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?

[WinePusher]

Question: Is Markan Priority wrong?

Good Topic Furrowed Brow. First, I think that the term 'editing' shouldn't be used. Solutions to the Synoptic Problem have to deal with when a Gospel was written in comparison with the remaining two, and the possibilities of the remaining two being used as sources of information. The problem with using that specific word is that 'Editing' implies going back and changing content. Going off what the Church Fathers report, Mark did not write first. Papias correctly says that Mark was a disciple of Peter, not Jesus, so if Mark wrote when Peter was alive, then Markan Priority is a correct. If Mark wrote after Peter died, then there is ample room for skepticism as to whether Markan Priority is correct. Along with Papias, you have Ireneus not only implying that Matthew was written first, but that it was written in Aramaic. Do the reports of these Church Fathers ouweight the evidence you've presented? Perhaps, but the only point of yours that possess validity is 1:

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.

That's true, but it's also true that the content found within Mark supplements only about half of the content found within Matthew and Luke. The other half is content that is dissimilar to Mark but similar to both Matthew and Luke, and this is supplemented by positing Q, which you seem to think is irrelevant? But I'll wait for your response, and the imput of people like ThatGirlAgain, Mithrae and fredonly before taking a definite position on your question.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Question: Is Markan Priority wrong?

I am just going to give you the canned arguments because I got the go ahead to do an elaborate multi-thread exposition of my theories about Matthew and Luke and a better way of eliminating the need for Q that also explains why Matthew and Luke should be so similar and yet so different. I want to get as far as I can on that before classes start again this Friday.

Content not present in Mark

Mark's gospel is by far the shortest, and omits much that is in Matthew and Luke. It is argued that he would be unlikely to omit important events from Matthew and Luke, if he had access to their gospels.

Content only found in Mark

There are very few passages in Mark that are found in neither Matthew nor Luke, which makes them all the more significant. If Mark was editing Matthew and Luke, it is hard to see why he would add so little material, if he was going to add anything at all. The choice of additions is also very strange. On the other hand, if Mark wrote first, it is often the case that Matthew and Luke would have strong motives to remove these passages.

One example is Mark 3:21, where we are told that Jesus' own family thought he was "out of his mind". Another is Mark 14:51-52, an obscure incident with no obvious meaning, where a man with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane flees naked.

Significant too is Mark 8:22-26, where Jesus has to try twice to heal a man, his first attempt not being entirely successful.

Alterations

Regarding verses where Mark differs from Matthew and/or Luke, it is often easier to see why Matthew or Luke would alter Mark than the reverse. For example, Matthew 20:20 eliminates a criticism of the disciples found in Mark 10:35 and later verses. Matthew 8:25 and Luke 8:24 both eliminate disrespect towards Jesus from the disciples in Mark 4:38.

Mark's Jesus often seems more human than Matthew's. Davies and Allison list a number of passages where Mark but not Matthew portrays Jesus as emotional (e.g. Mark 1:41, cf. Matthew 8:3), ignorant of some fact (e.g. Mark 6:37-38, cf. Matthew 14:16-17), or incapable of some action (e.g. Mark 6:5, cf. Matthew 13:58).

It is argued that it is easier to see why Matthew would edit Mark to make Jesus more divine and more powerful, than why Mark would edit Matthew to weaken Jesus.

Primitive and unusual language in Mark

Mark's Greek is more primitive than the other Gospel writers. Often, Luke or Matthew will state a parallel Jesus quotation much more eloquently than Mark. In addition, Mark occasionally uses an unusual word or phrase where Matthew uses a common word. It is argued that this makes more sense if Matthew was revising Mark, rather than the reverse.

In addition, Mark is the only author who quotes Aramaic words and phrases which may have been the actual words of Jesus. He alone gives the words Boanerges (3:17), Ephphatha (7:34), Talitha cum (5:41), Abba (14:36) and the Aramaic form of Eli in the cry, Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani (15:34). It has been argued by Geza Vermes that these quotations indicate a closeness to Jesus not shown in the other Gospels.

Vividness and verbosity of Mark

When Mark and Matthew agree, Mark often has a more vivid, verbose version. It is argued that it is unlikely that Mark was inserting details into many Matthean quotes while leaving out huge events such as the birth of Jesus. Rather, this verboseness is explained as nearness to actual eye-witness testimony.

Fatigue

Mark Goodacre lists a number of occasions where it appears that Matthew or Luke begin by altering Mark, but become fatigued and start to copy Mark directly, even when doing so is inconsistent with the changes they have already made. For example, Matthew is more precise than Mark in the titles he gives to rulers, and initially (Matthew 14:1) gives Herod Antipas the correct title of "tetrarch", yet he lapses into calling him "king" at a later verse (Matthew 14:9), apparently because he was copying Mark 6:26 at that point.

Another example given by Goodacre is Luke's version of the feeding of the multitude. Luke apparently changed the setting of the story: whereas Mark placed it in a desert, Luke starts the story in "a town called Bethsaida" (Luke 9:10). Yet later on, Luke is in agreement with Mark, that the events are indeed in a desert (Luke 9:12). Goodacre argues that Luke is here following Mark, not realising that it contradicts the change he made earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_pri ... n_priority

[Furrowed Brow]

First off I have to give a massive qualification to everything I write because I cannot pretend to know the texts very well.

First, I think that the term 'editing' shouldn't be used.

You are right. It was a term in easy reach but it is loaded as you suggest. Maybe I should just use the “prior� or “before� or “working within the tradition� or “working with the tradition� to indicate the line of priority and who was influencing who.

Do the reports of these Church Fathers out weight the evidence you've presented? Perhaps, but the only point of yours that possess validity is 1:

I was not arguing for 1,2,3. My interest is usually focused on trying to unpack the logic of other folks arguments. I gleaned the argument from wiki and was responding to its own internal logic. I obviously need to get clearer as to what we can say accurately about the Gospels, but I am trying to expose a flaw in the logic of the argument expounded on wiki that ThatTheGirl has now kindly posted in full. These are two wiki statements presented as fact I was working with:

• A/ Mark's gospel is by far the shortest, and omits much that is in Matthew and Luke.
  B/ There are very few passages in Mark that are found in neither Matthew nor Luke,

Apparently some folk seem to think these two propositions make for an argument that gives Mark priority. I’d reject that argument route as faulty straight off. It does not matter if the author of Mark gave his version of a tradition that issues from Matt and Luke and this version was abridged or alternatively if it was comprehensive we still should find very few passages in Mark not found in Matt or Luke. The only assumption we have to make to get this result, call this M&L->M, is that the author of Mark was working within the confines of a tradition mainly limited to Matt and Luke. When we make that assumption B is always going to be true and we do not have to presume anything about the motives of the author of Mark, and there is no pressing need to explain A because given assumption M&L->M then the content of Mark would be equal or less than its sources. However we can explain it with the additional corollary that Mark was looking for a synthesis of Matt and Luke which he he preffered, likely becuase he found it reasonable. In other words Mark’s author cherry picks passages that make most sense to him. Or he was working within a tradition that was less elaborate than the Matthew and Luke now handed down to us. On the other hand if the authors of Matt and Luke are working within or are referencing a Markan tradition it does not automatically follow that between them they managed to cover the material in Mark leaving out very few passages. That takes deliberate marshalling of the material, and explanation of the motivations for that are needed. Proposition A would also require additional assumptions to explain where Matt and Luke derive their additional information.

The major problem for Markan Priority is Proposition B which is more damaging to the theory than any good to it. That is my central point. I'mnot even sayingtahtthealterantive I'vepositdistrue, I'm just saying that giventhe premisesA and B Markan Priority is not the more natural fit.

That's true, but it's also true that the content found within Mark supplements only about half of the content found within Matthew and Luke. The other half is content that is dissimilar to Mark but similar to both Matthew and Luke, and this is supplemented by positing Q, which you seem to think is irrelevant?

OK had to read this several times before I got what you were saying. something about the wording kept throwing me. anyhoiw - my point is that you don’t need Q, or the need is less pressing, if Mark is working within the tradition of Matthew and Luke. Q is only really a pressing concern if priority runs in the other direction.

[ThatGirlAgain]

anyhow - my point is that you don’t need Q, or the need is less pressing, if Mark is working within the tradition of Matthew and Luke. Q is only really a pressing concern if priority runs in the other direction.

The original concept of Q was that everything found in both Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark came from Q. If those parts of Mark that are found in both Matthew and Luke are to have come from Matthew/Luke, how does that alleviate the need for Q? It would seem to increase the amount of unexplained commonality in Matthew and Luke. Previously some of that commonality was explained as coming from Mark. If Mark was not written first that explanation is no longer available. Where did all that commonality come from?

Or am I missing something? I may be a little slow today. Just got out of a much too long meeting chock full of important details I need to keep track of.

[Furrowed Brow]

ooh I sees ome awful typos in post 4. Sorry. I can't undo. Hope y'all can make sense of them.

I want to look at the other arguments adumbrated on wiki. In my responses below I am not arguing for the position I state as factually true, though they look plausible to me, I wish to show how the same data i.e. the same evidence as used for Markan Priority can be spun against Markan Priority. What I am saying is that these alternative interpretations are equal or less fraught than the Markan interpretation of the same data.

WIKI
Alterations

Regarding verses where Mark differs from Matthew and/or Luke, it is often easier to see why Matthew or Luke would alter Mark than the reverse. For example, Matthew 20:20 eliminates a criticism of the disciples found in Mark 10:35 and later verses. Matthew 8:25 and Luke 8:24 both eliminate disrespect towards Jesus from the disciples in Mark 4:38.

Mark's Jesus often seems more human than Matthew's. Davies and Allison list a number of passages where Mark but not Matthew portrays Jesus as emotional (e.g. Mark 1:41, cf. Matthew 8:3), ignorant of some fact (e.g. Mark 6:37-38, cf. Matthew 14:16-17), or incapable of some action (e.g. Mark 6:5, cf. Matthew 13:58).

It is argued that it is easier to see why Matthew would edit Mark to make Jesus more divine and more powerful, than why Mark would edit Matthew to weaken Jesus.

Top of my head here is a reason to explain why Mark prefers a more human Jesus. It is the same reason given above to explain proposition A in light of Matthew and Luke priority. The answer is that Mark is not comfortable with all divine aspects of Mark and Luke. We don’t get a virgin, birth and we don’t get to meet a resurrected Jesus in Mark. Mark weakens Jesus comes as a result of an interpretation that tallies with what the author of Mark think is more reasonable and closer to reality.

The problem with the�alteration� argument is that it can be worked both ways and as such is weak to meaningless as an argument for anything.

Wiki
Primitive and unusual language in Mark

Mark's Greek is more primitive than the other Gospel writers. Often, Luke or Matthew will state a parallel Jesus quotation much more eloquently than Mark. In addition, Mark occasionally uses an unusual word or phrase where Matthew uses a common word. It is argued that this makes more sense if Matthew was revising Mark, rather than the reverse.

In addition, Mark is the only author who quotes Aramaic words and phrases which may have been the actual words of Jesus. He alone gives the words Boanerges (3:17), Ephphatha (7:34), Talitha cum (5:41), Abba (14:36) and the Aramaic form of Eli in the cry, Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani (15:34). It has been argued by Geza Vermes that these quotations indicate a closeness to Jesus not shown in the other Gospels.

How about this all makes much more sense if the author of Mark feels he is closer to events than the author of Matthew and Luke but writes later or within an established tradition of Matt and Luke. If the author of Mark thought Matthew and Luke’s more divine Jesus was getting it wrong or glossing and polishing things, the author of Mark might just be trying to respond to what he thought was right in the tradition of Matthew and Luke and what he thought they were leaving out. Greater realism both in language used and content translating as closer proximity of the author to Aramaic events. But closer proximity in this respect does not mean more widely accepted or established. An aspect of getting the record straight might be at play. If Winepusher is correct and Mark was a disciple of Peter, then there is probably and almost certainly an aspect of “this is how Peter told it like that to me and what I am writing down is what I can square with the tradition of Matthew and Luke and what Peter said to me�.

Wiki Vividness and verbosity of Mark

When Mark and Matthew agree, Mark often has a more vivid, verbose version. It is argued that it is unlikely that Mark was inserting details into many Matthean quotes while leaving out huge events such as the birth of Jesus.

The author of Mark would leave out detail of which he was not prepared to give support, and he would become more verbose if he was trying to emphasise the points of agreement. Suggesting he is writing to an audience where his view does not have hegemony. This comes across as an author working in the shadow of a Matt and Luke tradition with which he is not fully comfortable. When he does agree and finds some relief he is verbose.

Rather, this verboseness is explained as nearness to actual eye-witness testimony.

Well yes.

Wiki
Fatigue

Mark Goodacre lists a number of occasions where it appears that Matthew or Luke begin by altering Mark, but become fatigued and start to copy Mark directly, even when doing so is inconsistent with the changes they have already made. For example, Matthew is more precise than Mark in the titles he gives to rulers, and initially (Matthew 14:1) gives Herod Antipas the correct title of "tetrarch", yet he lapses into calling him "king" at a later verse (Matthew 14:9), apparently because he was copying Mark 6:26 at that point.

Another example given by Goodacre is Luke's version of the feeding of the multitude. Luke apparently changed the setting of the story: whereas Mark placed it in a desert, Luke starts the story in "a town called Bethsaida" (Luke 9:10). Yet later on, Luke is in agreement with Mark, that the events are indeed in a desert (Luke 9:12). Goodacre argues that Luke is here following Mark, not realising that it contradicts the change he made earlier.

Like the Alteration argument this is another non argument. The author of Mark is providing a simpler version and corrective, and edits out inconsistencies. Discrepancies in Luke is evidence of greater distance to events and an eye witness. Mark is closer and spots the problem or just sticks with what Peter told.

In evidence of Mark writing in the shadow of Matthew and Luke tradition: we have no Mark documents in evidence before Matthew and Luke. That is how the physcial record stands. A point which means that copies of Mark came later because they were written later, or fewer folk held and distributed fewer written versions of Mark in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, or the physical record is too small and haphazard and we can tell nothing from it. But if we can then we and say it is more likley Mark was far less well distributed than Matt and Luke for nothing to survive with an earlier date. Thus it was less likely the authors of Matt and Luke had access to a written copy of Mark than the author of Mark had access to a written copy of Matt and Luke.

[Furrowed Brow]

The original concept of Q was that everything found in both Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark came from Q. If those parts of Mark that are found in both Matthew and Luke are to have come from Matthew/Luke, how does that alleviate the need for Q?

You are right there is a problem that still needs to be addressed. But asked yourself who is most pressed to answer the problem by positing Q.

With Markan Priority it is assumed Matt and Luke access Mark. So Mark explains one set of commonalities between Matt and Luke. This is the form of the explanation: we find common features and hence posit a common source. We locate that source as Mark. But this does not explain all common features, so we repeat the same exercise and posit a second common source Q but we cannot find it. If Q turned up and did not explain every commonality remaining, we would have to posit R and so on. To be true this is a consistent methodology. But what if it could be demonstrated that Q is not needed. For example, say someone was able to convincingly show Matt and Luke had access to a whole bunch of interrelated documents and shared oral tradition and there was no single document Q i.e. each common feature taken from a different shared source. Why would we then need Mark to explain one sub set of common features, and a diverse shared heritage to explain the other features previously accredited to Q? The credibility of the methodology of Markan Priority would be considerably weakened if only because the basic assumption common features implies a single common source would have been proved falso for pasages within Matt and Luke. So some degree of Markian Priority credibility depends on Q.

Now assume inverse priority. Mark uses Matt and Luke. That explains perfectly why common features in Matt and Luke are in Mark, and why most of Mark is found in either Matt or Luke. Now assume Q is disproved. The credibility of the Matt and Luke priority is not diminished by this finding because it never assumes common features imply a single shared source. Now assume Q is found, it still needs to be explain why most of Mark ends up in Matt and Luke and the Markan Priority explains this less well than the inverse priority.

[Furrowed Brow]

duplication

[ThatGirlAgain]

The original concept of Q was that everything found in both Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark came from Q. If those parts of Mark that are found in both Matthew and Luke are to have come from Matthew/Luke, how does that alleviate the need for Q?

You are right there is a problem that still needs to be addressed. But asked yourself who is most pressed to answer the problem by positing Q.

With Markan Priority it is assumed Matt and Luke access Mark. So Mark explains one set of commonalities between Matt and Luke. This is the form of the explanation: we find common features and hence posit a common source. We locate that source as Mark. But this does not explain all common features, so we repeat the same exercise and posit a second common source Q but we cannot find it. If Q turned up and did not explain every commonality remaining, we would have to posit R and so on. To be true this is a consistent methodology. But what if it could be demonstrated that Q is not needed. For example, say someone was able to convincingly show Matt and Luke had access to a whole bunch of interrelated documents and shared oral tradition and there was no single document Q i.e. each common feature taken from a different shared source. Why would we then need Mark to explain one sub set of common features, and a diverse shared heritage to explain the other features previously accredited to Q? The credibility of the methodology of Markan Priority would be considerably weakened if only because the basic assumption common features implies a single common source would have been proved false for passages within Matt and Luke. So some degree of Markan Priority credibility depends on Q.

Now assume inverse priority. Mark uses Matt and Luke. That explains perfectly why common features in Matt and Luke are in Mark, and why most of Mark is found in either Matt or Luke. Now assume Q is disproved. The credibility of the Matt and Luke priority is not diminished by this finding because it never assumes common features imply a single shared source. Now assume Q is found, again this has no impact because it still needs to be explain why most of Mark ends up in Matt and Luke and the Markan Priority explains this less well than the inverse priority. With the inverse priority theory where the common features in Matt and Luke issue from is its own separate problem. That does not press on how most of Mark is in Matt and Luke. Maybe the answer is or is not Q. Whatever the answer it is no sweat for the inverse theory.

With the inverse priority theory, the now increased common features of Matthew and Luke become a bigger problem as I already described. Most of Mark ending up in Matthew and Luke is no problem at all with Markan priority. Mark was available to them.

Whether the hypothetical Q is thought of as a single work or a body of tradition does not seem to matter.

My own theory - if it ever sees the light of day - is that Mark came first, then Matthew who used Mark and added material for his own purposes, then Luke who used both Mark and Matthew and not only added material for his own purposes but deliberately and visibly contradicted certain key elements in Matthew. This is the Farrer Hypothesis plus my own personal spin (italics above). No Q needed and easy explanation of the differences between Matthew and Luke but none of the problems of non-Markan priority.

To my mind the biggest issue with the various theories is that they all want to preserve the existence of an already existing tradition as the explanation for everything in the Gospels. My take is that some of the things were invented for clearly discernible purposes.

[Furrowed Brow]

With the inverse priority theory, the now increased common features of Matthew and Luke become a bigger problem as I already described.

No they don't as far as I can see. I must be thinking about this too dogmatically I guess. For me to loosen up you need to clearly explain why Markan priority is a logically simpler explanation for most of Mark ending up in Matt and Luke than the inverse explanation.

Most of Mark ending up in Matthew and Luke is no problem at all with Markan priority. Mark was available to them.

Yes Mark was available in that theory. I’m not saying Markan priority does not have a way to rationalise the evidence. But - as a matter of the logic - it is a more complicated answer to get most of Mark in both Matt and Luke. Try to explain that and your answer will be longer than "Mark sourced Matt and Luke" because you have to exlain why most of Mark gets in Matt and Luke. With the inverse theory the answers is a priori i.e. it has to be the case if Mark is responding or sourcing just Matt and Luke.

Are Textual Critics trained in logic?

Whether the hypothetical Q is thought of as a single work or a body of tradition does not seem to matter.

Yes it does for the reasons given. They are pretty sound I'd say. So what is wrong with them?

It is interesting that the Farrer Hypothesis is an appeal to logical simplicity.