Robert said
Do you see how this contradicts and enriches your overly simplistic view of Matthew’s perspective? Matthw’s composite text is much better understood as combining and synthesizing potentially conflicting views into a broader synthesis.   

I’m not saying Matthew says don’t preach to the gentiles, I’m saying the line “only go to the lost sheep of Israel” causes problems for Mark and Luke. They both insert lines saying the disciples return from this mission to tell Jesus how they got on. ie they aren’t final marching orders.

In Matthew’s account they are only to go to towns in Israel. They will however get flogged and dragged to court in front of kings and it is by this method the gospel will first be preached to gentiles. That this is the method of evangelizing to the gentiles suggests the account is early.

Mark moves this account to the end-times narrative and seeing “gentiles” in Matthew’s decides that would be good place to stick in Matthew’s other phrase “and this gospel must first be preached to all gentiles.

It’s always possible when assuming Markan priority to come up with some explanation of why Matthew is different. But there’s nothing incorrect or obviously secondary about Matthew’s account. 

In fact “only go to the lost sheep of Israel” suggests its early and Mark 13:10 placement suggests its secondary.

Hngerhman said

So, I’m above my pay grade here, but why let that stop me? Ha. 

There’s now a competing “weirdness” that I was previously not fully grasping. It’s flashing neon, and I missed it before.

 

As you and I have discussed, the line in Mark appears, to my untrained eye, like a non sequitur. And Matthew’s parallel section seemed to me to read more normally. But that was because my eye passed over the “all the nations” in English without (a) recalling that this is “Gentiles”, not “everyone” and (b) fully capturing just how oddly placed it is in Matthew, given it sits within the full throated Jewish exclusivity section. Point (a) means that it is also a non sequitur in Matthew, and point (b) amplifies the issue, because it’s not just non sequitur, in its Matthean textual context it’s also antithesis.

 

In that light it seems to me much harder to account for Matthew’s version being original, given the blatant antithesis. It feels much more like a(n) relative/analogue of editorial fatigue from Matthew using Mark. 

 

And, if I’m not mistaken, it strikes me that the fact that it’s not in Luke’s parallel textual chunk here cuts against Matthew being his source. It’s much cleaner to me, intuitively, that (i) Mark had it, Matthew smoothed it (but retained the artifact) and Luke cut it entirely [no antithesis, redactors same direction], rather than (ii) Matthew had it and then Mark and Luke diverged, with Mark amplifying it but Luke cutting it out [antithesis, redactors going opposite directions].

 

Note: I’m actively working to put my Markan priority bias aside, and trying hard to take it stripped down to the constituent pieces, to ride alongside your reasoning. I am getting your points, at least I think. While I can kinda get it off the ground in fits and starts, I just can’t keep Matthean priority aloft in my mind here yet.
  

Yes sensible analysis, but the context in Matthew is not Jewish exclusivity. The context is that the message is first proclaimed to the lost sheep of Israel, but this will result in the disciples being flogged in the synagogues and brought before governors and kings.

Governors and kings necessarily means gentiles. They are handed over by the synagogues to the rulers of the gentiles and this is the method of evangelism to the gentiles. 

This is in keeping with Matthew’s theme in the Wedding Banquet, Matthew 22:2-3 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.“

Luke leaves out the “flogging” in the synagogues – he doesn’t reflect this rejection by the Jews and change of evangelism to the gentiles. They both get preached to equally.

How about Matthew reflecting the earliest persecution of the church by Saul and the disciples being driven from Jerusalem, Luke reflecting the later preaching in the synagogues to both Jews and gentiles in the cities around the empire and Mark being an incoherent mix of Matthew and Luke?

Robert said

But, unfortunately for you, Matthew’s Jesus does say that!

The idea is that the message must first be rejected in the synagogues, only then will it be offered to the gentiles.

And, again, Luke’s placement is NOT the same as Matthew’s. When the disciples return to Jesus to report about their initial mission (Lk 9,10), that is still prior to his version of his earliest use of this doublet in his Chapter 12.

But this isn’t relevant to Markan/Matthean priority – he’s following neither when placing it in chapter 12.

It is indeed possible that Matthew is thinking of this as a way to resolve the contradiction in his sources or factions. If you have so easily discerned Matthew’s true purpose, I would think Mark and Luke would have been able to do so as well and thus need not have deleted the early Jewish exclusivism.

But Mark and Luke may never have held to the notion of Jewish exclusivism. Matthew may have held to it until he saw it rejected and then himself opened up to gentile inclusion. For Mark and Luke the church may always have been for both Jews and gentiles.

Robert said

Luke did not think that kings were necessarily gentile with respect to persecution of the early Christians. And, while perhaps he leaves out the word “flogging,” it’s not like Luke thought they got served tea and crumpets in prison?

4,28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with rage. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff.

12,11 When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities …

21,12 But before all this occurs, they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name.

Acts 12,1 About that time King Herod laid violent hands upon some who belonged to the church.

25,24 And Festus said, “King Agrippa and all here present with us, you see this man about whom the whole Jewish community petitioned me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer.

You’ve yet to give a good explanation for why Luke would delete parts of Matthew’s account of Jesus’ instructions to the apostles. Nor have you explained the doublets in Luke. And Mark is not at all incoherent to those who are willing to put in the work necessary to understand an ancient author. What is inadroit (that really ought to be a word!) in Mk 13,10 is also a common ‘stylistic’ trait of his less than stellar Greek.  

The fact that kings and governors is plural means its including gentiles. So Matthew’s context is not about Jewish exclusivity. Its about rejection by the synagogues and handing over to gentiles.

In Luke the Jewish and gentile leaders punish equally, and Jews and gentiles are invited equally into the church.

Matthew reflects the earliest attitudes of the church.

I can’t explain every edit decided upon by Luke – his great omission is inexplicable regardless of whether his source is Mark or Matthew. 

His first use of the doublet in chapter 12 is combined with another de-contextualized verse

“And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

Maybe he thought the double reference to the Holy Spirit made them belong with each other. Who knows? It doesn’t help with priority.

Mark 13:10 is not bad greek or bad grammar. It can’t be explained away by a Markan sytle. The point is the “you will be brought to trial, but don’t think about what to say” is a single unitary concept. It’s conceived as a unit. And “this gospel must first be preached to all nations” is a secondary insertion. 

Robert said

The great commission, the climactic ending of Matthew’s gospel certainly does not. You will make up anything to argue for Matthean priority.

Matthew is writing at a time when the church is preaching to gentiles, but with a memory of a time when it only preached to Jews.

Or, as I said above, combining doublets found in Mark and Q. But why do both Luke and Matthew have differing doublets? Recall I asked you that question above, one of many you avoid.

I’m not avoiding it, I dont have a good explanation of it. There’s lots of edits by Luke that don’t have good explanations.

Perhaps, but this is also easily explained as a doublet in Mark’s tradition and in Q. If Mark inserted his explanatory note into an earlier text or tradition, that does not prove he received this earlier version from Matthew. 

Right – I’m not trying to prove Matthew is first I’m trying to show Mark shows signs of editing his source, and what’s being edited in this instance looks just like Matthew’s version.

But you do not believe Matthew was dependent upon Luke-Acts! So explain it to me using the text of Matthew if you have any hope of explaining this from Matthew’s perspective.

I’m not sure what you’re asking? You asked “Explain to me how Matthew may have held to Jewish exclusivism for a while and then later rejected it.”

Are you asking how a historical Matthew may have at first held to Jewish exclusivism but then rejected it?