Robert said
Again, you’re short circuiting the difference between evidence and interpretation. Everything is evidence and all of the evidence needs to be interpreted, not just each and every individual piece of evidence in isolation, but all of the evidence together as a whole. Furthermore, the interpretive process is a communal exercise of well qualified scholars discussing all aspects of all of the evidence over the past 200 years. To isolate one hypothetical interpretation of a single piece of evidence in a vacuum is meaningless. Your modus operandi is to insist upon an idiosyncratic hypothetical or overly broad interpretation of an isolated piece of evidence, sometimes pretending such to be an obvious fact, and think that you’ve scored a point against an extremely broad, well founded, and longstanding scholarly consensus, a consensus with which you are admittedly unaware of the most important scholarly work supporting it. I’m sorry, Bren, but it just doesn’t work that way.
Yes all the individual evidence having been evaluated separately must then be weighed in the balance as a whole in the final decision.
When weighing all the evidence where does the observation that only Matthew and not Mark has the Our Father sit?
On the side of Matthean priority, on the side of Markan priority or is neutral and doesn’t weigh for either side?
Let’s say Tovia Singer is correct that Lord’s Prayer shatters core Christian doctrines, then you would accept it is evidence for Matthean priority?
What if it doesn’t shatter core doctrines but doesn’t give the central role for Christ that a later christian would like?
“your will be done on earth as in heaven” – isn’t christ lord on earth?
“deliver us from evil” – isn’t christ supposed to be the savior?
Both these lines are removed by Luke.
Wouldn’t the mere lack of a mention of Christ make it less favorable to a christian like Mark. Wouldn’t he feel slightly uncomfortable saying a prayer that makes no mention of Jesus?
Perhaps some version of the “Lord’s Prayer” might actually go back to the historical Jesus. But even if it doesn’t I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suppose that sayings attributed to Jesus that reflect the expectation of the coming kingdom of god and advising on how to live in the interim and don’t reference his own death might be primitive in the tradition.
Robert said
Again, gentile Christians for 2,000 years have not objected to praying the Our Father. Is there any evidence that Mark would have objected to the ideas contained in the Our Father?
There’s no indication of this. It’s just an argument you’ve contrived to try and support Matthean primacy. Christians have never been uncomfortable saying the Our Father.
Of the 21 letters in the new testament all but one of them open giving praise Jesus Christ, and none of them praise the father to the exclusion of the son.
The our father is not just some saying of Jesus the mark may or may not have agreed with, its supposed to be a daily prayer that praises the father but doesn’t mention Jesus. What would the NT letter writers?
The religion has to be understood as one which moved away from its Jewish origins of the father alone being praised to one where both the father and a son are given equal adoration.
Given that, the natural placing of a gospel with the our father would be before one without the our father. In the final reckoning the presence of the our father in Matthew and not Mark will sit on the Matthean priority side of the balance sheet.
Robert said
Then why have Christians said this prayer daily for two thousand years?
Because for most of that 2,000 it has been gospel and part of the unalterable word of God.
Matthew/Mark/Luke were writing at a time when it was acceptable to make edits and create your own gospel, and leave out the bits that didn’t mention christ.
Given that, …
There’s no ‘givens’ here.
But you do accept that Christianity was a religion which moved from an origin of worshipping the father alone to one where the father and a son were worshipped equally?
Given that does it not follow that a prayer which gives worship to the father alone is likely to belong to an earlier gospel than a later one?
But you do accept that Christianity was a religion which moved from an origin of worshipping the father alone to one where the father and a son were worshipped equally?
The logic of Christian exaltation of Christ led to a crisis that eventually resulted in Nicene Trinitarianism. The argument over the relationship between the Father and the Son lasted centuries.
Given that does it not follow that a prayer which gives worship to the father alone is likely to belong to an earlier gospel than a later one?
Not necessarily. What appears to be the case is that although Mark was composed first, Matthew had sources that were at least as old as Mark and probably older.
Maybe it is just me[JAS], but this part of the discussion seems to be hopelessly entangled with the very complicated and still not fully resolved concept of God, in the Christian tradition, as a single or tri-part entity. I do not see that Gordian knot being untied here.
Great minds think alike. I am planning to post about the subject of God.
Robert said
Sure, but even prior to when the gospels were being written there were more and less Jewish communities of ‘Christians’ and there were some Christians who still prayed in synagogues at least until the 5th century so this is not a reliable indicator for dating gospels.
No single observation on its own will be a reliable indicator for dating the gospels. You’re arguing against a claim that the Our Father proves Matthew was first.
A lower christology is an indicator of a earlier gospel not proof of one. A more Jewish passage is an indicator of an earlier gospel not proof of one.
If Mark is in competition will a group of ebionites in his community who claim only the father should be worshipped and use the lord’s prayer as “proof” would Mark have a slight aversion towards using it in his gospel?
Stephen said
But you do accept that Christianity was a religion which moved from an origin of worshipping the father alone to one where the father and a son were worshipped equally?The logic of Christian exaltation of Christ led to a crisis that eventually resulted in Nicene Trinitarianism. The argument over the relationship between the Father and the Son lasted centuries.
The length of time it took isn’t relevant. What is relevant is that there was tendency towards an equality of worship between the father and son with time. That later you go the more christian writings contain equality of father and son. And therefore necessarily two writings with a literally connection where one contains the our farther and one does not is likely, statistically speaking, to be earlier than the other.
Given that does it not follow that a prayer which gives worship to the father alone is likely to belong to an earlier gospel than a later one?
Not necessarily. What appears to be the case is that although Mark was composed first, Matthew had sources that were at least as old as Mark and probably older.
Its not necessarily true the Matthew’s gospel is older, but it is necessarily likely, in the absence of other evidence.
Robert said
No, I’m arguing against the evidentiary value of your hypothesis. You’ve presented no evidence whatsoever that Mark would be opposed to the Our Father; it’s just an hypothesis of yours. Whereas I have presented specific evidence that Mark is not at all opposed to specific elements of the Our Father. Hypotheses are not evidence.
If you want to argue that the evidentiary value is not very strong that’s fine. But you’ve been arguing that I can’t claim its evidence in any way whatsover.
Even if it’s weak evidence does it not sit on the Matthean priority side of the scales?
Mark believes the son of man will sit at the right hand of the father and you will see him coming on the clouds of heaven. He thinks something has been achieved by Jesus life and death. Do you not think he would have some aversion to a prayer that suggests no change to the status quo from pre-christian judaism?
Does the movement from the Our Father to the belief that Jesus sits at the right hand of god not perfectly encapsulate the christian movement away from its jewish roots?
Robert said
No, hypotheses are not evidence.
This is very true, just as confidence is also not evidence. A hypothesis is merely a potentially useful path of investigation. One is usually well advised not to start connecting too many hypotheses in a chain of speculation, without at least establishing some plausibility to the links. That way madness lies.
Robert said
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Mark would have thought differently about the Our Father than Matthew did?
Why? What do you think I’m claiming?
The question is what’s more likely, that the our father is added or removed in a second edition of a gospel. Does the proportion of christian writings which praise the father to the exclusion of the son increase or decrease with time?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert