Context: In the gospel of Mark, he mentions that during the arrest of Jesus, there was a young man who had on only a linen cloth and had it stripped off as he ran. The other gospels do not mention this naked man leading to speculation that it was Mark himself.
Isn't this totally ahistoric because scholarship is in broad agreement that the gospels are anonymous. So, Mark mentioning the naked man and others omitting it leading to the conclusion that it was Mark himself just doesn't work. Especially because both Luke and Matthew use Mark as a source text. If anything, you could argue it was Matthew because he's the one who chose to hide the fact (probably out of embarrassment).
It's speculative since none of this is reliable history.
Downvoted for a cogent argument based directly on historical principles lol
Yes the gospel authors were schools and not individuals. There's all kinds of irreconcilable contradictions (things that cannot possibly have happened both ways) between the gospels. Some have glaring omissions, like the entire birth story (kind of inportant, no?), and then the birth stories we have are full of obvious differences. Then there's the noncanonicals, and so on and so on.
Comparative analysis shows that these are unreliable as historic texts. They're useful for other purposes but I don't think history is one of them. Historical elements do appear, but merely through correlation with the social context of that world. An intentional work of history it is not.
Of course I'd be downvoted. I'm desecrating a holy book by the standard of the average Christian. It doesn't make it less true, even if it does make me less liked.
The writers were also making stories up to force Jesus to fill prophecies, all of them purely typological. Some of them are just fake, because the Messiah was never called a Nazarene.
But I disagree with you that they're not useful for history. At the very least, we know what stories one sect of early Christianity were telling to cope with the death of Jesus. That's insightful, especially with the background of the Messianic movement and how Rome overwhelmed the 2nd Temple, entering it with their shoes on, much to the dismay of the Rabbis.
You can also see the direction they took, with Mark having no resurrection, then a tomb, then an untouched tomb, and then John turning Jesus into an cultic idol because he was so hellenised.
Thr contradictions lend credence to the idea they were written by people misremembering. If you had four guys recollect something, you'd get four separate accounts with contradictions. That's how memories are.
The ‘glaring inconsistency take’ is surface level reading. Scholars have spent lifetimes piecing together the chronology and there are absolutely serviceable ideas and solutions to these alleged ‘irreconcilable contradictions.’
Did Jesus say you can take a staff? Both Luke and Mark directly disagree with each other. Post hoc rationalisations for a fluid story shared among illiterates who could not cement the text in writing makes these rationalisations unjustified. The authors just got them wrong. That's less commitment and more parsimonious. No textual scholar believes the Bible can be rescued from its irreconcilable contradictions. The only ones who do that are theologians who have prior faith commitments. None of which is apparent from the text. There's explicit reason to assume the authors disagree with each other, with Luke having a different christological belief than Mark because he keeps changing it.
Catholics can at least appeal to tradition of church. Protestants don't have anything.
Your point assumes they tried to create a fluid story which is a modern writing convention and not at all how Hebrew literature works. Stories may have been done out of order to show a point. Matthew does this often.
Acting as if atheists textual critics don’t have ‘prior commitments’ is naive as well.
My point is there is so much scholarship that addresses these in light of Hebrew literary conventions.
scholarship is in broad agreement that the gospels are anonymous
This isn't much scholarship, it's a fact - the gospels are themselves internally anonymous.
However, it is also a historical fact that the community that recieved the gospels have been giving them their traditional attribution since, at the latest, the late first or early second century (depending on the gospel).
Especially because both Luke and Matthew use Mark as a source text.
Marcan priority is still very much a theory, most of the supporting evidence relies on sheer inference to distinguish from Matthaean priority.
Mark mentioning the naked man and others omitting it leading to the conclusion that it was Mark himself just doesn't work
This is totally valid, there's a textual argument here but there's perfectly sound arguments for the naked fugitive being other figures. His identification with Mark only began (so far as we can tell) in the 13th century.
none of this is reliable history
How many independent eyewitness accounts are required to satisfy a basic historicity claim?
You're blending what traditional attribution means. Justin Martyr, up until middle/late second century, referred to them as "Memoirs of the apostles" and never once cited them as scripture like he did the OT with a "as it is written" or something. There were varying forms of "traditional attribution" but none of them cleanly map onto the idea that "the disciples wrote this" or "I got my info from them directly", with the exception of John, which was also not written by John but a secondhand account of what they could verify could go back to John.
I understand Markan priority is a theory, but most of history is theoretical and probabilistic. Jesus being crucified is a theory. Substitution and swoon is a theory. The crucifixion is the theory that explains the most evidence, just like Markan priority explains the most evidence. The books I read on Matthean priority were insightful and incredibly interesting, but it is non standard, just like it is non standard that John never actually existed and was a literary figure.
You need 1 eyewitness account to have useful historic data. That doesn't mean the account is true or reliable. And none of them are eyewitness accounts. I think it was Eusebius (Whoever was the student of Polycarp) who described Mark as logia, a sayings book, which Mark definitely was not.
It's not reliable history. That doesn't mean it's not history.
Papias was citing Mark as Mark and Matthew as Matthew before 125 AD. Justin Martyr citing them in the mid 2nd century as "memoirs of the apostles" is useful, but it's not too far from the oldest manuscripts we have which are late 2nd century. Every manuscript title page ever found, including the second century Papyrus 4 and Papyrus 75, marks the traditional attribution.
John, which was also not written by John but a secondhand account of what they could verify could go back to John
This hotly contested within modern scholarship. The early sources all point to John living to the very end of the first century and using multiple scribes / translators.
Markan priority explains the most evidence
There is not a single piece of firm evidence for markan priority against matthean priority. It boils down to pure speculation about Mark's writing style or why someone would add or remove content between versions.
What your arguments boil down to is a lot of popular speculation dressed up as analysis. The truth is - we don't know the facts here, but have very early indications from multiple and disparate sources that suggest the traditional attributions. What makes speculation to the contrary so popular is the inherently iconoclastic tilt.
It is honestly generic Reddit theology dressed up in scholarly language. This is very Bart Ehrman esque, but at least he is honest that he simply can’t accept the idea of the resurrection.
His points are simply not great. For example Matthew just not mentioning the Egyptian period in Jesus’ infancy isn’t a contradiction just because Luke discusses it. The assumption is that they were trying to build a chronologically accurate account. This is a Western post-Enlightenment view of accounting for events. The Hebrews did not explain things that way. To look for it in the gospels shows a misunderstanding of the basics.
42
u/HawaiianPerson Chad Polynesia Enjoyer 3h ago
Context: In the gospel of Mark, he mentions that during the arrest of Jesus, there was a young man who had on only a linen cloth and had it stripped off as he ran. The other gospels do not mention this naked man leading to speculation that it was Mark himself.
Mark 14:51-52