If anyone is new to Q and 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: 5848
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:08 pm

Charles Wilson wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:02 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:41 pm
Why has Matthew both made changes to the servants' errands which ease the parable (of the tenants) perfectly into its new setting (a king's feast) and then, after that section, retained exactly those elements of the servants' errand which most conflict with that new setting? What suggests itself to me immediately is that Matthew is, in fact, of two minds here: he has combined elements of two different parables hailing from (at least) two different sources, and is not the originator of either set of elements.
Ben --

Isn't that one of Matthew's problems? For ex., Jesus rides into Jerusalem on an ass and a horse:

Matthew 21: , 7 (RSV):

[2] saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.
...
[7] they brought the ass and the colt, and put their garments on them, and he sat thereon.
I believe the problems are both Matthean, but they are also not the same problem. Here Matthew seems to have taken the Hebraic parallelism seriously, turning one animal poetically described twice into two different animals.
The Story of the Lunatic finds 2 lunatics in Matthew. Etc.
"This isn't a bug, it's a feature!"
Another Matthean "problem," yes, but again: not exactly the same problem. I think Matthew has made up for his skipping of Mark 1.23-28 by doubling up the number of demoniacs in Matthew 8.28-34; elsewhere he has also made up for his skipping of Mark 8.22-26 by doubling up the number of blind men in Matthew 20.29-34: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3640.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1149
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Charles Wilson » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:31 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:08 pm
I believe the problems are both Matthean, but they are also not the same problem. Here Matthew seems to have taken the Hebraic parallelism seriously, turning one animal poetically described twice into two different animals.
Agreed.

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Michael BG » Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:30 pm

Ken Olson wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:41 pm
Paul Foster has argued that Matthew's uses of "kingdom of God" at Matt 12.28; 19.24; 21.31,43 should count as fatigue because Matthew generally prefers "kingdom of heaven" (32 times) and suggests Matthew has lapsed in these few cases [Is it Possible to Dispense with Q NovT 2003)] This looks little like fatigue as described by Goodacre because it doesn't occur within pericopes and causes no tension with the logic of the story. In fact, in some cases "kingdom of God" would be required (or at least strongly suggested) by the context, e.g. Matt 12.28 where KoG is being paralleled to "Spirit of God."
Mt 12:28 is in the double tradition (and so is a Q saying I you accept Q). Luke has finger of God and Kingdom of God and so this could be an example of Matthean fatigue when using Q. Thank you Ken.

Mt 19:24 is triple tradition and just shows that Matthew does suffer fatigue while using Mark.

Mt 21:43 doesn’t appear to have a parallel in either Mark or Luke and I think is likely Matthean redaction!

Mt 21:31 is ‘M’ tradition. If the John (the Baptist) reference ( v 32) was not attached by Matthew then as Luke seems aware of it (Lk 7:29-30) and it seems to me be like other “Q” John (the Baptist) sayings, then this could be Q and Q which Luke rejected. (John Goodacre I think suggests that there is no evidence that any part of Q which Luke might have liked but he didn’t use. I can’t think of any reason for Luke to reject this saying.)

I wonder how many times Matthew uses “Kingdom of Heaven” in the double tradition? Should we expect Luke to have used the term at least once in this tradition if he is using Matthew? I can’t find Luke using the term at all.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:42 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:02 pm
I found it interesting that both Matthew and Luke have “bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus (Mt 1:21, Lk 1:31), even if the Greek is only identical for - ”son and you shall call his name Jesus”
This agreement looks startling at first sight. Unfortunately, it is obvious that both Matthew and Luke are here drawing upon Isaiah 7.14, which contains "son and you shall call his name" in its entirety, word for word in the Old Greek, thus reducing the unmitigated agreements of Matthew and Luke (against Isaiah 7.14) down to the name Jesus alone:

Isaiah 7.14: ...ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ....

Matthew 1.21: τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν....

Luke 1.31: ...συλλήμψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξυἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.

Also Matthew 1:23 actually quotes Isaiah 7:14. So it could be that Luke is influenced by Matthew and Matthew’s quoting Isaiah 7:14 or he is only separately influenced by Isaiah 7:14.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:42 pm
I was surprised to read Mark Goodacre asserting that in the double tradition Matthew never suffers from editorial fatigue. Does anyone know of any examples which prove Mark Goodacre wrong?
It is not the purest example of fatigue one may find, but the fact that Matthew 22.7 has the king in the parable of the wedding feast actually destroying a city in the middle of inviting people to his feast, and the feast is apparently still there after the war, indicates to me that Matthew's version of this parable is secondary to Luke's and Thomas' versions. I have written about this parable before: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3173. The inconsistencies and weirdnesses in Matthew's version seem to derive from his having combined the basic parable with other motifs.
A few years ago I looked at this and there are very few common words between the versions. I have not noticed any words in Matthew’s version which seem out of context and also used in the Lucan version which could be put down to fatigue.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5848
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:44 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:30 pm
I wonder how many times Matthew uses “Kingdom of Heaven” in the double tradition? Should we expect Luke to have used the term at least once in this tradition if he is using Matthew? I can’t find Luke using the term at all.
Correct. Luke never uses the term "kingdom of heaven" (at least not in the standard texts; I have not checked very hard for variants). That is a Matthean affectation.
It is not the purest example of fatigue one may find, but the fact that Matthew 22.7 has the king in the parable of the wedding feast actually destroying a city in the middle of inviting people to his feast, and the feast is apparently still there after the war, indicates to me that Matthew's version of this parable is secondary to Luke's and Thomas' versions. I have written about this parable before: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3173. The inconsistencies and weirdnesses in Matthew's version seem to derive from his having combined the basic parable with other motifs.
A few years ago I looked at this and there are very few common words between the versions. I have not noticed any words in Matthew’s version which seem out of context and also used in the Lucan version which could be put down to fatigue.
I think you may be confused as to what is actually meant by "fatigue." Fatigue = instances of inconcinnity which can be put down to the author/editor having made changes to, additions to, or subtractions from one part of a source while retaining another part of the source. Those changes do not have to involve individual words. In this case, Matthew's version of the parable is agreed on all sides to contain instances of inconcinnity, and both the Farrer group and others agree that those instances of inconcinnity are due to fatigue with a source; the only issue is which source: Mark or Luke (or their sources).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Ken Olson
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Ken Olson » Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:53 pm

Ben,

I'm going to give an alternative synopsis (based on my SBL handout) for the Parables of the Wicked Tenants (using Matthew's version rather than Mark's), Wedding Banquet and Great Dinner. Hopefully I'll get around to commenting on it tomorrow.

Matt 21.33-41 Matt 22.1-10 Luke 14.16-24
33‘Listen to another parable 1 Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: 16Then Jesus said to him,
There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a wine press in it, and built a watch-tower. Then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. 2“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. ‘Someone gave a great dinner and invited many.
34 When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his produce. 35But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 3 He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. 17At the time for the dinner he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited,
36 Again he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they treated them in the same way. 4 Again he sent other slaves, saying, “Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.” “Come; for everything is ready now.”
5 But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, 18 But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, “I have bought a piece of land, and I must go out and see it; please accept my apologies.” 19 Another said, “I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please accept my apologies.” 20Another said, “I have just been married, and therefore I cannot come.”
37 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, “They will respect my son.” 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.” 39 So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 6 while the rest seized his slaves, maltreated them, and killed them
40 Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?’ 41They said to him, ‘He will put those wretches to a miserable death, 7 The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. 21 So the slave returned and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry
and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.’ 8 Then he said to his slaves, “The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.” 10Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. and said to his slave, “Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.” 22And the slave said, “Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room.” Then the master said to the slave, “Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those who were invited will taste my dinner.” ’


Charles Wilson
Posts: 1149
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:41 pm

I am quite fond of the Moffatt Translation. Moffatt translates the phrase as "Realm of Heaven". The use of "Realm" in Matthew should be studied.
The listings in Matthew are:

5:3
5:10
5: 19, 20
6:33 ("Realm" only)
7:21
8: 11 and 8: 12 - "Realm of Heaven" followed by "Sons of the Realm" with Note from Moffatt
11: 11, 12 - The very important verses stating that "...the least in the Realm of Heaven is greater than John".
12:25, 26 ("Realm" only)
13: 11
13: 19, 13:24 ("Realm" only)
13:31
13: 33
13:38 "Sons of the Realm"
13: 41, 43 ("Realm" only) Very interesting language here.
13:44
!3: 45
13: 47
13: 52
16: 19 Peter is given the keys to the "Realm of Heaven".
18: 1, 18: 2, 18:3 One of the most important Story fragments IMHO. The "Realm of Heaven" may be seen as a Real, Physical Place.
18: 23
19: 12
19: 14
19: 23
19: 24
20:1
20: 22 "Realm" only
21: 31 "Realm of God"
21: 43 "Realm of God"
22:2
23: 13 Description of a physical event in a physical world
24: 7 "Realm against realm"
25: 1
25: 34
26: 29 "Realm of my father"

Ken Olson
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Ken Olson » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:34 am

Michael BG wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:30 pm
Ken Olson wrote:
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:41 pm
Paul Foster has argued that Matthew's uses of "kingdom of God" at Matt 12.28; 19.24; 21.31,43 should count as fatigue because Matthew generally prefers "kingdom of heaven" (32 times) and suggests Matthew has lapsed in these few cases [Is it Possible to Dispense with Q NovT 2003)] This looks little like fatigue as described by Goodacre because it doesn't occur within pericopes and causes no tension with the logic of the story. In fact, in some cases "kingdom of God" would be required (or at least strongly suggested) by the context, e.g. Matt 12.28 where KoG is being paralleled to "Spirit of God."
Mt 12:28 is in the double tradition (and so is a Q saying I you accept Q). Luke has finger of God and Kingdom of God and so this could be an example of Matthean fatigue when using Q. Thank you Ken.
This is not an example of fatigue as Goodacre uses the term. As I wrote in another thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159&p=48229&hilit= ... ous#p48229
2. This is not fatigue as Goodacre defines it. It doesn't reflect a change within a pericope in which a writer makes a change earlier and then lapses back to following his source in a way that creates an incongruity in the narrative. "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" are spread out over the gospel, not within a pericope and they don't create a problem in the text because they're synonymous. One serves as well as the other. One could just suppose that Matthew actually meant to use "Kingdom of heaven" each time but failed to carry out his plan. But it doesn't cause a tension in the narrative when Matthew uses Kingdom of God, so it's not what Goodacre is talking about with "fatigue".
Though, actually, one of the problems with Goodacre's fatigue paper is that he doesn't provide a definition of fatigue, it has to be inferred from his descriptions of what he's looking at in his examples.

Best,

Ken

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Michael BG » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:45 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:44 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:30 pm
I wonder how many times Matthew uses “Kingdom of Heaven” in the double tradition? Should we expect Luke to have used the term at least once in this tradition if he is using Matthew? I can’t find Luke using the term at all.
Correct. Luke never uses the term "kingdom of heaven" (at least not in the standard texts; I have not checked very hard for variants). That is a Matthean affectation.
If Luke was using Matthew shouldn’t we see him suffer fatigue in relation to the “Kingdom of Heaven”? As we don’t this could be because Luke didn’t have Matthew to work from.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:44 pm
It is not the purest example of fatigue one may find, but the fact that Matthew 22.7 has the king in the parable of the wedding feast actually destroying a city in the middle of inviting people to his feast, and the feast is apparently still there after the war, indicates to me that Matthew's version of this parable is secondary to Luke's and Thomas' versions. …
A few years ago I looked at this and there are very few common words between the versions. I have not noticed any words in Matthew’s version which seem out of context and also used in the Lucan version which could be put down to fatigue.
I think you may be confused as to what is actually meant by "fatigue." Fatigue = instances of inconcinnity which can be put down to the author/editor having made changes to, additions to, or subtractions from one part of a source while retaining another part of the source. Those changes do not have to involve individual words. In this case, Matthew's version of the parable is agreed on all sides to contain instances of inconcinnity, and both the Farrer group and others agree that those instances of inconcinnity are due to fatigue with a source; the only issue is which source: Mark or Luke (or their sources).
I agree both aspects have to be present. Editorial fatigue has to involve words and retaining words from the perceived source as well as inconsistency. Without the use of the same word or words there is no way of knowing it was fatigue rather than just bad editing. There has to be leakage from the source into the story suffering from fatigue.

I agree that Matthew’s story appears to be the same story as in Luke, but the inconsistencies or as you term them inconcinnities I think are there because of Matthew's intended editorial work and not the result of him suffering from editorial fatigue and failing to change something in the original story.

Your example of the king burning some cities while being a little inconsistent does not show that Luke’s version is the original form. I agree with you it does point to it being Matthew’s editorial work and so unlikely to be in the original version. It is still possible that Matthew has retained more of the original story and Luke has substantially changed it.

Michael BG
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Michael BG » Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:52 am

Ken Olson wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:34 am
Michael BG wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:30 pm
Mt 12:28 is in the double tradition (and so is a Q saying I you accept Q). Luke has finger of God and Kingdom of God and so this could be an example of Matthean fatigue when using Q. Thank you Ken.
This is not an example of fatigue as Goodacre uses the term. As I wrote in another thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159&p=48229&hilit= ... ous#p48229
2. This is not fatigue as Goodacre defines it. It doesn't reflect a change within a pericope in which a writer makes a change earlier and then lapses back to following his source in a way that creates an incongruity in the narrative. "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" are spread out over the gospel, not within a pericope and they don't create a problem in the text because they're synonymous. One serves as well as the other. One could just suppose that Matthew actually meant to use "Kingdom of heaven" each time but failed to carry out his plan. But it doesn't cause a tension in the narrative when Matthew uses Kingdom of God, so it's not what Goodacre is talking about with "fatigue".
Though, actually, one of the problems with Goodacre's fatigue paper is that he doesn't provide a definition of fatigue, it has to be inferred from his descriptions of what he's looking at in his examples.

Best,

Ken
In “The Synoptic Problem” (linked to) Mark Goodacre when talking about editorial fatigue with regard to Mark defines it as “where Matthew and Luke seemed to have made initial, characteristic changes to their Markan source, but had apparently lapsed into docile reproduction of that source, resulting in some minor incongruities” (p 154).

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5848
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: If anyone is new to Q and the Synoptic Problem

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:26 am

Michael BG wrote:
Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:45 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:44 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:30 pm
I wonder how many times Matthew uses “Kingdom of Heaven” in the double tradition? Should we expect Luke to have used the term at least once in this tradition if he is using Matthew? I can’t find Luke using the term at all.
Correct. Luke never uses the term "kingdom of heaven" (at least not in the standard texts; I have not checked very hard for variants). That is a Matthean affectation.
If Luke was using Matthew shouldn’t we see him suffer fatigue in relation to the “Kingdom of Heaven”? As we don’t this could be because Luke didn’t have Matthew to work from.
"Should" is a rather strong word for this possibility. Editorial fatigue is never, ever automatic. One has to wait for the author/editor to drop his or her guard a bit, and some authors/editors are so conscientious that they will avoid lapsing into fatigue by far most of the time, if not avoiding it altogether.
I agree both aspects have to be present. Editorial fatigue has to involve words and retaining words from the perceived source as well as inconsistency. Without the use of the same word or words there is no way of knowing it was fatigue rather than just bad editing. There has to be leakage from the source into the story suffering from fatigue.

I agree that Matthew’s story appears to be the same story as in Luke, but the inconsistencies or as you term them inconcinnities I think are there because of Matthew's intended editorial work and not the result of him suffering from editorial fatigue and failing to change something in the original story.

Your example of the king burning some cities while being a little inconsistent does not show that Luke’s version is the original form.
You are still using the terms in ways that I do not, but I can agree that Matthew's additions to the core story are what make Matthew's version problematic. Call that process what you will. And I believe we are more than justified in referring to a "core story" here because, when one removes from Matthew's version (A) those parts which reflect Mark's parable of the tenants more than Luke's parable of the great feast and (B) those parts which reflect neither Mark nor Luke, what remains is a story very much like Luke's parable, and just as complete and unproblematic. This ought to be explained.
I agree with you it does point to it being Matthew’s editorial work and so unlikely to be in the original version.
Bear in mind, however, that Ken's argument is precisely that Matthew's version of the parable of the feast is both more original than Luke's version and entirely the product of Matthew's editorial work. There is no either/or for Ken on this point. The parable, in his view, is the result of Matthew's editorial activity on Mark's parable of the tenants.

I want to emphasize that here and now, as ever and always, when I refer to Matthew's version or to Luke's version or what have you I am taking a shortcut; it could be Matthew's source or Luke's source.
It is still possible that Matthew has retained more of the original story and Luke has substantially changed it.
In the abstract, this is true. Where Matthew's account of the wedding guests differs from Luke's, it is possible that Matthew is still the more primitive.

In the concrete, however, there is at least one point at which I believe Luke's version is pretty clearly more original than Matthew's, granted the rest of my arguments. Matthew has changed individual servants in Mark's parable of the tenants to groups of servants in his own rendition of that parable. Similarly, in the parable of the feast, where Luke has an individual servant, Matthew has groups of servants. This makes it look to me as if Matthew has made both of these changes (rather than Luke having turned groups of servants into one individual servant).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply