Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

I criticise your lack of scholarship, not your ignoring scholarly opinions. And in matters scriptural there are few scholars that approach the subject dispassionately.

ETA - There is no scholarly consensus on the issue of the apparent discrepancies in the timing of the crucifixion - there are competing reconciliations of the conflict. And the conflict arises for the most part from a failure to conduct simple reading comprehension tests. A small amount can be attributed to perfectly understandable, natural thought processes that occur for everyone.

So you are saying that you, Tabby, a Christian non-scholar, understand ancient Jewish dating better than Rabbi Singer and every other Jewish scholar on the planet who sees a discrepancy on this issue??

[Gary]

Stein:

If John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, based on the teachings of Peter, the chief of apostle, then why would the authors of Matthew and Luke redact and "correct" Mark's wording when they copy 90% and 65% respectively of Mark's wording into each of their gospels? If you believe that Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew, this might make sense as Matthew would have also been an eyewitness. But what does that say about the reliability of Mark? If Matthew has to correct Mark for Mark's mistakes regarding Jewish customs, etc., what else did Mark get wrong?? And if Matthew was an eyewitness, why would he borrow so much of his material from John Mark, a non-eyewitness, especially seeing how Mark's gospel needed so much editing on his part? Why not just write his own story?

And what about Luke? If Luke the physician wrote Luke/Acts, using 65% of John Mark's gospel in his own gospel, knowing that John Mark had received his information from Peter an eyewitness and the chief apostle, why would Luke, a non-eyewitness, redact/correct the wording of Mark when he copies Mark's words and stories into his own gospel? Doesn't Luke's revision of Mark's story cast doubt onto John Mark's reliability, or even Peter's reliability, in telling this supernatural-laden story?? Luke says in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke that he carefully researched his sources. If this is true, it means that the story told by John Mark, Peter's traveling companion, was not entirely credible.

In addition to all this, Christians state that these writings are in some way inspired by God. How? If the original Gospel, which two and maybe three of the other Gospel writers used extensively as a boiler plate for their own stories, is not reliable in its details, how can we be certain that ANYTHING in this ancient text is true, other than maybe a kernel of truth that Jesus lived, had a ministry, and was crucified???

How can anyone claim that the Bible contains four eyewitness accounts with the above facts? It boggles the mind. Isn't it much, much more probable that the four Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses; the first gospel written decades after Jesus' death, in a foreign land, based on the stories about Jesus circulating at that time in the author's country and city? Then two other Christian authors decide to write the story of Jesus, using the first gospel, which we now call "Mark", as a boiler plate, borrowing extensively from this author's story, for their story, but making numerous changes and corrections to the first author's story.

Then at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, someone decides to write a story about Jesus. Although this story has a core story similar to that in the first three stories, it is otherwise very, very different from the first three: It has a very high Christology, Jesus speaks in long sermons instead of parables, and Jesus is very open about his divinity whereas in the first three he seems to want to keep his divinity hidden. Isn't it much more likely that this was simply a later Christian using the Synoptics as a boiler plate but then writing a story for the purpose of spreading his theology?

[37818]

Tabby,

You guys are always filleting me for not used scholarship for my positions (which I have shown is a false accusation), but yet you are taking a position against the majority scholarly opinion on this discrepancy. Why?

The scholarship is not consistent between the different schools of interpretation. It just is not. In the fundamentalist camp that I know John's account uses Roman hours where Mark gives the Hebrew hours.

[Gary]

The scholarship is not consistent between the different schools of interpretation. It just is not. In the fundamentalist camp that I know John's account uses Roman hours where Mark gives the Hebrew hours.

You can use that harmonization to explain the discrepancy in the exact hour of Jesus death, but not the day of this death.

[Gary]

I criticise your lack of scholarship, not your ignoring scholarly opinions. And in matters scriptural there are few scholars that approach the subject dispassionately.

ETA - There is no scholarly consensus on the issue of the apparent discrepancies in the timing of the crucifixion - there are competing reconciliations of the conflict. And the conflict arises for the most part from a failure to conduct simple reading comprehension tests. A small amount can be attributed to perfectly understandable, natural thought processes that occur for everyone.

Wait, you criticize the fact that I am not a scholar? Must I be a scholar to hold a view on the New Testament, as long as my view is within the mainstream of scholarship....which it is?

You are not a scholar are you?

[Gary]

I criticise your lack of scholarship, not your ignoring scholarly opinions. And in matters scriptural there are few scholars that approach the subject dispassionately.

ETA - There is no scholarly consensus on the issue of the apparent discrepancies in the timing of the crucifixion - there are competing reconciliations of the conflict. And the conflict arises for the most part from a failure to conduct simple reading comprehension tests. A small amount can be attributed to perfectly understandable, natural thought processes that occur for everyone.

Dear Christians:

Are we really to believe that the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator of the universe sent us his message of salvation from eternal doom; sent to us in the person of his very own son; sent to us because he "so loved the world", but yet, the central claim of this message, a resurrection/reanimation, requires extensive study and knowledge, as per Nick, Stein, and Tabby, of the latest scholarship, prior to one having sufficient information to make an informed decision as to its historicity???

Must one read 10-20 books, by 10-20 scholars, before one can make an informed decision on this supernatural claim?

I don't think so, and I will bet, neither do the overwhelming majority of non-Christians think so. Christians have invented the false dilemma that one must read multiple Christian apologists' works before one can rightfully reject their superstition-based claim---for the very reason that it is a superstition, and therefore needs extensive spin to prop it up.

[One Bad Pig]

Must one read 10-20 books, by 10-20 scholars, before one can make an informed decision on this supernatural claim?

No, one must possess discernment. Please acquire some.

[Gary]

No, one must possess discernment. Please acquire some.

"Keep reading my side's literature until you accept my view...or you're an idiot" is what you and others here are really saying, Pig.

[psstein]

Stein:

If John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, based on the teachings of Peter, the chief of apostle, then why would the authors of Matthew and Luke redact and "correct" Mark's wording when they copy 90% and 65% respectively of Mark's wording into each of their gospels? If you believe that Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew, this might make sense as Matthew would have also been an eyewitness. But what does that say about the reliability of Mark? If Matthew has to correct Mark for Mark's mistakes regarding Jewish customs, etc., what else did Mark get wrong?? And if Matthew was an eyewitness, why would he borrow so much of his material from John Mark, a non-eyewitness, especially seeing how Mark's gospel needed so much editing on his part? Why not just write his own story?

And what about Luke? If Luke the physician wrote Luke/Acts, using 65% of John Mark's gospel in his own gospel, knowing that John Mark had received his information from Peter an eyewitness and the chief apostle, why would Luke, a non-eyewitness, redact/correct the wording of Mark when he copies Mark's words and stories into his own gospel? Doesn't Luke's revision of Mark's story cast doubt onto John Mark's reliability, or even Peter's reliability, in telling this supernatural-laden story?? Luke says in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke that he carefully researched his sources. If this is true, it means that the story told by John Mark, Peter's traveling companion, was not entirely credible.

In addition to all this, Christians state that these writings are in some way inspired by God. How? If the original Gospel, which two and maybe three of the other Gospel writers used extensively as a boiler plate for their own stories, is not reliable in its details, how can we be certain that ANYTHING in this ancient text is true, other than maybe a kernel of truth that Jesus lived, had a ministry, and was crucified???

How can anyone claim that the Bible contains four eyewitness accounts with the above facts? It boggles the mind. Isn't it much, much more probable that the four Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses; the first gospel written decades after Jesus' death, in a foreign land, based on the stories about Jesus circulating at that time in the author's country and city? Then two other Christian authors decide to write the story of Jesus, using the first gospel, which we now call "Mark", as a boiler plate, borrowing extensively from this author's story, for their story, but making numerous changes and corrections to the first author's story.

Then at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, someone decides to write a story about Jesus. Although this story has a core story similar to that in the first three stories, it is otherwise very, very different from the first three: It has a very high Christology, Jesus speaks in long sermons instead of parables, and Jesus is very open about his divinity whereas in the first three he seems to want to keep his divinity hidden. Isn't it much more likely that this was simply a later Christian using the Synoptics as a boiler plate but then writing a story for the purpose of spreading his theology?

Gary, this is actually a very good question.

To answer your first question, as you may or may not know, Mark is not in a particularly clear order. There's a technique Mark uses called the Markan Sandwich, where he'll start relating a story, then interrupt it with another story. Some scholars (Bauckham, Byrskog, Casey, etc.) have suggested that this is indicative of an oral composition that was later written down, which does make some sense. As it were, Mark would've been seen almost like a series of notes- containing information, but requiring order. As Papias relates, Matthew ordered the logion, which can be interpreted as taking Mark and putting it in a concrete order, while adding some of his own material to suit his purpose of showing Jesus as the Jewish messiah while removing other material Matthew finds redundant.

Your question about Luke falls under the same category. Luke likely wrote from a copy of Mark (though some disagree and say he used Matthew), which means that he, like any Greco-Roman historian (Luke-Acts is more historiography than biography), would consider Mark like a series of notes, as I said above. Luke is probably interviewing eyewitnesses in some capacity, hence the introduction to Luke. As I've said above, Mark reads like an oral tradition that was written down.

With regard to John, John probably knew about Mark, though from what I've read, almost everyone thinks John and Mark are independent of one another. John is a very interesting gospel by itself. It could be a stylized, though grounded in truth, account of what happened with Jesus, which is definitely known from other authors in the ancient world. John may be more reliable when it comes to dates and places than the synoptics, and more than a few scholars have argued it.

Again, I'm agnostic as to who wrote John, though if John did write it, it wasn't John of Zebedee. Matthew the apostle didn't write Matthew. John Mark probably wrote Mark, and Luke probably wrote Luke.

[psstein]

Wait, you criticize the fact that I am not a scholar? Must I be a scholar to hold a view on the New Testament, as long as my view is within the mainstream of scholarship....which it is?

You don't have to be a scholar, but you do have to be informed. That means reading books from scholars who hold to a variety of viewpoints (e.g. John Dominic Crossan, Raymond Brown, and Darrell Bock).

For example, Crossan proposes something he calls the Cross Gospel, which is the root of the passion narratives in all four gospels. He found it in the Gospel of Peter (c. AD 150). I and almost everyone else think he's wrong, but we actually read what he says before dismissing it.

[One Bad Pig]

"Keep reading my side's literature until you accept my view...or you're an idiot" is what you and others here are really saying, Pig.

Ok, reading comprehension helps, too. Please try harder to understand what you read here.

[psstein]

You need to read scholarly literature in order to reach informed conclusions. You need to be informed to make informed conclusions.

I don't really like a lot of apologetics work. A lot of the more popular stuff attacks straw men or simply doesn't engage the other side.

[Gary]

Gary, this is actually a very good question.

To answer your first question, as you may or may not know, Mark is not in a particularly clear order. There's a technique Mark uses called the Markan Sandwich, where he'll start relating a story, then interrupt it with another story. Some scholars (Bauckham, Byrskog, Casey, etc.) have suggested that this is indicative of an oral composition that was later written down, which does make some sense. As it were, Mark would've been seen almost like a series of notes- containing information, but requiring order. As Papias relates, Matthew ordered the logion, which can be interpreted as taking Mark and putting it in a concrete order, while adding some of his own material to suit his purpose of showing Jesus as the Jewish messiah while removing other material Matthew finds redundant.

Your question about Luke falls under the same category. Luke likely wrote from a copy of Mark (though some disagree and say he used Matthew), which means that he, like any Greco-Roman historian (Luke-Acts is more historiography than biography), would consider Mark like a series of notes, as I said above. Luke is probably interviewing eyewitnesses in some capacity, hence the introduction to Luke. As I've said above, Mark reads like an oral tradition that was written down.

With regard to John, John probably knew about Mark, though from what I've read, almost everyone thinks John and Mark are independent of one another. John is a very interesting gospel by itself. It could be a stylized, though grounded in truth, account of what happened with Jesus, which is definitely known from other authors in the ancient world. John may be more reliable when it comes to dates and places than the synoptics, and more than a few scholars have argued it.

Again, I'm agnostic as to who wrote John, though if John did write it, it wasn't John of Zebedee. Matthew the apostle didn't write Matthew. John Mark probably wrote Mark, and Luke probably wrote Luke.

Why do you believe that John Mark wrote Mark and that Luke the physician wrote Luke?

Also, do you agree with my claim that the majority of scholars doubt the traditional authorship of all four gospels? If you do, why are you choosing to oppose the consensus position on this issue while criticizing me for doing the same on Aramathea's empty tomb?

[Gary]

You don't have to be a scholar, but you do have to be informed. That means reading books from scholars who hold to a variety of viewpoints (e.g. John Dominic Crossan, Raymond Brown, and Darrell Bock).

For example, Crossan proposes something he calls the Cross Gospel, which is the root of the passion narratives in all four gospels. He found it in the Gospel of Peter (c. AD 150). I and almost everyone else think he's wrong, but we actually read what he says before dismissing it.

I understand your point, and, I agree with you. If one is going to argue a position on any early Christian belief or practice that opposes the overwhelming scholarly consensus on that issue, one is foolish to debate that issue without having read the experts' positions. But I have taken no position that is contrary to the overwhelming majority (>90%) scholarly opinion. In fact, the only issue that I have taken that is contrary to even a majority NT scholarly position is Aramathea's empty tomb, and I have repeatedly stated that Aramathea's empty tomb's historicity does not change my central claim whatsoever, and that claim is that there is ZERO evidence for the resurrection event itself: No one claims to have watched the body as life was restored to it; no one claims to have seen the resurrected body open its eyes and sit up; no one claims to have seen the resurrected body push aside the stone and walk out of the tomb on his own two feet.

All Christians have are alleged post-resurrection appearances. But since tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have claimed to seen, touched, and interacted with their recently departed, dead friend or loved one over the history of mankind, this in itself is NOT evidence that a body was resurrected, only that people believed one had been resurrected. If claims such as "Dead Johnnie appeared to me last night" were unheard of in the history of mankind, then I would take a claim that one had seen a dead Jesus as good evidence for a Resurrection claim. But since after death appearances are a dime a dozen, a similar claim for Jesus, even in an Honor Shame society, should not be surprising at all, and is not good evidence for the reality of such an event.

[psstein]

Why do you believe that John Mark wrote Mark and that Luke the physician wrote Luke?

Also, do you agree with my claim that the majority of scholars doubt the traditional authorship of all four gospels? If you do, why are you choosing to oppose the consensus position on this issue while criticizing me for doing the same on Aramathea's empty tomb?

No, I don't agree that the majority of scholars doubt the traditional authorship of all four gospels. Many doubt the traditional authorship of Matthew and John. As Vincent Taylor (I think that's his name) put it many years ago, the burden of proof is on those who would deny the traditional authorship of Luke and Mark and on those who accept the traditional authorship of Matthew and John. Based on what I've read and heard from scholars, about 60% accept Mark as written by Mark and about 55% accept Luke as written by Luke.

Why do I think John Mark wrote Mark? First, embarrassment, John Mark left a mission with Paul and went home. On a later mission, Paul said "leave him at home," because he felt John Mark wasn't a good candidate. Second, John Mark is an incredibly minor character. He appears a handful of times throughout Acts and is mentioned nowhere else. It seems very odd that the early Christians would ascribe authorship to a very minor, troubled character, especially when they could've chosen someone like Peter or James (of Zebedee). Thirdly, John Mark and Mark are often portrayed as the same person.

As for Luke, it's a little more complex, and I'll get into it in detail when I can (I have a few things I have to do this evening), but one of the more often used arguments is the "we" passages in Acts. As for whether or not Luke was a physician, I don't know. That attribution comes from a disputed Pauline epistle.