A peculiar (and mathematical) argument for Lucan priority and Matthean posteriority.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: A peculiar (and mathematical) argument for Lucan priority and Matthean posteriority.

Post by hakeem »

rgprice wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:54 am Just to throw out one more example. Luke 11:29-32 was not present in Marcion. This section, about the "sign of Jonah", looks very much like something that had to have been copied by Luke from Matthew. The whole thing is almost identical between the two in ways that its extremely difficult to imagine would have happened by two people independently working from sources. The 2DH ends up mostly relying on a claim that this is a Mark-Q overlap, therefore explaining that the section existed in Q almost identical to how it exists in Luke and Matthew, and Mark had derived his content from Q but made alternations to it.

However, all of this is much more simply explained by the scenario that Mark 8:12-9:1 was originally developed by Mark. Marcion's Gospel is derived from Mark and mostly follows it in this section. Proto-Luke was the same as Marcion's Gospel here. Matthew, working from proto-Luke, added the part about Jonah. Luke harmonized proto-Luke with Matthew, adding the part about Jonah to his Gospel as well.

When Matthew worked from proto-Luke, he did stuff like collect up the teachings that went into the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is a more developed version of the Sermon on the Plain, with the various teachings found in proto-Luke collected together. In this content, Luke is more primitive and Matthew more developed. Thus, Luke has priority in regard to those passages. In the passage about Jonah, however, Matthew has priority over Luke.

What amazes me is that the whole case for Q is about trying to resolve the observation of "alternating priority", where sometimes it appears that Luke copied from Matthew and sometimes that Matthew copied from Luke. That's what so many scholars see. But instead of simply accepting that that is exactly what happened, they embrace "Q", with some proposal about how both works were independently created in in a single step from mutual sources.

The easy explanation is that its exactly what it looks like. B copied from A, then A was harmonized with B creating A'.
Your explanation is extremely complicated and logistically implausible.

It should be most obvious that the story of Jonah does not require either the authors of gLuke or Matthew to copy one another since the Jonah story is found in another known source the book of Jonah in the OT written hundreds of years before the Gospels.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: A peculiar (and mathematical) argument for Lucan priority and Matthean posteriority.

Post by Ken Olson »

rgprice wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:54 am Just to throw out one more example. Luke 11:29-32 was not present in Marcion. This section, about the "sign of Jonah", looks very much like something that had to have been copied by Luke from Matthew. The whole thing is almost identical between the two in ways that its extremely difficult to imagine would have happened by two people independently working from sources. The 2DH ends up mostly relying on a claim that this is a Mark-Q overlap, therefore explaining that the section existed in Q almost identical to how it exists in Luke and Matthew, and Mark had derived his content from Q but made alternations to it.
Despite the fact that they appear almost identical to you, those pesky Q people insist on making the differences between Matthew and Luke's versions of the saying on Jonah the basis for their argument that Luke has the earlier version (see David Catchpole, The Quest for Q (1993) 51-53). Catchpole argues that (1) Luke is unlikely to have omitted the reference to Jesus' resurrection in Matt 12:40, and (2) that same reference is intrusive in it s context because that sign is a miracle and the others in the saying are not.
However, all of this is much more simply explained by the scenario that Mark 8:12-9:1 was originally developed by Mark. Marcion's Gospel is derived from Mark and mostly follows it in this section. Proto-Luke was the same as Marcion's Gospel here. Matthew, working from proto-Luke, added the part about Jonah. Luke harmonized proto-Luke with Matthew, adding the part about Jonah to his Gospel as well.
It is even more simply explained on the scenario that Matthew expanded on Mark's version and then Luke rewrote Matthew's version, and in which there's no reason to bring in proto-Luke (which is hypothetical) and Marcion's gospel (which doesn't have the saying anyway) at all.
When Matthew worked from proto-Luke, he did stuff like collect up the teachings that went into the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is a more developed version of the Sermon on the Plain, with the various teachings found in proto-Luke collected together. In this content, Luke is more primitive and Matthew more developed. Thus, Luke has priority in regard to those passages. In the passage about Jonah, however, Matthew has priority over Luke.
The aesthetic judgment that Mathew's long Sermon on the Mount is a masterpiece ('more developed') that Luke could not plausibly have broken up, keeping the shorter Sermon on the Plain in roughly the same location in his gospel and redistributing other parts of it to other locations is probably the single most important remaining argument for the 2DH.

It brings to mind Peter Venkman's (Bill Murray's) sarcastic comment in the original Ghostbusters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmy-4QC0U0g
What amazes me is that the whole case for Q is about trying to resolve the observation of "alternating priority", where sometimes it appears that Luke copied from Matthew and sometimes that Matthew copied from Luke. That's what so many scholars see. But instead of simply accepting that that is exactly what happened, they embrace "Q", with some proposal about how both works were independently created in in a single step from mutual sources.

The easy explanation is that its exactly what it looks like. B copied from A, then A was harmonized with B creating A'.
Reliance on first impressions instead of rigorous examination of the data and our presuppositions is the bane of good scholarship.

Additional note: Why does your final author of Luke (the one who wrote canonical Luke) prefer the Sermon on the Plain, which he knows from proto-Luke/Marcion's gospel to the Sermon on the Mount, which he knows from Matthew?

Best,

Ken
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: A peculiar (and mathematical) argument for Lucan priority and Matthean posteriority.

Post by rgprice »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:48 am It is even more simply explained on the scenario that Matthew expanded on Mark's version and then Luke rewrote Matthew's version, and in which there's no reason to bring in proto-Luke (which is hypothetical) and Marcion's gospel (which doesn't have the saying anyway) at all.
In isolation, yes, but not in a way that can explain all of the other content of Matthew and Luke. Two people independently doing all the same stuff over and over again is far less likely and complicated than two rounds of direct copying from one another.
Additional note: Why does your final author of Luke (the one who wrote canonical Luke) prefer the Sermon on the Plain, which he knows from proto-Luke/Marcion's gospel to the Sermon on the Mount, which he knows from Matthew?
Well, the final author of Luke engaged in minimal editing of Luke 3-23. Luke 3-23 is something like 90% the same as proto-Luke.

This is where some real mathematical work, which is beyond me, could be put to use.

One could calculate the odds of two people independently working from A to produce B, N number of times. Then compare that to the likelihood of B copied from A, then A was harmonized with B creating A'.

The number of places that Luke and Matthew would had to have independently arrived at the same answer from two separate sources, Mark and Q really is absurd when you look at it. The odds of it must be astronomical, unless you start basically removing independence by attributing almost everything to Mark-Q overlaps. At that point, the 2DH is really no longer about two independent writers, and it effectively becomes the same thing as B copied from A, then A was harmonized with B creating A'.

As I said in Deciphering the Gospels, the relations between the Synoptics are far more easily explained by Matthew and Luke both working from an expanded version of the Gospel of Mark, in which the new material was added. We have Mark, then someone made a longer version of Mark, added what is called Q. Then both Matthew and Luke worked from that source in which the added material was already integrated with Mark.

Even the 2DH advocated have been working toward this same position for years by leaning increasingly on the claim of Mark-Q overlaps. They acknowledge that many things are only reasonable on the assumption that both Matthew and Luke were working from a source in which the "Q" material was already integrated with the Markan material.

But really, that document in which the "Q" material is integrated with the Markan material is simply Marcion's Gospel/proto-Luke. Here proto-Luke is taken to be like 90% the same as Marcion's Gospel and Luke 3-23 is like 90% the same as proto-Luke. Some real statistical analysis here would go a long way, I agree, but I haven't done that.

To be clear, in theory proto-Luke isn't necessary. One could propose simply that Matthew and Luke worked form Marcion. But, there are other reasons to conclude that that isn't the case that revolve around Luke 3-4 compared to Marcion's Gospel. We know that Luke 3-4 is largely different from Marcion's Gospel, but it also appears not to have been written by the same person who wrote Luke 1-2. That's why proto-Luke is proposed.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: A peculiar (and mathematical) argument for Lucan priority and Matthean posteriority.

Post by Ken Olson »

rgprice wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:29 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 9:48 am It is even more simply explained on the scenario that Matthew expanded on Mark's version and then Luke rewrote Matthew's version, and in which there's no reason to bring in proto-Luke (which is hypothetical) and Marcion's gospel (which doesn't have the saying anyway) at all.
In isolation, yes, but not in a way that can explain all of the other content of Matthew and Luke. Two people independently doing all the same stuff over and over again is far less likely and complicated than two rounds of direct copying from one another.
rgprice,

Brief update: if you look at what I wrote that you quoted, you'll see I'm talking about Luke's direct use of Matthew, not about two people independently doing the same stuff over and over again.

If you're trying to convince me the Two Document Hypothesis is wrong and that Q is an unnecessary hypothesis, you're a bit over twenty years too late. If you're trying to convince me there are problems with the postulated Mark-Q overlaps, I know that. I published a paper on the topic about 15 years ago.

What I've been arguing for, on this list and elsewhere, is the Farrer theory: Matthew used Mark and then Luke used Mark and Matthew.

Best,

Ken
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: A peculiar (and mathematical) argument for Lucan priority and Matthean posteriority.

Post by Charles Wilson »

I come back to this all the time because it is OBVIOUS that someone knew what the Real Story was about.

First, however. a little Set-Up: To what would "Three days and three nights..." apply? Christian Apologetix(R) has spent 2000 years trying to convince everyone that "3 days" is kinda' sorta' like 3 periods of time and stuff. Luke screws that idea up, yes?

How about applying the idea to the Priesthood, which appears to state that they could destroy the (Herodian built) Temple and in three days (and three nights) raise it up?

PK doesn't understand the "Disciples" arguing who is the Greatest, especially when surrounding this episode are statements that "Jesus" is the greatest. A child is brought into their midst and the Metaphysical Lesson is taught. Why not accept the opportunity given by the humbled child's presence? Children argue over who is the greatest, the best, the fastest. Perhaps there was a reason for the use of a child...
***
To the point:

The Thesis on the table is the idea that Matthew and Luke used each other and not necessarily that one came first and the other followed.
Consider(Again):

Matthew 18: 1 - 4 (RSV):

[1]At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
[2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,
[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 13: 22 - 30 (RSV):

[22] He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem.
[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
[25] When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, `Lord, open to us.' He will answer you, `I do not know where you come from.'
[26] Then you will begin to say, `We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.'
[27] But he will say, `I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!'
[28] There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.
[29] And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God.
[30] And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last."
***
"Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

There is so much here but I'm trying to keep this under 1000 words or so.
Does anyone else see the possibility that these verses from Matthew and Luke are telling the same Story? If True then Matthew - Jewish Matthew if you wish - or Luke - Proto-Luke if you wish - come from what should be the same Source Document. As a Bonus, we get an Implication that the "Realm of Heaven" (to use Moffatt's Translation) is not Glorious Transcendent Metaphsyics but a Pointer to a Real, Physical Place. It further explains what the War on the Priesthood is all about: The Priesthood is attempting to retake that which was theirs, the Control of the Temple Apparatus.

This has all been Transvalued, however. Therefore the Story MUST be about the savior/god so the Thesis concerning Matthew and Luke using each other cannot be True. Sorry. Nothing to see here. /S.

Something approaching the Thesis appears to be very True. Perhaps Mark appears and the Movers and Shakers see that with a little modification, a New Religion centered in Rome may be just the ticket. "We can ride this pony all the way back to the barn".

I had always seen this as implying that there were Stories left over from an Original Document that Mark used to construct the Book of Mark. John used the first Set with Mark (Jay Raskin's Thesis) to "Correct" Mark, There was material left over, however: The Ten Maidens in Matthew, for example, and a Big One in Luke:

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Perhaps from the very floor of the Temple.
It would be an important step to realize that the Matthean and Lukan Groups were in very close proximity to each other, staring at the same material that is left from Mark and John.

CW
Post Reply