Robert said

You’re missing the connection because you’re playing with various translations and not looking at the Greek. I already gave you the key corresponding Greek words in my first post on this subject. Look again at that post for the Greek and ignore the various ways the Greek can be rendered in English. Seriously, you are way out of your league, but that does not stop you from trying to make counter-arguments about material you do not understand. I’m not sure whether to be amused or saddened or both.  

Yes sorry I missed part of your original post. I think yours is a possible interpretation but of the Papias accounts but I don’t think your interpretation would then apply well to the canonical gospels. I don’t think canonical Mark can be said to be lacking an order that exists in canonical Matthew. If anything Luke could be said to be applying order to Matthew – re-ordering the five major discourses to their proper chronology.

I think the best interpretation is that Peter adapted his teaching to whatever audience he had so that Mark didn’t get a full or ordered account of Jesus’s life – so Mark couldnt be blamed for missing some things out of his gospel.

Matthew compiled a full account in Hebrew but not as response to Mark missing out some things.

Robert said

Of course, I’ve been trying to emphasize for you several times now that Papias statement about Matthew cannot be referring directly to Matthew’s Greek gospel. At best it could be referring to eventually translated discourse material, which does in fact represent the primary additions to Mark’s gospel during Jesus’ ministry. You are the one who mistakenly tries to defend these fragments having anything to do with the priority of Matthew’s gospel. 

And you should not be focusing so much on an “account of Jesus’s life.” 

Pay attention to the Greek of Papias’ title and the distinctive and common words in his description of Mark’s account of things said and deeds of Jesus, what was lacking in Peter’s preaching, and Matthew’s collection of oracles:

Papias’ Title: Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεως

Mark’s account: οὐ … τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα

Peter’s preaching: ουχ ψσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων

Matthew’s oracles: τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο

There is nothing at all here about Matthew providing a full account. Papias tells us merely that Matthew arranges, orders, composes a collection of oracles in Aramaic or Hebrew, precisely that which the elder or Papias said was lacking in Peter’s preaching and Mark’s account. Someone else must have translated these oracles and added them to Mark’s gospel to create what eventually became the Greek gospel of Matthew.   

Yes it depends though on how intentional the similarity of the words were for Papias. “σύνταξιν” and “συνετάξατο” although derived from “order” can just mean composition/composed, compilation/compiled.

I think the intended meaning is that Peter never had any intention of writing down a collection of oracles/deeds of the lord but spoke one or two depending on his audience. Mark then, not writing the oracles in order, does not mean he had a full list of oracles but not in order – Papias’s intented meaning is that Mark didn’t have a complete list.

“συνετάξατο” when used for Matthew, and although derived from “order”, just means Matthew composed/compiled the oracles in Hebrew/Aramaic.

If understood as “Mark did not write the oracles in order because Peter had no intention of having them put in order” and “therefore Matthew wrote them order” the only interpretation is a reordering of Mark by Matthew and so couldnt lead to the idea of Matthews oracles being added to Mark.

Robert said

brenmcg said

All views contain some subjective and some objective elements. The objectivity here is provided by that fact that two first century greek authors, Luke and John, place the introduction of Barabbas where we in the 21st century would subjectivelyexpect it to be. 

Mark’s subjectively early introduction can be explained if we assume he’s editing Matthew who places his introduction where we would subjectively expect it to be.

Matthew, Luke and John all have the introduction where we would expect it to be, Mark doesn’t.  

Objectivity about what we would subjectively expect? Many of your arguments seem ridiculous to me. I’ve asked you about other of your arguments if you can give a single example of a reputable scholar using them in a serious scholarly source-critical discussion. I will ask you about this here as well. Can you cite any critical scholars using this particular argument in favor of Matthean priority? Otherwise, I’m having a hard time taking this seriously. This just does not seem to me to be a good argument for anything.

No I dont know anyone else who makes this argument but here it is again.

For Luke and John, the crowd calling Barabbas’s name is the first time Barabbas enters the story. And it is here that they place the introduction of Barabbas (“Barabbas had been put in prison for insurrection / Barabbas had taken part in an uprising”).

Matthew however has Barabbas enter the story earlier, when Pilate gives the choice to the crowd “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah” and its here that Matthew places his introduction. “At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Barabbas”.

All three, Matthew Luke and John, place Barabbas’s introduction when its needed – when he enters the story.

Mark, like Luke and John, has Barabbas enter the story only when the crowd call his name. However he places the introduction earlier, at the same point Matthew had it. 

The best explanation for this is that Mark is editing Matthew, removes the choice given by Pilate, but neglects to also move the introduction to the appropriate position. “Editorial fatigue” if you will.

Robert said

Well, scholars have been studying this question very intensely for over 200 years–why do you think it is that no one has ever advanced this argument before?

Continuing to repeat it does not make it any more sensible.  

If I was to guess I would say that those who have been defending Matthean priority have done so mostly for religious reasons and they arent too enamoured with arguments detailing errors on the part of the gospel authors.

I think the general arguments have been used elsewhere however (editorial fatigue).

What do you think of the argument? Do you think there’s any relevance to the differences in character introduction placements when deciding on priority of gospels?

Robert said

Yes, in this particular case. I’ve tried, but you seem so convinced by your own presuppositions that you can’t accept other (better) solutions. I will try again if you can agree to play by a few simple rules of historical criticism and text hermeneutics. First, let’s discuss the text of Mark without any presuppositions about why you think he’s a poor editor of Matthew. Let’s just discuss the text of Mark first without reference to Luke or John or any other text. Can you do that? Can you discuss one text at a time in a disciplined manner? 

Yes – good idea

You seem to think there’s a problem with Mark introducing the character of Barabbas early in the story, right? You also seem to think the statement that Pilate knew they handed over Jesus out of jealousy doesn’t make sense in Mark’s context. Is that also correct? Are there any other specific issues with Mark’s account that you think don’t make sense in his historical context?  

Yes for the first two questions.

I think there are some other things which don’t make sense historically but I don’t make arguments for priority based on historical accuracy. Later revisions could potentially clean up historical contradictions. I think Mark’s Herod wishing to protect John the Baptist isnt historically accurate whereas Matthew’s Herod wants him dead is (Matthew’s Herod didn’t want to be the one responsible for his death). However I don’t see that in itself being an argument for Matthean priority