Markan priority (soul, translation, disciples, church)

[TRANSPONDER]

I must apologise in advance for a 'hobby -horse /Pet theory' thread that will probably interest nobody (other than Troutdude, who knows that I am working on a Book) but I came across this in refreshing my memory about the First Pope's bones claim.

This sequence, known as "Markan priority," may be nearing collapse as an intellectual construct. To back it, a scholar needs to ignore most external evidence regarding the order of the synoptics—that evidence favors the traditional order—and he needs to believe in the existence of a "sayings source," a first-century document supposedly used by Matthew and Luke to fill in the gaps in Mark’s account.
What is the real story about the order of the synoptic gospels? | Catholic Answers.

I disagree with this explanation totally. It strikes me as utterly inadequate and explains nothing, gives no evidence and ignores what evidence there is.

The 'external evidence' for the Augustinian order of sequence is not given, but I suspect that it will be based on early church fathers' claims. The alternative to Mark being the prior document requires that Mark left out all of that material found in Matthew and Luke rather than Matthew and Luke having added it. And why shouldn't they have added it? Objective analysis of the gospels shows much material found in Matthew that Luke not only doesn't have but contradicts and vice versa. The evidence thus indicates that they added their material. That a body of it is evidently the same argues the existence of a common source. And that it was written rather than an oral tradition is shown by the duplicated wording of text passages while being placed (see below) in different contexts. There is strong evidence for 'Q' and that it was a written collection of sayings and the dismissal in this explanation is really very poor and I believe will go, together with the Matthian priority theory, the same way as the Ptolemaic theory.

Now I don't doubt that these Catholic apologists are very erudite, learned and qualified, but the fact is that I already know that they have a blind spot where it comes to anything that conflicts with their Faith and doctrine. A superb book on Matthew (I won't name names) was marred by a relapse into blinkered dismissal when it came to the two donkeys. That Matthew took the OT passage 'upon an ass and upon a colt, the foal of an ass' literally as being an ass and also a ass-colt was dismissed as a 'wooden' reading when it is clear from Mark, Luke and John that there is only one animal and Matthew's two animals is simply wrong and requires explanation. That the OT passage was taken literally is the simple and obvious one and to reject that is, as I say, blinkered (1).

I agree that Matthew cannot be based on Mark but not for the reason given - that Matthew and Luke have material (much of it common material) not found in Mark. If they were based on Mark, they would have to have added material from another source. This source - 'Q' - is then dismissed out of hand as an 'intellectual construct' which to put it another way, is a conclusion based on the internal evidence. That it was a written source is also observable from the internal evidence, since Luke uses the Q material (probably a collection of sayings, like the Gospel of Thomas - which had also vanished without trace or mention by the early fathers, until found in the Faiyum) in totally different places than Matthew has. Notably (in Luke) the 'Lord's prayer' is taught on the trip to Jerusalem while Matthew has it as part of his sermon on the mount.

I would have said that Matthew and Luke had to have been based on Mark, were it not that Mark gets confused about the direction of trips across lake Genessaret. Mainly because of 6. 30, where the 'lonely' place is apparently placed near Capernaum when it is actually near Bethsaida, because that was where the loaves and fishes are done. Then Mark has them all sailing across to Bethsaida and that is where Jesus walks on water. Now, if Matthew and Luke had copied Mark that is what they would have had, but they do not, and nor does John. The lonely place where the feasting was given is at Bethsaida and the walking of water is done on the return to Capernaum. Clearly, Mark got a bit confused about his text and Matthew, Luke and John, didn't.

That said, that Mark doesn't have the sermon on the mount and John's messengers and other 'Q' material that Luke and Matthew share (as well as the discrepant nativity, death of Judas and resurrection, which they emphatically do not 'share' but wrote independently) indicates that his gospel is nearer to the original synoptic text which has now of course vanished.

P.s I should observe of course than not only do Matthew and Luke share 'Q' material, but Luke and John share what I am pleased to call 'P' material - stories about Jesus circulating at a later date. e.g that Jesus turned up on the Sunday evening to see the disciples, show his wounds and have a bit of fish. That this was a floating story is shown by John and Luke having the display of the resurrected holes the same evening as they have to be, but John shifts his eating of the bit of fish to Galilee where he combines it with a tradition of the miraculous haul of fish, which Luke also has, but he combines it with the calling of the disciples. Clearly or evidently, these are not eyewitness accounts, nor copying of text (even though there is plenty of rearrangement of synoptic text) but working in tales about Jesus that were circulating in their day (2).

There is also what I call Mark/Matthew material and while I could see some of it as 'Synoptic original' which Luke changes (e.g the deathwords changed from 'why have you forsaken me?' to a more resigned acceptance) there is a whole body of Genessaret material - the bay of pigs episode, the second feasting and the Syrio -phoenecian/Caananite woman - which Luke doesn't have, and significantly nor does John, who surely worked independently of the synoptics.

Thus, the evidence seems to be that the (lost) synoptic original got amended with this Genessaret -decapolis material into a gospel which Mark and Matthew based their gospels on. It is unsettling for me to postulate yet another lost synoptic gospel, but the evidence seems to indicate that there was one that Luke simply didn't have before him.

(1) Ha! A foopnote. And blinkered through faith. It is a requirement of Faith that Matthew's account be correct, when it clearly isn't, that he be an eyewitness when he clearly wasn't and that the gospels are reliable as fact when they clearly aren't.

(2) and another one! A puzzle for me was why Luke doesn't have the walking on water. It should be on the return to Capernaum (Genessaret) at Luke 9. 30 -50 but it is strikingly not there. Now I would have suggested that Luke left it out if he felt that it was an embarrassment, but I can't see why (too absurd?) and that is not his way. He alters stuff that doesn't suit him (the anointing, the angel's message) but he doesn't omit. And John also has the walking on water. That surely is strong evidence for it being original material? I have begun to consider a rather daring theory that this walking on water is actually a late 'floating' story. That John added later traditions is argued above. That Matthew and Mark worked from an updated gospel which Luke didn't have is also argued. Is it not possible that the walking on water was a later story associated with the loaves and fishes which was added as part of the Mark/Matthew revision and which John also picked up? It impresses me that they are all similar and smack in the same place (aside that Mark has his walking on the water on the way to Bethsaida not on the way back), but it is the only explanation as to why Luke (who is pretty late himself) doesn't have it.

[whoppers]

Hey, an interesting thread! That's becoming increasingly rare these days. (I will just refer to The Gospel of Mark as "Mark", The Gospel of Matthew as "Matthew", etc. for convenience's sake. This in no way implies authorship, but is merely shorthand.)

Markan priority has several things going for it, with the main evidence being the virtually verbatim borrowings of many passages from Mark directly into Matthew and Luke. This is seen in English translation to some degree, but one can see it much better in the original Greek. Since we're on a Catholic theme, I will use one of the best Catholic scholars on the New Testament Gospels to demonstrate some of the things we can know about the Gospel: Raymond Brown, and his excellent An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997). In addition to whole-scale borrowing of direct passages from Mark, there are passages that are unique to Matthew and Luke but which are not shared by each other - not derived from Mark, in other words. These are given various names, but I will call them M (Matthew) and L (Luke). Then there are the so-called Q passages which are not Markan borrowings, but are shared - to some degree - by both Matthew and Luke. This is a quick summation of the source material used in the Synoptic Gospels.

Concerning Matthew, R. Brown writes of Mark that "this is Matt's principal source.... Mark had been designed to make Jesus intelligible to a Gentile audience; and Matt, in order to serve a community that was becoming more and more Gentile, found Mark a useful framework into which to incorporate Q, a very Jewish collection of Jesus' teaching" (ibid., pp. 203-204). Matthew's borrowings from Mark are so blatant that "overall Matt is remarkably faithful to Mark, almost as a scribe copying his source. Nevertheless, in the changes (minor in length) to what is taken over from Mark, one can detect Matthean thought and proclivities" (ibid., p. 204). So while Matt borrows from Mark heavily, he has his own theological views and omits and changes various passages to make his points.

As for using Q in Matthew, "in terms of content Matt appears to be reasonably faithful to Q even as he was to Mark. Yet the way in which Q is used is not consistently the same, and the order of Q is adapted to Matthew's sense of order" (ibid,. p. 205). Again, Matthew is not afraid to make theological changes to suit his purpose and his audience.

The non-Markan and non-Q material that is original to Matthew is also present, and could represent Matthean originality, received tradition or oral tradition. It is not shared by Luke.

Brown concludes by stating that even though Matthew used sources, "he produced a highly effective narrative about Jesus that smoothly blended together what he received" (ibid., p. 208). The important factor here in favor of Markan priority, when viewing the sources of Matthew is the very blatant word-for-word borrowings from Mark that Matthew makes use of.

That at least - is some evidence for Markan priority from Matthew.

By the way - Matthew, at least, DOES leave out some Markan material that might be construed as too superstitious for his audience, and it is highly likely that Luke did the same thing. Each writer had his own views on Jesus, and were more than willing to add or omit any details that might serve their purpose. For instance, both Matthew and Luke give entirely different apologetics for the title of Jesus of Nazareth and the Bethlehem connection. That is fairly well-known, I think.

For the omission of the Walking on Sea Narrative of Mark in Luke, Brown suggests the following:

Reflecting Christological sensibilities, Luke is more reverential about Jesus and avoids passages that might make him seem emotional, harsh, or weak, e.g., Luke eliminates: Mark 1:41, 43 where Jesus is moved with pity or is stern; Mark 4:39 where Jesus speaks directly to the sea; Mark 10:14a where Jesus is indignant; Mark 11:15b where Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers; Mark 11:20-25 where Jesus curses a fig tree; Mark 13:32 where Jesus says that the Son does not know the day or the hour; Mark 13:33-34 where Jesus is troubled and his soul is sorrowful until death; Mark 15:34 where Jesus speaks of God forsaking him.
(ibid., 264)

From these omissions one can see the slow change of Jesus into Christ, the dehumanization of Jesus into something more. One of the most interesting passages of Mark is the one that Luke omits: Mark 1:40, etc. - where Jesus becomes angry at the leper (or pities him, according to textual changes that were likely made to make him seem less harsh - courtesy of scribes; Luke just omits it). The textual versions of Jesus getting angry make more sense. It's no wonder that Luke omits it, and later scribes change it entirely and remove that anger.

[TRANSPONDER]

"By the way - Matthew, at least, DOES leave out some Markan material that might be construed as too superstitious for his audience,"

Can you give an example? I am still working, but haven't found any such examples yet. The omissions are more of a tidying up or perhaps over elaborations by Mark, such as the confusion about Bethsaida, to many to-ings and fro-ings at Gethsemane and turning one day of fracas at the temple into three (Matthew only has two) and the business with Pilate and the centurion (15.44) which raises more problems than it answers. If anything it is Matthew who adds miraculous material which appears nowhere else.

I shall have a look at the Luke passages you mention.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thanks for you interest in this thread, which I thought had sunk like a zink brick.
For the omission of the Walking on Sea Narrative of Mark in Luke, Brown suggests the following:
(I add comments in brackets)

Reflecting Christological sensibilities, Luke is more reverential about Jesus and avoids passages that might make him seem emotional, harsh, or weak, e.g., Luke eliminates: Mark 1:41, 43 where Jesus is moved with pity or is stern; (Luke has this at 5. 12.) Mark 4:39 where Jesus speaks directly to the sea; (Luke 8 23Yes, but here there are just examples of tinkering with the text. Mark adding compassion not found in Matthew or Luke who follow the same wording. Luke agrees with mark in 'we're going to drown' and it is Matthew who waters down their almost accusing appeal to: 'saying, Lord, save us: we perish'.) Mark 10:14a where Jesus is indignant; (Matthew and Luke agree, so Mark is on his own. Did he add the indignation, or could both Luke and Matthew have deleted it?) Mark 11:15b where Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers; (Mark and Matthew agree. Is that common additional material or did Luke find it too violent?) Mark 11:20-25 where Jesus curses a fig tree; (Luke doesn't have this) Mark 13:32 where Jesus says that the Son does not know the day or the hour; (Matthew also has this and Luke doesn't, but they both have the following parable of the servants, which Matthew characteristically expands into several parables. The explanation that this reflects on Jesus will not wash and this is one of the several indications of expansion of the text in Mark and Matthew with material which Luke didn't have, since i can't understand why he would omit it.) Mark 13:33-34 where Jesus is troubled and his soul is sorrowful until death; (that's not in Luke, and one could argue that he left it out as not being the sort of image of Jesus that he preferred. But the fact is that there are common lines (the praying for the cup to be removed - which one would have thought Luke would remove if he was so particular about the Image of his Jesus) and considerable differences otherwise. What I suggest is that the basic story has these lines but clearly needs some padding out. Matthew and mark had the padding already provided for them, which is why they match so closely, but Luke didn't and so he wrote his own. It wasn't a question on having but not much liking, the Matthew/mark material.

Mark 15:34 where Jesus speaks of God forsaking him.(Matthew also has this and here I can agree that Luke thought that “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit".was a more reverential remark, but Luke actually adds this to the 'loud cry'. Mark and Matthew have before that the business with the sponge, calling Elijah and the quote from psalms is additional material that Matthew and Mark share and is missing from Luke. Now, it's possible to say that Luke added his last words but dropped the sponge and Elijah business, but again, I can't think why, and there are many examples of Mark/Matthew common material which isn't in Luke and the rather easy explanation that he's just left it out as he felt that it wasn't reverential enough doesn't convince me. I am hoping one day to show that comparison of the text will show that there is a whole body of added material common to Mark and Matthew that isn't in Luke as there is a body of material in Matthew and Luke that isn't in mark and it isn't because Mark felt that it wasn't suitable, but because he didn't know of it. And the only reason Mark didn't know of it when Matthew and Luke did is because he didn't copy Matthew.

Now, I'd also say that the walking on water was Matthew/Mark material, but John has it, too. Thus, either Luke has deleted it, but as I have suggested, he doesn't delete passages that may not reflect well on Jesus (indeed some don't reflect on him at all) but amends them and even adds to them. But he does 'omit' a body of material wholesale that does look to me like a body of material common to Matthew and Mark that Luke didn't have. That would cover the walking on water if it were not that John has it, too. That is why I am entertaining the idea that it was indeed Mark/Matthew material added to the synoptic gospel that they (but not Luke) worked from, but also it was a good story that John picked up, too. Against this is that John's text is very close to Matthew's and Mark's and suggests a written example, so I am still not decided about why Luke didn't have the story. But that it was omitted entirely because it wasn't 'reverential' enough for luke just doesn't convince me in the least. And not because it doesn't fit my Theory, as I would be quite content with that explanation, if it fitted the facts, but I don't think it does.

For reference, the compared texts below.


Mark 1.40 A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean." 41 Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" 42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. 43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: 44 "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."

Matthew 8. 8 When Jesus came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him. 2 A man with leprosy[a] came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”
3 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy. 4 Then Jesus said to him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

Luke 5. 12 While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy.[b] When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”13 Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And immediately the leprosy left him. 14 Then Jesus ordered him, “Don’t tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”


Mark 4: 37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?” 39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

Matthew 8. 24 And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep.25 And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. 26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

Luke 8. 23 As they sailed, he fell asleep. A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger. 24 The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we’re going to drown!” He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm

Mark 10. 13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant.
Matthew 19. 13 Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me,
Luke 18. 15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him

Mark 11.15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’
Matthew 21. 5 So they came to Jerusalem. Then Jesus went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 16 And He would not allow anyone to carry wares through the temple. 17 Then He taught, saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’
Luke 19. 45 Then He went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in it, 46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house is a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”

Mark 13. 32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Matthew 24. 36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Mark 14. 33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.
Matthew
Matthew 26. 37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. 38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
Luke 22. 39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

Mark 15. 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.” 36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said. 37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
Matthew 27. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.” 48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
Luke 23..44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[e] When he had said this, he breathed his last.

[TRANSPONDER]

P s response. The above aside, Brown is right, I think to go for Markan priority. I just say that Mark as the basis won't do and an earlier source (not used by Luke) which Mark and Matthew both used has to be posited and Mark as noted above may have added some elaborations of his own, such as the pillow and Pilate asking about Jesus' death (as I say, I think Mark's slight tinkering with the Lake Galilee trips led him into a blunder, which mistake Matthew didn't make) and then I am inclined to regard his elaboration of the times Jesus went to pray at Gethsemane or the days of the temple dust up (1) as his propensity to over elaborate rather than Matthew and Luke simplifying text pretty much like Mark's.

So perhaps Brown is also tacitly agreeing with me that Mark also had his additions to a common text that he shared with Matthew and I fully agree with him about Matthew's additions given a striking idea of his personality, writing -style and priorities.

(1) Mark extends this to three days whereas Matthew only makes it two. In fact Luke and indeed John, if his 2.13 is restored to 12. 20, from where it was unceremoniously bundled, place the procession and temple - cleansing on the same day. I should say all three had their way of altering the story to reduce the impact of the procession and temple fracas happening at the same time.

P.p. s I apologize for the turgid and intractable nature of the subject matter and style.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

P s response. The above aside, Brown is right, I think to go for Markan priority. I just say that Mark as the basis won't do and an earlier source (not used by Luke) which Mark and Matthew both used has to be posited and Mark as noted above may have added some elaborations of his own, such as the pillow and Pilate asking about Jesus' death (as I say, I think Mark's slight tinkering with the Lake Galilee trips led him into a blunder, which mistake Matthew didn't make) and then I am inclined to regard his elaboration of the times Jesus went to pray at Gethsemane or the days of the temple dust up (1) as his propensity to over elaborate rather than Matthew and Luke simplifying text pretty much like Mark's.

So perhaps Brown is also tacitly agreeing with me that Mark also had his additions to a common text that he shared with Matthew and I fully agree with him about Matthew's additions given a striking idea of his personality, writing -style and priorities.

(1) Mark extends this to three days whereas Matthew only makes it two. In fact Luke and indeed John, if his 2.13 is restored to 12. 20, from where it was unceremoniously bundled, place the procession and temple - cleansing on the same day. I should say all three had their way of altering the story to reduce the impact of the procession and temple fracas happening at the same time.

P.p. s I apologize for the turgid and intractable nature of the subject matter and style.

The information you've provided is invaluable, though a bit confusing to my limited brain. Of course, much or religion is or it wouldn't be so widely accepted. Keep up the good work and I'll attempt to arrange it in my head where I can make sense of it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

The information you've provided is invaluable, though a bit confusing to my limited brain. Of course, much or religion is or it wouldn't be so widely accepted. Keep up the good work and I'll attempt to arrange it in my head where I can make sense of it.

I do apologize. I am aware that absorbing my writing style is like trying to drink a yard of snot. It is worse because I am thumping it down in one coagulated mass in limited time.

I trust that the Book wil be more readable. This has been called my Pet Theory. In fact it isn't as I believe that much of it is obvious to anyone who does the comparison and analysis with an open mind - it is time -consuming but not rocket science and I do believe that the erudite experts simply haven't bothered to do it, preferring easy ad hoc explanations like maybe Luke wanted to be more respectful.

Not in the least having a go at Whopps or his welcome post, but I just think there needs more work done.

Now Eusebius who hasn't been around for a while did raise an important (though not new) point, or approach, which is that discrepancies can be overcome or explained by combining the accounts. e.g the anointing Galilee is a different event from the anointing in Galilee. Witnesses don't always agree and details may be forgotten, so (he argued) it is necessary to combine the details of various witness-accounts in an interwoven whole. I, on the other hand, argue that similar but differently timed or located events which have gaps where the related event would be should reasonably be seen as the same event, but rewritten, for some reason.,

The basis of my approach is to point up related text that shows clear signs of being copied out from an original, e.g in descriptive text which an individual would compose themselves, rather than speech which (it can be claimed) is the same as remembered.

If it can be demonstrated that the gospels were derived from common text, then departures can be shown to be the individual writer's work. I claim that many of Luke's parables are his own work, Matthew's guard nativity account and appearance of the risen Jesus is his own work.

Mark does not have much of his 'own work' though there are odd bits, so I do tend to see it as closer to the original.

Now I do have a Pet Theory, which i have hinted at, but this is rather speculative. I claim that the redaction work and the conclusions about what is based on earlier text and what is original is evidence -based, not speculative, and my view of the disciples and Paul comes somewhere in between.

[TRANSPONDER]

erratum 'e.g the anointing Galilee is a different event from the anointing in Galilee.' should of course read:

'e.g the anointing in Galilee is a different event from the anointing at Bethany'.

[Astron1000]

Thanks for this thread, Arequipa. Though I will likely have nothing to contribute I think it is an interesting read!

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Thanks for you interest in this thread, which I thought had sunk like a zink brick.

I always like digging into Biblical details, though I'm more at home with the Hebrew Bible, rather than the Greek New Testament.

Before I get to commenting on your posts, I'll quickly point out that I don't think Brown (or any other New Testament scholar) is positing that Mark was necessarily the very first source of material. This is where Q, oral traditions and other writings come in. But more on that later, perhaps. First, I'll answer your initial question to my post about Matthew avoiding superstition. Again, I'll appeal to R. Brown as he seems to sum it up very nicely.

Reflecting Christological sensibilities, Matt is more reverential about Jesus and avoids what might limit him or make him appear naïve or superstitious, e.g., Matt 8:25-26 changes the chiding question posed by the disciples to Jesus in Mark 4:38 and eliminates Jesus' speaking to the wind and sea in the next Marcan verse; 9:22 eliminates the implication in Mark 5:30-31 that Jesus did not know who touched him and that the disciples thought he had asked a foolish question; 13:55 changes to "carpenter's son" the description in Mark 6:3 of Jesus as a carpenter; 15:30-31 omits Mark's account (7:32-36) of the spittle healing of the deaf mute; 19:16-17 changes Mark 10:17-18 to avoid the implication that Jesus cannot be called good, for God alone is good; 21:12-13 omits Mark 11:16 and the picture of Jesus blockading the Temple.
(ibid,. 204)

Matthew changes quit a lot of Jesus' human qualities into "Christological" qualities, as Brown puts it. Luke does this, as well. The Jesus we find in the Gospel of Mark is a much more human man, with human weaknesses, emotions and failings. It is a very appealing and relatable portrait of Jesus, I think. But the later Gospel writers did not feel this way, thus the changes they made to their Markan (I have no idea why some use "Marcan" - some arcane rule of English, or the original form of the name) source to reflect a Jesus that was more than human, closer to the divine, less prone to the humanity that he was supposed to have been transcending.

I think if you look at this way, you can see why the changes and omissions were made. The story of Jesus' encounter with the Leper in Mark 1 is especially instructive, especially if one favors the more probable version in which Jesus is angry with the leper and sternly sends him away - no matter what the reasons for his anger were (and multiple explanations could be given for his anger - all of them making sense, but some more than others).

A good rule of thumb is to put yourself in the place of Luke or Matthew and imagine you are trying to make Jesus into Christ. Jesus of Nazareth becomes Jesus Christ. What parts of Mark would YOU trim, edit or add to? And what additional details from other sources would you rally to your cause? I like to exclude John from this, simply because he just went off the deep end with this interpretation of Jesus. Another key is finding what each Gospel writer was trying to say, and what kind of picture they were trying to paint - they each had their own message and even their own view of the importance of his death, and even how Jesus himself perceived (or expected) it.