Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

How is it explained that the "Mary and Martha" unit are known to everyone but the earliest gospels?

define earliest

Of the canonical four, Mark and Matthew. Please don't postulate that this was in Marcion. Please.

Stephen, no it was a question as to how you arrive at "early and late." Which you have not answered.

I was not and will not injected anything of my own, as I am focusing on your view to composition of the Gospels to understand it (notice the lack of pejoratives when I address you, something I think you should strive for). I am asking you to explain the order and why. As you are well aware there is nothing like a consensus on synoptic order, only that John knew a synoptic, so could not be first. (My view is the Western order is the composition order or the Canonical forms - but that is neither here nor there for this discussion, hence it is parenthetical, not part of the discussion). I also am aware that in general you are a "completist" in the sense that you do not consider the books of the NT to have circulated in forms much different than what we have received. So recognizing this I am not challenging it, since I want to understand your foundation when you say "early" and "later."

And it's not a random point, as every Gospel has stories and elements more primitive than the others, and everyone of them has elements and stories more detailed and highly developed (e.g., Salome story is most expansive and details most filled in by Mark). My only other comment is that I am not inclined to buy theories of embarrassment for leaving elements out - but if that is part of your argument I'll note it; changing them sure (I can give examples, such as John and Elijah commentary in Matthew and John), but not dropping them. I digressed again into my views, apologies, please proceed.

regards, Stuart

I think it's safe to assume that Luke and John were later than Mark and Matthew - not in the least because that's what our earliest sources tell us.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:31 pm I think it's safe to assume that Luke and John were later than Mark and Matthew - not in the least because that's what our earliest sources tell us.

Hum Relying on the church fathers (sources). We are pushing the start of the 3rd century then for earliest sources, and mid-4th century if you are calling anything not known outside of Eusubius.

Who are the sources that say Mark was early? I am aware of Patristic writers saying John and Matthew were apostles and Mark and Luke were later, part of the seventy. These are of course legends associated with the titles and presume their authorship and singularity (i.e., not layering), and say nothing of origins.

Mark is quoted the least, and seems to be the last known. (Not saying it was, but it seems to have been off to the side, unlike the other three)

But we have to start with something, we have to start somewhere. Sometimes in this field or at this forum it feels a little like 15 people speaking in different languages AT one another. The idea that Mark was used to make Matthew and then Luke is generally regarded as basically correct. Yes the Church Fathers put Matthew in front of Mark but there might have been a reason for that. My original question was that - if Luke and John are after Mark and Matthew how do they agree about the 'Mary and Martha' pairing? What's the source for that information?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:16 am But we have to start with something, we have to start somewhere. Sometimes in this field or at this forum it feels a little like 15 people speaking in different languages AT one another. The idea that Mark was used to make Matthew and then Luke is generally regarded as basically correct. Yes the Church Fathers put Matthew in front of Mark but there might have been a reason for that. My original question was that - if Luke and John are after Mark and Matthew how do they agree about the 'Mary and Martha' pairing? What's the source for that information?

So it's "IF" but no reasoning, just accepted tradition (apologist-ish position). Hum.

I am a snowball theory guy, for both NT text and Church fathers.

The point of the Western order seems to have come about from concept of Matthew and John being Apostles, and Luke as associated with Paul, and Mark associated with Peter (both said to be companions in legend) part of the seventy and thus composed later. The Canonical order swapped Mark and John to align the Synoptic Gospels and place the Spiritual at the end. The order was unlikely to have even been thought about until they were bound as a collection, which would be after the Decian persecution, or perhaps even after the Diocletian.

My strong suspicion is that Matthew was placed first in the Canonical order because it represented the theology the church leadership at the time was most comfortable with. This is not dissimilar to the Pauline Order and Pauline Pastoral Order, where the first is last or the last is first, because it served as the declarative statement and defense of the theology the church at the time was most comfortable with. (Hence Marcion had Galatians first, the Catholics had Romans)

My argument for the order of

[prototype(s)] -> [Marcion] -> Matthew -> John (layers 1 & 2) -> Luke

is built on the premise that each was written as a reaction to the prior gospel(s), to present a corrective to the theology and story line. Wont go into all the how and why, but it comes from comparisons side by side. For example Marcion says Christ came to abolish the Law, Matthew said he came to not to abolish, but to uphold the Law (5:17); Matthew has Jesus argue John is Elijah (11:13-14), John has John himself reply that he is not Elijah (1:21). Such are examples of direct responses to theological positions of the prior.

The irony is Martha (Luke 10:38-42) is not attested in Marcion (Harnack and Zahn perhaps guessed wrong here -- the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:29-37, is also not attested by Epiphanius P42, Adamantius 1-2 or Tertullian AM4), so my order would be in agreement with yours potentially. Luke would have picked up the Samaritan and Martha from John.

But you realize there is no actual EVIDENCE for any of this right? Not even Clement's use of the passage which I find particularly interesting. A stronger circumstantial case can be made for Secret Mark or whatever Origen's gospel was in the Commentary of Matthew as Clement's source than what you are suggesting.

The paucity of references to Luke 10:41, 42 is extremely unusual especially when juxtaposed against Clement's casual 'you know that Mary and Martha story ...' comment. Whoever he was writing for clearly knew the story.