Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Spud]

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

Like people who can't afford the train, and rail strikes?

[Spud]

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).

I suggest all we can know is that Irenaeus regarded it to be genuine, but the author of Vaticanus didn't (or didn't know it existed). You can add weight to your view in that we don't have the original of Irenaeus' quote, but I can add weight to mine because his quote, if it is genuine, was earlier. I don't really see one argument as better than the other.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

The reason why it matter is firstly the basic matter that some people like to know actually truth (rather than what people want to be the truth) - that's a fundamental point.

But, perhaps more significantly, it also matters because a proportion of christians seems to need to rely on a claimed veracity of the gospels to support their beliefs, and in doing so support practices that impact on the lives of people today - e.g. treatment of gay people. And that is why these issues matter more for the gospels than, say, Homer or Julius Caesar's Gaiic wars, as (as far as I'm aware) there aren't people in society today justifying discriminatory behaviour against minorities on the basis that the words attributed to Homer are his actual words, or those attributed to Caesar are his actual words.

[ProfessorDavey]

I suggest all we can know is that Irenaeus regarded it to be genuine, but the author of Vaticanus didn't. You can add weight to your view in that we don't have the original of Irenaeus' quote, but I can add weight to mine because his quote, if it is genuine, was earlier. I don't really see one argument as better than the other.

But we don't know that because you just head into the same argument.

We don't know whether the Mark quote was in the original Irenaeus at all, or whether it was added later to align the early church father view with the settled orthodox gospel view. In a debate about orthodoxy versus heresy (the terms are themselves highly non neutral) that the winners of that debate will want to rewrite the history of the battle. This is what happens all the time - so we cannot be certain that what we have from Irenaeus (remembering that we have, at best tiny fragments of contemporary documents) isn't highly edited to align with the political agenda of the winners of the orthodoxy versus heresy battle. Note that we have virtually nothing of Irenaeus in its original greek - what we have largely are later translated versions in latin from significantly later - likely 4th-5thC.

So rather than describing these as writings of Irenaeus in 180CE, we'd be better describing them as writings attributed to Irenaeus, from about 380CE - these are different things.

[jeremyp]

The reason why it matter is firstly the basic matter that some people like to know actually truth (rather than what people want to be the truth) - that's a fundamental point.

I'm afraid with documentary evidence, unless you have the original, you can never know the truth, you can only know what is probable.

But, perhaps more significantly, it also matters because a proportion of christians seems to need to rely on a claimed veracity of the gospels to support their beliefs, and in doing so support practices that impact on the lives of people today - e.g. treatment of gay people. And that is why these issues matter more for the gospels than, say, Homer or Julius Caesar's Gaiic wars, as (as far as I'm aware) there aren't people in society today justifying discriminatory behaviour against minorities on the basis that the words attributed to Homer are his actual words, or those attributed to Caesar are his actual words.

True, but this is an academic discussion, divorced from the effects on the real world of which I would suggest there are none. It doesn't make any difference to Christianity as a whole if Mathew and Luke copied Mark or Mark synthesised Matthew and Luke. I know many Christians who completely accept Markan priority - in fact, I did when I was a Christian. Of course, I wasn't aware of the wholesale copying until many years after I lost my faith.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm afraid with documentary evidence, unless you have the original, you can never know the truth, you can only know what is probable.

Indeed, but I think my point is that somewhere there is an actual truth - for example Mark was either first or it wasn't; Mark did or did no contain the longer ending) - while we might not be able to ascertain which is the case there is an objective truth there. This isn't a kind of subjective 'true for me' as Spud seems to imply that whether or not Mark came first is determined by whatever you think is the case or even whatever you want to be the case.

[ProfessorDavey]

True, but this is an academic discussion, divorced from the effects on the real world of which I would suggest there are none. It doesn't make any difference to Christianity as a whole if Mathew and Luke copied Mark or Mark synthesised Matthew and Luke. I know many Christians who completely accept Markan priority - in fact, I did when I was a Christian. Of course, I wasn't aware of the wholesale copying until many years after I lost my faith.

I didn't say it was important for all christians, but it certainly seems to important to some, including Spud. He has been clear that convincing himself that Matthew comes before Mark is important to his faith and that were he to be convinced that Mark came first would undermine his faith. This seems to be a feature of bible literalists who may be more likely to pick on aspects of the bible to support discrimination, e.g. against gay people.

So you are correct that there are plenty of christians that won't care one iota which gospel came first, but there are others that care a lot - and will bend the evidence to align with their faith position. And once people go down the mind-set of cherry picking evidence to support a predetermined faith position then that mindset leads in all kinds of directions that are deeply, deeply problematic.

[Spud]

PD,
I have read through the page containing Irenaeus' mention of Mark 16:19. If I am honest I'd say i had a brief moment before I read the whole chapter, where I thought it could have been edited in, but re-reading it, it certainly looks like it fits the context well if you understand what he was writing about.

[ProfessorDavey]

PD,
I have read through the page containing Irenaeus' mention of Mark 16:19. If I am honest I'd say i had a brief moment before I read the whole chapter, where I thought it could have been edited in, but re-reading it, it certainly looks like it fits the context well if you understand what he was writing about.

Of course you're convinced Spud - you will be convinced by anything that appears to back up your pre-judged faith based position, and unconvinced by anything that counters you're pre-judged faith based position, regardless of the evidence.

So let's ask a couple of questions.

1. I presume when you are talking about 'fitting with the context' you are basing this on the original Greek text, perhaps from 200CE ... oops, bit of an issue - there are no versions of that part of Against Heresies in the original Greek and indeed only tiny fragment of any part of the text in Greek, so very difficult to assess alignment with original context.

2. So I guess when you are talking about 'fitting with the context' you are considering the Latin translations that appeared in the late 4thC at pretty well the same time as the overall orthodoxy of christianity was being embedded. And of course a point of translation is the perfect time for tweaking, adding, editing of a text without it appearing completely clunky as the very process of translation takes the translated text away from the original. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect you aren't basing your comments on the later Latin translation.

3. So perhaps you are basing your comment on an English translation of a Latin translation of an original Greek text, with the original of that section completely unavailable to us.

So realistically all you can say is that a translation produced by the people responsible for the embedding of orthodoxy in the church at the time it was embedded seems to fit with the agreed orthodox view - no shit Sherlock.

Come on Spud - get real - victors rewrite history in the manner that suits their agenda. So it is hardly surprising that when those who saw themselves as diligent custodians of a church orthodoxy that had been hard won through a couple of centuries of debate and battle end up ensuring that texts, purportedly from smack in the middle of that battle end up seeming to fit with their orthodox view.

Bottom line - we don't know what Irenaeus originally wrote - what we do know is what writings were attributed to Irenaeus by later translators and custodians of that text who had a very clear agenda, and included plenty of serial interpolators or earlier texts - step forward Eusebius.

[jeremyp]

I didn't say it was important for all christians, but it certainly seems to important to some, including Spud. He has been clear that convincing himself that Matthew comes before Mark is important to his faith and that were he to be convinced that Mark came first would undermine his faith. This seems to be a feature of bible literalists who may be more likely to pick on aspects of the bible to support discrimination, e.g. against gay people.

So you are correct that there are plenty of christians that won't care one iota which gospel came first, but there are others that care a lot - and will bend the evidence to align with their faith position. And once people go down the mind-set of cherry picking evidence to support a predetermined faith position then that mindset leads in all kinds of directions that are deeply, deeply problematic.

It is interesting to me why Spud is so invested in the order of the gospels. Even if he believes them to be literally true, the ordering doesn't mean anything. Perhaps it's important to him that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name and the idea that Matthew had to copy Mark is not really supportive of that hypothesis. 

[ProfessorDavey]

It is interesting to me why Spud is so invested in the order of the gospels. Even if he believes them to be literally true, the ordering doesn't mean anything. Perhaps it's important to him that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name and the idea that Matthew had to copy Mark is not really supportive of that hypothesis.

I don't know why it is so important to Spud, but it clearly is.

And you may be correct about the reason. But, of course, we have no certainty as to who wrote the gospels and scholars think that it wasn't until about about 200CE that the authorship attributions that we know now began to be used. So the naming of the gospels, along with their ordering, seems to be another element of the embedding of what we now consider as orthodoxy in the church. And I guess if you consider this orthodox view to be correct and divinely inspired then anything that casts doubt on that orthodoxy is a challenge to faith.

[ProfessorDavey]

Perhaps it's important to him that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name and the idea that Matthew had to copy Mark is not really supportive of that hypothesis.

I think that is correct.

According to the orthodox tradition of the four gospels two (Matthew and John) were written by one of the twelve disciples, while Mark and Luke were written by individuals more detached from the inner circle, were not around at the time, and in the case of Luke wasn't even born when Jesus was alive.

In which case it is extremely inconvenient if Matthew (who according to tradition was there at the time) needs to borrow from Mark, who wasn't. Why would Matthew have to borrow information from some guy not around at the time rather than rely on his own personal eye witness recollection.

The ordering of John doesn't really matter as it is distinct from the synoptic gospels, but for the synoptic gospels it is important to the orthodox tradition that they are ordered Matthew, Mark, Luke as that reflects the orthodox tradition of their closeness to the purported events.

[jeremyp]

I don't know why it is so important to Spud, but it clearly is.

And you may be correct about the reason. But, of course, we have no certainty as to who wrote the gospels

No, we actually have no idea. Christians obviously have hypotheses but I don't think any of them even rise to the level of probable.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, we actually have no idea. Christians obviously have hypotheses but I don't think any of them even rise to the level of probable.

Yes you are correct - I was being far too charitable when I suggested that we had no certainty.

The reality is that the attribution of authorship didn't occur until over 100 years after the originals were purported to have been written. And that attribution wasn't really based on any real evidence but on tradition and a developing orthodoxy. However once that tradition and orthodoxy had been established it becomes undermined if it is implied that the author of Matthew (by orthodox tradition one of the 12) had to borrow much of what he wrote about the life of Jesus from Mark (who by orthodox tradition never met Jesus).

[Spud]

Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "Irenaeus also polemicized against Marcion of Sinope, who preached that the creator God of the Hebrew Bible and the Father of Jesus Christ were two different gods. Irenaeus argues that the same god who sent Jesus to the Earth also led man through history by way of the Jewish law and prophets."
The chapter of Against Herisies that references Mark 16:19 seems to be teaching the above.
When I talk about the context of that reference, I mean the whole chapter, with which it is entirely consistent, suggesting that the quote from 16:19 is not an addition.

Taken as it stands, the evidence points to the Longer Ending being known in the 2nd century and then subsequently removed by some.

[ProfessorDavey]

Here's a quote from Wikipedia: "Irenaeus also polemicized against Marcion of Sinope, who preached that the creator God of the Hebrew Bible and the Father of Jesus Christ were two different gods. Irenaeus argues that the same god who sent Jesus to the Earth also led man through history by way of the Jewish law and prophets."
The chapter of Against Herisies that references Mark 16:19 seems to be teaching the above.
When I talk about the context of that reference, I mean the whole chapter, with which it is entirely consistent, suggesting that the quote from 16:19 is not an addition.

Taken as it stands, the evidence points to the Longer Ending being known in the 2nd century and then subsequently removed by some.

No it doesn't - what we do know is that text from the late 4thC, attributed to Irenaeus appears to indicate knowledge of the longer ending of Mark. This is hardly surprising as by that stage Mark 16:9-20 has routinely being added to the end of Mark and had become orthodox. Hardly surprising that the custodians of orthodoxy are likely to ensure that an earlier champion of orthodoxy needs to sign from the same orthodox song sheet.

We don't know (and cannot know unless an earlier extant copy of Against Heresies turns up containing this section) whether Irenaeus actually wrote this at all or whether this is merely later attribution and interpretation of what he was considered to have taught.

[Spud]

No it doesn't - what we do know is that text from the late 4thC, attributed to Irenaeus appears to indicate knowledge of the longer ending of Mark. This is hardly surprising as by that stage Mark 16:9-20 has routinely being added to the end of Mark and had become orthodox. Hardly surprising that the custodians of orthodoxy are likely to ensure that an earlier champion of orthodoxy needs to sign from the same orthodox song sheet.

We don't know (and cannot know unless an earlier extant copy of Against Heresies turns up containing this section) whether Irenaeus actually wrote this at all or whether this is merely later attribution and interpretation of what he was considered to have taught.

Can I ask if you've read the chapter containing the Mark 16;19 quote? You don't appear to have understood my point. If you haven't read the chapter in the link you won't be able to because you need to understand what ideas Irenaeus was refuting and how his reference to Jesus sitting down at the right hand of God fulfills the words of psalm 110 which is about the God of king David; his point being that David's God and the New Testament God are the same. Marcion apparently claimed they were not the same. The whole chapter is full of similar examples, which indicates that it is consistent for him to use the mark 16:19 quote where he does.
As for orthodoxy, Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was instructed by the apostle John. Irenaeus was concerned that the doctrine taught by the apostles was preserved. It's not some 4th century writer making up "orthodox doctrine ".

[Dicky Underpants]

It's not some 4th century writer making up "orthodox doctrine ".

If I understand this at all (and I'm not sure I do), it's not about 'making up orthodox doctrine'; I think the Prof is saying that the inclusion of the long ending has become 'orthodox'. I don't doubt that the doctrine expressed in the verse you mentioned (quoting the psalm) refutes Marcion. Marcion was argued against by many before Irenaeus brought out the big guns, and no doubt the author of the longer ending believed that Christ was the true fulfiller of the OT prophecies, and believed in the same God as the one written about in the OT. That doesn't mean to say that the longer ending was written by the same writer as the rest of the gospel, and nor indeed does it mean that we can be certain that Irenaeus' text is genuine (but that's a secondary point).

[Spud]

If I understand this at all (and I'm not sure I do), it's not about 'making up orthodox doctrine'; I think the Prof is saying that the inclusion of the long ending has become 'orthodox'. I don't doubt that the doctrine expressed in the verse you mentioned (quoting the psalm) refutes Marcion. Marcion was argued against by many before Irenaeus brought out the big guns, and no doubt the author of the longer ending believed that Christ was the true fulfiller of the OT prophecies, and believed in the same God as the one written about in the OT. That doesn't mean to say that the longer ending was written by the same writer as the rest of the gospel, and nor indeed does it mean that we can be certain that Irenaeus' text is genuine (but that's a secondary point).

Thanks. I think we have a high degree of certainty that what we have is what Irenaeus wrote. Hence I suggest that the evidence 'points towards' the Long Ending being 'orthodox' in the 2nd century.
That it is missing from the earliest complete manuscript of Mark could be because it was removed for critical reasons, like to avoid misinterpretation of the snakes and poison saying.
My point is that we need to look at the text itself to see if it could have been written by the same author as the body of Mark. That is quite a big study so I won't say more than what I've recently said about it. I think it's not a coincidence that with Mark 1:1-13 it forms a framework of two summaries for the main Gospel account.
I think the Prof needs to realise that he's the one with the pre-formed judgment who tries to incriminate doubt over the authenticity of Irenaeus so as to validate that judgment.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thanks. I think we have a high degree of certainty that what we have is what Irenaeus wrote.

No we don't - we have some tiny fragments that are near contemporary and in the original language. But the text contained therein is so sparse that these fragments give no indication whatsoever of the broader narrative within Against Heresies.

We do have some more extensive texts, but these aren't contemporary (they are late 4thC) and are also translations into Latin. And these come from a time and place where we know significant textural changes were made to supposed earlier texts (see amending of Josephus as an example) so there is a significant possibility that the late 4thC Latin texts are markedly different to what Irenaeus might actually have written (if indeed he wrote them at all).

So we cannot say that we have a high degree of certainty that what we have is what Irenaeus wrote at all. What we can say is that we have a high degree of certainty that we know what was attributed to Irenaeus by late 4thC writers and translators.

[ProfessorDavey]

... Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was instructed by the apostle John.

When in a hole stop digging.

And how exactly do we know this Spud - presumably from some highly credible contemporary writing from this chap Polycarp.

Well, err, no. We actually know virtually nothing about Polycarp, and that which we know is from much later (and rather biased) sources.

So the only text we have from Polycarp (or rather attributed to him) is the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians - everything else is lost. But the earliest extant versions of this claimed text are from the 11thC in its original language, and 9thC for a translation - so that's not far off 1000 years after its apparent writing. So with this level of detachment we can have no real confidence that our 800-1000 year after the event copies/translations bear much resemblance to the original (if there even was an original).

There is also the so-called biographical text Martyrdom of Polycarp - but the earliest we have for this is (again) late 4thC and there is strong evidence that this a much later mish-mash of more that one earlier tradition and its authenticity had been strongly challenged as it gets all sorts of aspects of Roman legal proceedings wrong. So this looks to be a retrospective, late 4thC largely fictional account based on tradition rather than accuracy. It appears to be one of a number of texts created or edited to fit with the developed orthodoxy of the church at that point, rather than something which casts much light on the earlier historicity of the early church from the 2ndC.

[Spud]

No we don't - we have some tiny fragments that are near contemporary and in the original language. But the text contained therein is so sparse that these fragments give no indication whatsoever of the broader narrative within Against Heresies.

We do have some more extensive texts, but these aren't contemporary (they are late 4thC) and are also translations into Latin. And these come from a time and place where we know significant textural changes were made to supposed earlier texts (see amending of Josephus as an example) so there is a significant possibility that the late 4thC Latin texts are markedly different to what Irenaeus might actually have written (if indeed he wrote them at all).

So we cannot say that we have a high degree of certainty that what we have is what Irenaeus wrote at all. What we can say is that we have a high degree of certainty that we know what was attributed to Irenaeus by late 4thC writers and translators.

Presumably you think the same way about Tatien's Diatessaron? He is said to have written it in the second century. Here's the chapter containing the resurrection appearances, including Mark's long ending:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/100255.htm

[Dicky Underpants]

Presumably you think the same way about Tatien's Diatessaron? He is said to have written it in the second century. Here's the chapter containing the resurrection appearances, including Mark's long ending:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/100255.htm

Not a convincing example. No original text - we don't even know whether Tatian wrote in Greek or Syriac. Earliest version found is the recension of Ephrem the Syrian (4th C) which itself is only available in two later translations. Endless versions in translations through the centuries, but no full text in any of them. An attempt was made in the 19th century to reconstruct the original text from a number of versions in many languages (which sounds like a bit of a fool's errand to me). I'm afraid that's not going to convince me about the authenticity of texts supposedly written in the 1st century.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not a convincing example. No original text - we don't even know whether Tatian wrote in Greek or Syriac. Earliest version found is the recension of Ephrem the Syrian (4th C) which itself is only available in two later translations. Endless versions in translations through the centuries, but no full text in any of them. An attempt was made in the 19th century to reconstruct the original text from a number of versions in many languages (which sounds like a bit of a fool's errand to me). I'm afraid that's not going to convince me about the authenticity of texts supposedly written in the 1st century.

I was going to say something very similar - we don't know what Tatian wrote at all - what Spud has provided is an attempt to reconstruct the original text from 1881, by a 19thC German theologian (note not a academic historian or linguist) who is clearly non neutral - this from Wiki "Theologically, Zahn was conservative and approached New Testament theology from the perspective of a theological emphasis called Heilsgeschichte (usually translated into English as "Salvation History").

Credible - I think not.

[Spud]

I was going to say something very similar - we don't know what Tatian wrote at all - what Spud has provided is an attempt to reconstruct the original text from 1881, by a 19thC German theologian (note not a academic historian or linguist) who is clearly non neutral - this from Wiki "Theologically, Zahn was conservative and approached New Testament theology from the perspective of a theological emphasis called Heilsgeschichte (usually translated into English as "Salvation History").

Credible - I think not.

What makes it credible is that there are other second century writings quoting the Long Ending. One on its own wouldn't be enough but when there's Irenaeus, Tatien, Hippolytus, and others you can't really appeal to 'lost in translation' and that the LE was known at that time becomes the logical conclusion.