Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[jeremyp]

Fair enough - my claim of we have absolutely no idea what the original texts of the gospels said - in somewhat exasperation at Spud should have been better phrased as:

We do know know what the original texts of the gospels said.

We can use textual criticism to infer which of the extant manuscripts/fragments is likely to be closest to the original, but we do not know how close to the original. And as Ehrman points out, while most of the variances in the early texts are minor/typos as it were, there are some absolute humdingers of variances involving inclusion or not of key sections with major doctrinal significance.

How close to the original do you think our extant manuscripts for the Gallic Wars are?

[ProfessorDavey]

How close to the original do you think our extant manuscripts for the Gallic Wars are?

I have no idea and nor do you.

[jeremyp]

I have no idea and nor do you.

And yet somehow, historians have managed to construct a narrative from it. How on earth could they do that if they have no idea what it originally said?

 

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet somehow, historians have managed to construct a narrative from it. How on earth could they do that if they have no idea what it originally said?

A narrative about what? If you mean what happening in the Gallic wars - well historians have a wealth of other evidence, including archeological, independent commentaries etc etc. So we can piece together what likely happened. However none of that means we can know how the text we actually compares to the original.

[Spud]

Jeremy, you're a scholar and a gentleman. Davy, isn't the view you're putting forward a bit extreme? Haven't the scholars who think that Mark was written first worked on the basis that the texts we have are basically what was originally written?

I agree that some of Matthew could have been added to an original proto-gospel, either by Matthew himself or a later editor. But it is possible to identify these bits: for example, when there is a sentence or paragraph that occurs in two places, it is often the case that one of the two doesn't fit into its context very well, but the other one does, indicating that the former was a later addition.

When all the potential additions have been identified, we are left with a proto-gospel that appears to have been written for the early Jewish converts, with additions by a later editor that would be relevant to Gentiles, and seem to have been added because the Church was expanding its mission to the wider world.

[ProfessorDavey]

Davy, isn't the view you're putting forward a bit extreme?

No - while it may be the case that much of the text in some of the earliest extant copies is the same as in the original we cannot know that for sure. And indeed because there is so much variation in those early copies, comparing one to another it becomes even more challenging. Ehrman considers that textual criticism helps in being able to determine which of the early version is most likely to be closest to the original but that is a long way away from considering that it is the same as, or very similar to, the original.

Haven't the scholars who think that Mark was written first worked on the basis that the texts we have are basically what was originally written?

No they haven't - indeed Ehrman considers that he is at the dovish end of scholarly opinion on this and even he considers that we don't know what the original text was. In his own words:

"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."

And in relation to Galatians (the argument is just as applicable to other parts of the NT):

"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."
 

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree that some of Matthew could have been added to an original proto-gospel, either by Matthew himself or a later editor. But it is possible to identify these bits: for example, when there is a sentence or paragraph that occurs in two places, it is often the case that one of the two doesn't fit into its context very well, but the other one does, indicating that the former was a later addition.

No, you cannot make that assumption. Textual critics commonly conclude that where a narrative is derived from a number of sources (as we consider to be the case for the gospels) then text which is the most slick, the least clunky is often the most edited and the furthest from the original. The difficulty therefore becomes differentiating between something that is seamless, because it alway was even in the original, and something with is seamless because it has been repeatedly edited to make it so.

I reiterate from reply 115 from from Bart Ehrman's Historical introduction to the early christian writings, in which he sets out six criteria for considering that a text is more or less likely to resemble the original (when we don't have the original as is the case here):

"The Difficulty of the Reading. Scholars have found this criterion to be extraordinarily useful. We have seen that scribes sometimes eliminated possible contradictions and discrepancies, harmonized stories, and changed doctrinally questionable statements. Therefore, when we have two forms of a text, one that would have been troubling to scribes—for example, one that is possibly contradictory to another passage or grammatically inelegant or theologically problematic—and one that would not have been as troubling, it is the former form of the text, the one that is more “difficult,” that is more likely to be original. That is, since scribes were far more likely to have corrected problems than to have created them, the comparatively smooth, consistent, harmonious, and orthodox readings are more likely to have been created by scribes. Our earliest manuscripts, interestingly enough, are the ones that tend to preserve the more difficult readings."

[jeremyp]

A narrative about what?

The Roman conquest of Gaul.

If you mean what happening in the Gallic wars - well historians have a wealth of other evidence, including archeological, independent commentaries etc etc. So we can piece together what likely happened

No, not really. The archaeology of Alesia can't tell you what happened there beyond "there was a battle". Similarly, you can infer the Roman conquest of Gaul from archaeological remains but not detail about the campaigns that made it happen.
 

However none of that means we can know how the text we actually compares to the original.

And yet you are the only one obsessing about that.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy, you're a scholar

No I'm not. I've read a lot around the subject from actual scholars though.

The problem with PD's argument is that it invokes a nuclear option. If we assume that we know nothing about what ancient documents really said unless we have the originals or close contemporaries, then almost everything we know about ancient history is wiped out.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem with PD's argument is that it invokes a nuclear option. If we assume that we know nothing about what ancient documents really said unless we have the originals or close contemporaries, then almost everything we know about ancient history is wiped out.

No it isn't a nuclear option - it is the appropriate starting point for academic scholarship. To look for corroborating evidence, whether that be independent reports or perhaps archeological evidence.

You also have to ask questions about the transmission of the material generation to generation - some routes will be more robust than others. So, for example, verbal transmission is likely to be the least effective in preserving the original. Also you need to ask question about motive during transmission - someone with an agenda or effectively using information as propaganda is likely to be more suspect than someone with no axe to grind.

You also need to ask about the significance of accepting or not accepting the writing as close to original. Undoubtedly there are elements of Caesar's accounts (whether written by Caesar or someone else and/or substantially altered later) which are propaganda and hyperbole. We can treat these elements with grave scepticism, but ultimately we are being asked to gain a broad understanding of the gallic wars - the details are of limited consequence.

This is not the same as the discussion over gospels and temple - where Spud is claiming that:

1. what we have now (and in early fragments) represents what was originally written (we do not know this)
2. that they were written before the temple destruction and therefore represent a real prophecy (except possibly for Mark most scholars reject this and even for Mark we cannot know whether an original written perhaps a couple of years before the temple destruction contained that section)
3. and therefore the gospels should be trusted (presumably including all the other claims)

It is therefore critically important to be confident about what was in any pre-AD70 gospel (if one even existed), yet we cannot know that. I'm struggling to see why there is a similar critical importance in knowing what was in Caesar's original and we quite reasonably treat what is in the versions of Gallic wars with a significant pinch of salt unless independently corroborated.

[jeremyp]

No it isn't a nuclear option - it is the appropriate starting point for academic scholarship. To look for corroborating evidence, whether that be independent reports or perhaps archeological evidence.

No, your proposal says no document where the originals have been lost has any value unless the archaeology supports it. There's no archaeological evidence for a lot of the events in ancient history that we know only from documents. Was Socrates a real person? What archaeological evidence backs up Herodotos?

You also have to ask questions about the transmission of the material generation to generation - some routes will be more robust than others. So, for example, verbal transmission is likely to be the least effective in preserving the original.

By definition a written document is not transmitted orally. I think Mark was probably working from oral sources but the variation - or lack thereof - in the copies we have suggest that they all came from a single written source.

Also you need to ask question about motive during transmission - someone with an agenda or effectively using information as propaganda is likely to be more suspect than someone with no axe to grind.

And we see examples of that: the ending tacked on to Mark would be the obvious one. But scholars seem to be able to identify the bits that are suspect.

You also need to ask about the significance of accepting or not accepting the writing as close to original. Undoubtedly there are elements of Caesar's accounts (whether written by Caesar or someone else and/or substantially altered later) which are propaganda and hyperbole.

Well since the motive for writing the Gallic Wars was Caesar's aggrandisement in Rome, we can be sure that some of it s propaganda and hyperbole, but that is not the same as claiming we don't have any idea of what he wrote, which is your claim.

the details are of limited consequence.

Quite. And they are of limited consequence wen discussing the gospels. This is really an academic exercise. Does it matter in the great scheme of things whether Matthew or Mark was written first? No not really. Does the date of the gospels matter? Again, not really. If Spud proved that the gospels were written in the 30's we would still not accept the claims of Christianity. We might assign more credibility to the non supernatural elements of the story and the Jesus mythicists might have to eat their words but we wouldn't say "oh yes, Jesus was resurrected".

1. what we have now (and in early fragments) represents what was originally written (we do not know this)

We do not know for certain, but we are confident we have something approaching the originals.

2. that they were written before the temple destruction and therefore represent a real prophecy (except possibly for Mark most scholars reject this and even for Mark we cannot know whether an original written perhaps a couple of years before the temple destruction contained that section)

Mark has that section. Perhaps there was an earlier version without that section, but it's gone if it existed. The version of Mark that had that section was used by both Matthew and Luke as a source. So I think we can provisionally accept the section being in early versions of Mark, although I would agree that they probably date from after the destruction of the Temple or close enough to its destruction that it was highly probable that it was going to happen when Mark was written.

3. and therefore the gospels should be trusted (presumably including all the other claims)

[/quote]
I think there's good reason not to trust the content of the gospels even if we prove that we have verbatim copies of the originals. I think there is enough internal and external evidence to demonstrate they are not reliable at all without having to question the modern reconstructions of the text.

It is therefore critically important to be confident about what was in any pre-AD70 gospel (if one even existed), yet we cannot know that.

No it isn't. If it could be proved that somebody in 40CE predicted the destruction of the Temple in 70CE it doesn't mean they were the son of God any more than my prediction in 2015 that there would be a global pandemic proves I am the son of God. It does invalidate Spud's argument but Spud's argument doesn't meet the standard for such extraordinary claims anyway.

[ProfessorDavey]

We do not know for certain, but we are confident we have something approaching the originals.

Really - justification please.

This doesn't seem to be the view of Ehrman, nor others using textual criticism. The original is the autograph - I don't think anyone using textual criticism is claiming we can get to the autograph (indeed textual criticism never claims to be able to do this, when the original is missing). At best we are aiming at the archetype but even that is extremely difficult and even were we to be confident that we have the archetype we do not, and cannot, know how the archetype differs from the autograph.

[Spud]

No, you cannot make that assumption. Textual critics commonly conclude that where a narrative is derived from a number of sources (as we consider to be the case for the gospels) then text which is the most slick, the least clunky is often the most edited and the furthest from the original. The difficulty therefore becomes differentiating between something that is seamless, because it alway was even in the original, and something with is seamless because it has been repeatedly edited to make it so.

I reiterate from reply 115 from from Bart Ehrman's Historical introduction to the early christian writings, in which he sets out six criteria for considering that a text is more or less likely to resemble the original (when we don't have the original as is the case here):

"The Difficulty of the Reading. Scholars have found this criterion to be extraordinarily useful. We have seen that scribes sometimes eliminated possible contradictions and discrepancies, harmonized stories, and changed doctrinally questionable statements. Therefore, when we have two forms of a text, one that would have been troubling to scribes—for example, one that is possibly contradictory to another passage or grammatically inelegant or theologically problematic—and one that would not have been as troubling, it is the former form of the text, the one that is more “difficult,” that is more likely to be original. That is, since scribes were far more likely to have corrected problems than to have created them, the comparatively smooth, consistent, harmonious, and orthodox readings are more likely to have been created by scribes. Our earliest manuscripts, interestingly enough, are the ones that tend to preserve the more difficult readings."

Sure, a copyist or a translator will smooth out mistakes. But Mark wasn't merely copying or translating Matthew; he was paraphrasing him.

And it came to pass, He is passing through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples began to make their way, plucking the heads of grain. (Mark 2:23, Berean Literal Translation)

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat them. (Matthew 12:1, BLT)

I would say the only way Mark could have arrived at this sentence is by expanding Matthew, and in the process, attached 'began' to the wrong verb.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sure, a copyist or a translator will smooth out mistakes. But Mark wasn't merely copying or translating Matthew; he was paraphrasing him.

How do you know that. Leaving aside the standard view that Matthew used Mark as a source rather than the other way around how do you know that the differences we see in Mark and Matthew (which come from texts from AD200 onwards) aren't due to copyists gently rephrasing things from each generation to the next, either by error in copying or deliberately because they felt the new phraseology was better/more pleasing etc.

I would say the only way Mark could have arrived at this sentence is by expanding Matthew, and in the process, attached 'began' to the wrong verb.

But what you are reading isn't Mark's words but a many, many generation copy of what was originally written.

[ProfessorDavey]

And it came to pass, He is passing through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples began to make their way, plucking the heads of grain. (Mark 2:23, Berean Literal Translation)

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat them. (Matthew 12:1, BLT)

You need to understand that neither phrase is the original (the autograph), nor the archetype but an English translation of an earlier version which will have been written itself centuries after the original first appeared.

[Owlswing]

You need to understand that neither phrase is the original (the autograph), nor the archetype but an English translation of an earlier version which will have been written itself centuries after the original first appeared.

He obviously doesn't or he wouldn't have populated about 100 posts to this thread that are expressions of opinions which are total rubbish - as he has been told over a 100 times in response by yourself and others!

The pity of it is that he is terminally incapable of understanding that what you are saying is not biased by a religion that cannot see the faults in the damn book!

[ProfessorDavey]

No, your proposal says no document where the originals have been lost has any value unless the archaeology supports it.

Wrong - that isn't what I said. Evidence alone from ancient texts is weakened without corroboration of some form (either independent reports or archeological). Also scholars need to understand the context and mode of transmission of the writing. Some will be more or less susceptible to alterations over time.

[jeremyp]

Really - justification please.

Because the manuscripts we have certainly agree on many things.

I don't think anyone using textual criticism is claiming we can get to the autograph

No, but the evidence we have in the form of extant manuscripts makes us confident that we have a good idea of what was in them.

[jeremyp]

Sure, a copyist or a translator will smooth out mistakes. But Mark wasn't merely copying or translating Matthew; he was paraphrasing him.

Incorrect. Matthew was copying Mark and smoothing out mistakes plus adding a spin of his own.

[jeremyp]

Wrong - that isn't what I said.

Yes it is. It's exactly what you said.

Evidence alone from ancient texts is weakened without corroboration of some form (either independent reports or archeological). Also scholars need to understand the context and mode of transmission of the writing. Some will be more or less susceptible to alterations over time.

What's the archaeological evidence that Archimedes existed?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes it is. It's exactly what you said.

No it isn't - you claimed I said an ancient document had no value unless supported by other evidence. I never said that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because the manuscripts we have certainly agree on many things.

Which suggests we may be able to understand broadly what was in the archetype (although that probably doesn't exist). Just because we know what was in the archetype does not guarantee we know what was in the original (the autograph) as we do not know how detached (in terms of time, content and generations of copies) the archetype is from the autograph.

Effectively all scholars are doing is saying we may be able to get close to the archetype - that is not the same as saying we can have confidence in knowing what was in the original. Indeed many scholars struggle with this very concept, of an original, preferring to accept that the nature of recording material at the time means there may have been many variant 'originals'.

[ProfessorDavey]

What's the archaeological evidence that Archimedes existed?

Why are you so fixated by the existence of certain people.

There is probably no confirmatory archeological evidence that Archimedes actually existed and indeed there is scholarly debate as to whether Socrates actually existed or was a fictional narrative construct. Frankly I think that is missing the point - the importance of Archimedes and Socrates isn't whether they were 6' tall or had curly hair or had bad teeth. No their importance is linked to the works attributed to them - it seems of little importance whether they actually existed as described or not as that makes no difference to the nature of the work attributed to them.

[jeremyp]

No it isn't - you claimed I said an ancient document had no value unless supported by other evidence. I never said that.

Effectively you did, by claiming we cannot know what it originally said.

[jeremyp]

Why are you so fixated by the existence of certain people.

These are examples, PD.

They are meant to make you realise the stupidity of your position that we don't know what ancient documents said. If we don't know what ancient documents said, we don't know that Archimedes existed and yet, here we are all assuming he did, for some reason.