Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II

[HitchSlap]

Suffering, in whatever form, from a baby drowning to mass genocides like the Holocaust, will happen. Jesus said so. Believe him or don't. Your choice. In the end, Jesus reigns and "conquer(s) the world". As Romans 8:18 tells us "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." IOW, God knows more than you do.

Well, if Jesus said so...

 

[redleghunter]

Back to Matthew. The first thing we notice about Matthew is that it looks very much like what we would expect if somebody was editing Mark. If editing was happening, we could get Matthew from Mark. For Matthew often simply copies from Mark. For instance, in the text below, I show a parallel between Mark and Matthew, with the blue unique to Mark, and the red unique to Matthew.

Mark 11:15-17American Standard Version (ASV)
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; 16 and he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, and said unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? but ye have made it a den of robbers.


Matthew 21:12-13American Standard Version (ASV)
12 And Jesus entered into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; 13 and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.
Now that sure looks like Matthew was simply copying Mark, taking out some of the redundancies, and adding a few changes. And we find that throughout the book of Matthew, with Matthew repeating 90% of the verses in Mark. In fact, when Matthew tells the same story as Mark, Matthew always ends up looking like he is copying Mark.

Conjecture. Both Matthew and Mark were witnesses to the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. If we watch the same football game we will have very similar observations but not 100% in unity given we may be sitting in a different part of the stadium. Two sports writers submit their coverage and assessment of the game. Both are very similar because both sports writers are in the same stadium, watching the same game but one is more succinct as his editor wants the hard facts and get them out. The other editor wants more detail and gets the story out later.

One thing Jesus reminded His captors of was when He taught and ministered it was always in public:

Luke 22: NASB
52Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber? 53“While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.”

 

[doubtingmerle]

Conjecture. Both Matthew and Mark were witnesses to the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. If we watch the same football game we will have very similar observations but not 100% in unity given we may be sitting in a different part of the stadium. Two sports writers submit their coverage and assessment of the game. Both are very similar because both sports writers are in the same stadium, watching the same game but one is more succinct as his editor wants the hard facts and get them out. The other editor wants more detail and gets the story out later.

Uh, but what if one sportswriter copies the other sportswriter's words, making only minor changes? If they were both eyewitnesses, wouldn't they both be writing using their own words? That is the problem with Matthew. He took Mark and copied what Mark wrote.

Did you even read the post I wrote on Matthew?

 

[redleghunter]

Uh, but what if one sportswriter copies the other sportswriter's words, making only minor changes? If they were both eyewitnesses, wouldn't they both be writing using their own words? That is the problem with Matthew. He took Mark and copied what Mark wrote.

You are kidding right? Maybe you are not. Go ahead and show me how this is explained in the Koine Greek. Did I miss that part of the thread?

Did you even read the post I wrote on Matthew?

Yes the one you linked me to. Did you run Matthew and Mark through some plagiarism internet site?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are kidding right? Maybe you are not. Go ahead and show me how this is explained in the Koine Greek. Did I miss that part of the thread?

You got a point to make about how the Koine Greek explains it? Then make your point. Don't ask me to make your argument.

Yes the one you linked me to. Did you run Matthew and Mark through some plagiarism internet site?

No. I compared the books of Matthew and Mark, and determined that surely Matthew copied from Mark. The majority of critical scholars agree. Do you agree that Matthew copied from Mark?

 

[redleghunter]

No. I compared the books of Matthew and Mark, and determined that surely Matthew copied from Mark. The majority of critical scholars agree. Do you agree that Matthew copied from Mark?

Hmm. They are called synoptic gospels right. Let me ask. How much difference does it take according to whatever subjective analysis you made to make something authentic vs being accused of plagiarism? Can you show me your metrics?

You got a point to make about how the Koine Greek explains it. Then make your point. Don't ask me to make your argument.

Yeah I sure do. Did it occur to you the similarities are due to English translation? I mean Mark and Matthew wrote their accounts in Koine Greek.

So I’m sure since you stuck your neck out on a Christian site you would be prepared to speak of your analysis of the Koine Greek. Right? So did I miss it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hmm. They are called synoptic gospels right. Let me ask. How much difference does it take according to whatever subjective analysis you made to make something authentic vs being accused of plagiarism? Can you show me your metrics?

Uh, I gave you two examples in that post. Do you or do you not agree that those are examples of Matthew copying from Mark?

Even Christian critical scholars agree that Matthew was copying from Mark.

If Matthew was not copying from Mark, why did he use the same parenthetical as Mark at the same place?

Yeah I sure do. Did it occur to you the similarities are due to English translation? I mean Mark and Matthew wrote their accounts in Koine Greek.

So I’m sure since you stuck your neck out on a Christian site you would be prepared to speak of your analysis of the Koine Greek. Right? So did I miss it?

Uh, I am not a Koine Greek expert, but I know that critical Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree that Matthew is copying from Mark. It is not simply a translation problem that inserts the same parenthetical in Matthew that appears in Mark.

 

[redleghunter]

You got a point to make about how the Koine Greek explains it? Then make your point. Don't ask me to make your argument.

Considering Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and Mark in Koine Greek you have a problem with your theory.

No. I compared the books of Matthew and Mark, and determined that surely Matthew copied from Mark. The majority of critical scholars agree. Do you agree that Matthew copied from Mark?

Then your position is Matthew copied the Koine Greek from Mark and translated it in Hebrew? In your research did that come up?

Uh, I gave you two examples in that post. Do you or do you not agree that those are examples of Matthew copying from Mark?

My assessment is both men experienced the same Ministry of Christ. Considering Mark went West and Matthew went East of Jerusalem I’m not seeing when they had their cram session.

Even Christian critical scholars agree that Matthew was copying from Mark.

Quite dubious as I mentioned the two men were not in the same place.

Also considering the early church fathers by majority put the Matthews Gospel first and written in Hebrew and later translated into Koine Greek.

If Matthew was not copying from Mark, why did he use the same parenthetical as Mark at the same place?

That’s a good question. They were both quoting their Rabbi and as a disciple would know His inflection and teaching points.

Out of all the apostles the one who would have a formal education would be Matthew as a tax collector. It is feasible Matthew actually kept a diary of the events as they happened. And why Augustine believed in Matthew primacy.

Uh, I am not a Koine Greek expert, but I know that critical Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree that Matthew is copying from Mark. It is not simply a translation problem that inserts the same parenthetical in Matthew that appears in Mark.

Actually many scholars are being swayed by the Augustinian hypothesis which takes us back to Matthean priority. And Luke is standing alone given his introduction in Luke 1 where he sets out to investigate independently. Then you have the Jerusalem priority theory which puts Luke in primacy.

Lol take your pick. A whole lot of theory to try to accuse two others of plagiarism.

Even Bart Ehrman is not convinced of the primacy of Mark. Given he is truly a NT scholar (and agnostic) he does take into account the early scholarship of the early church. Which again is Matthew was first and written originally in Hebrew. Which Jerome mentions was still in the library in Palestine when he went there to translate the Scriptures into Latin Vulgate.

 

[redleghunter]

How much difference does it take according to whatever subjective analysis you made to make something authentic vs being accused of plagiarism? Can you show me your metrics?

@doubtingmerle still need an answer to this.

 

[doubtingmerle]

@doubtingmerle still need an answer to this.

Since you brought up the question, let's hear your answer first.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Redleghunter, nice to meet you out here in the lobby. So we are going beyond a simple exchange of one liners? Maybe I need to come back as a guest speaker again, huh?

Considering Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and Mark in Koine Greek you have a problem with your theory.

That is certainly not the opinion of critical scholarship, which supports that Matthew was written in Greek. I am no expert on ancient languages. I understand some of the saying of Matthew have Aramaic syntax, but most of the narrative appears to have a Greek origin, and much of it specifically appears to have come from Mark.

Then your position is Matthew copied the Koine Greek from Mark and translated it in Hebrew?

No.

My assessment is both men experienced the same Ministry of Christ. Considering Mark went West and Matthew went East of Jerusalem I’m not seeing when they had their cram session.

We do not know who wrote the first two gospels, so any statement about what they did is pure speculation.

Also considering the early church fathers by majority put the Matthews Gospel first and written in Hebrew and later translated into Koine Greek.

Second century church leaders referred to a Hebrew book of sayings by a Matthew, but that book does not appear to be a description of what we now call Matthew. It is possible that the fame of Matthew as a sayings writer caused later Christians to associate him with the first gospel.

That’s a good question. They were both quoting their Rabbi and as a disciple would know His inflection and teaching points.

Uh, the phrase, "Let the reader understand" was a parenthetical assertion by Mark, and could not have been something his Rabbi said. The Rabbi would have said "Let the hearer understand" if he had actually spoke it.

But both Matthew and Mark chose to insert the same explanation at the same place. The most likely explanation for this is that one copied the other.

Actually many scholars are being swayed by the Augustinian hypothesis which takes us back to Matthean priority. And Luke is standing alone given his introduction in Luke 1 where he sets out to investigate independently. Then you have the Jerusalem priority theory which puts Luke in primacy.

Lol take your pick. A whole lot of theory to try to accuse two others of plagiarism.

Even Bart Ehrman is not convinced of the primacy of Mark. Given he is truly a NT scholar (and agnostic) he does take into account the early scholarship of the early church. Which again is Matthew was first and written originally in Hebrew. Which Jerome mentions was still in the library in Palestine when he went there to translate the Scriptures into Latin Vulgate.

I am well aware of the Matthew first view, but it is rejected by most critical scholars, for the simple reason, that, given the existence of Matthew, there is no good reason to write Mark. Given the existence of Mark, there are plenty of reasons to add the additions of Matthew.

 

[redleghunter]

That is certainly not the opinion of critical scholarship, which supports that Matthew was written in Greek. I am no expert on ancient languages. I understand some of the saying of Matthew have Aramaic syntax, but most of the narrative appears to have a Greek origin, and much of it specifically appears to have come from Mark.

It’s historical fact. The majority of early scholars actually had a Hebrew Matthew in existence. And they believed it was later translated into Greek.

We do not know who wrote the first two gospels, so any statement about what they did is pure speculation.

I believe I already showed you the early church scholars knew exactly who wrote the Gospels.

Second century church leaders referred to a Hebrew book of sayings by a Matthew, but that book does not appear to be a description of what we now call Matthew. It is possible that the fame of Matthew as a sayings writer caused later Christians to associate him with the first gospel.

Source.

Uh, the phrase, "Let the reader understand" was a parenthetical assertion by Mark, and could not have been something his Rabbi said. The Rabbi would have said "Let the hearer understand" if he had actually spoke it.

No what a disciple quoting a Rabbi would do is when one speaks parenthetically, one writes it as such.

I am well aware of the Matthew first view, but it is rejected by most critical scholars, for the simple reason, that, given the existence of Matthew, there is no good reason to write Mark. Given the existence of Mark, there are plenty of reasons to add the additions of Matthew.

Not rejected by most scholars as the wind is changing again for Matthew first.

Plus history confirms the early scholars knew Matthew was the first Gospel.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I believe I already showed you the early church scholars knew exactly who wrote the Gospels.

Please show me a church scholar before 180 AD who knew exactly who wrote the four gospels.

Source.

I had made several statements. Which of those do you need a source for?

No what a disciple quoting a Rabbi would do is when one speaks parenthetically, one writes it as such.

Oh puhleeze. You are going to tell me that Jesus, when speaking to the disciples said, "Let the reader understand". And his disciples remembered that they said that and wrote it down as "Let the reader understand" years later? Ha! I think it far more likely that Mark inserted this phrase because he wanted his readers to think it was important.

Not rejected by most scholars as the wind is changing again for Matthew first.

I know there are a minority who think Matthew was first. Please document your statement that most critical scholars think Matthew was first.

Plus history confirms the early scholars knew Matthew was the first Gospel.

Where does history document that early scholars knew Matthew was first?

 

[redleghunter]

Please show me a church scholar before 180 AD who knew exactly who wrote the four gospels.

Polycarp was the teacher of Irenaeus. See Against Heresies where he quotes extensively from 25 of 27 NT books. Once again showing the unbroken chain of custody of the church.

Oh puhleeze. You are going to tell me that Jesus, when speaking to the disciples said, "Let the reader understand". And his disciples remembered that they said that and wrote it down as "Let the reader understand" years later? Ha! I think it far more likely that Mark inserted this phrase because he wanted his readers to think it was important.

Go back and highlight some of the words I used as in “Rabbi” and “Disciple.” Add to that the comments of how Holy Scriptures were handled by the Jewish people and the words of Christ by Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Jesus Christ is quoting a prophecy yet to be fulfilled from the prophet Daniel. When the Law, Prophets and Writings are mentioned the recording later of the words are handled with more precision. This includes ensuring a prophetic utterance which Jesus was given must be understood according to the Holy Writ.

If Matthew is a rip off from Mark or the other way, it has nothing to do with one man copying the other but both using a no kidding Jewish Scribe with years of experience in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic maybe some Latin too, to transcribe their works.

Where does history document that early scholars knew Matthew was first?

Church fathers.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Church fathers.

I see. So you have no documentation that they knew Matthew was first. You will just state that they knew it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Polycarp was the teacher of Irenaeus. See Against Heresies where he quotes extensively from 25 of 27 NT books. Once again showing the unbroken chain of custody of the church.

You mention two people in the second century .Again the issue is the gap from the apostles to the second century .

And the fact that irenaeus mentions four gospel writers does not mean his mentor agreed .

 

[doubtingmerle]

Go back and highlight some of the words I used as in “Rabbi” and “Disciple.” Add to that the comments of how Holy Scriptures were handled by the Jewish people and the words of Christ by Jewish and Gentile Christians.
.

How do you know that no disciple, when writing the words of his rabbi,would ever add, "let the reader understand"?

Critical scholarship agrees that the writer of mark is the one that is saying this.

But whatever, there are many more examples showing that one copied the other. And yet some how you will find a way to deny every
one of the hundreds of times that Matthew quotes mark, and then resort to the dubious claim that Clement copied from Matthew without ever trying to document it.

 

[mark kennedy]

You mention two people in the second century .Again the issue is the gap from the apostles to the second century .

And the fact that irenaeus mentions four gospel writers does not mean his mentor agreed .

Do you know how we have Euclidean geometry, because triangulation originated from the Egyptians, Thales learned it while he was doing business there. He started a school, actually a study group and one of their disciples was Pythagorean who famously solved the A squared plus B squared equals C squared. We have this approach to solving these problems because the Greeks wrote things down in encyclicals, that and their language was their gift to western civilization.

So if those scrolls were being kept, studied and used, it kind of makes sense that sacred texts could be preserved and even proliferated. The ancient Levites would not only count every word, but every letter, indicating the central letter. Just three errors and the scroll had to be burned, now that's meticulous care. John Mark was a Levite, he was immanently capable of making copies of his own Gospel and would, I expect, pass on the information of how to do something like that since it was very common in Jewish communities to make copies of these sacred writings.

At some point you are really going to have to consider the culture that produced and proliferated these writings because random generalities are hardly convincing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you know how we have Euclidean geometry, because triangulation originated from the Egyptians, Thales learned it while he was doing business there. He started a school, actually a study group and one of their disciples was Pythagorean who famously solved the A squared plus B squared equals C squared. We have this approach to solving these problems because the Greeks wrote things down in encyclicals, that and their language was their gift to western civilization.

So if those scrolls were being kept, studied and used, it kind of makes sense that sacred texts could be preserved and even proliferated. The ancient Levites would not only count every word, but every letter, indicating the central letter. Just three errors and the scroll had to be burned, now that's meticulous care. John Mark was a Levite, he was immanently capable of making copies of his own Gospel and would, I expect, pass on the information of how to do something like that since it was very common in Jewish communities to make copies of these sacred writings.

At some point you are really going to have to consider the culture that produced and proliferated these writings because random generalities are hardly convincing.

So far you have not offered one iota of evidence that the four gospels were widely recognized as scripture in the first century, that they were widely known, or that they were copied by anybody other than a few barely literate people here and there in the first century.

 

[redleghunter]

I see. So you have no documentation that they knew Matthew was first. You will just state that they knew it.

Perhaps I posited on the other thread we are on. Doctor of the Church, bishop and historian St Augustine addressed Matthew as the first Gospel.

Augustine Harmony of the Gospels:

Chapter 2. On the Order of the Evangelists, and the Principles on Which They Wrote.
3. Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four — it may be for the simple reason that there are four divisions of that world through the universal length of which they, by their number as by a kind of mystical sign, indicated the advancing extension of the Church of Christ — are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John. Hence, too, [it would appear that] these had one order determined among them with regard to the matters of their personal knowledge and their preaching [of the gospel], but a different order in reference to the task of giving the written narrative. As far, indeed, as concerns the acquisition of their own knowledge and the charge of preaching, those unquestionably came first in order who were actually followers of the Lord when He was present in the flesh, and who heard Him speak and saw Him act;

[...]

4. Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left out as matters about which there was no information things which another nevertheless is discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint compositions.
CHURCH FATHERS: Harmony of the Gospels, Book I, Chapter 2 (Augustine)

St Jerome schloar, doctor and translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible.

“Jerome Preface to the Four Gospels - original Latin Text with English translation”

I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judæa in Hebrew characters.

Jerome Preface to the Four Gospels

Church Historian Eusebius speaking of the works of Papias (early 2nd century AD):

On the Composition of Mark and Matthew, citing Papias [Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor; lived ca. 60-130 AD]:Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to MARK, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words: "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise.

Papias lived 60-130 AD. Eusebius had his works available to quote.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3 - On the Gospel Authorship

The witness of Clement opining on the early Presbyters witness of the Gospels and mention of Papias as well (60-130AD):

On the Composition of Mark, citing Clement of Alexandria [Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt; lived ca. 150-215]:And thus when the divine word had made its home among them [the Christians in Rome], the power of Simon [the magician] was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of PETER'S hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought MARK, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of MARK. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Peter 5:13). And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1-2, 2.16.1)

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3 - On the Gospel Authorship

On the Composition and Order of all Four Gospels, again citing Clement of Alexandria:Again, in the same books [the Hypotyposes], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: "The Gospels containing the genealogies [i.e. Matthew and Luke], he says, were written first. The Gospel according to MARK had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, JOHN, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." This is the account of Clement. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.5-7).

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3 - On the Gospel Authorship

Eusebius was even a textual critic in his time:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter to Carpianus on the gospel canons: English translation


Ok how deep do you want to go? There’s more and the actual works of the cited bishops and theologians.