Matthean priority

[Roses]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Roses]

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.   

[Spud]

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.

[Roses]

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!

[Spud]

I was lambasted for losing my faith!

Just curious, why was believing a bad experience, when you did believe?

[Spud]

Maybe you gave your heart to Jesus without actually believing?

[Roses]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walter]

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!

[Spud]

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?

[SteveH]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Spud]

For the record, Matthew sometimes uses the present tense when it ought to be past tense.

[SteveH]

For the record, Matthew sometimes uses the present tense when it ought to be past tense.

So do you, judging by that post!

[jeremyp]

So do you, judging by that post!

That's a good one, but the historic present tense is a thing.

Edit: also your post should have said "so did you..."

[SteveH]

That's a good one, but the historic present tense is a thing.

Edit: also your post should have said "so did you..."

"...do you...", meaning you are in the habit of doing.

[jeremyp]

"...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?

[SteveH]

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".

[Spud]

"1Then come unto Jesus do they from Jerusalem — scribes and Pharisees — saying," Mat. 15:1 Young's Literal Translation

[Spud]

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

[Spud]

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?

[jeremyp]

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

[Spud]

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.