bacht

It does seem more natural to assume that the later writer would expand on the earlier, unless Mark was consciously re-interpreting the story for his own reasons. OTOH Matthew seems closer to the flavour of Revelation, which seems to be one of the earliest surviving Christian documents.

Amaleq13

Yet, in the context of the evidence you seem to think supports this conclusion, it appears to be a non sequitur. IOW, it does not follow logically from the points you make.

Matthew's unique use of Isaiah in creating a nativity neither requires nor even suggests that Mark was written later. Likewise with any greater usage of Hebrew Scripture. Neither of these points are logically connected to your conclusion.

PhilosopherJay

Hi dog-on and bacht,

I haven't looked at this question seriously in four or five years, but I remember concluding that there was some complex interaction between Mark and Matthew, so that Matthew seems to be expanding on Mark (or proto-Mark) in most cases, but in some cases Mark seems to using Matthew or proto-Matthew).

I recently heard of a case of complex interaction on the director's narrative of the DVD of Francis Ford Coppola's 1983 movie "Rumble Fish". Apparently, when he read the 1975 book by S.E. Hinton, he decided to turn it into a movie after reading a scene where the lead characters liberate animals from a pet store. In his 1969 movie, "Rain People," Coppola had written and directed a scene where the same thing had happened. Coppola apparently felt that the scene was done better in the book, and he relished the idea of directing the scene again. When he asked the author about where she got the idea for the scene, she said that she had watched a movie on television one night, but didn't know its name. The movie was, of course, Coppola's own "Rain People".

If one hasn't seen "Rain People" and just goes by the book and movie of "Rumble Fish," it appears that Coppola has redone Hinton's vision, or one could conjecture that in the scene, Hinton has redone Coppola's vision. When we add in "Rain People," the more complex truth emerges that Coppola has redone Hinton's vision, which was a redoing of Coppola's earlier vision.

So, I would suggest the thesis of a complex interaction of text in which, perhaps Matthew used Mark (or proto-Mark), but Mark or another editor later recut Mark in some areas to match or change Matthew.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Once it cannot be proven that gMark was written before gMatthew, I will continue to lean towards the priority of gMatthew.

There is no internal information that place gMark before gMatthew. It cannot be explained how the author of Mark derived the name of Jesus if Jesus did not exist or there was no oral tradition.

If Jesus was never in Judaea and there were no stories about Jesus before gMark, then the readers of gMark would have no idea what the "gospel of Jesus Christ" would have meant.

The author of Mark, without ever introducing any details of Jesus, immediately from the very first verse, proceeded to talk about Jesus as if the reader already knew that Jesus did live in Judaea and was known as the son of God.

Some source of Jesus must have preceeded gMark for the author to have no need to even give some details about Jesus in his opening chapter, and I think that it may have been gMatthew.

razlyubleno

Apart from editorial fatigue, of course. You essentially hand-waved, dismissing Goodacre's article without addressing any of its points. You acted as though Goodacre himself had given you permission to ignore his thesis when he said:
But you failed to get any further than the conjuctive "and" in that sentence. This is what he said directly following:
Which is exactly what you're doing, being unhappy that the evidence points toward Markan priority.

I want you to address the one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Goodacre offered:
That's only one of many good examples, but I'd like to know how you can reverse the priority here. Or if you can demonstrate that this doesn't constitute editorial fatigue. One or the other. But don't simply big to differ, and then offer no rebuttal, since doing so doesn't advance your argument one whit.

There may have been oral tradition. Why do you need another written source? Your argument is quite sound, when you say that Mark assumes people are familiar with Jesus, perhaps even with some of Mark's christology. But how is that not solved by oral tradition?

razly

aa5874

I am not impressed by his "editorial fatigue" theory.

The author of gMatthew appear to have used mis-interpreted passages from Hebrew scipture to fabricate his Jesus story.


Now, since you realise the author of Mark assumes people are familiar with Jesus, then you are inadvertently acknowledging that gMark may not be the first written source.

The author of Matthew does not assume people are familiar with Jesus which may indicate that gMatthew may have been the first written source. The author of Matthew consistently gives passages from Hebrew scripture to show how he derived his Jesus from conception to resurrection.

This author Matthew used the words "it might be fulfilled" or "as it is written" for almost every aspect of events of Jesus.

razlyubleno

That's not an argument.

I think it's more likely that Matthew used Hebrew scripture to support the story, rather than to create it ex nihilo. That's why he needed to stretch the passages so much to make them fit, because the passages were built around the story, not the story around the passages.

Yes indeed. That's exactly what I'm acknowledging. I find it highly unlikely, but it's still a possibility. I do, however, prefer a small amount of oral tradition to explain it, rather than a written source.

It may indicate that, yes. But it also may indicate any number of other things as well.

Matthew spoke to his audience like they were too stupid to understand for themselves. He was pedantic. Mark was nothing like that. But this doesn't indicate direction of dependence. All it proves is that Matthew was a different person than Mark.

razly

aa5874

But you did write...


And that is one of the reasons why I think gMatthew was written first or before gMark. If it is assumed the author of Matthew wrote or spoke like the audience was stupid, perhaps they were really not aware of any character called Jesus at all.

Now, if it is assumed the author Mark was nothing like the author of Matthew, perhaps it was because the audience had already found out about Jesus from gMatthew.

razlyubleno

I meant you've made a good point by saying that Mark assumes familiarity with Jesus on the part of his audience.

Like I say, the point you're making is a good one. But the problem is, there's evidence to the contrary. Your argument for Matthean priority can only remain standing in isolation. It does not remain standing in the presence of editorial fatigue, unless you're able to provide a better explanation than what Mark Goodacre does.

razly

aa5874

And that is a most fundamental point in order to maintain my position that gMatthew is likely to have preceeded gMark.

It is virtually without doubt that some other source preceeded gMark, and if Jesus did not exist or there was no oral tradition, then gMatthew may have been that source.



As I said before, I am not impressed with the "editorial fatigue" theory.

Let's look at the example you provided.

1.It is almost certain that when the author of gMatthew used "tetrarch" to describe Herod Antipas that he did not get the word from gMark.

The author of gMark used the word "king"

Now, the word "tetrarch" and king are found in the writings of Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" 18 and Josephus used the words Herod the tetrarch, Herod the king, and Herod the Great in the same book.


Antiquities of the Jews 18.2.3. Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.4 It may be that the author got his information about Herod the tetrarach and Herod the king from Josephus and not from gMark.