What if Q were to be found: in the canon or not?

[patrick457]

As for Mark’s ending:

It’s still unclear whether Mark really meant to end his gospel at 16:8 or whether his original ending was lost for some reason or was never really written at all. That being said, the ending is so abrupt that it would seem that other people - who are probably are as unsatisfied with it as we are today - began to write their own endings and append it onto the main text to provide a proper closure to Mark’s abrupt cliff-hanger ending. (cf. the Wiki article on Mark chapter 16)

 

[Julia_Mae]

You do realize that it’s not ‘the Church’ as a whole, right?

Sure. Just the way I realize that almost everything people attribute to “the Church” doesn’t mean the Church as a whole. After all, that would include you and I, and I’m pretty sure the Magesterium, Pope, Bishops of the USCCB, or the experts who write these notes and the Archbishop who gave his approval care not one bit what we think about these matters.

I was responding to what I considered a rather rude post of yours that said I “assumed” something about the construction of the Scripture. I am rather a fan of facts and scholarship and so, when I speak about these things, am actually referring to those who are far superior to any of us in terms of Scriptural erudition.

I understand you prefer to make up your own version of the Gospels being written, without recourse to documents of the Church. Fine by me.

 

[patrick457]

Sure. Just the way I realize that almost everything people attribute to “the Church” doesn’t mean the Church as a whole. After all, that would include you and I, and I’m pretty sure the Magesterium, Pope, Bishops of the USCCB, or the experts who write these notes and the Archbishop who gave his approval care not one bit what we think about these matters.

I was responding to what I considered a rather rude post of yours that said I “assumed” something about the construction of the Scripture. I am rather a fan of facts and scholarship and so, when I speak about these things, am actually referring to those who are far superior to any of us in terms of Scriptural erudition.

I understand you prefer to make up your own version of the Gospels being written, without recourse to documents of the Church. Fine by me.

Which post was it?

 

[patrick457]

Before I forget about it again, as promised (Darn, I keep repeating myself over and over, don’t I?):

As expected from a theory which some of the finest minds in the field helped to shape and perfect, the Two-Source hypothesis does have some admittedly pretty strong arguments for it. Aside from the ones you mentioned, there are also these:

1.) Luke’s order. Supporters argue that Luke’s arrangement of double tradition material is inexplicable on the assumption that he knew Matthew. While a lot of double tradition in Matthew appears in five blocks of thematically related discourse (5-7, 10, 13, 18, 24-25), the same material appears in Luke’s Gospel in a different format, much of it in a big central section: the travel to Jerusalem in 9:51-18:14. The point is felt so strongly that supporters of the theory have posed this question: if Luke knew Matthew, why would he choose to ‘disrupt’ and ‘demolish’ Matthew’s clear and concise arrangement and scatter the whole thing all over the place? Case in point: the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. If Luke knew Matthew, authors would argue, why would Luke have wanted to disturb and spoil what is usually regarded as one of the finest religious writing of all time and place different parts of it in an unconnected form throughout his Gospel? The implication being that if Luke was aware of Matthew’s Gospel and yet consciously tampered with it, he was a very poor writer.

An important aspect of this argument is that Matthew often seems to find an appropriate Markan context for double tradition while Luke does so rarely. The preaching of John the Baptist and the Temptation, which feature both Markan and ‘Q’ elements, occur in the same context across all three Gospels, but afterwards, Matt and Luke usually diverge in their arrangement of double tradition pericopes.

2.) Luke’s ignorance of Matthean ‘additions’ to Mark. A typical example given is Matthew 12:5-7, which is a Matthean addition to the parallel account in Mark 2:23-28.

Matthew: At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

Mark: One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Luke: On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

Other examples given are the Walking on the Water (Matthew 14:23-31) and Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:17-19). The question asked is, why would Luke have omitted this fresh Matthean martial, if he knew Matthew’s Gospel? It would of course imply that if Luke was ignorant of Matthew in passages like these, he was ignorant of Matthew everywhere, which would make the Two-source theory necessary in order to make sense of double tradition.​

 

[patrick457]

3.) Luke’s lack of Matthean (M) material. This is related to number 2, in that both focus on material present in Matthew but lacking in Luke. The question asked is, if Luke knew Matthew, why did he constantly omit Matthean material in episodes which do not have parallels in Mark, e.g. the Infancy and the Resurrection narratives? At first this argument sounds circular (Luke obviously would not feature M material, by definition), but the point generally made is that it would have been unlikely that Luke would have omitted so much of this rich Matthean material.

Case in point: why would Luke, who was so interested in gentiles, omit the story of the non-Jewish magi coming to pay homage to the infant Jesus? Indeed, why is Luke’s birth narrative radically different from Matthew’s, aside from the bare facts (Jesus was born in Bethlehem and His parents were named Mary and Joseph)?

4.) Alternating primitivity. The argument goes like this: if Luke was aware of Matthew’s Gospel, his versions of double tradition material ought always to be secondary to Matthew’s versions. On that theory, he would, after all, always be writing after Matthew and thus with earlier versions of sayings in front of him, something that, according to most, is not the case. Rather, it seems that sometimes, Matthew preserves a more ‘primitive’ form of a double tradition saying while in others, it is Luke who does so. This, it is believed, is inexplicable if one (Luke) is following the other (Matthew).

One example of an instance in Matthew where it is believed that he preserved the more original form of the saying rather than Luke is Matthew 7:11 (cf. Luke 11:13).

Matthew: “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”

Luke: “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

According to the Two-Source hypothesis, it is more likely that Q (Matthew’s and Luke’s purported source) featured the term ‘good things’, which makes good literary sense of the material that preceded this conclusion, which talks about ‘good gifts’; hence Matthew has kept the more primitive form of Jesus’ words in this case, Luke interpreting Q’s and Matthew’s “good things” as “the Holy Spirit,” in keeping with his special interest on the latter.

This does not pose any problem for the idea of Luke’s awareness of Matthew, but the situation seems to be not always like this. The Two-source theory seems to be demanded by the presence of other occasions of more primitive wording in Luke’s form of double tradition material. The most well-known example given is the Our Father:

Matthew:

“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.”

Luke:

“Father,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread,
and forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.
And lead us not into temptation.”

Luke’s more terse version of the prayer is believed to be more original than Matthew’s, because it is thought unlikely that Luke would have pared down the Matthean version so familiar to us. The Q version of the prayer, then, will have probably looked more like the Lukan version, and the extra Matthean parts will be additions distinct to Matthew, such as “our Father in heaven” (since the phrase “your Father who is in heaven” is apparently a favorite of Matthew’s). Likewise the Beatitudes: Luke’s “Blessed are you poor” is thought to be more original than Matthew’s more spiritual “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” The reverse idea, wherein Luke derives his more down-to-earth version from Matthew, is thought to be unlikely. In these and other cases, it is felt that the Lukan version is less characteristically Lukan than the Matthean version is characteristically Matthean, a situation easily explicable if both are independently redacting an unknown source, but implausible if Luke is redacting Matthew.​

 

[patrick457]

5.) The distinctive character of the Logienquelle. The four preceding arguments work that by demonstrating that it is impossible to think that Luke knew Matthew, one establishes the plausibility of the Q hypothesis. However, the two-source hypothesis is not simply about the unlikelihood of Luke’s knowledge of Matthew. It is also about the probability of the Logienquelle (‘logia-source’), aka Q. There is therefore, a second category of argument concerning Q’s existence and it is based on the notion that Q makes its presence felt in the Gospels. It distinguishes itself from the other material in the Synoptics not just because it provides a preferable explanation for the phenomenon of double tradition but also because it is held to have a special theology, vocabulary, history, structure and style unique to its own. Q is very different from Matthew and Luke; it is properly a beast of its own.

6.) Q aiding the task of redaction-criticism. A third category of argument, in addition to those from the unlikelihood of Lukan use of Matthew and the distinctiveness of Q, depends on the success of a related discipline known as redaction-criticism. Redaction-criticism, simply put, is the study of the way in which an author ‘redacts’ his source material with a view to ascertaining the theological standpoint of the text and its author. But in order to study the ways in which the author handles his source material, one has to have an idea as to what the source material exactly is.

On the whole, most scholars today have worked with the presupposition that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q. It is then thought that the success with which the redaction-critics’ work has been done provides a corroboration of the starting-point. What it amounts to is a ‘If-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it’ type of situation, wherein one ought to maintain the status quo in the light of the fine scholarship that the concensus has produced.

The Q-believing majority takes the hypothesis for granted in its studies on the New Testament, and every time it is presupposed, the argument for Q apparently gains more ground. If Q consistently makes sense in so many different studies on the New Testament, it would seem to be a workable theory. And a workable hypothesis might well seem to be a plausible one.

 

[patrick457]

Let’s take a break first here. It seems that scholars are unable to talk about the idea of Luke’s knowing Matthew without resorting to rhetorical questions, with exclamation marks, joke quotation marks, humorous imagery, and at times, even ridicule thrown into the mix. So we get to hear of Luke “unscrambling the egg with a vengeance” (in the words of the late Reginald H. Fuller), ‘destroying’ or ‘demolishing’ Matthew’s fine order. Matters are not implausible or improbable, they are ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘inexplicable’.

Part of the reason why strong language tends to be employed in this type of thing is because arguments for the existence of Q tend to occur in places where the scholar has word-limits and the reader’s patience to worry about, such as introductory pieces and dictionary definitions. So what often happens is, rhetorical question and overstatement stand in for patient argumentation. The other reason is probably the conscious imitation and unconscious influence of B.H. Streeter’s seminal work, The Four Gospels (1924), where he attempts to dispose of the theory that Luke used Matthew in stinging rhetorical language (p. 183):

Sir John Hawkins once showed me a Greek Testament in which he had indicated on the left-hand margin of Mark the exact point in the Marcan outline at which Matthew has inserted each of the sayings in question, with, of course, the reference to chapter and verse, to identify it; on the right-hand margin he had similarly indicated the point where Luke inserts matter also found in Matthew. It then appeared that, subsequent to the Temptation story, there is not a single case in which Matthew and Luke agree in inserting the same saying at the same point in the Marcan outline. If then Luke derived this material from Matthew, he must have gone through both Matthew and Mark so as to discriminate with meticulous precision between Marcan and non-Marcan material; he must then have proceeded with the utmost care to tear every little piece of non-Marcan material he desired to use from the context of Mark in which it appeared in Matthew — in spite of the fact that contexts in Matthew are always exceedingly appropriate — in order to re-insert it into a different context of Mark having no special appropriateness. A theory that would make an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank.

The influence of Streeter’s words has been overwhelming, to no surprise, since the rhetoric is instantly memorable. No one really wants to call Luke “a crank”: they do not want to slander the Evangelist or risk being called stupid themselves. Nor does anyone want to imagine that behind Luke’s Gospel there lies a perverse and inappropriate demolition of Matthew.

Yet another reason for the choice of words may be a feeling of frustration: as I’ve mentioned, one of the arguments for Q is it aiding the task of redaction-criticism. There prevails the attitude that matters are already settled a long time ago: the foundations are laid successfully and people have been building on them without trouble ever since. The Two-source hypothesis could very well be ‘gospel truth’ (pun intended). Q skeptics are thus pretty much a nuisance because it is perceived that they have the nerve of thinking to be able to overturn the scholarly concensus.

A common truism has it that scholars tend to be lazy people. Many scholars are usually hesitant to challenge accepted hypotheses since it would require major reassessments of virtually everything from the bottom up, obviously a very difficult task. The Q theory is so predominant nowadays that it is basically considered almost as an established truth: the student would literally get drenched in it as soon as he steps foot in the world of New Testament studies. The downside of this is that many of the alternative solutions to the Synoptic Problem don’t get much serious consideration either because they are deemed ‘unacceptable’ or ‘unpalatable’. That, or they are simply too obscure to merit any attention.​

 

[steve53]

“A common truism has it that scholars tend to be lazy people. Many scholars are usually hesitant to challenge accepted hypotheses since it would require major reassessments of virtually everything from the bottom up, obviously a very difficult task.”

Amen.

 

[Erich]

As for Mark’s ending:

It’s still unclear whether Mark really meant to end his gospel at 16:8 or whether his original ending was lost for some reason or was never really written at all. That being said, the ending is so abrupt that it would seem that other people - who are probably are as unsatisfied with it as we are today - began to write their own endings and append it onto the main text to provide a proper closure to Mark’s abrupt cliff-hanger ending. (cf. the Wiki article on Mark chapter 16)

From The Authors of the Gospels:

Finding a reason for the poor Greek of Mark was at the centre of the dating controversy. Markan priorists said it showed that Mark must have written first. Opponents, taking their stand on the historical evidence and church teaching, said Mark was written after Matthew, but their failure to provide a reason for the poor Greek of Mark made their arguments seem inconclusive.

Fortunately, increased knowledge of first century life has made it possible to throw light on this problem. 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)).

This transformed the speculation of Orchard into a practical hypothesis, which he published in 1993 naming it: The Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis ((BOF 1)). The evidence for the conflation of Matthew and Luke has been explained in the previous chapter. What Orchard realised was the manner in which it had taken place. Mark had not been leisurely sitting at a desk in a private room.

Orchard sees Matthew as having written for the Jews of Palestine, and Luke for the Gentiles of Asia. As Luke had not been an eyewitness of the ministry of Christ, Paul asked Peter to endorse the Gospel composed by Luke. Peter did this by giving a series of talks blending together Matthew and Luke, while adding memories and comments of his own. As Mark took down the talks verbatim they contained the blemishes one finds in unedited speech. Orchard has explained his thesis:Our thesis that Peter was going to restrict his testimony to what he could vouch for by his own personal memories of the Ministry, is supported by his omission of Lukes birth narratives, Central Section, Resurrection stories, and his omission of all that Luke himself has left out of the six composite Matthean Discourses.

He reinstates Lukes Great Omission (Mt 14:22 - 16:12), and furthermore reintroduces a few Matthean stories omitted by Luke, such as the pericope about divorce (Mt 19:3 - 9), and adds a few stories of his own. This leads us to formulate the following hypothesis regarding Peters handling of Luke as follows:

On this hypothesis Peter`s principal aim was to authenticate the text of Luke; and he decided to use the occasion to add individual comments of his own, prompted by his own personal memories, and his intimate knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew which had been circulating in the Church for at least twenty years as a handbook. He therefore concentrates on following Luke in order, pericope by pericope, as closely as his own personal memories will permit. He holds open the scroll of Luke, but the scroll of Matthew is also within reach, though he can quote word for word by heart whenever he wants to.

And so whilst steadily following the order of Luke he feels entirely free either to vary the wording of Luke in favour of Matthews text, or to introduce his own variant of Matthew, in virtue of his being the eyewitness of the events he is describing. At the same time he has no problem in agreeing to follow Lukes alternative arrangement of the stories in Mt 3:1 – 13:58, nor does he need as a general rule to refer to the scroll of Matthew while he follows Luke freely and even conflates it with Matthew`. ((BOA 388-389)).

Harold Riley, an associate of Orchard, stresses the ongoing nature of this conflation. Marks gospel keeps going forward when borrowing from the other two. He never retraces his steps by rolling the scrolls backwards. So stories of the Centurions servant and the messengers of the Baptist are omitted. To find them, Peter would have had to wind back the scroll ((RO 11)). In one place only is there a change in order and it is significant that this is at Luke 6: 12-19. The lines of Matthew and Luke are so close together Peter could see them at the same time. Rolling back was not required.

 

[Erich]

(cont’d from previous post)

Exegetes have been puzzled by the way Mark ends so abruptly at 16: 8, without reporting any resurrection appearances. Orchard suggests the two accounts of Christs resurrection appearances, like his infancy, were too dissimilar to be easily conflated ((RO 271-2)). Marks Gospel narrative stops exactly at the point where Matthew and Luke are no longer conflatable ((BOM 112)). Also, Paul was able to provide his own witness of Christ coming to him (1 Cor. 15: 18), so could endorse this part of Lukes gospel himself. ... Marks Gospel breaks off abruptly at 16: 8, before continuing with twelve more verses. This break involves ending with an enclitic form of Greek grammar, and this is inappropriate for the ending of a paragraph, never mind a book. Many suggestions have been put forward in explanation of these additional verses. As mentioned in our Chapter VII, Orchard suggested that they might have been notes for a further talk that was not delivered.

My * suggestion is as follows: The audience listening to Peter would have already known the information provided in Matthew’s Gospel. But for most of them the gospel of Luke contained new material.

As Orchard has pointed out, Peter stopped at the point his personal eyewitness of the earthly life of Christ ended ((RO 271-8)). Peter had not commented on all the new interesting pieces of information provided by Luke. I suggest that the audience would have asked questions, and these last verses record the answers supplied by Peter.

To illustrate: As the ‘he’ of verse 9 does not refer to the young man in verse 5, one would have expected to read ‘Jesus’. But if the name of the Lord had been contained in a question, the use of ‘he’ would be correct.

Matthew in 28: 1-10 says that Mary Magdalene was, with another woman, the first to see Jesus, and Luke 24: 10 confirms this. But earlier Luke had mentioned a woman of the same name, ‘a Mary who is called Magdalene’, who had been possessed by seven devils (Luke 8: 2). We should not be surprised if someone, noting her history, asked if this was the same person. Peter replies that it was (Mark 16: 9). He then confirms that Luke was also correct when he wrote that it was she who told the Apostles.

Matthew had not reported that Christ had appeared to two men walking, but Luke gives this incident much space (Luke 24: 13-31). Should the audience accept this story as true? As Peter was not one of the two, he was unable to confirm all the details, but he does confirm that Christ did appear to two disciples walking in the countryside (Mark 16: 12).

Luke then tells the story of Christ appearing to the eleven (24: 33-36). Yet Matthew has not mentioned this. Was it true? Peter, being there, is able to confirm that it was (Mark 16: 14).

Matthew says followers of Christ were to teach and baptise (28: 19), but Luke says they are to preach penance and forgiveness (Luke 24: 47). Was there a discrepancy here? Peter explains how baptism follows on from successful preaching (Mark 15: 15-16).

In his second volume, Luke says that Paul was able to cast out a devil (Acts 16: 18). There was no mention of this power in Matthew. So was it true? Peter, not being present at the incident, could not confirm it, but gives it credibility by saying Christ had foretold that such happenings would occur (Mark 16: 17).

In Acts 2: 4 and 10: 46, Luke reports Peter as having been present on two occasions when speaking in tongues had taken place. Matthew had not reported these events. Peter is able to confirm them in his response to the question about casting out the devils (Mark 16: 17).

The audience had read in Acts 28: 5, that Paul was impervious to the poison of a snake. Matthew had not recorded such an incident. Could it be true? Not being present at the incident, all Peter can do is again refer to the words of Christ. We then read of a similar question regarding the laying on of hands. He answers (Mark 16: 18) in the same way.

Luke in 24: 51 and Acts 1: 9 describes how Christ ascended to heaven. As Matthew had not described this, the audience would have found it of great interest. Peter, having been an eyewitness, was able to confirm and slightly embellish the account of Luke. (Mark 16: 19).

A person’s style of speaking will be different when answering questions from when he is giving a talk. The different style of these final verses has often been noted.

If the above suggestion is accepted, it would point to Acts, as well as Luke’s gospel, having been seen by some of the audience prior to or during the period of the talks. In addition to Mark, the audience is likely to have included Paul, his guard, Luke, Linus, Cletus, Clement of Rome, Alexander, Rufus and Hermas.*

 

[Erich]

Two scriptural allusions of Mark are significant. The first is in chapter I, where Peter opens his talk by proclaiming a title. In the second verse, he says he is going to quote from Isaiah the prophet. But he then quotes from Malachi 3: 1. As the words leave his lips he realises his error so runs on with Isaiah. The audience understands and it passes in a moment but the shorthand secretary has recorded the slip of the tongue for posterity.

The second is in chapter 2: 26, where Abiathar is referred to as the high priest who gave David and his companions the Bread of the presence to eat (1 Samuel 21: 1-6). But Ahimelech, father of Abiathar was the high priest at that time. Again the shorthand recorder has caught the slip. A writer in the quiet of his room composing a Gospel, or taking private dictation from Peter, would have made corrections. But if we accept that it was an unedited verbatim record of a talk, there are no problems.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is also the likeliest!

 

[patrick457]

From The Authors of the Gospels:

Finding a reason for the poor Greek of Mark was at the centre of the dating controversy. Markan priorists said it showed that Mark must have written first. Opponents, taking their stand on the historical evidence and church teaching, said Mark was written after Matthew, but their failure to provide a reason for the poor Greek of Mark made their arguments seem inconclusive.

Fortunately, increased knowledge of first century life has made it possible to throw light on this problem. 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)).
​

We’ve gone through this back in another thread, didn’t we?

Yes, it is true that the supposed ‘poor’ Greek of Mark (at least when compared with Matthew or Luke) used to be, and still does now in many circles, a proof-argument for Markan priority. This is where I think opponents of Markan priority - again, which is not to be considered the same as the Two-source theory - have a point: the argument of primitivity based on writing style is not as strong as some people like B.H. Streeter (really the father of the Two-source hypothesis) make it to be.

And of course Mark wouldn’t have been sitting in a desk! He wasn’t a medieval monk in a scriptorium. In those days, one way people wrote was by sitting cross-legged on the floor, with the roll of papyrus stretched across their knees. ​

 

[patrick457]

Two scriptural allusions of Mark are significant. The first is in chapter I, where Peter opens his talk by proclaiming a title. In the second verse, he says he is going to quote from Isaiah the prophet. But he then quotes from Malachi 3: 1. As the words leave his lips he realises his error so runs on with Isaiah. The audience understands and it passes in a moment but the shorthand secretary has recorded the slip of the tongue for posterity.

The second is in chapter 2: 26, where Abiathar is referred to as the high priest who gave David and his companions the Bread of the presence to eat (1 Samuel 21: 1-6). But Ahimelech, father of Abiathar was the high priest at that time. Again the shorthand recorder has caught the slip. A writer in the quiet of his room composing a Gospel, or taking private dictation from Peter, would have made corrections. But if we accept that it was an unedited verbatim record of a talk, there are no problems.

Another possible explanations for these are the Jewish method of attribution and an underlying Aramaic source for Mark.

For me this raises the question: why didn’t Mark choose to ‘polish’ his transcription but published them in rough form?

Sometimes the simplest explanation is also the likeliest!

The principle of Occam’s razor is that, from among competing hypotheses, to select the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle
The canon was CLOSED at Trent. What part of CLOSED do you not understand? Nothing will be added.
Let’s not be mean. btw, which part of Trent says the canon was “closed”?

I see nobody has answered this question.

I’ve asked a similar question on another thread, and nobody has answered that either.

So I’ll answer it myself:

The Canon of the Bible has NOT been closed.

In fact I’d say no Pope or Council has had the authority to bind all future popes and councils so that they are unable to add anything to the Bible. The Church made the Bible, she can enlarge or diminish it any time she wants to.

 

[colliric]

I always believe the Gospel of Mark originally ended at 16:8 because the author intended to give the impression of an incomplete ending, implying that what came later was essentially not as important as the fact of the miracle of the ressurected Christ and the fear of God it inspired in the women.

To the author this was clearly the climactic moment of Christ’s life on earth. Just like how Mel Gibson ended his film with Christ standing up in the tomb. The author must have thought from the storytelling point of view, this was the note to end on.

The Gospel ends beautifully with the line “and they were afraid.” Perhaps the most inspiring line of Scripture in the entire Gospel.

I really believe that after reading the other Gospels the Author decided to put in what we would call today, an epilogue or a post-script, that retained the artistic integrity of the ending, but also quickly confirmed the events contained in the other Gospels.

Thus it’s like a Hollywood biopic, ending on the climactic moment f an individuals career… say Mohammed Ali’s victorious win in the “Rumble in the Jungle”… and then just before the credits a textual summary of what they did afterwards. I sincerely believe Mark himself did it.

 

[colliric]

Another possible explanations for these are the Jewish method of attribution and an underlying Aramaic source for Mark.

For me this raises the question: why didn’t Mark choose to ‘polish’ his transcription but published them in rough form?

Because he didn’t really do that at all… He wanted to use his Gospel to inspire fear and faith in his audience. So he took the artistic decision to end abruptly after the greatest of all of Christ’s miracles. Just like Hollywood would(and in 2004 did), do.

“…and they were afraid.”

The End.

 

[Erich]

The principle of Occam’s razor is that, from among competing hypotheses, to select the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.

The whole Markan logical edifice is balanced on a presumption. This presumption is that the Gospel of Mark was carefully thought out and composed by him in his best Greek style. If a different scenario more consistent with history, doctrine and literary analysis replaces this presumption, the theory loses its foundation.

Markans put forward the following arguments:
a) It is agreed that Mark was not an eyewitness Apostle
b) An eyewitness Apostle would not have based his Gospel on Mark’s non-eyewitness account. Therefore, the author of the gospel referred to as ‘According to Matthew’ was not the eyewitness Apostle of that name
c) Similarly it may be shown that Paul’s secretary, Luke, did not write what we call ‘Luke’s Gospel.’

But…

Papias quoted John the Apostle’s words in defense of the style of the Gospel of Mark… so the “poor Greek” of Mark is not something first noticed in the 18th century.

Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho frequently uses the phrase the memoirs composed by the apostles [note: plural] which are called Gospels. He specifically attributes the Apocalypse to John the Apostle. So Justin accepted that apostles had written at least two of the Gospels (i.e. Matthew and John)

Irenaeus records: Matthew also brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their demise, Mark himself the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke too, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel which was being preached by him. Later on too, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even reclined on his bosom, he too brought out a Gospel while he was dwelling in Ephesus of Asia. When, in his third and fourth books, Ireneaus builds his case against three heresies, he uses quotations from the Gospels in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. In the third instance he quotes Scripture to show God was the father of Jesus, then writes: `…Matthew hath set down, and Luke also, and Mark…’ (4: 6, 1). So the order most familiar to Irenaeus was that of Luke being prior to Mark – this is consistent with the Sunday readings of the Gospels in the early churches.

Clement of Alexandria states a tradition of the very earliest presbyters about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. He used to say that the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. While Peter was publicly preaching the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, the audience, which was numerous, begged Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write down the things he had said.

In his letter, Epistula ad Damasum, addressed to the Pope and enclosed with his final text, Jerome had to explain why he had adopted the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John order. This indicates it was not normally used in the West. During the same years, Jerome compiled De Viris Illustribus [On Illustrious Men]. When describing these men, he does so in the order of Matthew (chapter 3), Luke (7), Mark (8) and John (9). This was the Clementine order.

During Jerome’s lifetime, Augustine wrote his: De Consensu Evangelistarum in four volumes. In the first volume he wrote that the received order was Matthew-Mark-Luke and John, but the order of dignity was Matthew-John-Mark and Luke. In his fourth volume he explains that Mark’s Gospel developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke, so confirming that Luke wrote before Mark.

Remarks such as, the evidence shows that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Greek, or Papias is unreliable, are sometimes made today. But these remarks are not based on historical research. They are made on the presumption that the Markan priority theory has been proved. It is this ‘evidence’ (i.e. a theory) that they claim shows the historical evidence to be in error.

The early historians all clearly report that Matthew wrote the first Gospel… so actually it is the Markan priority theory which makes the greater number of assumptions! Any theory, however clever, must be doubted when it is unable to face the challenge of history. Orchard’s solution was in complete conformity with the internal evidence, the records of all the ancient historians and with church tradition. It also opened the way to explaining why the final verses of Mark appear disjointed. Also why archaeologists have found two versions of Mark’s Gospel.

The Authors of the Gospels sets out the evidence for all this in much greater detail than I can possibly do in the limited space here.

 

[patrick457]

The whole Markan logical edifice is balanced on a presumption. This presumption is that the Gospel of Mark was carefully thought out and composed by him in his best Greek style. If a different scenario more consistent with history, doctrine and literary analysis replaces this presumption, the theory loses its foundation.

Markans put forward the following arguments:
a) It is agreed that Mark was not an eyewitness Apostle
b) An eyewitness Apostle would not have based his Gospel on Mark’s non-eyewitness account. Therefore, the author of the gospel referred to as ‘According to Matthew’ was not the eyewitness Apostle of that name
c) Similarly it may be shown that Paul’s secretary, Luke, did not write what we call ‘Luke’s Gospel.’

I’m not a standard ‘Markan’ (whatever that is) since I also believe that the Gospels are of apostolic origin. So, no contest here.

 

[patrick457]

When, in his third and fourth books, Ireneaus builds his case against three heresies, he uses quotations from the Gospels in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. In the third instance he quotes Scripture to show God was the father of Jesus, then writes: `…Matthew hath set down, and Luke also, and Mark…’ (4: 6, 1). So the order most familiar to Irenaeus was that of Luke being prior to Mark – this is consistent with the Sunday readings of the Gospels in the early churches.

To be honest, I feel that this argument reads too much into the order Irenaeus and a number of other writers speak of the Gospels being written. Under the same vein one could also conceivably use Papias - who is after all one of the very first explicit testimonies we have - to prove Markan priority: at least the way Eusebius quotes him, Papias seems to write about Mark first before he even speaks of Matthew. And invoking that would be as equally weak.

This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Clement of Alexandria states a tradition of the very earliest presbyters about the order of the gospels; and it had this form. He used to say that the first written of the gospels were those having the genealogies. And that the Gospel of Mark had this formation. While Peter was publicly preaching the Word in Rome and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, the audience, which was numerous, begged Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write down the things he had said.

As I’ve mentioned earlier (if you’ll dig through this thread) Clement is really the only explicit ancient testimony we have regarding the Griesbachian order of the Gospels. Jerome in De Viris Illustribus is dependent upon Clement, and so is, at best, a second-hand source.

In his letter, Epistula ad Damasum, addressed to the Pope and enclosed with his final text, Jerome had to explain why he had adopted the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John order. This indicates it was not normally used in the West.

Actually, what Jerome writes is:

Therefore, this present little preface promises only the four Gospels, the order of which is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, revised in comparison with only old Greek books. They do not disagree with many familiar Latin readings, as we have kept our pen in control, but only those in which the sense will have been seen to have changed (from the Greek) are corrected; the rest remain as they have been.

If one reads further, it becomes apparent that he is not explaining the order of the Gospels per se, but how the Eusebian canons work. He addresses the problem of scribes mixing up and harmonizing nearly-similar readings from different synoptic gospels, and explains to Damasus that with the help of the canon tables “the confusion of errors is removed, and you will know all the similar passages, and the singular ones, wherever you may turn to.”

 

[patrick457]

During Jerome’s lifetime, Augustine wrote his: De Consensu Evangelistarum in four volumes. In the first volume he wrote that the received order was Matthew-Mark-Luke and John, but the order of dignity was Matthew-John-Mark and Luke. In his fourth volume he explains that Mark’s Gospel developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke, so confirming that Luke wrote before Mark.

What then do you make of this (The Harmony of the Gospels, 1.2.1)?

Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four—it may be for the simple reason that there are four divisions of that world through the universal length of which they, by their number as by a kind of mystical sign, indicated the advancing extension of the Church of Christ—are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John. Hence, too, [it would appear that] these had one order determined among them with regard to the matters of their personal knowledge and their preaching [of the gospel], but a different order in reference to the task of giving the written narrative. As far, indeed, as concerns the acquisition of their own knowledge and the charge of preaching, those unquestionably came first in order who were actually followers of the Lord when He was present in the flesh, and who heard Him speak and saw Him act; and [with a commission received] from His lips they were dispatched to preach the gospel. But as respects the task of composing that record of the gospel which is to be accepted as ordained by divine authority, there were (only) two, belonging to the number of those whom the Lord chose before the passover, that obtained places—namely, the first place and the last. For the first place in order was held by Matthew, and the last by John. And thus the remaining two, who did not belong to the number referred to, but who at the same time had become followers of the Christ who spoke in these others, were supported on either side by the same, like sons who were to be embraced, and who in this way were set in the midst between these two.

And where in book four does Augustine explain “that Mark’s Gospel developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke, so confirming that Luke wrote before Mark”?