Matthew Corrects Mark - Figs Anyone?

[Yekcidmij]

I provide comments on the 99% number. I povide them agan here:

Are you aware that that from the manuscript history textual critics are able to determine the original text with about 99% accuracy?

Someone keeps asking for a source from Snow. Tought I would help. Here is an article by Dan Wallace:

Second, Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.15 The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book—and repeats in interviews16—is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording,17 a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces

The Gospel according to Bart | Bible.org; NET Bible, Bible Study

And a book with Wallace as a co-author (see chs 4-8):

Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary ... - Google Books

[rameumptom]

Still, 1% = 4000. 4000 meaningful variants in the New Testament is quite a few. There are just under 8000 verses in the New Testament, so we have a potential of a meaningful variant in every other verse!

[Yekcidmij]

so we have a potential of a meaningful variant in every other verse!

That's not actually how variants work though, and I thought after seeing a lot of your posts that you would know better.

[Vanhin]

I read this whole thread so far, and English is one of my first languages, so I will take a stab at this.

"And seeing a fig tree far off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves" Mark

"he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only" Matthew

They were traveling down a road and saw a fig tree up ahead by the road (way), and they went over to it to see if it had any figs.

Both accounts are correct.

The road did not go in circles around the tree, and the tree did not travel with Jesus. So, even in the Matthew account, they were obviously "far off" from the tree before they eventually got to it. Even though the Matthew author does not specifically mention that, it doesn't contradict Mark's account which simply mentions that they spotted the tree from a distance. In the Mark account they obviously "came to" a closer proximity of the tree eventually, and so that account does not contradict the account that the Matthew author made. One account talked about them spotting the tree from a distance and the other simply that they spotted a fig tree (without mentioning how far away they first spotted it).

What exactly is the cold, hard fact that makes those two accounts mutually exclusive? I'm not really seeing it.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Snow]

Still, 1% = 4000. 4000 meaningful variants in the New Testament is quite a few. There are just under 8000 verses in the New Testament, so we have a potential of a meaningful variant in every other verse!

What meaningful variants are you referring to? Anything in particular or just referring to the 99% idea?

[Snow]

I read this whole thread so far, and English is one of my first languages, so I will take a stab at this.

"And seeing a fig tree far off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves" Mark

"he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only" Matthew

They were traveling down a road and saw a fig tree up ahead by the road (way), and they went over to it to see if it had any figs.

Both accounts are correct.

The road did not go in circles around the tree, and the tree did not travel with Jesus. So, even in the Matthew account, they were obviously "far off" from the tree before they eventually got to it. Even though the Matthew author does not specifically mention that, it doesn't contradict Mark's account which simply mentions that they spotted the tree from a distance. In the Mark account they obviously "came to" a closer proximity of the tree eventually, and so that account does not contradict the account that the Matthew author made. One account talked about them spotting the tree from a distance and the other simply that they spotted a fig tree (without mentioning how far away they first spotted it).

What exactly is the cold, hard fact that makes those two accounts mutually exclusive? I'm not really seeing it.

Regards,

Vanhin

They are not mutually exclusive. The point is that the author of Matthew takes Mark's account and reworks it or corrects it just as he does in a good number of other cases. That is interesting since Mark is likely a 4th remove from Christ and thus, since Matthew's source is Mark, Matthew is a 5th remove yet he thinks himself capable of improving upon /altering his source.

[Vanhin]

They are not mutually exclusive. The point is that the author of Matthew takes Mark's account and reworks it or corrects it just as he does in a good number of other cases. That is interesting since Mark is likely a 4th remove from Christ and thus, since Matthew's source is Mark, Matthew is a 5th remove yet he thinks himself capable of improving upon /altering his source.

Right, but there is no correction being made here, unless you think that a tree cannot be both "far off" and "in the way" at the same time. How much sense would that make? What else are you seeing in the verses that gives you the impression that the author of Matthew is correcting Mark? Those two differences alone are not sufficient since both can be true.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited January 18, 2010 by Vanhin

[Justice]

That's what I keep saying. The only real difference is the timing of when the tree withered.

One can choose to attack the text and criticize it, or one can look at what might cause the difference to reconcile it. I have given one possible explanation for the variance, however, there are many more possibilities.

It just seems obvious to me that both are stating when they saw it, or when whoever told them the story saw it withered. It easily could have been immediately for one and the next day for the other. Seems little reason to cast a shroud of error on the story.

[Vanhin]

Well, on that point, on the withering away of the fig tree, I can be convinced since Matthew appears to be going out of the way to make sure the reader knows that the miracle happened before the very eyes of the disciples and includes both the account of their astonishment and a lesson or saying of Jesus, which the Mark account does not include. The emphasis in Matthew, on the immediate withering away, can been seen as evidence of a correction for sure.

However, the same is true here as in my earlier point. If the tree withered away immediately, it would still be withered away, and even more so the next day - being "dried up from the roots" by then. So in that case both accounts can be accurate without contradicting the other. It is possible that Mark simply left that detail out. Maybe he was hungry and was looking "far off" for another fig tree and didn't notice the immediate withering away.

Regards,

Vanhin

[rameumptom]

What meaningful variants are you referring to? Anything in particular or just referring to the 99% idea?

Someone quoted a biblical scholar stating that of the possible 400,000 variants, only 1% would be meaningful. I just wanted to note that within those 4000 variants which would possibly be meaningful, could be a few important differences. Since I was commenting on a quote, I do not have any specific variants in mind. My point was that while I agree the vast majority of variance between NT manuscripts are minor, even a few can mean something significant.

Had the scholar mentioned 1/10 of 1%, it would still mean 400 meaningful variants. What wasn't discussed is of those meaningful variants, how many have been meaningfully managed by the scholars. Hopefully, they've determined which are among the 1% (such as the Johannine Comma) and dealt with them all.

[rameumptom]

That's not actually how variants work though, and I thought after seeing a lot of your posts that you would know better.

I understand how it really works. I was making the point that 1% of 400,000 variants is still a significant number of meaningful variants. I'm not suggesting they are found in every other verse. I was just comparing the numbers for the average Joe to see that there are still a large number of variants for scholars to deal with.

For example, the Johannine Comma. It was clearly added to push the concept of the Trinity. It IS a meaningful variant. Through comparing manuscripts, and finding the JC only in later manuscripts, were they able to determine that it was a later addition by some Trinitarian scribe seeking to end the issues of Arianism, modalism, and Origenism. Still, while this is a "well-known" variant, there are millions of Christians using the KJV, who still quote it as evidence of the Trinity (I know, I've probably talked with half of them already).

Even though many of us here know about the Johannine Comma, because it is a very apparent and well publicized intrusion, what do we non-scholars know of the other 3999 (1% of 400K)? How is our reading of the New Testament impacted (whether LDS or traditional Christian) because the major variants have not been made known?

I usually read the KJV, based upon certain ancient manuscripts. How does it differ from other traditions, translations, etc., which are based on other manuscripts? Could such variants make a difference in how a person understands a particular doctrine, simply because they are not aware of the possible differences in ancient manuscripts?

What if one verse or story has ten major variants to choose from? Snow opened this thread with a concern over differences between Matthew and Mark in the story of the fig tree. What if there are two or three other variants out there of the same story, some of which give the same story (thereby erasing the differences and Snow's concern)? Or create new issues not seen in the differences in the KJV (which I presume he uses)?

[Snow]

Right, but there is no correction being made here, unless you think that a tree cannot be both "far off" and "in the way" at the same time. How much sense would that make? What else are you seeing in the verses that gives you the impression that the author of Matthew is correcting Mark? Those two differences alone are not sufficient since both can be true.

Regards,

Vanhin

One can always find a way to reconcile differences. It's an art form in apologetics but that's not the point.

If you accept the consensus critical view that Mark is the source for Matthew's account then there are several options from what I can tell for the differences in accounts:

1. The author of Matthew is lazy and writes carelessly.

2. The author of Matthew had a reason for making the change.

You seem to accept that Matthew might have changed the timing on the withering in order to make a point - perhaps that Jesus was powerful, powerful that things instantly obeyed his command - as opposed to Mark's version that depicts a still powerful Jesus, but not so demonstrably or dramatically powerful. So what might the reason be for changing the description of the tree's location? Mark places at a distance so Jesus, who is supposedly the Son of God has to walk all the way over to the tree before he figures out that there's no fruit - something that God should have known right off or even someone knowledgeable about seasons would know. So Matthew rewrites the account to make in more convenient for a knowing Son of God - he didn't have to walk to a distant tree, he merely came across it while walking on the road. The Matthew account doesn't make it as easy for the reader to interpret Jesus as unknowledgeable.

[Yekcidmij]

nvm

Edited January 19, 2010 by JimmieD1

[volgadon]

You have not shown that Mark was Matthew's only source. You have not shown that Mark was Matthew's only source for the fig tree incident. You have not shown that Mark wasn't the one who changed the account. You have not shown any significant difference apart from the timing of the withering, and even that is not as big as you make it out to be.

[Vanhin]

One can always find a way to reconcile differences. It's an art form in apologetics but that's not the point.

If you accept the consensus critical view that Mark is the source for Matthew's account then there are several options from what I can tell for the differences in accounts:

1. The author of Matthew is lazy and writes carelessly.

2. The author of Matthew had a reason for making the change.

You seem to accept that Matthew might have changed the timing on the withering in order to make a point - perhaps that Jesus was powerful, powerful that things instantly obeyed his command - as opposed to Mark's version that depicts a still powerful Jesus, but not so demonstrably or dramatically powerful. So what might the reason be for changing the description of the tree's location? Mark places at a distance so Jesus, who is supposedly the Son of God has to walk all the way over to the tree before he figures out that there's no fruit - something that God should have known right off or even someone knowledgeable about seasons would know. So Matthew rewrites the account to make in more convenient for a knowing Son of God - he didn't have to walk to a distant tree, he merely came across it while walking on the road. The Matthew account doesn't make it as easy for the reader to interpret Jesus as unknowledgeable.

First, I don't necessarily agree that the author of Matthew used Mark as the source.

I don't see how, and I don't think that you have demonstrated how the location of the tree was changed in Matthew. The text alone does not support that, since the Matthew account does not mention the distance at all, and just says the tree was "in the way", and it is nonsensical to argue that the the fig tree could not have been both "far off" and "in the way".

Your speculation on why the distance in Matthew was changed, though very interesting, is premature, since it doesn't appear that the distance is even challenged by the two accounts to begin with.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Snow]

You have not shown that Mark was Matthew's only source. You have not shown that Mark was Matthew's only source for the fig tree incident. You have not shown that Mark wasn't the one who changed the account. You have not shown any significant difference apart from the timing of the withering, and even that is not as big as you make it out to be.

Dude,

If you have another theory with evidence to support it, present it. Dispute the consensus critical view if you want, otherwise you are doing nothing but appealing to mystery.

Gee - it could be that aliens kidnapped Matthew and forced him under threat of painful dental surgery to make changes to Mark and you've done nothing to prove otherwise or it could be that Matthew entered a time warp and wrote before Jesus was even born.

That's the same drivel I posted about in the OP of Bible Corruptions... the ever handy appeal to mystery.

[volgadon]

OR, as I have said before, the author of Mathew had several sources, not just Mark. This is an entirely reasonable assumption, just as reasonable as Mark being the only source.

Drop your silly accusation of appeal to mystery, it doesn't hold water.

[Snow]

OR, as I have said before, the author of Mathew had several sources, not just Mark. This is an entirely reasonable assumption, just as reasonable as Mark being the only source.

Drop your silly accusation of appeal to mystery, it doesn't hold water.

It's put up or shut up time. If you are not appealing to mystery, by all means, present the evidence. If you have evidence that the consensus critical view is wrong, then it is not am appeal to mystery. If on the other hand you are just saying it COULDA happened, that's an appeal to mystery.

[Snow]

There’s another change Matthew makes to Marks fig account that I didn’t mention.

Mark depicts a Jesus who is hungry and exasperated who wastes a trip into the distance only to discover that figs were not even in season, and in his exasperation curses the fig tree. It is the next day that his followers see the result of his anger in the withered fig tree.

Matthew reworks the story so that Jesus doesn’t have to walk into the distance because the tree is merely by the side of the road and then portrays a Jesus who is powerful enough that the fig tree whithers away right in front of them. What I didn’t mention is that Matthew is unsatisfied with a Jesus that is ignorant of the time of time of year or season for figs. He completely drops the statement that is was “not the season for figs.” Then Matthew puts the blame on the tree for not bearing fruit as the tree was barren. The effect of these three changes (tree location, timing and power of the the curse, barren vs out of season) for Matthew is not so limited and like ourselves but rather more knowledgeable and powerful.

Matthew takes scripture (what we believe to be inspired scripture), his source, and reworks it, not to make it more historically accurate - as Matthew is even further removed from being an eyewitness than Mark - but rather to present Jesus in a light that matches his ideology about the Son of God.

Matthew does it constantly through out his account. In the stilling of the storm Mark has disciples speak rudely to Jesus: “Master, we are sinking! Do you not care?” Matthew changes the outburst to a prayer of faith: “Save us Lord, we are sinking.”

For Mark, the Nazarenes and Jesus’ followers fail to really understand Jesus and never really get the point of the crucifixion. In Mark 9 Jesus tells the disciples, twice, that he soon will be killed and then rise again three days later. Mark says “But they did not understand what he said and were afraid to ask.” Matthew repeats the Passion prediction item by item but dramatically changes the reaction of the followers to: “they were filled with grief.”

Mark shows the disciples as limited and obtuse. After the transfiguration Mark, who has a theme of a Messianic Secret, has Jesus instruct the followers “not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. They seized uponi these words and discussed among themselves what this ‘rising from the dead’ could mean. (Mark 9:9-10). Matthew (the author of Matthew) is a Jewish ‘Christian” who knew that the resurrection was a central teaching of Daniel and couldn’t imagine who the disciples wouldn’t know about the resurrection and so drops the entire verse 10 from his retelling of Mark because it depicts them as not getting it.

In Mark Jesus has to try a third time to explain the point of the Passion but James and John still don’t get it and instead they ask for personal aggrandizement (Mark 10:35-38) - asking for places of honor beside Jesus. Jesus tells them they don’t understand what they are asking. Matthew doesn’t want to portray James and John as selfish, and grasping who are so insensitive to Jesus’s coming agony and so Matthew changes the story and puts the request for aggrandizement on the lips of their mother who requests it on their behalf (Matthew 20”22-22).

Interestingly, in Matthew’s haste to take the request out of the mouths or James and John and instead place it on their mother, Matthew neglects to correct the plural answer to the singular as Jesus was then supposed simply answering one person - the mother saying “You (plural) do not understand what you (plural) are asking.”

Of course, there’s more...

[volgadon]

It's put up or shut up time. If you are not appealing to mystery, by all means, present the evidence. If you have evidence that the consensus critical view is wrong, then it is not am appeal to mystery. If on the other hand you are just saying it COULDA happened, that's an appeal to mystery.

Funny how you have never provided strong evidence for Mark being Matthew's only source. You made that assertion, it is for you to back it up. Many pages later, we are still waiting. A vague appeal to a scholarly consensus doesn't cut it.

[Snow]

Funny how you have never provided strong evidence for Mark being Matthew's only source. You made that assertion, it is for you to back it up. Many pages later, we are still waiting. A vague appeal to a scholarly consensus doesn't cut it.

You're a hoot.

Mark wasn't Matthew's only source. Matthew is also believe to draw on Q and other oral tradition. What you are imagining is that Matthew had access to an account of Jesus' ministry, specifically the fig story, that was superior to Mark (which you believe to be inspired scripture).

Fine - believe it. It doesn't really matter for my point. Whatever his reason, Matthew corrected Mark.

[volgadon]

I suggest you lay off the mind reading, it clearly isn't working particularly well for you.

I am not saying that Matthew corrected Mark. Far from it. That point is only valid if you can show that Matthew's purpose was to rewrite Mark, rather than presenting his own ideological message based on the life of Christ, drawing from whatever sources were available, and judging by your poor performance with mind reading, you'll need all the luck you can get.

I can't wait for your latest attacks and insults. You seem to think that scores you a victory.

[rameumptom]

Volgadon and Snow, I've warned about the attacks. This thread is now closed.