Placing Matt-> Mark enhanced "4 attestations" argument?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Solstice
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:38 am

Placing Matt-> Mark enhanced "4 attestations" argument?

Post by Solstice »

This is not to discuss whatever may be the main reason as to why Matt was placed before Mark in the canonical gospels. However, a secondary advantage of having the order this way seems to have enhanced many evangelists argument that a historical Jesus existed because "we have 4 independent attestations" of him.

However, if you place them in the likely proper chrono order: Mark -> Matt -> Luke/Acts, it becomes much easier to see that Matt is a re-write of Mark, and Luke a re-write of Matt (and ultimately John as a re-write of Luke/Acts) Placing them in that order almost implies that they're rewrites.

Does placing them in that order and making it easier to see that the 3 synoptics are just re-writes very much wreck the argument that they are "independent attestations" ?
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Placing Matt-> Mark enhanced "4 attestations" argument?

Post by Ulan »

I don't think it matters much. Your thesis would imply that someone actually sits down and reads the NT from the beginning to the end. That's hardly ever done. At church, you will always be served easily digestible snippets. The way most "bible reading groups" work is similar, they take a few verses and then hop around the whole bible, following the links in their commented bible, and then marvel how it all wonderfully fits together. This way, most believers will never get to actually see what a single text actually says as a whole, let alone be able to compare the mood or the contents of the different gospels.

Although, maybe it would help some of those NT scholars who forgot what the NT actually says. Then again, Markan priority is pretty much a majority opinion among those scholars who actually deal with textual developments and not just with questions of faith. The latter are often enough not really open for any logical argument of this kind, as they fear the domino effect of giving up any snippet of tradition.

I think the main reason why Mark was placed second was indeed to hide it in plain sight. It's rarely used, the language is characterized as "primitive" and "harsh", and everyone is told there are better alternatives. As pretty much everything it says is contained in the preceding gospel, the believer can skip it. Otherwise, the adoptionist theology in there jumps at the reader, even though the English translation tends to hide that somewhat. In reality, the most read gospel is gJohn, and the only other part that can compete is the Sermon on the Mount in gMatthew.
Solstice
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:38 am

Re: Placing Matt-> Mark enhanced "4 attestations" argument?

Post by Solstice »

At church, you will always be served easily digestible snippets.

Yea, the congregants only get bite sized snippets, whereas on the other end of the spectrum, Bible scholars are well aware of all the details of the Gospels.

But what about those with a mid-level of Bible education (above the congregants but below a full Bible scholar) like say, the clergy? Did having the Gospels NOT in the chronological order of Mark -> Matt -> Luke prevent a lot of those at a medium level of education from noticing "Hey these 3 books are just re-writes" ??
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Placing Matt-> Mark enhanced "4 attestations" argument?

Post by Ulan »

Solstice wrote:But what about those with a mid-level of Bible education (above the congregants but below a full Bible scholar) like say, the clergy? Did having the Gospels NOT in the chronological order of Mark -> Matt -> Luke prevent a lot of those at a medium level of education from noticing "Hey these 3 books are just re-writes" ??
If you talk about the clergy, the question is similarly moot. All denominations mention these results of scholarship during the education of their priests. It's too risky to leave this topic until they are already priests, so the people have to learn to deal with this, one way or the other.

You will have those denominations where any deviation from tradition is seen as the work of the devil, so a change of order is definitely out. In these more conservative denominations, these ideas of "modern" scholarship are seen as apostasy, which means their clergy is basically steeled against such notions. A variant of this is to declare this scholarship as "outdated", the result of 19th century secular/communist/whatsoever attempts to destroy belief.

In the more mainstream denominations, these results of scholarship are basically accepted. Future priests have to find their peace with this. I've read a few reports that there are basically always some people who get a nervous breakdown when they are confronted with this, but those people then either learn to deal with it or leave. The stance of most mainstream churches is quite simple: the historical early Christianity is one thing, the kerygmatic Jesus a different one. Both aspects only touch lightly, and what matters is the people in the here and now and how the tradition helps people today. You either manage that balancing act or look for a different profession.
Post Reply