Subject: Gospel priorities & theological commitment

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:14:14 -0800 (PST)

My present interest in this topic is in reviewing the switch-over in
thought from belief in the Augustinian order (Matthew-Mark-Luke), which
transpired over the extended period from about 1840-1924, and seeing if it
doesn't in fact trace to the theological commitment of the scholars who
dominated the scene then.  This ties in with textual criticism through the
question of whether or not the arguments used to support Mark-Q priority
in the past half century aren't entirely of the "reversible" type, as
opposed to the oral tradition known to Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine (and I
think implied by Papias also) that attested to the Matthew-Mark-Luke 
priority. 

It appears to me that the studies of 19th-century scholars like Eduard
Reuss, Heinrich Ewald, Herman Weisse and Heinrich Holtzmann, culminating
with Burnette Hillman Streeter in 1924, had reached the point where it
became disturbing to their own belief systems, and/or to the church, to
think of the Augustinian order being correct.  Unless the shortest Gospel
came first, it seemed that the writer of Mark had omitted far too much
precious material and Judaisms (Sermon on the Mount, most of the
parables....) to be theologically acceptable.  And if Luke came third, the
editorial behavior of its writer became seen as inexplicable and
theologically unacceptable. 

Even worse, with Matthew first, one sees, upon comparing parallel passages
concerning the disciples, that the writer of Mark while utilizing Matthew
added denigrating touches to the Jewish disciples' characters (as if to
imply that gentiles would make better disciples).  This was unacceptable
to these 19th-century scholars, since the evangelists were supposed to be
of the highest character, if not pipelines from God, and back in the 19th
century the evangelists were still considered to have been the men whose
names are attached to the Gospels.  This was so embarrassing a topic that
one can scarcely find any reference to it in the literature (though
Pierson Parker clearly sets forth these denigrating touches in his article
in William Farmer's "New Synoptic Studies" (1983)).  The topic is perhaps
even more embarassing today, as nowadays the writer of Mark would be
accused of anti-Semitism for such behavior.  This problem was conveniently
disposed of by switching to Mark-Q priority.  Then the writer of Matthew
could be assumed to have added reverential touches to Mark as well as all 
is other added material.

The invention of Q also permitted the assumption of minimal "copying" of 
Gospel text by one evangelist of another, since Luke could then be assumed 
independent of Matthew.  This also supported a theological commitment.

What I see as having happened is that the writer of Matthew, a converted
Jew (once a Pharisee and a scribe), happened to be strongly anti-gentile,
which shows up in numerous spots in his gospel, with the opposite stance
of Mt 28:19 and its Trinitarian-like formula being a much later add-on. It
is then only natural that when a head scribe in the church in Rome read
Matthew and its strong anti-gentile thrust, he felt motivated to write his
own gospel directed towards gentiles.  In likely retaliation to Matthew's
anti-gentile slant, he added small slurs directed against the Jewish
disciples, and omitted many Judaisms and whatever other text and parables
he did not understand or agree with. 
   Shortly after, the writer of Luke (perhaps located in Antioch)
appraised the situation; he apparently agreed with the sentiments of the
writer of Mark, though he felt the need for a more universal gospel.  So
he reinstated into his own gospel much of what the writer of Mark had
omitted from Matthew.  (Thus Q was born.) However, to show his favoritism
for Mark and distaste for Matthew, he closely followed Mark's order of
pericopes and text *wherever it deviated from Matthew*.  (Thus, it is
where the order between Matthew and Mark agree that he introduced his own
material.)  And in so doing, he frequently utilized Matthean text in
whatever order he wished (causing the two different orders of "Q"
material), sometimes utilized it in a different context of his own
choosing, and frequently contradicted Matthew. 

All this seems like rational (though distasteful) behavior on the part of 
the evangelists, and nothing that should be covered up in researching 
Gospel priorities.  Yet, Streeter accused the writer of Luke of having 
been a "crank" if he had behaved in any such way and the writer of Mark 
of having been a "lunatic" if he had abbreviated Matthew.  I see this as 
being Streeter's way of expressing his theological commitment and 
supporting the like commitment of the 19th-century scholars.  Because 
of Streeter's great influence among scholars, I believe such statements 
caused later scholars to buy into the Mark-Q priority hypothesis partly 
in order to avoid being called "cranks" or "lunatics" if they didn't.

The desire to avoid these considerations as applied to Luke appear to me 
to be the basis behind the Griesbachian school of thought 
(Matthew-Luke-Mark) to avoid placing Luke third.  And so it may enter in 
also to arguments that would support Luke coming first.

As to the TC involved, the Augustinian scheme outlined above does well 
explain the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, and of 
course supports the large number of studies that have found a dependence 
of Luke upon Matthew and the irreality of Q as a document or collection of 
sayings.  I find that it also supports a comparison of order between 
Matthew against Mark versus Mark against Matthew (there are 
important differences between the two).  

Concerning the numerous and relatively gross redactions evident within
Matthew itself, I find this to be due to the compiler of Matthew, when
preparing his gospel, having before him an extensive text that required
much editing before it would be acceptable to him.  The terse statement
from Papias that survives on this is the chief classical clue supporting
this contention. 

While this group will concentrate on textual criticism, I felt that this 
background was necessary to bring out the many other ties of this topic 
to NT scholasticism.  I welcome discussion on any aspects of this 
hypothesis.  

Jim Deardorff
Oregon State University
[email-masked]