Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Spud]

Firstly I think the reason Mark did not lift these sections is because Mark came first and he didn't have access to Matthew and Luke.

However, for the sake of argument let's assume the author of Mark did have access to Matthew and Luke. If, as you claim, he didn't see the Lord's prayer as important suggests a major schism in the early church as clearly others considered it to be incredibly important and those people clearly won the day as the Lord's prayer became a central component of the developing church doctrine.

Looks like the Lord's Prayer was recited alongside the Eucharist and baptism from an early stage. But that doesn't mean it would necessarily be included in a gospel. John didn't include it. That the four were circulated together shows that they complimented, rather than superseded, each other.

[ProfessorDavey]

Looks like the Lord's Prayer was recited alongside the Eucharist and baptism from an early stage. But that doesn't mean it would necessarily be included in a gospel. John didn't include it. That the four were circulated together shows that they complimented, rather than superseded, each other.

Which also raises the question as to why these four were selected rather than other texts which were circulating at the time and were ultimately deemed non-canonical.

The reality is that what we are offered within the orthodox new testament is a carefully curated set of texts, selected and likely amended with very clear purpose in mind. These are not in any way some kind of eye witness accounts, but what the early church wanted to bring across in a highly politicised manner - their spin, if you like.

[Dicky Underpants]

It doesn't have to be a written document though. The Q document is hypothesised as a written document because the material shared between Matthew and Luke is almost word for word identical. That wouldn't happen if they had both independently transcribed the same oral source.

You seem to be arguing against yourself here - or maybe I've just misunderstood you. Q doesn't have to be a written document, but as you say, the shared material is almost word for word identical, and in the same order in the Greek language. Since Q is largely a 'sayings gospel', we're dealing with original speech in Aramaic mostly, and then translated into Greek. This puts a heavy burden on the idea on there being a more or less unified oral source, which then gets translated orally into Koine Greek, before Matthew and Luke become aware of it and commit it to papyrus.
Frankly, I've just about given up on the Q idea in all its differing explanations. None of them seem entirely satisfactory. The idea of a single written document would resolve many issues, but it would be nice to have at least one copy, instead of zilch, apart from the shared stuff in M and L.

[Dicky Underpants]

Which also raises the question as to why these four were selected rather than other texts which were circulating at the time and were ultimately deemed non-canonical.

Well, at least we know, pace Irenaeus, why there are only four: there are four corners to the earth, and four winds

The reality is that what we are offered within the orthodox new testament is a carefully curated set of texts, selected and likely amended with very clear purpose in mind. These are not in any way some kind of eye witness accounts, but what the early church wanted to bring across in a highly politicised manner - their spin, if you like.

It is evident that each evangelist had a different agendum, regardless of how the early church wished to spin things. Mark was obsessed with Jesus expelling demons (the supposed cause of disease), Matthew writing with a Jewish audience in mind (although thoroughly castigating them), Luke appealing more to the Roman empire, and toning down matters of an imminent Armageddon etc.
In reference to the latter, the early Church certainly whipped up a lot of spin. As it became evident that the Son of Man was not about to come again in the clouds and setting up his Kingdom any day soon, as the gospels had clearly stated, they (particularly Augustine) set about interpreting these things in a very metaphorical way, concluding that the arrival of the 'Kingdom' had come in the form of the established Church.

[Spud]

Well, at least we know, pace Irenaeus, why there are only four: there are four corners to the earth, and four winds

It is evident that each evangelist had a different agendum, regardless of how the early church wished to spin things. Mark was obsessed with Jesus expelling demons (the supposed cause of disease), Matthew writing with a Jewish audience in mind (although thoroughly castigating them), Luke appealing more to the Roman empire, and toning down matters of an imminent Armageddon etc.
In reference to the latter, the early Church certainly whipped up a lot of spin. As it became evident that the Son of Man was not about to come again in the clouds and setting up his Kingdom any day soon, as the gospels had clearly stated, they (particularly Augustine) set about interpreting these things in a very metaphorical way, concluding that the arrival of the 'Kingdom' had come in the form of the established Church.

I like reading these ideas of yours, they present a nice challenge. What comes to mind is you haven't factored in the difference between the Jewish and Church dispensations. That is that the sacrificial system ended because of Jesus' sacrifice; also the priesthood that was dependent on Levitical ancestry was transferred to the apostles and church. The priesthood of the descendants of Jacob in the temple in the land of Canaan, through which the Gentiles would come to know God, turned into (partly beginning at the Exile) mission to the Gentiles beginning in Jerusalem and Judea and spreading out into the Empire and eventually the four corners of the earth.
The delay of the second coming of Christ is a difficult one, agreed, but less so if understood in this light.

[Spud]

You seem to be arguing against yourself here - or maybe I've just misunderstood you. Q doesn't have to be a written document, but as you say, the shared material is almost word for word identical, and in the same order in the Greek language. Since Q is largely a 'sayings gospel', we're dealing with original speech in Aramaic mostly, and then translated into Greek. This puts a heavy burden on the idea on there being a more or less unified oral source, which then gets translated orally into Koine Greek, before Matthew and Luke become aware of it and commit it to papyrus.
Frankly, I've just about given up on the Q idea in all its differing explanations. None of them seem entirely satisfactory. The idea of a single written document would resolve many issues, but it would be nice to have at least one copy, instead of zilch, apart from the shared stuff in M and L.

Or we could assume the original source to be Jesus, and as Luke tells us, the ministers of the word handed down the good news orally and 'many' undertook to write down an account. Matthew was written before the Temple was destroyed, when they (the chief priests, teachers of the law etc) were still praying on street corners and paying the temple tax. Luke is based in Matthew but re-words some of it and has another source - that's the real Q for me. Mark then drew from both of them.

[Spud]

Which also raises the question as to why these four were selected rather than other texts which were circulating at the time and were ultimately deemed non-canonical.

As I understand it, they were considered to be written under the authority of the apostles.
Incidentally, someone on YouTube did a presentation arguing against Markan priority; he mentioned your view that where there is evidence of copying, the clunkier of the two is the more primitive. He said that the Gnostic gospels, which pretended to be by some of Jesus' disciples, were more clunky, yet were written later than the four canonical ones. Thought that might interest you.

The reality is that what we are offered within the orthodox new testament is a carefully curated set of texts, selected and likely amended with very clear purpose in mind. These are not in any way some kind of eye witness accounts, but what the early church wanted to bring across in a highly politicised manner - their spin, if you like.

Can you elaborate a bit?

[jeremyp]

You seem to be arguing against yourself here - or maybe I've just misunderstood you. Q doesn't have to be a written document

Yes it does. The parts of Matthew and Luke that are alleged to be Q are too similar (i.e. the wording is almost identical) for Matthew and Luke to have received them independently by oral means. Either one copied the other (probably Luke copying Matthew) or they both copied another written source.

[jeremyp]

As I understand it, they were considered to be written under the authority of the apostles.

There's no evidence that that is the case.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes it does. The parts of Matthew and Luke that are alleged to be Q are too similar (i.e. the wording is almost identical) for Matthew and Luke to have received them independently by oral means. Either one copied the other (probably Luke copying Matthew) or they both copied another written source.

Hence my confusion - since you began your post #396 by saying it doesn't. And as I went on to explain, the chances of it not being a written document are so unlikely as to be easily dismissed. So I basically agree with you here.

[Dicky Underpants]

Incidentally, someone on YouTube did a presentation arguing against Markan priority; he mentioned your view that where there is evidence of copying, the clunkier of the two is the more primitive. He said that the Gnostic gospels, which pretended to be by some of Jesus' disciples, were more clunky, yet were written later than the four canonical ones.

I suspect the perceived 'clunkiness' in the Gnostic gospels is due to their attempt to incorporate extremely complicated theological ideas in bizarre and cryptic language. There is a certain amount of arcane stuff (beyond the nature of Christ's divine sonship) in the synoptics, but generally they are more straightforward. Besides, is there any extensive evidence of direct copying between the Gnostic gospels, beyond attempting to present a similar theological schema?

[jeremyp]

Hence my confusion - since you began your post #396 by saying it doesn't. And as I went on to explain, the chances of it not being a written document are so unlikely as to be easily dismissed. So I basically agree with you here.

That was just a badly worded comment. What I meant was that it doesn't have to be a written document independent of Matthew or Luke. Given that the Q material in the two gospels is almost identical, there are only three possibilities:

1. Q was a separate document that Matthew and Luke both had access to (but is now lost and not mentioned anywhere else in early Christian writings)
2. Q is an oral source that Matthew incorporated in his gospel and Luke copied
3. Q is an oral source that Luke incorporated in his gospel and Matthew copied

There are apparently reasons to think that option 3 is unlikely, so most people go for option 1 and a few go for option 2.  I lean towards option 2.

[Dicky Underpants]

That was just a badly worded comment. What I meant was that it doesn't have to be a written document independent of Matthew or Luke. Given that the Q material in the two gospels is almost identical, there are only three possibilities:

1. Q was a separate document that Matthew and Luke both had access to (but is now lost and not mentioned anywhere else in early Christian writings)
2. Q is an oral source that Matthew incorporated in his gospel and Luke copied
3. Q is an oral source that Luke incorporated in his gospel and Matthew copied

There are apparently reasons to think that option 3 is unlikely, so most people go for option 1 and a few go for option 2.  I lean towards option 2.

Yes, option 2 has a fair amount of literature about it. Seems fairly persuasive. But I'm not going to get into a sweat about it these days.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I understand it, they were considered to be written under the authority of the apostles.

But who made that decision and for what reasons and why not others who could just as easily have been considered to have been written under the authority of the apostles (noting that we don't even know who wrote the gospels). The point remains that the selection of four (rather than more or less) and which four was a quasi-political decision of the early church - there isn't some kind of objective threshold that these four gospels reached and others didn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you elaborate a bit?

It is pretty obvious really - what we see as the gospels is the orthodox cannon is the product of careful selection and likely amendment and interpolation to fit a particular set of agendas from the early church.

The NT gospels are most definitely not simply a collected set of known early texts about Jesus collated in the form they were written.

[Spud]

Professor,
If you mean by agendas, showing Jesus' life, death and resurrection to be the fulfilment of Jewish scripture, he is the saviour of the world etc then I'd agree.

[ProfessorDavey]

Professor,
If you mean by agendas, showing Jesus' life, death and resurrection to be the fulfilment of Jewish scripture, he is the saviour of the world etc then I'd agree.

Indeed agendas - as most of those things are subjective faith claims, not objective historical fact and hence a decision to include those, and how to include them is, in effect, the action of a political agenda. Had the early church focused on differing faith claims (and we know there wasn't consensus, hence so-called 'heretical' claims) then they'd have chosen, or created, alternative narratives that fitted their agenda.

And there are, of course, other gospels that also describe similar things that were rejected for inclusion, even though some have no more, nor less, claim to be accurate compared to the four gospels that were selected.

The point is firstly why these four, rather than more or less or different. And secondly to what extent the four that were selected were subject to alteration etc to create a more compelling narrative that aligned with the early church's political agenda. And we know of some hum-dinger alterations, most notably the addition to the end of Mark. That's just by chance and given that we simply don't have any actual textual evidence for the first 150 year or so from their purported writing we simply do no, and cannot know how many other alterations were made prior to the first actual manuscripts we have available. Given the huge number of inconsistencies and alterations in extant manuscript we have from about 250-400AD we can surely infer that there must have been many alterations from 100-250. Otherwise you have to claim that the gospels were unaltered up to 250 and then suddenly started getting altered post-250. That argument isn't credible.

This quote from Ehrman sums it up rather nicely:

'The victors in the struggles to establish Christian Orthodoxy not only won their theological battles, they also rewrote the history of the conflict; later readers then naturally assumed that the victorious views had been embraced by the vast majority of Christians from the very beginning ... The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history ... the debate lasted three hundred years ... even within "orthodox" circles there was considerable debate concerning which books to include.'

So Spud, not only are you uncritically accepting the orthodox narrative thereby failing to recognise that alternative narratives existed in the early church, you are also failing to recognise that history was re-written by the victors (as it usually is). The very notion that we use the term heretical to describe those who took an alternative view emphasises that political rewriting to expunge and discredit those who lost the debate. The reality is that neither the 'orthodox' nor the 'heretical' stood their arguments one firmer ground than the others - both involved faith claims that had no credible evidence to support them.

[Anchorman]

It is pretty obvious really - what we see as the gospels is the orthodox cannon is the product of careful selection and likely amendment and interpolation to fit a particular set of agendas from the early church.

The NT gospels are most definitely not simply a collected set of known early texts about Jesus collated in the form they were written.

   I'd possibly argue with you, but, given the fragment of gospel - Mark - found as filler for a Roman period Egyptian mask which cannot have dated to beyond 90 AD, the time for succh collation, copying, and use of such a gospel to the point of destruction is limited.

[ProfessorDavey]

   I'd possibly argue with you, but, given the fragment of gospel - Mark - found as filler for a Roman period Egyptian mask which cannot have dated to beyond 90 AD, the time for succh collation, copying, and use of such a gospel to the point of destruction is limited.

Evidence please - as far as I'm aware the earliest confirmed fragments of Mark are papyrus 45 and 137 both likely dated about 200CE and not earlier than 150CE.

Actually although Mark is considered to have been written first on the basis of content we have the fewest actual early fragments/manuscripts compared to the other gospels.

[ProfessorDavey]

   I'd possibly argue with you, but, given the fragment of gospel - Mark - found as filler for a Roman period Egyptian mask which cannot have dated to beyond 90 AD, the time for succh collation, copying, and use of such a gospel to the point of destruction is limited.

I've not seen any credible claim for a fragment of Mark dated earlier than 150CE (more likely 200CE).

But for the sake of argument, let's assume there is a fragment from 90CE. These early fragments don't contain the whole of the gospel, they don't even contain complete pages or verses. No, typically the earliest may contain just a few words, often not even sequential words. So even if these few words also exist in a later version that provides no evidence that there aren't alterations elsewhere in the 99.9% of the gospel that you don't have available in the early fragment, were you to compare the 99.9% (which you can't as your don't have it) to the comparable sections in a later and more complete manuscript.

[jeremyp]

Evidence please - as far as I'm aware the earliest confirmed fragments of Mark are papyrus 45 and 137 both likely dated about 200CE and not earlier than 150CE.

Actually although Mark is considered to have been written first on the basis of content we have the fewest actual early fragments/manuscripts compared to the other gospels.

He's talking about P137: https://art-crime.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-gospel-truth-how-laundering-of.html

[ProfessorDavey]

He's talking about P137: https://art-crime.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-gospel-truth-how-laundering-of.html

Ah yes - I was suspecting as much.

So a teeny, tiny fragment accepted to be from about 200CE that someone claimed was a completely different fragment from 80CE. Until it was pointed out that they were, in fact, the same fragment, accepted to be from about 200CE. At which point the people who claimed this to be a new and earlier fragment were forced to retract their claims and apologise.

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/oldest-manuscript-of-mark-is-nonetheless-a-disappointment/129500.htm

[Dicky Underpants]

Ah yes - I was suspecting as much.

So a teeny, tiny fragment accepted to be from about 200CE that someone claimed was a completely different fragment from 80CE. Until it was pointed out that they were, in fact, the same fragment, accepted to be from about 200CE. At which point the people who claimed this to be a new and earlier fragment were forced to retract their claims and apologise.

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/oldest-manuscript-of-mark-is-nonetheless-a-disappointment/129500.htm

Well now, it's nice to see such worthy Christian scholars taking to heart the words from St Paul's letter to the Phillippians, read by Boris Johnson at the Platinum Jubilee service (and of course BJ is himself such an admirable practitioner of such precepts):
"Finally, brothers, whatever is TRUE, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things."
Of course, all things considered, we can't even be sure that St Paul ever wrote those words, considering the doubt that has been cast on the authenticity of a number of the Epistles.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well now, it's nice to see such worthy Christian scholars taking to heart the words from St Paul's letter to the Phillippians, read by Boris Johnson at the Platinum Jubilee service (and of course BJ is himself such an admirable practitioner of such precepts):
"Finally, brothers, whatever is TRUE, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things."
Of course, all things considered, we can't even be sure that St Paul ever wrote those words, considering the doubt that has been cast on the authenticity of a number of the Epistles.

Not sure whether this is a case of overt out and out lying. I think the issue, as we keep seeing with Spud, is that these folk so, so desperately want something to be true that their judgement and faculties become so compromised that they will grasp anything that seems to back up their prejudged faith position however, implausible, un-evidenced and, frankly, untrue it is.

As soon as you stop basing your conclusions on the evidence but start desperately cherry picking any possible grain of evidence to back up your prejudice then we are in real trouble.

[Anchorman]

Evidence please - as far as I'm aware the earliest confirmed fragments of Mark are papyrus 45 and 137 both likely dated about 200CE and not earlier than 150CE.

Actually although Mark is considered to have been written first on the basis of content we have the fewest actual early fragments/manuscripts compared to the other gospels.

   
 I'm choosing to post a non-religious link, as most 'Biblical archaeology' sites give me a headache.
The Roman Period isn't my speciality, but a friend of mine, Prof Salima Ikram, an expert in mummification and evolution of funerary practices, assures me that the mummy case itself is nothing particularly special; simply a bog -standard middle ranking burial. Apparently scrap papyrus fragments such as used shopping lists, or legal documents, were frequently incorporated into carton age, the precursor to papier mmache.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/papyrus-found-mummy-mask-may-be-oldest-known-copy-gospel-180953962/