Robert said
Nonresponsive. The question was: “… you agreed to look at the actual arguments and evidence brought forward by leading scholars in favor of the scholarly consensus. Why not do this?”
I intend to. But I dont see why discussions of the synoptic problem can’t be done in tandem with reading up on the scholarly literature. It’s not as if I’m oblivious to the general arguments of Markan priority. We’ve had discussions on arguments presented by specific scholars.
Again, nonresponsive. I asked: “You feel that Mark was opposed to the Our Father, enough so to leave it out of his gospel, because it was not sufficiently and specifically Christian. OK, where are the specifically Christian prayers that he would have used instead of this ‘Jewish’ prayer?”
I don’t know what specifically christian prayers he would use instead of the Our Father, but I don’t see why this is relevant. If we can establish certain christian additions to Judaism and establish that these additions are absent from the Our Father, have we not established that christians would have a problem with it?
We can’t establish any christian writer would necessarily remove but can we establish they’d have a propensity to?
No, my question to you was NOT whether or not Matthew made it up (I’ve always been tempted to think he did). My question to you was, “what is your argument for the probability that a virgin birth was a traditional Jewish messianic belief?”
Once again, you choose to completely ignore the question, presumably because you have no evidence and no good argument. To be taken seriously, you need to admit that plainly.
But I didnt ignore the question. My argument for whether it was a traditional Jewish belief was based on an argument of Matthew not having made it up.
You can disagree with the argument but I don’t think its fair to say I ignored the question?
False. You said, “Far more likely is Mark removing all reference to Joseph.” I believe you are being honest. Perhaps you cannot even remember your own changing positions?
But I’m making any arguments based on Mark knowing the name of Joseph. Mark knowing Joseph’s name is the conclusion of an argument.
There are two possibilities, Matthew edited Mark or Mark edited Matthew (in which case we’d conclude he knew the name Joseph).
My argument in this case for Mark editing Matthew was the greater probability of a christian removing reference to an earthly father rather than a christian adding a reference to an earthly father.
I’m not claiming any evidence that Mark knew Joseph’s name (other than it would follow having first established Matthean priority.
You’re asking me to back up arguments I’m not making.
Appealing to “the immediate discussion” just illustrates that you’ve been ignoring the point about Paul’s very high and very early christology for a while now. Your attempt to change the topic to make a point about the nativity is just avoiding the much more important point about the inadequacy of your trying to represent Mark’s christology as higher and later than Matthew’s supposedly traditional Jewish messianic belief in a virgin birth, for which you still have offered no evidence whatsoever aside from circular reasoning.
But I’m not claiming Mark has a higher christology than Matthew. I think there about the same.
Matthew is not free of internal contradiction and a later writer would have the chance to edit out some perceived contradictions. This would however imply the later writer has a higher christology.
I’m not ignoring Paul at all. My argument is not that there’s a raising of christology between Matthew and Mark (there isn’t) – so Paul having a higher christology before Matthew isnt relevant here.
No, Goodacre’s discussions with other critical scholars are much more substantive than merely this or that is or is not convincing. One can weigh arguments by a number of factors, such as my asking you for evidence to support your bald assertions. Then we can evaluate how well one interprets all of the evidence. To date you’ve offered none and your manner of interpreting other evidence is idiosyncratic and malleable or evasive when challenged. You may not be, but I am sure that arguments such as yours are indeed not taken seriously in these discussions. How many eminent critical scholars can you point to who consider Mark’s lack of mentioning the name of Jesus’ father as evidence for Matthean priority? And ask Mark Goodacre if he can tell you why many scholars do not accept his view; I assure you, he can tell you exactly why.
Again it’s not Mark failing to mention Jesus’s father’s name thats a problem, it’s Mark’s failure to mention Jesus has an earthly father at all. I think this observation has to either point towards Markan priority or Matthean priority and I dont think any scholars would say it points towards Markan priority?
Mark Goodacre would certainly be able to explain the arguments and evidence that convince other scholars of the need for Q but he would be unable to explain why these arguments are convincing to others but not to him.
‘Scholarly consensus’ does not mean universal agreement without exception. It essentially means the solid majority of critical scholars. And again you display a very simplistic and dismissive view of scholarship to simply dismiss it as ‘subjective’.
I havent dismissed scholarship as subjective, just in the particular case of the intention of the author of Mark to end at 16:8 any arguments must necessarily be subjective given that nothing else is known about the author except that he wrote Mark.
It’s not as if these works were copyright protected and could not be changed. You yourself think that Mark cut out huge swaths of material from Matthew and Luke. Why is it that no one else in the Gentile church cut out any of this material from Matthew that you think Mark did? You are left with an entirely idiosyncratic explanation for why and how Mark supposedly severely edited Matthew (and Luke), arguing that he did so because of the tendencies of the larger Gentile church moving away from the more Jewish church, and yet Mark seems to be the only one to have treated Matthew’s gospel in this way. Your justification for your theory does not in fact accord with the evidence we have. It is entirely idiosyncratic.
Mark decided to write his own account of the life of Jesus and made conscious decisions on what to include or exclude from his sources (whatever those sources may have been). This wasn’t the case with most christians. Most christians took the gospel in whichever form they received it.
Matthew’s gospel survived and Mark’s gospel survived. Mark’s gospel will have second generation christian editing of earlier sources which may or may not include Matthew.
I don’t see how any of this does not accord with the evidence as we have it?
You may want to claim that Mark is a Matthean Doppelgänger to Marcion, but then neither would be even slightly representative of the tendencies of the larger Gentile church that you think explains Mark’s massacre of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels. Even Marcion had no objection to the Our Father and his general approach to Luke and the rest of the New Testament was completely rejected by the larger Gentile church.
No, no eminent critical scholar would take your arguments seriously.
I’m not sure I totally get the argument here but by the time Marcion was editing Luke, Luke was already well know and possibly starting to be considered scripture. Marcion’s gospel was clearly and widely recognized to be an editing of Luke’s.
Mark was probably editing Matthew before it was considered scripture and before it was well known and therefore Mark’s could come to be considered a gospel in its own right.
Mark’s gospel was an attempt to update Matthew’s to the then current christian concerns. That it didn’t replace Matthew fully need not be seen as evidence against general christian movement in the direction of Mark.
Robert said
You consistently avoid the major arguments and considerations of the bulk of the material in favor of your forced and obviously biased and idiosyncratic interpretations of individual passages.
But I’m not avoiding them. Happy to discuss whichever argument you’d like.
No, I’m merely asking you to make arguments that make sense, arguments that prove or demonstrate the probabilities you assert. Basing one assertion without evidence on another assertion without evidence is not an argument. It is a shell game. Essentially you’re arguing that it is far more likely that Mark knew Joseph’s name and removed it because a Christian is more likely to eliminate Jesus’ father’s name. Nonsense! This is almost as good as watching Monty Python! Thanks for saving me some rental fees.
Again, Mark not mentioning that Jesus’s father’s name was “Joseph” is not evidence of Matthean priority.
If Matthew said “Jesus lived with his father Joseph and mother Mary” and Mark had the corresponding “Jesus lived with his father and mother Mary” this would not be evidence for Matthean priority.
Its not the lack of mention of the name of Jesus’s father that’s the problem for Markan priority, its the lack of any mention of a father whatsoever.
Matthew 13:55 mentions Jesus’s father, mother, brother and sisters. The corresponding passage in Mark has reference to the father subtly removed, everyone else is allowed to stay. The reason for the removal of an earthly father from Jesus’s story is obvious.
You’re still saying it here: “This would however imply the later writer has a higher christology.” Whether you realize it or not, your arguments were also implying that Mark was editing out lower christological material such as the supposedly insufficiently christological Our Father.
Yes this is an ill-timed typo – should read “This would however not imply the later writer has a higher christology”. ie Matthew is not necessarily internally free of contradiction. Earlier passages may have a lower christology than later one’s. The earlier passages being the more historic and the later better indicating Matthew’s own christology. Mark in editing the earlier passages is actually showing agreement with Matthew’s personal christology.
You will go on thinking whatever you want, of that I am sure, but as I suspected you are completely unable to point to a single eminent critical scholar who considers Mark’s lack of mentioning the name of Jesus’ father as evidence for Matthean priority. Of course, you tried to hide the fact that you were unable to answer my question, but I noticed nonetheless. I’ve become accustomed to your evasive tactics.
Again, lack of mention of name of Jesus’s father is not the basis of any of my arguments – see above.
Thank you for conceding that Mark Goodacre can, of course, explain the arguments and evidence that convince other scholars of the need for Q. Contrary to your assumptions, I assure you he is also able to explain why these arguments are convincing to others. There is no great subjective mystery here such that no one can comprehend why some scholars prefer one solution to the synoptic problem and others a different one so that one can choose any solution he wants and claim that it is just as good as any other in an evening when all cats are gray. Your ‘solution’ is not nearly as good according to the vast majority of critical scholars for very good reasons and those reasons won’t go away just because you don’t want to look at them.
But there is a subjective mystery, no one can explain why say Bart Ehrman does not think Matthew and Luke had access to each other’s gospel whereas Mark Goodacre think they did. Both have access to the same evidence and are aware of each other’s reasoning.
But I agree this doesnt mean one can choose any solution he wants and claim that it is just as good as any other.
But, unfortunately, you claim to know much more about Mark and his intentions to edit Matthew and Luke. How can you now claim to wrap yourself in a cloak of unknowing? It is amazing how idiosyncratic and mutable your judgments and conclusions are. The solid majority of scholars who conclude that Mark ended his gospel at Mk 16,8 are not claiming to be psychic mind readers. Rather, they are evaluating the Markan manuscript evidence and making judgments based on the rest of Mark’s text, and I’m sorry to have to say this, but they are doing it much more competently and cogently than you are. Sorry.
But the point in question is not whether Mark did or did not end his gospel at 16:8, its about whether he intended to end it at 16:8. Looking at manuscript evidence and making judgments based on the rest of the text wont tell you anything about the how Mark intended to end his gospel.
Why are you bringing up ‘most Christians’? We’re talking about Christian authorities and elite literate Christian authors who can read and write and leave behind textual evidence for scholars to evaluate centuries later. Among those, none of them have left behind evidence that support your hypotheses and imaginary tendencies. On the contrary, they have left behind a massive amount of evidence that supports conclusions contrary to yours and which you prefer to ignore. This is why your judgments and conclusions carry no weight among eminent critical scholars or even critical thinkers who know how to evaluate ‘arguments’.
Doesn’t the patristic evidence all support Matthean priority?
Relating to this particular discussion not all the elite literate christians would have felt authorized to change the gospel as they received it. Matthew’s gospel would still get copied in its entirety despite some earlier passages falling behind christological advancements.
Mark could have been one of the few who decided to write his own account of the gospel and felt obliged to remove what was no longer current in christian theology.
Matthew and Marks gospel both survive long enough to become “scripture” and so the Our Father survives the evolution of Jewish to gentile christianity.
brenmcg,
You are putting forth that Matthew was the first gospel and not Mark.
Please remind me why Luke could not be the first gospel. I am thinking Luke picked up what Paul said about the Lord’s Supper; therefore, which gospel was the first to flow from the Pauline letters.
Steefen
Robert said
So do you think Luke was dependent upon the gospel of Matthew? If so, why do you think that?
I’m in NO WAY a proponent of Mattean priority.
But, as indicated previously, Goodacre makes a really interesting case for Lukan dependence on Matthew in the form of Matthean modifications from Mark contained in the Lukan text.
For an example of this, let’s look at parallel passages on the message of John the Baptists. Let’s arguendo assume Markan priority. Here’s what Mark says (Mark 1:7-8):
“And this was [John’s] message: ‘After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’“
This is fairly straightforward and simple, and makes sense as the earliest composition.
Now let’s look at how Matthew deal with this material, in quoting John the Baptist (Matthew 3:11-12):
“‘I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.'”
Note the Matthean embellishments of the fire and cleaning motifs absent in Mark.
And then we have Luke’s treatment of this (Luke 3:16-17):
“But John intervened: ‘I’m baptizing you here in the river. The main character in this drama, to whom I’m a mere stagehand, will ignite the kingdom life, a fire, the Holy Spirit within you, changing you from the inside out. He’s going to clean house—make a clean sweep of your lives. He’ll place everything true in its proper place before God; everything false he’ll put out with the trash to be burned.””
So Luke, like Matthew, include the fire and cleaning motifs absent in Mark.
“A-ha,” one might say, but this double-tradition from Matthew & Luke is simply evidence of Q.
The problem is this turns Q into a circular argument, to wit: Q contains material included in Matthew and Luke, but absent from Mark; that which is included in Matthew & Luke, but absent from Mark, is evidence for Q.
Q as a stand alone “Jesus sayings” document makes some sense. But that’s hardly what we are seeing in these parallel passages on John the Baptist. Indeed, Jesus is not being quoted at all here.
just to remind everyone, there’s plenty of speculation about gospels that existed before any of the four we have–
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Odds that any of the gospels are the first written sources of biographical information are pretty slight, in my opinion. it wasn’t four or five decades of oral history followed by a lot of really good writing.
What I find fascinating here is the introduction to Luke in Luke 1:1-2, typically translated as follows:
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us, as delivered to us by the eyewitnesses at the beginning and servants of the word.“
(Emphasis mine.)
Taking Luke at his word, the words for “many” (πολλοὶ), “to draw up” (ἀνατάξασθαι), and “a narration” or “account” (διήγησιν) are key here. Should we rightful infer that Luke is referring to multiple written accounts upon which he is relying? or is this merely a reference to different chains of oral tradition?
πολλοὶ seems the most straightforward, as it translates to polloi — our modern day “poly,” as in “politics” or “polygamy.” This is clearly meant to imply something more than two (e.g., Mark & Q) or even three (e.g., Mark, Q and Matthew). Luke is telling us that the sources he is drawing from are multiple.
ἀνατάξασθαι is less clear. Is it meant to refer to refer to something that is actually written down, or might it simply be the compilation of a story, handed down? Kyriakoula Papademetriou, PhD, of Aristotle University wrote a paper on this subject. I’ll get to her conclusions below.
The meaning of διήγησιν by Luke is obviously dependent on the contextual use of ἀνατάξασθαι. What exactly is Luke telling us has been “drawn up” or “accounted of” with ἀνατάξασθαι?
In formulating her conclusions, Dr. Papdemetriou first translates πεπληροφορημένα πράγματα (referring to “the things that have been accomplished”) as “the certified things.” This, of course, has a nexus with the proclaimed “eyewitnesses.” Dr. Papademetriou’s sums up her conclusions as follows:
[T]he meaning of [the] common usage [of ἀνατάξασθαι] … might have … the semantic possibility to cover the reference not only to archives and contracts, but also, in a broader sense, to the report of words and deeds. Thus, the translation of Lk 1:1 could be: “Since many attempted to create a report by listing the information about the things taken place among us”. * * *
Essentially, the object of ἀνατάξασθαι is the πεπληροφορημένα πράγματα (the certified things), because these are presented in a list like a memorandum, while διήγησις (narration) characterizes the result of ἀνατάξασθαι, namely of the listing, which would be a report of facts[.] Luke’s phrase is plainly current and vivid, as it brings to the mind of the readers the lists of the scribes of that time; it also … says clearly that the texts he mentions are lists and memorandum.
[T]his interpretation helps our perception for the tradition of the story of the Gospels in the first Church. We have indications, both internal and external coming from historians[,] that prior to the writing of the Gospels some kind of written notes were circulated among the circles of the early Christians, which hold the living tradition of the eyewitnesses and hearsay witnesses by mentioning words and deeds of Jesus’ story. Moreover, the catalog was acknowledged as a particular kind of ancient Greek literature.
Luke characterizing these notes as lists and referring to the meaning of the archives gives us the possibility to confirm and realize more clearly both their form and their role. Apparently, the use of the word indicates pragmatically to an extra-text social reality, where ἀνατάσσομαι associated with this kind of maintaining the oral tradition in the ancient societies.
They were obviously abbreviated texts, not continuous, which would have recorded parables, miracles, events, each text with its own collection. Similarly, many and different memorandums would have existed, not only in one region or the same everywhere. They would have echoed local traditions of the early Christian communities and they would have come from second generation Christians[,] who recorded the facts “as the eyewitnesses and hearsay witnesses delivered them to us becoming ministers of the word” (Lk 1:2), according to the characterization of Luke.
[T]hey would have been the early written evidence of the oral tradition of the Church, which is in the base of the writing of all the Gospels.
If Papdemetriou is correct, then not only Luke, but almost certainly Mark and Matthew are drawing upon not necessarily earlier gospels, but earlier accounts, which have been memorialized at some point in writing, and then dispersed throughout early Christian communities.
Robert said
godspell said
just to remind everyone, there’s plenty of speculation about gospels that existed before any of the four we have–** you do not have permission to see this link **
Odds that any of the gospels are the first written sources of biographical information are pretty slight, in my opinion. it wasn’t four or five decades of oral history followed by a lot of really good writing.
Quoting from your Wikipedia link:
“… Modern variants of the hypothesis survive, but have not found favour with scholars as a whole. …”
Much like Bart’s theory that Jesus expected to be made King of the Jews by the Son of Man.
It might still be true. I don’t have to believe it to take it seriously. But it’s not a consensus theory as of this time. As Bart has said, when he talks about it.
I find it impossible to believe that there were no writings about Jesus in his own language. What exactly they were is open to supposition, but it’s stretching credulity to say Christianity had to wait an entire human lifetime for there to be writings about its central figure other than Paul’s epistles, and obviously we don’t have all of those either.
Most early Christians were not ilterate, but several decades in, there would have been hundreds, maybe thousands. Some of them would have literate in Aramaic. There was a Jewish religious literature, and they’d have expressed themselves in that form. And most of it, like most of what people wrote down in those days, would have been lost.
What about that ‘theory’ (it doesn’t rise to that level) sounds fantastic to you?
Stephen said
I find it impossible to believe that there were no writings about Jesus in his own language.Then there’s no use discussing it. What you have to do is to produce an example of such, even a fragment. How you feel about the idea is irrelevant.
There are a handful of examples, at least, of Aramaic finding its way into the gospels. For example, Matthew includes the famous “Eli Eli lema sabachthani“ : “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Luke’s introduction tells us that he built his gospel upon many written reports made from eyewitnesses. Doesn’t it make sense that “Eli Eli lema sabachthani“ would come from just such a written report?
Stephen said
I find it impossible to believe that there were no writings about Jesus in his own language.Then there’s no use discussing it. What you have to do is to produce an example of such, even a fragment. How you feel about the idea is irrelevant.
Why don’t you want to believe there were writings about Jesus in Aramaic? Why does this bother you? I only started thinking about it very recently. It’s not some deeply held belief. It’s just a reasonable explanation for how some elements of the gospel story came into being. It may be wrong, but a lot of people who know far more than you believe it. Just as you believe many things there are absolutely no documents to support.
It’s all emotional for you. You pretend otherwise. The pretense is not persuasive.
The reason the discussion is pointless is that for you the only real point is to discredit Christian belief while admitting the power of early Christian literature. But all literature, without exception, has roots–often in written sources we no longer have. No serious scholar believes we have 100% of the written record. Why do you?
For me, the point is understanding, but that’s precisely what you want to avoid, because of your underlying hostility, which blinds you to the complexities.
vergari said
There are a handful of examples, at least, of Aramaic finding its way into the gospels. For example, Matthew includes the famous “Eli Eli lema sabachthani“ : “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Luke’s introduction tells us that he built his gospel upon many written reports made from eyewitnesses. Doesn’t it make sense that “Eli Eli lema sabachthani“ would come from just such a written report?
Bart has said he doesn’t believe there were any Christian witnesses to the cruxifixion–I am less sure, think maybe a few of Jesus’ female followers were able to witness it from a distance–could they have heard anything Jesus said, bearing in mind that being crucified does somewhat impact one’s ability to speak clearly and that sound only travels so far? Unknown.
Either way, it seems very unlikely that Mark spoke to any witnesses of the crucifixion–and yet his account is fairly simple, compared to that of the other gospels. Could it have come from an earlier Passion story, well known among literate Jewish Christians, which contained both legitimate memories and transposed elements (like the Barabbas story)?
If your only answer is “Jewish Christians were all illiterate”–well, good luck proving that. We know that isn’t true.
The hilarious thing about this is that Stephen is essentially providing covering fire for fundamentalists, who want to believe ‘their’ gospels are the only original accounts of Jesus’ life, written much earlier than the evidence suggests, by eyewitnesses (and in many cases, by the people they’re attributed to). These books didn’t appear out of nowhere, and to argue they are entirely based on oral history just doesn’t track. One can argue they are pure myth, but then why is the myth at odds with itself in so many important ways?
They were created for and by a community still trying to understand what had happened, and who Jesus was. And that community didn’t suddenly decide to start figuring that out a lifetime later. There were earlier writings, and they would have been primarily written by converted Jews, who are unlikely to have written them all in Greek.
You and Robert aren’t scholars, any more than I am. Nothing I’ve said was in my head until I read articles written by a respected scholar, Roger David Aus.
And Robert, you are not even qualified to say what scholars as a whole believe–different articles will talk about different consensuses–truthfully, the consensus is shifting all the time, and they don’t poll scholars on a regular basis, or really, ever. Many are just being cautious, as they should be, but after all, most scholars still believe in Q–which hasn’t survived. Not. One. Fragment. So why assume that existed, and not other texts, that would explain some of the more puzzling aspects of Mark’s gospel? If we can intuit that Matthew and Luke had sources other than Mark, why is it verboten to intuit Mark had sources other than–what?–talking to really old people?
I will point out yet again that many of Bart’s ideas are out of the mainstream–and there are scholars (not all of them fundamentalists) who worry that his mainstream popularity is leading to his ideas being given greater credence than the evidence merits. He’s making arguments, and we can accept or reject them–he thinks Jesus told his disciples he’d be an earthly king–but there’s no indication of this in the available texts. And much to contradict it–can this be explained? Sure. So can the lack of any surviving Aramaic texts.
Consensus isn’t a crucifix you can hold up when it suits you to ward away evil, then put it down when you like the divergent view.
And we’re all about equally qualified to opine–and we’re all doing that. There is, for example, no scholarly consensus that Jesus was a ‘naive religious fanatic.’ That’s Stephen pulling something out of his ass. Smells like it, anyway. 🙂
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)