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 lets 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 dont 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? Lets 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]

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.

If Eusebius is correct then Papias refers to [the logia; accusative plural] , the oracles.

In the New Testament this word logion [in various forms] occurs four times.

Paul, Romans 3:2, refers to , [ta logia tou theou] the oracles of God, and in Acts 7:38 we find [logia zonta]the living oracles.

Hebrews 5:12 has - , [ta stoicheia tes arches ton logion tou theou] the first principals of the oracles of God.

1 Peter 4:11 has , , [lalei hos logia theou] speaking as it were the oracles of God

These all point to a meaning sayings of rather than sayings about. [as do all uses of logion in the Septuagint] So on balance Papias reference appears to be to a sayings gospel, perhaps like Thomas, rather than a narrative gospel such as Matthew.

This would be confirmed by the Greeks use of the word logia of the "oracles" or brief sayings from Delphi.

Matthew is certainly not a sayings gospel and the general consensus is that it was not composed in Hebrew [or Aramaic for that matter], so Papias reference is unlikely to be to the extant gospel of Matthew.

Had Papias definitely intended to refer to a narrative account, about what Jesus did and said, rather than simply Jesus' sayings, he might have used - [praxeis tou kuriou] acts of the lord

Thank you for that clarifcation.

[Furrowed Brow]

[Did you read the previous posts I linked?

Here is the one about the 2000 number.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=24

Sorry missed that. I am covering a lot of material this evening. But I still don't think this gets you where you need to be.

If he meant the entire legion why would Mark say only 2000?

Because that is what Peter said maybe? Because it has nothing to do with the 67 rebellion..maybe. Inthis case a lack of a locatable motivation for the number 2000 does not meanMArk was refferring to one third of a legion, and even if he was, this could still trace back to 6 C.E.

OK what you are doing is working with the assumption Mark is responding to an historical period 67 C.E and later and interpreting everything said in the light of that presumption. Nome of this supports the premise...it follows from the premise.

And you still have not addressed the bit about falling down a steep slope to their deaths, just like happened to the defenders at Gamala in 67 CE and would serve as a sweet revenge fantasy against the Tenth.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=23

No I gave an answer to that. It is a revenge fantasy. Look at Gamala, look at the man who would not be chained and look at where Judas came from. I have given you an alternative interpretation that weaves togther the same elements. Clearly this metaphor is just about the man who broke his chains and who is tormented. And the revenge fantasy is for Judas, and the revenge takes place at his home town. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it that can possibly be used to meaningfully support an argument.

2000 men as the Tenths contribution to the siege of Gamala in 67 CE.

Hmm....maybe.

The steep slope massacre happening in Gamala in 67 CE. These are recent events Marks audience in the 70-75 CE time range would pick up on.

Do not disagree. And I do not disagree Mark would not have been aware of the resonance. And if Mark has written to include these events intothe text then your rationalisation looks plausible. Butyou cant argue back in the other direction. i.e. this looks like a metaphor for the 67 rebellion therefore that is what Mark meant.

Mark 5 remains tightly focused on 67 CE.

Maybe, maybe not. What evidence you got Jesus was not referencing Judas and banishing the demons of the rebellion at Judas hometown where they could be drowned.

Oh, one more thing. [/Columbo imitation] Gamala was a heavily Jewish area as evidenced by it being a hotbed of Zealot uprisings against the Romans. The east bank of the Sea of Galilee was heavily gentile, hence the herd of pigs. They fell into the lake as Mark tells us, not into a waterfall.

Ok.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Argument that Mark 13 refers specifically to the First Revolt and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, spoken as a prophecy by Jesus.

Heres a funny thing. In the heart of London next to the Thames you will find the Tower of London. It is built from stone and so far stood for several hundred years with absolutely no hint it will fall down or be knocked down. Im going to make a prediction. At some point I shall not define Not one stone there will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down. I guarantee you this prediction will come true. Not saying when though.

So what Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. These are violent times, buildings are no so well built, and Rome is ruthless. Rome already destroyed Carthage 146 BC and plenty of other folk who stood in her way. It was the sort of thing Rome did. Heck he might must have been generalising in a very nonspecific way like just like next few verse that follow. Mark 13:5-8 theyve been true just about every century ever since.

Here are two Messiah claimants associated with the First Revolt.
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts11.html
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts12.html

Okay you need to rethink what you are trying to do. You are taken some very nonspecific claims attributed to Jesus and trying to write in the details, and then give Mark the credit for referencing these possibilities. Just look at how non specific Jesus claims are. Here is a list of messiah claimants How did Mark know about Montanus in in 135-177? If he is not referring to him then why might he be referring to the two you offer as an example. Because their dates work out I guess. What about Simon Magus. What Jesus said could apply to the whole list. If so it makes the claim the reference applies to a specific siege pretty darn meaningless. This is a clear example of trying to rationalise Mark as responding to the Jewish Revolt when what is said is just open to interpretation.

The problem here is getting unnerved by seeing this as some kind of meaningful prophecy on Jesus part and in retreat from that thought look for ways to get the prediction in after the event. So what if the temple was destroyed by Rome 40 years or so later. It really is meaningless much like trying to discern the meaning of a metaphor is a meaningless exercise.

Step outside your theory of Mark for a moment. Go back to the section in Mark 13 you have just quoted and pick out one hard specific prediction with a date and location and name attached. You are seeing Mark referencing events I am seeing you fit some data to very non specific generic statements and truisms. Sure we can make sense of Mark this way, I am not saying this is not just as good a way to rationalise Mark as any other, except it makes it all a meaningless exercise. I kind of prefer the idea these sayings are really being attributed to Jesus. Maybe he even said them. It is really not problematic a prophet would come out with such banalities. They tend to do that.

I believe you are missing my point. These are not (necessarily) predictions made by a historical Jesus. This is a story created by Mark immediately after all of these events just happened. They were all part of the recently suppressed First revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The existence of the not taste death prophecy is apparently too deeply rooted in tradition to ignore. Paul also believed in and popularized an imminent eschaton backing up that idea. But it is now 40 years or more and Jesus still has not returned. To Paul the Resurrection was the sign of the opening of the messianic age, when everyone will be resurrected to face judgment. As time goes on that is becoming harder to believe.

Mark is resetting the clock to make the destruction of the Temple the real opening of the messianic age. He is simultaneously separating the Jesus movement from the recent and horrible war. Revolt was not the true messianic way no matter what people thought. This is why Mark has everyone constantly misunderstanding Jesus. The military messiah idea recently smashed down by the Romans is not where Jesus was at. Anyone who thought so was wrong. Why, Jesus even wanted his messiah status kept secret, not shouted from the rooftops to energize an army of rebels. That is what Mark is saying: Jesus is not a revolutionary messiah.

Think of the Gospel of Mark as a contemporary audience would have thought of it. Mark brings in this prophesy because it is all about recent history. People will immediately grasp it and know what he is talking about. Think of Mark as presenting a focused message easily accessible and understandable by his audience and it all falls into place. Even if a historic Jesus said things like this, it is clear that Mark is using them for this specific purpose.

[ThatGirlAgain]

[Did you read the previous posts I linked?

Here is the one about the 2000 number.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=24

Sorry missed that. I am covering a lot of material this evening. But I still don't think this gets you where you need to be.

If he meant the entire legion why would Mark say only 2000?

Because that is what Peter said maybe? Because it has nothing to do with the 67 rebellion..maybe. Inthis case a lack of a locatable motivation for the number 2000 does not meanMArk was refferring to one third of a legion, and even if he was, this could still trace back to 6 C.E.

OK what you are doing is working with the assumption Mark is responding to an historical period 67 C.E and later and interpreting everything said in the light of that presumption. Nome of this supports the premise...it follows from the premise.

And you still have not addressed the bit about falling down a steep slope to their deaths, just like happened to the defenders at Gamala in 67 CE and would serve as a sweet revenge fantasy against the Tenth.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=23

No I gave an answer to that. It is a revenge fantasy. Look at Gamala, look at the man who would not be chained and look at where Judas came from. I have given you an alternative interpretation that weaves togther the same elements. Clearly this metaphor is just about the man who broke his chains and who is tormented. And the revenge fantasy is for Judas, and the revenge takes place at his home town. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it that can possibly be used to meaningfully support an argument.

2000 men as the Tenths contribution to the siege of Gamala in 67 CE.

Hmm....maybe.

The steep slope massacre happening in Gamala in 67 CE. These are recent events Marks audience in the 70-75 CE time range would pick up on.

Do not disagree. And I do not disagree Mark would not have been aware of the resonance. And if Mark has written to include these events intothe text then your rationalisation looks plausible. Butyou cant argue back in the other direction. i.e. this looks like a metaphor for the 67 rebellion therefore that is what Mark meant.

Mark 5 remains tightly focused on 67 CE.

Maybe, maybe not. What evidence you got Jesus was not referencing Judas and banishing the demons of the rebellion at Judas hometown where they could be drowned.

Oh, one more thing. [/Columbo imitation] Gamala was a heavily Jewish area as evidenced by it being a hotbed of Zealot uprisings against the Romans. The east bank of the Sea of Galilee was heavily gentile, hence the herd of pigs. They fell into the lake as Mark tells us, not into a waterfall.

Ok.

Off to school soon. Got a heavy schedule at shcoll and at work. I do not know when I will be doing as much posting again.

My bottom line: My take on Mark results in a single coherent rational for the entire Gospel with no more assumptions needed than what history and imagining oneself as the audience provide. Other approaches raise questions for which no immediate answers are forthcoming and make Mark an incoherent read.

[Furrowed Brow]

A much simpler explanation is that the author of Mark did not have reference to an eye witness.

Is that really simpler. (see further below)

So now your Peter is not a fully reliable witness.

If Mark is preserving the teachings of Peter then Peter has told Mark that Jesus walked on water. No at some point the reliability gives out.

If Mark is not Peters interpreter then Mark is still most likely closest to a real eye witness than the other Gospels, and whoever that might have been that witness told Mark Jesus walked on water, or the author of Mark just made it up himself. So no, someone in this process cannot be fully trusted.

But again Im starting with an analysis that indicates to me Mark followed Matt, and the rest is a rationalisation of what that means.

Perhaps your Peter wasnt a witness at all if he wasnt on the boat with Jesus. I wonder what other events your Peter didnt witness?

Everything not in Mark and maybe a lot more. I am sure Peter never saw many things claimed for Jesus. I dont think we need to shy away from that certainty.

If as you say, Peter wasnt a witness to this event, why does Mark include it in his account. Why does Mark modify what Matthew says, and makes the geographical error even worse?

Maybe Mark is just repeating what he heard, maybe he has mangled what he heard, and maybe this reflects some deep confusion in early eye witness testimonies. Whether Matt got it wrong but not so badly wrong does not mean Matt is any more reliable. But on this version we have a mechanisms for misunderstanding. Mark is Roman, he is in or around Rome when he writes. He is writing after the death of Peter so Peter cannot correct his mistakes or confusions. This may not be a great explanation but it does explain the discrepancies. Beside from saying both Matt and Mark are completely removed from any eye witness and anyone who had been to the area how else can we explain this. But then if we go that route we still need to explain why Mark is 94% Matt and where they got the info from and at some point we will face a liar, or there will be some mechanism for confusion like a Roman interpreter (maybe not a great one) trying to understanding a fellah talking in a thick Aramaic accent.

How about a much simpler explanation; Mark was not acquainted with Peter or anyone else familiar with Palestine.

This maybe so, but one of the reasons Mark is usually thought to be earlier is that some of the language he uses has hints of translation from Aramaic. I let you correct me on that but that is the impression I have been working with. But on that basis it makes sense to put Mark in closer proximity to an eyewitness than Matt. It was for partly this reason I went for the Papias Mark in Rome writing later and trying to remain loyal to what he had heard Peter teach.

So, in every instance where I have raised questions regarding the veracity of Marks knowledge of Palestine and Jewish customs [guided as you claimed by the eye witness Peter] your answer is that either Peter wasnt there or he fabricated the truth. Wouldnt it be simpler to admit that Mark was not Peters interpreter. Put simply Papias got it wrong.

Maybe Papias did get it wrong. But if he did then we have someone else lost in history who did not meet an eye witness but was closer to one than Matt and Luke. Even so I still get Mark following Matt because of the 94%.

If that is your ace in the hole then your whole argument is holed below the water line!

No the logic is correct. If you think the argument is not valid then you need to dig into its own internal logic and pull out its flaw. That would hole it. The poor grammar argument eventually just breaks down into personal opinion. Hardly holed.

I will answer your point in due course but in the mean time you might want to come up with a rational explanation of why, if Mark copied Matthew, he would choose to omit everything concerning Jesus birth, the birth of John the Baptist, the Sermon on the Mount, the Lords prayer, and all the resurrection narratives. Surely your Peter must have witnessed at least some of these events? If he didn't witness the actual events he certainly could have made something up, after all, according to your version of events, he was pretty adept at doing that.

Ive covered this ground but the thread is getting long so Ill reiterate the basic idea. Mark does not mention the virgin birth because Peter did not teach that. Mark is earnest and as Papias says not about to omit what he has heard or introduce fiction. The tradition of the virgin birth does not come through Mark because it does not come through Peter and Mark is trying to set the record straight because he feels he is closer to an eye witness than Matt. Mark is not copying Matthew he is trying to reconcile Matt with what he has privileged knowledge. If Mark does not include the full resurrection accounts then that means Peter did not teach that.

Matt is a document written earlier 50 C.E. or thereabouts but does directly not source an eye witness. Matthew account reveals various ideas and stories and doctrines that were circulating at that time including the ones Peter would end up teaching in Rome. Mark is validating these parts of the Christian story as what was taught to him by an original eye witness, and thus the other 45% of Matt he discards because he does not trust its veracity. He only adds 6%. This is stuff personal to Peter and more likely it shows what he did witness. Half of this materail weakens Jesus or otherwise awkward, the rest is one longer passage that strengthens Jesus. Mark is not thinking in terms of weakening or strengtening he is just trying to get things straight.

I am saying Peter tweaked his teachings to suit his Roman audience and told stories he probably always told. Maybe some of the stories he picked up in Gallilee and Judea but did not witness himself but told them as true, some he witnessed himself. For example, I think Mark 1:21-28 is from Peter. As Matt tells of Peter trying to walk on water but Mark leaves this out we deduce that Peter never told it like that.

Ok I assume the Augustinian Hypothesis that Matt was earlier than Mark and lLke had acess to both, I assume Mark is Papias' Mark, and from that I have imagined all of the above.

[Furrowed Brow]

[My bottom line: My take on Mark results in a single coherent rational for the entire Gospel with no more assumptions needed than what history and imagining oneself as the audience provide. Other approaches raise questions for which no immediate answers are forthcoming and make Mark an incoherent read.

You have yet to answer the question I asked again at post 38.

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?

[ThatGirlAgain]

[My bottom line: My take on Mark results in a single coherent rational for the entire Gospel with no more assumptions needed than what history and imagining oneself as the audience provide. Other approaches raise questions for which no immediate answers are forthcoming and make Mark an incoherent read.

You have yet to answer the question I asked again at post 38.

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?

I missed seeing that one. There is no problem with this passage if one views each Gospel as a coherent work written with a specific agenda in a particular social and historical context.

Mark is writing immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The center of Judaism, the Temple where the mandatory rituals need to be performed, is gone. This is a perfect opportunity to offer an alternative form of Judaism in its place, the Jesus movement. But Mark is faced with two problems. Jewish messianic movements are in disfavor right now, having been the driving force behind the Revolt and its terrible aftermath. And the imminently expected return of the savior still has not happened after 40 years and more.

Mark needs to disassociate Jesus from the Revolt, which he does in various ways not relevant to this post. He also needs to reset the start of the messianic age from the Pauline concept of the Resurrection as the opening, to a new marker " the War and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I have dealt with that in a previous post.

But to make these believable, Mark needs to establish the authority of Jesus as the promised deliverer. He starts off with the baptism of Jesus, amplified in importance by the voice of the Father and the appearance of the Holy Spirit. A good start, but Jesus needs to establish his authority with the religious authorities and the population at large. He does this by proclaiming his authority and backing it up with miracles.

Where does Jesus proclaim his authority? In the synagogue, where The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. The message of Jesus is above and beyond standard Judaism. A man who is possessed identifies Jesus as the Holy One of God. Jesus now performs his first miracle, forcing the spirit out of the man. He then proceeds to perform other miracles in public, cementing his authority.

Mark 1:21-28
21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are"the Holy One of God!
25 Be quiet! said Jesus sternly. Come out of him! 26 The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.

27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, What is this? A new teaching"and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him. 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.

Matthew has a somewhat different agenda. It is now some years after Mark wrote and a new alternative to Temple-centric Judaism has appeared - rabbinic Judaism. This has spread outside of Judaea where it was created by the Pharisees. It has reached Syria where Matthews community lives. This community consists of Jesus followers who are still observant Jews. Matthew sees the new rabbinic Judaism as a competitor for the allegiance of his community.

Matthews tactic is to firmly establish Jesus as the culmination of the trajectory of Jewish history and the true inheritor of that tradition. His Gospel is filled with references to the Jewish scriptures that he uses to justify this view of Jesus. Matthews rancor against the Pharisees is put in the mouth of Jesus, e.g., the chapter long diatribe in Matt 23.

Matthew begins with a genealogy of Jesus tracing his lineage (via linking Mary with Joseph) through auspicious Jewish names all the way back to Abraham. He follows this up with a magic laden nativity story that links Jesus with Moses the Lawgiver, a meme he continues elsewhere in his Gospel. Having Jesus then announce himself in the synagogue is not really necessary. Instead Mathew has Jesus deliver the long Sermon on the Mount detailing his message. Jesus is delivering the law to the people from a mountain (just like Moses) and not to the religious leaders in the synagogue. Only then does Jesus begin the miracles.

But does Matthew have a special reason for not using a synagogue? Yes indeed. Matthew is writing his Gospel in opposition to the Pharisees, the religious leaders migrating up from devastated Jerusalem and claiming to be the inheritors of mainstream Judaism. Matthews Jesus does not have to justify himself before the likes of these. Many of the references to synagogues in Matthew have a negative flavor.

Matthew 6:2 So when you give to he needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues

Matthew 6:5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues

Matthew 9:18 While he was saying this a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live
Jesus is superior to the synagogue leader.

Matthew 12:9-10 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?
The synagogue authorities want to trap Jesus.

Matthew 13:54-57 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? they asked. Isnt this the carpenters son? Isnt his mothers name Mary, and arent his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Arent all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? And they took offense at him.
Echoes of Mark 1:21-28 but turned around. The authority of Jesus does not come via the synagogue.

Matthew 23:6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues

Matthew 23:34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
The you is the Pharisees. This is the Chapter 23 diatribe.


Matthews omission of Mark 1:21-28 is intentional and in keeping with his overall agenda. The Gospels should not be viewed as a set of Legos, trying to see who put what pieces where. They should be viewed as separate works with each author addressing his own purposes with the freedom to include, omit or invent as he sees fit.

[Furrowed Brow]

Matthews omission of Mark 1:21-28 is intentional and in keeping with his overall agenda. The Gospels should not be viewed as a set of Legos, trying to see who put what pieces where. They should be viewed as separate works with each author addressing his own purposes with the freedom to include, omit or invent as he sees fit.

Yes ...but....what we are doing when we address what the author is doing is rationalise the data in front of us and try and weave a plausible commentary to explain why the data look like it does. Which is fine and it seems you are indicating to me that is how textual criticism works. But there are....or I should say maybe there are more because I have not attempted thorough analysis....obvious structural characteristics of the gospels that also need explaining. You previously point out the text cannot be analysed in a vacuum. But it can. The 94% is telling us something: it is more likely Mark followed Matt, but if Matt was following Mark he was highly motivated to use as much of Marks material as he could.

But does Matthew have a special reason for not using a synagogue? Yes indeed. Matthew is writing his Gospel in opposition to the Pharisees, the religious leaders migrating up from devastated Jerusalem and claiming to be the inheritors of mainstream Judaism. Matthews Jesus does not have to justify himself before the likes of these. Many of the references to synagogues in Matthew have a negative flavor.

Heres the problem if Matt had included the material in Mark 1:32 you could have argued it that way too. Matt would be showing the Pharisees that Jesus was his own authority in their synagogue. But if you are right that Matthew is in opposition to the Pharisee and that Jesus not have to justify himself to them then we should compare the next two passages from Mark and Matt.

• Mark 2:15-17 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. 16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Here is a clear example in Mark of Jesus justifying himself to the Pharisee.

• Matt 9:9-13 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collectors booth. Follow me, he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthews house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? On hearing this, Jesus said, It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

And in Matt we get the same material where Jesus justifies himself to Pharisees. So I dont think your reason for Matt excluding Mark 1:21-28 flies. Ok you can say that in Mark 1:21-28 Jesus is actually in a synagogue and that Matts refers to a synagogue in a negative light but look again at Mark 1:22-24.

• Mark 1:22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.

The people in the synagogue were amazed at Jesus authority compared to the teachers of the law. Inside the synagogue Jesus is stealing their authority.

• Marj 1:23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out,

A man of impure spirit inside the synagogue could be taken as metaphor for a Pharisee, and if Matt had used this material he could have spun that way.

• Mark 1:24 What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?

The man with impure spirit in the synagogue is frightened of being destroyed by Jesus

• I know who you are"the Holy One of God!

And then he accepts Jesus authority. This could easily be spun in a way to show the pharisees Matt opposes deep down know where the real authority lies. Matt has used 94% of Mark but not this section where there is so much ripe material he could use to make his point. All he needs to do is make it outside the synagogue if going inside is a problem.

Are you going to stick with your answer? It does not look a strong reason for the omission. Can you improve it? Wouldn't be simpler to just have Mark following Matt, with Mark writing 70-75?

How about Mark writing early and his anti Pharisee gospel reflecting the hegemony that Jesus was challenging. Thus Matt shows strong anti Pharisee elements because Jesus' ministry was anti Pharisee. The tone of Matthewss gospel down to Jesus challenging authority, and the fact that this challenge got Jesus executed. Now the theme is not about Matthew at all and the focus is back on Jesus. Matt is not miffed at a secondar problem he is experiencing his gospel reflects, the original problem. He leaves out this one passage in Mark because he never saw it because it is a personal story unique to an eye witness Matt had no access.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Matthews omission of Mark 1:21-28 is intentional and in keeping with his overall agenda. The Gospels should not be viewed as a set of Legos, trying to see who put what pieces where. They should be viewed as separate works with each author addressing his own purposes with the freedom to include, omit or invent as he sees fit.

Yes ...but....what we are doing when we address what the author is doing is rationalise the data in front of us and try and weave a plausible commentary to explain why the data look like it does. Which is fine and it seems you are indicating to me that is how textual criticism works. But there are....or I should say maybe there are more because I have not attempted thorough analysis....obvious structural characteristics of the gospels that also need explaining. You previously point out the text cannot be analysed in a vacuum. But it can. The 94% is telling us something: it is more likely Mark followed Matt, but if Matt was following Mark he was highly motivated to use as much of Marks material as he could.

Yes Matthew was mightily motivated to use marks material, except where it did not fit Matthews agenda. Mark's Gospel was Matthew's starting point. If it were the other way around, why would Mark be motivated to leave out so much of Matthew. The Peter excuse is itself a whopping big assumption. Why would Mark not mention such an illustrious source if he wanted to be believed?

]But does Matthew have a special reason for not using a synagogue? Yes indeed. Matthew is writing his Gospel in opposition to the Pharisees, the religious leaders migrating up from devastated Jerusalem and claiming to be the inheritors of mainstream Judaism. Matthews Jesus does not have to justify himself before the likes of these. Many of the references to synagogues in Matthew have a negative flavor.

Heres the problem if Matt had included the material in Mark 1:32 you could have argued it that way too. Matt would be showing the Pharisees that Jesus was his own authority in their synagogue. But if you are right that Matthew is in opposition to the Pharisee and that Jesus not have to justify himself to them then we should compare the next two passages from Mark and Matt.

• Mark 2:15-17 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. 16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Here is a clear example in Mark of Jesus justifying himself to the Pharisee.

• Matt 9:9-13 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collectors booth. Follow me, he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthews house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? On hearing this, Jesus said, It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

And in Matt we get the same material where Jesus justifies himself to Pharisees. So I dont think your reason for Matt excluding Mark 1:21-28 flies. Ok you can say that in Mark 1:21-28 Jesus is actually in a synagogue and that Matts refers to a synagogue in a negative light but look again at Mark 1:22-24.

• Mark 1:22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.

The people in the synagogue were amazed at Jesus authority compared to the teachers of the law. Inside the synagogue Jesus is stealing their authority.

• Mark 1:23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out,

A man of impure spirit inside the synagogue could be taken as metaphor for a Pharisee, and if Matt had used this material he could have spun that way.

• Mark 1:24 What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?

The man with impure spirit in the synagogue is frightened of being destroyed by Jesus

• I know who you are"the Holy One of God!

And then he accepts Jesus authority. This could easily be spun in a way to show the Pharisees Matt opposes deep down know where the real authority lies. Matt has used 94% of Mark but not this section where there is so much ripe material he could use to make his point. All he needs to do is make it outside the synagogue if going inside is a problem.

Are you going to stick with your answer? It does not look a strong reason for the omission. Can you improve it? Wouldn't be simpler to just have Mark following Matt, with Mark writing 70-75?

How about Mark writing early and his anti Pharisee gospel reflecting the hegemony that Jesus was challenging. Thus Matt shows strong anti Pharisee elements because Jesus' ministry was anti Pharisee. The tone of Matthewss gospel down to Jesus challenging authority, and the fact that this challenge got Jesus executed. Now the theme is not about Matthew at all and the focus is back on Jesus. Matt is not miffed at a secondary problem he is experiencing his gospel reflects, the original problem. He leaves out this one passage in Mark because he never saw it because it is a personal story unique to an eye witness Matt had no access.

Jesus was starting his career by looking to impress synagogue leaders. But Matthew has a synagogue leader kneel to Jesus. To Matthew it is their synagogue. The only non-negative (actually neutral) things Matthew has to say about synagogues are copied from Mark. Why does Mark not copy those negative things from Matthew? And explain why Matthew is so obsessed with hating the Pharisees, so much more than Mark or Luke, without having rabbinic Judaism encroaching on his territory. No, having Mark follow Matthew makes no sense. If Mark got his info from Peter, how come Peter did not notice all that hatred? How come Luke does not know about it? For that matter why is Luke so different from Matthew in the areas that Mark does not cover, like the genealogy and the nativity? Having Matthew invent those stories for his own purposes, as I described previously, and having Luke re-invent them for his purposes sounds like a reasonable explanation. Do you have another explanation for that?

Mark has Jesus state his new teaching in the synagogue and people are amazed at it. What exactly is this new teaching? Matthew tells us at enormous length " the three chapters of the Sermon on the Mount " not in a synagogue and not to the leaders of the synagogue. Why does Mark not tell us anything about what the new teaching was if he copied from Matthew? Surely Peter was there and would have told Mark about it. Peter was picked even before Matthew.

In Matthew 3, John the Baptist calls the Pharisees a brood of vipers. In Matthew 23 he has Jesus call the Pharisees a brood of vipers. Luke 3 only has John use the phrase. Luke is not so obsessed with hating Pharisees. Mark does not have it at all.

It was the Sadducees (the priests) who had Jesus arrested and tried him, not the Pharisees, who had no such power. Jesus ticked off the Temple owning Sadducees by interfering with the profitable business of changing regular currency into Temple money necessary to pay for the mandatory Passover sacrifices. (Ever wonder why they needed Judas to find and identify Jesus? Another thread I have to start someday.)

[Furrowed Brow]

Jesus was starting his career by looking to impress synagogue leaders. But Matthew has a synagogue leader kneel to Jesus. To Matthew it is their synagogue. The only non-negative (actually neutral) things Matthew has to say about synagogues are copied from Mark.

If as you say Matthew has an anti Pharisee agenda but contains some neutral comments about synagogues and gets the neutral stuff from Mark this still does not explain why he left out Mark 1:21-28. This is obviously anti Pharisee or if it is not so obvious it is obvious how Matthew could spin it that way. But now you are saying his following Mark means he leaves in some neutral stuff, even more reason to explain why he leaves out Mark 1:21-28.

Why does Mark not copy those negative things from Matthew?

Because these specific things is not what he heard Peter teach.

And explain why Matthew is so obsessed with hating the Pharisees,

He is not so obsessed that he does not also have some neutral stuff. But if Matthew reflects a tradition that in making sense of Jesus execution it has vented resentment towards the Pharisees then that will tell in Matts account. Maybe Peter in Rome has been more cut off from that tradition.

so much more than Mark or Luke, without having rabbinic Judaism encroaching on his territory.

Well who are you assuming wrote Matthew? We are each making assumptions here.

No, having Mark follow Matthew makes no sense.

That is not accurate. I think it makes no sense given your assumptions. That would be accurate. As a theory Mark following Matt might make less sense to you, but it would only make no sense if you cannot in any way entertain the alternative assumptions to those you are using.

If Mark got his info from Peter, how come Peter did not notice all that hatred?

How about he did as evidenced by Mark 1:21-28. Read it the way I suggested.

It was the Sadducees (the priests) who had Jesus arrested and tried him, not the Pharisees, who had no such power. Jesus ticked off the Temple owning Sadducees by interfering with the profitable business of changing regular currency into Temple money necessary to pay for the mandatory Passover sacrifices. (Ever wonder why they needed Judas to find and identify Jesus? Another thread I have to start someday.)

Well the Pharisees had something to do with it according to Mark

Mark 3:4-6 Then Jesus asked them, Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill? But they remained silent.5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, Stretch out your hand. He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6 Then there is Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

If Jesus does good on the Sabbath the implication is that the Pharisees are doing evil. The irony is they immediately go hatch a plot to have Jesus killed. A pretty hard condemnation.

Mark 8:11-15 11 The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 Sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation. Leaving them, He again embarked and went away to the other side. 14 And they had forgotten to take bread, and did not have more than one loaf in the boat with them. 15 And He was giving orders to them, saying, Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.

Here Jesus gives a warning against the Pharisees.

Mark 12:38-40 In His teaching He was saying: Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places, 39 and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, 40 who devour widows houses, and for appearances sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.

It is clear there is an anti Pharisee theme running through Mark. If Mark is a testament to Peter teachings then Peter had little liking of the Pharisees.

In Matthew 3, John the Baptist calls the Pharisees a brood of vipers. In Matthew 23 he has Jesus call the Pharisees a brood of vipers. Luke 3 only has John use the phrase. Luke is not so obsessed with hating Pharisees. Mark does not have it at all.

Mark is more understated but it is there. So if we can read into Matts use of language then that probably traces back to some anxiety in his sources or an anxiety in the author of Matt. This anxiety is not so acute in Mark. Whilst your explanation traces the anxiety back to the author of Matt if we read Matt as more a cipher for a collection of stories and a narrative that reflects what emerged from various sources in the early Christian heritage then that anxiety has emerged from the feeling of certain factions of the early Christian community. Matt is probably using the most vivid version of a story he has come across.

How come Luke does not know about it?

Luke 11: 42- 44 But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 43 Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the chief seats in the synagogues and the respectful greetings in the market places. 44 Woe to you! For you are like [e]concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it.

Luke 11:53-54 53 When He left there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile and to question Him closely on many subjects, 54 plotting against Him to catch [m]Him in something He might say.

So Luke does know about it. But if Luke is further removed, maybe a newer convert with an agenda that looks forward, as opposed to Matt looking back, then Lukes account will contain less of any older time simmering rancour.

For that matter why is Luke so different from Matthew in the areas that Mark does not cover, like the genealogy and the nativity?

If Matt and Luke wrote independently might explain this and the best way to explain their independence is if they followed Mark as you suggest. But if the tradition Matthew writes up emphasised Jesus as a prophet and had not resolved the secret messiah theme that would explain why Matthew starts the geneology with Abraham. Lukes Jesus can be traced all the way back to Adam and that takes his credentials back to the beginning of creation. Luke is pushing a more cosmic Jesus, a messiah Jesus. There are changes to Matt because Luke needs to make changes to suit the new agenda.

Having Matthew invent those stories for his own purposes, as I described previously, and having Luke re-invent them for his purposes sounds like a reasonable explanation. Do you have another explanation for that?

Matt reflects the teachings of a mixed tradition that include nearly all what Peter taught and more. This indicates multiple sources for Matt. So, Matt = most of Peter + others. This is all the stuff that has circulated around the Christian community in the decades following Jesus execution. Mark writes second and cannot vouch for "others" - he is Roman and only familiar with what Peter taught - so only writes up Peters teachings and adds some stuff which is his privileged knowledge of Peter. Marks gospel seen as a check on Matt indicates there has probably been some major elaborations and embellishments happened within the wider Christian community whilst Peter has been in Rome. Luke accesses both Matt and Mark and it is Luke who has the most self conscious agenda. On this view Matt records, Mark validates what he can, and Luke sets a new agenda.

Mark has Jesus state his new teaching in the synagogue and people are amazed at it.

They were amazed because of his authority.

What exactly is this new teaching? Matthew tells us at enormous length " the three chapters of the Sermon on the Mount " not in a synagogue and not to the leaders of the synagogue. Why does Mark not tell us anything about what the new teaching was if he copied from Matthew?

Because Mark can only vouch for what Peter taught and Peter did not teach the Sermon on the mount, like he did not teach Jesus helping him to walk on water, like he did not teach the virgin birth or the full resurrection narrative.

Surely Peter was there and would have told Mark about it.

Obviously not if Mark is written by Papias Mark.

Peter was picked even before Matthew.

Who said the Gospel of Matt traces back to disciple Matt. The assumption even for Markan Priority is that the author of Matt is further removed from an eye witness. More likely Matt reflects several sources and stories collated by Matthew and for which Mark cannot vouch. If we read it your way Mark is till closer to an eye witness in all likelihood and you still have the same problem of why no sermon on the mount in Mark. Someone important to the history of Christianity did get to be there or hear about it.

I was also wondering if it made sense to push all the synoptic gospels into more intimate time frame 70-75. A burst of activity following the death of Peter, the destruction the temple and the arrival of new ideas evidence in Luke and maybe pushed by Paul. Matt draws together all the strands of the various traditions, Mark works through that and vouches for what he can, and maybe the both write with the expectation Luke would follow and maybe use them. Just an idea. As the synoptic Gospels are so similar it makes less sense to string them out over a longer time frame. Not saying they openly collaborated but a burst of activity sparked by the historical contexts to which you allude....but with Mark the nearest to an eye witness and writing second.