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?

[Mithrae]

But I think that overall this counts against the view that Matthew wrote first. There's four possibilities here:
1 - 'Peter' got the name wrong, and Matthew corrected Mark
2 - Mark remembered the name wrong, and Matthew corrected Mark
3 - 'Peter' got the name wrong, and Mark chose that over Matthew's version
4 - Mark misremembered, but was sure enough of himself to 'correct' Matthew
. . . .

It's unlikely that Mark's geographical errors can be blamed as failures of a witness who'd actually been there; not impossible, but quite improbable.

Lets play with the crazy idea no pigs ever got drowned anywhere and certainly not at Gerasa, thus there is no actual eye witness to this event and someone made it up. In which case Peter was not there to see it and is making the story up or embellishing some older folklore or he got it from another disciple. . . .

• 5- Matthew generalises [redacts] the story from several sources, Mark remembers Peter was more specific and corrects Matthew accordingly.

Now it does not really matter if Mark remembers Peter right or wrong because the move from general to specific is motivated to remove Matthews redaction. Though to be true Mark would be more likely to change Matthew where he strongly felt he remembered Peter right. This does not mean Mark gets it right but it is more likely.

That's the same as my #3, as far as I can tell - just more specific. Point taken that Peter may not have seen a demoniac and 2000 pigs drown themselves in a lake, which makes it less likely that he'd set the story in the 'correct' location. But if there's any kernels of truth in the gospel stories, Peter had still grown up and lived in Galilee, and with Jesus spent some time traveling on both sides of the lake - so he's still not likely to be telling a tale of pigs rushing to the shore from Gerasa. I still think it's more likely that Mark misremembered than that Peter told the tale as written, and given that I'd say it's more likely Matthew corrected Mark than vice versa.



As an aside, I think Student's points about Mark's grammar are particularly persuasive. I'll only cover one more point in your post, because I really do think your theory (as it stands at least) is defeated - but I might not have worded it very well Here's to a second attempt. But do let me know if there's anything I ought to address anyway.

However Papias does say that Mark sought to omit nothing that Peter had said. An interesting thought that, now that it occurs to me:

Yes I am thinking so. He also said he would not add anything fictitious.

The logical basis with which you started your argument was a need to explain how/why Matthew (and Luke, initially) covered such a huge percentage of Mark's material. But given Papias' claim that Mark was Peter's interpreter and seeking to include everything he'd learned from him and nothing else, your argument turns on its head. How can you explain that 'Matthew' managed to cover such a huge percentage (some 94%) of the material which Peter's own interpreter had heard from him?

Matthew was drawing on a wider number of sources that included nearly all Peters material. Matthew is trying to marshal all Jesus heritage (as he finds it) into one document. He would have included as much of Peter as he could access, and those other sources would also cover much of Peters material if they traced back to a common source. A point which underlines what we find in Mark is the material more likely to come closer to the very first teachings about Jesus.

It's really not that hard to imagine Matthew covering as much of Mark's written material as he felt appropriate;

Well that was 94% of Mark then.

it's much harder to imagine that he, with no particular known connection to Peter (or an alternative source for Mark), would somehow manage to cover such a huge portion of what Mark himself had heard!

All we need to presume is that material that forms Peter s teachings are fully a part of very earliest Jesus lore. If Matthew is doing a collation exercise he is only likely to miss the stuff it would take someone very closer to Peter to pick up on.

Let me put it this way. To clarify:
1 - Your explanation why Mark omits nearly half of Matthew's material is that he included only what he'd heard from his source/s (Peter)
2 - Your explanation why Mark includes several stories not in Matthew is that he included all that he'd heard from Peter
3 - This matches what Papias said about Mark

So for all intents and purposes Mark's gospel is co-extensive with Peter's known teachings. However:
- Your main argument is that it's very unusual/remarkable for Matthew to have covered so much of what Mark had written
- So by implication, it's even more unusual/remarkable for Matthew to have covered so much of what Peter had spoken

Later in your post you say "The vast majority of the material in Mark being also found in Matt and Luke tells me Mark does not have priority." By the same token, the vast majority of the material from Mark's source being found in Matthew should tell you that Peter's teachings had no priority over Matthew's gospel.

So your position is self-defeating; without 'Peter' as a source for Mark, you can't explain why he only followed half of Matthew's work and added a few other stories. But with a source for Mark, your very own argument applies even more strongly against Matthew covering 94% of that source's material.



It's a lot simpler to suppose that Matthew covered 94% of Mark's written material in (more or less) Mark's wording but corrected, than to imagine Matthew covering 94% of Peter's spoken material and then Mark covering it again using (more or less) Matthew's wording but degraded

[ThatGirlAgain]

Having said my piece and having insufficient time/energy to keep up, I am bowing out of this thread.

It was definitely fun.

[Furrowed Brow]

That's the same as my #3, as far as I can tell - just more specific.

Okay, call it 3a.

Point taken that Peter may not have seen a demoniac and 2000 pigs drown themselves in a lake, which makes it less likely that he'd set the story in the 'correct' location. But if there's any kernels of truth in the gospel stories,

But how big and what is the shape of that Kernel? And what is the point to the story?

Peter had still grown up and lived in Galilee, and with Jesus spent some time travelling on both sides of the lake - so he's still not likely to be telling a tale of pigs rushing to the shore from Gerasa.

I do not think that is clear cut. It seems there are several problems.

• 1/ That kernel is a lot smaller than we might think. There was a lot less travelling, and much more of the Jesus story is based on embellishment and exaggeration and his travels were more limited. If Jesus did not go to Gerasa what other destinations can we cross of his itinerary?
  2/ the story could just be a metaphor and Peter really was not concerned with getting the geography right, especially if the story was already rooted in local folklore. Quibbling over geography is to misunderstanding the purpose of the tale.
  3/ Peter might have changed the name to avoid association with Jewish rebellions. He is after all preaching in Rome. For all the reason ThatGirlAgain has given to show how the tale is a metaphor, there is still the earlier rebellion of 6 C.E., and maybe Peter just replanted the location to the most innocuous place he could think of to allow him plausible deniability.

I suspect reality falls somewhere between 1 and 2, I just threw in 3 as another possibility

I still think it's more likely that Mark misremembered than that Peter told the tale as written, and given that I'd say it's more likely Matthew corrected Mark than vice versa.

If Mark misremembered then agreed it is more likely he wrote first but I dont think there is a huge margin in the different likelihoods if it is down to Marks faulty memory. It is an on balance argument. However if the truth falls between 1 and 2 then the question of geography does not tell us who wrote first; other than maybe the argument that any generalisation by Matthew hints at redaction. If 3 were the case that would be an argument for Mark following Matt.

1 - Your explanation why Mark omits nearly half of Matthew's material is that he included only what he'd heard from his source/s (Peter)
2 - Your explanation why Mark includes several stories not in Matthew is that he included all that he'd heard from Peter
3 - This matches what Papias said about Mark
So for all intents and purposes Mark's gospel is co-extensive with Peter's known teachings.

That is about the nub of it. Except I would not embolden only and all.

However:
- Your main argument is that it's very unusual/remarkable for Matthew to have covered so much of what Mark had written

I would say:

• A) if Mark writes first Matt is using other sources. Yet Matthew has managed to include nearly all Mark, this took focused effort. 94% is not 70%. 94% does not mean Mark is just a source that Matthew makes a lot of use of, it means Matthew is making diligent effort to ensure he fits nearly all Mark into his Gospel. Matthew then clearly highly values Mark. (This point also implies the regard Matthew holds Mark means he writes with the knowledge of Marks proximity to an eye witness. And he accepts the provenance of Marks material) It is then much less likely he missed anything out accidentally and would have had to have had a powerful reason to do so; the omission of Mark 1:23-28 looks accidental or poorly motivated.
  
  B) If Matthew writes first, then so long as Peter has not added anything to the Kernel of the Jesus story after leaving the homeland we should expect to find Matthew covering nearly all the same basic material. We can explain all the 6% as Mark being personally closer to Peter. Mark1:23-28 becomes evidence that Matthew was much less close to Marks eyewitness. Which is the Markan Priority assumption, except now the inclusion of Mark 1:23-28 is not accidental and is motivated.

- So by implication, it's even more unusual/remarkable for Matthew to have covered so much of what Peter had spoken

Not if this material is common to the original Jesus tradition. Granting there is a common lore and Peters teaching are not uniquely his own, then there will be material shared and repeated in Matthews different sources. Much of that material will either trace back to Gallilee and Judeah and would be the same material Peter left for Rome with, and some of the material may have come through Peter. So long as Peter is not adding significantly new material to the basic Kernel and Matthew is doing a reasonably thorough job of collating all the tales and stories attributed to Jesus then it would be strange he had not managed to cover a high percentage of Mark.

Later in your post you say "The vast majority of the material in Mark being also found in Matt and Luke tells me Mark does not have priority." By the same token, the vast majority of the material from Mark's source being found in Matthew should tell you that Peter's teachings had no priority over Matthew's gospel.

As my position has moved during this thread I concede that the basic logic I started with does not hold as firmly as when I begun arguing Mark followes both Matt and Luke. On the original data I was working from the logic was firmer. I should temper my tone and say: the 94% tells me that we cant conclude that Mark has priority.

So your position is self-defeating; without 'Peter' as a source for Mark, you can't explain why he only followed half of Matthew's work and added a few other stories.

True. Id have to talk in more vague terms about Marks proximity to an eye witness. Papais Mark really fits the bill of the kind of Mark needed to write a reduced Gospel following Matthew. The logic of the argument would basically remain the same. It does not make sense to have Mark writing second unless his reduction is motivated. Papias gives us a description of the kind of guy who could write such a gospel. If it is not that Mark I need someone who sounds just like him.

But with a source for Mark, your very own argument applies even more strongly against Matthew covering 94% of that source's material.

Self defeating? I think it only need be shown that Markan priority cannot assume the 94% supports Mark writing first to make my point. Like most of the argument Im seeing the logic swings both ways and Priority comes down to opinion. When the Priority is argued for without recognising the problem in the logic then the bias reveals a deeper lack of objectivity.

If Mark is sitting down to write his Gospel in response to Matthew and is trying to make sense of Matthew in light of his privileged knowledge then it is highly likely Mark will leave out material he cannot vouch for. We immediately explain why Mark does not cover all of the material covered by Matthew. What material Mark adds corrects any misdirection Mark feels is in Matthew, or any material Matthew has failed to cover. We should expect to see a high percentage like 94% so long as Peter was not inventing new material of his own once in Rome. Mark can find in Matthew most of the material that form Peters teachings because this material is part of original core Jesus lore. This to me seems an important point. The roots of the core teachings are strengthened and we trace then back earlier with more confidence. On this view we get an honest Mark and a consistent Peter who has not added new material in the decades that followed him leaving the homeland.

[Furrowed Brow]

This might seem odd as I am involved in another thread airing my doubts as to whether we can really trace back to the 1st century the use of language and grammar we see on the surviving 2nd and 3rd and even 4th century papyrus and codex. Anyhow Grammar Warning!!! " I know no Greek. So please bear this in mind.

Given the above warning I still wanted to compare Matthew, Mark and Luke. I may repeat this exercise and encourage others to introduce their own passage. Otherwise please jump in and rip this apart. For my first attempt I chose the passage where Jesus heals a sick man and tells him to take up his bed and go home. I have split the verse up as you will see on the table below. I have done this with no respect to Greek grammar or meaning. For the Greek text I am using Wescott/Hort which is available here

[mrow][mcol]Matthew 9:6[mcol]Mark 2:10-11[mcol]Luke 5:24[row]1[col][color=red] - [/color][col][color=red] - [/color][col][color=red] - [/color][row]2[col][color=darkred] [/color][color=blue] [/color][col][color=darkred] [/color][color=blue] [/color][col][color=blue] [/color][color=darkred] [/color][row]3[col][color=blue] - - [/color][color=darkred] [/color][col][color=darkred] [/color][color=blue] - -[/color][col][color=blue] - - [/color][color=darkred] [/color][row]4[col] [color=darkred] [/color][col] [color=darkred] [/color][col] [color=darkred] [/color][row]5[col][color=darkred] [/color] [col][color=blue] [/color] [color=darkred] [/color] [col][color=blue] [/color][color=darkred][/color] [row]6[col]- -[col] [col] [row]7[col][color=darkred] [/color][col] [color=blue][/color] [color=darkred] [/color][col][color=blue][/color] [row]8[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color]

*

On row 6 all three use a different word for bed.

• Matthew refers to a small bed - klin"n "
  Luke refers to a couch " klinidion
  Mark refers to a pallet or camp bed or mat krabatton

Lukes use of is unique to Luke and I think this is the one time he uses it, Matthews uses - (the healed man can carry this bed) just once and this is used by Mark in two other places Mark 4:21(things go under this bed) and Mark 7:2. The variant - is used by Matthew 9:2 (the bed is brought) and by Luke at 5:18 (the bed is brought) and 8:16 (you can put things under this bed) and Luke 17:34. Marks uses variants of at Mark 6:55 (), Mark 2:4, 2:9, 2:11, 2:12 (). Clearly Mark has a predisposition to using variants of though we can see him using -. The subject of beds seems to crop up a lot less in Matt and Luke.

Luke seems to use - inconsistently if a bed is portable it is not the kind of bed raised off the floor, whilst Matthew uses two variants of a word with the same intent that the bed is portable. However every time Mark uses a variant of he intends the bed to be portable like a mat, and the two times he uses - the bed is clearly not a mat or there no need to think of the bed as a portable mat. We can detect Mark is self consistent in his use of and -. This is not true of Lukes use of - and it poses a question as to why he would prefer to use at Luke 5:24. This could refer to a sick chair or stretcher that can be carried with poles (litter). Maybe Luke means to impress by showing the healed man can lift something of weight by himself. That might fit Jesus commanding the healed man " so Lukes healing is more showy and Marks account feels more personal. There is a problem with Matthew if we allow Mark is using terminology consistently. Mark clearly thinks you can put things under a -. If Mark wrote first using the less equivocal leaving less room for misunderstanding then why is Matthew " the fellah with the more polished Greek " more equivocal? If Mark writes first then that does not fit with Matthew polishing or correcting Mark; he would be introducing a vagary. If Matthew writes first that fits Mark correcting the nuts and bolts of the story and keeping things in line with how the story was told to him.

Rows 1 and 8 are identical for all three gospels, and rows 2 and 3 are near identical except for a switch in word order. These rows clearly demonstrate interdependence. From rows 1,2,3,6 and 8 I dont think it is possible to form an opinion as to who has priority as the similarities and dissimilarities we see on these rows look about equal between across all three.

For rows 4, and 7 Matthew and Mark are more similar in respect to word choice. However Marks use of you which we see as on line 5 and on row 6 follows Luke. On row 4 Mark avoids Matthew's more verbose and less personal for at that time but prefers Jesus saying as opposed to Lukes more authoritative command . Yet both Mark and Lukes use of make the account more personal and live, and around row 5 they come closer together. Though Lukes use of make it seem more like Jesus is personally empowering the sick man to rise up. Throughout Matthews account is more distant. However if we were to use that observation as a measure of Matthew being written later then we would also have Matthew following Luke. More likely it is indicative of Matthews lack of proximity to an eyewitness. If Luke writes last it would mean whilst he is introducing a more empowered Jesus he his is still following Marks more personal grammatical structure. The only reason that Matthew did not do the same is that he wrote first, that or he was less comfortable with placing his text closer to a witness than Mark. On this evidence more likely he wrote first.

*Table pagination and colour improved by McCulloch.

[james.hoggatt]

This might seem odd as I am involved in another thread airing my doubts as to whether we can really trace back to the 1st century the use of language and grammar we see on the surviving 2nd and 3rd and even 4th century papyrus and codex. Anyhow Grammar Warning!!! " I know no Greek. So please bear this in mind.

Given the above warning I still wanted to compare Matthew, Mark and Luke. I may repeat this exercise and encourage others to introduce their own passage. Otherwise please jump in and rip this apart. For my first attempt I chose the passage where Jesus heals a sick man and tells him to take up his bed and go home. I have split the verse up as you will see on the table below. I have done this with no respect to Greek grammar or meaning. For the Greek text I am using Wescott/Hort which is available here

[mrow][mcol]Matthew 9:6[mcol]Mark 2:10-11[mcol]Luke 5:24[row]1[col][color=red] - [/color][col][color=red] - [/color][col][color=red] - [/color][row]2[col][color=darkred] [/color][color=blue] [/color][col][color=darkred] [/color][color=blue] [/color][col][color=blue] [/color][color=darkred] [/color][row]3[col][color=blue] - - [/color][color=darkred] [/color][col][color=darkred] [/color][color=blue] - -[/color][col][color=blue] - - [/color][color=darkred] [/color][row]4[col] [color=darkred] [/color][col] [color=darkred] [/color][col] [color=darkred] [/color][row]5[col][color=darkred] [/color] [col][color=blue] [/color] [color=darkred] [/color] [col][color=blue] [/color][color=darkred][/color] [row]6[col]- -[col] [col] [row]7[col][color=darkred] [/color][col] [color=blue][/color] [color=darkred] [/color][col][color=blue][/color] [row]8[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color]

*

On row 6 all three use a different word for bed.

• Matthew refers to a small bed - klin"n "
  Luke refers to a couch " klinidion
  Mark refers to a pallet or camp bed or mat krabatton

Lukes use of is unique to Luke and I think this is the one time he uses it, Matthews uses - (the healed man can carry this bed) just once and this is used by Mark in two other places Mark 4:21(things go under this bed) and Mark 7:2. The variant - is used by Matthew 9:2 (the bed is brought) and by Luke at 5:18 (the bed is brought) and 8:16 (you can put things under this bed) and Luke 17:34. Marks uses variants of at Mark 6:55 (), Mark 2:4, 2:9, 2:11, 2:12 (). Clearly Mark has a predisposition to using variants of though we can see him using -. The subject of beds seems to crop up a lot less in Matt and Luke.

Luke seems to use - inconsistently if a bed is portable it is not the kind of bed raised off the floor, whilst Matthew uses two variants of a word with the same intent that the bed is portable. However every time Mark uses a variant of he intends the bed to be portable like a mat, and the two times he uses - the bed is clearly not a mat or there no need to think of the bed as a portable mat. We can detect Mark is self consistent in his use of and -. This is not true of Lukes use of - and it poses a question as to why he would prefer to use at Luke 5:24. This could refer to a sick chair or stretcher that can be carried with poles (litter). Maybe Luke means to impress by showing the healed man can lift something of weight by himself. That might fit Jesus commanding the healed man " so Lukes healing is more showy and Marks account feels more personal. There is a problem with Matthew if we allow Mark is using terminology consistently. Mark clearly thinks you can put things under a -. If Mark wrote first using the less equivocal leaving less room for misunderstanding then why is Matthew " the fellah with the more polished Greek " more equivocal? If Mark writes first then that does not fit with Matthew polishing or correcting Mark; he would be introducing a vagary. If Matthew writes first that fits Mark correcting the nuts and bolts of the story and keeping things in line with how the story was told to him.

Rows 1 and 8 are identical for all three gospels, and rows 2 and 3 are near identical except for a switch in word order. These rows clearly demonstrate interdependence. From rows 1,2,3,6 and 8 I dont think it is possible to form an opinion as to who has priority as the similarities and dissimilarities we see on these rows look about equal between across all three.

For rows 4, and 7 Matthew and Mark are more similar in respect to word choice. However Marks use of you which we see as on line 5 and on row 6 follows Luke. On row 4 Mark avoids Matthew's more verbose and less personal for at that time but prefers Jesus saying as opposed to Lukes more authoritative command . Yet both Mark and Lukes use of make the account more personal and live, and around row 5 they come closer together. Though Lukes use of make it seem more like Jesus is personally empowering the sick man to rise up. Throughout Matthews account is more distant. However if we were to use that observation as a measure of Matthew being written later then we would also have Matthew following Luke. More likely it is indicative of Matthews lack of proximity to an eyewitness. If Luke writes last it would mean whilst he is introducing a more empowered Jesus he his is still following Marks more personal grammatical structure. The only reason that Matthew did not do the same is that he wrote first, that or he was less comfortable with placing his text closer to a witness than Mark. On this evidence more likely he wrote first.

*Table pagination and colour improved by McCulloch.

Much of the variance in the gospel texts and choices of words is based on the group the gospel was written for. Mark wrote for non-jewish citizens of the Roman Empire, thus he doesn't go into exhaustive detail of ritual, and references to the Jewish Holy Texts and prophecies, and they are not tantamount to the ministry at the time. The question is providing a text to a group of people in a way that is understandable, comprehensible, and easily readable. This is why Mark and not Matthew or Luke explains common aramaic words, so his audience an understand them. He also errs on a more verbose language. His more humanistic Jesus would be more compelling to the Roman citizenry who see many of their gods (ceasers) as humans as well. This makes the story much more believable and would attract more followers than if you devolved into a semantic argument about the divine.

Matthew was written to Jews, which is why there is a larger infusion of folklore, prophecy, and Jewish references. This is also why instead of tracing the lineage back to Adam like Luke does (as Luke isn't writing for Jews) he traces it only as far as Abraham, which is where the "Jews" trace their origen. The longer text makes sense not only because it came after Mark (I'll explain this below) but because its written to a culture who more deeply invested in the story and the prophetic and religious references from the Holy Books.

Luke is written to gentile Christians. Luke is different in that it was written by an author instead of a historian or just a first-person. The book is narrative and uses imagery and story-telling styles that betray the persons well travelled background. In fact, the author most likely had medical training due to some of the linguistic devices he uses (references to medical devices and mixtures the average person wouldn't know about). This also explains why he focused in on Jesus' suffering, as it is a good narrative point and also plays to what he understands. Because he was writing to individuals who had strong ties to the Roman Empire and his work may get back to Rome, he does specific things, like claiming the Jews and not Rome are responsible for the crucifixion.

The major reason Mark has primacy, is that if we assume the most probably of the alternatives where the order is Matthew---Mark---Luke (I assume you aren't actually arguing Mark is last, as I think thats obviously Luke in timeframe and textual references alone) You run into a major issue, the fact that Luke always agrees with Matthew and not Mark when there is a dispute shows that there was interconnection between the two authors.

Mark uses more unusual language and terms (which he has to explain) when quoting Jesus, this linguistically is something that only happens when people are trying to preserve the actual text, Matthew and Luke substitute in less obtuse words and use common terms. Had Mark used Matthew/Luke the direct quotations would include the common terms and not the aramaic terms that Mark would then have to explain.

Mark also includes information that Matthew and Luke didn't like, such as Jesus' failure to heal a man on the first attempt. There would be no reason for Mark to add this story afterwards.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hello James.Hoggatt I was preparing this passage so this post is not a proper reply but when you say Luke always agrees with Matthew!" is this correct? The passage of Jesus comming upon Levi/Matthew seems one instance where Luke sides with Mark.

[mrow][mcol]Matthew 9:9[mcol]Mark 2:14[mcol]Luke 5:27[row]1[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col] - [row]2[col] - [col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col] - [row]3[col][color=darkred][/color][col][color=darkred][/color] [color=blue][/color] [col] [color=blue][/color] [row]4[col][col] [color=red][/color][col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color] [row]5[col][color=red]-[/color][col][color=red]-[/color][col] [color=red]-[/color] [row]6[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color] [row]7[col][color=green][/color] [col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color] [row]8[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color] [row]9[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][row]9[col][color=red][/color][col][color=red][/color][col][color=red][/color][row]10[col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col] [row]10[col][color=red][/color][col][color=red][/color] [col][color=red][/color] [row]11[col][color=red]-- [/color][col][color=red]-- [/color][col][color=red]- [/color]

A comparison of this passage in interesting because Matthew has Jesus coming upon Matthew (highlighted green on table), whilst Mark and Luke have it as Levi (blue). This is really weird. It seems unlikely that Matthew could be following Mark and Luke and be bold enough to think they are both wrong. But then would he even contradict one gospel unless he had privileged information? I think the simplest answer is that whoever has changed the name be that Levi to Matthew or Matthew to Levi they have done it because they think the other has got the name wrong and needs to be corrected, as opposed to giving say Matthew his own agenda. This would also mean Luke was probably writing last and siding with Mark. I think the kind of scenario I have previously described with Mark being Papias Mark explains this incongruence more simply.

Again like the previous passage Matthew is more verbose at row 2 O jesus there saw ans row 4 where he labours the point Matthew as a man. Mark identifies Levi as the son of Alphaeus throws in some more detail that Matthew lacks. Lukes And noticed a tax collector by the name of Levi (Rows 2/3) is also more verbose than Marks more personal and succinct he saw Levi (Row 3). But there is a difference between Matt and Luke; whilst both are a more verbose than Mark Luke manages to be more formal, whilst Matthew is just more long winded for less information and is also more submissive (or is gesturing for effect). Matthew is more self conscious. Both Matt and Luke sound like they are telling someone elses story and are more distant to the subject matter than Mark who is more direct.

The question of verbosity is interesting. If Matthew follows Marks that means in terms of word count he adds more than he removes. If Mark follows Matthew he does less work and adds less than he takes out. That strikes me as making it more likely Mark is correcting Matthew than Matthew contradicting Mark and being more waffly in the process. This is just less assertive and works against Matthew being more confident in is material.

[james.hoggatt]

Hello James.Hoggatt I was preparing this passage so this post is not a proper reply but when you say Luke always agrees with Matthew!" is this correct? The passage of Jesus comming upon Levi/Matthew seems one instance where Luke sides with Mark.

[mrow][mcol]Matthew 9:9[mcol]Mark 2:14[mcol]Luke 5:27[row]1[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col] - [row]2[col] - [col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col] - [row]3[col][color=darkred][/color][col][color=darkred][/color] [color=blue][/color] [col] [color=blue][/color] [row]4[col][col] [color=red][/color][col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color] [row]5[col][color=red]-[/color][col][color=red]-[/color][col] [color=red]-[/color] [row]6[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color] [row]7[col][color=green][/color] [col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color] [row]8[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color] [row]9[col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][col][color=red] [/color][row]9[col][color=red][/color][col][color=red][/color][col][color=red][/color][row]10[col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col][color=#e4e4ea]?????[/color][col] [row]10[col][color=red][/color][col][color=red][/color] [col][color=red][/color] [row]11[col][color=red]-- [/color][col][color=red]-- [/color][col][color=red]- [/color]

A comparison of this passage in interesting because Matthew has Jesus coming upon Matthew (highlighted green on table), whilst Mark and Luke have it as Levi (blue). This is really weird. It seems unlikely that Matthew could be following Mark and Luke and be bold enough to think they are both wrong. But then would he even contradict one gospel unless he had privileged information? I think the simplest answer is that whoever has changed the name be that Levi to Matthew or Matthew to Levi they have done it because they think the other has got the name wrong and needs to be corrected, as opposed to giving say Matthew his own agenda. This would also mean Luke was probably writing last and siding with Mark. I think the kind of scenario I have previously described with Mark being Papias Mark explains this incongruence more simply.

Again like the previous passage Matthew is more verbose at row 2 O jesus there saw ans row 4 where he labours the point Matthew as a man. Mark identifies Levi as the son of Alphaeus throws in some more detail that Matthew lacks. Lukes And noticed a tax collector by the name of Levi (Rows 2/3) is also more verbose than Marks more personal and succinct he saw Levi (Row 3). But there is a difference between Matt and Luke; whilst both are a more verbose than Mark Luke manages to be more formal, whilst Matthew is just more long winded for less information and is also more submissive (or is gesturing for effect). Matthew is more self conscious. Both Matt and Luke sound like they are telling someone elses story and are more distant to the subject matter than Mark who is more direct.

The question of verbosity is interesting. If Matthew follows Marks that means in terms of word count he adds more than he removes. If Mark follows Matthew he does less work and adds less than he takes out. That strikes me as making it more likely Mark is correcting Matthew than Matthew contradicting Mark and being more waffly in the process. This is just less assertive and works against Matthew being more confident in is material.

I'm speaking in terms of contradictions and not mere language differences. For instance, both Matthew and Luke take out the controversial passages and deify Jesus more than Mark.

It makes little sense for Mark to edit in the way you describe. If anything he would have copied the language of the more skill Matthew and Luke instead of editing. Luke and Matthew would be more likely to add more b/c they are polished Greek writers. I don't see a reason Mark would edit things out.

It makes more sense for more to be added in the long run than removed.

[Furrowed Brow]

I'm speaking in terms of contradictions and not mere language differences

Matthew (Matt) vs Levi (Mark & Luke) is a direct contradiction isn't it?

[james.hoggatt]

I'm speaking in terms of contradictions and not mere language differences

Matthew (Matt) vs Levi (Mark & Luke) is a direct contradiction isn't it?

The contradiction there is a casual contradiction and not a contradiction that effects the aspects of the story, divinity, nature, or sequence of events within the mythology. Calling a particular area a different name could have the same effect, as they have different educational backgrounds. Also, one may disagree on minor details, but on all major theological grounds they stand against Mark.

Make sense?

[Furrowed Brow]

I'm speaking in terms of contradictions and not mere language differences

Matthew (Matt) vs Levi (Mark & Luke) is a direct contradiction isn't it?

The contradiction there is a casual contradiction and not a contradiction that effects the aspects of the story, divinity, nature, or sequence of events within the mythology. Calling a particular area a different name could have the same effect, as they have different educational backgrounds. Also, one may disagree on minor details, but on all major theological grounds they stand against Mark.

Make sense?

Yep makes sense. But if Matthew and Luke theological agree against Mark this does not- as I would read it - tell us who has priority. Republicans George H W Bush and George "Dubya" Bush may agree to disagree with the democratic politics of Bill Clinton but that does not mean Bill Clinton was President first. So I don't think we can retrieve priority by an analysis of agreement and disagrement of theology. I do think the minutia will end up being important.

when Mark and Matthew share 94% material I don't think there can be a casual contradiction. Especially seeing how much of the section is actually duplicated between Matthew and Mark. Whoever contradicts who it is quite deliberate and not casually done. In terms of theology you are right nothing changes. But it still takes a deliberate action, and if this is theological not important why make the change? Unless someone thinks the other is getting the detail wrong I don't see how we can answer that unless we just put it down to a casual or arbitrary change. ButI don't think that scans.