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: 8250
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 » Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:48 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:16 am
Probably not superior, but, at least equal. However that's taking the parable in isolation and not seeing the big drawback about "Luke" knowing GMatthew. Did Farrer or Goodacre address the problem of the differences of material not in gMark and not in the double tradition?
No, Bernard, they completely forgot about that.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
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 » Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:19 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:16 am
Did Farrer or Goodacre address the problem of the differences of material not in gMark and not in the double tradition?
for example Michael Goulder in "Luke: A New Paradigm" via vridar "How and Why Luke Changed Matthew’s Nativity of Jesus Story"

Ken Olson
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

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

Post by Ken Olson » Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:47 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:16 am
Probably not superior, but, at least equal.
Sticking to just the Parable of the Mustard Seed again, I see two problems with your claim:

First, we don't assume lost sources on the basis that they provide equally good explanations as sources we actually have. They have to be better. (Hypothetical sources can always provide at least as good an explanation as a source we actually have because they can always take on the features of the actual existing source).

Second, you have Matthew performing a close conflation of the two versions in Mark and Q. The theory of Matthean conflation is not impossible in the case of the Mustard Seed (but faces severe difficulties in the case of the Beelzebul pericope), but it would be unusual, at least more unusual than Luke's dependence on a single source (i.e., Matthew).

Best,

Ken

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 278
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 12:43 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:02 am
There are passages in which both Matthew and Luke have altered a word or phrase of Mark, but altered it differently. For example, Mark 9.34 has the indirect discourse, "as to who was the greatest," but Luke 9.46 adjusts it to "as to who might be the greatest of them," and Matthew 18.1 turns it into a direct question, "Who then is the greatest?" I do not have a handy list of these instances, but there are quite a few of them.

Are these the kinds of things you are after?
Those. When I researched for my 72 logia I started with ESV, seemed nice - I didn't have a clue about bible translations. Halfway I realised I would break copyright, and after a quick search I ended up with WEB. And redoing everything I had

I think my question really is a futile one, and that is "which Greek text can I use best for comparison purposes?
Because I'm still thinking of putting Coptic Thomas side by side with the Greek canonicals. Although I maybe should just leave that all alone, and finish my last series

Dunno. Again. Sorry

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8250
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 » Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:54 pm

mlinssen wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:43 pm
I think my question really is a futile one, and that is "which Greek text can I use best for comparison purposes?"
The only practical approach to the Greek NT text that really makes sense for close textual comparison has to be that taken by the SQE and similar synopses: use a critical Greek text and then list as many of the textual variants as possible in whatever way seems the clearest for your purposes. If copyright is an issue for a critical Greek text, go with the older version which best approximates the text you are most comfortable with. For NA28, for example, I have used the Nestle 1904 text. Of you can use Tischendorf or Westcott-Hort. Heck, hypothetically you could even use the Textus Receptus, just so long as you made that clear up front and then spelled out all of the textual variants (and then some) which one would find informing the critical texts.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
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 » Sat Oct 24, 2020 1:31 pm

to Ken Olson,
Sticking to just the Parable of the Mustard Seed again, I see two problems with your claim:

First, we don't assume lost sources on the basis that they provide equally good explanations as sources we actually have. They have to be better. (Hypothetical sources can always provide at least as good an explanation as a source we actually have because they can always take on the features of the actual existing source).
No, it does not have to be better and I think you are unfair about isolating the parable from the rest of gLuke & gMatthew as if it was a basis of my theory. Q is not so hypothetical because reconstructible, in part, from the double tradition.
Please consider the following:
gLuke does not have the so-called Bethsaida mini gospel except:
Mk8:15 "... Watch out for/of/by the yeast of the Pharisees..." in the missing block reappears in Lk12:1b and Mt16:6,11.
"Luke" did not get any Bethsaida mini gospel from gMatthew and gMark (because "Luke" did not have gMatthew: that seems to be a valid explanation), but had the yeast saying regardless: from where? Obviously not from gMark or gMatthew but from a separate Q document.
Second, you have Matthew performing a close conflation of the two versions in Mark and Q. The theory of Matthean conflation is not impossible in the case of the Mustard Seed (but faces severe difficulties in the case of the Beelzebul pericope), but it would be unusual, at least more unusual than Luke's dependence on a single source (i.e., Matthew).
I did not say 'Matthew" conflated the Beelzebub pericope. Actually, I don't think he did.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 278
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 » Sun Oct 25, 2020 4:22 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:54 pm
mlinssen wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:43 pm
I think my question really is a futile one, and that is "which Greek text can I use best for comparison purposes?"
The only practical approach to the Greek NT text that really makes sense for close textual comparison has to be that taken by the SQE and similar synopses: use a critical Greek text and then list as many of the textual variants as possible in whatever way seems the clearest for your purposes. If copyright is an issue for a critical Greek text, go with the older version which best approximates the text you are most comfortable with. For NA28, for example, I have used the Nestle 1904 text. Of you can use Tischendorf or Westcott-Hort. Heck, hypothetically you could even use the Textus Receptus, just so long as you made that clear up front and then spelled out all of the textual variants (and then some) which one would find informing the critical texts.
Thank you Ben, that is a quest I do not dare to endeavour. Gigantic effort and any outcome will be debated and refuted ad nauseam anyway. I'll leave it at my ATP and its two sisters, until someone challenges me there. No takers so far

Thor
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:09 pm

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

Post by Thor » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:06 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:19 am
Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Oct 24, 2020 9:16 am
Did Farrer or Goodacre address the problem of the differences of material not in gMark and not in the double tradition?
for example Michael Goulder in "Luke: A New Paradigm" via vridar "How and Why Luke Changed Matthew’s Nativity of Jesus Story"
I read the article, and was surprised by this segment.
The most common explanation for this narrative gulf between the two is that the author of the Gospel of Luke (let’s take a wild guess and call him Luke) knew nothing of the existence of the Gospel of Matthew and had quite different sources to draw upon to account for Jesus’ birth. It is impossible, the argument goes, to imagine Luke discarding such a dramatic and memorable story as found in Matthew’s Gospel had he known it.
The dramatic and memorable story as found in Matthew`s Gospel resonates differently within certain cultures and people. The structure and function of the nativity story in Matthew would be understood differently from one place to another.

If we look at The Book of Deeds of Ardeshir son of Papak. We find the Magi`s interpreting message from the stars about a future king who will replace current ruler, leading to flight, eventually returning to fulfill prophecy.

https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Language ... rnamak.htm
One day Artabanus invited to his presence the sages and astrologers, who belonged to his court, and put them the following question: "What do you observe regarding the seven planets and the twelve signs of the zodiac, the position and the motion of the stars, the condition of the contemporary sovereigns of different kingdoms, the condition of the peoples of the world, and regarding myself, children, and our family?"

The chief of the astrologers said in reply as follows: "The Nahazig [Capricorn] is sunk below; the star Jupiter has returned to its culminating point and stands away from Mars and Venus, while Haptoirang [Ursa Major]and the constellation of Leo descend to the verge and give help to Jupiter; whereupon it seems clear that a new lord or king will appear, who will kill many potentates, and bring the world again under the sway of one sovereign." A second leader of the astrologers, too, came in the presence of the King and spoke to the following effect: "It is so manifest that any one of the male servants who flies away from his king within three days from to-day, will attain to greatness and kingship, obtain his wish, and be victorious, over his king."

The maiden, when she returned to Ardashir at night, recounted to Ardashir the words as they were told by the astrologers to Artabanus. Ardashir, when he heard these words, resolved upon departing from that place. He spoke to the maiden thus: "First of all, if thou art sincere and unanimous with me, and, secondly, if any one who runs away from his king within the three fixed days which the sages and astrologers have spoken of, attains to greatness and kingship, we should run away from here as far as this world goes, and escape. If by the grace of God, the glory of the kingdom of Iran falls to our help, and we be delivered and both attain to virtue and goodness, I shall treat thee so that no one in the world will be regarded as more fortunate than thee." The maiden consented and said: "I regard you as a nobleman, and shall obey you in every matter."

As it was nearly dawn, the maiden returned to her own room near Artabanus's chamber. At night, when Artabanus was asleep, she took from the treasury of Artabanus an Indian sword, golden saddles, belts of fine leather, golden crowns, golden goblets full of jewels, dirhems and dinars, coats-of-mail, highly engraved weapons of war, and many other precious things, and she brought them to Ardashir.
Meanwhile Ardashir saddled two of Artabanus's horses that ran seventy frasangs a day. He seated himself on one and the maiden on the other, took the road leading to Pars, and rode on with speed.
This story served as confirmation of Ardashir`s divine kingship, King of kings, and the legitimacy of the Sasanid empire as continuation and connection the the Achaemenid Empire. The Magi`s observations of celestial message confirming divine kingship meant something completely different in the East than it did in the West. What could seem like a memorable story to some was to others a common cultural archetypal myth.

The idea of one true source as origin seems to me like it is influenced with the belief of the gospels documenting some factual historical event.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
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 » Tue Oct 27, 2020 6:45 pm

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin,
Mary ‘bore a son’ (έτεκεν υίόν, Mt. 1.25; Lk. 2.7).
OK, but is it enough to say "Luke" copied the phrase from gMatthew? "Luke" used the phrase at the birth of Jesus but "Matthew" put it well before that.
It was in Bethlehem of Judaea, as Micah had foretold (Mt. 2.1, 5f), and Matthew turns the citation in line with the prophecy to David, ‘You shall be shepherd of my people Israel’ (v. 6d, 2 Sam. 5.2); Luke says that Joseph went up to Judaea to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, being of Davidic ancestry, and Mary with him (2.4).
If "Luke" knew about gMatthew, she would have Mary & Joseph living in Bethlehem (as implied in gMatthew). That would have avoided her to have a very pregnant Mary going to Bethlehem from Nazareth for no reason at all, with Joseph, not even Mary's husband. And Joseph going there "because he was of the house and lineage of David", which does not make sense. And in the OT, it is Jerusalem, not Bethlehem, being the city of David.
In Matthew God brings a company of strangers, magi, leading them by a star rising in the sky; in Luke God brings a company of strangers, shepherds, summoning them by his angel, and the multitude of the heavenly host.
"a star rising in the sky" is not "a multitude of the heavenly host".

The structure of the two nativity stories, even with the similarities, is very normal and even predictable: Because of some prophecies, Jesus as the Son of David, had to be born in Bethlehem. But his advent could not be "secret" and only witnessed by Mary & Joseph, as some parents being on their own in a remote place. So the baby Jesus had to be seen by others, with fanfare and divine intervention. That makes baby Jesus exceptional.
When the magi saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy (έχάρησαν χαράν μεγάλην σφόδρα, 2.10); the angel brought the shepherds good news of χαράν μεγάλην for all the people (2.10).
"χαράν μεγάλην" appears also in Lk 24:52 and Acts 15:3. So the phrase was part of "Luke" vocabulary, with no need to have been copied from gMatthew.
The magi come and see the child (τό παιδίον) with Mary his mother, and fall before him (‘when you have found him’, said Herod). The shepherds came with haste and found Mary and Joseph and the baby laid in the manger; and when they had seen, they made known the saying told them of the child (του παιδιού τούτου, 2.17).
"παιδίον" (young child, boy or girl) is widely used in gLuke (13 times) and gMark (11 times). No need for "Luke" to pick up the word from gMatthew.
Magi and shepherds close the scene by returning whence they had come; and Luke then notes that ‘his name was called Jesus’ at his circumcision, just as Matthew says that Joseph called his name Jesus (1.25).
If "Luke" knew gMatthew (1:25 ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα), she would have Jesus named by the angel well before Jesus was born. However, in Lk 2:21, Jesus is named (κληθὲν) by the angel prior to Joseph at the circumcision (ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα). So we have, as named by an angel "ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα" <=> "κληθὲν".

Finally, "Luke" did not give a time slot for gMatthew having the threesome going to Egypt, staying there for a while and then coming back.
It does not look here "Luke" knew about gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

davidmartin
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin » Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:17 am

Bernard your above post, if neither Luke nor Matthew originally had a nativity but it was added at some point, or even if original, there was a need for a nativity present but two church branches independently produced two different nativities. For the four-fold gospel to be promoted later under the banner of a single church... shows that originally there were different more independent branches and orthodoxy came to be as an 'in-gathering' of some kind under one banner.

Post Reply