones who assembled the story, and not some random convert. You can't establish any of that, though.
You are also arguing from setting.
> As I think about it, I didn't argue from setting at all.
Sure you did. I'll paste an example for you: "It's true that Herod was king of Judea from 40-4 BC, as recorded by Josephus and acknowledge by scholar", "Incense offerings ... has been standard in ancient Near Eastern temples, and also in the Herod's temple, so this is historical", and so on.
>1) It was the accepted answer without dispute in the first several centuries and beyond. 2) To me that carries a lot of weight. 3) They were far closer to the evidence and information than we are, 4) and they probably had a lot more to go by than we do. 5) Many things they had at their disposal have doubtlessly not survived.
This is humorous on a couple of levels. I broke your comment into verses for reference sake. #1 draws a conclusion based on lack of refuting information, and yet #4 and #5 acknowledge that tons of information from back then has not survived. Ha. #3 claims that being temporally closer to an event gives you automatic credibility, above all other considerations. If my grandfather was in the air force and claims the moon landing was fake, does that give him more credibility than me, since he was "closer to the evidence and information"? Ha. And #4 is an assumption based solely on wishful thinking, because #5 already explains that there's no evidence for #4. Ha.
> Well, I don't appreciate the smackdown. You have no idea what credentials I have.
You're right, I don't.
credential: a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something.
You are uncredentialed until you present credentials. Some people have a certificate from Webster's allowing them to conclusively settle disputes about the usage of words. Maybe I have one of those certificates. I won't appreciate you telling me I don't.
> I know that academically there is a concerted effort to discredit the Gospels.
Please, tell me more about this conspiracy you've uncovered among bible scholars.
> I can tell you that a bunch of them are quite subjective and biased. Objectivity is a difficult ideal to achieve.
Excellent! I agree wholeheartedly! Now, with that fact in mind, show me how you've determined the objectivity of the church fathers on the subject of whether there were falsehoods in their gospel manuscripts.
> I think there's good reason to believe the Synoptics were all written by about AD 60.
Impressive! Show me the evidence you've used to arrive at yet another conclusion that contradicts the overwhelming majority of published scholarship.
> the stories were starting to be assembled quite early (within a few years at most).
Huh. Wonder why the stories didn't already exist? After all, there are twelve apostles, and many wealthy and educated disciples during his life. Nevertheless, I'm willing to be convinced of this claim of yours, that the stories were being assembled within 3 or fewer years from Jesus's death. Support this impressive claim.
> They were also an oral culture, so they were trained to remember.
They were a storytelling culture. Some of them were trained to embellish. Now prove that the people who preserved the gospel stories were pro-accuracy and anti-embellishment.
> Third, Jesus was so significant that they were motivated to remember.
This only applies to people who knew or heard Jesus. Paul, for instance, never met the man, and he only claims to have met some of the apostles long after his ministry was established. But it's also just a naked assumption, that the people who remembered Jesus a.) had no motive to exaggerate, and b.) are actually the ones who assembled the story, and not some random convert. You can't establish any of that, though.
- Farmer 77
Re: The Reliability of the Gospels
by jimwalton » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:40 pm
> The Synoptics written by AD 60. ... Impressive! Show me the evidence
Here's my case. It starts with the book of Acts.
1. Acts, which records in some detail the lives of Peter and Paul in the early church, does't mention a thing about the death of Peter in AD 65. While Paul is roaming Roman territory (Asia Minor and Greece) there is no mention of the persecution of Christians by the Empire. When Paul goes to Jerusalem, it is still there. There is no mention of the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. No mention of the death of James in AD 61. When Paul goes to Rome he is expecting to be released. None of the this sounds like the mid- to late 60s or beyond. It's certainly not the 70s. Acts was probably written in the early 60s.
2. The attitudes the writer of Acts takes about Rome and its power makes it difficult to believe the Neronian persecution of AD 64 had begun. The Roman imperial representatives trying Paul's case seem impartial, and Paul expects a favorable judgment.
3. The writer of Acts seems to have little acquaintance with Paul's writings, most of which were in the 50s and 60s. If he were writing in the 70s, he would know about them.
4. Many of the expressions in Acts are early and primitive, more characteristic of the 50s and 60s than of the 70s or 80s. (Christians were still known as "disciples," the word *laos* to refer to the Jewish nation, referring to "Christ" as a title rather than a name, Sunday is the still the first day of the week, not "The Lord's Day," etc.)
5. Acts deals with issues that were especially important before the fall of Jerusalem: Gentile admission to fellowship, relation of Jews and Gentiles in the church, food requirements for the Apostles.
6. Acts doesn't mention issues that were of concern after Jerusalem's fall: refining of doctrine, the sacraments, the development of hierarchical leadership in the church, etc.
Acts was most likely written in the earth 60s. Since Luke is by the same author, Luke was probably written by 60 or in the late 50s. Luke also deals with issues of the early church, not of the church after 70: the failure of messianic events to play out as expected, the messiah as a political rebel leader, Jesus' messianic identity, the prophetic message about ministry to Gentiles and predictions of Israel's judgment, etc.
And if Luke was written in the late 50s, Mark was in place before that, possibly by the mid-50s.
As far as Matthew, it also concerns issues of interest prior to the destruction of Jerusalem: interest in the Mosaic Law, ecclesiastical matters, oral interpretation of law and custom, as I have mentioned. It was probably also from that same era, very possibly before 60 as well.
> Huh. Wonder why the stories didn't already exist?
The stories did exist, and they were starting to be assembled. The creed from 1 Cor. 15.3-7, for instance, is known to be from within 2-5 years of Jesus' death. There are other such creeds in circulation very early. The stories of Jesus were already being circulated quite early, as the book of Acts maintains and 1 Corinthians confirms.
> They were a storytelling culture. Some of them were trained to embellish. Now prove that the people who preserved the gospel stories were pro-accuracy and anti-embellishment.
The first century was a rhetorical culture, transitioning from oral to written as ours is transitioning from written to digital. Because some of the population were non-literate (different than illiterate), a premium was placed on the spoken word. Memory skills were well developed. There were rules, particularly for content that was deemed important or sacred.
- redundancy for the sake of memory
- conservative rather than creative
- content took priority over chronology
- efficiency took priority over beauty of phrasing
- a certain degree of flexibility in the telling was allowed in deference to one's own style.
- important material was handled with a greater amount of precision
> Paul, for instance, never met the man, and he only claims to have met some of the apostles long after his ministry was established.
Right, but Paul didn't tell stories about Jesus' life or what he said. Paul only interpreted Jesus' work on the cross and his resurrection.
Here's my case. It starts with the book of Acts.
1. Acts, which records in some detail the lives of Peter and Paul in the early church, does't mention a thing about the death of Peter in AD 65. While Paul is roaming Roman territory (Asia Minor and Greece) there is no mention of the persecution of Christians by the Empire. When Paul goes to Jerusalem, it is still there. There is no mention of the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. No mention of the death of James in AD 61. When Paul goes to Rome he is expecting to be released. None of the this sounds like the mid- to late 60s or beyond. It's certainly not the 70s. Acts was probably written in the early 60s.
2. The attitudes the writer of Acts takes about Rome and its power makes it difficult to believe the Neronian persecution of AD 64 had begun. The Roman imperial representatives trying Paul's case seem impartial, and Paul expects a favorable judgment.
3. The writer of Acts seems to have little acquaintance with Paul's writings, most of which were in the 50s and 60s. If he were writing in the 70s, he would know about them.
4. Many of the expressions in Acts are early and primitive, more characteristic of the 50s and 60s than of the 70s or 80s. (Christians were still known as "disciples," the word *laos* to refer to the Jewish nation, referring to "Christ" as a title rather than a name, Sunday is the still the first day of the week, not "The Lord's Day," etc.)
5. Acts deals with issues that were especially important before the fall of Jerusalem: Gentile admission to fellowship, relation of Jews and Gentiles in the church, food requirements for the Apostles.
6. Acts doesn't mention issues that were of concern after Jerusalem's fall: refining of doctrine, the sacraments, the development of hierarchical leadership in the church, etc.
Acts was most likely written in the earth 60s. Since Luke is by the same author, Luke was probably written by 60 or in the late 50s. Luke also deals with issues of the early church, not of the church after 70: the failure of messianic events to play out as expected, the messiah as a political rebel leader, Jesus' messianic identity, the prophetic message about ministry to Gentiles and predictions of Israel's judgment, etc.
And if Luke was written in the late 50s, Mark was in place before that, possibly by the mid-50s.
As far as Matthew, it also concerns issues of interest prior to the destruction of Jerusalem: interest in the Mosaic Law, ecclesiastical matters, oral interpretation of law and custom, as I have mentioned. It was probably also from that same era, very possibly before 60 as well.
> Huh. Wonder why the stories didn't already exist?
The stories did exist, and they were starting to be assembled. The creed from 1 Cor. 15.3-7, for instance, is known to be from within 2-5 years of Jesus' death. There are other such creeds in circulation very early. The stories of Jesus were already being circulated quite early, as the book of Acts maintains and 1 Corinthians confirms.
> They were a storytelling culture. Some of them were trained to embellish. Now prove that the people who preserved the gospel stories were pro-accuracy and anti-embellishment.
The first century was a rhetorical culture, transitioning from oral to written as ours is transitioning from written to digital. Because some of the population were non-literate (different than illiterate), a premium was placed on the spoken word. Memory skills were well developed. There were rules, particularly for content that was deemed important or sacred.
- redundancy for the sake of memory
- conservative rather than creative
- content took priority over chronology
- efficiency took priority over beauty of phrasing
- a certain degree of flexibility in the telling was allowed in deference to one's own style.
- important material was handled with a greater amount of precision
> Paul, for instance, never met the man, and he only claims to have met some of the apostles long after his ministry was established.
Right, but Paul didn't tell stories about Jesus' life or what he said. Paul only interpreted Jesus' work on the cross and his resurrection.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests