Synoptic Problem # 1: Matthew's dishonest fabrication of Christ-sayings

One of the synoptic parallels seems to naturally resist attempts by inerrantists to explain it away as a case of an author's right to exclude something:

Mark 8

Matthew 16

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them,   "Who do people say that I am?"  28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."  29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."     30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples,  "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  16 Simon Peter answered,  "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

----------------------------------------------------------

The context for each is identical, so this is certainly not Jesus talking similarly on two separate occasions, this is one singular event being reported by two different authors.

What's more likely?  That Mark knew Peter uttered the longer form of the confession, but knowingly "chose to abbreviate it?  Or that Mark's version of the confession is shorter because the author didn't know about any longer version?  

What is more likely?  Mark knew that Jesus said all that extra stuff about Peter, but "chose to exclude" such profoundly important authority-establishing Christ-sayings, for his own "authorial purpose"?  or

Mark doesn't relate as much as Matthew because Mark had no reason to think Jesus said the things now confined to Matthew's version?

Such a debate involves probability judgments on how close Mark was to Peter, and whether Peter, as a leader, would likely or not likely have considered such a glowing personal endorsement from God-incarnate important enough to preserve and articulate in his preaching tours.

Dr. William Barrick wrote an article in which he tried to explain this as a case of Matthew accurately reporting, and Mark choosing for his own reasons to create a more "abbreviated" account.  See here.

I sent Dr. Barrick the following through his website contact form, which included my email address:

I read your explanation of the synoptic differences on Peter's confession at https://drbarrick.org/the-synoptic-gospels-inerrancy-what-did-peter-say/ 

Since the more expanded version in Matthew supports Peter's authority, and since the apostolic church was divided on Peter's authority (1st Cor. 1:12) can you really say it is "unreasonable" to insist that Mark would never have knowingly excluded such words from his account...and therefore...Mark is not excluding anything, Matthew is guilty of putting in Jesus' mouth words he never spoke?
 I accept Markan priority, and isn't it true that embellishments are more likely to show up in the later retellings, than in the original?
 While my theory might attack inerrancy or gospel reliability, I can't sympathize with that concern since I deny both doctrines.  I deny them because
 a) I feel certain biblical errors are real and not merely apparent; 

b) the bible doesn't teach the "only in the originals" inerrancy-caveat of the CSBI statement, so the specter of the bible extending inspiration or inerrancy to "copies" (i.e., the bible contradicting the CSBI) looms large;  and 

c) the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars accuse Matthew of "toning down" some expressions he copied from Mark...something he would hardly do if he felt Mark's gospel was "inerrant".

------------------------------------

I will wait to see if Dr. Barrick replies.  For now, I'm not seeing any academic or objective justification for the inerrantist to automatically assume that Mark knowingly excluded otherwise important theology merely because such is "possible".

I don't claim the inerrantist theories are impossible, so you are not "defeating" any opposing hypothesis merely because your own theory is "possible".

You are also not "defeating" any opposing hypothesis merely because you can drum up a few supporting evidences for your theory.  You'd have to extend that luxury to anybody whose counter-theory had some supporting evidences, and then you'd endure the illogical outcome that both parties "won" that debate.

What actually happened in ancient history is not determined by mere possibilities, otherwise, both sides of every historical debate would 'win', which is illogical.

What actually happened in ancient history is determined by probabilities (i.e., whose theory to explain the evidence is more probable, or, can both theories boast of equal likelihood?).

That being the case, the Christian apologist is not "defeating" my above-stated theory by simply pointing out that his own counter-theory can be "supported".  Very few positions on biblical matters are without at least some support. No fool thinks all scholars win every biblical debate.

You need to show that your inerrantist-theory is more likely to be true than my skeptical theory that says Matthew invented the longer version.

While I expect apologists to be honest and engage with me in argument, I also expect James Patrick Holding to deceive his followers into thinking a 2 minute cartoon video that feeds his narcissistic lust will conclusively dispose of this allegation of error in the bible.  Yes, that is his idea of "rebuttal".

 "You are wrong, here's the reasons, you could not possibly have any significant rejoinder, so, discussion closed to everybody except those whose comments I choose not to delete."

Doesn't your heart just race with fear at the very thought of disagreeing with such a fearless warrior?  I can barely type, I'm shaking so bad.  LOL

Always remember:  it wouldn't even matter if you the skeptic conceded the miracle of Jesus' resurrection for the sake of argument:  the god of the Christians does not think a person's working a genuinely supernatural miracle automatically justifies their theology, a worker of real miracles can STILL be condemned by God for promoting false theology:

 1 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'
 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
 4 "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.
 5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.
 (Deut. 13:1-5 NAU)

So, obviously, the bible-god disagrees with modern loud-mouth Christian apologists like Frank Turek who insist that if Jesus truly rose from the dead, this miracle automatically proves he is the true Son of God.

My challenge to Robert Bowman on evolution of theology between Mark and Matthew

Apologist Dr. Robert Bowman indicated to me months ago that he did not intend for his blog to be a place where debates of monograph-level intensity should be held.  I took that as a compliment, and since that time his unwillingness to allow the public to see my responses at his blog is reasonably interpreted to mean that he would rather not deal with my arguments.

Regardless, in a July 2018 blog post Bowman hailed a book which he thought showed high Christology in the gospel that most think was the earliest, Mark:  Jesus the Divine Bridegroom: Michael Tait’s Case for a High Christology in Mark

I posted the following in reply, and since it didn't show up after posting, we'll have to wait and see whether this is because the system is slow, or because Bowman does not want me posting at his blog:

In Mark 6:5, Jesus "could not" do a miracle in his hometown due to the unbelief of the people.  In the parallel in Matthew, the "could not" becomes a "did not" (13:58).

Even inerrantist Christian scholars admit that Matthew here had "toned down" this Markan reference.  Brooks:

"Mark 6:5 This statement about Jesus’ inability to do something is one of the most striking instances of Mark’s boldness and candor. It is omitted by Luke 4:16–30 and toned down by Matt 13:58."

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System;The New American Commentary (Page 100).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 While inerrantist can forever trifle about this or that, the fact remains that if Matthew did not believe Mark's wording could reasonably support a low Christology, he would hardly have felt compelled to change "could not" to "did not".  That particular change doesn't look like it was pure coincidence, because by getting rid of the "could not", the phase no longer implies a limitation on Jesus' abilities. 

Regardless, Matthew often "corrects" Mark wherein the disciples or Jesus are portrayed in less than favorable light (e.g., Mark 4:38, this version of the disciples' complaint to Jesus during a storm at sea makes it easy to paint them as skeptical of Jesus' love ["Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?"], while in the parallel in Matthew 8:25, this is toned down to something that offers no support for the claim that the disciples were skeptical of Jesus' love ["Save us, Lord; we are perishing!").

Again, inerrantist Christian scholars admit the version of Christ's words "Where is your faith" in Luke 8:25 constitutes lessening the harshness of the earlier version in Mark 4:40 which said "Do you still have no faith?"---

"Luke 8:25 Where is your faith? Luke’s wording lessens the harshness of Mark’s, “Do you still have no faith?” (4:40)."

Stein, R. H. (2001, c1992). Vol. 24: Luke (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System;The New American Commentary (Page 253).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

And don't forget this doozy: Mark's version of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi is short and clearly lacking in convenient theological baggage:

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am?"

 28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."

 29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."

 30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him. (Mk. 8:27-30 NAU)

But in Matthew's parallel, Peter's confession is more theologically sophisticated, and Matthew includes an entire theological exposition from Jesus on the origin and significance of this Petrine knowledge (the quotes are long to preserve contexts and prevent apologists from pretending that maybe Matthew and Mark are describing similar but different events.  Nope, it's one single event told in two different ways by two different authors):

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

 18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

 (Matt. 16:13-20 NAU)

The point is that Mark's being the earliest gospel and having such signs of low Christology (i.e., the later gospel authors and their desire to change Markan statements in a way that just happens to create the benefit of making them less supportive of a low-Christology) prohibit apologists from pretending that that signs of high Christology they might find in Mark are the only evidence that counts in any discussion of christian theology "evolving" from low to high over the first few  decades after Jesus died.  The circumstances under which Mark was authored, how much or little he depended on Peter, how much or little he depended on other sources, etc, etc, are all topics of hot controversy even within conservative Christian scholarly circles.  Apologists must honestly admit that when Matthew and Luke change, delete or add to their Markan source, it usually results in the benefit of making a lower Christology harder to support.

Therefore, skeptics can and do have reasonable justification to conclude that the later gospel story from Matthew involves some degree of theological evolution from an earlier more primitive form, a form wherein the Markan writer apparently felt more comfortable than today's Trinitarians in making unqualified statements about Jesus' supernatural limitations.

Screenshot:




-------------------
That's all I posted, but I'll add here a table to graphically highlight exactly how Matthew changed Mark's version of Peter's confession to Jesus.  Once you read it, it will be hard to resist the conclusion that

------a) Matthew and Mark are not talking about two similar but different scenes, they are talking about a single scene in two different ways, and
------b) Matthew intended to evolve Mark's lower Christology into something higher by adding things not present in Mark's earlier account, things that the average expected first-century Christian reader of Mark, who didn't know about any other written gospel, would never have thought were implied by Mark's wording:

Mark 8

Matthew 16

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them,  "Who do people say that I am?"  28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."   29 And He continued by questioning them,  "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him,  "You are the Christ."  30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.  31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.  32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him.

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  16 Simon Peter answered,  "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.  21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.  22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You."

I don't know exactly to what degree Bowman or other apologists will try to milk Michael Tait's case for high Markan Christology, but regardless, they are dreaming if they think any Markan statements that sound like the Nicene Creed erase the above-cited cases where the later gospel authors are clearly dissatisfied with Mark's chosen wording and modify it in ways that not coincidentally make the statements less supportive of low Christology.   It will never happen.

At least not until inerrantist Christian scholars like Brooks, Stein and Blomberg stop admitting that Matthew and Luke often "toned down" Mark's chosen wording.  After all, the later author wanting to "tone down" the earlier statement is precisely the motive we'd expect in a later gospel author who wishes to update gospel theology.  If they didn't think Mark's wording could be reasonably employed to support low-Christology, then tell us, Mr. Apologist...what did motivate Matthew and Luke to "tone down" Mark's language?

Maybe because they thought Mark's gospel was inerrant?  Guess again.