The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

[perseusomega9]

I came across this the other day on Matthean Posterity

https://academic.logos.com/when-a-mathe ... ic-problem

[Ken Olson]

.... The first blog post I have planned is on the Matthean Priority Hypothesis, which I'm not sure is of great interest on this list.

It is of great interest to me. Is it available in some form in another discussion or publication somewhere?

Robert MacEwen's book Matthean Posteriority (2015) is probably the most comprehensive discussion of the theory yet published. As I've remarked before on this forum, I was not convinced by it, but it is unusually even-handed in its discussion of the four different source theories it considers (The Griesbach, Two Document, Farrer, and Matthean Posteriority Hypotheses).

https://www.amazon.com/Matthean-Posteri ... 144&sr=8-1

MacEwen also has a response to Mark Goodacre's (currently unpublished) SBL Paper, "Why not Matthew's use of Luke?" online here:

https://academic.logos.com/when-mark-go ... e-of-luke/

I have posted a critique of Robert MacEwen's argument from verbatim agreement, focusing on the Crucial Issue of Verbatim Agreement in his response to Mark Goodacre (linked above), but dealing with the data he presented in his book Matthean Posteriority as well:

https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... t-macewen/

(P.S. - No, I don't discuss Marcion, I'm discussing MacEwen's argument concerning verbatim agreement among the synoptic gospels).

[perseusomega9]

Is that a recent blog Ken?

[Ken Olson]

Yes, started at the beginning of this month. That's the first post on it.

[perseusomega9]

Bookmarked

[gryan]

Re: MacEwen’s Argument as presented by Ken Olson:

1) There is extensive word-for-word agreement between Matthew and Mark.

2) There is extensive word-for-word agreement between Matthew and Luke.

3) There is much less word-for-word agreement between Luke and Mark.

4) It was unusual for ancient writers to copy (i.e., closely reproduce the wording of) their sources at length. Instead, they preferred to show their literary skill by rewriting them in their own style.

5) If we accept the theory of Markan priority, then we know that Matthew copied Mark closely, which is an unusual thing for ancient writer to do.

6) When we come to judge the direction of dependence between Matthew and Luke (assuming one knew the other), it seems most reasonable to assume the extensive word for word agreement between Matthew and Luke is due to Matthew copying Luke rather than vice versa. This is because it is unusual for an ancient writer to copy his sources closely, and it would be even more unusual for two of them to copy their sources closely. As we already know that Matthew behaved in this unusual manner by copying Mark closely, it is more reasonable to assume that he also copied Luke closely than that Luke copied Matthew closely.
https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... t-macewen/
----------------------------
Interesting work, Ken. I take the verbal agreement of points one and two as a joke, a funny one. I had to look at it a few times.

I have not thought about the question of Matthean vs Lucan Posteririority in quite some time. My main interest in the topic came up as I was tracing what I see as clues of two James in Gal/Mark. I find nothing in Luke-Acts or Matt to convince me that either of them disagreed with Gal/Mark that there were indeed two Jameses in Gal/Mark: James, the Lord's brother/James the less, and another James--the pillar apostle/the son of Alphaeus.

In my defense of this thesis, here are some readings that is particularly interesting:

Mark 16:1-8
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so they could go and anoint the body of Jesus. 2Very early on the first day of the week,a just after sunrise, they went to the tomb. 3They were asking one another, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb?” 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, even though it was extremely large.

5When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here! See the place where they put Him. 7But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you.’ ”

8So the women left the tomb and ran away, trembling and bewildered. And in their fear they did not say a word to anyone.

Luke 24:1-12
1On the first day of the week,a very early in the morning, the women came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were puzzling over this, suddenly two men in radiant apparel stood beside them.

5As the women bowed their faces to the ground in terror, the two men asked them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here; He has risen! Remember how He told you while He was still in Galilee: 7‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’”

8Then they remembered His words. 9And when they returned from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11But their words seemed like nonsense to them, and they did not believe the women.

Matt. 28:1-8

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Marywent to see the tomb.

2Suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards trembled in fear of him and became like dead men.

5But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; He has risen, just as He said! Come, see the place where He lay. 7Then go quickly and tell His disciples, ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him.’ See, I have told you.”

8So they hurried away from the tomb in fear and great joy, and ran to tell His disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” They came to Him, grasped His feet, and worshiped Him. 10“Do not be afraid,” said Jesus. “Go and tell My brothers to go to Galilee. There they will see Me.”

12Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. And after bending down and seeing only the linen cloths, he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

--------------------

The specific parallels I'm focused on are these:

Mark:
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου), and Salome

Luke
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James (Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου), and the other women with them

Matt
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία)

My interpretation is that Matt and Luke both knew that Mark's "Mary the mother of James" referred to a "Mary" other than Mary the mother of "James the less". That's why Matt called her "the other Mary".

Matt didn't like it that Luke erased the brother of Jesus named James from Mark's story. He also didn't like it that Mark called him "James the less." So he repeated Mark's story of James the brother of Jesus pretty much verbatim, but he erased the word the less "the less", and he erased the name of the "other James" son of "the other Mary."

Although my thesis does not need it, I am still intrigued by Matthean posteriority for the way it frames these mother of "James" parallels.

[Ken Olson]

My interpretation is that Matt and Luke both knew that Mark's "Mary the mother of James" referred to a "Mary" other than Mary the mother of "James the less". That's why Matt called her "the other Mary".

Matt didn't like it that Luke erased the brother of Jesus named James from Mark's story. He also didn't like it that Mark called him "James the less." So he repeated Mark's story of James the brother of Jesus pretty much verbatim, but he erased the word the less "the less", and he erased the name of the "other James" son of "the other Mary."

We do not really need the thesis that Matthew did not like Luke's omission of the brother of Jesus named James to explain why he included it what Mark had, minus James the less. The theory that Matthew used Mark, which you and I (and the vast majority of critical scholars) share is a sufficient explanation, and Matthew may have dropped "the less" for the reasons you state. The data do not tell us anything about his attitude to Luke (which I do not think he knew).

Although my thesis does not need it, I am still intrigued by Matthean posteriority for the way it frames these mother of "James" parallels.

You're right, your thesis does the data support your theory over mine. That the gospels have at least two, probably three, possibly more distinct characters named James is widely held in the field and accepted by both you and me.

I do not think these passages tell us anything about whether Paul was referring to one or two Jameses in Galatians, nor, as far as I can see, anything about whether Matthew knew Luke. I think what you've shown is that the data could be interpreted according to your favored theory without much difficulty. I suppose that's true, but I think they can interpreted according to my favored theory without much difficulty either. I don't think you've pointed out anything that supports your theory over mine with regard to whether there were one or two Jameses in Galatians, nor whether Matthew knew Luke, or vice versa, or neither knew the other.

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

These discussions remind me of when I was in East Germany in the late 80s. The East German government restricted the availability of all products from the West. So when you wanted to buy 'a hat' there were like 2 or 3 'hats.' As opposed to hundreds of shoes there were 3 to 4 styles of shoes. The bookstores had 100 books total as opposed to 1000s.

The question is whether or not Irenaeus and his gang reduced the number of options from the previous generation, reduced them down to Mark through John. If they did, this question of Matthean posterity or Markan priority takes on a whole different perspective.

[Irish1975]

The question is whether or not Irenaeus and his gang reduced the number of options from the previous generation, reduced them down to Mark through John. If they did, this question of Matthean posterity or Markan priority takes on a whole different perspective.

Similarly, if the 4-Gospel Book evolved over a period of time (e.g. 150—250 CE), each Gospel being massaged and re-edited in light of the others, then we really shouldn’t expect to be able to order them chronologically; at least not without many caveats. All we have are 3rd/4th century manuscripts and later.

[Jax]

The question is whether or not Irenaeus and his gang reduced the number of options from the previous generation, reduced them down to Mark through John. If they did, this question of Matthean posterity or Markan priority takes on a whole different perspective.

Similarly, if the 4-Gospel Book evolved over a period of time (e.g. 150—250 CE), each Gospel being massaged and re-edited in light of the others, then we really shouldn’t expect to be able to order them chronologically; at least not without many caveats. All we have are 3rd/4th century manuscripts and later.

+100 on this observation.