Is Markan Priority Wrong?

[Furrowed Brow]

In forming a reply to ThatGirlAgain I took a look at Markan Priority and the accepted idea that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access to Mark. I am beginning to convince myself it was the author of Mark that had access to Matthew and Luke. Here is one argument I gave ThattheGirl

But let’s look at the kind of thinking that leads to Markan Priority to test just how firm it really is and give you an idea of the kind of thing I am on about. Here is an argument given in favour of Markan priority I plucked from wiki

• 1/ the shortness of Mark and way it omits content that is in Matt and Luke. So Matt and Luke include stuff Mark leaves out which some argue is unlikely.
  2/ Most of Mark is found in Matthew or Luke. If mark was editing Matt and Luke he adds little.
  3/ What little Mark adds seems strange and ripe for editing out if Matt and Luke were editing Mark.

Seems logical and it supports the notion of the less elaborate Mark came first. OK as I write this I admit my ignorance and don’t actually know how much of Mark is in Matt and how much is in Luke. But play along with me for a moment. What would be needed to make it plausible Mark was editing Matt and Luke? Let’s assume the author of Mark has Luke and Matt in front of him. He samples some of each but not all. If Mark is using them as sources and they are largely his only source then it is guaranteed most of Mark will be found in Matt or Luke. We need no additional assumptions like Q and we get most of Mark in Matt and Luke without further effort. This scenario is logically simpler than a scenario that has to invent Q. Now go the next step. What if most of Mark is found in Matt and the most of Mark found in Luke. If that were true it would mean Mark was trying to form a synthesis of the two and note all the common elements. That is the only additional assumption you need. Moreover it has a compelling motivation. Mark was trying to find out what he could with confidence say was most likely true given his two sources. That is not much of an assumption.

Now go back to Markan priority. If Matt and Luke are editing Mark, to get most of Mark across both Matt and Luke they would have to have colluded to ensure the coverage or this is accidental, or far more likely one had access to the other. Say it is Luke that had had access to Matthew as you suggested earlier, then Luke edited Mark and Matthew, and Matthew edited Mark. If Q is on his desk as well that is another additional complication to the story. But it means for some reason Luke was less impressed with Matt or less willing to use Matt as a source as he was keen to use Mark. We have no clear motivation for this, and still the logically simplest solution is let Mark edit Matt and Luke

Question: Is Markan Priority wrong?

[Furrowed Brow]

Unfortunately, your entire theory is that Mark was a rather careful writer; "This Mark is more cautious, more academic," "a conservative, and he has integrity" with a "temperament for rigour" (post 17, response to Mithrae). This is a fellow who supposedly checked what was written by Matthew, double-checked it against Luke and then triple-checked it against what he remembered from Peter, striving for the highest levels of accuracy in his story. You're saying that this person copied various passages from Matthew or Luke almost word-for-word, but somehow managed to screw up their grammar in the process?

Student's point has merit on its own, but against the specific theory you've advanced I suspect that it borders on devastating.

Well as I did intimate I am incompetant.

Granted that caveat I would hope you would grant me space to iron out the wrinkles.

Mark is Papias' mark. He is an interpreter. Maybe not the greatest textual translator. He is psychologically cautious and careful and studious with a good memory and attentive but all that does not make him great at Greek grammar. He is also a little anxious and could be mistaken for unctuous. He is close to Peter because he can interpret and record verbal conversation and repeat them back to Peter to Peter’s satisfaction. He can also write letters for Peter to Peter’s satisfaction. Peter does not have a huge staff to choose from or many folk around him with Mark's skills who want to work for next to nothing. So Peter’s got the best he can get in Mark, and more importantly someone who treasure every word he says. Which to Peter may just be more important than great grammar. The poor grammar also suggests Mark is closer to a disciple earlier in the movement when it still appealed more to common folk. A few decades later we get folk like the unknown author of Luke joining the community. But Mark is early and the best Peter can get. And what he has got is someone who is honest, bright, good memory, maybe even very bright to be an interpreter and letter writer at all given probably he has not had a top education. Mark is not the slow one at the back of the class of scholars. He is the brighter who has had some education and made the most of it. And maybe he is making up for lacking a top educated scholar by making himself the attentive, useful and reliable secerary to Peter. I can picture the movie with Mark a bit like Radar from Mash. Peter would be more like the Colonel

How’s that revision of Mark?

[Mithrae]

OK I want too look at the stats thank ThatGirlAgain kindly links and I want to present them as if Mark accesses because they change my mind on priority

• 97% of Mark covered in Matt and Luke
  94% of Mark is like Matt’s
  18% of Mark is uniquely like Matt
  79% of Mark is like Luke
  3% in Mark is uniquely like Luke.
  3% of Mark is unique.
  55% of Matt is like Mark
  64% of Luke is like Matt and Mark
  35% of Luke still needs to be explained.

I was obviously working under a wrong impression regarding Luke and I withdraw my point about Luke being focused on ensuring coverage. SoThatGirlAgain scores a homerun there. What I did not realise was how little there was uniquely Luke in Mark. Just 3% and as TGA points out it is the passage Mk. 1:21-28 where Jesus announces his authority, is called the Holy one, exorcises a demon.

As a result of the above data I now favour something like the Augustinian hypothesis It is interesting that this hypotheses does not lends itself to textual criticism and is drawn on historical testimony. As I have noted the priority means we have to see Mark as some kind of abridgment of Matt. I suggest the above data supports the Augustinian hypothesis best. So let’s take a look.

That Mark is 94% Matt’s material clearly indicates Mark was concentration on Matt to the near exclusion of other sources. We hardly need Luke except for one passage. What I think explains this best is if Mathew wrote first (50 AD or earlier), was accessed by Mark (70-75 C.E) after destruction of Temple), and the Matt and Mark are accessed by Luke (90 C.E).

A much better theory, with a couple of caveats - plus the comment that I'm still more persuaded that Matthew expanding/correcting Mark is more likely than Mark shortening/degrading Matthew.

First, there's much better reason to believe Matthew was written after 70CE than Mark, because of the emphasis on Christ's return. We know the 'imminent return' idea was around back in Paul's day; the later gospels Luke and John downplay the idea; Mark no doubt accepted that it would be 'soon,' but doesn't much emphasise that idea (depending on interpretation); but Matthew (10:23 and 16:28) emphasises more than any other that it'll be very soon. Best explanation obviously being that Matthew was poignantly aware of the end to sacrifice and abomination in the temple associated with the conquest of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:27). That doesn't have much direct bearing on the gist of the Augustinian hypothesis of course, but I think it's worth mentioning.

Secondly, I'd argue that this theory contradicts the best historical testimony (Papias). The disciple Matthew supposedly wrote a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic, not the narrative gospel we possess which to my understanding scholars believe was written in original Greek. Since it's a Jewish product c70-74CE, my own theory (courtesy of a Christian called Alex from the MSN groups FvA and CBED) is that canonical Matthew may well have been written by a follower of the disciple Matthew, combining Matthew's sayings source Q with the narrative by Peter's follower. As far as parsimony goes, I think that best explains how the sayings Papias mentions by disciple Matthew became eclipsed by canonical Matthew.



Edit:

Secondly, I'd argue that this theory contradicts the best historical testimony (Papias).

Call me a pedant if you will, but in fairness I think I should mention that I believe the best historical testimony regarding gospel origins is the appendix of John

[Student]

Quit simply, Mark's poorer Greek.

Although it isn't evident in English translations, on numerous occasions Mark uses the incorrect form of the verb or noun.

These errors are corrected in the parallel verses in Matthew / Luke.

Counter: Matt and Luke have good Greek grammar. Mark’s Greek grammar is less so good and he made a mistake. If Mark makes a mistake whether he is copying Matt and Luke or whether he is not, it is just his bad grammar kicking in. If Matt and Luke correct Mark that requires two people taking two affirmative actions unilaterally. Mistakes are easier to make than make corrections especially in Greek Grammar. It is as least as likely true that Mark is mangling grammar than both Mark and Luke correcting it. This alternative requires less people to do less.

The changes made by the authors of Matthew and Luke were those required by the grammatical rules of Greek. Anyone competent in Greek would automatically make the same changes.

For example, at Mark 10:20 “And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed [�φυλαξάμην] from my youth.�

Mark uses the wrong form of the verb, the aorist middle. Both Matthew and Luke recognise the error and use the correct form, the aorist active [�φύλαξα]. This isn’t a matter of style, interpretation or individual choice but simply the correct application of grammar.

Similarly, by way of illustration, anyone familiar with the correct application of English grammar would automatically edit the sentence “This alternative requires less people to do less� to read “This alternative requires fewer people to do less�. [“fewer� applies to things that can be counted, and “less� to quantities and abstractions]

Answer this riddle. Bill and Ted and Ned are asked by their teacher to write him a story about their favourite super hero Jeff. Ted’s story is long and his spelling is fine. Ned’s story is just as long and contain similar material but also some other ideas about Jeff. Bill’s story is short, and nearly everything Bill writes about can be found in Ted’s and Ned’s paper, except Bill is not a good speller and his paper contains a dozen spelling mistakes not in Ned and Ted’s paper. Please explain to the teacher why he needs to give Ned and Ted detention for copying Bill.

Although we are talking about grammatical errors rather than errors in spelling, your riddle helps to illustrate my point.

Bill is a poor speller. His errors would be automatically corrected by the better spellers, Ted and Ned, as they copy his paper. This requires no collusion between Ted and Ned, just the correct application of spelling.

On the other hand, had Bill copied from Ted and/or Ned, it is more likely that he would have copied their spelling exactly so the errors would not appear in his work. As a poor speller Bill would rely upon the better spelling to be found in his source material.
Presumably Bill’s teacher might be alerted to the situation by this sudden and unexpected improvement in Bill’s spelling! Perhaps if Bill had been particularly devious he might have deliberately introduced the spelling errors into his paper in an attempt to throw his teacher off the scent, but that would require him to be a sufficiently proficient speller to know the correct spelling in the first place. As you say, a scenario where errors are deliberately inserted “is silly�.

If Mark copied from either Matthew or Luke you must explain why Mark chose to use worse grammar than his sources.

He ain’t as good at Greek.

Someone who isn’t as good at Greek [or any language for that matter] is more likely to copy verbatim from his sources rather than risk on his own uncertain terminology.

Why didn't Mark slavishly copy Matthew / Luke rather than producing his own incorrect text?

Because he is Papias’ Mark. He is an interpreter. Not a great one by the looks of it. But that was his role under Peter. This Mark is disciple of a disciple and a junior player. He is not trying to write a Gospel he is reconciling what is in Matt and Luke with what he has learnt from Peter.

You are making major and unsubstantiated assumptions to support your case. If Mark was Peter’s interpreter you have to explain Mark’s ignorance [and by implication that of Peter] of Palestinian Jewish customs and practice, as well as his general ignorance of the geography of Palestine.

Was Mark so incompetent that he couldn't see the difference between his own poor Greek and the good Greek of his sources?

Mark had the level of competency/ incompetency the number of mistakes he makes in Greek Grammar show him to have. He probably learnt his Greek by copying others. This is the limit of his skill and level of copying Greek text. He is an interpreter (probably speaks Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, sufficent at Greek).

Far too much conjecture; too little substance. What is the evidence that Mark was an interpreter except an opinion expressed by Papias. There is no evidence what so ever that Mark knew Hebrew e.g. all his quotations from the Old Testament come from the Septuagint. The grammatical errors in Mark’s Aramaic point to him being less than proficient in that Language; Mark could only pass himself off as an Aramaic speaker to an audience ignorant of Aramaic!

If Mark is copying from Matthew and or Luke, he has before him sources of Greek better than his own. Why would he make any changes at all?

Mark was no Greek literary giant but to claim that he was so incompetent that he couldn’t recognise the difference between the good Greek of his source(s) and his own poor Greek goes too far.

Or did Mark deliberately set out to "degrade" the grammar of his sources, and if so, why?

No that is silly.

Silly it might be, but it would appear that this is the only viable scenario, if, as you assert, Mark copied from Matthew / Luke.

[Student]

OK I want too look at the stats thank ThatGirlAgain kindly links and I want to present them as if Mark accesses because they change my mind on priority

• 97% of Mark covered in Matt and Luke
  94% of Mark is like Matt’s
  18% of Mark is uniquely like Matt
  79% of Mark is like Luke
  3% in Mark is uniquely like Luke.
  3% of Mark is unique.
  55% of Matt is like Mark
  64% of Luke is like Matt and Mark
  35% of Luke still needs to be explained.

I was obviously working under a wrong impression regarding Luke and I withdraw my point about Luke being focused on ensuring coverage. SoThatGirlAgain scores a homerun there. What I did not realise was how little there was uniquely Luke in Mark. Just 3% and as TGA points out it is the passage Mk. 1:21-28 where Jesus announces his authority, is called the Holy one, exorcises a demon.

As a result of the above data I now favour something like the Augustinian hypothesis It is interesting that this hypotheses does not lends itself to textual criticism and is drawn on historical testimony. As I have noted the priority means we have to see Mark as some kind of abridgment of Matt.

While Mark is considerably shorter in total length than Matthew, when we compare the individual stories [pericopes] that they share in common, time and time again we find that Mark has the longer account.

Of these 51 stories, that Mark and Matthew (and Luke) have in common, Matthew is longer than Mark on only 17 occasions. On 2 occasions Mark and Matthew are equal in length. Of the remaining 32 stories, Mark is longer than Matthew.

From this it is clear that far from being an abridgement of Matthew, Mark is usually the longer of the parallel accounts. It would therefore appear that one can only call Mark an abridgement of Matthew if one compares the total size of the Gospels rather than the size of the individual accounts.

So, to claim that Mark wanted to create a shorter gospel account for some reason or other simply runs counter to the fact that Mark is not an abridgement of Matthew. On the contrary it is an expansion.

[Furrowed Brow]

While Mark is considerably shorter in total length than Matthew, when we compare the individual stories [pericopes] that they share in common, time and time again we find that Mark has the longer account.

Of these 51 stories, that Mark and Matthew (and Luke) have in common, Matthew is longer than Mark on only 17 occasions. On 2 occasions Mark and Matthew are equal in length. Of the remaining 32 stories, Mark is longer than Matthew. .

Thank you for this clarification and data it is helpful to the thread and tells me something I did not know.

From this it is clear that far from being an abridgement of Matthew, Mark is usually the longer of the parallel accounts. It would therefore appear that one can only call Mark an abridgement of Matthew if one compares the total size of the Gospels rather than the size of the individual accounts. .

Yes that is the basic comparison.

]So, to claim that Mark wanted to create a shorter gospel account for some reason or other simply runs counter to the fact that Mark is not an abridgement of Matthew. .

So yes the word abridgment is misleading and you rightly point out that its use is not generally accurate.

The premise is that Mark is the Mark describe by Papias. This Mark has had direct contact with Peter and is the sort of fellah who would not fail to omit something he had heard or add something he thought was fictitious. The 32 times Mark is longer in the telling of a story reflects the teaching of Peter and how Peter told it, where he is shorter this also reflects the teaching of Peter, where Mark leaves something out this means Peter never said anything like that to Mark.

On the contrary it is an expansion.

Well you were making accurate observations until this one. I agree with your analysis, but if Mark is omitting material used by Matthews that is not an expansion. He abridges 17 stories, and omitted 45% of Matt. If Mark accesses Matt then he quite clearly omits more material than he adds. On this view Mark is not trying to bridge Matthew he is trying to reconcile Matthew with Peter’s teachings.

[Furrowed Brow]

The changes made by the authors of Matthew and Luke were those required by the grammatical rules of Greek.

Agreed. You point is compatible with Mark accessing Matthew.

Anyone competent in Greek would automatically make the same changes.

Agreed. And anyone not so good at Greek will probably get it wrong tin direct correlation to their level of competence. Again this does not mean Matt and Luke accessed Mark

For example, at Mark 10:20 “And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed [�φυλαξάμην] from my youth.�

Mark uses the wrong form of the verb, the aorist middle. Both Matthew and Luke recognise the error and use the correct form, the aorist active [�φύλαξα]. This isn’t a matter of style, interpretation or individual choice but simply the correct application of grammar.

Yes. Matt and Luke has better Grammar. This does not prove or even support priority. The point is neutral in that respect.

Similarly, by way of illustration, anyone familiar with the correct application of English grammar would automatically edit the sentence “This alternative requires less people to do less� to read “This alternative requires fewer people to do less�. [“fewer� applies to things that can be counted, and “less� to quantities and abstractions]

Yes they might. But if their grammar is good they will not make that mistake them self anyway, So the fact Matt and Lukes arguments have correct grammar is not an argument to say they are correcting anyone. It means they have good grammar.

Bill is a poor speller. His errors would be automatically corrected by the better spellers, Ted and Ned, as they copy his paper. This requires no collusion between Ted and Ned, just the correct application of spelling.

And it does not require Bill and Ted to be correcting someone else’s spelling for them to not make a spelling mistake.

On the other hand, had Bill copied from Ted and/or Ned, it is more likely that he would have copied their spelling exactly so the errors would not appear in his work.

Not if we is not that great at spelling. Bill will spell things as he tends to and make the same kinds of mistakes as he usually does. It isa more economical answer to accept Bill and Ted spell well and so no spelling mistakes, and Bill makes the same mistakes he tends to make when copying others.

As a poor speller Bill would rely upon the better spelling to be found in his source material.

There is anassumption that Bill's error rate is not worse when he is not copying, and that copying ensures eradication of mistake.

The point to my examples is that the poor grammar argument can be worked both ways, it is not a slam dunk, and if you think Matt and Luke correct Mark’s argument edges it then fine. But the problem I have is that the argument is put forward as if it proves something. It don’t. The argument is really a way to rationalise the Markan Priority. And I’m not saying it is not plausible, I am saying that this kind of argument really work when the priority is already presumed.

Someone who isn’t as good at Greek [or any language for that matter] is more likely to copy verbatim from his sources rather than risk on his own uncertain terminology.

I’d say that someone who more than likely learnt his written Greek copying others will continue to make the same level of mistakes as their competence allows. The grammar errors indicate Mark has a problem with Greek. If he copies Matt then we presume no more than he copies with his normal error rate. Which is no assumption at all.

If Mark is copying from Matthew and or Luke, he has before him sources of Greek better than his own. Why would he make any changes at all?

He is not making conscious changes. He is making mistakes at the error rates his competency allows.

You are making major and unsubstantiated assumptions to support your case.

You asked me why would Mark slavishly copy Matt and I expanded on a reason of “why�. This answer does not support the claim that Mark followed Matt (Since last night I’ve decided I like the Augustinian hypothesis) but it does give a rationalisation and motivation and the “why�. If it is not Papias’ Mark then it needs to be someone like him.

If Mark was Peter’s interpreter you have to explain Mark’s ignorance [and by implication that of Peter] of Palestinian Jewish customs and practice, as well as his general ignorance of the geography of Palestine.

Well you will need to be more specific as to where you think Mark get’s it wrong. But my argument does require Mark (likely a Roman himself and not Hebrew) to be a slavish follower of Peter. This means ignorance of geography and custom issue from Peter or Mark’s recollection of Peter was about as accurate as his Greek Grammar. Or maybe Peter talked about the homeland more in Aramaic, which made it more difficult for Mark to appreciate the nuances in geography.

Far too much conjecture; too little substance. What is the evidence that Mark was an interpreter except an opinion expressed by Papias.

The tradition of Papias, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, Jerome all state Mark was Peter’s interpreter., with the exception of Tertullian they all say he wrote down Peter’s teachings. Origen says he regarded Mark as his son. Maybe they got information wrong. But it seems a plausible start.

But yes I agree it is conjecture. Again I’ll point out as I did to Mithrae any weakness on my part to bring together plausible hypothesis does not mitigate against the weaknesses in the logic of the Markan Priority. Markan priority is doing as far as I can see as much in the way of rationalisation of the data than actually using the data to support the theory. By noting that it makes much more sense that if Mark was mostly made up of Matt and Luke (now think Luke came last) but was substantially shorter that meant he was leaving stuff out, and the most plausible reason for that is that he could not agree it, and if he could not agree it he was 1/ critical and 2/ probably closer to an eye witness or felt himself closer. Papias’ Mark looks likely the best candidate for Mark. But Papias’ Mark is implied by the basic analysis of the how much of the material appears in each Gospel. Papias’ Mark explains the reduction. But this Mark is inferred.

There is no evidence what so ever that Mark knew Hebrew e.g. all his quotations from the Old Testament come from the Septuagint. The grammatical errors in Mark’s Aramaic point to him being less than proficient in that Language; Mark could only pass himself off as an Aramaic speaker to an audience ignorant of Aramaic!

Whilst poor written Aramaic indicates Mark was not proficient at written Aramaic, this does not mean his conversational Aramaic was as poor. It would also strongly imply Mark was not familiar with the geography he was describing when writing down Peter’s teachings.

But where in anywhere in this do we have to assume Mark was a brilliant interpreter. He is as good as Peter could get. Why would we assume Peter could attract top talent. Marks first qualifications were that he was a believer, and maybe a little slavish, and he could speak several languages well enough to satisfy Peter given the lack of alternative candidates were not queuing for poor pay and poor job prospects.

[Furrowed Brow]

First, there's much better reason to believe Matthew was written after 70CE than Mark, because of the emphasis on Christ's return. We know the 'imminent return' idea was around back in Paul's day; the later gospels Luke and John downplay the idea; Mark no doubt accepted that it would be 'soon,' but doesn't much emphasise that idea (depending on interpretation); but Matthew (10:23 and 16:28) emphasises more than any other that it'll be very soon. Best explanation obviously being that Matthew was poignantly aware of the end to sacrifice and abomination in the temple associated with the conquest of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:27). That doesn't have much direct bearing on the gist of the Augustinian hypothesis of course, but I think it's worth mentioning.

How about Matthew is just the earliest gospel written closest to the execution of Jesus.

If Matt was written say just 10 years after Jesus’ execution and reflected what was being said over that period then we should see evidence of how the very earliest doctrines attempted to cope, and the anxiety levels after that event will be far greater than those felt over a later secondary event. As the later Gospels arrive over the next few decades and there has been no return and it dawns the date of the return is more uncertain they tone it down. I think that would be the strongest motivation for emphasising Christ’s return rather than Matt radiating anxiety over a secondary event.

Secondly, I'd argue that this theory contradicts the best historical testimony (Papias). The disciple Matthew supposedly wrote a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic, not the narrative gospel we possess which to my understanding scholars believe was written in original Greek. Since it's a Jewish product c70-74CE, my own theory (courtesy of a Christian called Alex from the MSN groups FvA and CBED) is that canonical Matthew may well have been written by a follower of the disciple Matthew, combining Matthew's sayings source Q with the narrative by Peter's follower. As far as parsimony goes, I think that best explains how the sayings Papias mentions by disciple Matthew became eclipsed by canonical Matthew.

Yes the stretch to Papias’ Matthew is a bit of a stretch. And I am no expert in the Greek and its possible meanings.

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could[wiki]

Is it possible that Papias use of the word “oracles� means something different to “sayings�. What would be the best word in Greek for Papias to use that meant something akin to “the things said about him�, or “things attributed�. So is there any plausible way we could get something like

• Matthew put together [things said about him] in the Hebrew language, and each one [tried to understand] them as best he could

Just thinking out loud?

[Furrowed Brow]

To raise a point again because I do not want to lose sight of it. If Markan priority is correct and Matt uses 94% of Mark this means Matt is very much focused on preserving Mark. He does not use 94% of Mark by accident or because he is weakly motivated to do so. 94% says Mark is very important to Matthew. Reasons are given why he would leave out 3% of the remaining material that weakened Jesus or look awkward. But Matthew leaves out Mk. 1:21-28. This passage doe not weaken Jesus. In facts it strengthens him.

21 They *went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and began to teach. 22 They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. 23 Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 24 saying, “What [a]business do we have with each other, Jesus [b of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!� 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!� 26 Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him. 27 They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.� 28 Immediately the news about Him spread everywhere into all the surrounding district of Galilee. [New American Standard Bible (NASB)]

Question to Markan Priority supporters: why did Matthew leave Mark 1:21-28. Did he have a reason or is it just an oversight? If it is oversight how do you reconcile that with Matthew managing to preserve 94% of Mark?

Is this not better explained by Matthew writing first and Mark sourcing Matt and reconciling what he finds there with the teachings of his eye witness. the reason Matthew leaves out the passage is because he never saw it. This material came from personal interaction between Mark and an eye witness to whom Matt did not have personal access. This Mark is not interested in weakening or strenghting Jesus. His motivation is just to set the record straight. Luke comes along later and follows Mark because indeed this passage strengthens Jesus. So Luke is motivated to strengthen Jesus.

[Furrowed Brow]

ThatGirlAgainTwo major themes in Mark are Jesus concealing his status as Messiah from the public and the Apostles constantly misunderstanding what Jesus is saying. Mark is saying that anyone who thinks the recent messianic flavored Revolt had anything to do with the Jesus movement is mistaken.

If we assume Matt wrote first early 50 C.E or before then would not the theme of misunderstanding Jesus also be better explained by the cognitive dissonance management of a community coming to terms with the execution of Jesus which they really did not expect. With a community that did not understand what just happened we don’t need to look for later events to explain this theme. We’ve got an event at ground zero. The apostles did not understand what just happened therefore if they were to keep faith they did not really understand what Jesus had been telling them. To save their belief in Jesus he has to become more cryptic, and his message less obvious. Revisiting what Jesus did teach and try and set that in a new light was the only way to salvage some meaning for the community given all their hopes had just been crucified. This Matt is not writing so much for outsiders, or potentially new converts, he is writing for and from the small community who are coming to terms with Jesus execution. Matthew's sources are the hearsay and stories that begun to accumulate as the commnunity worked out what happened. It is a document that says don’t worry this was meant and it will turn out fine, our life is even more special than we ever first imagined. Now we can see what he was really saying the brutal execution of our leader is testament to the validity of our lives and decision to follow him

The secret Messiah is then part of the same theme. These early Christian’s are trying to make sense of the execution and the floor dropping out of their world. If Jesus was appointed by God, even the son of God, then that means he is able to beat death, and the importance and truth of being a follower of Jesus would be validated. Phew! I believed in Jesus and for a moment there I thought I had made a mistake, but now I see he is even more important that I first realised my decision to follow him is even more validated than it ever was before. As the community begin to sift through the ashes they then reinterpret what was said and taught and retell it in ways that buttress their faith and give it meaning and allows the community to stay together. This is where they find their messiah. If they avoid the fact Jesus was really dead, and their hopes placed in him destroyed and he was never coming back, if they avoid all that then they can preserve their faith, they can justify their existence, and they can carry on.

[ThatGirlAgain]

ThatGirlAgainTwo major themes in Mark are Jesus concealing his status as Messiah from the public and the Apostles constantly misunderstanding what Jesus is saying. Mark is saying that anyone who thinks the recent messianic flavored Revolt had anything to do with the Jesus movement is mistaken.

If we assume Mat wrote first early 50 C.E or before…

I believe I have already made a pretty good case that the ‘demons into swine’ pericope indicates that it was written not earlier than 67 CE. This pericope shows up in all three Synoptic Gospels. I believe that analysis of the different ways it is told indicates Markan Priority.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=23
See the two consecutive posts from me.

In summary: The story involves the presence of a herd of two thousand swine. The Roman Tenth Legion used a wild boar as its symbol in the timeframe of the First Revolt. Elements of that Legion, arguably two thousand in number, took part in the siege of a rebellious city in 67 CE. That siege ended with many of the Jewish defenders falling to their deaths trying to escape down a steep slope. Jesus tells this story in an area on the east side of the Sea of Galilee where there is a steep slope leading down to the water. Jesus casts two thousand demons whose name is Legion into pigs who run down that slope into the water. This is the way the story is told in Mark.

Matthew tells a shorter version than Mark or Luke, leaving out the name Legion and not mentioning the number.

Luke tells a story very similar to Mark, even with much common language, using the name Legion but leaving out the two thousand.

As described at length in my other posts, the name Legion and the number two thousand tie in well with a revenge fantasy based on a specific historical event. But only Mark has both and Matthew has neither. Why did Luke use the word Legion when Matthew did not? Why did Mark use the number two thousand? The most likely explanation I can see is that Mark wrote first and then Matthew and Luke used parts of his story comprehensible to them and their respective audiences. Again my belief is that Mark got his material about the Revolt from an eyewitness.

An additional note: Matthew refers to “the region of the Gadarenes�, where Mark and Luke refer to “the region of the Gerasenes�. Not a big deal. These are neighboring regions on the east side of the Sea of Galilee. Both also had significant gentile populations so the presence of a large number of swine is not as incredible as it sounds. Note that the swine herders then wanted Jesus to leave their (gentile) area. A nice realistic touch tying the story a little closer to reality. And also tying Mark and Luke closer together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gergesa

Another little touch: Mark has the demons beg Jesus “not to send them out of the area�. Luke has them beg Jesus “not to order them to go into the Abyss�. Sending the Tenth Legion out of the area sounds more like part of the original revenge fantasy story, expulsion of the Romans being the aim of the First Revolt. Luke, whose Gospel is IMO an attempt to disassociate the Jesus movement from the Revolt, would have reason to change the language. But why would Mark want to tone down the authority of Jesus?

Matthew 8:28-34
28 When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29 “What do you want with us, Son of God?� they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?�
30 Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31 The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.�
32 He said to them, “Go!� So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33 Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34 Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Mark 5:1-17
1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. 2 When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3 This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7 He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!� 8 For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you impure spirit!�
9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?�
“My name is Legion,� he replied, “for we are many.� 10 And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.
11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12 The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.� 13 He gave them permission, and the impure spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.
14 Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. 15 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; and they were afraid. 16 Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. 17 Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

Luke 8:26-37
26 They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee. 27 When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. 28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me!� 29 For Jesus had commanded the impure spirit to come out of the man. Many times it had seized him, and though he was chained hand and foot and kept under guard, he had broken his chains and had been driven by the demon into solitary places.
30 Jesus asked him, “What is your name?�
“Legion,� he replied, because many demons had gone into him. 31 And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss.
32 A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside. The demons begged Jesus to let them go into the pigs, and he gave them permission. 33 When the demons came out of the man, they went into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned.
34 When those tending the pigs saw what had happened, they ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, 35 and the people went out to see what had happened. When they came to Jesus, they found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting at Jesus’ feet, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. 36 Those who had seen it told the people how the demon-possessed man had been cured. 37 Then all the people of the region of the Gerasenes asked Jesus to leave them, because they were overcome with fear. So he got into the boat and left.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

More to come as time permits.