Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?

[Subduction Zone]

Spurious
Definition:

Havung spurs
Colloquial: swift and dependable

Ride 'em cowboy!! Or Cowgirl in your case.

 

[Kenny]

Oh my God! How blind can you be. That was a list of spurious epistles. Read the title. No extra label needed. It appears when a source is given to you that refutes your claims you develop a case of severe reading comprehension problems.

But just to satisfy you, even though you were already given a clear Christian, not atheistic source that told you that it was spurious here is an article that explains how they know that it is spurious:

Why First Epistle to St. John by St. Ignatius of Antioch is considered to be spurious?

And again, a Christian source.

What did you expect by the way? Do you expect them to say "This is a spurious epistle".

"And so is this one."

"And so is this one."

"And so is this one."

.
.
.
. Oh boy!

You are sooo funny... you changed the site your referenced and then act like this is the one you referenced. When one didn't satisfy your position... you find another that does.

You can find a site that will say anything...

 

[Audie]

Ride 'em cowboy!! Or Cowgirl in your case.

Did you know god must be a cowgirl at heart?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are sooo funny... you changed the site your referenced and then act like this is the one you referenced. When one didn't satisfy your position... you find another that does.

You can find a site that will say anything...

No, I only used one source. For my original claim. What makes you think that I changed it? The source is still the same. Here is a hint, once you quote me I cannot change it.

My second source explained to you why it is considered to be spurious.

So once again for those that seem to be having trouble. My first post was a source that gave a list of spurious epistles. There were quite a few of them and the one that you used as "evidence" was on the list. The site I linked in my most recent post to you explained how they know that it is spurious.

How do you manage to confuse yourself so badly?

EDIT: I just checked my source in your post where you quoted me. It is the same one that I used originally. No change of sites. It is simply a list of spurious epistles. The title made it clear.

And I will repeat myself since you do seem to be having trouble following this discussion, the second source that I linked explained why it is considered spurious.


One gave a list, the second gave an explanation. And both Christian sites. Unless you want to claim some strange conspiracy of Catholics (in the first case) to refute their own religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you know god must be a cowgirl at heart?

I realized after my post that it is a good thing that I did not say "Ride 'em cowgirl!" as there could be a sexual connotation to that . . . oops

 

[Kenny]

No, I only used one source. For my original claim. What makes you think that I changed it? The source is still the same. Here is a hint, once you quote me I cannot change it.

My second source explained to you why it is considered to be spurious.

So once again for those that seem to be having trouble. My first post was a source that gave a list of spurious epistles. There were quite a few of them and the one that you used as "evidence" was on the list. The site I linked in my most recent post to you explained how they know that it is spurious.

How do you manage to confuse yourself so badly?

EDIT: I just checked my source in your post where you quoted me. It is the same one that I used originally. No change of sites. It is simply a list of spurious epistles. The title made it clear.

And I will repeat myself since you do seem to be having trouble following this discussion, the second source that I linked explained why it is considered spurious.


One gave a list, the second gave an explanation. And both Christian sites. Unless you want to claim some strange conspiracy of Catholics (in the first case) to refute their own religion.

Yes... you have offered two different sites with two different positions. As you have noted there are liberal modern scholars and I have noted there are conservative modern scholars... - I prefer to hold on to those who live closest to the time of Jesus. They would be closer to the events that happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes... you have offered two different sites with two different positions. As you have noted there are liberal modern scholars and I have noted there are conservative modern scholars... - I prefer to hold on to those who live closest to the time of Jesus. They would be closer to the events that happened.

LOL! No. There positions are identical. Where did you get that crazy idea from?

My first source was a list. Do you know what a list is? It was a list of spurious epistles of Ignatius.

My second source explained why it is spurious.

What part of this do you not understand?

And no, modern scholars are not "liberal" and older ones are not "conservative". Also the older scholars made obvious errors. Modern scholars do not repeat those errors. I am betting that you cannot figure out what the errors were.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

It is because we have thousands of copies in dozens of languages that we have better understanding because when you have a copy from the 1200's and it almost matches the one found in the 300's it adds to its validity.

The fact that we have people and writings in the 2nd century, 3rd century and 4th century that we can ascertain that there is no speculation involved.

There is good reason why billions of people are convinced and vast majority of historians agree of its veracity.

The only way it isn't solid is only if you decide in your heart that it isn't solid.

95% of those copies date from 800 CE through the Medieval period. The very first text the Codex Sinaiticus dates from the middle of the 4th century. Again, if you haven't the originals then you have no idea whether or not the copies of copies of copies mimic what the originals said or if there even WERE any originals. THAT is what is purely speculative.

The fact that a lot of people claim to believe in Jesus but that 95% of them have never read the Bible speaks greatly to how easily people are duped into believing something just because their pastors say, "This is true." You don't explain why 1.8 BILLION people are Muslim. Or that the vast majority of humans do not believe in Jesus. If Jesus is the real Messiah then why don't they? Failure on Jesus' part, wouldn't you say?

95% of those copies date from 800 CE through the Medieval period. The very first text the Codex Sinaiticus dates from the middle of the 4th century. Again, if you haven't the originals then you have no idea whether or not the copies of copies of copies mimic what the originals said or if there even WERE any originals. THAT is what is purely speculative.

The fact that a lot of people claim to believe in Jesus but that 95% of them have never read the Bible speaks greatly to how easily people are duped into believing something just because their pastors say, "This is true."

Ken, if Jesus is the only true way to heaven, please explain why 1.8 BILLION people are Muslim. Or that the vast majority of humans do not believe in Jesus.

Ken, in your back and forth with others you forgot about my question to you in the bold above. Oversight, or is the question just too hard to answer?

 

[Kenny]

Ken, in your back and forth with others you forgot about my question to you in the bold above. Oversight, or is the question just too hard to answer?

Actually, I did but I didn't do it in length so let me expand.

Muslim do believe in Jesus. You could also say the Hindus do too. They see him differently. Why? Mostly because the study their own scriptures and don't have a study course in Christian theology.

When my friend Jerry O'Dell preaches Jesus in a 90% Hindu/Muslim area drawing crowds of 30,000 to 100,000+ people... there is a reason that thousands of them come to place their faith in Jesus. It is the first time they were taught the reality of the power of salvation (spirit, soul and body) in a Christian understanding.

So it is just a matter of teaching and/or preaching the truth of Jesus Christ.

Of course, some don't believe. Many didn't believe in Jesus until he resurrected.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Actually, I did but I didn't do it in length so let me expand.

Muslim do believe in Jesus. You could also say the Hindus do too. They see him differently. Why? Mostly because the study their own scriptures and don't have a study course in Christian theology.

When my friend Jerry O'Dell preaches Jesus in a 90% Hindu/Muslim area drawing crowds of 30,000 to 100,000+ people... there is a reason that thousands of them come to place their faith in Jesus. It is the first time they were taught the reality of the power of salvation (spirit, soul and body) in a Christian understanding.

So it is just a matter of teaching and/or preaching the truth of Jesus Christ.

Of course, some don't believe. Many didn't believe in Jesus until he resurrected.

Must have missed it, my apologies. But now we have a whole new conundrum: Yes, Muslims do believe in Jesus, but they only believe he was a prophet. They don't believe he was the son of God and they don't believe he resurrected. They say he "appeared so as dead"

"We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah’; – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."

So in Christian theology, the only way a person escapes hell and goes to heaven is to believe Jesus is the Son of God crucified for our sins and resurrected.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them." John

"If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans

Muslims do none of these so according Christian theology they will go to hell and burn for eternity.
And still the majority of mankind does not believe in Jesus which means the majority of mankind is going to hell to burn for eternity in the lake of fire.

Why is that? This is the question you missed, Ken: If Jesus has provided belief in him as the only way to get to heaven then WHY are so many people going to hell? Seems to me whatever plan God mapped out "from the foundations of the world" as Christians love to quote has backfired badly.

Putting aside my complete disbelief in Jesus whether as a real person, or a deity, or especially as someone who rose from the dead, the issue has been studied to death and the conclusions are always the same: the concept of burning in hell for one's sins did not originate with the Christians. it originated among the Zoroastrians, a Persian religion dating from as early as 2000 BC but the teachings on hell only entered Zoroastrianism circa 5th century BC. The Greeks picked it because they found it an effective tool for controlling unruly mobs. A thousand years later circa Augustine and Tertullian it enters the Roman Catholic religion because the church leaders realized the Greeks were right: there's no more effective a tool to getting people to do what you want them to do as putting fear into them, in this case fear of burning alive forever in the fires of hell. Works like a charm even today, with televangelists booming how heathen sinners who don't bow to Jesus (and contribute $$$'s to their ministries) will burn in the fires of hell. Many Christians ARE Christian because they are terrified of hell, not because they genuinely love Jesus. I've read their testimonies:

"The fear of going to Hell, or Hell itself as a place, is something that caused me years of depression and anxiety."

But many more have simply upped and left the Christian faith because they realize after studying the issues on the Internet (contrary to what Christians teach about satan being the enemy, the real enemy of Jesus /Christianity is not satan, but the Internet, because the Internet gives people the very power Christian leaders have tried to suppress for centuries: knowledge...of what Christianity is really all about.)

Decline of Christianity in various countries

• The decline of Christianity is an ongoing trend in West and North Europe. ...
• According to Pew Research Center the largest net losses due religious conversion are expected among Christians between 2010 and 2050, notably in North America (28 million), Europe (24 million).
  
  Decline of Christianity in various countries - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All right, you tell me which historian calls Jesus by name--and please don't haul out that old canard Josephus. His works have been so doctored with edits and interpolations by Eusebius that we can't trust a thing he writes. Nothing from Josephus survives until after Eusebius gets his greasy fingers on it. But go ahead. You tell me which secular historian mentions Jesus in the 1st, even 2nd Century CE. Go ahead.

The less remarkable Eusebius quote about Jesus (where he writes about the trial of "James, brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ") appears to be genuine, from what I gather.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The less remarkable Eusebius quote about Jesus (where he writes about the trial of "James, brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ") appears to be genuine, from what I gather.

You have to read some arguments by scholars against the authenticity like these:

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

So in the end we are still left with a gaping hole in what is real and what is not. This is a question that will never have an answer because it is too far in the past and is not documented outside of Josephus so we have no alternate source to compare with it. It goes back to my main point:

If God really wanted us to believe Jesus was His divine son who died for our sins wouldn't God have left evidence so strong and so irrefutable that only a madman would deny it?

Apparently God really doesn't give a damn what we believe about Jesus.

 

[Audie]

You have to read some arguments by scholars against the authenticity like these:

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

So in the end we are still left with a gaping hole in what is real and what is not. This is a question that will never have an answer because it is too far in the past and is not documented outside of Josephus so we have no alternate source to compare with it. It goes back to my main point:

If God really wanted us to believe Jesus was His divine son who died for our sins wouldn't God have left evidence so strong and so irrefutable that only a madman would deny it?

Apparently God really doesn't give a damn what we believe about Jesus.

When there's no evidence, we use the smell test.
The story smells fishy.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

When there's no evidence, we use the smell test.
The story smells fishy.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Fish and 2nd century gospels stink after 2000 years."

 

[joelr]

There are hundreds I could have selected

Please select a source from a PhD biblical historian so we know they can read original sources and are familiar with what's already known in the field. Some random Pastor writing articles using English translations is complete bias crank.

Opinion... and, for that matter, no way to ascertain who the 3 or 5 or whatever percentage was.

When Nero said “The customs of this most accursed race have prevailed to such an extent that they are everywhere received. The conquered have imposed their laws on the conquerors.”[1] Seneca: quoted by Augustine: City of God; vi. 2 it wasn't because the illiterates had such great influence.


People don't imitate illiterates

wait, did you just say "opinion"??
Bart Ehrman:
"The followers of Jesus spoke Araimaic, they were lowe class day laborers, lived in a remmote part of Galilee and were uneducated. 3% literacy rate. Sourced from - Katherine Hetzer, Jewish Literacy In Roman Palestine
1:26

No other historian disagrees with this? How is this opinion and how is this bias?

When Jesus said “Have you not read…” - it implies literacy capacity

This is from Matthew. This has nothing to do with the Araimaic teachings 50 years prior. It's in a different language and was 100% sourced from Mark. The Synoptic problem is solved only 2 ways - a Q Gospel source of Mark was the source. The overwhelming evidence now points to Mark and most scholars agree.
So Matthew was copying Mark (there are pages and pages of verbatim Greek) and adding his take on the story. This is fan fiction and does not represent history at all.

So you are sourcing a made-up story copied from Mark which is also an excellent work of myth.
There is also full consensus in historicity that the gospels were not eyewitness accounts and most historians will agree they represent a mythicized Jesus.

Before the Jewish revolt, the high priest Joshua ben Gamala (cir. 64 C.E.) declared that teachers would be appointed in every town of every province throughout Palestine. Their purpose was to provide an education for every male of the age of six or seven and upward. One teacher would serve a community of up to 25 students. A teacher’s assistant would be added for communities having up to 50 students and for communities having more than 50 students two teachers would be provided.[4] Talmud: B. Bava Batra 21a

You can't be illiterate at 3% with teachers for 25 students.

The literacy rates sourced are for the people who would have been the followers of Jesus

Because we see bias when it is in front of us?

What you saw in front of you was a fact sourced from one of the best NT historians working today. Yet somehow, because it doesn't confirm your beliefs you call it bias.

 

[joelr]

I realize that you are listening to a group of "modern" people which contradicts centuries of historical data. We probably will never intersect in our beliefs. I have no problem with you having a different set of beliefs... even Jesus had problems with their "modern" interpretations of the TaNaKh.

Not true. Real historians spend years pouring over all possible source data, the earliest forms we have and take years to learn Hebrew, Greek, Araimaic and any other language needed to study the most original material we have on the subject.
Bart Ehrman recently had a great debate about the Byzantine text being representative of original texts.
If you are not paying attention to historians and only listening to theologians you are missing a huge amount of information.

Modern scholars do not "contradict" centuries of historical data? Who told you that? They have the same information? It just isn't taught in church.

Depends on which "modern" scholars you reference. These "modern" scholars wouldn't subscribe to your position:

1. Joseph Alexanian, Trinity International University -- Theological studies
2. Carl E. Armerding, Schloss Mittersill Study Centre - theological education.
   
3. Bill T. Arnold, Asbury Theological Seminary - Professor of Old Testament Interpretation

I don't need to go on. It's all the same. You don't seem to understand. A Theologian takes the Bible and ASSUMES it's some divine magic book and then interprets what the God meant.
A historian and archeologist do not assume a myth is true unless there is evidence. They use comparative religion (is it written like all other myths?), comparative cultures (are the Christian myths similar to other myths from the same time or earlier), literary analysis - (written as history or as myth and parables), evidence from outside cultures and always use source material.
There are zero historians who believe Jesus was a demigod. All are sure he was a teacher who was later mythicized and these myths are all taken from other sources, including almost the entire OT. So in this there is no doubt that all of the main concepts in the Bible were in a similar form in some earlier religion,

The schoalrs who explain this would be
Richard Carrier- most recent Jesus historicity study
Bart Ehrman - how Jesus became mythicized
Elaine Pagels - what do the Gnostic gospels really say
Mark Goodacre- proof that Mark is the source rather than Q
John Dominick Crossman - demonstrates Mark is all parables
R Purvoe- shows Acts was taken from other narratives
Thomas Thompson - History of Moses and the Patriarchs - archeologist who demonstrated Moses and such are mythic characters

It' also known that Luke was using Josephus, -
Opinion.

No it's actually been shown that Luke is using Jewish Antiquities from Josephus.
There are dozens of examples including mistakes made by Josephus that Luke carries over to his narrative.
Carrier goes over several at 23:55

But it's accepted that Luke is using Josephus' account of the siege of Jerusalem and repeats his phrase 'the most precise school" when speaking about the Pharisees.

There are also lies that Luke was caught telling and ridiculous improbable events - miraculous conversions, escaped convicts running around.
Opinion

Which you are free to have.

Again, Luke copies over incorrect information, this is known. As far as miraculous conversions and improbable events this is not opinion either?
It has all the markers of a fictional narrative, makes historical errors copied from other stories and this goes on and on. This is not opinion, Carrier goes over some of the reasons why it's considered fiction and uses the work of several different scholars.
Luke's use of color commentary is mostly from Josephus as well, census of Quirinius, associating Agrippa with Bernice, Felix with Drusilla, obscure mention of tetrarch Lysanias and so on...

 

[halbhh]

That isn't true, there are stories of Yahweh interacting with people and all sorts of supernatural happenings and magic feats. In the OT and NT.
But then you are left with the same problem, anyone can have "faith" in any religion, in race superiority, gender superiority or any position. Things should be believed when there is good evidence to support them.
Faith is a con to get people to believe when there isn't good evidence.
It isn't just a movement you have to base belief on faith. You actually have to take facts (that it's follows all mythology, no extra-biblical evidence) and ignore them. You have to ignore the fact that scholars are sure Mark was the source of at least 2 other gospels and that all scholarship considers Moses and the Patriarchs to be mythical characters. And that the OT is clearly just Jewish mythology much of it taken from older myths.

The "faith" thing might work if you isolate someone's education and only allow apologetics but once you look at actual history and archeology and comparative religions it doesn't work.

It's the more full and complete reading that I was reporting, not only the famous events alone were God did show up in a more obvious way and visibly changed things in a miraculous way. The people that did witness such things first hand were held to a more stringent standard than those who have never seen such things. We are held accountable for what we know. Most people have not seen a miracle, and if they come to faith, without having seen, Christ says they are more "blessed" for that, that level of trusting in God. Also, since He commissioned the disciples to go out and tell the gospel, the text shows, it is now to be by faith alone. That's our situation: by faith alone.


If you don't mind helpful logical analysis, you seem to have suggested that since Matthew and Luke have much that is from Mark, even sections that are word for word...that this somehow implies... (a good moment to pause and think more carefully...)

This is where I'd suggest to think on what you conclude from that in as neutral a way as you are able -- about what it would imply.

Really, the answer is: not much.

If the details of Mark are correct, then of course Matthew and Luke had better generally agree, on the whole, or else 1 or more would be clearly just invented stories.

If on the other hand, the other gospels were only identical copies with a different introduction or such, just all identical in total (nothing more than, and only exact same wordings in all places) that would also not be a good sign.

As it is though, they are what could be consistent with real accounts: much alike, with some different and other details each. That is like you'd get from independent groups of witnesses actually, or oral traditions. That they had Mark available, but also their own accounts, is quite possible.

So, the answer is: we can't conclude much at all from the mere fact that Matthew and Luke have much of Mark's wordings, or very similar ones. It at most only suggests (nothing more) that all of them could be legit. But it doesn't prove they are.

 

[halbhh]

For yourself?
I have read Power of Myth at least 3 times. Campbell says Christians mistake the metaphorical poetry for prose.
Jesus scores higher on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale higher than King Arthur.

But before all that Genesis are just re-working Mesopotamian myths. Then it's known that concepts like heaven/hell, God vs Satan, world mesiah, resurrection at the end of the world and other concepts that were part of the Persian myths were slowly blended into Jewish myths during the Persian period of several hundred years. We see literary elements of myth in the NT, Markan sandwiches, ring structure, transformation of OT narratives all in Mark and the events of the story are wildly fictitious and exactly mythical. Studying myth helped me understand the Bible was Israel's mythology.



Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[17][18] but adapted them to their belief in one God,[2] establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors.[19][20]

Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.[17][21] Genesis 1 bears both striking differences from and striking similarities to Babylon's national creation myth, the Enuma Elish
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath.
The Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth[a] found in the Tanakh (chapters 6–9 in the Book of Genesis).[1] The story tells of God's decision to return the Earth to its pre-creation state of watery chaos and then remake it in a reversal of creation.[2] The narrative has very strong similarities to parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates the Book of Genesis.

Sorry, you won't be able interest me much on the side details. I've also learned from Campbell, and many others, you see. Enough that I don't need a much less detailed version from anyone.

If you don't mind some aid in logical thinking about how you interpret things like the commonplace Flood myths, if you merely get caught up in trying to maintain some thesis about merely how they spread, it's...well, a side track. Or a blind alley, a cul de sac.

Kind of like....talking about an apple but never taking the time to just enjoy one.

Campbell could help on that actually in his video interviews. If you'd not seen the interviews Moyers did with Campbell, they are good in a way in that Moyers keeps asking questions that help bring out a more full viewpoint. You'd get the Campbell is saying the myths are very valuable, rich, for us here and now. If we get side tracked analysing them overly much (like chasing up a blind alley sort of), Campbell says (paraphrasing), we can lose out on their real reward -- how they illuminate life for us here and now.

 

[joelr]

It's the more full and complete reading that I was reporting, not only the famous events alone were God did show up in a more obvious way and visibly changed things in a miraculous way. The people that did witness such things first hand were held to a more stringent standard than those who have never seen such things. We are held accountable for what we know. Most people have not seen a miracle, and if they come to faith, without having seen, Christ says they are more "blessed" for that, that level of trusting in God. Also, since He commissioned the disciples to go out and tell the gospel, the text shows, it is now to be by faith alone. That's our situation: by faith alone.

two things
1) Every religion gives faith as the most important thing. In Hinduism there are 3 levels of faith, one brings you into association with devotees, then scripture then knowledge and confidence in Krishna.
"Faith is vital for the discharge of devotional service. In Bhagavad-gita (9.3) Krishna says, “Those who are not faithful in this devotional service cannot attain Me,"

Yet those Gods are still fiction. The evidence for all Gods is equal, there is no evidence. Of course they will want faith from followers, the authors know that there will be no visits from Gods. Even though in the stories there are endless supernatural events and visits from Gods. Yahweh even fights a sea monster?


2) Where you do find that scripture says there will be no more supernatural events?

If you don't mind helpful logical analysis, you seem to have suggested that since Matthew and Luke have much that is from Mark, even sections that are word for word...that this somehow implies... (a good moment to pause and think more carefully...)


So, the answer is: we can't conclude much at all from the mere fact that Matthew and Luke have much of Mark's wordings, or very similar ones. It at most only suggests (nothing more) that all of them could be legit. But it doesn't prove they are.

No it's a well known thing in even Christian scholarship called the Synoptic Problem and actual scholars do not try to hide from it. They admit there was a common source.
Up to 95% of the original Greek was transcribed from Mark into Matthew.

Bible.org
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org


"Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence."


as they say. "laymen" are generally not aware of this:

"The remarkable verbal agreement between the gospels suggests some kind of interdependence. It is popular today among laymen to think in terms of independence—and to suggest either that the writers simply recorded what happened and therefore agree, or that they were guided by the Holy Spirit into writing the same things. This explanation falls short on several fronts."

The 3rd reason debunks your idea


"
First, it cannot explain the differences among the writers—unless it is assumed that verbal differences indicate different events. In that case, one would have to say that Jesus was tempted by the devil twice, that the Lord’s Supper was offered twice, and that Peter denied the Lord six to nine times! In fact, one might have to say that Christ was raised from the dead more than once if this were pressed!

Second, if Jesus spoke and taught in Aramaic (at least sometimes, if not usually), then why are these verbal agreements preserved for us in Greek? It is doubtful that each writer would have translated Jesus’ sayings in exactly the same way so often.

Third, even if Jesus spoke in Greek exclusively, how is it that not only his words but his deeds are recorded in verbal identity? There is a material difference between remembering the verbiage of what one heard and recording what one saw in identical verbiage.

Fourth, when one compares the synoptic materials with John’s Gospel, why are there so few verbal similarities? On an independent hypothesis, either John or the synoptics are wrong, or else John does not record the same events at all in the life of Jesus."

Right now the accepted answer is the Markan priority or that Mark is the source as explained in the article.

When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke."

The article ends with 8 arguments why regarding Mark as the source is the most probable answer.

 

[joelr]

Sorry, you won't be able interest me much on the side details. I've also learned from Campbell, and many others, you see. Enough that I don't need a much less detailed version from anyone.

What side details? You mentioned Campbell and myth? I respond and now you are all "woahh"?

If you don't mind some aid in logical thinking about how you interpret things like the commonplace Flood myths, if you merely get caught up in trying to maintain some thesis about merely how they spread, it's...well, a side track. Or a blind alley, a cul de sac.
Kind of like....talking about an apple but never taking the time to just enjoy one.

Using the word "logic" then saying something quite illogical is a bit odd?
There is no "maintaining" obvious ideas about the flood myths. I will prove it.
Do you think all of the hundreds of flood myths (looks like one in every religion) is an actual separate event that actually happened? Or is it logical that these myths were borrowed from older cultures?
Obviously, they all didn't happen and as people left a society to form a new one they wrote a slightly different version. That is logical. Well the Israelite people came from the Canaanite culture around 1200BC and began their own myths. Noah closely follows the Epic of Gilamesh. So does the Genesis creation stories. Obviously the logical explanation is they re-worked the same old myths just like every other culture did.

That isn't a "blind alley" or a "cul de sac"? It's how history works. The stories are still interesting, the mythology is great. If you have some special belief that this one version of the myth is actually real, great. Have fun with that. Trying to pass it off as "logical" is a total fail.
Even Christian scholarship generally admits that the flood story is a borrowed myth.

Your apple analogy is also not applicable because as your own reference says (Campbell says this over and over) that if you mistake myths for literal history you are missing the point, mistaking poetry for prose and not understanding what the actual lesson is. so your apple thing is actually ironic.

Campbell could help on that actually in his video interviews. If you'd not seen the interviews Moyers did with Campbell, they are good in a way in that Moyers keeps asking questions that help bring out a more full viewpoint. You'd get the Campbell is saying the myths are very valuable, rich, for us here and now. If we get side tracked analyzing them overly much (like chasing up a blind alley sort of), Campbell says (paraphrasing), we can lose out on their real reward -- how they illuminate life for us here and now.

That is not what Campbell is saying at all. He is saying if you take them literal you miss the real meaning. They are supposed to be analyzed heavily and he spent his life doing that.
He also believes the resurrection of Jesus was a metaphor for dying and being re-born to your higher self. Leaving your animal self behind and living in more compassionate state. He explicitely states several times in Power of Myth that Christians mistake poetry for prose and miss all the lessons by worshipping a demigod.
"All of these symbols in mythology refer to you — have you been reborn? Have you died to your animal nature and come to life as a human incarnation? You are God in your deepest identity. You are one with the transcendent."
He states (chapter called Masks of Eternity) he does not believe in a personal God. In Hero With 1000 Faces he says Buddha, Krishna, Jesus and so on are all equally mythological.
Again in that same chapter he explains the resurrection myths as teaching to live from your highest self and quotes the Thomas gospel which says we are all like Christ. More of a Buddhist teaching.

But yes, I actually love Campbell and find his work extremely enlightening. I'm surprised you are even referencing him because he had a huge problem with Christianity as a literal thing and was always bothered that people didn't realize they were myths same as all the other stories about Gods.