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

[Ben C. Smith]

I assumed you had already read MacDonald's book on Mark and Homer since you recently mentioned reading his Two Shipwrecked Gospels....

Well, like I said, I have read parts of it. Just never seem to be able to finish it.

....(which I'm reading now on googlebooks thanks to you but not enjoying, which may be due to my distaste for speculation about hypothetical sources).

I can well understand that. For me, what Two Shipwrecked Gospels does is to remind me that there are lots and lots of indicators in our extant texts that other texts came before; I do not have to agree with any one reconstruction of a nonextant text in order to appreciate the arguments that led to positing that text.

There is a part of me that would love to reduce it all down to what we have to hand: just embrace the Farrer theory, for example, and relax. Goodacre and Goulder before him are masterful at showing how much of what we see in the Q material could easily be Luke copying from Matthew. Trouble is, Kloppenborg and others are masterful at showing the limitations of those arguments, how there are simply materials that do not look like they flowed in the direction of Matthew to Luke. There is a small contingent even arguing that the Q material flowed from Luke to Matthew. And there are good arguments involved (a lot involving order of parallels). Put it all together and I become convinced that there is some document or group of documents standing in between Matthew and Luke from which both of them copied. Two Shipwrecked Gospels gives me a rather different perspective on that issue.

The Mark and Homer idea works for me because I can see Homer and Mark and the LXX, and I can see that Homeric mimesis existed in antiquity, and MacDonald's theory explains features of Mark (e.g., Jesus being a tekton like Odysseus, sailing on boats like Odysseus, having an unfaithful "crew" like Odysseus, and concealing his true identity like Odysseus) convincingly enough for me.

And see, some of those matters have, in my judgment, better explanations. The messianic secret, for example, I think comes in from a completely different direction, having nothing to do with Homer (it is all about, in my judgment, a hidden first advent; but there it too much there to go into at this moment). Sailing on boats... nothing to do with Homer, in my opinion. It is all about the nature miracles, about what Crossan calls "sea and meal," about the Exodus (Red Sea and manna), and about fulfilling certain Psalmic, theophanic, mythical concepts (calming the sea, walking on water) which hearken all the way back to Tiamat and Babylonian chaos. The unfaithful crew... again, better explained in my judgment as responding to tensions between two kinds of apostle, tensions which only escalated once Marcion and his critics came on the scene. (Ask JoeWallack about why the disciples are unfaithful in Mark; he can tell you aaaaaaall about it, boy howdy.) Have not decided on the carpenter issue yet; I see nothing standing in the way of Homer being at the root of it... but I feel like, as soon as I say that, some Dead Sea Scroll or something will come to my attention that explains it even better. That is how it has always seemed to happen for me with the Homeric stuff that I have absorbed so far....

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

There is a part of me that would love to reduce it all down to what we have to hand: just embrace the Farrer theory, for example, and relax. Goodacre and Goulder before him are masterful at showing how much of what we see in the Q material could easily be Luke copying from Matthew. Trouble is, Kloppenborg and others are masterful at showing the limitations of those arguments, how there are simply materials that do not look like they flowed in the direction of Matthew to Luke. There is a small contingent even arguing that the Q material flowed from Luke to Matthew. And there are good arguments involved (a lot involving order of parallels).

Incidentally, this is also my issue with a reductionistic attempt to 'prove' the posteriority (or priority) of the Evangelion to the canonical synoptics from a few supposed examples, none of which are individually conclusive. It's all very puzzling, some of it more than others. It's impossible even to effectively summarize ones own carefully-considered conclusion (not that anyone else is obliged to accept it) without having to write a book (or at least a very succinct research paper) on the subject. Anyone can mention the most convincing parts of a particular case, but the real problem is judiciously considering that against the alternatives while trying to escape your own confirmation bias and a preference for a neat solution already held in mind -- a formidable feat.

[Ben C. Smith]

There is a part of me that would love to reduce it all down to what we have to hand: just embrace the Farrer theory, for example, and relax. Goodacre and Goulder before him are masterful at showing how much of what we see in the Q material could easily be Luke copying from Matthew. Trouble is, Kloppenborg and others are masterful at showing the limitations of those arguments, how there are simply materials that do not look like they flowed in the direction of Matthew to Luke. There is a small contingent even arguing that the Q material flowed from Luke to Matthew. And there are good arguments involved (a lot involving order of parallels).

Incidentally, this is also my issue with a reductionistic attempt to 'prove' the posteriority (or priority) of the Evangelion to the canonical synoptics from a few supposed examples, none of which are individually conclusive. It's all very puzzling, some of it more than others. It's impossible even to effectively summarize ones own carefully-considered conclusion (not that anyone else is obliged to accept it) without having to write a book (or at least a very succinct research paper) on the subject. Anyone can mention the most convincing parts of a particular case, but the real problem is judiciously considering that against the alternatives while trying to escape your own confirmation bias and a preference for a neat solution already held in mind -- a formidable feat.

I think I have seen you write things that imply you accept Marcan priority vis-à-vis Matthew (at least). Does that mean that, in that particular case, you have found that most of the data seems to point in the same direction? Are you simply saying that the same question with regard to the Marcionite gospel is more complicated for various reasons?

Ben.

[Adam]

John 2 wrote: I assumed you had already read MacDonald's book on Mark and H omer since you recently mentioned reading his Two Shipwrecked Gospels

But the Homer and Bible connection is years old and dismissed (by me anyway) as a howler,
but the NEW book by MacDonald is convincingly researched and does at least drive a long overdue stake into the heart of (Streeter's mere definition originally) no Q in Mark. I don't like his late dates but don't necessarily deny that some edition(s) of Luke might be late.

[Peter Kirby]

"I think I have seen you write things that imply you accept Marcan priority vis-à-vis Matthew (at least). Does that mean that, in that particular case, you have found that most of the data seems to point in the same direction?"

a) Yes, but I haven't reviewed that data in any real detail in over a decade, other than to glance casually at a synopsis now and then and nod in agreement at the notion of Markan priority (and yes, most clearly, relative to canonical Matthew) based on my intuition and judgment, so I'm not the paragon of reason here. But I'd still say it's a rational opinion.

b) I've also, like a lot of us, been steeped in a fair amount of redaction criticism that treats Mark as 'his own author' rather than a reorganizer of material (for better or worse.... a little of both, I think). You'll see threads from time to time on the same subject here on this forum, and they always seem to draw a bunch of interest (and very few mutterings of how it is actually Mark rewriting other gospels--but maybe this is changing here!). Some of it actually does make sense.

"Are you simply saying that the same question with regard to the Marcionite gospel is more complicated for various reasons?"

a) I was really struck by the whole argument about Luke 3 being a rearrangement of a gospel that began a lot like Marcion's, when I sat down to consider this question and review that particular argument. That argument made sense enough to 'click' and didn't look like it was easy to dismiss. But I'm sober enough to know that doesn't mean I've turned the question inside-out. There are various reasons for that, including my own hesitation, the uncertainty about the text of the Evangelion itself, and my temperature-gauge of the informed specialists working on the problem (in declining order of importance...).

b) I'm also a little partisan to the Deutero-Mark / Proto-Luke hypothesis, in which case there'd be "signs of influence" in both directions expected.

c) I'm also a bit sympathetic to arguments that Acts as a whole and elements of canonical Luke are anti-Marcionite in nature, based on the discernable clues such as they are. The author of canonical Luke is all-but-certainly the author of Acts.

[Ben C. Smith]

Yes, but I haven't reviewed that data in any real detail in over a decade, other than to glance casually at a synopsis now and then and nod in agreement at the notion of Markan priority (and yes, most clearly, relative to canonical Matthew) based on my intuition and judgment, so I'm not the paragon of reason here. But I'd still say it's a rational opinion.

I do go back and review that data from time to time, just to make sure it is still there, I suppose, and I am always struck by how clean, comparatively speaking, the proposition that canonical Matthew used canonical Mark is. The few counterarguments strike me as, at their very strongest, still weaker than the average argument for Marcan priority.

Which makes me wonder: If it is comparatively clear that Matthew used Mark, why are some of the other possible synoptic (and extrasynoptic) relationships so unclear? Especially notorious in this regard: did Matthew use Luke, or did Luke use Matthew? The very lack of clarity on that issue, concretely expressed in at least some instances as good arguments in both directions, strikes me as an argument for something like Q in between them. What I find it hard to commit to is a single document known as Q which covers virtually all of the M-L overlap not featured in Mark, all at one swoop, with a strong narrative beginning followed by that famous "petering out into miscellaneous oracles" that Farrer mentioned.

I've also, like a lot of us, been steeped in a fair amount of redaction criticism that treats Mark as 'his own author' rather than a reorganizer of material (for better or worse.... a little of both, I think). You'll see threads from time to time on the same subject here on this forum, and they always seem to draw a bunch of interest (and very few mutterings of how it is actually Mark rewriting other gospels--but maybe this is changing here!). Some of it actually does make sense.

I have been steeped in a lot of that redaction criticism, as well, and have indeed noticed that it seems to reign supreme on this board. I once thought of Mark in that way; anymore, though, not so much.

I was really struck by the whole argument about Luke 3 being a rearrangement of a gospel that began a lot like Marcion's, when I sat down to consider this question and review that particular argument. That argument made sense enough to 'click' and didn't look like it was easy to dismiss. But I'm sober enough to know that doesn't mean I've turned the question inside-out.

Sure. I think Luke 3-4 shows evidence of having disturbed a previous arrangement, an arrangement to which Marcion is closer.

I'm also a little partisan to the Deutero-Mark / Proto-Luke hypothesis, in which case there'd be "signs of influence" in both directions expected.

Likewise.

I'm also a bit sympathetic to arguments that Acts as a whole and elements of canonical Luke are anti-Marcionite in nature, based on the discernible clues such as they are.

Again, likewise.

The author of canonical Luke is all-but-certainly the author of Acts.

I am still trying to decide what the exact relationship between Luke and Acts is....

Ben.

[John2]

Adam wrote:

"But the Homer and Bible connection is years old and dismissed (by me anyway) as a howler..."

Now I see that I need to do some pre-MacDonald research on the question of the influence of Homer on the NT, but I generally see the big picture the way that Thomas E. Phillips, a critic of MacDonald's theory, puts it in this book: "No one doubts the presence and influence of the Homeric tradition within the first-century AD Greek-speaking world ... To be clear, most -if not all- of the NT writers had probably read Homer's Iliad and Odyssey; most -if not all- of the NT writers had probably memorized at least portions of these epics; and all of the NT writers were certainly familiar with the stories contained in the epics," and I think MacDonald has done a good job fleshing this out in Mark.

https://books.google.com/books?id=9cs6A ... nt&f=false

[outhouse]

why are some of the other possible synoptic (and extrasynoptic) relationships so unclear?


Ben.

Because of the sheer diversity in the early movement.


Reality here dictates marks gospel was a product of the temple falling and a need for traditions that were written and orally passed on at Passover to be recorded as the normal method the early Christians shared information had changed dramatically.

As this compilation known as mark started getting passed around , many different communities found it only telling a partial version in their eyes. So different geographic regions started filling in what was important with their local traditions.


There is not one aspect of the above that does no jive with any cultural context or plausibility.