Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Mark and Matthew

In response to Hearsay? posted by Migisi:

Migisi, there are several scholars who believe Mark was an eyewitness to at least SOME of the events in Jesus' life. Nevertheless, I will grant that he likely did not witness most of the events he writes about. Technically...."hearsay" as you put it. But "hearsay" isn't always unreliable. It may not hold up in a court of law, but it's useful for a historian.

Mark's 'hearsay' is the earliest gospel - from which Matthew borrowed ~heavily~. That would make Matthew hearsay too. If Matthew was an eyewitness, he wouldn't have needed to get his information from Mark.

Several suppositions here, Migisi. First...it's not been PROVEN that Mark's Gospel was first. It is BELIEVED that Mark's Gospel was first, based on literary analysis. Yet even this analysis and the historical consensus leaves open the possibility that Matthew wrote Q, which Mark then used.

Second...if Mark got most of his information from Q and the Apostle Peter (which most conservative and moderate scholars accept), then why wouldn't Matthew use his Gospel. Why reinvent the wheel?

Your argument rests on an assumption that Matthew would write a dramatically different account. If Mark's is accurate, why wouldn't Matthew borrow from it? I think Matthew looked at Mark's account and thought it was solid, but too brief. So, he added to it, based on his experience, knowledge, and (I believe) the leading of the Holy Spirit. (I of course am not attempting to prove the latter, as that is a faith statement).

» Migisi - Mark and Matthew

In response to Mark and Matthew posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I will grant that he [Mark] likely did not witness most of the events he writes about.
.
Mark didn't witness any events. In 120 CE, Papias (bishop of Hierapolis), wrote "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order." Papias said that he'd heard this from a 'presbyter' (more 'hearsay). This might explain why Mark's accounts are abbreviated compared to Mat and Luke, and sometimes contradict. Allegedly, Peter (or Mark) was relying solely on his own recollections.
.
First...it's not been PROVEN that Mark's Gospel was first. It is BELIEVED that Mark's Gospel was first, based on literary analysis.
.
The concensus of today's NT scholars says that Mark's gospel is the earliest. Others contend that Matthew was first - hence his comes first in the NT. Since neither of the gospels are dated and signed, it's a toss up. I suspect that there are documents which predate both, but they weren't canonized by the church, so they were tossed aside. Maybe the 'Q' document met that fate (if such a document or collection even existed, that is)?
.
Yet even this analysis and the historical consensus leaves open the possibility that Matthew wrote Q, which Mark then used.
.
Who can say with certainty that Q was a written document? Where is this hypothetical 'Q'? No early church writer makes any reference to such a document. Other early Christian 'sayings' collections have been unearthed (and poo pooed by churches), but no papyrus copy of this Q has been discovered. If it is discovered in the future, will it be dismissed as heresy or fakery like the other 'sayings' collections have been? The hypothesis (I emphasize that word) of a second source is merely the apologists' attempt to find an acceptable solution to the synoptic problem - to explain away contradictions and conflicts in the Gospels. Until it's in hand, Q remains a hypothesis, and questions about who used it when will remain forever unanswered.
.
I think Matthew looked at Mark's account and thought it was solid, but too brief. So, he added to it, based on his experience, knowledge,
.
So, you agree that Matthew used Mark as his basic outline? Mark's would have to be written first for Matthew to use it, right?

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - My theory

In response to Mark and Matthew posted by Migisi:

My theory is that Matthew was the chief scribe among Jesus' disciples. It was rather common for rabbis and philosophers to have students or disciples who would record their sayings and teachings. I think Matthew did this for Jesus. Since Matthew was a tax collector, record-keeping and attention to detail came naturally to him. It was the perfect fit. I believe Matthew's original records are the mysterious Q source.

Matthew probably had no intention of writing and publishing a Gospel until late in his life, when it became apparent that Jesus wasn't coming back anytime soon. So, he looked at his records (Q) and Mark's Gospel - and put his together.

I cannot prove my theory, but it DOES fit with the facts. It's a reasonable supposition.

» Brian Tubbs - Conspiracies Everywhere

Migisi, it's a shame you've bought into the Elaine Pagels / Dan Brown school of conspiracy theories. The first and second century church was not organized sufficiently to have the kind of conspiracy apparatus that you and others claim. The early church was NOT a "monolith" or singular organization in ANY sense of the term, until the Council of Nicea.

» Migisi - Conspiracies Everywhere

In response to Conspiracies Everywhere posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Maybe if you highlight a specific remark I made (if there was one) which caused your post, I'd know what you were referring to. I don't recall writing about Elaine Pagels / Dan Brown or conspiracy theories.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Conspiracies Everywhere

In response to Conspiracies Everywhere posted by Migisi:

Overall, you come from the perspective (one that is also held by Pagels and Brown) that the early church conspired to suppress certain documents and embellish others in order to create this systematized orthodoxy which has evolved over the years to what we have today.

My counter-point to the above misconception is that the early church was nowhere near organized enough to pull off such a conspiracy. The church at Jerusalem was pretty much destroyed when the Romans sacked that city in AD 70 (or CE 70 as you secularist politically correct types like to put it ). The church at Rome was under off-and-on persecution from Nero onward, and the other churches were scattered throughout the Mediterranean world. Yes, the congregations did communicate. They did circulate documents and letters, but there was no top-down organization to speak of until Constantine came to the throne and allowed Christians to come out, reclaim property, meeting openly throughout the empire, hold councils, etc.

» pink101 - Conspiracies Everywhere

In response to Conspiracies Everywhere posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I've not been deeply involved in this thread; but, I think you're off on a toot here, Brian.
.
The idea of a "church" as an organization like those we have today didn't exist back then as far as I understand. Check me if I'm wrong.
.
More to the point, what did exist were men in positions of power and they generally used notions of the super natural to impose their will on whatever society they could bring under their purview.
.
As I understand the happenings regarding the gathering of authorized "scriptures" the purpose of the powerful was to do away with the confusion of a variety of ideas and to pull the drawstrings tight on a unification in a single set of books to create what we have today--the Bible.
.
Am I wrong?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - People in Power

In response to Conspiracies Everywhere posted by pink101:

Am I wrong?

Depends on what century we're talking about. If the first century, yes, you're incorrect. Your supposition and interpretation become more correct with each passing century until the Protestant Reformation. But if you go back to the beginning - back to the first century - what you have are congregations spread out throughout the Roman world.

» pink101 - People in Power

In response to People in Power posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I think the key word in my post was purview.
.
The local synagogues had a police force, right? That was the way they enforced their rules on the people in their purview. As time unfolded, these purviews grew. Finally, Constantine took over and enforced his rules on his purview. And, then, things did flip flops for a while until two forces lined up against each other in the Crusades.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - People in Power

In response to People in Power posted by pink101:

As I'm sure you know, the synagogues were Jewish, not Christian. There was no organized, empire-wide, top-down leadership structure in Christianity until the time of Constantine. Period.

Were there leaders in the local assemblies? Of course. Were these leaders powerful enough or strong enough to create a new religion and force it on the people who claimed to be Christians? Absolutely not.