Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

p46 might have been copied from an earlier version that also contained the claim and that from an earlier version again that contained the claim etc etc.

However p46 might have been copied from an earlier version that did not contain the claim and the copyist added it for the first time in p46 (as we see later for ending of Mark, as we have before/after versions by luck).

So you have no idea how long the claim had been present in Paul, nor when the tradition first arose - presumably orally rather than in writing to start with.

And of course untrue traditions can arise very rapidly after an event and are often exaggerated in the re-telling.

That in about AD225 a papyrus contains a claim tells us very little about whether that claim appeared in much earliest versions of that document, and even if it did that tells us nothing about whether that claim is actually true.

[Spud]

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.

Well, as you say, most scholars believe that Matthew used Mark rather than the differences between them being due to editing by scribes over centuries. If scholars are correct that the originator of one copied the original text of the other (in their opinion, Matthew copying Mark), then the question is could it be the other way round.

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

[Spud]

To paraphrase John Chapman (1937): "If Mark abbreviated Matthew, omitting much, then wherever Mark makes long omissions we shall find some sign of the gap - perhaps merely want of sequence (for Mt is very systematic) or even illogical sequence."

An example is the repetition of the names Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses, in Mark 15:47 and 16:1 (the next verse). The best explanation would be that Mark copied from Mathew 27:61, omitted the section about the posting of guards at the tomb (62-66), then carried on copying from Mt 28:1.

[jeremyp]

To paraphrase John Chapman (1937): "If Mark abbreviated Matthew, omitting much, then wherever Mark makes long omissions we shall find some sign of the gap - perhaps merely want of sequence (for Mt is very systematic) or even illogical sequence."

An example is the repetition of the names Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses, in Mark 15:47 and 16:1 (the next verse). The best explanation would be that Mark copied from Mathew 27:61, omitted the section about the posting of guards at the tomb (62-66), then carried on copying from Mt 28:1.

Except that the first mention occurs in a scene at the end of the day on Friday and the second mention occurs two days later on the following Sunday. The repetition is entirely natural.

[Spud]

Except that the first mention occurs in a scene at the end of the day on Friday and the second mention occurs two days later on the following Sunday. The repetition is entirely natural.

The implication of this is that Matthew also thought it was fine, so accidentally created what is actually a better arrangement by inserting the guards in between.

[jeremyp]

The implication of this is that Matthew also thought it was fine, so accidentally created what is actually a better arrangement by inserting the guards in between.

I don't see the problem. Matthew fabricated the guards story and wanted to insert it somewhere and the place he put is the natural place.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see the problem. Matthew fabricated the guards story and wanted to insert it somewhere and the place he put is the natural place.

In suspect that the process of fabrication, exaggeration and insertion of 'detail' for effect was an ongoing process through the years from the purported events until the gospel orthodoxy became largely settled around 300-400AD.

So Matthew (or rather the author of Matthew) may not have fabricated this element of the story himself - potentially it could have been swirling around in the mix as a 'tradition' before he wrote the original version of the gospel. Or it might not have included it in the original gospel, only for it to be added by later copyists and interpolators.

[jeremyp]

In suspect that the process of fabrication, exaggeration and insertion of 'detail' for effect was an ongoing process through the years from the purported events until the gospel orthodoxy became largely settled around 300-400AD.

I have never heard any mainstream scholar claim the gospels were still unsettled in the fourth century, only crackpot ones who think Eusebius forged the whole New Testament.

So Matthew (or rather the author of Matthew)

When we say "Matthew wrote" that's shorthand for "the author(s) of the Gospel now known as Matthew wrote". There's no need to keep emphasising the point that the gospel is anonymous. Even Spud, who doesn't accept it, knows that nobody else agrees with him.

may not have fabricated this element of the story himself - potentially it could have been swirling around in the mix as a 'tradition' before he wrote the original version of the gospel. Or it might not have included it in the original gospel, only for it to be added by later copyists and interpolators.

So? That's irrelevant to Spud's point. He says it was originally part of the gospel and Mark omitted it when copying Matthew. I think Matthew is copied from Mark and the passage has been inserted.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have never heard any mainstream scholar claim the gospels were still unsettled in the fourth century, only crackpot ones who think Eusebius forged the whole New Testament.

Err Ehrman - is he a crackpot, I don't think so.

I didn't say that everything was changed, but there is ample evidence of significant alterations and interpolations through until 300-400AD, from the record of extant fragments etc. So it is perfectly reasonable to say that the gospels remained unsettled until a point at which we confident that there were few additional changes, and that is about that time.

[Spud]

I wasn't going to mention it, but the books I'm reading by H Riley contradict each other on this section. In his book on Matthew he says that the section on posting the guards is an insertion to an earlier 'proto-Matthew', and that Mark wasn't aware of it.  This would mean that 'Proto-Matthew' repeated the names of the women with nothing in between. But in his book on Mark, Riley says that Mark's copy of Matthew included the guards story, which Mark omitted.

What is interesting is that Luke mentions 'the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee' during the burial, then continues, 'they came to the tomb'. This would contradict the idea that the passing of time between the two verses merits repeat of the women's names by Mark.

Also, instead of the guards story, Mark includes the detail about the women buying spices, which is also in Luke but not Matthew. So on the Markan priority hypothesis, Matthew takes one part of Mark (the naming of the women) and Luke takes another (the preparation of spices). But assuming Markan dependence, he conflated details from Matthew and Luke.

[jeremyp]

Err Ehrman - is he a crackpot, I don't think so.

Ehrmann agrees with the majority of scholars that the gospels were written between about 70 and the end of the first century.

I didn't say that everything was changed, but there is ample evidence of significant alterations and interpolations through until 300-400AD, from the record of extant fragments etc.

Fragments being the operative word. That's all we have of Matthew before the third century. I don't know where you think the evidence of "significant alterations and interpolations" comes from.

Nevertheless, this passage we are discussion is an interpolation, in my opinion - into Mark by Matthew. In Spud's opinion, it was edited out by Mark when he copied Matthew. If you've got any evidence that it is an even later addition than I think, then great, let's hear it.

[jeremyp]

I wasn't going to mention it, but the books I'm reading by H Riley contradict each other on this section. In his book on Matthew he says that the section on posting the guards is an insertion to an earlier 'proto-Matthew', and that Mark wasn't aware of it.  This would mean that 'Proto-Matthew' repeated the names of the women with nothing in between. But in his book on Mark, Riley says that Mark's copy of Matthew included the guards story, which Mark omitted.

What is interesting is that Luke mentions 'the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee' during the burial, then continues, 'they came to the tomb'. This would contradict the idea that the passing of time between the two verses merits repeat of the women's names by Mark.

Why would it?

Also, instead of the guards story, Mark includes the detail about the women buying spices, which is also in Luke but not Matthew. So on the Markan priority hypothesis, Matthew takes one part of Mark (the naming of the women) and Luke takes another (the preparation of spices). But assuming Markan dependence, he conflated details from Matthew and Luke.

But you are claiming that Mark put in one story but not the other. It seems to me that your version has exactly the same problems.

[Spud]

Why would it?

Why would what (sorry, not sure what you're referring to)

[Spud]

Why would it?
But you are claiming that Mark put in one story but not the other. It seems to me that your version has exactly the same problems.

I think we can say that mark ought to have substituted a pronoun for the women's names in 16:1. Matthew didn't need to (assuming the guards section is not a later addition).

[jeremyp]

Why would what (sorry, not sure what you're referring to)

Why would it " contradict the idea that the passing of time between the two verses merits repeat of the women's names by Mark."

[jeremyp]

I think we can say that mark ought to have substituted a pronoun for the women's names in 16:1.

Why ought he? It's a new scene so it would be natural to restate the names of the main actors. In fact, we may infer that Luke made the same mistake as you and decided pronouns would be better.

You are arguing that Mark had both Matthew and Luke in front of him and decided to follow Luke but chose to put the names of the women in for no good reason when the gospel he was following didn't have them..

[ProfessorDavey]

Ehrmann agrees with the majority of scholars that the gospels were written between about 70 and the end of the first century.

That's not what I said - I wasn't talking about when they might have been originally written, but when they were settled - in other words the point at which an orthodoxy of the content of the gospels was agreed and that there were few changes to content thereafter.

And Ehrman is completely in agreement with me that in the first couple of centuries after the gospels were originally written they weren't 'settled' as there are all sorts of changes evident within the earliest extant copies. And these are just in the period from about 200-300AD. We do not know, and cannot know, what changes occurred earlier that that. That is exactly Ehrman's view.

So Ehrman may accept that the original gospels might have been written between 70 and 110AD, but his view is that until the 4thC there was considerable 'churn' in their content and they therefore weren't settled.

[Spud]

Why ought he?

Because Matthew and Luke agree on when you normally repeat a noun and when you use a pronoun. Matthew necessarily names the women a second time due to the material in between; Luke uses a pronoun because there is no material in between. You say Mark repeats the names because it's a new scene, and this could well be true, but it's not standard literary procedure.

So you can still claim that Mark naturally renamed the women for his own reason. However, that he is conflating Matthew and Luke is still a more simple explanation, because the text turns out to follow Griesbach's hypothesis. Luke's 'they' in 24:1 is defined in 23:55 as 'the women who had come with him out of Galilee'. These include Salome, the mother of Zebedee's sons, Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40-41. So if Mark also has Luke in front of him he has good reason to include Salome, though he is following Matthew in actually naming the women.
If we were to view this from the Markan priority perspective, one thing stands out as strange: Matthew would be following Mark in naming the women, and Luke would not. Luke would be following Mark in speaking of 'those who followed him from Galilee', but Matthew only gives two of the three women, so he is not following Mark in this respect.
This is just what the Griesbach hypothesis shows - that with Markan priority, in a given passage, Matthew frequently includes material that Luke doesn't, and Luke includes other material that Matthew doesn't. Another example would be "when evening came, after sunset" (Mark); "when evening came" (Matthew); "when the sun was setting" (Luke).
Since it is unlikely that this would happen so often in a real life scenario, the simplest explanation is that Mark was switching between Matthew and Luke. 

[jeremyp]

That's not what I said - I wasn't talking about when they might have been originally written, but when they were settled - in other words the point at which an orthodoxy of the content of the gospels was agreed and that there were few changes to content thereafter.

What evidence have you got for any specific changes between 100 and 300?

[jeremyp]

Because Matthew and Luke agree on when you normally repeat a noun and when you use a pronoun.

This is language. There are no hard and fast rules about when you use a pronoun or not. It's often a matter of style.

Matthew necessarily names the women a second time due to the material in between; Luke uses a pronoun because there is no material in between. You say Mark repeats the names because it's a new scene, and this could well be true, but it's not standard literary procedure.

Is it not? Can you cite a rule in any language that says "do not use the full name of a person who you named in the previous paragraph"?

If we were to view this from the Markan priority perspective, one thing stands out as strange: Matthew would be following Mark in naming the women, and Luke would not. Luke would be following Mark in speaking of 'those who followed him from Galilee', but Matthew only gives two of the three women, so he is not following Mark in this respect.

Luke could agree with you that it's bad style to repeat the names and could have changed it. That seems eminently more likely than Mark having both Luke and Matthew in front of him and choosing to copy Luke but adding the names in thus making the style worse (in your opinion).

If Mark were copying one of the other two gospels, he has clearly chosen Luke to copy because he omits the story of the guards but he includes the buying of spices etc as Luke does. Thus, you've got to explain how Mark did something that you think makes the literary style worse.

[ProfessorDavey]

What evidence have you got for any specific changes between 100 and 300?

The variations in the texts in extant gospel fragments from those dates. Most are minor - some are very significant. And we only know about changes from the latter part of that period as we have no extant documents earlier than about 200. So while it is pretty clear that there would have been variations in the period 70-200 we are in the dark as to what those variations might be.

And we also know that changed continued beyond that point - so perhaps the best example being the altered ending of Mark, which only appears in extant versions from later than about 350AD.

The point is that in the early decades and centuries the gospels (and indeed the whole nature of the NT) was in a state of flux and only became settled in the 4thC via a series of ecumenical councils that determined not only the books that would be included in the NT but the accepted versions of the texts.

[Spud]

This is language. There are no hard and fast rules about when you use a pronoun or not. It's often a matter of style.
Is it not? Can you cite a rule in any language that says "do not use the full name of a person who you named in the previous paragraph"?

I'm talking more about normal writing practice than hard and fast rules

Luke could agree with you that it's bad style to repeat the names and could have changed it. That seems eminently more likely than Mark having both Luke and Matthew in front of him and choosing to copy Luke but adding the names in thus making the style worse (in your opinion).

If Mark were copying one of the other two gospels, he has clearly chosen Luke to copy because he omits the story of the guards but he includes the buying of spices etc as Luke does. Thus, you've got to explain how Mark did something that you think makes the literary style worse.

You seem to be assuming that because Mark missed out the relatively big section on the guards, then it must have been Luke he was copying (if he was copying one or the other). This is like the reasoning you applied regarding the sermon on the mount. It's fair to think that way, but we can't escape the pattern of alternating between both Mt and Lk in both the sequence of pericopes and more minor details.

If we go back to the death and burial sections, there are suggestions that there as well Mark is conflating both Matthew and Luke.

Matthew and Mark name the women when describing them watching Jesus' death. Then they both say, "and evening having come".

Then Mark adds that it was the day of preparation, (which Luke also states) before describing Joseph as a prominent Council member, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God. Luke describes him as a Council member, a good and righteous man...who was waiting for the kingdom of God.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I would continue giving examples until the forum exploded but am aware it might annoy people! Thanks for discussing it with me.

[jeremyp]

I'm talking more about normal writing practice than hard and fast rules

By the standards of normal writing practices in Ancient Greek, Mark was considered relatively unsophisticated. He does the equivalent of starting a lot of sentences with "and", for instance. This is one of the reasons why people assume Mark was writing first. It's more likely that later writers would improve his style than Mark would copy more sophisticated writing, but make it worse.

You seem to be assuming that because Mark missed out the relatively big section on the guards, then it must have been Luke he was copying (if he was copying one or the other). This is like the reasoning you applied regarding the sermon on the mount. It's fair to think that way, but we can't escape the pattern of alternating between both Mt and Lk in both the sequence of pericopes and more minor details.

Luke has the story about buying spices. Matthew has the story about the guards. If Mark were copying and you note he has Luke's story, but not Matthew's, it's obvious he chose Luke as his primary source for this section.

If we go back to the death and burial sections, there are suggestions that there as well Mark is conflating both Matthew and Luke.

Matthew and Mark name the women when describing them watching Jesus' death. Then they both say, "and evening having come".

Then Mark adds that it was the day of preparation, (which Luke also states) before describing Joseph as a prominent Council member, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God. Luke describes him as a Council member, a good and righteous man...who was waiting for the kingdom of God.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I would continue giving examples until the forum exploded but am aware it might annoy people! Thanks for discussing it with me.

But it works just as well to say Mark wrote first and the other two edited the text to their satisfaction. Together with other points of evidence, I'm afraid the balance of probability is against you.

[Spud]

But it works just as well to say Mark wrote first and the other two edited the text to their satisfaction.

Okay: suppose, for now, that Matthew copied Mark in saying that it was evening, and Luke copied Mark in describing Joseph as a councilor who was waiting for the kingdom of God. 

[Spud]

By the standards of normal writing practices in Ancient Greek, Mark was considered relatively unsophisticated.

Agreed.

He does the equivalent of starting a lot of sentences with "and", for instance.

So do Matthew and Luke. Compare Mk 15:46-7 (3 times) with Mt 27:59-61 (3 times).

This is one of the reasons why people assume Mark was writing first. It's more likely that later writers would improve his style than Mark would copy more sophisticated writing, but make it worse.

That makes sense, but bear in mind Mark uses colloquial language, with more description and a story-telling style. We need more concrete grounds to discern whether he is expanding his source(s) or others are condensing his account.

The main evidence that Mark is secondary to both Matthew and Luke is the high number of instances where Mark contains words, phrases or sentences that occur in either Matthew or Luke but not both. This cannot be explained as Matthew and Luke taking separate words, phrases or sentences from Mark, because it happens too often.

Here is Mark's account of the feeding of the 5,000, blue = words in common with Matthew, red = words in common with Luke. (Some are not identical but similar to either Mt or Lk). The remainder of the words either occur in all three synoptics or are peculiar to Mark.

And the apostles are gathered together to Jesus, and they related to him all things, what they had done and what they had taught. 31And He said to them, “You yourselves come apart to a solitary place, and rest a little.” For those coming and those going were many, and not even did they have opportunity to eat.

32And they went away by the boat into a solitary place by themselves. 33And many saw them going, and recognized, and ran together there on foot from all the cities, and went before them. 34And having gone out, He saw a great crowd and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were like sheep not having a shepherd. And He began to teach them many things.

35And the hour already being late, having come to Him, his disciples were saying, “The place is desolate, and the hour already is late. 36Dismiss them, that having gone to the surrounding region and villages, they might buy for themselves something to eat.”

37But answering, He said to them, “You give to them to eat.”

And they say to Him, “Having gone, shall we buy two hundred denariib of bread and give them to eat?”

38And He says to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go, see.”

And having known, they say, “Five, and two fish.”

39And He commanded them to make them all recline, groups by groups, on the green grass. 40And they sat down groups by groups, by hundreds and by fifties.

41And having taken the five loaves and the two fish, having looked up to the heaven, He blessed and broke the loaves, and He kept giving them to His disciples, that they might set before them. And He divided the two fish among all.

42And all ate and were satisfied. 43And they took up twelve hand-baskets full of fragments, and also of the fish. 44And those having eaten of the loaves were five thousand men.

To produce Matthew and Luke's accounts from Mark, they would have had to take the words peculiar to each of them out of Mark independently of each other. This seems less likely than Mark conflating the two.