The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

[Ken Olson]

Tenorikuma,

My master's thesis, "How Luke Was Written," is available here:

http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handl ... sAllowed=y

It's basically the same thing as "Unpicking on the Farrer Theory," but there are a few differences.

You support your theory with a lot of appeals to authority to scholars who hold the 2DH who think Luke seems more primitive than Matthew. For people who accept that premise, it would make sense to argue that Matthew used Luke. What I'm wondering is, can Luke's greater originality to Matthew be demonstrated for people who don't take it for granted. You cite Dennis MacDonald's opinion that "It is easier to explain why the anthropomorphism" finger of God” in Luke would have become “the Spirit of God” in Matthew than the other way around (criterion A).142" (MacDonald 2008, 270). MacDonald provides no supporting evidence except footnote 142, which reads: "So also CEQ but not Fleddermann." So the Critical Edition of Q agrees, but Harry Fleddermann doesn't. If we look at the Critical Edition of Q, it does indeed reconstruct Q with Luke's wording "finger of God." But it provides no supporting argument. So your support is MacDonald whose support is the Critical Edition of Q which doesn't give arguments. Now I'm not claiming the scholars who think Luke's wording is earlier have never made arguments, but we've got to look at those. Appeals to authority are unhelpful even if the authorities are plentiful.

Burkett's argument that Luke has added "Spirit" elsewhere, so he would not have removed it here is actually dealing with data, but it's a non sequitur. Luke is quite capable of using or even adding words/ideas in one place and omitting them in another. (See my Lord;s Prayer paper below and Stephen Carlson's paper on the Lukan non-aversion principle in the same volume).

The argument that the anthropomorphisms are a red herring because they're from the Infancy and Acts is stronger as it is dealing with data. But at present, I'm not persuaded that Marcion is earlier than Luke or that Matthew knew Marcion. For the moment, I still hold that Luke-Acts is the work of a single author and we don't need to posit a proto-Luke.

Klinghardt's 2008 article is a methodological nightmare. (Parenthetically, I think Beduhn is much stronger).

On page 3, Klinghardt says the Minor Agreemnts are a good argument against the traditional 2DH and rejects the argument for Luke's secondary dependence on Matthew in addition to Q.

This excludes the evasive solution that, although basically independent from one another, Luke knew and used Matthew in certain instances.8 Methodologically, it is not permissible to develop a theory on a certain assumption and then abandon this very assumption in order to get rid of some left over problems the theory could not sufficiently explain.

Then Klingardt gives his reasons for rejecting the Farrer Theory that Luke used Matthew (AKA MwQH) on p. 4:

On the other hand, there are serious objections against Luke’s assumed
dependence on Matthew. Predictably, the criticism of the MwQH concentrates
on three observations: (1) Luke betrays no knowledge of either the
special Matthean material (“M”) or of the Matthean additions to the triple
tradition, e.g. Pilate’s wife and her dream (Matt. 27:19) or Peter’s confession
and beatitude (Matt. 16:16-19). (2) Then there is the problem of
alternating priority: Although in some instances Luke’s version of double
tradition material seems to presuppose Matthew, there are a number of
striking counter-examples, among which Luke’s wording of the Lord’s
prayer or the first beatitude rank highest. (3) In some cases, the arrangement
of double tradition material does not make any sense at all if Luke
made use of Matthew as it becomes particularly apparent with the material
of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and its Lukan counterparts.

But when Klinghardt gets around to describing his own theory that the author of Luke used Marcion, he also allows for secondary influence from Matthew (see the chart on page 21). On p. 22 he writes:

3. The dashed arrows (a, b) indicate an additional but minor influence
of Mcn on Matthew and on Luke. In some respect, (a) and (b) most clearly
show the advancement of this “Markan priority with Mcn” hypothesis:
with respect to the far-reaching conformity between Mcn and Luke, the
dashed arrows (a, b) indicate a bi-directional influence within the double
tradition: there are elements running from Mcn to Matthew and others
from Matthew to Luke’s re-edition of Mcn.

So Klinghardt holds the author of Luke actually does know Matthew in addition to Marcion. He seems to contradict his statement about the "evasive solution" of Luke's secondary use of Matthew and seriously undermine his points (1) and (3) from page 4 above. Apparently Luke does know Matthew's gospel, and therefore knew Matthew's special material and additions to the triple tradition and chose not to use them. He also knew Matthew' arrangement of the discourses and chose not to follow it but to follow another arrangement that, for whatever reasons, he thought was better.

This leaves Klinghardt's point (2) that Luke's gospel is more primitive than Matthew in places. He doesn't argue for that in this paper, but suggests the Lord's Prayer and the first Beatitude are the best cases. I haven't addressed the Beatitude anywhere yet, but I have published on the Lord's Prayer. In the interest of saving time, I'll just quote the comment I left on your blog back on October 22:

I have a recently published paper advocating Goulder’s theory that Luke abbreviated Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer [Ken Olson, “Luke 11.2-4: The Lord’s Prayer (Abridged Edition)”, in Marcan Priority Without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis, edited by John C. Poirier and Jeffrey Peterson (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015) 101-118]. I argue that the principle that liturgical texts become longer in transmission cannot be applied to the Lord’s Prayer, both because there are notable counterexamples (the Hebrew and Syriac versions of Apocryphal Psalm 151.1-2 is perhaps the clearest case) and also because Luke is not a copyist of a liturgical text, he is an author composing a narrative comprised of episodes in a sequence. Luke’s abbreviations can readily be explained on the basis of his redactional tendency to abbreviate his sources by eliminating repetition. He eliminates the further identification of the Father as the one in heaven, having already identified him as “Lord of Heaven and Earth” in Luke 10.21 (every subsequent address to the Father in Luke has simply “Father”). He omits “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” because it restates the content of “thy kingdom come” which immediately precedes it, and “deliver us from evil” because it restates positively what “lead us not into temptation” has said in the negative. Luke has omitted unnecessary repetitions but has retained each separate thought from Matthew’s prayer.

That'll have to do for now.

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

Klinghardt's 2008 article is a methodological nightmare. (Parenthetically, I think Beduhn is much stronger).

For whatever it may be worth, I had trouble following Klinghardt at times, but I think BeDuhn is pretty strong, as you intimate. The thing is, once the Marcionite gospel gets thrown into the mix, a whole truckload of unknowns gets backed up and dumped all over the synoptic problem's front lawn.

[Charles Wilson]

Tenorikuma wrote: For what it's worth, the one that really has me convinced is the Beelzebul controversy. I don't see how you can reconstruct that if Luke used Matthew.

On Tenorikuma's page https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... ic-puzzle/

...
2. Matthew shows fatigue from copying Luke. Throughout his Gospel, he always uses the phrase “kingdom of Heaven” in place of “kingdom of God” — except in four places where he is copying another text and forgets to make the change. This is one of those places (Matt. 12:28).

Ken

There is another possibility here and it is brought out in Moffatt's Translation. Moffatt uses the phrase "Realm of Heaven" frequently in Matthew and it is a pointer to something else, another alternative.

Let's look at 2 Stories with an eye to the idea that these 2 descriptions are telling different parts of the same story. Almost immediately, the Believer looks to the skies for the Metaphysical view and the Glorification of "Jesus". However, is that what is being stated?

Luke 13: 23 - 24, 28 - 29 (Moffatt):

[23] A man said to him, "Is it only a few, sir, who are saved?" So he said to them,
[24] "Strive to get in through the narrow door; for I tell you, many will try to get in and will not be able...
...
[28] There you will wail and gnash your teeth, to see Abraham, Isaac Jacob and all the prophets inside the Realm of God and yourselves thrown out."
[29] "Yes, and prople will come from east and west and north and south to their places at the feast within the Realm of God."

Here, Moffatt translates the phrase he sees as "Realm of God". As stated in other posts, Matthew uses a different phrase:

Matthew 18: 1 - 5 (Moffatt):

[1] At that hour the disciples came and asked Jesus, "Who is greatest in the Realm of Heaven?'
[2] So he called a child, set it among them, and said,
[3] "I tell you truly, unless you turn and become like children, you will never get into the Realm of heaven at all."
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Realm of Heaven";
[5] and whoever receives a little child like this for my sake receives me."

Let us look at these passages as descriptions of the same story. Let us further look on them as "Real World" Story Telling. Before we posit Metaphysics, perhaps we should see if there is something in the real here-and-now that may provide a better explanation for what we see. The statements are telling: There are a few who are saved from something that happened, some event where many did not make it through the "Narrow Door". In order to make it through the narrow door, you must turn and become like children. The passageway is so small that you must "humble" yourself in order to make the passage.

One thing leads to another. To what does the narrow door lead? The "Realm of Heaven". It follows that the Realm of Heaven is a Real, Physical Place.
Is there support for this idea? Of course:

Matthew 5: 20 (Moffatt):

[20] "For I tell you, unless your goodness excels that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never get into the Realm of Heaven."

Wherever the Realm of Heaven is, admission into the Realm of Heaven is not given to the Scribes and Pharisees. By implication, the Mishmarot Priesthood would have this "Greater Righteousness". These are Stories, not of a Metaphysical "Jesus" but of something that happened to the Priesthood when some terrible event killed many around the Temple, trapping thousands in Death. One Priest survives when he should not have survived.

Matthew didn't get the memo that the key phrase was to always everywhere be translated "Kingdom of God". The reconstruction of the Source that was not about a "Jesus" is saved because of it.

CW

[Ken Olson]

Tenorikuma wrote:

Looking briefly at my colour-coding of other Triple Tradition passages, Luke-Mark agreements against Matthew are usually about as common as Matthew-Mark agreements. (So the aversion against combining two sources is not going to be a serious objection).

I'm not following this. Of course there are Luke-Mark and Matthew-Mark agreements in the triple tradition. But if Matthew and Luke are both using Mark and making independent selections about what to keep/omit that will always happen. That has nothing to do with "combining sources." It's what happens when they're following a single source. Where Luke follows Mark in the triple tradition, there are three way agreements and Luke-Mark agreements, but very few Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark (the so-called Minor Agreements). But in Luke 11.14-23 (or25) there are three way agreements and Luke-Matthew agreements, but almost no Mark-Luke agreements. So Matthew is the "middle term' in this pericope in the way Mark usually is in the triple tradition.

To say nothing of the Diatessaron, Pentateuch, etc

.

If you think they're relevant, by all means say something about them. But the objection is not against "combining sources" in general, it's about close conflation in detail at the level of words and phrases, or "micro-conflation." Macro-conflation at the level of episodes is common (and in the synoptic some of the sayings constitute "episodes" of as little as two verses). It's been a while since I looked at the Daitesseron, but IIRC our manuscripts are very late and combine an original macro-conflation by episodes with textual assimilation to Matthew. But if there's something relevant to close conflation in detail, by all means introduce it. As to the Penateuch, the traditional documentary hypothesis generally has combination at the episode level, usually not close conflation in detail. And for the last twenty-five years or so, scholars (see the introductions by Van Seters, Ska, and Blenkinsopp) have increasingly shifted towards a supplementary hypothesis. That is, the authors weren't combining pre-existing written sources but adding redactionally to a base document (and there was no E). Van Seters thinks JE was the base document and the P material was added; if I remember correctly, Ska and Blenkinsopp reverse that.

I'm not sure it's a problem here; Matthew has used Mark preferentially over Luke for the preaching bits, and that would mostly account for the lack of Mark-Luke overlap

.

Again, I'm not following. Are there are non-preaching bits in the Beelzebul pericope? Matthew has left out a lot of words from the Markan version where he's following Mark, and a lot of Lukan words where he's following Luke, yet they nearly never agree against him. I don't see what "using Mark preferentially" has to do wth it. Did you actually sit down with the texts of Mark and Luke and underline all the words they have in common, which Matthew takes over, and compare it to all the words of each that Matthew left out?

Still, you have me a little bit bothered, and I will consider it again. Edit: Now that I look more closely, there is some Luke-Mark agreement against Matthew: "blasphemes against" (12:10) and the wording of Jesus mother and brothers seeking him, which Luke moved to chapter 8.

Right, the problem is in Luke 11.14-23{25}, where on the Farrer Theory Luke is following Matthew alone. That Luke does have Mark-Luke agreements in material moved to other chapters does nothing to explain his procedure here.

There is no Luke-Matthew agreement here, which is natural if Matthew copied Luke (he didn't see it in chapter 11 where Luke's Beelzebul story is located) and less likely if Luke copied Matthew (Matthew's revisions of Mark are in plain view there).

Again, tough to follow. By "here" do you mean Luke 11.14-25? And did you mean there are no Luke-Mark agreements? (It would be very odd if there were no Matthew-Luke agreements where Luke is following Matthew). Even then, I don't think you're dealing with the problem. On the theory that Matthew is using Luke, how did he know he had to take over all the Mark-Luke agreements (which there are, but by taking them over Matthew makes them three-way Mark-Luke-Matthew agreements) but he could omit many of the other words in Luke? Did he carefully compare Matthew and Luke first and underline them or what? I also don't think you're getting what Luke would have done using Matthew. At the time he's looking at Matthew, the pericope is comprised of Matthew-Mark agreements and special Matthean material. Luke doesn't try to distinguish them and in his writing takes over some of each and omits some of each. Thus we have three way agreements (where he takes over Mark-Matthew agreements), Matthew-Luke agreements (where he takes over what had previously been Matthean special material), Matthean special material (where Luke hasn't taken it) and Mark-Matthew agreements against Luke (where Luke hasn't taken over material common to Mark and Matthew). But perhaps I've misread you.

Best,

Ken

[Tenorikuma]

Ken,

Thank you for the link to your thesis. I will definitely have a look.

But when Klinghardt gets around to describing his own theory that the author of Luke used Marcion, he also allows for secondary influence from Matthew (see the chart on page 21).

I think any synoptic solution that accounts for everything (or nearly everything) is going to have to deal with the possibility that influence can go both ways once both documents are circulating. Our manuscript tradition, though it is later than this period, does reflect a lot of Matthean assimilation into Luke. There is no reason this could not have begun in the second century. I have no disagreement with the examples of secondary influence from Matthew and John suggested by BeDuhn in The First New Testament.

I'm not following this.

I was writing semi-coherently at around midnight (my time), so I apologize for that.

As to the Penateuch, the traditional documentary hypothesis generally has combination at the episode level, usually not close conflation in detail. And for the last twenty-five years or so, scholars (see the introductions by Van Seters, Ska, and Blenkinsopp) have increasingly shifted towards a supplementary hypothesis.

I am generally convinced by Carr's view (set forth in Reading the Fractures of Genesis) that P was a rewrite of non-P (traditionally J or JE), and that another editor combined P with non-P, often mixing two sources within the same episode. (The flood story is the paradigmatic example.) This results in a mix of sources that is difficult or impossible to disentangle in places, much like the Synoptic problem. In fact, Carr uses the Diatessaron as an example of the challenges involved, showing how Tatian would sometimes combine multiple Gospel sources even within the same sentence.

Are there are non-preaching bits in the Beelzebul pericope?

Well, one of either (proto-)Luke or Matthew has put Mark's passage into a new narrative context (the exorcism at the beginning), and there is also the bit about Jesus' family at the end.

If I divide the passage into sections, it's something like this:

Introduction
• Exorcism not from Mark; significant Luke-Matthew agreement.
• Matthew is more embellished, makes the demoniac both blind and mute. This suggests Matthean posteriority to me, though it's possible Lk pared down Mt.
• Matthew has a second, shorter version with Mt-Lk agreement (no Mt-Mk agreement) in 9:32-34. Unique material (“Never has anything like this been seen in Israel.”) suggests Matthew added to Luke rather than the reverse, though not conclusive.
• Some triple agreement with Mark, particularly the statement about Beelzebul (see below).
• No Lk-Mk or Mt-Mk double agreement except one shared Lk-Mk phrase in Lk 11:16, which is taken from a different place in Mark (8:11). Parallel of Lk 11:16 found in Mt 16.1,4. (Direction of copying inconclusive.)

Amazement of the crowds
• Not in Mark
• Some Lk-Mt double agreement.
• "Son of David" statement found in Matthew only. (If Luke copied Matthew, why didn't he use this? Then again, proto-Luke may be more Gentile-oriented, less interested in Davidic lineage.)

Preaching on divided kingdoms/houses
• Significant triple agreement, significant Lk-Mt double agreement. Minor Mt-Mk agreement, no Lk-Mk agreement. (Did Luke copy Matthew and add nothing new from Mark? Or did Matthew copy Luke and add Markan material? Unique Lukan phrase "finger of God" appears, thought by some to be more primitive than "Spirit of God".
• However, Luke's order copies Mark, not Matthew. Furthermore, if he copied Matthew, he omitted the Pharisees' statement about Beelzebul and used Mark's instead. (Matthew's version contains additional material, consistent with Matthean posteriority.)

Preaching on the strong man
• Luke is unique, Matthew follows Mark.

With me or against me statement
• Complete Lk-Mt agreement, but the original phrase is from Mk 9:40. Direction of copying inconclusive.

Preaching on unclean spirits
• Complete Lk-Mt agreement, with only a single Markan word appearing in Matthew ("age") but not in Luke. Direction of copying inconclusive.

Preaching on blasphemy
• Luke moves this to the next chapter (12:10).
• Matthew seems to repeat this material twice — once in agreement with Mark, again in agreement in Luke.
• Luke's version is short like Mark's, contains agreement with Mk against Mt.
• Did Matthew created one statement out of Mark and another out of Luke? Or did Luke combine bits of Matthew and Mark in the same sentence? Direction of copying inconclusive.

Additional Matthean pericopes
• Needs further analysis.
• If Luke copied Matthew, did he move these pericopes just to stay closer to Mark? Seems like strange behaviour to me. Alternatively, Matthew reordered Lukan material to expand this sermon. I'll have a better idea once I've examined the context and intent of the other pericopes.

Jesus' family seek him (1)
• Luke is unique. Matthew follows Mark.

Jesus' family seek him (2)
• Luke reuses Mark 3.32-25 in Lk 8.19-21. No agreement with Mt against Mk. Very minor agreement with Mk against Mt. Direction of copying inconclusive.

Summary:
The general lack of Lk-Mk agreement against Mt doesn't seem conclusive one way or another because of how the material is structured. The ordering of the material suggests to me that Luke is more original than Matthew. However, Luke has more unique material than Matthew. Does that suggest Lukan posteriority, or did Matthew just prefer Mark's version of those sections?

[Ben C. Smith]

Thank you for the link to your thesis. I will definitely have a look.

Hi, Ken. Let me echo Tenorikuma's thanks for the link here. I have been reading your thesis and wanted to ask you about the following:

From this brief survey, it appears that classical writers did indeed combine or “conflate” different written sources. Such conflation, however, was achieved by the interweaving of different episodes, what we may call “block-by-block” or “macro” conflation, rather than close conflation of different accounts of the same episode, which we may call “close” or “word-by-word” or “micro” conflation. The usual procedure of a classical author with more than one source was to choose one source as the basis for his account for any single episode.

I know that in the second half of the paper you are in dialogue with Downing, defending the Farrer hypothesis against charges that Luke would have had to studiously avoid material that Matthew and Mark agreed on closely. Let us stipulate at least for the sake of argument that your defense is sound (it appears it may be, but I have not been thorough yet). I am wondering, in light of the above paragraph, about those times when Luke seems to parallel Matthean material and Marcan material in the same pericope, indeed often in the same verse. How does that phenomenon work under a supposition that, as you say, "close conflation of different accounts of the same episode" was not the norm?

For example, Luke 3.1-2 provides a nearly purely Lucan introduction to Jesus' career, but in verse 3 "all the region of the Jordan" seems to parallel Matthew 3.5 while "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" seems to parallel Mark 1.4. Is this not "close conflation of different accounts" for at least this single verse? Just a few verses later, after a block (Luke 3.7-9) that follows Matthew 3.7-10 and another block (3.10-15) of Luke running solo, verse 16 agrees mostly with Mark 1.7 in wording, yet agrees with Matthew 3.11 both in placing the saying about baptism in water before the one about the loosening of sandals and in putting the verb βαπτίζω in the present tense and adding μὲν. Then verse 17 is all about Matthew 3.12 and verse 18 is special Luke again. Is there not some "close conflation" going on here, as well?

Examples could be multiplied. Luke 4.2 agrees with Mark 1.13 in linking the 40 days with the temptation (ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα πειραζόμενος compared with τεσσεράκοντα ἡμέρας πειραζόμενος, where Matthew just has πειρασθῆναι), but then turns around and adds that he also fasted during "those days," agreeing with Matthew 4.2, which links the 40 days (and nights) directly with the fasting. One verse before the agreement with Mark he has agreed with Matthew in saying that Jesus was "led" into the desert (not "cast out" as in Mark), and one verse after the agreement with Mark he starts describing three actual temptations, like Matthew but unlike Mark. So out of a sea of Matthew sticks up a little island of Mark. What is Luke doing with his sources here? Does it not qualify as "close conflation" if it lasts for only a verse or two?

Many of the more significant "minor agreements" will probably fall into the reverse this category, with Luke agreeing with Mark for the most part but then adding in little snippets and lines from Matthew. Like some of the "minor agreements", I imagine overlapping editing practices and sheer coincidence might come into play here and there, but it seems to me that there are more than those factors can account for altogether. On the Farrer theory, if Luke is not engaging in "close conflation" at these times, what is he doing?

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

For example, Luke 3.1-2 provides a nearly purely Lucan introduction to Jesus' career, but in verse 3 "all the region of the Jordan" seems to parallel Matthew 3.5 while "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" seems to parallel Mark 1.4. Is this not "close conflation of different accounts" for at least this single verse? Just a few verses later, after a block (Luke 3.7-9) that follows Matthew 3.7-10 and another block (3.10-15) of Luke running solo, verse 16 agrees mostly with Mark 1.7 in wording, yet agrees with Matthew 3.11 both in placing the saying about baptism in water before the one about the loosening of sandals and in putting the verb βαπτίζω in the present tense and adding μὲν. Then verse 17 is all about Matthew 3.12 and verse 18 is special Luke again. Is there not some "close conflation" going on here, as well?

Examples could be multiplied. Luke 4.2 agrees with Mark 1.13 in linking the 40 days with the temptation (ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα πειραζόμενος compared with τεσσεράκοντα ἡμέρας πειραζόμενος, where Matthew just has πειρασθῆναι), but then turns around and adds that he also fasted during "those days," agreeing with Matthew 4.2, which links the 40 days (and nights) directly with the fasting. One verse before the agreement with Mark he has agreed with Matthew in saying that Jesus was "led" into the desert (not "cast out" as in Mark), and one verse after the agreement with Mark he starts describing three actual temptations, like Matthew but unlike Mark. So out of a sea of Matthew sticks up a little island of Mark. What is Luke doing with his sources here?

Did you consider the possibility of the existence of a Q source, at times inserting its material within Markan wording (the Q/Mark overlap) ?

Cordially Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

For example, Luke 3.1-2 provides a nearly purely Lucan introduction to Jesus' career, but in verse 3 "all the region of the Jordan" seems to parallel Matthew 3.5 while "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" seems to parallel Mark 1.4. Is this not "close conflation of different accounts" for at least this single verse? Just a few verses later, after a block (Luke 3.7-9) that follows Matthew 3.7-10 and another block (3.10-15) of Luke running solo, verse 16 agrees mostly with Mark 1.7 in wording, yet agrees with Matthew 3.11 both in placing the saying about baptism in water before the one about the loosening of sandals and in putting the verb βαπτίζω in the present tense and adding μὲν. Then verse 17 is all about Matthew 3.12 and verse 18 is special Luke again. Is there not some "close conflation" going on here, as well?

Examples could be multiplied. Luke 4.2 agrees with Mark 1.13 in linking the 40 days with the temptation (ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα πειραζόμενος compared with τεσσεράκοντα ἡμέρας πειραζόμενος, where Matthew just has πειρασθῆναι), but then turns around and adds that he also fasted during "those days," agreeing with Matthew 4.2, which links the 40 days (and nights) directly with the fasting. One verse before the agreement with Mark he has agreed with Matthew in saying that Jesus was "led" into the desert (not "cast out" as in Mark), and one verse after the agreement with Mark he starts describing three actual temptations, like Matthew but unlike Mark. So out of a sea of Matthew sticks up a little island of Mark. What is Luke doing with his sources here?

Did you consider the possibility of the existence of a Q source, at times inserting its material within Markan wording (the Q/Mark overlap) ?

Overall, in my synoptic studies as a whole? Yes, of course.

But in that post? No, of course not, since it is the Farrer theory I am asking Ken about.

Ben.

[Ken Olson]

Ben Smith wrote:

I know that in the second half of the paper you are in dialogue with Downing, defending the Farrer hypothesis against charges that Luke would have had to studiously avoid material that Matthew and Mark agreed on closely. Let us stipulate at least for the sake of argument that your defense is sound (it appears it may be, but I have not been thorough yet). I am wondering, in light of the above paragraph, about those times when Luke seems to parallel Matthean material and Marcan material in the same pericope, indeed often in the same verse. How does that phenomenon work under a supposition that, as you say, "close conflation of different accounts of the same episode" was not the norm?


Many of the more significant "minor agreements" will probably fall into the reverse this category, with Luke agreeing with Mark for the most part but then adding in little snippets and lines from Matthew. Like some of the "minor agreements", I imagine overlapping editing practices and sheer coincidence might come into play here and there, but it seems to me that there are more than those factors can account for altogether. On the Farrer theory, if Luke is not engaging in "close conflation" at these times, what is he doing?

Ben,

Sorry for the slow reply. Events in the world outside cyberspace required my attention and probably will again immediately. The passage you’re quoting is from page 8, in the section “Classical Methods of Composition,” where I’m summarizing the review of literature I’ve just done. Hopefully, you’ve had a chance to read further and see the places where I allow that memory and reminiscence of other sources also play a role (starting on 19). I think I go at least part of the way to answering the questions you’ve raised here—particularly regarding the Minor Agreements. I think the Farrer Theory is fairly consistent in arguing that Luke has Minor Agreements with Matthew while following Mark and Minor Agreements with Mark while following Matthew.

I allow in the paper that an author may well remember a word or even a few words from another source he’s read and combine them, whether conscious of it or not, with material from the source he has in front of him at the time. I even allow that the 2DH might be able to explain most of the so-called Mark-Q overlaps, where Matthew is held to have conflated Mark and Q, in this way. But it can’t explain the Beelzebul pericope this way because the conflation is near perfect (page 47).

What I’m arguing against is the expectation that an author will have both (or more) of his sources open in front of him and will consciously try to conflate or harmonize their readings in his own version. I’m responding to criticisms of the Farrer Theory from the 2DH camp like Downing and Kloppenborg. Downing asks why Luke hasn’t reproduced “the common witness” of his two sources. I argue it’s because he’s only got the version he’s following at the time open on front of him and is basing his version on that. He might remember a few words from the other version, but he’s not obligated or likely to have both versions in front of him and carefully reproduce the sections where they agree closely. Similarly, Kloppenborg asks why various Matthean additions to Mark in are not found in Luke. I argue it’s because he doesn’t have Matthew’s parallel version in front of him as he writes his version from Mark. If there’s a particularly important Matthean expansion, he can just follow Matthew’s version, as I think he does for the Beelzeebul pericope. Or he might remember a few particularly striking words from Mattthew like “Who is it that struck you?” He might sometimes unconsciously introduce a Matthean word or two without knowing it as he’s rewriting Mark. But Kloppenborg seems to expect that Luke will have both Mark and Matthew in front of him and we need a special explanation every time Luke has not used a particular Mattthean addition to Mark--and I think this flies in the face of what classicists are saying about how ancient author’s used their sources. To put it another way, your question is about inclusions and theirs are about exclusions. But I think memory, or lack of it, can explain both.

That said, a few caveats apply. You rightly recognized that Luke has several agreements with Mark against Matthew in the Baptism and Temptation. One of the Augustinians (Matthew=>Mark=>Luke) thought that Luke tried to conflate Matthew and Luke in his first Matthean block (through Luke 4.15) and found it too difficult and abandoned the attempt to conflate after that. I think it was B.C. Butler in The Originality of St. Matthew, but I’d need to do some digging to check. I’m not yet convinced memory won’t serve. R.A, Derrenbacker, Ancient Compositional Procedure and the Synoptic Problem (2005) is largely in agreement with me on compositional procedures, though he holds the 2DH. I understand James Barker has criticized his treatment, but I haven’t read him yet, so I don’t know how it affects what I wrote. And Tatian did have all of his source texts in front of him as he wrote the Diatesseron, though he’s following them one at a time (and cites them!), the “time” can be pretty short in some cases. But that’s a topic for another post.

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

Thank you very much for the detailed reply, Ken, and no worries on the delay. If I may be permitted a follow-up question, in your experience so far, have you found the other typical examples of "following one source at a time" (Josephus following Chronicles and Kings, for example) to show the same kind of influx of little details and remembrances from the "other" source (the one not currently being followed) like the ones I mentioned above?