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
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8891
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 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:08 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:46 am
However, the little "οὖν" in Matthew 22:28 and Luke 20:33 could also be counted as a minor agreement against Mark 12:23. It looks like Luke read Matthew and kept the word in his head
Maybe...?

Mark has οὖν only 5 times in the critical text (10.9; 11.31; 12.9; 13.35; 15.12; + once in the Longer Ending at 16.19). NA28 has the word in brackets in two of those instances (11.31; 12.9), and at 10.9 it is missing in Bezae. So 5 times may even be a high estimate. (Alexandrinus, Ephraemi rescriptus, Bezae, and Washingtonianus, however, all show οὖν at Mark 12.23, incidentally. The Marcan text is all over the place in this pericope. I am guessing the critical text omits it as a likely harmonization.)

On the other hand, Matthew has οὖν about 55 times and Luke has it about 33 times, seldom bracketed (never in Matthew, only once in Luke). That both should independently add it to such an obvious spot, the "gotcha" part of a query meant as a trap, seems reasonable to me. Luke has already added οὖν to the Marcan text at 20.29 in this very pericope without Matthew's assistance. Elsewhere he adds it to Marcan text at Luke 8.18; 13.18; 14.34; 20.17, 44; 21.7, 14. (Of the Marcan instances themselves, Luke has no real parallel to Mark 10.9; 13.35; at Mark 12.9 = Luke 20.15 he copies the word over; at Mark 11.31 = Luke 20.5 he omits it. Mark 15.12 = Luke 23.22 is sort of a special case; Luke has the word, just like Mark, but has uses it in a different question by Pilate about Barabbas than the question that Pilate asks in Mark.)

So sure, maybe Luke has kept οὖν in his head from Matthew's text (and has added it before ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει, whereas Matthew has it afterward). Or maybe οὖν, already a favorite both of Matthew and of Luke, is just a pretty logical word to insert at such a juncture. How do we calculate such probabilities so as to decide between them? (To my mind, οὖν seems like a less likely import from Matthew than ὕστερον, given that Luke is fond of the former but apparently not of the latter, but I do not know that I can prove my assessment of the likelihood. And, if you feel like it goes the other way around, I doubt I can disprove your assessment.)

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:44 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:08 pm

So sure, maybe Luke has kept οὖν in his head from Matthew's text (and has added it before ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει, whereas Matthew has it afterward). Or maybe οὖν, already a favorite both of Matthew and of Luke, is just a pretty logical word to insert at such a juncture. How do we calculate such probabilities so as to decide between them? (To my mind, οὖν seems like a less likely import from Matthew than ὕστερον, given that Luke is fond of the former but apparently not of the latter, but I do not know that I can prove my assessment of the likelihood. And, if you feel like it goes the other way around, I doubt I can disprove your assessment.)
When I discuss agreements, I initially mean it without judgment and without assuming a cause. Simply an agreement. As I said, the present pericopae is not helpful for the theory of minor agreements. Two or four little matches mean nothing and can be explained somehow.

I think that you yourself know that there are completely different pericopes, for example the calming of the storm.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8891
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 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:48 pm

Ah, I see. And yes, there are pericopae (such as the calming of the sea) evincing agreements which, while not terribly convincing individually, collectively add up to more.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3911
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 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:07 pm

I also find that the "ὕστερον" is not very meaningful. Luke could have changed that independently of Matthew. imho Marks "ἔσχατον" sounds a little bit apocalyptic.

imho the main reason for the low informative value of the pericope is that Luke apparently went his own way and was eager to address the question of marriage.

However, the little "οὖν" in Matthew 22:28 and Luke 20:33 could also be counted as a minor agreement against Mark 12:23. It looks like Luke read Matthew and kept the word in his head
Why would "Luke read Matthew"? Could not these two words, ὕστερον and οὖν, come from a common document Q, as stated at the beginning of my web page on Q:
GMark-->Q-->GLuke & GMatthew
Therefore, Q would also include the "minor agreements", annulling the major argument against Q being a document. Furthermore, when Q is intermediary between gMark and Gluke & gMatthew, the "minor agreements" can be explained by the Q author rewriting a passage from GMark, and introducing new words not in GMark but later picked up by "Luke" & "Matthew".
"Luke" read gMatthew? I said it before a few times: It it was so, the many huge differences between GLuke & GMatthew in L & M material, most obvious in the nativity and reappearances stories are very hard to explain (other than by convoluted & unrealistic schemes). That seems like an elephant in the room for those who think a gospel author ("Luke" or "Matthew") knew about the work of the other (gMatthew or gLuke). For me, these theories crashed right here.

Please note:

When "Luke" or "Matthew" obviously worked on the same Markan passage, but with "no minor agreements ", then it is very possible both consulted independently & directly the Markan passage, with no necessity to have Q as intermediary.

In other cases, "Luke" or "Matthew" might have merged the wording of the Markan passage with the one of the Q intermediary.
I have an example for that:
The parable of the mustard seed:

The problematic "Q" and "Mark" overlaps can be explained the same way for the parable of the mustard seed: segments of GMark being rewritten with additional material put in.

a) Mark's version:
Mk4:30-32 "Again he said, "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground.
[allusion to the smallness of the initial Christian message or/and origin]
` Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants,
[from a very little beginning, something unexpectedly large and strong can develop]
` with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade.""

The imagery is evidently borrowed from:
Eze17:23 "On the mountain height of Israel I will plant it; and it will bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a majestic cedar. Under it will dwell birds of every sort; in the shadow of its branches they will dwell."

b) The probable "Q" version:
Lk13:18-19 "Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to [very similar with Mk4:30]? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched [also translated as "roosted"] in its branches""

A "Q" writer might have thought that a plant (black mustard), even if it grows up to almost four feet tall, is rather fragile and unlikely to be used as a perch or a roosting place for birds. Therefore, this author dispensed with the botanical details of "Mark" and replaced the frail plant by a more appropriate (solid, tall and long-lasting) tree (as in Eze17:23 quoted earlier). Furthermore a tree requires many years to grow (allowing for the tardy arrival of the Kingdom!), when the plant matures (and dies) in only one season.
In conclusion, the mustard seed parable in GMark presented serious flaws and was rewritten by a "Q" author.
He knew about Mark's version because the mustard seed was kept, even if there was no need to feature that particular seed. As a matter of fact, any (tree) seed would have been a lot more adequate.

PS: "Matthew" combined the two versions; consequently the plant is also a tree!
Mt13:32 "... the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree ..."
Cordially, Bernard

John2
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:19 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:32 pm
mlinssen wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:07 pm
Yesterday I used the word cautious somewhere, where I'm usually use careful - I use the latter for almost everything LOL

I think I haven't used the word cautious in years, perhaps decades. And the only possible reason for me to use it is that I saw it somewhere, heard it, read it - got inspired by someone else but myself
That can sure happen. Another thing that can happen is scribal harmonization predating the archetype. How does one calculate the odds of each contingency (whether directly or indirectly)? What method works for such a calculation? Hence the dilemma.

To me it looks like the big picture is that someone (whether Luke or a harmonizing scribe) was influenced by Matthew. It can't be proven, as you've said, but these seem like the simplest and best options to me.

If it was Luke then it's another piece of evidence that he used Matthew, and if it was a harmonizing scribe it would be in keeping with Matthew's popularity. Either way it would come from Matthew. He's the one who liked the word and used it here. So I think the word likely came from Matthew. And if it was done by a scribe and can't be used as evidence for the Farrer Hypothesis, so what. And if it was done by Luke then it's another piece of evidence (however small) for the Farrer Hypothesis. For me it's either these two options or the abyss of speculation, and with Matthew sitting there with the very word in question, why choose the latter?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8891
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 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:44 pm

John2 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:19 pm
For me it's either these two options or the abyss of speculation, and with Matthew sitting there with the very word in question, why choose the latter?
Because the abyss of speculation is running deals right now on summer homes?

But point taken, and those are my two prime options, as well: either Farrer or scribal harmonization. I would not say that Luke just coming up with the word off the top of his head is impossible, but it seems less probable than the other two options.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8891
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 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:45 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:07 pm
Why would "Luke read Matthew"? Could not these two words, ὕστερον and οὖν, come from a common document Q, as stated at the beginning of my web page on Q....
Sounds like your Q would be quite a bit longer than other people's notion of Q.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13412
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:46 pm

To me it looks like the big picture is that someone (whether Luke or a harmonizing scribe) was influenced by Matthew.
Gee I wonder why you think that ...

Sometimes this whole forum seems like a site devoted to why the human race is horribly self-centered and worthy of execration. You only think that because your model for the origins of Christianity depends on it. It's not like you came to that conclusion based on the actual evidence. It's just a self-serving hypothesis. Another argument in favor of fire and brimstone for the human race.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8891
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 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:08 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:07 pm
"Luke" read gMatthew? I said it before a few times: It it was so, the many huge differences between GLuke & GMatthew in L & M material, most obvious in the nativity and reappearances stories are very hard to explain (other than by convoluted & unrealistic schemes).
What are your assumptions? What is your methodology? How far is an author allowed to go in disagreeing with or contradicting a source? How much is too much? How do you know that it is too much?

Take Luke and Mark, for example. Mark promises that Jesus will make a resurrection in Galilee. But Luke has appearances only in Jerusalem and its environs, no further out than Emmaus. Luke even appears to rewrite the words of the angel to get these results, and then he sticks to his guns in making sure, in the gospel itself, that there is no room for an appearance in Galilee:

Mark 14.28: 28 “But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”

Mark 16.6-7: 6 And he says to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

Luke 24.4-7: 4 While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; 5 and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? 6 He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

Luke 24.23: 13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.

Luke 24.33-34: 33 And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them, 34 saying, “The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.”

Luke 24.49: 49 “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

Luke 24.50-53: 50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51 While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

So Luke is directly contradicting Mark. Does that mean that Luke does not know Mark? I can see where one might argue that this contradiction is not as hefty, say, as what we find in the infancy accounts. Very well, then. What is the line? When does the contradiction become too big to allow for the second author to have known the first?

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3911
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 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:26 pm

tp Ben,
So Luke is directly contradicting Mark. Does that mean that Luke does not know Mark? I can see where one might argue that this contradiction is not as hefty, say, as what we find in the infancy accounts. Very well, then. What is the line? When does the contradiction become too big to allow for the second author to have known the first?
As far as what the angel says to the women, we have next: They went out,* and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come on them. They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid. (Mk 16:8).
So what the angel said and the women witnessed go for nought.
In Mk16:7 However, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee. However the "going into Galilee" is conditional to Jesus having been raised up.
But the disciples of Jesus never believed in the Resurrection or even resurrections: all explained here: Did Jesus' disciples believe in the Resurrection and resurrections? http://historical-jesus.info/8.html.
Also here: Did the early Galilean pillars of the Church of Jerusalem (Peter, John & Jesus' brother James) become Christians? http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

So that allowed "Luke" to keep the disciples in Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard

Post Reply