Steefen
Q has not be found. You cannot produce it because it has not been found. End of discussion.
When I asked you to produce Q and you replied,
you failed to admit, then and there, you, as well as Bart Ehrman, know that cannot be done, but I can produce the results of the International Q Project, The Critical Edition of Q, edited by Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg, and James M. Robinsonin and published in 2000 in the Hermeneia commentary series. This discussion has nothing to do with archaeology because Q has not been found.
You say and I replied:
Matthew followed Q, Chapter 12, verses 11-12
but did not follow ** you do not have permission to see this link ** at Matthew Chapter 10, verses 17-22
even though ** you do not have permission to see this link ** includes “you will be handed over to the local councils” and Matthew 10, verse 17 includes “you will be handed over to the local councils.”
“You will be handed over to the local councils” appears in Mark and Matthew. Matthew cannot be following Q because, by definition, it cannot be in the Gospel of Mark.
= = =
You do not have the primary source and everyone knows it and everyone knows your assertion that it can be produced is false. Project Q or whoever put it together AND pulled Markan text into a non-Markan text.
= = =
Nonsense, false pretenses, trying to elevate Project Q into a discussion about Mark, Matthew, and non-Marcan Q. Reprehensible. And then, trying to baffle people by not “producing” Q in English to show or maybe not to show the verses in Mark are in Project Q or some other book as overlap.
Discussions start with acceptance of definitions. You violated that with your false pretenses.
Mark 13:10 “And the gospel must first be preached to all nations”
How might it have gotten there, in the gospel of Mark?
How might it have gotten in the gospel of Matthew, separated from the surrounding verses about what would be experienced personally?
It may have gotten into Matthew:
Option 1: Matthew corrected Mark by removing ** you do not have permission to see this link **, not interrupting the flow of what the disciples would personally experience, placing it elsewhere in his gospel. Matthew got the verse from Mark.
It may have gotten into Mark:
Option 2: Mark or somebody else inserted the verse (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
The current version of Mark got the verse from Matthew.
It may have gotten into Matthew:
Option 3: Matthew, independent of Mark has its own verses and sequence of verses.
The verse was not originally in Mark. Matthew could not then get the verse from Mark.
Matthew did not get the verse from Q because the verse is not in Luke.
I am leaning towards Options 2 and 3.
brenmcg,
Thank you for the thread. The input from Robert was very unsatisfactory, but your original post was good.
Stephen said
I would like to ask a question of the folks who accept Matthean priority over Mark. How do you explain the gospel of mark’s existence and purpose?
Matthew’s gospel, as the most Jewish gospel, most concerned with criticism of Jewish religious leadership, most concerned with Jesus being the fulfillment of jewish messianic prophesies, was the first to be written and written to a majority Jewish church.
Luke was written second – adding in some traditions left out of Matthew and making some edits of Matthew’s material to harmonize more closely with new christian sensibilities.
The existence of two popular but contradictory gospels cause arguments and difficulties within the church.
1 Tim 1:3-4 “stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.”
Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.”
Mark is an attempt to write a gospel which avoids these controversies. Purifying the gospel into its essential elements. For Mark , for Jesus to be the messiah is just to be the son of god. Hi is Lord, dies for the sins for the world and rises again. That’s all that really matters.
This attempt itself led to criticism and complaints of what was left out and led to Papias’s remark “as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.
These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.” -Eusebius church history
Mark is an attempt to write a gospel which avoids these controversies. Purifying the gospel into its essential elements.
But Mark has an agenda as distinctive as Matthew or Luke. If Mark was an attempt to distill and purify it is a massive failure. And Mark’s “purification” just happened to have consisted of leaving out all of Matthew’s and Luke’s special sources and all of the “Q” material and any Resurrection appearances, only to leave a portion of material he copied verbatim while only adding dozens of incidental details? Really?
This attempt itself led to criticism and complaints of what was left out and led to Papias’s remark “as I said followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.
These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.” -Eusebius church history
But don’t you see how Matthean priority completely demolishes Papias’ testimony? For Mark to have been Petrine would require it to be very early but we can tell from internal evidence that both Matthew and Luke post-date the First Revolt (and if Luke knew Josephus as some scholars think perhaps much later). You would have to date Mark late 1st century at best. And if Mark was careful “not to omit any of the things which he had heard
well that didn’t work out very well now did it? Peter didn’t know about the Jesus sayings? Or Resurrection appearances?
In actuality Papias is unreliable. It’s not clear he’s even talking about our Mark. I would say that Mark is simply incoherent considered as a later gospel. It only makes sense as the first, then being adapted by Matthew and Luke.
Stephen said
Mark is an attempt to write a gospel which avoids these controversies. Purifying the gospel into its essential elements.But Mark has an agenda as distinctive as Matthew or Luke. If Mark was an attempt to distill and purify it is a massive failure. And Mark’s “purification” just happened to have consisted of leaving out all of Matthew’s and Luke’s special sources and all of the “Q” material and any Resurrection appearances, only to leave a portion of material he copied verbatim while only adding dozens of incidental details? Really?
There’s almost nothing in Mark that’s not in Matthew – there’s nothing distinctive to Mark that can’t be found in Matthew. His gospel can be understand as a paring back of Matthew – take away everything from Matthew you think is only of concern to Jewish christians and not to gentile christians and you’ll get something close to Mark.
Matthew and Luke’s special sources and “Q” material are defined on the assumption of Markan priority. “Q” material is that which is in Matthew and Luke but not Mark, special Matthew is that which is in Matthew but not Luke or Mark etc. Mark can therefore leave out whatever he wants and we’ll still always end up with something called “Q” or special Matthew or special Luke. There’s nothing coincidental about it.
Matthew has the resurrection appearances in Galilee, Luke has them in Jerusalem. Not difficult to believe this caused controversy.
Mark’s adding of dozens of incidental details are by definition non-controversial.
But don’t you see how Matthean priority completely demolishes Papias’ testimony? For Mark to have been Petrine would require it to be very early but we can tell from internal evidence that both Matthew and Luke post-date the First Revolt (and if Luke knew Josephus as some scholars think perhaps much later). You would have to date Mark late 1st century at best. And if Mark was careful “
not to omit any of the things which he had heardwell that didn’t work out very well now did it? Peter didn’t know about the Jesus sayings? Or Resurrection appearances?In actuality Papias is unreliable. It’s not clear he’s even talking about our Mark. I would say that Mark is simply incoherent considered as a later gospel. It only makes sense as the first, then being adapted by Matthew and Luke.
Papias’ account need not be 100% accurate. It just have to give a flavor of the attitude to Mark’s gospel at the time. Papias felt the need to defend it, and would only have felt that need if the gospel was being criticized. But if Mark was first, no-one would criticize him for leaving out material he had never heard. Only if he read Matthew and Luke would he be criticized for leaving out such large amounts of them.
People can certainly speculate from internal evidence that Matthew and Luke were post the first revolt but there’s nothing that forces one to that conclusion. Same for Luke knowing Josephus. Far better reasons to believe Paul knew the gospel of Matthew than Luke knowing Josephus.
brenmcg
If Mark is writing first, we have two first century Greek speaking Christians, Matthew and Luke, who removed 13:10 from the position Mark placed it. Because it doesn’t belong there.
Steefen
But you say Mark is not writing first.
Matthean chronological priority means Matthew and Luke are not correcting Mark or Matthew is not correcting Mark.
The verse Mark 13:10, the odd verse in, clumsily placed, is Mark agreeing with what first appeared in Matthew that the good news of a military victory needs to be preached throughout the Roman Empire and to at least one nation, Osrhoene outside of the Roman Empire that helped the rebels.
#1 Mark comes first without the interruption. Matthew and Luke comes without the important odd verse in. Mark adds in the important verse at an odd place.
#2 Matthew and Luke come first. Matthew realizes the importance of evangelizing.
Stop: Google bible hub evangelizing in the Gospel
Look at this: 2097. euaggelizo, Strong’s Concordance; Englishman’s Concordance
** you do not have permission to see this link **
When one Ctrl-F for Mark, there are zero results. “To announce good news” appears in Matthew, Luke, and Acts
Robert said
You think Mark had such a clear purpose and intent and yet you also think he was so incompetent and unaware of the changes he was making:
Mark made many minor edits which mostly were caused no problems but occasionally would lead to error and be a tell-tale sign of a secondary author.
With assumptions like these, it is not surprising you have difficulties. Do you ever question your assumptions? Do you ever wonder why so very many scholars with so much more training and experience in studying ancient texts and languages come to completely different conclusions, not just individually but in centuries long communal scholarship producing an almost unanimous consensus of critical scholarship, with but a few dissenters who resist the weight of scholarly conclusions in favor of now even abandoned doctrinal positions?
Yes I do wonder why. I think its something along the line of Mark Goodacre’s introduction to his editorial fatigue argument for Markan priority –
“Many believe in the priority of Mark but few are able to give a good reason for it. Arguments that were once thought to be decisive, like appeals to Mark’s rough Greek or the ordering of triple tradition material, are now seen to be unconvincing and reversible. For most, this is not a problem: the Marcan priority theory has been honoured by time; it provides a sound basis for convincing redaction-critical readings of Matthew and Luke and, most importantly, the alternatives seem unattractive and implausible“
While godspell simply diagnosed you with monomania, I’m more curious how you actually came to hold so tenaciously such a backward idea. Did someone drop you on your head as an infant? Did you have a beloved teacher in high school or professor in college that was defiant and doctrinaire but in some way delighted you with his facile dismissal of the hard work of scholarship? Tell us, please, a little bit about the personal aspects of your long journey into the anti-intellectual abyss of Matthean priority.
No never learnt anything in school or college about it. I was always vaguely familiar with Markan priority but only recently became interested in reading up on it. I found the arguments for it to be not particularly convincing and Farmer’s arguments for Matthean priority to be just as good.
Upon reading and comparing the gospels, using an interlinear, I came to the conclusion that there wasn’t a snowball’s chance of Mark being the original author.
Steefen said
The verse Mark 13:10, the odd verse in, clumsily placed, is Mark agreeing with what first appeared in Matthew that the good news of a military victory needs to be preached throughout the Roman Empire and to at least one nation, Osrhoene outside of the Roman Empire that helped the rebels.
No he’s agreeing with Matthew that the good news of Isaiah 40:9-10
“behold your god, the Lord comes with power, and he rules with a mighty arm. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him. He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart”
which is preached to Jerusalem is also to be preached to the whole world.
Edited version
brenmcg
If Mark is writing first, we have two first century Greek speaking Christians, Matthew and Luke, who removed 13:10 from the position Mark placed it. Because it doesn’t belong there.
Steefen
But you say Mark is not writing first.
Matthean chronological priority means Matthew and Luke are not correcting Mark or Matthew is not correcting Mark.
The verse Mark 13:10, the odd verse in, clumsily placed, is Mark agreeing with what first appeared in Matthew that the good news of a military victory needs to be preached throughout the Roman Empire and to at least one nation, Osrhoene outside of the Roman Empire that helped the rebels.
#1 Mark comes first without the interruption. Matthew and Luke come without the important odd verse in, but Matthew realizes the importance of evangelizing not only in Judah and Israel but throughout the diaspora. Afterwards, Mark adds in the important verse at an odd place.
#2 Matthew and Luke come first. Matthew realizes the importance of evangelizing to the nations and writes chapter 24, verse 14. Mark follows, without all of Matthew 24:9-14, just Matthew 24:14. The 13th verse is a personal experience which probably could have been included in the personal experience verses surrounding Mark 13:10.
Steefen
Mark 13:10 the gospel must be preached to all nations before the end of the world and before u being arrested, testifying, judged, flogged.
[So, before Jesus’ apocalypse 37 to 40 years later, get the word out.]
Is the same thing happening in the better narrative of Matthew?
Matthew 24 has its
Signs of the End of the Age section followed by
the Witnessing to All Nations section followed by
The Abomination of Desolation section.
But we only have to look at verse 14: this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations and then the end will come.
The gospel does not prevent the End of the World.
Life goes on despite the preaching of the gospel to all nations and the End of the World.
or better
Life goes on despite the End of the World AD70 and the gospel is written after the “End of the World” so it cannot be preached to all nations before the end will come.
This is a bunch of nonsense, even when not inserted, disrupting the narrative of personal experience in the gospel of Mark. Truly (verily, verily, Amen), I have better things to do than to discuss this.
Jesus must first save himself. Jesus must next save his country from rebelling against Rome in part resulting in the destruction of his Father’s house. Jesus must next write a gospel to save his country from two more wars with Rome. He did not, and while he got right an end (not the end) for Jerusalem, he did not get right an end for all other cities at the same apocalyptic event.
And no, this is not a reference to the end of the Age of Aries, because that does not come until 221 C.E. by Western Sidereal Astrology calculations.
Robert said
Goodacre’s arguments for editorial fatigue are every bit as reversible as the others. Where the skill comes in is in recognizing good arguments as opposed to really, really poor arguments. This is where you would be aided by learning Greek and being able to actually understand the weight, breadth, and necessary subtlety of the arguments.
Don’t avoid what I bolded in your quote from Goodacre above. This is now the third time I’m asking you in this thread alone whether or not you’ve read any really good, scholarly commentaries on Matthew and Luke? The obvious secondary character of Matthew and Luke in so many places and the cumulative weight of these against the forced and implausible arguments put forward in favor of Matthean priority. Why do you keep avoiding this enormous amount of scholarship from the last hundred years?
No I haven’t read any good scholarly commentaries on Matthew and Luke.
Can you give a single example from Matthew which shows the obvious secondary nature of his gospel?
There’s almost nothing in Mark that’s not in Matthew – there’s nothing distinctive to Mark that can’t be found in Matthew. His gospel can be understand as a paring back of Matthew – take away everything from Matthew you think is only of concern to Jewish christians and not to gentile christians and you’ll get something close to Mark.
But Mark’s major theme is a redefinition of the nature of the Jewish messiah. Certainly of concern to Jewish Christians.
Matthew and Luke’s special sources and “Q” material are defined on the assumption of Markan priority. “Q” material is that which is in Matthew and Luke but not Mark, special Matthew is that which is in Matthew but not Luke or Mark etc. Mark can therefore leave out whatever he wants and we’ll still always end up with something called “Q” or special Matthew or special Luke. There’s nothing coincidental about it.
But without knowing Luke nothing odd about leaving out precisely the material that Matthew and Luke have in common?
Matthew has the resurrection appearances in Galilee, Luke has them in Jerusalem. Not difficult to believe this caused controversy.
Only to those who knew both Matthew and Luke. But Mark didn’t know Luke, right? Anyway Mark forecasts appearances in Galilee and includes no such appearances itself. The ending of Mark has been controversial ever since.
Mark’s adding of dozens of incidental details are by definition non-controversial.
Except of course it mitigates against the idea that Mark was “paring down”.
Papias’ account need not be 100% accurate. It just have to give a flavor of the attitude to Mark’s gospel at the time. Papias felt the need to defend it, and would only have felt that need if the gospel was being criticized. But if Mark was first, no-one would criticize him for leaving out material he had never heard. Only if he read Matthew and Luke would he be criticized for leaving out such large amounts of them.
But Papias is not responding to claims Mark left stuff out but for being disorganized. In fact Papias claims that Mark made his gospel as complete as he could make it. Seeing as how the gospel we have is anything but disorganized it’s not at all clear Papias is even talking about our Mark.
People can certainly speculate from internal evidence that Matthew and Luke were post the first revolt but there’s nothing that forces one to that conclusion. Same for Luke knowing Josephus. Far better reasons to believe Paul knew the gospel of Matthew than Luke knowing Josephus.
So how early are you dating the gospels?
Robert said
Mark: Καὶ πάλιν ἤρξατο διδάσκειν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν· καὶ συνάγεται πρὸς αὐτὸν ὄχλος πλεῖστος, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς πλοῖον ἐμβάντα καθῆσθαι ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἦσαν.Matthew: καὶ συνήχθησαν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὄχλοι πολλοί, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς πλοῖον ἐμβάντα καθῆσθαι, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλὸν εἱστήκει.
This is one of my favorite little examples that can only be seen in the Greek. Mark’s grammar is not incorrect, but his wordiness and word order is careless. Matthew is much more concise, specifically editing Mark to avoid the humorous implication that Jesus literally sat in the sea rather than in the boat. This can only be seen by reading the Greek since translators, like Matthew, always try to produce a more smooth and sensible reading, generally avoiding ambiguity or such inartful expressions. On the other hand, Mark would have had no reason to introduce any such unnecesary detail, let alone such a misplaced detail, when Matthew had already set the scene concisely with more exact words.
But if Mark is writing first the explanation for his wordiness and careless word order is that that is Mark’s style.
And if Mark is writing second the explanation for him occasionally showing wordiness and careless word order is that here he has deviated from Matthew and is using his own style.
If Mark is writing second, and his style is wordiness and careless word ordering, then any time he deviates from Matthew you will come to the wrong conclusion that you’re seeing evidence for Markan priority.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)