Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Dicky Underpants]

   
 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/

Scrap bits of papyrus may indeed have regularly been included into mummy cases in the 1st century, but this case in question appears to be a proven fraud.

[Spud]

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.

If the four gospels are authentic, then someone who lived after Christ but witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem would know this, since those gospels had predicted this event. It's interesting that the longest (therefore most important, to his mind) section of teaching that Mark recorded is the Olivet Discourse.
So we cannot assume as you do that the people who were involved in selecting those four gospels, such as Papias, were unable to know if they were written under apostolic authority.
I don't deny that the gospels were added to. We can get a good idea of which parts may have been edited: for example Matthew 10 begins with the disciples being sent out to preach to the lost sheep of Israel and not to the Gentiles. But Jesus goes on to warn them of persecutions, which doesn't seem to fit: it seems more appropriate where Mark has it in the Olivet discourse, indicating that it was not originally part of Matthew's account of the sending out of the twelve.
This editing doesn't mean the gospels are not authentic. People could have made the editions in order to include genuine events and teaching not in the original.

[Anchorman]

Scrap bits of papyrus may indeed have regularly been included into mummy cases in the 1st century, but this case in question appears to be a proven fraud.

   


There are several schools of opinion on the authenticity of the fragment. C14 dating is impractical; however the writing style is certainly contemporary with similar late first century documents.
Similar fragments from another mask, of a letter from a Christian to his cousin, dating to around 11o AD, were recovered by the Egypt Exploration Society - a respected, impartial source - in the late 1990s, again, from a mummy board.

[ProfessorDavey]

   
 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/

But this is the same non-sense story that I referred to above.

There was no new fragment - this was some bizarre story cooked up about p137 which was already sitting in a museum and dated to about CE200.

If you click on one of the links in your article you get this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2012/02/27/fragments-of-marks-gospel-may-date-to-1st-century/

Which links to Daniel B Wallace the person who cooked up the story but has since had to retract it and has apologised for his non-sense claims to other scholars - as I indicated in my link (linked to again).

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

Note from the article:

'Daniel Wallace immediately apologised openly and unreservedly, not least to Bart Ehrman. He is sorry that, on the basis of incorrect information, he said things which have turned out to be inaccurate.

Someone who has so far remained silent is Dirk Obbink. Despite his Dutch family name Obbink is an American papyrologist who works with the Oxyrhynchus Papyri in Oxford. This month's publication of the fragment of Mark in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri is his work. And it was he who initially dated the manuscript to the first century AD back in 2012, although he now rather thinks it was around AD 200. There also stubborn rumours that he put the manuscript up for sale to some rich Americans like the Green family, although it is of course not his personal property at all.'

So the guy who claimed this to be 1stC now accepts it is from 200CE.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are several schools of opinion on the authenticity of the fragment.

Nope in this case it is accepted to be a fraud, or at least completely untrue. Even the people who cooked up the story (Wallace and Obbink) accept variously that no such fragment exists (Wallace) and that the fragment incorrectly indicated as a new fragment, but was actually p137, is from 200CE.

[jeremyp]

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.

Philippians is generally considered to be one of the genuine ones.

[jeremyp]

Nope in this case it is accepted to be a fraud, or at least completely untrue. Even the people who cooked up the story (Wallace and Obbink) accept variously that no such fragment exists (Wallace) and that the fragment incorrectly indicated as a new fragment, but was actually p137, is from 200CE.

It's definitely an authentic fragment. The falsehood is the claim that it dates from the first century rather than the second century.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's definitely an authentic fragment. The falsehood is the claim that it dates from the first century rather than the second century.

Yes that is correct. But the original claim was that there was another fragment, distinct from p137, that was from first C. It turned out that they were actually referring to p137 all along - so there is only one, rather than two, fragments - and p137 is likely dated to around 200CE.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's definitely an authentic fragment. The falsehood is the claim that it dates from the first century rather than the second century.

And that it was found in a mummy case, now located in the USA (whereas it has been sitting in a basket in Oxford for over 100 years).

[Spud]

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.

I don't know that there is any evidence of that.
It doesn't seem to have been happening since they were verifiably collected together in the Bible, so why would it happen before? And don't forget we do have some evidence of "patching up" the gospels to agree with each other: Mark has an ending grafted on that is pretty clearly a prιcis of the resurrection stories from the other gospels, but they weren't copied word for word.

Mark could have written the appendix (16:9-20) to complement his introduction (1:1-13). The introduction summarizes John's ministry and the preparation for Jesus' ministry. It's roughly the same length as the long ending and contains almost the same number (16) of words that are not found in the rest of the gospel. Vv 9-20 contain 15 such words. By contrast, the short ending is almost entirely made up of words and phrases not found elsewhere in the gospel, indicating that someone other than Mark wrote it. 16:9-20 is a summary of the resurrection appearances and the disciples' disbelief and subsequent ministry. So the two form a "framework of two summaries, between which the body of the Gospel is set" (Riley).

[jeremyp]

Mark could have written the appendix (16:9-20) to compliment his introduction (1:1-13).

Unlikely, if Mark was writing in the first century. The longer ending probably comes from the second century.

[ProfessorDavey]

Unlikely, if Mark was writing in the first century. The longer ending probably comes from the second century.

Indeed - it is very hard to argue credibly that the longer ending of Mark is contemporaneous with the original with the shorter ending, but somehow didn't get included. Given that the earliest extant copies have the shorter ending and only later ones have the longer ending we can conclude that the longer ending is a later addition.

But Spud is correct that linguistically it is difficult to see the longer ending as different from the main writing style, so we know it is an addition due to the extant copies we have rather than writing style. Why this is important is that it casts doubt on all sorts of aspects of the original gospels. Had we not had the good fortune of 'before/after' versions of the ending of Mark we'd be none the wiser that the longer ending wasn't original. How many other examples might there be of similar alteration that we simply don't know about because we don't have, by luck, 'before/after' versions.

[jeremyp]

But Spud is correct that linguistically it is difficult to see the longer ending as different from the main writing style,

I don't think that this is the case. The Wikipedia article suggests that it is at least in doubt

Critical questions concerning the authenticity of verses 9–20 (the "longer ending") often center on stylistic and linguistic issues. On linguistics, E. P. Gould identified 19 of the 163 words in the passage as distinctive and not occurring elsewhere in the Gospel.[49] Dr. Bruce Terry argues that a vocabulary-based case against Mark 16:9–20 is indecisive, inasmuch as other 12-verse sections of Mark contain comparable numbers of once-used words.

Robert Gundry mentions that only about 10% of Mark's γαρ clauses (6 out of 66) conclude pericopes. Thus he infers that, rather than concluding 16:1–8, verse 8 begins a new pericope, the rest of which is now lost to us. Gundry therefore does not see verse 8 as the intended ending; a resurrection narrative was either written, then lost, or planned but never actually written.

Concerning style, the degree to which verses 9–20 aptly fit as an ending for the Gospel remains in question. The turn from verse 8 to 9 has also been seen as abrupt and interrupted: the narrative flows from "they were afraid" to "now after he rose", and seems to reintroduce Mary Magdalene. Secondly, Mark regularly identifies instances where Jesus' prophecies are fulfilled, yet Mark does not explicitly state the twice predicted reconciliation of Jesus with his disciples in Galilee (Mark 14:28, 16:7). Lastly, the active tense "he rose" is different from the earlier passive construction "[he] has been risen" of verse 6, seen as significant by some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Longer_ending

[Spud]

Given that the earliest extant copies have the shorter ending and only later ones have the longer ending we can conclude that the longer ending is a later addition.

As I've mentioned before, Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD.

[Spud]

The turn from verse 8 to 9 has also been seen as abrupt and interrupted: the narrative flows from "they were afraid" to "now after he rose"

In several other places Mark omits Jesus' name and uses 'he' when beginning a new episode.

[Spud]

I don't think that this is the case. The Wikipedia article suggests that it is at least in doubt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Longer_ending

The substance of the long ending may reflect that Mark's (if Mark was the author) sources (including John) diverged after the empty tomb.

[jeremyp]

As I've mentioned before, Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD.

There is a surprising amount of evidence that it existed in the mid to late second century, but the consensus is that it was not part of the Gospel of Mark.

[Dicky Underpants]

As I've mentioned before, Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD.

Do you honestly believe that the longer ending at 16:18 is consistent with the rest of the gospel? Jesus advocating his followers to drink deadly poison and take up (presumably venomous) snakes as a sign of their faith in him? Maybe he taught that their faith would sustain them through their times of trial, but it doesn't seem likely he would tell them to do things which were downright stupid.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I've mentioned before, Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD.

As Jeremy indicates, just because a section of text appears somewhere else doesn't mean it was originally part of Mark - merely that this text was circulating.

But I have to ask the obvious question - when you claim that 'Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD' do you mean that we have an extant version of Against Heresies from 185AD that includes this text or that later copies of Against Heresies include it but we don't have any actual evidence that it appeared in the original Against Heresies? I think I know the answer to this - as I suspect you do, given that the early copies of Against Heresies that we have are (just as for the gospels) tiny fragments - and guess what ... they don't include this section.

[Spud]

Do you honestly believe that the longer ending at 16:18 is consistent with the rest of the gospel? Jesus advocating his followers to drink deadly poison and take up (presumably venomous) snakes as a sign of their faith in him? Maybe he taught that their faith would sustain them through their times of trial, but it doesn't seem likely he would tell them to do things which were downright stupid.

It doesn't come across to me the way you are interpreting it. Maybe it means people might try to poison them?

[Spud]

As Jeremy indicates, just because a section of text appears somewhere else doesn't mean it was originally part of Mark - merely that this text was circulating.

But I have to ask the obvious question - when you claim that 'Iraeneus quotes Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, about 185 AD' do you mean that we have an extant version of Against Heresies from 185AD that includes this text or that later copies of Against Heresies include it but we don't have any actual evidence that it appeared in the original Against Heresies? I think I know the answer to this - as I suspect you do, given that the early copies of Against Heresies that we have are (just as for the gospels) tiny fragments - and guess what ... they don't include this section.

And conversely if it doesn't appear somewhere that doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original. Which is why it may be better t base a judgment as to its belonging to the original on the text itself?

[ProfessorDavey]

And conversely if it doesn't appear somewhere that doesn't mean it wasn't part of the original. Which is why it may be better t base a judgment as to its belonging to the original on the text itself?

Nope - faulty thinking.

We have early copies of Mark (the earliest that have the ending) where the longer ending is missing. Note missing, not just that we don't have that section in the copy. The gospel ends and ends at 16:8. So we can be confident that at the very least some early versions of Mark didn't include 16:9-20. Conversely we have no early copies of Mark that include 16:9-20. Could be, of course, that we haven't found an early copy with 16:9-20, but that these exist or existed.

So at best you may be able to argue that early on there were variants circulating, one without 16:9-20 (we know this for sure) and one with 16:9-20 (we cannot be sure about this. So if you argue this, then you'd have to try to discern which was more likely to be the original. So if the one including 16:9-20 was the original then you'd have to argue that it was removed from some copies. But this is a pretty hard ask because:

1. We don't even know for sure that any early versions of Mark included 16:9-20, but we know that some didn't.
2. It is easier to argue for 16:9-20 to have been added, rather than removed on the basis that its addition adds theoretical kudos to the gospel, while removing it would weaken claims.
3. As Jeremy points out there is also linguistic evidence that is isn't original.

So taken together we have strong evidence that 16:9-20 are later additions and not in the original. The evidence that they were in the original (which would mean they were somehow removed from some early versions) is very weak.

[Gordon]

My one and only contribution to this thread is to note that;

a) Whoever it was who wrote and/or edited NT documents, and when they did so, and what their motivations were, is now unknowable (at least until time travel is invented).

(b) I can't see that it matters very much anyway (bald men and combs come to mind).   

[Spud]

Nope - faulty thinking.

We have early copies of Mark (the earliest that have the ending) where the longer ending is missing. Note missing, not just that we don't have that section in the copy. The gospel ends and ends at 16:8. So we can be confident that at the very least some early versions of Mark didn't include 16:9-20. Conversely we have no early copies of Mark that include 16:9-20. Could be, of course, that we haven't found an early copy with 16:9-20, but that these exist or existed.

So at best you may be able to argue that early on there were variants circulating, one without 16:9-20 (we know this for sure) and one with 16:9-20 (we cannot be sure about this. So if you argue this, then you'd have to try to discern which was more likely to be the original. So if the one including 16:9-20 was the original then you'd have to argue that it was removed from some copies. But this is a pretty hard ask because:

1. We don't even know for sure that any early versions of Mark included 16:9-20, but we know that some didn't.
2. It is easier to argue for 16:9-20 to have been added, rather than removed on the basis that its addition adds theoretical kudos to the gospel, while removing it would weaken claims.
3. As Jeremy points out there is also linguistic evidence that is isn't original.

So taken together we have strong evidence that 16:9-20 are later additions and not in the original. The evidence that they were in the original (which would mean they were somehow removed from some early versions) is very weak.

Perhaps my argument in #445 was weak, yes, but given quotes from Early Church Fathers and inclusions by some sources on the one hand, as well as omissions in other sources on the other hand, isn't the point that some regarded the verses as authentic and some didn't or were unsure?
We do however have the text itself, so I suggest that to be what decides for an individual whether it's part of the original.
If someone thinks that Mark as a whole was the first to be written, because it looks like Matthew and Luke copied him, then because 16:9-20 clearly has them as its sources, it must be a later addition. But if one takes the general view of Markan dependence on Matthew and Luke, then one would have more reason to believe that 16:9-20 is the original ending to it.
I'm quite interested in the comparison between it and Mark's introduction, with which it could form an inclusio for the whole book.

[ProfessorDavey]

.. isn't the point that some regarded the verses as authentic and some didn't or were unsure?
We do however have the text itself, so I suggest that to be what decides for an individual whether it's part of the original.

No - the issue isn't whether some people regarded the longer ending of Mark as authentic, the issue is whether the long ending of Mark is authentic (i.e. not a later addition). This is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion, ultimately. Of course we use evidence to try to determine the truth of the matter and individuals will differ in their interpretations of that evidence, but ultimately we are trying to determine a matter of fact.

And the evidence strongly suggests that the long ending of Mark was a later addition.