Robert said
Both Bart and Mark Goodacre are absolutely convinced by the overwhelming evidence for Markan priority, as are the great majority of critical scholars for well over 100 years, longer if we allow for variations at the periphery. They each have additional alternative hypotheses for how best to explain the double tradition, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. To try and use and oppose their additional secondary hypotheses to undermine Marcan priority is ridiculous.
Its not, its far from ridiculous.
I’ve asked Bart before if he thinks those who argue that Luke knew Matthew should really be arguing for something like Griesbach rather than Markan priority and he said yes he thought so.
brenmcg said
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?
If you were not citing them as sources, and hoping to extract some credibility from their authority, there would have been no reason to mention either name. (I have published papers in peer reviewed journals. I think I know what citing a source is.) Do you know what a binary choice is? It is a choice between one of two position, exactly what you have proposed. You have asserted that the choices are A and B, then dismissed A, thus proposing B as the only possible answer. It is the very definition of a binary choice.
It is not necessary to have an opinion about everything. In these matters I am content to try to simply understand the argument.
If I had the wherewithal I would finance a public discussion between Ehrman and Goodacre. Resolved: Luke knew Matthew. Let them have a civil argument for a couple hours. Each makes a twenty minute opening statemen to sketch out their position. And the rest of the time is spent asking each other questions and having a conversation. This argument gets to the heart of how historical critical method is done as applied to the NT. It could be enormously entertaining and informative.
Both sides make excellent points. My own solution is completely speculative but it bears consideration. It has long been thought that Luke went through two or more editions. Perhaps that second edition was in fact a response to Matthew? The encounter with Matthew was the stimulus for the “updating” of Luke. That would explain why Chapter Three reads awfully lot like the original beginning to a gospel heavily dependent on Mark. Matthew had a Nativity story. Got to get me one too!
Stephen said
My own solution is completely speculative but it bears consideration. It has long been thought that Luke went through two or more editions. Perhaps that second edition was in fact a response to Matthew? The encounter with Matthew was the stimulus for the “updating” of Luke. That would explain why Chapter Three reads awfully lot like the original beginning to a gospel heavily dependent on Mark. Matthew had a Nativity story. Got to get me one too!
This doesn’t solve the problem of the ordering of stories – there would still be an editorial nightmare.
“Luke had both Matthew and Mark on his lap (they didn’t use desks back then) and whenever Matthew had a saying not in Mark (that I guess Luke would have to know by having memorized both of them?) he decided to change where *that* one was located in his account (but not the materials that *are* in Mark). That seems like an editorial nightmare to me, almost impossible to explain, and very difficult to imagine (in terms of how Luke actually pulled it off) (let alone why he woudl wnat to)”
Based on his blog post, Dr. Ehrman will presumably be dealing with such matters in his next proposed book. (Or is it the one after the next?) If he is going to explicitly cover the NT canon, the various gospel theories will need to be explored. (But no one should expect that he will offer the once and final answer that covers all questions for all time.)
As for binary choices, it is a trick that is almost always used to sell the unbelievable.
Someone says that he saw a mysterious flying object. It was very large (even though determining size against the background of the sky is extremely difficult if not impossible), and was not shaped like an airplane. It was not a cloud, he insists, or a weather balloon, or any other commonly known thing. Thus, he concludes, it must be an alien spaceship.
Someone else says that he saw a huge hairy creature in deep in the woods. It was standing on its back legs, and was very tall. He declares that it was not a bear, or a man in some sort of costume, nor is he mistaken about the thick hairy material. Thus, he insists, it must be a Bigfoot, and we simply have to believe him without further questioning or skepticism. (There is very likely a reason that all of the photographic evidence is consistently fuzzy and inconclusive. And that reason is not that Bigfoot is a supernatural being capable of thwarting photography.)
Someone else tells a story of being home when he clearly heard someone walking in the attic. There was no reason for anyone to be in the attic, and there is no access for animals like a racoon or squirrels, and no one else was home. Thus, it must be that the house is haunted.
All of these claims are quite commonly made, and none are the least bit persuasive except to those already inclined to believe them.
Robert said
For your argument to hold any weight, you would need to equalize primary and secondary hypotheses. Get Ehrman to say he prefers Griesbach to Farrer or Goodacre to say he prefers Griesbach to Q. Not going to happen.
If I wanted to make an argument from authority I might try to do that. But that’s not what I’m doing.
I take two premises and claim they naturally lead to belief that Mark did not write first.
A) If Mark is writing first it is almost impossible to explain Luke’s use of Matthew.
B) Luke and Matthew are so similar that they can’t possibly be independent of one another
I cite Ehrman and Goodacre only to show that each premise has at least some support among scholars and aren’t agenda driven. The two premises are independent of one another so there’s no reason think support for one necessitates a rejection of the other.
I’m just asking which if any of the premises you agree with, and if you agree with both how do you avoid the conclusion that Mark is not writing first?
brenmcg said
We start with Bart Ehrman’s reply to a question on Luke’s use of Matthew.I’ve dealt with the issue a number of times on the blog (look up Synoptic Problem). There are compelling reasons for thinking that Luke didn’t copy/edit Matthew. The most compelling takes a while to explain, but whenever Matthew and Luke have the sequence for their stories, they are the stories in Mark; when they have material NOT in Mark, their ordering is different. That suggests they had another source that did not have a narrative sequence — mainly a list of Jesus’ sayings — and put them into their narrative (taken from Mark) wherever each thought was appropriate. *Otherwise* it would have to mean that Luke had both Matthew and Mark on his lap (they didn’t use desks back then) and whenever Matthew had a saying not in Mark (that I guess Luke would have to know by having memorized both of them?) he decided to change where *that* one was located in his account (but not the materials that *are* in Mark). That seems like an editorial nightmare to me, almost impossible to explain, and very difficult to imagine (in terms of how Luke actually pulled it off) (let alone why he woudl wnat to)
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.
I hate disagreeing with BDE, but the argument that author of Luke could not have changed the order of Matthew is not a strong one.
Goodacre believes in Markan Priority (see The Case Against Q).
The best conclusion is that Matthew had Mark and Luke has Mark and Matthew.
cstu said
I hate disagreeing with BDE, but the argument that author of Luke could not have changed the order of Matthew is not a strong one.
Its a very strong one, an essential component of the synoptic problem. And he is correct when he says it is “almost impossible to explain” Luke’s actions if he has access to both Mark and Matthew.
The ordering of stories leaves only two possibilities;
1) Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke make independent use of Mark
2) Matthew/Luke write first and Mark makes use of both when writing his gospel
If someone believes Luke had access to Matthew they should be defending option 2.
brenmcg said
cstu said
I hate disagreeing with BDE, but the argument that author of Luke could not have changed the order of Matthew is not a strong one.
Its a very strong one, an essential component of the synoptic problem. And he is correct when he says it is “almost impossible to explain” Luke’s actions if he has access to both Mark and Matthew.
The ordering of stories leaves only two possibilities;
1) Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke make independent use of Mark
2) Matthew/Luke write first and Mark makes use of both when writing his gospel
If someone believes Luke had access to Matthew they should be defending option 2.
There’s another option:
3) Luke had a copy of Mark and Matthew but lacked a word processor so stories ended up in a different order.
cstu said
There’s another option:
3) Luke had a copy of Mark and Matthew but lacked a word processor so stories ended up in a different order.
Its not the fact that Luke has a different order that’s the problem. It’s the manner of this re-ordering.
Luke never agrees with Matthew against Mark. How to explain that if he has Matthew in front of him and copies from him is the issue? For some reason he must have decided that whenever he veers from Mark’s order he has purposely decided not to follow Matthew either. When Matthew follows Mark, Luke decides to make his own ordering. When he sees Matthew veer from Mark he decides now is time to go back to Mark’s order himself.
Luke has decided to manipulate his own text so that it look as though either a) he doesn’t have a copy of Matthew or b) Mark wrote last and was jumping between the Matthean ordering and Lukan ordering.
brenmcg said
cstu said
There’s another option:
3) Luke had a copy of Mark and Matthew but lacked a word processor so stories ended up in a different order.
Its not the fact that Luke has a different order that’s the problem. It’s the manner of this re-ordering.
Luke never agrees with Matthew against Mark. How to explain that if he has Matthew in front of him and copies from him is the issue? For some reason he must have decided that whenever he veers from Mark’s order he has purposely decided not to follow Matthew either. When Matthew follows Mark, Luke decides to make his own ordering. When he sees Matthew veer from Mark he decides now is time to go back to Mark’s order himself.
Luke has decided to manipulate his own text so that it look as though either a) he doesn’t have a copy of Matthew or b) Mark wrote last and was jumping between the Matthean ordering and Lukan ordering.
The author of Luke didn’t agree with Matthew’s views, but wanted to include the stories. If I were to take two biographies of say Abraham Lincoln to write mine, there’s nothing stopping me from using what I want to use and changing what I disagree with.
cstu said
The author of Luke didn’t agree with Matthew’s views, but wanted to include the stories. If I were to take two biographies of say Abraham Lincoln to write mine, there’s nothing stopping me from using what I want to use and changing what I disagree with.
Right but that’s not the issue.
If you had two biographies of Lincoln, A and B, and wrote your own one based on them, would you use your own ordering while B was following A, then at the point B veered off from A you would switch to following A, then kept watch until B moved back to following A’s ordering and choose that very point to veer off to your own ordering in your biography, and so on?
Or would that be ridiculous?
Because that’s what is happening if Luke is using Mark and Matthew. Luke follows Mark until he notices that Matthew starts following Mark. So Luke decides “I’m not following Mark anymore”. Then when he notices Matthew stops following Mark Luke says to himself “Ok now I’ll start following Mark again”.
Then when he notices Matthew stops following Mark Luke says to himself “Ok now I’ll start following Mark again”.
luke:
24 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in they did not find the body.[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
matthew:
28 After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he[** you do not have permission to see this link **] and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.”
in matthew the women witness the stone being rolled away.if luke knew matthew, he dropped matthew for mark:
2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” 4 When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.
brenmcg said
cstu said
The author of Luke didn’t agree with Matthew’s views, but wanted to include the stories. If I were to take two biographies of say Abraham Lincoln to write mine, there’s nothing stopping me from using what I want to use and changing what I disagree with.
Right but that’s not the issue.
If you had two biographies of Lincoln, A and B, and wrote your own one based on them, would you use your own ordering while B was following A, then at the point B veered off from A you would switch to following A, then kept watch until B moved back to following A’s ordering and choose that very point to veer off to your own ordering in your biography, and so on?
Or would that be ridiculous?
Because that’s what is happening if Luke is using Mark and Matthew. Luke follows Mark until he notices that Matthew starts following Mark. So Luke decides “I’m not following Mark anymore”. Then when he notices Matthew stops following Mark Luke says to himself “Ok now I’ll start following Mark again”.
Yes, I would depending on how I wanted to portray Lincoln.
She isn’t told to simply wait her turn in the sense that as soon as Jesus is done healing the Jews present, then he will accommodate the gentiles. There are no Jews waiting to be healed in Mark’s story. Rather Jesus is simply trying to pass through gentile territory on his way back to Galilee, not even wanting anyone to know that he is there. As far as we know, this Syrophoenician woman was the only one to know that Jesus was passing through and this was is her only chance before Jesus is gone, back in Jewish territory.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
(1) Mark first and Matthew/Luke *independently* use of Mark
(2) Matthew/Luke first and Mark uses both
then shouldn’t those who claim Luke knew Matthew really be arguing for something like Griesbach rather than Markan priority?
Without lost gospels isn’t the order of pericopes in the synoptics very damaging to the Farrer hypothesis?