Matthean priority

[Spud]

"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.

[ProfessorDavey]

"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.

[Roses]

"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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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

[Spud]

Why would Mark and Luke both make up the same name?

Are you sure you mean that?

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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. 

[Spud]

"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.

[Roses]

"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.

[jeremyp]

?
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.

[jeremyp]

"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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[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 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.