Markian Priority

(Please read the previous post first to get an understanding of Historical Criticism).

So today we discussed the idea of the Documentary Hypothesis, that is, that the Pentateuch was written or compiled by at least five different people (Bloom suggests that D is infact two or three people). Of course, Historical Criticism doesn't stop there.

One of the most famous examples of HC is called Marcan Priority. This states that, contrary to Christian tradition, the St. Mark's was the first Gospel (tradition holds that they were written in the order they appear). We will not touch on St. John's Gospel because, as it is not a synoptic Gospel, it does not fit into the 'Synoptic Problem.' This is based primarily on the idea that the Gospel according to Saints Matthew and Luke say everything said in Mark and then add a little. This common extra is suggested to come from the Q document (Q from Quella, German for source) which was also written around the age of Mark.

The primary problem? No hint of Q has ever been discoereved. Thousands of other so-called gospels (of Thomas, Judas, Philip, etc.) exist in partial or nearly complete documents, but nothing that could be Q has ever been found. The Q Hypothesis, as it is called, exists on nothing but a similarity between two stories about the same man.

Imagine three people wrote about George Washington. One was a short biography, and two were longer. Arguably, everything in the short one would be found in the long as well, and then the long two would include what else they considered important. Much of this would logically overlap. No one would assume that the short biography was the source for the longer two, nor would they assume the longer two shared another source.

Also, it would be well to note that the first appearance of Historical Criticism in the New Testament argued that Mark was the last gospel to be written, on account of it bringing together the more Jewish nature of Matthew with the more Gentile nature of Luke.


I currently have fifteen more posts in some sort of planning, so I figure I will be writing a lot. I will try to post no more than once a day, but if I do, I apologize in advance. Feel free to comment on anything.

Historical Criticism

(If you haven't read the introduction, please scroll down and do so).

Historical Criticism has been the big thing when studying the bible for the past hundred and fifty years, particularly among secular scholars. I am going to touch on it at least a couple more times, but I would first like to define it and go over a little about its origins.

Historical Criticism is "is the art of distinguishing the true from the false concerning facts of the past" (The Catholic Encyclopedia). Thus it is used to decide what part of a writing is true, and what part is false. When it was applied to the Bible (its only major study) it starts with the assumption that all things miraculous and divine are false, and then attempts to work its way from there. The Book of J is an example of Historical Criticsm, as is the Markian Priority hypothosis (I'll explain it later).

I will discuss many of the flaws and misconceptions associated with Historical Criticism in later posts, but first I will explain why it is such a big thing when studying the Bible. For the last hundred and fifty years or so much of the intellectual world has taken on the goal of dismantleing the current authority. It is their view (which is somewhat accurate) that the Authority has always oppressed the weak. Therefore, white's have oppressed minorities, men have oppressed woman, the Church has oppressed 'free thinkers', heterosexuals have oppressed homosexuals, the rich have oppressed the poor, etc. Intellectuals (critics, etc.) take it upon themsevles to free the oppressed from their oppressers through whatever means (Marxism, Civil Rights Movement, Historical Criticism, etc.).

The problem, however, is that there is no particular reason to believe that the current 'oppressers' are the worst. The only reason those in charge seem so bad (or are so bad) is because they have the power to do it. If Hitler had never gained the power to murder millions of Jews, Anti-Semitism would likely not be considered the great evil that it is. Likewise, if African-American's actually held the power in this country they would probably, in some way, oppress the whites. Human nature desires its own elevation, and will, in many cases, attempt this at the expense of others.

As Harold Bloom said on one of the first pages, we cannot say if any Historical Criticism is true. It is, however, very popular because it attempts to descredity and/or destroy one of the reigning institutions of the world, the Christian Church, seen as one of the oppressers that must be stopped.