Gospel priority

[Peter Kirby]

Please explain how Ben's thread presents "really clear arguments of Luke preceding Mark."

Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

That reader knowledge is material in Luke's Gospel.

Ockham says the simplest explanation is the best, Luke was being read by readers now reading Mark.

Sure, there are other, complex possibilities, especially for those with presuppositions of late dating or mythicism.

(a) If historicism is true (and let's assume here that it is - I have no such presuppositions in favor of mythicism), then we should suppose that there were stories told about Jesus, often described as an oral tradition. The historical existence of Jesus is a simple explanation of a pre-existing tradition that provided pre-existing reader knowledge in Mark. It competes with a prior-gospel-before-Mark hypothesis in also being economical, in general but especially for those who regard the historicity of Jesus to be at all likely for some other reason.

(b) If "late" dating could be true (and I'm not assuming in this reply that it is), then this does nothing to indicate otherwise. A prior-gospel hypothesis is simply a prior-gospel hypothesis. It is compatible with later dates for both Mark and whatever gospel might have pre-existed Mark.

(c) Nothing you've said does anything to identify which gospel should be presupposed in this prior-gospel hypothesis. Do you have an additional argument to say that a prior gospel here could not, for example, be Matthew?

For me, the main issue that I have with what you're saying is the explanation offered if historicism is true and there was an oral tradition that developed prior to the writing of the gospel of Mark. So your comments regarding "especially for those with presuppositions of ... mythicism" seem especially inappropriate with regard to what I am saying in response to your claims.

You have not shown that Ben's thread presents "really clear arguments of Luke preceding Mark."

Why not just be more accurate about what Ben's thread actually does present? You can make your own, additional arguments.

[Steven Avery]

(a) If historicism is true (and let's assume here that it is - I have no such presuppositions in favor of mythicism), then we should suppose that there were stories told about Jesus, often described as an oral tradition. The historical existence of Jesus is a simple explanation of a pre-existing tradition that provided pre-existing reader knowledge in Mark. It competes with a prior-gospel-before-Mark hypothesis in also being economical, in general but especially for those who regard the historicity of Jesus to be at all likely for some other reason.

.... For me, the main issue that I have with what you're saying is the explanation offered if historicism is true and there was an oral tradition that developed prior to the writing of the gospel of Mark.

Yes, any long involved explanation of Gospel production lessens to some extent the obvious direct connections, like Mark's dependence on Luke.

As I believe that Luke and Mark wrote early with direct sources, not picking up long-ago "oral traditions".

And I covered that in post 984, involving theories of:

"lost texts and extensive textual trajectories"

[Steven Avery]

(c) Nothing you've said does anything to identify which gospel should be presupposed in this prior-gospel hypothesis. Do you have an additional argument to say that a prior gospel here could not, for example, be Matthew?

Comparing Luke and Matthew as sources for Mark, we have the ten or so reasons given by Ben, with my additions, to see Luke as a source, nothing similar with Matthew.

es suficiente

Why would there need to be additional reasons to show Luke rather than Matthew as a Marcan source?

[Steven Avery]

I really do not see how "priority" can even be a discussion in the theories that place the Gospels in the 2nd century, or even just after AD 70.

[Peter Kirby]

(c) Nothing you've said does anything to identify which gospel should be presupposed in this prior-gospel hypothesis. Do you have an additional argument to say that a prior gospel here could not, for example, be Matthew?

Comparing Luke and Matthew as sources for Mark, we have the ten or so reasons given by Ben, with my additions, to see Luke as a source, nothing similar with Matthew.

es suficiente

Why would there need to be additional reasons to show Luke rather than Matthew as a Marcan source?

I haven't yet seen even just one reason given.

[Peter Kirby]

As I believe that Luke and Mark wrote early with direct sources, not picking up long-ago "oral traditions".

And that is what you believe.

[Steven Avery]

I haven't yet seen even just one reason given.

Every point in Ben's article, plus my additions.

If Mark has the presumption of reader's knowledge, and that readers knowledge is in Luke's Gospel, it is all very simple.

[Peter Kirby]

I haven't yet seen even just one reason given.

Every point in Ben's article, plus my additions.

I'm trying to be charitable here, but you're giving me nothing to work with. Quote something. Shoot your shot.

[Steven Avery]

You are right that only a couple of those ones from Ben are Luke, they are a mixture of the Gospels preceding Mark. (Leading to Matthew and likely John also preceding Mark, as well as Luke.)

So I will work on a full presentation showing Luke-Mark connections.

[Peter Kirby]

You are right that only a couple of those ones from Ben are Luke, they are a mixture of the Gospels preceding Mark. (Leading to Matthew and likely John also preceding Mark, as well as Luke.)

So I will work on a full presentation showing Luke-Mark connections.

Thanks!