www.neilcadman.yolasite.com

www.neilcadman.com/blog




































































     FIRST REASON
  
          The Israelites were a literate race from their beginning. The Pentateuch has many references to reading and writing. All
      Israelites were commanded to write the commandments on their hand, as frontlets between their eyes, gates doorposts. (Deut.
      6:8-9) There are many references to reading in the Gospels. Jesus only had a carpenter's education but He read in the
     synogogues as did all the men. He wrote on the round at the accusation of the woman caught in adultery.                                                                              


    SECOND REASON.    
             In order to memorize a story or even a statement, it must first be written down. No one can memorize a dialogue with just
     one hearing of it and without being commanded to do so. Once you can read and write there is no point in memorizing except to
     allow for circumstances where you do not have access to the written record.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      


    THIRD REASON.
          Humanly speaking it is impossible to have an oral record of historical dialogue, for no one understands the importance of an  
     event until well afterwards and then it is too late to remember dialogue accurately. That is why historical records do not record
     dialogue; except the Bible and that because it is divinely inspired.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        


    FOURTH REASON.
     
The Gospels indicate that they were committed virtually immediately to paper Are the words ...let him that reads understand,
  
(Mk.13:14) the words of Jesus or Matthew and Mark, added as an explantion later. In saying this it implies a mystery, something
    that may not be easily understood. Now Jesus knows the mystery but does Matthew or Mark? If Matthew knew the mystery so
    also would have all the disciples because Jesus did not explain it further and so we would presume that it was common knowledge
    to all  those of that day but not necessarily to those of a later time; in which case Matthew and Mark saw the necessity of adding
    these words, which would be their's and not Jesus'. However if Matthew and Mark knew the mystery, as an apostle they would
    be bound to tell the mystery, because being presumably, common knowledge to them, yet understanding that it may not be to
    later generations, they would have the desire to inform them as to what it would be and so they would not add these words but
    rather give words of explanation as in the case of the interpretation of Jesus words, given as an aside in Mark 5:40. But
    assuming they were the words of Jesus because for some reason he did not want the matter of the mystery to be common
    knowledge, that is, known to the non elect, makes sense. For just as when Jesus spoke in parables, he said that he did so, so that
    the non elect would not understand. Now if the non elect were not to understand in this instance also, and they don't,  who then is
    able to make such a decision, that they should not be informed; Jesus or Matthew & Mark? Plainly only Jesus could have
    determined, if these words,
...let him that reads understand, be included and also that the invitation of the understanding of the
    mystery was given not onlty to readers but the apostles present as well.                                                                      .   
         Bear in mind that Luke, the most educated, did not include them. Did he understand the mystery? Would he not be the first to
    understand? Would he not be the first to realise that later readers would not understand? Would he have seen it as of less
    importance that the people be warned that they should understand this mystery? We must conclude that Jesus is the one saying
    these words and that in effect that the next person to know of these words would know of them by reading them.  Hence Matthew 
    and Mark must have been written virtually immedately after Christ's death.    
                                                                                                                                                                                           
      The portion harmonised in Greek is as follows,
      (Matt 24:15 & Mk.13:14)
otan de (Matt 24:15) oun (Matt 24:15 & Mk.13:14) idhte to bdelugma thV Matt 24:15) to rhqen dia danihl
   
(Mk.13:14) to rhqen upo danihl (Matt 24:15 & Mk.13:14) tou profhtou estoV (Matt 24:15) en topw agiw (Mk.13:14) opou ou dei
   
(Matt 24:15 & Mk.13:14) o anaginwskwn noeitw (Lk.21:20) otan de idhte kukloumenhn upo stratopedwnthn ierousalhm
    tote gnwte oti
hggiken h erhmwsiV authV (Matt 24:16, Mk.13:14 & Lk.21:21) tote oi en th ioudaia feugetwsan

          The words ...let him that reads understand, (Mk.13:14) are the words of Jesus. Jesus spoke these words, the Holy Spirit
     brought them to remembrance to Matthew and Mark but not Luke. Matthew and Mark did not insert them on their own
     initiative.                                                                                                                                                  .   


    FIFTH REASON.
         If it were possible that the sayings of Jesus were committed to memory, because say, Jesus repeated them so many times that
     they stuck in the mind, there are many other sayings by other minor characters that are still integral with the story yet would
     never had been committed to memory. The proposition that there first existed an oral record from which later books were written
     is simply stupidity or an outright lie.

    NOTE: It is one thing to commit to memory Scripture for edification but a totally different thing to commit to memory for the
     sake of record. While there have been cases in history where people have committed to memory large documents such
     as the Gospels it must be born in mind that these were committed to memory from written documents. Where there is only oral
     communication it is almost impossible to imagine that extensive histories including dialogue could ever be committed to memory
     with any degree of accuracy. In order to have even a slight chance of doing so you would need outstanding teachers and genius
     students and every time the record was passed down you would need the same. Generally when oral histories are part of a
     culture they have the status of myth. The Gospels do not have this status.            

                                                                                                        


 
BACK
ALWAYS CLICK ON
ICON FOR HOME
THERE IS NO  ORAL TRADITION.
www.archdesign.neilcadman.com
HOME DESIGN










                  
                                                                        
   
        


                                                                                                              

                                                                            

COPYRIGHT  NEIL CADMAN B'Sc.(Arch.) B Arch. M.Rel.Ed.
ARE THERE ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?
               ARE THERE  ERRORS IN THE GOSPELS?
                         IS THERE LITERARY DEPENDENCY IN THE GOSPELS?
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
Website update  29:10:10
NEXT
BACK
CLIMATE CHANGE OR GOD'S JUDGEMENT
          See, www.freedom.neilcadman.com