Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

In fact, the gnostic gospels  come just as close to asserting that Jesus is a deity as the Gospel of Mark does. In fact, by asserting that Jesus is a purely spiritual being, somewhat more so. But as you say, Spud has no argument on that account in any case.

[Dicky Underpants]

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?

Is the book you refer to 'Jesus the Jew' by Geza Vermes - or perhaps one of Vermes' other works on the NT?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

I don't think that is correct. Sure we understand the levels of change in manuscripts from the earliest existent fragments and copies onwards, but we still have decades-centuries with nothing at all - for example for Mark from approx 70AD when the gospel is believed to have been written, through to perhaps 100 years later when the first fragments are available, and then these may contain tiny amounts of content - we have to go further still until we have enough for the entire gospel. Just because the texts might have changed little from perhaps 200-300 doesn't mean it changed little from 70-200. You cannot assume that and therefore we remain very much in the dark about changes from the point of writing to earliest existent copies.

Indeed it is common that documents change significantly during early iterations as they are edited, amended and 'sanitised' - once they become 'mature', final agreed versions changes may slow down considerably. To assume that the rate of change in that 'mature phase' - e.g. post 300, somehow necessarily reflects the rate of change in the earliest phase (70-200) cannot be justified.

Still, the picture is very far from inerrant.

Indeed it is - and the notion that the big edits we know about are often determined from comparisons of existent fragments containing different content means that we can know very little about changes prior to the point where we have that key evidence of fragments.

[jeremyp]

I don't think that is correct. Sure we understand the levels of change in manuscripts from the earliest existent fragments and copies onwards, but we still have decades-centuries with nothing at all - for example for Mark from approx 70AD when the gospel is believed to have been written, through to perhaps 100 years later when the first fragments are available, and then these may contain tiny amounts of content - we have to go further still until we have enough for the entire gospel. Just because the texts might have changed little from perhaps 200-300 doesn't mean it changed little from 70-200. You cannot assume that and therefore we remain very much in the dark about changes from the point of writing to earliest existent copies.

Indeed it is common that documents change significantly during early iterations as they are edited, amended and 'sanitised' - once they become 'mature', final agreed versions changes may slow down considerably. To assume that the rate of change in that 'mature phase' - e.g. post 300, somehow necessarily reflects the rate of change in the earliest phase (70-200) cannot be justified.

Even taking all that into account, scholars are confident they have more or less reconstructed something like the original text. Obviously, you can't be 100% certain but it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that what we have got is OK.

From other writings, we know the gospels existed by the end of the second century and Matthew and Luke bear witness to the text of Mark being more or less right since they copied him with some editing and we can identify the edit points.

[ippy]

Surely it'd be more to the point getting hold of some evidence that actually supports this general god/Jesus idea first and then if there was any found, it might then be worth the effort of sorting through the detail, in the mean time what's the point of threads like this one?

ippy.

[Spud]

In fact, the gnostic gospels  come just as close to asserting that Jesus is a deity as the Gospel of Mark does. In fact, by asserting that Jesus is a purely spiritual being, somewhat more so. But as you say, Spud has no argument on that account in any case.

According to the canonical gospels and rest of NT, Jesus is both fully man and also divine Son of God. So the gnostics don't line up with them.

[ippy]

According to the canonical gospels and rest of NT, Jesus is both fully man and also divine Son of God. So the gnostics don't line up with them.

Sounds and looks like something really useful to know about Spud.

ippy.

[jeremyp]

Surely it'd be more to the point getting hold of some evidence that actually supports this general god/Jesus idea first

I'm pretty happy to concede that there isn't any of that so there's no point in trying.

and then if there was any found, it might then be worth the effort of sorting through the detail

I think it's interesting to understand how the Bible came to  be written even with Jesus not being God.

in the mean time what's the point of threads like this one? .

Do you only do things that have a point? If I had just said "Jesus wasn't God so I'm not interested" I wouldn't know anything like as much as I do about the history of 1st century Palestine - or history generally, or archaeology or a lot of other things. Discussions like this thread are interesting for their own sake and also for lots of tangential reasons. I can understand why you might not be interested, but it is not compulsory to read every thread on this board, nor comment on them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Even taking all that into account, scholars are confident they have more or less reconstructed something like the original text.

Which scholars - references please.

...scholars are confident they have [ib]more or less[/ib] reconstructed [ib]something like[/ib] the original text

That's quite a lot of caveats JP.

Obviously, you can't be 100% certain but it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that what we have got is OK.

Is it - sure we don't have anything other to go on, but I don't think we can come close to assuming that the earliest extant text we have is the same as that which the author of the gosels actually wrote. And of course it doesn't have to be massive differences, huge chunks of text added or removed, subtle rewording (with and agenda) can make a huge difference to meaning without a major difference in the actual text.

From other writings, we know the gospels existed by the end of the second century and Matthew and Luke bear witness to the text of Mark being more or less right since they copied him with some editing and we can identify the edit points.

Which doesn't really advance the argument really as the earliest fragments of Matthew and Luke are also decades after Mark was purportedly written so we don't really know which of the early versions (if there were variant versions) of Mark Luke and Matthew borrowed from.

[Spud]

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.

That's because they assume Jesus couldn't have predicted AD70.

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

OK, it may come across like that in Matthew 24, but Luke 21:31 is a clue that the things that would happen before that generation passed away did not include the end of the world. Luke says, "So also, when you see these things taking place, you will know that the kingdom of God is near."

[Spud]

Is the book you refer to 'Jesus the Jew' by Geza Vermes - or perhaps one of Vermes' other works on the NT?

The First Gospel, by Harold Riley.

[Spud]

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?

I thought that was what I had just explained?

[ProfessorDavey]

Even taking all that into account, scholars are confident they have more or less reconstructed something like the original text. Obviously, you can't be 100% certain but it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that what we have got is OK.

The way in which scholars tend to uncover alterations broadly falls into two categories.

The first is down to direct evidence of variants - a good example of this is the ending of Mark 16 - early extant versions do not contain the last few verse and the they suddenly start to appear in later versions. It is pretty clear there has been come alteration.

The second is linguistic and contextual - in other words a section is written differently to other sections, or is clunky in context, for example the author would not have written in a particular manner or could not have known about a particular thing when originally writing. A good example of this from antiquity is Josephus on Jesus specifically the text 'if indeed one ought to call him a man' and 'He was the Christ' which are anomalous linguistically and contextually.

But the end of Mark 16 doesn't seem to be flagged up in the latter manner - it is no more linguistically anomalous not clunky that many other sections of Mark. Indeed were it not for early fragments without the section it is unlikely to be flagged up as an addition.

The point is that we really cannot know how many equivalents of Mark 16 (or much more subtle alterations) exist which don't set linguistic and contextual alarm bells ringing from the period prior to extant fragments being available. And don't forget that additions are more easily stopped linguistically than sections removed.

[jeremyp]

Which scholars - references please.

I suggest you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrmann.

[ippy]

I'm pretty happy to concede that there isn't any of that so there's no point in trying.
I think it's interesting to understand how the Bible came to  be written even with Jesus not being God.
Do you only do things that have a point? If I had just said "Jesus wasn't God so I'm not interested" I wouldn't know anything like as much as I do about the history of 1st century Palestine - or history generally, or archaeology or a lot of other things. Discussions like this thread are interesting for their own sake and also for lots of tangential reasons. I can understand why you might not be interested, but it is not compulsory to read every thread on this board, nor comment on them.

I take your perfectly legitimate point j p, perhaps I should have been a bit more precise and premised that post with something like 'from my point of view'.

My observation was more aimed toward addressing the credibility of bronze age, or there abouts, scribblings than such as yourself taking a purely  open minded interest in ancient documents and how they sit with history.

Regards, ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

I suggest you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrmann.

How is one person scholars, sounds more like scholar to me.

[Nearly Sane]

How is one person scholars, sounds more like scholar to me.

Because the book cites scholars?

[ProfessorDavey]

Because the book cites scholars?

Whose views may or may not align with Ehrmann's overall thesis.

[Nearly Sane]

Whose views may or may not align with Ehrmann's overall thesis.

But may be cited in the book in support

[ProfessorDavey]

But may be cited in the book in support

In which case I'm sure JP will provide those names and refs too - otherwise it remain scholar, not scholars.

[Nearly Sane]

In which case I'm sure JP will provide those names and refs too - otherwise it remain scholar, not scholars.

No, if the book covers multiple scholars that is just your assumption.

[jeremyp]

My observation was more aimed toward addressing the credibility of bronze age, or there abouts, scribblings than such as yourself taking a purely  open minded interest in ancient documents and how they sit with history.

Here's a case in point. The documents we are talking on about this thread are not bronze age scribblings, but most likely written by fairly sophisticated people between 70 and 125CE.  In fact, almost certainly nothing in the Christian canon was written in the Bronze Age. It's likely that even the earliest documents in the Bible were written in the eighth or seventh century BCE which is firmly in the Iron Age (in the Middle East).

The above is all stuff I learned through having an interest in how the Bible was written.

[jeremyp]

In which case I'm sure JP will provide those names and refs too - otherwise it remain scholar, not scholars.

It's actually a popular book written by a well respected scholar that summarises the current consensus position. It is well annotated with references to the academic work it quotes from. I could quote a few but I doubt they would mean anything to you and they probably wouldn't be much use to you anyway, unless you can read Koine Greek.

Another respected scholar who has written books for the popular audience is Mark Goodacre. I recommend The Synoptic Problem. It is also copiously annotated with references.

I haven't read any of the academic papers on which these books are based because I don't read Koine Greek (or German: Germany is where a lot of the research was done) but I've read these books by people who do know what they are talking about and I've read many articles online about the same. You don't have to accept what I say, but I reckon, unless you are a scholar in the field, your level of expertise is no better than mine.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's actually a popular book written by a well respected scholar that summarises the current consensus position.

I know who he is and overnight I'm (albeit superficially) read the most relevant section of the 'for popular audience' Misquoting Jesus, but also his more scholarly text 'The New Testament - a Historical introduction to the Early Christian Writings.

Having done so I don't think that he is either claiming that we can come close to the real original text (the so called autograph) nor that there is a consensus amongst scholars as to whether you can. In reality he is talking about ascertaining which of the earliest available extant text and fragment is most likely to accord with earlier, but lost, versions - which of course may not be close to the original version.

So on the former the 'headline' of the original is typically caveated by oldest or earliest attainable version - so at the start of chapter 5 we have:

"In this chapter we will examine the methods that scholars have de­ vised to identify the "original" form of the text (or at least the "oldest attainable" form) and the form of the text that represents a later scribal alteration."

And on consensus he is clear that many scholars believe it to be impossible to get further back that the extant fragments etc we have:

"In fact, it is such an enormous problem that a number of textual critics have started to claim that we may as well suspend any discussion of the "original" text, because it is inaccessible to us."

In terms of timelines he covers the period from original writing to about 1500 - so in that context first half of 2nd century is early and likely earliest attainable version - but I'm talking about changes in the decades from original writing to that point. I don't think he is really claiming that you can reach all the way back, but that you can make judgements about those early fragments and texts most likely to be similar to earlier, but lost versions - but these may themselves be many generations (and changes from the original).

He actually illustrates the intractable problem very well using the example of Paul's letter to the Galatians (see from p58); the earliest version we have is from about AD200. He point out that even at the very earliest stage a scribe working directly with Paul may have produces several versions - and may have produced the letter from direct dictation or by  taking basic points and filling in the rest:

"Now, if Paul dictated the letter, did he dictate it word for word? Or did he spell out the basic points and allow the scribe to fill in the rest? Both methods were commonly used by letter writers in antiq­ uity.16 If the scribe filled in the rest, can we be assured that he filled it in exactly as Paul wanted? If not, do we actually have Paul's words, or are they the words of some unknown scribe? But let's suppose that Paul dictated the letter word for word. Is it possible that in some places the scribe wrote down the wrong words? Stranger things have happened. If so, then the autograph of the letter (i.e., the origi­ nal) would already have a "mistake" in it, so that all subsequent copies would not be of Paul's words (in the places where his scribe got them wrong)."

And a couple of paragraphs later:

"What survives today, then, is not the original copy of the letter, nor one of the first copies that Paul himself had made, nor any of the copies that were produced in any of the towns of Galatia to which the letter was sent, nor any of the copies of those copies. The first reason­ably complete copy we have of Galatians (this manuscript is fragmen­tary; i.e., it has a number of missing parts) is a papyrus called P46 (since it was the forty­sixth New Testament papyrus to be catalogued), which dates to about 200 C.E. That's approximately 150 years after Paul wrote the letter. It had been in circulation, being copied sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly, for fifteen decades before any copy was made that has survived down to the present day. We cannot reconstruct the copy from which P46 was made. Was it an accurate copy? If so, how accurate? It surely had mistakes of some kind, as did the copy from which it was copied, and the copy from which that copy was copied, and so on.

In short, it is a very complicated business talking about the "origi­nal" text of Galatians. We don't have it. The best we can do is get back to an early stage of its transmission, and simply hope that what we re­construct about the copies made at that stage—based on the copies that happen to survive (in increasing numbers as we move into the Middle Ages)—reasonably reflects what Paul himself actually wrote, or at least what he intended to write when he dictated the letter."

I've added some emphasis. This doesn't really seems to align with your (or his) headline claim that "scholars are confident they have more or less reconstructed something like the original text".

[ippy]

Here's a case in point. The documents we are talking on about this thread are not bronze age scribblings, but most likely written by fairly sophisticated people between 70 and 125CE.  In fact, almost certainly nothing in the Christian canon was written in the Bronze Age. It's likely that even the earliest documents in the Bible were written in the eighth or seventh century BCE which is firmly in the Iron Age (in the Middle East).

The above is all stuff I learned through having an interest in how the Bible was written.

Yes there's also a lot of people that take a similar interest in the works of Homer that seem equally as credible as bible stories are to me.
 
Nothing wrong with the study of either one of those subjects although I might find it a bit more worrisome with people that actually take the magical, mysterious and superstitional elements to seriously.

Regards, ippy.