Mark 7:27-28 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition 27 He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered him, “Sir,[a] even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs
“Let the children be fed first….”
“Even the dogs eat the children’s crumbs”
Her child has to wait, but why does she give a response which appears desparate? It is as if she didnt hear the words “wait for your turn”
Was the text originally:
“It is not fair to TAKE children’s food (holy) and THROW it to the dogs”
“Even the dogs eat the children’s crumbs”
You can overturn the overwhelming academic judgement of over 100 years, with a sufficiently good case. Where is that case? (And no, personal assumptions of natural expression and asserted motivations based on one’s own preferences probably do not a good case make.) And yes, it may be admitted that the case for Markian priority is not necessarily ideal or absolute.
What’s being said here is that if Mark wrote first then the ordering of their stories makes it “almost impossible to explain” Luke using Matthew.
Then add in Mark Goodacre’s belief that Luke and Matthew are so similar that they can’t possibly be independent of one another – 8:55 on the below
** you do not have permission to see this link **
and we should come to the conclusion that Mark is not in fact writing first.
Add in numerous internal observations of Mark’s editing Matthew – eg Jake’s above and others that I’ve posted on elsewhere. Add in the fact that Matthew has the more Jewish gospel, more concerned with matters of the law and teaching of the pharisees, making infinitely more historical sense if matthew is writing first. Add to this that any early author who bothered to give an opinion said Matthew wrote first, and you begin to see Markan priority for the embarrassing falseness that it is.
The mere opinions of early persons in the church are of little importance if there is no more credible argument behind them that it was the order in which they were collected in the NT.
The vast majority of scholars for more than the last 100 years, looking at all of the same details you note, and others, have arrived at a very different conclusion. All of the cases are admittedly somewhat equivocal, but I am inclined to side with the majority of modern scholars. I get the sense from your posts that you have a personal agenda in arguing for Mathew being first. I suspect that preference has clouded many of your judgements, rather than the other way around.
JAS said
but I am inclined to side with the majority of modern scholars.
well you shouldn’t. Because in this case the majority is incorrect.
You should ask yourself which of the following you disagree with.
Bart Ehrman’s statement that it is “almost impossible to explain” Luke’s actions if Mark wrote first and Luke knows Mark and Matthew, or
Mark Goodacre’s statement “Luke and Matthew are so similar that they can’t possibly be independent of one another”.
Because if you accept both of those statements you should conclude that Mark did not write first.
brenmcg said
Because in this case the majority is incorrect.
So you have asserted, repeatedly, but without really backing it up. I am not going to make a decision based on two statements culled from two scholars. In any case, Dr. Ehrman is on record as stating that he agrees with scholars who feel that Mark was written first. A side comment about Luke hardly seems relevant to that question. My more limited understanding of Goodacre’s view is that he also accepts Mark as having been written first, but dismisses the existence of the hypothetical document known as Q. How does any of this lead in the direction of your claims when neither scholar you cite agrees with you?
JAS said
How does any of this lead in the direction of your claims when neither scholar you cite agrees with you?
Mark has an ordering of stories in his gospel almost all of which are present in Matthew/Luke. And while Matthew and Luke will sometimes agree with Mark’s ordering and sometimes disagree with Mark, it can be observed that they never agree with each against Mark. It is one of the most important observations concerning the synoptic problem and allows for only two possibilities
1) Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke independently copied from Mark. Here Matthew/Luke will sometimes follow Mark and sometimes differ from him. But as they are writing independently they are unlikely to match each other whenever they both go away from the Markan order. (this is Bart Ehrman’s point, Luke knowing Matthew can’t account for this, they must be independent).
2) Matthew and Luke write first and Mark copies from both when writing his gospel. Here when Matthew and Luke agree with each other Mark will quite naturally follow them. When however they disagree Mark will have to decide which one to follow.
Both cases account for the observation that Matthew and Luke never agree against Mark.
However if we agree with Mark Goodacre that Matthew and Luke can’t possibly be independent we must discount option 1). We are left with option 2) Matthew/Luke writing first and Mark writing last.
JAS said
And yet Goodacre does not agree with you that Mathew was written first. How do you explain that the person you cite as a source and an authority does not support your fundamental contention?
I don’t cite him as a source or authority. I state two opinions, one from Bart Ehrman and one from Mark Goodacre, both of which I agree with. And further state that the conclusion of accepting both statements must therefore be that Mark did not write first.
And I ask which of the two opinions you disagree with? Bart Ehrman disagrees with Mark Goodacre’s opinion and vice versa.
Bart Ehrman disagrees with Mark Goodacre because he believes in a lost Q document, which Matthew and Luke both independently copied from.
Why Mark Goodacre does not agree with Bart Ehrman I don’t know. I can’t find an explanation.
You have formulated a false binary choice to ensure that your own magic preference will be selected. I reject the premise. You do cite Ehrman and Goodacre as sources for the two opinions you assert, and at least by implication as authorities in offering those opinions. They may or may not be accurate extracts, but they are not unattributed.
JAS said
You have formulated a false binary choice to ensure that your own magic preference will be selected. I reject the premise. You do cite Ehrman and Goodacre as sources for the two opinions you assert, and at least by implication as authorities in offering those opinions. They may or may not be accurate extracts, but they are not unattributed.
That’s not what citing as a source means. And I’m not asking you to accept either opinion based on authority.
There is no binary choice. I’m asking if you agree with either opinion, neither or both? And if you agree with both how do you avoid the conclusion that Mark did not write first?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)