The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Thomas, Marcion, and Luke

Post by mlinssen » Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:20 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:22 am
to rgprice,
Says who? Yes I read your arguments. There is zero basis in claiming that Luke wouldn't have written what he/she did if he knew what Matthew said. None at all. How could you possibly assume that. You have no idea what the intentions or methods of Luke were.
So you think it is realistic that in order to become Christian, one has to hate every members of his family, including himself and his wife?

According to Aramaic scholar Jack Kilmon:
"The interesting interface between Aramaic and Greek is that where Greek has many words for one meaning, Aramaic ... a "meat and potatoes" language ... has one word with several meanings ..."
"The Aramaic of Luke's source document, in part, was: "whoever comes to me and does not "hate" his father and mother ...
The word "hate" in Aramaic, however, is an idiom meaning "to set aside." The saying was originally to SET ASIDE your mother, father, brothers, sisters, to follow Jesus ..."

"Luke" had a bad translation of the saying. She certainly did not get that from gMatthew, but from a document like "Q".

Cordially, Bernard
emphasis mine

1. You're trying too hard Bernard, the original text said exactly what it says:

55 said IS : he-who-will hate his father not with his(F) mother he will be-able make-be Disciple not to me and not he hate his(PL) brother with his(PL) sister not he carry of his Stauros within my(F) manner he will come-to-be not he been-made Worthy-one to me

101 he-who-will hate his father not with his(F) mother of my(F) manner he will be-able make-be Disciple to me not and he-who-will love his father not with his(F) mother of my(F) manner he will be-able make-be Disciple to me not my(F) mother Indeed have she bring-forth my(PL) Body outward my(F) mother However of truth did she give to me of the life


Naturally, (the IS of) Thomas looks at it from both sides. Where does the rejection of "his family" come from?

99 said the(PL) Disciple to he : your(.PL) brother with your(F) mother they standing-on-foot their on the part outside said he behold : they-who of these places who make-be of the desire of my father these are my(PL) brother with my(F) mother themselves are who will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king of my father

Tom Dykstra (hat tip MrMacSon) already pointed to the "part outside" in Mark, and it is, naturally, the wrong part "of town":

40 said IS a(n) grapevine did they plant her within the part outside of the father and she made-strong not they will pluck-out her toward her(F) root and she destroy

64 (...) said the slaveowner to his slave : go to the part outside to the(PL) path they-who you will fall as-regards they bring they in-order-that they will make-be Dine (...)

89 said IS : because-of who/at? you(PL) wash the part outside of the Cup you(PL) make-be Realize not : he-who have make the inner-part he also he-who have he make the part outside

Thomas, the joker, turns the offhand comment about standing outside into something metaphysical and contrasts it with what he considers good: "they-who of these places who make-be of the desire of my father".
If you stand on the outside, you neglect the inside: your own inside. The grapevine, planted outside, will be uprooted for that same reason. The very frustrated "Dinner host" throws a temper tantrum at the end and instructs his "slave" to get anyone he can find, even those on "the part outside", even those who walk "the path(es)" - which is the wrong direction to take, according to the parable of the sower.
And again, paying attention to the outside is rejected in the logion of the Cup

2. Luke copies the saying from Marcion (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&sid=8bdd3d7391 ... aae753ad88):

19 Παρεγένετο δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἠδύναντο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον. 20 ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ Ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε. 21 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες. [Marcion: τίς μοι μήτηρ καὶ τίνες μοι ἀδελφοί, εἰ μὴ οἱ τοὺς λόγους μου ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες αὐτούς;] 22 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς λίμνης· καὶ ἀνήχθησαν. 23 πλεόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἀφύπνωσεν. καὶ κατέβη λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου εἰς τὴν λίμνην, καὶ συνεπληροῦντο καὶ ἐκινδύνευον. 24 προσελθόντες δὲ διήγειραν αὐτὸν λέγοντες Ἐπιστάτα ἐπιστάτα, ἀπολλύμεθα. ὁ δὲ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῷ κλύδωνι τοῦ ὕδατος [Marcion: τῇ θαλάσσῃ]· καὶ ἐπαύσαντο, καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη. 25 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς Ποῦ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν; φοβηθέντες δὲ ἐθαύμασαν, λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους Τίς ἄρα [Marcion: δὲ] οὗτός ἐστιν, ὅτι [Marcion: ὅς] καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει καὶ τῷ ὕδατι [Marcion: τῇ θαλάσσῃ], καὶ ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ; 19 His mother and brothers came to him, and they could not come near him for the crowd. 20 Some people told him, “Your mother and your brothers stand outside, desiring to see you.” 21 But he answered them,My mother and my brothers are these who hear the word of God, and do it. [Marcion: Who is my mother and who are my brothers except these who hear my words and do them?]” 22 Now on one of those days, he entered into a boat, himself and his disciples, and he said to them, “Let’s go over to the other side of the lake.” So they launched out. 23 But as they sailed, he fell asleep. A wind storm came down on the lake, and they were taking on dangerous amounts of water. 24 They came to him, and awoke him, saying, “Master, master, we are dying!” He awoke, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water [Marcion: sea], and they ceased, and it was calm. 25 He said to them, “Where is your faith?” Being afraid they marveled, saying to one another,Who is this then, that he [Marcion: who] commands even the winds and the water [Marcion: sea], and they obey him?”

3. And then you'll likely want to talk about the hating and persecuting, given your additional "including himself and his wife" above?

68 said IS : yourselves some(PL) Blessed When they "should" hate you(r)(PL) and they make-be Persecute within you(r)(PL) and they will fall not to Place in the place which did they Persecute within you(r)(PL) upper-part of heart/mind he

69 said IS some(PL) Blessed are these have they Persecute within their upper-part in their heart/mind they-who therein are have know the father in a truth some(PL) Blessed they-who being-hungry So-that they will make-satisfied the(F) belly of he-who desires

Needless to say, the hating and persecuting is metaphysical in Thomas, and logion 68 is one of the many where he juxtaposes plain Coptic words with their Greek loanword equivalent exactly because he wants to demonstrate that they are different, and how they are that.
Luke turns that into: (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&sid=8bdd3d7391 ... d88#p39310) - and again, a humongous thanks to Ben for his magnificently traceable reconstruction of Maercion - a true masterpiece of more than academic value

12 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις ἐξελθεῖν [Marcion: ἀνέβη] αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ ὄρος προσεύξασθαι, καὶ ἦν διανυκτερεύων ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 13 καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡμέρα, προσεφώνησεν τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκλεξάμενος ἀπ’ αὐτῶν δώδεκα, οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν, 14 Σίμωνα, ὃν καὶ ὠνόμασεν Πέτρον, καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάνην, καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Βαρθολομαῖον, 15 καὶ Μαθθαῖον καὶ Θωμᾶν, καὶ Ἰάκωβον Ἀλφαίου καὶ Σίμωνα τὸν καλούμενον Ζηλωτὴν, 16 καὶ Ἰούδαν Ἰακώβου, καὶ Ἰούδαν Ἰσκαριὼθ [or: Ἰσκαριώτην], ὃς ἐγένετο προδότης, 17 καὶ καταβὰς μετ’ αὐτῶν [Marcion: κατέβη ἐν αὐτοῖς] ἔστη ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ, καὶ ὄχλος πολὺς μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ, καὶ πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ τῆς παραλίου Τύρου καὶ Σιδῶνος καὶ τῆς περαίας, 18 οἳ ἦλθον ἀκοῦσαι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἰαθῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν νόσων αὐτῶν, καὶ οἱ ἐνοχλούμενοι ἀπὸ πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων ἐθεραπεύοντο· 19 καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἐζήτουν ἅπτεσθαι αὐτοῦ, ὅτι δύναμις παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐξήρχετο καὶ ἰᾶτο πάντας. 20 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ ἔλεγεν Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί, ὅτι ὑμετέρα [Marcion: αὐτῶν] ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. 21 μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν, ὅτι χορτασθήσεσθε [Marcion: χορτασθήσονται]. μακάριοι οἱ κλαίοντες νῦν, ὅτι γελάσετε [Marcion: γελάσουσιν]. 22 μακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν μισήσωσιν ὑμᾶς οἱ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ὅταν ἀφορίσωσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ ὀνειδίσωσιν καὶ ἐκβάλωσιν τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν ὡς πονηρὸν ἕνεκα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 23 χάρητε ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ σκιρτήσατε· ἰδοὺ γὰρ ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν τοῖς προφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. 24 Πλὴν οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς πλουσίοις, ὅτι ἀπέχετε τὴν παράκλησιν ὑμῶν. 25 οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, οἱ ἐμπεπλησμένοι νῦν, ὅτι πεινάσετε. οὐαί, οἱ γελῶντες νῦν, ὅτι πενθήσετε καὶ κλαύσετε. 26 οὐαὶ ὑμῖν ὅταν καλῶς ὑμᾶς εἴπωσιν ~πάντες~ οἱ ἄνθρωποι· κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ ἐποίουν καὶ τοῖς ψευδοπροφήταις οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. 12 In these days, he went out [Marcion: ascended] to the mountain to pray, and he continued all night in prayer to God. 13 When it was day, he called his disciples, and from them he chose twelve, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he also named Peter; Andrew, his brother; James; John; Philip; Bartholomew; 15 Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alphaeus; Simon, who was called the Zealot; 16 Judas the son of James; and Judas Iscariot, who also became a traitor. 17 He came down with [Marcion: among] them, and stood on a level place, with a crowd of his disciples, and a great number of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon and beyond, who came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases; 18 as well as those who were troubled by unclean spirits, and they were being healed. 19 All the multitude sought to touch him, for power came out of him and healed them all. 20 He lifted up his eyes to his disciples, and said,Blessed are you [Marcion: the] who are poor, God’s Kingdom is yours [Marcion: theirs]. 21 Blessed are you [Marcion: they] who hunger now, for you [Marcion: they] will be filled. Blessed are you [Marcion: they] who weep now, for you [Marcion: they] will laugh. 22 Blessed are you when men shall hate you, and when they shall exclude and mock you, and throw out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake. 23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven, for their fathers did the same thing to the prophets. 24 “But woe to you who are rich! For you have received your consolation. 25 Woe to you, you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. 26 Woe to you when ~all~ men speak well of you, for their fathers did the same thing also to the false prophets.

Marcion has the more original saying, using the third person which Luke changes to second. The "wife" is in Luke 14:26 (BLB):

25And great crowds were going with Him, and having turned, He said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and yes, even his life, he is not able to be My disciple. 27Whoever does not carry his cross and come after Me is not able to be My disciple.

Marcion doesn't have that remake, and he certainly doesn't dare to add the mysterious 'stros' sentence, logion 55. But Luke does, without any reservation:

55 said IS : he-who-will hate his father not with his(F) mother he will be-able make-be Disciple not to me and not he hate his(PL) brother with his(PL) sister not he carry of his Stauros within my(F) manner he will come-to-be not he been-made Worthy-one to me

Luke adds the wife, children and brothers and sisters,just as Marcion adds a boatload of relatives to Thomas logion 16

16 said IS : Perhaps they think viz. the(PL) human : have I come to cast of a(n) Peace upon the World and they know not : have I come to cast of some(PL) division upon the earth a(n) fire a(n) sword a(n) War there-be five Indeed will come-to-be in a(n) house there-be three will come-to-be upon two and two upon three the father upon the child and the child upon the father and they will stay to foot they in-case they been-made the(PL) Solitary

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=10#p39320:

51 δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρεγενόμην δοῦναι ἐν τ γ [Marcion: βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν]; οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ’ ἢ διαμερισμόν. 52 ἔσονται γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν πέντε ἐν ἑνὶ οἴκῳ διαμεμερισμένοι, τρεῖς ἐπὶ δυσὶν καὶ δύο ἐπὶ τρισίν 53 διαμερισθήσονται, πατὴρ ἐπὶ υἱῷ καὶ υἱὸς ἐπὶ πατρί, καὶ μήτηρ ἐπὶ θυγατέρα καὶ θυγάτηρ ἐπὶ τὴν μητέρα [Marcion: μητρί], καὶ πενθερὰ ἐπὶ τὴν νύμφην αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφη ἐπὶ τὴν πενθεράν. 54 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ τοῖς ὄχλοις Ὅταν ἴδητε νεφέλην ἀνατέλλουσαν ἐπὶ δυσμῶν, εὐθέως λέγετε ὅτι Ὄμβρος ἔρχεται, καὶ γίνεται οὕτως· 55 καὶ ὅταν νότον πνέοντα, λέγετε ὅτι Καύσων ἔσται, καὶ γίνεται. 56 ὑποκριταί, τὸ μὲν πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς καὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οἴδατε δοκιμάζειν [Marcion: δοκιμάζετε], τὸν καιρὸν δὲ τοῦτον ~πῶς~ οὐ δοκιμάζετε [Marcion: οἴδατε δοκιμάζειν]; 57 Τί δὲ καὶ ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν οὐ κρίνετε τὸ δίκαιον; 58 ὡς γὰρ ὑπάγεις μετὰ τοῦ ἀντιδίκου σου ἐπ’ ἄρχοντα, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ δὸς ἐργασίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, μή ποτε κατασύρῃ σε πρὸς τὸν κριτήν, καὶ ὁ κριτής σε παραδώσει τῷ πράκτορι, καὶ ὁ πράκτωρ σε βαλεῖ εἰς φυλακήν. 59 λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν ἕως καὶ τ ἔσχατον λεπτὸν [Marcion: τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην] ἀποδῷς. 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace in [Marcion: to cast peace upon] the earth? I tell you, no, but rather division. 52 For from now on, there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; and mother against daughter, and daughter against her mother; and mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 54 He said to the multitudes also, “When you see a cloud rising from the west, immediately you say, ‘A shower is coming,’ and so it happens. 55 When a south wind blows, you say, ‘There will be a scorching heat,’ and it happens. 56 You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky, but how is it that you don’t know ~how~ to interpret this time? 57 Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right? 58 For when you are going with your adversary before the magistrate, try diligently on the way to be released from him, lest perhaps he drag you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. 59 I tell you, you will by no means get out of there, until you have paid the very last penny [Marcion: quarter].”

It is all so very evident, obvious, and logical. Yet here we are, in the year 2021, bothering with people calling the kettle black, and indeed using the argument from incredulity
There is zero basis in claiming that Luke wouldn't have written what he/she did if he knew what Matthew said. None at all. How could you possibly assume that. You have no idea what the intentions or methods of Luke were.
Luke is a lazy copy of Marcion, aimed at supporting Matthew. Looking at the overwhelming amount of verbatim agreement between Marcion and Luke, the fact that the minor disagreements between the two consist in Luke deviating from Marcion's closeness to Thomas points to Marcion being the source to Luke and not vice versa.
The overwhelming amount of verbatim agreement between Luke and Matthew can only mean that Matthew edited Marcion to the level of Luke, unles the order is Matthew->Luke->Marcion->Thomas, which would be the most hilarious assumption of all, and more than impossible to defend

Stuart
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Stuart » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:31 am

Hakeem,

You suffer also from reading comprehension failure.

1) I never said Marcion wrote anything. The term I used was Marcionite.

2) I said the Marcionite text of Paul was a "snowball", which included Marcionite as well as a lot of material from other sects which made up the Christian movement; some with proto-orthodox trajectory, some with gnostic trajectory.

Digression:
Scholars like to use the term proto-orthodox to describe the sect which would gain eventual control over the church hierarchy and levers of power. It is generally considered that "Jesus communities" [1] were quite varied initially, and none were in control. Over time organization came into being and structure, which lead to political battles for control. The Patristic writings begin in the later part of the control struggle after the decisive battle shave been fought, and after proto-orthodox theology has developed some, incorporating a great deal of rival opinion from other sects.

The theology we read into Luke is questionable, as we tend to be influenced by the harmonizing scholastic techniques which inform traditional opinion. Many modern scholars see Luke as essentially Adoptionist in position, a clear heresy by the 4th century, but probably quite fine in the late 2nd century.

But Luke, like the other gospels, incorporates a lot of material which is inconsistent with the authors theology, but is included because it was part of the tradition he knew.

3) You are almost certainly wrong in your view that the Marcion legend is truly representative of an actual sect leader. Even so, the legend is he was son of bishop, in line to be a bishop (these posts apparently were familial in the 2nd century). How could he not have belong to the church?

My opinion on the matter is this: Marcion is a form of the name Mark, and is simply the claimed patron saint, the legendary first leader or bishop of the sect. The sect however became possibly the largest and rivalry set in motion the politics that led to a separation.

The study by Clabeaux establishes that the same variants found in the main stream of the Pauline texts existed also in the Marcionite text. It suggested to him a reduced role of Marcion in production of the texts. I go farther in my deduction to say that the variants are the same because the texts are from the same milieu as the canonical text, only in early shorter form. The expansion of the text stopped sooner in the Marcionite camp because their texts stopped being shared with the rest of the church (which is still at this stage half or more gnostic).

Had the Marcionites been outside the main church then it seems unlikely they would have developed the same hierarchy for their organization of their churches and sees as the main church. It seems equally unlikely they would have had nearly identical text to the received, only missing later elements, if they were not within the church at one point, and for a significant time. Were the Marcionite separate from the start, then we would expect a very different set of letters than the cnanonical and what text when present widely at variance with the canonical text, and a different set of variants because scribes would have been under different the influence of different theology. But none of those markers are present.

The Marcionites were a sect within the main church, just as Apelles, the Johannine community and various (later deemed) heretical sects.

Notes:
[1] Jesus communities are in my opinion nothing more than a fancy way scholars not to say sects, or to invent "naive" gnostic groups in the 1st century whose beliefs go dormant for a century then erupt in the 2nd century. This device attempts to do two things: first to separate 2nd century gnostic movements from the 1st century church, declaring the communities "naive"; and second to backdate the Christian movement as much as a century to support the notion of a "virgin church".

The problem for me is these communities are merely doppelgangers for the 2nd century sects we know and can identity. Their beliefs lie dormant unchanging for a century and then explode inexplicably in the 2nd century everywhere. The simpler solution is the writings are later, in the 2nd century, written by the sects we know about for the most part, all part of a common movement, not yet fractured by politics. There is no need for doppelganger 1st century naive Jesus communities, who left no physical trace, that parallel their 2nd century well described sects. No need for a hundred year slumber with no development.

rgprice
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by rgprice » Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:53 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:22 am
to rgprice,
Says who? Yes I read your arguments. There is zero basis in claiming that Luke wouldn't have written what he/she did if he knew what Matthew said. None at all. How could you possibly assume that. You have no idea what the intentions or methods of Luke were.
So you think it is realistic that in order to become Christian, one has to hate every members of his family, including himself and his wife?

According to Aramaic scholar Jack Kilmon:
"The interesting interface between Aramaic and Greek is that where Greek has many words for one meaning, Aramaic ... a "meat and potatoes" language ... has one word with several meanings ..."
"The Aramaic of Luke's source document, in part, was: "whoever comes to me and does not "hate" his father and mother ...
The word "hate" in Aramaic, however, is an idiom meaning "to set aside." The saying was originally to SET ASIDE your mother, father, brothers, sisters, to follow Jesus ..."

"Luke" had a bad translation of the saying. She certainly did not get that from gMatthew, but from a document like "Q".

Cordially, Bernard
You make a valid point, however, "Q" isn't the only potential solution here.

For one thing, was commented on by Epiphanius and Tertullian.
14.26 Epiphanius, Elenchos 70; Tertullian, Marc. 4.19.12 (≠Harnack,
Tsustui). Tertullian alludes to this verse not in the sequence of his
exposition, but in another context, as shedding light on 8.20–21: “giving
in himself an example of his own teaching, that he who should
put father or mother or brethren before the word of God was not a
worthy disciple.” Epiphanius similarly does not cite v. 26 in his catalog
of Marcionite readings, but in a concessive remark in another context,
commenting on 23.2. Nonetheless, it is probable that he is citing
Marcion’s own intertextual exegesis of 23.2 by 14.26. In the opening
condition “if someone does not” (ean mē tis) the reading follows
some patristic witnesses (e.g., Athanasius, John Chrysostom, but not
Epiphanius’ own text of Luke, see Pan. 61.6.2: hos mē). It read “leave”
(kataleipsēi) rather than “hate” (in agreement with the Diatessaronic
Persian Harmony, and apparently Epiphanius’ own text of Luke,
see Pan. 61.6.2: katalipēi), had “brothers” before “wife and children”
(in agreement with the SSyr, CSyr, Arabic Diatessaron, and Persian
Harmony), and apparently did not include an explicit “and sisters”
(in agreement with the original reading of Gk ms 229, with John
Chrysostom, and a few other witnesses). The clause “and even one’s
own life” is unattested for the Evangelion. Epiphanius gives the final
clause as “is not my pupil” (ouk esti mou mathētēs), and this appears
to be the reading of his text of Luke also (Pan. 61.6.2); but Tertullian
attests “is not worthy to be my pupil” found in the Persian Harmony
and a few other witnesses, while most witnesses to Luke read “is unable
to be my pupil,” which parallels the wording in 14.33 as attested
by the Acts of Archelaus.
So, this passage existed in Marcion's Gospel without hate. In addition, it appears that Epiphanius had a version of Luke in which it also didn't read hate.

I'm not saying I have the answer, but there are more possibilities than just the use of an Aramaic Q, which itself has lots of problems.

rgprice
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by rgprice » Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:35 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:10 pm
to rgprice,
There are too many places where Matthew and Luke integrate the supposed "Q" information into Mark is exactly the same way. The idea that two people would independently integrate all of that material exactly the same, over and over, is just absurd.
There is nothing absurd if "Luke" and "Matthew" had a copy of "Q", which included integration of common material into gMark, such as in "Jesus and Beelzebub" (Mt12:22-30 & Lk11:14-23) & John and Jesus' baptisms (Mt3:7-12 & Lk3:7b-9, 16-17).
By the way, the non-Markan material in these integrations is not exactly the same.

Cordially, Bernard
But the the Q hypothesis is about how Luke and Matthew independently integrated a second source that was independent of Mark. This is one of the points that Goodacre makes. "Qists" end up needed to resort to claims that basically defy their own hypothesis in order to try and save it. Mark's use of Q basically invalidates the entire hypothesis to begin with.

Look at what's in "Q": http://www.crivoice.org/Q.html

Despite claims of it being non-narrative, its simply not true. Q exactly fits Mark's narrative. You can't extract Q from the narrative. Its not some random collection of sayings, its a bunch of dialog that exactly fits the narrative of Mark. The Q hypothesis is that there was some entirely unrelated document of sayings. That document had no connection to any Gospel. Matthew and Luke then both independently took that collection of sayings and worked the sayings into the Gospel of Mark.

That two people would have done this, in almost the exact same way, over and over and over again, with no knowledge of what the other was doing, is ridiculous. Yes, you have the sermon on the Plain and Mount, as examples where they didn't do it the same way, but Goodacre has a good explanation for this. Even when the order to scenes is not the same in Luke and Matthew, they still end up agreeing on how the "Q" material integrates with Mark. In other words, Matthew moved a scene of Mark's from let's say chapter 3 to 15 but Luke keep's the scene where Mark put it. They both then integrate with "Q" material into the same scene however, with Matthew putting the material in 15 to go with the relocated scene, while Luke keeps the scene in place and has the same "Q" material there.

The idea that the Q material was ever independent from the Markan narrative is ridiculous. Let's take this example:
1 Corinthians 1:
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles
Philippians 2:
14 Do all things without murmuring and arguing, 15 so that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, in which you shine like stars in the world. 16 It is by your holding fast to the word of life that I can boast on the day of Christ that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
Mark 8:
12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it.”

38 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Mark 9:
1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.
Matthew 12:
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. 41 The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! 42 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!
Luke 11:
29 When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation. 31 The queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here! 32 The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!
We start with Mark deriving his sayings from Paul.

Then we have Matthew and Luke both developing the scene from Mark is almost identical ways. The Q hypothesis is that Luke had zero knowledge of what Matthew wrote and vice versa. But in order for them to have both separately developed this scene from some Q document, which presumably said something about Jonah, it almost requires that Mark also used Q. But, first of all, we can see that Mark developed his scene from Paul. Second of all, if Mark also used Q, then we aren't actually talking about the independent integration of texts are we? If "Mark is based on Q" then essentially Q is just a longer version of Mark, its not a simple "list of sayings." Lastly, these sayings aren't without context. They aren't just random sayings, they are sayings that fit into a narrative.

By far the simpler explanation here is either that Luke used Matthew and just reworked it as he saw fit (maybe he used an Aramaic version of Matthew, which many claimed existed?) or Matthew and Luke were both working from a Gospel in which all of this material had already been integrated with Mark. One of the propositions is that Marcion's Gospel is that Gospel that Matthew and Luke worked from.

But it need not even be that simple. Luke may have been working from 4 or 5 or 10 Gospels for all we know. He could have been using Mark and Matthew and Marcion's and the Gospel of Peter and the letters of Paul and some unknown lost Gospel and a list of sayings that had been extracted from a harmonization of Gospels, etc., etc.

But the idea that Luke and Matthew both independently integrated an unrelated sayings document with Mark is preposterous. The dialog of Q far too closely fits the Markan narrative. Many elements of it only make sense within the Markan narrative. It contains elements of the Markan narrative. Its done in so much the same way over and over again, it is impossible that two people took a story and an entirely unrelated collection of sayings and both merged those things independently and ended up with almost the exact same results the way that we see it in the Synoptics.

As Goodacre states, claims about Mark possibly also having used Q are desperate attempts to salvage an obviously flawed hypothesis, which originated to explain how Matthew and Luke agreed without any common basis for the new material. Positing a common framework among them (that Mark had already been built around Q) entirely demolishes the hypothesis to begin with. But this is all the more true when we see that Mrk is built around the Pauling letters, not some mysterious lost document.

hakeem
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by hakeem » Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:32 am

My position is that the version of the Jesus story in the short gMark is the earliest story in the NT which includes all the Epistles.

It is not only what is missing in the short gMark but also, more importantly, what is found in the other books of the NT with similar accounts in gMark.

The temptation of the supposed Jesus is one of the many examples which clearly shows gMark's version is the earliest.

Look at gMark's Temptation story. It is just one verse with hardly any details.

Mark 1:13
And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

That's it. The Markan Jesus was tempted by Satan for forty days where there wild beasts and angels.

Now look at gMatthew's version of the Temptation.

The Temptation story of gMatthew is now comprised of 11 verses with far more supposed "details".

Matthew 4.1-11
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.


The Matthean Temptation is easily seen as a later version where the author changed the temptation of Jesus occurring after the forty days had elapsed and introduced dialogue the tempter and Jesus.

Now look at gLuke. Again we have a version of the Temptation that is later than gMark.



Luke 4.1-13
And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:

11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.


Again, there is no doubt that the gMark version of the Temptation predates gMatthew and gLuke.

It will also be noticed that virtually all stories of Jesus and the apostles which are also found in gMark, gMatthew and gLuke that gMark's version will always be the earliest and with the least "details".

GMark does not only predate the Gospels but all the other NT books.

We know that gMark was earlier than the Epistles based on the post-resurrection stories found in the short gMark and the Epistles.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:37 am

to rgprice,
14.26 Epiphanius, Elenchos 70; Tertullian, Marc. 4.19.12 (≠Harnack,
Tsustui). Tertullian alludes to this verse not in the sequence of his
exposition, but in another context, as shedding light on 8.20–21: “giving
in himself an example of his own teaching, that he who should
put father or mother or brethren before the word of God was not a
worthy disciple.” Epiphanius similarly does not cite v. 26 in his catalog
of Marcionite readings, but in a concessive remark in another context,
commenting on 23.2. Nonetheless, it is probable that he is citing
Marcion’s own intertextual exegesis of 23.2 by 14.26. In the opening
condition “if someone does not” (ean mē tis) the reading follows
some patristic witnesses (e.g., Athanasius, John Chrysostom, but not
Epiphanius’ own text of Luke, see Pan. 61.6.2: hos mē). It read “leave”
(kataleipsēi) rather than “hate” (in agreement with the Diatessaronic
Persian Harmony, and apparently Epiphanius’ own text of Luke,
see Pan. 61.6.2: katalipēi), had “brothers” before “wife and children”
(in agreement with the SSyr, CSyr, Arabic Diatessaron, and Persian
Harmony), and apparently did not include an explicit “and sisters”
(in agreement with the original reading of Gk ms 229, with John
Chrysostom, and a few other witnesses). The clause “and even one’s
own life” is unattested for the Evangelion. Epiphanius gives the final
clause as “is not my pupil” (ouk esti mou mathētēs), and this appears
to be the reading of his text of Luke also (Pan. 61.6.2); but Tertullian
attests “is not worthy to be my pupil” found in the Persian Harmony
and a few other witnesses, while most witnesses to Luke read “is unable
to be my pupil,” which parallels the wording in 14.33 as attested
by the Acts of Archelaus.
Ben (in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=10#p39314) put lk 14:26 in black italics in his study of gMarcion.

What black italics means (bolding mine):
From Ben:
Words or phrases attested as present in the Marcionite text, according to BeDuhn, are italicized (but not colored). I feel the italics are fitting, compared to how I have used them for Roth, since BeDuhn is typically after the general, rather than the specific, sense of any given passage, and is thus more willing than Roth to hypothesize the presence of certain features of the text.

I don't take BeDuhn's opinion as evidence for Lk 14:26 existing in gMarcion.

As far as Epiphanius (4th century) is concerned, this apologist (and others) certainly had reason to attenuate "hate" in lk 14:26 (and maybe were influenced by gMatthew rendition of the saying).
I'm not saying I have the answer, but there are more possibilities than just the use of an Aramaic Q, which itself has lots of problems.
I don't think the Q document was all in Aramaic, only some sayings.
However Papias alluded about Matthew's logias:
Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew [similar to Aramaic] language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

probably to explain the differences in the translations.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:13 am

to rgprice,
But the the Q hypothesis is about how Luke and Matthew independently integrated a second source that was independent of Mark. This is one of the points that Goodacre makes. "Qists" end up needed to resort to claims that basically defy their own hypothesis in order to try and save it. Mark's use of Q basically invalidates the entire hypothesis to begin with.
"Mark" did not use Q. It was Q using gMark in the overlaps. And Q added on gMark such as the temptations of Jesus and other passages. Also Q, at times, "corrected" gMark, as I explained on my web page http://historical-jesus.info/q.html.
The direction is gMark => Q document
Q exactly fits Mark's narrative
If the Q document was completed and compiled when gMark was known, that would easily explain the good fits.
The Q hypothesis is that there was some entirely unrelated document of sayings. That document had no connection to any Gospel.
I certainly think that Q has a connection with gMark, as you admitted earlier. But now, you seem to think the opposite.
Matthew and Luke then both independently took that collection of sayings and worked the sayings into the Gospel of Mark.
This is absurd.
That two people would have done this, in almost the exact same way, over and over and over again, with no knowledge of what the other was doing, is ridiculous.
No, if Q was highly considered in gLuke and gMatthew targeted audience, then we would expect "Luke" and "Matthew" to integrate the Q elements in their gospels over & over again.
Then we have Matthew and Luke both developing the scene from Mark is almost identical ways. The Q hypothesis is that Luke had zero knowledge of what Matthew wrote and vice versa. But in order for them to have both separately developed this scene from some Q document, which presumably said something about Jonah, it almost requires that Mark also used Q.
No, it does not.
What is common between gLuke and gMatthew on the "Jonah" passage is:
Lk 11:29:32 "For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation.The queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here! 32 The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!"
This is from a common source: Q, complementing and correcting what "Mark" wrote “Why does this generation ask for a sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it.”. And "Matthew" rearranges parts of the saying and added on it.
Matthew and Luke were both working from a Gospel in which all of this material had already been integrated with Mark. One of the propositions is that Marcion's Gospel is that Gospel that Matthew and Luke worked from.

But it need not even be that simple. Luke may have been working from 4 or 5 or 10 Gospels for all we know. He could have been using Mark and Matthew and Marcion's and the Gospel of Peter and the letters of Paul and some unknown lost Gospel and a list of sayings that had been extracted from a harmonization of Gospels, etc., etc.
Assumptions, speculations
But the idea that Luke and Matthew both independently integrated an unrelated sayings document with Mark is preposterous. The dialog of Q far too closely fits the Markan narrative. Many elements of it only make sense within the Markan narrative. It contains elements of the Markan narrative. Its done in so much the same way over and over again, it is impossible that two people took a story and an entirely unrelated collection of sayings and both merged those things independently and ended up with almost the exact same results the way that we see it in the Synoptics.
This is certainly not my stance, as I already said. You got the wrong person to posit that.

Cordially, Bernard

rgprice
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by rgprice » Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:39 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:13 am
"Mark" did not use Q. It was Q using gMark in the overlaps. And Q added on gMark such as the temptations of Jesus and other passages. Also Q, at times, "corrected" gMark, as I explained on my web page http://historical-jesus.info/q.html.

If the Q document was completed and compiled when gMark was known, that would easily explain the good fits.
A Q that knows Mark is not Q. The Q hypothesis is about how a list of random saying that were attributed to Jesus were integrated with Mark. If the sayings were built upon the Gospel of Mark then that isn't Q, it something else. The Q hypothesis is about how two 100% unrelated sources (Mark & Q) were independently integrated by two people with zero knowledge of what the other did.

Once you start talking about a document built on Mark, then that's no longer Q, that's some other theory. But really, if you're going to talk about some other document built on Mark, then why not just talk about Matthew? That's a known and existing document built on Mark. Even the proposition of an Aramaic Matthew makes more sense than Q.
Assumptions, speculations
Q is entirely assumptions and speculations. See the article by Klinghardt, which shows that really both the Q hypothesis and Goodacre's have major shortcomings: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25442581

The point he makes is that the Q hypothesis has major weaknesses that certainly prove it cannot be correct. Likewise, the simple proposition that Luke used Matthew (Farrer-Goulder hypothesis), while correctly addressing the faults of Q, has its own problems.

Neil has a summary of his article here: https://vridar.org/2012/09/09/the-marci ... uggestion/

And for what its worth, I'm pretty sure at this point that "Luke" is the product of several edits by different people. The core Luke starts at 3:1, in agreement with Marcion's Gospel. The birth stories were added by a different person than the person who produced Luke 3:1-24 (with parts of 24 possibly being added by the person who added the birth stories too.

For example, the birth stories invest heavily in Mary the mother of Jesus, only to have the Gospel of Luke insult her and barely mention her. Likewise, the birth story of Luke draws parallels between Jesus and JtB, but those parallels are entirely unreferenced in the body of the story. There is really no connection between the birth story and the main body. So, clearly, the Gospel is bein built up and revised by multiple different authors over time.

This further complicates trying to dissect exactly how the narrative was built, because parts of the story may have been harmonized with Matthew, while other parts were written by someone who didn't know Matthew, etc.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:03 pm

About "Luke" knowing about the Q sourse but not about gMatthew (a reminder):

1) 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".

2) Lk 14:26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple"
gMatthew has the following corresponding verse (which make a lot of sense):
19:37 "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;"

Don't you think if "Luke" knew about gMatthew, she would have written her (unrealistic & immoderate) saying as she did?

Here is an explanation on where "hate" come from:
According to Aramaic scholar Jack Kilmon:
"The interesting interface between Aramaic and Greek is that where Greek has many words for one meaning, Aramaic ... a "meat and potatoes" language ... has one word with several meanings ..."
"The Aramaic of Luke's source document, in part, was: "whoever comes to me and does not "hate" his father and mother ...
The word "hate" in Aramaic, however, is an idiom meaning "to set aside." The saying was originally to SET ASIDE your mother, father, brothers, sisters, to follow Jesus ..."

"Luke" had a bad translation of the saying. She certainly did not get that from gMatthew, but from a document like "Q".

3) The authors of gospels made use of two spellings for Jerusalem, 'Hierosolyma' and 'Ierousalēm'. "Luke" & "Mark" employed both, and "John" used only 'Hierosolyma'. What about "Matthew"? He utilized 'Hierosolyma' eleven times and 'Ierousalēm' twice in 23:37. It just happens Mt23:37 would be part of the common source: the counterpart is Lk13:34 which also features 'Ierousalēm' twice. And all the eleven occurrences of 'Hierosolyma' in GMatthew are in Markan or Matthean material, that is NOT in that common source.

Therefore, with "Matthew" being consistent with 'Hierosolyma', Mt23:37 is very likely to have been copied from a different source, "Q".

4) Lk11:41a: "But give alms inwardly, and behold, all things are clean to you."
A scholar, Wellhausen, suggested that the Aramaic word dakkau (to cleanse, purify) was misread as zakkau (to give alms)
Then, if Lk11:41 was a mistranslation from the Aramaic, we would have near concordance with:
Mt23:26 "... First cleanse the inside of the cup, that the outside also may be clean"
Let's compare it with the "corrected":
Lk11:41a "But cleanse inwardly, and behold, all things are clean to you."
The "corrected" version would make more sense because, in Lk11:39b, what is inward is "greed and wickedness" and NOT goods for the poor:
Lk11:39-40a "... Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! ..."
Let's compare it to the parallel "Q" passage in GMatthew:
Mt23:25 "... you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence."

It is obvious that "Luke" did not get Lk11:41 from Mt23:26, but from a document ("Q") with a faulty translation.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3755
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:19 pm

to rgprice,
A Q that knows Mark is not Q
A Q saying can reveal the author knew gMark, but also features Q elements which are not in gMark:
Here is an example:
What is common between gLuke and gMatthew on the "Jonah" passage is:
Lk 11:29:32 "For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation.The queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here! 32 The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!"
This is from a common source: Q, complementing and correcting what "Mark" wrote: “Why does this generation ask for a sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it..

There are many other examples about Q adding elements on a gMark saying, such as Jesus and Belzebul, John's baptisms, etc.
The Q hypothesis is about how a list of random saying that were attributed to Jesus were integrated with Mark. If the sayings were built upon the Gospel of Mark then that isn't Q, it something else. The Q hypothesis is about how two 100% unrelated sources (Mark & Q) were independently integrated by two people with zero knowledge of what the other did.
That's a red herring. From Wikipedia:
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.


Once you start talking about a document built on Mark, then that's no longer Q, that's some other theory.
And what would be that other theory? Who supported it?
The two sources theory:
Q & Mark--> Luke & Matthew.
What I found out:
Mark--> Q (valid for some Q elements but not all)
And
Q & Mark--> Luke & Matthew
But really, if you're going to talk about some other document built on Mark, then why not just talk about Matthew? That's a known and existing document built on Mark.
It is obvious "Luke" and "Matthew" knew about gMark, as it is obvious the Q document was redacted with knowledge of gMark.

About Klinghardt, I am not interested on an alternative possibility based on gMarcion.

According to the Vridar blog post, Klinghardt (MK) wrote about:
"Luke gives no evidence of his knowing material that is “special” to Matthew (“M”). Consider also Matthew’s unique account of Pilate’s wife’s dream (27:19) and Peter’s confession and beatitude (16:16-19)"

That suits me fine.

MK: 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. Although these observations carry different weight, their cumulative force renders Luke’s simple dependence on Matthew highly improbable. In light of the double tradition material, one is inclined to suggest a Matthean dependence on Luke rather than the other way round.

I do not agree about the sermon on the mount by Matthew and the sermon in the plain by Luke are part of Q. The reason is they are different:
gMatthew sermon is very much longer than the alleged counter part: gLuke sermon.
gMatthew sermon has most of his material not in gLuke, including gMark material not in gLuke.
gMatthew sermon has a very significant amount of material found in gLuke sermon (therefore part of Q) but some of them not located in gLuke sermon: such as for Mt 6:25-34, 6:19-21, 5:25-26, 7:22-23, 6:24, 5:18. (Ref: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html)

What all of that tells me? there are Q items in both gMatthew & gLuke sermons, but the sermons cannot be considered as a whole as being Q.

Going back to Vridar post:
Klinghardt acknowledges the strength of Goodacre’s critique of the existing hypotheses, but is forced to concede that his solution to the problem is less convincing.


MK begins by noting two positive arguments supporting Goodacre’s argument for the Farrer hypothesis (also known as the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis) that Mark alone (without Q) was the primary source for both Matthew and Luke, and that Luke also knew and revised Matthew:

1. the minor agreements (e.g. both Luke (22:64) and Matthew (26:68) have the mockers of Jesus taunt with [bold]“Who is it who struck you?”[/bold], but this is not found in Mark)

A very simple explanation: a Q writer expanded on what "Mark" wrote and both "Luke" and "Matthew" chose the Q version of the saying.
Gospel of Luke insult her and barely mention her
Where is (are) the insult(s) on Mary?
There is really no connection between the birth story and the main body.
But there is: a city of Galilee named Nazareth Lk 1:26 --> Lk 4:16
Likewise, the birth story of Luke draws parallels between Jesus and JtB, but those parallels are entirely unreferenced in the body of the story.
And why those parallels needed to be repeated?

My opinion is that Lk 1-2 was redacted before the gospel and then incorporated at the beginning of that gospel when it was written. And there is a link in Lk 3:2 to Lk 1:80.

Cordially, Bernard

Post Reply