Re: A sample of (one of) my issue(s) with the synoptic problem.
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:08 pm
Maybe...?Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:46 amHowever, 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
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.)