Matthew Corrects Mark - Figs Anyone?

[volgadon]

Simple common sense, which is how most theories start out.

Was Mark the only written or oral record about Christ?

How do we account for the unique material presented by the author of Matthew? Did he merely make it up? That option seems to me as much a guess as mine is.

[Snow]

Simple common sense, which is how most theories start out.

Was Mark the only written or oral record about Christ?

How do we account for the unique material presented by the author of Matthew? Did he merely make it up? That option seems to me as much a guess as mine is.

The consensus view of critical bible scholars is that Mark is composed out of unconnected fragments about Jesus, brief written stories and sayings and units of oral tradition.

The majority view of Matthew is that it is taken from Mark, Q (from Quelle -source- a theoretical written collection of sayings of Jesus) and from unique sources including the oral tradition.

I am simply a lay person but I know of know no theory, or evidence that indicates that Matthew corrected the fig story based on any other source.

[volgadon]

Becuase such a stringent study is impossible without having the sources. It is however quite conceivable that this is exactly what happened. Makes just as much historical sense as your suggestion.

[rameumptom]

Thanks, Volgadon. That was my point exactly. My humorous attempt at stating Romans liked more theatrics in their literature was to show that any theory will do when there is little or no real data.

Snow is claiming there was tension between the two stories in Mark and Matthew. Others are claiming it doesn't have to be. Both are theoretical views, based on nothing but assumptions.

[Snow]

Snow is claiming there was tension between the two stories in Mark and Matthew. Others are claiming it doesn't have to be. Both are theoretical views, based on nothing but assumptions.

Wrong.

That the Matthew account alters or differs in the details of the Mark is not theoretical. It is a hard, cold, indisputable fact. It's black and white, just like the ink and pages that difference are printed with.

[Justice]

The only one, Snow, is the timing of when the tree withered. And, as has been stated, one story evolved from someone who saw it immediately, while the other evolved from someone who didn't see it until the next day.

(I don't know if that's the answer, but it is a possible answer... just as viable as claiming discrepency)

[volgadon]

Wrong.

That the Matthew account alters or differs in the details of the Mark is not theoretical. It is a hard, cold, indisputable fact. It's black and white, just like the ink and pages that difference are printed with.

Wrong (isn't this fun?).

The only thing black & white is that Matthew and Mark differ. To claim that Matthew altered Mark is not cold, hard, indisputable fact. You seem to have a hard time diistinguishing between educated guesses and cold, hard facts.

[Snow]

Wrong (isn't this fun?).

The only thing black & white is that Matthew and Mark differ. To claim that Matthew altered Mark is not cold, hard, indisputable fact. You seem to have a hard time diistinguishing between educated guesses and cold, hard facts.

Is this your first language?

Read my post. It clearly says that it is a fact that Mark and Matthew differ or that Matthew altered Mark.

You yourself just agreed with me after pronouncing it wrong.

[ruthiechan]

I would like to relate a true story. Bear with me, as it does relate to the discussion.

Today I made apple cheese biscuits and bacon for breakfast. My six year old daughter, and her father, were waiting to be served as breakfast was almost done. My daughter asked me if she HAD to eat an apple cheese biscuit. I said yes (she'd eat a whole bag of bacon if I let her). She then asked me if she had to eat a whole one. I said, no. She asked me, a half of one? I started to tell her not to worry about it, and then her father told her not to nitpick. The interesting thing in the conversation that ensued was that her father insisted that she said, a quarter, after I started to tell her not to worry about the amount she had to eat. I did not hear her say any such thing, and she said she didn't say a quarter (I'm not even sure if she knows that a quarter means a half of a half).

So, here we have three people personally involved in the same anecdotal and one person insists that one thing was said and reacted to that thing, while the other two are left a bit flabbergasted about it since they insist that one thing was never said.

Memory is fallible. What we see and what we hear can also be fallible.

If it is so fallible between people who all participate in, or experience, the same event, then how much more so between second or third hand accounts?

[volgadon]

Is this your first language?

One of them.

Read my post. It clearly says that it is a fact that Mark and Matthew differ or that Matthew altered Mark.

As I assume English is your first language as well, what is your excuse for not understanding the difference between alteration and difference?

You yourself just agreed with me after pronouncing it wrong.

I most certainly did not agree with you there.

[rameumptom]

People, let's be civil in our discourse, or I'm going to shut down the thread.

[rameumptom]

Wrong.

That the Matthew account alters or differs in the details of the Mark is not theoretical. It is a hard, cold, indisputable fact. It's black and white, just like the ink and pages that difference are printed with.

I wrote:

Snow is claiming there was tension between the two stories in Mark and Matthew. Others are claiming it doesn't have to be. Both are theoretical views, based on nothing but assumptions.

This does not mean there weren't differences in the stories, as there obviously were. It does mean that your attempt to suggest there is tension between the two stories is theoretical, and does not necessarily hold merit.

You wrote in the very first post:

This is merely one of many instances where Matthew takes it upon himself to correct Mark.

Whether it is Matthew correcting Mark or just sharing the story from another angle is all theory. Minor differences do not require tension between the two stories. It isn't as apparent as you suggest. Is your reading a valid possibility? Of course. But it isn't the only one.

It could just be, as I mentioned before, a different focus. Mark was writing to Romans, while Matthew was writing to the Jews. Mark focused on miracles, which the Romans would understand. Matthew focused on Messianic prophecies. The stories of the fig tree both show Jesus' power, but for a different audience. It does not require building tension, or one correcting the other.

Anciently, history was viewed differently than it is today, and we need to be careful to not impose our modern views on ancient views. For them, both versions were equally correct, while for us today we ponder why the differences.

[Snow]

I wrote:

This does not mean there weren't differences in the stories, as there obviously were. It does mean that your attempt to suggest there is tension between the two stories is theoretical, and does not necessarily hold merit.

You wrote in the very first post:

Whether it is Matthew correcting Mark or just sharing the story from another angle is all theory. Minor differences do not require tension between the two stories. It isn't as apparent as you suggest. Is your reading a valid possibility? Of course. But it isn't the only one.

It could just be, as I mentioned before, a different focus. Mark was writing to Romans, while Matthew was writing to the Jews. Mark focused on miracles, which the Romans would understand. Matthew focused on Messianic prophecies. The stories of the fig tree both show Jesus' power, but for a different audience. It does not require building tension, or one correcting the other.

Anciently, history was viewed differently than it is today, and we need to be careful to not impose our modern views on ancient views. For them, both versions were equally correct, while for us today we ponder why the differences.

Okay - I guess I misinterpreted.

If one assumes, however, that the Gospels were inspired then historical vs modern views of recording history would be less significant or non-significant as the Spirit would be the guiding force, not cultural practices.

[rameumptom]

Okay - I guess I misinterpreted.

If one assumes, however, that the Gospels were inspired then historical vs modern views of recording history would be less significant or non-significant as the Spirit would be the guiding force, not cultural practices.

And that's a good point. But inspired texts still are written in the language and custom of the writer. The ancients did not consider history to be that important, except in context to the story they were giving. It did not have to be "historically accurate" to be considered true.

So, if for Mark the story worked better in one way, and for Matthew it was better the other: in ancient authorship, BOTH are correct.

For this same reason, we can have the Bible give two creation stories (Genesis 1 and 2), and Jews don't worry about which one is the true/correct history. Rather, when they study it, they study on why the differences/similarities, and how it all contributes to the symbolism and spiritual meaning of the message.

[Snow]

And that's a good point. But inspired texts still are written in the language and custom of the writer. The ancients did not consider history to be that important, except in context to the story they were giving. It did not have to be "historically accurate" to be considered true.

So, if for Mark the story worked better in one way, and for Matthew it was better the other: in ancient authorship, BOTH are correct.

For this same reason, we can have the Bible give two creation stories (Genesis 1 and 2), and Jews don't worry about which one is the true/correct history. Rather, when they study it, they study on why the differences/similarities, and how it all contributes to the symbolism and spiritual meaning of the message.

I agree.

Thank you

[Snow]

I most certainly did not agree with you there.

I said that they differed or were altered. You said that was wrong. You then said said that they differed. That is you - you said that I was wrong and then you agreed with me. Read it.

[volgadon]

Brush up on your reading comprehension. I'm talking about alteration, I already cleared that up.

[Snow]

Brush up on your reading comprehension. I'm talking about alteration, I already cleared that up.

I know what you are talking about. You erred in saying that I was wrong since I you agreed with me about alteration - which doesn't explain why you are still arguing about it since you still agree with me.

[volgadon]

No, no, no. I repeat, no. I did not agree with you about alterations. Let me make this really simple. All alterations are differences, but not all differences are alterations.

I disagree with you that Matthew altered Mark's account of the fig tree.

That it is an alteration is something that you have so far failed to show conclusively.

[Snow]

No, no, no. I repeat, no. I did not agree with you about alterations. Let me make this really simple. All alterations are differences, but not all differences are alterations.

I disagree with you that Matthew altered Mark's account of the fig tree.

That it is an alteration is something that you have so far failed to show conclusively.

Dude, you make zero sense.

I said that Matthew altered Mark or differed from Mark and you said that was wrong. If that is wrong, it excludes both options, differing and altering.

As for whether or not Matthew altered account, perhaps it is not known conclusively in an absolutist sense but the modern consensus view among critical Bible scholars is that Matthew had Mark as a principle source. That means he took the story and altered it by changing two particular details. You may disagree that Mark is a source for the author but that puts you in some marginal company.

alter: to change or make different (American Heritage).

... and if your theory is that Mark is not a source for Matthew, by all means, stop fooling around and tell us what your theory is.

[volgadon]

I've said it time and time again. That you never bother reading is not surprising, but tedious. So is your misrepresentation of sources.

[Snow]

I've said it time and time again. That you never bother reading is not surprising, but tedious. So is your misrepresentation of sources.

I've read you. You're just mistaken.

But why do you do that thing your doing? On two threads you say throw out vague allusions but when asked to explain you clam up. On two threads I've asked you to, instead of complaining about straw men, actually explain your theory. You refuse.

Now on this thread, you say I am misrepresenting sources, yet you don't say what sources I've misrepresented or how. What's up with that?

Edited January 16, 2010 by Snow

[volgadon]

On the bible corruptions thread I posted a fairly long post on your sources, shall I post it again here?

[volgadon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow

99% is a common or popular idea. That would make the parts of the NT still in question to be only three pages. Famed textual critics Wescott and Hort said that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part." [Hunt.IntNT Hunter, Archibald M. Introducing the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1945 (that would make up about 1/3 of a page).

Westcott and Hort worked in the 1880s. That was 130 years ago. Much has changed.

"The words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the New Testament."

I find it interesting that you did not quote the very next sentence in Hunter's book.

"Hort probably underestimated the element of uncertainty. There still remain quite a few places where the experts disagree about the true reading." Hunter then proceeds to provide several examples.

Neither he, nor Wescott and Hort were talking about having 99% of the original text! These quotes are about understanding the meaning of the words.

In all faiirness, Hunter does claim that anyone using the RSV or NEB is as close to the original 'autographs' as "makes no material difference."

He doesn't back up that statement.

Quote:

Scholars range from less ringing endorsements all the way up to "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text." [Comf.TNT Comfort, Philip Wesley. The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament.

And which manuuscripts would those be?

Quote:

and "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" [Fran.EvJ France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: IVP, 1986.].

France is not exactly a textual critic, but he is a very conservative scholar. Many would disagree with his conclusion above.

Quote:

Certainly there are thousands of thousands of variant readings in the New Testament manuscript tradition, but of those, 95% are unintentional copyist errors - confusion of similar letters, repetition of words and sentences, etc. [Patz.MNT Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP.]. The remaining 5% including intentional spelling and grammar improvements, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties and doctrinal changes. I have already made mention of a few of those in the Johannine Comma, the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery; there are others. It is through the discipline of textual that we know of such changes.

No direct quote on the 95%?

Quote:

The evidence that we know the original text is much much stronger than any evidence that we don’t know the original text.

You have failed to show that.

Quote:

That’s why those that argue corruption do so by waving their hand and making vague references to mysterious alterations - they can’t say what but are oh so certain that it’s true, much like conspiracy nuts who believe that aliens are secretly meddling in the private affairs of midwestern dairy farmers - never mind that there is no evidence, why the very lack of evidence is evidence of a coverup. On the other hand, textual critics have a methodology and can demonstrate it, are peer reviewed, build upon each other’s work, find flaws in their methods, revise their findings to match the reality, etc.

Except I certainly am not arguing any sort of conspiracy theory. There are corruptions in the text, there are corruptions in most any ancient text.

Textual critics have a methodology but it is far from perfect. They also don't make the claim that they know most of what there is to be known.

Quote:

If one is going to argue corruption, the burden is on the one making the claim. I am not going to state categorically that there isn’t corruption (I have elsewhere argued that there is some) but drop the appeals to mystery (and naiveté) and provide evidence for your claims.

Again, there is corruption in the texts, that really is all that is needed. If I have a specific instance in mind, then I should provide further documentation and arguments. You are the one expecting us to defend a vague position. Perhaps if you cited something specific, then we could get somewhere.

Nobody has appealed to mystery.

[Snow]

That's nice. Thank you but I was asking about your claim that I misrepresented the sources. I suppose I could be more precise - instead of saying "original text" I could specify whether I am talking about the specific words and phrases that were used or the specific meaning that was intended but you've hardly demonstrated your point that I misrepresented the sources.