Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Spud]

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.

If Mark is primary, the great coincidence is that Luke has omitted that it was evening but Matthew included it. And Matthew omitted the description of Joseph as waiting for the kingdom of God, but Luke included it. Likewise with for example Luke including the reference to the disciples buying food for everyone, but Matthew omitting it, and with Matthew including the reference to Jesus having compassion on the crowd, but Luke omitting it.

[jeremyp]

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

And all the bits that aren't red or blue are in all three gospels. The red and blue bits are easily explained by each of Matthew and Luke including the majority of Mark and just leaving out some bits. Where they left out bits differently, you have your red and blue. It's much easier to explain this way than by assuming that Mark assiduously harmonised two accounts but chose to leave out huge tracts of Matthew and Luke, for example, tneither the Sermon on the Mount, nor the Lord's prayer appears in Mark. You're asking me to believe that Mark chose to leave out the Lord's Prayer. That's just not credible, I'm afraid.

[Spud]

And all the bits that aren't red or blue are in all three gospels.

Not all of them, eg "For those coming and those going were many, and not even did they have opportunity to eat" is only in Mark.

The red and blue bits are easily explained by each of Matthew and Luke including the majority of Mark and just leaving out some bits.

So why do each of Matthew and Luke keep leaving out the bits that the other includes? The law of averages would suggest that there ought to be a lot more instances where Matthew and Luke both leave out the same bit of Mark, like in the above example from Mk 6:31.

Where they left out bits differently, you have your red and blue. It's much easier to explain this way than by assuming that Mark assiduously harmonised two accounts but chose to leave out huge tracts of Matthew and Luke, for example, tneither the Sermon on the Mount, nor the Lord's prayer appears in Mark. You're asking me to believe that Mark chose to leave out the Lord's Prayer. That's just not credible, I'm afraid.

It's easy to decide to leave out a huge chunk of material. It's not easy to repeatedly leave out material another copier has included, and include things he has left out, unless you have some sort of arrangement with him.

[jeremyp]

So why do each of Matthew and Luke keep leaving out the bits that the other includes?

They don't. 76% of Mark is in both Matthew and Luke.

The law of averages would suggest that there ought to be a lot more instances where Matthew and Luke both leave out the same bit of Mark, like in the above example from Mk 6:31.It's easy to decide to leave out a huge chunk of material. It's not easy to repeatedly leave out material another copier has included, and include things he has left out, unless you have some sort of arrangement with him.

You're mischaracterising things a little. Matthew leaves out only a small fraction of Mark, about 6%. Matthew essentially copies all of Mark minus a few bits and pieces. That doesn't leave much opportunity for Luke to include bits of Mark that Matthew excluded.

[Owlswing]

I do not understand the necessity to debate this editorial incident, an incident for which there is nothing written at the time of the incidents to prove they ever happened.

From my school days, I remember being advised that no written mention of Jesus exists prior to AD 100-AD200. This being the case the authors would almost certainly only be working from word of mouth, not from personal experience. Being told stories by someone who, in all probability, never heard or saw "Jesus" do or say anything.

The Vatican had a vast amount of material destroyed with which it did not agree with including several versions of the Bible, parts of which were rewritten several times over in the first four or five centuries AD and I read somewhere on the Net, keeps and an enormous amount of written matter in its vaults which it allows no-one to see from outside the Curia as it is considered too "dangerous" to the continued existence of the Church as it currently exists!

The amount of time for which there is no accurate written history of Jesus Christ makes it very likely. to my mind, anyway, that Jesus is a fictional character.

Owlswing

)O(

[jeremyp]

I do not understand the necessity to debate this editorial incident, an incident for which there is nothing written at the time of the incidents to prove they ever happened.

You mean apart from the documents themselves?

From my school days, I remember being advised that no written mention of Jesus exists prior to AD 100-AD200. This being the case the authors would almost certainly only be working from word of mouth, not from personal experience. Being told stories by someone who, in all probability, never heard or saw "Jesus" do or say anything.

The orthodox view (I mean that in the sense of "normal", not the branch of Christianity) is that Paul was writing in the 50's, Mark in the late 60's or early 70's and the other gospels between then and about 110. What you were taught might not be wrong but it goes against the orthodox view.

The Vatican had a vast amount of material destroyed with which it did not agree with including several versions of the Bible, parts of which were rewritten several times over in the first four or five centuries AD and I read somewhere on the Net, keeps and an enormous amount of written matter in its vaults which it allows no-one to see from outside the Curia as it is considered too "dangerous" to the continued existence of the Church as it currently exists!

Oooh, a conspiracy theory. Lovely.

The amount of time for which there is no accurate written history of Jesus Christ makes it very likely. to my mind, anyway, that Jesus is a fictional character.

What we are discussing here is how the gospels were written, not whether what is in them is fiction.

[Spud]

That doesn't leave much opportunity for Luke to include bits of Mark that Matthew excluded.

Sure, there may not be as many instances as I thought, but there seem to be plenty that when analysed from the point of view of both Markan priority and Markan dependence, suggest greater likelihood that Mark was conflating the other two.

In the account of Gethsemane, Mark and Matthew are very closely parallel, and there seems to be just one instance where a clause from Luke creeps in. Luke's version of Gethsemene appears to come from a different source to Mark and Matthew, or to be a substantially re-worded version of one or other or both. At one point, Mark uses a clause that is different from Matthew but is found in Luke: "take this cup from me" (Matthew: "let this cup pass from me"). Did Luke know this phrase from Mark and use it at the same point where Matthew, having been in parallel with Mark throughout the section, departs from Mark's wording? Or did Mark, following Matthew, know the clause from Luke's account and insert it instead of Matthew's equivalent?

In some sentences, such as Mk 14:1(b), Mark has one half in common with Matthew and the other half in common with Luke:
Mk/Lk: 'And were seeking the chief priests and the scribes how'
Mk/Mt: 'by guile they might seize and kill (him/Jesus)'

Here, either Matthew and Luke pick opposite halves of Mark's sentence  , or Mark conflates his two sources.

I've been finding some other examples like this, though I've not always found them when I thought (and admittedly hoped) I might. There are also the previous type, where you get a long passage in Mark in common with with either Matthew or Luke but occasionally a clause creeping in that seems to have been taken from the other of the two.

[Owlswing]

You mean apart from the documents themselves? The orthodox view (I mean that in the sense of "normal", not the branch of Christianity) is that Paul was writing in the 50's,

How many of these documents are still in existence in their totality? Ane which are available to the public?

Mark in the late 60's or early 70's and the other gospels between then and about 110. What you were taught might not be wrong but it goes against the orthodox view.
Oooh, a conspiracy theory. Lovely.

See my comment above about the availability of original documents used to create the Bible as we now know it

What we are discussing here is how the gospels were written, not whether what is in them is fiction.

The whole discussion (argument) would be unnecessary if the Christians did not have the Bible rammed down their throats as fact and non-Christians had it rammed in their faces as fact rather than fiction is what is being argued about on this Forum in one way or another.

If it could be proven that the Bible is pure unadulterated fiction the Christian Church would crumble and cease to exist!

Owlswing

[jeremyp]

How many of these documents are still in existence in their totality?

That's an interesting question. We can't be 100% sure we have any of them in totality.

Ane which are available to the public?

All of them. You've heard of the Bible, I presume?

See my comment above about the availability of original documents used to create the Bible as we now know it

Do you understand that we don't have the originals of any ancient documents? For example, the earlier extant manuscripts of the Iliad are about a thousand years after its probable date of composition.

The whole discussion (argument) would be unnecessary if the Christians did not have the Bible rammed down their throats as fact and non-Christians had it rammed in their faces as fact rather than fiction is what is being argued about on this Forum in one way or another.

Please do us the courtesy of reading what we are talking about on this thread. This is not a discussion about whether the gospels are are fact or fiction: it's a discussion about what order they were written in.

If it could be proven that the Bible is pure unadulterated fiction the Christian Church would crumble and cease to exist!

I seriously doubt that. Firstly, the fact that Genesis has been proven to be fiction doesn't seem to have had any crumbling effect. Secondly, some parts of the Bible are not fiction.

[Owlswing]

That's an interesting question. We can't be 100% sure we have any of them in totality.

All of them. You've heard of the Bible, I presume?

Do you understand that we don't have the originals of any ancient documents? For example, the earlier extant manuscripts of the Iliad are about a thousand years after its probable date of composition.

Please do us the courtesy of reading what we are talking about on this thread. This is not a discussion about whether the gospels are are fact or fiction: it's a discussion about what order they were written in.

I seriously doubt that. Firstly, the fact that Genesis has been proven to be fiction doesn't seem to have had any crumbling effect. Secondly, some parts of the Bible are not fiction.

I think I can save myself a lot of hassle and heartache by leaving this topic to those who, for reasons that I do not understand, wish to believe in a fairy tale and dismiss any arguments against it based upon fact rather than fiction.

Owlswing

[ProfessorDavey]

We can't be 100% sure we have any of them in totality.

While that statement is perhaps not incorrect in fact, it is pretty disingenuous at it implies that although we cannot be 100% sure we can be close to that. That is simply untrue.

A better way of putting it is that we can be 100% sure that we do not have any of the original gospel documents available to us, on the basis that the earliest extant fragments are from perhaps 150AD (and mostly tiny pieces) and the earliest entire gospels are significantly later still.

Now it is possible that one of the later entire documents is 100% identical to the original version of that gospel. However given the massive array of variations between the early fragments and versions that we have that possibility is vanishingly small.

There is also the rather inconvenient view that there actually isn't a 'single' original version of the gospels, based on the hypothesis that there would have been multiple copies made at the earliest point (for distribution) and that they wouldn't have been taken from a single 'master' version - hence we might have had numerous variants from the get go.

So we know what the earliest extant version from hundreds and more years later say. We do not know and we cannot know (unless a version dated from end of 1stC appears) what the original said, even if there was a single original version.

[ProfessorDavey]

They don't. 76% of Mark is in both Matthew and Luke.
You're mischaracterising things a little. Matthew leaves out only a small fraction of Mark, about 6%. Matthew essentially copies all of Mark minus a few bits and pieces. That doesn't leave much opportunity for Luke to include bits of Mark that Matthew excluded.

We only know that from the extant version we have available. We have no way of knowing the level of similarity between original versions.

And, of course, we have extant versions from fairly early which include all four gospels so we can be pretty confident that the gospels were circulating as a combined folio from fairly early on. And unless you can make a case for a specific 'Mark copyist' who is a different person from a 'Luke copyist' etc then it would be the same person making the copies of all of the gospels. That being the case there is plenty of opportunity (and plenty of evidence from variant analysis) for copyists to vary text in one gospel to be similar, or identical to, another gospel.

So rather than arguing about whether Luke copied Mark (or vice versa), we should be focusing on the processes of alignment and non-alignment of the gospels by copyists in the 200 or so years before we have extant versions of sufficient length to be able seriously to compare gospel texts.

[jeremyp]

I think I can save myself a lot of hassle and heartache by leaving this topic to those who, for reasons that I do not understand, wish to believe in a fairy tale and dismiss any arguments against it based upon fact rather than fiction.

Owlswing

This isn't about believing fairytales or not. It's just about how the gospels came to be written and why they are the way they are.

[jeremyp]

While that statement is perhaps not incorrect in fact, it is pretty disingenuous at it implies that although we cannot be 100% sure we can be close to that. That is simply untrue.


A better way of putting it is that we can be 100% sure that we do not have any of the original gospel documents available to us, on the basis that the earliest extant fragments are from perhaps 150AD (and mostly tiny pieces) and the earliest entire gospels are significantly later still.

Now it is possible that one of the later entire documents is 100% identical to the original version of that gospel. However given the massive array of variations between the early fragments and versions that we have that possibility is vanishingly small.

There is also the rather inconvenient view that there actually isn't a 'single' original version of the gospels, based on the hypothesis that there would have been multiple copies made at the earliest point (for distribution) and that they wouldn't have been taken from a single 'master' version - hence we might have had numerous variants from the get go.

So we know what the earliest extant version from hundreds and more years later say. We do not know and we cannot know (unless a version dated from end of 1stC appears) what the original said, even if there was a single original version.

The earlier extant manuscripts of all our ancient documents (at least the ones not written on stone) come from hundreds of years after they were written. If you go about saying "we can't know anything about what the gospels said" then we don't know anything about the ancient world except what archaeology tells us.

[ProfessorDavey]

The earlier extant manuscripts of all our ancient documents (at least the ones not written on stone) come from hundreds of years after they were written. If you go about saying "we can't know anything about what the gospels said" then we don't know anything about the ancient world except what archaeology tells us.

You are completely correct that we cannot be certain what the originals of other ancient documents said either.

However we can look at the provenance of later copies which may have fewer or greater steps between extant versions and the likely original. And time isn't necessarily the key factor here. One of the issues with the gospels is that we know that there were many, many copies with significant variations drifting around ion the 3rdC, coupled with the use of papyrus we can reasonably assume these are multiple generation copies. By contrast you may have a document retained in one place and written on parchment, so that a version from hundred of years later could easily be a first generation copy.

We can also look for other archeological corroboration too.

However this is really only relevant if the document is being considered as a historical document. You mentioned the Iliad earlier - no one really suggests that the Iliad is a historical document based on eye witness accounts in the manner that Spud claims of the gospels. So it really makes no difference whether the document has changed markedly or not at all in the 1000 years from purported writing to the first document we have. We value the first document we have, and indeed merely suggest it is attributed to Homer. It is a work of literature, and it really doesn't matter if the version we study is similar to, or dissimilar from the original.

[Owlswing]

This isn't about believing fairytales or not. It's just about how the gospels came to be written and why they are the way they are.

Yes! It is!

What we call the Bible is a mish-mash of bits and pieces put together by various people from various authors, copyists, translators, and Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all over an extended period of time!

The newest original writing of any part of the Bible is 100 years after his crucifixion and therefore unlikely to have been written by an eye-witness.

Continue deluding yourself if you must but please stop deluding children with your questionable religious writings!

Owlswing   

[Nearly Sane]

Yes! It is!

What we call the Bible is a mish-mash of bits and pieces put together by various people from various authors, copyists, translators, and Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all over an extended period of time!

The newest original writing of any part of the Bible is 100 years after his crucifixion and therefore unlikely to have been written by an eye-witness.

Continue deluding yourself if you must but please stop deluding children with your questionable religious writings!

Owlswing

Jeremy is not a believer. So your tirade is misapplied.

[Owlswing]

Jeremy is not a believer. So your tirade is misapplied.

JEREMY

In which case I offer my sincere apologies for my words.

Owlswing

[Dicky Underpants]

JEREMY

In which case I offer my sincere apologies for my words.


Owlswing

I should also point out that Professor Davey isn't a believer either. Neither am I, and I too continue to have some interest in these matters. It's a pretty niche area of study, this critical analysis of ancient texts, but as they say, it's "whatever floats your boat".

[Owlswing]

I should also point out that Professor Davey isn't a believer either. Neither am I, and I too continue to have some interest in these matters. It's a pretty niche area of study, this critical analysis of ancient texts, but as they say, it's "whatever floats your boat".

I am, as I have posted before, an old man who lives on his own in sheltered accommodation, the majority of the population either speaks no English or prefers to speak its native tongues.

The Forum is one of my few outside contacts - I do NOT deliberately antagonise those on it!

There may be others who are not Christian, or who are not of any religion, I am, so far as I am aware, the only Pagan since Rhiannon left.

I am fully aware that to a large percentage of the population, including one or two m=embers of this Forum, who see my beliefs as a huge joke, hence my reticence in sharing the details of what I believe.

What I will not and do not do is to take the piss out of the beliefs of others for the sheer fun of it If I think they are talking bollocks I will say so.

If I make an error of fact in any of my posts I will welcome correction.

Owlswing

)O(

[Spud]

Re: the feeding of the 5,000, I was just looking at the note by Mark that the reason Jesus had compassion on the great crowd was because they were 'like sheep without a shepherd'.

Since this is not in Matthew's version, I wondered whether its inclusion in Mark points to or away from Markan priority.

The note does occur in Matthew 9:36, "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."

8 verses later in Matthew 10:6 Jesus sends out the disciples saying, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

This follows naturally on from Matthew 9:36, so that we can say Matthew is the original, and Mark, not having a parallel to Matthew 9:36-37, has inserted the comment about sheep without a shepherd into his account of the feeding, after describing Jesus' compassion on the crowd as in Matthew.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

Re: the feeding of the 5,000, I was just looking at the note by Mark that the reason Jesus had compassion on the great crowd was because they were 'like sheep without a shepherd'.

Since this is not in Matthew's version, I wondered whether its inclusion in Mark points to or away from Markan priority.

The note does occur in Matthew 9:36, "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."

8 verses later in Matthew 10:6 Jesus sends out the disciples saying, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

This follows naturally on from Matthew 9:36, so that we can say Matthew is the original, and Mark, not having a parallel to Matthew 9:36-37, has inserted the comment about sheep without a shepherd into his account of the feeding, after describing Jesus' compassion on the crowd as in Matthew.

But unless I am mistaken the key sections you mention (Matthew 9:36 and Mark 6:34) do not appear in any of the early versions we have - so the first time we have evidence of these words in either Mark or Matthew is probably as late as the 4thC when the two gospels had been circulating together, and being copied together, for hundreds of years. So rather than discuss the rather sterile notion of Mark copying Matthew or vice versa which we cannot really address as we don't have anything remotely close to the original, we should be discussing how and why the texts we have (from perhaps 400) came to end up in this form.

[jeremyp]

Re: the feeding of the 5,000, I was just looking at the note by Mark that the reason Jesus had compassion on the great crowd was because they were 'like sheep without a shepherd'.

Since this is not in Matthew's version, I wondered whether its inclusion in Mark points to or away from Markan priority.

The note does occur in Matthew 9:36, "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd."

8 verses later in Matthew 10:6 Jesus sends out the disciples saying, "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

This follows naturally on from Matthew 9:36, so that we can say Matthew is the original, and Mark, not having a parallel to Matthew 9:36-37, has inserted the comment about sheep without a shepherd into his account of the feeding, after describing Jesus' compassion on the crowd as in Matthew.

Or Matthew borrowed the phrase from Mark's account of feeding the 5000. It works either way around, it seems to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Or Matthew borrowed the phrase from Mark's account of feeding the 5000. It works either way around, it seems to me.

Or some 3rdC copyist popped in a bit of Mark into Matthew as he thought is added something to the account (noting that both Matthew and Mark are known to be part of the same portfolio text from pretty early on so the same copyist is likely to have been copying both texts). Or a 2ndC copyist decided that something wasn't really needed so omitted it, or even made an error and failed to copy it from one version to the next.

[Spud]

But unless I am mistaken the key sections you mention (Matthew 9:36 and Mark 6:34) do not appear in any of the early versions we have - so the first time we have evidence of these words in either Mark or Matthew is probably later than the 4thC when the two gospels had been circulating together, and being copied together, for hundreds of years. So rather than discuss the rather sterile notion of Mark copying Matthew or vice versa which we cannot really address as we don't have anything remotely close to the original, we should be discussing how and why the texts we have (from perhaps 400) came to end up in this form.

Codex Sinaiticus does have the verses in question, so that suggests they are authentic.