Ted Hoffman

I am researching on Markan Priority and 2SH and while going through Kirbys site, I encountered an argument I have been unable to understand its logic.

Under The Argument from Sequence of Incidents , Kirby quotes Kummel who states:
Of course, its mentioned that "Wood offers other examples" about which I am unfamiliar but when looking at the argument as it is - what is "the Markan sequence" - how do we know when it is maintained and when it is lost?
I mean its stated as if ts an "original", untainted sequence. Is it the case that the synoptic Markan sequence IS the Markan sequence? Why is it that this "Markan sequence" is the template against which other sequences are compared and contrasted?
Like its the triburary from which the other 2 synoptic gospels emerged?
Why is it that when the other 2 sgs differ from it, they are said to have diverged?

In the statement "Mt. 13:36-52 has been added even though the Markan sequence has been maintained" - what is the difference between "has been added in Matthew" (assuming Markan priority) and "has been omitted by Mark" (assuming Matthean priority).
It seems to me the author already assumes Markan priority - otherwise how does one know what has been added to Mark by Matthew? And how do you differentiate it with what has been excluded by Mark from Matthew (if Mark was copying from Matthew)

How does Kummel know that the divergence in sequence is in Matthew from Markan order and not vice versa?

I am sorry I don't have the book but those that do and perharps understand the underlying premises could enlighten me. Because even the succeeding arguments seem to be relying on some unstated assumptions and I think its me because Kummel is a scholar of great reputation.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Jacob,

What Kummel says there is just typical arguments of a Markan prioritist. All of these have been answered by Griesbachians at various times.

In general, I don't recommend you to start with arguments from sequence. These are notoriously confusing and generally easily reversible. In my experience, arguments from sequence can be best seen as a Black Hole for the true believers from which nothing conclusive has ever emerged.

Yours,

Yuri.

Vinnie

This might help some. Note the text at the bottom in bold:



____________________________________________

3. Direct literary Dependence

Crossan writes, “But what if some common source, be it oral matrix or written text, is not an adequate explanation? What if one text is dependent on the other? How do you tell when that is so and which one has used the other? . . .There are certainly no easy answers to that question (as if the shorter or longer were always first, or the better-written or worse-written were always first). The process is much more complicated in theory and much more controversial in practice.

[Direct literary dependence] must be supported by two mutually supportive arguments: one is genetic relation and the other is redactional confirmation. Genetic relationship means that certain elements of order and content that are characteristically Markan are found in Matthew and Luke We are not talking of general tradition common to all three gospels but of specific editorial aspects of Markan sequence or style whose presence in those other two texts indicates copying.7

Crossan goes on to point out the classic example of Markan sandwiches or Markan intercalation. The intercalation is a distinctive Markan compositional device. As Crossan noted, “The device has two elements. First, literary presentation: Event A begins (A1), then Event B begins and finishes (B), and finally, Event A finishes (A2). Second, theological meaning: the purpose of the intercalation is not mere literary show; it presumes that those two events-call them the “framing event” and the “insert event”-are mutually interactive, that they interpret one another to emphasize Mark’s theological intention. It is this combination of literary structure and theological import that makes those intercalations peculiarly if not uniquely Markan.”8

He presented six (some scholars add more) widely accepted cases of this phenomenon in the gospel of Mark and went on to say that, “What reassures me that the device does not move from either Matthew or Luke into Mark but vice versa is the fact that . . . of Mark’s nine sandwiches, Matthew retains mark’s A-B-A pattern five times and Luke retains it four times . . . it is the presence of such specific, personal, or compositional elements, be they order or content, topic or style, that is the surest evidence of the dependence of one text upon another.”9

Crossan went on to note that numerous examples of such material need to be checked in case after case so that the argument is finally cumulative. He also stated that there are no absolute conclusions on dependence and nothing is beyond debate. But all scholars must adopt some conclusions regarding dependence or they could not academically study early Christian literature.

Crossan also goes on to point out a support of genetic relationship: redactional confirmation. He said, “It is not really a second proof but a way of testing some postulated genetic relationship. If, for reasons such as those given in the preceding example, you postulate Matthean and Lukan dependence on Mark, you should be able to explain every omission, addition, or alteration in Matthew and Luke over their Markan source. Because, of course, we still have Mark”10

A pitfall remains. What if both Matthew and Luke omitted all the intercalations since they disliked that device? We would not have an argument for dependence but this would not be an argument for independence. The genetic relationship argument does not work equally for positive or negative instances. Evidence can prove a person guilty but a lack of it does not mean they are innocent.


____________________________________________


And one of the strongest reasons for Markan priority IMO was advocated by Sander's and Davies:

“The strongest arguments against the Griesbach hypothesis are general, not technical. Why would anyone write a shorter version of Matthew and Luke, carefully combining them, and leaving out so much-such as the Lord’s prayer and the beautides-while gaining nothing except perhaps room for such trivial additions as the duplicate phrases and minor details (‘carried by the four’ and the like)? Further, if someone had undertaken this task, why would the church have preserved the gospel at all?"

Its impossible to account for Mark omitting so much from Matthew and Luke. Its a lot more probable that MT and LK added to Mark. Its a common sense argument.

The wording and order of the Triple Tradition necessitates some sort of written dependence of the synoptics. Markan priority is really the only feasible option IMO. This does not rule out cross contamination. Gospels were very fluid in the 1st century and after.

An early version of Mark may have been used by early versions of Mt and LK which were edited over a few years and could have caused portions of Mark to become edited. Thus a part of Mark may be dependent on Matthew or Luke! Dependence relations here would be complex. But the solution to the SP is not going to be simple anyways.

When looking for a solution to the synoptic problem every little bug is not going to be explained: what one should seek, IMO, is a theory which accounts the best for the majority of the data.

Scribal corruption, very fluid texts and consequently different versions of texts (e.g. multiple Mark and Q versions), cross-Gospel contamination and unknown additional sources (oral and written) all must be left open to explain little quirks here and there. A perfect solution will not be found but I find a modified 2ST to be the best that accounts for most of the data along with these added considerations.

For example, there may be a few Mattheanisms in Luke but I do not think Lk knew Mt on this basis. I think the text of Luke was corrupted by scribes familiar with Matthew's text or an offshoot of it. Scribal assimilation is a well documented phenomenon. If there were a lot of Mattheanisms in Luke this theory would not be of much use and we would have to say Luke knew Matthew but since there are only a few it is a plausible explantion.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Yuri, well, I am giving the SP a whole new look and I hope to have a very good grasp of arguments from both sides at the end of my investigation.

Actually, I didn't start with them, they just seem to be more difficult to understand given the impression I get of proponents trying to draw an eye around the arrow.

Same problem here - how does one get to know that the "order and content that are Markan"?

Even the Intercalation - why is it considered Markan? Because he uses it more? Is that it?

Yes. Precisely. Every omission, addition etc needs to be explained. That is what is being done/attempted I believe.

I think the argument from content length is quite persuasive but there still are ways around it (I have provided an example below) - I dont find it conclusive.

I don't think its impossible to account for the Markan "omissions". For example, Mark could have used an earlier version of Matt and Luke that lacked these sections that are now in Matt and Luke. And those sections that he "omitted" were in fact added later to Matt and Luke.

I agree completely.

I have achieved two things from your posts (Yours and Yuris):

1. Kummels arguments (as far as argument from sequence of incidents are concerned) are, to some degree, made from a position of presumption (apop).

2. Markan priority is not that secure after all.

But of course, I have just started the investigation.

Vinnie

This is not cogent to me. It might be more possible in the case of Luke but I believe that 66% of Mark is found in Matthew. If The version of Matthew used by Mark lacked this other 34 or so percent, is not this other version of Matthew identical with the Gospel of Mark itself???

Basically, we wuld have two versions of Mark, one dependent on the other which is labeled "Matthew"(????) and the one version of Mark labeled "Matthew" develops into canonical Matthew. We are simply back at Markan priority again!

In this scenario if Matthean priority is posited you also have to explain Luke's omissions and so on of Matthew's Gospel. If Lucan priority then vice versa. I would still maintain that Markan priority and a sayaings Gospel account for the double and triple traditions the best.

Since a version of Matthew containing the material found in Mark but not the material Mark does not copy is functionally the same as Mark itself I take it that MP is still just as secure as ever. Just not canonical MP

Vinnie

anti-X

Hi, Jacob A.,

I am aware of opinon regarding the differences in sequence/occurences for the Synoptic gospels, which implicitly assumes that the reader is a "believer" (which I am not):

a la Eusebius, the Synoptic gospels were the manuscripts available in the Second Century and written/re-written then from oral tradition, using the stories that were "too famous" to be forgotten as the 1st Century was a time of intense persecution, including anything that was written down --which in the comparative sense, explains why christian "tradition" and record is so "pathetic" as when compared to the life-record of Muhammad, the Ceasars, European kings, and so forth.

Then when the "bible" was compiled in the 4th Century, serveral versions of each "book" had to be sifted through --which is somewhat described by Eusebius.

Ted Hoffman

This question is only valid if the 64% of Matthew (assuming your figure is correct) made up the whole of Mark.
Did it?

One omission is of the infancy narrative (the other popular one is sermon on the mount).

Kirby, quoting G. M. Styler (I embolden the gist of the argument):Source

This (50%) differs from your 66% above.

This argument (Stylers) is retrojective and assumes that the authors had a common purpose in writing the gospels, which is incorrect.

Its easy to see for who? For Mark or for Matthew? Or for us?
What we "see", is not what Mark or Matthes saw. We are trying to rationalize their actions all things considered. The variables we have are not the same as what the gospel writers had.

If their efforts were uncoordinated (as they undoubtedly were), I do not find it hard to "see".

As Griesbach argues, Mark could have omitted the infancy narratives because of his emphasis on Jesus as a teacher. Farmer, who argues that Mark modelled his narratives on the Petrine speeches in Acts, which do not include the infancy narratives, says they are excluded in Mark ipso facto.
Its also probable that Mark omitted the infancy narrative because he saw it as irrelevant to his theological missive. The sermon on the mount could have lacked the dramatic, spirited nature of his style.

So he could have made the omissions for literary and theological reasons.

But I find Kloppenborg's argument concerning the "enigmatic" Markan omission fairly reasonable.
John Kloppenborg, Excavating Q:
So Kloppenborg's argument is that a reasonable explanation is required to explain Markan omission of the infancy narratives (for the argument of Markan posteriority to be sustained).

Has Marks use of double or redundant expressions, broken or incomplete constructions, unknown or unliterary words and phrases, and spirited and vivid narratives been explained?

Can't Mark's use of Aramaic words or expressions, which he translated into Greek be taken to mean that he was relying on a source/sources written in Greek?

Why do Markan omissions need to be explained satisfactorily when assuming Markan posteriority and not while assuming Markan priority?

Vinnie, what I am seeing, as I proceed with my research is that Markan priority is the simplest way of explaining the synoptic problem. And I would say most of the simplicity comes from the fact that Mark is shorter.

But does "the simplest" translate to "the correct" one? Especially when "the simplest" uses plenty of presumptions as a crutch?

If one were to assume Markan posteriority, one would then be able to explain the following facts:
1. Marks brevity.
Mark is shorter because Luke and Matthew relied on oral traditions. Tthis would further assume that Matt and Lk were written when the early "christian" communities were more settled and the oral tradition was "rich". After the Jewish war, the communities were scattered and displaced and this is the time Mark wrote his gospel. He had little oral tradition to rely on and had to resort to redundancies to spice up his story.

2. His "spirited", graphic style, and abrupt ending.

Under the chaotic circumstances after the war, he perhaps even lacked the opportunity to complete his work. Thus the omissions and brevity and "spirited" nature of the gospel. He seems to have been an author whose thoughts were racing...
Some characteristics of his Gospel:
3. The incongruencies and inconsistencies

Perharps he did not have adequate time and peace of mind to coherently copy Luke and Matthew. Hence all the anomalies, incongruencies, redundancies, incomplete expressions and inconsistencies in Mark...a writer under distress. Thus the exclusion of the birth narrative and sermon on the mount. (Give the poor guy a break...he was stressed )

Indeed, his inclusion of the primitive healing of the deaf mute, blind man of Bathseda (where Jesus uses saliva and the healing takes place seconds later and not instantaneously as in the other gospels) and naked man running , seem to go accross his presumed theological grain. Further proof of an unsettled writer who lacked the time and opportunity to compose a flowing, harmonious and focused gospel.

He lacked time to revise his improperly written gospel. Or lacked the opportunity to write a document flowing smoothly and blending nicely with each part.

What do you think of this ?

Btw, I am just playing Devils advocate. I am for Markan Priority, but I think its time I questioned my assumptions.

The research continues...

Anti X

Where do you lean as far as the synoptic problem is concerned?

Vinnie

Hi Jacob, I was thinking of my critique of your proto-matthew argument and thought of a critique of my own and another of yours.

First, my number of 66% was off. Mark has 661 verses so thats where the 66 came from. Luke has closer to 60% of Mark. Scholars are actually higher than this. Many are at 80% of Mark being in Matthew to E.P Sanders and Margaret Davies who find that of substance, 90% (600 of 661 verses) of Mark are in Matthew.

Of course, some verses are more verbatim than others but I believe the form and content are certainly there.

This presents more problems for your view as Extant Mark must viewed viewed as even more identical to your Proto-matthew.

No no. I said (or should have if I didn't!) that 66% of Mark is in Matthew. That does not mean 66% of Matthew is in Mark as Mark has 661 verses whereas Matthew has over a thousand.


Look at the figures. 50% of Matthew who has over 1000 verses (1100 I think but don't quote me on that) is over 500 (to 550 if 1100 is accurate) verses of Mark's 661.

Thus, Kirby's source does not disagree with me. The opposite is true. Its numbers agree with my own.

Re the infancy narrative(MT): I am not convinced totally they were or weren't in the earliest version of Matthew. That is not a problem for me. Its the sermon on the mount and the rich sayings matterial that Mark can scarcely be argued to have ommitted.

Whether or not Mark knew IN traditions has to be argued. This is why 2ST advocates must maintain the independence of Mark and Q. If Mark knew Q he ommitted a hell of a lot of it. Ergo, the 2ST would not explain synoptic relations any better than the Griesbach theory. Mark without Q proponents have pickeed up on this (e.g. Sanders).

I never argued this. They have to be explained in any dependence related arguments as Crossan noted.


Its not consistent. Mark lacked the time for the sermon on the mount, the Lord's prayer and all the rich sayings material which coheres extremely well with his discernable theology while having the time to add trivial material like duplicate phrases "and minor details (‘carried by the four’ and the like)?"

What possible purpose could Mark have saw in even creating this Gospel from Matthew like this? Why would the chuirch preserve it?

Now back to proto Matthew. This is more possible than I initially let on. Mark has the messianic secret, his Gospel ended at 16:8 ( ), he displays the disciples as complete morons and so forth. There are probably enough minor differences like this to account for a reason for the text of a proto-matthew to be altered by a person.

In this scenario we have this:

Original Matthew:

Mark takes original Matthew and alters things here and there to fit his purpose. In fact, Mark is no longer a distinctive Gospel but a version of Matthew. I will call it Matthew(MK)

Someone later takes original Matthew and combines it with a bunch of sayings material producing extant canonical Matthew (more or less). Luke is a different beast altogether. But any way we have:

Matthew(proto or original)

gives rise to

Matthew(MK)

and

Matthew (canonical)

Matthew (MK develops into two versions of Secret Mark)

So we have no versions of Mark and five different versions of Matthew in antiquity

Interesting but a major problem remains. What evidence is there for proto Matthew which lacked the sayings material and so forth? Why is this more than an imagined source? Why is it more than an invisible pink elephant with no evidence?

If you are free to simply create sources and proto versions of sources without evidence then I can pose a trillion reconstructions of the synoptic problem with any invented source that has the invented qualities I give it.

You have to substantiate proto-MT.

Now this critique of your theory is not the same as a critique of Boismard who argues for all sorts of hypothetical texts and intermediate texts and cross relations with meticulous research and through painstaking details. He uses extant synoptic material to argue these details. You have offered none for proto-Matt

The only problem with Boismard as far as I can see is how do we know these hypothetical sources actually existed? Other than that his view "may" be championed as explaining more details of the SP than any other theory.

My knowledge of Boismard is very limited though. I believe Yuri is a fan of his work and I'm sure he could offer all sorts of information on it.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Held up. Will get back asap

Vinnie

Take your time.

Vinnie