Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin,

I think it is not possible that Matthew and Luke have so many agreements independently of each other. On the other hand, we also have clear differences between Matthew and Luke, which are good arguments against the assumption of a harmonization.

I made a point about:

The fact is, minor agreements in gLuke and gMatthew against gMark, were also in Q.

Reference: search.php?keywords=Kunigunde&t=7280&sf=msgonly (second post)
About Mk 2:23 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): an answer why the disciples would pluck the head of grains. Not the same tense!
About Mk 2:24 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): The tense in Lk & Mt is more adequate than the one in Mk (repeated action).
About Mk 2:25 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): "in need" is superfluous.
About Mk 2:26 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): "in the time of Abiathar the high priest" is superfluous.
About Mk 2:27 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): Superfluous again considering the next verse.
About Mk 2:28 (& parallels in gLuke & gMatthew): "even" is not required.

I think it is not possible that Matthew and Luke have so many agreements independently of each other.

I agree.

On the other hand, we also have clear differences between Matthew and Luke, which are good arguments against the assumption of a harmonization.

However, the reasons for Lk and Mt against gMark in your 6 cases, can be easily explained as removing the superfluous in, or completing or correcting the Marcan verses.

But all of that does not prevent "Luke" knowing gMatthew or "Matthew" knowing gLuke or early harmonizations on specific items for reasons I already explained, either on both gospels, or from gMatthew to gLuke or from gLuke to gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin,

This was a major argument from earlier scholars who viewed the evangelists as collectors and editors of Jesus stories rather than writers. It took the form: "It is inconceivable that Luke would have written it that way if he (or she) had known Matthew". But meanwhile modern scholars can imagine a lot that was previously considered unthinkable.

Modern scholars can imagine a lot, but did they demonstrate what was previously considered unthinkable?

It seems to me that it is important to consider very carefully on the one hand the minor agreements and on the other hand the problems arising from the hypothesis of Luke's dependence on Matthew (which I would not be able to do).

First, one knowing about the other work is not very solid because:

a) "Q" being a stand-alone mini-gospel pre-dating GMark
b) The aforementioned Farrer's hypothesis, with "Q" material copied by "Luke" from GMatthew: James Hardy Ropes (1934), Austin Marsden Farrer (1955) & Michael Douglas Goulder (1974, 1989)
c) The opposite view, with "Q" coming from GLuke to GMatthew: Christian Gottlieb Wilke (1838), Bruno Bauer (1841), Ronald V. Huggins (1992) & Evan Powell (2006)

http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
If scholars can make gLuke dependent on gMatthew, and gMatthew dependent on gLuke, that tells me that the dependences are on shaky ground.
As I stated before, if one was dependent on the other, you would not observe huge differences in material between gLuke & gMatthew which is not in Q or gMark.
Furthermore in the case of "Luke" (with a pro-feminist and pro-roman outlook) knowing gMatthew, I would expect her to include from gMatthew the following:

27:19 While he [Pilate]was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."

Furthermore, there are internal evidence that part of Q was written in Aramaic which was translated in Greek differently.
And that "Luke" had to deal with Q material which went big time against her view, which she could have avoided if "Luke" was doing selective picking from gMatthew.
All of that and more in http://historical-jesus.info/q.html. Also relevant is http://historical-jesus.info/39.html

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:16 am On my web page on Q http://historical-jesus.info/q.html, I addressed four of these minor agreements, which at the time, were considered the most problematic:

Four specific minor agreements between GMatthew and GLuke against GMark are often mentioned as a reason "Luke" knew about Matthew's gospel. They are the parable of the mustard seed (already addressed), "Nazara" (Mt4:13, Lk4:16), "Who is the one who struck You?" (Mt26:68, Lk22:64), and the parable of the talents/minas (Mt25:14-30, Lk19:11-27)

...
Does anyone counteracted these minor agreements?

Tim Widowfield made a good case against "Who is the one who struck You?" as a minor agreement.

btw

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:04 am

DCHindley wrote:Personally, I do not understand all the hand wringing and outright fear the Q hypotheses seems to evoke in folks. There is nothing ill-defined in the theory that a common document lies behind the rather strikingly similar double tradition material of Matthew and Luke. "Minor agreements" do not negate the strong and sometimes verbatim similarities.

I agree in principle. However, there are examples of "minor agreements" which put Q completely in question. Let me give an example.

Mark 2	Matt 12	Luke 6	Commentary
23 Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας. 23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain	1 Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων· οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν. 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.	1 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων, καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν. 1 On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands.	Matt & Luke added the eating of the grain
24 καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ, Ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν; 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”	2 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἰδόντες εἶπαν αὐτῷ, Ἰδοὺ οἱ μαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”	2 τινὲς δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων εἶπαν, Τί ποιεῖτε ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν; 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?”	Matt & Luke used Mark´s “ἔλεγον“ in the form of „εἶπαν”
25 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυὶδ ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχεν καὶ ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him:	3 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυὶδ ὅτε ἐπείνασεν καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him:	3 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀνέγνωτε ὃ ἐποίησεν Δαυὶδ ὅτε ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ [ὄντες], 3 And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him:	Matt & Luke skipped Mark´s “David was in need” and used Mark´s “λέγει“ in the form of „εἶπεν”
26 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν; 26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”	4 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις; 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?	4 [ὡς] εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως λαβὼν ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔδωκεν τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ μόνους τοὺς ἱερεῖς; 4 how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?”	Matt & Luke skipped Mark´s “Abiathar the high priest” and used “μόνοις/μόνους“ (only for the priests)
x	5 ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ὅτι τοῖς σάββασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τὸ σάββατον βεβηλοῦσιν καὶ ἀναίτιοί εἰσιν; 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?	x	x
x	6 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῦ ἱεροῦ μεῖζόν ἐστιν ὧδε. 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.	x	x
x	7 εἰ δὲ ἐγνώκειτε τί ἐστιν, Ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν, οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε τοὺς ἀναιτίους. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.	x	x
27 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο καὶ οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον 27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.	x	5 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, 5 And he said to them,	Matt & Luke skipped Mk 2:27, but Luke have “And he said to them,” like Mark
28 ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”	8 κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”	5 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Κύριός ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 5 And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”	Matt & Luke used the same word order

I think it is not possible that Matthew and Luke have so many agreements independently of each other. On the other hand, we also have clear differences between Matthew and Luke, which are good arguments against the assumption of a harmonization.