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

[gmx]

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.

Thanks for your reply, Ben.

Yes, Tuckett wrote before Orchard and certainly responded to Farmer's arguments. That he did so conclusively is very much debatable.

The alternating pattern of agreement / disagreement of Mark with respect to the order of Matthew & Luke has been noted throughout the trevails of modern NT textual criticism, and is yet to be shown to be a decisive argument one way or the other in terms of Marcan priority or posteriority.

However, if anything, the argument erodes Markan priority (as the "supposed consensus") purely on the basis that it demonstrates a significant, clearly observable synoptic characteristic that is no more likely on the theory of Marcan priority than on Marcan posteriority.

The "neo-Griesbachian" viewpoint is I think less enamored of its correctness than it is of the need to draw the "consensus" back towards the true position on synoptic priority, that is, that neither the two-gospel hypothesis nor the two-source hypothesis, at present, is provably more likely than the other.

[Peter Kirby]

You're going for one too many layers of doubt with "supposed consensus." Using the scare quotes indicates that you do not really agree that it is just a "supposed consensus" and, for example, believe that it's just a plain consensus. You could more appropriately use "consensus" or supposed consensus, without the scare quotes, in order to communicate how uncomfortable you are with the fact that Markan priority is the consensus in synoptic studies.

[gmx]

You're going for one too many layers of doubt with "supposed consensus." Using the scare quotes indicates that you do not really agree that it is just a "supposed consensus" and, for example, believe that it's just a plain consensus. You could more appropriately use "consensus" or supposed consensus, without the scare quotes, in order to communicate how uncomfortable you are with the fact that Markan priority is the consensus in synoptic studies.

That's a fair point, and furthermore, uncomfortable is precisely the right word to convey my attitude to the supposed synoptic consensus.

[gmx]

Streeter's arguments for Markan priority have been proven fallacious. Most of the post-Streeterian argumentation for or against Markan priority could go either way, or cancel each other out. The "consensus" of Markan priority seems to be retained on the basis that it just feels a hell of a lot more probable when envisaged that way than it does on alternative hypotheses.

[Peter Kirby]

It wouldn't be the only case of "wait a minute--who copied whom?" if we couldn't solve the caper. Simpler cases with fewer variables go unresolved.

One case with relevance to this board is that of Minucius Felix and a very similar apology from Tertullian. Doherty notably assumed the priority of Felix, but Pearse brought online attention to the disarray in the literature regarding the subject. Consider the advantages of the Minucius Felix case:

1 - Two texts, not three or more

2 - No known, lost texts with lots of similarity (gospels) that could also be in literary relationships, turning it into more than a line or tri/angle of sorts

3 - Less doubts about the possibility of recensions and rewriting of the texts (proto / deutero / etc.)

4 - One of these texts is from an author with an extensive corpus that can be analyzed for all sorts of literary tells, etc.

5 - Relatively low politicization compared to the gospels case (where the priority/independence of Matthew is often argued alongside beliefs about Matthew as an apostolic author, a traditional tenet)

Even with all that, no clear consensus has formed regarding the priority or posteriority of Felix.

Could it just be because there is no need to throw it into some introductory textbook with a boilerplate answer? I wouldn't say that's the whole story, but it might be some kind of factor... you'd be right to be suspicious of the truth value/relevance of consensus in this field.

On the bright side, though, there seems to be very productive exchange between the Mark+Q and Mark-without-Q camps, so I don't think it is justifiable to despair about synoptic studies of this sort. It seems to be one of the less-completely-vapid and more-evidence-based subjects that are debated.

[Peter Kirby]

The "consensus" of Markan priority seems to be retained on the basis that it just feels a hell of a lot more probable when envisaged that way than it does on alternative hypotheses.

Unfortunately the decision-by-gut-feeling about the value of different kinds of possibly-seemingly-relevant data as potential evidence is rife in literary studies and everything related to them. Starting right from the decision-by-gut-feeling about what the author even intended by any of the utterances. It's a subject of study that is entirely mediated by the interpretation of the students.

But it certainly could be vastly improved if we attempted to use some kind of General Theory of Directionality of Copying(tm) -- usefully, with some kind of empirical basis using relevant known cases and statistical analysis (but that might require data that we don't have) -- as a theoretical basis for argument. Like a lot of things in biblical studies, there has been a pronounced tendency (perhaps especially in older scholarship, I'd say) to charge in without concerning overmuch with the basic principles being implicitly invoked in argument.

I don't really find your sharp focus on what you think Streeter said and why that supposedly matters to be helpful, especially not the arid discussion of a particular 'argument from order' that I don't believe motivates many people, then or now. (I also get the impression that you've fallen hard for some particular Griesbachian that you encountered early on in your study--hey, this happens all the time, I've had to correct a lot of opinions that I fell for early because some smooth talker dressed them up nicer than they are.)

[gmx]

Yes true Peter... that's all very apt and intuitive. But to be honest, so devoid am I of empirical data and experience in the field that more often than not I find myself cheaply won over by whatever point of view I'm reading at that particular time. Yet I'm attracted to Matthean priority on a couple of scores:
(a) it concords with the patristic evidence (if you're feeling lucky)
(2) it upsets of the apple cart

So while my gut feel says "Markan priority is the best explanation", a few hundred years of concerted research ought to do better than that. There should exist stronger, harder evidence. Even modern arguments like fatigue seem to be spun in either direction. Maybe the problem is insoluble after all.

Arguments against Q on hypothetical grounds are less convincing, or meaningful, in my opinion. Sure, we have no Q document. However, even without need of Q, some source accounts for the special Mark, special Luke and special Matthew material. On that basis, and the likely time of writing, my assumption has always been that written source(s) underpin the canonical gospels. So if you posit some/any written sources, the hypothetical nature of Q isn't a strong argument, whichever way you spin it.

But you're right again, maybe instead of the continued individualistic, free-form approach, the "fraternity" needs to agree on a framework to solve the problem. What methodology? What data is required? What interpretations will be applied? Agree a framework first... and then split up the data gathering tasks, the analysis tasks, and the collation tasks among qualified and interested parties, and solve the problem collaboratively?

[Bernard Muller]

Arguments against Q on hypothetical grounds are less convincing, or meaningful, in my opinion. Sure, we have no Q document. However, even without need of Q, some source accounts for the special Mark, special Luke and special Matthew material. On that basis, and the likely time of writing, my assumption has always been that written source(s) underpin the canonical gospels. So if you posit some/any written sources, the hypothetical nature of Q isn't a strong argument, whichever way you spin it.

This is my webpage on Q http://historical-jesus.info/q.html where I ascertain Q was a document (written partly in Aramaic, partly in Greek), compiled around 80 CE, with the author(s) fully aware of gMark.
I also demonstrated that Q was not extracted from gMatthew.

Yet I'm attracted to Matthean priority on a couple of scores:
(a) it concords with the patristic evidence (if you're feeling lucky)
(2) it upsets of the apple cart

About the dating of gMark: http://historical-jesus.info/41.html
About the dating of gMatthew:http://historical-jesus.info/57.html

Also, let's notice here, in gMark, the "tribulation" in the one happening "in those days" (of Jerusalem destruction)

Mar 13:17 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
Mar 13:18 Pray that it may not happen in winter.
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.
Mar 13:20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

But in gMatthew, the "great tribulation" is not associated to the prior "in those days" (of Jerusalem destruction), but instead, subsequent of the events of 70.

Mat 24:19 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
Mat 24:20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a sabbath.
Mat 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.
Mat 24:22 And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

Arguments against Q on hypothetical grounds are less convincing, or meaningful, in my opinion. Sure, we have no Q document. However, even without need of Q, some source accounts for the special Mark, special Luke and special Matthew material. On that basis, and the likely time of writing, my assumption has always been that written source(s) underpin the canonical gospels. So if you posit some/any written sources, the hypothetical nature of Q isn't a strong argument, whichever way you spin it.

This kind of talk isn't unique to you (... and maybe doesn't even come from you ...) but it's either very wrong,** or ... rhetorically, it serves only to block fruitful discussion of the subject.

For what you are are calling "Q," take it out of your vocabulary and replace it with the words "double tradition." Everyone knows about the double tradition. It is fact.

Now you have some room for a different definition of "Q." The idea of a "Q" is a written document, which is not Matthew or Luke, containing substantially the double tradition, which is used by Matthew and Luke in addition to using Mark.

The most popular alternative to "Q" is:

(1) The double tradition is simply material from the Gospel of Matthew, as far as the other synoptics are concerned (whatever the ultimate origins may be). Which is to say, Luke copied Matthew for the double tradition.

There are less popular alternatives:

(2) The double tradition is Luke. Matthew copied Luke.

(3) The double tradition is coming from neither Matthew nor Luke, but it is coming from some kind of Gospel that extensively contained other material, including a crucifixion narrative. For example, from a "proto-Luke" (deutero-Mark? proto-Matthew?) which was then used by Matthew and Luke.

Then there's the really unpopular alternative:

(4) The double tradition is oral and was transmitted separately to Matthew and Luke orally. (... only proposed among those who really love orality.)

And, yes, the stance/rhetoric quoted is effective against this opinion, but it is only muddying the water when used with regard to the other three.

**(Unless... if your point is that there has to be an actual, written, separate Q in antiquity ... along with a written and separate "special M" source and "special L" source, with the same absence of reasoning showing why ... that would just be some kind of strange assumption, instead of empty definition-shifting rhetoric.)

[Peter Kirby]

This is my webpage on Q http://historical-jesus.info/q.html where I ascertain Q was a document (written partly in Aramaic, partly in Greek), compiled around 80 CE, with the author(s) fully aware of gMark.
I also demonstrated that Q was not extracted from gMatthew.

And this is why nobody here really cares about your opinions or your website. Overly specific, overly certain, overstated... and we're just over it. The only way someone is going to agree with all your specific "conclusions" is if they were some kind of fan, but we are not generally given to being fans just by the mere fact that we are here on a forum giving our own opinions. The way that you stump your website constantly and rarely engage the issues on the basis of evidence and analysis actually presented by you on the forum, or specific comment uniquely engaging the person to whom you are replying, is the major part of the explanation for the lack of constructive engagement that you get here in return. It would be easier to overlook how un-'demonstrated' your stuff is, if your presence were more than just that of a self-linking pontificator.