Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
LOL. You agree with everyone.
- Status
F
FishyPete
Guest
What can I say, I am an agreeable person.LOL. You agree with everyone.
I trust that is a good trait. lol.
S
steve53
Guest
Isn’t there only a little bit of Mark that cannot be found in the other gospels- and even that portion is controversial as to being original?
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Steve:53: I am not sure but if I remember correctly there are things in all four Gospels that are not in the other Gospels. IOWS there are things found in one Gospel that is not in another Gospel and that holds true in each of the four Gospels. So to answer your question I believe you might be correct in that there might be something in Mark that is not found in the other Gospels. Example the short and longer version of the ending in Mark.
I also think that there is always going to be some controversy concerning if anything in the Gospels is original, ISTM, did the actual writer write it? Was it copied correctly over time by the scribe or copier? So far, while there have been some slight changes in the text over all they are so minor that it does not take anything from the text, which has been attributed to the copier of the manuscripts. One needs to remember that during the first three hundred years all of the original manuscripts of the Gospels and Epistle had been burned as well as copies of them till about the Edit of Milan that ended the persecutions of Christians.
P
patrick457
Guest
Yes, it’s true that there is only a little bit of Mark that isn’t found in Matthew or Luke; nearly everything in his gospel can also found in Matthew, or Luke, or both. This all goes back to the fact that out of the three gospels, Mark is the so-called ‘middle term’. In other words, in those materials where all three Synoptics agree, you usually have an agreement between all three gospels, or between Matthew and Mark against Luke, or between Luke and Mark against Matthew. By contrast, agreements between Matthew and Luke versus Mark are far fewer.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3347/63594641.png
Triple tradition (material shared by Matthew, Mark and Luke) broadly has the same order across all three gospels, and this order tends to be identical with Mark’s, to the point that if you were to isolate triple tradition material in Matthew and Luke you’d end up with a complete gospel generally similar to Mark in structure. Now there are times when Matthew or Luke may occasionally place individual incidents differently, but striking thing about it is that it is rare for both Matthew and Luke to place the same incident differently. Where Matthew and Luke apparently depart from Mark’s narrative order, they don’t usually keep up long; very often both of them revert into agreeing with Mark.
The only Markan material that cannot be found in Matthew and Luke are:
The parable of the seed growing secretly (4:26-29)
The deaf-mute (7:31-37)
The blind man of Bethsaida (8:22-26)
Sayings on salt (9:49, 50b)
The young man in Gethsemane (14:51-52)
The little narrative asides in Mark embedded in passages shared by the other gospels but which are absent in the other gospels may also count as unique material. For example, Jesus’ relatives/companions thinking that He had gone crazy and trying to restrain Him (3:21), the comment that the grass was green (6:39), or the mention of Simon of Cyrene being the father of Alexander and Rufus (15:21). That’s just a few of them. In addition, Mark also likes to retain a few Aramaic words here and there (boanerges, talitha koum(i), ephphatha, korban, rabbouni), most of which are not found in Matthew and/or Luke.
Where do you get the idea that that was ‘controversial’?
A
abucs
Guest
Yes, this is true so you have the situation that if Matthew and Luke wrote after Mark. one of them knew what the other didn’t include and so chose to include those left out parts in their gospel.
I think it makes more sense to see Mark’s gospel as the teaching of Peter in Rome from Matthews and Luke’s gospels.
If Peter is reading alternatively from each gospel; this explains the order perfectly and why there is very little new material in Mark. It also explains how Mark often goes into more detail with the stories as Peter himself was a witness to them. It also explains why Mark’s gospel has many Latinisms and is written down in very colloquial language. It also explains why often different language from Matthew and Luke describing the same event are both included in Mark.
It also explains why each of the 3 gospels would have been written in the first place.
P
patrick457
Guest
So I talked about triple tradition and unique Markan material in my last post. I might as well introduce the other components. To sum, they go much like this:
1.) Double Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark - what adherents of the two-source hypothesis would call ‘Q material’. Not as numerous as triple tradition material, but still substantial to some extent. Its content is mainly sayings material (i.e. the Our Father, the Beatitudes) but includes some narratives such as the centurion’s boy/servant (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10) and the testing of Jesus in the desert (Matt. 4:1-11; Lk. 4:1-13) as well. The interesting thing about this material is that you don’t have much of it in a closely parallel order; there is some kind of parallel order, but not the same one you get with triple tradition. The order tends to vary between the two gospels.
2.) Special Matthew (M): Material found only in Matthew. Like double tradition, much of it is sayings material (for instance, the parables in Matthew 25:1-13 and 25:31-46), with a few exceptions (i.e. the temple tax in Matthew 17:24-27). Some of it can also be found embedded within triple tradition material; for instance, Judas’ death (27:3-10) and the brief reference to Pilate’s wife (27:19).
3.) Special Luke (L): Material found only in Luke, usually narrative material like the announcement to Zechariah and John the Baptist’s birth, the Annunciation and Visitation, the boy Jesus in the Temple and the Road to Emmaus, and also saying materials like the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.
Most of the materials in the three gospels usually fit one of these four categories (triple tradition, double tradition, M, L). But there are four complications, if you will:
1.) M Material in Triple Tradition: Material unique to Matthew embedded in triple tradition material and would make no sense outside of context; for example, Jesus’ conversation with John the Baptist in 3:14-15.
2.) Lukan Triple Tradition: Three pericopes or passages which have parallels in Matthew and Mark and might be described as Lukan versions of triple tradition material (the rejection at Nazareth at 4:16-30; the call of the first disciples at 5:1-11; the anointing of Jesus at 7:36-50).
3.) Not-quite Triple Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke (cf. Matthew 14:34-3; Mark 6:53-56), or in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew (for example, the woman at the treasury; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4). These are not, strictly speaking, triple tradition material since they occur in only two out of the three gospels, but they are akin to triple tradition because they appear in the Markan order.
8.) When Mark is not the middle term: Some material halfway between triple and double tradition. Appears in all three synoptics but unlike triple tradition, features substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. Major examples of these are the story of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:11-12; Lk. 3:15-17; cf. Mk. 1:7-8); the temptation (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf. Mark 1:12-13); the Beelzebul controversy (Matt. 12:22-37; Lk. 11:14-23; cf. Mk. 3:22-30); the parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32; Lk. 13:18-19; cf. Mk. 4:30-32) and the mission of the disciples (Matt. 10:1-15; Lk. 9:1-6, 10:1-12; cf. Mk. 6:6b-13).
I need to stress again that Mark is often, but not always, the ‘middle term’. Reason for this is, in triple tradition, there are usually substantial agreements between Matthew, Mark and Luke, between Matthew and Mark, and between Mark and Luke.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3347/63594641.png
There are only minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The order of triple tradition passages and those which are not quite it is usually similar to the Markan order. Matthew and Luke less often agree together in order against Mark.
This fact is really the keystone of modern theories about the synoptic gospels: the theories that postulate Markan priority (the two-source/Q hypothesis or the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis) explains Mark’s being the middle term by thinking that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark, while the theory that postulates Markan posteriority (the Griesbach-Farmer-Orchard/two-gospel hypothesis) explains it by thinking that Mark drew from both Matthew and Luke.
1.) Double Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark - what adherents of the two-source hypothesis would call ‘Q material’. Not as numerous as triple tradition material, but still substantial to some extent. Its content is mainly sayings material (i.e. the Our Father, the Beatitudes) but includes some narratives such as the centurion’s boy/servant (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10) and the testing of Jesus in the desert (Matt. 4:1-11; Lk. 4:1-13) as well. The interesting thing about this material is that you don’t have much of it in a closely parallel order; there is some kind of parallel order, but not the same one you get with triple tradition. The order tends to vary between the two gospels.
2.) Special Matthew (M): Material found only in Matthew. Like double tradition, much of it is sayings material (for instance, the parables in Matthew 25:1-13 and 25:31-46), with a few exceptions (i.e. the temple tax in Matthew 17:24-27). Some of it can also be found embedded within triple tradition material; for instance, Judas’ death (27:3-10) and the brief reference to Pilate’s wife (27:19).
3.) Special Luke (L): Material found only in Luke, usually narrative material like the announcement to Zechariah and John the Baptist’s birth, the Annunciation and Visitation, the boy Jesus in the Temple and the Road to Emmaus, and also saying materials like the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.
Most of the materials in the three gospels usually fit one of these four categories (triple tradition, double tradition, M, L). But there are four complications, if you will:
1.) M Material in Triple Tradition: Material unique to Matthew embedded in triple tradition material and would make no sense outside of context; for example, Jesus’ conversation with John the Baptist in 3:14-15.
2.) Lukan Triple Tradition: Three pericopes or passages which have parallels in Matthew and Mark and might be described as Lukan versions of triple tradition material (the rejection at Nazareth at 4:16-30; the call of the first disciples at 5:1-11; the anointing of Jesus at 7:36-50).
3.) Not-quite Triple Tradition: Material found in Matthew and Mark but not in Luke (cf. Matthew 14:34-3; Mark 6:53-56), or in Mark and Luke but not in Matthew (for example, the woman at the treasury; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4). These are not, strictly speaking, triple tradition material since they occur in only two out of the three gospels, but they are akin to triple tradition because they appear in the Markan order.
8.) When Mark is not the middle term: Some material halfway between triple and double tradition. Appears in all three synoptics but unlike triple tradition, features substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. Major examples of these are the story of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:11-12; Lk. 3:15-17; cf. Mk. 1:7-8); the temptation (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf. Mark 1:12-13); the Beelzebul controversy (Matt. 12:22-37; Lk. 11:14-23; cf. Mk. 3:22-30); the parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32; Lk. 13:18-19; cf. Mk. 4:30-32) and the mission of the disciples (Matt. 10:1-15; Lk. 9:1-6, 10:1-12; cf. Mk. 6:6b-13).
I need to stress again that Mark is often, but not always, the ‘middle term’. Reason for this is, in triple tradition, there are usually substantial agreements between Matthew, Mark and Luke, between Matthew and Mark, and between Mark and Luke.
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3347/63594641.png
There are only minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The order of triple tradition passages and those which are not quite it is usually similar to the Markan order. Matthew and Luke less often agree together in order against Mark.
This fact is really the keystone of modern theories about the synoptic gospels: the theories that postulate Markan priority (the two-source/Q hypothesis or the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis) explains Mark’s being the middle term by thinking that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark, while the theory that postulates Markan posteriority (the Griesbach-Farmer-Orchard/two-gospel hypothesis) explains it by thinking that Mark drew from both Matthew and Luke.
- Status