The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,

The Pharisees were dissolved in 73 CE

How do you know that?
This is what Josephus in the early 90's wrote about the Pharisees, in Antiquities book 18, chapter 1:

Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason's dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced; and when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about Divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also.

But in (published in the 70's) Wars, book 2, chapter 8, Josephus described the Essenes at great length, but say little about the Pharisees:

the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.

So the Pharisees were very much front & center in the early 90's (I date gLuke and gMatthew in the 80's, early 90's) but not in the 60's (your dating of gThomas).

Cordially, Bernard

[mlinssen]

to mlinssen,

The Pharisees were dissolved in 73 CE

How do you know that?
This is what Josephus in the early 90's wrote about the Pharisees, in Antiquities book 18, chapter 1:

Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason's dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced; and when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about Divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also.

But in (published in the 70's) Wars, book 2, chapter 8, Josephus described the Essenes at great length, but say little about the Pharisees:

the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.

So the Pharisees were very much front & center in the early 90's (I date gLuke and gMatthew in the 80's, early 90's) but not in the 60's (your dating of gThomas).

Cordially, Bernard

Josephus?

I can't research everything, so I go with the general opinion here. But it would be rather pointless to rage against the Pharisees if they were just some minor player

I am still looking for a trigger to Thomas. Why did he write? The exclusion from the temple in 6 CE might be one reason, the destruction of Samaria in 110 BCE another

He doesn't stick to the usual Samarian argument that they had the right interpretation, he comes up with something entirely different, Tao-like. But he wouldn't reject the Pharisees that fiercely, he wouldn't gloat on Judean misery that happily, if he didn't live in a society where Judeans and Pharisees were in control

[EDIT: My main reason to date Thomas before 70 CE is the destruction of the Temple that he evidently didn't witness. I'm not an expert on Pharisees nor do I wish to become one. If they were in existence even today, that would be fine by me]

[davidmartin]

maybe society sucked?

[mlinssen]

maybe society sucked?

Society usually does

[Ken Olson]

to Ken Olson,

At present, I would argue for three (maybe five - it depends on how many of Goodacre's fatigue cases count as strong) cases where there's a strong case for Matthew being earlier and zero strong cases where Luke is earlier.

Mark Goodacre explained fatigue in writing the double tradition: See the Double Tradition chapter in http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm
I am far of being convinced in the two examples he gave that "Luke" showed fatigue when he wrote the two passages.
Goodacre wrote next:

However, instances like this, from the double tradition, are not as straightforward as instances from triple tradition material.

I consider the Parable of the Pounds/Talents a strong case for the priority of the Matthean form, with both the initial ten servants in Luke and his "give it to the one who has ten" showing that he has the Matthean version of the parable in mind as he's writing. My other strong cases (not involving fatigue) would be the Beelzebul pericope (which I've discussed on this forum before) and the Parable of the Mustard Seed in Luke 13.18-19 and the Mulberry Tree in Luke 17.6.

The quotation you excerpt from Goodacre has nothing to do with the relative strength of the examples of fatigue from the triple and double traditions. It has to do with the nature of the sources in question, as is clear from the rest of the paragraph of which it is the first sentence. Goodacre is saying that the examples he gives suggest Matthew's priority over Luke, but it is always possible to construct Q to look like Matthew in any particular case. He argues anyone who believes that Luke sometimes preserves the earlier form ought to show examples of fatigue working the other way, where Matthew shows fatigue relative to Luke. This is why I said I can think of three (actually four) examples where the case for Matthean priority is particularly strong and zero examples where the case for Lukan priority is. I know of five cases where someone (Paul Foster, Tobias Hagerland, two in Robert MacEwen and, on this forum,Ben Smith) has tried to show this, but I do not think any of the examples succeed (Ben may have the best case).

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

At present, I would argue for three (maybe five - it depends on how many of Goodacre's fatigue cases count as strong) cases where there's a strong case for Matthew being earlier and zero strong cases where Luke is earlier.

Best,

Ken

Interesting. What do you make of this then?

Luke 11:52 Woe to you lawyers! For you took away the key of knowledge. You didn't enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in, you hindered."

Matthew 23:14 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter.

If Matthew starts with "shutting up the Kingdom", where on earth does Luke get his "taking away the keys of knowledge"?

I think the data is consistent with Luke using Matthew, which is not the same as saying that there is an overwhelming case for that conclusion or that the opposite case cannot be made. In most cases in the double tradition, what we can show is that the Matthean form is Matthean and the Lukan form is Lukan.

Interestingly, this is one of the cases where the International Q Project and most Lukan commentators think Matthew generally has the more primitive form, though they usually construct it with "KIngdom of God" rather than "Kingdom of Heaven." They generally take "keys of knowledge" to be secondary, reflecting either Lukan redaction or the result of another source acting on Luke. Joseph Fitzmyer suggests that the keys of knowledge may be an allusion to the house of Wisdom from Proverbs 9.1, Wisdom having been introduced three verses earlier in Luke 11.49.

I would go beyond Fitzmyer and suggest that while the keys of knowledge in 11.52 are related to Wisdom in 11.49, there are other verses in Luke that can cast more light on the subject. The first is the only other mention of personified Wisdom in Luke at 7.35, "Wisdom is justified by all her children," with particular reference to the unfavorable reception of John the Baptist and Jesus in the immediately preceding verses. The second is the only occurrence of the word "knowledge" in Luke (or any of the gospels) at 1.76-77, in which it is foretold that John would be a prophet who will go before Jesus "to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of sins." It's that particular knowledge, which God's messengers have repeatedly attempted to bring to God's people, which the lawyers haven't entered and have hindered others from entering, that Luke is probably referring to in 11.52.

But I notice you did not actually make a case, strong or otherwise, for Lukan priority here. You expressed incredulity that Luke would have written what he did if he had Matthew.

Best,

Ken

[mlinssen]

At present, I would argue for three (maybe five - it depends on how many of Goodacre's fatigue cases count as strong) cases where there's a strong case for Matthew being earlier and zero strong cases where Luke is earlier.

Best,

Ken

Interesting. What do you make of this then?

Luke 11:52 Woe to you lawyers! For you took away the key of knowledge. You didn't enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in, you hindered."

Matthew 23:14 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter.

If Matthew starts with "shutting up the Kingdom", where on earth does Luke get his "taking away the keys of knowledge"?

I think the data is consistent with Luke using Matthew, which is not the same as saying that there is an overwhelming case for that conclusion or that the opposite case cannot be made. In most cases in the double tradition, what we can show is that the Matthean form is Matthean and the Lukan form is Lukan.

Interestingly, this is one of the cases where the International Q Project and most Lukan commentators think Matthew generally has the more primitive form, though they usually construct it with "KIngdom of God" rather than "Kingdom of Heaven." They generally take "keys of knowledge" to be secondary, reflecting either Lukan redaction or the result of another source acting on Luke. Joseph Fitzmyer suggests that the keys of knowledge may be an allusion to the house of Wisdom from Proverbs 9.1, Wisdom having been introduced three verses earlier in Luke 11.49.

I would go beyond Fitzmyer and suggest that while the keys of knowledge in 11.52 are related to Wisdom in 11.49, there are other verses in Luke that can cast more light on the subject. The first is the only other mention of personified Wisdom in Luke at 7.35, "Wisdom is justified by all her children," with particular reference to the unfavorable reception of John the Baptist and Jesus in the immediately preceding verses. The second is the only occurrence of the word "knowledge" in Luke (or any of the gospels) at 1.76-77, in which it is foretold that John would be a prophet who will go before Jesus "to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of sins." It's that particular knowledge, which God's messengers have repeatedly attempted to bring to God's people, which the lawyers haven't entered and have hindered others from entering, that Luke is probably referring to in 11.52.

But I notice you did not actually make a case, strong or otherwise, for Lukan priority here. You expressed incredulity that Luke would have written what he did if he had Matthew.

Best,

Ken

I didn't indeed, I was just presenting you one example of something not entirely in line with "zero strong cases where Luke is earlier"

Kingdom of the heavens it is, actually. The translation I used is WEB, and like all other translations it consistently ignores that Matthew always and always speaks of kingdom of the heavens, plural, with definite article. That, on a side note

And I even mistranslated Luke partially, used as I am to the Thomasine keys of knowledge - very interestingly Luke speaks of a singular key here, which is in verbatim agreement with Marcion viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=10#p39318

ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̄ⲥ ̄ ϫⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲫⲁⲣⲓⲥⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲙⲛ ̄ ⲛ̄ ⲅⲣⲁⲙⲙⲁⲧⲉⲩⲥ ⲁ ⲩ ϫⲓ ⲛ̄ ϣⲁϣⲧ` ⲛ̄ ⲧ ⲅⲛⲱⲥⲓⲥ
39 said IS : the(PL) Pharisee with the(PL) Scribe did they take the(PL) key of the(F) Knowledge

Naturally I take this as one of the dozens of evident cases of Thomasine priority, as laid out in my "72 logia", but I looked up the Proverbs verse

Wisdom has built her house; she has set up its seven pillars.

That is more than a weak case really, feeble describes it more accurately. σοφία is the word used there, whereas the word here is gnosis, κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως

It is very, very unlikely that Luke would see "shut up the Kingdom" and change all of it: the verb as well as the noun. And then turn it into what he has.
It is beyond a doubt that he has something else in mind, and that he is quoting that, partially or in full. I mean I have a creative mind, but I wouldn't come to Luke's content based on what Matthew has "just like that".
Luke is getting his stuff from Marcion, highly likely, over Thomas

Or, of course, Matthew spots the extreme verbatim agreement and decides to distance himself from it, just like he does on many other occasions

"I would go beyond Fitzmyer and suggest that while the keys of knowledge in 11.52 are related to Wisdom in 11.49" - the word in 49 is sophia, and while that may be related to said Proverbs verse, the key of gnosis couldn't possibly be.
It's a very dangerous word in Christian context of course, gnosis, and it is more than likely that Matthew wants to have nothing to do with it

Concluding: I see a very good reason for Matthew ignoring Luke. And I see a very good reason why Luke picks exactly what he does pick, and that is in line with all of Luke, as his entire gospel is a copy of Marcion, which in turn is a compete rewrite of Thomas yet in the context of Paul's Christ Jesus, or Mark for that matter.
Your arguments for Luke not using "shut up the Kingdom" are missing, or perhaps I overlooked them. And your arguments for Luke picking "key of knowledge" based on a free association with the word sophia, none of which are in Matthew, are not very convincing

[mlinssen]

I consider the Parable of the Pounds/Talents a strong case for the priority of the Matthean form, with both the initial ten servants in Luke and his "give it to the one who has ten" showing that he has the Matthean version of the parable in mind as he's writing.

Now that is even more interesting.
Luke's servant received 1 mina, and that mina "brought forth" 10 - unsure what exactly to make of the Greek προσηργάσατο.
Matthew's servant received 5 mina, and made 5 extra.
So both have 10 mina

It is a fine case for Lukan priority, with Matthew saying "the ten" talents, more likely referring to one object than to two or more.
An even finer case with Matthew having lost the will to come up with something and just rewards the servants with the feeble

21His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’

Now that is the epitome of fatigue

My other strong cases (not involving fatigue) would be the Beelzebul pericope (which I've discussed on this forum before) and the Parable of the Mustard Seed in Luke 13.18-19 and the Mulberry Tree in Luke 17.6.

I'll try to find the mustard seed discussion you're referring to, the order Luke/Matthew there is puzzling and I never looked at the Greek, or Marcion

[hakeem]

[EDIT: My main reason to date Thomas before 70 CE is the destruction of the Temple that he evidently didn't witness. I'm not an expert on Pharisees nor do I wish to become one. If they were in existence even today, that would be fine by me]

Your reasoning is flawed. There are writers who lived c 70 CE but did not mention the destruction of the Temple and others who lived after c 70 CE who also did not mention the event.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ken Olson,

I consider the Parable of the Pounds/Talents a strong case for the priority of the Matthean form, with both the initial ten servants in Luke and his "give it to the one who has ten" showing that he has the Matthean version of the parable in mind as he's writing. My other strong cases (not involving fatigue) would be the Beelzebul pericope (which I've discussed on this forum before) and the Parable of the Mustard Seed in Luke 13.18-19 and the Mulberry Tree in Luke 17.6.

About the pounds/talents parable, I don't see your point.
The one who made ten pounds is the first one who reported to the king.
The one who made five pounds is the second one who reported to the king.
And then another is among the remaining eight servants who did not reported yet to the king.

I don't see any connection with the three servants in gMatthew.

And then, if the Q document existed, it may have featured ten servants but "Matthew" reduced that to only three.

About a strong argument for Q:
gLuke does not have the so-called Bethsaida mini gospel except:
Mk8:15 "take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod." in the missing block reappears in Lk12:1b ("Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy") and Mt16:6,11 ("beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees.").
"Luke" did not get any Bethsaida mini gospel, which is included in gMatthew (14:24-16:13a) and gMark (6:47-8:27a), but had the leaven saying regardless: from where? Obviously not from gMark or gMatthew but from a separate Q document.

Note: the greek word for "beware" is the same in Gluke & gMatthew ('prosechō') but different in gMark ('blepō'). However, "Luke" in 29:46 replaced 'blepō' by 'prosechō' for the corresponding gMark verse 12:28, meaning "Luke" was not always keeping the exact word she found in gMark.
Also, I surmise 'prosechō' might be an appropriate word for "take heed, beware".

So, I am very skeptical about arguments showing "Luke" knew gMatthew, as I am for the arguments of scholars arguing the case "Matthew" knew gLuke.

Cordially, Bernard