Showing posts with label Markan Priority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Markan Priority. Show all posts

Sunday, April 5, 2015

The Synoptic Problem (Pt 3): Various Issues - Mark's Audience, Sermon on Mount




(1)  A careful examination Shows Mark's Audience.


 Mark is packed with explanatory glosses,
and unless we embrace the idea of a lost "proto-Mark" written to Hebrews,
Mark as presented in the current Greek version was written to a mixed audience
which required special instruction in regard to Aramaic words and Jewish traditions.

To give some examples:

Mark 3:17 "Boanerges, which is 'The sons of Thunder'. Presumably a Jew or Galilean would not need this explained.
Mark 5:41 "Talitha cumi", which is, being interpreted, "Maiden, I say to you arise." For Greek-speaking Jews of diaspora and Gentiles.
Mark 7:34 "Ephphatha", that is, "Be opened!" Again, Jesus' own contemporaries, Galileans, would not need translation.
Mark 7:26 "The woman was a Greek[speaker], Syrophoenician by birth.' of greatest interest to Gentiles, not Jews.
Mark 13:14 '(let the reader understand)', a gloss speaking to Greek readers in the Diaspora, to look up Daniel.
Mark 14:32 'which was named Gethsemane', an anecdote of no importance, but typical of eyewitness accounts.
Mark 15:22 "Golgotha, which is, being interpreted the place of a skull' - a note again, not for the benefit of Hebrews.
Mark 15:34 'which is interpreted, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" - not something Jews regularly reading the psalms would need explaining.

The large number of such notes show that at least the Greek Mark as we have it was meant for an audience much wider than the Jews or Hebrews of the diaspora.
__________________________________________________________
 

 (2)  Matthew's Sermon on the Mount.


The idea that Jesus spoke on two separate occasions, to account for the differences between the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke), has been proposed many times.

The problem with this 'technique', is that to be consistent, we would have to do the same also, in every instance where two gospels parallel one another, and yet contain serious differences in the accounts.
If carried through consistently, we would end up with 3 or 4 duplicated cases for each miracle or incident in Jesus' life, all varying slightly. But more problematic is that there would be no reliable way to put these "shadow" events or 'mirror-pericopes' into any kind of sensible chronological order.
It goes without saying that we can't use this technique in the Passion narratives.
Jesus wasn't tried and crucified twice, in spite of differences between the accounts.


The correct solution is not to pose "two speeches", but suppose two gospel-writers, one or both having edited or colored his account.

D. A. Carson has recently commented on this problem, specifically discussing the
alleged difference of location ('plain' versus 'mount').  In translation, this appears to be a contradiction, but when the underlying words are properly understood, there is no problem:
"The second example is from my popular-level exposition on the Sermon on the Mount. I there explained the well-known discrepancy between Matthew's reference to a mountain (Matt. 5:1) and Luke's mention of a plain (Luke 6:17) with more or less standard conservative apologetic: even a mountain has level places, and so forth. (35) Since publishing that book, however, I have written a full-length technical commentary on Matthew; and I have learned that (εις το ορος) in Matthew 5:1 probably does not mean Jesus went "up a mountain" or "to a mountain" or "onto a mountainside", but simply "into the hill country"; and interestingly (πεδινος) in Luke 6:17, usually rendered "plain", commonly refers to a plateau in mountainouse regions (36). There is no discrepancy; I had simply not done enough work for the earlier book. If it is any encouragement, increasing years make one increasingly careful. They are also teaching me, slowly, to change my mind and acknowledge when I am shown to be in error. There is no virtue in a Maginot Line of emotional defense around a position that is palpably weak." - D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, (Baker, 1984) p. 42-43
__________________________________
35. D.A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount (Baker 1978), p.145
36. D.A. Carson, Matthew Exposit. Bible Comm. (Zond., 1984)


The Synoptic Problem (Pt 1): Priority of Luke over Matthew

I will begin by taking some of my previous forum posts from 2011 to bring the discussion up to speed.



Mark is a shorter gospel with very little of Jesus' teachings and sayings.
Luke is a very much expanded version with a full compliment of Jesus teachings.
Matthew is another similarly full version with teachings arranged in groups.
John is a mature gospel, focussed on deeply theological teachings.

Mark Luke and Matthew have a large amount of overlapping material,
much of it almost word-for-word, whereas John is unique and quite independent.

The overlap between the first three gospels is called "the Synoptic Problem".

The question arises, who wrote first, and who copied who?  Because it is probable that at least two of them (Luke and Matthew) copied from the others.

In pre-scientific times, not much analysis was done, and one could hold almost any viewpoint on the Synoptic Problem, and it was almost a personal preference.   Church authorities argued for the priority of Matthew because it was the fullest and most suited for establishing church authority.   19th century skeptics gave Mark the priority because it was the shortest, and their view allowed for an 'evolution' or development of religion over time, and an accumulation of stories and doctrines.  They viewed Christianity as a syncretic accumulation of superstition and fiction.

Nowadays much more of the data has been analyzed and the road has become clearer.   Particular attention has been paid to the differences between the gospels, and why and how those differences may have arisen.



A striking example is Matthew's Sermon on the Mount:  A large speech covering several early chapters,  which contains some material covered in other gospels, but also much unique material arranged in a special format.


The "Sermon on the Mount" is an artificial literary production.
Had it actually taken place, and been recorded by the Apostles,
it is inconceivable and preposterous that Mark and Luke would have omitted it.

It can be shown to parallel the Letter of James, where the additional material is largely from.

Matthew takes Luke, and systematically removes ALL the material regarding the poor and the rich.
This would be inexplicable if Luke's gospel accurately reports Jesus' teaching, and Matthew were also authentic.

(1) Matthew takes Luke's Sermon on the Plain, and removes all reference to rich and poor:

Luke: "Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God."
Matt: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Here "Matthew" removes the direct speech to the poor,
preventing them from asking for bread from wealthy priests,
on the basis of this sermon by Jesus.
Jesus' words are no longer about poverty, and no longer addressed to hearers.

Luke: "Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled." (Luke 6:20)
Matt: "Blessed are they that hunger after righteousness: for they shall be filled." (Matt. 5:3)

Again the poor are cheated out of both Jesus' message,
an acknowledgement of who its for, and a practical answer.
"Matthew" has interpolated and distorted the message back to a form of Judaism that perpetuates the accumulation of wealth (mammon).

The message is no longer addressed to the hearers, but to abstractions.

Luke: "But WOE unto you rich! for ye have received your consolation!
"WOE unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger!" (Luke 6:24-25)
Matt: deleted!

Jesus' condemnation of the wealthy of His generation has been entirely erased from the speech, through a combination of interpolation and deletion.
'Matthew''s solution is as drastic as his purpose.

(2) Matthew omits all the Parables and Teachings on the Poor:


Luke 12:13-21 - Parable of the Rich Fool (Matt. deleted)
Luke 14:12-14 - Invite the Poor, Injured Blind (Matt. deleted)
Luke 16:19-31 - Parable of Rich Man & Lazarus (Matt. deleted)
Luke 21:1-4 - Parable of Poor Widow's Penny (Matt. deleted)

The accumulated effect is obvious.
The Poor have been entirely deleted from the Gospel,
along with the issue of poverty.



(3) Matthew omits most of the negative references to Judaism:


Luke 10:13-16 - Woe to those who reject the 70 (Matt. deleted)
Luke 10:29-36 - Parable of the Good Samaritan (
Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:5-8 - Parable of the Persistent Neighbour (
Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:24-26 - Parable of the Unclean spirit returning (
Matt. deleted)
Luke 11:37-54 - WOE to the Pharisees and Lawyers (
Matt. edited, moved to Matt. 23:1-36)
Luke 12:10 - The Unpardonable Sin (
Matt. deleted)
Luke 12:49-53 - "I bring Division"
(Matt. deleted)
Luke 15:11-32 - Parable of the Prodigal Son (
Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:1-4 - Forgiving 77 times 7 (
Matt. deleted)
Luke 17:11-19 - 10 Lepers healed, only Foreigner returns (
Matt. deleted)
Luke 18:9-14 - Parable of Tax Collector forgiven (
Matt. deleted)
Luke 23:6-12 - Jesus faces Herod (
Matt. deleted)




Image from Tea Party Jesus
a Web project "putting the words of Christians in the mouth of Jesus."


Matthew is the 'gospel', rewritten for rich Jewish people.

If you missed that, you can't read.

We have made a full discussion of the Synoptic Problem with charts here:

Synoptic Problem