Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[ProfessorDavey]

What makes it credible is that there are other second century writings quoting the Long Ending.

But there aren't are there - as far as I am aware there is no extant copy or fragment of any of the texts you mention that is dated to the second century that contains the long ending. Maybe you know different - in which case please share.

What we have are much, much later versions, often translations which purport to be copies of documents originally written in the second century. However we do not and cannot (unless an earlier copy turns up) know whether these versions from the 4thC through to centuries later actually contain text which was in the original.

Realistically I'm unclear whether there is any extant fragment or document from earlier than the earliest version of Mark itself containing the longer ending - which I think is the 5thC Codex Alexandrinus. If the longer ending had been added by then (as we know it was) then it isn't surprising if, in the interests of orthodoxy, references to it start appearing in 5thC versions purporting to be versions of works by the early church fathers.

[Dicky Underpants]

Spud wrote (8th April 2025):

I can ignore the arguments for Markan priority because we know based on other evidence that Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke. Remember that the order of the pericopes in Mark always follows that of either Matthew or Luke or both. The only way this can reasonably be explained is that Mark had a copy of each, probably on a scroll, and went through them together, taking what he wanted from them, without turning back.

I've read the arguments for Markan priority and found them to be weak by comparison.

Is there any point continuing with this? The matter still bothers Spud. I don't know if this point has been raised before (given the amount of waffle on the subject, it probably has). At the baptism of Jesus in Matthew's gospel, Matthew has John being perplexed that Jesus comes to him to be baptised - for why should the Sinless One be baptised 'for the remission of sins'? Mark has none of this embarrassment, and records the baptism with its magical divine intervention. Is it likely that Mark would have removed such an important detail about John's discomfort? Far more likely that Matthew spotted the embarrassing anomaly in Mark's original account, and added some words of his own to try and explain away the uncomfortable details.

[Spud]

Spud wrote (8th April 2025):

Is there any point continuing with this? The matter still bothers Spud. I don't know if this point has been raised before (given the amount of waffle on the subject, it probably has). At the baptism of Jesus in Matthew's gospel, Matthew has John being perplexed that Jesus comes to him to be baptised - for why should the Sinless One be baptised 'for the remission of sins'? Mark has none of this embarrassment, and records the baptism with its magical divine intervention. Is it likely that Mark would have removed such an important detail about John's discomfort? Far more likely that Matthew spotted the embarrassing anomaly in Mark's original account, and added some words of his own to try and explain away the uncomfortable details.

I shouldn't have used the word 'ignore' but it seemed to best convey the idea of being confident that Mark wrote after Matthew and Luke.

To answer your point, Mark could omit Mt. 3:14-15 firstly because Luke, from whom he is also quoting, does not contain a parallel to it, and secondly because he is focussed on what happened next, the descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven. His readers don't need to understand more than that it was the moment at which Jesus' identity was confirmed. He is God's Son, spoken of in Psalm 2:7, and His Beloved Servant of Isaiah 42:1. Mark later includes Jesus saying he has not come to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many. In due time the 'many', for whom he is baptized through his death, would become the 'righteousness of God' (2 Corinthians 5:21). To undergo the symbolic death of baptism by John would do for now (Mt 3:15). He would later preach in the sermon on the mount that righteousness means more than just keeping the commandments (Mt. 5:20).