The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:17 am I'm assuming that MacEwen is measuring popularity by (1) the number of of early manuscripts or fragments attesting to the gospel and (2) the number of times it is quoted by early Christians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica ... anuscripts

He'd need that (2) indeed in order to have a reason to give precedence to Matthew over John, who outnumbers him.
But he won't quantify his claim, I think

Nonetheless it is not even a circular argument but more of a, shall we say, prophetic one?
Because Matthew must have known in advance that his gospel would be the most popular only if he'd leave out the Samaritans
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by gryan »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:17 am
gryan wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:17 am Re: "The Gospel of Matthew quickly became the most popular synoptic Gospel"

MacEWEN made a point of this during his closing statement. Is this evidence that it was written last? I suspect it is so.

Thesis: The last written synoptic Gospel was the most appreciated because the author knew his intended audience better. For example, perhaps he knew the Samaritan stories were disliked, and so omitted them. On the other hand, perhaps he also knew that James the Lord's blood brother had a growing fan following, and so he added that bit from Mark which Luke had omitted--minus the "lesser" put-down.
This is circular. It has some internal coherence, but is not backed up by facts outside itself.

1) Matthew was the most popular synoptic gospel in the early centuries (fact, or presumably so).

2) Matthew does not have stories with Samaritans in them and mentions Samaritans only once (fact).

3) This should be explained by postulating that Matthew was the latest synoptic gospel and knew that Samaritan stories were unpopular (baseless speculation).

I say this is a baseless speculation because you have not shown that Matthew was the most popular synoptic gospel *because* it has no Samaritan stories, nor that there is a direct relationship between a gospel's popularity and it not having Samaritan stories. Other factors regarding popularity might be (I think probably are) more important. I'm assuming that MacEwen is measuring popularity by (1) the number of of early manuscripts or fragments attesting to the gospel and (2) the number of times it is quoted by early Christians. It's not really clear to me exactly what he would mean by quickly.

Mark has 0 mentions of Samaritans and is the least popular synoptic gospel, Matthew has 1 mention and is the most popular synoptic, Luke has 4 mentions of Samaria/Samaritans and is less popular than Matthew, but more than Mark. John is not a synoptic gospel, but has 8 mentions of Samaria/Samaritans, and is witnessed in a a few more early (by 300 CE) manuscripts/fragments than Matthew and rivals Matthew in outside citations (I don't have exact numbers).

I do not believe you have presented any evidence that Samaritans stories were unpopular or made the gospels which contained them unpopular.
Ken:

Thanks for your careful and reasonable counterargument to my thesis stated above!

I'm pondering.

Greg
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by schillingklaus »

The lord's prayer has not been invented by Mt, but it is a degeneration of a degeneration of... prior prayers.

The Marcionist text replaces the coming kingdom with the coming of the Holy Spirit; similar words get later confirmed by Saint Gregory of Nyssa. This is of course absolutely more original, as denied deceptively by Kreuzerin. The priority of the epiclesis (your Spirit shall come upon us) follows from the context of the pericope: It confirms that the Father will grant the Holy Spirit to everyone who asks. This is also the origin of epicleses in several eastern anaphores, replacing the Roman SUPRA QUAE.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by robert j »

schillingklaus wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 7:23 am
... as denied deceptively by Kreuzerin.
Fuck you schillingklaus. Whether one might agree with KK's opinions or not, KK is among the most intellectually honest of participants in this forum.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: "Samaritans"

Post by billd89 »

Observation:

Where "Samaritans" are indicated as resident in Egypt, and a probable audience, Mark's 'early' foreign preaching (i.e. to Samaritans) in Egypt didn't mention Samaritan elements. A later gospel, after Mark, adds 'Samaritans' for that attraction. This makes more sense than subtracting smthg, I think.

I still await someone here definitively naming the Father-God of this 1st C. cult. If mostly derived from or going back to Philo's coastal Judeo-Egyptian scribes (say: hetrodox Sethian 'Therapeutae'), then Mareotic Osiris as Ἰαὼ Iao/Yao/Ieod/Ieud is the probable 'Father God' exported to places like Byblos. The connection to YHWH is true but incomplete, inaccurate, and largely irrelevant. This cult had already begun to emphasize the Father-Son relation of a revamped Judaic god in his multiplicity/Powers, morphing towards whatever assimilations worked locally in diverse synagogues of the Diaspora.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

robert j wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:32 am
schillingklaus wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 7:23 am
... as denied deceptively by Kreuzerin.
Fuck you schillingklaus. Whether one might agree with KK's opinions or not, KK is among the most intellectually honest of participants in this forum.
Thanks for the kind words Robert

Klaus represents his assertions like a hardliner among the church fathers. Apparently, according to him, anyone who believes in Markan priority goes to hell and is in league with the devil. :lol:
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by John T »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:58 am
Secret Alias wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:45 am 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.
Don't forget the Gospel of Hebrews. Perhaps the first Jewish–Christian gospel written (early 2nd century?). It was widely copied from and used as text source by Clement, Origen, and Didymus the Blind. That is, until Eusebius dismissed it as an antilegomena.
Did Marcion steal from it to justify his own gospel?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Goodacre vs. MacEwen - The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

Mark Goodacre and Robert MacEwen will debate 'Which Gospel Came Second?' on Jacob Berman's History Valley YouTube channel this Friday, October 28.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE5UOisT8AY

Goodacre, of course, will argue for the Farrer theory (the synoptic gospels were written in the order Mark-Matthew-Luke), while MacEwen will argue for the Wilke Hypothesis (AKA the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, that the synoptics were written in the order Mark-Luke-Matthew).

Both scholars accept the theory of Markan priority. I suspect there won't be a much discussion of Marcion (unless Berman sees questions on Marcion in the live chat and asks them about it).

Best,

Ken
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Goodacre vs. MacEwen - The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by perseusomega9 »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 5:16 am
Both scholars accept the theory of Markan priority. I suspect there won't be a much discussion of Marcion (unless Berman sees questions on Marcion in the live chat and asks them about it).

Best,

Ken
and once again we'll not get anywhere close to reality as long as scholars skip marcion and pretend the gospels are older than they are.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Goodacre vs. MacEwen - The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

Ken Olson wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 5:16 am Mark Goodacre and Robert MacEwen will debate 'Which Gospel Came Second?' on Jacob Berman's History Valley YouTube channel this Friday, October 28.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE5UOisT8AY

Goodacre, of course, will argue for the Farrer theory (the synoptic gospels were written in the order Mark-Matthew-Luke), while MacEwen will argue for the Wilke Hypothesis (AKA the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, that the synoptics were written in the order Mark-Luke-Matthew).

Both scholars accept the theory of Markan priority. I suspect there won't be a much discussion of Marcion (unless Berman sees questions on Marcion in the live chat and asks them about it).

Best,

Ken
The event will need to be rescheduled. No word yet on when that will be.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply