Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Codex Sinaiticus is from the 4thC - hence my point. I don't believe there are any earlier copies of Matthew or Mark that include these sections. So we cannot know what alterations arose in the earlier copies that ultimately led to Codex Sinaiticus and as Matthew and Mark would have been circulating as part of a folio for perhaps 200 years prior to its writing there are numerous opportunities for copyists to add to delete from one or other gospel as they copied.

[Spud]

Codex Sinaiticus is from the 4thC - hence my point. I don't believe there are any earlier copies of Matthew or Mark that include these sections. So we cannot know what alterations arose in the earlier copies that ultimately led to Codex Sinaiticus and as Matthew and Mark would have been circulating as part of a folio for perhaps 200 years prior to its writing there are numerous opportunities for copyists to add to delete from one or other gospel as they copied.

You did say 'later than the 4th century', but yes I suspected you meant the 4th century itself. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I'm not mistaken, most of the contents of the papyri that are earlier than Codex Sinaiticus contain verses that are the same or similar to the same verses in it. That is, they are described as containing this or that verse but not that those verses are different. We occasionally have notes in our Bible margins that a verse is sometimes added to or omitted in some manuscripts, but the majority of the early manuscripts don't deviate. 

[ProfessorDavey]

You did say 'later than the 4th century', but yes I suspected you meant the 4th century itself.

I did and I've changed the original post. But that doesn't change my point.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If I'm not mistaken, most of the contents of the papyri that are earlier than Codex Sinaiticus contain verses that are the same or similar to the same verses in it.

Except they don't - there are huge number of changes and variations between early versions of the gospels that we have available. Some are minor and some very significant (e.g. the end of Mark). And of course this is only from fragments etc we have from approx 200AD onwards as there is pretty well nothing from earlier than that. So we cannot know what changes occurred in those most early versions and copies that are completely lost to us.

That is, they are described as containing this or that verse but not that those verses are different. We occasionally have notes in our Bible margins that a verse is sometimes added to or omitted in some manuscripts, but the majority of the early manuscripts don't deviate.

That's not what people who actually know what they are talking about and are experts think Spud - in other words textual scholars. They know there are huge numbers of variations - the standard approach being to indicate that there are more variations between early versions of the gospels than there are words in the entire new testament. I think the current view is that there are about 400,000 variations between early versions.

[Spud]

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

If we go back to the Griesbach hypothesis regarding the sequence of the pericopes, I think what happened is that Mark was following Matthew at the point where he describes the rejection at Nazareth (Luke brought this pericope forward to the beginning of the ministry). Mark then notices that both Matthew and Luke are about to be in sequence with the story of Herod being perplexed thinking Jesus is John the baptist, followed by the beheading of John and feeding of the 5,000. So Mark briefly follows Luke by describing the mission of the apostles (which he omitted before when Matthew had it), before giving an amplified account of Matthew's version of John the Baptist's beheading. He then returns to Luke, saying  that the apostles reported back to Jesus. Then he conflates Mt's and Lk's accounts of feeding the 5,000.

By combining Luke's account of the mission of the 12 with Matthew's lengthy account of the beheading of John, Mark has successfully created a break during which the disciples are off preaching and healing. However, at the point at which he joins the two (Mk 6:14), the line of thought is broken: "And King Herod heard (about the disciples activities, parallel to Luke's "And Herod the Tetrarch heard of all the things being done"), but then Mark says, "for 'his' name had become well known", which is parallel to Matthew's "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the news of Jesus".
Then Mark follows Luke's threefold description of who people thought Jesus was, before returning to Matthew's account of the beheading of John, at which point he repeats himself: "And Herod having heard...".
By calling Herod 'King', and amplifying the role of Herod's wife in John's death, Mark may be linking him with King Ahab, who took Naboth's vineyard after his wife Jezebel had him killed.
Following that event, the prophet Micaiah prophesied Ahab's death, saying he saw Israel 'like sheep without a shepherd' ie without a king.

Following the account of John's death, Mark returns to Luke saying that the apostles returned, and Jesus took them to a solitary place to rest. This does not flow as smoothly as in Matthew, where it is because Jesus hears about John's death that he withdraws to a solitary place with the disciples. Mark's conflation has created interruptions in the flow of thought.

At this point Jesus has compassion on the crowd. In Matthew he heals the sick, but Mark may be associating Herod's treatment of the sheep with Ahab's, and then showing that Jesus is the good shepherd who feeds his sheep.

Ezekiel 34 is about God's judgment on the shepherds of Israel. This chapter highlights the need for a shepherd who goes after lost sheep, heals wounded sheep and feeds hungry sheep. Matthew brings this out in 9:35; 10:6; 14:14,16; 15:30-32; Mark in the basic act of feeding the crowds.

If Mark's aim was to link Herod with Ahab, he must have been building on a source or sources which have already shown Jesus to be the shepherd and creating another theological layer to the story. This is confirmed by observing the interruptions in Mark's line of thought as he conflates two sources with different sequences.

[Spud]

I did and I've changed the original post. But that doesn't change my point.
Except they don't - there are huge number of changes and variations between early versions of the gospels that we have available. Some are minor and some very significant (e.g. the end of Mark). And of course this is only from fragments etc we have from approx 200AD onwards as there is pretty well nothing from earlier than that. So we cannot know what changes occurred in those most early versions and copies that are completely lost to us.
That's not what people who actually know what they are talking about and are experts think Spud - in other words textual scholars. They know there are huge numbers of variations - the standard approach being to indicate that there are more variations between early versions of the gospels than there are words in the entire new testament. I think the current view is that there are about 400,000 variations between early versions.

Most of those are completely inconsequential.

On the one hand you argue that a primary account is usually more clunky than a secondary one, but on the other, that the text we have is so corrupted we can't know what it originally said. You can't really argue both.

[ProfessorDavey]

Most of those are completely inconsequential.

Most are, some aren't.

However you and Jeremy are arguing over the specific wording and positioning of comments about shepherds and sheep. This sits absolutely in the inconsequential box as the exact phrasing an position in the text has no effect on its actual meaning. So this sits comfortably in the type of variations common amongst those 400,000 variations.

The point is that neither you, nor Jeremy can be sure whether the phraseology and positioning that you are arguing over appears in that manner in the original versions of Matthew or Mark (the autograph). Without that confidence you are making totally unjustified assumptions and to my mind any discussion of whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa is completely pointless unless you can be confident that those phrases and their positions actually appear in the autograph - and you cannot be. All you can say is that about 275 years later those phrases and their positioning are present in a multiple generation copy.

On the one hand you argue that a primary account is usually more clunky than a secondary one, but on the other, that the text we have is so corrupted we can't know what it originally said. You can't really argue both.

Actually I'm merely the conduit for these views - they are actually the views of textual scholars, you know experts in this type of scholarship and analysis.

And no it isn't inconsistent. The point about clunkiness is one of a number of analytical tools used by scholars in a situation where you have later copies that don't agree with each other, but you don't have the original. It helps you to determine which of those variations is most likely to be closer to the original - note closer to the original - not doesn't tell you how close let alone that it is identical to the original. So it is perfectly possible to use that approach to determine that one or other later copy is closer to the original, yet to also accept that there is so much variation going on that it is a fools errand to think you know what the original actually said. This is particularly the case where there appear to be huge numbers of copies floating around (note only a tiny, tiny proportion of papyrus copies are likely to have survived) and those that we have including hundreds of thousands of variants so the actual number of variants for all copies (including those lost to us) would be many, many times that.

And add to that all these variant are appearing in copies from about 250-400 - you can expect at least as many (probably more as texts tend to 'settle' over time) in the years from the autograph to about 250. Those variants are completely lost to us so we are totally in the dark expect to make a reasonable assumption (unlike your unreasonable assumption that text in a 350AD document is the same as the autograph) that there are huge numbers of further variations unknown to us.

[Spud]

It helps you to determine which of those variations is most likely to be closer to the original - note closer to the original - not doesn't tell you how close let alone that it is identical to the original.

Yes: we are trying to establish which gospel is closer to the original events, the later ones adding additional material.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes: we are trying to establish which gospel is closer to the original, the later ones adding additional material.

But that isn't what you and Jeremy have been arguing over - your discussion has been all about whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa, but you are using text from about 350AD that had been circulating for hundreds of years (with unknown variants) and probably for much of that time both gospels were circulating together and being copied together.

That being the case, then the notion of whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa is completely moot as it assumes you are comparing the originals - the autographs - and we don't have those and we don't know how close to the autographs the 350AD text of Mark is, not the 350AD text of Matthew is for those passages.

[Spud]

To quote from 'Preface to Luke', by H. Riley, page 20:

The narrative in Matt 14:3-12 follows naturally on Matt 14:1-2, which deals with Herod's opinion of Jesus as "John the Baptist, raised from the dead." The narrative in Mark 6:17-29 follows on the longer text of Mark 6:14-16 (which is closer to that of Luke 9:7-9)* which with its inclusion as in Luke of references to Elijah and the prophets, makes a less natural connection with what follows.
[Brief discussion about the title of John in each Synoptic]
At the close of the story, Matthew resumes with a natural connection: John's disciples "went and told Jesus; now when Jesus heard this he withdrew." Luke, who has not used the story of the Baptist's death, has an equally natural continuation, as he has been dealing with the mission of the Twelve, with the words "the apostles returned." Mark, who like Matthew has had the same reference to John's disciples burying him, surprisingly continues not as in Matthew but as in Luke, with "the apostles returned." The natural inference is that Mark has turned from Luke to Matthew at 6:17 and back again from Matthew to Luke at 6:30. The awkwardness of Mark's transitions both before and after the account of the Baptist's death points to his dependence on both Matthew and Luke, the story itself being derived from Matthew and told in a more expanded form.
(*My brackets, replacing commas to make more sense)
I just think this is brilliant.

[Spud]

But that isn't what you and Jeremy have been arguing over - your discussion has been all about whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa, but you are using text from about 350AD that had been circulating for hundreds of years (with unknown variants) and probably for much of that time both gospels were circulating together and being copied together.

That being the case, then the notion of whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa is completely moot as it assumes you are comparing the originals - the autographs - and we don't have those and we don't know how close to the autographs the 350AD text of Mark is, not the 350AD text of Matthew is for those passages.

I suppose I should have said we are trying to establish which is closer to the events they describe.

[jeremyp]

But that isn't what you and Jeremy have been arguing over

One of them sourced the other. We know this because the texts are very similar to the point that one of the gospel writers must have been copying the other.

That being the case, then the notion of whether Mark borrowed from Matthew or vice versa is completely moot as it assumes you are comparing the originals - the autographs - and we don't have those and we don't know how close to the autographs the 350AD text of Mark is, not the 350AD text of Matthew is for those passages.

Until you have evidence that we haven't reconstructed something close to the originals, we can ignore you, just as the scholars who study ancient texts ignore you. Nobody goes round wailing about how we can't know what Homer wrote because we don't have anything close to the originals, or what Herodotos wrote or what Archimedes wrote or what Julius Caesar wrote. Similarly, we don't do that with the gospels. We proceed (well, secular scholars proceed) on the basis of the balance of probabilities.

[Spud]

A little more insight into the Lord's Prayer. If on certain other grounds we can show that Matthew was written before Mark, it would be enough that Mark knew of Matthew's section on prayer (Mt 6:5-15), even if he didn't include all of it.

Shortly after Jesus' comments about the fig tree and subsequent challenge by the elders and chief priests at the temple in Mt 21 and Mark 11, there is the parable of the two sons, which Mark omits but is integral to the discussion, indicating that Matthew's is the more original account.

Mt 6:5 says "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men."
Mk 11:25 says, "And when you stand to pray"

Then Mt 6:9,12,14 says, "Our Father in heaven...And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors....For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you"
Mk 11 25 says, "if you hold anything against another, forgive it, so that your Father in heaven will forgive your trespasses as well".

Spot the similarities...

[jeremyp]

If on certain other grounds we can show that Matthew was written before Mark

But we can't. That makes everything else you wrote moot.

[Spud]

But we can't. That makes everything else you wrote moot.

We can - the example I gave of the parable of the two sons, comes shortly after the withered fig tree, where Mark quotes phrases from the Lord's prayer. The parable, which symbolises the Jewish leaders not believing John the Baptist's testimony, is part of Jesus' response to the Jewish leaders' challenge about his authority. Do you think it is more likely that Matthew added it or that Mark omitted it?

[jeremyp]

We can

No we can't. If you could show that Matthew was written before Mark, you'd be the most celebrated New Testament scholar in the World.

- the example I gave of the parable of the two sons, comes shortly after the withered fig tree, where Mark quotes phrases from the Lord's prayer. The parable, which symbolises the Jewish leaders not believing John the Baptist's testimony, is part of Jesus' response to the Jewish leaders' challenge about his authority. Do you think it is more likely that Matthew added it or that Mark omitted it?

I think Matthew added it. Why do you think it is more likely that somebody would excise a teaching of Jesus rather than add one in? What would Mark's motive be for removing a teaching from his religion's founder?

[Spud]

No we can't. If you could show that Matthew was written before Mark, you'd be the most celebrated New Testament scholar in the World.

I doubt the majority would believe it, but let's see.

I think Matthew added it. Why do you think it is more likely that somebody would excise a teaching of Jesus rather than add one in?

There can be valid reasons both to shorten or to lengthen an account - indeed if either of them did shorten parts of the other, he also lengthened other parts.

What would Mark's motive be for removing a teaching from his religion's founder?

If his purpose for writing was more evangelical than instructive, he might not include all the teaching available.

The main clue, I think, is narrative continuity. According to Matthew Henry, the parable of the two sons is the continuation of Jesus' answer to the reply they gave him to his question, from where did John's baptism come? ("We do not know"). He tells them how they might know from where it came: firstly, John came in the way of righteousness, which would suggest heaven, and secondly, the tax collectors and sinners believed him and repented, which would also suggest heaven.

Given such a tight continuity of the narrative, then, doesn't this suggest that Matthew is closer to the source of the material - or might even be the source (given also its emphasis on tax collectors)? It's hard to imagine that Matthew would have copied Mark 11:27-33 and added to it, had that been the case. Easier to imagine Mark and Luke omitting Matthew 21:28-32 and focusing on the parable of the tenants which was more relevant to Gentile readers.

[jeremyp]

I doubt the majority would believe it, but let's see. There can be valid reasons both to shorten or to lengthen an account - indeed if either of them did shorten parts of the other, he also lengthened other parts. If his purpose for writing was more evangelical than instructive, he might not include all the teaching available.

The main clue, I think, is narrative continuity. According to Matthew Henry, the parable of the two sons is the continuation of Jesus' answer to the reply they gave him to his question, from where did John's baptism come? ("We do not know"). He tells them how they might know from where it came: firstly, John came in the way of righteousness, which would suggest heaven, and secondly, the tax collectors and sinners believed him and repented, which would also suggest heaven.

Given such a tight continuity of the narrative, then, doesn't this suggest that Matthew is closer to the source of the material - or might even be the source (given also its emphasis on tax collectors)? It's hard to imagine that Matthew would have copied Mark 11:27-33 and added to it, had that been the case. Easier to imagine Mark and Luke omitting Matthew 21:28-32 and focusing on the parable of the tenants which was more relevant to Gentile readers.

The problem for any argument that Mark wanted to shorten the account is that his decisions about what to leave out are baffling. For example, the Beatitudes and the Lords Prayer are missing from Mark? Why would any Christian leave those out? On the other hand his section on the pigs of Gerasene is longer than that of Matthew or Luke. Why would he leave out the Lord's Prayer but decide you couldn't have enough pigs? It doesn't make sense.

Why are you so invested in the order of the gospels being the traditional one anyway? It doesn't make any difference to your faith.

[Spud]

The problem for any argument that Mark wanted to shorten the account is that his decisions about what to leave out are baffling. For example, the Beatitudes and the Lords Prayer are missing from Mark? Why would any Christian leave those out? On the other hand his section on the pigs of Gerasene is longer than that of Matthew or Luke. Why would he leave out the Lord's Prayer but decide you couldn't have enough pigs? It doesn't make sense.

I can only offer a few (brain-bending) ideas that I've found in Harold Riley's three books. In "The First Gospel" he points out that Lord's Prayer in Matthew appears to interrupt Jesus' teaching about false piety (Matthew 6:1-18). The three examples (giving, prayer and fasting) each end with the refrain "and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you". Verses 7-8, and 9-15 (the Lord's prayer) appear to be an insertion. If the material in those verses had been part of the original text, then 6:5-15 would logically have been the last of the three examples, so as to preserve the structure of the section as a whole.

Luke's copy of Matthew must have not included the Lord's Prayer, because Luke has a slightly different version and puts it in a precise context (Luke 11:1). Possibly, the prayer was inserted into Matthew once the original form of that gospel was being more widely used in the early church.

That Mark made reference to the lord's prayer (Mark 11:25 - missing in Luke) suggests that it was in Mark's copy of Matthew. It would also have been in his copy of Luke. John did not include it. Mark had different objectives from Matthew and Luke. For a start he was writing for Christians from a Gentile background. He explained Jewish customs where Matthew didn't need to. He may have decided that the sermon on the mount/plain, like other chunks of material, wasn't needed,

As to the Gerasene demoniac, Mark at that point is in sequence with Luke, so his account of that story is closer to Luke's, who has an additional source as well as Matthew's account. Mark follows Luke, but characteristically adds extra detail including the number of pigs.

[Spud]

If Matthew was used by Luke and Mark, then it would not be surprising if we found a discrepancy in the description they give of a particular event. In Appendix 3 of The Making Of Mark, Harold Riley shows that Matthew agrees with John on the chronology of the Last Supper, whereas Luke, using Matthew, and Mark, using Matthew and Luke, both use wording that makes it look like the last supper was the official Passover.
Matthew gives 5 consecutive days. Chapter 27 accurately fulfills 26:2, making it the third day of the five. Matthew calls this 'the Passover' (26:2). The day in between he calls 'the first day of unleavened bread' (26:17). Riley thinks that this is how Matthew referred to the day when preparations were made, rather than the actual day of Passover, in describing the day in between the prophecy of 26:2 and it's fulfillment two days later.
Luke and Mark, misunderstanding Matthew's meaning, assume that 'the first day of unleavened bread' (Mt 26:17) refers to the same day as the Passover. Hence when we read their accounts it reads as though the last supper was the official Passover.

[Dicky Underpants]

I can only offer a few (brain-bending) ideas that I've found in Harold Riley's three books.

I think the source of Harold Riley's later obsessive studies - and indeed confirmation bias - can be found in a few of his biographical details, which he provides online. It seems that he started his studies in theology with the now well-known (and widely accepted) order of priority in the writing of the Gospels i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. He also accepted the developing 'Christology' implied in this order of composition - from low to high, with John exhibiting the highest Christology. This apparently began to bring on a crisis of faith, and he felt himself falling into an abyss of atheism which terrified him. I suspect he envisioned the ultimate eclipse of Christianity, which he found equally unsettling.
Thus the retreat into traditional theological assertions and the excessive attempt to restore some security in his belief system.
Better to have followed the arguments leading to atheism to the end - atheism is not lethal in itself. Millions seem to be able to live with it.
And was it Riley who has argued for the long ending of Mark's gospel to be genuine all along? Do me a favour guv'.

[Spud]

I think the source of Harold Riley's later obsessive studies - and indeed confirmation bias - can be found in a few of his biographical details, which he provides online. It seems that he started his studies in theology with the now well-known (and widely accepted) order of priority in the writing of the Gospels i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. He also accepted the developing 'Christology' implied in this order of composition - from low to high, with John exhibiting the highest Christology. This apparently began to bring on a crisis of faith, and he felt himself falling into an abyss of atheism which terrified him. I suspect he envisioned the ultimate eclipse of Christianity, which he found equally unsettling.
Thus the retreat into traditional theological assertions and the excessive attempt to restore some security in his belief system.
Better to have followed the arguments leading to atheism to the end - atheism is not lethal in itself. Millions seem to be able to live with it.
And was it Riley who has argued for the long ending of Mark's gospel to be genuine all along? Do me a favour guv'.

Oh that's interesting, where online did you find his biographical details? I'd imagine that pretty much everyone who studies the gospels starts out believing Markan priority, as it's widely taught. If that leads logically to atheism, then maybe it would prompt someone to look at other possible theories for the relationship between the Synoptics. I thought what was underlying Riley's argument for Matthean priority is the Griesbach hypothesis, which I doubt many are aware of. If he comes across as confirmation biased, I think it's more that he is testing that hypothesis.

The long ending of Mark, I recall, is quoted several times by early church fathers, although the manuscripts in which the quotes are found date to much later, so aren't conclusive evidence.

[Dicky Underpants]

Alas, I found the information on a public computer, so haven't been able to check my search history.
Googling on my phone (my only other source of internet) has come up with nothing.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd imagine that pretty much everyone who studies the gospels starts out believing Markan priority, as it's widely taught.

It is widely taught because this is where the available evidence lead us.

If that leads logically to atheism, then maybe it would prompt someone to look at other possible theories for the relationship between the Synoptics.

Why on earth would Markan priority lead to atheism - why would you cease to believe in god just because Mark was written first? But for the sake of arguments let's assume it does, why would any sensible person try to alter an accepted ordering of the gospels - surely that would be simply about altering the evidence to fit a pre-judged assertion.

[ProfessorDavey]

The long ending of Mark, I recall, is quoted several times by early church fathers, ...

Evidence please - and be sure to be clear that the extant copy of the manuscript quoting this predates the earliest extant copy of Mark with the longer ending.

... although the manuscripts in which the quotes are found date to much later, so aren't conclusive evidence.

But nor would an earliest extant copying claiming early church fathers quote the longer ending that isn't from, say the 2ndC.

So evidence please - which document claims early church fathers quoted the longer Mark ending and what is the date of the earliest extant copy of this documents.

[jeremyp]

If [Markan priority] leads logically to atheism, then maybe it would prompt someone to look at other possible theories for the relationship between the Synoptics.

Can you explain why Markan priority leads logically to atheism? It's a bit of a shallow faith that rests on which order certain books are written, isn't it?