The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

[mlinssen]

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 mistake that everyone makes is that they just assume that sharing a source would lead to identical outcomes, which is just plain dumb

Every writer has a goal, and will pick sources that befit him. Give 10 writers one and the same source and they will write completely different stories

Arthur C Clarke it was, I think, who gave a room full of college students one and the same horoscope, by handing out each of them with their name written on it, suggesting personalisation. Everyone agreed that the horoscope defined them well

It is the dumbest argument to make that two people couldn't have shared the same source because they differ so much

It is not source that drives the outcome, it is destination.
And one of these days I'll be quoted on that LOL

[mlinssen]

And indeed, Mark Goodacre, while at it, has written more against Q than anyone else I think. He makes better cases there then with regards to direction of dependence between Thomas and the canonicals (none there), but you can't have them all

What Ken said

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,

Every writer has a goal, and will pick sources that befit him.

But this is what "Luke", if copying from gMatthew, did not do:

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)

And "Luke" (allegedly copying from gMatthew) did pick up items contrary to her views, such as 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the Law to become void.

That, and other items, are evidence "Luke" was faithful with Q, reproducing all of it (even when it hurts) but ignoring stuff from gMatthew which she would like.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

to mlinssen,

Every writer has a goal, and will pick sources that befit him.

But this is what "Luke", if copying from gMatthew, did not do:

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)

And "Luke" (allegedly copying from gMatthew) did pick up items contrary to her views, such as 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the Law to become void.

That, and other items, are evidence "Luke" was faithful with Q, reproducing all of it (even when it hurts) but ignoring stuff from gMatthew which she would like.

Cordially, Bernard

You have no evidence "Luke" was faithful with "Q". You do not have "Q".

[Bernard Muller]

to Ken Olson,
Oops, I made a mistake on my post.
But this is what I wrote long ago in http://historical-jesus.info/q.html:

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

I have Bauer on my list but not in yours: Am I correct?

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.

I disagree: let say if the case of "Luke" copying from gMatthew is strong, then there is no way other scholars could propose the opposite. And vice-versa.

Cordially, Bernard

[mlinssen]

to mlinssen,

Every writer has a goal, and will pick sources that befit him.

But this is what "Luke", if copying from gMatthew, did not do:

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)

And "Luke" (allegedly copying from gMatthew) did pick up items contrary to her views, such as 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the Law to become void.

That, and other items, are evidence "Luke" was faithful with Q, reproducing all of it (even when it hurts) but ignoring stuff from gMatthew which she would like.

Cordially, Bernard

It was "Luke" his goal to be as Thomasine as possible, and just hop along with the whole Christ thing

Luke holds the most verbatim copies of Thomas

Luke has Jesus baptised just like that, whereas Matthew does so under protest, and John doesn't at all

Luke has about one line on the last supper, it means nothing to him

Luke has Judas possessed, and Judas doesn't even kiss Jesus although he sketches the scene. Matthew pulls the full Monty on Judas, and John surprisingly gives him the best treatment by far

Luke doesn't give a damn about major Christology events...

Dikaios is reserved for Jacob the Righteous, logion 12, the Jacob of Isaac and Rebekah who has a dream about a ladder leading to heaven - the Jacob for whose sake heaven and earth came into being. Israel, as he later was called.
Luke couldn't possibly use that word:

go toward Jacob the Righteous this have the(F) heaven with the earth come-to-be because-of he

Next you bring up

17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

111 said IS : the(PL) heaven will curl-up and the earth within your(PL.) presence outward and he-who living from he-who living he will behold not death and-not fear IS say it : he-who-will fall as-regards he self he the World worth within he not

Luke was completely comfortable with heavens and earth disappearing, of course

Workers in the Vineyard is one of the self invented parables, completely different from the concise, riddling Thomasine ones, full of inanimate objects that drive the story.
The parables invented by the canonicals, 15 in total, are all longwinded dialogues between humans, boring, banal stories, about good and bad, and whereas Thomas always has only one protagonist they almost always have two or even more - Mark's first try is a good one, and Luke's first try is a good one. Matthew completely sucks at them, and Workers in the Vineyard is as pathetic as his version of the parable of the net

https://www.academia.edu/40951733/Two_t ... ht_and_day

Mt 25:35-45 is a bad remake of major Thomasine themes, Luke wouldn't dare touch it

There is no Q, never has been, never will. Thomas is the source to all of Christianity, over two thirds of his material ended up in the NT. Extremely twisted, because his story was about something entirely different, but they took his words and put them in their context, and they have been defending that ever since

It is unfathomable that people keep looking for a source when it has been staring them in the face for over half a century

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,
You put gThomas written around 110 CE. So when do you date the writing of the gospels and the writing of Revelation?

Cordially, Bernard

[mlinssen]

to mlinssen,
You put gThomas written around 110 CE. So when do you date the writing of the gospels and the writing of Revelation?

Cordially, Bernard

No, I most certainly don't, have not, and never will. I date Thomas in between 63 BCE and 69 CE

Where do you have that I say 110 CE?

[mlinssen]

With regards to the Gospels: those were written after 70 CE, I think Paul started to try and soothe the poor Judeans who lost their temple - again

Perhaps Mark supplied a background story to his story a few decades later, dunno. But it was Marcion who did a full rewrite of Thomas in the light of that

But was it Justin who started the second attempt, after Bar Khokba, when the Judeans and their entire faith had been wiped from Jerusalem?
With MrMacSon doing his funny stuff lately, I have started to ponder that. One thing is for sure: Marcion is the source to Luke, he has the original Thomasine words where he differs from Luke

And I still hold to the very simple theory that Luke and Matthew originated on the same table, or at least in cooperation. Matthew took Marcion and wrote both Luke and his own, and that must have been in response to all the problems that arose after Mark

But with things being as they are this week, I wouldn't be surprised if Paul was end of first century, and everyone else came after 140 CE.
Certainly not my forte, I'm just second guessing there

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,

No, I most certainly don't, have not, and never will. I date Thomas in between 63 BCE and 69 CE

Where do you have that I say 110 CE?

Another mistake of mine: I took after 110 BCE for after 110 CE.

Cordially, Bernard