The Significance of Matthew's Alterations and Edits of Mark

[Berserk]

On that one occasion - but that rage wasn't felt by everyone in Israel, nor did it last for his entire ministry.

You miss the point that this thread is merely intended to show how and why Matthew changes Mark. You duck the fact the His eventual woes against the Galilean towns on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee imply that by His standards His ministry there was ultimately a failure. That failure was of course reversed by testimonies to His resurrection. No resurrection, no Christianity!

I'll pass, thank you. You seem to be determined to show that Matthew changed things in his Gospel, for reasons of his own - and even seem to be trying to discredit him. I don't know why, but I'm not going to join in.

And thus you pass on standard interpretations of Matthean redaction from secular and evangelical NT scholars alike. You even duck the most doctrinally important Matthean alterations of his sources described in post #20.

Joseph was told by an angel that his step son would be unique.

Jesus' family opposed Jesus' claims and ministry (Mark 3:20-21; 6:4; John 7:5). If Jesus could have healed Joseph and prevented his death, that might have secured their loyalty to His ministry.

What Scriptural evidence do you have for that assumption?

Jesus performed no miracles prior to His anointing by the Holy Spirit at His baptism. In John 7:1-10 His brothers prod Him to perform public miracles in Jerusalem precisely because they've never seen Him perform miracles, even in His visit to Nazareth after His ministry has begun. Surely He prayed that Joseph would survive, but His prayers and His family's prayers went unanswered.

 

[Strong in Him]

You miss the point that this thread is merely intended to show how and why Matthew changes Mark. You duck the fact

Actually I only came into this thread to challenge your assertion that Matthew changed Mark's words. That word, to me, implies deliberate intent - as though Matthew didn't like/agree with what Mark wrote, so altered it.
I asked you how you know what Matthew's motive was.
I have not gone into this thoroughly; I don't know whether he replaced certain words, left them out or repeated them elsewhere. But I don't believe that Matthew sat down and thought "I don't like this bit; let's alter/try to improve on it."

I know Scripture says that sometimes Jesus could not do miracles because of a lack of faith. I don't know exactly why it says that, since there were times when Jesus did miracles without asking about faith.
But I don't believe in a Saviour who sometimes failed in what he did. Prevented from doing miracles, yes; trying to do them and not succeeding, no.
And I don't accept your implication that Jesus failed/was incapable because he would have prevented his step father from dying if he'd been able. There is no Scriptural justification for such a comment.

 

[Berserk]

Actually I only came into this thread to challenge your assertion that Matthew changed Mark's words. That word, to me, implies deliberate intent - as though Matthew didn't like/agree with what Mark wrote, so altered it.

But the many alterations are an objective fact recognized by all NT scholars and cry out for explanation and interpretation. i challenge you to set your fundamentalist talking points aside for a moment and actually engage with post 20's discussion of how Matthew 10:23 and 16:27-28 alter their sources. Serious theological implications are at stake here.

For me, Jesus is more than a theological construct created to give life meaning. My love for Him drives me to seek out the real historical Jesus even if that quest makes me uncomfortable. And Matthew and Luke's alterations of their sources can get in the way of that quest and must be confronted and understood.

 

[ARBITER01]

Actually I only came into this thread to challenge your assertion that Matthew changed Mark's words. That word, to me, implies deliberate intent - as though Matthew didn't like/agree with what Mark wrote, so altered it.
I asked you how you know what Matthew's motive was.
I have not gone into this thoroughly; I don't know whether he replaced certain words, left them out or repeated them elsewhere. But I don't believe that Matthew sat down and thought "I don't like this bit; let's alter/try to improve on it."

I know Scripture says that sometimes Jesus could not do miracles because of a lack of faith. I don't know exactly why it says that, since there were times when Jesus did miracles without asking about faith.
But I don't believe in a Saviour who sometimes failed in what he did. Prevented from doing miracles, yes; trying to do them and not succeeding, no.
And I don't accept your implication that Jesus failed/was incapable because he would have prevented his step father from dying if he'd been able. There is no Scriptural justification for such a comment.

Sometimes people make problems for themselves that are not really there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But the many alterations are an objective fact recognized by all NT scholars and cry out for explanation and interpretation. i challenge you to set your fundamentalist talking points aside for a moment and actually engage with post 20's discussion of how Matthew 10:23 and 16:27-28 alter their sources. Serious theological implications are at stake here.

For me, Jesus is more than a theological construct created to give life meaning. My love for Him drives me to seek out the real historical Jesus even if that quest makes me uncomfortable. And Matthew and Luke's alterations of their sources can get in the way of that quest and must be confronted and understood.

Berserk, since you seem to care very much about how sources play into how any one of us might interpret later biblical writings, especially where the Synoptic Problem is concerned, would you mind sharing here your sources/scholars from which you've been pulling your information and hermeneutical evaluations?

 

[Berserk]

Sometimes people make problems for themselves that are not really there.

Other times, as in this issue, Christians duck objective Gospel editing and rewording because, as Jack Nicholson puts it in the movie "A few Good Men," "You can't handle the truth!" Witness how fundamentalist posters here continually duck the issues raised by Matthew's editing and rewording (10:23 and 16:27-28) discussed in post 20.

When I was a pastor, 4 men wanted me to lead a Bible study on the Synoptic Gospels that used modern critical techniques that are studied in seminary. The result? One (a janitor) went to seminary, got his MDiv, and became a pastor. A 2nd got his MA in Theology, used me as a reference to go on an archaeological dig at Bethsaida in Galilee, and made discoveries that got him featured on the science TV program Nova. The third man became a writer. Only the fourth was too old to go back to school. All are devout beleivers.

 

[ARBITER01]

Other times, as in this issue, Christians duck objective Gospel editing and rewording because, as Jack Nicholson puts it in the movie "A few Good Men," "You can't handle the truth!" Witness how fundamentalist posters here continually duck the issues raised by Matthew's editing and rewording (10:23 and 16:27-28) discussed in post 20.

This seems to be a problem of your making. This happens a lot of times when people pay too much attention to men instead of GOD.

 

[Berserk]

Berserk, since you seem to care very much about how sources play into how any one of us might interpret later biblical writings, especially where the Synoptic Problem is concerned, would you mind sharing here your sources/scholars from which you've been pulling your information and hermeneutical evaluations?

As a retired theology professor, I have a huge library of NT Introductions and books on the Synoptic Gospels which overwhelmingly support the methodology I am applying here. As a professor, I also attended the annual meetings of The Society of Biblical Literature, which took these insights for granted. But I first learned about Matthew and Luke's use of Mark during the one year I spent at Fuller Seminary, an evangelical school. At Fuller the consensus seemed to be that evangelical laymen are not ready to hear the truth about the relationships among the Gospels and Higher Criticism in general. By contrast, such an approach seems to have set the faith on fire of the 4 men in my Synoptic Bible study discussed above.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As a retired theology professor, I have a huge library of NT Introductions and books on the Synoptic Gospels which overwhelmingly support the methodology I am applying here. As a professor, I also attended the annual meetings of The Society of Biblical Literature, which took these insights for granted. But I first learned about Matthew and Luke's use of Mark during the one year I spent at Fuller Seminary, an evangelical school. At Fuller the consensus seemed to be that evangelical laymen are not ready to hear the truth about the relationships among the Gospels and Higher Criticism in general. By contrast, such an approach seems to have set the faith on fire of the 4 men in my Synoptic Bible study discussed above.

You do seem knowledgeable. Unfortunately, I think I may have misspoken and not made myself clear enough. I have a consistent problem with not being intelligible, so I apologize.

What I was really after was the several central sources you've culled from, such as names of specific scholars, books titles and any particular journal articles you've found particularly informative. May I have those please so I can add them to my existing (although still small) working bibliography?

 

[Petros2015]

Luke never met Jesus

Huh. I did not know that. I'm not sure that it is true (he never met him at all), but I always thought he was one of 12, and apparently that's not true either. Somehow I made the assumption he was one of the 12 and that stayed with me until now.

 

[ARBITER01]

Huh. I did not know that. I'm not sure that it is true (he never met him at all), but I always thought he was one of 12, and apparently that's not true either. Somehow I made the assumption he was one of the 12 and that stayed with me until now.

Luke gives the list of the original 11 before Matthias was joined to them in acts,...

And when they entered the city, they went up into the upper room, where they were abiding with both Peter and John, and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.

Luke is known as an Evangelist, but that title seems to be given to him because he was a gospel writer. He was really known as the beloved physician that traveled with Paul.

Apostles either met Jesus personally like the 12 did, or by Spiritual visitation like Paul did.

 

[The Liturgist]

NT scholars recognize the need to distinguish the Evangelists' purposes in editing and rewording their Gospel sources from the purpose of the original events or sayings of Jesus. You are invited to engage the interpretations offered below for several Matthean alterations and edits of Mark.

(1) "And a voice came from Heaven: "YOU ARE my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased (Mark 1:11)."
"And a voice from Heaven said: "THIS IS my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased Matthew 3:17)."

In the Marcan original, the heavenly voice addresses Jesus alone in what seems like a private vision. But Matthew changes "You are" to "This is" so that the heavenly voice's message addresses a broader audience in what seems like a shared vision. John 1:32 agrees with Matthew that John the Baptist also saw the Spirit descending like a dove on Jesus. Some might see Mark's version as the original and use it to help explain John's later doubts about Jesus (Matthew 11:12, 6 // Luke 7:20, 23). Others might see Matthew and John's version not as a later development of this tradition, but as the more historically accurate version. What do you think?

(2) "And the Spirit immediately CAST HIM OUT [Greek: "ekballo"l into the wilderness (Mark 1:12)."
"Then Jesus WAS LED into the wilderness...(Matthew 4:1 // Luke 4:1)."

Mark's verb "ekballo" ("cast out" or "drive") is a powerful verb, the same verb used for Jesus' exorcisms! It's use jmplies Jesus' initial resistance as He tries to process the significance of the heavenly voice's message. Its use also implies that Jesus is still in an altered state of consciousness (a trance?) as He enters the wilderness for what turns out to be a 40 day fasting vigil. Matthew and Luke (using Q) substitute the less descriptive verb "led" to remove the implication of Jesus' temporary loss of self-control.

Respectfully, we have no proof that the Gospel of Matthew is an edit of the Gospel of Mark, and considering that both it and the Gospel of Luke share a corpus of additional material not found in Mark, commonly called the Q source, I think the idea that the Gospel of Matthew is a mere edit of Mark is overly simplistic.

The reality is we think Markan priority is correct, but we can’t know for sure, however, there is reason to believe, both based on Church Tradition and contemporary scholarship, that the Gospel according to St. John is the most recent. But Markan priority does not mean that Matthew or Luke is simply an edit of the Gospel of Mark.

Also, we have no proof there ever was an original, authoritative sayings document, although I am inclined to believe that since St. Thomas became the Apostle to the Aramaic-speaking East, he may have quickly transcribed important sayings of our Lord, and what we have in the Gospel of Thomas is a late Coptic translation of such a document that had been intentionally corrupted by Gnostic interpolations, which is why some of its verses align with the synoptics and others do not, but rather have that offensive and distasteful quality of much of the psuedepigraphical, heretical works. This would explain why there was a need for Tatian’s stopgap, and later still, the composition of the Vetus Syra, since a Gospel harmony is better than a sayings document, and a translation of the four Gospels (interestingly using the Western text type, like the Vetus Latina, rather than the Byzantine or Alexandrian), is better than a Gospel harmony composed by someone who later formed his own Gnostic cult related to that of Bardesanes and Severian. And of course the various Syriac bibles, especially the Peshitta and the Harqlean (from where the parts of the canonical NT missing from the Peshitta were sourced by the Syriac Orthodox, so they would be using the same 27 book canon that originated with St. Athanasius of Alexandria and is read in its entirety, even including the Apocalypse of St. John, in the Coptic Orthodox Church - historically, other churches tended to regard the Apocalypse (Revelation) as canonical but not include it in the lectionary, but the Copts read it cover to cover on Holy Saturday.

 

[Berserk]

Matthew makes 2 significant changes to Mark's passage on the rich young ruler:
(1) "GOOD teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him: "why do you CALL ME GOOD? No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:17-18)."
"Teacher. what GOOD DEED must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him: "WHY DO YOU ASK ME ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD? No one is good but God (Matthew 19:16-17)."

Here Matthew takes offense at Mark's apparent implication that Jesus is denying both that He is good and that He is God. To remove this offense, he eliminates the flattery by changing "Good teacher" to "Teacher" and thus eliminates Jesus' question about why the rich young ruler is calling Him good. Matthew then moves the word "good" to "good deed" so that the issue is the nature of goodness!

But does Matthew need to make these changes? Evangelical apologists try to evade Jesus' tacit denial by claiming that He is just fishing for an acclamation of Himself as "God." That claim can be dismissed on 2 grounds:
(a) Their claim creates the expectation that the context would treat Jesus' identity, which it does not.
(b) Jesus views Himself as "the Son of God," but not as "God"--a title He reserves for God the Father.


(2) "YOU LACK ONE THING; go, sell what you have and give the money to the poor...(10:21)."
"IF YOU WOULD BE PERFECT go, sell what you have and give the money to the poor (Matthew 19:21)..."

Matthew changes Mark's wording into a demand for perfection. We know this because in the only other Gospel demand for perfection Matthew changes Q's command to "be merciful" into a command to "be perfect:"


"IF YOU WOULD BE PERFECT, go, sell what have and give the money to the poor...(19:21)."
"Be MERCIFUL as your heavenly Father is MERCIFUL (Luke 6:36)."
"Be PERFECT as your heavenly Father is PERFECT (Matthew 5:48)"

This change occurs in the last verse of the Q passage on loving one's enemies.

 

[ARBITER01]

It looks like that is a systemology that denies the Scriptures are all inspired by the Father , not the results of man's inclinations , choices, or opinions....

i.e. sinful systemology opposed to Divine Principles.

It's in the controversial section for a reason.

 

[Berserk]

It looks like that is a systemology that denies the Scriptures are all inspired by the Father , not the results of man's inclinations , choices, or opinions....

Intellectual integrity dictates that your unnecessary verdict be based on actual comparative textual analysis. So let's consider our next example:

Matthew rewords Mark's version of Jesus' response to the disciples' question about when the Temple will be destroyed:
"When He was sitting on the Mount of Olives..., Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of all these things are about to be accomplished (Mark 13:2)?""

"When He was sitting alone on the Mount of Olives, His disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us when will this be, AND WHAT WILL BE THE SIGN OF YOUR COMING AND OF THE END OF THE AGE (Matthew 24:3)?""

In Mark the disciples ask only about the Temple's destruction, but Jesus goes on to discuss the signs of His Second Coming in Mark 13:24-36).
Noticing this, Matthew changes the disciples' question to anticipate Jesus' answer and thus has the disciples also ask about the Second Coming and the end of the age.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Intellectual integrity dictates that your unnecessary verdict be based on actual comparative textual analysis. So let's consider our next example:

Matthew rewords Mark's version of Jesus' response to the disciples' question about when the Temple will be destroyed:
"When He was sitting on the Mount of Olives..., Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of all these things are about to be accomplished (Mark 13:2)?""

"When He was sitting alone on the Mount of Olives, His disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us when will this be, AND WHAT WILL BE THE SIGN OF YOUR COMING AND OF THE END OF THE AGE (Matthew 24:3)?""

In Mark the disciples ask only about the Temple's destruction, but Jesus goes on to discuss the signs of His Second Coming in Mark 13:24-36).
Noticing this, Matthew changes the disciples' question to anticipate Jesus' answer and thus has the disciples also ask about the Second Coming and the end of the age.

And how do we know "Mark" got it all right in the first place?

 

[Berserk]

And how do we know "Mark" got it all right in the first place?

The issue is not whether Mark "got it all right" but rather the fact that Mark's is the harder reading because it leaves unanswered the question of how all those sayings about the timetable of why the 2nd Coming crept into the text. Matthew's correction of Mark smoothes over that problem.
There is a consistent pattern of Matthew smoothing over Mark's harder readings.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The issue is not whether Mark "got it all right" but rather the fact that Mark's is the harder reading because it leaves unanswered the question of how all those sayings about the timetable of why the 2nd Coming crept into the text. Matthew's correction of Mark smoothes over that problem.
There is a consistent pattern of Matthew smoothing over Mark's harder readings.

The way I approach it, as I do the entirety of the New Testament along with the Old, is to not assume that any piece of writing isn't subject to the varities of Historiographical considerations. I think it's a mistake to just assume ipso facto that every and all statements in the Gospels have the absolute backing and presumed articulated imprimatur of the Holy Spirit. They might not in a totalistic, mystical fashion.

We don't have to assume beforehand as a presupposition going into the text that the author(s) of Matthew or Luke weren't attempting on typical human grounds or as rational revisors or investigators to offer revisions of other gospel texts that came before their own.

By pulling out these assumptions, then we don't have to spin our theological wheels in the mud as hard or fast in order to try to understand that each author or school of authors was deliberately attempting to tweak the reports for what they saw were useful corrections or amendations to better their readers' understanding, and from that author's point of view.

 

[Strong in Him]

The issue is not whether Mark "got it all right" but rather the fact that Mark's is the harder reading because it leaves unanswered the question of how all those sayings about the timetable of why the 2nd Coming crept into the text. Matthew's correction of Mark smoothes over that problem.

How do you know Matthew is correcting Mark?
They were written at different times for different congregations. Mark's Gospel is brief; Peter is Mark's main source and he was fleeing from persecution.
Matthew's Gospel is much longer; the author had time to expand on certain things. And he was writing for Jews.

 

[Berserk]

How do you know Matthew is correcting Mark?

(
(1) Because of the consistent pattern of Matthew correcting the harder Markan wording
(2) Because 90% of Mark is copied by Matthew and one can clearly see why Mattthew found the omitted Markan material offensive.
More on this in future posts.
(3) Because Matthew often follows the Markan Greek word order word for word.
(4) Because Matthew's style changes to Markan style in passages where he copies Mark. For example, Matthew's preferred word for "immediately" is "eutheos" and Mark uses only "euthus." But when Matthew copies Mark, he adopts Mark's style, using "euthus" 7 times

Matthew's Gospel is much longer; the author had time to expand on certain things.

Matthew also uses the sayings source Q and his own unique M material. that is the scholarly consensus.