A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by mlinssen » Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:33 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 7:53 pm
Ben, just a question. You likely have a pointer to more of this, where Luke and Matthew disagree against Mark?

Would be lovely to get a handful, especially the minor ones such as these: both disagree with Mark, yet also have a minor disagreement between the two themselves.
I'm risking to be wrong when I claim that where Luke then disagrees with Mark, he is in agreement with Matthew

Save for the Thomas material, Luke always has the most verbatim copy there, e.g. pray in 5:33

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8564
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:02 am

mlinssen wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:10 am
andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 3:26 am
According to my Merk critical NT (which is based on Von Soden and not always reliable), there is versional evidence (Old Latin Old Syriac and Armenian) for omitting ὕστερον in Luke 20:32.
Possibly original Luke left out Mark's ἔσχατον and a later copyist added ὕστερον from Matthew.
But why pick Matthew and not Mark? Isn't the remainder from Mark?
Because the gospel of Matthew became the most popular of the three synoptic gospels in the early church, and harmonizing to Matthew was more common than harmonizing to Mark. (Andrew is talking about what the scribes may have done, whereas my point is about what Luke would do: two separate questions.)
mlinssen wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:33 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 7:53 pm
Ben, just a question. You likely have a pointer to more of this, where Luke and Matthew disagree against Mark?

Would be lovely to get a handful, especially the minor ones such as these: both disagree with Mark, yet also have a minor disagreement between the two themselves.
I want to make sure I know what you are asking.

There are passages of similar function but very different content between Matthew and Luke which Mark lacks. For example, the nativity narratives. Nothing in Mark, but between Matthew and Luke the narratives bear only a handful of agreements (the names of Jesus and of his parents, Bethlehem, angelic announcements, birth by the Holy Spirit, Davidic ancestry nonetheless, the reign of Herod, a move to Nazareth) in an ocean of disagreements, including apparent contradictions which give apologists headaches.

There are passages in Mark to which Matthew and Luke have added similar materials which differ in some of the details. For example, the temptations, where both Matthew and Luke add three actual temptations to what in Mark is a tiny pericope, but give them in a different order (Matthew: bread, temple, mountain; Luke: bread, mountain, temple) and, often enough, with different wording (Matthew: the tempter, the holy city; Luke: the devil, Jerusalem).

There are passages in which both Matthew and Luke have altered a word or phrase of Mark, but altered it differently. For example, Mark 9.34 has the indirect discourse, "as to who was the greatest," but Luke 9.46 adjusts it to "as to who might be the greatest of them," and Matthew 18.1 turns it into a direct question, "Who then is the greatest?" I do not have a handy list of these instances, but there are quite a few of them.

There is one passage, the rejection in Jesus' hometown (Matthew 13.53-58 = Mark 6.1-6a = Luke 4.16-30), which Matthew and Luke have in common with Mark, but which both seem to remove separately to different points in the narrative.
I'm risking to be wrong when I claim that where Luke then disagrees with Mark, he is in agreement with Matthew
There is the matter of the resurrection appearances, already discussed a bit on this thread. Our extant text of Mark lacks appearances, ending suddenly before they would be about to take place, but promises at least one in Galilee. Matthew actually gives us one in Galilee (after having already added one to the women at the tomb). Luke gives us several appearances, but all in Jerusalem, and makes it clear that nothing happened in Galilee. Luke here disagrees both with Mark and with Matthew, and completely goes his own way.

Are these the kinds of things you are after?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:13 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin,
The whole problem of agreements between Matthew and Luke, however, looks like this

- the kingdom is like
- seed that a man took
- becomes a tree
- nests in its branches
If we have gMark-->Q-->GLuke & GMatthew, with Q author making changes from GMark, that would explain and solve the problem. For more about my definition of Q, consult: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7280&p=113705&hilit ... ar#p113705

Cordially, Bernard

Ken Olson
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by Ken Olson » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:30 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:13 am
If we have gMark-->Q-->GLuke & GMatthew, with Q author making changes from GMark, that would explain and solve the problem. For more about my definition of Q, consult: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7280&p=113705&hilit ... ar#p113705
There are any number of ways that the relationships among the different versions of the Parable of the Mustard Seed in the synoptic gospels *could* be explained (e.g., Griesbach/Matthew=>Luke=>Mark; Matthean Posteriority/Matthew Conflator/Mark=>Luke=>Matthew). What I'd like to know is what your particular iteration of the Mark-Q/Two-Souce/2DH theory has over Farrer/Mark without Q/Mark=>Matthew=>Luke theory. It seems that the data *could* be explained on the theory that Mark wrote first, Matthew based his version of the parable on Mark's, and then Luke based his version on Matthew's (with perhaps some very minor reminiscence of Mark). What makes your theory better than mine?

Best,

Ken

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:46 am

to Ken Olson,
What makes your theory better than mine?
With my theory, I don't have to contend with the huge differences between L and M material (including within the nativity and reappearances stories). However if "Luke" had (complete) gMatthew, these huge differences need to be explained. Therefore, a better theory is certainly "Luke" did not know about gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8564
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:47 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:02 am
mlinssen wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:10 am
andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 3:26 am
According to my Merk critical NT (which is based on Von Soden and not always reliable), there is versional evidence (Old Latin Old Syriac and Armenian) for omitting ὕστερον in Luke 20:32.
Possibly original Luke left out Mark's ἔσχατον and a later copyist added ὕστερον from Matthew.
But why pick Matthew and not Mark? Isn't the remainder from Mark?
Because the gospel of Matthew became the most popular of the three synoptic gospels in the early church, and harmonizing to Matthew was more common than harmonizing to Mark. (Andrew is talking about what the scribes may have done, whereas my point is about what Luke would do: two separate questions.)
An example of this tendency from a dissertation dedicated entirely to the phenomenon of scribal harmonization, designed to correct at least one earlier study which had a skewed sample:

Cambry Pardee, Scribal Harmonization in Greek Manuscripts of the Synoptic Gospels from the Second to the Fifth Century, pages 460-461:

460-461 The Gospel of Matthew serves as the source of harmonizing variants more frequently than either of the other Synoptics. Matthew is the sole source of 45 percent of the harmonizing variants. In nearly 20 percent of the cases, the parallel influence may have come from Matthew or one of the other Synoptics. By contrast, Mark accounts for the parallel material approximately 15 percent of the time and Luke for another 15 percent. In the remaining cases, the material could have come from Mark or Luke, John, or some other external source.

These two facts, that Matthew was subject to harmonization the least frequently and served as the source of harmonization the most frequently, show that the Gospel of Matthew tended to be the horizon of expectation by which most scribes read and copied the Gospels. Since Matthew was copied the most frequently, its manner of presenting gospel material became the cognitive exemplar of many scribes and the source of most reflexive harmonization in the manuscripts.


Ken Olson
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by Ken Olson » Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:59 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:46 am
to Ken Olson,
What makes your theory better than mine?
With my theory, I don't have to contend with the huge differences between L and M material (including within the nativity and reappearances stories). However if "Luke" had (complete) gMatthew, these huge differences need to be explained. Therefore, a better theory is certainly "Luke" did not know about gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard,

I was asking specifically about the Parable of the Mustard Seed. Is your explanation of that parable superior in some way to that which can be offered by the Farrer theory? If not, and you're just saying your theory, which you hold on other grounds, is possible (or not falsified) with respect to that parable, fine. I certainly do not claim that I can demonstrate Matthew's priority to Luke from any set of parallel pericopes they share when viewed in isolation (though I don't think any falsify it).

Best,

Ken

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:04 am

to Ben,
How do the reappearance stories in Matthew argue against Luke knowing Matthew, (A) if the reappearance stories were not even in Matthew for Luke to know, or (B) if the reappearance stories in Matthew are just as problematic or nonproblematic as those in Mark? How does the argument work if you have taken away either its very basis (the presence of the resurrection appearance stories in Matthew) or its difference from Mark (both Matthew and Mark bearing a Galilee orientation which Luke would have to have ignored)?
About huge differences, there is more than just the reappearances: the nativity and Jesus' baby years for example: "Luke" did not know about GMatthew version. About GMark bearing a Galilee orientation, the ending of GMark at 16:8 was very unsatisfying and "Luke" substituted a Jerusalem orientation and added reappearances stories.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:16 am

to Ken Olson,
I was asking specifically about the Parable of the Mustard Seed. Is your explanation of that parable superior in some way to that which can be offered by the Farrer theory? If not, and you're just saying your theory, which you hold on other grounds, is possible (or not falsified) with respect to that parable, fine. I certainly do not claim that I can demonstrate Matthew's priority to Luke from any set of parallel pericopes they share when viewed in isolation (though I don't think any falsify it).
Probably not superior, but, at least equal. However that's taking the parable in isolation and not seeing the big drawback about "Luke" knowing GMatthew. Did Farrer or Goodacre address the problem of the differences of material not in gMark and not in the double tradition?

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8564
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:46 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:04 am
to Ben,
How do the reappearance stories in Matthew argue against Luke knowing Matthew, (A) if the reappearance stories were not even in Matthew for Luke to know, or (B) if the reappearance stories in Matthew are just as problematic or nonproblematic as those in Mark? How does the argument work if you have taken away either its very basis (the presence of the resurrection appearance stories in Matthew) or its difference from Mark (both Matthew and Mark bearing a Galilee orientation which Luke would have to have ignored)?
About huge differences, there is more than just the reappearances: the nativity and Jesus' baby years for example: "Luke" did not know about GMatthew version. About GMark bearing a Galilee orientation, the ending of GMark at 16:8 was very unsatisfying and "Luke" substituted a Jerusalem orientation and added reappearances stories.
I was not asking about the nativity narratives. I already understand the argument from the nativity narratives. What I do not understand is the argument from the resurrection appearances. In my view, if Luke ignored Jesus' words and changed the angel's words in Mark to keep things in Jerusalem, then he could easily have ignored Jesus' resurrection appearance in Matthew to keep things in Jerusalem.

In general, authors are allowed to completely contradict their sources. An argument that Luke could not have contradicted Matthew must rest on the particulars of the case, not on a general assumption like the one you have been sticking to, simply that the narratives are soooo different.

Post Reply