Horizontal Synoptic Solution

[Adam]

Slipping from Horizontal?
That “Q” underlies Mark has long been held, basically from the appearance at the start of Mark of so much that looks like a summary of parallel material in Matthew and Luke. Proof for such “Double Tradition” actually underlying “Triple Tradition” came from the Nag Hammadi discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in 1945, because it parallels the Q-like elements in Mark. However, how did these parts alone get into Mark when the great bulk of the non-narrative Double Tradition is not found in Mark? By my Horizontal Hypothesis I hold that most of this was in an appendix attached to the narrative portions of the Urevangelium. That these appear in corresponding places in the Synoptics would indicate that these portions of the sayings were loose pieces in the collection of sayings, and thus they were easily moved physically to their new location integrated into the main text.
The alternate hypothesis is that one Synoptic (or its precursor) is the basis for another. Here Marcan Priority would hold that Mark 12:1-17 is the basis for Luke 20:9-26 (and of course for Mt. 21:33-46). The reverse could be held, but in this case we would expect Mark to have been copied from an earlier version of Luke that did not yet contain any of the material unique to Luke. (The parables “missing” in Mark are in the uniquely Lucan portions.) There are two parts to this section. Mark 12:1-12 is the Parable of the Tenants, which seems to have an Aramaic core paralleled in Thomas 65. Yet it is framed with so many consecutive exact works that the final Synoptic forms must have been in Greek. This could explain why it immediately precedes the Tribute to Caesar pericope (Mark 12:13-17) that likewise seems to be from Greek. On my Horizontal Hypothesis both of these would have been removed physically from the appendix portion to the main narrative portion of the Urevangelium (whether this shift occurred before or during the first gospel-extraction from it).

A problem arises in that the even larger parallel (with Thomas 9) is Mark 4, the Parable of the Sower. (The corresponding Matthew 13 and Luke 8 are as above placed in the same contexts within the respective gospels.) Its lack of exact word use with the other Synoptics leaves it probable that this carried into the Synoptics still in its Aramaic form. This could likewise have been a detached text that was moved over from the appendix to the main narrative. This is not so improbable, considering that “Q” material is placed so differently in Matthew than in Luke that it may well be that it may always have been in the form of many detached bits. This could be more evidence for Maurice Casey’s “chaotic Q”.

The upshot is that these considerations give more support to Marcan Priority than to Lucan priority, except in the context of the Horizontal Hypothesis, but the latter is likewise somewhat diminished in probability, at least in the form of a strict segregation between narrative and sayings. This idea of separation would better explain the parallels between Q and Thomas. Yet this convenience of seeing Thomas in what was originally only in an appendix is not lost just because some few portions had already been moved to particularly relevant portions of narrative. The Sower Parable seems particularly appropriate to a position shortly after the call of the twelve apostles. The Parable of the Tenants fits well only in confrontation with the religious leaders in Jerusalem, and this originally Aramaic story had already been placed in Greek framing more in keeping with the last half of Mark which could have come from someone only knowledgeable about this portion of Jesus’s ministry, in my analysis John Mark.

My Horizontal Hypothesis had already moved to acknowledging that it was already like the Two-Document Hypothesis in accepting that it was in two parts, a narrative much like Mark and sayings much like Q. This was to explain why so little of the latter had entered into Mark and also why Matthew and Luke had utilized Q so differently. I now more exactly define the narrative portion of the Urevangelium as having already incorporated the above two parables (In Mark 4 and 12) or that the first user of it (Luke according to me, but others would prefer Mark) detached those items from the appended sayings for placement in like positions in all three Synoptics. I am also clarifying (as I may never have) that my preference for Lucan priority only applies within the context of my Horizontal Hypothesis.

[steve43]

commonality in the synoptic gospels...from Hagan's "Year of the Passover"

SynopticGospels.gif (12.46 KiB) Viewed 9017 times

[Peter Kirby]

My favorite part of these charts is the way it illustrates that Matthew contains 94% of Mark.

I'm not a brilliant source critic, but to me that says right off the bat that Mark abridged Matthew (with no other sources) or Matthew expanded on Mark.

Which also implies that Griesbach was just another too-clever bastard (positing that Mark used both Matthew and Luke).

[Adam]

Except that it would appear, on a pericope-by-pericope basis more like Mark and Matthew both abridged each other and expanded on each other! Tilt!
Dennis R. MacDonald has shown that it's more like Mark and Matthew both used a common source that is sometimes closer to Mark and sometimes closer to Matthew. That's MacDonald's Q+ Hypothesis, a maximal Q. In turn I have expanded yet more to my Horizontal Hypothesis.

[Adam]

The John 21 Source
This can’t wait for further conclusiveness—I have to publicize that the problems with the Resurrection accounts may have arisen from partisan contentions within incipient Christianity, the Jerusalem Christians under the two successive bishop brothers James and Simon as against those who favored Peter as the leader. The latter case is seen in Matthew 28:9-20 (for Galilee, without mention of any other Jerusalem appearances, but yet not mentioning Peter) and John 20-21, where John 21 presumably gives us Peter as the new leader named when the apostles reach the designated Galilee. In contrast Mark 16:9-20 never mentions Peter or Galilee (ignoring the prompt for both in 16:7 that was already there from the Urevangelium) and Luke goes to the extreme of never mentioning Galilee as destination nor location nor ever mention Peter at all (who next appears at Acts 2:14). Remember that Luke 24:12 is questionable textually (missing in Codex Bezae) and the “Simon” at 24:34 is (by my accounts) the Simon of the opposite faction.

Did the Urevangelium conclude with John 21 or something like it? That would seem presumed by the first 8 verses of the concluding chapter of each of Matthew and Mark, that Jesus would go before them into Galilee. Those verses would have come from the Other Mary, of James and Joses. Luke 24 from Joanna knew better, revised the Galilee words, and replaced the “John 21” with Luke 24 as we have it. This revision resulted in the verses beyond the first eight getting lost (or attached after John 20—remember all four gospels were written within a close circle basically of Peter, Simon, John, and John Mark). That left the Urevangelium (Proto-Matthew) available needing conclusions. For Mark this was of course Mark 16:9-20, basically following what wound up in Luke 24 and Acts 1:1-11. This writer may not have known about Galilee Resurrection appearances of Jesus, or may have just been following the standard convention of writing only what the writer had personally known. The corresponding last 12 verses of Matthew show less familiarity with events, seeming to assume that the reference to Galilee meant that Jesus only came to Galilee.

With Peter and Mark as the tellers of so much of John 20 and 21, and with John 21 focusing on and glorifying Peter, we can see why John 21 might afterwards be suppressed. It’s not just that John 21 seems to put Peter over all the apostles, but that perspective had been lost that this was simply what Jesus had to say to Peter that happened to be recorded alone, without the similar messages to other apostles. John 20 was from Mary Magdalene and John Mark, with John the Apostle as Editor adding much. John 21 was done by John telling mostly Peter’s remembrance. The Urevangelium Resurrection accounts from Matthew (let’s say) came from Mary mother of James and Joses topped with John 21 from Peter to accord with her preliminary eight verses of the first two gospels last chapters.

But this wouldn’t do for Luke 24 purposes knowing that Galilee was not immediate and knowing that Peter was not supposed to be leader—or at least that from Simon future Bishop of Jerusalem and brother of the current Bishop James that this was not to be accepted—so it wound up without going to Galilee at all and eliminating Peter’s role (as in John 20 and 21) altogether (though someone sneaked it in later at Luke 24:12). At this point there was an impasse between John 20-21 with too much Peter and John 21 the same and Galilee besides (Peter’s base of support in his home town of Capernaum) versus Luke 24 and Acts 1 without Peter and Galilee at all, but with Simon (son of Cleopas) inserted in Luke 24:13-35! That’s about as stark a contrast and possible party-opposition as one could get!

So whatever of Peter or Galilee was in the Urevangelium after Luke 24:8 can be assumed as expunged (or more peacefully assumed to have been transferred over to the Galilee partisans and retained such as in John 21). As stated above, for Mark 16:9-20 the substitution followed the Jerusalem script of eliminating Peter and Galilee. But the same mutilated Urevangelium as used for Matthew 28:9-20 played up Galilee as all the bigger, as the only Resurrection appearance to anyone but the women in 28:9-10. Recollections of the earlier lost text are rather diffuse in what is apparently a rewrite of it in Matthew 28:9-20.

So I forlornly ask once again for any aid I can get at the forward edges of gospel research, going once again where no one has ever gone before. (Yes, F. C. Baur went even farther, but can I be refuted in my above propositions as thoroughly as he has? Nor am I saying precisely what James Tabor is publishing about the Jesus Dynasty.)

[Adam]

My latest (Feb 2) means that I regard only John 21 through verse 17 as from the source (following Howard Teeple); the remaining verses through 21:25 were not in the Urevangelium. When this Grundschrift was first used when Luke 24 was written, such a focus on Peter was unacceptable, as the Jerusalem Christians knew Peter was not the only apostle to receive such a commissioning. It was physically removed, but not destroyed, so like the pericope of the adulteress (John 7:53-8:11) it wound up in the final text of John. All the references to Peter in John 20 were also deleted, but the rest of what the disciples in general saw was retained (thus we find nothing in Luke 24 about Mary Magdalene as a sole witness), explaining the similarity between Luke 24 and John 20. As stated before, Luke 24:12 was added after the text of Luke got out of the control of the Jerusalem Christians.

As stated, the remaining Urevangelium stopped after the first eight verses of the concluding chapter of the other two synoptics, but continued in opposite directions. Mark 16:9-20 was added in the spirit of Luke 24 by the Jerusalem Christians completely devoid of any mention of either Peter or Galilee. Matthew 28:9-20 only allowed Resurrection appearances to apostles (or any males at all) in Galilee.

With the cut-off for the Grundschrift text at 21:17, we see it was written while Peter was still alive, so John A. T. Robinson is correct about a pre-70 date at least for the precursor to the Synoptics. I would hold that at least Luke 24 and Mark 16:1-8 (the latter independent of either John 20 or 21, more related to Q) were also written before 70 A. D. Subsequent verses (as well as the Infancy Narratives) could be later than 70.

I thank you all for your patience with me and not attacking the weak points in John 21 as a source in the Urevangelium even though it is absent in all the synoptics that derived from it. So many views (over 50 since Feb. 2) of my stuff without any nasty attacks! Thank you.
Edited to add:
Forgot to mention that the Western text includes Mark 16:9-20 that neglects Peter while omitting Luke 24:12 that is the sole mention of Peter after Luke 22. Likewise Mark 16:14 has Jesus appearing in another form, making the Jerusalem school open to Marcionism in accord with Marcion’s acceptance of only Luke. In contrast the neutral text favors Peter by including Luke 24:12 and omitting the Longer Ending of Mark that slights him. Going even farther, there is in contrast a rare shorter ending that restores the highlight to Peter:
“And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter's companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.”

[Adam]

Continuing full-time work in spite of flu and old age, let me enter now only what else needs to be added (er, subtracted) from what I said above about John 21:
I appreciate your charity in refraining from attacking my precipitously introduced idea that John 21 is not a late addendum to the gospels, but instead the lost ending of the Urevangelium. I already (Feb. 5) clarified that nothing after John 21:17 is early. However, this Redactor’s work also included John 21 verses 1, parts of 2, 7, and 8, all of 10 and 14, the first ten words of 15, and the second sentence of 17. Or so Howard Teeple would have it, and I mostly agree. Few of you have access to his Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, so I’ll type up his analysis of John 21 when I have more time.
Note that the Beloved Disciple thus disappears from the source, and also the sons of Zebedee (the only supposed naming in John of “John”). Also disappearing are all three occurrences of the word “appeared” (or revealed, manifested), ephaneroosen.

[Adam]

Those of you more orthodox than I will be happy to know that I’m coming up with my own good argument against my latest idea that John 21:1-17 was excised from Luke 24 because it was too slavishly Petrine and Galilee-focused. (“Galilee” does not appear in any of John 21 except in the part of 21:2 that Teeple gives his “R” rating, but the Redactor’s 21:1 “Sea of Tiberias” is no doubt a rewrite of “Galilee” in the Source.) My new idea is that the Gospel of Luke routinely eliminates doublets and gives priority to the first to occur. Many scholars (such as Robert Fortna) already regard John 21 as a Ministry event that gets transposed to a Resurrection miracle instead, I suppose as a revised Luke 5:1-11. By my understanding the similar Miracle of Fishes in Luke 5:1-11 would cause Luke to excise the similar John 21, just as the Anointing in Luke 7:36-50 causes that gospel to be missing the much later Anointing in all the other three gospels. Notice how fresh are the original versions in both Luke and John 12:1-8, contrasting with what seem like a confused recollection in Mark 14:3-9 and Matthew 26:6-13 attempting to restore what was known to be missing (presumably because physically removed for use in John).

Both theories utilize my basic concept that in all the earlier stages of writing the gospels, no one added anything that was not his own eyewitness observation or (where necessary in the case of the women who found the Tomb empty) obtained from eyewitnesses. Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:1-17 were both events that occurred and were told by Peter (to John Mark). John 12:1-8 was witnessed by John Mark about his own mother. The replacement anointing in Luke 7:36-50 was written by the Simon in it when he wrote his Proto-Luke gospel before he became Bishop of Jerusalem.

[Adam]

I already (Feb. 5) clarified that nothing after John 21:17 is early. However, this Redactor’s work also included John 21 verses 1, parts of 2, 7, and 8, all of 10 and 14, the first ten words of 15, and the second sentence of 17. Or so Howard Teeple would have it, and I mostly agree. Few of you have access to his Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, so I’ll type up his analysis of John 21 when I have more time.
Note that the Beloved Disciple thus disappears from the source, and also the sons of Zebedee (the only supposed naming in John of “John”). Also disappearing are all three occurrences of the word “appeared” (or revealed, manifested), ephaneroosen.

Here below is the promised transcription and commentary. (The book itself is now long out-of-print and pricey to obtain.)
{Everything within ellipses {} is commentary from Dale Adams. Wherever WITHIN PARENTHESES you see a word in Capital letters, it is my substitution for what Howard M. Teeple showed as underlined transliterations of Greek words. (He never in his book used Greek fonts, but was limited to a cheap format that was soon considered obsolete.) “arth” = “arthrous, the presence of the definite article (“the”) before the noun preceding the annotation “[arth. ]” ; “an” = anarthous, the absence of any article with the noun preceding the annotation “[an. ]”; “an comp.” = anarthrous compound, that neither of the two preceding nouns has an associated article; “arth. comp.” = arthrous compound , that both of the two preceding nouns is preceded by the definite article (the); “an. def.” = the first noun does not but the second noun itself makes the pair specific (“Simon,( the son) of John”);
“S*” = “Codex Sinaiticus, as originally transcribed in the 4th Century”
“B” = “Codex Vaticanus”
“lac.” = gap in the text, a lacunae
In the words “AGAPAO”, “HOS”, “BLEPO” and “PHILEO” the “O” is super-scripted with a line above that letter.}

Teeple’s John 21:
CHAPTER 21: R
1 After these things Jesus [arth. ] manifested himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias. And he manifested (himself) thus.
SOURCE: STORY OF CATCHING FISH
2 There were together Simon Peter [an. comp. ] and Thomas [an. ],
R
The one being called “Twin,”
SOURCE: STORY OF CATCHING FISH
And Nathaniel [an. ],
R
the one from [APO] Cana of Galilee [R gives location of cities], and the (sons ) of Zebedee [arth. ],
SOURCE: STORY OF CATCHING FISH
And two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter [an. comp. ] says to them, “I am going away to fish.” They say to him, “We also are coming with [SUN] you.” They went out and got into the boat [PLOION] , and during that night they caught nothing.
SOURCE: STORY OF MEAL
4 And just as it becomes morning Jesus [an. ] stood on the beach, although the disciples did not know that it is Jesus [an. ]. 5 Then Jesus [an. ] says to them, “Little children, do you not have any relish (to eat)?” They answered him, “No.”
SOURCE: STORY OF CATCHING FISH
6 He says [in S*] to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat [PLOION] and you will find.” Then they cast, and they were not strong enough to haul it in because [APO] of the abundance of fish [ICHTHUS].
R
7 Then that disciple whom Jesus [arth. ] loved [AGAPAO] says to Peter [arth. ] “It is the Lord.” Having heard that it is the Lord,
SOURCE: STORY OF CATCHING FISH
then Simon Peter [an comp. ] tied around (himself) an outer garment
R
--for he was naked—
SOURCE: STORY OF CATCHING FISH
And cast himself into the sea. 8 And the other disciples came
R
In the small boat [PLOIARION], for they were not far from the land but about [HOS APO] two hundred cubits away—
SOURCE: STORY OF CATCHING FISH
Dragging the net (full) of fish [ICHTHUSJ].
SOURCE: STORY OF MEAL
9 Then when they got up on the land, they see [blepo] a charcoal fire lying (there) and small fish [OPSARION] lying on (it) and bread,
R ?
10 Jesus [arth. ] says to them, “Bring some of the small fish [OPSARION] which you caught now [NUN].”
SOURCE: STORY OF CATCHING FISH
11 Then Simon Peter [an. comp. ] went up and hauled to the land the net full of 153 large fish [ICHTHUS]; and (though) there were so many, the net was not torn.
SOURCE: STORY OF MEAL
12. Jesus [an. in B; lac. In P66, P75] says to them, “Come, eat.” None of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” knowing that he is the Lord. 13 Jesus [an. in B; lac. In P66, P75] comes and takes the bread and gives “it” to them, and the small fish [OPSARION] likewise.
R
14 This is already (was) the third “(time) Jesus [arth. In S; lac. In P66, P75] was manifested to the disciples, having been raised from the dead. 15 Then when they had eaten, Jesus [arth. ] says to Simon Peter [arth. comp. ] ,
SOURCE: STORY OF TRIPLE AFFIRMATION
“Simon [an. def. ], (son) of John [an. ], do you love [AGAPAO] me more than these?” He says to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [PHILEO] you.” He says to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He says to him [R inserts “again”] a second (time), “Simon [an. def. ] (son) of John [an. ], do you love [AGAPAO] me?” He says to him, “Yes, Lord you know that I love [PHILEO] you.” He says to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He says to him the third (time), “Simon [an. def.], (son) of John [an. ], do you love [PHILEO] me?”
R
Peter [arth. ] was grieved that he said to him the third (time), “Do you love [PHILEO] me?” and he said,
SOURCE: STORY OF TRIPLE AFFIRMATION
“Lord, [R inserts “you KNOW all things”], you KNOW that I love [PHILEO] you.” He says to him, “Feed my sheep.
{The rest is all R or worse. Teeple assigns 21:18-24 to the Redactor, and 21:25 to a later gloss, and I agree with Teeple on both.}
{Exegesis: I don’t necessarily agree with Teeple on all verses, and on the bigger picture I regard all the SOURCE attributions as from ONE source, the same person who wrote much of John 13 and John 20: E, the Editor, but who does not seem to me to be the Source of the P1 and P2 sections that bedeviled Teeple in John 20. I attribute to him John 20: (6-7), 10-11a, 14c-15, 18, 24-25; eliminating from Teeple’s E just 20:19, 21, and 28-29. In addition I name him as John the Apostle, son of Zebedee.
As for John 21 as above from Teeple, I regard John 21: 9 as one with verse10, thus also from the Redactor. I assign 21:12-13 likewise to the Redactor, to be assimilated to verse 14. All of what Teeple categorizes as “STORY OF A MEAL” came later from the Redactor. For all the rest of the STORY items, however, I regard them as truly from a source, specifically as being the Editor’s own eyewitness contribution.}
{Commentary: I clearly do not regard John 21 as a later appendix, unless it (like the Pericope of the Adulteress) happened to end up here instead of its original place in another gospel—not Luke for this case, but the lost final chapter (after 16:8) of Mark. If that implies that this Editor (John the Apostle) had some hand in the Synoptics, no problem for me, as I have also in recent years been attempting to show that the Synoptic stories about James and John went in two different directions under the influence of Peter and Andrew, but this could mean that John was the “odd-man-out” in what he wrote about the Resurrection.
So the point is, by considering just the pre-Redactor portions of John 21:1-17, do we have a source that could be a continuation of Mark 16:1-8 (likewise Matthew 28:1-10) that was removed by the Jerusalem school that has left us most of Luke 24 (but not 24:12) and Mark 16:9-20, thus expunging all references to Peter (after Mark 16:7) and Galilee.}

[Adam]

I clearly do not regard John 21 as a later appendix, unless it (like the Pericope of the Adulteress) happened to end up here instead of its original place in another gospel—not Luke for this case, but the lost final chapter (after 16:8) of Mark. If that implies that this Editor (John the Apostle) had some hand in the Synoptics, no problem for me, as I have also in recent years been attempting to show that the Synoptic stories about James and John went in two different directions under the influence of Peter and Andrew, but this could mean that John was the “odd-man-out” in what he wrote about the Resurrection.
So the point is, by considering just the pre-Redactor portions of John 21:1-17, do we have a source that could be a continuation of Mark 16:1-8 (likewise Matthew 28:1-10) that was removed by the Jerusalem school that has left us most of Luke 24 (but not 24:12) and Mark 16:9-20, thus expunging all references to Peter (after Mark 16:7) and Galilee.

So I did get around to my promised transcription of Teeple's analysis of John 21, but no one commented on it. So I'm just too advanced for anyone to fit within your current paradigm? I put this out there to see if there was some obvious refutation, so I can assume that there isn't?

Or if that does not interest you, how about my potentially Orthodoxy-shaking speculation that the Resurrection accounts derive from two (or more) competing schools of early Christianity, that Mark 16:9-20 is the extreme statement of the anti-Peter, anti-Galilee faction of which Luke 24 (without 24:12) and much of John 20 are an earlier, milder version as against a Galilee-preeminent school seen in Mt.28:Mk16:1-8 and John 21.