Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't disagree that it's possible the resurrection appearances were recorded later than the first edition of the first published gospel. There may be reasons for that other than "therefore they made it up".

Occam waves hello!

[Maeght]

I don't disagree that it's possible the resurrection appearances were recorded later than the first edition of the first published gospel. There may be reasons for that other than "therefore they made it up".

So from that, is it possible that it didn't happen?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Occam waves hello!

Occam?, or your conspiracy theory, Davey?

[ProfessorDavey]

Occam?, or your conspiracy theory, Davey?

No applying Occam leads to 'made it up/exaggerated/ etc' rather than there was a biologically impossible 'resurrection'. Particularly where there is clear evidence that the earliest gospel written was edited centuries later to include post-resurrection appearances when earlier versions did not include them. And in addition the very earliest 'resurrection' claims (in Paul) don't describe a physical resurrection at all, merely a vision or dream.

But if by conspiracy theories, you mean that later writers edited/amended earlier versions to give a different version of events, well there is amply evidence of this in the form of the ending or Mark. And as we only have actual gospel text from hundreds of years after they are purported to have been written we do not know and cannot know how many other sections were similarly altered to suit the purposes of the early church.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No applying Occam leads to 'made it up/exaggerated/ etc' rather than there was a biologically impossible 'resurrection'. Particularly where there is clear evidence that the earliest gospel written was edited centuries later to include post-resurrection appearances when earlier versions did not include them. And in addition the very earliest 'resurrection' claims (in Paul) don't describe a physical resurrection at all, merely a vision or dream.

But if by conspiracy theories, you mean that later writers edited/amended earlier versions to give a different version of events, well there is amply evidence of this in the form of the ending or Mark. And as we only have actual gospel text from hundreds of years after they are purported to have been written we do not know and cannot know how many other sections were similarly altered to suit the purposes of the early church.

Zero historical scholarship involved here. Plus I suspect a shifting of the definition of Occams razor from not multiplying entities beyond necessity to not multiplying entities

[Nearly Sane]

No applying Occam leads to 'made it up/exaggerated/ etc' rather than there was a biologically impossible 'resurrection'. Particularly where there is clear evidence that the earliest gospel written was edited centuries later to include post-resurrection appearances when earlier versions did not include them. And in addition the very earliest 'resurrection' claims (in Paul) don't describe a physical resurrection at all, merely a vision or dream.

But if by conspiracy theories, you mean that later writers edited/amended earlier versions to give a different version of events, well there is amply evidence of this in the form of the ending or Mark. And as we only have actual gospel text from hundreds of years after they are purported to have been written we do not know and cannot know how many other sections were similarly altered to suit the purposes of the early church.

I don't think Occam works in this context. I think that there is no method to determine the truth of a non natiralustic claim is the issue.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think Occam works in this context. I think that there is no method to determine the truth of a non natiralustic claim is the issue.

Nope - I think Occam works fine in this context. It is about identifying the explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions rather that whether those assumptions are able to be proved. In this case the assumption that there was a supernatural event falls foul of Occam as there are simpler explanations that do not require this additional assumption.

[Spud]

So from that, is it possible that it didn't happen?

Well, the hypothesis is that the details in Matthew 28 about the guards and the great commission are later additions.
But the disciples going to Galilee (Mt 28:16) follows naturally from Jesus' words, "after I have risen, I will go before you to Galilee" in chapter 26. So it's not clear cut.
If Mark and Luke were following Matthew up to the angel at the tomb, the fact that they don't include the appearance in Galilee suggests it wasn't in their copies of Matthew. So Luke got his details of the appearances from another source and Mark might have done the same.
If the resurrection did happen, more than one person would be available as a witness to appearances, so for Matthew not to include one doesn't mean it didn't happen, as Luke and John have independent accounts.

[Maeght]

Well, the hypothesis is that the details in Matthew 28 about the guards and the great commission are later additions.
But the disciples going to Galilee (Mt 28:16) follows naturally from Jesus' words, "after I have risen, I will go before you to Galilee" in chapter 26. So it's not clear cut.
If Mark and Luke were following Matthew up to the angel at the tomb, the fact that they don't include the appearance in Galilee suggests it wasn't in their copies of Matthew. So Luke got his details of the appearances from another source and Mark might have done the same.
If the resurrection did happen, more than one person would be available as a witness to appearances, so for Matthew not to include one doesn't mean it didn't happen, as Luke and John have independent accounts.

If he said that rather than it being claimed that he said that by the authors of the Gospels years after the events.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - I think Occam works fine in this context. It is about identifying the explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions rather that whether those assumptions are able to be proved. In this case the assumption that there was a supernatural event falls foul of Occam as there are simpler explanations that do not require this additional assumption.

Yet the razor works on explanations that have the same value in terms of methodology and explanatory terms which is not the case here. You could arguably be steelmanning this but it seems to me a misuse of the razor, and hides the fact that there is no methodology for evaluating supernatural claims.

[Spud]

Occam waves hello!

The other miracles in Matthew's gospel send their greetings.

[Nearly Sane]

The other miracles in Matthew's gospel send their greetings.

Fantastic claims without a methodology to validate don't become more likely by the use of more fantastic claims without a methodology to validate them

[Spud]

Fantastic claims without a methodology to validate don't become more likely by the use of more fantastic claims without a methodology to validate them

Professor's comment assumed that eyewitness testimony is valid evidence for a miracle, as did mine.

[Nearly Sane]

Professor's comment assumed that eyewitness testimony is valid evidence for a miracle, as did mine.

Your assumptions are fallacious.

[Spud]

Your assumptions are fallacious.

I know, but we frequently hear the argument that Mark didn't include a resurrection appearance, and therefore the resurrection was made up. The accounts of other miracles in Matthew's gospel suggest that there was another explanation why the resurrection appearance was not part of the original, if that is found to be the case.

[Nearly Sane]

I know, but we frequently hear the argument that Mark didn't include a resurrection appearance, and therefore the resurrection was made up. The accounts of other miracles in Matthew's gospel suggest that there was another explanation why the resurrection appearance was not part of the original, if that is found to be the case.

Making fallacious assumptions makes the entire discussion worthless

[ProfessorDavey]

Professor's comment assumed that eyewitness testimony is valid evidence for a miracle, as did mine.

No I didn't - I merely pointed out that assuming a supernatural occurrence adds and additional unnecessary assumptions and therefore falls foul of Occam.

And while we are at it, assuming that the purported 'eyewitnesses' were accurate in their recollection of what they say (regardless of whether they were correct in their interpretation of what they say) represents another unnecessary assumption. Noting, of course, that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

And further assuming that those eye witness testimonies (regardless of whether they were correct or not) were accurately transferred across many years and across significant geographical and linguistic distance represents yet another unnecessary assumption.

So the notion that the writing we have decades (well actually centuries) after the event represents a faithful depiction of a supernatural event falls foul of occam in at least three different ways.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think Occam works in this context. I think that there is no method to determine the truth of a non natiralustic claim is the issue.

So what - Occam is simply about considering that the explanation with the fewest necessary assumption is to be preferred. I think it is completely silent as to whether those assumptions are naturalistic or supernatural. Nor is it concerned with whether there are methods to test those assumptions.

[Nearly Sane]

So what - Occam is simply about considering that the explanation with the fewest necessary assumption is to be preferred. I think it is completely silent as to whether those assumptions are naturalistic or supernatural. Nor is it concerned with whether there are methods to test those assumptions.

No, it isn't. It's about the explanations being of equal explanatory value. That cannot be the case here, and your misuse of the razor just leads to giving credence to the claims.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, it isn't. It's about the explanations being of equal explanatory value. That cannot be the case here, and your misuse of the razor just leads to giving credence to the claims.

I'm sorry but you are talking non-sense.

Occam, in its usual formulation is simply 'Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity' - it is completely silent, as far as I'm aware, as to whether those entities are natural or supernatural. Indeed in its earliest formulation it was used in the context of god, a clearly supernatural entity. So Occam applies equally to supernatural as to natural entities - the only issue being whether those entities are necessary or not and that the explanation with the fewest necessary entities (or assumptions) should be preferred.

So Spud's claims relies on more necessary assumptions in order to justify the claim (i.e. entities) than other explanations. Specifically 1) the existence of supernatural events; 2) fidelity of eye witness account and 3) fidelity of transfer of that information from person to person across tens to hundreds of years and significant geographical and language divides.

[Spud]

No I didn't - I merely pointed out that assuming a supernatural occurrence adds and additional unnecessary assumptions and therefore falls foul of Occam.

What I thought you meant was that if Matthew didn't originally include the resurrection appearance in his account, the most likely explanation is that there wasn't a resurrection.

[Spud]

So Spud's claims relies on more necessary assumptions in order to justify the claim (i.e. entities) than other explanations. Specifically 1) the existence of supernatural events; 2) fidelity of eye witness account and 3) fidelity of transfer of that information from person to person across tens to hundreds of years and significant geographical and language divides

So three assumptions. Compare that with the strength of the evidence pointing towards the gospels being true. For example, that Jesus died is a claim backed up with lots of evidence from the NT. Likewise that the tomb was empty. Also, the body wasn't ever produced. The numerous times the accounts of the appearances agree (eg 2 gospels say there was an appearance in Galilee, two of them say at least two appearances in Jerusalem, all say he appeared to women first, two say they touched him and saw his hands and feet, and he ate fish. Acts cites multiple ones, Paul cites one to 500 people. NT describes persecution for their belief.)

[Spud]

All of which are no more than anecdotes: and that ain't evidence, since they could involve mistakes, exaggeration or lies.

One can't really ask for more reliable evidence, given the limitations of it being a supernatural event. And supposing it was your trusted friends telling you - would you believe them?

[Gordon]

One can't really ask for more reliable evidence, given the limitations of it being a supernatural event. And supposing it was your trusted friends telling you - would you believe them?

No - remarkable claims (such as the supernatural) require remarkable and related evidence: the NT ain't it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Compare that with the strength of the evidence pointing towards the gospels being true.

But there isn't any credible evidence that the claims in the gospels are true. What do we actually have? Well:

1. That some people (and we don't actually know who those people are) claimed some things happened. And those claims are in texts that we have available to us that were written centuries later, albeit they may (or may not) bare resemblance to texts purportedly written decades later. But we don't have those texts. And even in those text the earliest claims (e.g. Paul and the original ending of Mark) have no post-resurrection accounts at all (Mark) or none that represent a physical resurrection (Paul). And, of course a claim that something happened provides no evidence that it actually did happen.

2. That some people believed in those claims. But notably by and large those who were closest to the events (living in the place and at the time) did not believe the claims as they did not accept Jesus as the messiah. And of course people believing something provides no evidence that the something they believe in is true.

And ... err ... that's it.

And the ancient world is littered with claims in ancient and sacred texts and also people who believe in those claims. So why don't you believe in all these other claims which have exactly the same credible evidence for them ... i.e. none.