Hngerhman said
If we’re having to go to Luke to show Matthew is prior to Luke, are we arguing for Farrer rather than Farmer?
a) The original claim is a verse in Mark which looks out of place and is best understood as an edit to Matthew.
b) The counterargument is that Matthew’s placing is itself out of place and the original version is Mark’s which is what Luke is following.
c) The counterargument to the counterargument is that Luke is actually editing Matthew here not Mark.
so (c) on its own might equally support Farrer as Farmer – but its point is to nullify the counterargument to (a).
so (a) together with (c) points to Matthean priority.
I have an extra-Matthew issue with the “failed mission to the Jews first, then shift to gentiles” interpretation. Paul in Romans seems to be (a) deep into the gentile mission (both in dedication and years) and yet (b) the mission to the Jews is not “failed” at that point in time. Perhaps surprisingly unsuccessful to date, but not failed. For Matthew to consider the launch of the gentile mission to post-date a failed Jewish mission is to miss the work of Paul and his cohorts, and according to Luke (and Paul), Peter’s work.
And even if it’s softened to an upon-a-stalled-mission-to-the-Jews interpretation, that still doesn’t work, for the same extra-Matthean reasons of timing. They were already out with gentiles early post resurrection, and the kings and governors mechanism is just not the launch point.
I’m trying to hold a hypothesis of Matthean priority aloft, Bren, and I’m continuing to find myself unable to do it. The strands double back upon themselves each time I attempt.
Acts 18:5-6 “When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with preaching, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.“
this is the idea of Matthew 10.
We’re not just looking for historical accuracy when deciding on priority we’re looking for internal coherency also. Matthew is making a point to Jews who won’t accept Jesus as Messiah (the kingdom of heaven was offered to you first) and to gentiles who do (Jesus’s ultimate plan always included you).
Robert said
You should at least acknowledge that you have now changed your argument here, exactly as I predicted. Do you need me to show you how?
The argument from the start is that Mark has a verse which appears out of place from its two surrounding verses and that this is best explained as an addition to the original version that Matthew has.
If you can show how that argument has changed then yes please.
Twice now you’ve referred to Luke’s ‘before all this’ to argue that Luke is not following Mark, but that is not the case. Luke is putting off the apocalyptic end further than Mark or Matthew, but his temporal note here is essentially keeping to Mark’s text, even ‘though it appears opposite to you. Do you need me to explain this too?
His temporal note is placing the next 4 verses earlier than the preceding 4, in contrast to Mark but matching Matthew’s version.
Given Matthew and Luke, it is doubly difficult to say why anyone would bother writing Mark.
I think it makes it easier to see why.
It may seem natural that christians accepted 4 contradicting gospels as “gospel” but Marcion and Tatian show that it was not.
If Matthew and Luke are both gaining in popularity it causes problems for christians such as which genealogy to accept.
Titus 3:9 “But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.“
If you handed the writer of Titus a copy of Matthew and Luke, it is very easy to see how he would produce something like Mark.
Robert said
The original claim a) is invalidated by the fact that it fails to understand Mark in context.
It understands the context is the end-times but that doesn’t mean the verse “but this gospel must first be preached to all nations and then the end will come” can be stuck into any point in the chapter without problems.
Can Mark write “You must be on your guard, but this gospel must first be preached to all nations and then the end will come, you will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues.”
Can he write “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. but this gospel must first be preached to all nations and then the end will come. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.”
b) is not really a counterargument to a), merely an observation that there is a bigger problem in Matthew’s context.
That still functions as a counterargument.
c) is not a counterargument at all, merely an unfounded assertion.
Its two references to differences in Luke’s text to Mark and two corresponding references to Matthew’s text.
Robert opined
Given Matthew and Luke, it is doubly difficult to say why anyone would bother writing Mark.
And what a genius Mark must have been to leave out all the material exclusive to Matthew and Luke and all reference to hypothetical ‘Q’ save some ambiguous passages that might indicate a common ancestor to both!
I accept Markan priority but the question I have is, why did Mark survive after being absorbed into Matthew and Luke? If we accept the Q hypothesis we would have an example of a document that was absorbed and did not survive. (And even if you don’t accept Q the material came from somewhere, a source or sources that did not survive independently.) Why didn’t Mark disappear?
I’ve always been persuaded that much of Mark’s weirdness can be accounted for by the view that the author was writing for the internal needs of a community and not as evangelism. Nevertheless the gospel must have had a constituency after it was produced. It was influential enough to be used by both Matthew and Luke. (And even if Luke knew Matthew he still would have had to also know Mark.) This supports the view that Mark must have been produced in a major urban setting in order to be so available. And what urban setting is more major than Rome itself? (But then Joel Marcus tends to disagree with Roman provenance so there you go.)
It seems pretty clear the early church didn’t really know what to do with Mark hence the view that it was a condensation of Matthew (but as Robert rightly asks what would be the point?). For way too long a time Mark was the proverbial “redheaded stepchild” of the gospels. Now many find it to be the most fascinating of all.
Robert said
I said your argument here (not from the start) would change, from your Post #49 (“it doesnt belong in a section about the end-times”), then when I showed you Matthew’s end-times doublet in 10,22 & 24,13 (But the one who endures to the end will be saved), you conceded that “in chapter ten the persecutions that begin when the apostles begin preaching will continue until the end-times” in your Post #90.
No. Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are about the signs of the endtimes. The beginning of the preaching to gentiles is not a sign of the endtimes, however the persecution begun then will continue to the endtimes. So, although an account of the beginning of preaching to the gentiles does not belong in a section about the signs of the end-times, it is fine to include in that section mention of enduring until the endtimes.
From Matthew’s point of view, at time of writing (whether its the 40s or 80s), rejection by many jews, preaching to gentiles and persecution of believers have all begun. So all belong in a section about Jesus’s apostolic instruction.
The end-times have not begun, however persecution is expected to continue until then, so discussion of persecution is acceptable in discussion of the sign-of the end-times.
Mark indicates that the signs in heaven will take place after the preaching. Luke’s temporal note indicates that the preaching will also take place before the signs in heaven. Do you not really see how that is the same? Of course Luke was far enough from the events from the Judean war that he also takes the wars and rumors of wars as part of the later eschatological wars and rumors of wars, which is why he changes Mark’s text to anticipate the signs in heaven before describing them in more detail later, parallel to where Mark had them.
Um no. Mark says “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines.” is the beginning of the birth pains. He then says “You will be handed over for trial … “
Luke agrees there will that nation will rise against nation and that there will be earthquakes and famines. But says the handing over for trial will occur before all that. (In agreement with Matthew).
Do you believe that the letter to Titus is early and authentic, not a later, deutero-Pauline forgery?
Marcion did not reject the bulk of Luke’s gospel and Tatian did not reject earlier gospels but combined them without deleting parts from the various gospels, hence these purported parallels do not make your point.
I haven’t read up on the arguments for/against Titus yet, i’d guess its deutero-pauline. However this isn’t relevant.
I’m claiming that the contradictions in Matthew and Luke would cause problems for christians, and christian thought was towards moving away from these controversies and arguments about the law. And in Titus 3:9 (whether its late first or early second century) I have evidence for this. With John as well, Mark being placed third fits the pattern of moving away controversies like Jesus’s genealogy.
The point of Marcion is he rejected the other gospels – ie he didn’t like the contradictions.
Tatian attempted to combine the 4 gospels into a single non-contradictory version – ie he didn’t like the contradictions.
Mark writing after Matthew and Luke can therefore be understood as – Mark not liking the contradictions.
Robert said
This seems to be nonsense. I never argued that Mk 13,10 could be inserted anywhere! Merely that it does indeed make sense in its actual context, which you have continually avoided.
Why is this nonsense
“You must be on your guard, and this gospel must first be preached to all nations and then the end will come, and you will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues.”
but this is acceptable?
“On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them and the gospel must first be preached to all nations and when you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say.”
Robert said
Matthew 10 gives the content of the apostles as ‘the kingdom of heaven has drawn near; it says that he who endures to the end will be saved; and it says that the apostles will not have gone through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. Yeah, that’s not about the end-times.
The son of man coming is a sign of the end-times but the beginning of preaching to the gentiles is not. The preaching has already begun, the signs of the end-times are yet to occur.
You are ignoring part of Luke’s text! See the bolded below:
Lk 21,11 … and there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven. 12 “But before all this occurs, they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons …
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you are blinded to the text of Luke and are not purposefully trying to make a deceptive argument.
Before all this occurs. He clearly means all the signs he has just listed, not just the signs from heaven. When Luke says “before all this” he means before the signs of the end-times.
It is relevant if you are using a later text to buttress your argument for your source theory. In addition, there’s no reason to assume that the author of the letter of Titus is thinking of Matthew and Luke’s genealogies. Tatian’s practice was not to delete sections or ignore whole gospels, but rather to try and combine all the sections of all the gospels in such a way that they would no longer be contradictory. Nor is there any indication whatsoever that Marcion rejected the genealogies of Matthew or Luke because they were contradictory. He pretty much rejected anything Jewish about Jesus or the God of the Jewish scriptures. You need an example of someone who rejected the gospels of Matthew and Luke in favor of the gospel of Mark. Pretty much the exact opposite is what happened. The gospels of both Matthew and Luke were favored and Mark was mostly ignored.
There’s an argument that it’s difficult to see why Mark would be written if we have Matthew and Luke.
Well it isnt difficult , Titus gives the answer. Someone like the author of Titus could easily be seen to write something like Mark. The double tradition might well be described as containing “foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law”.
…the point about the one who endures to the end being saved.
As someone raised on the idea of “once saved always saved” this comment always struck me. The claim by the sola fide heretics is that ultimately your actions don’t matter. But Jesus’ view seems to be that your salvation is conditional on right action. The sola fide heresy is based on an exclusive reading of the Pauline forgeries. But alas, the damage is done.
I miss a day in the conversation, and things got real…
Allow me to try to recap how I understand a portion of the overall discussion, what I’m affectionately calling Brenmcg’s argument from weirdness:
Bren: Mk 13:10 is oddly placed. It flows better in both Mt & Luke. Mark airlifted it from elsewhere in Mt to insert here. Matthean priority.
Me: Mk 13:10 does seems odd to me, but many things seem odd to my 21st century, American, biblical monoglot eye (Mk & NT & Bible generally).
Robert:
Main counterpoint
If you actually understand Markan style, it’s not as odd as it looks. Mark many times interjects with parenthetical asides, and can often be a bit inattentive as to its placement (not wildly inattentive, but a little). Markan priority withstands.
Additional point
Also, Matthew’s text in the parallel section can be seen as having an artifact (“and all the nations”) leftover from Mark 13:10 which is very oddly placed given the surrounding text (Jewish exclusivity) and suggestive of Markan priority.
Bren: No, that’s not Markan style [but I missed the argument for why]. And also no, that piece of Mt “and all the nations” isn’t oddly placed because this is Jesus talking about the launch of the gentile mission after the failure of the Jewish mission.
Robert & me: But there is a massive illogic to seeing it that way, because the great commission is the launch of the gentile mission. Which is later. And the hauling before kings & governors won’t occur until after the great commission, and also won’t be the launch of the gentile mission, because that is what the great commission is. Temporal/logical pretzel. Reading Mt this way is way weirder than the initial weirdness that led us down this path in the first place.
Me: And the wording of “and all the nations” here doesn’t match the audience size. And pegging the launch of the gentile mission to the failure of the Jewish mission doesn’t seem to fit the extra-Matthean history.
Bren: Matthew isn’t writing a history, he’s writing a theology. [I think, but am not sure, that the implication is supposed to be that theology doesn’t have to make temporal/logical sense. And my retort to that suggestion would be: if we’re relying on sense-making for Mark but leaving it aside for Matthew, I think we have might a methodological problem here.]
…
And then the conversation took a decidedly sharp turn towards Luke copying Matthew, which doesn’t bear on the Markan priority question except if taken through the entire lens of full Farmer, but in the myopic discussion we’re having, it also looks just like Farrer. And from there the conversation went to the end-times, and I’ve not had a chance to absorb all of that discussion yet.
I just wanted to recap to make sure I’m on the same page as you gents. If I’ve mangled each of your positions above, that’s my fault, not yours.
I will also say (per the first [bracketed] portion above) that I don’t think I’ve seen a reasoned rationale why this is NOT Markan style. Just that if one inserts parenthetical asides willy nilly into Mk, then the resultant text reads funny. OK, that’s an interesting result – but it’s an just argument in extremis (parody), not one that seems to go the heart of the style question.
Thanks for being nice to this slow thinker.
Robert said
For the two-source theory, this phrase is definitely part of Q:
Mt 10,30 ὑμῶν δὲ καὶ αἱ τρίχες τῆς κεφαλῆς πᾶσαι ἠριθμημέναι εἰσίν.
Lk 12,7 ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ τρίχες τῆς κεφαλῆς ὑμῶν πᾶσαι ἠρίθμηνται.
Q English: But even all the hairs of your (plural) head are/have been numbered
Note that the Luke’s primary use of this phrase is in Lk 12, not parallel to Mt 10, and he makes allusion back to it in Lk 21, also not parallel to Mt 10, but parallel to Mk 13. It is, of course, interesting that both Matthew and Luke include this Q-logion in the context of other Q-logia.
According to the two-source theory, Mark did not know of this Q logion. Matthew and Luke, who both knew Q, added it into different contexts.
According your source theory, Luke would have moved two sayings from their Matthean context and put them into a different Lukan context, and then made an additional allusion to this saying in Lk 21. And Mark seeing this phrase three times in both of his sources chose to exclude them, along with other Q-logia with word-for-word agreement. Can you explain why?
Luke 12 is a collection of sayings placed out-of-context. He begins with “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” taken from the great omission before going into the collection of sayings taken mostly from Matthew 10 with one from Matthew’s “Jesus & Beelzebul” pericope, chapter12.
The lesson is Luke’s source contains two accounts of persecution of the apostles, one during the Olivet discourse and one much earlier. That is, his source looks just like Matthew.
According to my source theory, Luke has a problem with “only go to lost sheep of Israel” line and foreshortens Matthew’s apostolic instruction account. He likes a lot of the sayings from this account however and moves them to a context free position a couple of chapters later.
Mark mostly follows Matthew, but takes account of Luke’s position on controversial statements. Like Luke he has problem with “only go to lost sheep of Israel” and foreshortens the apostolic instruction narrative. However unlike Luke he decides against replacing many of its sayings into a context free chapter.
You will perhaps seize upon an immediate opportunity to say that Mark was suspicious of the fact that Luke used this saying in different contexts, thus avoiding it as an example of what the author of the forged deutero-Pauline letter to Titus would call avoid it as one of many foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, which are unprofitable and useless.
But, aside from being ridiculous, this explanation would also fly in the face of the many examples (including in this very context) where Mark, according to your theory, chooses to follow either Matthew or Luke, where they both differ. Do you see now that you should consider all of the examples together and not pick single, isolated examples, finding unique and ever more strained explanations?
I don’t think Mark is deciding what topics are controversial based solely on whether Matthew and Luke agree with each other. He has his own life experiences and own interaction with fellow christians. He may find passages where Matthew and Luke disagree but find them to be non-controversial and cause no arguments in his community.
I don’t think we can understand every last markan edit based on Titus 3:9 – but I think it helps understand how we end up with a gospel like Mark’s after we first have Matthew/Luke.
Thanks Hungerhman, its a good summary.
The point about theology over history is Matthew wanting to make Jesus perfect. From Matthew’s understanding the gospel was first preached to fellow Jews, was mostly rejected, and then was begun to be accepted by gentiles. Matthew wants Jesus to have predicted all this, that the apostles were following Jesus’s instructions and that the ultimate goal is discipleship of all nations.
That may not be historically accurate but it is theologically coherent, and coherency is what we’re looking for in priority.
The point about Mark’s style is that even if you could show that it was Mark’s style to insert verses between two verses which naturally read better when uninterrupted, that wouldn’t help with priority. Inserting verses where they don’t belong is a secondary activity, altering an original version.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)