Matthean Posteriority: Addressing Orchard's Challenge to Markan Priority

[gryan]

The Order of the Synoptics (1989), p7, Bernard Orchard wrote:

"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."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1783

In seeming support of Orchard's claim, here are places where Luke follows Mark's order, but Matthew departs from Mark/Luke":

The Healing of the Leper:
In Mark's Gospel (Mark 1:40-45), the healing of a leper occurs early in the narrative.
Luke follows Mark's order and places the healing of the leper in a similar location (Luke 5:12-16).
However, Matthew departs from Mark's order by placing the healing of the leper later in his Gospel (Matthew 8:1-4).

The Calling of the Disciples:
Mark records the calling of Simon and Andrew, James and John by the Sea of Galilee as one of the initial events (Mark 1:16-20).
Luke maintains this order and narrative placement (Luke 5:1-11).
In contrast, Matthew changes the order and location of the calling of these disciples (Matthew 4:18-22).

The Parable of the Sower:
The Parable of the Sower is presented in Mark 4:1-20.
Luke follows Mark's order and includes this parable in a similar location (Luke 8:4-15).
However, Matthew deviates from Mark's order by placing the Parable of the Sower in a different context (Matthew 13:1-23).

These examples illustrate Orchard's observation that when Luke follows Mark's order, Matthew departs from their shared order. This pattern raises questions about the relationships between the Synoptic Gospels and whether there was collaboration or dependence in the development of their narratives.

Matthean Posteriority as a Solution to Orchard's Challenge

In response to Orchard's challenge, the Matthean posteriority hypothesis emerges as an intriguing alternative, proposing that Matthew edited both Mark and Luke.

Before addressing Orchard's challenge, here are some specific examples where the Matthean posteriority hypothesis is useful in general.

The Sermon on the Mount:
One of the most significant sections unique to Matthew is the Sermon on the Mount. While Mark and Luke contain teachings of Jesus, Matthew's version is more extensive and structured. The Matthean posteriority hypothesis suggests that Matthew had access to Luke's Gospel, which contained some of these teachings, and he incorporated them into his Gospel, expanding and organizing them to form the Sermon on the Mount.

The Lord's Prayer:
Matthew's Gospel includes the well-known Lord's Prayer, which is not found in the Gospel of Mark or in the same form in Luke. The Matthean posteriority hypothesis implies that Matthew may have taken a shorter version of this prayer from Luke and expanded it for his audience, demonstrating his editorial independence.

The Parable of the Talents:
This parable, which deals with the theme of stewardship and responsibility, is unique to Matthew. In contrast, Luke includes a similar parable known as the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11-27). The Matthean posteriority hypothesis suggests that Matthew may have drawn from the Parable of the Minas in Luke and adapted it to create the Parable of the Talents in his Gospel.

The Birth Narrative:
Matthew's Gospel provides a detailed account of the birth of Jesus, including the visit of the Magi and the flight to Egypt, which is not present in Mark or Luke. Scholars have proposed that Matthew may have drawn on additional traditions or sources to enrich the birth narrative, supporting the idea of his editorial work.

The Resurrection Accounts:
Matthew's account of the resurrection of Jesus includes the appearance of an angel at the empty tomb and the Great Commission, which are distinct from the resurrection narratives in Mark and Luke. The Matthean posteriority hypothesis suggests that Matthew may have incorporated unique resurrection traditions into his Gospel.

These examples illustrate how the Matthean posteriority hypothesis can help explain the presence of distinctive material in the Gospel of Matthew that differs from Mark and Luke, suggesting that Matthew had access to and edited these sources to create his Gospel.

Finally, here are specific examples that illustrate Matthean posteriority, demonstrating how it explains various instances where, as Orchard observes, "Luke deviates from Mark's order, and Matthew subsequently follows it":

The Baptism of Jesus:

In Mark's Gospel, the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is described early in the narrative (Mark 1:9-11).
In Luke's Gospel, this event is also early in the narrative (Luke 3:21-22).
In Matthew's Gospel, Matthew follows Mark's order and places the baptism of Jesus early in his narrative (Matthew 3:13-17).

The Healing of the Paralytic:

In Mark's Gospel, the healing of the paralytic is described after the call of Levi (Mark 2:1-12).
In Luke's Gospel, this event is moved to a different location, and it appears before the call of Levi (Luke 5:17-26).
In Matthew's Gospel, Matthew follows Mark's order and places the healing of the paralytic after the call of Levi (Matthew 9:1-8).

Feeding the Multitudes:

In Mark's Gospel, there are two accounts of Jesus feeding large crowds (Mark 6:30-44 and Mark 8:1-10).
In Luke's Gospel, these accounts are combined into a single feeding miracle (Luke 9:10-17).
In Matthew's Gospel, Matthew follows Mark's order and presents two separate feeding miracles (Matthew 14:13-21 and Matthew 15:32-39).


Conclusion:

In reevaluating Orchard's challenge to the Markan priority hypothesis, the Matthean posteriority hypothesis emerges as a promising alternative.

[Ken Olson]

I have discussed (and, I think, refuted) Riley's argument from Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (1987), on this list here:

viewtopic.php?p=39619#p39619

Best,

Ken

[gryan]

Ken,

Thank you for your engagement with my argument and for referencing Harold Riley's work. While you have discussed and attempted to refute Riley's argument in a previous context, it's worth noting that my argument provides additional examples and considerations that were not directly addressed in your previous response. Specifically, my argument presents specific instances where Matthew and Luke deviate from the Markan order, which supports the notion that Matthean posteriority could offer a plausible explanation for these variations.

Best,

Greg

[schillingklaus]

Markan priority is wholesale false, so the question of Matthean posteriority becomes irrelvant.

[Ken Olson]

Ken,

Thank you for your engagement with my argument and for referencing Harold Riley's work. While you have discussed and attempted to refute Riley's argument in a previous context, it's worth noting that my argument provides additional examples and considerations that were not directly addressed in your previous response. Specifically, my argument presents specific instances where Matthew and Luke deviate from the Markan order, which supports the notion that Matthean posteriority could offer a plausible explanation for these variations.

Best,

Greg

This is lame. I was hoping that you would see how nonsensical Riley's argument is from my post, but if you insist I can go through this step by step. Here's Riley's argument that you quoted in the OP, with my highlights:

"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."

So, first, the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis, as the term is used by its principal proponents (Garrow, Huggins, MacEwen) is a species of the Markan Priority Hypothesis (a term that encompasses the MPH, 2DH, and Farrer). The MPH postulates that Mark is the earliest of the synoptic gospels, Luke used Mark (as well as undefined other sources, and Matthew then used Mark and Luke (and possibly undefined other sources).

So does Riley's argument disprove the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis? Or do you count Matthew's dependence on Luke as constituting Riley's 'constant collaboration''?

Best,

Ken

PS - We could skip to the end here rather than going through all of this step by step. Riley is claiming to have disproven the possibility of Markan Priority, whereas you are claiming that Matthean Posteriority is a possible solution to the synoptic problem. Riley's argument is fallacious, and does not do your theory any good, but I will readily admit that I cannot disprove the possibility of the MPH. So I would agree that MPH is a possible solution to the synoptic problem - I just don't think you've shown any way in which it's demonstrably preferable to other Markan priority theories.

[gryan]

Got it.

Thanks!

[Charles Wilson]

There's an interesting "tension" (to me) between the Synoptics and John, if I may expand the Arguments a bit.

The "Cleansing of the Temple" is found in all 4 Gospels. The event occurs towards the end of the Synoptics (so to speak) but at the beginning of John. Some have suggested that there were 2 events here. Although I am highly sympathetic to a twofold description of events, my reading of the Cleansing falls in favor of John's view. To me, the earlier Order History of John reads with more Truth. YMMV.

We are onto an important Point as regards the Construction of the NT. "John-Mark" in Acts gives a hint that that the Gospels were much,much closer in Authorship than has been supposed. The Ordering was Intentional and even if we may not read the Author's Internal States, we may map out the Techniques.

CW