Loading...In my previous post I indicated that one of the reasons for thinking that Matthew copied Mark instead of the other way around is that there are passages in Mark that can be read in ways (or maybe even were meant in ways) that could be seen as problematic — they might be worded in an awkward way, for example, or they might say something that cold be seen as confusing or just wrong — but that in Matthew are worded differently so that there is no longer a problem.
That would make sense if Matthew was copying Mark and just reworded something to “correct” it or at least to get rid of the problem. It would be harder to explain why Mark would create a problem that wasn’t in the story he was copying. If that’s right, it would suggest Mark is the source of Matthew.
Here’s one example to consider out of many. I choose this one because, well, it’s one of my favorites!
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
The point of the story in all three synoptics is that it’s harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. That deeds in and of themselves are not good, only god is good, and to get eternal life you must give up all earthly things and head towards the kingdom of heaven.
That’s why the rich man walks away upset in all three synoptics despite keeping the law. And it’s why Matthew’s account “why ask me about what is good, only god is good” is the original version and the one that works.
Luke/Mark are changing it so that the rich man (who can’t give up his wealth) fails when given the opportunity to make the good confession.
Yes, I agree with your viewpoint.
The Gospel of Matthew is the original version, which recorded the true dialogue.
Only one is good, which is to obey God’s commandment (to donate money to Jesus). This is Jesus’ repeated teaching to the rich.
Or, Luke had a copy of Mark and a copy of Matthew on his desk. In the “Rich Young Ruler Story”, he went with Mark. In others, he went with Matthew, giving the illusion that he and Matthew shared a common source (Q).
My thoughts on this subject were significantly changed when I read the Gospel of Thomas as well as part of Gnosticism, “Secret Sayings” (Thomas) and revelation (Gnosis). If we go back to Papias’s hebrew Matthew of logos being the first transcripts of Christianity and look at Thomas for such content, then it seems likely that root of all of the synoptics may have been something like Thomas, where the authors are each trying to interpret the sayings. Each author would be expected to have a slightly different interpretation of the logos based on their local theoloy.
Say Mark (secret acts) was the first.. Then Matthew would have both the origal logos used Mark with maybe additional. Then saw where he disagreed with how Mark interpreted it slightly or drastically then changed for his gospel,, Same for Luke, but now he had original source plus maybe additional logos, as well as both Mark and Mathew. All the Authors had similar sources with logos that left a lot to the individual to interpret (gnosses) and their gospels reflect the different interpretations.
I think the discription of Papia’s Matthew is the possible Q source and that it probably resembled Thomas.
Make Sense?
IT’s possible, though Q must have been in Greek since Matthew and Luke agree verbatim in Greek (not in Hebrew).
This is a little off topic, but since you say Matthew was in Greek, it reminds me of a question I’ve wondered about. Matthew was either a Greek or a Greek speaking Jew, and he writes, in Greek, that the Magi came from the East following a star. This star eventually led them to a house in Bethlehem. However, the Greeks called a star that moved a planet, or wanderer. Did Matthew originally write that the Magi came west following a planet? If not, does that imply that he knew little Greek?
Along the same line, we today know what a star is, what a comet is, what a meteor shower is; but a first century Greek or Jew would not have known this. He would only have known that there were spots of light in the night sky. He would not have known the difference between a star a hundred light years away, a meteor a hundred miles away, or a spot of light a hundred feet away. Since a miracle has to be invoked in any case, would it not be simpler to just call this a spot of light a hundred feet in the air? (Possibly recalling a
I’m not sure that there was only one astronomical view among Greeks. Greeks certainly knew there were both planets and stars. And when I said Matthew was writing in Greek I was not saying he was a Greek who came from Greece.
BDEhrman wrote: “I’m not sure that there was only one astronomical view among Greeks.”
I’m pretty sure there were multiple views.
BDEhrman wrote: “Greeks certainly knew there were both planets and stars.”
They had similar words, and I believe we even get the word “planet” from the Greeks, but I doubt if their definitions would match exactly with those of a modern astronomer. (And I believe our word “astronomer” comes from the Greek word for star.) For instance, the Greeks classified the sun and the moon as planets, or wanderers, but not the earth. It just seems anachronistic to me to assume that anyone in the first century would use the word “star” the way we do today.
So, it seems to me that if, instead of translating something like, “Wise men followed a moving star, which led them west and then hovered over a house”, which we know is impossible, Matthew were translated, “Wise men followed a moving point of light in the sky, which led them west and then hovered over a house”, which is probably also impossible, it would be closer to what Matthew actually meant.
This is not an argument about the Greek language, rather it is an argument about
the history of science and technology. And I am not arguing these events actually happened. There are several other reasons for believing these events never happened, it is just that I do not believe that the fact that a star cannot be over a house is one of them.
column of fire by night?)
Mark 10:21
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
“Jesus, looking at him, loved him ……”
This part of the statement has always struck me as a little odd, i.e., why him in particular? The versions of the story in Matthew and Luke do not include it. What, if anything is the significance of this statement in Mark and why did Matthew and Luke leave it out?
Yup, it’s unusual. But I think it’s saying that Jesus was sorry that the man could not see the light.
…a bit like us southerners saying “bless his heart…” ???
I think you have just got me to lean towards Markan primacy, and yeah, the Matthew makes less sense as a “good” deed response. Criteria of embarrasment.
I just figured out why nobody is to marry until the kingdom of heaven arrived and showed some people the business:
Deuteronomy 24:5
“When a man has newly taken a woman [into his household as his wife], he shall not go out with the army or be assigned to any related purpose; he shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household, to give happiness to the woman he has taken.”
This would preclude the pro-Arabian Jews from flipping Herod Phillips’ troops against Herod Antipas like they did.
Matt 19:16–17
————————————————
If scholars recognize that Jesus was a cult scammer who engaged in false charity, then they should have a different understanding of this passage:
Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”—-Jesus taught the rich to donate money, but the rich did not want to donate. So he asked Jesus (if he did not donate money) what other way could he have eternal life?
And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. …”—–Jesus became a little angry and said, ‘Why do you still come to ask me what is good?’? How many times have I told you that only donating money is good！
So obviously, the Gospel of Matthew recorded the true dialogue, while the Gospel of Mark deleted this true dialogue.
That is to say, the Gospel of Matthew is more likely to be earlier than the Gospel of Mark.
Therefore, studying the New Testament in a way that deviates from the truth of Jesus’ actions will inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions.
A serious change by Matthew to Mark’s Gospel concerns the Passion week. Mark has Jesus eating the Pascha at the beginning of the first day of the feast of the Passover on Nisan 15 (our Thursday Night) and dying on the cross some eighteen hours later when it was still Nisan 15 (our Friday). Jesus’ body was entombed for two nights (Friday and Saturday nights) and the tomb was first found empty on Sunday morning when it would have been Nisan 17 which fell on the first day of the Jewish week (our Sunday). In severe contra-distinction, Matthew recounts that Jesus “kept the Pascha” (as opposed to eating it) at the beginning of Nisan 14 (on our Tuesday evening) and dying on the cross some eighteen hours later when it was still Nisan 14 (Wednesday). Jesus’ body was entombed for three nights (Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights) and the tomb was first revealed to be empty late on the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath of commandment. Unlike Mark, Matthew makes it clear as a full Passover moon on a cloudless night that Jesus was crucified on “the” Preparation Day (Nisan 14) and not on “a” preparation day (Friday) or pro-Sabbaton.
New Testament scholars should always remember that Jesus was a cult liar engaged in false charity. Only in this way can they correctly understand the dialogues in the New Testament and know which dialogues are more authentic records, while others are later modified.
Do you believe Jesus was a failed prophet based on Mark 13:30,14:62; Matthew 10:23, 24:34 and Luke 21:32? The way I read Mark’s Gospel, Jesus reportedly told his disciples that after he had been raised he would go before them to Galilee; however, we will not find in Mark that Jesus went to Galilee. In fact, that would have been impossible as he reportedly ascended to heaven from Jerusalem shortly after he had appeared to his eleven disciples there. Matthew recounted that Jesus redivivus went to Galilee and his eleven disciples met him there on a mountain though some doubted; however, Matthew leaves him stranded on that mountain and un-ascended. Even worse. John would have us believe the same Jesus followed his disciples to Galilee and met them on the shore of the sea of Tiberias. However, he only appeared to seven disciples (as opposed to eleven) and John leaves him stranded on the shore of that sea with only Peter and Jesus’ beloved disciple nearby. Like Matthew, John leaves Jesus stranded and un-ascended. Perhaps these ancient canonizers did not understand the adverse impact that such impeached evidence had on its trustworthiness. What do you think?
Corrections are due to disciple conflict!
John’s gospel favors “beloved” over Peter. I believe beloved=Lazarus=ruler.
Peter sourced Mark’s chronology, but Mary Magdalene edited Mark, minimizing Peter&Lazarus’s role/highlight her own. Jesus’ first followers failed, Mary endured in the end witnessing crucifixion/tomb: first=last/last=first. (Except Peter does see risen Jesus, but that can be removed from Mark’s ending.)
Matthew corrects Mark’s negative Petrine portrayal. Luke attempts to avoid drama.
In John, wealthy family of Lazarus/Mary/Martha=disciples Jesus loved. They always knew Jesus=Son of God(11:27). The final instruction Jesus gives Lazarus was “remove grave clothes.” This happens in Mark as he runs away naked. In John, the beloved is there through everything.
I envision Lazarus asserting superiority, claiming: “Yall tried to keep Jesus from me(John11:8,12), but Jesus loved me/passed kingdom to me!”
Mark10 reluctantly acknowledge this, adding caveats. Sure, disciples blocked “children”, but Jesus said the kingdom belongs to “such-as-these”, not specifically Lazarus. Lazarus was reluctant to sell possessions. Jesus said it’s hard for wealthy to enter kingdom(camel/needle). Mark doesnt overemphasize Lazarus as “beloved disciple” – Jesus merely looked at him lovingly. The family of Mary/Martha/Lazarus claimed to believe Jesus=Son of God(John11:27), but only recognized his goodness without its divine significance. Matthew’s gospel wont even give Lazarus that!
Another interesting example of how Matthew altered Mark’s Gospel is found in the story of the feeding of the five-thousand. Mark makes it clear this group consisted of about five thousand men. In contra-distinction Matthew comes along and turns this story into the feeding of perhaps more than ten-thousand inasmuch as he adds women and children to the mix. This is why I call Matthew “the Multiplier” as he has a habit of putting his spin to these stories. For example, he has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two asses instead of one and he leads truth seekers like me to believe that Jesus’ corpse was in the heart of the earth (or entombed) for three nights instead of two as was the case in Mark, Luke and John. There are many more examples of Matthew’s tendency to enrich these stories which is one reason his Gospel is longer than Mark’s. That’s my take on this subject for what it’s worth.
I found an interesting one with Mk7/Mt 15 (that which defiles). In Mark we have Jesus explaining that:
“Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile” (Mk7:18)
But in Matthew’s parallel, we have:
“Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach and goes out into the sewer?” (Mt15:17)
Matthew deliberately omits the claim that food cannot defile.
I also find it interesting that Mark’s Jesus rebukes the group of disciples for failing to understand:
“When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “So, are you also without understanding?”” Mk7:17-18
But this is how Matthew presents this exchange:
“But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” Then he said, “Are you also still without understanding?” Mt15:15-16
As Matthew’s Jesus rebukes Peter directly, rather than the group of disciples, I think this probably reflects early knowledge that Peter was the source for Mark’s gospel (and the editorial comment “Thus he declared all foods clean”). If so, it appears the author of GMt is rebuking Peter’s reckless liberalism concerning acceptable diet.
Matthew invariably forces Jesus into an orthodox mold by correcting every theological faux pas he committed — in *both* of the author’s primary sources.
He not only amends Jesus’ overstatements, such as in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:3 and 6) per Q, but even supplies disclaimers that Jesus forgot to include, such as in his teaching on marriage and divorce (Mt 5:32 and 19:9) per Mark. Indeed, he even invented mitigating narrative (Mt 3:14-15)!
Pardon my amateur temerity, professor, but I must respectfully challenge your assertion that “Luke doesn’t concern us here.”
Absent a Q resurrection (unlikely), it’s only because we also have Luke’s plagiarism of Mark for comparison that we know whatever credence we afford Matthew should be liberally seasoned with salt.
Nowhere is Matthew’s theological agenda/filter more unambiguously manifested than in his redaction of the prologue to Mark’s pericope about the “Rich Young Man” who asked Jesus the $64,000 question: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Among textual critics your observation that “Luke agrees with Mark” on the wording of the RYM’s salutation merely implies source dependence. But for non-technical non-scholars doesn’t it carry the misleading implication that the two authors independently attested the same event?
That’s the view of a number of scholars, the Luke had access to a different version of the Rich Young Man. I myself don’t think so.
Nor do I. The similarities among all three versions of this pericope are so numerous and close that it seems very unlikely they don’t have a common source. Further, the argument for Mark being the original that was then “borrowed” by the other two synoptic authors (more accurately, plagiarist/editors), is IMHO also compelling.
Are there any credible scholars (i.e., non-apologists who haven’t taken a Bible Inerrancy pledge) who actually dispute Markan priority? If so, wouldn’t Luke be the more logical alternative?
Positing Matthew as the original source requires, as you observe, accounting for the incredible coincidence of Mark and Luke having penned (*independently*) essentially identical wording!
Further, it demands some explanation for why both would (*also independently*) alter perfectly orthodox and theologically uncontroversial dialogue to intentionally attribute to Jesus the — arguably heretical — rejoinder: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” 😳
Are there any differences between Luke’s account and either of the other synoptics that appear to evince theologically-driven emendations comparable to Matthew’s divergence from both Mark (e.g., the absurdly implausible exchange between Jesus and John the Baptist @Mt 3:13-15) *and* Q (e.g., the attenuating disclaimers @Mt 5:32 and 19:9)?
Those who dispute Markan priority virtually always argue for Matthean. I don’t think I know any scholar (or even of any scholar!) who supports Lukan priority. I’ve never been quite sure why no one does, since scholars tend to argue one thing or another just to be different Maybe some do take this line and I just don’t know about them.