How old are the 12 Apostles?

[patrick457]

BTW, does that document address these points?

• If Mark used Matthew and Luke, then he often omitted material we might have expected him to include, e.g. the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 11:1-4), which might have fitted well at Mark 11:20-25. Matthew and Luke has a lot of good material in them. If Mark was making a summary, a précis of Matthew and Luke, shouldn’t he have included them?
• We have noted the characteristics of material special to Mark above. Is it more likely that these are verses that Matthew and Luke both omitted, or is it more likely that these are verses that Mark was very keen to add? If the latter is true, then why would Mark not choose to include the best of Matthew and Luke in favor of a story about a blind man who can only partially see when Jesus touches him, necessitating Him to do it again (which might imply to the reader that Jesus has limitations to His power) or a little off-topic detail about a half-naked young man the night Jesus is arrested (the meaning of which is, even in the context, not too clear)?
• Mark often has the harder reading. Take for example Mark 10:17-18 (cf. Luke 18:19), where Jesus says to the rich young man: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” Contrast it to Matthew 19:16-17: “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.” At face value, Mark and Luke may give the wrong impressions to the reader (Jesus is not God? Jesus is not good?), while Matthew has a more palatable version. Also, Mark 6:5: “And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” Contrast it to Matthew 13:58 “And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.” Mark is again the harder reading here because of the little difference between him and Matthew: could and did. Mark could give the impression to the reader that Jesus could not do miracles in the lack of faith (in fact, this verse, and a few other, are very big on folks who propose that Jesus was actually doing placebos), while Matthew has Jesus explicitly withholding His power.

Supposing that Matthew wrote first, and using the example of Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19, why would Mark and Luke alter Matthew’s pretty okay piece of dialogue into something difficult and ambiguous? And as for Matthew 13:58, why would Mark turn Matthew’s did into could? Is he somehow trying to lessen the power of Jesus?

• There is also the case of editorial fatigue. It is a phenomenon that will inevitably occur when a writer is heavily dependent on another’s work. In telling the same story as his predecessor, a writer makes changes in the early stages which he is unable to sustain throughout. Like continuity errors in film and television, examples of fatigue will be unconscious mistakes, small errors of detail which naturally arise in the course of constructing a narrative. Hence, there are several examples of Matthew and Luke making characteristic changes to Mark in the earlier part of a pericope, but failing to sustain these changes throughout, and gradually lapsing into the wording of their source.

Take for example the account of the death of John the Baptist. Mark calls Herod Antipas basileus, “king” throughout his version. Which is technically incorrect, since while his father Herod the Great was indeed a king, Antipas was actually just a petty dependent prince, a tetrach (‘ruler of a fourth’; cf. Josephus, Antiquities 17.188; 18.102, 109, 122). Matthew notably has “tetrarch” for the earlier half of his narrative, but for some reason he starts to call Antipas “the king” halfway through the story (Matthew 14:9), in agreement with Mark.

Also, the story in Mark is that Herodias wanted to kill John because she had a grudge against him (Mark 6:19-20 “And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly.”) In Matthew’s version of the story, it is Herod and not Herodias who wants him killed (Matthew 14:5 “And though he wanted to put him to death, he feared the people, because they held him to be a prophet.”) Mark, then, speaks of Herod’s ‘grief’ (perilypos) at the request for John’s head, it is understandable. But when Matthew in parallel speaks of the king’s grief (kai lypētheis o basileus - note how Matthew calls him ‘king’ here!), it kind of makes no sense at all, since Herod “wanted to put him to death”! (14:5)

 

[patrick457]

(continued)

There is also the account of the cleansing of the leper (Matthew 8:1-4; Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16). Just after the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew resets the scene by introducing, as often as he does, “great crowds” (8:1).

When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

The account leads Matthew into difficulties since, like Mark, he has Jesus’ injunction to the leper, “See that you say nothing to anyone” (8.4; cf. Mark 1:44). As it stands in Matthew this is rather inexplicable: a miracle that has been apparently been performed while crowds are flocking to Jesus is to be kept secret, which kinds of make the warning useless (since the people have noticed/would notice anyway). By contrast, Mark does not mention crowds, the leper seems to meet Jesus in private and thus the command to silence is coherent. Luke is slightly more ambiguous, noting only that Jesus was “in one of the cities.”

A third example is the story of Jesus’ mother and brothers (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Here Matthew has returned yet again to triple tradition material after a section of double tradition (12:33-45). The transition between the different kinds of material is smooth, with Matthew’s characteristic, “While he was still speaking to the people, behold” (Matt 12:46). However, the apparent ease of progression from one pericope to the next masks an apparent continuity error. As in Mark, the mother and the brothers of Jesus are “standing outside” (eistēkeisan exo; cf. Mark 3:31: exo stēkontes). This his makes some sense in Mark where Jesus and his disciples are in a house (3:20) but in Matthew, no house has been entered (or mentioned) and the most recent scene change was a departure from the synagogue, with many following Jesus, in 12:15.

It is unlikely that Matthew has simply allowed himself to be a little loose in terminology here. He seems to be presupposing Jesus’ presence in a house that he has not previously mentioned and this is confirmed by 13:1: “That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea.” Matthew seems to have forgotten to refer to the house that had been mentioned earlier on by Mark.​

The article on editorial fatigue goes on to list more examples of what seems to be editorial fatigue from Luke, and also editorial fatigue in double tradition. (The phenomenon of fatigue helps in the attempt to establish whether or not Mark is prior to the other synoptics, but when one comes to the question of Luke’s connection with Matthew, the question is different. The alternatives are Luke’s use of Matthew or Luke’s (and Matthew’s) use of Q - there is no issue here of direction of dependence.)

 

[Erich]

BTW, does that document address these points?

I foresee that by the time we reach the end of this thread, I’ll likely have quoted a good deal of the document in it

When the three Gospels are placed side by side, we can see where borrowing has taken place. This is known as a synoptic arrangement. Synopsis means, seeing as if with one eye. Matthew, Luke and Mark are frequently referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.

Synoptic arrangements may vary depending on how the gospel verses and pericopes are divided. (A pericope is a small section or sub-section of a verse). The chart [beginning on page 21] below is based on the synoptic arrangement designed by Harold Riley ((RO 4-6)). The shading indicates where Mark`s gospel incorporates material from Matthew or from Luke. When illustrating this zigzag effect the works of several authors were consulted, including Riley ((RO 6-18)), Orchard ((RO 263-272)) and Meijboom ((JJK 151-155)).

When the wording of Matthew and Luke is identical, we are not able to decide which gospel Mark was following at that moment. Sometimes just a small variation within a verse provides a clue. For example, at the Transfiguration Mark follows Matthews six days rather than Lukes about eight days. This enables the shading to be placed for this verse with Matthew.
…
From the shaded areas we are able to see how Marks Gospel borrowed alternating from the existing two Gospels. Verses of his own, are indicated by { }. OF indicates The Our Fatherand B theBeatitudes`. T will be explained on page 26.

The chart illustrates the alternating borrowing of complete verses, but is not detailed enough to indicate the borrowing of individual words or phrases. For example: Although Mark 6: 7-16 as a whole draws from Luke, the words in 6:14 are from Matthew. Although Mark 8: 27-10: 40 is mainly taken from Matthew, the influence of Luke may be seen in 8: 38, 9: 32-33. ((JJK 153-5)).
…
DUPLICATIONS
As mentioned in Chapter IV. 3, the duplications of Mark are a feature of his style. These are usually referred to as his redundant clauses or a duality. To take the example used in Chapter IV:

Matthew: “That evening they brought to him“ (Mt. 8: 16-17).
Luke: “Now when the sun was setting, …they …brought them to him “ (Luke 4: 40-41).

The gospel of Mark (1: 32), conflates the material together as:

“That evening, when the sun was setting, [or sundown] they brought to him …”.

By using evening and sundown, Mark is duplicating himself. For those who accept that Mark is conflating, there is no difficulty as it is just part of the style of Mark. But for Markan priorists duality is a serious problem. If there were only a few instances of duality, they could be ignored. It could be said that Matthew just happened to use half of the duality and Luke happened to use the other half. But there are many dualities and where both halves are of equal importance, they never chose the same half. Matthew and Luke would have had to divide up Mark`s dualities between them in a consistent manner to avoid them using the same half. The only way this division could have been achieved would be for them to have worked closely together. Again the advocates of Markan priority meet the problem that, according to their theory, Matthew and Luke did not know one another.

Realising the strength of the Clementine case, Markans have attempted to answer this problem. In 1983, C.M.Tuckett claimed there were 213 dualities in Mark`s gospel, so chance would explain the 17 cases where Matthew and Luke chose different halves ((CMT 20-21)). At first sight this appears a plausible argument, and many feel overawed by statistics. So a few comments are required.

e. Let us presume for the moment, that Markan priority is correct. Of the 213 dualities Matthew and Luke did not use either half in 157 of them. It is correct that 39 do not use the same half. But these instances are where dualities are vague or do not have equal value (i.e. one word is more suitable than the other, so was highly likely to be chosen by both). The debate must be judged on the 17 cases where there is a clear duality of equal value and meaning (e.g. evening and sunset). Markans need to explain why, whenever there was such a choice, Matthew and Luke always chose differently.

1. An interesting observation may also be made regarding the 213 dualities examined by Tuckett. Matthew has one or both halves 152 times, of which 124 are when Matthew and Mark are in the same sequence. Luke has one or both 116 times, of which 114 are when one or both are in the same sequence. This provides further support for the view that Mark was conflating the other two.

1. As Riley has pointed out, the normally accepted number of dualisms as listed by Neirynck, a Markan, is 217. Tuckett omits many of these while adding others of his own. So the statistical basis for his calculations is itself open to questioning ((RO 107-8)). A more detailed response to Tucket`s argument was made in 1987 by Allan J. McNicol ((AJMT)).

HEALING AND COMMANDMENTS
Of the ten healing stories in Mark, eight appear in Matthew and Luke. They have chosen exactly the same eight ((WRF 166-7)). Mark lists six Commandments (10: 19). Matthew and Luke list five and these are exactly the same five ((WRF 160)). If Mark was reading from the other two there is no problem in accepting that he copied what was in front of him and added something of his own. But if Matthew and Luke were using Mark, the pattern of choosing exactly the same items would be highly unlikely if they did not consult with one another. Markan priority insists that they did not know one another.

continued next post…

 

[Erich]

…continued from previous post

OTHER ASPECTS
a). As recorded in our Chapter II g, Clement of Alexandra recorded that: “And when Peter got to know about it [Marks Gospel] he exerted no pressure either to forbid it or promote it”. This raises interesting questions. If Marks Gospel was the first gospel to be written, and therefore the flagship of the Christians, why was Peter so indifferent regarding its promotion? On the other hand, if we accept that two well prepared and constructed Gospels already existed, and Peter had merely preached a series of sermons based on them, Peter’s attitude is easy to understand.

b). By examining evidence from historical, scientific and Church teaching, this booklet may be said to take a holistic approach to New Testament dating. But most Markan priorists live in the narrow world of literary analysis only. Before engaging in debate they set the precondition that literary analysis only may be considered.

To meet this attitude a group of American scholars who accept the sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark, have published books within this framework. ((DBP, AJM and AJMT)). They leave aside questions of dating, place of composition, identity of author, reason for publication and historical sources. They challenge Markan priority on the bases of literary analysis alone. Although their books tend to be too academic to gain a wide readership, this shows Markan priority is coming under increasing challenge even on the restricted battleground of its own choosing. Their work has added much to the analysis of Marks verses where he borrows from one gospel, but is subtly influenced by the other. They have established a 2gh` web site ((col)).

c). Markans admit that Matthews Gospel is more Jewish than Marks. They explain this, by claiming, without evidence, that Matthew was re-Judaizing Mark. Rabbi Philip Sigal, a Talmudist, in his authoritative work: The Foundations of Judaism, volume 1, says that historical-literary criticismpoints toMark beginning a great process of de-Judaization which proceeds for centuries …. For Sigal Mark is a later composition arriving on the scene after Matthew, and probably Luke, were well known …` ((WRFN xxvi)).

d). When we weigh the evidence for the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence, against that for the Mark-Matthew-Luke, we find that the scales come down heavily on the side of the former. But there remains the apparent poor Greek of Mark as a Markan priority counter-weight. This was, and still is, the foundation of all Markan speculations. To discuss this we will turn to the pioneering work of Dom Bernard Orchard as set out in the next chapter.

e) Juggling?
It has been objected that Peter, even with assistants, would not have been able to ‘juggle’ between two scrolls. But once we accept Orchard’s construction of Peter delivering five talks, the problem disappears.

There are 25 places from where Peter commenced quoting. Ten of these would be where Peter started his talks, so his assistants could have easily have opened the scrolls at these places prior to the talks. In eight places Peter would have to return to a verse following on from (or very close to) where he had ceased quoting from a few minutes previously. So the scroll could have remained open without disturbance. There is no reason to suggest that the 7 longer jumps, spread over four evenings, would have been outside the capabilities of pre-warned assistants.

The longest ‘jump’ occurs in the second talk. Matthew’s gospel would need to have been unrolled for 31 verses whilst Peter is quoting from 13 of Luke’s verses. It is interesting that Mark interjects four verses of his own at this point. Did he do so in order to provide his assistants with a little more time?

 

[Erich]

…But there remains the apparent poor Greek of Mark as a Markan priority counter-weight…

As I mentioned above, this is addressed in Chapter VII:

Markans argue that if Mark wrote after Matthew and Luke he would not have left out the infancy narratives, the Lords prayer, the Beatitudes and the Resurrection. They argue that it would be more likely that Mark wrote first and that Matthew and Luke added them. This would be logical if they were all writing in private, but we have no evidence to presume this. The omission of the items does not cause a problem when we accept that Mark was recording Peters voice conflating the other two. He conflated only what was parallel and convenient.

To quote Orchard again:“From the start the speaker determined to confine himself to the pericopes where Matthew and Luke have for the most part common material and are generally in parallel, that is, between 3:1 (=Luke 3:1) and Matthew 28:10 (=Luke 24:12). Thus Mark omitted the birth and resurrection narratives, the whole of Lukes central section, and both great sermons; …But he did adopt Lukes summary version of Matthews discourses on mission, community, parables and eschatology”. ((RO 268)). The Our Father and the Beatitudes were included in the two great sermons or in Lukes Central Section, so were not in the segments conflated [For position see OF and B on chart in previous chapter].

The examination of the Gospels in the light of the above produces many interesting insights…

Note how often And is used to link sentences and clauses. This is a telltale sign of an untutored impromptu speaker of Greek. We have all heard speakers, especially if they are working from notes in front of them, repeatedly using and or then or even erh. In a written composition Peter or Mark would have adopted a more polished format. The words in Chapter 1, verses 2 and 3 lack a main verb, so do not form complete sentences. While Mark omits important aspects of the life of Christ that were reported by Matthew and Luke, he adds trivial details. These are a puzzle for Markan priorists. But, if we accept the Clementine tradition as developed by Orchard the puzzle is solved. Peter was omitting sections of the other Gospels where it was difficult to conflate while adding short personal memories. This would be very human for a speaker.

Peter would have been very familiar with Matthews Gospel, but Lukes would have brought back half-forgotten incidents. As Peter read Luke 8: 22-56 he recalled the scene and spontaneously mentioned the position of the cushion (Mark 4: 38). Matthew in 14:19 tells of the multitudes sitting down on the grass, and Luke in 9:14 of them doing so in companies. Mark in 6:39 conflates the two accounts by speaking of both the grass and the companies. But this must have brought the scene to mind and he remembers something, which at the time had caught his attention – the grass was green in that arid area.
…
The Gospel of Matthew has 18,293 words and that of Luke 19,376, which are just the right lengths to fill a standard papyrus roll. Mark, with 11,025 words, would leave nearly half the roll unused. This is a pointer to Matthew and Luke carefully planning their compositions, while the publication of the third gospel had not been planned.

 

[Erich]

Finally, from Chapter XVIII:

1. The Poor Greek Of Mark
   The foundation-stone of the Markan priority theory is the alleged inability of Mark (the secretary of the bishop of Rome) to write in good Greek. But if we accept Orchard and the Clementine tradition, an alternative explanation comes to mind.

Extremists among the Judaizing Party would not have been pleased at the acceptance by Peter of Luke’s Gentile gospel. We know today that when a religious or political leader makes a statement on a disputed subject, some in the losing party will be suspicious that their leader has been misquoted. They will demand to know exactly what the leader has said.

I suggest that diehard members of the Judaic party would have wanted to read an unedited verbatim record of the exact words of Peter. An edited, improved version would not have been acceptable. So the scriptural misquotation and poor grammar had to be left unchanged in the published document. The early Christian communities already had two long carefully designed gospels. So the literary style of a transcript of a series of talks, would not have be seen as of great importance or an embarrassment for the Church.

The problem of the poor Greek of Mark is more acute for the upholders of Markan priority. They claim it was the only gospel in existence for 20 or more years. As the key document of a new dynamic religion, it would have presented a very negative portrait of the intelligence, education and capability of its leaders. So why did the Christian Community leave the obvious misquotations and grammatical errors uncorrected?

1. The Source of the Gospel according to Mark.
   Those upholding the Jerome sequence, often assume that Mark, when writing his gospel, used words he had heard Peter preach over many years. But if we accept the view of Orchard and others, a fresh look at the evidence is required.

John the Apostle and Papias report that Mark had the intention of not leaving out anything he had heard. Nothing was left out ((EH 3: 39, 15)). Yet we cannot accept that Mark’s Gospel contains everything Peter preached over twenty or more years. The words of Papias would more accurately describe Mark reporting word for word a talk, or a limited series of talks.

Clement of Alexandria says Mark was begged to produce a record of what Peter had preached to a specific audience including Caesar’s knights. Later he says Peter’s hearers were not satisfied with a ‘once only’ hearing. ((EH 2:15, 1)).

Yet the Christians in Rome must have heard Peter preaching on many occasions. So the words of Clement again suggest a once only delivery of something special.

Clement says: “the audience, which was numerous”, [or in another translation, “the many who had been present”]. ((EH 6: 14, 7)). The word ‘audience’ is in the singular so again points to one talk or a set series of talks. It does not suggest many different audiences spread over many years. The word ‘numerous’ would be superfluous unless Clement is referring to one well attended event.

The opening words of The Muratorian Fragment indicate that the author of what was listed as the second Gospel, was present at some event.

These reports confirm that the Gospel of Mark was composed due to a once only special event, consisting of a talk or series of talks by Peter.

1. The Acts of the Apostles
   If Peter answered questions regarding Acts, he would be granting it tacit approval and copies would have been made and distributed. Luke would have then been unlikely to add anything once the book had been given this approval. If Luke had accompanied Paul to Spain he might have decided to compose another book. But there is no hint in tradition that he went with Paul, or that he wrote a third book. The Acts of Luke, stopping where it does, is consistent with the Clementine / Orchard tradition.

7.The Spanish Mission
Orchard has suggested that Paul asked Peter to endorse the writing of Luke as a sign of the equality of Jew and Gentile within the Church. It would also officially recognise the mission of Paul to the Gentiles ((RO 250-254)). I would like to suggest that while this is correct, there may have also been an immediate need for this endorsement.

As explained in chapter XII, Paul used Rome as a place to prepare his team of missionaries destined for work in Spain. Up until this time, when Christian missionaries arrived in a new town, they would go first to a synagogue to preach the Good News to the Jews (Acts chapters 13-19). The Gospel of Matthew, with its emphasis on explaining the fulfilment of Jewish prophecies, was of central importance in gaining a first nucleus of converts.

This method would not have been useable in Spain where there were few, if any, synagogues ((MP 134)). The Gospel of Luke, written with Gentiles in mind, would be likely to be more effective. I suggest his impending departure for Spain, could have been an immediate cause of Paul asking Peter to endorse Luke’s Gospel.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for the quotes (whew!)

I’m pretty much aware of the weakness of the old argument that Mark wrote in ‘poor’ Greek, so I don’t hold it.

DUPLICATIONS

By using evening and sundown, Mark is duplicating himself. For those who accept that Mark is conflating, there is no difficulty as it is just part of the style of Mark. But for Markan priorists duality is a serious problem. If there were only a few instances of duality, they could be ignored.

Mark does have this tendency, on occasions, to include clarificatory material compared to parallels in Matthew and Luke, often to the point of duplicating himself as we can see here (what the article calls redundant clauses). The adding of these somewhat redundant clarificatory clauses would appear to witness to an evangelist who is eager to spell things out very carefully for the reader. This looks like someone who, on the assumption of the Griesbach hypothesis, is editing Matthew and Luke to draw out what often appears to be transparently obvious.

It is striking, therefore, that elsewhere Mark again on the assumption of his use of Matthew and Luke appears to be doing precisely the opposite thing, and making his sources more enigmatic, more darkly ironic, especially in the Passion Narrative. Take for example Matthew 26.67-68, Mark 14:65, and Luke 22:63-64:

Matthew: Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”

Mark: And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.

Luke: Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him as they beat him. They also blindfolded him and kept asking him, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” And they said many other things against him, blaspheming him.

Mark here has a wonderful, dark dramatic irony: people saying to Jesus “Prophesy!**”, little realising that they are in the act of fulfilling Jesus’ own prophecy of His Passion (10:34). Likewise, as this action is going on, Peter is in the act of fulfilling the prophecy his denial of Jesus (14:30). In Matthew and Luke there is none of this irony, and the mocking charge to “Prophesy” is explicated by means of a clarificatory question, “Who is it that smote thee?”, the ‘prophesying’ relating now purely to the issue of second sight. This makes good sense on the assumption of Markan priority but less sense on the Griesbach Theory, for which Mark avoids the concurrent testimony of Matthew and Luke and subtly creates a more darkly ironic scene. The latter is of course possible, but it is at variance with the view of Mark that we pick up elsewhere from his addition of somewhat banal clarificatory elements.

The article continues:

It could be said that Matthew just happened to use half of the duality and Luke happened to use the other half. But there are many dualities and where both halves are of equal importance, they never chose the same half. Matthew and Luke would have had to divide up Mark`s dualities between them in a consistent manner to avoid them using the same half. The only way this division could have been achieved would be for them to have worked closely together. Again the advocates of Markan priority meet the problem that, according to their theory, Matthew and Luke did not know one another.

It is a huge problem for the two-source hypothesist, but subscribers to the Farrer theory do not see it as a problem at all, since Farrer proposes that Luke did know Matthew besides Mark.

 

[patrick457]

Markans argue that if Mark wrote after Matthew and Luke he would not have left out the infancy narratives, the Lords prayer, the Beatitudes and the Resurrection. They argue that it would be more likely that Mark wrote first and that Matthew and Luke added them. This would be logical if they were all writing in private, but we have no evidence to presume this. The omission of the items does not cause a problem when we accept that Mark was recording Peters voice conflating the other two. He conflated only what was parallel and convenient.

If this be the case, then we could ask: why would Mark/Peter include a story about say, Jesus taking two attempts to completely heal a blind man (which could be misconstrued by some listeners and readers as Jesus having limits to His power, which I’m sure Mark and Peter do not want them to think) or a side story about some unnamed young man (in many ways a literary non-sequitur) at the expense of say, Jesus’ birth or pieces of Sermon on the Mount?

It is possible of course to answer the dilemma of these stories, and the harder readings found in Mark, that Mark was ‘reprimitivizing’ his account as a reaction to the more devout and reverential portrayals of Matthew and Luke. The question, however, is whether this view, on whic Mark adds only a small number of archaizing traditions and primitivizing redactions at the expense of much congenial material in Matthew and Luke, is more plausible than the alternative, that these incidents are ones omitted by Matthew and Luke in accordance with their general redactional policies.

It might be added that in this category as in several of the others we consistently run into difficulties over the question of Mark’s profile. For if Mark’s purpose is to include in his Gospel most of those stories to which his predecessors bear concurrent testimony (as Griesbach-Farmer proposes), then we find ourselves asking: what is it about the blind man in Bethsaida and the young man in Gethsemane that makes them special, that Peter/Mark chooses to include them instead of more solid, explicit bits of Jesus’ life?

If, on the other hand, Mark is eager to add material that he considers of interest, without concern over the united testimony of his predecessors, why does so little special Markan material make it into the Gospel? Is it that Mark did not know of any other useful stories?

This problem is illustrated and so compounded further by questions over the place of oral tradition in Christian origins. On the assumption that Matthew is writing first, there appears to be a wealth of material available to him. Similarly for Luke, on the Griesbachian assumption that he has used only Matthew, there appears to be a large amount of additional tradition available. Then, however, when Mark writes, as we have seen, there seems to be a striking lack of additional material available to the author. All he adds is a small handful of stories, none of which is particularly striking. And he adds virtually no fresh sayings material at all.

Those who believe that Mark came third therefore have to make sense of a situation in which Mark stands out from much of early Christianity. In the early 2nd century, Papias reports that he prefers what he calls “the living voice” to the written word. And the recent discovery of the Gospel of Thomas would seem to confirm further that oral tradition did not die a death somewhere in the late first century. Why does Mark apparently rely on this oral tradition so little? Were the stories about the blind man of Bethsaida, the deaf-mute and the young man the best he could manage?

This troubling situation is intensified by a striking feature of Mark’s style. As both sides would agree, Mark is the most ‘colloquial’ of the three Synoptics, most “oral” in nature. His Gospel often sounds like it is directly dependent on oral traditions, with its lively pace (“and immediately…but…and…and immediately…and immediately”), use of the historical present tense (“and Jesus says…”), its love of little details, and its cliffhanger ending (16:8 “they were afraid; for”). It is perhaps for these reasons, as well as for reasons of length, that Mark has been the Gospel that has lent itself most readily in modern times to oral performance. In other words, it would be odd if the most “oral” of the Gospels turned out also to be the last to be written among the the Synoptics, dependent almost entirely - save for a handful of verses - on two much more literary predecessors, both of whom, like those who also came later, apparently had rich access to oral traditions about Jesus.

 

[Erich]

If this be the case, then we could ask: why would Mark/Peter include a story about say, Jesus taking two attempts to completely heal a blind man (which could be misconstrued by some listeners and readers as Jesus having limits to His power, which I’m sure Mark and Peter do not want them to think)
…
what is it about the blind man in Bethsaida and the young man in Gethsemane that makes them special, that Peter/Mark chooses to include them instead of more solid, explicit bits of Jesus’ life?

Mark includes this story between two instances where the disciples were blinded by their misunderstanding of Jesus (8:14-21 and 8:31-33); it is not found in either Matthew or Luke. The story of Mark 8:14-21 is also found in Matthew 16:1-12 (but not in Luke); the story of Mark 8:31-33 is also found in Matthew 16:21-23 and Luke 9:22. Everything from Mark 6:45 to Mark 8:13 is also found in Matthew but not Luke.

It is safe to assume, therefore, that Peter was reading from the Matthew scroll at this particular point in his talk (i.e. the one being transcribed by Mark). I can well imagine that by the time he got to the end of Matthew 8:14-21 Peter had an “aha moment” (i.e. at the time of that incident, the disciples had been growing in their understanding of who Jesus really is, they knew Jesus and wanted to follow Him, but they didn’t fully realize what His mission was) and Peter was reminded of the obvious parallels to when after Jesus touched the blind man the first time, the man could see, but not clearly.

 

[Erich]

Re: the young man in Gethsemane

The best guess of the editors of the *Oxford Annotated New Revised Standard Version *is that “perhaps [the young man] was sleeping in the house where Jesus ate the Last Supper and rose hastily from bed to follow Jesus to Gethsemane.”

In Word Meanings in the New Testament, Ralph Earle comments, “This brief incident is found only in this Gospel. It might be Mark’s way of saying, ‘I was there.’ If the Last Supper took place in the home of John Mark’s mother (cf. Acts 12:12), Judas Iscariot may have returned there first to betray Jesus. We can then understand how John Mark would be roused, perhaps grab a sheet to cover his body, and rush to [Gethsemane] to warn Jesus.”

It is possible that the first Christians may have seen this incident as the fulfillment of a prophecy. In a passage in Amos describing the Day of God’s Judgment, God tells us, “and those who are stout of heart among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day” (2:16).

 

[Erich]

It is possible of course to answer the dilemma of these stories, and the harder readings found in Mark, that Mark was ‘reprimitivizing’ his account as a reaction to the more devout and reverential portrayals of Matthew and Luke.
…
[W]hy does so little special Markan material make it into the Gospel? Is it that Mark did not know of any other useful stories?
…
Those who believe that Mark came third therefore have to make sense of a situation in which Mark stands out from much of early Christianity. In the early 2nd century, Papias reports that he prefers what he calls “the living voice” to the written word. And the recent discovery of the Gospel of Thomas would seem to confirm further that oral tradition did not die a death somewhere in the late first century. Note: Eusebius included the Gospel of Thomas among a group of books that he believed to be not only spurious, but “the fictions of heretics” – see Ch. 25 v. 7 of Church History, Book III]
…
This troubling situation is intensified by a striking feature of Mark’s style. As both sides would agree, Mark is the most ‘colloquial’ of the three Synoptics, most “oral” in nature. His Gospel often sounds like it is directly dependent on oral traditions, with its lively pace (“and immediately…but…and…and immediately…and immediately”), use of the historical present tense (“and Jesus says…”), its love of little details, and its cliffhanger ending (16:8 “they were afraid; for”). It is perhaps for these reasons, as well as for reasons of length, that Mark has been the Gospel that has lent itself most readily in modern times to oral performance. In other words, it would be odd if the most “oral” of the Gospels turned out also to be the last to be written among the the Synoptics, dependent almost entirely - save for a handful of verses - on two much more literary predecessors, both of whom, like those who also came later, apparently had rich access to oral traditions about Jesus.

The whole Markan logical edifice is balanced on the presumption that the Gospel of Mark was carefully thought out in the author’s room and composed by him in his best Greek style.

Again, from Authors of the Gospels:B.H.Streeter, the main promoter in England of Markan priority during the early part of the 20th century, wrote regarding the difference between the style of Mark and the other two:

It is the difference which always exists between the spoken and the written language. Mark reads like a shorthand account of a story by an impromptu speaker – with all the repetitions, redundancies, and digressions, which are characteristic of living speech. And it seems to me most probable that his Gospel, like Pauls Epistles, was taken down from rapid dictation by word of mouth. ((BHSG 163)). Streeter presumed Mark had taken down the words in private while acting as a personal secretary. So Streeter was not deflected from advocating Markan priority. Although the opinion of Streeter was remembered, it was not till the 1980s that his observation was seen as very significant. Bernard Orchard had become particularly interested in the opening verses of Mark where scripture is misquoted. This led him in 1987 to speculate that Peter had given a series of public talks to a carefully selected audience, and that Marks Gospel was a transcript of these talks. In 1991 a book by E.R.Richards established, on the basis of new data, that Greek shorthand had been developed before 52 BC. He explained: …it had long been the custom for public men to have their speeches recorded by competent shorthand writers ((BOO 13)).
​

So, assuming that Mark’s Gospel is a transcript of Peter’s talks, it is not hard to understand why Mark is the most “oral” of the Gospels.

 

[Arch_Angel]

INFORMATION OVERLOAD! but good stuff… I broke a sweat reading through the first two paragraphs of all the latests posts.

 

[kbwall]

All 12 would be just over 2,000 years old at this point.

 

[patrick457]

Mark includes this story between two instances where the disciples were blinded by their misunderstanding of Jesus (8:14-21 and 8:31-33); it is not found in either Matthew or Luke. The story of Mark 8:14-21 is also found in Matthew 16:1-12 (but not in Luke); the story of Mark 8:31-33 is also found in Matthew 16:21-23 and Luke 9:22. Everything from Mark 6:45 to Mark 8:13 is also found in Matthew but not Luke.

It is safe to assume, therefore, that Peter was reading from the Matthew scroll at this particular point in his talk (i.e. the one being transcribed by Mark). I can well imagine that by the time he got to the end of Matthew 8:14-21 Peter had an “aha moment” (i.e. at the time of that incident, the disciples had been growing in their understanding of who Jesus really is, they knew Jesus and wanted to follow Him, but they didn’t fully realize what His mission was) and Peter was reminded of the obvious parallels to when after Jesus touched the blind man the first time, the man could see, but not clearly.

That is actually one of those running themes in Mark: the blindness of the disciples.

If you compare Mark to Matthew and Luke, his view of the disciples doesn’t come off as good. They are a slow, even buffoonish bunch who doesn’t really comprehend what Jesus says and does, even given their privileged positions. However, unlike the blind man of Bethsaida, even by the end of the Gospel - remember that the main text as we have it actually ends in a cliffhanger, with 16:8; verses 9-20 seems to be an addition made to the text at an early stage - their blindness doesn’t seem to be have been cured (yet?)

Mark starts off his portrayal of them pretty well: for instance, when Jesus calls His disciples, they obediently follow, leaving behind everything to follow Him (1:16-20; 2:13-17; 3:13-18). But aside from a handful of places where the disciples shine, everything goes downhill from there.

• In chapter 4:11-20, Jesus tells His disciples of their privileged position in that “the mystery/secret of the kingdom of God” is plainly revealed to them, while those outside everything is said in parables. Immediately after saying this, He starts rebuking them: “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?” (v. 13) and goes on to explain the parable of the sower. In the Matthean parallel (13:1-23), by contrast, no rebuke is present, instead Jesus actually commends the disciples! (v. 16-17) “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” No rebuke in the Lukan version as well (8:1-15).
• At the onset of evening, Jesus decides to cross the other shore of the Sea of Galilee, and they all set off by boat. In typical Markan fashion, the narrator briefly mentions other boats that set off with Jesus’. You probably know the rest: they encounter a storm, the disciples panic, and Jesus calms the sea (14:35-41). We’re going to note here two things: in Mark’s version, the disciples tell Jesus bluntly: “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” (4:38; cf. Matthew 8:24 “Save us, Lord; we are perishing”; Luke 8:24 “Master, Master, we are perishing!”), and Jesus answers them: “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” (4:40; cf. Matthew 8:26 “Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?”; Luke 8:25 “Where is your faith?”)
• In an interesting little detail in Mark, as the hemorrhaging woman touches Jesus’ garment as they were on their way to Jairus’ house (5:24b-34), there is a little exchange between Jesus and disciples:

And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’”

This is absent in the Matthean parallel (9:18-26), while Luke (8:42b-48) has a slightly different version (v. 45-46):

And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.”

• Just after Jesus feeds five thousand men and walks on water (6:30-51), Mark has this ominous note: “And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.” The Matthean parallel (14:22-33; Luke does not include the event) does not have this; instead Matthew has a more positive ending: “And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.””

 

[patrick457]

• Leaving Dalmanutha (cf. 8:10-13), the disciples forgot to bring bread with them on the boat, and Jesus starts warning them of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod (v. 14-21).

Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

Jesus’ rebuke to the disciples is interesting: “Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?” This hearkens back to chapter 4, where Jesus says that for outsiders “everything is in parables, so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, / and may indeed hear but not understand, / lest they should turn and be forgiven.” (v. 11b-12) In effect, the disciples, to whom “the mystery of the Kingdom of God” is revealed, are apparently no better than those outside because of their slow comprehension. No rebuke is present in the Lukan parallel (12:1), while Matthew’s version is in many ways softer than Mark’s (16:5-12):

When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. Jesus said to them, “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” But Jesus, aware of this, said, “O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

• Immediately after Peter’s confession of Jesus (8:27-30) - to which “he strictly charged them to tell no one about him”, Jesus starts to speak of His own Passion (v. 31-33):

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Notably, the absence of any mention of Jesus’ acceptance of Peter’s confession here, as in Matthew (16:17-19) kind of makes the rebuke stronger. Also note the mention of Jesus “turning and seeing his disciples.” Again, Luke does not include any rebuke of Peter in his version (9:18-22).

• After the Transfiguration, Jesus warns Peter, James and John “to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” Mark goes on: “So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what this rising from the dead might mean.” (9:9-10; cf. Matthew 17:9-10; Luke 9:36)
• Immediately afterwards, we come to a whole pericope about Jesus healing a possessed boy which the other disciples had failed to heal (9:14-29). We’ll only going to note the conclusion (v. 28-29):

And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”

In true Matthean fashion (17:14-21), Matthew’s Jesus uses the disciples’ question as a vehicle to point out their being “of little faith” (there it is again!), and goes on about the saying about even how faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains. Luke simply ends his version (9:37-43) with: “And all were astonished at the majesty of God.” (v. 43)

 

[patrick457]

• After foretelling once more His impending death and resurrection, Jesus et al. come to Capernaum (for the last time in Mark; 9:33-40).

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

Both Matthew (18:1-4) and Luke (9:46-48) have slightly different, shorter parallels:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”

Both Mark (9:38-40) and Luke (9:49-50) then follow it with John noting someone who uses Jesus’ Name in his exorcisms.

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.”

John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

• On another occasion, James and John requests to Jesus that they be seated in the places of honor - His right and left - in His glory (10:35-44). A slightly harsher version than the Matthean parallel, where their mother does it for them (20:20-28).

By the end of the Gospel, all of the male disciples have abandoned Jesus. Judas had sold information about Him (14:10-11), Peter denied even knowing Him (14:66-72), while the rest - including a mysterious young man - ran away (14:50-51). This leaves only the women who followed Jesus - the first time they crop up in the narrative! - brave enough to watch Jesus suffering at His final moments, to see where His corpse is buried, and to visit His tomb (15:40-41, 47; 16:1-2).

Even then, what they do seems to be a dubious honor, as they watch Jesus die “from a distance,” and the Gospel proper ends with them apparently not (yet) delivering the young man in white’s message that Jesus has been raised up to the male disciples (16:6-7). “And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (16:8) In this dark note, the only glimmer of hope is the young man’s/angel’s words: “There [in Galilee] you will see him, just as he told you.” But as we mentioned, Mark apparently finishes (or breaks off) before we even get to see it.

 

[patrick457]

Re: the young man in Gethsemane

The best guess of the editors of the *Oxford Annotated New Revised Standard Version *is that “perhaps [the young man] was sleeping in the house where Jesus ate the Last Supper and rose hastily from bed to follow Jesus to Gethsemane.”

In Word Meanings in the New Testament, Ralph Earle comments, “This brief incident is found only in this Gospel. It might be Mark’s way of saying, ‘I was there.’ If the Last Supper took place in the home of John Mark’s mother (cf. Acts 12:12), Judas Iscariot may have returned there first to betray Jesus. We can then understand how John Mark would be roused, perhaps grab a sheet to cover his body, and rush to [Gethsemane] to warn Jesus.”

It is possible that the first Christians may have seen this incident as the fulfillment of a prophecy. In a passage in Amos describing the Day of God’s Judgment, God tells us, “and those who are stout of heart among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day” (2:16).

That’s it. Just by looking at the text itself, we don’t know the exact significance of the young man in white, and many possibilities have been offered. Some have thought that it was an anonymous authorial self-insertion by Mark; others have pointed a parallel between the young man of 14:51-52 with the young man in the tomb (16:5); others point out to the controversial Secret Gospel of Mark, which describes a young man being raised up by Jesus (in many ways somewhat a parallel to John’s raising of Lazarus); others think that the young man is the owner of the oil press (hence, Gethsemane, from Aramaic gath-šmânê) that Jesus and disciples are staying for the night; others think that this is Mark’s way of emphasizing that the disciples have completely disowned Jesus - even at the cost of their own clothing, etc.

 

[patrick457]

RE: Gospel of Thomas

Many of the early Fathers (Hippolytus and Origen being the earliest) do seem to mention a “Gospel of Thomas” being used by various gnostic sects. In the 4th and 5th centuries, we now hear that the Gospel of Thomas was highly valued by Mani and his followers (Manicheans). St. Cyril of Jerusalem even goes out of his way by saying that ‘Thomas’ is not the apostle, but a disciple of Mani who shared the same name. A complete copy in Coptic was even found among blatantly gnostic writings in Nag Hammadi in 1945; heretofore, three different Greek fragments have been found at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt (P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655), though at the time scholars never realized that they were fragments of Thomas.

As it exists today, the Gospel is considered usually to be a gnostic text, since it was found in a library among others, it contains (or at least, can be read as having) Gnostic themes, and perhaps presupposes a gnostic worldview. Personally though, reading through it I find that most of the ‘gnostic’ content are mostly concentrated on only a number of sayings - other sayings seem to be pretty okay (and often have parallels with the Gospels). Given that various gnostic sects are known to misappropriate various texts - from Genesis to the Psalms to the Gospels, from Paul to Plato to Homer! - I’m also holding the possibility that Thomas could be originally a ‘neutral’ work that was subsequently co-opted by various sects.

For the record, I’m personally in the ‘late’ camp, which proposes that the author knew the canonical Gospels and depended on them, and perhaps on some oral ‘sayings’ attributed to Jesus (agrapha) that were floating around.

BTW, is there an answer for the argument about editorial fatigue?

 

[patrick457]

INFORMATION OVERLOAD! but good stuff… I broke a sweat reading through the first two paragraphs of all the latests posts.

Sorry 'bout that. Hope you don’t overwork your brain; taking some pauses in between reading is recommended.

 

[Big_Ro]

INFORMATION OVERLOAD! but good stuff… I broke a sweat reading through the first two paragraphs of all the latests posts.

Yes. Tilt, tilt!! It’s all great stuff but there’s so much information and so many sources. It becomes a full time job going back, finding the source, trying to wade through it and by the time you feel like you have even a loose grasp of the point you go back to respond or ask a follow up question and fifteen other posts have brought in another dozen references making similar or contradictory sattements. Wheew! Thanks either way.