Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Did Lukan redaction influence Matthew 23:37?)

[gryan]

Re: The shift in usage of both forms for Jerusalem in Luke-Acts

"According to Wehnert, Die Reinheit, 34–35, the shift in usage of both forms for Jerusalem in Luke-Acts
is not random. Luke always uses Ἰερουσαλὴµ in direct speeches that are delivered by Jews, followers of
Jesus or so-called God-fearers. By contrast, the pagan Festus uses the profane form Ἱεροσόλυμα. In indirect
speech, Ἰερουσαλὴµ also prevails. In the narrative parts, the distribution of both forms is not equal: the
Hebraicizing Ἰερουσαλὴµ appears 14x between 1:12 and 12:25, while the other form, Ἱεροσόλυμα, appears
13x between 8:1 and 25:7. Especially noteworthy is the consistent usage of Ἱεροσόλυμα in the geographical descriptions of Paul’s journeys. Since the descriptions of the missionary itinerary for the most part go back to tradition, this observation raises the suspicion that Luke uses the term Ἱεροσόλυμα (which he rather avoids) predominantly as a part of the consulted tradition, while Ἰερουσαλὴµ is redactional."

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstrea ... sequence=1

And/Or, imho the "consistent usage of Ἱεροσόλυμα in the geographical descriptions of Paul’s journeys" may reflect the influence of Galatians on Acts, since Paul uses Ἱεροσόλυμα three times in Galatians to describe his own journeys (see OP).
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10198

[Ken Olson]

And, Ken Olson, I see that you get into the weeds of Matthew's unusual usage here:
"Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matt 11, Mark 9, Luke 5, John 12, Acts 19; Gal 3)
Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Matt 2, Mark 1, Luke 27?, John 0, Acts 41?; Rom 4, 1 Cor 1, Gal. 2, Heb 1, Rev 3)

Mark (10) and John used only Ἱεροσόλυμα. Mark 11:1 still has the late Byzantine reading variant Ἱερουσαλήμ, but all the great ancient codices agree on Ἱεροσόλυμα (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Washingtonianus).

Yes, I think that's correct. The evidence does not support the original (or earliest recoverable) text of Mark using Ἰερουσαλὴμ, in which case Matthew would not have gotten it from Mark. (I will stand by the rest of what I wrote for the time being).

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

Re: The shift in usage of both forms for Jerusalem in Luke-Acts

"According to Wehnert, Die Reinheit, 34–35, the shift in usage of both forms for Jerusalem in Luke-Acts
is not random. Luke always uses Ἰερουσαλὴµ in direct speeches that are delivered by Jews, followers of
Jesus or so-called God-fearers. By contrast, the pagan Festus uses the profane form Ἱεροσόλυμα. In indirect
speech, Ἰερουσαλὴµ also prevails. In the narrative parts, the distribution of both forms is not equal: the
Hebraicizing Ἰερουσαλὴµ appears 14x between 1:12 and 12:25, while the other form, Ἱεροσόλυμα, appears
13x between 8:1 and 25:7. Especially noteworthy is the consistent usage of Ἱεροσόλυμα in the geographical descriptions of Paul’s journeys. Since the descriptions of the missionary itinerary for the most part go back to tradition, this observation raises the suspicion that Luke uses the term Ἱεροσόλυμα (which he rather avoids) predominantly as a part of the consulted tradition, while Ἰερουσαλὴµ is redactional."

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstrea ... sequence=1

And/Or, imho the "consistent usage of Ἱεροσόλυμα in the geographical descriptions of Paul’s journeys" may reflect the influence of Galatians on Acts, since Paul uses Ἱεροσόλυμα three times in Galatians to describe his own journeys (see OP).
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10198

I'm a little concerned about taking over Wienert's conclusion second hand through another source. Paul (a Jew) uses Ἱεροσόλυμα in, e.g., Acts 26.4, 10, 20 (at least according to NA 27 and Sinaiticus) and both terms are found in the later chapters of Acts. Perhaps Weinert provides a convincing way of distinguishing source and redaction in Acts 21-28, but if we do not establish the source for Paul's travels first, the argument is merely circular. Additionally, we would not know that Luke is following a source elsewhere when he uses Ἱεροσόλυμα even if it could be established that that is what the Pauline travel source used. And looking at the variants in the manuscripts makes trying to determine a particular policy a bit more dicey.

Best,

Ken

[gryan]

Re: The shift in usage of both forms for Jerusalem in Luke-Acts

"According to Wehnert, Die Reinheit, 34–35, the shift in usage of both forms for Jerusalem in Luke-Acts is not random. Luke always uses Ἰερουσαλὴµ in direct speeches that are delivered by Jews, followers of Jesus or so-called God-fearers. By contrast, the pagan Festus uses the profane form Ἱεροσόλυμα. In indirect speech, Ἰερουσαλὴµ also prevails. In the narrative parts, the distribution of both forms is not equal: the Hebraicizing Ἰερουσαλὴµ appears 14x between 1:12 and 12:25, while the other form, Ἱεροσόλυμα, appears 13x between 8:1 and 25:7. Especially noteworthy is the consistent usage of Ἱεροσόλυμα in the geographical descriptions of Paul’s journeys. Since the descriptions of the missionary itinerary for the most part go back to tradition, this observation raises the suspicion that Luke uses the term Ἱεροσόλυμα (which he rather avoids) predominantly as a part of the consulted tradition, while Ἰερουσαλὴµ is redactional."

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstrea ... sequence=1

I'm a little concerned about taking over Wienert's conclusion second hand through another source. Paul (a Jew) uses Ἱεροσόλυμα in, e.g., Acts 26.4, 10, 20...

Re: "Paul (a Jew) uses Ἱεροσόλυμα in, e.g., Acts 26.4, 10, 20..."

Yes, but in each of these cases, Paul was talking about places where he had lived and visited (as in Epistle to Galatians). So the usage is consistent with "usage of Ἱεροσόλυμα in the geographical descriptions of Paul’s journeys."

[Ken Olson]

Re: The shift in usage of both forms for Jerusalem in Luke-Acts

"According to Wehnert, Die Reinheit, 34–35, the shift in usage of both forms for Jerusalem in Luke-Acts is not random. Luke always uses Ἰερουσαλὴµ in direct speeches that are delivered by Jews, followers of Jesus or so-called God-fearers. By contrast, the pagan Festus uses the profane form Ἱεροσόλυμα. In indirect speech, Ἰερουσαλὴµ also prevails. In the narrative parts, the distribution of both forms is not equal: the Hebraicizing Ἰερουσαλὴµ appears 14x between 1:12 and 12:25, while the other form, Ἱεροσόλυμα, appears 13x between 8:1 and 25:7. Especially noteworthy is the consistent usage of Ἱεροσόλυμα in the geographical descriptions of Paul’s journeys. Since the descriptions of the missionary itinerary for the most part go back to tradition, this observation raises the suspicion that Luke uses the term Ἱεροσόλυμα (which he rather avoids) predominantly as a part of the consulted tradition, while Ἰερουσαλὴµ is redactional."

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstrea ... sequence=1

I'm a little concerned about taking over Wienert's conclusion second hand through another source. Paul (a Jew) uses Ἱεροσόλυμα in, e.g., Acts 26.4, 10, 20...

Re: "Paul (a Jew) uses Ἱεροσόλυμα in, e.g., Acts 26.4, 10, 20..."

Yes, but in each of these cases, Paul was talking about places where he had lived and visited (as in Epistle to Galatians). So the usage is consistent with "usage of Ἱεροσόλυμα in the geographical descriptions of Paul’s journeys."

You miss the point. It's inconsistent with the claim that Luke-Acts always uses Ἰερουσαλὴµ in speech by Jews. And Paul uses Ἰερουσαλὴµ in Acts 20.22 to describe his travels: 'And now behold, I am going to Jerusalem, bound in the spirit, not knowing what shall befall me there.'

[gryan]

Got it. In Acts, the author seems to want to present Paul as Jewish. So, Paul's speech (with its use of the "profane form Ἱεροσόλυμα") violates a generalization attributed (perhaps mistakenly) to Wehnert: "Luke always uses Ἰερουσαλὴµ in direct speeches that are delivered by Jews, followers of Jesus or so-called God-fearers. By contrast, the pagan Festus uses the profane form Ἱεροσόλυμα."

[gryan]

At min. 56, Goodacre said: "What Allen Garrow says is that when Matthew is distracted by other material, you end up with lower verbatim agreement. That is a very important part of the NTS article..."

Here is a quotation from the NTS article:

"The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis(MCH)argues that there is no scope for ‘Q’ in Double Tradition passages where Luke and Matthew agree almost verbatim (High DT passages) since these are best explained by Matthew’s copying of Luke without distraction."
https://www.alangarrow.com/uploads/4/4/ ... demia_.pdf

In Matthew 23:37f, there is high verbatim agreement, and so, by inference, in the Matthean posteriority hypothesis, it may be supposed that Matthew was not distracted by another text.

Matt 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her,
how often I have longed to gather your children together,
as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling!
Look, your house is left to you desolate.
For I tell you that you will not see Me again until you say,
λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μή με ἴδητε ἀπ’ ἄρτι ἕως ἂν εἴπητε
‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Lk 13:34
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her,
how often I have longed to gather your children together
as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling!
Look, your house is left to you desolate.
And I tell you that you will not see Me again until you say,
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ ἴδητέ με ἕως ἥξει ὅτε εἴπητε
‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.”

It seems to me that Matthew's γὰρ, meaning "because of", translated "for", is preferable (in style and meaning) to Luke's δὲ, an adversative conjunction translated "and". Without distraction, Matthew was copying a lot verbatim, and also refining.

[gryan]

At min. 56, Goodacre said: "What Allen Garrow says is that when Matthew is distracted by other material, you end up with lower verbatim agreement. That is a very important part of the NTS article..."

Here is a quotation from the NTS article:

"The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis(MCH)argues that there is no scope for ‘Q’ in Double Tradition passages where Luke and Matthew agree almost verbatim (High DT passages) since these are best explained by Matthew’s copying of Luke without distraction."
https://www.alangarrow.com/uploads/4/4/ ... demia_.pdf

At min. 27:30f of this Mythvision interview, Allen Garrow talks about how Matthew changes Luke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ataTSjxxVs

Matt. is against luke's law free gospel,
Matt. edits out female autonomy,
Matt. addresses a male audience, a richer audience, Matt turns down the dial on sayings against being rich, thus making it acceptable to the middle classes,

[mlinssen]

Without distraction, Matthew was copying a lot verbatim, and also refining.

It is interesting how deficient human memory is really.
I just went by my 72 logia and entered two searches:

Matthew, Luke
Luke, Matthew

16 hits for e.g. "A perfect Matthean ending, as usual - if you ask the Church. Thomas, Mark, Luke, Matthew - it couldn't possibly be any other way, with the gradual transformation, the subtle changes"

How many hits for Matthew, Luke?

0

I did this research in 2019, and I knew nothing, had never even heard of the Synoptic Problem. I just wanted to go by all Thomasine logia in the NT and see for myself what would unfold. Perfectly objective, though I took Lambdin and WEB, both of which are terribly inaccurate - yet sufficient for this exercise.
I'd swear that I jotted down the order of [EDIT: CORRECTED Matthew and then Luke] at least a few times - but no.
541 mentions of Matthew, not surprisingly, and 463 of Luke. I almost always noted the order at the end of a logion by naming the books separated by commas - and perhaps I would need to take a closer look in order to see if I did that somehow differently at times

I just did a quicky, going by all mentions of Matthew:

Friends of the bridegroom is uncertain in order,
Blessed are the poor,
Blind guiding the blind,
Parable of the sower,
Mother and brothers standing outside,
Parable of the mustard seed,
Heaven and earth will pass away

Luke 8:18 and 19:26 versus Matthew 13:12 and 25:29 is interesting and there is reciprocity there

There are also occasions that Matthew ditches Luke for obvious reasons and follows Mark or Thomas instead

Yet Matthean Posteriority? That's an evident given. I really haven't found any Thomasine parallel where Luke comes after Matthew

Gentle nudge to

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
That doesn't seem so clear to me.

1)
I also think that Matthew's use of Ἰερουσαλήμ seems, at first glance, to be a good argument for his dependence on Luke. On the other hand, Paul proves that different usage can be meaningful and intentional, and Matthew could theoretically have intended it as well. This is less likely, but still quite possible.

The problem, imho, is that Luke isn't consistent either. In chapter 13 this could be explained with the difference between direct speech and indirect narrative. But in chapter 19 there seems to be no reason why Luke could have used the two different spellings meaningfully and consciously. Verses 11 and 28 have the same context and indirect narrative.

Luke 13
22 He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem (Ἰεροσόλυμα)
33 Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλήμ). 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, (Ἰερουσαλήμ Ἰερουσαλήμ) the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

Luke 19
11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλὴμ), and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.
28 And when he had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem (Ἰεροσόλυμα).

2)
The meaning of the logion is somewhat unclear. The person speaking here is obviously not the earthly Jesus, but rather God in the form of the earthly Jesus ("How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"). The word “Lord” in Matthew 23:39/Luke 13:35 should probably make the reader think of the enthroned Christ (”Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”)

It probably demands that the "Jews" should accept the Christian confession and Christian preachers ("... until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"), but looks back at the murders of the OT-prophets.

The whole logion appears as a reception of Mark 11:1-11, but with a view to a much later present. Imho it fits more into Matthew's context, but seems to have been invented independently of that context.

Luke used the logion primarily as a theological explanation of why Jesus was still safe in Galilee. But then the direct speechs “Jerusalem, Jerusalem” and “you” don't fit there at all (Luke 13:31 "At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.")