Gospel priority

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Paul Davidson, former member of The Forum, has a great Skeptical Website here:

Is That in the Bible?

and, unlike me, he does a lot of research and goes into a lot of detail. Kind of like he graduated from the Forum here.

Regarding GLuke not just being later than GMark, but using it as a source, of course Hawkins made the argument hundreds of years ago:

Horae Synopticae.Demonstration of the NonApostolic Preaching

For those who are not familiar with Avery, he wants the supposed GLuke/Acts author to be early because he wants Acts to be early so he can claim a chain of supposed witness from Jesus to subsequent Christianity. Since Hawkins' time there is also the additional category of Style that favors GMark, and a subcategory of Style is completeness, which Editorial fatigue is part of. Davidson has a great post demonstrating evidence in favor of GMark regarding a breakdown of the Parable of the Sower (comparing GMark to GLuke):

There are at least three problems resulting from fatigue (Goodacre 2001, p. 74f):

Luke omits the part of the parable where the seed sprang up quickly because it lacked depth of soil. However, he still provides an interpretation for that part of the parable!
Where Mark’s seed on the rock withered “because it had no root”, Luke changes the reason to be that “it withered for lack of moisture”. However, his interpretation addresses Mark’s original version — that it withered because it had no root. His interpretation does not address the lack of moisture.
Luke removes Mark’s reference to the sun the scorched the seed on the rocky ground, yet he provides an interpretation for it: the “testing” that causes people to fall away.

You find this superior consistency of GMark over the other Synoptics over and over again ad nazorean(especially with GMark's chiasms).


Joseph

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0

The New Porphyry

[Ken Olson]

I don't think any of the evangelists that were later gathered into the four gospel canon meant for his work to be read alongside other gospels which had equal authority.

I sometimes wonder about John vis-a-vis Mark, whether it was intended to be a John and Mark situation by the author of John. The idea that John attempted to supplement a gospel like Mark seems at least possible. The focus of the dialogue is very different, and there might even be something to the idea of the church fathers that John intended to fill in the blanks prior to the arrest of John the Baptist.

But I may be missing something. Is this not a viable idea?

John is a possible exception with regard to Mark. Richard Bauckham argued for that thesis in the chapter 'John for Readers of Mark' in his Gospel for All Christians (1998).

Wendy Sproston North argued against Bauckahm in 'John for Readers of Mark? A Response to Richard Bauckham's Proposal' in JSNT 25.4 (2003) 449-468.

ABTSRACT

This article is a response to Richard Bauckham’s second contribution to the influential volume The Gospels for All Christians, in which he proposes that the Fourth Gospel was not written specifically for the Johannine community but for Christians in general. Following a general summary of his argument, the response focuses largely on Bauckham’s exegesis of Jn 11.2, which, he claims, was unequivocally directed to readers who knew Mark’s Gospel but who had no knowledge of distinctively Johannine traditions. In the main section, Bauckham’s argument is summarized under five points, each of which is answered by detailed comment. This investigation finds that his interpretation of 11.2, which is the single basis upon which his whole case is constructed, is flawed.

I'd have to reread those to remember the details of the arguments, but I thought she had the better of it.

I think John knew all the synoptics and thought they were completely inadequate in their christologies.

Best,

Ken

Thank you! I appreciate the references.

I had lunch with Mark Goodacre yesterday and we talked about John and the synoptics, which is what he is currently working on. He thinks that John is assuming that his readers probably know Mark. We talked about John 18.11, 'Am I not to drink from the cup my father has given me?' The question would seem to require a knowledge of the cup in the Gethsemane scene (Mark 14.36) to be intelligible.

Here is a slide I made for the episode I did on John and the Synoptics on Jacob Berman's History Valley YouTube channel:

J&S 5 - Mark and John - John's Heavily Modified Passion Narrative.png (245.88 KiB) Viewed 242 times

(Unfortunately, the image is reversed in the video)

I think John expected his readers to be familiar with the Gethsemane scene from Mark (and/or possibly the other synoptics), but I also think he meant for his conception of Jesus, who is a powerful figure orchestrating the events of the Passion Narrative rather than a victim, unwilling but obedient to God's will, to replace Mark's conception of Jesus. So the question of John's relationship to Mark can't be answered simply in terms of whether John meant to supplement or replace Mark.

Best,

Ken

[davidmartin]

Luke omits the part of the parable where the seed sprang up quickly because it lacked depth of soil. However, he still provides an interpretation for that part of the parable!
Where Mark’s seed on the rock withered “because it had no root”, Luke changes the reason to be that “it withered for lack of moisture”. However, his interpretation addresses Mark’s original version — that it withered because it had no root. His interpretation does not address the lack of moisture.
Luke removes Mark’s reference to the sun the scorched the seed on the rocky ground, yet he provides an interpretation for it: the “testing” that causes people to fall away.

reference to Thomas better explains it where it doesn't say why the seed won't grow in the rocks so Luke and Mark want to add something
Luke see's in Thomas they don't 'take root' so he has roots in mind for his explanation of having 'no root' though he adds the reason of moisture
Mark adds they had 'no root' which could have come from Luke's explanation and maybe then he adds a bunch of other stuff about the sun
so whichever theory you prefer its easy to come up with statements like the quoted one. not convincing.

[Ken Olson]

Luke omits the part of the parable where the seed sprang up quickly because it lacked depth of soil. However, he still provides an interpretation for that part of the parable!
Where Mark’s seed on the rock withered “because it had no root”, Luke changes the reason to be that “it withered for lack of moisture”. However, his interpretation addresses Mark’s original version — that it withered because it had no root. His interpretation does not address the lack of moisture.
Luke removes Mark’s reference to the sun the scorched the seed on the rocky ground, yet he provides an interpretation for it: the “testing” that causes people to fall away.

reference to Thomas better explains it where it doesn't say why the seed won't grow in the rocks so Luke and Mark want to add something
Luke see's in Thomas they don't 'take root' so he has roots in mind for his explanation of having 'no root' though he adds the reason of moisture
Mark adds they had 'no root' which could have come from Luke's explanation and maybe then he adds a bunch of other stuff about the sun
so whichever theory you prefer its easy to come up with statements like the quoted one. not convincing.

Have you read Mark Goodacre's 'Fatigue in the Synoptics" or his introductory book: The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, which has a section on the argument from fatigue? It doesn't sound like you have grasped the argument or why it would be convincing to anyone. You're just saying that there are other possibilities. If you had to state the argument that you are dismissing as not convincing, how would you do it?

Mark Goodacre, Fatigue in the Synoptics:

https://markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm

Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic problem: A Way Through the Maze:

https://archive.org/details/synopticproblemw00good

Best,

Ken

[JoeWallack]

I had lunch with Mark Goodacre yesterday and we talked about John and the synoptics, which is what he is currently working on. He thinks that John is assuming that his readers probably know Mark. We talked about John 18.11, 'Am I not to drink from the cup my father has given me?' The question would seem to require a knowledge of the cup in the Gethsemane scene (Mark 14.36) to be intelligible.

Here is a slide I made for the episode I did on John and the Synoptics on Jacob Berman's History Valley YouTube channel:

J&S 5 - Mark and John - John's Heavily Modified Passion Narrative.png

(Unfortunately, the image is reversed in the video)

I think John expected his readers to be familiar with the Gethsemane scene from Mark (and/or possibly the other synoptics), but I also think he meant for his conception of Jesus, who is a powerful figure orchestrating the events of the Passion Narrative rather than a victim, unwilling but obedient to God's will, to replace Mark's conception of Jesus. So the question of John's relationship to Mark can't be answered simply in terms of whether John meant to supplement or replace Mark.

Best,

Ken

JW:
See my related Thread:

Discrediting Your Source. GJohn as Denial of GMark

This suggests that in GJohn's time (c. 150) it was recognized that GMark was the original Gospel narrative. KK pointed out that Christian Bible scholarship is gradually accepting that GMark is mostly critical of Peter and The Disciples. They are still resisting the significance of 16:8 as the ending and adding in subsequent Gospels in order to still have the position that GMark implied a conversion of The Disciples after its conclusion. This is where Goodacre is. I think he is one of the better Internet Christian Bible scholars although he does have some ridiculous positions (like Secret Mark).

GMark is a total discrediting of The Disciples (like Paul) and CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) will get there eventually. While Goodacre's analysis of detail like the above is excellent, he is still missing the big picture. GJohn is intended to completely contradict GMark by crediting The Disciples from the beginning with belief in Jesus. This type of total contradiction is a sign of what your source is.

Specifically here you need to add in "Mark's" related:

10

38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40 but to sit on my right hand or on [my] left hand is not mine to give; but [it is for them] for whom it hath been prepared.

You need this to get the irony of The Cup references:

• 1) Literally they will drink from Jesus' cup at the Eucharist.
  
  2) Figuratively they will not be crucified with Jesus.

You see this over and over Ad Nazorean in the Gospels, they have pieces of what is only complete in GMark.


Joseph

"Cast your bread upon the water and it shall come back a thousand fold. But who the hell wants a 1,000 loaves of soggy bread?" - Monster

The New Porphyry

[Ken Olson]

This suggests that in GJohn's time (c. 150) it was recognized that GMark was the original Gospel narrative. KK pointed out that Christian Bible scholarship is gradually accepting that GMark is mostly critical of Peter and The Disciples. They are still resisting the significance of 16:8 as the ending and adding in subsequent Gospels in order to still have the position that GMark implied a conversion of The Disciples after its conclusion. This is where Goodacre is. I think he is one of the better Internet Christian Bible scholars although he does have some ridiculous positions (like Secret Mark).

GMark is a total discrediting of The Disciples (like Paul) and CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) will get there eventually. While Goodacre's analysis of detail like the above is excellent, he is still missing the big picture. GJohn is intended to completely contradict GMark by crediting The Disciples from the beginning with belief in Jesus. This type of total contradiction is a sign of what your source is.

Specifically here you need to add in "Mark's" related:

10

38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
39 And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
40 but to sit on my right hand or on [my] left hand is not mine to give; but [it is for them] for whom it hath been prepared.

You need this to get the irony of The Cup references:

• 1) Literally they will drink from Jesus' cup at the Eucharist.
  
  2) Figuratively they will not be crucified with Jesus.

You see this over and over Ad Nazorean in the Gospels, they have pieces of what is only complete in GMark.

Mark Goodacre and I may yet come around to your way of thinking (or perhaps not). With regard to the reference to the Sons of Zebedee drinking from the cup from which Jesus drinks (Mark 10-38-40), I think Mark is suggesting that Jesus' followers may indeed find it necessary to suffer martyrdom in the face of persecution as Jesus does. I think that's a theme throughout Mark's gospel.

I am not arguing that Mark knew a particular historical tradition that the sons of Zebedee, or any of the 12, had been martyred, only that he was very concerned about the possibility that Christians would apostasize in time of persecution and wanted to forstall that. Acts 12.2, of course, has James put to death by Herod the King but I do not know whether there is any historical tradition behind that or not.

Best,

Ken

P.S. I see Kunigunde Kreuzerin hasn't posted in over a month now. I hope she returns to the forum soon.

[RandyHelzerman]

Can somebody explain to me how anybody could cut the beatitudes out of the Evangelion to create…..Mark?

I would love to entertain the hypothesis of Evangelion priority, but this is a real hang-up for me. I just boggle when ever I try to imagine what reason someone would have to do that.

[davidmartin]

Have you read Mark Goodacre's 'Fatigue in the Synoptics" or his introductory book: The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, which has a section on the argument from fatigue? It doesn't sound like you have grasped the argument or why it would be convincing to anyone. You're just saying that there are other possibilities. If you had to state the argument that you are dismissing as not convincing, how would you do it?

Ken,
I can see why fatigue is convincing as a basis for determining precedence for sure. and I'm not commenting on Goodacre's overall theory here only the one example of the seed, I should have been clearer.
The observation he made is very interesting, I'm just not convinced one couldn't make it work the other way as well and if that could be done for the seed, why not the others. No I haven't read his book but it would be nice if someone were to take all Goodacres examples and see what it would look like reversed
so it's not that Goodacre isn't convincing, it's that to be convincing it needs stress testing to see how it handles the other direction that would be really interesting

[Ken Olson]

Have you read Mark Goodacre's 'Fatigue in the Synoptics" or his introductory book: The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, which has a section on the argument from fatigue? It doesn't sound like you have grasped the argument or why it would be convincing to anyone. You're just saying that there are other possibilities. If you had to state the argument that you are dismissing as not convincing, how would you do it?

Ken,
I can see why fatigue is convincing as a basis for determining precedence for sure. and I'm not commenting on Goodacre's overall theory here only the one example of the seed, I should have been clearer.
The observation he made is very interesting, I'm just not convinced one couldn't make it work the other way as well and if that could be done for the seed, why not the others. No I haven't read his book but it would be nice if someone were to take all Goodacres examples and see what it would look like reversed
so it's not that Goodacre isn't convincing, it's that to be convincing it needs stress testing to see how it handles the other direction that would be really interesting

Here's what you wrote earlier:

reference to Thomas better explains it where it doesn't say why the seed won't grow in the rocks so Luke and Mark want to add something
Luke see's in Thomas they don't 'take root' so he has roots in mind for his explanation of having 'no root' though he adds the reason of moisture
Mark adds they had 'no root' which could have come from Luke's explanation and maybe then he adds a bunch of other stuff about the sun
so whichever theory you prefer its easy to come up with statements like the quoted one. not convincing.

The phenomenon Goodacre is trying to explain is why in Luke 8.11-15, The Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower, Luke offers an interpretation of why ''[these] have no root' in agreement with Mark 4.11 '[they] have no root' with regard to the seeds that fell on the rock/rocky ground, when Luke did not have 'no root' in the earlier parable which he is interpreting, but Mark did. On Goodacre's theory of fatigue of which this is one of many examples, this is because Luke is using Mark as a source. He made a change earlier in the source (in the Parable) which he has failed to sustain and lapsed back into copying what Mark has (in the Interpretation of the Parable). Luke's Interpretation of the Parable assumes a Parable that has what Mark's text has, rather than what his own text has.

Your alternative explanation goes something like this:

1) Thomas's version of the Parable is original

2) Luke used Thomas's version of the Parable and made changes, including changing the the seed that fell on the rock not taking root to the seed that fell on the rock withering from lack of moisture.

3) Luke writes an interpretation of the parable, but forgets that he wrote that the seed that fell on the rock and in his interpretation says that it failed because it had no root. Lue has in effect, become fatigued and lapsed back into following what Thomas had said.

4) Mark knows Luke's version (we need this theory to explain the verbatim and sequential agreements in the Greek), sees the problem in the mismatch between Luke's parable and interpretation, and fixes it by changing 'withered from lack of moisture' to 'it had no root' in his own version of the Parable, so that the Parable and Interpretation would agree in his own version.

Is this impossible? No. Is this explanation equally as good as the one Goodacre proposes? I don't think so. (For one thing, Goodacre has examples of the phenomenon of Luke becoming fatigued with Mark where Thomas is not present). Does it offer a better explanation, as you claim? Only if you have first accepted Luke's use of Thomas as your source theory (which I reject), so any explanation that favors your source theory is better than one that does not. (This is a common failing).

It seems to me that you often reply to posts by suggesting an alternative is possible (alternatives are always possible) and suggest that your particular alternative is better. But it is not clear in this case (and I think not in other cases either) on what logical basis your proposed alternative is better. I have seen a good many critiques of Goodacre's argument from fatigue. Almost all of them (I can't at the moment think of any exceptions) allow that the argument from fatigue does indeed work in some cases, but not in particular cases where it conflicts with the author's favored source theory. (Parenthetically, some critiques offer counterexamples based on what they call fatigue, but which do not follow the same principles Goodacre does when he uses the term).

Thomas Logion 9: Jesus said,
Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered (them). 2Some fell on the road,
and the birds came and gathered them. 3 0thers fell on rock, and they didn't take root in the soil and
didn't produce heads of grain. 4Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate
them. 5 And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and
one hundred twenty per measure.

Best,

Ken

P.S. Olegs Andrejevs and I are editing a volume of articles on the phenomenon of fatigue in the gospels and adjacent literature with contributors from the three major Markan priority hypotheses (2DH, Farrer, and Matthean Posteriority). The contributors have sent a a general description of what they intend to write about, but we haven't asked for formal abstracts/proposals yet, let alone seen the articles, so publication is still a good ways off.

[davidmartin]

ok, this is the alternative explanation:
* Thomas or something like it (I'm generous) is original
* Ev which precedes Luke wishes to incorporate the pre-existing parables (which must precede the writing of Ev in any case)
* Ev lacked the interpretation of the parable originally, the interpretation was added when Ev became Luke (fatigue occurs here)
* Your point 4 yes, Mark knew Ev (I guess not Luke)

But Luke doesn't follow Thomas exactly. In Thomas it does not say why the seed would not grow, only that it didn't 'take root'. It doesn't say it had no root but it's not unreasonable it was a well known saying, nor the collection source well known
So this is an alternative. If you want I'll say it is not inherently 'better' but it should be considered

By the way, one could quibble on whether Ev originally lacked the explanation. That's a point of interest in the study of Ev that's germane (no pun indended) to this
Also a final note. The 'lack moisture' of Ev/Luke (one can quibble on what was original) could tip to the Luke side if one saw a reference to Isaiah 8:6
The first 3 words on this verse Διὰ τὸ μὴ and ἔχειν are a match - in the LXX. Did 'moisture' come from a scripture quote? That is more likely for a Luke than an Ev. I lack the knowledge to know if this co-incidence is significant or not... but if you look at Matthew immediately after the parable of the sower there is a quote from Isaiah 6. Significant?

“Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoiced in Rezin and the son of Remaliah”
LXX
Διὰ τὸ μὴ βούλεσθαι τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Σιλωαμ τὸ πορευόμενον ἡσυχῇ, ἀλλὰ βούλεσθαι ἔχειν τὸν Ραασσων καὶ τὸν υἱὸν Ρομελιου βασιλέα ἐφ' ὑμῶν,

Luke
καὶ ἕτερον κατέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, καὶ φυὲν ἐξηράνθη διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ἰκμάδα.

Funny how Luke 8:6 would be quoting Isaiah 8:6 that's a neat coincidence