robto

IMO the best evidence for Markan priority is the persistence of Mk's style in Mt and Lk.

One stylistic element that is typically Markan is the "sandwich story". He tells part of a story, then interjects a different story, then gives the end of the first story. For instance, the story of the cursed fig tree (Mk 11:12-14 & 20-25) is sandwiched around the cleansing of the Temple (Mk 11:15-19). Mk does this a whole bunch of times, I don't remember how many. Now, both Mt and Lk have some sandwich stories, and always in the same place as Mk. But Mt and Lk don't have the same sandwich stories. This all makes sense if both were copying from Mk - they independently chose to retain some, and moved the material in the others around, losing the sandwich structure. But if you assume, eg, that Mt wrote first and Mk summarized him and Lk expanded him, then how do Mk and Lk end up with sandwich stories in the same places, where Mt didn't have them?

Yuri Kuchinsky

You need to demonstrate this with some specifics.

Yuri.

Johnny Skeptic

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that the gospel of Mark “is attributed to John Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of Paul and a disciple of Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Most scholars agree that it was used by Matthew and Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark's Gospel appears in Matthew's, and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke.�

Peter Kirby

I have written an essay about Markan priority a long time ago:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark-prior.html

regards,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Peter,

I've started reading your analysis, and I've already found some problems with the arguments there. Or, at least, I found that these arguments are way too narrow, and ignore the possibility of Lukan priority.

The authors that you quote are only considering the priority of Mk vs. Mt, and completely ignore the Lukan parallels.

Here are a couple of examples from the top of the page. I'll quote from your webpage, adding my comments in square brackets.

=====quote from Peter's webpage=====

The Argument from Sequence of Incidents

Kummel explains two divergencies of Matthew
from Markan order (op. cit., pp. 57-58):

[snip]

[[YURI: These explanations by Kummel seem to be somewhat confusing, and rather inconclusive.]]

Wood provides an example in which Markan
priority shows its superiority as an explanation in
a particular examination of order (op. cit., p. 80):

Unfortunately, Dom Butler does not
examine the question of order in detail.
If he had done so, he would almost
certainly have been forced to recognize
against and again that Mark's order is
original and Matthew's secondary and
derivative. Indeed, one clear instance
would suffice. In Mk. I, the call of the
first four disciples is followed by the
entry of Jesus into Capernaum. The
scene in the synagogue on the Sabbath is
linked with the healings at sunset.
Because it was Sabbath, the people
waited till the Sabbath was over before
bringing their sick to be healed. The
series of events reads like Simon's
recollection of his first Sabbath with the
Master.

[[YURI: Here, it seems, there's a bit of wishful thinking on the part of Wood.]]

Of this interconnected series,
Matthew has only the call of the four
disciples and the healing of Simon's
mother-in-law, followed by healings at
sunset. The call of the four disciples is
related in ch. 4, and the other two
incidents are related in ch. 8 after the
healing of the centurion's servant. By
linking the healing of Simon's
mother-in-law with the healing of the
centurion's servant Matthew gets the
place right. He brings Jesus in to
Capernaum and so into the house of
Peter, but he misses the note of time. He
does not hint that these two cures took
place on the Sabbath, as he has omitted
the scene in the synagogue.

[[YURI: Yes, that's true.]]

Consequently, there is no point in his
saying that the cures on a large scale
took place "at even." Only if the healing
in Simon's house took place on the
Sabbath would the people have waited
till sunset before bringing their sick to
be healed.

[[YURI: So, yes, he demonstrates quite conclusively that Mt appears to be secondary to Mk here. But what he doesn't say is that Lukan priority _also_ explains these editorial developments equally well! Because in Lk 4 we also see the healing in Simon's house taking place on the Sabbath (Lk 4:31)! So this would explain why the people would have waited till sunset before bringing their sick to be healed (Lk 4:40).]]

Wood provides another example in which Markan
priority is demonstrated in the arrangement of
material. In Mk 2:1-3:6, there are "a series of
incidents, not necessarily connected in time or
place, but linked together by the them of the
growth of Pharisaic opposition" (op. cit., p. 81).
Wood finds it difficult to believe that Mark drew
his material from Matthew because Matthew
places the first three incidents in chapter 9 and
the other two in chapter 12 (op. cit., p. 82):
"Again, the probable conclusion is that the order
is original in Mark and that Matthew took it over
from Mark but failed to perceive the connexion
between the first three and the last two incidents."

[[YURI: But, again, what Wood doesn't say is that Lukan priority also takes care of this problem just as well. Because the Markan sequence of 2:1-3:6 finds its exact parallel in the Lukan sequence of 5:17-6:11. Thus, this connection "between the first three and the last two incidents" is preserved just as well in Lk!

And so, we have to conclude that _both_ Mk and Lk are prior to Mt in this sequence.]]

=====unquote from Peter's webpage=====

So this seems to illustrate the general state of affairs in Synoptic studies. Just about every argument the esteemed Synoptic scholars make seems to be either too narrowly focused (ignoring some other equally valid options) or just plain reversible.

Don't trust the mainstream! These guys are just a bunch of inbreds, tirelessly parroting the same old platitudes.

All the best,

Yuri.

robto

Well, IAMNABS, so I am drawing on the work of others. IIRC, this comes from Crossan's Birth of Christianity. I'll try to check on the specifics when I get a chance. I'd be very interested in your comments on it.

Ben C Smith

I have mapped out the six most secure synoptic intercalations on my site. I also briefly discuss their (admittedly limited) potential for finding a direction of synoptic influence on another page.

Basically, I think it most likely that Matthew and Luke copied their intercalations from Mark; it is possible, however, that Mark copied two intercalations from Luke, created rather many more, and Matthew took over some of them from Mark. What I find very unlikely is that Matthew originated the device, since he gets demonstrably fatigued with it.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

Great resource.

Based on the intercalcation in GJohn, can we say the PN in GJohn has a literary dependance on GMark?

Jake

Ben C Smith

Thanks.

That is certainly how Crossan sees it, and I tend to agree. In The Gospels for All Christians Richard Bauckham makes a good case for John having known the gospel of Mark.

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Or perhaps both Jn and Mk depended on an earlier proto-gospel?

Regards,

Yuri.