The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

[mlinssen]

to mlinssen,

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

Where do you have that I say 110 CE?

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

Cordially, Bernard

Check! No worries. I moved it to 63 BCE because of the taxes to Caesar. The widest window is the rise and fall of the Pharisees, I see no reason why he would write about them when they didn't exist anymore - and it would be impossible to do so before LOL

[Ken Olson]

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

I believe so, but I'm not familiar with Bauer's arguments on the synoptic problem. Stephen Carlson lists him holding Matthean posteriority on his Synoptic problem page.

That let me think Lk --> Mt and Mt --> Lk are rather weak cases.

This would be a non-sequitur, even if the scholars you named held the positions you attribute to them. The strength of someone's case does not depend on whether other people have made a different or opposite case.

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

No. First, because "copying" is an overly limiting word for the sort of use one evangelist might make of another's work.

Second, because we can't assume a strong argument would necessarily be recognized as such by the opposition, and your argument would itself be a weak argument because you're conclusion is not accepted by others. There is a great deal of difference between strong and so-overwhelmingly-strong-that-the-reverse-cannot-be-maintained.

If you are claiming alternating primitivity as an argument (i.e., sometimes Matthew, sometimes Luke has the earlier form of a given pericope) then you would need strong arguments for each.

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

[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"?

[MrMacSon]

The widest window is the rise and fall of the Pharisees, I see no reason why he would write about them when they didn't exist anymore - and it would be impossible to do so before LOL

I thought the Pharisees persisted & were predominant after the war, becoming the group the led rabbinic Judaism and the development of the Mishna and Tosefta (and it was the Sadducees and the Zealots etc that we’re ‘no more’ after the war)

[mlinssen]

The widest window is the rise and fall of the Pharisees, I see no reason why he would write about them when they didn't exist anymore - and it would be impossible to do so before LOL

I thought the Pharisees persisted & were predominant after the war, becoming the group the led rabbinic Judaism and the development of the Mishna and Tosefta (and it was the Sadducees and the Zealots etc that we’re ‘no more’ after the war)

The Pharisees were dissolved in 73 CE

But Thomas would have rejoiced at the destruction of 70 CE, just as he took great delight in that of the first

[Stuart]

I don't buy the Independence of Luke and the Marcionite Gospel.

99% of the Marcionite Gospel is contained within Luke. One would expect a great deal more divergence if they derived independently. What little divergence there is, such as where the Marcionite follows more closely language in Matthew, can more easily be explained as Lukan adjustments to fit his version. Other minor variances may be nothing more than the local manuscript used by Luke as his base document.

Additionally it does not explain why the Lukan special words are contained almost exclusively in passages not found in the Marcionite text. Did the Marcionite and Lukan writer work together to be in agreement where their texts coincide? The other option is a much larger base text common to both, which reads extremely Marcionite.

Also if Luke used the Marcionite gospel as his base document the need for a second source Q vanishes. Q can be seen instead as Marcionite additions, Matthew incorporation or corrections to those, plus Matthew additions, and Luke inclusion of the Matthew adjustments.

The reason for Luke, a 3rd gospel when there were already existing gospels, is easily explained if it is built off the Marcionite base. Luke is seen as replacing the Marcionite gospel, much as the revised and longer versions of the Pauline letters replaced the Marcionite collection, catholicizing it in the process. This makes it much easier to keep the existing congregations absorbed in the larger church, by keeping the familiar things while sanitizing them.

An independent Luke lacks a reason for existing and does not help the church absorb a large see of former Marcionite congregations.

Frankly this direction looks like apologetic. It is much easier to explain Luke as a gospel that used as one of it's sources the Marcionite gospel, in fact used it as a base document, and added elements from many other sources, as well as his own original material.

[hakeem]

I don't buy the Independence of Luke and the Marcionite Gospel.

99% of the Marcionite Gospel is contained within Luke. One would expect a great deal more divergence if they derived independently. What little divergence there is, such as where the Marcionite follows more closely language in Matthew, can more easily be explained as Lukan adjustments to fit his version. Other minor variances may be nothing more than the local manuscript used by Luke as his base document.

Additionally it does not explain why the Lukan special words are contained almost exclusively in passages not found in the Marcionite text. Did the Marcionite and Lukan writer work together to be in agreement where their texts coincide? The other option is a much larger base text common to both, which reads extremely Marcionite.

Also if Luke used the Marcionite gospel as his base document the need for a second source Q vanishes. Q can be seen instead as Marcionite additions, Matthew incorporation or corrections to those, plus Matthew additions, and Luke inclusion of the Matthew adjustments.

The reason for Luke, a 3rd gospel when there were already existing gospels, is easily explained if it is built off the Marcionite base. Luke is seen as replacing the Marcionite gospel, much as the revised and longer versions of the Pauline letters replaced the Marcionite collection, catholicizing it in the process. This makes it much easier to keep the existing congregations absorbed in the larger church, by keeping the familiar things while sanitizing them.

An independent Luke lacks a reason for existing and does not help the church absorb a large see of former Marcionite congregations.

Frankly this direction looks like apologetic. It is much easier to explain Luke as a gospel that used as one of it's sources the Marcionite gospel, in fact used it as a base document, and added elements from many other sources, as well as his own original material.

GLuke is minus 99% of Marcionism.

Gluke was written to replace gMathhew.

[MrMacSon]

It is much easier to explain Luke as a gospel that used as one of it's sources the Marcionite gospel, in fact used it as a base document, and added elements from many other sources, as well as his own original material.

That is what a few scholars have proposed over the last 8 to 15 yrs: Joseph B Tyson, Jason Beduhn, Markus Vinzent, Matthias Klinghardt, and others; such as Shelley Matthews, I think.

I'm pretty sure Vinzent proposes that the synoptic authors got hold of a first edition of the Marcionite Gospel, wrote their gospels based on +/- in response to it, together and in close proximity, and a second Marcionite gospel was produced (either in response to those, or a 2nd edition was going to be written, anyway).

Klinghardt has proposed there was a linear progression: Mark based on the Marcionite text; Matthew based on the Marcion text and Mark; Luke or John based on the preceding three; and then either Luke or John last [and then a final redactor 'polished' them all (badly it seems)]

eta: See viewtopic.php?p=113756#p113756

Also if Luke used the Marcionite gospel as his base document the need for a second source Q vanishes.

Luke is seen as replacing the Marcionite gospel, much as the revised and longer versions of the Pauline letters replaced the Marcionite collection, catholicizing it in the process. This makes it much easier to keep the existing congregations absorbed in the larger church, by keeping the familiar things while sanitizing them.

• I agree.

[Bernard Muller]

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.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Stuart,
(bolding mine)

An independent Luke lacks a reason for existing and does not help the church absorb a large see of former Marcionite congregations.

Of course, because gLuke was written before gMarcion.

One would expect a great deal more divergence if they derived independently.

Certainly.

Also if Luke used the Marcionite gospel as his base document the need for a second source Q vanishes.

gMarcion has Q elements in it.

See Arguments in favor of proving Marcion's gospel (of the Lord) was written after Luke's gospel
It points to Marcion modifying gLuke rather than "Luke" making changes from gMarcion.
Look below the testimonies of the three "fathers" for my arguments.

Cordially, Bernard