Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Spud]

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

Most translations do this with Mark 2:23. They move 'began' to where Matthew has it:
https://biblehub.com/mark/2-23.htm
That could create the impression that Matthew was copying Mark, and smoothing it. It doesn't explain how Mark came to write something illogical in the first place, though.

[ProfessorDavey]

Most translations do this with Mark 2:23. They move 'began' to where Matthew has it:
https://biblehub.com/mark/2-23.htm
That could create the impression that Matthew was copying Mark, and smoothing it. It doesn't explain how Mark came to write something illogical in the first place, though.

And which version of Mark 2:23 was the source the the translation Spud. I may be wrong but I don't think this particular verse appears in any of the earliest fragments.

[jeremyp]

Most translations do this with Mark 2:23. They move 'began' to where Matthew has it:
https://biblehub.com/mark/2-23.htm
That could create the impression that Matthew was copying Mark, and smoothing it. It doesn't explain how Mark came to write something illogical in the first place, though.

Nor would it explain how he would copy it off Matthew and move it to the wrong place, unless it was an error. If it was an error, it doesn't seem like it is any more or less likely than if Mark wrote it rather than copied it.

Anyway, PD is right bout this one: when you're arguing about word placement at this level, using an English translation is meaningless.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Non-sense - it is perfectly true that in most cases for ancient texts that we cannot know what was originally written. This doesn't mean they have no value, just that their value and the strength of those texts in evidential terms needs to be considered with that knowledge.

And that judgement needs to take account of the broad brush or highly detailed nature that may be in those texts. So we may have corroboratory evidence sufficient to accept a broad brush element to be true on the balance of probabilities (e.g. Archimedes existed). However we may not accept the same evidence as sufficient for a highly detailed claim - 'On Tuesday Archimedes decided to have fish for tea saying "I love fish on Tuesdays but cannot abide it on Thursdays".

It is all about understanding the relative strengths of pieces of evidence, looking for corroboration, the standards of evidence applicable and academic judgement.

[Spud]

And which version of Mark 2:23 was the source the the translation Spud. I may be wrong but I don't think this particular verse appears in any of the earliest fragments.

Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, from the fourth century.

[ProfessorDavey]

Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, from the fourth century.

The oldest of which appears to be approx 325AD, so 250 years since the originals were thought to have been written.

And I think this is the earliest extant copy that has these verses, so we have nothing prior to this.

How many earlier versions, copied one from another, existed in the preceding 250 years? How many alterations crept into those copyings (either just error or deliberate changes? How can you be sure that these verses even existed in the earlier versions?

The point is that the Codex Vaticanus (the older of the two I think) represents the archetype for this particular stemma (in textual criticism speak). Being generous and suggesting papyrus copies typically lasted 25 years then this would mean it is detached from the original (the autograph) by 10 generations. That's a lot of changes, errors and alterations that we are completely in the dark about.

[ProfessorDavey]

Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, from the fourth century.

Codex Vaticanus is missing a whole range of verses from the gospels, e.g.

Matthew 12:47; 16:2b-3; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14
Mark 7:16; 9:44.46; 11:26; 15:28
Mark 16:9–20]
Luke 17:36, 22:43–44
John 5:4, John 7:53–8:11

So if this version is considered 'gospel', as it were, for translation of Mark 2:23, why is it OK to ignore all those omissions. And how do you know that Mark 2:23 is not missing from the version that was copied to produce Codex Vaticanus (or from one of the earlier generation copes) and that Mark 2:23 isn't just a more recent addition (i.e. sometime in those 250 years in which we have no evidence).

[Spud]

Nor would it explain how he would copy it off Matthew and move it to the wrong place, unless it was an error. If it was an error, it doesn't seem like it is any more or less likely than if Mark wrote it rather than copied it.

Yes, either scenario is possible, though to me, Matthew's wording seems more likely to be original, because I would be more likely to say they began to pluck grain than to say that they began to make their way without qualifying where to.

This can be confirmed by comparing the whole paragraph with Luke's version of it. When Matthew and Mark disagree as to the wording of a phrase, Luke and Mark are in agreement. And when Luke and Mark disagree, Matthew and Mark are in agreement. If you're ready for a brain-bending challenge, read on:

And it came to pass (Mk)
And it came to pass (Lk)
At that time (Mat)

He is passing through (Mk)
He is passing along through (Lk)
Jesus went through (Mat)

the grainfields (Mk)
the grainfields (Mat)
grainfields (Lk)

on the Sabbaths (Mk)
on the Sabbaths (Mat)
on a Sabbath (Lk)

and His disciples (Mk)
and His disciples (Mat)
and His disciples (Lk)

were hungry (Mat)

began to make their way (Mk)
and they began (Mat)

plucking (Mk)
to pluck (Mat)
were plucking (Lk)

and eating (Lk)

the heads of grain (Mk)
the heads of grain (Mat)
the heads of grain (Lk)

and to eat them (Mat)

rubbing them in their hands (Lk)

And the Pharisees, having seen, said to Him (Mat) 
And the Pharisees were saying to Him, (Mk)
But some of the Pharisees said (Lk)                         

Behold, why do they (Mk)
Behold, Your disciples are doing (Mat)
Why are you doing (Lk)

that which is unlawful on the Sabbaths? (Mk)
that which is not lawful on the Sabbaths? (Lk)
what it is not lawful to do on Sabbath (Mat)

The above comparison shows that if Matthew and Luke are secondary to Mark, then whenever either Matthew or Luke decided to change Mark's wording significantly (seven times, by my count), the other followed Mark's wording closely. It's as if Matthew and Luke collaborated so that at least one of them would be copying Mark at all times (except when they added their own detail or omitted detail).

That could be coincidental; my suggestion, an extension of the 'Griesbach hypothesis' and proposed by Harold Riley, is that Luke had used Matthew and made changes to his wording, then Mark used Matthew and Luke, and conflated their wording.

As to how 'began' was moved to the wrong place: Riley thinks that Mark copied 'began' from Matthew, and added 'making their way' which is the same sort of action as 'passing through' and seems to be a tautology, possibly for dramatic effect. In doing so, 'began' became attached to 'to make their way' rather than 'to pluck'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, either scenario is possible, though to me, Matthew's wording seems more likely to be original, because I would be more likely to say they began to pluck grain than to say that they began to make their way without qualifying where to.

This can be confirmed by comparing the whole paragraph with Luke's version of it. When Matthew and Mark agree as to the wording of a phrase, Luke and Mark do not. And when Luke and Mark agree, Matthew and Mark do not. If you're ready for a brain-bending challenge, read on:

And it came to pass (Mk)
And it came to pass (Lk)
At that time (Mat)

He is passing through (Mk)
He is passing along through (Lk)
Jesus went through (Mat)

the grainfields (Mk)
the grainfields (Mat)
grainfields (Lk)

on the Sabbaths (Mk)
on the Sabbaths (Mat)
on a Sabbath (Lk)

and His disciples (Mk)
and His disciples (Mat)
and His disciples (Lk)

were hungry (Mat)

began to make their way (Mk)
and they began (Mat)

plucking (Mk)
to pluck (Mat)
were plucking (Lk)

and eating (Lk)

the heads of grain (Mk)
the heads of grain (Mat)
the heads of grain (Lk)

and to eat them (Mat)

rubbing them in their hands (Lk)

And the Pharisees, having seen, said to Him (Mat) 
And the Pharisees were saying to Him, (Mk)
But some of the Pharisees said (Lk)                         

Behold, why do they (Mk)
Behold, Your disciples are doing (Mat)
Why are you doing (Lk)

that which is unlawful on the Sabbaths? (Mk)
that which is not lawful on the Sabbaths? (Lk)
what it is not lawful to do on Sabbath (Mat)

The above comparison shows that if Matthew and Luke are secondary to Mark, then whenever either Matthew or Luke decided to change Mark's wording significantly (seven times, by my count), the other followed Mark's wording closely. It's as if Matthew and Luke collaborated so that at least one of them would be copying Mark at all times (except when they added their own detail or omitted detail).

That could be coincidental; my suggestion, an extension of the 'Griesbach hypothesis' and proposed by Harold Riley, is that Luke had used Matthew and made changes to his wording, then Mark used Matthew and Luke, and conflated their wording.

As to how 'began' was moved to the wrong place: Riley thinks that Mark copied 'began' from Matthew, and added 'making their way' which is the same sort of action as 'passing through' and seems to be a tautology, possibly for dramatic effect. In doing so, 'began' became attached to 'to make their way' rather than 'to pluck'.

You really aren't listening are you Spud.

Presumably the 'original' for these translations is Codex Vaticanus of around 325AD. Now let's assume that the translation is genuinely faithful to the wording in the Codex.

I don't think there are any earlier fragments including these verses so all we are able to say is that this is what these verses looked like in a many generation copy of the autographs for Mark, Matthew and Luke.

You seem to be implying that these words can be used to ascertain whether Mark copied Luke or Matthew coped Mark etc etc - presumably meaning the original authors of the texts back in the late 1stC. But we have no idea what the wording was in those autographs, nor indeed whether this verse appears in all, some or any of the autographs. All we know is that after about 250 years of regular copying (with its inherent errors, additions, deletions and alterations) we end up with what we see in the Codex.

And as the gospels were all floating around together for much of this time (sufficiently for them to be collated into the Codex) and that presumably copyists wouldn't restrict themselves to a single gospel that cross-fertilisation, so to speak, is likely over hundreds of years. So rather than talking about Matthew copying Mark, are we not better asking about whether a late 2ndC copyist when working on Matthew also slipped in a bit of Mark's wording as he'd previously copied it and thought it better. Or even added it lock, stock and barrel as it better fitted with the developing theology.

[jeremyp]

Non-sense

"Nonsense" isn't hyphenated.

Say it as much as you like, but you did claim we do not know what was in the original gospels. Since the same problems apply to all ancient documents, unless you are happy with an accusation of special pleading, it is your position.

[ProfessorDavey]

"Nonsense" isn't hyphenated.

Ah but it might have been in the original gospel autographs

[jeremyp]

Ah but it might have been in the original gospel autographs

That made me laugh.

UNFORTUNATELYDOCUMENTSOFTHATPERIODRARELYHADANYFORMOFPUNCTUATIONOREVENSPACESBETWEEN
WORDSALSOLOWERCASEHADNTBEENINVENTEDYET

[ProfessorDavey]

Say it as much as you like, but you did claim we do not know what was in the original gospels.

I did and I stand by that claim - are you going to contradict me, in other words claiming that we know for certain what the original text (the autograph) of the gospels was?

Since the same problems apply to all ancient documents, unless you are happy with an accusation of special pleading, it is your position.

I agree and have made that clear previously. We cannot know what the original versions of ancient texts actually said. However this may be more, or less, important depending on context and the relative importance of the 'big picture' message and the 'minutia of language/text'. So it becomes less important what the actual words were if there is corroboration from some source or other. Also if the precise nature of the words has little impact on the meaning.

But overall, yes, we do need to treat ancient texts with significant scepticism and need to recognise that what we are actually reading may be from centuries later and therefore we must consider the fidelity (or otherwise) of copying in the intervening years, plus also any potential motivation for later copyists to deliberately change the text for a particular purpose, often political.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I did and I stand by that claim - are you going to contradict me, in other words claiming that we know for certain what the original text (the autograph) of the gospels was?
I agree and have made that clear previously. We cannot know what the original versions of ancient texts actually said. However this may be more, or less, important depending on context and the relative importance of the 'big picture' message and the 'minutia of language/text'. So it becomes less important what the actual words were if there is corroboration from some source or other. Also if the precise nature of the words has little impact on the meaning.

But overall, yes, we do need to treat ancient texts with significant scepticism and need to recognise that what we are actually reading may be from centuries later and therefore we must consider the fidelity (or otherwise) of copying in the intervening years, plus also any potential motivation for later copyists to deliberately change the text for a particular purpose, often political.

Have you an example of where you or others have applied the methodologies and assumptions of this post?

[ProfessorDavey]

Have you an example of where you or others have applied the methodologies and assumptions of this post?

I'm not an academic historian so it isn't really what I do. But academic scholars of ancient texts do this all the time. Indeed any serious academic scholar will consider the provenance (where it comes from and when) and veracity (to what extent it is likely to reflect an orginal and how/why it may have been altered) of an ancient document. Not to do so means you cannot distinguish between a genuinely important document that tells us something valuable about the ancient world and a pile of worthless propaganda from more recent times. The latter will tell us something about the time it was written but not about the time it relates to.

A few easy-readers on the subject (not limited to biblical texts):

https://www.historynet.com/can-trust-ancient-texts.htm
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/4742.1-textual-criticism-as-applied-to-biblical-and-classical-texts
https://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Archetype.html

[Spud]

You really aren't listening are you Spud.

Presumably the 'original' for these translations is Codex Vaticanus of around 325AD. Now let's assume that the translation is genuinely faithful to the wording in the Codex.

I don't think there are any earlier fragments including these verses so all we are able to say is that this is what these verses looked like in a many generation copy of the autographs for Mark, Matthew and Luke.

You seem to be implying that these words can be used to ascertain whether Mark copied Luke or Matthew coped Mark etc etc - presumably meaning the original authors of the texts back in the late 1stC. But we have no idea what the wording was in those autographs, nor indeed whether this verse appears in all, some or any of the autographs. All we know is that after about 250 years of regular copying (with its inherent errors, additions, deletions and alterations) we end up with what we see in the Codex.

And as the gospels were all floating around together for much of this time (sufficiently for them to be collated into the Codex) and that presumably copyists wouldn't restrict themselves to a single gospel that cross-fertilisation, so to speak, is likely over hundreds of years. So rather than talking about Matthew copying Mark, are we not better asking about whether a late 2ndC copyist when working on Matthew also slipped in a bit of Mark's wording as he'd previously copied it and thought it better. Or even added it lock, stock and barrel as it better fitted with the developing theology.

I don't think we can assume that errors, additions, deletions and alterations would necessarily occur over those first few centuries between the autographs and the codex. Here's why: If you look at the link in #225 there is a clear distinction between translations which slip in extra words or rearrange wording to make it more readable, and those that translate the Greek text literally and stick to the original wording despite resulting difficulties with the reading (eg Young's Literal Translation).

This would suggest that there were copyists before the Codex who rearranged wording and copyists who did not. The early fragments seem to contain the same words as the codex (or at least I haven't heard otherwise), thus we can be fairly confident that the rest of the missing autographs were also transmitted accurately.

[Spud]

If you look at the link in #225 there is a clear distinction between translations which slip in extra words or rearrange wording to make it more readable, and those that translate the Greek text literally and stick to the original wording despite resulting difficulties with the reading (eg Young's Literal Translation).

Looking at Mark 2:23 in the various translations I can see that even YLT doesn't quite get it right. It says

"And it came to pass — he is going along on the sabbaths through the corn-fields — and his disciples began to make a way, plucking the ears"

'Make a way' implies that the disciples were making a path through the corn by plucking the ears - in other words, it was nothing to do with them being hungry or eating the grain, which Mark doesn't mention.

Yet it is clear from the context that their hunger was the reason for plucking the ears; Jesus talks about King David and his men being hungry in the next few verses.

The phrase as rendered by the Berean Literal Translation is, 'His disciples began to make their way'. This agrees with the context of the disciples being hungry, which Mark doesn't mention but is evident from what Jesus says to the Pharisees.

So we can be fairly certain that the BLT is sticking to the true meaning of the Greek, in this case. If this has been kept up for 16 centuries, then it's fairly safe to say that it could be done for the first few centuries.

[jeremyp]

I don't think we can assume that errors, additions, deletions and alterations would necessarily occur over those first few centuries between the autographs and the codex.

What was magical about the first few centuries before the earliest manuscripts that meant that copyists never made mistakes?

and those that translate the Greek text literally

What Greek text? We don't have the original Greek text, we only have a reconstruction based on the many manuscripts that still exist. Unlike PD I am fairly confident that the reconstructed text is somewhat like the original, but nobody can say it is the original.

This would suggest that there were copyists before the Codex who rearranged wording and copyists who did not. The early fragments seem to contain the same words as the codex (or at least I haven't heard otherwise), thus we can be fairly confident that the rest of the missing autographs were also transmitted accurately.

Here's a conundrum for you. Let's say somebody digs up a fragment of papyrus with some Greek text on it and the text does not match any text from the gospels. How do you know that it isn't part of a gospel rather than a piece of a gospel that has since been deleted or changed?

Your argument is circular.

[Spud]

Codex Vaticanus is missing a whole range of verses from the gospels, e.g.

Mark 7:16;

Matthew 15:11 contains a similar saying. So do we need to worry?

[Spud]

What was magical about the first few centuries before the earliest manuscripts that meant that copyists never made mistakes?

Sorry, I wasn't meaning there could not have been occasional mistakes, but that since the Codex, the wording has been preserved by some translators to a high degree of accuracy, so we can be confident the earliest copyists preserved the original with a similarly high accuracy.

What Greek text?

What we have today from the 4th Century.

We don't have the original Greek text, we only have a reconstruction based on the many manuscripts that still exist. Unlike PD I am fairly confident that the reconstructed text is somewhat like the original, but nobody can say it is the original.

I agree with that.

Here's a conundrum for you. Let's say somebody digs up a fragment of papyrus with some Greek text on it and the text does not match any text from the gospels. How do you know that it isn't part of a gospel rather than a piece of a gospel that has since been deleted or changed?

That's complicated, but I've heard that people base a claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene on extremely fragmented text of a conversation between Jesus and his disciples, that could be reconstructed in other ways. The context would be the key factor I guess.

Your argument is circular.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think we can assume that errors, additions, deletions and alterations would necessarily occur over those first few centuries between the autographs and the codex.

Why not? There are countless errors, alterations, additions, deletions etc when we compare early extant copies and fragments one to another. Why on earth would you think that somehow variations suddenly started appearing from 200AD (when we begin to see the earlier fragments) to 400AD and beyond, yet none happened between 70AD and 200AD.

Indeed there is a strong argument that the greatest changes and alterations would have occurred in the most recent period post-first writing. This is because.

1. There tends to be more 'churn' in early drafting and editing of any document compared to its later more settled period.
2. Early copyists were unlikely to be trained 'professionals' (as was the case later) so would be more likely to simply make errors,
3. Early manuscripts were on papyrus which didn't last long so more copying was required.
4. The early church was pretty nomadic, covering a wide range so likely very many copies would be needed - more copies, more likelihood of coming error.

But don't take my word for it - this from Koester, a leading scholar of early biblical texts:

"The text of the synoptic gospels was very unstable during the first and second centuries. With respect to Mark, one can be fairly certain that only its revised text has achieved canonical status, while the original text (attested by Matthew and Luke) has not survived. With respect to Matthew and Luke, there is no guarantee that the archetypes of the manuscript tradition are identical with the original text of each gospel. ...

New Testament textual critics have been deluded by the hypothesis that the archetypes of the textual tradition which were fixed around AD200 ... are (almost) identical with the autographs. This cannot be confirmed by any external evidence. on the contrary, whatever evidence there is indicated that not only minor, but also substantial revisions of the original texts have occurred during the first hundred years of the transmission"

My emphasis

[ProfessorDavey]

This would suggest that there were copyists before the Codex who rearranged wording and copyists who did not.

Absolutely - and some that missed out bits and others that added bits. Some for whom changes in copying were entirely due to errors, others who deliberately made changes. Copyists who were accurate and great, copyists who were rubbish or simply not focussed on the job.

That's what happens when, over a period of 150 years plus, you need to generate countless copies to support the needs of the developing church with a wide geographic range and you are using papyrus (good because it was cheap, bad because it typically lasted for a short period of time with normal use, perhaps a decade or two).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not an academic historian so it isn't really what I do.

Thank you for your efforts in any case.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thank you for your efforts in any case.

You are welcome

[Spud]

Absolutely - and some that missed out bits and others that added bits. Some for whom changes in copying were entirely due to errors, others who deliberately made changes. Copyists who were accurate and great, copyists who were rubbish or simply not focussed on the job.

So if some were accurate at each stage of the transmission, then the original text, or most of it, would have been transmitted to us.

That's what happens when, over a period of 150 years plus, you need to generate countless copies to support the needs of the developing church with a wide geographic range and you are using papyrus (good because it was cheap, bad because it typically lasted for a short period of time with normal use, perhaps a decade or two).

I think Jeremy said earlier that having three gospels which most of the time agree on the details, is itself evidence that they have been transmitted accurately. If there had been major errors then they wouldn't agree. And even if some parts were added by later editors, often these parts agree with another gospel: for example, Mark 16:9-20 agree with another gospel or Acts. Agreed?