Why do the Gospel accounts vary so much? They seem to disagree!

[oldbadger]

The gospel accounts don't agree with each other, or so it seems to me.

For example: Why did the Gospel of Mark tell of the 'Temple clearance' happening in the last week of his mission when the Gospel of John tells us that it happened in the first weeks? ........most strange.

...............and more to come.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #71]

So Luke was NOT a witness, but an investigator.

Sure! You know, like the traveling investigative journalist we have today, who travel with folks and record upon what they witness? Because again, we have very strong evidence that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, and would have witnessed much of what he records, and would have known and conversed with the original apostles. In other words, we have very good evidence this author would have had the ability to " carefully investigate everything from the beginning" just as he assured Theophilus that he had done.

Indeed........ depositions are not proof, but simply depositions. Some are accurate, some not.

Correct! But I have never suggested we had "proof". However, until, or unless these reports are found to be false, they are considered to be evidence, and therefore one can base what they believe upon this evidence.

There is NO document 'Q', simply ideas originated among German researchers concerning the speeches of Jesus as shown in both G-Matthew and G-Luke. They may be right, but they never did find any originating document, they just believed that it may have existed.

BINGO! And this would also apply to the idea that the Gospel writers copied another. In other words, it is simply an idea which has not been proven.

[Difflugia]

Because again, we have very strong evidence that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, and would have witnessed much of what he records, and would have known and conversed with the original apostles. In other words, we have very good evidence this author would have had the ability to " carefully investigate everything from the beginning" just as he assured Theophilus that he had done.

What is this "very strong evidence?" My understanding is that what "we have" is a series of stories that don't quite match up with Paul's own letters. The travel narrative includes the so-called "we passages" that apologists claim are something more than literary convention. Is that the "very strong evidence" that you're talking about or do you have something that we should actually find convincing?

BINGO! And this would also apply to the idea that the Gospel writers copied another. In other words, it is simply an idea which has not been proven.

Unless, of course, one actually takes the trouble to compare the Gospels with each other.

I've had this conversation with you. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

To recap, the kind of verbatim agreements between the Synoptic Gospels can only reasonably be explained by literary dependence. Here's John the Baptist's "brood of vipers" monologue in ESV English, then Greek. The sources are Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9, beginning with "You brood of vipers!". Where there is a difference between the texts, Matthew is in red and Luke is in blue:

You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit/fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not presume/begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. And even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς; ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον/καρποὺς ἀξίους τῆς μετανοίας καὶ μὴ δόξητε/ἄρξησθε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς· πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν Ἀβραάμ. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ Ἀβραάμ. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται.

If we assume some version of this were genuinely uttered by John the Baptist, it would have been in Aramaic. The Greek into which this has been translated necessarily takes some literary license with the original because the Greek text uses verb tenses that don't exist in Aramaic. To have two independent translations agree to this degree and then further be replicated in two written sources separated by decades is a smoking gun for literary dependence.

[POI]

And as I have said, any way you slice it you are left with the extraordinary, and it does not satisfy my mind to simply go with what would be the least extraordinary since the least extraordinary does not in any way guarantee you have arrived at the truth of the matter.

If all we had were various options of the 'extraordinary', I would somewhat agree with your above statement. However, as I have also said, I do not trust 'the church'. 'The church' is basically responsible for the writings in which comprise of the NT. Maybe instead, part, or much of the storyline, is B.S.? This is not extraordinary.

I'm not sure how this would follow? If you can demonstrate how there is no supernatural at all, then I would suggest that we could eliminate any supernatural at all. If you cannot demonstrate there is absolutely no supernatural element ever involved, then I cannot understand how, and why this would be the "last resort"?

Name for me one action or event which has been demonstrated to be 'supernatural'? As we investigate more and more, the more we find all said investigated actions and events end up not resulting from the supernatural. Does this mean the 'supernatural' does not exist? Not necessarily. But going with the odds of everything for which we have means to investigate, and do investigate, so far, no verification of the 'supernatural' has yet been demonstrated to be the case. So yes, we can keep dangling the conclusion that Jesus could have rose, simply because we cannot completely rule this option out. But what are the odds that THIS is the conclusion, versus the countless of other natural conclusions alone, for which you too admit we cannot rule out?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #82]

The travel narrative includes the so-called "we passages" that apologists claim are something more than literary convention. Is that the "very strong evidence" that you're talking about or do you have something that we should actually find convincing?

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. You know, the passages which if anyone were to naturally read them, then they would come away understanding the author was there with Paul to actually witness what he records. However, the scholars understand this to be very strong evidence of the presence of the author with Paul, and they are forced to come up with some sort of alternative explanation in order to explain this away, and they have come up with some sort of literary device the author may have been using, and it just does not wash.

So, let us go back through this again. The scholars would have us believe that the Gospels may have been authored by those decades after the events, in faraway lands, and that it is possible that none of the authors were on the scene. However, the scholars understand that we have these passages when read at face value, gives evidence to the idea the author would have traveled with Paul. No one else would have ever read these passages and come away with any other idea other than the author was traveling with Paul, but thanks to the scholars folks have something to regurgitate, which they could have never come up with on their own. How convenient that we have very good evidence from the text the author traveled with Paul, and the scholars believe they have a way to explain it away.

However, the scholars have another problem. Because you see, the author of the second letter addressed to Theophilus, begins his second letter reporting on what the apostles in Jerusalem were doing. However, for some strange reason when Paul comes on the scene, and begins his missionary journeys, we begin to only hear of what Paul is doing, and we do not hear of what the other apostles are doing, until, or unless Paul comes back into contact with them again.

Now, can you imagine why that would be? Sure you can! Because you see, if the author was traveling with Paul, as the natural reading of the "we" and "us" passages naturally suggest, then the author could not have possibly reported on what the apostles in Jerusalem were doing since he was not there, because he was traveling with Paul. Moreover, let us think about the fact that this author ends his second letter with Paul being under house arrest, and let us also think about the fact that Paul mentions the name of Luke as being with him on more than one occasion, and we do indeed have very strong evidence the author of the two letters addressed to Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul. Now, you may tell me that you do not believe the author was a traveling companion of Paul, but to suggest that we do not have evidence that the author traveled with Paul is to be in complete denial. We have the "we" and "us" passages, we have the fact that when the journeys of Paul begins the author only reports on Paul and does not report on what is going on in Jerusalem until Paul returns, and we have Paul mentioning Luke is with him.

If we assume some version of this were genuinely uttered by John the Baptist, it would have been in Aramaic.

No, my friend, you are simply assuming John would have uttered these words in Aramaic. The fact of the matter is, we do not know what language the original Gospels were communicated in, but if we go with the historical evidence, along with the scholarly consensus, the Gospels would have originally been written in Greek. Allow me to share with you a quote from the internet which is not a Christian source.

While some have speculated that parts of the New Testament might have been composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, the prevailing scholarly consensus is that Greek was the primary language used for these texts.

Now, why do they believe this to be the case? Allow me to give you a few bullet points from the same source.


1. With the conquest of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century BC, Greek gained prominence as the common language for government, trade, and elite culture throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, including Judea and Galilee.

Judea, and Galilee? Where were the Jews from? Where did most of the apostles come from? Exactly what did most of the apostles do for a living while in Galilee? Well, that would be fishing, and it would be hard to imagine that fishermen could conduct business without being able to communicate in the prominent language of the time? Sounds to me as if the Jews very well could have been communicating in Greek. But let us continue.

2. Many Jewish works from the diaspora and Judea were also written in Greek.

3. The canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) have come down to us only in Greek.

4. Early Christian communities used Greek versions of these texts.

The fact of the matter is, we really do not know what language John The Baptist employed, but we do know that he could have very well communicated in the prominent language of the time, which would have been Greek.

[Difflugia]

However, the scholars understand this to be very strong evidence of the presence of the author with Paul, and they are forced to come up with some sort of alternative explanation in order to explain this away, and they have come up with some sort of literary device the author may have been using, and it just does not wash.

If a conspiracy theory is the best you can do, you may want to rethink your position, particularly since practicing Christians are overrepresented in secular biblical scholarship.

Theologian William S. Campbell wrote the following on page 88 of his monograph, The “We” Passages in the Acts of the Apostles:

Author-as-eyewitness solutions have not been able to explain satisfactorily gaps in the author/narrator’s eyewitness testimony nor to overcome what Barrett calls “the errors found in the Acts account of Paul . . . [which] differences and problems . . . are more than sufficient to cast doubt on the identification of our author with a Pauline traveling companion.” In addition, proponents of this theory have not adequately addressed the question raised by the anonymous authorship of Acts: Why would the author conceal his identity throughout the two volumes only to reveal his presence during the last part of Acts in such an incomprehensible way as the intermittent employment of first person plural grammatical style? On the other hand, source-as-eyewitness proposals have yet to offer an acceptable explanation for the author’s decision to introduce (or retain) first-person plural style in passages that, by this grammatical choice, suggest the presence of the author/narrator but in reality describe events at which he was not present and, in fact, refer to someone else.

That sounds like something other than "very strong evidence" that the author, or even a literary source, was a travelling companion of Paul.

However, the scholars understand that we have these passages when read at face value, gives evidence to the idea the author would have traveled with Paul.

You might be using the word "evidence" differently than scholars do.

No one else would have ever read these passages and come away with any other idea other than the author was traveling with Paul, but thanks to the scholars folks have something to regurgitate, which they could have never come up with on their own. How convenient that we have very good evidence from the text the author traveled with Paul, and the scholars believe they have a way to explain it away.

So, was Homer a travelling companion of Odysseus, his fictional character in his fictional story? We apparently have very strong evidence that he was.

Now, can you imagine why that would be? Sure you can!

Yes. It sounds like both of us imagine why that would be.

Now, you may tell me that you do not believe the author was a traveling companion of Paul, but to suggest that we do not have evidence that the author traveled with Paul is to be in complete denial. We have the "we" and "us" passages, we have the fact that when the journeys of Paul begins the author only reports on Paul and does not report on what is going on in Jerusalem until Paul returns, and we have Paul mentioning Luke is with him.

The stories of Paul in Acts are evidence that we have stories of Paul.

No, my friend, you are simply assuming John would have uttered these words in Aramaic.

I suppose, for the same reasons that I assume that Plato uttered things in Attic, Cicero uttered things in Latin, and Martin Luther uttered things in German. The John the Baptist character is described as a poor, ascetic, Jewish man living in rural Israel. Some might consider this very strong evidence that any utterance was in the local language.

The fact of the matter is, we do not know what language the original Gospels were communicated in, but if we go with the historical evidence, along with the scholarly consensus, the Gospels would have originally been written in Greek.

I agree. They were all composed in Greek and relate verbatim conversations that must necessarily be in translation. This is very strong evidence of literary dependence.

The fact of the matter is, we really do not know what language John The Baptist employed, but we do know that he could have very well communicated in the prominent language of the time, which would have been Greek.

If we understand "very well" to mean "not impossibly" and then conflate "possible" with "probable," then sure. And Santa Claus may very well live with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster at the North Pole. Maybe they even speak Ancient Greek.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #83]

If all we had were various options of the 'extraordinary', I would somewhat agree with your above statement.

As far as I can see, this is all you are offering? In other words, I have yet to have seen, read, or heard an explanation of the events involved which would not include the extraordinary. Now, we can argue over which would be the least extraordinary, but in the end we are still left with the extraordinary.

'The church' is basically responsible for the writings in which comprise of the NT

I'm afraid not. The Church is responsible for what writings would be in the cannon, but I can assure you the Church had nothing to do with the accounts we have.

Maybe instead, part, or much of the storyline, is B.S.?

Sure! If that is the opinion you hold then I have no problem with that. Hey, we can still be friends, we can go out for a beer, have dinner, hang out. I'm good with it. Seriously! I'd loved to get together and play some golf, get to know each other, and talk about other things besides this.

This is not extraordinary.

No, really, that is the thing, if it was all B.S. we are still left with the extraordinary. I mean, think about it? We are talking about the most significant event in the history of the world, and you are suggesting that B.S. causing the most significant event in the history of the world would not be extraordinary, with extraordinary meaning, out of the ordinary.

Name for me one action or event which has been demonstrated to be 'supernatural'?

I am not insisting that anything supernatural has ever occurred. What I am insisting is, there are facts, and evidence in support of a resurrection, and the fact that you and others attempt to come up with alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have, demonstrates we have facts, and evidence which you understand needs some alternative explanation. Otherwise, there would be no need in these alternative explanations for the facts, and evidence we have.

As we investigate more and more, the more we find all said investigated actions and events end up not resulting from the supernatural.

I would agree here in that I am convinced beyond doubt, that most claims to the supernatural, would be what you call B.S. However, I am not sure how this would go on to demonstrate that the supernatural does not exist? As an example, I grew up in the Church, and I am convinced that most all claims to the supernatural I was exposed to would be what you call "B.S.". However, I am not sure what this would have to do with the facts, and evidence we have concerning the resurrection? I mean, are you suggesting that since I am convinced that most all appeals to the supernatural would be what you call B.S. then I should assume all appeals to the supernatural would be B.S.? Again, if what you call B.S. was involved in the events surrounding the claimed resurrection, which has had the most significant impact upon the history of the world, then all you have done is to eliminate the supernatural, but you certainly have not eliminated the extraordinary.

Does this mean the 'supernatural' does not exist? Not necessarily.

I am thinking this is exactly what I am saying above. In other words, simply because you and I are convinced that most all appeals to the supernatural is what you call B.S. does not in any way demonstrate the supernatural does not exist.

But going with the odds of everything for which we have means to investigate, and do investigate, so far, no verification of the 'supernatural' has yet been demonstrated to be the case.

I would agree that if we simply go with the odds, then the supernatural would be the least likely explanation. However, I would like to point out that I have not appealed to the supernatural. Rather, I have appealed to the facts and evidence we have for a resurrection, and I am agreeing to the fact that a resurrection would be extraordinary. What I am looking for is an explanation which would eliminate the extraordinary. If I could eliminate the extraordinary, (outside the ordinary) then I could eliminate the supernatural.

So yes, we can keep dangling the conclusion that Jesus could have rose, simply because we cannot completely rule this option out.

It is certainly nice to see that you are admitting "that we cannot completely rule this option out". However, the reason we cannot rule this option out is the fact that any other explanation of the facts, and evidence we come up with still leaves us with the extraordinary. In other words, we can come up with explanations which eliminate the supernatural, but we are still left with the extraordinary. With this being the case, you are simply choosing to believe one extraordinary tale as opposed to another extraordinary tale. I can only imagine that you choose to believe any other extraordinary tale, as long as it does not involve the extraordinary tale you would rather not believe.

But what are the odds that THIS is the conclusion, versus the countless of other natural conclusions alone, for which you too admit we cannot rule out?

I would have to absolutely agree with you in that if we were to go with the odds, then a resurrection would be extremely low on the list. However, there are times when the odds to not take us to the truth of the matter. As an example, I have read a number of books authored by Karen Armstrong, who is not a Christian. One of the books I have read by this author is entitled, "Jerusalem One City Tree Faiths". In this book, there is more than one occasion when describing the fate of the Jewish people she says, "against all odds". In other words, going with the odds, does not always lead one to the truth of the matter, and knowing this to be the case it would be wise to look beyond the odds.

[oldbadger]

I wouldn't trust Luke (nor Acts) as far as I could kick them. Of course he puts on a show of addressing his gospel (and fantastic bio - novel of Paul) to a Patron, who would probably not thank him for targeting a Christian document at him. But no, I reckon it's an act tor a pose and that 'Theophilus' is not some Greek freedman made a million out of selling Garam, but mere'y means 'Theo -philus; lover of God. In other words, his spoof patron is the Christian reader.

You've mentioned this before, and indeed you clearly do have a very strong case about the name Theophilus.

I guess that Gamaliel's speech owed much to Josephus, though oddly he seems to get confused about which revolt cane first, Judas or Theudas. I also see evidence of Josephus in the mechanism for Luke's nativity - the census of Quirinus. He wasn't to know it made no sense when applied to Galilee, still under Herodian rule at the time, never mind it was a a decade after Herod's death. I even suspect he had access to a lost history, as he knows about Pilate chopping up Galileans in the Temple. I suspect this is not what Josephus or Philo tells us about Pilate's misdeeds, but that event has been lost, or removed.

Luke did go very wrong with his dates, how he chose an event in 6CE for the constructed journey of Joseph's and Mary's journey South is just very strange.
I don't think that Pilate butchered Galileans in the Temple, but away from it..... they should have been collecting at the TEmple and paying their TEmple taxes.

It is not the strongest matter and doersn't make too much difference, but it does seem unlikely that Luke really was addressing his gospel to a patron, and is just aping the style, of Roman scholars. It just occurs to me that that Theo -philus might be not a real person, but a generic term for Christians.

Gamaliel's speech in Acts is handy as it does fix the 'days of the census' at the time the the census revolt, which Josphus associates with the census of Quirinus, even though there is no place for a census of Quirinus in Herod's time, if one takes Josephus as having Verus' term extended while Archelaus was in Rome.

That would put paid to the effort to reconcile Luke and Matthew. Of course Matthew had Joseph a resident of Judea who moves to Nazareth and Luke has them residents of Nazareth who just do this senseless trip to Bethlehem to register for a tax that wouldn't apply to Galilee anyway.

That is why I make the nativity a test case in contradiction. It lakes real ignorance or denial to suppose the story is true, even though it is a charming festival with iconic postcard scenes that have little to do with the Gospel account.

Thing is, once Matthew and Luke have been 'caught out' fiddling and inventing, then the next worst goes - and the next worst is the resurrection. Real contradictions and fabricated tales is the prime explanation, even if the excuses held water, which they don't.

After that, the whole shebang goes down the tube. The apologetics excuses are not the go - to explanation, even if they worked, which often they don't. The excuses are there only as faithbased denial, and will only work on those who want their bias confirmed, or on the uninformed and unwary. I hope to inform them and make them aware.

Like a magic rick, once one knows how a scam works, they won't be fooled by it again.

Question......
What do you think about Luke's and Matthew's efforts to link Jesus back to David, and the apologetic that seeks to uphold them both?

[oldbadger]

If a conspiracy theory is the best you can do, you may want to rethink your position, particularly since practicing Christians are overrepresented in secular biblical scholarship.

Thank you, you saved me from having to reply to the vary strange idea that all gospel scholars are atheists.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #71]

So Luke was NOT a witness, but an investigator.

Sure! You know, like the traveling investigative journalist we have today, who travel with folks and record upon what they witness? Because again, we have very strong evidence that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, and would have witnessed much of what he records, and would have known and conversed with the original apostles. In other words, we have very good evidence this author would have had the ability to " carefully investigate everything from the beginning" just as he assured Theophilus that he had done.

You've just shown us all that you do accept that Jesus was NOT a witness to anything said or done by Jesus.

That he knew Paul and some of the disciples can it make him an eye witness. His gospel is hearsay, and his attempts to link Jesus back to David are an embarrassment .

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #71]

So Luke was NOT a witness, but an investigator.

Sure! You know, like the traveling investigative journalist we have today, who travel with folks and record upon what they witness? Because again, we have very strong evidence that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, and would have witnessed much of what he records, and would have known and conversed with the original apostles. In other words, we have very good evidence this author would have had the ability to " carefully investigate everything from the beginning" just as he assured Theophilus that he had done.

You've just shown us all that you do accept that Jesus was NOT a witness to anything said or done by Jesus.

That he knew Paul and some of the disciples cannot make him an eye witness. His gospel is hearsay, and his attempts to link Jesus back to David are an embarrassment .