gurugeorge

When I was thinking about Marcion, I got to wondering about if there were any viable alternatives to the standard scholarship view of the priority of Mark.

Out of interest, are there any biblical scholars who fly the flag for a Luke priority? (Not the Luke we have of course, but something like the "ur-Luke" Price has mentioned - in the context he mentions it in a review somewhere, one gets the impression it's an idea that has been mooted in scholarly discussion.)

Toto

Yuri Kuchinsky is a sometime poster here who has championed a form of Lukan priority. He claims to rely on Loisy.

The Birth of the Christian Religion (1933),
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy/

The Origins of the New Testament (1936),
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/

khalimirov

I think Markan priority is pretty well established.

gurugeorge

Thanks Toto.

S.C.Carlson

Scholars supporting Lukan priority (with or without a proto-Gospel) are fairly rare. Here is a list of some of them:

Anton Büsching, Die vier Evangelisten mit ihren eigenen Worten zusammengesetzt und mit Erklärungen versehen (Hamburg, 1766).

William Lockton, "The Origin of the Gospels," Church Quarterly Review (July, 1922).

Robert Lisle Lindsey, "A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Independence," Novum Testamentum 6 (1963): 239-63, repr. in D. E. Orton, ed., The Synoptic Problem and Q (Brill's RBS 4; Leiden: Brill, 1999): 7-31; idem, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (Jerusalem: Dugith, 2d ed., 1973).

gurugeorge

Thank you Stephen. For future reference of others who might be interested in the subject, I notice a discussion on the web (which you participated in, and it appears to be your website ) where a summary is given of Lindsey's view by someone called Eric Hovee:

1. Lindsey agrees that: "There seems to be no escape from the conclusion that the ancestry of our Greek Gospels is more complicated than we could wish but the remarkable fact is that when we have isolated the severe Markan redaction (of Luke) and noted its influence on Matthew we are still left with with an extensive series of excellent Hebraic-Greek narrative and sayings contexts." Lindsey suggests a stemma or schematic that starts with a Hebrew saga, thereafter translated with "great literalness" to a Greek "Grundschrift", which is subsequently separated between a series of Q sayings excerpts and a protonarrative digest, then to Luke, Mark and, finally Matthew. 1. Lindsey agrees that: "There seems to be no escape from the conclusion that the ancestry of our Greek Gospels is more complicated than we could wish but the remarkable fact is that when we have isolated the severe Markan redaction (of Luke) and noted its influence on Matthew we are still left with with an extensive series of excellent Hebraic-Greek narrative and sayings contexts." Lindsey suggests a stemma or schematic that starts with a Hebrew saga, thereafter translated with "great literalness" to a Greek "Grundschrift", which is subsequently separated between a series of Q sayings excerpts and a protonarrative digest, then to Luke, Mark and, finally Matthew. At least the added complication of one or more protonarrative documents is not at all inconsistent with prior observations of several Crosstalkers.

2. Even if Luke intended to imitate the Hebraicizing style of the Septuagint, this would seem a formidable challenge (with new material) unless there were an original document in Hebrew from which to draw.

3. I perhaps oversimplified Lindsey's analysis as resting "primarily" on ability to readily retranslate from the Greek text back to Hebrew. Lindsey also conducts extensive verbal and sequencing comparisons of the three synoptics drawing, for example, from the work of Herbert Marsh in the 19th century with the conclusion that "Matthew and Luke are unable to demonstrate long verbal parallels opposite each other if they are also opposite Mark." In a forward to the Second Edition, David Flusser of Hebrew University observes that: "If we follow Lindsey's diagnosis of the Synoptic situation it is not surprising that we often find many evidences to suggest that Luke's version is the most accurate and that Matthew has been too often unduly influenced by Mark, even when he is correcting Mark by his parallel texts" (independent of Luke).

4. Lindsey furthers his discussion with what he terms the Markan Cross-Factor which essentially says: (a) the Triple Tradition (of all three synoptics) shows close agreement between Matthew and Luke in the order of about 77 pericopae but low agreement in verbal identity; and (b) the Double Tradition (of Luke-Matthew) shows little agreement between Luke and Matthew in the order of 42 pericopae but high agreement in verbal identity. In other words: "It is obvious that the Gospel of Mark is somehow responsible for the particular pattern the evidence takes and the only question is how." Without Mark, there is considerable divergence in the ordering of the Matthean and Lukan accounts.

5. Lindsey argues that Matthew often represents a combination of the story in Mark and Luke, an example being the baptism of Jesus. Matthew agrees with Luke that John did not necessarily physically baptize Jesus into the Jordan, that the heavens opened rather than were split open (as in Mark), and that the Holy Spirit came upon rather than into Jesus. However, Matthew is consistent with Mark with Jesus coming "immediately" out of the water, and that Jesus "saw" the Spirit descending.

6. In short, rather than being first out of the box, Mark appears to follow at least one of the other writers with what may well represent the Readers' Digest version of the Synoptics. Mark is most disconnected from any Hebraic origin (though the Greek is rough). Mark repeatedly uses a number of Greek adverbs or adjectives which appear to have no direct Hebrew equivalent. A good example is the term "immediately" (used 40 times in Mark, 7 times in Matthew and once in Luke). Mark is fast with dramatic action and relatively short on any systematic theology except perhaps for polemic thrusts as with his universal disparagement of disciples. Lindsey also suggests one other factor, namely that Mark may be having a little fun. In short: "To look for some great theological emphasis in Mark is, if I may be allowed to use the phrase, to miss the fun. Mark is really a kind of word-magician. He gets the reader's attention by using a striking word or dramatic phrase and then proceeds to keep the reader guessing as to when the expression will next appear. Perhaps his greatest skill lies in carefully concealing his sources."

7. Professor Flusser comments that in a time when the view that Mark is a principal source of the other Synoptics is "all but unanimous", Lindsey's work provides "a decisive new clue to the understanding of the Synoptic relationships and an equally important clue to the right approach to the Gospel of Mark." However, a primary drawback of the Lindsey theory is the placement of Matthew at the back of the pack. Is there another alternative that brings together Lindsey's approach with that of an earlier proto-Matthew? If so, such a synthesis could perhaps better address three issues: (a) consistency with statements of early patriarchs as to the primacy of Matthew (in initial form); (b) subsequent addition of text in Matthew driven by the perceived need to establish a better link with OT prophecy (e.g. the Isaiah 7:14 misinterpretation of a virgin birth); and (c) opportunity for a redacted Matthew to respond to then available texts Mark (and possibly Luke) in the context of the 85 CE conflict between Jewish and Greek strands of early Christianity.

Elswhere on Stephen's website there's another summary by someone called David Bivin:

In 1922 William Lockton suggested a theory of Lukan priority. According to his hypothesis Luke was written first, copied by Mark, who was in turn copied by Matthew who copied from Luke as well.1

Forty years later Robert L. Lindsey independently reached a similar solution to the synoptic problem. He proposed a theory of Lukan priority which argues that Luke was written first and was used by Mark, who in turn was used by Matthew who did not know Luke's Gospel.2 This theory postulates two non-canonical documents that were unknown to the synoptists -- a Hebrew biography of Jesus and a literal Greek translation of that original -- and two other non-canonical sources known to one or more of the synoptists.

According to Lindsey, Matthew and Luke, and probably Mark as well, were acquainted with an anthology of Jesus' words and deeds taken from the Greek translation of the Hebrew biography. Luke alone was acquainted with a second source, a Greek biography that attempted to reconstruct the story order of the original Hebrew text and its Greek translation. Mark used Luke while only rarely if at all referring to the anthology, while Matthew used Mark and the anthology. Luke and Matthew did not know each other's gospels, but independently used the anthology. As in the more popular Two-Document Hypothesis, Mark is the middle term between Matthew and Luke. (See diagram.)

Lindsey arrived at his theory unintentionally. Attempting to replace Franz Delitzsch's outdated Hebrew translation of the New Testament, he began by translating the Gospel of Mark, assuming it to be the earliest of the synoptic gospels. Although Mark's text is relatively Semitic, it contains hundreds of non-Semitisms, such as the oft-repeated "and immediately," which are not present in Lukan parallels. This suggested to Lindsey the possibility that Mark was copying Luke and not vice versa; with further research Lindsey came to his solution to the synoptic problem.

A number of scholars in Israel, most prominently Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University, have espoused Lindsey's source theory.3 These scholars, now collaborating as the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, believe that a Hebrew Vorlage lies behind the Greek texts of the gospels. They maintain that by translating the Greek texts back into Hebrew and interpreting how this Hebrew text would have been understood by first-century readers, one gains a fuller understanding of the text's original meaning.

In their emphasis on the importance of Hebrew, the Jerusalem School scholars are a product of the pioneering work of Hebrew University professor M. H. Segal, who suggested as early as 1909 that Mishnaic Hebrew showed the characteristics of a living language, and that the Jewish people in the land of Israel at the time of Jesus used Hebrew as their primary spoken and written language.4 Segal's conclusions have been confirmed by the discovery of the Bar Kochva letters and other documents from the Dead Sea area. The most recent contribution to this subject is the two-part article by Hebrew University professor Shmuel Safrai, "Spoken Languages in the Time of Jesus," Jerusalem Perspective 4.1 (1991), 3-8, 13, and "Literary Languages in the Time of Jesus," Jerusalem Perspective 4.2 (1991), 3-8.

Lindsey's hypothesis not only emphasizes the priority of Luke and/or Matthew when using their shared source, the Anthology, it draws particular attention to the Hebraic nature of the Greek text of the synoptic gospels and the importance of translating that text into Hebrew before evaluating it. The recognition of the importance of Hebrew in understanding the gospels is a new contribution to grappling with the synoptic problem, and is a harbinger of much fruitful research.

End Notes
1. William Lockton, "The Origin of the Gospels," Church Quarterly Review 94 (1922), 216-239. Lockton subsequently wrote three books to substantiate his theory, all published by Longmans, Green and Co. of London: The Resurrection and Other Gospel Narratives and The Narratives of the Virgin Birth (1924), The Three Traditions in the Gospels (1926), and Certain Alleged Gospel Sources: A Study of Q, Proto-Luke and M (1927).
2. Robert L. Lindsey, "A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence," Novum Testamentum 6 (1963), 239-263.
3. David Flusser, "Jesus," in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), 10:10.
4. M. H. Segal, "Mishnaic Hebrew and Its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic," in Jewish Quarterly Review Old Series 20 (1908-9), 647-737. See also Segal's A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford, 1927).

fta

See also Charles Waite's 19th century History of the Christian Religion to the Year 200.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, folks!

Here's my article that argues specifically for the Originality of Luke,

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/earluke.htm

I certainly agree with Lindsey that: "There seems to be no escape from the conclusion that the ancestry of our Greek Gospels is more complicated than we could wish..."

He's certainly not the first or the last to express such an opinion, but our world of mainstream biblical studies is such that it can escape any connection with logic easily enough. "Don't bother us with any of your facts or evidence, since our minds are already made up!"

Loisy basically figured 90% of these things already in his time, because he accepted that none of these gospels is the earliest. He argued that each of our four canonicals represents a complex textual patchwork, containing both early and late material -- often within one and the same verse.

Complexity is the reality, people, whether we like it or not!

Cheers,

Yuri.