Those who oppose Markan priority often assert that the arguments in favor of it can with equal justification be reversed and used to oppose it. While that might be true in some case, I find that Mark’s silence on the virgin birth and specific appearances of the resurrected Jesus cannot so back-fire.
It cannot be argued that maybe Mark didn’t wish to repeat what was already known, since patristic tradition is uniform that his purpose was little more than to repeat what his intended audience had already come to believe (i.e., the preaching of Peter).
It cannot be argued that Peter was silent about the virgin birth, since this story strongly supports the notion that Jesus is the Savior of the world, the exact type of historical evidence we’d expect Peter not to be silent about.
It cannot be argued that Peter didn’t preach any specific appearances of a risen Jesus, since we’d justifiably expect, if the appearance stories are true, that Peter during his preaching would reference himself as one such eyewitness. And we are reasonable to assume that if Paul was correct in 1st Cor. 15 to say Christ’s resurrection is the lifeblood of Christianity, then Peter would likely have agreed, and thus would have specified at least himself as one eyewitness.
It cannot be argued that Mark didn’t think Peter’s experience of the risen Christ was better excluded than included, since again, if Peter really did experience an appearance of the risen Christ, Mark would more than likely find this to bolster Peter’s credibility.
Papias apparently said that Mark was careful to “omit nothing” from what he heard Peter preach. Bauckham argues that this description was mere literary rhetoric common in the second century, therefore, what Papias said doesn’t literally contradict the fact that Mark did indeed omit much, but unfortunately apologists insist that every other phrase in that immediate context was a literal truth about Mark:
15 “This also the presbyter398 said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter,
wrote down accurately,
though not in order,
whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.399 For
he neither heard the Lord
nor followed him, but afterward, 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, Eccles. Hist. 3.39.15)
One could argue that the more the apologist takes the emphasized portions of the context literally, the more justification they create for taking the “not to omit any of the things that he heard” portion equally as literally. That is, Papias’ “omit nothing” sits within a context suggesting it is not being used as rhetoric, but as a fact about Mark’s intentions.
Papias specifies that Mark didn’t omit anything he heard (from Peter), and again, it only makes sense that if the church was requesting Mark to write out Peter’s preaching, Mark would likely have recognized that anything Peter might have preached was clearly beneficial to the readers and if Mark asked them (the more so for the Christian reader who agrees with the patristic statements that Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit during this excusion to Rome), they would surely have wanted him to include as much of Peter’s preaching as possible.
Mark would also have known that what he is giving the church in Rome will likely serve them for centuries to come, so that would be another reason to assume Mark would wish to push for more comprehensiveness.
So if Mark is indeed silent on the virgin birth and resurrection appearances of Jesus, he likely isn’t “omitting”, he is simply silent because Peter also never said anything about these two matters. Since we wouldn’t expect Peter to be silent about such matters, his silence is more likely because he either knew nothing about such stories, or had good reasons to think them false and to thus avoid conveying them in the first place, hence there was never any Petrine witness to such things for Mark to “omit” in the first place.
I thus find that Mark’s silence toward the virgin birth and resurrection appearances of Jesus constitute the type of Markan priority evidence that is compelling and cannot be reversed to oppose Markan priority. As such, this evidence overshadows any other argument the gainsayers appeal to, such as Mark’s account sometimes being more detailed.
Mark’s alleged intent to abbreviate Matthew/Luke flies in the face of uniform patristic tradition (thus justifying the skeptic to assert that the early post-apostolic church could get things wrong far easier than most apologists allow) and appears to stem from a justified concern that having Mark be the earliest form of the gospel makes it easier for skeptics to attack Christianity on the merits.
Iskander Robertson said
he is simply silent because Peter also never said anything about these two matters.
or mark invented it
** you do not have permission to see this link **
If Mark invented the empty tomb story, how did we get different (i.e., special) accounts on the same story in both Matthew and Luke, which are independent of the passion narrative used by Mark? Indeed, parts of the accounts in Matthew and Luke clearly came from the same source, independent of the Markan source (e.g., omission of events like Pilate’s interrogating the centurion, identical wording such as “wrapped it in linen”), while others appear to come from separate independent sources from the other (e.g., Peter’s inspection of the tomb in Luke, Matthew’s refutation of the apostles stealing the body).
Luke also gives us what are almost certainly pre-Markan sermons about the empty tomb in Acts.
Separately, Paul’s annunciation of the very early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15, which implies an empty tomb from the “burial” and resurrection of Jesus, is certainly much older than the Gospel of Mark, if not the Passion Narrative therein.
And then there is John, which has an account of the tomb completely separate from Mark. John’s account is newer than those in 1 Corinthians 15 and the sermons from Acts (or the local rumors which caused Matthew to refute the story of a stolen body), but it is not sourced to Mark.
Mark making up the empty tomb just doesn’t really work.
he is simply silent because Peter also never said anything about these two matters.
or mark invented it
I have been thinking a lot lately on how Mark 16:8 ends
1) Maybe Mark did not know resurrection stories, just that the tomb was empty
2) Was there more text at the ends of older manuscripts that was lost
3) Was Mark already aware of the resurrection stories in which Jesus is exalted; a view Mark disagrees with. Perhaps Mark is from a tradition where Jesus was exalted at his Baptism and does not want to give credence to other traditions, and cuts them from his narrative.
Robert said
For me, the most convincing indications of Markan priority are the obviously secondary character of so many minor changes Matthew or Mark or both made to Mark’s Greek, which is rough. They generally smooth out minor linguistic issues with Mark’s Greek or show their own stylistic tendencies against which Mark’s own idiomatic Greek typically seems less polished. Mark’s Greek is not terrible, but it is definitely less polished.
Yeah, just soooo much evidence points in the way of Markan priority.
Is it possible that Mark was a partial redaction of Matthew … or a proto-Matthew, possible written in a local language? It’s possible. But the evidence doesn’t really point that way.
“If Mark invented the empty tomb story, how did we get different (i.e., special) accounts on the same story in both Matthew and Luke, which are independent of the passion narrative used by Mark? “
how do you know they are independent ?
mark:
women go to the tomb
matthew
women go to the tomb
neither of these two say that any of the disciples went to check an empty tomb
“Indeed, parts of the accounts in Matthew and Luke clearly came from the same source, independent of the Markan source (e.g., omission of events like Pilate’s interrogating the centurion, identical wording such as “wrapped it in linen”),”
and who is this “same source” and how does any of this prove that there was an empty tomb? i don’t understand.
“while others appear to come from separate independent sources from the other (e.g., Peter’s inspection of the tomb in Luke, Matthew’s refutation of the apostles stealing the body).”
who told you they are separate independent sources, how do you know ?
“Luke also gives us what are almost certainly pre-Markan sermons about the empty tomb in Acts.”
are they “pre-markan” because they mention less details?
“Separately, Paul’s annunciation of the very early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15, which implies an empty tomb from the “burial” and resurrection of Jesus, is certainly much older than the Gospel of Mark, if not the Passion Narrative therein.”
how do you know this wasn’t a belief like you believe in an unknown empty tomb today ? how does any of this provide evidence that mark did not invent an empty tomb STORY ?
“And then there is John, which has an account of the tomb completely separate from Mark.”
when was john written ?
“
John’s account is newer than those in 1 Corinthians 15 and the sermons from Acts (or the local rumors which caused Matthew to refute the story of a stolen body), but it is not sourced to Mark.”
if it is not sourced to mark, then is it sourced to johns brain as in changing the story ?
barryjones said
It cannot be argued that Mark didn’t think Peter’s experience of the risen Christ was better excluded than included, since again, if Peter really did experience an appearance of the risen Christ, Mark would more than likely find this to bolster Peter’s credibility.
I disagree. The gospels are written in the genre of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. That means the focus of the story is Jesus of Nazareth. Excluding things that are not within this focus would seem perfectly acceptable. Richard Burridge’s seminal work completely discredited the idea that the gospels were a unique literary genre. Mark is not writing an account of Peter’s life, he’s writing one about Jesus, so for him merely mentioning the resurrection happened (or if you prefer the christophanies) is enough. Bart Ehrman himself has previously said that he thinks Mark 16:8 feels like a natural way to end the gospel, and I (for one) agree. The argument being that in his concluding chapters, the Passion, he has Jesus’ closest three male disciples fail and abandon him, and then also his closest three female disciples also fail him. I actually tend to think the inclusion of the women may be more reflective on Mark’s contemporary experience of Christianity rather than the historical ministry: women became very important because Christians were meeting in private houses rather than in Synagogues, and the house was traditionally the women’s domain.
Mark’s Passion IMO is the strongest evidence of Markan priority. All other gospels follow his Passion narrative and add to or modify it. Luke appears to have merged it with a second Passion narrative he knows, and in Acts 13:27-31 he even shares an entirely different Passion narrative that is non-Markan (and in fact he has even more that he shares or alludes to in Acts, he clearly knew several Passion traditions). If Matthew, Luke, and John all had no dependence on the Passion from Mark or from a shared source with Mark we would expect an entirely fresh account with different emphasises like we have in Acts 13:27-31 and 1 Cor 15:3-8. If you analyse the gospel Passion narratives it becomes very clear that Mark’s is the earliest – Matthew, Luke, and John all try to address problems they encounter with it.
Aractus said
Mark’s Passion IMO is the strongest evidence of Markan priority…
There are many clear signs of Mark editing Matthew’s passion narrative. Here’s an example.
Matthew 26:20/21 “When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.”
Matthew 26:26 “While they were eating, Jesus took bread … “
As an original writer the double use of “while they were eating” in the last supper narrative gets missed by Matthew, but for a subsequent reader the double use is jarring.
Mark changes it –
Mark 14:17/18 “When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me”
Mark 14:22 “While they were eating, Jesus took bread … “
Avoiding the double use but disagreeing with on the opening line.
Luke however an be used to show which of Matthew or Mark had the original – ie which one does he agree with.
Luke 22:14 “When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.”
Luke agrees with Matthew, establishing him as the original gospel.
You have never once presented anything close to an argument for why Matthew’s version is the original. Textual scholars who have read the original manuscripts (with their many variations in the text and do you call that ‘editing’ as well?) don’t agree with you.
The ‘original’ gospel, of course, would be none of them. We don’t have the earliest written versions of Jesus’ story, which probably al three synoptics and John made use of, to varying degrees. Maybe there was nothing as complete as Mark before he wrote his version, but his version is the earliest we still have. And the day you learn Greek and get a relevant degree, and publish scholarly articles in accredited publications, you are free to tell me I’m wrong. But it’s not me you’re saying is wrong. It’s basically everyone who actually knows what he/she is talking about.
This is too technical an area for an amateur with no Greek or expertise in textual analysis to dissent on. You will do it anyway, but nobody will take you seriously. I’m sorry if that’s mean, but there you are.
Perhaps some the changed phrasings in Matthew come precisely from his copying Mark but trying to avoid his clumsy Greek–he keeps the basic text, but changes it for both style and content. I would need to be able to read ancient Greek in order to make that claim. And so would you, in order to refute it.
godspell said
You have never once presented anything close to an argument for why Matthew’s version is the original. Textual scholars who have read the original manuscripts (with their many variations in the text and do you call that ‘editing’ as well?) don’t agree with you.The ‘original’ gospel, of course, would be none of them. We don’t have the earliest written versions of Jesus’ story, which probably al three synoptics and John made use of, to varying degrees. Maybe there was nothing as complete as Mark before he wrote his version, but his version is the earliest we still have. And the day you learn Greek and get a relevant degree, and publish scholarly articles in accredited publications, you are free to tell me I’m wrong. But it’s not me you’re saying is wrong. It’s basically everyone who actually knows what he/she is talking about.
This is too technical an area for an amateur with no Greek or expertise in textual analysis to dissent on. You will do it anyway, but nobody will take you seriously. I’m sorry if that’s mean, but there you are.
Perhaps some the changed phrasings in Matthew come precisely from his copying Mark but trying to avoid his clumsy Greek–he keeps the basic text, but changes it for both style and content. I would need to be able to read ancient Greek in order to make that claim. And so would you, in order to refute it.
“There is, nevertheless, something disturbing about a situation in which none of the standard text books find it easy to provide strong, textual grounds for believing that it was Mark and not Matthew who wrote first, particularly given the universal Patristic support for the opposite view” Mark Goodacre, ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I take this statement seriously – there’s a reason standard books find it hard to provide strong textual grounds for Markan priority, because there isnt any.
The standard arguments for Markan priority are all ready available and none of them are convincing.
The above is a good indicator of Mark editing Matthew, as is the different responses of Jesus to the high priests’ questions – “I am” vs “you have said so”. (Mark’s version also likely to have gone through Luke’s “you say that I am” first)
Mark’s early introduction of Barabbas and Mark’s centurion calling Jesus “son of god” for no reason are also good indicators of editing Matthew. No fluency of greek or training in textual analysis is required in these instances.
The way cherrypicking works (as if it ever works) is you pick a scholar who agrees with you. Goodacre doesn’t.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
You start out determined to see Matthean priority, so no surprise you keep finding evidence of it. Like people who are determined to believe Genesis is a scientifically accurate account of Life’s origins keep finding evidence of that. And they persuade only other people who want to believe the same thing.
But why do you want to believe this? You refuse to say.
He doesnt agree with me on Markan priority but he does agree that most find it difficult to provide strong textual grounds for Mark writing first.
Do you agree with that, or do you think he’s wrong and its easy to find strong textual grounds for Markan priority?
What do you think of the above argument? do you think that’s a good way of deciding the priority between two dependent texts?
bren, neither of is is qualified to agree or disagree with him on textual grounds. Neither of us is qualified to do textual analysis. Your textual analysis makes no sense, and is geared entirely towards reaching a conclusion you’ve already made.
Point is, you quoted him as agreeing with you, and he doesn’t. I’ve been reading your posts a while now, and knew from experience that you tend to gloss over such minor things as citing an authority who says the opposite of what you want to believe as somehow supporting your argument.
Any more authorities to cite?
I’m not answering your question, since you didn’t answer mine.
Iskander Robertson said
“If Mark invented the empty tomb story, how did we get different (i.e., special) accounts on the same story in both Matthew and Luke, which are independent of the passion narrative used by Mark? “how do you know they are independent ?
Because each of Matthew and Luke have independent and common elements describing the passion which are not in Mark’s version of the passion.
Iskander Robertson said
mark: women go to the tomb
matthew: women go to the tomb
neither of these two say that any of the disciples went to check an empty tomb
Yes. Neither Mark nor Matthew have disciples going to the tomb. But Luke and John both do, and their accounts differ. Guess what that means? Different sources.
Iskander Robertson said
“Indeed, parts of the accounts in Matthew and Luke clearly came from the same source, independent of the Markan source (e.g., omission of events like Pilate’s interrogating the centurion, identical wording such as “wrapped it in linen”),”
and who is this “same source” and how does any of this prove that there was an empty tomb? i don’t understand.
We don’t know who the source is … just like we don’t know who the source is for virtually any ancient historical account.
But, unless you are willing to write off history as academic discipline, there have been methods developed by scholars to determine the likelihood of historicity (the so-called criteria of authenticity). Among these are the criterion of multiple attestation.
The criterion of multiple attestation holds that the more independent sources that report an event or saying, the more likely it is based on an authentic historical event. How can we tell if reports are independently sourced? Because they include differing elements. This is textual criticism 101.
Iskander Robertson said
“while others appear to come from separate independent sources from the other (e.g., Peter’s inspection of the tomb in Luke, Matthew’s refutation of the apostles stealing the body).”
who told you they are separate independent sources, how do you know ?
We don’t know anything. The scholarly premise of multiple attestation is a natural inference based on accounts of the same event differing in key aspects.
Iskander Robertson said
“Luke also gives us what are almost certainly pre-Markan sermons about the empty tomb in Acts.”
are they “pre-markan” because they mention less details?
First, because they are simple, and also because the sermons use primordial language, which does not appear to be derived from Mark. These appear to be well-known sayings the readers of Luke-Acts are supposed to have already known.
Iskander Robertson said
“Separately, Paul’s annunciation of the very early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15, which implies an empty tomb from the “burial” and resurrection of Jesus, is certainly much older than the Gospel of Mark, if not the Passion Narrative therein.”
how do you know this wasn’t a belief like you believe in an unknown empty tomb today ? how does any of this provide evidence that mark did not invent an empty tomb STORY ?
The answer is in the question. There is ZERO doubt that the creed in 1 Corinthians predates Mark. Zero doubt. This is a creed that was already well established in the Church by the time 1 Corinthians is composed circa CE 55. The use of the word “buried: in this creed strongly implies, based on Jewish law and postmortem rituals practices, the placement of a dead body into a tomb.
Iskander Robertson said
“And then there is John, which has an account of the tomb completely separate from Mark.”
when was john written ?
John is generally dated to the last decade or two of the First Century.
Iskander Robertson said
John’s account is newer than those in 1 Corinthians 15 and the sermons from Acts (or the local rumors which caused Matthew to refute the story of a stolen body), but it is not sourced to Mark.”
if it is not sourced to mark, then is it sourced to johns brain as in changing the story ?
John’s account is sourced to “the testimony” of the “beloved disciple.” His account includes elements which are certainly not part of Mark.
The best explanation I’ve seen so far is that Mark had a copy of a passion narrative written in Aramaic, which he translated and adapted to his purposes.
Why would the earliest narratives be in Greek when the earliest Christians mainly didn’t know that language, and were communicating mainly with other Jews?
But just as plainly, once most Christians were gentiles, Aramaic and Hebrew texts would no longer be popular, and would disappear from lack of sufficient people interested in copying them–all the more since the gospels we have preserved much of what people wanted them for–and might well have been better written. We can’t really know.
To argue as if we have all the sources that matter is just flat-out wrong. We have the ones that survived.
The best explanation I’ve seen so far is that Mark had a copy of a passion narrative written in Aramaic, which he translated and adapted to his purposes.
Why would the earliest narratives be in Greek when the earliest Christians mainly didn’t know that language, and were communicating mainly with other Jews?
There is just no evidence that there was an Aramaic literary stage in the tradition. And scholars come to this conclusion not simply because there are no surviving Aramaic documents. There are technical textual ways to tell if a document has been translated from languages as variant as Aramaic and Greek. There are Aramaisms in Mark but these seem to be a literary technique designed to reinforce a sense of authenticity rather than a reliance on any Aramaic documents. (They stand out precisely because the rest of the document is a Greek original.) The earliest written narratives are in Greek because the Jewish Christians in Palestine were illiterate. The Aramaic stage of transmission was oral. The Greek stage of transmission was both oral and written.
There is ZERO doubt that the creed in 1 Corinthians predates Mark. Zero doubt. This is a creed that was already well established in the Church by the time 1 Corinthians is composed circa CE 55. The use of the word “buried: in this creed strongly implies, based on Jewish law and postmortem rituals practices, the placement of a dead body into a tomb.
The statement in 1 Cor is not inconsistent with a burial in a mass grave which historically is much more likely. It’s not clear at all that Paul envisioned the Resurrection as a resuscitation. I doubt that Mark “created” the Empty Tomb story but neither is there any evidence that it goes back to Paul either.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)