A structured approach to the synoptic problem as a question of four documents including *Ev

[Peter Kirby]

The numbering quickly gets wild if we try to account for hypothetical texts or all possible recensions of a given text, but from the perspective of looking at models that involve four synoptic texts where *Ev is one, these are the possible orderings. I am also not making any distinction here between a document that came later and didn't use a prior one and one that did. There are 24 orderings.

Mk,Ev*,Lk,Mt
Ev*,Mk,Lk,Mt
Lk,Mk,Ev*,Mt
Mk,Lk,Ev*,Mt
Ev*,Lk,Mk,Mt
Lk,Ev*,Mk,Mt
Lk,Ev*,Mt,Mk
Ev*,Lk,Mt,Mk
Mt,Lk,Ev*,Mk
Lk,Mt,Ev*,Mk
Ev*,Mt,Lk,Mk
Mt,Ev*,Lk,Mk
Mt,Mk,Lk,Ev*
Mk,Mt,Lk,Ev*
Lk,Mt,Mk,Ev*
Mt,Lk,Mk,Ev*
Mk,Lk,Mt,Ev*
Lk,Mk,Mt,Ev*
Ev*,Mk,Mt,Lk
Mk,Ev*,Mt,Lk
Mt,Ev*,Mk,Lk
Ev*,Mt,Mk,Lk
Mk,Mt,Ev*,Lk
Mt,Mk,Ev*,Lk

Suppose we agree with Klinghardt that two relatively certain relationships are Mk -> Mt and Ev* -> Lk. Then we can eliminate all orders that violate these two relationships.

Mk,Ev*,Lk,Mt
Ev*,Mk,Lk,Mt
Ev*,Lk,Mk,Mt
Ev*,Mk,Mt,Lk
Mk,Ev*,Mt,Lk
Mk,Mt,Ev*,Lk

Suppose we view another relationship to be *Ev -> Mt. That eliminates one.

Mk,Ev*,Lk,Mt
Ev*,Mk,Lk,Mt
Ev*,Lk,Mk,Mt
Ev*,Mk,Mt,Lk
Mk,Ev*,Mt,Lk

If we take the point of view that Mt -> Lk is true, we get this subset.

Ev*,Mk,Mt,Lk
Mk,Ev*,Mt,Lk

Which finally resolves into a single hypothesis depending on the order of Ev* and Mk.

If we take the point of view that Lk -> Mt is true, we get this subset:

Mk,Ev*,Lk,Mt
Ev*,Mk,Lk,Mt
Ev*,Lk,Mk,Mt

Which finally resolves into a single hypothesis if Mk is before Ev* (i.e. Mk,Ev*,Lk,Mt) and into two hypotheses if Ev* is before Mk (i.e. Ev*,Mk,Lk,Mt and Ev*,Lk,Mk,Mt). Finally, those last two are resolved on the basis of whether Mk is before Lk or vice-versa.

To sum up, if we take as established that Mk -> Mt and Ev* -> Lk (Klinghardt's first two synoptic axioms), there are six hypotheses of order. The idea of *Ev -> Mt brings it down to five. Among those who accept Mk -> Mt who do not view *Ev to be the last of these gospels, but who instead view *Ev to be prior to and used by Mt and Lk, these two important questions (and one minor question) remain to resolve the order fully:

Is Mt before Lk, or is Lk before Mt?

Is Ev* before Mk, or is Mk before *Ev?

If Lk is before Mt and Ev* is before Mk, then is Mk before Lk or vice-versa?

As such, the debate between the Farrer hypothesis and the Wilke (i.e., which came first, Luke or Matthew) should have great importance among those who are exploring the synoptic problem from the point of view of there being four texts to explain, including *Ev.

Shout out to Ken Olson for mentioning that debate and making me think about how relevant it is.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
imho for the relationship between Mk, Lk and Ev the following two alternatives are the most likely

Mk -> Lk -> Ev
or
Ev -> Lk -> Mk

At first glance, GLuke seems to be the logical link between GMarcion and GMark

[Peter Kirby]

.
imho for the relationship between Mk, Lk and Ev the following two alternatives are the most likely

Mk -> Lk -> Ev
or
Ev -> Lk -> Mk

At first glance, GLuke seems to be the logical link between GMarcion and GMark

What excludes Mk -> Ev* -> Lk?

[Giuseppe]

For me:
Memoirs of the Apostles -> *Ev -> Mk -> Mt -> Lk

[Peter Kirby]

Memoirs of the Apostles

Can you describe this further? (Or reference the secondary literature you have in mind.)

[Giuseppe]

Memoirs of the Apostles

Can you describe this further? (Or reference the secondary literature you have in mind.)

I mean the earthly (but atemporal) episodes about Jesus described by Justin but not found in known gospels (for example, the fire at Jordan during the baptism). Justin takes them from lost "Memoirs of the Apostles".

[Peter Kirby]

Memoirs of the Apostles

Can you describe this further? (Or reference the secondary literature you have in mind.)

I mean the earthly (but atemporal) episodes about Jesus described by Justin but not found in known gospels (for example, the fire at Jordan during the baptism). Justin takes them from lost "Memoirs of the Apostles".

Alright, thanks. The quest for "Justin's gospel(s)" may then rival in importance the quest for Marcion's.

[Ken Olson]

I have a question about the three Passion Predictions in the Synoptics and how the work on Klinghardt’s theory that *Ev was prior to Mark.

Three Passion Predictions.png (21.83 KiB) Viewed 529 times

On the three principal Markan priority theories (2DH, Farrer, MPH), Mark is first and has the three Passion Predictions grouped fairly closely together – one per chapter in chapters 8, 9, and 10.

Luke’s third Passion Prediction is widely separated from the first two because of Luke’s great insertion in Luke 9.51-18.14. The insertion is comprised mostly of Double Tradition ((Matthew-Luke) material and Special Lukan material, with a few Triple Tradition passages in which Matthew and Luke have agreements against Mark (the so-called Mark-Q overlaps, such as the Beelzebul pericope in Luke 11.14-24 (or 26?) in and the Parable of the Mustard Seed in 13.18-19).

This would seem to make sense on the theory of Markan priority. Mark did not include the material found in Luke 9.51-18.14 because he did not know it. Luke interrupted the Markan sequence by inserting additional material he knew from other sources (or, in some cases, that he composed himself) into it.

On Klinghardt’s theory, *Ev had only two Passion Predictions, Mark omitted nearly the entire block (including the Lord’s Prayer) from 9.51-8.14 except for the Mark-Q overlaps, which he rewrote and relocated, and then wrote a third Passion Prediction to follow closely on the first two.

The way Mark behaves here would seem to call for an explanation on Klinghardt’s theory (I have not yet grasped how the data might look on Peter Kirby’s contrarian synopsis). Has he offered one?

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

I have not yet grasped how the data might look on Peter Kirby’s contrarian synopsis

That's fair. I haven't completed surveying the data and putting it together.

[Peter Kirby]

I have not yet grasped how the data might look on Peter Kirby’s contrarian synopsis

I hope to be able to return to this at some point.