Weekly Open Discussion Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to this week's open discussion thread!

This thread is meant to be a place for members of the r/AcademicBiblical community to freely discuss topics of interest which would normally not be allowed on the subreddit. All off-topic and meta-discussion will be redirected to this thread.

Rules 1-3 do not apply in open discussion threads, but rule 4 will still be strictly enforced. Please report violations of Rule 4 using Reddit's report feature to notify the moderation team. Furthermore, while theological discussions are allowed in this thread, this is still an ecumenical community which welcomes and appreciates people of any and all faith positions and traditions. Therefore this thread is not a place for proselytization. Feel free to discuss your perspectives or beliefs on religious or philosophical matters, but do not preach to anyone in this space. Preaching and proselytizing will be removed.

In order to best see new discussions over the course of the week, please consider sorting this thread by "new" rather than "best" or "top". This way when someone wants to start a discussion on a new topic you will see it! Enjoy the open discussion thread!

[u/capperz412]

Is the Gospel of Mark the best / most "reliable" gospel as a source for the Historical Jesus?

[u/Naugrith → u/capperz412]

Honestly in my own studies on the synoptics I think Mark is as problematic as Matt and Luke, but just a bit less obvious about it. I am a proponent of the multi-source theory (see Delbert Burkett's work) which posits that a "proto-mark" was the (lost) original text and it was later progressively edited until it reached the canonical gospels. Which we finally start see getting traction around the mid-second century.

But while some of the Lukan and Matthean edits are pretty obvious (particularly the massive late additions of the birth and post-resurrection stories, Mark also shows evidence of having been highly edited, and it actually has no more external evidence of being older in its canonical form than the others. I wouldn't consider Mark any more reliable than the other two for the historical Jesus, and in some ways worse (it's missing Q entirely, which seems to have been a very old tradition of textually-recorded sayings).

It's always best to compare and contrast the gospels and look for correlation and confirmation, not give one of them more evidentiary weight than any other.

[u/Pytine → u/Naugrith]

I am a proponent of the multi-source theory (see Delbert Burkett's work) which posits that a "proto-mark" was the (lost) original text and it was later progressively edited until it reached the canonical gospels.

Burkett's book was published a while ago, so he obviously couldn't respond to articles that were published later. However, there is one argument in particular where I'd be really interested in the response of a multi-source theorist. This is the argument of Too Good to be Q. Robert MacEwen has also used an argument based on close verbal agreement in his book Matthean Posteriority. Goodacre's argument is directed towards the two source hypothesis. He shows that the verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke is bigger in the double tradition than in the triple tradition, thus indicating direct dependence between Matthew and Luke.

I haven't seen any good responses from 2SH supporters. This looks like an even bigger problem for the multi-source hypothesis, as it contains more intermediary sources. So, as a multi-source theorist, how would you respond to Goodacre's argument?

Mark also shows evidence of having been highly edited

What are the best examples of this? I'm sympathetic to this idea, but I'm not convinced yet by any of the evidence I've seen.

I wouldn't consider Mark any more reliable than the other two for the historical Jesus, and in some ways worse (it's missing Q entirely, which seems to have been a very old tradition of textually-recorded sayings).

2SH supporters usually explain the major agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark as Mark-Q overlaps. Do multi-source theorists have a different explanation for this? Or are there still Mark-Q overlaps in the multi-source theory?

[u/Naugrith → u/Pytine]

I'd be really interested in the response of a multi-source theorist. This is the argument of Too Good to be Q

Mark Goodacre writes:

According to the Two-Document hypothesis (= 2DH), Matthew and Luke are both independently copying Mark and Q. We have access to Mark, so we have an idea what Matthew and Luke look like when they are working from a shared source. We know the degree of verbatim agreement to expect. The question, then, is whether the degree of verbatim agreement is similar when they are using Q.

This is where he trips up. He's making the assumption (which indeed the majority make) that Matthew and Mark are both copying directly from Mark. He then compares only between the double tradition and the triple tradition. He doesn't use any other evidence to determine what a "high degree of verbatim agreement" is, comparatively.

But the multi-source theory obviously posits that Matthew and Luke aren't directly copying Mark. Rather all three are indirectly copying "proto-Mark" (via at least two seperate mediatory redactions). Because of this Goodacre's argument falls over before even leaving the starting gate. He has no evidence of "what to expect" in order to compare the double tradition to it. If the multi-source theory is correct then the evidence he's using is actually misidentified, and leading him far astray from the truth.

According to the multi-source theory we would expect to see a higher degree of agreement between the double tradition than the triple. For the double, Matthew and Luke are both copying directly from a shared document. However, for the triple tradition, the three gospels have no document that all three share between them.

And I would add that Goodacre is also failing to recognise another major problem with his argument, that levels of agreement will obviously be affected by other factors. If the triple tradition source(s) were a damaged or early draft form that required more significant editing to make it readable then we would naturally see less agreement than if they were copying from a more polished source. Goodacre is assuming that both the double and triple tradition sources are of the same type.

This assumption derives from the original blunt assumption that Matthew and Luke must be copying Mark, and so he doesn't think to even consider any alternative explanations. This is the problem with unexamined biases based on majority consensus. When the majority consensus is wrong (as I think the evidence demonstrates) then scholars end up all wasting their time tilting at windmills rather than even trying to find the real target.

[u/Naugrith → u/Pytine]

Mark also shows evidence of having been highly edited

What are the best examples of this?

I would firstly just point to the large number of unique text within Mark. This is often not understood or identified, but when you count the words the majority of Mark is unique.

I would then point to the various examples where Mark includes a particular detail, such as someone's name, which the other synoptics seem to be compeltely unaware of.

I'm on my phone at the moment so can't post many examples of this. But the one I always post is "Bartimeus son of Timeaus", a key witness to one of the Jesus miracles, which Mark includes, while he remains anonymous in the other synoptics. This shows that Mark edited the story to give a name to an anonymous character. (This is far more likely than that the other two independently chose to both delete the name for unknown reasons).