The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by rgprice » Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:36 pm

I assume most are familiar with the 2 source consensus, with Mark & Q as the sources for Matthew and Luke.

There are quite a few problem that get added to the equation.

#1) Recent several recent (1970s+) studies of Acts conclude that the writer of Acts did know, and use, Paul's letters.
#2) This implies that the writer of Luke also knew Paul's letters
#3) The works of David Oliver Smith, and my own research, supports this, showing that the Gospel of Luke shows evidence of having been written by someone using Paul's letters
#4) Recent work shows that Marcion's Gospel is not a redacted version of Luke. The growing view is that Luke and Marcion's Gospel (Evangelion) independently derive from a lost proto-Gospel (we'll call it proto-Evangelion)
#5) There is a growing view that Acts is written as an anti-Marcionite work, dated to between 125 and 150.
#6) Even if not anti-Marcionite per se, Acts clearly has a specific objective that minimizes many aspects of Paul's letters. Acts harmonizes Paul and Peter and has Paul reject many of his own teachings found in his letters.
#7) Q currently includes narrative material from the beginning of Matthew/Luke regarding the temptation of Jesus, etc.

So, what to make of all this and what are some solutions to the Synoptic Problem in light of these observations?

Firstly, there are multiple cases showing that it appears the writer of Luke made use of Paul's letters. But the writer of Luke-Acts very clearly has Paul contradict many of his own teachings. So why would such a writer make use of Paul's letters in the Gospel? The answer is that he didn't, but the writer of proto-Evangelion did. This makes sense, because the Evangelion is specifically associated with Paul's letters.

Where Luke seems to use Paul's letters is where Luke overlaps with proto-Evangelion. I haven't checked every single instance of this, but I've checked through about 5 major ones and its the case in all of those that the text exists in both Luke and Evangelion. The Eucharist is the biggest example.

So, if Luke used proto-Evangelion, then the writer of Luke did not himself necessarily need to incorporate material from Paul into his Gospel. This just occurred by Luke having used proto-Evangelion.

Another proposal along these same lines regarding Q is that Luke didn't use Q, rather proto-Evangelion used Q. Luke on the other hand used proto-Evangelion, Mark and Matthew. This accounts for the unusual narrative introduction of Q, where Luke and Matthew agree against Evangelion.

I'm not entirely sure of the implications for Goodacre's case against Q. I'm not sure if use of Evangelion makes Q more or less likely.

But this does address the issue of, why some aspects of Luke seem Pauline in nature, yet Acts seems to anti-Pauline, which is to say, seems to present a version of Paul that does not reflect his own letters. Its because the pro-Pauline aspects of Luke likely come from proto-Evangelion.

I guess the big question with Luke/Acts is whether they are specifically anti-Marcionite, and this to be dated after 144, or whether they can be dated earlier on the premise that they need not have been reactions specially to Marcion's Gospel, but rather to a growing view that ended up getting reflected in Marcion's Gospel.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6685
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:23 pm

re #6(b), I'd say,
  • 'Acts harmonizes Paul and Peter and has [its] Paul reject many of [the] teachings found in [the Pauline] letters.'
re
rgprice wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:36 pm
the writer of Luke-Acts very clearly has Paul contradict many of his own teachings. So why would such a writer make use of Paul's letters in the Gospel? The answer is that he didn't, but the writer of proto-Evangelion did.
  • Are you differentiating between Luke and Acts use of 'Paul'.
  • Perhaps my question is answered by your subsequent
rgprice wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:36 pm
some aspects of Luke seem Pauline in nature, yet Acts seems to anti-Pauline

re
rgprice wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:36 pm
... the Evangelion is specifically associated with Paul's letters.
  • Physically? or literary literarily, use-of wise? (or both?)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rgprice
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by rgprice » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:51 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:23 pm
  • Physically? or literary, use-of wise? (or both?)
Physically, and I'd say also literarily.

Marcion's Gospel was bound with Paul's letters. It also includes references to Paul's letters in the same way that the Gospel of Mark does, but in some cases new additional references and references that clarify Mark's use, for example the Eucharist. The Eucharist of 1 Corinthians is closer to Luke and Evangelion than Mark is. My explanation is that Mark's Eucharist came from 1 Corinthians, and the writer of Evangelion recognized this and made his version of it closer to Paul's original. That's just the most obvious example but there are many others.

That Luke copied from proto-Evangelion explains why Luke's is closer to Paul than Mark's, despite the fact that when the same writer was writing Acts he was clearly working to create a Paul character that didn't hold true even to his own teachings.

The question is, why would Luke correct Mark to make Mark closer to Paul, while making Paul farther from himself. The answer is that he didn't. Proto-Evangelion brought Mark closer to Paul, which Luke just copied unwittingly.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6685
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:16 pm

rgprice wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:51 pm
MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:23 pm
Physically? or literary, literarily use-of wise? (or both?)
Physically, and I'd say also literarily.
Cheers (and of course, literarily not literary)

rgprice wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:51 pm
Marcion's Gospel was bound with Paul's letters. It also includes references to Paul's letters in the same way that the Gospel of Mark does, but in some cases new additional references and references that clarify Mark's use, for example the Eucharist. The Eucharist of 1 Corinthians is closer to Luke and Evangelion than Mark is. My explanation is that Mark's Eucharist came from 1 Corinthians, and the writer of Evangelion recognized this and made his version of it closer to Paul's original. That's just the most obvious example but there are many others.
Scholars like Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt thing that Mark came after a first edition of the Marcionite Evangelion, perhaps a proto-Evangelion, and one or both think Marcion produced a second edition. Are you saying (a) that it might have been with the second edition where 'the writer of Evangelion recognized this and made his version of it closer to Paul's original'? Or, (b) that Mark [may have] preceded the Marcionite Evangelion?

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3757
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:55 pm

to rgprice,
#1) Recent several recent (1970s+) studies of Acts conclude that the writer of Acts did know, and use, Paul's letters.
OK by me.
#2) This implies that the writer of Luke also knew Paul's letters
Really, I don't see the connection. See http://historical-jesus.info/76.html Arguments against "Luke" knowing Paul's epistles and a late dating of 'Acts'.
#3) The works of David Oliver Smith, and my own research, supports this, showing that the Gospel of Luke shows evidence of having been written by someone using Paul's letters
What evidence?
#4) Recent work shows that Marcion's Gospel is not a redacted version of Luke. The growing view is that Luke and Marcion's Gospel (Evangelion) independently derive from a lost proto-Gospel (we'll call it proto-Evangelion)
There is no evidence a proto gospel existed. Marcion truncated and modified gLuke. See http://historical-jesus.info/73.html Two arguments in favor of proving Marcion's Pauline epistles were written after the "canonical"one.
#5) There is a growing view that Acts is written as an anti-Marcionite work, dated to between 125 and 150.
Acts is no more anti-Marcionite than gMark, gLuke, gMathew gJohn, Galatians which have a human mother for Jesus.
#6) Even if not anti-Marcionite per se, Acts clearly has a specific objective that minimizes many aspects of Paul's letters. Acts harmonizes Paul and Peter and has Paul reject many of his own teachings found in his letters.
True, except that Acts do maximize items from Paul letters: see http://historical-jesus.info/75.html
#7) Q currently includes narrative material from the beginning of Matthew/Luke regarding the temptation of Jesus, etc.
Yes.
So, what to make of all this and what are some solutions to the Synoptic Problem in light of these observations?
Firstly, there are multiple cases showing that it appears the writer of Luke made use of Paul's letters. But the writer of Luke-Acts very clearly has Paul contradict many of his own teachings. So why would such a writer make use of Paul's letters in the Gospel? The answer is that he didn't, but the writer of proto-Evangelion did. This makes sense, because the Evangelion is specifically associated with Paul's letters.
As I said, I am waiting to see that is the evidence about "Luke" making use of Paul's letters. I know of none.
The gospel of Marcion, because truncated from gLuke, has less Q material than gLuke. And gMarcion is no more associated with the (also truncated) epistles of Paul in Marcion canon than the four gospels with the Pauline epistles in the NT.
Where Luke seems to use Paul's letters is where Luke overlaps with proto-Evangelion. I haven't checked every single instance of this, but I've checked through Where Luke seems to use Paul's letters is where Luke overlaps with proto-Evangelion. I haven't checked every single instance of this, but I've checked through about 5 major ones and its the case in all of those that the text exists in both Luke and Evangelion. The Eucharist is the biggest example. and its the case in all of those that the text exists in both Luke and Evangelion. The Eucharist is the biggest example.
For sure, I would like to know about these five major ones. The Eucharist is copied from GMark but added up with one interpolation drawn from 1 Corinthians. See http://historical-jesus.info/64.html then "find" on: 3) Did Justin Martyr quote Paul?
I guess the big question with Luke/Acts is whether they are specifically anti-Marcionite, and this to be dated after 144, or whether they can be dated earlier on the premise that they need not have been reactions specially to Marcion's Gospel, but rather to a growing view that ended up getting reflected in Marcion's Gospel.

Dating of gLuke and gJohn: http://historical-jesus.info/62.html
External evidence from Basilides (120-140) and from Valentinus (120-140) and gJohn (completed around 105).
Dating of Acts: http://historical-jesus.info/62.html

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by hakeem » Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:01 pm

rgprice wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:36 pm
I assume most are familiar with the 2 source consensus, with Mark & Q as the sources for Matthew and Luke.

There are quite a few problem that get added to the equation.

#1) Recent several recent (1970s+) studies of Acts conclude that the writer of Acts did know, and use, Paul's letters.
#2) This implies that the writer of Luke also knew Paul's letters
#3) The works of David Oliver Smith, and my own research, supports this, showing that the Gospel of Luke shows evidence of having been written by someone using Paul's letters..
These three positions are appear to be seriously flawed.

We know exactly how an NT writing would look if it relied on another NT source.

We have gMark anf gMatthew. It is clearly seen that the author of gMatthew knew of gMark or his source.
There are multiple word for word passages found in both Gospels.

We have gLuke, gMatthew and gMark and it can easily seen that gLuke relied on gMark and gMatthew or their sources.
Again we have a similar scenario in Gluke, gMatthew and gMark we see multiple word for word passages in all three Gospels.

We have Epistles under the name of Paul however we see nothing at all which is indicates that the Gospel writers knew of the Epistles.
Not a single teaching of Paul or passage in the Epistle is transferred to the Gospels.

The Synoptic Jesus does not utter a word like the revealed Jesus in the Epistles.

It is most astonishing that not a single passage from the fourteen Epistles under the name of Paul is found in the Gospels and Acts yet the only writing attributed to Mark [the shortest Gospel] is "carbon" copied by the author of gMatthew and used profusely by gLuke.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3757
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:08 pm

to Hakeem,
We have gLuke, gMatthew and gMark and it can easily seen that gLuke relied on gMark and gMatthew or their sources.
gLuke relied on gMark and Q.

Yes, they do:
A) The divorce law (a divorced woman should not remarry):
1 Corinthians:
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband [7:10]
(but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)--and that the husband should not divorce his wife. [7:11]

gMark:
And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; [10:11]
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." [10:12]

B) 1 Thessalonians:
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord ... [4:15]
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; [4:16]
then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. [4:17]

gMark:
And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.[13:26]
And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. [13:27]

Note: gMark "in clouds" ('ἐν νεφέλαις') is the perfect match of "in clouds" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. However, in the corresponding passages, gMatthew has "on the clouds of heaven" (26:64) (similar to "with the clouds of heaven" in Daniel 7:13) and gLuke has "in a cloud" (21:27).

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by hakeem » Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:14 pm

hakeem wrote:We have gLuke, gMatthew and gMark and it can easily seen that gLuke relied on gMark and gMatthew or their sources.
Bernard Muller wrote: gLuke relied on gMark and Q.
Gluke relied on gMark and gMatthew or their sources. "Q" is a hypothetical writing which have never been found.
Bernard Mueller wrote: Yes, they do:
A) The divorce law (a divorced woman should not remarry):
1 Corinthians:
To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband [7:10]
(but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)--and that the husband should not divorce his wife. [7:11]

gMark:
And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; [10:11]
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." [10:12]
The fundamental problem with the Epistles is that the author claims to have received information from the dead Lord Jesus which obviously is a lie. The passage from 1 Corinthians about divorce must have come from some human source--not from the dead Lord.

It is far more likely that the Epistle writer used gMark or a similar than to have received information about divorce from the dead.
Bernard Mueller wrote: 1 Thessalonians:
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord ... [4:15]
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; [4:16]
then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. [4:17]
This passage deals with the second coming but Christian writers in the 2nd century to seem to have no knowledge of the Pauline teaching.

Justin Martyr used the Revelation of John and claimed Christians would reign with Jesus for a thousand years on earth in the New Jerusalem.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho LXXXI
And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem...

Bernard Mukller wrote: gMark:
And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.[13:26]
And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. [13:27]

Note: gMark "in clouds" ('ἐν νεφέλαις') is the perfect match of "in clouds" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. However, in the corresponding passages, gMatthew has "on the clouds of heaven" (26:64) (similar to "with the clouds of heaven" in Daniel 7:13) and gLuke has "in a cloud" (21:27).

Cordially, Bernard
That passage in gMark about the Son of man coming in the clouds is lifted from the book of Daniel.

Daniel 7:13
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3757
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:25 pm

to hakeem,
True, not found as a document.
But Q can be fairly precisely deternined by looking at gLuke and gMatthew (and gMark).
And Q as extracted by "Luke" from gMatthew got popular by charismatic Mark Goodacre, but other scholars argued the opposite, "Matthew" extracted Q from gLuke. They are James Hardy Ropes (1934), Austin Marsden Farrer (1955) & Michael Douglas Goulder (1974, 1989). That let me think Lk --> Mt and Mt --> Lk are rather weak cases.
Further there is evidence "Luke" worked from a faulty translation (Aramaic to Greek) and included in her gospel items which were against her Gentile outlook ("Luke" would not do that if she was picking from gMatthew) and more, and more as explained on my web page on Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html
On the same web page, I wrote:
But the most compelling argument against the Farrer's hypothesis (or the three sources one, 3SH) would be:
If "Luke" had GMatthew, why (with the exception of "Q" and common GMark material) are so many differences and conflicts between the two gospels? The "problem" is generally ignored or, at best, scantily addressed.
And why "Luke" did not implement Matthean material most agreeable, such as:
- Mt20:1-16, never too late to join (or rejoin) the Christian brotherhood (see Lk15:11-32)
- Mt25:35-45, charity to the destitute and poor, in order to enter the Kingdom (see Lk6:34-35,10:30-37,11:5-8,14:13-14,16:9,19-28,19:8-9)
- Mt27:19, a Roman woman declaring Jesus as a "righteous/just" ('dikaios') man (see Lk23:47, a centurion saying the same). This could not have been missed by "Luke", considering the pro-feminist and pro-Roman stance of the gospel & 'Acts' (as explained here)

The fundamental problem with the Epistles is that the author claims to have received information from the dead Lord Jesus which obviously is a lie. The passage from 1 Corinthians about divorce must have come from some human source--not from the dead Lord.
Paul claimed to be receiving info from above, from a Jesus who certainly died on earth but after the alleged resurrection was believed to be very much alive as a heavenly deity.
The fundamental problem with the Epistles is that the author claims to have received information from the dead Lord Jesus which obviously is a lie. The passage from 1 Corinthians about divorce must have come from some human source--not from the dead Lord.
I agree, and the human source was Paul himself.
This passage deals with the second coming but Christian writers in the 2nd century to seem to have no knowledge of the Pauline teaching.
The exceptions are the Naassenes, Basilides, 1 Clement (1st century), Marcion, Ptolemy, Irenaeus.
That passage in gMark about the Son of man coming in the clouds is lifted from the book of Daniel.
That passage originated with Paul, who certainly was inspired by relevant items from the OT, then transplanted (with simplications) by "Mark" in his gospel.

Cordially, Bernard

Ken Olson
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Synopitc Problem

Post by Ken Olson » Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:16 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:25 pm
And Q as extracted by "Luke" from gMatthew got popular by charismatic Mark Goodacre, but other scholars argued the opposite, "Matthew" extracted Q from gLuke. They are James Hardy Ropes (1934), Austin Marsden Farrer (1955) & Michael Douglas Goulder (1974, 1989).

No, the scholars you named - Ropes, Farrer, Goulder and Goodacre, all hold the so-called Farrer hypothesis that Luke used Matthew and that the double tradition (the pericopes containing extensive material shared by Matthew and Luke but not Mark, which the traditional Two-Source or Mark-Q hypothesis theorizes came from a non-extant Q source) were Luke's selections from Matthew. Ropes held that theory, but from a different intellectual pedigree than the others (all of whom are from Oxford), being American and pre-dating Farrer. Goulder consciously built on the work of Farrer (whose student he was) and Goodacre on Farrer and Goulder (Goodacre knew Goulder, but was never formally his student).

The theory that Matthew was the third synoptic evangelist and used Luke, now generally called Matthean posteriority, was proposed in the 19th century by C.G. Wilke (1838), and has more recently been revived and argued for by Ronald Huggins (1992), followed by Alan Garrow and Robert MacEwen and a few others (e.g., Evan Powell and Bartosz Adamczewski, who IMHO are not as deserving of attention).
That let me think Lk --> Mt and Mt --> Lk are rather weak cases.
This would be a non-sequitur, even if the scholars you named held the positions you attribute to them. The strength of someone's case does not depend on whether other people have made a different or opposite case.

Best,

Ken

Post Reply