Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[jeremyp]

Beyond wishful thinking and special pleading what justification have you for that assertion.

Our earliest complete text of the New Testament is from about 200 - 300 years after after the individual documents were first set on paper. We have manuscripts from various dates from then until the invention of printing and even the latest ones seem substantially very similar to the Codex Sinaiticus.

What evidence do you have that the process of copying manuscripts was so much more error prone between 100 and 300 than between 300 and 1000?

[ProfessorDavey]

Our earliest complete text of the New Testament is from about 200 - 300 years after after the individual documents were first set on paper. We have manuscripts from various dates from then until the invention of printing and even the latest ones seem substantially very similar to the Codex Sinaiticus.

What evidence do you have that the process of copying manuscripts was so much more error prone between 100 and 300 than between 300 and 1000?

But there are almost countless variants in the manuscripts in those later centuries. I think Ehrmann estimates between 200,000 and 400,000 variants, others think it is much higher - Eldon Epp suggests 750,000 and Peter Gurry suggests 500,000 non spelling variants.

So there probably need not be a greater rate of variant for us not to be able to know what the original said with surety.

However to answer your question as to why there may have been a greater rate of variation in the earliest period compared to later, it is not just me who thinks this likely but also mainstream and respected scholars, including Ehrmann. Some reasons.

1. There is typically much greater 'churn' in the earliest drafts of just about any document than in later iterations once the narrative becomes more settled.

2. The earliest copyists were non professionals; later the copying became more professionalised, involving people trained (often Monks) specifically to dot he job).

3. The earliest years are ones where orthodoxy was being established, while in later centuries orthodoxy was being maintained. The latter drives preservation of the word, while the former lends to alteration to fit with a developing political/theological position.

4. The nature of the earliest church is that it was effectively homeless - largely nomadic. Accordingly there was no base to check back to. Later the church had a settled centre where major documents would be held, and cold be used as reference to the network of churches and copyists out in the field (so to speak).

5. The early versions were on papyrus which normally lasts just a couple of decades in use (we are very fortunate to have anything left), therefore the trail of earlier version, for reference, is rapidly lost. Later parchment was used which lasts much, much longer so copyists could check back several generations for accuracy which was impossible with papyrus. (see 4 also).

6. The earliest versions would be less likely to have been seen as sacred documents, prior to formal establishment of church structures, and therefore would have been considered easier to change. Later the absolute and sacred nature of the works became established meaning that changes (other than simply errors) would have been much more difficult to be altered. You need formal structures to police maintaining a narrative - that was in place later, but not in the earliest decades. In those early days who was going to rip up a new copy deliberately changed by a copyist for political/theological purposes. No-one. The notion of heretical and heresy comes only with orthodoxy and that wasn't established from the get-go.

There you go - just a few examples.

[jeremyp]

But there are almost countless variants in the manuscripts in those later centuries. I think Ehrmann estimates between 200,000 and 400,000 variants, others think it is much higher - Eldon Epp suggests 750,000 and Peter Gurry suggests 500,000 non spelling variants.

But they are variants i.e. they are recognisable as the same texts.

So there probably need not be a greater rate of variant for us not to be able to know what the original said with surety.

It depends on what you mean by surety. We certainly know enough of what they say to be sure that Matthew and Luke copied Mark (or, if you are Spud, Mark copied Matthew and Luke). We can't be certain that Matthew used this word there but we can be confident in probabilistic terms of what words he used in most of the gospel.

However to answer your question as to why there may have been a greater rate of variation in the earliest period compared to later, it is not just me who thinks this likely but also mainstream and respected scholars, including Ehrmann. Some reasons.

1. There is typically much greater 'churn' in the earliest drafts of just about any document than in later iterations once the narrative becomes more settled.

2. The earliest copyists were non professionals; later the copying became more professionalised, involving people trained (often Monks) specifically to dot he job).

3. The earliest years are ones where orthodoxy was being established, while in later centuries orthodoxy was being maintained. The latter drives preservation of the word, while the former lends to alteration to fit with a developing political/theological position.

4. The nature of the earliest church is that it was effectively homeless - largely nomadic. Accordingly there was no base to check back to. Later the church had a settled centre where major documents would be held, and cold be used as reference to the network of churches and copyists out in the field (so to speak).

5. The early versions were on papyrus which normally lasts just a couple of decades in use (we are very fortunate to have anything left), therefore the trail of earlier version, for reference, is rapidly lost. Later parchment was used which lasts much, much longer so copyists could check back several generations for accuracy which was impossible with papyrus. (see 4 also).

6. The earliest versions would be less likely to have been seen as sacred documents, prior to formal establishment of church structures, and therefore would have been considered easier to change. Later the absolute and sacred nature of the works became established meaning that changes (other than simply errors) would have been much more difficult to be altered. You need formal structures to police maintaining a narrative - that was in place later, but not in the earliest decades. In those early days who was going to rip up a new copy deliberately changed by a copyist for political/theological purposes. No-one. The notion of heretical and heresy comes only with orthodoxy and that wasn't established from the get-go.

There you go - just a few examples.

But you are saying we have no idea what the early versions say at all. You are saying that the gospels could have changed out of all recognition over two centuries but managed somehow to remain more or less unchanged over the subsequent ten centuries.

I'd like to call out your point 3 for particular attention. It's correct and we know it's correct because we can see the results of the changes in orthodoxy and theology because we have four distinct gospels. Each was written with a its own emphasis that makes them different and we can compare and contrast them and make educated guesses as to the ideas and motivations of the authors. The changes that result from point 3 are so significant that we regard the outcome as a separate document.

[Spud]

So assuming that we know more or less what the earliest versions said, back to the subject of the thread - if nobody minds! I've now bought the three books by Harold Riley on the Synoptic gospels, and having read some of "Preface to Luke", I can provide some internal evidence that Luke used Matthew as one of his sources. Unless you guys are fed up with the subject and would rather I didn't keep on about it.

[Owlswing]

So assuming that we know more or less what the earliest versions said, back to the subject of the thread - if nobody minds! I've now bought the three books by Harold Riley on the Synoptic gospels, and having read some of "Preface to Luke", I can provide some internal evidence that Luke used Matthew as one of his sources. Unless you guys are fed up with the subject and would rather I didn't keep on about it.

Can I safely assume, dear Spud, that you do not know the meaning of the expression "flogging a dead horse"?

[Spud]

Can I safely assume, dear Spud, that you do not know the meaning of the expression "flogging a dead horse"?

I don't expect anyone will want me to go into detail, but I mention it in case. You know the book name if you want to sample it online,

[Gordon]

So assuming that we know more or less what the earliest versions said, back to the subject of the thread - if nobody minds! I've now bought the three books by Harold Riley on the Synoptic gospels, and having read some of "Preface to Luke", I can provide some internal evidence that Luke used Matthew as one of his sources. Unless you guys are fed up with the subject and would rather I didn't keep on about it.

Even if you did assume that you knew, more or less, what these earliest versions said how could you then know that what you assumed these versions said was an accurate record?

The problem of excluding the risks of mistakes or lies in what you assume were the earliest versions, and also in any subsequent versions, and especially given their uncertain provenance, surely reduces the value of the NT as an accurate record of events: best taken with a pinch of salt.   

[ProfessorDavey]

So assuming that we know more or less what the earliest versions said, ...

But you cannot make that assumption Spud - that's the whole point.

Firstly there are almost countless variances in the earliest copies we have - most minor, of course, but some humdingers with major doctrinal significance, e.g. trinity, unique god, atonement, resurrection appearances etc. We do not, and cannot, know which of those variants is the original - indeed whether any of them are. Check out the following from about 31 mins in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRHjZCKRIu4

But also by the time we have actual fragments and whole documents to look at the gospels had been circulated together as a folio and would have been copied together for centuries. The notion of who borrowed from whom becomes moot when you have had the possibility of cross fertilisation one gospel to another every time they are copied.

[jeremyp]

But you cannot make that assumption Spud - that's the whole point.

That depends on what you mean by "more or less".

Firstly there are almost countless variances in the earliest copies we have

Actually, by definition there are not countless variations in the earliest copies. There are a lot of variations in later manuscripts.

- most minor, of course, but some humdingers with major doctrinal significance, e.g. trinity, unique god, atonement, resurrection appearances etc. We do not, and cannot, know which of those variants is the original - indeed whether any of them are.

Not within individual gospels. The theological differences between Mark and John are significant, but not within Mark or within John.

[ProfessorDavey]

That depends on what you mean by "more or less".

Indeed it does, but as an example I don't think there are any post-resurrection accounts from the synoptic gospels available to us until centuries after their purported original writing. We know that the post-resurrection account in Mark is likely to be a later addition, because by good luck we have variant copies with the earliest having no post resurrection appearance. How do we know that the accounts in Luke and Matthew aren't also later editions as the first time we see them in an extant version is 4thC I believe.

Actually, by definition there are not countless variations in the earliest copies. There are a lot of variations in later manuscripts.

Did you miss the word almost

Not within individual gospels. The theological differences between Mark and John are significant, but not within Mark or within John.

Not true - listen to the link where Erhman is clear that the variants within gospel versions have major doctrinal significance.

So as just one of his examples - does John doctrinally support the notion of the trinity. Well it depends on which version of John you read - apparently this doesn't appear in the early Greek versions, but appears in later Latin ones. So depending on which version of John you select from the early copies you may conclude that John supports the notion of the trinity or does not supports the notion of the trinity.

Same with Luke on doctrine of atonement. Does he teach this - depends on which early version you read. Which one is the original is anyone's guess - we don't know.

[jeremyp]

Indeed it does, but as an example I don't think there are any post-resurrection accounts from the synoptic gospels available to us until centuries after their purported original writing. We know that the post-resurrection account in Mark is likely to be a later addition, because by good luck we have variant copies with the earliest having no post resurrection appearance.

I would say we know it is a later addition. You're never 100% certain but it's pretty much beyond doubt. Apart from the fact that it doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts, if you read it, it's fairly obviously a synthesis of the other three post resurrection accounts. Somebody came along and was disturbed that Mark didn't have a "happy ending" and cobbled one together by mashing the other stories together.

How do we know that the accounts in Luke and Matthew aren't also later editions as the first time we see them in an extant version is 4thC I believe.

We don't know. We assume, because there's no evidence that they were not part of the original gospels. This is history, not maths or science. If you didn't make "good faith" assumptions, there would be very little actual ancient history.

So as just one of his examples - does John doctrinally support the notion of the trinity. Well it depends on which version of John you read - apparently this doesn't appear in the early Greek versions, but appears in later Latin ones.

I've always believed that the notion of the Trinity arose after the first century. If, as you say, early Greek versions of John didn't have it, the supports my case.

Latin manuscripts are problematic anyway because they have to be translated from the Greek. There's room for all kinds of problems when doing translations.

The text are clearly not as fluid as you are trying to represent. When fragments of manuscripts turn up or texts are quoted in other documents, scholars have no problem identifying which of the four gospels they are from. They could only do this if the gospels are substantially (in a textual sense, not a doctrinal sense) stable.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would say we know it is a later addition. You're never 100% certain but it's pretty much beyond doubt. Apart from the fact that it doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts, if you read it, it's fairly obviously a synthesis of the other three post resurrection accounts. Somebody came along and was disturbed that Mark didn't have a "happy ending" and cobbled one together by mashing the other stories together.

Actually the main reason we know it is a later addition is because we have (by luck) variant versions. The distinction in writing is no greater than in many other sections.

The earliest versions we have of the post resurrection appearances in Luke and Matthew are (I believe) 4thC - how do you know there weren't earlier versions (now lost) of Matthew and Luke that had no post resurrection appearances and that they were added to those gospels too to provide a 'happy ending'.

We do not, and cannot know. What evidence do you have Jeremy that versions of Matthew and Luke from, say 120AD, definitely included post resurrection appearances.

[Spud]

But you cannot make that assumption Spud - that's the whole point.

I think I can, so long as before I proceed to give the evidence I've come across I state any assumptions.

[Spud]

Even if you did assume that you knew, more or less, what these earliest versions said how could you then know that what you assumed these versions said was an accurate record?

The problem of excluding the risks of mistakes or lies in what you assume were the earliest versions, and also in any subsequent versions, and especially given their uncertain provenance, surely reduces the value of the NT as an accurate record of events: best taken with a pinch of salt.

We read in the ending of Mark that Jesus confirmed his word with signs as the apostles preached. So we can expect God to do the same for us now.

[Gordon]

We read in the ending of Mark that Jesus confirmed his word with signs as the apostles preached. So we can expect God to do the same for us now.

I'll try again: how do you know that what is said in the ending of Mark about there being "signs" hasn't been made up by those promoting the cause of Jesus?

[Spud]

Actually the main reason we know it is a later addition is because we have (by luck) variant versions. The distinction in writing is no greater than in many other sections.

The earliest versions we have of the post resurrection appearances in Luke and Matthew are (I believe) 4thC - how do you know there weren't earlier versions (now lost) of Matthew and Luke that had no post resurrection appearances and that they were added to those gospels too to provide a 'happy ending'.

We do not, and cannot know. What evidence do you have Jeremy that versions of Matthew and Luke from, say 120AD, definitely included post resurrection appearances.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul summarizes the resurrection appearances, indicating that the church believed them to have happened by AD 50-ish. Papyrus 46 (AD 175-225) contains that passage, as far as I know.

[Spud]

I'll try again: how do you know that what is said in the ending of Mark about there being "signs" hasn't been made up by those promoting the cause of Jesus?

Through answered prayer, where you get definite signs that are basically God revealing himself.

[ippy]

Through answered prayer, where you get definite signs that are basically God revealing himself.

I really don't understand people that make statements like this, they're not joking, deadly serious and often amiably well functioning in all other aspects of their lives?

ippy.

[Gordon]

Through answered prayer, where you get definite signs that are basically God revealing himself.

Smashing: but even if that makes you feel better, you're saying nothing here about how you've assessed the risks that these claims of 'signs' in the text aren't mistakes or lies, which is what I asked you.

What is it that you checked, and how, regarding the text that I could replicate?

[ProfessorDavey]

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul summarizes the resurrection appearances, indicating that the church believed them to have happened by AD 50-ish. Papyrus 46 (AD 175-225) contains that passage, as far as I know.

Firstly Paul's accounts are very different to those in the gospels, and include the ridiculous hyperbole of '500 people' which would undoubtedly have generated contemporaneous and independent record, had it happened.

But p46 doesn't solve the problem - we have a version, likely from the first half of the 3rdC of 1 Corinthians 15, some 200 years after the event and probably a many-generation copy. All this tells us is that by the early 3rdC a tradition had arisen of post resurrection appearances - whether this was in the original Paul or added, altered or exaggerated later we have no idea.

[Spud]

Firstly Paul's accounts are very different to those in the gospels, and include the ridiculous hyperbole of '500 people' which would undoubtedly have generated contemporaneous and independent record, had it happened.

Acts 1 would corroborate the 500 claim, as it says they chose a replacement for Judas from those who had witnessed the ascension. 120 brothers were present at the meeting in Jerusalem. Add to that women, and some who had gone home and you can get 500.

But p46 doesn't solve the problem - we have a version, likely from the first half of the 3rdC of 1 Corinthians 15, some 200 years after the event and probably a many-generation copy. All this tells us is that by the early 3rdC a tradition had arisen of post resurrection appearances - whether this was in the original Paul or added, altered or exaggerated later we have no idea.

The actual tradition and document from which p46 was copied must have arisen well before it was written, so 200 years actually doesn't seem a long time. And it's close enough to the gospel narrative to be significant: appearance to Simon, then the 12.

Smashing: but even if that makes you feel better, you're saying nothing here about how you've assessed the risks that these claims of 'signs' in the text aren't mistakes or lies, which is what I asked you.

What is it that you checked, and how, regarding the text that I could replicate?

Bear in mind that the signs in the text are the result of the disciples preaching, confirming the truth of that. So belief in their written testimony will, if true, be accompanied by signs.

[Gordon]

Acts 1 would corroborate the 500 claim, as it says they chose a replacement for Judas from those who had witnessed the ascension. 120 brothers were present at the meeting in Jerusalem. Add to that women, and some who had gone home and you can get 500.

Do you have the CCTV footage to hand?

You do realise, Spud, that people can exaggerate and lie in support of a cause they support (or to denigrate one they don't) - how have you checked these details independently of the NT stories.

You do seem awfully gullible.

[Spud]

I'll write a summary of what I've found in Preface to Luke, by Harold Riley, since it will help verify the concept of Matthew being the first gospel.

In Luke 5-9 the material Luke has in common with Matthew is sometimes in the same sequence, other times out of sequence with Matthew. Whenever a pericope is out of sequence, we find that whereas Matthew places it in a definite setting, Luke is careful not to do this, and instead gives it a vague setting. However, when Luke is in sequence with Matthew, he gives a similar setting to Matthew. This indicates the direction of use to be Luke using Matthew.

Note that because Matthew was edited, not all of it was available to Luke. Luke also omitted parts of Matthew and added others from a different source.

[Spud]

A list of the occurrences of the above (from notes made on the book):

Mt 8:1 When he came down from the mountainside
Lk 5:12 When Jesus was in one of the towns

Mt 9:1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his home town
Lk 5:17 One day as he was preaching

(In both the above Mt and Lk are out of sequence.)

Mt 9:9 As Jesus went on from there
Lk 5:27 After these things

Mt 9:14 Then John's disciples came and asked him
Lk 5:33 They said to him

(In both the above Mt and Lk are in sequence)

Mt 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the cornfields
Lk 6:1 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the cornfields

Mt 12:9 Going on from that place he went into their synagogue
Lk 6:6 On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue

(In both the above Mt and Lk are out of sequence)

The Great Sermon is followed in Mt by the healing of the leper, which Luke omits as he has recorded it already, and then the healing of the Centurion's servant, which Luke also records next. Since they are in sequence, Matthew's "When Jesus had finished saying these things...when Jesus had entered Capernaum" is mirrored by Luke's "When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum".

Mt 13:1 On that day Jesus went out of the house, and sat by the sea side. And great crowds were gathered...
Lk 8:4 And when a great multitude had gathered
(Luke and Matthew out of sequence here)

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you have the CCTV footage to hand?

You do realise, Spud, that people can exaggerate and lie in support of a cause they support (or to denigrate one they don't) - how have you checked these details independently of the NT stories.

You do seem awfully gullible.

And sometimes the exaggeration is so ridiculous that it demonstrates its own non-sense.

Had 500 people all together seen a person they had known to be dead suddenly be alive again it would have spread like wildfire - they'd have told their families and friends etc etc. Within no time it would have been pretty well common knowledge across the area - if we assume Jerusalem then at the time this had perhaps a few tens of thousand population.

No doubt this event would have come to the attention of the jewish and roman authorities and therefore there would be some record of this in contemporary and non partial records as corroboration, noting that both the jewish and roman authorities were fastidious record keepers - yet there is none.

Secondly - had this happened surely the event would have been so remarkable that the local population would have turned to christianity (in its earliest form) in huge numbers and the growing religion would have gained a significant foothold in the local area. Yet it didn't - the followers of Jesus remained a minor cult (not consistent with all those people seeing miracles, not just the purported post-resurrection appearance to 500 people) and were soon relegated to a nomadic existence as the local populace rejected their claims. How on earth could the claims have been so unbelievable to the bast majority of the local population if so many people had actually witnessed them first hand.