Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Spud on April 23, 2019, 05:00:42 PM
-
"Matthean Priority" is the idea that Matthew was written first. It came up elsewhere and I think it's worthy of a separate thread.
None of the gospels have a description of the actual raising from the dead. Furthermore, if you read what each gospel says about the post resurrection appearances of Jesus, you'll find that all three accounts are different. Mark doesn't have any post resurrection appearances (the original is cut off at 16:8 ) and the other three all disagree about what happened next. In my opinion, all three of Matthew, Luke and John were working from Mark's account and when they got to 16:8 they thought "what? it can't just end there", so they each made up post resurrection stories. Later, some scribe of the New Testament was copying out Mark and thought "what? it can't just end there", so he made up a new ending by précising the other three gospels and tacking it on.
I will try and show examples which I think demonstrate that Matthew was written before Mark and Luke.
First off, the raising of Jairus' daughter. Matthew simply says, "a ruler", Mark and Luke call him Jairus. Why would Matthew omit his name if he copied the account from Mark? It makes more sense that Mark used Matthew and added details given by another eyewitness.
-
"Matthean Priority" is the idea that Matthew was written first. It came up elsewhere and I think it's worthy of a separate thread.
I will try and show examples which I think demonstrate that Matthew was written before Mark and Luke.
First off, the raising of Jairus' daughter. Matthew simply says, "a ruler", Mark and Luke call him Jairus. Why would Matthew omit his name if he copied the account from Mark? It makes more sense that Mark used Matthew and added details given by another eyewitness.
That we still have no idea who wrote the gospels, nor are we certain when they were written in relation to each other tells us just what a poor source of 'evidence' they are, particularly as there is absolutely zero contemporary (to Jesus) non-partial corroborative evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone that he did the things he is claimed to have done in the gospels.
There is far greater contemporary corroborative evidence of the existence of Daedalus and Icarus than of Jesus - but that doesn't mean we should accept that they flew across the sea from Crete, nor that the former created a labyrinth to keep a half-man, half-bull creature inside.
-
"Matthean Priority" is the idea that Matthew was written first. It came up elsewhere and I think it's worthy of a separate thread.
I will try and show examples which I think demonstrate that Matthew was written before Mark and Luke.
First off, the raising of Jairus' daughter. Matthew simply says, "a ruler", Mark and Luke call him Jairus. Why would Matthew omit his name if he copied the account from Mark? It makes more sense that Mark used Matthew and added details given by another eyewitness.
You wish to believe that to be true, but it is a mere opinion with nothing substantial to back it up.
-
First off, the raising of Jairus' daughter. Matthew simply says, "a ruler", Mark and Luke call him Jairus. Why would Matthew omit his name if he copied the account from Mark? It makes more sense that Mark used Matthew and added details given by another eyewitness.
Why would Mark and Luke both make up the same name? It makes more sense that Mark is the source and Matthew merely dropped the name. Your hypothesis requires us to make up a second unknown source, to which Ockham says no.
-
Some arguments for Markan priority:
- Mark's writing style is Very much less sophisticated than that of |Luke and Matthew. They both tend to polish his words and reduce redundancies etc.
- Mark is much shorter than either Matthew or Luke. He omits very significant portions of both, chief of which would be The Lord's Prayer. It's much easier to explain this if Matthew and Luke added the Lord's Prayer than if Mark dropped it.
- There are some bits in Mark that don't appear in the other gospels. These fall into two categories: weird stories e.g. healings using spit, the naked person in Gethsemene and extra superfluous detail in stories shared between all three synoptics. The former is easily explained if Mark was first: Matthew and Luke merely dropped the weird stories and tightened up the language by removing the superfluous details. Going the other way is less credible.
- Hard readings: these are bits which are a bit embarrassing for Christians. Mark has several examples where Jesus apparently has limitations. These are often toned down in Matthew and Luke e.g. "And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief." (Mark) versus "And he did not do many deeds of power there, because of their unbelief." (Matthew).
- My favourite one is dualisms. Mark often repeats things in two ways. e.g. "That evening, at sunset". Matthew and Luke will often eliminate the dualism by taking one half: "That evening" (Matthew); "As the sun was setting" (Luke). Sometimes Matthew and Luke both take the same half and sometimes they just utterly screw it up as in when Matthew has Jesus riding a both donkey and a colt into Jerusalem.
No one of these items on its own is enough to assert Markan priority, but when you put them all together, it's pretty compelling.
-
Why would Mark and Luke both make up the same name? It makes more sense that Mark is the source and Matthew merely dropped the name. Your hypothesis requires us to make up a second unknown source, to which Ockham says no.
Equally possible is that Matthew, writing first, didn't know the ruler's name; Mark and Luke either knew it or found out later from someone?
-
Equally possible is that Matthew, writing first, didn't know the ruler's name; Mark and Luke either knew it or found out later from someone?
If it is equally possible why do most reputable academic scholars in this field reject the notion of Matthean priority in favour of Mark being the earliest.
-
If it is equally possible why do most reputable academic scholars in this field reject the notion of Matthean priority in favour of Mark being the earliest.
From the quote in the OP, I imagine it's because they start with the assumption that Jesus didn't rise from the dead or do anything miraculous.
-
From the quote in the OP, I imagine it's because they start with the assumption that Jesus didn't rise from the dead or do anything miraculous.
I think the people who can credible input into this discussion are scholars of ancient linguistics, whose expertise is in looking at the similarities and otherwise of ancient documents and are able therefore to draw conclusions about documents being derived from each other and/or additional source material, plus the likely order of the timing of the documents.
Assumptions about Jesus' purported resurrection are completely irrelevant to this academic study.
-
From the quote in the OP, I imagine it's because they start with the assumption that Jesus didn't rise from the dead or do anything miraculous.
Actually this is not the case. As a rule most of the scholars dealing with the synoptic problem and coming up with the various permutations including both Matthew priority and Mark priority are Christians.
-
Actually this is not the case. As a rule most of the scholars dealing with the synoptic problem and coming up with the various permutations including both Matthew priority and Mark priority are Christians.
Fairyn uff
-
Why would Mark and Luke both make up the same name?
Are you sure you mean that?
-
That we still have no idea who wrote the gospels, nor are we certain when they were written in relation to each other tells us just what a poor source of 'evidence' they are, particularly as there is absolutely zero contemporary (to Jesus) non-partial corroborative evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone that he did the things he is claimed to have done in the gospels.
There is far greater contemporary corroborative evidence of the existence of Daedalus and Icarus than of Jesus - but that doesn't mean we should accept that they flew across the sea from Crete, nor that the former created a labyrinth to keep a half-man, half-bull creature inside.
One of jeremy's posts from a few days ago reminds me that this all has to be seen in the light of the events of AD 70.
If there was a church in Jerusalem then either it would have perished, or its members would have got out, if they knew about Jesus' warning of it's impending destruction. In which case they could have taken the "good news" with them.
You both assume that the earliest date for any gospel is after the events in 70, which they claim to predict. That's fair enough, but it might be useful to look at the gospel dating from the other perspective too.
-
Are you sure you mean that?
Absolutely.
If Matthew came first, then when Mark and Luke came across that passage, they either both independently decided to make up a name for the synagogue leader and both chose Jairus (unlikely, I'm sure you will agree), or they had a second source with the name in.
On the other hand, if Mark was the first gospel written, we can explain the situation by assuming Matthew just copied him and Luke copied him but dropped the name. There's no need to postulate a second source. Ockham's razor tells us we should prefer the explanation in which Mark comes first in this instance.
-
Absolutely.
If Matthew came first, then when Mark and Luke came across that passage, they either both independently decided to make up a name for the synagogue leader and both chose Jairus (unlikely, I'm sure you will agree), or they had a second source with the name in.
Thanks for clarifying.
I also notice that Mark says Peter, James and John the brother of James went into the house, but the other disciples did not.
This could suggest that one of those three gave Mark the information about what Jesus said to the girl. With Markan priority, that would mean Matthew dropped both the name Jairus, the names of the three who went into the house, and the words said to the girl. He would also have dropped other details such as the girl dying while they were on their way, and the age of the girl, and giving her food after she got up.
(Incidentally, we can assume that Luke quotes from either Matthew or Mark or both, as he states that he has investigated everything and that many people before him have written accounts)
On the other hand, if Mark was the first gospel written, we can explain the situation by assuming Matthew just copied him and Luke copied him but dropped the name. There's no need to postulate a second source. Ockham's razor tells us we should prefer the explanation in which Mark comes first in this instance.
[Matthew doesn't include the name, Luke does]
But as shown above, he didn't just drop the name.
Whatever the case, the mention of flute players by Matthew suggests he is (or has access to) an independent eyewitness, which is interesting from the pov of authenticity.
-
Thanks for clarifying.
I also notice that Mark says Peter, James and John the brother of James went into the house, but the other disciples did not.
This could suggest that one of those three gave Mark the information about what Jesus said to the girl. With Markan priority, that would mean Matthew dropped both the name Jairus, the names of the three who went into the house, and the words said to the girl. He would also have dropped other details such as the girl dying while they were on their way, and the age of the girl, and giving her food after she got up.
(Incidentally, we can assume that Luke quotes from either Matthew or Mark or both, as he states that he has investigated everything and that many people before him have written accounts)
[Matthew doesn't include the name, Luke does]
But as shown above, he didn't just drop the name.
Whatever the case, the mention of flute players by Matthew suggests he is (or has access to) an independent eyewitness, which is interesting from the pov of authenticity.
So your theory is that Mark copied Matthew and added some extra colour he got from another source and then Luke copied Mark.
Unfortunately, this doesn't really work. You have to explain why Mark would add the trivial details to this story and yet omit vast portions of Matthew's gospel, including the Sermon on the Mount and The Lord's Prayer. Would you write an account of the ministry of Jesus and omit the Lord's Prayer?
-
So your theory is that Mark copied Matthew and added some extra colour he got from another source and then Luke copied Mark.
Unfortunately, this doesn't really work. You have to explain why Mark would add the trivial details to this story and yet omit vast portions of Matthew's gospel, including the Sermon on the Mount and The Lord's Prayer. Would you write an account of the ministry of Jesus and omit the Lord's Prayer?
I'm not sure about Luke.
An explanation for why Mark omits the sermon on the mount is that Mark is based on speeches Peter gave in Rome, to Roman officers who would not have heard that it was said, 'do not kill' etc. The sermon on the mount is for a Jewish audience.
-
I'm not sure about Luke.
An explanation for why Mark omits the sermon on the mount is that Mark is based on speeches Peter gave in Rome, to Roman officers who would not have heard that it was said, 'do not kill' etc. The sermon on the mount is for a Jewish audience.
If that was the case then Matthew must have come second because either Mark copied him or he copied Mark. The wording of the two gospels is too similar for them to have been composed independently.
-
If that was the case then Matthew must have come second because either Mark copied him or he copied Mark.
?
This doesn't make sense. If Mark copied Matthew then he wrote after him.
-
"Mark the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Mark second and used Matthew and the preaching of Peter as sources"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis
But he missed out bits that would not be relevent for Gentiles.
-
"Mark the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Mark second and used Matthew and the preaching of Peter as sources"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis
But he missed out bits that would not be relevent for Gentiles.
That is a hypothesis, not a fact.
-
?
This doesn't make sense. If Mark copied Matthew then he wrote after him.
There are two possibilities:
1. Mark copied Matthew
2. Matthew copied Mark.
If, as you claim, Mark's source is Peter (and therefore not Matthew), then that eliminates one of the two possibilities. i.e. that Mark copied Matthew and that leaves us with "Matthew copied Mark", which contradicts your thesis.
-
"Mark the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Mark second and used Matthew and the preaching of Peter as sources"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis
No. That seriously does not work. Almost all of Mark's gospel is in Matthew. There really is no room for another source, if Matthew was his first source.
But he missed out bits that would not be relevent for Gentiles.
That means he thinks that about 50% of Matthew including the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount is not suitable for gentiles. I'm a gentile and I remember being taught all about the Lord's Prayer at school.
-
That is a hypothesis, not a fact.
When discussing the origin of the gospels, it's pretty much all hypothesis. There's no cut and dried evidence that says Mark came first or Matthew came first: we are always talking about the balance of probabilities. The evidence for Mar's priority is quite strong, but it is not totally incontrovertible.
-
No. That seriously does not work. Almost all of Mark's gospel is in Matthew. There really is no room for another source, if Matthew was his first source.
That would also apply with Markan priority, wouldn't it, since Matthew contains independent eyewitness details.
That means he thinks that about 50% of Matthew including the Lord's Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount is not suitable for gentiles. I'm a gentile and I remember being taught all about the Lord's Prayer at school.
Much of Matthew is clearly written for the Jewish people, suggesting that it was written durin the time before the focus o their preaching shifted to Gentiles. Would a later gospel have been written mainly for Jews? Doubtful.
-
That would also apply with Markan priority, wouldn't it, since Matthew contains independent eyewitness details.
Much of Matthew is clearly written for the Jewish people, suggesting that it was written durin the time before the focus o their preaching shifted to Gentiles. Would a later gospel have been written mainly for Jews? Doubtful.
Even if the gospel of Matthew does contain eye witness details, and that is open to question, if what people claim to have witnessed is not credible, it can't be relied upon as being factual.
-
Even if the gospel of Matthew does contain eye witness details, and that is open to question, if what people claim to have witnessed is not credible, it can't be relied upon as being factual.
What do you mean by credible?
-
That would also apply with Markan priority, wouldn't it, since Matthew contains independent eyewitness details.
No it wouldn't because Mark would be Matthew's primary source. There's plenty of Matthew left over though so he must have had more sources than just Mark.
Much of Matthew is clearly written for the Jewish people, suggesting that it was written durin the time before the focus o their preaching shifted to Gentiles. Would a later gospel have been written mainly for Jews? Doubtful.
Is it?
Anyway, you still haven't addressed almost any of my strongest objections. Let's start with the Lord's Prayer. How do you account for Mark dropping it, if he had Matthew as a source?
-
What do you mean by credible?
She means, storm Hannah doing as she's told, or something like that.
-
What do you mean by credible?
Something that is plausible, unlike many of the things attributed to Jesus.
-
She means, storm Hannah doing as she's told, or something like that.
What are you talking about? ::)
-
No. That seriously does not work. Almost all of Mark's gospel is in Matthew. There really is no room for another source, if Matthew was his first source.
That isn't logical; for all we know Mark and Peter could have sat down together with Matthew's gospel and written "Mark" together. Or, as you say, Matthew could have sat down with two or three sources including Mark's gospel. How do you decide which is more likely?
-
What are you talking about? ::)
Mark 4:39, but I realize Maeght said credible, not un-credible
-
Anyway, you still haven't addressed almost any of my strongest objections. Let's start with the Lord's Prayer. How do you account for Mark dropping it, if he had Matthew as a source?
Matthew emphasizes Jesus' words, which, for some reason, he is more interested in than Mark, who emphasizes his deeds.
-
Is it?
The last few verses of Matthew suggest Judea before the dispersal of mainly Jewish Christians as the setting for his book.
-
Something that is plausible, unlike many of the things attributed to Jesus.
Plausible for an ordinary human being or plausible for the Son of God, a divine being, God incarnate etc
-
That isn't logical; for all we know Mark and Peter could have sat down together with Matthew's gospel and written "Mark" together.
So when Mark and Peter got to Matthew 6:9-13, Peter said to Mark: no that prayer is not important, get rid of it. That is what you are suggesting (to save you looking it up, that’s Matthew’s rendition of the Lord’s Prayer).
Or, as you say, Matthew could have sat down with two or three sources including Mark's gospel. How do you decide which is more likely?
Read my reply #4. There are several arguments there that favour Markan priority. You haven’t even tried to address any of them yet.
-
Matthew emphasizes Jesus' words, which, for some reason, he is more interested in than Mark, who emphasizes his deeds.
The idea that Mark is not interested in the words of Jesus is utter bullshit. He quotes Jesus’ words many times. The idea that he would omit the Lord’s Prayer if he was aware of it is beyond comprehension.
-
Matthew emphasizes Jesus' words, which, for some reason, he is more interested in than Mark, who emphasizes his deeds.
I think that the impression that Mark emphasises Jesus' deeds more than Matthew is largely derived from Mark's rather 'breathless' style: 'immediately Jesus did this, and then he immediately said that'. All the time giving the impression that Jesus is continually on the move. I think it is this sense of movement is really the only real difference of emphasis between the two evangelists - that's of no great consequence. The emphasis on Jesus' words in Mark is, as Jeremy says, just as important.
There are a few other details other than the ones mentioned which incline me to opt for the Markan priority view. Matthew appears to omit certain details according to his Jewish agenda. But there are other instances where you sense he's tarting up the bare details of Mark with a fair amount of technicolour enhancement. The matter of the Resurrection is a case in point. The ending of Mark is generally agreed to be a spurious addition, but the accepted genuine words relate that a young man dressed in white simply tells the women that Jesus has risen and is no longer there*. That's not good enough for Matthew: he has to depict the moment of Resurrection with an angel descending to roll away the stone, leaving the guards terrified.
And the witnesses to this were? Presumably the guards (if it happened) - who would be unlikely to divulge details of the occurrence to members of the Christian group whose leader's body they had been entrusted with guarding. In short, Matthew is quite obviously letting his imagination run riot.
*For those (probably few, in this learned forum!) who are not aware of the genuine ending of Mark's gospel, it is as follows:
(the young man in white tells them)“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing" The End
-
Some arguments for Markan priority:
- Hard readings: these are bits which are a bit embarrassing for Christians. Mark has several examples where Jesus apparently has limitations. These are often toned down in Matthew and Luke e.g. "And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief." (Mark) versus "And he did not do many deeds of power there, because of their unbelief." (Matthew).
Or that his family thought Jesus was mad. Or that he was 'angry' (according to an early codex) when a paralytic asked him to cure him.
-
So when Mark and Peter got to Matthew 6:9-13, Peter said to Mark: no that prayer is not important, get rid of it. That is what you are suggesting (to save you looking it up, that’s Matthew’s rendition of the Lord’s Prayer).
I'm not. The Lord's prayer is part of the sermon on the mount, a three-chapter section all of which is missing from Mark, and, if he did quote from Matthew, none of which was important enough to include. I won't speculate as to why, because I'm not as familiar as I should be with Matthew.
-
I'm not. The Lord's prayer is part of the sermon on the mount, a three-chapter section all of which is missing from Mark, and, if he did quote from Matthew, none of which was important enough to include. I won't speculate as to why, because I'm not as familiar as I should be with Matthew.
Why then did you start this thread about Matthew?
-
I think that the impression that Mark emphasises Jesus' deeds more than Matthew is largely derived from Mark's rather 'breathless' style: 'immediately Jesus did this, and then he immediately said that'. All the time giving the impression that Jesus is continually on the move. I think it is this sense of movement is really the only real difference of emphasis between the two evangelists - that's of no great consequence. The emphasis on Jesus' words in Mark is, as Jeremy says, just as important.
Emphasis in the sense of priority is what I meant.
There are a few other details other than the ones mentioned which incline me to opt for the Markan priority view. Matthew appears to omit certain details according to his Jewish agenda. But there are other instances where you sense he's tarting up the bare details of Mark with a fair amount of technicolour enhancement. The matter of the Resurrection is a case in point. The ending of Mark is generally agreed to be a spurious addition,
Right, here is some information you may agree or disagree with: Suppose Mark 16:9-20 are genuine, possibly added later by Mark. The closing thought is that Jesus is the Lord, as he is called indirectly in the opening thought in 1:3, and as the disciples preach he is confirming his word by the signs that accompany it (16:20). Luke then begins with a similar thought: that the disciples have passed on the word to him (Luke 1:2). So we have a built in progression from Mark to Luke. What if the same exists from Matthew to Mark? At the beginning of Matthew Jesus is the son of David and Abraham but at the close he is the Son of God, and Mark begins by saying that Jesus is the Son of God.
but the accepted genuine words relate that a young man dressed in white simply tells the women that Jesus has risen and is no longer there*. That's not good enough for Matthew: he has to depict the moment of Resurrection with an angel descending to roll away the stone, leaving the guards terrified.
And the witnesses to this were? Presumably the guards (if it happened) - who would be unlikely to divulge details of the occurrence to members of the Christian group whose leader's body they had been entrusted with guarding. In short, Matthew is quite obviously letting his imagination run riot.
*For those (probably few, in this learned forum!) who are not aware of the genuine ending of Mark's gospel, it is as follows:
(the young man in white tells them)“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing" The End
The story about the guards (assuming it's true) shows that the Jewish authorities knew the body of Jesus had vanished - they had to invent a story to account for it. This evidence combines with the change in the disciples from terror and unbelief to boldly preaching everywhere, to augment the claim that Jesus had been seen alive.
-
Why then did you start this thread about Matthew?
Because Jeremy said that because Mark has no resurrection appearances (he assumes it ends at verse 8 ) it must have been written first: in other words, he is assuming the resurrection was made up.
-
Because Jeremy said that because Mark has no resurrection appearances (he assumes it ends at verse 8 ) it must have been written first: in other words, he is assuming the resurrection was made up.
Given the apparent absence of a basis to exclude the risks of lies or mistakes in the NT accounts I'd say that 'made up' would be a reasonable assumption.
-
I'm not. The Lord's prayer is part of the sermon on the mount, a three-chapter section all of which is missing from Mark, and, if he did quote from Matthew, none of which was important enough to include. I won't speculate as to why, because I'm not as familiar as I should be with Matthew.
The Lord’s Prayer “wasn’t important enough to include”? By the way, he wouldn’t have had to copy out the entire Sermon on the Mount exactly as Matthew wrote it, Luke didn’t, but Luke did, at least, put the Lord’s Prayer in.
Ask yourself, is it more credible that Mark chose to drop the most important prayer of Christianity, or that he simply didn’t know about it and Matthew and Luke inserted it into their versions of Mark.
-
Emphasis in the sense of priority is what I meant.
Right, here is some information you may agree or disagree with: Suppose Mark 16:9-20 are genuine, possibly added later by Mark.
They aren’t. The reason we know they are a later addition is because the earliest copies of Mark we have dating from a couple of hundred years after we think Mark was written do not have those verses. Mark couldn’t have added them himself because he was long dead.
-
They aren’t. The reason we know they are a later addition is because the earliest copies of Mark we have dating from a couple of hundred years after we think Mark was written do not have those verses. Mark couldn’t have added them himself because he was long dead.
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?article=704
gives the names of witnesses dating from the late second century onwards who know of these verses, including Irenaeus who quotes Mark 16:19 directly.
The Lord’s Prayer “wasn’t important enough to include”? By the way, he wouldn’t have had to copy out the entire Sermon on the Mount exactly as Matthew wrote it, Luke didn’t, but Luke did, at least, put the Lord’s Prayer in.
Ask yourself, is it more credible that Mark chose to drop the most important prayer of Christianity, or that he simply didn’t know about it and Matthew and Luke inserted it into their versions of Mark.
Check out Mark 11:25. Some manuscripts also have an extra verse 26, and both verses occur in Matthew 6:14-15 but not in Matthew's version of the cursing of the fig tree. Whether this is evidence for Mark's or Matthew's being written first, I don't know, but it forms the ending of the Lord's prayer in Matthew. Further, Mark 11:22-24 is about prayer, specifically prayer for God's kingdom to come. It actually looks as though Mark has lifted it out of Matthew's 'Lord's prayer' and attached it to the end of the fig tree section. Conversely, but in my view less likely, Matthew could have lifted it from the end of Mark's fig tree section and added it to his 'Lord's prayer'.
-
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?article=704
gives the names of witnesses dating from the late second century onwards who know of these verses, including Irenaeus who quotes Mark 16:19 directly.
Well it says one second century writer "alludes to them" and then talks about lots of later writers. To be fair it does also mention Eusebius (fourth century) who claimed never to have seen a manuscript with those verses in.
Check out Mark 11:25. Some manuscripts also have an extra verse 26, and both verses occur in Matthew 6:14-15 but not in Matthew's version of the cursing of the fig tree. Whether this is evidence for Mark's or Matthew's being written first, I don't know, but it forms the ending of the Lord's prayer in Matthew. Further, Mark 11:22-24 is about prayer, specifically prayer for God's kingdom to come. It actually looks as though Mark has lifted it out of Matthew's 'Lord's prayer' and attached it to the end of the fig tree section. Conversely, but in my view less likely, Matthew could have lifted it from the end of Mark's fig tree section and added it to his 'Lord's prayer'.
It's The Lord's Prayer. It's Jesus specifically teaching you how to pray. You can carry on making excuses as long as you like, but it's not in Mark's gospel. You have to come up with a credible explanation of why Mark dropped it and also deal with all of the other evidence in reply #4 and also deal with the other evidence I haven't mentioned yet.
-
Well it says one second century writer "alludes to them" and then talks about lots of later writers. To be fair it does also mention Eusebius (fourth century) who claimed never to have seen a manuscript with those verses in.
Yes, it gives the evidence for and against for the verses being genuine, and comes down on the side of 'for'. Later writers from the third and fourth centuries - seven in all - mention them; this seems a significant number to me.
It's The Lord's Prayer. It's Jesus specifically teaching you how to pray. You can carry on making excuses as long as you like, but it's not in Mark's gospel. You have to come up with a credible explanation of why Mark dropped it and also deal with all of the other evidence in reply #4 and also deal with the other evidence I haven't mentioned yet.
Calling it The Lord's Prayer doesn't add any weight to your argument - the phrase is not in the original.
I don't know that we can know why, if Mark used Matthew, he omitted some and not other parts. He seems to want to keep it concise, so omitting the sermon on the mount, which refers to the Mosaic law a lot and is three chapters long, makes sense given that he was apparently writing for people in Rome. To quote a small section of the Lord's prayer simply follows his protocol. The context in which he quotes it is also Jesus teaching us how to pray.
I haven't got round to replying to #4 yet, sorry.
Have a jolly good, as we say around here :)
-
I don't know that we can know why, if Mark used Matthew, he omitted some and not other parts.
Yes we can. Mark was written before Matthew and didn't know about the Lord's Prayer. It's that simple.
He seems to want to keep it concise,
No he doesn't. In fact, there are several cases where Mark puts more unnecessary detail in than Matthew and Luke.
-
Whoever wrote what and when, where the gospels are concerned, doesn't provide any evidence as to their veracity.
-
Whoever wrote what and when, where the gospels are concerned, doesn't provide any evidence as to their veracity.
Yes I know this is true, but it’s actually irrelevant to this thread.
This thread is only about the narrow question of who copied whom. You are correct to say that Matthew writing first or Mark writing first does not alter the credibility of the gospels but it would still be a derail, in the strictest terms.
-
Yes I know this is true, but it’s actually irrelevant to this thread.
This thread is only about the narrow question of who copied whom. You are correct to say that Matthew writing first or Mark writing first does not alter the credibility of the gospels but it would still be a derail, in the strictest terms.
If you say so.
-
It's The Lord's Prayer. It's Jesus specifically teaching you how to pray. You can carry on making excuses as long as you like, but it's not in Mark's gospel. You have to come up with a credible explanation of why Mark dropped it ....
Because Matthew had already written it.
And you could equally ask why, if Matthew used Mark, did he omit Jairus' name.
-
Because Matthew had already written it.
And you could equally ask why, if Matthew used Mark, did he omit Jairus' name.
Or you could, rhetorically speaking, ask if it really matters anyway since pending a time machine you'll never know for sure, since you won't be in a position to exclude the risks of mistakes or lies: you can believe whatever you like, of course, but that would be on the basis of your personal faith and not knowledge.
-
Because Matthew had already written it.
You realise that about 95% of Mark is also in Matthew. If Mark's criteria for dropping things included "it's already in Matthew", he would not have written a gospel at all.
And you could equally ask why, if Matthew used Mark, did he omit Jairus' name.
Jairus' name is a pretty inconsequential detail. The Lord's Prayer is fundamental.
-
Because Matthew had already written it.
And you could equally ask why, if Matthew used Mark, did he omit Jairus' name.
The instances you quote are trivialities. Jeremy has outlined some far more significant details. There are more.
It is acknowledged that Mark writes in grammatically bad Greek, often switching between present and past tense and back whilst relating the same incident or teaching. Matthew and Luke do not make these kind of mistakes. Would Mark think that Matthew's grammar was defective, and 'correct' it to something worse? (He was supposed to be inspired by God, you know :) )
It is far more logical to think that Matthew (and then Luke, independently) noticed Mark's bad grammar and produced their own more scholarly texts, whilst relying on Mark's original text for details.
Similarly, Mark gets his Old Testament quotes wrong - notoriously in his description of John the Baptist, where he conflates texts from Malachi and Isaiah and attributes them only to Isaiah. Matthew and Luke prune out the words from Malachi, leaving only words correctly attributed to Isaiah.
Perhaps most significant of all is the scenario where Jesus asks Peter to state who he thinks he (Jesus) is. Mark simply states: "You are the Christ". Luke more or less follows this by writing "The Christ of God". Whereas Matthew inflates the text, including an unmistakeable implication that Peter has realised Jesus' divinity: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". It is hardly likely that Mark would allow the full import of this scene to pass unrecorded if Peter had uttered such an acknowledgment, or that he would deliberately omit it, if he had the text of Matthew before him . Yet he is quite happy to suggest that Peter had only come to the realisation that Jesus was "The Anointed One" (Messiah, in Hebrew).
-
The instances you quote are trivialities. Jeremy has outlined some far more significant details. There are more.
It is acknowledged that Mark writes in grammatically bad Greek, often switching between present and past tense and back whilst relating the same incident or teaching. Matthew and Luke do not make these kind of mistakes. Would Mark think that Matthew's grammar was defective, and 'correct' it to something worse? (He was supposed to be inspired by God, you know :) )
It is far more logical to think that Matthew (and then Luke, independently) noticed Mark's bad grammar and produced their own more scholarly texts, whilst relying on Mark's original text for details.
Similarly, Mark gets his Old Testament quotes wrong - notoriously in his description of John the Baptist, where he conflates texts from Malachi and Isaiah and attributes them only to Isaiah. Matthew and Luke prune out the words from Malachi, leaving only words correctly attributed to Isaiah.
Perhaps most significant of all is the scenario where Jesus asks Peter to state who he thinks he (Jesus) is. Mark simply states: "You are the Christ". Luke more or less follows this by writing "The Christ of God". Whereas Matthew inflates the text, including an unmistakeable implication that Peter has realised Jesus' divinity: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". It is hardly likely that Mark would allow the full import of this scene to pass unrecorded if Peter had uttered such an acknowledgment, or that he would deliberately omit it, if he had the text of Matthew before him . Yet he is quite happy to suggest that Peter had only come to the realisation that Jesus was "The Anointed One" (Messiah, in Hebrew).
It should be stressed that these are just two reasons for assuming Markan priority. No doubt, you could come up with an argument to account for each one with the Matthew priority hypothesis. No single argument is conclusive, but there are many many such arguments and taken together, they make a mountain.
-
It should be stressed that these are just two reasons for assuming Markan priority. No doubt, you could come up with an argument to account for each one with the Matthew priority hypothesis. No single argument is conclusive, but there are many many such arguments and taken together, they make a mountain.
Cue 'Q' ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
-
Some arguments for Markan priority:
...
- Mark is much shorter than either Matthew or Luke. He omits very significant portions of both, chief of which would be The Lord's Prayer. It's much easier to explain this if Matthew and Luke added the Lord's Prayer than if Mark dropped it.
But "since writers sometimes enlarge and sometimes condense their sources, the relative length of a given passage by itself offers no criteria by which it may be adjudged primary or secondary to another".
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm
-
Some arguments for Markan priority:
- Mark's writing style is Very much less sophisticated than that of |Luke and Matthew. They both tend to polish his words and reduce redundancies etc.
But, "since sometimes writers improve the grammar of their sources while others spoil it, such considerations provide no objective basis by which one document may be adjudged primary or secondary to another. There is no provable correlation between style and chronology in matters involving the question of literary dependence between documents of the same general period and class of literature".
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm
-
Some arguments for Markan priority:
- My favourite one is dualisms. Mark often repeats things in two ways. e.g. "That evening, at sunset". Matthew and Luke will often eliminate the dualism by taking one half: "That evening" (Matthew); "As the sun was setting" (Luke).
Compare the three versions of this verse:
Mk 1:32 - "And evening having come, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all who were ill, and who were demoniacs" (YLT)
Mt 8:16 - "And evening having come, they brought to him many demoniacs"
Lk 4:40 - "And at the setting of the sun, all, as many as had any ailing with manifold sicknesses, brought them unto him"
There are two dualisms in Mark's version: evening/sunset; illness/demoniacs
In Matthew: evening/demoniacs
In Luke: sunset/illness
It is significant that for both dualisms, Matthew and Luke both lack one half of the pair, and they each lack the expression used by the other.
"It is quite simple to see how Mark redactively combines these two verses to form a single sentence. If, on the other hand, we accept Markan priority, we must also accept that Matthew or Luke knew the work of the other, and consciously used only the Markan phrases the other had omitted."
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm[/list]
-
Cue 'Q' ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
The 'Q' hypothesis is intriguing, but I've had my doubts about it. I'm not well-informed enough to make a definitive judgment, though I've read Burton Mack and other discussions of the matter. Of course, no independent document of the Q material has ever been found, so the only sources for it are the non-Markan material found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Perhaps my misgivings are even more to do with my gut reaction to the attitude of Burton Mack and his sense of overweening pride in the significance of his researches for the future of Christianity (i.e. trad Xianity is a dead duck) and his certainty that his arguments are sound. Traditional Christianity may well be on the way out, but I suspect its death throes will be very prolonged, and that Burton Mack will not be a major factor in its demise.
There are of course other hypotheses for the origins of the non-Markan material. Austin Farrer has argued that there is no need to posit another scriptural source for this, since all would be resolved if it could be proved that Luke simply copied the other material out of Matthew. I understand that most objective scholars had long thought that Luke had not read Matthew's gospel, and may have had no knowledge of it at all. Farrer argues that he did. How his arguments stand up, I don't know, since I've not read him. I'm not sure that I shall, since my interest in these academic biblical matters only goes so far, and I don't see many of them enhancing the quality of my life that much now!
-
my interest in these academic biblical matters only goes so far, and I don't see many of them enhancing the quality of my life that much now!
I can understand that. I would be more inclined towards what Jesus is alleged to have said rather than what he is alleged to have done and its consequential celebrity status.
-
But "since writers sometimes enlarge and sometimes condense their sources, the relative length of a given passage by itself offers no criteria by which it may be adjudged primary or secondary to another".
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm
But we've already discussed this. It's the nature of what is omitted are added that is important. [/list]
-
It is significant that for both dualisms, Matthew and Luke both lack one half of the pair, and they each lack the expression used by the other.
"It is quite simple to see how Mark redactively combines these two verses to form a single sentence. If, on the other hand, we accept Markan priority, we must also accept that Matthew or Luke knew the work of the other, and consciously used only the Markan phrases the other had omitted."
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm
But sometimes both Matthew and Luke go for the same half of the dualism. Boom. There goes your argument.
-
The 'Q' hypothesis is intriguing, but I've had my doubts about it. I'm not well-informed enough to make a definitive judgment, though I've read Burton Mack and other discussions of the matter. Of course, no independent document of the Q material has ever been found, so the only sources for it are the non-Markan material found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Perhaps my misgivings are even more to do with my gut reaction to the attitude of Burton Mack and his sense of overweening pride in the significance of his researches for the future of Christianity (i.e. trad Xianity is a dead duck) and his certainty that his arguments are sound. Traditional Christianity may well be on the way out, but I suspect its death throes will be very prolonged, and that Burton Mack will not be a major factor in its demise.
There are of course other hypotheses for the origins of the non-Markan material. Austin Farrer has argued that there is no need to posit another scriptural source for this, since all would be resolved if it could be proved that Luke simply copied the other material out of Matthew. I understand that most objective scholars had long thought that Luke had not read Matthew's gospel, and may have had no knowledge of it at all. Farrer argues that he did. How his arguments stand up, I don't know, since I've not read him. I'm not sure that I shall, since my interest in these academic biblical matters only goes so far, and I don't see many of them enhancing the quality of my life that much now!
Mark Goodacre supports the Farrer hypothesis and his books on the matter are very readable. As a non scholar I find them quite persuasive but I still sit on the fence.
-
But sometimes both Matthew and Luke go for the same half of the dualism. Boom. There goes your argument.
Fair enough. Either is possible, Mark adding to Matthew or Luke or combining the two, or Luke and Matthew trimming down Mark.
What do you think about this:
FAVORITE EXPRESSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE
The unusual Greek phrase 'opsías dè genoménes ("and evening having come"), common to Matthew and Mark in the above example, can be considered a "favorite expression" of Matthew, for the exact wording appears six times in his gospel. In Mark, however, the parallel verses use this wording only the first time; each subsequent passage shows some variation:
Mt 8:16 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 1:32 - 'opsías dè genoménes
Mt 14:15 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 6:35 - kaì 'éde `óras pollês genoménes
Mt 14:23 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 6:47 - kaì 'opsías genoménes
Mt 20:8 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk (no parallel)
Mt 26:20 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 14:17 - kaì 'opsías genoménes
Mt 27:57 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 15:42 - kaì 'éde 'opsías genoménes
On the Markan hypothesis, the critic is asked to imagine that Matthew copied this expression exactly as Mark had it the first time he encountered it, but thereafter whenever he followed Mark in the use of this rare expression he consistently deviated from Mark and rigidly restricted himself to this particular grammatical form, even introducing it in 14:15 where Mark had `óras instead of 'opsías, and in 20:8 where there was no Markan parallel. If Mark were secondary to Matthew, however, the critic would only be required to imagine that Mark tended to modify this Matthean expression quite freely whenever he found it in his text of Matthew.
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm
-
Jairus' name is a pretty inconsequential detail. The Lord's Prayer is fundamental.
It would be one thing for Matthew, reading Mark, to drop the name of the ruler. Quite another for him to change both the timing of the girl's death and the delay between the woman with bleeding touching him and being discovered. Mark's version of both the latter incidents are backed up by Luke. Why, if he was using Mark, would Matthew significantly change/get these details wrong?
-
Fair enough. Either is possible, Mark adding to Matthew or Luke or combining the two, or Luke and Matthew trimming down Mark.
What do you think about this:
FAVORITE EXPRESSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE
The unusual Greek phrase 'opsías dè genoménes ("and evening having come"), common to Matthew and Mark in the above example, can be considered a "favorite expression" of Matthew, for the exact wording appears six times in his gospel. In Mark, however, the parallel verses use this wording only the first time; each subsequent passage shows some variation:
Mt 8:16 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 1:32 - 'opsías dè genoménes
Mt 14:15 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 6:35 - kaì 'éde `óras pollês genoménes
Mt 14:23 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 6:47 - kaì 'opsías genoménes
Mt 20:8 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk (no parallel)
Mt 26:20 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 14:17 - kaì 'opsías genoménes
Mt 27:57 - 'opsías dè genoménes // Mk 15:42 - kaì 'éde 'opsías genoménes
On the Markan hypothesis, the critic is asked to imagine that Matthew copied this expression exactly as Mark had it the first time he encountered it, but thereafter whenever he followed Mark in the use of this rare expression he consistently deviated from Mark and rigidly restricted himself to this particular grammatical form, even introducing it in 14:15 where Mark had `óras instead of 'opsías, and in 20:8 where there was no Markan parallel. If Mark were secondary to Matthew, however, the critic would only be required to imagine that Mark tended to modify this Matthean expression quite freely whenever he found it in his text of Matthew.
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/farmer.htm
I suppose you could argue that it is marginally more likely that Mark saw a phrase in Matthew and varied it than that Matthew rendered several phrases from Mark in the same way, although you'll have to explain why Mark would do this with so few of Matthew's phrases and you also have to explain why you think this is enough evidence to outweigh the fact that Mark omits quite a lot of important parts of Matthew's gospel.
-
I suppose you could argue that it is marginally more likely that Mark saw a phrase in Matthew and varied it than that Matthew rendered several phrases from Mark in the same way, although you'll have to explain why Mark would do this with so few of Matthew's phrases and you also have to explain why you think this is enough evidence to outweigh the fact that Mark omits quite a lot of important parts of Matthew's gospel.
If you're saying there are other favourite phrases in Matthew that Mark copies word for word, can you give an example or two?
I get your point about the importance of parts of Matthew.
-
Perhaps most significant of all is the scenario where Jesus asks Peter to state who he thinks he (Jesus) is. Mark simply states: "You are the Christ". Luke more or less follows this by writing "The Christ of God". Whereas Matthew inflates the text, including an unmistakeable implication that Peter has realised Jesus' divinity: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". It is hardly likely that Mark would allow the full import of this scene to pass unrecorded if Peter had uttered such an acknowledgment, or that he would deliberately omit it, if he had the text of Matthew before him . Yet he is quite happy to suggest that Peter had only come to the realisation that Jesus was "The Anointed One" (Messiah, in Hebrew).
One of the reasons I was interested in this subject is that Rosenstock-Huessy says in "Fruit of Lips: Why four gospels?", "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". I couldn't find any statement of the kind in Mark, but I wonder if R-H is referring to Mark's opening statement that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? In Matthew Jesus is initially the son of David and Abraham. But he becomes the son of God later in the book. Mark states it for his readers in his intro, but we have to wait until chapter 15:39 before any of Mark's characters recognize Jesus' divinity, even though the demons know.
-
It is hardly likely that Mark would allow the full import of this scene to pass unrecorded if Peter had uttered such an acknowledgment, or that he would deliberately omit it, if he had the text of Matthew before him.
That's assuming Mark had Matthew's gospel before him. Of course they could have been written independently of each other.
-
If you're saying there are other favourite phrases in Matthew that Mark copies word for word, can you give an example or two?
No, I mean the rest of the gospel
-
they could have been written independently of each other.
No they couldn't. Something like 95% of Mark is also contained in Matthew with only fairly small variations. There is almost no chance of this happening if one of them didn't have the other in front of him as he was writing.
-
That's assuming Mark had Matthew's gospel before him. Of course they could have been written independently of each other.
Or he could have been using an earlier, unedited form of Matthew's gospel? Or one that was written in Hebrew? The messy grammar in Mark could be due to being a poor translation.
-
The instances you quote are trivialities. Jeremy has outlined some far more significant details. There are more.
It is acknowledged that Mark writes in grammatically bad Greek, often switching between present and past tense and back whilst relating the same incident or teaching. Matthew and Luke do not make these kind of mistakes. Would Mark think that Matthew's grammar was defective, and 'correct' it to something worse? (He was supposed to be inspired by God, you know :) )
It is far more logical to think that Matthew (and then Luke, independently) noticed Mark's bad grammar and produced their own more scholarly texts, whilst relying on Mark's original text for details.
Could Matthew successfully correct Mark without sometimes replicating Mark's style? Does he replicate it?
Similarly, Mark gets his Old Testament quotes wrong - notoriously in his description of John the Baptist, where he conflates texts from Malachi and Isaiah and attributes them only to Isaiah. Matthew and Luke prune out the words from Malachi, leaving only words correctly attributed to Isaiah.
Actually this could be seen as Mark conflating Matthew's references to both Isaiah (Mt 3:3, Isa 40:3) and Malachi (Mat 11:10, Mal 3:1). The Malachi quote is itself a conflation of Malachi and Exodus 23:20. So Mark has three quotes from separate prophecies all of which he attributes to Isaiah. I don't see this as getting it wrong, as both the Malachi and Isaiaic ones are referring to the same person. It could be a clever bit of editing.
Perhaps most significant of all is the scenario where Jesus asks Peter to state who he thinks he (Jesus) is. Mark simply states: "You are the Christ". Luke more or less follows this by writing "The Christ of God". Whereas Matthew inflates the text, including an unmistakeable implication that Peter has realised Jesus' divinity: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". It is hardly likely that Mark would allow the full import of this scene to pass unrecorded if Peter had uttered such an acknowledgment, or that he would deliberately omit it, if he had the text of Matthew before him . Yet he is quite happy to suggest that Peter had only come to the realisation that Jesus was "The Anointed One" (Messiah, in Hebrew).
A point of order - Mark could be using Matthew's statement, "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." (Mat 16:20). Rosenstock-Huessy says (I know other views are available) that Mark was "not permitted to make Peter an equal to Jesus. Peter was only an apostle like others; Jesus was the Lord." (Why Four Gospels p. 228) Several phrases or sentences in Matthew that make Peter look important are not in Mark, such as vv 17-19 of Mat 16. The reason, according to R-H, was that over time, Jesus' identity as Lord would become obscured by Peter's prominence in the church and so Mark reduced the risk of this.
-
Could Matthew successfully correct Mark without sometimes replicating Mark's style? Does he replicate it?Actually this could be seen as Mark conflating Matthew's references to both Isaiah (Mt 3:3, Isa 40:3) and Malachi (Mat 11:10, Mal 3:1). The Malachi quote is itself a conflation of Malachi and Exodus 23:20. So Mark has three quotes from separate prophecies all of which he attributes to Isaiah. I don't see this as getting it wrong, as both the Malachi and Isaiaic ones are referring to the same person. It could be a clever bit of editing.
A point of order - Mark could be using Matthew's statement, "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." (Mat 16:20). Rosenstock-Huessy says (I know other views are available) that Mark was "not permitted to make Peter an equal to Jesus. Peter was only an apostle like others; Jesus was the Lord." (Why Four Gospels p. 228) Several phrases or sentences in Matthew that make Peter look important are not in Mark, such as vv 17-19 of Mat 16. The reason, according to R-H, was that over time, Jesus' identity as Lord would become obscured by Peter's prominence in the church and so Mark reduced the risk of this.
I feel that a small application of Occam's Razor might help here.
-
I feel that a small application of Occam's Razor might help here.
Quite: The testimony nearest the event in time is to be trusted most.
-
That's assuming Mark had Matthew's gospel before him. Of course they could have been written independently of each other.
Are you suggesting some independent means of oral tradition, perhaps? This would suggest some very good memories, because of the identical content of so much of the two gospels. Or some other written source? I'm assuming you don't think the evangelist Matthew was actually the disciple Matthew? Occam's Razor, scraped every morning, is recommended. Twice a day if there's five o'clock shadow.
In fact, as I'm sure you know, the only substantial tradition we have about the gospels comes via Papias about Mark's, and that's none too certain:
The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.
The information regarding Matthew is much more nebulous, with some reference to a Hebrew version. (As for John, we know that it was the favourite of the gnostic Valentinus - which I wouldn't have thought you'd be too pleased about). Another alternative is divine inspiration for one or the other (can't be both, because of the differences and indeed contradictions, unless God really is confused)
-
Quite: The testimony nearest the event in time is to be trusted most.
And how do we know that with any certainty?
-
And how do we know that with any certainty?
The 'early church fathers' seem to be unanimous that Matthew wrote first, or at least, at the same sort of time as Mark. I didn't think occam's razor's function was to give certainty, though.
-
The 'early church fathers' seem to be unanimous that Matthew wrote first, or at least, at the same sort of time as Mark. I didn't think occam's razor's function was to give certainty, though.
The original gospels are anonymous. It was not until the middle of the 2nd century that names were given to them by the Church Fathers. Their testimony on all these things should be taken with a pinch of salt.
-
The original gospels are anonymous. It was not until the middle of the 2nd century that names were given to them by the Church Fathers. Their testimony on all these things should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The author of Matthew identifies Matthew the disciple as the tax collector, whereas the other gospels disguise him by using the tax collector's other name. That he does this could be a clue that he is referring to himself. Another clue could be that he includes the saying that tax collectors are the worst of men (Mt 5:46-47). Compare how Paul says that he is the worst of sinners (1 Tim 1:15). And also he simply says he got up and followed, whereas Luke says he left all and followed.
-
The 'early church fathers' seem to be unanimous that Matthew wrote first, or at least, at the same sort of time as Mark. I didn't think occam's razor's function was to give certainty, though.
No they are not.
-
The author of Matthew identifies Matthew the disciple as the tax collector, whereas the other gospels disguise him by using the tax collector's other name. That he does this could be a clue that he is referring to himself. Another clue could be that he includes the saying that tax collectors are the worst of men (Mt 5:46-47). Compare how Paul says that he is the worst of sinners (1 Tim 1:15). And also he simply says he got up and followed, whereas Luke says he left all and followed.
The renaming of Levi as Matthew is actually the only reason why anybody calls the gospel “Matthew”. Maybe the author’s name really was Matthew and he renamed one of the disciples as his namesake. At any rate, Luke either corrected the error or was not aware of what Matthew did.
-
You wish to believe that to be true, but it is a mere opinion with nothing substantial to back it up.
He gives one piece of evidence in the very post you quote, and anyway, why should you care which gospel was written first?
-
The renaming of Levi as Matthew is actually the only reason why anybody calls the gospel “Matthew”. Maybe the author’s name really was Matthew and he renamed one of the disciples as his namesake. At any rate, Luke either corrected the error or was not aware of what Matthew did.
Yes, you'd have to make up stories like that if you assume "rename"; much less hassle to just accept the disciple was the author and wanted to be honest about his previous occupation.
-
Yes, you'd have to make up stories like that if you assume "rename"; much less hassle to just accept the disciple was the author and wanted to be honest about his previous occupation.
The disciple wasn't the author.
-
Yes, you'd have to make up stories like that if you assume "rename"; much less hassle to just accept the disciple was the author and wanted to be honest about his previous occupation.
It is much less hassle for you to believe the word of the gospel writers is literally true rather than question the veracity of the less than credible events contained in their documents.
-
It is much less hassle for you to believe the word of the gospel writers is literally true rather than question the veracity of the less than credible events contained in their documents.
This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the comment from Spud that you quoted!
-
It is much less hassle for you to believe the word of the gospel writers is literally true rather than question the veracity of the less than credible events contained in their documents.
He is in fact giving himself a great deal of hassle in trying to sustain the thesis which is the subject of this thread. As for believing the gospels to be 'literally true': in the instance under discussion he is having to find ways to explain how a tax collector is called 'Levi' in Mark and Luke, and why the same tax collector is called 'Matthew' in - Matthew.
So which is 'literally true'* - was the tax collector called Levi or Matthew? Spud resolves this by saying he was called Levi Matthew or Matthew Levi. This is just as much inventing a story to explain the discrepancy as he accuses Jeremy of 'inventing a story'. But to give him his due, his comments have a certain plausibility.
*It's entirely possible (and I'm sure you'd agree here) that absolutely nothing of it is true - but that's another story.
-
He is in fact giving himself a great deal of hassle in trying to sustain the thesis which is the subject of this thread. As for believing the gospels to be 'literally true': in the instance under discussion he is having to find ways to explain how a tax collector is called 'Levi' in Mark and Luke, and why the same tax collector is called 'Matthew' in - Matthew.
So which is 'literally true'* - was the tax collector called Levi or Matthew? Spud resolves this by saying he was called Levi Matthew or Matthew Levi. This is just as much inventing a story to explain the discrepancy as he accuses Jeremy of 'inventing a story'. But to give him his due, his comments have a certain plausibility.
*It's entirely possible (and I'm sure you'd agree here) that absolutely nothing of it is true - but that's another story.
It's entirely possible that one person can have two names.
-
The disciple wasn't the author.
Maybe he was? Just found more evidence: Eusebius writes,
"It is reported that among persons [in India] who knew of Christ, [Pantaenus] found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,6 which they had preserved till that time"
-
Maybe he was? Just found more evidence: Eusebius writes,
"It is reported that among persons [in Alexandria] who knew of Christ, [Pantaenus] found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language,6 which they had preserved till that time"
I couldn't find anything else to confirm that Bartholomew went to Alexandria.
The document we call Matthew’s Gospel was written in Greek. Therefore, whatever Eusebius is describing is not the present gospel.
-
He is in fact giving himself a great deal of hassle in trying to sustain the thesis which is the subject of this thread
But lovin it.
-
But lovin it.
If that is how you get your kicks, fine. ;D
-
The document we call Matthew’s Gospel was written in Greek. Therefore, whatever Eusebius is describing is not the present gospel.
I read somewhere (I can't find it) that Matthew's gospel has been edited four times. What I don't know is whether the person who said this thought that included the process of translating it into Greek.
Jerome said that "whoever then translated it into Greek is not known". So I guess the question is whether it shows signs of having been translated. If it has been heavily edited then perhaps it wouldn't show such signs.
-
Regarding which gospel came first, I think the way to find out is to compare sections common to them and look for signs of one author clarifying something the other has said. The section on the rich young ruler looks to me as though Mark has corrected Matthew on his point about what someone who has left everything to follow Jesus will inherit and when (in this life and in the age to come).
-
Regarding which gospel came first, I think the way to find out is to compare sections common to them and look for signs of one author clarifying something the other has said. The section on the rich young ruler looks to me as though Mark has corrected Matthew on his point about what someone who has left everything to follow Jesus will inherit and when (in this life and in the age to come).
Leaving everything to follow that guy Jesus is NOT a virtue but plain stupidity, especially if it means leaving your family and responsibilities.
-
I can imagine Peter using Matthew's gospel to preach from. Since he is addressing non-Jews, he doesn't quote the Old Testament as much as Matthew. So as not to give the impression to the people listening that he is just reading Matthew, he would add details from his own memory.
-
Leaving everything to follow that guy Jesus is NOT a virtue but plain stupidity, especially if it means leaving your family and responsibilities.
My sister did and found a great husband, having not had a single boyfriend in 37 years apart from one fling at university.
-
My sister did and found a great husband, having not had a single boyfriend in 37 years apart from one fling at university.
I won't comment about your sibling, as I know nothing about her or the man she married. I will say that when I 'gave my heart to Jesus', as a child it was not a good experience, and a relief when I lost my faith.
-
I won't comment about your sibling, as I know nothing about her or the man she married. I will say that when I 'gave my heart to Jesus', as a child it was not a good experience, and a relief when I lost my faith.
It does say in Mark's version that alongside the new family/friends and stuff you get, there is persecution. So I could see how losing faith would be a relief.
-
It does say in Mark's version that alongside the new family/friends and stuff you get, there is persecution. So I could see how losing faith would be a relief.
I was lambasted for losing my faith!
-
I was lambasted for losing my faith!
Just curious, why was believing a bad experience, when you did believe?
-
Maybe you gave your heart to Jesus without actually believing?
-
Maybe you gave your heart to Jesus without actually believing?
I believed in it at the time, until the doubts came during my teenage years.
-
I read somewhere (I can't find it) that Matthew's gospel has been edited four times. What I don't know is whether the person who said this thought that included the process of translating it into Greek.
It was not written in Hebrew. Apparently, the experts can tell that it is an originally Greek document. For one thing, if it had been written in Hebrew and translated, we would expect to find many more varied versions.
Also, it's based on Mark and Mark is written in Greek.
-
It was not written in Hebrew. Apparently, the experts can tell that it is an originally Greek document. For one thing, if it had been written in Hebrew and translated, we would expect to find many more varied versions.
Also, it's based on Mark and Mark is written in Greek.
of course it's obviously a Greek document .There's an advert for the Acropolis restaurant in the top right corner . obvs!
-
It was not written in Hebrew. Apparently, the experts can tell that it is an originally Greek document. For one thing, if it had been written in Hebrew and translated, we would expect to find many more varied versions.
Also, it's based on Mark and Mark is written in Greek.
Would you agree that the grammar in Mark is odd, almost as though it's a poor translation of something, or a deliberately messy use of verb tenses?
-
Would you agree that the grammar in Mark is odd, almost as though it's a poor translation of something, or a deliberately messy use of verb tenses?
Or originally written in Greek by someone who didn't know the language perfectly?
-
Would you agree that the grammar in Mark is odd, almost as though it's a poor translation of something, or a deliberately messy use of verb tenses?
It’s generally agreed that the language of Mark is unsophisticated. I’ve not heard the hypothesis that it is a direct translation before but I’m not going to dismiss that idea. However, if your hypothesis is correct, it is evidence for Markan priority.
-
For the record, Matthew sometimes uses the present tense when it ought to be past tense.
-
For the record, Matthew sometimes uses the present tense when it ought to be past tense.
So do you, judging by that post!
-
So do you, judging by that post!
That's a good one, but the historic present tense (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present") is a thing.
Edit: also your post should have said "so did you..."
-
That's a good one, but the historic present tense (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present") is a thing.
Edit: also your post should have said "so did you..."
"...do you...", meaning you are in the habit of doing.
-
"...do you...", meaning you are in the habit of doing.
Do you have the prescient ability to know that spud is going to continue using the historic present after your admonishment?
-
Do you have the prescient ability to know that spud is going to continue using the historic present after your admonishment?
No; that's why I added "...judging by that post".
-
"1Then come unto Jesus do they from Jerusalem — scribes and Pharisees — saying," Mat. 15:1 Young's Literal Translation
-
You will often come across in commentaries remarks to the effect that Mark's use of the historical present tense is somehow a vulgar use of Greek which is eliminated by Matthew and Luke as more refined masters of Greek writing style.....
...the great classical Greek historian Thucydides uses the historical present in his own writings.... If the great classical Greek historian used the historical present, are we maybe being a bit too hasty in labeling Mark's use of the historical present as a "rough" or "inferior" Greek style of writing?....
Some questions come to mind. Is Mark's use of the historical present a valuable way for his gospel to bring Jesus into the present of our lives? Are we experiencing the ministry of Jesus again in the present at the same time that we read or hear the gospel read to us? These are theological and philosophical questions that we can ponder fruitfully.
https://sites.google.com/site/sobrinosynopticgospels/historical-present
-
You realise that about 95% of Mark is also in Matthew.
This isn't strictly true. Only some of what is common to both is identical in wording. The rest has significant differences in wording and detail. For example, compare Mat 15:16 with Mark 7:19.
Mark says, "‘So also ye are without understanding! Do ye not perceive that nothing from without entering into the man is able to defile him? 19because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly...."
whereas Matthew just says, "Are ye also yet without understanding? 17do ye not understand that all that is going into the mouth doth pass into the belly".
Although they are both clear, Mark's is easier to understand because he adds that food doesn't go into the heart.
If Mark's criteria for dropping things included "it's already in Matthew", he would not have written a gospel at all.
Unless he had more detail to add or felt he could make some bits easier to understand.
Jairus' name is a pretty inconsequential detail. The Lord's Prayer is fundamental.
Assuming Mark did write Mark: his mother's house was a meeting place for the early church, so they would have known about Jesus' birth, what he said in his sermons and whom Jesus had appeared to after the resurrection. If he wrote the first gospel account, why did he omit these details - assuming he knew them? Isn't it more likely that they had already been written down (so were available for Christians to read), and were not important for the purpose of his book?
-
This isn't strictly true. Only some of what is common to both is identical in wording. The rest has significant differences in wording and detail.
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2019/05/how-similar-are-synoptics-and-how-do-we.html
-
Yes Jeremy, but when you compare the actual words used by Matthew and Mark, the difference is much greater. You said before that if Mark used Matthew, he couldn't have also used Peter's eyewitness testimony. I'm dipping in and out of a book called 'The progressive publication of Matthew', by B Ward Powers, which is available as a PDF online. He thinks that Matthew was the first to write down parts of what we now have as his gospel, for the benefit of congregations in Judea. But he didn't publish them as a complete book until after Luke had acquired some of his accounts. This came about because Jewish converts from Syria where Luke was from, would have come to Jerusalem every year to celebrate the festivals. They would have visited the church congregations in Jerusalem and taken away some of Matthew s accounts for their churches in Syria. Luke used these in Syria while compiling his gospel, but he also got material from other sources. Matthew and Luke then both published their gospels in the ad 60s.
Mark wrote with the intention of creating a short gospel containing all the material which the apostles were using in evangelism. The infancy narratives and long sermons were not required so were omitted. He wrote after Matthew and Luke had been published and used both gospels, completing it soon after Peter's martyrdom. Peter's preaching was an additional source, from which Mark added extra detail to the material from Matthee and Luke.
I will post a paragraph from a chapter in powers' book which looks at the pericope of the rich young ruler in detail. He compares the three gospel versions of each little bit and compares the theory of Markan priority with that of Markan dependence.
-
In "The Progressive Publication of Matthew" page 565 B Ward Powers writes,
[Mark] 10:24 MP: Luke omits entirely Mark's record of the response of the disciples to Jesus's
words: "And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again,
'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!'". Matthew turns "But Jesus said to
them again" into direct speech, "But again I tell you".
[Mark] 10:24 MD: Mark inserts the reaction of the disciples to Jesus's words, and Jesus's
further comments, from his source P.
MP = Markan Priority
MD = Markan Dependency
https://www.sats.edu.za/userfiles/Powers%20DThPOMAL%20Final%20Apr%202010_0.pdf
(My [] brackets)
Mark's version:
17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18And Jesus said to him, Why call you me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother. 20And he answered and said to him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said to him, One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23And Jesus looked round about, and said to his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answers again, and said to them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27And Jesus looking on them said, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Matthew's version:
16And, behold, one came and said to him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said to him, Why call you me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if you will enter into life, keep the commandments. 18He said to him, Which? Jesus said, You shall do no murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19Honor your father and your mother: and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 20The young man said to him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said to him, If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23Then said Jesus to his disciples, Truly I say to you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26But Jesus beheld them, and said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Luke's version:
18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19And Jesus said to him, Why call you me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother. 21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said to him, Yet lack you one thing: sell all that you have, and distribute to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? 27And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
It can be seen from the entire periscope that Matthew and Luke differ 36 times. In 18 of these, Mark agrees with Matthew, and in the other 18, Mark agrees with Luke.
It would be very odd if Matthew and Luke, both using Mark, changed Mark's wording in exactly the places where the other did not. This is what is required by Markan priority. However, with Markan dependence Mark simply conflates Matthew and Luke, at times following one and at times following the other.
Well I think I've got that right. From the above link, page 284:
There are 36 differences of detail most of them of very minor
significance between Matthew and Luke. Their sources were different eyewitnesses:
this explanation accounts for these pericopes in the Majors as they stand. Then Mark
came to these two different accounts, and he melded them marvelously, on 18
occasions choosing to follow Matthew and on the other 18 to follow Luke. (The list of
these 36 differences and how Mark handles them is set out in Chapter Eleven.)
In this we have a simple, clear-cut, straightforward explanation that accounts fully for
what is found in the three Synoptics. But consider the alternatives and what has to be
explained if Mark is first. With this common starting point, Matthew altered his account
from Mark s in 18 ways, small insignificant changes for the most part, and we have to try
and figure out what he was doing and often we simply have to say, He just felt like
changing it. But then Luke, starting from the same pericope in Mark s Gospel, also
makes 18 changes, but all of them different! Thus are created 36 points of difference
between the Majors, and so, more explanations will need to be sought.
So there are two approaches to explanation: (a) Matthew and Luke
-
In "The Progressive Publication of Matthew" page 565 B Ward Powers writes,
MP = Markan Priority
MD = Markan Dependency
https://www.sats.edu.za/userfiles/Powers%20DThPOMAL%20Final%20Apr%202010_0.pdf
(My [] brackets)
Mark's version:
17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18And Jesus said to him, Why call you me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor your father and mother. 20And he answered and said to him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said to him, One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23And Jesus looked round about, and said to his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answers again, and said to them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27And Jesus looking on them said, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Matthew's version:
16And, behold, one came and said to him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said to him, Why call you me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if you will enter into life, keep the commandments. 18He said to him, Which? Jesus said, You shall do no murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19Honor your father and your mother: and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 20The young man said to him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said to him, If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23Then said Jesus to his disciples, Truly I say to you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26But Jesus beheld them, and said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Luke's version:
18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19And Jesus said to him, Why call you me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20You know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother. 21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said to him, Yet lack you one thing: sell all that you have, and distribute to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? 27And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
It can be seen from the entire periscope that Matthew and Luke differ 36 times. In 18 of these, Mark agrees with Matthew, and in the other 18, Mark agrees with Luke.
It would be very odd if Matthew and Luke, both using Mark, changed Mark's wording in exactly the places where the other did not. This is what is required by Markan priority. However, with Markan dependence Mark simply conflates Matthew and Luke, at times following one and at times following the other.
Well I think I've got that right. From the above link, page 284:
I sometimes wander if, had John Wane stayed out in Vietnam with the Green Berets the Americans might have won that war?
If you can't see the relevance of my comment to your post Spud, I'll explain if you want me to, you only need ask.
Regards ippy
-
I sometimes wander if, had John Wane stayed out in Vietnam with the Green Berets the Americans might have won that war?
If you can't see the relevance of my comment to your post Spud, I'll explain if you want me to, you only need ask.
Regards ippy
I haven't seen the film, Ippy. But it looks as if you are comparing the Vietnam war with Christian apologetics?
-
I haven't seen the film, Ippy. But it looks as if you are comparing the Vietnam war with Christian apologetics?
No.
Regards ippy
-
No.
Regards ippy
You explain then.
-
Spud if you google 'John Wayne in Vietnam', you will understand the point Ippy is making.
-
I'll let ippy explain.
-
Here's another quote from the above link, page 377. Talking about the Markan priority hypothesis, he says:
Mark's order is always supported by the order of one or both of the other two Synoptics. Of the eighty units into which Mark's Gospel can be divided upon the basis of considerations relating to pericope order, for forty units Mark is supported by only one Gospel, so if that Synoptist had placed any of those forty units into his Gospel at a different place, it would not have been true that Mark's order is always supported. (This can be readily seen from Chapter Nine, where the full eighty pericope groups are set out.) Since by common consent it is agreed that Matthew and Luke are acting independently when they concur with or else depart from Markan order, no explanation is possible for why it did not happen that both Matthew and Luke deserted Markan order at the same point: this circumstance can only be put down to coincidence.
(My italics)
-
Here's another quote from the above link, page 377. Talking about the Markan priority hypothesis, he says:(My italics)
Since by common consent it is agreed that Matthew and Luke are acting independently when they concur with or else depart from Markan order,
But it isn't agreed that they are acting independently.
-
But it isn't agreed that they are acting independently.
Well spotted - but as he says in his next paragraph,
Similarly, there can be no collusion about the way in which, whenever a Gospel that
has been supporting Mark is about to leave Mark's order, the other Major Synoptist
always continues adhering to Markan order if he has been doing so in the previous
pericope, or if he has not, he invariably immediately returns to Markan order. This
extraordinary timing must, once again, be attributed to coincidence.
That some of these things could occasionally happen is believable. Such coincid-
ences do happen in life. But that Matthew and Luke should come and go in their support
for Mark's order as often as they do without there being any discernible overall reason
why either of them should have done so, and that their respective comings and goings
should mesh together in the way that we find in the data, strains credulity beyond accep-
tance.
-
Why would Mark and Luke both make up the same name? It makes more sense that Mark is the source and Matthew merely dropped the name. Your hypothesis requires us to make up a second unknown source, to which Ockham says no.
Quite - it is unlikely that Mark and Luke would have made up the same name. More likely is that either: one of them used the other, or that they both had a similar/the same source. What we can say is that Mark is not Matthew's source, since Matthew appears not to be aware that someone from the synagogue ruler's house came along after the healing of the woman with bleeding to tell him his daughter had died - a detail which, assuming the whole story is not fabricated, seems too significant for Matthew to simply ignore. Matthew also appears to be unaware that the woman with bleeding disappeared into the crowd after touching Jesus. He is not using Mark as his source.
-
I think that the impression that Mark emphasises Jesus' deeds more than Matthew is largely derived from Mark's rather 'breathless' style: 'immediately Jesus did this, and then he immediately said that'. All the time giving the impression that Jesus is continually on the move. I think it is this sense of movement is really the only real difference of emphasis between the two evangelists - that's of no great consequence. The emphasis on Jesus' words in Mark is, as Jeremy says, just as important.
In Acts 10:37-43 Peter tells Cornelius the gospel message and he starts with John the Baptist and finishes with something that is similar to Mark 16:9ff. This suggests that Mark's gospel was written as more of a summary of the message Peter and other Christians would typically give when evangelizing to the Gentiles. There was no need for the infancy narratives or long sections containing Jesus' teaching; and if Matthew and Luke were already written, there was less need for another long gospel.
There are a few other details other than the ones mentioned which incline me to opt for the Markan priority view. Matthew appears to omit certain details according to his Jewish agenda.
If so he also makes some irrational changes, such as to Mark's order and appears to be unaware of detail that Mark has written (see my last post, also "withdrawing by boat to a quiet place" - did the people see them go or hear that they had gone?)
But there are other instances where you sense he's tarting up the bare details of Mark with a fair amount of technicolour enhancement. The matter of the Resurrection is a case in point. The ending of Mark is generally agreed to be a spurious addition, but the accepted genuine words relate that a young man dressed in white simply tells the women that Jesus has risen and is no longer there*. That's not good enough for Matthew: he has to depict the moment of Resurrection with an angel descending to roll away the stone, leaving the guards terrified.
And the witnesses to this were? Presumably the guards (if it happened) - who would be unlikely to divulge details of the occurrence to members of the Christian group whose leader's body they had been entrusted with guarding. In short, Matthew is quite obviously letting his imagination run riot.
Powers says that if Mark ended at 16:8, it would be logically impossible for it to have been the first gospel written. This is because we know from the epistles and church fathers that the early church had already accepted the fact of the resurrection appearances. Why would the author of the first gospel, knowing this, portray the apostles as ignorant of the resurrection and doubting that Jesus was the Messiah? It's more logical to accept that Mark, writing with the primary aim of demonstrating Jesus' identity as the Son of God, was concerned only to report that Jesus had risen.
*For those (probably few, in this learned forum!) who are not aware of the genuine ending of Mark's gospel, it is as follows:
(the young man in white tells them)“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing" The End
-
One of the reasons I was interested in this subject is that Rosenstock-Huessy says in "Fruit of Lips: Why four gospels?", "Mark states bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew". I couldn't find any statement of the kind in Mark,
Maybe it's where Mark cuts short John's announcement, "I baptize with water, but he will baptize with the Holy Spirit". Matthew (and Luke) adds 28 more words, indicating that he has another source for this material and that, logically, Mark is quoting from him.
-
Maybe it's where Mark cuts short John's announcement, "I baptize with water, but he will baptize with the Holy Spirit". Matthew (and Luke) adds 28 more words, indicating that he has another source for this material and that, logically, Mark is quoting from him.
Wow!!
Best wishes Spud, ippy
-
Wow!!
Best wishes Spud, ippy
And to you, ippy. There is also, "14but John was forbidding him, saying, ‘I have need by thee to be baptized — and thou dost come unto me!’ 15But Jesus answering said to him, ‘Suffer now, for thus it is becoming to us to fulfill all righteousness,’ then he doth suffer him."
This seems to flow naturally from the preceding verse in Matthew, indicating it is part of the original material. So here again it looks like Mark has quoted from Matthew 3:13 but left out verses 14 & 15.
-
Very interesting is the three synoptic accounts of when Jesus came down from the mountain after the transfiguration and healed a boy with an evil spirit. Mark records that the boy was deaf and dumb, yet neither Matthew nor Luke mention this detail. Strange, if Mark was their source. More likely is that Mark is following Matthew and adds detail supplied by Peter.
-
Very interesting is the three synoptic accounts of when Jesus came down from the mountain after the transfiguration and healed a boy with an evil spirit. Mark records that the boy was deaf and dumb, yet neither Matthew nor Luke mention this detail. Strange, if Mark was their source. More likely is that Mark is following Matthew and adds detail supplied by Peter.
If you find that lot interesting Spud, it might be a good idea for your good self to drop that and take up collecting used teabags as a hobby, of course that would be assuming you could handle the extra excitement.
Best wishes ippy.
-
If you find that lot interesting Spud, it might be a good idea for your good self to drop that and take up collecting used teabags as a hobby, of course that would be assuming you could handle the extra excitement.
Best wishes ippy.
Don't knock teabag collecting ippy. They probably make excellent fertilizer, I know that filtered coffee does.
-
Maybe it's where Mark cuts short John's announcement, "I baptize with water, but he will baptize with the Holy Spirit". Matthew (and Luke) adds 28 more words, indicating that he has another source for this material and that, logically, Mark is quoting from him.
Why is it logical? Is it not more logical that Mark created the basic account and Matthew and Luke embellished it?
It's striking that Matthew's account of John the Baptist and Jesus' baptism is significantly longer than Mark's and Luke's is longer still. Note also in both Matthew and Luke, this account occurs in chapter 3 whereas in Mark it is literally the first thing he talks about. Why would Mark omit everything to do with Jesus' birth unless he didn't know either of the stories?
-
Why is it logical? Is it not more logical that Mark created the basic account and Matthew and Luke embellished it?
It's striking that Matthew's account of John the Baptist and Jesus' baptism is significantly longer than Mark's and Luke's is longer still. Note also in both Matthew and Luke, this account occurs in chapter 3 whereas in Mark it is literally the first thing he talks about. Why would Mark omit everything to do with Jesus' birth unless he didn't know either of the stories?
In answer to your first two questions:
Because to me at least, it is not likely that Mark, Matthew and Luke made up the story between them. It's possible, but unlikely. Why would they? Neither is it likely that the three used another source, because there is no evidence for that source. In that scenario, Mark chose to quote or only had access to the part of the source that contained, "with the holy spirit". This scenario is a long stretch of the imagination. It's less of a stretch simply to say that Mark was quoting from Matthew (or Luke or both).
In answer to your last question:
Because Mark was writing in the same way that most preachers use the Bible, that is, they quote from it without retelling the whole lot.
Acts 10 shows that for the purposes of evangelism, Peter began with the preaching and baptism of John. No Nativity or long sermons on mounts, but that doesn't mean he knew nothing about them, just that they weren't necessary for his purpose.
-
I would like to post some more evidence which I've come across while reading my new book, which is the one in the link I gave earlier.
The question in my mind is, where does Mark "state bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew", as claimed in another book.
A WW1 army chaplain called John Chapman, who converted from Markan Priority to Markan Dependence while preparing to return to the Front after being injured, found two verses in Matthew and their equivalent in Mark (Mt 13:3//Mk 4:2 and Mt 13:34-35//Mk 4:33-34). He says, in his book, "Matthew, Mark and Luke", 1936:
I had found (apparently) two definite statements by Mark that he had omitted some outdoor parables and indoor explanations. This was astounding
He also found Mt 23:1//Mk 12:38 and says,
This coming immediately after A and B [the above two examples], completely bowled me over. No reply is possible. Mk. tells us once more, In the course of His teaching He was saying. What teaching? Look at Mt.; there it is, shoals of it.
These subtle differences between Matthew and Mark's introductions to Jesus' teaching seem to suggest that it's more probable Mark was quoting from Matthew than that Matthew came to these verses in Mark and decided to add more parables and explanations.
-
I would like to post some more evidence which I've come across while reading my new book, which is the one in the link I gave earlier.
The question in my mind is, where does Mark "state bluntly that he is quoting from Matthew", as claimed in another book.
A WW1 army chaplain called John Chapman, who converted from Markan Priority to Markan Dependence while preparing to return to the Front after being injured, found two verses in Matthew and their equivalent in Mark (Mt 13:3//Mk 4:2 and Mt 13:34-35//Mk 4:33-34). He says, in his book, "Matthew, Mark and Luke", 1936:
He also found Mt 23:1//Mk 12:38 and says,
These subtle differences between Matthew and Mark's introductions to Jesus' teaching seem to suggest that it's more probable Mark was quoting from Matthew than that Matthew came to these verses in Mark and decided to add more parables and explanations.
Spud
You’re obviously very interested in which gospel writer originated the stories and which copied, but I can’t understand why. As nothing is know about any of them – plus it’s certain none of them were around in the time Jesus is supposed to have been preaching – what difference will it make if you are ever successful in discovering who was first to tell his story?
In addition to that, surely the whole Brexit saga must tell you that what the people who are trying to influence others say or write bears little resemblance to the truth, so the gospels are likely to be very far from the 'gospel truth' anyway!
-
John
There are a lot of myths being spread on the net about the gospels, one of them being that the resurrection was made up years after the first gospel was written, which is assumed to be Mark because his is the shortest.
Just keeping the professors on their toes.
-
John
There are a lot of myths being spread on the net about the gospels, one of them being that the resurrection was made up years after the first gospel was written, which is assumed to be Mark because his is the shortest.
Just keeping the professors on their toes.
Spud it must be difficult for you to get to any sleep after all of these exchanges, although on thinking about it, it is the cricket season, and that must help, oh yes if you still can't sleep with all of these exciting exchanges about our Mat try listening to the golf commentary on the radio that'd put anyone high on amphetamines to sleep.
Best wishes ippy
-
In answer to your last question:
Because Mark was writing in the same way that most preachers use the Bible, that is, they quote from it without retelling the whole lot.
Acts 10 shows that for the purposes of evangelism, Peter began with the preaching and baptism of John. No Nativity or long sermons on mounts, but that doesn't mean he knew nothing about them, just that they weren't necessary for his purpose.
That doesn't make any sense. About 95% of Mark appears in Matthew and/or Luke. If Matthew preceded Mark, then Mark was more or less just copying out bits of Matthew. Why would he omit things like the birth narrative, Lords Prayer and Sermon on the Mount but then choose to expand the Pigs of the Gerasenes passage?
-
The theory I'm reading about suggests that Mark was not only using Matthew but parts of Luke as well. The idea is that when he came to a block of material he didn't want to include, he switched to following the other gospel, thus steering around that material. This theory is supported by the fact that the order of pericopes in Mark always agrees with one or both of the other two, except when he adds a pericope not in either of them.
As well as the actual details, the context of Matthew's account of the Gadarene demoniac(s) is very different from Mark's. But compare Mark's account with Luke's, and also the contexts of them both. If the above theory is correct, then in this example Mark is following the order in Luke and has used Luke's version of the Gadarene demoniac.
The reason for Mark omitting so much, I've attempted to explain in #136. To add to that: basically Peter when preaching did not mention the teaching in the sermon on the mount and so Mark did not include it. (Mark based his gospel in the preaching of Peter, according to tradition).
-
Well, we don't know that Peter didn't preach on the sermon on the mount, but as Acts 10 shows, it looks as though Peter was concerned with certain details relatin to Jesus and not others.
-
The theory I'm reading about suggests that Mark was not only using Matthew but parts of Luke as well. The idea is that when he came to a block of material he didn't want to include, he switched to following the other gospel, thus steering around that material. This theory is supported by the fact that the order of pericopes in Mark always agrees with one or both of the other two, except when he adds a pericope not in either of them.
As well as the actual details, the context of Matthew's account of the Gadarene demoniac(s) is very different from Mark's. But compare Mark's account with Luke's, and also the contexts of them both. If the above theory is correct, then in this example Mark is following the order in Luke and has used Luke's version of the Gadarene demoniac.
The reason for Mark omitting so much, I've attempted to explain in #136. To add to that: basically Peter when preaching did not mention the teaching in the sermon on the mount and so Mark did not include it. (Mark based his gospel in the preaching of Peter, according to tradition).
You're arguing that Mark just copied out his entire gospel barring about 5% from other people's work.
-
You're arguing that Mark just copied out his entire gospel barring about 5% from other people's work.
Yes; well not 'copied' as that would imply word for word; a lot of it he re-phrases; he also adds and omits details.
-
Here is some more evidence that Matthew was written before Mark. For convenience I used two paperclips to save my place in Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's versions of the passion week.
After Jesus clears the temple, all three Synoptics record that the Jewish leaders wanted to know where his authority came from. Jesus asks in response whether John's ministry was from God or not, and the leaders can't answer him because they'd rejected John, even though the people had accepted him.
In Matthew, Jesus goes on to illustrate, with a parable, their exclusion from the Kingdom because of their rejection of John (The parable of the Two Sons). Matthew then records two more parables, the Tenants and the Wedding Banquet.
Mark and Luke, however, only record the parable of the Tenants at this point.
Mark states, "Jesus began to speak to them in parables (plural)".
Yet he only gives one parable. Somehow he knows that Jesus told more than one at that point, and has omitted some.
Consider two scenarios: it is possible that Matthew, if he was using Mark, decided to add in the two parables which Mark had omitted. In this case, Mark, writing first, somehow knew there was more than parable, but chose only to record one. And Matthew knew exactly which extra parables Jesus told at that point, and added them in: the parable of the two Sons follows naturally after the question about Jesus' authority.
The alternative is that Matthew wrote down all three parables, and Mark, using Matthew as his source, stated that Jesus spoke in parables (plural), then recorded one of them.
In my view, the latter scenario fits best because it answers the question of how Mark knew about other parables (he had Matthew's gospel in front of him).
Mark would naturally choose the parable of the Tenants out of the three, because it mentions the Son, and this would illustrate to Mark's non- Jewish readers, the rejection of God's son by the Jewish leaders.
-
Spud
How have you excluded the risks of lies, exaggeration or mistake when it comes to what the NT says about who said what to whom?
-
Spud
How have you excluded the risks of lies, exaggeration or mistake when it comes to what the NT says about who said what to whom?
This thread assumes there are none, G.
-
This thread assumes there are none, G.
No it doesn't: your opening sentence in your OP is '"Matthean Priority" is the idea that Matthew was written first.'
So you are setting up your idea in the OP and then seeking to justify your idea by referring to detail in the NT. Presumably you regard the NT as being literally true and I'm simply asking how you excluded the risks of lies, exaggeration or mistakes in the NT which, presumably, you must have done if you accept the NT as being a true and accurate record of who said what to whom, etc.
So have you addressed these risks, and if so how?
-
Spud
How have you excluded the risks of lies, exaggeration or mistake when it comes to what the NT says about who said what to whom?
Have you considered the consequences and risks involved of being wrong in the assumption that the essential message of the NT is based on lies, mistakes or exaggeration? Do you fully realise what is at stake by seeking reasons not to believe rather than being open to the possibility that it is based on truth?
-
Have you considered the consequences and risks involved of being wrong in the assumption that the essential message of the NT is based on lies, mistakes or exaggeration? Do you fully realise what is at stake by seeking reasons not to believe rather than being open to the possibility that it is based on truth?
Don't be silly, Alan, I'm not assuming that the NT contains lies, mistakes or exaggeration: you really do need to read for comprehension.
I'm simply asking someone who does seem to view the contents of the NT as being literally true how he (or you for that matter) went about assessing the risks I mentioned, especially given the anecdotal nature of the content, since it seems to me that unless these risks are assessed then much of the content of the NT regarding the activities and utterances of the various characters portrayed in it are indistinguishable from fiction.
I'm open to the possibility of the NT (or indeed any proposition) being true on the basis of having good grounds to think so, and that involves taking into account any risks of human artifice: I've asked this several times of various theists and I've yet to see an answer that doesn't involve, at the very least, special pleading or avoidance of even countenancing that these risks apply to the NT as much as to any other account produced by humans.
-
I'm open to the possibility of the NT (or indeed any proposition) being true on the basis of having good grounds to think so, and that involves taking into account any risks of human artifice: I've asked this several times of various theists and I've yet to see an answer that doesn't involve, at the very least, special pleading or avoidance of even countenancing that these risks apply to the NT as much as to any other account produced by humans.
If you think that it was human intellect which turned the world upside down (to quote the inspired words of a famous hymn) you vastly overrate the capability human beings.
-
If you think that it was human intellect which turned the world upside down (to quote the inspired words of a famous hymn) you vastly overrate the capability human beings.
As predicted, you've simply avoided the issue of assessing of the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies in the NT.
-
If you think that it was human intellect which turned the world upside down (to quote the inspired words of a famous hymn) you vastly overrate the capability human beings.
Human capability is incredible and continues to evolve. Man has landed moon and rockets have landed on Mars. The advances we have made in medicine are far reaching.
-
No it doesn't: your opening sentence in your OP is '"Matthean Priority" is the idea that Matthew was written first.'
So you are setting up your idea in the OP and then seeking to justify your idea by referring to detail in the NT. Presumably you regard the NT as being literally true and I'm simply asking how you excluded the risks of lies, exaggeration or mistakes in the NT which, presumably, you must have done if you accept the NT as being a true and accurate record of who said what to whom, etc.
So have you addressed these risks, and if so how?
When you eat a ready meal you assume, based on the reputation of the supermarket, that it doesn't contain any poison, though the possibility exists. It's that kind of assumption, based on good faith that the message was recorded and handed down truthfully and accurately.
-
When you eat a ready meal you assume, based on the reputation of the supermarket, that it doesn't contain any poison, though the possibility exists. It's that kind of assumption, based on good faith that the message was recorded and handed down truthfully and accurately.
I don't think you should make any such assumption about the Bible, especially if the message lacks credibility.
-
I don't think you should make any such assumption about the Bible, especially if the message lacks credibility.
Ok but the passage I was quoting is credible (Jesus clears the temple, then is questioned by Jewish leaders and teaches using parables).
-
Ok but the passage I was quoting is credible (Jesus clears the temple, then is questioned by Jewish leaders and teaches using parables).
It might be 'credible' in the sense that it could have happened, and it is a trivially true anecdote about a social interaction between people: the question is how do you know it did happen that way?
It is 'credible' that I went to Edinburgh yesterday and had a chat with the chap who was my supervisor at Edinburgh University - but I could be lying, and if it was important to you that you knew the facts then, presumably, you'd want to check - yes?
-
It might be 'credible' in the sense that it could have happened, and it is a trivially true anecdote about a social interaction between people: the question is how do you know it did happen that way?
It is 'credible' that I went to Edinburgh yesterday and had a chat with the chap who was my supervisor at Edinburgh University - but I could be lying, and if it was important to you that you knew the facts then, presumably, you'd want to check - yes?
I'd believe you because you're a mod, and from what I know of you you're trustworthy and reliable.
You can contrast the four gospels with the gnostic gospels and see a difference in the way they wrote, which enables you to distinguish between true and false accounts of Jesus.
Luke was particularly keen to check on the accuracy of the documents he used, and gave verifiable, generally accurate historical details of the context of the events, such as which year during the reign of which emperor, etc. Likewise, quite often gospels state the full name of a character, enabling the readers to verify their identity. Older Jewish scripture has been verified by archaeology, so they have a reputation for recording events accurately.
-
I'd believe you because you're a mod, and from what I know of you you're trustworthy and reliable.
You may be right, Spud, but you may be wrong and I could be a sociopathic swine who is very good at convincing people I am trustworthy and reliable. If my conduct and utterances were of great concern generally, and they aren't, it would probably be a good idea to check that any anecdotes about me were likely to be true before taking them seriously.
You can contrast the four gospels with the gnostic gospels and see a difference in the way they wrote, which enables you to distinguish between true and false accounts of Jesus.
That would only identify different approaches to writing and says nothing about the truth or otherwise of what is written, and of course some people may be skilled at writing using different styles, so the provenance of the writer is important.
Luke was particularly keen to check on the accuracy of the documents he used, and gave verifiable, generally accurate historical details of the context of the events, such as which year during the reign of which emperor, etc. Likewise, quite often gospels state the full name of a character, enabling the readers to verify their identity. Older Jewish scripture has been verified by archaeology, so they have a reputation for recording events accurately.
It may be that some of the NT detail may be accurate, such as place names, or that it can be reasonably assumed that some of the characters portrayed were real people for which there is corroborative evidence, such as Herod: but such details are trivially true in comparison to other claims made in the NT accounts, such as those involving miracles.
So, even if you think it reasonable that key characters in the NT were real people it does not follow that anecdotal claims about them are necessarily true, since it is here that the risks of human artifice apply such as in post-hoc accounts of uncertain provenance that could include mistakes, exaggeration of lies that were written by supporter of the cause of Jesus.
So there are risks - but you seem keen to dismiss these without even considering the possibility that they apply as much to the NT as to any other anecdotal account.
-
Indeed, I'd agree that the characters being real is trivial compared with claims of miracles. This particular part of the story (the week before the crucifixion) doesn't contain miracles, so is believable, particularly as there are multiple accounts of it. Rather than eliminate all the risks of lies, etc, what I'm trying to do is, by giving evidence that the first gospel is one that contains resurrection appearances, give a little more evidence against the theory that stories about actual events were embellished over time, evolving ultimately into the claim that Jesus was seen alive after being killed. This is how some people use the theory of Markan priority.
-
Indeed, I'd agree that the characters being real is trivial compared with claims of miracles.
You clearly misunderstand what I mean by 'trivially true': what I mean is that it is unimportant whether it is true or not.
For example the story about Jesus losing it in the temple involves no miracles and is just an account of someone getting pissed off and letting rip at others, and we've probably all done that. Whether it is based on a real event or is a post-hoc story to show Jesus was prepared to have a go at authority doesn't really matter that much.
This particular part of the story (the week before the crucifixion) doesn't contain miracles, so is believable, particularly as there are multiple accounts of it.
Nope - it is only believable if the assessed risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies are either shown to be negligible or if it doesn't really matter much if it isn't true - that it contains no miracles doesn't mean it is true.
Rather than eliminate all the risks of lies, etc, what I'm trying to do is, by giving evidence that the first gospel is one that contains resurrection appearances, give a little more evidence against the theory that stories about actual events were embellished over time, evolving ultimately into the claim that Jesus was seen alive after being killed. This is how some people use the theory of Markan priority.
They may well subscribe to this theory but unless they've assessed the risks I've mentioned they could be subscribing to propaganda for Jesus - as I've said, as things stand, there are aspects on the NT that are indistinguishable from fiction.
-
I think you mis-used the phrase "trivially true". It usually means "tautologically true", i.e. true by definition of the terms. Examples are "2+2=4", and "all cats are cats".
-
I think you mis-used the phrase "trivially true". It usually means "tautologically true", i.e. true by definition of the terms. Examples are "2+2=4", and "all cats are cats".
I don't think he misused the term at all. It never crossed my mind that he was using it in its mathematical or logical sense but rather in its commonsense meaning of putting two terms together in a combination which is widely accepted and understood. See the last paragraph in the Wiki entry on 'Talk:Trivially True'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ATrivially_true
-
I think you mis-used the phrase "trivially true". It usually means "tautologically true", i.e. true by definition of the terms. Examples are "2+2=4", and "all cats are cats".
The context of my usage of 'trivially true' clearly relates to issues raised by Spud, and in #170 I clarified this.
-
They may well subscribe to this theory but unless they've assessed the risks I've mentioned they could be subscribing to propaganda for Jesus - as I've said, as things stand, there are aspects on the NT that are indistinguishable from fiction.
"They" being those who subscribe to the theory of "Markan Priority" which says that Mark was written first, I think you confused them with those holding to the Matthean Priority view.
If it can be shown that Matthew (which has resurrection appearances) was written first then this eliminates one risk - the possibility of the appearances being embellishments added decades later (The short ending of Mark doesn't have any appearances).
-
"They" being those who subscribe to the theory of "Markan Priority" which says that Mark was written first, I think you confused them with those holding to the Matthean Priority view.
If it can be shown that Matthew (which has resurrection appearances) was written first then this eliminates one risk - the possibility of the appearances being embellishments added decades later (The short ending of Mark doesn't have any appearances).
Nope - it doesn't matter which way around: if you can't address the risks of mistakes, exaggeration or lies in either then their content is potentially unreliable and, as such, pinches of salt are requited.
-
It looks as though Spud has a vested interest in Matthew's priority.
-
It looks as though Spud has a vested interest in Matthew's priority.
I am definitely interested in it, yes.
-
It looks as though Spud has a vested interest in Matthew's priority.
Which I think is odd. Perhaps he is concerned because Matthew's appearance first in the Bible was more or less set by the same people who decided that the Apostle Matthew wrote it. One of the arguments against that hypothesis is that whoever wrote Matthew copied large chunks from Mark - well, 95% of Mark and an Apostle could probably be expected to rely on his own experiences rather than something at least third hand.
-
Which I think is odd. Perhaps he is concerned because Matthew's appearance first in the Bible was more or less set by the same people who decided that the Apostle Matthew wrote it. One of the arguments against that hypothesis is that whoever wrote Matthew copied large chunks from Mark - well, 95% of Mark and an Apostle could probably be expected to rely on his own experiences rather than something at least third hand.
The thought hadn't occurred to me. But since you mention it, there's plenty of internal evidence that Matthew wrote it, as well as external.
Since it's just as likely for someone to shorten an account as to expand it, it's incorrect to assume that Matthew copied Mark.
If an Apostle would be expected to rely on his own experiences, this suggests that Matthew is the author of Matthew, and makes it more likely that the copier was Mark.
-
Just to point out in all this talk of priority, there is a lit of begging the question about the authors of any of the gospels. They are anonymous.
-
The thought hadn't occurred to me. But since you mention it, there's plenty of internal evidence that Matthew wrote it, as well as external.
Since it's just as likely for someone to shorten an account as to expand it, it's incorrect to assume that Matthew copied Mark.
If an Apostle would be expected to rely on his own experiences, this suggests that Matthew is the author of Matthew, and makes it more likely that the copier was Mark.
Spud
Is it not the case that the provenance of both these NT books is, in terms of historical fact, unknown?
-
It may be that it doesn't matter that the authors are anonymous. There's plenty of evidence that the sources behind each were eyewitnesses.
There are hallmarks in Matthew that suggest it was he that wrote it. He being the forgiven "sinner", we would expect him to mention how three women of disrepute found their way into Jesus' genealogy (1:1,3,5).
We'd expect him to refrain from saying, as do Mark and Luke, that he left everything to follow Jesus, or that he held a banquet for Jesus at his house.
And we'd expect him to equate his name with his past career as a publican (10:3).
We'd also expect him to use his Greek name rather than his Jewish name, since he later detatches himself from his countrymen calling them 'the Jews' in the final chapter.
An exercise: read Matthew 21:23-46 and compare it with Mark 11:27-33. Which version is more likely to be the original?
-
It may be that it doesn't matter that the authors are anonymous. There's plenty of evidence that the sources behind each were eyewitnesses.
There are hallmarks in Matthew that suggest it was he that wrote it. He being the forgiven "sinner", we would expect him to mention how three women of disrepute found their way into Jesus' genealogy (1:1,3,5).
We'd expect him to refrain from saying, as do Mark and Luke, that he left everything to follow Jesus, or that he held a banquet for Jesus at his house.
And we'd expect him to equate his name with his past career as a publican (10:3).
We'd also expect him to use his Greek name rather than his Jewish name, since he later detatches himself from his countrymen calling them 'the Jews' in the final chapter.
An exercise: read Matthew 21:23-46 and compare it with Mark 11:27-33. Which version is more likely to be the original?
None of that addresses why it being anonymous is of no import, and it then contradicts itself by assuming Matthew was real.
-
It may be that it doesn't matter that the authors are anonymous.
Of course it matters, since if you don't know how could you assess their reliability, the reliability of any sources and whether or not they may have had biases.
There's plenty of evidence that the sources behind each were eyewitnesses.
Such as (and remember the need to consider the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies)?
There are hallmarks in Matthew that suggest it was he that wrote it. He being the forgiven "sinner", we would expect him to mention how three women of disrepute found their way into Jesus' genealogy (1:1,3,5).
We'd expect him to refrain from saying, as do Mark and Luke, that he left everything to follow Jesus, or that he held a banquet for Jesus at his house.
And we'd expect him to equate his name with his past career as a publican (10:3).
We'd also expect him to use his Greek name rather than his Jewish name, since he later detatches himself from his countrymen calling them 'the Jews' in the final chapter.
Your 'expectations' may be biases, Spud, and may be based on mistakes, exaggerations or lies - can you see the problem yet?
An exercise: read Matthew 21:23-46 and compare it with Mark 11:27-33. Which version is more likely to be the original?
What good would that do: I'm not qualified to offer an opinion.
-
Jeremy's post 178 introduced the anonymity of 'Matthew'. I've apparently committed the BTQ fallacy, but nevertheless I don't see why being anonymous prevents an order from being established through textual analysis.
Okay, the early church thought, for whatever reasons, that it was first and written by Matthew.
Despite their opinion, we can still find signs in the text that point to Matthew being first.
Here is yet another one, this time from Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews—who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it—there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/matthew/1.htm
-
The thought hadn't occurred to me. But since you mention it, there's plenty of internal evidence that Matthew wrote it, as well as external.
No, the evidence points the other way.
Since it's just as likely for someone to shorten an account as to expand it, it's incorrect to assume that Matthew copied Mark.
We've been through this before. There are parts where Mark's version is longer than Matthew's. For example, the pigs of Gerasene. For Mark to be second, you'd have to assume he thought it would be a great idea for there to be more about pigs but the Lord's prayer wasn't worth including.
-
No, the evidence points the other way.
If you mean that it's unlikely for an apostle to use a third hand source, then as you said, this relies partly on your argument that the author copied Mark.
We've been through this before. There are parts where Mark's version is longer than Matthew's. For example, the pigs of Gerasene. For Mark to be second, you'd have to assume he thought it would be a great idea for there to be more about pigs but the Lord's prayer wasn't worth including.
Conversely, Matthew could have thought it a great idea for there to be more of Jesus' teaching, yet details included by Mark weren't worth including.
And, if Matthew had already published great chunks of teaching, Mark may have thought it unnecessary to publish them again.
Regarding the Lord's Prayer, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount, Mark and Matthew both state regarding Jesus' ministry in Galilee, that "all the people were amazed at his teaching, as he spoke as one with authority, not as the teachers of the law." It's interesting to look at this common verse and ask which is more likely to be the original. Either they both found it independently, or one quoted the other.
-
I....honestly.....don't think it matters. Matthew and Mark were not in competition. Both gospels have much to offer - Mark is the shortest.
Twenty years+ ago I saw a one man recitation of Mark's gospel at the O2.It was amazing, very well acted as well as spoken and at times, humourous. Just saying.
Actually it couldn't have been the O2; it was definitely Greenwich.
-
I....honestly.....don't think it matters. Matthew and Mark were not in competition. Both gospels have much to offer - Mark is the shortest.
I don't think it does either. What matters is whether the words attributed to Jesus are correctly translated and whether they work for the individual concerned.
-
If you mean that it's unlikely for an apostle to use a third hand source, then as you said, this relies partly on your argument that the author copied Mark.
No. There's plenty of evidence that Mark predates Matthew. There's no real evidence that the person who wrote Matthew's gospel was the Apostle.
Conversely, Matthew could have thought it a great idea for there to be more of Jesus' teaching, yet details included by Mark weren't worth including.
And, if Matthew had already published great chunks of teaching, Mark may have thought it unnecessary to publish them again.
Why would he include any of Matthew again then? Why, of all the things to leave out, was one the Lord's Prayer and another the Sermon on the Mount?
Regarding the Lord's Prayer, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount, Mark and Matthew both state regarding Jesus' ministry in Galilee, that "all the people were amazed at his teaching, as he spoke as one with authority, not as the teachers of the law." It's interesting to look at this common verse and ask which is more likely to be the original. Either they both found it independently, or one quoted the other.
Matthew quoted Mark.
-
I....honestly.....don't think it matters. Matthew and Mark were not in competition. Both gospels have much to offer - Mark is the shortest.
Twenty years+ ago I saw a one man recitation of Mark's gospel at the O2.It was amazing, very well acted as well as spoken and at times, humourous. Just saying.
Actually it couldn't have been the O2; it was definitely Greenwich.
There's certainly something about Mark. He uses the word 'immediately' a lot, and the word 'And' all the time. It's as if it was meant to be recited as a drama.
No. There's plenty of evidence that Mark predates Matthew. There's no real evidence that the person who wrote Matthew's gospel was the Apostle.
Why would he include any of Matthew again then?
Why, of all the things to leave out, was one the Lord's Prayer and another the Sermon on the Mount?
As Robbie pointed out, Mark reads like a drama. The Sermon on the Mount would be inappropriate as it would slow it down (as would Luke's Sermon on the plain, which Mark omits).
Matthew quoted Mark.
All three synoptics include, in some form: "all the people were amazed at his teaching, as he spoke as one with authority, not as the teachers of the law."
According to the theory that Mark was using Matthew's and Luke's gospels and Peter's preaching as his sources:
Luke and Mark have at this point Jesus driving out a demon from a man in the synagogue in Capernaum. It's quite reasonable to suggest that Mark at this point was following Luke instead of Matthew, and in so doing avoided the Sermon on the Mount.
-
There's certainly something about Mark. He uses the word 'immediately' a lot, and the word 'And' all the time. It's as if it was meant to be recited as a drama.
Well he does in the Greek. I think the "rough edges" are often smoothed out in the translation. That's another argument, by the way, for Markan priority. The idea is that Mark wrote the original and the other gospels smoothed out the primitivity of the language by adding sophistication. I don't mean any of that as a pejorative. I think Mark is a piece of really good literature. However, Mark seems to be closer to the oral tradition as you say and is therefore most likely to be the earliest.
As Robbie pointed out, Mark reads like a drama. The Sermon on the Mount would be inappropriate as it would slow it down (as would Luke's Sermon on the plain, which Mark omits).
The Sermon on the Plain is an edited version of the Sermon on the Mount. Had he been copying, Mark could have included an edited version. Ghandi (a non Christian) regarded the Sermon on the Mount as the greatest piece of religious literature ever created. It seems odd that Mark would omit it entirely.
Furthermore, if the Sermon on the Mount really did start as a literal sermon on a mount, it would work pretty well as drama. After all, it started out as oratory.
And you also can't explain the omission of the Lord's Prayer or a nativity or any post resurrection stories.
Luke and Mark have at this point Jesus driving out a demon from a man in the synagogue in Capernaum. It's quite reasonable to suggest that Mark at this point was following Luke instead of Matthew, and in so doing avoided the Sermon on the Mount.
If Matthew was first, you are claiming that either Mark or Luke made up that story.
-
Well he does in the Greek. I think the "rough edges" are often smoothed out in the translation. That's another argument, by the way, for Markan priority. The idea is that Mark wrote the original and the other gospels smoothed out the primitivity of the language by adding sophistication. I don't mean any of that as a pejorative. I think Mark is a piece of really good literature. However, Mark seems to be closer to the oral tradition as you say and is therefore most likely to be the earliest.
The Sermon on the Plain is an edited version of the Sermon on the Mount. Had he been copying, Mark could have included an edited version. Ghandi (a non Christian) regarded the Sermon on the Mount as the greatest piece of religious literature ever created. It seems odd that Mark would omit it entirely.
Furthermore, if the Sermon on the Mount really did start as a literal sermon on a mount, it would work pretty well as drama. After all, it started out as oratory.
And you also can't explain the omission of the Lord's Prayer or a nativity or any post resurrection stories.
Mark's frequent use of "and" and "immediately" seems to be due not to primitivity, but used deliberately to increase the pace of the narrative.
Wikipedia says that scholars view the omission of the SotM from Mark is evidence for Markan priority.
To paraphrase the book I linked to earlier in this thread, "This argument has been repeated by scholar after scholar, and indicates the assumption that if Mark had known about the Sermon on the Mount, he would have included it."
Three points are evident (taken from the same book):
First, this argument is based on the assumption that if Mark had known about something, he would have included it. This in turn is based on the scholar's inability to think, 19 centuries later, of a reason why he would not have included it .
Second, this line of argument leads to the conclusion that the author of John's gospel was also unaware of the SotM and the other parables and teaching of Jesus, since he doesn't include them either.
Third, this argument assumes that Mark didn't have knowledge of other teaching material such as the SotM; however, we know from Mk 4:3,33, 12:1 that he was aware of other such material.
Therefore, he could also have been aware of the SotM. The statement in Mark 1:22 could indicate this, since it is almost word for word the same as Matthew 7:28-29.
Matthew 7:28-29 refers directly to the SotM, and the peoples' astonishment at Jesus' authority as a true Rabbi as contrasted with those others who used that title. Perhaps Ghandi's response to it is similar to the astonishment of the crowds, and evidence of the originality of Matthew's statement concerning that astonishment.
If Matthew was first, you are claiming that either Mark or Luke made up that story.
Or simply used another source.
-
Mark's frequent use of "and" and "immediately" seems to be due not to primitivity, but used deliberately to increase the pace of the narrative.
No it doesn't.
Wikipedia says that scholars view the omission of the SotM from Mark is evidence for Markan priority.
Agree.
To paraphrase the book I linked to earlier in this thread, "This argument has been repeated by scholar after scholar, and indicates the assumption that if Mark had known about the Sermon on the Mount, he would have included it."
Well wouldn't he? In some form, at least.
First, this argument is based on the assumption that if Mark had known about something, he would have included it. This in turn is based on the scholar's inability to think, 19 centuries later, of a reason why he would not have included it .
No it's not. It's based on the assumption that The Sermon on the Mount is of paramount importance to Jesus' ministry and you wouldn't omit it without very good reason. The same applies to the Lord's Prayer.
Second, this line of argument leads to the conclusion that the author of John's gospel was also unaware of the SotM and the other parables and teaching of Jesus, since he doesn't include them either.
Good point....
... but what is it supposed to prove? "Mark must post date Matthew because John didn't know about Matthew". That doesn't make any sense at all.
Third, this argument assumes that Mark didn't have knowledge of other teaching material such as the SotM; however, we know from Mk 4:3,33, 12:1 that he was aware of other such material.
This is what Mark 4:33 says "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples."
This is what 12:1 says "Then he began to speak to [ the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders] in parables. ‘A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watch-tower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country."
Neither of these verses suggest that Mark was aware of Jesus using anything other than parables. In fact, 4:33 implies he didn't use anything else in public. Why would Mark say "he only used parables" if Mark knew about the Sermon on the Mount?
Therefore, he could also have been aware of the SotM. The statement in Mark 1:22 could indicate this, since it is almost word for word the same as Matthew 7:28-29.
Mark 1:22 does not imply that Jesus was teaching the Sermon on the Mount only that he was an astounding teacher.
-
No it doesn't.
Agree.
Well wouldn't he? In some form, at least.
No it's not. It's based on the assumption that The Sermon on the Mount is of paramount importance to Jesus' ministry and you wouldn't omit it without very good reason. The same applies to the Lord's Prayer.
Good point....
... but what is it supposed to prove? "Mark must post date Matthew because John didn't know about Matthew". That doesn't make any sense at all.
This is what Mark 4:33 says "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples."
This is what 12:1 says "Then he began to speak to [ the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders] in parables. ‘A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watch-tower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country."
Neither of these verses suggest that Mark was aware of Jesus using anything other than parables. In fact, 4:33 implies he didn't use anything else in public. Why would Mark say "he only used parables" if Mark knew about the Sermon on the Mount?
Mark 1:22 does not imply that Jesus was teaching the Sermon on the Mount only that he was an astounding teacher.
Fair points. While there is any possibility that he had a good reason to leave the sermon on the mount out, however, do we need to look any further than Matthew's gospel as Mark's source for the parables he does include (given that he is aware of more)?
-
Fair points. While there is any possibility that he had a good reason to leave the sermon on the mount out, however, do we need to look any further than Matthew's gospel as Mark's source for the parables he does include (given that he is aware of more)?
Matthew wasn't the source of Mark's parables. Mark was the source of Matthew's parables.
-
Spud:- The thought hadn't occurred to me. But since you mention it, there's plenty of internal evidence that Matthew wrote it, as well as external.
Since it's just as likely for someone to shorten an account as to expand it, it's incorrect to assume that Matthew copied Mark.
If an Apostle would be expected to rely on his own experiences, this suggests that Matthew is the author of Matthew, and makes it more likely that the copier was Mark.
...........
I think Mark first, then Matthew (not that I care one way or t'other). Matthew refers to Mark.
Matthew's prose style is so different to Mark's. It is typically Jewish, written like a story, creating colourful pictures in the minds of the readers. Definitely no precis.
Smashing thread btw Spud - I think so more now than when I first posted on it, thanks.
-
I think Mark first, then Matthew (not that I care one way or t'other). Matthew refers to Mark.
Matthew's prose style is so different to Mark's. It is typically Jewish, written like a story, creating colourful pictures in the minds of the readers. Definitely no precis.
Smashing thread btw Spud - I think so more now than when I first posted on it, thanks.
I welcome the honourable lady's participation and compliment.
-
Well he does in the Greek. I think the "rough edges" are often smoothed out in the translation. That's another argument, by the way, for Markan priority. The idea is that Mark wrote the original and the other gospels smoothed out the primitivity of the language by adding sophistication. I don't mean any of that as a pejorative. I think Mark is a piece of really good literature. However, Mark seems to be closer to the oral tradition as you say and is therefore most likely to be the earliest.
Equally likely is that Mark changed the more literary wording of Matthew and Luke into simple language.
-
Equally likely is that Mark changed the more literary wording of Matthew and Luke into simple language.
Nope.
-
No it doesn't.
Ok, Matthew and Luke also seem to begin each narrative sentence with "And". The frequent use of "immediately" seems to be unique to Mark, though.
-
Sorry - it's me again.
Why would Mark say "he only used parables" if Mark knew about the Sermon on the Mount?
Clearly Mark meant while Jesus was teaching by the lake. Other times, Mark records Jesus teaching without parables, such as 7:1-23 (clean and unclean food); 10:1-12 (divorce); 12:35-40 (whose son is the Christ) - note v.38-39 of this section and compare with Matthew 23:
Mark 12:38 And in His teaching He was saying, “Beware of the scribes, desiring to walk about in robes, and greetings in the marketplaces, 39and first seats in the synagogues, and first places at the feasts; ”
Matthew 23 is the "seven woes", introduced by, "5...For they... enlarge their tassels, 6and they love the chief place at the banquets, and the first seats in the synagogues, 7and the greetings in the marketplaces,"
If Mark states that he is quoting from a larger collection of teaching, he must know what it is, which means that if we find such a collection, that must be where Mark is quoting from. Matthew 23 appears to be that teaching, as it contains three, possibly four, of the things Mark lists.
-
Sorry - it's me again.
Clearly Mark meant while Jesus was teaching by the lake.
...
If Mark states that he is quoting from a larger collection of teaching,...
But he contrasted the teachings by the lake with the teachings to the disciples, not his teachings to everybody else. IT invalidates your point somewhat.
Furthermore, if he highlights occasions where Jesus used non parable teachings, it's strange he never highlights occasions where Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount, or the Lord's Prayer.
You can wriggle as much as you like, but you can't get out of the fact that Mark never mentions either the Lord's Prayer or the Sermon on the Mount and yet these two preachings are central to Christian worship. The obvious explanation as to why he never mentions them is that he didn't know them. Therefore he wasn't copying Matthew.
Why is it so important to you that Matthew came first anyway? Would it make a jot of difference to your faith if it was the other way around?
-
But he contrasted the teachings by the lake with the teachings to the disciples, not his teachings to everybody else. IT invalidates your point somewhat.
Mark 7:14 And having summoned the crowd again, He was saying to them, “Listen to Me, all, and understand: 15There is nothing from outside the man entering into him which is able to defile him; but the things proceeding out of the man are the things defiling the man.”
-----------
Mark 10:1 And from there having risen up, He comes into the region of Judea, and beyond the Jordan. And again crowds come together to Him, and again, as He had been accustomed, He was teaching them.
2And the Pharisees, having approached, were demanding of Him if it is lawful for a husband to divorce a wife, testing Him.
------------
Mark 12:37 37David himself calls Him Lord. And from where is He his son?”
And the great crowd was listening to Him gladly.
38And in His teaching He was saying, “Beware of the scribes, desiring to walk about in robes
------------
So in Mark, Jesus teaches the crowd in parables and not in parables. My point still stands: In 4:2 and 12:38, Mark states that he is quoting from somewhere, and Matthew 13 and 23 complete the picture.
Furthermore, if he highlights occasions where Jesus used non parable teachings, it's strange he never highlights occasions where Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount, or the Lord's Prayer.
As we see from Mark 12:38, Mark can sum up a large section of Matthew in a few sentences. He does exactly that in 11:22-25, where he sums up the Lord's prayer.
24Because of this I say to you, all things whatever praying, you also ask, believe that you receive, and it will be to you.
25And when you may stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive it, so that your Father in the heavens also might forgive you your trespasses.”
Matthew 6:11 Our daily bread, grant us today.
12And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
You can wriggle as much as you like, but you can't get out of the fact that Mark never mentions either the Lord's Prayer or the Sermon on the Mount and yet these two preachings are central to Christian worship. The obvious explanation as to why he never mentions them is that he didn't know them. Therefore he wasn't copying Matthew.
Why is it so important to you that Matthew came first anyway? Would it make a jot of difference to your faith if it was the other way around?
Something I haven't yet mentioned is that Matthew is concerned to show, with multiple references, how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. The fact that the material in Mat. 5 contains quotes from the Mosaic law and is taught on a mountain is a strong hint that Jesus is fulfilling the Mosaic law, also given on a mountain. Even the false prophets Jesus mentions in 7:15 are mentioned in Deuteronomy, suggesting that for Mat. 5-7, Jesus is the fulfillment of Moses.
Mark on the other hand is writing for Gentiles and is not as concerned with the Mosaic law as Matthew, who wrote for Jews. Thus he omits much of the material in Matthew.
-
Mark on the other hand is writing for Gentiles and is not as concerned with the Mosaic law as Matthew, who wrote for Jews. Thus he omits much of the material in Matthew.
So gentiles don't need to know the Sermon on the Mount or the Lords Prayer, but there do need to know more about pigs. Right.
Why is it so important to you that Matthew predates Mark?
-
Hi Jeremy,
You seem to fall back on Mark's missing Lord's prayer, whereas I see it as Mark cutting out, quoting in part or summarizing, the blocks of teaching from Matthew and Luke. I've set out many examples where I think it very unlikely that Matthew used Mark. It's still possible that I may be wrong about Mark using Matthew and Luke (and Peter) but I think that's the best hypothesis.
I don't need any of them to be first to believe that they corroborate each other and use different eyewitnesses so that we can get a more full picture of the events.
-
Hi Jeremy,
You seem to fall back on Mark's missing Lord's prayer, whereas I see it as Mark cutting out, quoting in part or summarizing, the blocks of teaching from Matthew and Luke. I've set out many examples where I think it very unlikely that Matthew used Mark. It's still possible that I may be wrong about Mark using Matthew and Luke (and Peter) but I think that's the best hypothesis.
I don't need any of them to be first to believe that they corroborate each other and use different eyewitnesses so that we can get a more full picture of the events.
So called eyewitnesses who were probably dead when the gospels were concocted. ::) Eyewitness testimonies are often way off the mark, especially when relating the less than credible events attributed to the long dead, Jesus.
-
Hi Jeremy,
You seem to fall back on Mark's missing Lord's prayer
What do you mean "fall back"? That would imply we've moved beyond it, but you haven't provided an adequate explanation for its non appearance yet.
whereas I see it as Mark cutting out, quoting in part or summarizing, the blocks of teaching from Matthew and Luke.
But your hypothesis doesn't make sense. You are arguing that Mark cut out a major piece of Christian thinking in favour of more detail about pigs.
I don't need any of them to be first to believe that they corroborate each other and use different eyewitnesses so that we can get a more full picture of the events.
Matthew and Luke basically copied Mark almost word for word. Of course they corroborate each other.
-
But your hypothesis doesn't make sense. You are arguing that Mark cut out a major piece of Christian thinking in favour of more detail about pigs.
I heard a sermon (online) about the withered fig tree in Mark 11. To my surprise the speaker said that Jesus' words about prayer in Mark 11:22-25 do in fact embody the thinking in the Lord's Prayer. The idea is that the fig tree represented unfruitful Israel, and the tree's withering represented judgment on Israel for that unfruitfulness. 'This mountain' Jesus was thinking of was the temple mount, so he was also teaching the disciples to pray for the removal of obstruction to the spread of the gospel, which was the Jewish religious system signified by the temple. This is the same as praying for God's kingdom to come and his will to be done (Mt 5:10). This kind of prayer and also prayer for provision for daily needs would require faith. Lastly Mark appends the section with the bit about forgiving others, same as in Mt 5:12,14.
Regarding the Gaderene demoniac. If Matthew had been copying Mark, he must have: changed the location Gerasenes to Gaderenes; changed one demoniac to two; omitted any mention of chains, cutting himself, the name of the man and the number of pigs, besides other details.
The more simple explanation is that Mark copied Luke, whose account is very similar to his, and added the number of pigs, possibly a detail provided to Mark by Peter.
Mark
-
So called eyewitnesses who were probably dead when the gospels were concocted. ::) Eyewitness testimonies are often way off the mark, especially when relating the less than credible events attributed to the long dead, Jesus.
Have a watch of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8
-
Have a watch of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8
I can't log on to that, but even if I could I very much doubt it would change my take on the topic
-
I can't log on to that, but even if I could I very much doubt it would change my take on the topic
Lr
I did . It's more wishy-washy than widow Twanky !
-
Have a watch of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8
Had a quick look - since very early on we get the laughable Lewis 'trilemma', I didn't bother after that.