Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet

[andrewbos]

...

[Mental flatliner]

You do realize that the synoptics are dependent on each other, right? Also, the gospels aren't completely consistent. For instance, Jesus was crucified on Friday according to the synoptics, but on Thursday according to the Gospel of John.

No, they're not.

Each of the gospels was written independently, each preserves the personalities of the contributors, and reliance on one or another never happened. If it did, we'd see duplication of passages, which of course doesn't exist.

Each gospel has unique stories, details, phrases, points of view and even linguistic anachronisms such as "talitha cumi" of Mark not repeated in any other gospel or the differences in what the Sea of Galilee/Tiberias/Genessaret is called.

You should never take any theory at face value. This is the first step to becoming a born-again lemming.

[Andrew]

You do realize that the synoptics are dependent on each other, right? Also, the gospels aren't completely consistent. For instance, Jesus was crucified on Friday according to the synoptics, but on Thursday according to the Gospel of John.

No, they're not.

Each of the gospels was written independently, each preserves the personalities of the contributors, and reliance on one or another never happened. If it did, we'd see duplication of passages, which of course doesn't exist.

Each gospel has unique stories, details, phrases, points of view and even linguistic anachronisms such as "talitha cumi" of Mark not repeated in any other gospel or the differences in what the Sea of Galilee/Tiberias/Genessaret is called.

You should never take any theory at face value. This is the first step to becoming a born-again lemming.

You do realize that Matthew contains 90% of Mark, right (or maybe 90% of Matthew is Mark--I'm not sure which)? And yet you claim that they are independent. If they were independent, they would describe different events in Jesus' life, not all the same ones. Pretty much all Matthew did was change Mark's wording, correct some of his mistakes, and add detail. The gospels would be as different from each other as the synoptics are from John if they were all independent.

[Mental flatliner]

You do realize that the synoptics are dependent on each other, right? Also, the gospels aren't completely consistent. For instance, Jesus was crucified on Friday according to the synoptics, but on Thursday according to the Gospel of John.

No, they're not.

Each of the gospels was written independently, each preserves the personalities of the contributors, and reliance on one or another never happened. If it did, we'd see duplication of passages, which of course doesn't exist.

Each gospel has unique stories, details, phrases, points of view and even linguistic anachronisms such as "talitha cumi" of Mark not repeated in any other gospel or the differences in what the Sea of Galilee/Tiberias/Genessaret is called.

You should never take any theory at face value. This is the first step to becoming a born-again lemming.

You do realize that Matthew contains 90% of Mark, right (or maybe 90% of Matthew is Mark--I'm not sure which)? And yet you claim that they are independent. If they were independent, they would describe different events in Jesus' life, not all the same ones. Pretty much all Matthew did was change Mark's wording, correct some of his mistakes, and add detail. The gospels would be as different from each other as the synoptics are from John if they were all independent.

Your numbers are not only wrong, they're irrelevant.
--Mark is about 20% unique
--Mark is never quoted by Matthew (common stories are always given from a different point of view and with different verbiage)
--Matthew gives the stories in a different order than Mark
--Matthew has far more detail than Mark
--Matthew does not emphasize Peter or Capernaum
--The language of Matthew is one of greater education

You should get to know the gospels before you start throwing around mere superficial details, thinking they actually mean something.

[Andrew]

Superficial details? The texts match so closely it's just about impossible to think that they're independent of each other. Matthew basically edited and embellished Mark, not wrote his own separate gospel.

[Mental flatliner]

Superficial details? The texts match so closely it's just about impossible to think that they're independent of each other. Matthew basically edited and embellished Mark, not wrote his own separate gospel.

Texts that match "so closely" makes them look like they are eye-witness accounts of actual events. The fact that they're written in different styles indicates they are independent accounts.

Similarity = corroboration

[Andrew]

Not quite. Just because they saw the same things, doesn't mean they'd write down the same sayings of Jesus (surely he had others that were not recorded by the gospels). John didn't write down the same things as Mark did because he thought other things were important. However, both of them recorded the most important events of Jesus' life: his crucifixion and resurrection. That, mental, is what you'd expect in eyewitness accounts of his life. If you asked two eyewitnesses to describe the same event, then yes, you'd expect something like what we see in the gospels, but the chances of them picking the same events in Jesus' life to write about are kind of slim.

[Mental flatliner]

Not quite. Just because they saw the same things, doesn't mean they'd write down the same sayings of Jesus (surely he had others that were not recorded by the gospels). John didn't write down the same things as Mark did because he thought other things were important. However, both of them recorded the most important events of Jesus' life: his crucifixion and resurrection. That, mental, is what you'd expect in eyewitness accounts of his life. If you asked two eyewitnesses to describe the same event, then yes, you'd expect something like what we see in the gospels, but the chances of them picking the same events in Jesus' life to write about are kind of slim.

How tortured does your logic need to be?

The fact that the four gospels agree in every detail means that they witnessed events and are corroborating each other. The fact that there are no known historical sources that contradict the Bible lends credibility.

And now you really want to make a claim that the gospels are so similar that it means they copied each other?

Your turn.

Show me the verses they copied.

[Andrew]

Here is one example of many:

After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him. Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them, then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." When the disciples heard this, they fell prostrate and were very much afraid. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and do not be afraid." And when the disciples raised their eyes, they saw no one else but Jesus alone.

After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no fuller on earth could bleach them. Then Elijah appeared to them along with Moses, and they were conversing with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Rabbi, it is good that we are here! Let us make three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He hardly knew what to say, they were so terrified. Then a cloud came, casting a shadow over them; then from the cloud came a voice, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him." Suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone but Jesus alone with them.

I only emboldened what was absolutely verbatim in the NAB. The rest is still very similar, with changes only in word order, or detail.

It is not only the fact that the accounts are so similar that indicates one copied the other, or that they had a common written source, but the fact that they chose to describe the same events, from the same points of view, in so many cases.

[Mental flatliner]

Here is one example of many:

After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him. Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them, then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." When the disciples heard this, they fell prostrate and were very much afraid. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and do not be afraid." And when the disciples raised their eyes, they saw no one else but Jesus alone.

After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no fuller on earth could bleach them. Then Elijah appeared to them along with Moses, and they were conversing with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, "Rabbi, it is good that we are here! Let us make three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He hardly knew what to say, they were so terrified. Then a cloud came, casting a shadow over them; then from the cloud came a voice, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to him." Suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone but Jesus alone with them.

I only emboldened what was absolutely verbatim in the NAB. The rest is still very similar, with changes only in word order, or detail.

It is not only the fact that the accounts are so similar that indicates one copied the other, or that they had a common written source, but the fact that they chose to describe the same events, from the same points of view, in so many cases.

When you copy text from a source, the verbiage rendered is a duplicate except for errors made by the copyist, such as omitting a letter, omitting a word, transposing letters or words, etc.

If your two passages are not exactly the same through the entire story, neither can be a copy of the other. I have to reject the concept of copying on this basis.

In addition, the two gospels you pointed out have very different verbiage for the parts of the story you left out. For example, why did Matthew give the detail about Peter being called "the Rock" and Mark did not? If the story was copied, why was this part skipped over?

(In the translations that I use, there were fewer instances of duplicated wording than what you've indicated above. Therefore I have to raise the question of how much duplication was added by the translators?)

****************
Then there's the somewhat smaller purple gorilla hiding in plain sight:

If Matthew and Mark were both quoting from eye-witness accounts, for example if they both interviewed Peter about this event, and at the time they both wrote down Peter's words, I expect the quoted dialogue to be a duplication. That would mean they both quoted Peter correctly.

You can never omit the possibility that the "Q" source was the real event, and not simply a theorized older gospel.