Of Q and Markan Priority

[gmx]

If Mark was proven to be dependent upon both Matthew and Luke (as the scholarship trend seems to be running), and Matthean theology was determined to be primary, what impact would that have on our understanding of Christian origins?

[Ben C. Smith]

If Mark was proven to be dependent upon both Matthew and Luke (as the scholarship trend seems to be running)....

What is giving you the idea that scholarship seems to be trending toward considering Mark as the last of the three synoptics to be written?

[Adam]

He means the 1960's fad when Farmer revived the Griesbach Hypothesis. Got a lot of attention at the time, but he is widely regarded now as sufficiently refuted.
Of course Farmer had a good case that the Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark meant that Mark could not have been the source of the other two. That's true, but believe it or not there are still staunch Oxford Hypothesis "orthodox" who in spite of all the evidence can somehow claim that basically our canonical Mark (through 16:8 anyway) is the basis of the other two synoptics. However, less zealous Two-Document theorists make their case instead for an earlier version of Mark (formerly called Ur-Marcus, but that's a poor name because it was originally the name for something LARGER than Mark, so a 13-chapter (overlap with Luke) earlier Mark would be better titled "Proto-Marcus").

But it's the earlier concept of a "Mark" larger than our canonical Mark that I now promote. I call it variously the Horizontal Synoptic Solution, Ur-Evangelium, Grundschrift, or with more sophistication the "Evolving Proto-Gospel". It goes back to the origins of German biblical criticism with Eichhorn, but refined so that the theory does not necessarily self-destruct into Markan Priority. I invented my theory and refined it right here on Early Christian Writings, Biblical Criticism and History Forum:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=222

But don't confuse it with my earlier, independent and main Thesis that there are seven written eyewitness sources about Jesus within the four gospels. Most who post here favor the opposite extreme, so I don't get much attention.
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... p=756#p756
(Up-arrow to Oct. 10, 2013 and start reading at "THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT MY IDEAS" to the left of Peter Kirby's logo--thank you Peter for copying over my stuff for me. Referring to my original stuff over on Christian Forums (more convenient than trying to access old FRDB posts mixed in with Shesh's shushing) will reveal some differences and that I remain uncertain about some elements like the nature of the John the Baptist parts of "Q".)

[Ben C. Smith]

But it's the earlier concept of a "Mark" larger than our canonical Mark that I now promote. I call it variously the Ur-Evangelium, Grundschrift, or with more sophistication the "Evolving Proto-Gospel". It goes back to the origins of German biblical criticism with Eichhorn, but refined so that the theory does not necessarily self-destruct into Markan Priority. I invented my theory and refined it right here on Early Christian Writings, Biblical Criticism...
But don't confuse it with my earlier, independent and main Thesis that there are seven written eyewitness sources about Jesus within the four gospels. Most who post here favor the opposite extreme, so I don't get much attention.

Do you have handy links to both concepts here (both your hypothesis on proto-Mark and your hypothesis of seven written eyewitness sources)?

[Adam]

Done, refer back to my post prior to yours but edited slightly later. I should add that the second hypothesis on the Evolving Grundschrift is particularly open to further "evolution" of its basic "Horizontal Synoptic Solution".

[Ben C. Smith]

Okay, thanks.

[gmx]

The minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark have been cited as an indicator that Mark wrote third. Farmer's other argument is that the phenomenon of order (using evidence produced by Streeter) is possibly even stronger. That Mark always follows either Matthew or Luke's order. If Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, and they are frequently departing from Mark's order, you would expect them at some point to both depart from mark's order at the same point, but they never do. I'm not aware of that argument being refuted, but it certainty could have been. Can you provide a reference?

[Adam]

That's akin to the Lachman Fallacy (not made by Lachman, but someone using him improperly)--it all works out as neatly (or messily) one way as another. I have never seen anyone contend that the refutation of Streeter has been reversed. It's messy--no one can prove Streeter got it wrong, just that his supposed logical necessity was not there at all. The argument from order fails, as I have heard it, and I have never read that someone insisted, "No, but it DOES necessarily hold!"
That is, make any assumption you choose on who wrote first and who wrote second or third, and you can argue that that's the way that works and that's the way it must have been. No QED!

[gmx]

That's akin to the Lachman Fallacy (not made by Lachman, but someone using him improperly)--it all works out as neatly (or messily) one way as another.

Well not according to Farmer. Now, his argument from order may have been overwhelmed since he published in the 1960s... but I am not aware of that having occurred.

The Lachman fallacy relates to taking Lachman's analysis that pericope order favors Marcan priority if all three synoptics are based on a common Ur-gospel, and assuming it supports Marcan priority if Matthew and Luke have used Mark directly, which it does not.

Farmer's argument is that on the basis of pericope order, Marcan posteriority is actually far more likely than Marcan priority if the three synoptics are interrelated (ie not dependent upon a common ancestor). And this is on the basis of evidence presented by Streeter, that where Matthew leaves Mark's order, Luke always supports Mark's order, and vice versa. To believe this on the Marcan priority thesis, you have to believe that Matthew and Luke agreed between them that one of them would always support Mark's order; that they would never both desert Mark's order at the same time. Whereas on the Marcan posteriority thesis, you only have to believe that where Luke and Matthew differed in pericope order, Mark has been forced to follow one of them.

The order relied upon by Farmer is Streeter's presentation of pericope order. I'm not aware of Farmer's argument here being overwhelmed, but I am more than happy to be proven wrong.

[Adam]

I don't remember where I saw it, but if you have never seen Streeter's reasoning challenged, you have not read enough yet. I've read some unpublished doctoral dissertations, so I won't claim you have not read all the scholarly standards. However, the Consensus on many issues is just convention never proven.