Matthean priority

[Spud]

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).

[Spud]

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.

[jeremyp]

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. 

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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]

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.

[Gordon]

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?

[Alan Burns]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[Alan Burns]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[Spud]

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).

[Gordon]

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?

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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. 

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[SteveH]

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".

[Enki]

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

[Gordon]

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.

[Spud]

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).