Robert said
You’re misremembering your original post: “Verse 13:10 breaks the flow of text, is misplaced (what in context is the preaching to all nations supposed to be prior to?)” I showed you exactly what in the immediately preceding context the preaching to all the nations was supposed to be prior to by reading 13,7b-8 immediately prior to 13,9-10.
What you’re criticizing here is how unambiguously or not the original argument was stated.
There is no need to show exactly what the preaching is supposed to be prior to, because it’s perfectly obvious it is supposed to be prior to the end-times.
The argument is, what, in the context of being arrested and taken before kings and governors, is the preaching to all nations supposed to be prior to?
The answer is, nothing in the context of being taken before kings and governors. It is prior to the end-times. Therefore placing the verse between 13:9 and 13:11 is misplacing the verse.
A nonsense question. That’s where it is placed, regardless of whether or not you think it is correctly or incorrectly placed there. You are not the writer, not even an editor; you are the reader. You can either read it and understand what it obviously means in context or not understand and think it must be incorrect.
No. We know that within the synoptic tradition somebody is editing someone else. Verses are being moved around. We are entitled to ask if verses in secondary works are correctly placed.
If Mark takes Matthew 24:14 and places it after Mark 1:29, he has misplaced it. If he places it between Mark 13:9 and Mark 13:11 he has misplaced it.
Robert said
Majority in no way necessitates originality!
Correct. But nobody is claiming it does.
It points towards originality. Its not irrelevant information. The three versions of the verse suggest Mark is editing – although of course that might not actually be the case.
Robert said
According to your outdated and by critical scholars nearly universally rejected source theory, Mark deletes huge quantities of both Matthew and Luke.
Yes this is the strongest evidence for Markan priority. Mark deletes huge quantities of Matthew and Luke. Unlikely in a secondary work. It requires an explanation.
Who was it that said …? Oh, wait, now I remember:
brenmcg said
Looking for the harder reading is just one tool in deciding priority.
Yes just one tool. Just one pointer. In the case of Mark 14:7 we have three pointers pointing away from it being the original.
Robert said
Actually, you don’t. You’ve already said that you cannot explain Luke’s creation of his doublets; you merely claim he places it somewhere else, out of context. And you have not even considered how the two source theory readily provides an original source from which Matthew and Luke drew upon. If you would study Q, you would see this. Consider how Matthew and Luke both retain the Q context of several of Mt 10 statements together, one after another:
Of course the two source theory readily provides an original source for Matthew and Luke, because Q is defined to be just such a source.
Q is reconstructed on the assumption of Markan priority and the Matthew and Luke agreements outside of Mark come from Q.
Necessarily starting with Q produces explanations for Matthew and Luke material because that’s how it was constructed.
What needs to be shown in is that Q is a more probably explanation than Matthean priority. But in any particular circumstance the only way to do that is to show there’s something wrong with the Matthean priority explanation (Q will necessarily be a correct source, it’s reconstructed that way).
In this instance the only thing that can be said to be wrong with Matthew as the source is the lack of an explanation for Luke moving some verses a few chapters later. But this is just holding Matthean priority to a higher standard than Markan. Luke’s edits will often have no explanation, regardless of who his source is said to be.
No explanation can be given for Luke’s great omission, other than some completely ad-hoc rationale.
Robert said
What I’m criticizing now is your trying to your trying to build an argument about Mk 13,9-11 out of context. You can pretend that you knew all along that it’s perfectly obvious that the preaching of the gospel is supposed to be prior to the end, but you are the one who asked the question: “what in context is the preaching to all nations supposed to be prior to?”
I think you just misunderstood the original argument (perhaps my fault). It was always about 13:10 being sandwiched between 13:9 and 13:11.
Hngerhman, although he did not agree, did understand what the original argument was.
“From the vantage point of this non-scholar, it certainly looks oddly placed.”
“I agree that the Mk position feels oddly placed, where it does not feel as much so in Mt/Lk”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
You can ask an original author if he likes or agrees with how an editor or second author adapts his work, but if you want to be an intelligent reader, you should try and understand the adapted work on it’s own terms. You didn’t. Now you say you always did. Saying Matthew incorrectly edited Mark to create his gospel or that Luke incorrectly edited Mark to create his gospel totally insensitive to the works they were creating. Learn to read each of the gospels first before trying to create silly arguments to support Matthean priority. But you will never succeed in understanding the gospel of Mark until you give up on your crazy idea that he was a plagiarist who made nonsensical changes that he did not even understand just because nobody likes being a copyist. You’ve assumed that the author of the gospel of Mark is stupid because you thinks this supports Matthean priority. It’s a nonsense approach.
How would you characterize “Editorial Fatigue” other than an editor incorrectly editing his source? Must we say this is an illegitimate way to look for priority? Must we try to learn to be sensitive to the works each writer is creating?
–
I’m not assuming the author is stupid, I’m assuming he’s not a genius incapable of making errors.
13:10 is an error.
“The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat” is an error.
“Surely this was the son of god” is an error.
“When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind” is an error.
“With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more” is an error
“Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out.” is an error.
brenmcg said
I would say the strongest evidence in general is the observation that given Mark it’s easy to say why someone would write Matthew – but given Matthew it’s difficult to see why they would bother writing Mark. Also some passages where Jesus heals “all” who were sick in Matthew but only “many” in corresponding Markan. Jesus couldnt do many miracles in his home town in Mark wheres as Jesus didnt do many miracles in Matthew’s version. But overall its not impressive.
Specifically this passage, I’m not sure, possibly Mark and Luke agree against Matthew and have it in the same place.
Bren,
I’m loving this thread. Thank you for posting it!
It’s taken me some time to wrap my head around everything you, Hngerhman and Robert have written – especially as I’ve been checking as I go – and I have been pausing for long intervals to have a good think before moving on.
I’m at the halfway point and this response was such a let down. I’m surprised Robert just let this hang here without following up (although maybe this get’s picked up later on). Forgive the parenthesis.
Is this really your best attempt to objectively understand the evidence supporting Markan prioity?
Clearly, I’m not able to add anything to this conversation, but will say it’s convinced me of a couple of things:
1. There are some very smart and informed people on this forum and I’m probably not one of them.
2. I don’t know anything about the NT!!
It’s taken me two days to read and acquire just a basic understanding of the arguments and what they reference.
More posts like this please!!!!
Robert said
I’m glad someone is enjoying it! You may also enjoy ** you do not have permission to see this link **. It is the one and only thread I ever started here. To my great chagrin, I must admit that I am responsible for bringing Bren to this forum in the hopes of encouraging his Greek studies but, alas, this has not succeeded. I have failed miserably.
I enjoyed it immensely. Perhaps enjoyed is the wrong word. I found it challenging and illuminating.
One thing we can all agree on is a good single malt!
I’m continually frustrated when people abandon or ignore questions when trying to reason together. It seems to happen often. For that reason I try my best to understand the arguments others make and do my best to respond to points others make about my arguments.
Life continually reminds me about the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Regrettably so. I am going a little wide of the topic here, but I’ve already hijacked this thread, so why not? A little anecdote and personal history just to ramble out some thoughts while I take a break from work:
I was a full time musician and producer for many years. When I was young the people in my life all thought I was the most talented person they knew (and stupidly I thought they were right). Then my community morphed in to a community of musicians and I became but one talented musician amongst many equally talented musicians. Then I became a professional musician and discovered what real talent looked like – and it was quite sobering! I remember the, “Aha moment” in my early twenties, working with a singularly gifted songwriter and producer, and thinking to myself, “ah, so that’s what real talent looks like!”
That experience and it’s effect on me has been replicated repeatedly in so many spheres over the years.
When I was young I was a believer and I thought I knew the bible pretty darn well. We grew up memorizing it. Then I began to apply critical reasoning to the theology and texts I was spoon fed for years. This led to a crisis of faith which eventually led me to Bart and other teachers. Then I began to think I was really starting to learn something about the bible. But after a couple of years, reading and reasoning on my own I’ve come to realize that I could spend the rest of my life studying, learning Greek Aramaic and Hebrew – and I would only scratch the surface of scholarship from this past century alone.
As bible scholarship comes in to view, I come to that same “Aha moment”. “Ah, so this is what real scholarship looks like” – and it’s equally sobering.
So many of my friends and family are believers – and it’s so difficult to answer them when they say things like, “how could anyone claim to know what probably does and does not go back to Jesus, or who probably did or didn’t write a gospel or epistle?” “Who are they to question the word of god?” I could go on. You’ve heard all the questions yourself.
I want to say something like, “scholars have extremely good reasons to believe what they believe about the bible, and the more you try to understand how they arrive at their conclusions the more staggered you’ll be at how little you know of the books you base your entire life on.” I want to say that. But I don’t.
That cursed double edge sword regarding knowledge: When we (I definitely include myself here) don’t know something, sadly, we don’t even know that we don’t know it!
Sorry for the free flowing rant ….
All this to say, keep posting. Some of us find it fascinating and very educational. These threads may be hard going for some of us, but they are so important.
I look forward to checking out the link you posted.
DODea said
Is this really your best attempt to objectively understand the evidence supporting Markan prioity?
This was just supposed to be a response to what I thought was the best evidence for Markan priority – that given Mark its easy to see why someone would write Matthew, but not so the reverse. I think this forms the basis of most people’s belief that Mark wrote first. As Mark Goodacre writes “Thus for many the strongest argument for Marcan priority remains the implausibility of the Griesbach hypothesis, for example E. P. Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels”
Other arguments given include the argument from order – that in the ordering of the pericopes Matthew and Luke will often agree with Mark and against each other. But rarely agree with each other against Mark. Suggestive of each copying Mark and when departing from his ordering unlikely to coincidentally agree with each other.
Arguments from Mark’s less refined Greek, which Matthew and Luke are said to occasionally improve.
Mark seems to preserve more Aramaic phrases than Matthew/Luke.
Harder readings in Mark, such as what I gave earlier.
Arguments claiming Mark has a lower christology than Matthew/Luke.
Redaction criticism, which is thought to be fruitful in accounting for Matthew/Luke changes when assuming Markan priority.
brenmcg said
This was just supposed to be a response to what I thought was the best evidence for Markan priority – that given Mark its easy to see why someone would write Matthew, but not so the reverse. I think this forms the basis of most people’s belief that Mark wrote first. As Mark Goodacre writes “Thus for many the strongest argument for Marcan priority remains the implausibility of the Griesbach hypothesis, for example E. P. Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels”
Other arguments given include the argument from order – that in the ordering of the pericopes Matthew and Luke will often agree with Mark and against each other. But rarely agree with each other against Mark. Suggestive of each copying Mark and when departing from his ordering unlikely to coincidentally agree with each other.
Arguments from Mark’s less refined Greek, which Matthew and Luke are said to occasionally improve.
Mark seems to preserve more Aramaic phrases than Matthew/Luke.
Harder readings in Mark, such as what I gave earlier.
Arguments claiming Mark has a lower christology than Matthew/Luke.
Redaction criticism, which is thought to be fruitful in accounting for Matthew/Luke changes when assuming Markan priority.
Thanks so much for replying. That’s a relief. I only asked as, I am not nearly as knowledgeable as either you or Robert or others on this thread, and even I knew the arguments for Markan priority are more numerous and wider in scope than depicted in your reply to Robert. I was just hoping you were considering the wider and deeper landscape of Markan priority (and all of the problems it seems to solve in the synoptics) when picking on one sentence which seems a bit awkwardly placed.
Robert said
I hope you are still playing music for yourself, your family, friends, etc. I started learning how to play basic guitar as a senior in college because a few of my house-mates left their guitars around the house. Eventually I bought a couple of banjos because I love the sound of banjos. I experiment sometimes on banjo, but I know I will never make much progress, other than playing simple songs for my kids when they were little as we paraded around the house with drums and whistles. I eventually even bought an expensive, custom-made mandolin because it was so damn beautiful and I love mandolin music, even though I would certainly never master the banjo, let alone the mandolin. Since nobody ever uses their living rooms except for occasional parties, we decorated our living room with more beautiful musical instruments that we’ll never be much good at. But they’re beautiful and it’s fun to play even simple stuff, make up songs, and laugh.
I do still play. I try to play for at least an hour or two each day. It’s such an enjoyable pastime. Sometimes the instruments come out when family and friends come over – and occasionally I will still play a live gig.
I love banjo and mandolin too, although I don’t play either of those instruments I get to jam with a couple of great players. I’m so glad to hear that you’ve kept the instruments and play occasionally – instruments are beautiful works of art even when they are not being played. And music is it’s own reward.
You’ve got me thinking about the instruments I’ve collected over the past many years. My wife and I don’t have children, but a few nieces and nephews are very musical and I plan giving them most of my guitars and other instruments one day.
I started to read the post you linked me to. That’s going to take me a while to get through, but I look forward to it. Thank you!
I’ve got a mountain of work to get through today and the weekend, but look forward to diving in next week! 
brenmcg said
Mark 13:9-119 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.“
Verse 13:10 breaks the flow of text, is misplaced (what in context is the preaching to all nations supposed to be prior to?), interrupts the advice being given to the disciples and is a secondary insertion into Matthew’s original,
Matthew 10:17-20
“you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the nations. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.“
Luke’s version follow’s Matthew,
Luke 21:12-15
“They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. And so you will bear testimony to me. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.“
Mark 13:10 is itself not original but is again taken from Matthew who has used it correctly as the event which must occur prior to the end times
Matthew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”
So, Robert said to start at verse 7 and the misplacement is not as evident.
(Just checking the original post)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert