Minor agreements against gMark

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
If Jonathan is declared being high priest, he had to be appointed earlier to the high priesthood.
If I say president of the US Trump, he had to have been elected earlier.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Quoted below is the relevant part of BeDuhn's argument from his 2017 paper (which, in turn, is based on a presentation delivered in the ‘Quaestiones disputatae’ session at the 71st General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, held at McGill University, Montreal, on 3 August 2016) -

(the pertinent part of the paper based on Klinghardt's presentation, at the same above-mentioned 71st General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, is in the next post)

....

It is the unique conditions of control afforded by the three Synoptics and by the fortuitous partial survival of a fourth Synoptic, Marcion’s Gospel, that allow us to distinguish the stages at which certain developments of gospel texts occurred; but in countless other details of the gospel texts, where we do not have such controls, it is impossible for us to make similar distinctions. It is for this reason that we cannot insist on perfectly clean, neat, simple uni-directional models of gospel relationships with all elements accounted for and no flies in the ointment. We cannot insist on this because our manuscripts come too late in the transmission process to escape intertextual exposures and other changes that have altered the texts from their originally composed form.

Despite these challenging conditions of the materials we have to work with, neater, simpler, less-multi-directional models of gospel relationships are still to be preferred, as requiring less special pleading in their defence. Marcion’s Gospel, as the Fourth Synoptic, adds a control that allows us to assess such models of gospel relationship. Matthias Klinghardt argues that canonical Luke derives from Marcion’s Gospel by a process of additions to the text.23 His arguments are, on the whole, cogent and persuasive. But that does not necessarily mean that Luke is a post-Marcion, anti-Marcionite redaction. If Marcion’s Gospel predates Marcion, so too might the redactional relationship between it and Luke. The signs of an anti-Marcionite purpose that Klinghardt and others point to are far too subtle. There is a fundamental continuity in ideology and ethos between Marcion’s Gospel and Luke.24 If we were to think in terms of authorship and distinct redactions, it could even be suggested that Luke is a second edition of Marcion’s Gospel by the same author. Be that as it may, there are few grounds for proposing ideologically distinct communities as the venue of use for these two gospels. Since there is no clear ideological tendency that distinguishes one from the other, I would suggest a pragmatic or cultural purpose behind the differences between the two texts, that is, culturally rather than ideologically distinct communities. Not every variation in early Christian life and literature was ideology-driven. Marcion’s Gospel, which is relatively less engaged with the Jewish tradition, was suitable for use in Gentile-dominated communities, while Luke, relatively more engaged with it, could have been intended for use in communities with a stronger Jewish background.

....

BeDuhn, J, April 2017 issue of New Testament Studies, Vol 63, Issue 2; pp. 324-7 (of pp. 324-9 in toto)
.

I have argued.... Just kidding. I am coming back to this post to highlight a snippet from BeDuhn that falls in line with an impression I have of Marcion, to wit, that he was not so much an innovator as he was a popularizer. He did not take an existing gospel (canonical Luke) and create from it his own theological system simply by carving away what he did not like; nor did he pen a gospel (the Evangelion) that expressed his theology only to find that later heresiologists could reasonably (in many cases) hoist him by the petard of his own creation. Rather, as he himself seems to have claimed (according to Tertullian), the gospel he published for his own purposes was an actual gospel text which "Judaizers" had interpolated. (Replace Marcion with Marcionites and a similarly plausible process still emerges.)

A notion I have had in mind for some time is that (A) a proto-Luke which looked much like the Marcionite gospel was penned, (B) this gospel was interpolated to become canonical Luke, and then (C) Marcion became aware of the existence of the proto-gospel, noticed that the additions were often of a Judaizing nature, revolted at the pious fraud of it all, and tried to reform the church based on his indignation. The discovery of a text one takes to be earlier than existing texts can be a powerful, powerful psychological motivator, as demonstrated by relevant accounts both historical and legendary, from the ancient discovery of the Book of the Law in Jerusalem under Josiah to the brilliantly eccentric reactions and overreactions to the modern discoveries at Qumran.

BeDuhn calls the Marcionite gospel the Fourth Synoptic, and that is fair enough if he is correct in his overall approach, but I have noticed that scholars often research very different, yet possibly compatible, angles almost in complete isolation from the other groups. BeDuhn belongs to that group which favors the Marcionite gospel as an explanatory piece of the ancient puzzle of early Christian texts. There are others who favor other texts in that same capacity, however, from Thomas to the hypothetical Q to the gospel of the Hebrews to the Didache. And, of course, there are still others who favor only the original Synoptic Three, relegating (either by default or by argument) all other texts to the nether world of "late harmonizing gospel texts." Many of the methods used to relegate those other texts to that nether world, I have noticed, would fail my favorite thought experiment for such situations: what if Mark had been lost to history? For example:

Petri Luomanen, Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels, page 178: 178 If it can be shown that Origen’s passage contains words or expressions that were created either by Matthew or Luke when they edited their writings, I take this as a strong indication of the dependence of Origen’s passage on the canonical gospels. If the passage depends on both Matthew and Luke, this makes the case even stronger.

Yet the decision that Matthew or Luke created those words or expressions in the process of editing their respective gospels has clearly already been made long before the passage in question, a snippet from the gospel according to the Hebrews in the Latin translation of Origen's commentary on Matthew, is even considered.

If Mark were a newly discovered gospel, and years of scholarship had already been spent on how Luke had modified Matthew, it seems to me that Mark would be automatically considered, by the usual methodologies, to have drawn from Matthew and Luke.

For example, the use of ἐγένετο + the infinitive in Mark 2.23 (ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι) = Luke 6.1 (ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ διαπορεύεσθαι) would already have been judged to be Lucan redaction of Matthew 12.1 in light of Luke's usage of this idiom elsewhere (Luke 3.21; 6.6, 12; 16.22; 15 more times in Acts; Matthew never uses it at all), whereas Mark 2.23 is the only Marcan example (making an additional possible allowance for Mark 2.15, γίνεται + the infinitive). Mark, then, must know and must have used Lucan redaction; therefore, Mark is later than Luke.

Or, as another example, another expression in Mark 12.12 (τὴν παραβολὴν εἶπεν) = Luke 20.19 (εἶπεν τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην) would also be judged to be Lucan redaction, this time of Matthew 21.45, since Luke uses this same expression, εἶπεν παραβολήν, elsewhere (Luke 6.39; 12.16; 15.3; 18.9; 19.11; 21.29; Matthew never uses it), whereas Mark 12.12 is the only Marcan example. Mark, then, must know and must have used Lucan redaction; therefore, Mark is later than Luke.

Or, as yet another example, a word used in Mark 3.7-8 (πλῆθος ×2) = Luke 6.17 (πλῆθος ×1) would be judged to be Lucan redaction of Matthew 5.1 because of its usage elsewhere in the gospel (Luke 1.10; 2.13; 5.6; 8.37; 19.37; 23.1, 27; sixteen times in Acts; Matthew never uses it), whereas Mark 3.7-8 are the only two Marcan examples. Mark, then, must know and must have used Lucan redaction; therefore, Mark is later than Luke.

That said, Luomanen's book overall is extremely valuable; his approach to delineating the various Jewish-Christian gospel texts is the best I have come across, and I find myself generally persuaded of many/most of his conclusions in that respect. Also, Luomanen hardly stands alone in the parts of his methodology that I am criticizing here.

At any rate, once such methodologies are set aside as inadequate, we find that there may be value in some of these scholarly silos perhaps communicating across the usual divides from time to time. I agree that the Marcionite gospel ought to be considered in synoptic theories. I also think that other texts, ones which completely different tranches of research have suggested, perhaps ought to be considered. My own focus has sometimes been the gospel of the Hebrews (which is part of why I have been researching references to the Naṣoraeans for some time now). And I have posted before about Alan Garrow's work on the Didache (as possibly containing passages which made it into Matthew), and about the Fayyum fragment (as a possible precursor to canonical Mark), and about Papias and Aristion and the elder John (as possible precursors to the gospels of Luke and of John). It is so much easier to focus on adding only one new element into the mix (hence Marcion as the Fourth Synoptic); but it may risk falling into a slightly expanded version of the fallacy described above, with four default texts instead of three and the rest consigned to the outer darkness of "late gospel harmonization."

All of this is inspired by a recent possible change in viewpoint of mine on one single issue; the origin of the Lazarus legend. I have had in my mind literally for more than two decades a particular picture of how the Lucan parable of Lazarus and the rich man relates to the Johannine story of Lazarus and his sisters in Bethany. That picture was originally formed on the basis of the texts of Luke and John alone. It survived my forays into the synoptic problem, the Marcionite gospel, and Papias as an influencer of the Johannine stream of tradition, each considered on its own merits. But I am not sure it has survived my latest attempts to synthesize all of these strands and more into a larger coherent picture. The effect can be jarring: a possible reversal of a position held for years and years. But it has happened before, and the results are usually very well worth it. (For the hopelessly curious, a group from which I hold a charter membership, I have long thought that the Lazarus parable in Luke was a take off from Johannine legends about the figure of Lazarus; I know that lots of people go in the opposite direction, almost instinctively, supposing that John drew Lazarus from the Lucan parable and breathed life into him, but I never found that option attractive for various reasons. Now, though, I am rethinking the matter, and it seems plausible to me that proto-Luke had the parable, as it is well attested for Marcion, that John got it from Luke, and that he conflated that Lazarus with Judaic legends surrounding the family of Boethus. Luke 16.19-31 + Boethus family legends = John's Bethany family. My point here and now, of course, does not depend on me being right about that formulation; my point is about the method of arriving there.)

Anyway, just rambling, I suppose. Keeping my mind distracted from American politics, to be frank.

[Bernard Muller]

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin,

I think it is not possible that Matthew and Luke have so many agreements independently of each other. On the other hand, we also have clear differences between Matthew and Luke, which are good arguments against the assumption of a harmonization.

I made a point about:

gLuke does not have the so-called Bethsaida mini gospel except:
Mk8:15 "take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod." in the missing block reappears in Lk12:1b ("Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy") and Mt16:6,11 ("beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees.").
"Luke" did not get any Bethsaida mini gospel, which is included in gMatthew (14:24-16:13a) and gMark (6:47-8:27a), but had the leaven saying regardless: from where? Obviously not from gMark or gMatthew but from a separate Q document.

Note: the greek word for "beware" is the same in Gluke & gMatthew ('prosechō') but different in gMark ('blepō') ...

The fact is, minor agreements in gLuke and gMatthew against gMark, were also in Q.

Reference: search.php?keywords=Kunigunde&t=7280&sf=msgonly (second post)
About Mk 2:23 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): an answer why the disciples would pluck the head of grains. Not the same tense!
About Mk 2:24 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): The tense in Lk & Mt is more adequate than the one in Mk (repeated action).
About Mk 2:25 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): "in need" is superfluous.
About Mk 2:26 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): "in the time of Abiathar the high priest" is superfluous.
About Mk 2:27 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): Superfluous again considering the next verse.
About Mk 2:28 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): "even" is not required.

I think it is not possible that Matthew and Luke have so many agreements independently of each other.

I agree.

On the other hand, we also have clear differences between Matthew and Luke, which are good arguments against the assumption of a harmonization.

However, the reasons for Lk and Mt against gMark in your 6 cases, can be easily explained as removing the superfluous in, or completing or correcting the Marcan verses.

But all of that does not prevent "Luke" knowing gMatthew or "Matthew" knowing gLuke or early harmonizations on specific items for reasons I already explained, either on both gospels, or from gMatthew to gLuke or from gLuke to gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

[mlinssen]

I think it is not possible that Matthew and Luke have so many agreements independently of each other.

I agree.

On the other hand, we also have clear differences between Matthew and Luke, which are good arguments against the assumption of a harmonization.

However, the reasons for Lk and Mt against gMark in your 6 cases, can be easily explained as removing the superfluous in, or completing or correcting the Marcan verses.

But all of that does not prevent "Luke" knowing gMatthew or "Matthew" knowing gLuke or early harmonizations on specific items for reasons I already explained, either on both gospels, or from gMatthew to gLuke or from gLuke to gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

You guys have never worked for a multinational selling products across various global markets, have you?
I have regularly rewritten Service Offerings in order to service different industries, or identical industries in different countries.
You have a different audience, different mindset, different level of operation and undestanding, different culture, different vocabulary - so you sell the exact same product, but you dress it up very differently

So you take the existing Service Offering (if it's the source) and simply rewrite it. You check it with your colleagues from the different industry and / or country before, during and after, all depending on Time to Execution

I have countless examples for you in the everyday consumer world, for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twix#History

Cleaning products? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cif#Name

You are simply looking at a marketing strategy, guys and girls. One product, different audiences. The sales team was allegedly called MatthewLuke, how hard is that to imagine, or understand? Why can't you simply accept that, because of the disagreements?
If there hadn't been disagreements, there wouldn't have been two different gospels, now would there?

Homogenous customer base -> homogenous product and sales / marketing strategy.
Heterogenous customer base -> still the same product yet heterogenous sales / marketing strategy.

Look at the big picture, stop nitpicking over periods and commas in bible translations, those are all crap anyway and the 86th copy of a copy