Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Owlswing]

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.

Or maybe they were making it up as they went along, rather like Hans Christian Anderson?

[jeremyp]

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

You're referring to a comment by Eusebius quoting a guy called Papias (c.60 - 130) who was told by somebody called "John the Presbyter"  that Matthew wrote a "logia".

The problems are that

1. Matthew the Apostle is not the person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

2. A logia is a sayings gospel so it is not referring to any surviving writing about Jesus.

3. The text we have now was originally written in Greek.  It was composed in Greek, probably by copying large parts of Mark's gospel.

[jeremyp]

What does it matter?

It's interesting.

In a world in which you can have massive flame wars about which way round to hang a toilet roll, I think it's fine.

[ProfessorDavey]

Or maybe they were making it up as they went along, rather like Hans Christian Anderson?

Indeed that it is entirely possible.

But even if they aren't simply making up fiction there are entirely plausible explanations why an author writing decades after an event and using snippets of information (that may of course be contradictory or even entirely fictitious) may struggle to create a polished coherent narrative.

[Spud]

You're referring to a comment by Eusebius quoting a guy called Papias (c.60 - 130) who was told by somebody called "John the Presbyter"  that Matthew wrote a "logia".

The problems are that

1. Matthew the Apostle is not the person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

2. A logia is a sayings gospel so it is not referring to any surviving writing about Jesus.

3. The text we have now was originally written in Greek.  It was composed in Greek, probably by copying large parts of Mark's gospel.

Yes, the problem is that the 'Elder' said the 'Logia' were written in Hebrew. Matthew appears to have been written in Greek. I'm not sure this affects the issue of the order of the Synoptics though.

[Spud]

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 do that 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.

I'm not sure how to answer this, except by using more examples. So with(out) your permission I'll look at another one, from the Olivet Discourse. Here, the disciples point out to Jesus the magnificent Temple building. Jesus replies that it will be demolished, and the disciples then ask when. I think the way Matthew and Mark report the conversation shows that Matthew's must have been the first account.

Matthew alone includes the disciples asking in addition what would be the sign of Jesus' coming and of the end of the age. Mark has, instead of "the sign of your coming and of the end of the age", "the sign that all these things will be about to take place". How can Mark write, "all these things" unless he has read Matthew, who tells us what "all these things" refers to (the temple's destruction, the second coming and the end of the age)?

The alternative is that Mark wrote first and for some reason refers to one thing, the temple's destruction, as 'all these things'; then Matthew thinks he can make this sound more coherent by adding two extra 'things' to the temple's destruction. I think this is less likely.

[jeremyp]

Yes, the problem is that the 'Elder' said the 'Logia' were written in Hebrew. Matthew appears to have been written in Greek. I'm not sure this affects the issue of the order of the Synoptics though.

No it doesn't. I don't think any modern scholar links the logia mentioned by Papias with the document we now call the Gospel According to Matthew. This therefore tells us nothing about the order of the gospels, but I think it is the reason why Matthew appears first in the Bible.

[Spud]

No it doesn't. I don't think any modern scholar links the logia mentioned by Papias with the document we now call the Gospel According to Matthew. This therefore tells us nothing about the order of the gospels, but I think it is the reason why Matthew appears first in the Bible.

I'm getting quite interested in the idea of something written by Matthew in Hebrew. Two books I've bought in the last year take the view that the gospel of Matthew was added to, either by Matthew himself or by others. The main evidence is that Luke appears to be familiar with some parts of it (which he copies from) but not others. Also that it contains doublets - a sentence or paragraph repeated in a different context elsewhere in the book.
But the style in some places looks as though what we have today was written in Greek. The Beatitudes, for example, contain quite a lot of alliteration when read in Greek.
But if it did originate as a shorter version of our gospel of Matthew, perhaps that is the part that was written in Hebrew?
One of the authors I'm reading, Harold Riley, thinks Matthew originally ended at 28:8, which is similar to Mark 16:8. That could make Luke the first to write about the resurrection appearances.
He doesn't see a problem with the subsequent editing of Matthew. He thinks it happened because the original, being the first account, was highly esteemed in the church, and people simply wanted to add stories from their own memories.

[Gordon]

He doesn't see a problem with the subsequent editing of Matthew. He thinks it happened because the original, being the first account, was highly esteemed in the church, and people simply wanted to add stories from their own memories.

If so, that should worry you a great deal.

[Spud]

If so, that should worry you a great deal.

A better summary than mine would be that the author's "accomplishment was of such value that other authors were inspired to build upon this foundation in order to meet other needs." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-first-gospel/

Two examples of the phenomena of doublets in Matthew:

The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10, spoken by John the Baptist)
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19 spoken by Jesus)

whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens (Mat 16:19)
Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18)

There are about 20 of these in all. Riley thinks that in 12 of them, one of each pair must have been added to the original gospel. He argues on other grounds that Mark and Luke are secondary to Matthew, and thus that the doublets did not result from Matthew copying Mark and another source.

[Gordon]

A better summary than mine would be that the author's "accomplishment was of such value that other authors were inspired to build upon this foundation in order to meet other needs." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-first-gospel/

Two examples of the phenomena of doublets in Matthew:

The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10, spoken by John the Baptist)
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19 spoken by Jesus)

whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens (Mat 16:19)
Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18)

There are about 20 of these in all. Riley thinks that in 12 of them, one of each pair must have been added to the original gospel. He argues on other grounds that Mark and Luke are secondary to Matthew, and thus that the doublets did not result from Matthew copying Mark and another source.

Doesn't remove the risks that what has been added could be lies or mistake - how have you assessed these risks?

[Owlswing]

A better summary than mine would be that the author's "accomplishment was of such value that other authors were inspired to build upon this foundation in order to meet other needs." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-first-gospel/

Two examples of the phenomena of doublets in Matthew:

The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10, spoken by John the Baptist)
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19 spoken by Jesus)

Whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens (Mat 16:19)
Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18)

There are about 20 of these in all. Riley thinks that in 12 of them, one of each pair must have been added to the original gospel. He argues on other grounds that Mark and Luke are secondary to Matthew, and thus that the doublets did not result from Matthew copying Mark and another source.

Spud

Can you please point me to proof positive, preferably proof found in the last fifty years, that ANY of the four Apostles actually existed to write the Gospels that bear their names!

Then can you please provide me similar proof positive found in the last fifty years that the other eight apostles ever existed.

These proofs should bear the names of people whose credentials, as historians, I can examine and, if possible, they should be atheist or agnostic thus being historians without religious bias.

[Spud]

Doesn't remove the risks that what has been added could be lies or mistake - how have you assessed these risks?

First, identify which bits are added. Then, see whether they agree with the rest of the Bible, for example do they assert the deity of Christ - the gnostic gospels do not so they are not reliable; they do however provide some evidence that the apostles were real people.

Another reason why the gospels can be trusted is because they were written before AD 70 at a time when, according to Matthew, people would routinely go to the temple to offer a sacrifice, would pray on street corners and would 'swear by the temple'. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple within his generation and it happened.

[Gordon]

First, identify which bits are added. Then, see whether they agree with the rest of the Bible, for example do they assert the deity of Christ - the gnostic gospels do not so they are not reliable; they do however provide some evidence that the apostles were real people.

Another reason why the gospels can be trusted is because they were written before AD 70 at a time when, according to Matthew, people would routinely go to the temple to offer a sacrifice, would pray on street corners and would 'swear by the temple'. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple within his generation and it happened.

You clearly have a bad case of confirmation bias, Spud: how do you know that the bits that seem to 'agree' with earlier bits or predict later events (easy to do if the events have already occurred) weren't contrived to read that way and that these earlier bits are themselves free of the risks of mistakes or lies?

 

[Enki]

First, identify which bits are added. Then, see whether they agree with the rest of the Bible, for example do they assert the deity of Christ - the gnostic gospels do not so they are not reliable; they do however provide some evidence that the apostles were real people.

Another reason why the gospels can be trusted is because they were written before AD 70 at a time when, according to Matthew, people would routinely go to the temple to offer a sacrifice, would pray on street corners and would 'swear by the temple'. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple within his generation and it happened.

It is generally accepted that only Mark's Gospel was probably written around 70 AD. The dates for the others range from 85 AD TO 11O AD.


He also predicted the end of the world within the generation of his followers, which didn't happen.

[ProfessorDavey]

First, identify which bits are added. Then, see whether they agree with the rest of the Bible, for example do they assert the deity of Christ - the gnostic gospels do not so they are not reliable;

Why on earth are the gnostic gospels less reliable because they don't indicate that Jesus is a deity. Seems you have used your own conclusion to justify a position that supports your own (pre-judged) conclusion.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is generally accepted that only Mark's Gospel was probably written around 70 AD. The dates for the others range from 85 AD TO 11O AD.

True - but we don't have any actual pieces of the written gospels (fragments and then entire gospels) until much later. This makes it very difficult to determine what was actually written at the time of the initial writing of the gospels, rather than what those gospels had become some decades, if not centuries later. How the gospels were edited or altered during this period is very challenging to determine. Occasionally we have obvious evidence on additional or alterations - e.g. the revised ending of Mark which is absent in the earliest versions.

[ippy]

Why on earth are the gnostic gospels less reliable because they don't indicate that Jesus is a deity. Seems you have used your own conclusion to justify a position that supports your own (pre-judged) conclusion.

I think you'll find poor old Spud is just another one of those victims of childhood indoctrination, I'm sure he sincerely believes the stuff he posts and thinks it's the truth Proff.

Like Alan I doubt he's receiving either.

Regards, ippy

[Owlswing]

from: Spud on 16-08-2020, 16:43:10


    A better summary than mine would be that the author's "accomplishment was of such value that other authors were inspired to build upon this foundation in order to meet other needs." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-first-gospel/

    Two examples of the phenomena of doublets in Matthew:

    The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:10, spoken by John the Baptist)
    Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 7:19 spoken by Jesus)

    Whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens (Mat 16:19)
    Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on the earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18)

    There are about 20 of these in all. Riley thinks that in 12 of them, one of each pair must have been added to the original gospel. He argues on other grounds that Mark and Luke are secondary to Matthew, and thus that the doublets did not result from Matthew copying Mark and another source.

[/quote}

Spud

Can you please point me to proof positive, preferably proof found in the last fifty years, that ANY of the four Apostles actually existed to write the Gospels that bear their names!

Then can you please provide me similar proof positive found in the last fifty years that the other eight apostles ever existed.

These proofs should bear the names of people whose credentials, as historians, I can examine and, if possible, they should be atheist or agnostic thus being historians without religious bias.

Your ignoring my requests for proofs above would seem to me to prove that no such proofs exist and therefore your Bible is probably nonsense and very possibly fiction!

Come on Spud, Man Up and either provide the poofs or admit you are following and trying to defend a book that has no basis in truth!

You could even go so far as to admit, as I do, that your religious beliefs are nothing more than faith with no provable basis in fact!

[jeremyp]

True - but we don't have any actual pieces of the written gospels (fragments and then entire gospels) until much later.

A fragment of John's gospel survives that is dated to the first half of the second century.

This makes it very difficult to determine what was actually written at the time of the initial writing of the gospels, rather than what those gospels had become some decades, if not centuries later.

There are various methods for dating the gospels although they are generally probabilistic. Nevertheless, I think it is likely (as do most scholars of the subject) that enki's dating is probably correct.

How the gospels were edited or altered during this period is very challenging to determine. Occasionally we have obvious evidence on additional or alterations - e.g. the revised ending of Mark which is absent in the earliest versions.

Challenging but not impossible.

Again, I would say the gospels were substantially as they are now within enki's  window, although, there are some interesting exceptions. The revised ending of Mark is one but my favourite is the story in John 8 about the adulterous woman. This story does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and when it does start appearing, it starts appearing in different places. The theory is that it wasn't in the original gospel but then somebody wrote it in the margin of a manuscript and was then added to the text accidentally - several times in different places.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again, I would say the gospels were substantially as they are now within enki's  window, although, there are some interesting exceptions. The revised ending of Mark is one but my favourite is the story in John 8 about the adulterous woman. This story does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and when it does start appearing, it starts appearing in different places. The theory is that it wasn't in the original gospel but then somebody wrote it in the margin of a manuscript and was then added to the text accidentally - several times in different places.

I'm not sure the notion of modification post original writing but pre-earliest fragments can be batted away so readily.

Certainly scholars will look for internal inconsistencies in writing style and also more obvious evidence such as sections that only appear in later fragments. But none of this precludes subtle editing over decades, perhaps to make the overall text seem more consistent and coherent. That may have no meaningful effect on the overall narrative being portrayed, but if those who are re-transcribing plus editing also have an agenda then is it pretty easy to see how the meaning can change from that intended by the original author.

[Spud]

You clearly have a bad case of confirmation bias, Spud: how do you know that the bits that seem to 'agree' with earlier bits or predict later events (easy to do if the events have already occurred) weren't contrived to read that way and that these earlier bits are themselves free of the risks of mistakes or lies?

A bad case indeed. But if bits are added, like the long ending of Mark, then I don't see why they are necessarily less reliable than what they're added to. There's no reason why a later editor shouldn't do that, if the account is true. The full ending of Matthew, for example, talks about the Great Commission to go into all the world and make disciples. In the main body of Matthew, a heavy emphasis is placed on Jesus' and his disciples' mission to the Jews in Palestine. The Great Commission falls outside that theme, and hence it looks like it may have been added by someone later on, when the Church's priority for mission had expanded to the Gentile world. I haven't got very far with the book in which the claim about later additions is made, though; it takes quite a long time to look up the references and understand what he is on about.

Regarding the risk of lies and mistakes, I don't know any way of absolutely eliminating them, as that would require me to have been there. The best we can do is to look at the text. Why for example would anyone making up the Olivet Discourse add the phrase, 'nor the son' to 'nobody knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven' unless Jesus had actually said it? If they believed Jesus to be divine, it would not help their case that Jesus didn't know the time of his second coming. Other features of the gospels point towards authenticity, such as the disciples 'stubbornness and hardness of heart' which is not something they would advertise had they been trying to sell their story about a messiah. Perhaps when you say that it reads like fiction, you haven't taken that into account?

[Spud]

Why on earth are the gnostic gospels less reliable because they don't indicate that Jesus is a deity. Seems you have used your own conclusion to justify a position that supports your own (pre-judged) conclusion.

I'm not very up on the gnostic gospels. One criteria they apparently they might be assessed by is the doctrine of Jesus as Saviour, and the need for repentance. I think it would be hard to find something that had been added to the canonical gospels which did not agree with that.

[Gordon]

A bad case indeed.

That is obvious.

But if bits are added, like the long ending of Mark, then I don't see why they are necessarily less reliable than what they're added to.

There seems to be no basis for presuming any of it, be it additions or preceding text, is accurate if you can't address the risks of mistakes or lies.

There's no reason why a later editor shouldn't do that, if the account is true.

You are a propagandist's dream.

The full ending of Matthew, for example, talks about the Great Commission to go into all the world and make disciples. In the main body of Matthew, a heavy emphasis is placed on Jesus' and his disciples' mission to the Jews in Palestine. The Great Commission falls outside that theme, and hence it looks like it may have been added by someone later on, when the Church's priority for mission had expanded to the Gentile world. I haven't got very far with the book in which the claim about later additions is made, though; it takes quite a long time to look up the references and understand what he is on about.

Which says nothing about the accuracy, or otherwise, of these texts or interpretations of them.

Regarding the risk of lies and mistakes, I don't know any way of absolutely eliminating them, as that would require me to have been there.

Then you'd agree that scepticism is required?

The best we can do is to look at the text. Why for example would anyone making up the Olivet Discourse add the phrase, 'nor the son' to 'nobody knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven' unless Jesus had actually said it? If they believed Jesus to be divine, it would not help their case that Jesus didn't know the time of his second coming. Other features of the gospels point towards authenticity, such as the disciples 'stubbornness and hardness of heart' which is not something they would advertise had they been trying to sell their story about a messiah. Perhaps when you say that it reads like fiction, you haven't taken that into account?

That they were telling a story about an alleged Messiah is clearly a risk: how have you addressed this possibility that doesn't involve confirmation bias on your part?

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure the notion of modification post original writing but pre-earliest fragments can be batted away so readily.

Acknowledging and discussing issues with later editing is not “batting away”.

Certainly scholars will look for internal inconsistencies in writing style and also more obvious evidence such as sections that only appear in later fragments. But none of this precludes subtle editing over decades, perhaps to make the overall text seem more consistent and coherent. That may have no meaningful effect on the overall narrative being portrayed, but if those who are re-transcribing plus editing also have an agenda then is it pretty easy to see how the meaning can change from that intended by the original author.

John Mill wrote a Greek New Testament in the 18th century. He had a hundred manuscripts to choose from but he found thirty thousand textual variations between those manuscripts. Today, we have more manuscripts and, unsurprisingly, more textual variations. In fact there are more different variations than there are words in the NT. most are trivial, but there are still quite a few that alter the meaning of the Bible.

However, because we have so many manuscripts, it is possible to reconstruct the text that the author wrote with some degree of confidence even if we can’t be 100% certain we have got it right.

Still, the picture is very far from inerrant.