Matthean priority

[jeremyp]

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.

[Roses]

Whoever wrote what and when, where the gospels are concerned, doesn't provide any evidence as to their veracity.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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.
 

[jeremyp]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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).

[jeremyp]

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.

[ekim]

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

[Spud]

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

[Spud]

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

[Spud]

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]

[Dicky Underpants]

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!

[ekim]

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.

[jeremyp]

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]

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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

[Spud]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[ad_orientem]

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.

[jeremyp]

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