Question About the Synoptic Problem and the Priority of Matthew

[Tigers!]

I was inspired by the Chat-Bot to pursue the synoptic problem further. Here are my conclusions.
NONE of the following is taken from the Bot's output. I did use several sources suggested by Google.

There seem to be three main hypotheses:

(1) Mark and Q were the two early sources. Both Matthew and Luke borrowed from each of Mark and Q.
(2) Matthew was first; Mark and Luke both borrowed from Matthew.
(3) [Griesbach Hypothesis] Matthew was first; Luke borrowed from Matthew; Mark borrowed from both Matthew and Luke.

Do not forget the Farrer hypothesis

First let us review the demon named "Legion" (in Mark and Luke but not Matthew) and the "Miracle of the Swine." If Mark and Luke both copied Matthew, where did "Legion" come from? (This may be compatible with the Griesbach Hypothesis but we dispose of that below.) Where did this story take place? On the east bank of the Sea of Galilee, but near which town? Three possibilities are presented; in decreasing order of closeness to the Sea these are:
* Gergesa (Origen's version of Matthew) -- adjacent to Sea
* Gadara (Matthew) -- 10 km distant
* Gerasa (Mark and Luke) -- 50 km distant
Gergesa is most likely correct, and in "some manuscripts". One source shows this as a 3rd century correction.
Gadara is plausible, especially if Matthew's author thought this place-name would be more recognizable than the small village of Gergesa.
Gerasa appears wrong; perhaps the name was conflated with Gergesa.

If Matthew came first, why did BOTH Mark and Luke replace the place-name with the incorrect Gerasa?
But if Mark came first, Matthew simply applied geographic knowledge to correct an error.

The parable of the mustard seed in Mark (4:30–32) is different from the version in Matthew and Luke; this is cited as evidence for Griesbach's claim that Luke borrowed from Matthew. But much more parsimonious is that both Matthew and Luke acquired the parable from Q; and that this was a parable provided by Mark independent of Q.

Q is parables and sermons,

We do not have a copy of Q so how do you know that it is parables and sermons?

so that parable is easily disposed of, but Griesbach also places emphasis on a difference in the stories of Jesus' arrest.
Let us first note that in Matthew, Peter's betrayal comes after Jesus is spat on, but in Mark and Luke the betrayal comes first. So much for the idea that both borrowed from Matthew!

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

There are differences among all three versions. Luke is the only one that mentions neither "spit" nor "buffet" nor "palms of their hands" but does mention "blindfold." Griesbach may argue that Mark is the most divergent of the three (the question who is he that smote thee" isn't asked) but with the other differences using this as evidence for Mathean priority is an over-reach.

But why the divergence in this account anyway, since much of the synoptic texts are almost identical? Perhaps the detailed story of Jesus' arrest and trial, so very central to the cult, was so widely known that the Gospel writers didn't need to copy verbatim.

Marcan priority affirmed!

Yes indeed

 

[Swammerdami]

I find some mysteries in the Bible to be of interest even if one is NOT a "believer." The Gospels have interesting mysteries even for people certain that Jesus of Nazareth never existed! (I can be intrigued by Hemingway's Santiago even if I think he's a fiction.)

Interest in this topic is minimal here (to put it mildly), but having posted, I want to add some comments to avoid a confusion.

Where did [the story of a demon being cast into a flock of swine allegedly] take place? On the east bank of the Sea of Galilee, but near which town? Three possibilities are presented; in decreasing order of closeness to the Sea these are:
"G" * Gergesa (Origen's version of Matthew) -- adjacent to Sea
"D" * Gadara (Matthew) -- 10 km distant
"R" * Gerasa (Mark and Luke) -- 50 km distant
Gergesa is most likely correct, and in "some manuscripts". One source shows this as a 3rd century correction.
Gadara is plausible, especially if Matthew's author thought this place-name would be more recognizable than the small village of Gergesa.
Gerasa appears wrong; perhaps the name was conflated with Gergesa.

If Matthew came first, why did BOTH Mark and Luke replace the place-name with the incorrect Gerasa?
But if Mark came first, Matthew simply applied geographic knowledge to correct an error.

I have become aware that there is variation of these place names among the varying English translations. Therefore I queried an (unreliable) source for the placenames in the earliest Greek versions.

"D" Matthew 8:28 Γαδαρηνῶν (Gadarenes)
"R" Mark 5:1 Γερασηνῶν (Gerasenes)
"R" Luke 8:26 Γερασηνῶν (Gerasenes)

This D-R-R pattern -- which suggests that Matthew and Luke both borrowed from Mark, rather than vice versa -- agrees with my post several months ago. Whew!

If you type something like "Matthew 8:28" into Google's Search, you'll be presented with a link to biblegateway.com which presents you with a menu for selecting any of 64 (!) English translations. I did not check all translations but among the few I did check the majority followed the "D-R-R" pattern. But KJV, the Wycliffe Bible, 1599 Geneva and several others follow a "G-D-D" pattern. The D->G mutation was already explained in my quoted post, but why the R->D mutation for Mark and Luke? (One possibility: Some ancient editor noticed the D/R conflation and gave precedence to a version of Matthew that lacked the D->G mutation.) Douay-Rheims shows "R-R-R", while Evangelical Heritage has "G-R-R."

I've no doubt that Infidels -- if any -- who read this post will be aghast that a grown man took time to pursue this detail. So be it.

There are other "mysteries" in the Gospels. Mark never mentions the name of Jesus' father. He mentions Jesus' mother's name non-cryptically only once.

John NEVER mentions Mary's name, though he writes about her ("mother of Jesus") much more than Mark. John never names the sons of Zebedee.

Why avoid using the names? One possibility perhaps is that the earliest (pre-Markan) narratives kept these names secret to make it harder for enemies to target Jesus' family.

 

[Politesse]

John NEVER mentions Mary's name, though he writes about her ("mother of Jesus") much more than Mark. John never names the sons of Zebedee.

Why avoid using the names? One possibility perhaps is that the earliest (pre-Markan) narratives kept these names secret to make it harder for enemies to target Jesus' family.

If we assume that he was actually a witness to the events, it would stand to reason, as Jesus' mother has the same name as at least three of his other close associates.

 

[Swammerdami]

John NEVER mentions Mary's name, though he writes about her ("mother of Jesus") much more than Mark. John never names the sons of Zebedee.

Why avoid using the names? One possibility perhaps is that the earliest (pre-Markan) narratives kept these names secret to make it harder for enemies to target Jesus' family.

If we assume that he was actually a witness to the events, it would stand to reason, as Jesus' mother has the same name as at least three of his other close associates.

I understand neither the "stand to reason" nor the THREE other Marys. There are only two other Marys:
* "his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas" (probably a sister-in-law or cousin)
* Mary Magdalene
* Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses [Joseph] ... the other Mary
I've crossed out "the other Mary" (mentioned in the Synoptics but not in John). This is a disguised reference to the mother of Jesus!

 

[Politesse]

John NEVER mentions Mary's name, though he writes about her ("mother of Jesus") much more than Mark. John never names the sons of Zebedee.

Why avoid using the names? One possibility perhaps is that the earliest (pre-Markan) narratives kept these names secret to make it harder for enemies to target Jesus' family.

If we assume that he was actually a witness to the events, it would stand to reason, as Jesus' mother has the same name as at least three of his other close associates.

I understand neither the "stand to reason" nor the THREE other Marys. There are only two other Marys:
* "his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas" (probably a sister-in-law or cousin)
* Mary Magdalene
* Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses [Joseph] ... the other Mary
I've crossed out "the other Mary" (mentioned in the Synoptics but not in John). This is a disguised reference to the mother of Jesus!

You're forgetting Mary of Bethany, who hosted the whole gang when they were in Judea.

By "stands to reason", I meant that when one knows ten people named Mary (or John, or James, or Carlos, etc) nicknames and other cognomens abound.

 

[Swammerdami]

John NEVER mentions Mary's name, though he writes about her ("mother of Jesus") much more than Mark. John never names the sons of Zebedee.

Why avoid using the names? One possibility perhaps is that the earliest (pre-Markan) narratives kept these names secret to make it harder for enemies to target Jesus' family.

If we assume that he was actually a witness to the events, it would stand to reason, as Jesus' mother has the same name as at least three of his other close associates.

I understand neither the "stand to reason" nor the THREE other Marys. There are only two other Marys:
* "his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas" (probably a sister-in-law or cousin)
* Mary Magdalene
* Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses [Joseph] ... the other Mary
I've crossed out "the other Mary" (mentioned in the Synoptics but not in John). This is a disguised reference to the mother of Jesus!

You're forgetting Mary of Bethany, who hosted the whole gang when they were in Judea.

Uh-oh. I was operating with the misconception that {of Bethany} and {Magdalene} were the same Mary. It seems even the Pope didn't get this right (assuming the non-equality is correct) until 1969.

By "stands to reason", I meant that when one knows ten people named Mary (or John, or James, or Carlos, etc) nicknames and other cognomens abound.

But still John mentions Mother's name Zero times. John (putative author of John) and his brother James -- dominant apostles in the synoptics -- are each mentioned by name Zero times.

 

[Tigers!]

I find some mysteries in the Bible to be of interest even if one is NOT a "believer." The Gospels have interesting mysteries even for people certain that Jesus of Nazareth never existed! (I can be intrigued by Hemingway's Santiago even if I think he's a fiction.)

Interest in this topic is minimal here (to put it mildly), but having posted, I want to add some comments to avoid a confusion.

Where did [the story of a demon being cast into a flock of swine allegedly] take place? On the east bank of the Sea of Galilee, but near which town? Three possibilities are presented; in decreasing order of closeness to the Sea these are:
"G" * Gergesa (Origen's version of Matthew) -- adjacent to Sea
"D" * Gadara (Matthew) -- 10 km distant
"R" * Gerasa (Mark and Luke) -- 50 km distant
Gergesa is most likely correct, and in "some manuscripts". One source shows this as a 3rd century correction.
Gadara is plausible, especially if Matthew's author thought this place-name would be more recognizable than the small village of Gergesa.
Gerasa appears wrong; perhaps the name was conflated with Gergesa.

If Matthew came first, why did BOTH Mark and Luke replace the place-name with the incorrect Gerasa?
But if Mark came first, Matthew simply applied geographic knowledge to correct an error.

I have become aware that there is variation of these place names among the varying English translations. Therefore I queried an (unreliable) source for the placenames in the earliest Greek versions.

"D" Matthew 8:28 Γαδαρηνῶν (Gadarenes)
"R" Mark 5:1 Γερασηνῶν (Gerasenes)
"R" Luke 8:26 Γερασηνῶν (Gerasenes)

This D-R-R pattern -- which suggests that Matthew and Luke both borrowed from Mark, rather than vice versa -- agrees with my post several months ago. Whew!

Which ties in nicely with the Farrer hypothesis.

If you type something like "Matthew 8:28" into Google's Search, you'll be presented with a link to biblegateway.com which presents you with a menu for selecting any of 64 (!) English translations. I did not check all translations but among the few I did check the majority followed the "D-R-R" pattern. But KJV, the Wycliffe Bible, 1599 Geneva and several others follow a "G-D-D" pattern. The D->G mutation was already explained in my quoted post, but why the R->D mutation for Mark and Luke? (One possibility: Some ancient editor noticed the D/R conflation and gave precedence to a version of Matthew that lacked the D->G mutation.) Douay-Rheims shows "R-R-R", while Evangelical Heritage has "G-R-R."

I've no doubt that Infidels -- if any -- who read this post will be aghast that a grown man took time to pursue this detail. So be it.

I appreciate your efforts but then I am not an infidel.

There are other "mysteries" in the Gospels. Mark never mentions the name of Jesus' father. He mentions Jesus' mother's name non-cryptically only once.

John NEVER mentions Mary's name, though he writes about her ("mother of Jesus") much more than Mark. John never names the sons of Zebedee.

Why avoid using the names? One possibility perhaps is that the earliest (pre-Markan) narratives kept these names secret to make it harder for enemies to target Jesus' family.

 

[Tigers!]

John NEVER mentions Mary's name, though he writes about her ("mother of Jesus") much more than Mark. John never names the sons of Zebedee.

Why avoid using the names? One possibility perhaps is that the earliest (pre-Markan) narratives kept these names secret to make it harder for enemies to target Jesus' family.

If we assume that he was actually a witness to the events, it would stand to reason, as Jesus' mother has the same name as at least three of his other close associates.

I understand neither the "stand to reason" nor the THREE other Marys. There are only two other Marys:
* "his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas" (probably a sister-in-law or cousin)
* Mary Magdalene
* Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses [Joseph] ... the other Mary
I've crossed out "the other Mary" (mentioned in the Synoptics but not in John). This is a disguised reference to the mother of Jesus!

You're forgetting Mary of Bethany, who hosted the whole gang when they were in Judea.

By "stands to reason", I meant that when one knows ten people named Mary (or John, or James, or Carlos, etc) nicknames and other cognomens abound.

Mary seems to have been a very common name in those times.
It can be difficult to keep track of which Mary is which.

 

[Politesse]

John NEVER mentions Mary's name, though he writes about her ("mother of Jesus") much more than Mark. John never names the sons of Zebedee.

Why avoid using the names? One possibility perhaps is that the earliest (pre-Markan) narratives kept these names secret to make it harder for enemies to target Jesus' family.

If we assume that he was actually a witness to the events, it would stand to reason, as Jesus' mother has the same name as at least three of his other close associates.

I understand neither the "stand to reason" nor the THREE other Marys. There are only two other Marys:
* "his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas" (probably a sister-in-law or cousin)
* Mary Magdalene
* Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses [Joseph] ... the other Mary
I've crossed out "the other Mary" (mentioned in the Synoptics but not in John). This is a disguised reference to the mother of Jesus!

You're forgetting Mary of Bethany, who hosted the whole gang when they were in Judea.

By "stands to reason", I meant that when one knows ten people named Mary (or John, or James, or Carlos, etc) nicknames and other cognomens abound.

Mary seems to have been a very common name in those times.
It can be difficult to keep track of which Mary is which.

Yes. Mary is an anglicization-by-way-of-greek of Miriam, the name of Moses' sister and one of just a handful of named women in the Hebrew Scriptures. There were and still are a lot of Marys snd Miriams in the world.

 

[Swammerdami]

Regarding the erroneous(?) conflation of Mary Magdalene with Mary the sister of Lazarus, I was victimized by this. I recall questioning the identity, but acquiesced to what I thought (erroneously) was expert opinion.

Looking more carefully, there seems almost no reason to connect the two beyond their same name. I consulted an unreliable source and read this:

1. Multiple similar stories, told without careful labels
* The Gospels describe more than one anointing of Jesus, and they do it in overlapping ways:

* Luke 7: an unnamed “sinful woman” anoints Jesus’ feet with ointment and her tears.​

* John 12: Mary of Bethany (sister of Martha and Lazarus) anoints Jesus’ feet with costly perfume and wipes them with her hair.​

* Matthew 26 / Mark 14: an unnamed woman anoints Jesus’ head at Bethany shortly before the Passion.​

Ancient writers did not treat these as clearly separate events. Because the gestures, perfume, setting, and emotional tone echo one another, many early readers assumed these were different tellings of a single incident, not multiple anointings. Once that assumption is made, identity fusion becomes almost unavoidable.

2. Mary Magdalene enters because she is prominent and nearby
* Mary Magdalene appears immediately after the unnamed “sinful woman” in Luke 8:1–3. Luke introduces her as someone from whom seven demons had been cast out, a vivid but unexplained detail.

Later interpreters drew a dotted line:
* unnamed sinful woman
* forgiven much
* dramatic transformation

Mary Magdalene, just introduced, with a dramatic past. The mind loves economy. Why invent two women when one will do? Luke never says they are the same person, but he places them close enough that later readers felt invited to connect them.

3. John’s Gospel blurs boundaries further

John names Mary of Bethany as the anointer, but he also portrays Mary Magdalene as:
* intensely devoted
* the first witness of the resurrection
* emotionally expressive in her love for Jesus

Later readers noticed that both Marys are defined less by biography than by ardent devotion, and ancient exegesis was far more comfortable with symbolic identities than modern historical analysis. Different Marys, same posture of love, same feet, same perfume, same tears. The lines soften.

4. Gregory the Great seals the deal

In 591 CE, Pope Gregory I preached a homily that explicitly identified:
* the sinful woman of Luke 7
* Mary of Bethany
* Mary Magdalene
as one person.

5. Moral narrative preference

The merged figure produced a powerful moral arc:
* sinner
* penitent
* devoted follower
* first witness of resurrection

That story preached beautifully. Separate women did not generate the same sweep. Medieval theology often favored exemplary lives over textual precision. One radiant conversion story was more useful than three carefully separated biographies.

In sum
Scholars and preachers equated these women because:
* the Gospel narratives resemble one another closely
* some women are unnamed, inviting identification
* Mary Magdalene’s dramatic introduction begged explanation
* influential authorities endorsed the fusion
* a single, emotionally rich figure served theology and preaching better than textual restraint

Modern scholarship largely disentangles them again, but for over a millennium, Mary Magdalene carried the perfume, the tears, the demons, and the resurrection dawn all at once.

I apologize to all for being a victim of this conflation.

 

[Tigers!]

Regarding the erroneous(?) conflation of Mary Magdalene with Mary the sister of Lazarus, I was victimized by this. I recall questioning the identity, but acquiesced to what I thought (erroneously) was expert opinion.

Looking more carefully, there seems almost no reason to connect the two beyond their same name. I consulted an unreliable source and read this:

1. Multiple similar stories, told without careful labels
* The Gospels describe more than one anointing of Jesus, and they do it in overlapping ways:

* Luke 7: an unnamed “sinful woman” anoints Jesus’ feet with ointment and her tears.​

* John 12: Mary of Bethany (sister of Martha and Lazarus) anoints Jesus’ feet with costly perfume and wipes them with her hair.​

* Matthew 26 / Mark 14: an unnamed woman anoints Jesus’ head at Bethany shortly before the Passion.​

Ancient writers did not treat these as clearly separate events. Because the gestures, perfume, setting, and emotional tone echo one another, many early readers assumed these were different tellings of a single incident, not multiple anointings. Once that assumption is made, identity fusion becomes almost unavoidable.

2. Mary Magdalene enters because she is prominent and nearby
* Mary Magdalene appears immediately after the unnamed “sinful woman” in Luke 8:1–3. Luke introduces her as someone from whom seven demons had been cast out, a vivid but unexplained detail.

Later interpreters drew a dotted line:
* unnamed sinful woman
* forgiven much
* dramatic transformation

Mary Magdalene, just introduced, with a dramatic past. The mind loves economy. Why invent two women when one will do? Luke never says they are the same person, but he places them close enough that later readers felt invited to connect them.

3. John’s Gospel blurs boundaries further

John names Mary of Bethany as the anointer, but he also portrays Mary Magdalene as:
* intensely devoted
* the first witness of the resurrection
* emotionally expressive in her love for Jesus

Later readers noticed that both Marys are defined less by biography than by ardent devotion, and ancient exegesis was far more comfortable with symbolic identities than modern historical analysis. Different Marys, same posture of love, same feet, same perfume, same tears. The lines soften.

4. Gregory the Great seals the deal

In 591 CE, Pope Gregory I preached a homily that explicitly identified:
* the sinful woman of Luke 7
* Mary of Bethany
* Mary Magdalene
as one person.

5. Moral narrative preference

The merged figure produced a powerful moral arc:
* sinner
* penitent
* devoted follower
* first witness of resurrection

That story preached beautifully. Separate women did not generate the same sweep. Medieval theology often favored exemplary lives over textual precision. One radiant conversion story was more useful than three carefully separated biographies.

In sum
Scholars and preachers equated these women because:
* the Gospel narratives resemble one another closely
* some women are unnamed, inviting identification
* Mary Magdalene’s dramatic introduction begged explanation
* influential authorities endorsed the fusion
* a single, emotionally rich figure served theology and preaching better than textual restraint

Modern scholarship largely disentangles them again, but for over a millennium, Mary Magdalene carried the perfume, the tears, the demons, and the resurrection dawn all at once.

I apologize to all for being a victim of this conflation.

Your sins are forgiven my son

 

[Swammerdami]

I am most definitely NOT a scholar of early Christian writings. To learn about these writings and their controversies I recommend https://www.earlychristianwritings.com . They discuss a large number of these early writings, present arguments on both sides of key controversies, and so on. There may be other good sites. Chatbots may give good summaries but you'll need to double-check their claims

Refer to .earlychristianwritings.com or other sources, rather than to my scrawlings here. I write on the topic for my own enjoyment!

Do not forget the Farrer hypothesis

Mark was written first, Matthew used Mark, and Luke used both Mark and Matthew, eliminating the need for a hypothetical Q source (shared sayings) by attributing Luke's shared material with Matthew to direct copying from Matthew.

Consider episodes told in all three synoptics but with one deviating from the other two; there are three cases:
Mark is the odd man out. Matthew modified Mark's story for whatever reason. Then Luke copied Matthew.
Luke is the odd man out. Matthew copied Mark. Luke modified the story for whatever reason.
Matthew is the odd man out. This causes some trouble for Farrer. Luke is copying Matthew, well aware that Matthew is telling the same stories as Mark and suddenly feels the need to review Mark? Why?

I like the inconsistency I stumbled upon myself. Matthew corrects a geographic error by Mark and then [assuming Farrer hypothesis] ... Luke restores the erroneous version? Why?

First let us review the demon named "Legion" (in Mark and Luke but not Matthew) and the "Miracle of the Swine." If Mark and Luke both copied Matthew, where did "Legion" come from? (This may be compatible with the Griesbach Hypothesis but we dispose of that below.) Where did this story take place? On the east bank of the Sea of Galilee, but near which town? Three possibilities are presented; in decreasing order of closeness to the Sea these are:
* Gergesa (Origen's version of Matthew) -- adjacent to Sea
* Gadara (Matthew) -- 10 km distant
* Gerasa (Mark and Luke) -- 50 km distant
Gergesa is most likely correct, and in "some manuscripts". One source shows this as a 3rd century correction.
Gadara is plausible, especially if Matthew's author thought this place-name would be more recognizable than the small village of Gergesa.
Gerasa appears wrong; perhaps the name was conflated with Gergesa.

If Matthew came first, why did BOTH Mark and Luke replace the place-name with the incorrect Gerasa?
But if Mark came first, Matthew simply applied geographic knowledge to correct an error.

The parable of the mustard seed in Mark (4:30–32) is different from the version in Matthew and Luke; this is cited as evidence for Griesbach's claim that Luke borrowed from Matthew. But much more parsimonious is that both Matthew and Luke acquired the parable from Q; and that this was a parable provided by Mark independent of Q.

Q is parables and sermons,

We do not have a copy of Q so how do you know that it is parables and sermons?

Q is totally hypothetical. It is defined as the text (mostly parables and sermons) common to Matthew and Luke but missing from Mark.

As shown at earlychristianwritings there are three very early texts whose existence is simply deduced. The canonical gospels all show biographical material, teachings, and miracles but the earlier deduced writings are each just a subset of a gospel, focused on one aspect. I'll argue that this is very plausible:
* The early Christians were surely eager to record what they knew in writing. They didn't wait four or five decades.
* They recorded what they knew and wanted remembered. They weren't attempting comprehensive works like the canonicals.
* With their writings eventually incorporated into the canonicals, there was then no need to preserve the early texts. Papyrus disintegrates.

The three early writings conjectured are:
*(1) The Pre-Markan Passion Narrative. (Gospel of Mark, verses 14:32-15:47). Compare. Theissen and Pesch offer chronological reasons (one argument dates it no later than 37 AD) for the dating of this early text.
*(2) The Lost Sayings Gospel Q.
*(3) The Signs Gospel. One argument that numbered "signs" in John come from a pre-Johannine source is that the word "sign" has a very different connotation in the rest of John.

It's hard to study the very early Christian writings and their relationships, as well as Josephus, Tacitus, etc., without concluding that Mythicist chronologies are laughable nonsense.