Matthean priority

[Roses]

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.

[Maeght]

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?

[jeremyp]

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?

[Spud]

What do you mean by credible?

She means, storm Hannah doing as she's told, or something like that.

[Roses]

What do you mean by credible?

Something that is plausible, unlike many of the things attributed to Jesus.

[Roses]

She means, storm Hannah doing as she's told, or something like that.

What are you talking about?

[Spud]

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?

[Spud]

What are you talking about?

Mark 4:39, but I realize Maeght said credible, not un-credible

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

Is it?

The last few verses of Matthew suggest Judea before the dispersal of mainly Jewish Christians as the setting for his book.

[Maeght]

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

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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?

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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'.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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