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
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, just a question. You likely have a pointer to more of this, where Luke and Matthew disagree
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?