Matthean priority

[Gordon]

"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).

Nope - it doesn't matter which way around: if you can't address the risks of mistakes, exaggeration or lies in either then their content is potentially unreliable and, as such, pinches of salt are requited.

[SteveH]

It looks as though Spud has a vested interest in Matthew's priority.

[Spud]

It looks as though Spud has a vested interest in Matthew's priority.

I am definitely interested in it, yes.

[jeremyp]

It looks as though Spud has a vested interest in Matthew's priority.

Which I think is odd. Perhaps he is concerned because Matthew's appearance first in the Bible was more or less set by the same people who decided that the Apostle Matthew wrote it. One of the arguments against that hypothesis is that whoever wrote Matthew copied large chunks from Mark - well, 95% of Mark and an Apostle could probably be expected to rely on his own experiences rather than something at least third hand.

[Spud]

Which I think is odd. Perhaps he is concerned because Matthew's appearance first in the Bible was more or less set by the same people who decided that the Apostle Matthew wrote it. One of the arguments against that hypothesis is that whoever wrote Matthew copied large chunks from Mark - well, 95% of Mark and an Apostle could probably be expected to rely on his own experiences rather than something at least third hand.

The thought hadn't occurred to me. But since you mention it, there's plenty of internal evidence that Matthew wrote it, as well as external.
Since it's just as likely for someone to shorten an account as to expand it, it's incorrect to assume that Matthew copied Mark.
If an Apostle would be expected to rely on his own experiences, this suggests that Matthew is the author of Matthew, and makes it more likely that the copier was Mark.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to point out in all this talk of priority, there is a lit of begging the question about the authors of any of the gospels. They are anonymous.

[Gordon]

The thought hadn't occurred to me. But since you mention it, there's plenty of internal evidence that Matthew wrote it, as well as external.
Since it's just as likely for someone to shorten an account as to expand it, it's incorrect to assume that Matthew copied Mark.
If an Apostle would be expected to rely on his own experiences, this suggests that Matthew is the author of Matthew, and makes it more likely that the copier was Mark.

Spud

Is it not the case that the provenance of both these NT books is, in terms of historical fact, unknown?

[Spud]

It may be that it doesn't matter that the authors are anonymous. There's plenty of evidence that the sources behind each were eyewitnesses.

There are hallmarks in Matthew that suggest it was he that wrote it.  He being the forgiven "sinner", we would expect him to mention how three women of disrepute found their way into Jesus' genealogy (1:1,3,5).
We'd expect him to refrain from saying, as do Mark and Luke, that he left everything to follow Jesus, or that he held a banquet for Jesus at his house.
And we'd expect him to equate his name with his past career as a publican (10:3).
We'd also expect him to use his Greek name rather than his Jewish name, since he later detatches himself from his countrymen calling them 'the Jews' in the final chapter.

An exercise: read Matthew 21:23-46 and compare it with Mark 11:27-33. Which version is more likely to be the original?

[Nearly Sane]

It may be that it doesn't matter that the authors are anonymous. There's plenty of evidence that the sources behind each were eyewitnesses.

There are hallmarks in Matthew that suggest it was he that wrote it.  He being the forgiven "sinner", we would expect him to mention how three women of disrepute found their way into Jesus' genealogy (1:1,3,5).
We'd expect him to refrain from saying, as do Mark and Luke, that he left everything to follow Jesus, or that he held a banquet for Jesus at his house.
And we'd expect him to equate his name with his past career as a publican (10:3).
We'd also expect him to use his Greek name rather than his Jewish name, since he later detatches himself from his countrymen calling them 'the Jews' in the final chapter.

An exercise: read Matthew 21:23-46 and compare it with Mark 11:27-33. Which version is more likely to be the original?

None of that addresses why it being anonymous is of no import, and it then contradicts itself by assuming Matthew was real.

[Gordon]

It may be that it doesn't matter that the authors are anonymous.

Of course it matters, since if you don't know how could you assess their reliability, the reliability of any sources and whether or not they may have had biases.

There's plenty of evidence that the sources behind each were eyewitnesses.

Such as (and remember the need to consider the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies)?

There are hallmarks in Matthew that suggest it was he that wrote it.  He being the forgiven "sinner", we would expect him to mention how three women of disrepute found their way into Jesus' genealogy (1:1,3,5).

We'd expect him to refrain from saying, as do Mark and Luke, that he left everything to follow Jesus, or that he held a banquet for Jesus at his house.

And we'd expect him to equate his name with his past career as a publican (10:3).
We'd also expect him to use his Greek name rather than his Jewish name, since he later detatches himself from his countrymen calling them 'the Jews' in the final chapter.

Your 'expectations' may be biases, Spud, and may be based on mistakes, exaggerations or lies - can you see the problem yet?

An exercise: read Matthew 21:23-46 and compare it with Mark 11:27-33. Which version is more likely to be the original?

What good would that do: I'm not qualified to offer an opinion.

[Spud]

Jeremy's post 178 introduced the anonymity of 'Matthew'. I've apparently committed the BTQ fallacy, but nevertheless I don't see why being anonymous prevents an order from being established through textual analysis.

Okay, the early church thought, for whatever reasons, that it was first and written by Matthew.

Despite their opinion, we can still find signs in the text that point to Matthew being first.

Here is yet another one, this time from Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews—who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it—there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/matthew/1.htm

[jeremyp]

The thought hadn't occurred to me. But since you mention it, there's plenty of internal evidence that Matthew wrote it, as well as external.

No, the evidence points the other way.

Since it's just as likely for someone to shorten an account as to expand it, it's incorrect to assume that Matthew copied Mark.

We've been through this before. There are parts where Mark's version is longer than Matthew's. For example, the pigs of Gerasene. For Mark to be second, you'd have to assume he thought it would be a great idea for there to be more about pigs but the Lord's prayer wasn't worth including.

[Spud]

No, the evidence points the other way.

If you mean that it's unlikely for an apostle to use a third hand source, then as you said, this relies partly on your argument that the author copied Mark.

We've been through this before. There are parts where Mark's version is longer than Matthew's. For example, the pigs of Gerasene. For Mark to be second, you'd have to assume he thought it would be a great idea for there to be more about pigs but the Lord's prayer wasn't worth including.

Conversely, Matthew could have thought it a great idea for there to be more of Jesus' teaching, yet details included by Mark weren't worth including.
And, if Matthew had already published great chunks of teaching, Mark may have thought it unnecessary to publish them again.
Regarding the Lord's Prayer, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount, Mark and Matthew both state regarding Jesus' ministry in Galilee, that "all the people were amazed at his teaching, as he spoke as one with authority, not as the teachers of the law." It's interesting to look at this common verse and ask which is more likely to be the original. Either they both found it independently, or one quoted the other.

[Robbie]

I....honestly.....don't think it matters.  Matthew and Mark were not in competition.  Both gospels have much to offer - Mark is the shortest.

Twenty years+ ago I saw a one man recitation of Mark's gospel at the O2.It was amazing, very well acted as well as spoken and at times, humourous. Just saying.
Actually it couldn't have been the O2; it was definitely Greenwich.

[ekim]

I....honestly.....don't think it matters.  Matthew and Mark were not in competition.  Both gospels have much to offer - Mark is the shortest.

I don't think it does either.  What matters is whether the words attributed to Jesus are correctly translated and whether they work for the individual concerned.

[jeremyp]

If you mean that it's unlikely for an apostle to use a third hand source, then as you said, this relies partly on your argument that the author copied Mark.

No. There's plenty of evidence that Mark predates Matthew. There's no real evidence that the person who wrote Matthew's gospel was the Apostle.

Conversely, Matthew could have thought it a great idea for there to be more of Jesus' teaching, yet details included by Mark weren't worth including.
And, if Matthew had already published great chunks of teaching, Mark may have thought it unnecessary to publish them again.

Why would he include any of Matthew again then? Why, of all the things to leave out, was one the Lord's Prayer and another the Sermon on the Mount?

Regarding the Lord's Prayer, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount, Mark and Matthew both state regarding Jesus' ministry in Galilee, that "all the people were amazed at his teaching, as he spoke as one with authority, not as the teachers of the law." It's interesting to look at this common verse and ask which is more likely to be the original. Either they both found it independently, or one quoted the other.

Matthew quoted Mark.

[Spud]

I....honestly.....don't think it matters.  Matthew and Mark were not in competition.  Both gospels have much to offer - Mark is the shortest.

Twenty years+ ago I saw a one man recitation of Mark's gospel at the O2.It was amazing, very well acted as well as spoken and at times, humourous. Just saying.
Actually it couldn't have been the O2; it was definitely Greenwich.

There's certainly something about Mark. He uses the word 'immediately' a lot, and the word 'And' all the time. It's as if it was meant to be recited as a drama.

No. There's plenty of evidence that Mark predates Matthew. There's no real evidence that the person who wrote Matthew's gospel was the Apostle.
Why would he include any of Matthew again then?
 Why, of all the things to leave out, was one the Lord's Prayer and another the Sermon on the Mount?

As Robbie pointed out, Mark reads like a drama. The Sermon on the Mount would be inappropriate as it would slow it down (as would Luke's Sermon on the plain, which Mark omits).

Matthew quoted Mark.

All three synoptics include, in some form: "all the people were amazed at his teaching, as he spoke as one with authority, not as the teachers of the law."

According to the theory that Mark was using Matthew's and Luke's gospels and Peter's preaching as his sources:

Luke and Mark have at this point Jesus driving out a demon from a man in the synagogue in Capernaum. It's quite reasonable to suggest that Mark at this point was following Luke instead of Matthew, and in so doing avoided the Sermon on the Mount.

[jeremyp]

There's certainly something about Mark. He uses the word 'immediately' a lot, and the word 'And' all the time. It's as if it was meant to be recited as a drama.

Well he does in the Greek. I think the "rough edges" are often smoothed out in the translation. That's another argument, by the way, for Markan priority. The idea is that Mark wrote the original and the other gospels smoothed out the primitivity of the language by adding sophistication. I don't mean any of that as a pejorative. I think Mark is a piece of really good literature. However, Mark seems to be closer to the oral tradition as you say and is therefore most likely to be the earliest.

As Robbie pointed out, Mark reads like a drama. The Sermon on the Mount would be inappropriate as it would slow it down (as would Luke's Sermon on the plain, which Mark omits).

The Sermon on the Plain is an edited version of the Sermon on the Mount. Had he been copying, Mark could have included an edited version. Ghandi (a non Christian) regarded the Sermon on the Mount as the greatest piece of religious literature ever created. It seems odd that Mark would omit it entirely.

Furthermore, if the Sermon on the Mount really did start as a literal sermon on a mount, it would work pretty well as drama. After all, it started out as oratory.

And you also can't explain the omission of the Lord's Prayer or a nativity or any post resurrection stories.

Luke and Mark have at this point Jesus driving out a demon from a man in the synagogue in Capernaum. It's quite reasonable to suggest that Mark at this point was following Luke instead of Matthew, and in so doing avoided the Sermon on the Mount.

If Matthew was first, you are claiming that either Mark or Luke made up that story.

[Spud]

Well he does in the Greek. I think the "rough edges" are often smoothed out in the translation. That's another argument, by the way, for Markan priority. The idea is that Mark wrote the original and the other gospels smoothed out the primitivity of the language by adding sophistication. I don't mean any of that as a pejorative. I think Mark is a piece of really good literature. However, Mark seems to be closer to the oral tradition as you say and is therefore most likely to be the earliest.
The Sermon on the Plain is an edited version of the Sermon on the Mount. Had he been copying, Mark could have included an edited version. Ghandi (a non Christian) regarded the Sermon on the Mount as the greatest piece of religious literature ever created. It seems odd that Mark would omit it entirely.

Furthermore, if the Sermon on the Mount really did start as a literal sermon on a mount, it would work pretty well as drama. After all, it started out as oratory.

And you also can't explain the omission of the Lord's Prayer or a nativity or any post resurrection stories.

Mark's frequent use of "and" and "immediately" seems to be due not to primitivity, but used deliberately to increase the pace of the narrative.

Wikipedia says that scholars view the omission of the SotM from Mark is evidence for Markan priority.

To paraphrase the book I linked to earlier in this thread, "This argument has been repeated by scholar after scholar, and indicates the assumption that if Mark had known about the Sermon on the Mount, he would have included it."

Three points are evident (taken from the same book):

First, this argument is based on the assumption that if Mark had known about something, he would have included it. This in turn is based on the scholar's inability to think, 19 centuries later, of a reason why he would not have included it .

Second, this line of argument leads to the conclusion that the author of John's gospel was also unaware of the SotM and the other parables and teaching of Jesus, since he doesn't include them either.

Third, this argument assumes that Mark didn't have knowledge of other teaching material such as the SotM; however, we know from Mk 4:3,33, 12:1 that he was aware of other such material.

Therefore, he could also have been aware of the SotM. The statement in Mark 1:22 could indicate this, since it is almost word for word the same as Matthew 7:28-29.

Matthew 7:28-29 refers directly to the SotM, and the peoples' astonishment at Jesus' authority as a true Rabbi as contrasted with those others who used that title. Perhaps Ghandi's response to it is similar to the astonishment of the crowds,  and evidence of the originality of Matthew's statement concerning that astonishment.

If Matthew was first, you are claiming that either Mark or Luke made up that story.

Or simply used another source.

[jeremyp]

Mark's frequent use of "and" and "immediately" seems to be due not to primitivity, but used deliberately to increase the pace of the narrative.

No it doesn't.

Wikipedia says that scholars view the omission of the SotM from Mark is evidence for Markan priority.

Agree.

To paraphrase the book I linked to earlier in this thread, "This argument has been repeated by scholar after scholar, and indicates the assumption that if Mark had known about the Sermon on the Mount, he would have included it."

Well wouldn't he? In some form, at least.

First, this argument is based on the assumption that if Mark had known about something, he would have included it. This in turn is based on the scholar's inability to think, 19 centuries later, of a reason why he would not have included it .

No it's not. It's based on the assumption that The Sermon on the Mount is of paramount importance to Jesus' ministry and you wouldn't omit it without very good reason. The same applies to the Lord's Prayer.

Second, this line of argument leads to the conclusion that the author of John's gospel was also unaware of the SotM and the other parables and teaching of Jesus, since he doesn't include them either.

Good point....

... but what is it supposed to prove? "Mark must post date Matthew because John didn't know about Matthew". That doesn't make any sense at all.

Third, this argument assumes that Mark didn't have knowledge of other teaching material such as the SotM; however, we know from Mk 4:3,33, 12:1 that he was aware of other such material.

This is what Mark 4:33 says "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples."

This is what 12:1 says "Then he began to speak to [ the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders] in parables. ‘A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watch-tower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country."

Neither of these verses suggest that Mark was aware of Jesus using anything other than parables. In fact, 4:33 implies he didn't use anything else in public. Why would Mark say "he only used parables" if Mark knew about the Sermon on the Mount?

Therefore, he could also have been aware of the SotM. The statement in Mark 1:22 could indicate this, since it is almost word for word the same as Matthew 7:28-29.

Mark 1:22 does not imply that Jesus was teaching the Sermon on the Mount only that he was an astounding teacher.

[Spud]

No it doesn't.
Agree.
Well wouldn't he? In some form, at least.
No it's not. It's based on the assumption that The Sermon on the Mount is of paramount importance to Jesus' ministry and you wouldn't omit it without very good reason. The same applies to the Lord's Prayer.
Good point....

... but what is it supposed to prove? "Mark must post date Matthew because John didn't know about Matthew". That doesn't make any sense at all.

This is what Mark 4:33 says "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples."

This is what 12:1 says "Then he began to speak to [ the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders] in parables. ‘A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watch-tower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country."

Neither of these verses suggest that Mark was aware of Jesus using anything other than parables. In fact, 4:33 implies he didn't use anything else in public. Why would Mark say "he only used parables" if Mark knew about the Sermon on the Mount?
Mark 1:22 does not imply that Jesus was teaching the Sermon on the Mount only that he was an astounding teacher.

Fair points. While there is any possibility that he had a good reason to leave the sermon on the mount out, however, do we need to look any further than Matthew's gospel as Mark's source for the parables he does include (given that he is aware of more)?

[jeremyp]

Fair points. While there is any possibility that he had a good reason to leave the sermon on the mount out, however, do we need to look any further than Matthew's gospel as Mark's source for the parables he does include (given that he is aware of more)?

Matthew wasn't the source of Mark's parables. Mark was the source of Matthew's parables.

[Robbie]

Spud:- The thought hadn't occurred to me. But since you mention it, there's plenty of internal evidence that Matthew wrote it, as well as external.
Since it's just as likely for someone to shorten an account as to expand it, it's incorrect to assume that Matthew copied Mark.
If an Apostle would be expected to rely on his own experiences, this suggests that Matthew is the author of Matthew, and makes it more likely that the copier was Mark.
...........
I think Mark first, then Matthew (not that I care one way or t'other). Matthew refers to Mark.

Matthew's prose style is so different to Mark's. It is typically Jewish, written like a story, creating colourful pictures in the minds of the readers. Definitely no precis.

Smashing thread btw Spud - I think so more now than when I first posted on it, thanks.

[Spud]

I think Mark first, then Matthew (not that I care one way or t'other). Matthew refers to Mark.

Matthew's prose style is so different to Mark's. It is typically Jewish, written like a story, creating colourful pictures in the minds of the readers. Definitely no precis.

Smashing thread btw Spud - I think so more now than when I first posted on it, thanks.

I welcome the honourable lady's participation and compliment.

[Spud]

Well he does in the Greek. I think the "rough edges" are often smoothed out in the translation. That's another argument, by the way, for Markan priority. The idea is that Mark wrote the original and the other gospels smoothed out the primitivity of the language by adding sophistication. I don't mean any of that as a pejorative. I think Mark is a piece of really good literature. However, Mark seems to be closer to the oral tradition as you say and is therefore most likely to be the earliest.

Equally likely is that Mark changed the more literary wording of Matthew and Luke into simple language.