Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"?

Post by gmx »

The Order of the Synoptics (1989), p7, Bernard Orchard wrote:
There is one outstanding fact that emerges here: at every point where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order, whether for a shorter or longer period, Luke continues in it; and wherever Luke ceases to follow Mark's order, Matthew in turn continues in it. There is surely an inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this. If Matthew and Luke were dependent on Mark for the order of events, they must have agreed together that they would do this. Without constant collaboration, the result would be quite impossible. That they followed such a course is incredible, and therefore the conclusion cannot be avoided that the hypothesis that they were dependent on Mark cannot be sustained.

No one can justifiably maintain the hypothesis of Markan priority as an "assured result of modern criticism" without producing a convincing, or at least plausible, explanation of the facts of order; it has yet to be produced.
For the last 50 years, this has been the main argument against Markan Priority. Is anyone aware of any credible refutation of this argument?
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by maryhelena »

gmx wrote:
The Order of the Synoptics (1989), p7, Bernard Orchard wrote:
There is one outstanding fact that emerges here: at every point where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order, whether for a shorter or longer period, Luke continues in it; and wherever Luke ceases to follow Mark's order, Matthew in turn continues in it. There is surely an inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this. If Matthew and Luke were dependent on Mark for the order of events, they must have agreed together that they would do this. Without constant collaboration, the result would be quite impossible. That they followed such a course is incredible, and therefore the conclusion cannot be avoided that the hypothesis that they were dependent on Mark cannot be sustained.

No one can justifiably maintain the hypothesis of Markan priority as an "assured result of modern criticism" without producing a convincing, or at least plausible, explanation of the facts of order; it has yet to be produced.
For the last 50 years, this has been the main argument against Markan Priority. Is anyone aware of any credible refutation of this argument?

Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus:
  • In any case, regardless of what may have happened around various other
    events and the codex, there is significant evidence that writing, coordinated
    writing, had an important role in the founding of Christianity. I will mention
    six points:

    1 . Christianity was founded significantly on a process of rewriting.
    2. The rewriting indicates coordination-a group or school.
    3. The existence of other schools gives support to the idea of a New
    Testament school/group.
    4. The scholarly linking of biblical books with schools gives further
    support to the idea of a New Testament school.
    5. The quest for the sequence of the books.
    6. The truth of writing.
''constant collaboration'' is part of any well-oiled enterprise..... ;)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

gmx wrote:
The Order of the Synoptics (1989), p7, Bernard Orchard wrote:
There is one outstanding fact that emerges here: at every point where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order, whether for a shorter or longer period, Luke continues in it; and wherever Luke ceases to follow Mark's order, Matthew in turn continues in it.
Please, can you give two examples
- where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order and Luke continues in it
and
- where Luke ceases to follow Mark's order and Matthew continues in it
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Ken Olson »

There is one outstanding fact that emerges here: at every point where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order, whether for a shorter or longer period, Luke continues in it; and wherever Luke ceases to follow Mark's order, Matthew in turn continues in it. There is surely an inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this. If Matthew and Luke were dependent on Mark for the order of events, they must have agreed together that they would do this. Without constant collaboration, the result would be quite impossible. That they followed such a course is incredible, and therefore the conclusion cannot be avoided that the hypothesis that they were dependent on Mark cannot be sustained.

No one can justifiably maintain the hypothesis of Markan priority as an "assured result of modern criticism" without producing a convincing, or at least plausible, explanation of the facts of order; it has yet to be produced.
The author of this argument is Harold Riley, Bernard Orchard's co-author for The order of the synoptics : why three synoptic gospels? (1987). It can be refuted easily and it is surprising that any credence was ever given to it.

Riley gives a chart on pp. 4-6 of the three synoptics divided into sections. He divides Mark into 89 sections (88 if we don't count Mark 16.9-20, the Longer Ending of Mark). The chart shows that where Matthew omits a passage from the Markan order, Luke has it, while where Luke omits a passage from the Markan order, Matthew has it, with the exception of five passages where both Matthew and Luke fail to have a passage parallel to Mark in the Markan order. These are: "He is beside himself" (Mk. 3.20-21); Parable of the Seed Growing Secretly (Mk. 4:26-29); The Blind Man (Mk. 8;22-26); "Take Heed Watch" (Mk. 13.33-37); and The Young Man Who Fled (Mk. 14.51-52). The Longer Ending would be an additional case.

So Riley's claim that "at every point where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order, whether for a shorter or longer period, Luke continues in it; and wherever Luke ceases to follow Mark's order, Matthew in turn continues in it" is false: he acknowledges five or six cases where Matthew and Luke both omit a passage from the Markan order. He attempts to deal with this difficulty by arguing on p. 11:
The existence of the exceptions proves nothing (although on the hypothesis of Markan priority their omission by Matthew and Luke would call for explanation), for none of the Evangelists lived in a vacuum in which he could never have heard anything relevant to add to his main written sources.
This is complete nonsense. He is correct that, on the hypothesis he advocates that Mark used Matthew and Luke this phenomenon could be explained by positing additional sources for Mark. But he is mistaken about the exceptions proving nothing about the hypothesis he is trying to refute. He seems to be suggesting that there is something odd about Matthew and Luke simultaneously omitting a passage from Mark in the Markan order. How could they have done that if they didn't know each other's gospels? But he also thinks it's odd that Luke would support the Markan order where Matthew leaves it and that Matthew would support the Markan order where Luke leaves it. How could they have done that if they didn't know each other's gospels?

This makes no sense. Every time Matthew does not have a passage in the Markan order Luke must either have it in the Markan order (thus creating the phenomenon of alternating support to which Riley draws attention), or not have it in the Markan order (Riley's "exceptions that prove nothing" where Luke and Matthew have both omitted). In fact, every time Matthew omits a passage from Mark, Luke must either have it in the Markan order or not. The chance of this is 100%. It must necessarily and always happen. Similarly, where Luke has failed to have a passage from Mark in the Markan order, Matthew must necessarily either have it in the Markan order or not.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gmx wrote:
The Order of the Synoptics (1989), p7, Bernard Orchard wrote:
There is one outstanding fact that emerges here: at every point where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order, whether for a shorter or longer period, Luke continues in it; and wherever Luke ceases to follow Mark's order, Matthew in turn continues in it. There is surely an inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this. If Matthew and Luke were dependent on Mark for the order of events, they must have agreed together that they would do this. Without constant collaboration, the result would be quite impossible. That they followed such a course is incredible, and therefore the conclusion cannot be avoided that the hypothesis that they were dependent on Mark cannot be sustained.

No one can justifiably maintain the hypothesis of Markan priority as an "assured result of modern criticism" without producing a convincing, or at least plausible, explanation of the facts of order; it has yet to be produced.
For the last 50 years, this has been the main argument against Markan Priority. Is anyone aware of any credible refutation of this argument?
Christopher M. Tuckett wrote The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothes before Orchard, but he addresses this exact argument from order, since Orchard is merely passing it on from earlier times. Others have addressed the issue, as well.

Now for my own stuff.... A basic response to the argument from order that Orchard mentions in your quotation of him is: things are not so simple.

Imagine the Marcan pericipes split up into four categories (each with its own letter designation for convenience): pericopae for which both the Matthean and the Lucan parallels are in the same order (MKL); pericopae for which the Matthean parallels are in the same order but the Lucan are not (MK); pericopae for which the Lucan parallels are in the same order but the Matthean are not (KL); and pericopae for which neither the Matthean nor the Lucan parallels are in the same order (K).

Those categories are written in descending order of frequency; that is, all three synoptics agree on the order of Marcan pericopae (MKL) more often than Matthew is alone in following Mark (MK), which in turn occurs more often than Luke is alone in following Mark (KL), which in turn occurs more often than Mark going his own way unsupported by either of the other two (K). More importantly, however, the sheer number of MKL pericopae overwhelms the other three categories; MKL is greater than the other three put together (MKL > MK + KL + K).

This realization ought to shape our expectations a bit. If Matthew and Luke are each frequently abandoning Mark, yet never at the same time, then that would be an issue; but, if Matthew and Luke are abandoning Mark well less than half the time, and sometimes at the same point (category K above), then the issue is not so great.

Indeed, Orchard gives the impression that either Matthew or Luke is always following Mark ("at every point where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order, ...Luke continues in it; and wherever Luke ceases to follow Mark's order, Matthew in turn continues in it"). But that is simply not true. For example, Matthew gives us his parallel to Mark 3.13-19 (the commission of the twelve) completely out of Marcan order, while Luke switches it locally with his parallel to Mark 3.7-12 (a great multitude). Neither Matthew nor Luke offers a parallel to Mark 3.20-21 (the family of Jesus, part 1), but Luke moves his parallel to Mark 3.31-35 (the family of Jesus, part 2) forward in his narrative relative to Mark, while Matthew has postponed the entire sequence of Mark 2.23-4.34 relative to the Marcan order; the pericopae in that sequence are in the same order, but the whole span has been relocated. None of the three synoptics locates Mark 6.1-6a (the rejection at Nazareth) identically; Matthew postpones it relative to Mark, while Luke brings it forward as far as he can, to the very beginning of the dominical ministry. Mark 8.22-26 (the healing of a blind man with spittle) has no parallel in either Matthew nor Luke. The closest Matthean parallel to Mark 9.49-50 (salting the salt) is found in the sermon on the mount, which Mark does not have, while the closest Lucan parallel is found in the so-called central section of Luke, which Mark also does not have. Matthew combines Mark 11.12-14 (the cursing of the fig tree, part 1) and 11.19-24 (part 2 of the same) into one uninterrupted pericope; since Luke lacks this incident altogether, Matthew has Mark 11.12-14 out of Marcan order, unsupported by Luke. After the cursing of the fig tree, the very next pericope in Mark is 11.25-26 (forgiveness), the closest Matthean parallel to which is located much earlier, in the sermon on the mount; Luke lacks this pericope altogether. In the opposite direction, Luke does have a parallel of sorts to Mark 13.33-37 (the parable of the wakeful servants), but he locates it much earlier, in his central section, and Matthew lacks such a pericope. In the passion narrative, Mark 14.51-52 lacks any Matthean or Lucan parallel.

Overall, the situation is far more complex than Orchard lets on in that soundbite. It is true that Matthew and Luke combine to desert the Marcan order less frequently than either of them is found following it, but it is also true that more than half of the Marcan pericopae are followed by both of them simultaneously. If, as a rule, both are following Mark more than they are abandoning him, then the times when they abandon him together should be relatively few in number.

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed May 17, 2017 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Adam »

maryhelena wrote: Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus:
  • In any case, regardless of what may have happened around various other
    events and the codex, there is significant evidence that writing, coordinated
    writing, had an important role in the founding of Christianity. I will mention
    six points:
    1 . Christianity was founded significantly on a process of rewriting.
    2. The rewriting indicates coordination-a group or school.
    3. The existence of other schools gives support to the idea of a New
    Testament school/group.
    4. The scholarly linking of biblical books with schools gives further
    support to the idea of a New Testament school.
    5. The quest for the sequence of the books.
    6. The truth of writing.
''constant collaboration'' is part of any well-oiled enterprise..... ;)
I would put more emphasis than Brodie on #3 and #5.
Particularly for the Resurrection there is a (Pauline?, per Huller) Jerusalem School seen in John 20, Luke 24, and Mark 16:9-20 as against the Galileans seen in John 21, Mark 16:1-8, and Matthew 28 (less probably 28:11-15, maybe 28:9 & 10 as well).
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by outhouse »

maryhelena wrote:[Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus:
  • In any case, regardless of what may have happened around various other
    events and the codex, there is significant evidence that writing, coordinated
    writing, had an important role in the founding of Christianity. I will mention
    six points:

    1 . Christianity was founded significantly on a process of rewriting.
    2. The rewriting indicates coordination-a group or school.
    3. The existence of other schools gives support to the idea of a New
    Testament school/group.
    4. The scholarly linking of biblical books with schools gives further
    support to the idea of a New Testament school.
    5. The quest for the sequence of the books.
    6. The truth of writing.
I find these worthless, that show more bias then credible knowledge. Ignorance really on his part.


1 . Christianity was founded significantly on a process of rewriting.


No.

If we look at Paul his community simply addressed issues in other houses, and a few general addresses to the public of certain geographic locations.

These were factually not rewrites despite later redactions compilations and copy errors.

Rewrites took place but it is ignorant to say the whole movement was founded on this, when the movement was wider and diverse.

It was founded on compiling information due to the temple falling and the need to find a new way to share and spread the so called good word.

2. The rewriting indicates coordination-a group or school.


No it doesn't.

There was no real center for the movement, we have wide carried different geographic centers where the movement grew in theology and mythology in different directions.

ONLY through popularity did these similar text emerge as the status quo.


3. The existence of other schools gives support to the idea of a New
Testament school/group.



Nonsense.

The name of the game was diversity, diversity gives no merit or support to early orthodoxy of any kind.

5. The quest for the sequence of the books.

What quest? this is ignorant.

Sequence was done by LATER popularity
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Ken Olson »

Harold Riley’s claim from Bernard Orchard & Harold Riley’s The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (1987) quoted in the OP has probably been adequately answered already by my post and Ben Smith’s. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’d like to propose a simplified hypothetical model for understanding this.

Suppose we divided Mark into 100 sections. Riley actually divides it into 89 sections in the chart he provides, but the 100 in our hypothetical model is fairly close to that and a convenient round number. Then let’s suppose that Matthew and Luke were to retain 80% of these sections chosen at random. Of course, the actual evangelists were not choosing their material at random but according to their own preferences, but we’ll use a random choice for purposes of examining Riley’s contention that the phenomenon of alternating support (Matthew supports the Markan sequence where Luke abandons it and vice versa) requires collusion between the evangelists. The number 80% also fictive (Matthew probably retains more Markan material than that, but is more likely than Luke to put it in a different order. Luke omits more Markan material than Matthew, but is less likely to alter the order of the material he retains than Matthew is).

Out of 100 sections of Mark, with Matthew and Luke retaining 80% of them at random, on the average we’d get:

64 sections of Mark retained by both Matthew and Luke (100 x 80% x 80%)
16 sections of Mark retained by Matthew but not Luke (100 x 80% x 20%)
16 sections of Mark retained by Luke but not Matthew (100 x 20% x 80%)
4 sections of Mark retained by neither Matthew nor Luke (100 x 20% x 20%)

Riley’s claim that the few exceptions (where Matthew fails to support the Markan sequence where Luke also leaves it) prove nothing shows he doesn’t understand the argument he is making. If Matthew and Luke did not know each other’s works (and I say this as someone who thinks Luke actually did know Matthew) and proceeded to select sections at random, we would get results very much like what Riley actually finds. In most cases where Luke has left the Markan sequence, Matthew supports it. But that is because Matthew supports the Markan sequence in most cases, whether Luke has left it or not. And since Matthew and Luke each support the Markan sequence in the majority of cases, there would be only a few cases where they coincidentally leave Mark at the same time (as Ben Smith has already said in the conclusion to his post), And there are a few such cases that do indeed show up in Riley’s chart, though he claims they prove nothing.

Best,

Ken
gmx
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by gmx »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
gmx wrote:
The Order of the Synoptics (1989), p7, Bernard Orchard wrote:
There is one outstanding fact that emerges here: at every point where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order, whether for a shorter or longer period, Luke continues in it; and wherever Luke ceases to follow Mark's order, Matthew in turn continues in it.
Please, can you give two examples
- where Matthew ceases to follow Mark's order and Luke continues in it
and
- where Luke ceases to follow Mark's order and Matthew continues in it
Here's one frequently discussed example:

MtMkLk
4:35-5:438:22-56
13:53-586:1-6
6:7-139:1-6

I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ken Olson wrote:At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’d like to propose a simplified hypothetical model for understanding this.
Thanks Ken, I really had no idea what the author meant.
Post Reply