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.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

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

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

but I agree that this is a good minimum standard for significance
And significance in frequrentist statistics means that there is probably something to be explained, not that any particular explanation of it is probably correct.

Nobody thinks that Luke chopped up the sayings, placed them in a jar, blindfolded himself and drew them one-by-one without replacement to copy into his gospel. That, and only that and its restatements, is what a low probability of occuring by chance eliminates.

What you get for calculating anything approximating that is some objective (or at least model-based) assurance that you aren't wasting your time pursuing a coincidence beyond your amply justified but subjective near-certainty that the gospels didn't arise by chance. You also get heuristic reassurance that the available data is commensurate with the effect size. That's important in this domain, because we - well, you - probably aren't getting any more data soon.
there being no inherent reason for that to be the case
That is what you need to show.

At some level of abstraction, your problem stems from the alternative pair of uncertain hypotheses:

There is no good reason why Luke would preserve Matthew's order. OR
There is such a reason if Luke knew Matthew's order.

I get that the first alternative is your a priori but subjective and apprarently near-certain belief. (Seriously? You are as confident of this as you are that Luke didn't pull his order out of a jar?)

This is unlike "Luke used a randomizing device," whose probability we know to be nearly zero (as amusing as it is to revisit high school level combinatorics to calculate some close approximation to what we all already know the true value to be, and have no dispute about.)

If you really have that level of confidence that there is no reason for Luke to have preserved Matthew's order, then you really are done. Confidence maxes at certainty: no evidence can much increase your confidence (because there is no much higher confidence to arrive at) and your beliefs imply similar near-certainty that no contrary evidence will ever much decrease your confidence (not a guarantee, of course, but it is what your beliefs imply about what you expect if you are as confident as you appear that the key hypothesis can simply be assumed to be true).

Anyway, I sense my participation in the thread is unwelcome, so i won't trouble you further.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:23 am
but I agree that this is a good minimum standard for significance
And significance in frequrentist statistics means that there is probably something to be explained, not that any particular explanation of it is probably correct.

Nobody thinks that Luke chopped up the sayings, placed them in a jar, blindfolded himself and drew them one-by-one without replacement to copy into his gospel. That, and only that and its restatements, is what a low probability of occuring by chance eliminates.

What you get for calculating anything approximating that is some objective (or at least model-based) assurance that you aren't wasting your time pursuing a coincidence beyond your amply justified but subjective near-certainty that the gospels didn't arise by chance. You also get heuristic reassurance that the available data is commensurate with the effect size. That's important in this domain, because we - well, you - probably aren't getting any more data soon.
there being no inherent reason for that to be the case
That is what you need to show.

At some level of abstraction, your problem stems from the alternative pair of uncertain hypotheses:

There is no good reason why Luke would preserve Matthew's order. OR
There is such a reason if Luke knew Matthew's order.

I get that the first alternative is your a priori but subjective and apprarently near-certain belief. (Seriously? You are as confident of this as you are that Luke didn't pull his order out of a jar?)

This is unlike "Luke used a randomizing device," whose probability we know to be nearly zero (as amusing as it is to revisit high school level combinatorics to calculate some close approximation to what we all already know the true value to be, and have no dispute about.)

If you really have that level of confidence that there is no reason for Luke to have preserved Matthew's order, then you really are done. Confidence maxes at certainty: no evidence can much increase your confidence (because there is no much higher confidence to arrive at) and your beliefs imply similar near-certainty that no contrary evidence will ever much decrease your confidence (not a guarantee, of course, but it is what your beliefs imply about what you expect if you are as confident as you appear that the key hypothesis can simply be assumed to be true).

Anyway, I sense my participation in the thread is unwelcome, so i won't trouble you further.
Who are you lecturing? Why? And why do you feel unwelcome?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

There is a tendency of people to become aggressive when backed into a corner or facing the possibility of losing face. I am guilty of it. It's an unfortunate part of human nature.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

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

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:32 am There is a tendency of people to become aggressive when backed into a corner or facing the possibility of losing face. I am guilty of it. It's an unfortunate part of human nature.
No one in this thread was "aggressive," nor backed into a corner, nor faced the loss of face (nice turn of phrase, BTW). The OP has a different vision of what the mathematical treatment of uncertain reasoning entails than what prevails elsewhere.

It's his thread, not mine. I withdrew without complaint about any ill-treatment, neither lodged against me nor made by me - unless you have such a complaint. In which case, I am confident that we can work out your grievance through Private Messages.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

That was just me projecting me onto you. Sorry.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

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

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:07 am That was just me projecting me onto you. Sorry.
No problem.
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

I'm a little late to this thread, but the approach to this whole issue never ceases to amaze me.

To me the whole thing seems pretty obvious at this point. There was a proto-Luke. Matthew copied from proto-Luke. Canonical Luke is a harmonization of proto-Luke with Matthew. I don't understand why so many people seem so bent on making this only a 1 step process. As soon as you make it a two step process the solution is simple.

The reason that this issue never seems to get resolved is precisely because there are contradictory features that in some cases indicate Matthew copied from Luke and in other cases indicate Luke copied from Matthew. People go back and fourth over how to resolve it unidirectionally as either one or the other scenario being true. But it wasn't a one step process.

Matthew copied from Luke and then Luke copied from Matthew. This happened because there was a proto-Luke consisting of Luke 3-23 & 1/2. Matthew derived his Gospel from that proto-Luke. Then Luke came along, took proto-Luke as his base, but read Matthew, derived his birth story from Matthew's and then made minor revisions across Luke 3-23 to harmonize it with Matthew.
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: Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:55 am I'm a little late to this thread, but the approach to this whole issue never ceases to amaze me.

To me the whole thing seems pretty obvious at this point. There was a proto-Luke. Matthew copied from proto-Luke. Canonical Luke is a harmonization of proto-Luke with Matthew.
Can you demonstrate that? Because it does not seem obvious to me.
I don't understand why so many people seem so bent on making this only a 1 step process.
Because entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (Pseudo-Ockham), and we're interested in the truth (i.e., having our claims correspond to reality). The proposed second stage requires demonstration of its necessity.
As soon as you make it a two step process the solution is simple.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong (Pseudo-Mencken).
The reason that this issue never seems to get resolved is precisely because there are contradictory features that in some cases indicate Matthew copied from Luke and in other cases indicate Luke copied from Matthew.
Or perhaps people have misidentified features as indicating a particular direction of copying when they do not.
People go back and forth over how to resolve it unidirectionally as either one or the other scenario being true. But it wasn't a one step process. Matthew copied from Luke and then Luke copied from Matthew.
You do not escape the burden of proof for your theory by adopting a middle ground between two opposing theories. You have to demonstrate that your theory is correct (or highly probable).
This happened because there was a proto-Luke consisting of Luke 3-23 & 1/2. Matthew derived his Gospel from that proto-Luke. Then Luke came along, took proto-Luke as his base, but read Matthew, derived his birth story from Matthew's and then made minor revisions across Luke 3-23 to harmonize it with Matthew.
Again, can you demonstrate that canonical Luke harmonized proto-Luke with Matthew in particular cases? Or distinguish between the contents of Proto-Luke and Canonical Luke?

Assuming that there's some truth or equal truth to two opposite claims and adopting a compromise between them is often or usually a poor way to resolve a matter. It's better to find the truth (see 1 Kings 3.16-28).

Best,

Ken
rgprice
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

@Ken
Again, can you demonstrate that canonical Luke harmonized proto-Luke with Matthew in particular cases? Or distinguish between the contents of Proto-Luke and Canonical Luke?
Yes, but I'm not going to go into extensive detail here. I'll explain the outline of it.

We start with the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel used by Marcion was derived from Mark. From Marcion's Gospel proto-Luke was derived, which mostly just modifies what we now see as Luke 3 & 4. This was the addition of the genealogy to Marcion's Gospel, along with the baptism of Jesus, etc.

Matthew makes use of proto-Luke and Mark. So proto-Luke is almost the same as Marcion's Gospel, with some additional material to what we call Luke 3 & 4. The additional material was anti-Marcionite in nature, hence the genealogy, etc. Matthew saw this and thought it a good idea to make a full fledged counter to Marcion's Gospel taking ideas from proto-Luke and harmonizing them with Mark. Matthew made his whole own birth story derived from the genealogy in proto-Luke.

Then Luke came along, he had probably read Matthew and got the idea of a counter Gospel from him, and he also wanted to make an anti-Marcionite work, comprised of both a counter Gospel and a counter to Marcion's Apostolikon, i.e. Acts. Essentially a counter narrative about Jesus and a counter narrative about Paul. So "Luke" takes proto-Luke and adds his own birth narrative to it, along with his own ending. But Luke hardly touched the main body of proto-Luke. Yet, what he did touch left some distinctive markers. In Luke 4 he made two editing errors when he tried to harmonize proto-Luke with Matthew, getting scenes out of sequence. Luke 4:16-31 contains a mix-up where Luke tried to harmonize but then left other details out of order. Luke 4:38 has a similar problem in relation to Luke 5:5-11.

You can see pretty plainly see that Luke was written in 3 stages. Those stages are the original Gospel of Marcion, then proto-Luke, then Canonical Luke. The layers are quite detectable and distinct, containing contradictions with one another. Proto-Luke 3 & 4 contradicts the main body of Luke, which is actually Marcion's Gospel. Canonical Luke 1-2 & 24 contain contradictions with Luke 3-23 and a marked difference in style. Just look at the issue of John "son of Zechariah" / "the Baptist". The final editor of Luke wasn't very careful and actually made quite a few blunders and left many contradictory passages in place.
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: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:17 am @Ken
Again, can you demonstrate that canonical Luke harmonized proto-Luke with Matthew in particular cases? Or distinguish between the contents of Proto-Luke and Canonical Luke?
Yes, but I'm not going to go into extensive detail here.
But you could if you wanted to?
I'll explain the outline of it.
Anyone can make an outline of a viable source theory. Stephen Carlson outlines some of the major source theories here:

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-pr ... tions.html

Unfortunately, the link to his 1,488 viable synoptic theories appears to be down.

Lots of people hold minority views on the correct solution to the synoptic problem and think that the reason it hasn't been solved yet is that other people have not yet realized their solution is correct. (I know, I'm one of them).

The devil is in the details. This is one of those "show your work to get full credit" situations.
We start with the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel used by Marcion was derived from Mark. From Marcion's Gospel proto-Luke was derived, which mostly just modifies what we now see as Luke 3 & 4. This was the addition of the genealogy to Marcion's Gospel, along with the baptism of Jesus, etc.
So we have Mark, which has a a baptism scene, then Marcion's gospel, which is dependent on Mark and omitted it, and a hypothetical proto-Luke which restored the baptism? How do you know Marcion's gospel didn't omit the baptism and other early material from Luke, if it omitted the baptism and temptation from Mark?
Matthew makes use of proto-Luke and Mark. So proto-Luke is almost the same as Marcion's Gospel, with some additional material to what we call Luke 3 & 4. The additional material was anti-Marcionite in nature, hence the genealogy, etc. Matthew saw this and thought it a good idea to make a full fledged counter to Marcion's Gospel taking ideas from proto-Luke and harmonizing them with Mark. Matthew made his whole own birth story derived from the genealogy in proto-Luke.
What does "anti-Marcionite in nature" mean? Doesn't Mark already have stuff that's anti-Marcionite in nature, like Jesus' mother and brothers and sisters? It does not seem that any material not congenial to Marcion would have to be explained as a reaction against Marcion on your assumptions.

And can you demonstrate that Matthew made his whole birth story on the basis of the genealogy from proto-Luke (is that the same genealogy as in canonical Luke?), because I'm really curious about that.
Then Luke came along, he had probably read Matthew and got the idea of a counter Gospel from him, and he also wanted to make an anti-Marcionite work, comprised of both a counter Gospel and a counter to Marcion's Apostolikon, i.e. Acts. Essentially a counter narrative about Jesus and a counter narrative about Paul. So "Luke" takes proto-Luke and adds his own birth narrative to it, along with his own ending. But Luke hardly touched the main body of proto-Luke. Yet, what he did touch left some distinctive markers. In Luke 4 he made two editing errors when he tried to harmonize proto-Luke with Matthew, getting scenes out of sequence. Luke 4:16-31 contains a mix-up where Luke tried to harmonize but then left other details out of order. Luke 4:38 has a similar problem in relation to Luke 5:5-11.
I like the Luke using Matthew part. It sounds like you may consider Luke 4.16-31, 4:38, and 5:5-11 to be your strongest cases. Why don't you start with demonstrating those?
You can see pretty plainly see that Luke was written in 3 stages.
Well, I *think* I can see that, but the stages are Mark, then Matthew, then Luke.
Those stages are the original Gospel of Marcion, then proto-Luke, then Canonical Luke. The layers are quite detectable and distinct, containing contradictions with one another.
Well, the differences between Marcion's Evangelion and canonical Luke are quite detectable, if you accept Beduhn's or Roth's reconstructed text; the differences between either of them and your hypothetical proto-Luke (which is vastly different from B.H. Streeter's proto-Luke) are less clear.

Are there no contradictions within Marcion's gospel? Tertullian seemed to think the Evangelion contradicted Marcion's theology, but maybe you're talking about internal tensions within the document. Are there none within the Evangelion?
Proto-Luke 3 & 4 contradicts the main body of Luke, which is actually Marcion's Gospel. Canonical Luke 1-2 & 24 contain contradictions with Luke 3-23 and a marked difference in style. Just look at the issue of John "son of Zechariah" / "the Baptist". The final editor of Luke wasn't very careful and actually made quite a few blunders and left many contradictory passages in place.
Do you want to pick three of these things and show how it demonstrates Marcion must be earlier than canonical Luke? Or maybe just start with one.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply