Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 01-05-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

How do you know that "Matt left out the things he didn't like in Mark"? Maybe he liked them but didn't have anything to add.

Then why didn't he include them? Keep in mind that at the time the Gospels were being written, there was not yet a New Testament. A gospel writer could not reasonably expect his readers to be familiar with some other version of the story, and so his motivation would be to maintain prior aspects of the story - unless he had some reason to exclude them.

He may simply have excluded them because Mark's gospel had already been written and was available in some fashion.

show_no_mercy · 01-05-2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Then why didn't he include them? Keep in mind that at the time the Gospels were being written, there was not yet a New Testament. A gospel writer could not reasonably expect his readers to be familiar with some other version of the story, and so his motivation would be to maintain prior aspects of the story - unless he had some reason to exclude them.

He may simply have excluded them because Mark's gospel had already been written and was available in some fashion.

This totally fails to take into account how gospels were being used in the 2nd century. If, say, the Ebionites were using Matthew and not Mark, then why? Christians using "four-fold" gospels doesn't seem to happen until Justin Martyr - if not later. Prior to this, a community or one of the many different "Christianities" used one gospel. More than likely, it was these communities that wrote or modified (or "mutilated" as later heresiologists say) these gospels. Or in the synoptic problem paradigm, mutilated Mark.

So why would the Ebionites use Matthew instead of Mark? Like I wrote, it was because some person/community (in this example the Ebionites) didn't like Mark and used Matthew. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. Thus the Ebionites' need necessitated the improvement of Mark; a replacement of Mark - and so we have a motive for Matthew being written.

rhutchin · 01-05-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

He may simply have excluded them because Mark's gospel had already been written and was available in some fashion.

This totally fails to take into account how gospels were being used in the 2nd century. If, say, the Ebionites were using Matthew and not Mark, then why? Christians using "four-fold" gospels doesn't seem to happen until Justin Martyr - if not later. Prior to this, a community or one of the many different "Christianities" used one gospel. More than likely, it was these communities that wrote or modified (or "mutilated" as later heresiologists say) these gospels. Or in the synoptic problem paradigm, mutilated Mark.

So why would the Ebionites use Matthew instead of Mark? Like I wrote, it was because some person/community (in this example the Ebionites) didn't like Mark and used Matthew. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. Thus the Ebionites' need necessitated the improvement of Mark; a replacement of Mark - and so we have a motive for Matthew being written.

It's a nice hypothesis.

show_no_mercy · 01-05-2010, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

This totally fails to take into account how gospels were being used in the 2nd century. If, say, the Ebionites were using Matthew and not Mark, then why? Christians using "four-fold" gospels doesn't seem to happen until Justin Martyr - if not later. Prior to this, a community or one of the many different "Christianities" used one gospel. More than likely, it was these communities that wrote or modified (or "mutilated" as later heresiologists say) these gospels. Or in the synoptic problem paradigm, mutilated Mark.

So why would the Ebionites use Matthew instead of Mark? Like I wrote, it was because some person/community (in this example the Ebionites) didn't like Mark and used Matthew. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. Thus the Ebionites' need necessitated the improvement of Mark; a replacement of Mark - and so we have a motive for Matthew being written.

It's a nice hypothesis.

...that fits the available evidence of early Christian activity. What's your explanation for different early Christian sects/heresies using only one gospel, that also makes sense of the synoptic problem?

spamandham · 01-05-2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Then why didn't he include them? Keep in mind that at the time the Gospels were being written, there was not yet a New Testament. A gospel writer could not reasonably expect his readers to be familiar with some other version of the story, and so his motivation would be to maintain prior aspects of the story - unless he had some reason to exclude them.

He may simply have excluded them because Mark's gospel had already been written and was available in some fashion.

This doesn't make sense. Matthew wrote his gospel before there was a canon and before there was a catholicising movement, at a time when numerous 'heretical' sects and texts were circulating. There is no reason to expect the audience to have a copy of Mark under such a reality.

neilgodfrey · 01-06-2010, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice of reason

Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:23 presents a problem that I can find no scriptual fix for, only conjecture and that frankly will not do. Any remedies for this bible problem?

Daughter was dead (Matthew 9:18) "While He was saying these things to them, behold, there came a synagogue official, and bowed down before Him, saying, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."

Daughter at the point of death (Mark 5:23) "And one of the synagogue officials named Jairus *came up, and upon seeing Him, *fell at His feet, 23and *entreated Him earnestly, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and lay Your hands on her, that she may get well and live." 24And He went off with him; and a great multitude was following Him and pressing in on Him." Emphasis mine.

Please remember conjecture will not do. The bible is clearly not inerrant.

There are no textual variations in any of the Greek manuscripts so there is no copyist error. What is the answer to this dilemma?

Easy. You simply apply the harmonization technique used for the variant empty tomb tales.

Jairus first approached Jesus to ask him to come and save his daughter from death. Jesus went off with him, but there was such a crowd (disciples thought him silly to ask who touched him when everyone was pushing against them) that they got separated. When Jesus stopped to talk to the woman who was healed by touching his garment, John the Baptist's disciples came up to him and Jesus had another exchange with them. Meanwhile Jairus discovered his daughter had died, so he came back and told Jesus this time to pleeeaaase come, because now she was dead, and he needed him to perform a bigger miracle now.

Whassa problem? You some cynic atheist who can't read the bible charitably?

Decypher · 01-22-2010, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice of reason

Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:23 presents a problem that I can find no scriptual fix for, only conjecture and that frankly will not do. Any remedies for this bible problem?

Matthew has probably abridged the story imo. Not all inerrantists claim that the Bible was written as strict precise history, so some would just say "abridgment" and not see it as a problem. I believe WL Craig goes in for this kind of thing, saying that he previously believed that there were two "cleansing of the temple" events, but now he just thinks that John put the event in a different chronological order to the synoptics. (The same thing that skeptics would likely think.)

I'm not advocating this approach--I think the Bible is bullshit--just mentioning it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.