Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Marcan Priority a Protestant Thing, acc. to Duncan Graham Reid

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    Actually, he was 15 years old in 1870, unless perhaps you're defending some very outmoded mathematical system.
    The outmoded mathematical system I defend is agreeing with you, 25 was lack of sleep when doing the operation.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  2. #12
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,387
    Amen (Given)
    181
    Amen (Received)
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    Don't confuse Marie-Joseph Lagrange, OP (1855–1938), founder of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, with Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, OP (1877–1964), who taught at the Angelicum in Rome. I have the former's commentary on Mark. If I recall correctly, he considered the Greek gospel of Mark to be a source for the Greek translation of the gospel of Matthew, originally written in Aramaic by the disciple prior to the gospel of Mark. The latter was more known for his reputation as a Thomist, especially for his spiritual theology and a proponent of contemplative prayer by lay people. By the way, there are also Greek fragments of the gospel of Thomas.

    Oops, yes, you're correct. Yeah, I know that there are Greek fragments from Thomas. My point is that we'd still know it was written in Greek even without those fragments.

  3. #13
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,387
    Amen (Given)
    181
    Amen (Received)
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    Sure. But a silent assumption of Marcan priority seems a fair guess about what is silently going on in certain minds when reading this. Like them supposing Matthew (not identified with the disciple) was part of the Judaisation of what "later became" Catholicism.
    I don't really agree. I think if you hold to Markan priority, it becomes easier to deny Jesus' statements to Peter. Matthew is largely writing to a Jewish Christian community, but I don't see why Jewish Christians would've been particularly relevant once Christianity began to spread to the Gentiles. To that end, Matthean priority may make better sense in the context of Christian origins.

    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    I have no problem in seeing here the issue of Luther's comments on Romans and Galatians, I just feel, at a certain point of study, this would have been ruined for some if adhering to Matthean priority.
    I don't think so. Outside of possibly John, Matthew is the most anti-Jewish gospel. On Matthew, you can easily set up "the religion of works" vs. "the religion of grace." That may be a bit more difficult on Markan priority. But, I still believe that the majority of the "religion of works vs. one of grace." is based on Lutheran exegesis of Paul.

    I do not see any implication of the Ausgutinian hypothesis which contradicts the actual and incontrovertible structure of St Luke. If you do, please be more specific.
    I do. Why would Luke break up both Matthew and Mark's order? Why would Luke have "the Great Omission," where he vastly differs from Matthew and Mark's order? On the Augustinian Hypothesis, I don't know why Luke would've been written. After all, Mark was already the gospel for the Gentiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    As to Clementine, are you aware of what it is?

    1) Matthew. Written and published in Aramaic. Translated (by author) and published in Greek.
    2) Luke writes but does not publish his Gospel. He discovers Matthew has already written one.
    3) He brings his Gospel to St Peter, who is enthusiastic and starts reading Matthew and Luke both scrolls opened, as a cento, adding only little of own memory, which is taken down by St Mark.
    4) Luke and Mark are both published.
    5) As usual, John is last.
    First, I've never heard of that before now; I thought you were referring to Clement of Alexandria's cryptic remarks about the gospels. The first issue is that Matthew was probably not written in Aramaic. Translations generally show signs of their original languages, and Matthew does not. Luke writing but not publishing doesn't make much sense. Writing a work the length of Luke-Acts would've been extremely expensive. If Luke's introduction can be taken as trustworthy (I think it can!), then he wrote for a patron named Theophilus.

    You're assuming that Peter could read Greek. While Peter was likely somewhat familiar with Greek, he probably couldn't read or write. Acts refers to Peter as "agrammatos," uneducated (lit. "without letters"). Additionally, that idea is against the testimony of the early Church, which held that Mark is a collection of Peter's memoirs. I also think that Mark may have signs of being a product of late in the first century.

  4. #14
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    I don't really agree. I think if you hold to Markan priority, it becomes easier to deny Jesus' statements to Peter. Matthew is largely writing to a Jewish Christian community, but I don't see why Jewish Christians would've been particularly relevant once Christianity began to spread to the Gentiles. To that end, Matthean priority may make better sense in the context of Christian origins.
    "I think if you hold to Markan priority, it becomes easier to deny Jesus' statements to Peter."

    So far, you are on Farmer's line precisely.

    "Matthew is largely writing to a Jewish Christian community, but I don't see why Jewish Christians would've been particularly relevant once Christianity began to spread to the Gentiles."

    Because the Gentiles were included into the Christian community which had previously been predominantly Jewish. They did not get sees or parishes totally on their own.

    Rome did not have one Jewish Christian community under Peter and one Gentile Christian community under Paul.

    "To that end, Matthean priority may make better sense in the context of Christian origins"

    This I totally agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    I don't think so. Outside of possibly John, Matthew is the most anti-Jewish gospel. On Matthew, you can easily set up "the religion of works" vs. "the religion of grace." That may be a bit more difficult on Markan priority. But, I still believe that the majority of the "religion of works vs. one of grace." is based on Lutheran exegesis of Paul.
    But the point is, Marcan priority is more of a Prussian than a Lutheran thing.

    Prussia was fairly neutral on the works vs grace debate.

    Prussia's interest was to downplay precisely papacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    I do. Why would Luke break up both Matthew and Mark's order? Why would Luke have "the Great Omission," where he vastly differs from Matthew and Mark's order? On the Augustinian Hypothesis, I don't know why Luke would've been written. After all, Mark was already the gospel for the Gentiles.
    I think the order of Theophilus and the latter not knowing about Matthew and Mark (Augustinian) or not knowing about Matthew while Mark had not yet been written (Clementine) would account for that.

    Also, Luke writing without consulting either, or only consulting the other Gospels marginally, would certainly account for Luke not following their order, and thus also for the great omission, whatever that is.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    First, I've never heard of that before now; I thought you were referring to Clement of Alexandria's cryptic remarks about the gospels. The first issue is that Matthew was probably not written in Aramaic. Translations generally show signs of their original languages, and Matthew does not. Luke writing but not publishing doesn't make much sense. Writing a work the length of Luke-Acts would've been extremely expensive. If Luke's introduction can be taken as trustworthy (I think it can!), then he wrote for a patron named Theophilus.
    "Writing a work the length of Luke-Acts would've been extremely expensive."

    If Luke was paid for his time, yes.

    "If Luke's introduction can be taken as trustworthy (I think it can!), then he wrote for a patron named Theophilus."

    For one thing, I am not sure Theophilus was exactly a patron. He could have heard sth about "500, most of whom are still alive" and wanted St Luke to go there and check that. If so, a man who knew St Luke before the latter became a Christian and knew he could trust him, both judgement and honesty.

    And this also answers the point about:

    "Luke writing but not publishing doesn't make much sense"

    Yes, it does, if "not publishing" involves already showing or sending it to Theophilus in private.

    Before Luke could be a Gospel with canonic status in the Church, it had to be publihshed in the Church, which is a further step beyond Theophilus getting private access, as an advice on his becoming a Christian.

    "Translations generally show signs of their original languages"

    I think I somewhere did tell you about Chapman's translation of Homer and ask you to provide an example of where Chapman's English shows any sign of depending on Homer's Greek, apart from the sense being the same, except where Chapman misunderstood.

    I haven't seen any reply on that challenge.

    "I thought you were referring to Clement of Alexandria's cryptic remarks about the gospels."

    According to wikipedia, the scenario I gave is what precisely Clement of Alexandria had said.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    You're assuming that Peter could read Greek. While Peter was likely somewhat familiar with Greek, he probably couldn't read or write. Acts refers to Peter as "agrammatos," uneducated (lit. "without letters"). Additionally, that idea is against the testimony of the early Church, which held that Mark is a collection of Peter's memoirs. I also think that Mark may have signs of being a product of late in the first century.
    I think the relevant passage in Acts for agrammatos is in the view of the Kohanim. It does not mean he could not read or write, it means he was not a scribe, had not received training as received by Levites or Pharisees in reading the Old Testament.

    Probably means he did not master Hebrew grammar. If so, it says strictly nothing, zilch, nada on his capacity of reading and writing Aramaic, of communicating orally or in writing in Greek. It just means, if anything, his knowledge of OT was via Aramaic Targums, he was not reading in the original.

    Or, could mean ONLY that he had no formal exam like approval, since studying under Jesus didn't count, since he was no longer called Rabbi after the Sanhedrin.

    Or it could mean that he could read but not write, like Charlemagne, who had put his hands to the pen too late.

    And between his early carreer in Acts and the arrival in Antioch or Rome, he can have had plenty of opportunities to learn Greek.

    "Additionally, that idea is against the testimony of the early Church, which held that Mark is a collection of Peter's memoirs."

    Not totally, since according to this scenario, St Peter not only read both Gospels in a cento, but here and there chimed in with own remarks, while both the reading and the own remarks would be part of his memoirs.

    "I also think that Mark may have signs of being a product of late in the first century."

    The classic Bibelwissenschaftlich case for Mark being late is "it predicts destruction of Jerusalem, but real predictions don't occur, therefore it is a vaticinium post eventu, after AD 70".

    That is of course pure Infidel Hogwash.

    I would say it is necessary to have all synoptics prior to 70-80-90, for the simple reason that Jews in synoptics is not yet a designation for enemies of Christ.

    In St John's Gospel it is more complicated. Authorial narration consistently uses "Jews" as "oremus et pro perfidis Iudaeis" does. The words of Christ however uses it as an ethnonym, as the nation and part of Israel which Christ belonged to. Except, perhaps, before Pilate.

    I would say St Matthew wrote to people very familiar with the events, and with Jewish things, he could cite the psalm quote and not translate to Greek (this is perhaps also one indication he originally wrote in Aramaic, an Aramaic reader or listener while this was recited could not in any way have missed what the words meant), St Mark had to translate the psalm quote to Greek, to Theophilus that scene would have made no sense, and St John writes for people either Gentile or, if Jewish by origin, cutting the ties to the other Jews, those now so called.

    Where a Synoptic has the formula:

    Jesus said "woe ye Pharisees and Sadducees, for ..."

    There St John has the formula:

    Jesus said to the Jews "woe ye, for ..."

    Why? Because once "Jew" had become the accepted word for those rejecting Christ, once the nation as ethnicity (but no longer people of God!) had rejected Christ, specifying which anti-Christian faction of the Jewish not yet anti-Christian nation Christ was talking to became superfluous.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  5. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Faith
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,387
    Amen (Given)
    181
    Amen (Received)
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

    But the point is, Marcan priority is more of a Prussian than a Lutheran thing. Prussia's interest was to downplay precisely papacy.
    But still, you don't have Prussian theologians using Markan priority as an anti-Catholic tool. I keep using Von Harnack as an example, but there are other ones. Basically, the various "lives of Jesus" attacked Catholicism as untrue to the historical Jesus' message. Those "lives" were largely dependent on Markan priority, but I think the issue is also tied to the idea that Mark is not a particularly Jewish gospel.

    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    I think the order of Theophilus and the latter not knowing about Matthew and Mark (Augustinian) or not knowing about Matthew while Mark had not yet been written (Clementine) would account for that.

    Also, Luke writing without consulting either, or only consulting the other Gospels marginally, would certainly account for Luke not following their order, and thus also for the great omission, whatever that is.
    The Great Omission is that Luke excludes Mark 6:45-8:26, whereas Matthew largely doesn't. So let's say that Luke is ignorant of Matthew (which I think very unlikely, by the way). How do you explain that Luke makes reference to accounts written by others?


    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    For one thing, I am not sure Theophilus was exactly a patron. He could have heard sth about "500, most of whom are still alive" and wanted St Luke to go there and check that. If so, a man who knew St Luke before the latter became a Christian and knew he could trust him, both judgement and honesty.

    And this also answers the point about:

    Yes, it does, if "not publishing" involves already showing or sending it to Theophilus in private.

    Before Luke could be a Gospel with canonic status in the Church, it had to be publihshed in the Church, which is a further step beyond Theophilus getting private access, as an advice on his becoming a Christian.
    That's not how writing and reading worked in the ancient Mediterranean. You'd be commissioned to write a work and then you'd have it read at a gathering of some sort. You wouldn't be commissioned to write a work for someone's own edification. It seems that Theophilus was the patron of a Christian community of some type, or otherwise a catch-all name for a community of believers.

    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    I think I somewhere did tell you about Chapman's translation of Homer and ask you to provide an example of where Chapman's English shows any sign of depending on Homer's Greek, apart from the sense being the same, except where Chapman misunderstood.

    I haven't seen any reply on that challenge.
    I must've missed it. Generally, translations do a poor job of idiomatic expressions or puns, which were fairly common in Second Temple literature (esp. in the Qumran community).

    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post

    According to wikipedia, the scenario I gave is what precisely Clement of Alexandria had said.
    This is what Clement says, according to Eusebius:
    Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:- Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter's knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    I think the relevant passage in Acts for agrammatos is in the view of the Kohanim. It does not mean he could not read or write, it means he was not a scribe, had not received training as received by Levites or Pharisees in reading the Old Testament.

    Probably means he did not master Hebrew grammar. If so, it says strictly nothing, zilch, nada on his capacity of reading and writing Aramaic, of communicating orally or in writing in Greek. It just means, if anything, his knowledge of OT was via Aramaic Targums, he was not reading in the original.

    Or, could mean ONLY that he had no formal exam like approval, since studying under Jesus didn't count, since he was no longer called Rabbi after the Sanhedrin.
    Agrammatos generally means unlearned or illiterate, so it's generally meant to mean that Peter was illiterate. The other issue is that the vast majority of people were in fact illiterate (somewhere from 3%-10% were literate, most of whom were probably not Galilean fisherman). Knowledge of the Hebrew Bible was primarily through hearing it preached, not direct reading. That fact makes sense of the errors made in the gospels with regard to Hebrew prophecy.

    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    The classic Bibelwissenschaftlich case for Mark being late is "it predicts destruction of Jerusalem, but real predictions don't occur, therefore it is a vaticinium post eventu, after AD 70".

    That is of course pure Infidel Hogwash.
    .
    I think the dates of the gospels are more or less arbitrary. They could've been written at any point between the 40s/50s and the early second century. There's been an increasing tendency to date Luke-Acts to the late first/early second century, which I don't see the evidence for. Anyway, to address your point, the reason I say that Mark could be linked to the late first century is that some elements of Mark seem more closely tied to apocryphal literature than the other Synoptic gospels.

  6. #16
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    But still, you don't have Prussian theologians using Markan priority as an anti-Catholic tool. I keep using Von Harnack as an example, but there are other ones. Basically, the various "lives of Jesus" attacked Catholicism as untrue to the historical Jesus' message. Those "lives" were largely dependent on Markan priority, but I think the issue is also tied to the idea that Mark is not a particularly Jewish gospel.
    If Marcan priority were openly used in formal theological discourse, the Catholic hangers on might have taken a hint and dropped it.

    How about conversations all over any University in Germany "have you heard, while professor so-and-so is sensible, his Pope clings to Matthaean priority!"

    And similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    The Great Omission is that Luke excludes Mark 6:45-8:26, whereas Matthew largely doesn't. So let's say that Luke is ignorant of Matthew (which I think very unlikely, by the way). How do you explain that Luke makes reference to accounts written by others?
    Probably as they came along with exact wording about occasions he knew from own research.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    That's not how writing and reading worked in the ancient Mediterranean. You'd be commissioned to write a work and then you'd have it read at a gathering of some sort. You wouldn't be commissioned to write a work for someone's own edification. It seems that Theophilus was the patron of a Christian community of some type, or otherwise a catch-all name for a community of believers.
    Hmmm .... I am a Latinist and half and half Grecist. You'll do well to check that with Classics literature ...

    I take it he was a patron, but even so there would still be a reading before those whom he patronised (perhaps Jews up to the reading), while a publication in Church as canonic Gospel is another thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    I must've missed it. Generally, translations do a poor job of idiomatic expressions or puns, which were fairly common in Second Temple literature (esp. in the Qumran community).
    OK, if Matthew had written in Aramaic it would have contained puns, which are however not bungled in Matthew's Greek.

    Why would Matthew have written like Qumran communty itfp?


    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    This is what Clement says, according to Eusebius:
    OK, but this was not quoted straight from stromata or anywhere else.

    Seems to concur with Augustinian, so much the better.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    Agrammatos generally means unlearned or illiterate, so it's generally meant to mean that Peter was illiterate. The other issue is that the vast majority of people were in fact illiterate (somewhere from 3%-10% were literate, most of whom were probably not Galilean fisherman). Knowledge of the Hebrew Bible was primarily through hearing it preached, not direct reading. That fact makes sense of the errors made in the gospels with regard to Hebrew prophecy.
    "Illiterate" according to WHAT standard?

    Acc. to the Temple one.

    Does not equal analphabetism, nor imply he was if so still an analphabet when in St Mark's company.

    Quote Originally Posted by psstein View Post
    I think the dates of the gospels are more or less arbitrary. They could've been written at any point between the 40s/50s and the early second century. There's been an increasing tendency to date Luke-Acts to the late first/early second century, which I don't see the evidence for. Anyway, to address your point, the reason I say that Mark could be linked to the late first century is that some elements of Mark seem more closely tied to apocryphal literature than the other Synoptic gospels.
    What about the traditional dates, simple as that?

    What if that in Mark is confirming "apocryphal literature" rather than dating Mark late?
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •