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 4:33 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
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.
Where Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem, whereas in Mark he tells them he will precede them into Galilee? The disciples may not believe in the resurrection, but does Jesus believe his own words? Surely there is something to Luke omitting Mark 14.28 and rewriting Mark 16.7, is there not?

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 4:55 pm

Furthermore, the claim was about Matthew's resurrection appearance (in Galilee):
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).
Matthew is as committed to Galilee as Mark is:

Matthew 26.32: 32 “But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”

Matthew 28.5-7: 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

Matthew 28.16-17: 16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.

If Luke can ignore or rewrite Mark on the grounds that his disciples do not believe in the resurrection, then why can Luke not ignore or rewrite Matthew on the same grounds?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:07 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 5:03 pm

to Ben.
Where Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem, whereas in Mark he tells them he will precede them into Galilee? The disciples may not believe in the resurrection, but does Jesus believe his own words? Surely there is something to Luke omitting Mark 14.28 and rewriting Mark 16.7, is there not?
Yes, of course. But if the disciples did not believe or understand about resurrections, or/and not made aware about the Resurrection, they would not know when to go into Galilee.
I did not say "Luke" did not rewrite passages in gMark. She did that almost all the time.
It would be claimed the "historian" got his facts right, and the preceding gospel author would be wrong, at least at times.

Cordially, Bernard

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 5:07 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:03 pm
to Ben.
Where Jesus tells them to stay in Jerusalem, whereas in Mark he tells them he will precede them into Galilee? The disciples may not believe in the resurrection, but does Jesus believe his own words? Surely there is something to Luke omitting Mark 14.28 and rewriting Mark 16.7, is there not?
Yes, of course. But if the disciples did not believe or understand about resurrections, or/and not made aware about the Resurrection, they would not know when to go into Galilee.
I did not say "Luke" did not rewrite passages in gMark. She did that almost all the time.
It would be claimed the "historian" got his facts right, and the preceding gospel author would be wrong, at least at times.
So can Luke not have done the same thing to Matthew?

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 7:48 pm

to Ben,
So can Luke not have done the same thing to Matthew?
1) if "Luke" did not know about GMatthew, problem solved.
2) I have reasons to think the two reappearances in GMatthew were interpolations made at the beginning of the 2nd century, by two different authors. That would be, according to my dating of GLuke, well after GLuke was written. If it is so, problem solved.
3) The interpolated ending of GMark (16:9-20) has its reappearances similar to the ones in gLuke & gJohn, but ignores the ones in gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

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 7:53 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 7:48 pm
to Ben,
So can Luke not have done the same thing to Matthew?
1) if "Luke" did not know about GMatthew, problem solved.
2) I have reasons to think the two reappearances in GMatthew were interpolations made at the beginning of the 2nd century, by two different authors. That would be, according to my dating of GLuke, well after GLuke was written. If it is so, problem solved.
3) The interpolated ending of GMark (16:9-20) has its reappearances similar to the ones in gLuke & gJohn, but ignores the ones in gMatthew.
So what does the following mean, then?
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).
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)?

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 11:52 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:07 pm
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 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
It looks to me that you're starting to explain without even overlooking the whole problem.

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:07 pm
The parable of the mustard seed:

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 ..."
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

Mark 4 Matthew 13 Luke 13
30 Καὶ ἔλεγεν· πῶς ὁμοιώσωμεν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν;
30 And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it?

31 ὡς κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃς ὅταν σπαρῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, μικρότερον ὂν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth,

32 καὶ ὅταν σπαρῇ, ἀναβαίνει καὶ γίνεται μεῖζον πάντων τῶν λαχάνων καὶ ποιεῖ κλάδους μεγάλους, ὥστε δύνασθαι ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνοῦν.
32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in it.”
31 Ἄλλην παραβολὴν παρέθηκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ·
31 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.

32 ὃ μικρότερον μέν ἐστιν πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων, ὅταν δὲ αὐξηθῇ μεῖζον τῶν λαχάνων ἐστὶν καὶ γίνεται δένδρον, ὥστε ἐλθεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατασκηνοῦν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.
32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”
18 Ἔλεγεν οὖν· τίνι ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τίνι ὁμοιώσω αὐτήν;
18 He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it?

19 ὁμοία ἐστὶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔβαλεν εἰς κῆπον ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ ηὔξησεν καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον, καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ.
19 It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”


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). 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.
For some scholars, it is easier to assume that Luke read Matthew than any theories that might explain all these agreements.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
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 1:14 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:52 pm
31 Ἄλλην παραβολὴν παρέθηκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ·
31 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.
Off-topic: why don't the translations used say kingdom of the heavens for Matthew? Why does hardly any bible translation?

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1940
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

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

Post by andrewcriddle » 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.

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
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 5:10 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.

Andrew Criddle
But why pick Matthew and not Mark? Isn't the remainder from Mark? That was Ben's entire point, if I remember correctly

Post Reply