Gospel priority

[Steven Avery]

This thread by Ben C. Smith essentially proved that Luke preceded Mark

Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3818

And this thread builds on what Ben wrote:

Mark's dependence on Luke - the end of Markan priority - plus support for the traditional ending
http://purebibleforum.com/index.php?thr ... ding.1308/

[Ken Olson]

This thread by Ben C. Smith essentially proved that Luke preceded Mark

Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3818
rebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/marks-dependence-on-luke-the-end-of-markan-priority-plus-support-for-the-traditional-ending.1308/

Could you point to any post in the thread where Ben C. Smith, came to the conclusion that Luke preceded Mark?

If not, could you point to any post in the thread where anyone other than you came to the conclusion that Luke preceded Mark?

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

This thread by Ben C. Smith essentially proved that Luke preceded Mark

Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3818
rebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/marks-dependence-on-luke-the-end-of-markan-priority-plus-support-for-the-traditional-ending.1308/

Could you point to any post in the thread where Ben C. Smith, came to the conclusion that Luke preceded Mark?

If not, could you point to any post in the thread where anyone other than you came to the conclusion that Luke preceded Mark?

Best,

Ken

We've seen this false claim before.

Ben Smith neatly showed that Mark is dependent on Luke.

Link?

1. The imprisonment of John.

2. Simon Peter.

3. The son of man.

4. The disciples of John.

5. The betrayal by Judas.

6. Pilate.

7. Alexander and Rufus.

8. The second Mary.

To summarize, I think that the author of the gospel of Mark was writing for readers who already knew at least certain parts of the story. One part of the story involves John the baptist, since readers are expected to know both that he was imprisoned and that he had disciples. Another part of the story involves the crucifixion of Jesus, since readers are expected to know who Pilate is, that Jesus was betrayed, who Alexander and Rufus are, and at least something about the women at the cross. There may be other presumed parts of the story that I have not sussed out yet. The title "son of man" may not be a story element at all, but rather an element of early Christian theology. And knowledge of Simon Peter may or may not include stories about him; he may simply have been known as a famous Christian apostle.

This analysis says nothing about whether what Mark's first readers knew came from historical facts, from legendary tales, or from previous gospel texts. Any or all of those options are left wide open, much in the same way that there are many different ways in which Josephus' readers might have come to learn about the Temple.

Ben Smith left the inference completely wide open here, with several options:

(a) historical facts
(b) legendary tales
(c) previous gospel texts

Also, even if there were previous gospel texts, Ben never suggested they were Matthew, Luke, or John.

Basically, the only point of view disturbed by these observations is that of Mark as a literary creation de novo.

[Steven Avery]

We've seen this false claim before.

Ben might believe in lost texts and extensive textual trajectories, as one poster wrote, and not make any definite connection from his analysis of Mark's usage of Luke.

Ben could study a tiny detail (see Levi, Matthew, & Matthias) and make hypotheses about its development in the texts that ultimately cannot be traced back to a common notion of priority of this or that. He didn't think that once thousands of gospels were floating around. But he did believe in lost texts and extensive textual trajectories that ultimately more or less determined the final form of the canonical gospels.

However, for anyone with a high view and early origins of Mark and Luke, his post essentially seals Marcan dependence on Luke.

[Peter Kirby]

We've seen this false claim before.

Ben might believe in thousands of Gospels, as one poster wrote, and not make any definite connection from his analysis of Mark's usage of Luke.

However, for anyone with a high view and early origins of Mark and Luke, his post essentially seals Marcan dependence on Luke.

Does "a high view and early origins of Mark and Luke" imply that Luke (ca. mid-60s) preceded Mark (later in the 60s or the next decade)?

Because if you're also assuming that Luke preceded Mark already, before any considerations adduced by Ben Smith, that's a big difference.

[Steven Avery]

Does "a high view and early origins of Mark and Luke" imply that Luke (ca. mid-60s) preceded Mark (later in the 60s or the next decade)?
Because if you're also assuming that Luke preceded Mark already, before any considerations adduced by Ben Smith, that's a big difference.

Hi Peter,

I have written here (and IIDB and FRDB) many times on the Theophilus proposal, which places Luke's Gospel as written at the time that Theophilus was the "most excellent" high priest.

However, even in the 60s potential authorship, the evidence brought forth by Ben, which I have expanded some (including the Mark ending which I accept as Scripture) would place Luke before Mark.

However, even without the Theophilus high priest direct connection, I would see 60s as a late date, and I believe it is later than the dates proposed by writers like J. A. T. Robinson and Jonathan Bernier, who defend the pre-AD-70 dating. There are actually quite a few writers in that camp.

[Peter Kirby]

Does "a high view and early origins of Mark and Luke" imply that Luke (ca. mid-60s) preceded Mark (later in the 60s or the next decade)?
Because if you're also assuming that Luke preceded Mark already, before any considerations adduced by Ben Smith, that's a big difference.

Hi Peter,

I have written here (and IIDB and FRDB) many times on the Theophilus proposal, which places Luke's Gospel as written at the time that Theophilus was the "most excellent" high priest.

However, even in the 60s potential authorship, the evidence brought forth by Ben, which I have expanded some (including the Mark ending which I accept as Scripture) would place Luke before Mark.

However, even without the Theophilus high priest direct connection, I would see 60s as a late date, and I believe it is later than the dates proposed by writers like J. A. T. Robinson and Jonathan Bernier, who defend the pre-AD-70 dating. There are actually quite a few writers in that camp.

Alright so isn't it, to put it plainly, wrong not to mention the major premise of yours here, that Luke preceded Mark in time due to your "high view and early origins of ... Luke" and your "Theophilus proposal"?

This thread by Ben C. Smith essentially proved that Luke preceded Mark

Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3818
rebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/marks-dependence-on-luke-the-end-of-markan-priority-plus-support-for-the-traditional-ending.1308/

Could you point to any post in the thread where Ben C. Smith, came to the conclusion that Luke preceded Mark?

If not, could you point to any post in the thread where anyone other than you came to the conclusion that Luke preceded Mark?

Best,

Ken

And thus wrong to refer to the argument as being made in Ben's thread?

[Steven Avery]

Alright so isn't it, to put it plainly, wrong not to mention the major premise of yours here, that Luke preceded Mark in time due to your "high view and early origins of ... Luke" and your "Theophilus proposal"?
And thus wrong to refer to the argument as being made in Ben's thread?

There are reasons outside of the earliness of Theophilus to think that Luke preceded Mark. When Luke spoke disparagingly of earlier history attempts in his Prologue, I do not believe that he would speak that way about any of our Gospel writers.

However, the really clear arguments of Luke preceding Mark are in Ben's thread. I accepted them because they are sound reasoning, and I gave some value-added as I look into it more.

And I actually was slow to accept Luke before Mark as a real given, until I went over the points made by Ben. I did not think the Theophilus proposal demanded any sort of Lucan priority and was critical of insisting on that connection.

Steven

[Peter Kirby]

However, the really clear arguments of Luke preceding Mark are in Ben's thread.

Please explain how Ben's thread presents "really clear arguments of Luke preceding Mark."

[Steven Avery]

Please explain how Ben's thread presents "really clear arguments of Luke preceding Mark."

Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

That reader knowledge is material in Luke's Gospel.

Ockham says the simplest explanation is the best, Luke was being read by readers now reading Mark.

Sure, there are other, complex possibilities, especially for those with presuppositions of late dating or mythicism.