Mark's use of Matthew and Luke

[Spud]

Alas, I found the information on a public computer, so haven't been able to check my search history.
Googling on my phone (my only other source of internet) has come up with nothing.

All I have managed to get from googling is links to an artist by the same name, so it's interesting that you found something.

[Spud]

It is widely taught because this is where the available evidence lead us.
Why on earth would Markan priority lead to atheism - why would you cease to believe in god just because Mark was written first?

Dicky was saying in #369 that there is a "developing 'Christology' implied in this order of composition - from low to high, with John exhibiting the highest Christology". If this were correct, to my mind that would weaken the evidence that Jesus is God's son.

But for the sake of arguments let's assume it does, why would any sensible person try to alter an accepted ordering of the gospels - surely that would be simply about altering the evidence to fit a pre-judged assertion.

Mark, who was not as far as we know a member of Jesus' closest disciples, must have had sources for his information. What if Matthew's gospel was one of them? And depending on when Luke was written, his gospel too?
Riley outlines the Griesbach hypothesis in his books, as the basis for his 'exploration'. This is the observation that when you set out the pericopes of Mark in a list, it is evident that he is always in sequence with either Matthew or Luke or both. This would be unlikely to happen if Matthew and Luke had been using Mark, as it would mean that when one of them abandons Mark's sequence, the other always takes it up.
Riley has shown that Matthew arranges his material around several quotes from Isaiah, showing how Jesus fulfilled them. Luke uses Matthew as his main source, but rearranges the material to show "all that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1), and in a way that portrays his rejection first in his home town, then in Galilee, and finally Jerusalem.
Mark not only follows the sequence of either or both his sources in his arrangement of pericopes, but frequently combines them to form a sentence or a phrase. It's a kind of microcosm of the Griesbach hypothesis, and can be seen when reading through Riley's commentary on Mark.

[Spud]

Mark not only follows the sequence of either or both his sources in his arrangement of pericopes, but frequently combines them to form a sentence or a phrase. It's a kind of microcosm of the Griesbach hypothesis, and can be seen when reading through Riley's commentary on Mark.

A good example of this:

Matthew
Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill [him].

Luke
And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him;

Mark
and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put [him] to death.

As we can see by comparing the Greek for the words in red and blue, Mark combines phrases from Matthew and Luke. Had Matthew and Luke been using Mark, they must have coincidentally taken different words from Mark.

NB Luke uses a different word for 'kill' from Matthew and Mark. Matthew and Mark use the same Greek words for 'subtlety' and 'kill'. Luke and Mark use identical wording for the phrase in red.

This phenomenon occurs frequently. There are quite a few well known phrases in Mark which combine Matthew and Luke's parallel phrases (such as "When evening came, as the sun was setting"), but there are others that are not so obvious, such as the one above.

[ekim]

I should have thought that unless the writers of Matthew, Luke and Mark (whoever they were) were present in the palace of the High Priest, it would have been hearsay or guesswork anyway.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dicky was saying in #369 that there is a "developing 'Christology' implied in this order of composition - from low to high, with John exhibiting the highest Christology". If this were correct, to my mind that would weaken the evidence that Jesus is God's son.

Not sure why you'd come to that conclusion Spud - but if that is your view then you need to accept you evidence that Jesus is God's son is weakened, because the objective evidence does suggest that order for the gospels in terms of original writing.

You cannot simply hunt for alternative evidence if the accepted evidence doesn't fit your faith. The whole point is that you conclusion should fit the evidence, not that you rework your evidence to fit your pre-judged conclusion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mark, who was not as far as we know a member of Jesus' closest disciples ...

There is no credible evidence that any of the gospels were actually written by a member of Jesus' closest disciples, so this point applies equally to Matthew, Luke and John.

, must have had sources for his information.

True, and the same applies to all the other gospels as none are close to being contemporary accounts, the best estimates being that the earliest versions of the gospels appeared between 30 and 80 years after Jesus' death.

What if Matthew's gospel was one of them? And depending on when Luke was written, his gospel too?

But you can simply turn that on its head - what if Mark was one of the sources for Matthew and Luke. And of course that is exactly what most objective biblical scholars consider - that Luke and Matthew were written after Mark, used Mark as a source, but also included other source information.

[ProfessorDavey]

I should have thought that unless the writers of Matthew, Luke and Mark (whoever they were) were present in the palace of the High Priest, it would have been hearsay or guesswork anyway.

Exactly - the notion that the direct quotations in the gospels are in any way accurate lacks any sort of credibility. There is no evidence of anyone talking notes nor is it correct to claim that the oral tradition at the time results in absolutely verbatim transmission of the actual words said. That isn't how oral tradition works - it is based on the derivation of accepted phrases, quotes, stories, songs etc that are easily transmitted and wrote learned. And those accepted phrases, quotes, stories, songs are designed to convey a message acceptable to those transmitting that message. They are not, and do not, reflect exactly what was said and exactly what happed. They represent an acceptable, but whole or partly fabricated narrative for the purposes of promulgation of a message deemed important to those in control of that message.

It is also worth noting that the earliest followers of Jesus believed that he'd be back in their lifetime so probably didn't put much effort into the generational transmission of their message for the first few decades. Only when it became clear that the prophecy wouldn't come to pass did it become important that their accepted message could be passed on. So there seems little evidence that the very earliest christians were accurate or fastidious custodians of the literal account of Jesus' life.

[Dicky Underpants]

Not sure why you'd come to that conclusion Spud - but if that is your view then you need to accept you evidence that Jesus is God's son is weakened, because the objective evidence does suggest that order for the gospels in terms of original writing.

You cannot simply hunt for alternative evidence if the accepted evidence doesn't fit your faith. The whole point is that you conclusion should fit the evidence, not that you rework your evidence to fit your pre-judged conclusion.

I'd originally noted that this was the impression I gained from the (now vanished) quote from Harold Riley, one of the Christian apologists Spud cited. I didn't think that Spud would automatically draw such a conclusion.

[Spud]

I'd originally noted that this was the impression I gained from the (now vanished) quote from Harold Riley, one of the Christian apologists Spud cited. I didn't think that Spud would automatically draw such a conclusion.

Without the quote it is hard to see how Riley concluded that Markan priority leads to atheism (if I've got that right?).
Off the top of my head, the developing Christology is the thought that Jesus is YHWH, which is most pronounced in John, right?
What if it is simply a matter of, one might be focusing on Jesus as the Messiah, another on Jesus as divine (eg the I am sayings). I don't see a development from one to the other, which could then indicate they were made up over time.

[Spud]

Not sure why you'd come to that conclusion Spud - but if that is your view then you need to accept you evidence that Jesus is God's son is weakened, because the objective evidence does suggest that order for the gospels in terms of original writing.

You cannot simply hunt for alternative evidence if the accepted evidence doesn't fit your faith. The whole point is that you conclusion should fit the evidence, not that you rework your evidence to fit your pre-judged conclusion.

But if the evidence you cite is stuff like, "Mark is shortest, and omits the most important prayer in the church so is more likely to be earliest" then that is to ignore other possible reasons for those features of Mark. The editorial fatigue and hard sayings can be explained differently. So it is quite ok to hunt for alternative evidence to support a different conclusion, right?

[jeremyp]

But if the evidence you cite is stuff like, "Mark is shortest, and omits the most important prayer in the church so is more likely to be earliest" then that is to ignore other possible reasons for those features of Mark. The editorial fatigue and hard sayings can be explained differently. So it is quite ok to hunt for alternative evidence to support a different conclusion, right?

The problem for you is that "Mark came first and Matthew and Luke had another source" immediately explains all of those observations but you have to come up with all sorts of different theories for the observations if you want to argue that Matthew and Luke came first.

As an aside, would you claim that Mark knew Luke? If so, why is Mark not the third gospel?

[ProfessorDavey]

So it is quite ok to hunt for alternative evidence to support a different conclusion, right?

Not if your objectivity is compromised - in other words that you are only hunting for alternative evidence because you have already decided that Mark has to come after Matthew due to your faith and regardless of the evidence.

You either accept evidence or you simply take a faith-based approach in which case evidence becomes irrelevant.

[Spud]

The problem for you is that "Mark came first and Matthew and Luke had another source" immediately explains all of those observations but you have to come up with all sorts of different theories for the observations if you want to argue that Matthew and Luke came first.

If some examples of editorial fatigue suggest (on the surface) that Matthew copied Mark, such as "the king was grieved" (Mk 6/Mt 14), what do we do if there are also examples suggesting Mark copied Matthew? For example, Mark 8:14-16 and Matthew 16:5-7 (how much bread did the disciples take in the boat?).

Or, thinking about Mark's omission of the Lord's prayer, what about Matthew's omission of certain details in Mark such as names of eyewitnesses, like Jairus or Alexander and Rufus?

Some criteria pointing to Markan priority can also point to Matthean priority.

As an aside, would you claim that Mark knew Luke? If so, why is Mark not the third gospel?

Yes I would - hence my view that Mark used both Matthew and Luke. I don't know why Luke is third.

[ProfessorDavey]

If some examples of editorial fatigue suggest (on the surface) that Matthew copied Mark, such as "the king was grieved" (Mk 6/Mt 14), what do we do if there are also examples suggesting Mark copied Matthew? For example, Mark 8:14-16 and Matthew 16:5-7 (how much bread did the disciples take in the boat?).

But this thinking seems to be based on an assumption that what we now read as Matthew or Mark is the same as the original Matthew or Mark. But it isn't - what has come down to us are much later versions that are likely to have been edited and amended numerous times throughout the period when we don't have any copies (or just tiny fragments) and for centuries after.

And as that period includes time when both Matthew and Mark as gospels were circulating together and being copied together, probably by the same copyists, it is hardly surprising that there will have been significant 'cross-editing' going on. This doesn't really help us understand which came first, albeit given that most of have is consistent with a position where the orthodox versions of the gospels didn't really 'settle' until the early 3rdC, then it becomes hard to say that Matthew copied Mark, as we don't really know what the original Mark looked like, nor for that matter the original Matthew.

[jeremyp]

If some examples of editorial fatigue suggest (on the surface) that Matthew copied Mark, such as "the king was grieved" (Mk 6/Mt 14), what do we do if there are also examples suggesting Mark copied Matthew? For example, Mark 8:14-16 and Matthew 16:5-7 (how much bread did the disciples take in the boat?).

Or, thinking about Mark's omission of the Lord's prayer, what about Matthew's omission of certain details in Mark such as names of eyewitnesses, like Jairus or Alexander and Rufus?

Some criteria pointing to Markan priority can also point to Matthean priority.
Yes I would - hence my view that Mark used both Matthew and Luke. I don't know why Luke is third.

It's one thing to omit a few irrelevant names. It's quite another to omit the most important Christian prayer.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's one thing to omit a few irrelevant names. It's quite another to omit the most important Christian prayer.

Indeed - the names of some purported eyewitnesses has no bearing whatsoever on the key aspects of the narrative. Omitting an element key to the developing theology and practice of the early church does.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes I would - hence my view that Mark used both Matthew and Luke. I don't know why Luke is third.

Why is Luke third, except for a completely irrelevant ordering in a traditional bible.

Most historians and proper bible scholars see Mark as earliest, Matthew and Luke to be likely contemporaneous with each other (probably 80-90CE) with John as the latest. So Luke isn't third, but equal second.

[jeremyp]

Why is Luke third, except for a completely irrelevant ordering in a traditional bible.

Most historians and proper bible scholars see Mark as earliest, Matthew and Luke to be likely contemporaneous with each other (probably 80-90CE) with John as the latest. So Luke isn't third, but equal second.

Although it is a minority view that Luke knew Matthew ("knew" as in "had read a copy of") and that the Q material is just the bits of Matthew that Luke copied that Matthew didn't get from Mark. It, has the advantage of not hypothesising a separate document that has left no trace in history.

[ProfessorDavey]

Although it is a minority view that Luke knew Matthew ("knew" as in "had read a copy of") and that the Q material is just the bits of Matthew that Luke copied that Matthew didn't get from Mark. It, has the advantage of not hypothesising a separate document that has left no trace in history.

I think somewhere along the line you need some lost material. Even if you take a view that Luke got from Matthew the stuff he didn't get from Mark, then you sill have Matthew getting stuff from somewhere other than Mark.

I also think it is important to recognise that the gospels were circulating for some while as a collected portfolio prior to us actually having any extant copies. So the gospels will have been copied together (presumably by the same people) providing no end of opportunities for 'cross contamination' one to another. So I suspect that the established orthodox cannon from 4thC onwards probably has rather more in common gospel to gospel than the actual originals. This is of course speculation as we do not have the originals, and indeed anyone claiming to know what was in the originals is engaging in speculation as we simply do not know, thought we do know that the earliest extant versions from about 200CE onwards have almost countless minor (and major) discrepancies version to version.

[Spud]

It's one thing to omit a few irrelevant names. It's quite another to omit the most important Christian prayer.

In the Markan Dependence view, Mark passes over Matthew 5-7 and Luke 9:51-18:14, both of which contain the prayer in different contexts. That may explain why it is absent from Mark.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the Markan Dependence view, Mark passes over Matthew 5-7 and Luke 9:51-18:14, both of which contain the prayer in different contexts. That may explain why it is absent from Mark.

It doesn't explain it at all.

Sure to explain this you'd have to either:

Claim that the author or Mark had access to Matthew 5-7 and Luke 9:51-18:14 but for some reason chose to ignore them - perhaps because of a major schism in the early church as to the importance of the Lord's Prayer. Or.

The early versions of Matthew and Luke that the author or Mark had access to did not include these sections and they are later interpolations. We, of course, have no idea what was in the earliest versions of the gospels as the earliest fragments we have are from 100 years after their purported writing - in the case of most of the content several hundreds of years later.

[jeremyp]

I think somewhere along the line you need some lost material. Even if you take a view that Luke got from Matthew the stuff he didn't get from Mark, then you sill have Matthew getting stuff from somewhere other than Mark.

It doesn't have to be a written document though. The Q document is hypothesised as a written document because the material shared between Matthew and Luke is almost word for word identical. That wouldn't happen if they had both independently transcribed the same oral source.

I also think it is important to recognise that the gospels were circulating for some while as a collected portfolio prior to us actually having any extant copies.

I don't know that there is any evidence of that.

So the gospels will have been copied together (presumably by the same people) providing no end of opportunities for 'cross contamination' one to another.

It doesn't seem to have been happening since they were verifiably collected together in the Bible, so why would it happen before? And don't forget we do have some evidence of "patching up" the gospels to agree with each other: Mark has an ending grafted on that is pretty clearly a précis of the resurrection stories from the other gospels, but they weren't copied word for word.

[ProfessorDavey]

It doesn't have to be a written document though. The Q document is hypothesised as a written document because the material shared between Matthew and Luke is almost word for word identical. That wouldn't happen if they had both independently transcribed the same oral source.

True - but there must have been some alternative source material whichever way around you order the gospels.

I don't know that there is any evidence of that.

I think there is. Some of the very earliest papyrus contain parts of more than one of the gospels, which confirms that they were circulating as a collected portfolio. It is pretty hard to argue that (for example papyrus 43, dated to as early as 200-300) was somehow the very first document with more than one gospel (it contains portions of all four gospels) when the preservation of papyrus is a pretty well random process with preservation effectively just by luck. While there are earlier fragments, most of these are simply single pages with barely more than a few dozen words so it is impossible to know there elsewhere in the original document other gospels were included.

So effectively as early as we have gospel fragments we have evidence of gospels collected together.

[Spud]

It doesn't explain it at all.

Sure to explain this you'd have to either:

Claim that the author or Mark had access to Matthew 5-7 and Luke 9:51-18:14 but for some reason chose to ignore them - perhaps because of a major schism in the early church as to the importance of the Lord's Prayer. Or.

The early versions of Matthew and Luke that the author or Mark had access to did not include these sections and they are later interpolations. We, of course, have no idea what was in the earliest versions of the gospels as the earliest fragments we have are from 100 years after their purported writing - in the case of most of the content several hundreds of years later.

I think Mark did have access to those sections of Matthew and Luke. As Riley says, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) is placed where it is in order to show how the part of Isaiah's prophecy concerning 'Galilee of the Gentiles' - "the people living in darkness have seen a great light" (Mt 4:16) - is fulfilled through Jesus' teaching (Riley, The First Gospel, p.24,72). So it must have been part of Matthew's original book.
Luke says in Acts 1:1 that in his first book he wrote about "all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day that he was taken up." Luke appears to have divided his Gospel into three, concentrating first on "all that Jesus began to do" and then on "all that Jesus began to teach", then on the events culminating with "the day that he was taken up".
"At Luke 9:51 Luke begins the next main division of his Gospel, in which he sets out more fully the teaching of Jesus" (Riley, Preface to Luke, p.56).
"As the day of His ascension approached, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem." (Note the reference in Acts 1:1 and Luke 9:51 to Jesus' ascension).

The reason I thought Mark did not lift the Lord's Prayer out from either of these sections is that when you read Matthew's and Luke's contexts, the prayer seems no more or less important than what is said in those contexts.

As to Mark's main purpose: "... it is clear that Mark has selected his material on a definite plan. While there is inevitably an element of Jesus' teaching involved in speaking of his activities (and Mark frequently refers to Jesus as Teacher and to his activity in teaching) and an element of narrative involved in setting out what Jesus taught, there is a broad distinction between the proclamation of what Jesus did and the exposition of his teaching. Mark has concentrated on the former. His book is strictly kerygmatic: its purpose is to call men to "repent, and believe the gospel" (1:15). It is a book of appeal to Christian commitment, the consequences of which could be worked out in the continuing life in the church. That was a limited purpose but a noble one, fitting for what we may deduce to have been Mark's own ministry from the references to him in the New Testament. (Riley, The Making of Mark, p.214).

[ProfessorDavey]

The reason I thought Mark did not lift the Lord's Prayer out from either of these sections is that when you read Matthew's and Luke's contexts, the prayer seems no more or less important than what is said in those contexts.

Firstly I think the reason Mark did not lift these sections is because Mark came first and he didn't have access to Matthew and Luke.

However, for the sake of argument let's assume the author of Mark did have access to Matthew and Luke. If, as you claim, he didn't see the Lord's prayer as important suggests a major schism in the early church as clearly others considered it to be incredibly important and those people clearly won the day as the Lord's prayer became a central component of the developing church doctrine.