markan priority: what's at stake?

[gmx]

I've asked this before, I think.

If the "consensus" of Markan priority is proven to be incorrect, and Mark was in fact the last of the synoptics to be written, and Matthew the first, it is often remarked that such a finding would have massive implications / repercussions. But for what? And whom?

So, exactly what would it affect about "our" understanding of a) Christianity, and 2) the historicity of Jesus? What are the repercussions? What critical pieces of the "early Christianity puzzle" live or die on Markan priority?

[toejam]

The "consensus" on the historical Jesus doesn't really amount to much of any detail, other than the standard stuff that Dale Allison describes as the "boring facts" - e.g. that the guy existed as some sort of Jewish cult leader, that there was an association between him and John the Baptist, that he was likely some itinerant miracle-worker/exorcist, who got in some trouble with the authorities and was crucified under the rule of Pontius Pilate, etc. I don't think Matthean priority would change much of that. How one solves the Synoptic Problem has ramifications for theories that go beyond the consensus. Markan Priority is accepted by those who have very different views on Jesus - just compare the views of John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, Michael Bird and Richard Carrier. Very little consensus going on there. Yet they all accept Markan priority for more-or-less the same literary reasons, and each thinks it supports their view of Jesus.

[andrewcriddle]

If Matthew was first (and reasonably early) it would change our picture of the development of Christology. With some ideas often regarded as later being early.
E.G. Matthew seems to identify Jesus with the pre-existent divine wisdom. If Matthew is early then this is an early understanding of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

[Michael BG]

The way we understand the theology of Mark, Matthew and Luke.

If Mark is the oldest we try to identify his redactional work and draw theological conclusions, for example Mark presenting Jesus in the Wisdom tradition of the Wisdom of Solomon, or his Messianic secret motif.

If Mark is the oldest we can see how both Matthew and Luke edited him to make the stories clearer or to remove some of the negatives in the stories (e.g. Jesus’ anger in Mk 1:41) or to add their own theological interests.

If Mark is not the oldest how do you explain how he edited both Matthew and Luke? If Mark is not the oldest how do you try to identify the pre-gospel tradition?

[gmx]

If Mark is not the oldest how do you explain how he edited both Matthew and Luke?

I guess many people have attempted to do that. The precis being that his community had need of a gospel:focused more on the Christian kerygma than OT fulfillment. If Matthew and Luke exist and are already entrenched, Mark doesn't need to repeat Jesus' teaching, even though he refers to it at multiple junctures. By selectively using parts of Matthew and Luke, Mark produced a late gospel which fit the purposes of his community, supported his theological leanings, while at the same time not dissenting from the entrenched major synoptics.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

What critical pieces of the "early Christianity puzzle" live or die on Markan priority?

The Q-discussion would be unnecessary. Perhaps no one would asssume that there was a Q-document or a Q-tradition.

If Mark is not the oldest how do you explain how he edited both Matthew and Luke? If Mark is not the oldest how do you try to identify the pre-gospel tradition?

A critical scholar could assume that Mark rejected the teachings on the mount as heretical and therefore excluded them

[lsayre]

The progression as I see it:

Mark appears to have Jesus becoming the Christ in conjunction with the dove descending upon him at his baptism.
Matthew has Jesus being one with Christ from his human birth.
John has Jesus being the Christ from eternity past.
Luke is self-admittedly merely a later attempt at retelling (and in the process correcting) a story that has been told many times beforehand.

[JoeWallack]

I've asked this before, I think.

If the "consensus" of Markan priority is proven to be incorrect, and Mark was in fact the last of the synoptics to be written, and Matthew the first, it is often remarked that such a finding would have massive implications / repercussions. But for what? And whom?

So, exactly what would it affect about "our" understanding of a) Christianity, and 2) the historicity of Jesus? What are the repercussions? What critical pieces of the "early Christianity puzzle" live or die on Markan priority?

JW:
The biggest problem for Christianity is that the original Gospel narrative, GMark, had no resurrection sightings:

Mark 16

16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?

4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.

5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.

The most important assertion of Christianity is that there were multiple, independent, first-hand witnesses to Jesus' supposed resurrection by known witnesses. Yet the original Gospel narrative, that all subsequent Gospels used as a base/source, not only does not describe any known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus but implies that no known person of that time believed Jesus was resurrected. Further, subsequent Christianity forged supposed endings to GMark that did describe known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus.

We thus have no quality witness for a resurrected Jesus and Christianity with the forgery impeached its credibility as an institution regarding any subsequent supposed evidence.

The observations above are further strengthened by noting that while the subsequent Gospels wanted and claimed to present historical witness to a resurrected Jesus, they used as a base a Gospel that did not have any claimed historical witness, GMark, which indicates that there was no other Gospel narrative available to them.


Joseph C

Fools, you have no perception,
The stauros we are gambling, are frighteningly high.
We must crush it completely,
So like John before him, K Markan must die.

ErrancyWiki

[Adam]

Fortunately,
We're coming here to recognition that a "Super-Gospel" or "Diatessaron" (poor terminology) or "Proto-Gospel" (or equivalent "Grundschrift" or "Urevangelium") underlies the Synoptics (and in my own Seven Written Eyewitness Accounts of Jesus, also the Passion Narrative within GJohn).
Not that this proves there was a Resurrection account in it that actually featured Jesus in the flesh (er, whatever). What it included varied depending upon the tellers--the Jerusalem party tells it as in Luke 24 and John 20, the Galilean Christians came across more like Matthew 28 and John 21.

[Michael BG]

To gmx: The problem with Mark not being the oldest gospel is that while his whole gospel is shorter than Matthew and Luke (and explanations are needed for what he rejected) his versions of the stories have more detail, more negative views of Jesus and issues for Christianity which would need explaining.

What critical pieces of the "early Christianity puzzle" live or die on Markan priority?

The Q-discussion would be unnecessary. Perhaps no one would asssume that there was a Q-document or a Q-tradition.

I think this is unlikely as the issue of how the double tradition arrived in Matthew and Luke would still exist, but added to it would be the problem of recreating the triple tradition and not using Mark to do so.

The most important assertion of Christianity is that there were multiple, independent, first-hand witnesses to Jesus' supposed resurrection by known witnesses. Yet the original Gospel narrative, that all subsequent Gospels used as a base/source, not only does not describe any known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus but implies that no known person of that time believed Jesus was resurrected. Further, subsequent Christianity forged supposed endings to GMark that did describe known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus.

We thus have no quality witness for a resurrected Jesus and Christianity with the forgery impeached its credibility as an institution regarding any subsequent supposed evidence.

The observations above are further strengthened by noting that while the subsequent Gospels wanted and claimed to present historical witness to a resurrected Jesus, they used as a base a Gospel that did not have any claimed historical witness, GMark, which indicates that there was no other Gospel narrative available to them.

Mark’s gospel implies that the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples. Paul states that Jesus was resurrected (1 Cor 15:12-17). Lots of scholars believe that even behind the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke and John are earlier Christian resurrection appearances of Jesus.