Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Spud]

In response to the theory that editorial fatique can be seen in Matthew and Luke as they copied Mark, here is evidence that Mark used Matthew as a main source. Mark sometimes puts a word in an inappropriate place in a sentence. We would expect when someone is rewriting a text that the original text would have the more logical word order. Copying while trying not to copy word for word forces the writer to change the meaning of the original text very slightly.

1. Compare Matthew 26:22 with Mark 14:19, where began fits better where Matthew puts it:
Matthew: And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?"
Mark: They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?"


2. The phrases to the paralytic and take up your mat in Mark 2:9 are out of place and appear to have been taken from their original context in Matthew 9:6.
Matthew: For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”
Mark: Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your mat, and walk’?
(ESV)


3. The word immediately in Matthew 4:22 is in a better position than in Mark 1:20: Matthew has "and he called them, and immediately having left the boat and their father....". Mark changes this to "And immediately He called them, and having left their father..."
 
Compare Matthew 4:20-22
And immediately having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mt 4:20)
and immediately having left the boat and their father they [James and John] followed Him (Mt 4:22)

with Mark 1:18-20:
And immediately, having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mk 1:18).
And immediately He called them, and having left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, they [James and John] went away after Him. (Mk 1:20)

[Owlswing]

In response to the theory that editorial fatigue can be seen in Matthew and Luke as they copied Mark, here is evidence that Mark used Matthew as a main source. Mark sometimes puts a word in an inappropriate place in a sentence. We would expect when someone is rewriting a text that the original text would have the more logical word order. Copying while trying not to copy word for word forces the writer to change the meaning of the original text very slightly.

1. Compare Matthew 26:22 with Mark 14:19, where began fits better where Matthew puts it:
Matthew: And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?"
Mark: They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?"


2. The phrases to the paralytic and take up your mat in Mark 2:9 are out of place and appear to have been taken from their original context in Matthew 9:6.
Matthew: For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”
Mark: Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your mat, and walk’?
(ESV)


3. The word immediately in Matthew 4:22 is in a better position than in Mark 1:20: Matthew has "and he called them, and immediately having left the boat and their father....". Mark changes this to "And immediately He called them, and having left their father..."
 
Compare Matthew 4:20-22
And immediately having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mt 4:20)
and immediately having left the boat and their father they [James and John] followed Him (Mt 4:22)

with Mark 1:18-20:
And immediately, having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mk 1:18).
And immediately He called them, and having left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, they [James and John] went away after Him. (Mk 1:20)

And this PROVES nothing!

Unless and until the ORIGINAL documents can be accurately dated the Bible is still a document to be treated with the utmost suspicion.

I seem to remember being taught in R E lessons at school that most/a large percentage of the originals are in the hands/vaults of the Vatican, I can't see any chance of them being available for scrutiny by anyone any time soon!

 

[jeremyp]

We would expect when someone is rewriting a text that the original text would have the more logical word order.

I wouldn't. I would expect the copier to fix any errors he or she notices in the original.

Copying while trying not to copy word for word forces the writer to change the meaning of the original text very slightly.

The gospel authors weren't trying to do that. They were copying plain and simple and making edits when they wanted to change the meaning.

[jeremyp]

I seem to remember being taught in R E lessons at school that most/a large percentage of the originals are in the hands/vaults of the Vatican, I can't see any chance of them being available for scrutiny by anyone any time soon!

You were taught wrongly. There are no original gospel texts left. The earliest gospel manuscript we have is a small fragment of John's gospel that has been dated to some time in the first half of the second century.

[Gordon]

Spud

Are you not just revisiting the thread you had on this last year:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16604.0

Why does it matter anyway?

[Nearly Sane]

I wouldn't. I would expect the copper to fix any errors he or she notices in the original.
The gospel authors weren't trying to do that. They were copying plain and simple and making edits when they wanted to change the meaning.

I think owlswing may be using the term 'originals' here to mean the original papyri, documents that people use copies of rather than original gospels and epistles.

[Owlswing]

You were taught wrongly. There are no original gospel texts left. The earliest gospel manuscript we have is a small fragment of John's gospel that has been dated to some time in the first half of the second century.

I was under the impression that a few/quite a few years ago some clay pots of some sort were found in a cave that had papyrus's (papyri ?) that had what were reported to be gospels not previously known about which were snatched by Catholic members of the teams that found them and never seen again.

I am perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong - I just wish my memory could throw up the date of the reports mentioned above.

[SteveH]

Yawneroony. Does it matter one iota, even if you're a Christian, and does anyone in their right mind care?

[Harrowby Hall]

In response to the theory that editorial fatique can be seen in Matthew and Luke as they copied Mark, here is evidence that Mark used Matthew as a main source. Mark sometimes puts a word in an inappropriate place in a sentence. We would expect when someone is rewriting a text that the original text would have the more logical word order. Copying while trying not to copy word for word forces the writer to change the meaning of the original text very slightly.

1. Compare Matthew 26:22 with Mark 14:19, where began fits better where Matthew puts it:
Matthew: And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?"
Mark: They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, "Is it I?"


2. The phrases to the paralytic and take up your mat in Mark 2:9 are out of place and appear to have been taken from their original context in Matthew 9:6.
Matthew: For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”
Mark: Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your mat, and walk’?
(ESV)


3. The word immediately in Matthew 4:22 is in a better position than in Mark 1:20: Matthew has "and he called them, and immediately having left the boat and their father....". Mark changes this to "And immediately He called them, and having left their father..."
 
Compare Matthew 4:20-22
And immediately having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mt 4:20)
and immediately having left the boat and their father they [James and John] followed Him (Mt 4:22)

with Mark 1:18-20:
And immediately, having left the nets, they [Simon and Andrew] followed Him (Mk 1:18).
And immediately He called them, and having left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, they [James and John] went away after Him. (Mk 1:20)

What amazes me, Spud, is that these Middle Eastern gentlemen, two thousand years ago, were able to write in such exquisite, expressive English.

Cearly, divine inspiration - a miracle!

The errors, differences in interpretation and mistranslations clearly occurred when they were translated into Aramaic and Koine Greek.

[Roses]

Yawneroony. Does it matter one iota, even if you're a Christian, and does anyone in their right mind care?

I agree.

[Spud]

I wouldn't. I would expect the copper to fix any errors he or she notices in the original.

The gospel authors weren't trying to do that. They were copying plain and simple and making edits when they wanted to change the meaning.

The example from the healing of the paralytic stands out to me as showing Mark to be using second hand testimony. Picture the original scene - would Jesus have said, in front of the paralyzed man, "which is easier, to say to the paralytic..."? No, he'd have said, "which is easier: to say to someone, your sins are forgiven..." etc. Mark clearly is reciting words from an earlier tradition. Why do we need to look further than Matthew's account for that source?

Edit: If I changed what I just wrote to "why look further than Matthew's account...", that would be like Matthew removing a redundant phrase from Mark. So I agree with you that it's possible Matthew could have done that.

[Spud]

Spud

Are you not just revisiting the thread you had on this last year:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16604.0

Why does it matter anyway?

Yes, sorry. I felt it justified a new thread because a seemingly robust argument for the opposite view, that Matthew copied Mark, came up on that thread - that argument was to do with editorial fatigue. I wanted to put the case that a similar phenomenon can be detected in Mark's account.

[Gordon]

Yes, sorry. I felt it justified a new thread because a seemingly robust argument for the opposite view, that Matthew copied Mark, came up on that thread - that argument was to do with editorial fatigue. I wanted to put the case that a similar phenomenon can be detected in Mark's account.

Even so: why does it matter?

After all the provenance of the NT is largely uncertain, and since the risks of lies, mistakes and bias remain unaddressed then surely the content is indistinguishable from fiction: on that basis, and whichever way around they were written/copied, doesn't resolve these risks or add any credibility (which is absent as things stand).

[jeremyp]

I think you replied to the wrong post of mine.

I think owlswing may be using the term 'originals' here to mean the original papyri, documents that people use copies of rather than original gospels and epistles.

That's what I assumed he meant. There are no originals left, only copies, some of which are on papyrus. There are manuscript copies i.e. ones that are written by hand and there are printed copies i.e. ones that have been typeset and printed. In the last hundred years or so, there are also photographs of manuscripts. The term "original" doesn't really have ny meaning except as a reference tio the first manuscript written by the evangelist or epistle writer.

[jeremyp]

I was under the impression that a few/quite a few years ago some clay pots of some sort were found in a cave that had papyrus's (papyri ?) that had what were reported to be gospels not previously known about which were snatched by Catholic members of the teams that found them and never seen again.

You may be talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain no Christian writings or, more likely, the Nag Hammadi Library which contains no canonical Christian texts.

[jeremyp]

The errors, differences in interpretation and mistranslations clearly occurred when they were translated into Aramaic and Koine Greek.

The entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.

[jeremyp]

Mark clearly is reciting words from an earlier tradition. Why do we need to look further than Matthew's account for that source?

Because the weight of evidence makes it more probable that Matthew was copying Mark rather than the other way around.

Why is it important to you that Matthew was written first? As Steve says above, it has no impact on Christian faith which one came first. How the gospels were constructed is important from a historical perspective but not really from a faith perspective.

[SteveH]

The entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.

Apart from one or two short bits of Aramaic.

[Gordon]

The entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.

I suspect HH is taking the piss here (in #8).

[jeremyp]

Apart from one or two short bits of Aramaic.

Which short bits? I know Jesus is sometimes quoted in Aramaic but I assume you don't mean those.

[SteveH]

Which short bits? I know Jesus is sometimes quoted in Aramaic but I assume you don't mean those.

Yes, I did mean those.

[Spud]

The entire New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek.

Tradition says that Matthew wrote something called the 'logia' in Aramaic.

[Roses]

Tradition says that Matthew wrote something called the 'logia' in Aramaic.

What does it matter? There is no verifiable evidence that much of what is written in the documents making up the gospels has any veracity.

[Spud]

Because the weight of evidence makes it more probable that Matthew was copying Mark rather than the other way around.

Assuming the weight of evidence does point to Markan priority, it is easy to see how Matthew simply cut out or repostitioned a redundant phrase or awkwardly placed word. But then there is the problem of why Mark wrote awkwardly to start with. There are some mistakes that can arise naturally, but in the examples I've given it's quite hard to see how Mark could have arrived at the wording.

[ProfessorDavey]

But then there is the problem of why Mark wrote awkwardly to start with. There are some mistakes that can arise naturally, but in the examples I've given it's quite hard to see how Mark could have arrived at the wording.

Perhaps the author (or authors) of Mark weren't particularly good writers!

More charitably the author may have been the first person taking disparate snippets of information, purported quotes from Jesus etc etc and trying to weave them into a coherent narrative. It may well be more challenging to dot hat the first time, rather than for a later writer who may be working from a coherent (albeit clunky) narrative in the first place, plus some additional sources.