Mark’s story certainly makes sense but the line “no who dared to ask him any more questions” within it does not. Jesus’s conversation with the scribe should result in the scribe, and others, being only too delighted to ask him further questions, seeing as they agree on so much and had such a pleasant exchange.

Only in Matthew’s version where the Sadducess and Pharisees try to trap him but are embarrassed into silence can we end with the line “no one dared to ask him any more questions”.

Robert said

It does not make sense to you because you are trying to understand it only within the that one story. If you read the larger context, you may be able to understand it. Let’s look at everything that happens to Jesus in the temple that day.

First, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders come to Jesus and question his authority. Jesus responds with a question, which they are afraid to answer. Instead of answering their initial question, Jesus gives an ominous parable. The Judean authorities realized Jesus told this parable against them, and wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So they left him and went away.

But they the authorities sent some Pharisees and Herodians to trap Jesus in what he said. Although they tried to flatter Jesus, he saw through their hypocrisy and asked, “Why are you putting me to the test?” With subsequent cleverness, he won this exchange as well.

Next some Sadducees, themselves likely temple authorities, came to Jesus with what they no doubt thought was a clever argument against the belief in resurrection from the dead. This too, Jesus easily refuted and he castigated the Sadducees with not even understanding the scriptures, which they were known for honoring above all, not accepting any oral law or traditions of the Pharisees or other authorities.

Finally, one of the scribes, had been listening to all of these arguments and he recognized that Jesus had answered all of these challenges well. He does not flatter Jesus, but asks a genuine question of paramount importance. The scribe then announces that Jesus has answered well and expresses his agreement, even repeating Jesus’ teaching for all to hear.

Yes the scribe announces the Jesus has answered well and expresses his agreement, even repeating Jesus’s teaching for all to hear. So explain how the line “no one dared asked him any more questions” then makes any sense? Surely the scribe or anyone hearing the pleasant conversation would have lots more questions to ask (never mind “daring” to ask them). What’s the downside? Jesus tells them they are “not far from the kingdom of heaven”, as Jesus says to the scribe.

Certainly if we remove the conversation with the scribe the line “no one dared asked him any more questions” makes sense in the larger context. But this is because the larger context is Matthew’s. And it is Matthew who consistently applies this context up to the line. For Matthew, all the chiefs priests, Herodians, Sadducees and Pharisees are trying to trap him and only when he evades all their traps and the tables are turned does it make sense to say “no one dared to ask him any more questions”.

It’s Matthew’s version that makes less sense. Would the Pharisees so easily be embarrassed into silence about the Davidic Messiah? Seriously? They would so easily abandon the foundational belief that the Messiah is be of the House of David? Matthew’s version strains credulity.

Matthew and Mark’s gospels are about a son of god who comes to earth to heal the sick and raise the dead. Credulity is irrelevant when deciding upon priority. What matters is consistency according to the author’s own internal logic.

Matthew’s account does not say the Pharisees abandon the claim of a Davidic Messiah. It says they are left silent when asked to defend the claim against Jesus’s criticism – ie if they accept psalm 110 as messianic how can David then call his son “lord”. There is nothing here in Matthew’s account which lacks internal consistency or suggest a secondary edition.

Robert said
I was not saying that Matthew was being inconsistent in his views; I was saying that his account is not realistic.

Yes that’s point. Inconsistency would be relevant to the priority question, non-realism is not.

The Pharisees would not be ’embarrassed into silence’ by Jesus’ departure from fundamental Jewish belief. In fact, they would think that they had indeed caught Jesus in an obvious and grievous error. And note that Jesus’ teaching about the messiah not (merely) being the son of David was not even in response to a question by the Pharisees.

Yes it wasn’t in response to a question from the Pharisees. He had answered all their questions then stumped them on one of his own. Also if the Pharisees agrees with Matthew/Mark/Luke that David is speaking about the Messiah, then they really would be stumped by this question. However that’s not relevant for priority.

On the other hand, it is easy to recognize that Mark is simply referring to the long line of people who have just tried to challenge Jesus with their questions. The final scribe did not try to challenge Jesus with his question, but rather recognized that Jesus had answered all these challenges well. Those failed challenges and the scribe’s recognition and confession that Jesus had answered well are why no one dared to challenge Jesus again with hypocritical questions designed as traps. Mark’s use of the language, “no one dared to ask him anything,” may not be as exact as you would like, but one should not be overly literal, to strain a gnat and swallow a camel by completely missing Mark’s point. Neither Mark nor Matthew mean it hyper-literally when they say that no one dared to ask Jesus questions, for both do indeed subsequently present others as daring to ask Jesus questions.

The point of the conflict after the entry to Jerusalem is that Jesus is challenging orthodox Jewish teaching and challenging the authority of the religious leaders. It leads up to “no one dared ask him any more questions”, where the confrontational atmosphere remains and will get resolved in other ways later on.

In Mark’s account with the scribe there is no confrontation, but  agreement on orthodox Jewish teaching. It’s out of place and shouldn’t lead up to “no one dared … “. Why not dare? He’s agreeing with the teaching of the religious leaders.

Notice that Markan inconsistency isn’t yet done in this chapter. Where Matthew quite consistently has Jesus next go into a diatribe against the pharisees, Mark’s Jesus bizarrely goes into a diatribe against the scribes, Mark 12:36.

It should be obvious that the pleasant conversation with the scribe is a Markan addition.