Luke in dialogue with John as a reason for greater detail than Matthew/Mark? Potential Synoptic solution?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
FollowerOfMessiah
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:38 pm

Luke in dialogue with John as a reason for greater detail than Matthew/Mark? Potential Synoptic solution?

Post by FollowerOfMessiah »

Compare the baptismal narrative of the four gospels.

Matt:
3.11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 3.12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."
Mk:
1.7And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 1.8I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
Lk:
3.15 As the people were in expectation, and all men questioned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he were the Christ, 3.16 John answered them all, "I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 3.17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." 3.18 So, with many other exhortations, he preached good news to the people.
Jn:
1.24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 1.25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" 1.26 John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, 1.27 even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." 1.28 This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
In the case of Matthew and Mark, it is a simple case of them describing the baptism. John seems to intimately know the crowd's views, among them having been (Gnostic/Mandean?) supporters of John the Baptist. Luke seems to be at a distance, intellectually analyzing the situation as if a detective, saying that some thought he was the Messiah but unlike John does not directly quote them. Thus it is quite possible that Luke comes after John, and is in fact responding to John which is why he specifies "many" implying a great multitude of narratives, many of which are probably lost, many probably including the Gnostic Gospels/Nag Hammadi texts. He seems to be "fact checking" John, not necessarily because John is wrong but perhaps he suspects John is too close to the crowd being led astray (by Gnostics/Simon Magus/John the Baptist worshippers?), attempting to clarify things which may have resulted from misconceptions of John. For example, John's intimacy with this crowd may explain the similarities in themes that differ him from the synoptic gospels and place him closer to the tradition of Merkava Mysticism and Paul. (We can detect later possible influences of this community in Proto-Islam vis-a-vis the "Muhammad-Ali" duality.)

I have highlighted in bold face the common themes between the four gospels. These are:
  • (1) After me comes who is mightier than me
  • (2) Whose shoes I am not worthy to untie
  • (3) I baptize with water
  • (4) but he baptizes by the Holy Spirit
Note significantly the difference in order.
Matthew: (1) -- (2) -- (3) -- (4)
Mark: (1) -- (2) -- (4)
Luke: (3) -- (1) -- (2) -- (4)
John: (3) -- (1) -- (2)

In three out of the four cases, (2) appears before (4), and in all four cases, (1) appears before (2). The problematic element, however, is (3) which is absent in Mark and precedes all the other elements in Luke and John. Mark is known to miss things which are found in Matthew such as establishing a Jewish legitimacy for Jesus though that are also found in Luke, and since this fits the pattern if we establish Matthean primacy then (3) came after (2) and this was ignored by Mark. Under Markan primacy, (3) was originally absent and was therefore inserted by John, and therefore by Luke. Thus, Luke used both Matthew and Mark, and responded to John.

Due to the explicitly Jewish nature of Jesus and his movement I favour Matthean primacy and in fact a very early origin for this narrative; it would be unlikely for a later anti-Semitic/Gentile and Gnostic-influence church to want to fabricate claims linking Jesus to the Old Testament heritage. It is also pretty clear that Matthew is situated within broader Messianic claims of Second Temple Judaism (for example, in the work of Daniel Boyarin).

What remains to be addressed, however, is why Luke and John would feel the need to emphasize that John the Baptist baptizes with water while it is downplayed in Matthew and absent in Mark. I believe this is due to the prevalence of baptism within first century Judaic and Gnostic sects (indeed, ritual immersion continues to this day in Judaism and also in Islam), and the need to grant greater legitimacy to Jesus's baptism being secondary to an ordinary baptism. Thus Luke and John are establishing a greater authority of Jesus from the Divine, as the believers are given direct baptism in the Holy Spirit (i.e. unlike the Gnostics/Mandeans).

Thus in conclusion, I believe that Matthew and Mark came first, then John, and finally Luke in response to certain misunderstandings which emerged as a result of John's gospel leaning heavily into mysticism.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 12071
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Luke in dialogue with John as a reason for greater detail than Matthew/Mark? Potential Synoptic solution?

Post by Giuseppe »

The defect in your reasoning is that you make John the Baptist a Gnostic (=anti-demiurgist) sectarian, when really he was a Judaizing icon. Hence how could "Mark" (author) be against John the Baptist if both "Mark" and John the Baptist adored YHWH as supreme god?
schillingklaus
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Luke in dialogue with John as a reason for greater detail than Matthew/Mark? Potential Synoptic solution?

Post by schillingklaus »

Johnny B derives from the herald (Kerux) of diving into the pool opf intellect, as described in Corpus Hermeticum IV and denied by reckless apologists.

Only Judaization turned Johnny, previously anonymous kerux, into a person assimiliating a Jewish prophet, especially Eliah, in order to trick Jews into believibng that Jesus was fulfilling the Law and the Prophets.

So basically, John derives from gnostic tradition but has been Judaized beyond recognition.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Luke in dialogue with John as a reason for greater detail than Matthew/Mark? Potential Synoptic solution?

Post by Sinouhe »

Good post.

I also tend to think that Luke comes after John. Which would make sense if Luke is a late text (as demonstrated by Richard Pervo) and would be consistent with Luke 1:1.

There's also a great and underrated study on the primacy of John over Luke by Barbara Shellard.
9780567081681.jpg
9780567081681.jpg (35.35 KiB) Viewed 210 times
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Luke in dialogue with John as a reason for greater detail than Matthew/Mark? Potential Synoptic solution?

Post by mlinssen »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:53 am Good post.

I also tend to think that Luke comes after John. Which would make sense if Luke is a late text (as demonstrated by Richard Pervo) and would be consistent with Luke 1:1.

There's also a great and underrated study on the primacy of John over Luke by Barbara Shellard.

9780567081681.jpg
Thanks for the tip Shinouhe, interesting

Mary anointing the feet is a clearly straightforward development, yes: viewtopic.php?p=148991#p148991

https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=BS ... NTERLEAVED
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8134
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Luke in dialogue with John as a reason for greater detail than Matthew/Mark? Potential Synoptic solution?

Post by MrMacSon »

Sinouhe wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:53 am
Good post.

I also tend to think that Luke comes after John. Which would make sense if Luke is a late text (as demonstrated by Richard Pervo) and would be consistent with Luke 1:1.

There's also a great and underrated study on the primacy of John over Luke by Barbara Shellard.

  • Matthias Klinghardt thinks that same ie. John before Luke
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2015
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Luke in dialogue with John as a reason for greater detail than Matthew/Mark? Potential Synoptic solution?

Post by Charles Wilson »

FollowerOfMessiah wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 10:14 pm
I have highlighted in bold face the common themes between the four gospels. These are:
  • (1) After me comes who is mightier than me
  • (2) Whose shoes I am not worthy to untie
Jewish Encyclopedia, "Bilgah":

"According to a Talmudic tradition preserved in "Halakot Gedolot" (ed. Hildesheimer, p. 631), Bilgah was assigned to the group which officiated on the second and sixth days of the Feast of Tabernacles. The priests, when entering upon their duties, received their share in the northern part of the Tabernacle, because this was near the seat of their activity. The section assigned to each division of the priesthood was furnished with an iron ring fastened to the floor, for the purpose of securing the animal designed for slaughter, and there were accordingly twenty-four openings in the wall where the knives used for slaughtering were kept. Bilgah alone received his share in the south, his ring being nailed down, and his wall-closet tightly sealed, as a punishment for the apostasy of a woman of that house by the name of Miriam, who, during the Greek dominion under Antiochus Epiphanes, had denied her faith and married a hipparch (Tos., Suk. iv. 28; Suk. 56b; Yer. Suk., end; "Rev. Et. Juives," xxxix. 54). It is further related that when the Greeks forced their way into the Temple, this woman beat her sandals upon the altar, crying: "Wolf, wolf [Λύκος, λύκος], thou hast swallowed the substance of Israel, but hast deserted us in the day of our need!"

"According to another opinion, the priests of Bilgah delayed too long in entering upon the performance of their functions; so that those of the division Jeshebeab were compelled to act in their place, and consequently received the prerogatives of Bilgah (Tos., l.c.; Yer. Suk., end); to which the Jerusalem Talmud adds that in this instance the division Bilgah was neither abolished nor amalgamated with the other twenty-three divisions, because this would have interfered with the ancient institution..."

You may verify for yourself that Bilgah and Immer, which follows Bilgah in order (1 Chronicles 24) are on Duty for Mishmarot Service at the [Passover] Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE. Herod is in Jericho and is therefore isolated at the 4 BCE Passover and Feast.

So, after Bilgah comes Immer. Bilgah is deprecated in the eyes of the Priesthood. Herod dies a week-ish too early. There was a Coup planned for Passover by Immer. The death of Herod allows a Counter-Revolution in time to install Archelaus. Nicholaus of Damascus is the Roman Champion of Archelaus (He argues in front of Caesar and always wins!!!) and Nick's brother Ptolemy carries Herod's Ring. Ptolemy appears at just the right time to produce the Document that shows that Herod changed his Will Just-in-Time! Amazing!!!

The puzzle of "coming after me and yet ranks in front of me..." is taken from a Story of the Priesthood which was rewritten in favor of Rome.

CW
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Luke in dialogue with John as a reason for greater detail than Matthew/Mark? Potential Synoptic solution?

Post by mlinssen »

FollowerOfMessiah wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 10:14 pm Compare the baptismal narrative of the four gospels.

Matt:
3.11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 3.12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."
Mk:
1.7And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 1.8I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
Lk:
3.15 As the people were in expectation, and all men questioned in their hearts concerning John, whether perhaps he were the Christ, 3.16 John answered them all, "I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 3.17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." 3.18 So, with many other exhortations, he preached good news to the people.
Jn:
1.24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 1.25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" 1.26 John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, 1.27 even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." 1.28 This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
In the case of Matthew and Mark, it is a simple case of them describing the baptism. John seems to intimately know the crowd's views, among them having been (Gnostic/Mandean?) supporters of John the Baptist. Luke seems to be at a distance, intellectually analyzing the situation as if a detective, saying that some thought he was the Messiah but unlike John does not directly quote them. Thus it is quite possible that Luke comes after John, and is in fact responding to John which is why he specifies "many" implying a great multitude of narratives, many of which are probably lost, many probably including the Gnostic Gospels/Nag Hammadi texts. He seems to be "fact checking" John, not necessarily because John is wrong but perhaps he suspects John is too close to the crowd being led astray (by Gnostics/Simon Magus/John the Baptist worshippers?), attempting to clarify things which may have resulted from misconceptions of John. For example, John's intimacy with this crowd may explain the similarities in themes that differ him from the synoptic gospels and place him closer to the tradition of Merkava Mysticism and Paul. (We can detect later possible influences of this community in Proto-Islam vis-a-vis the "Muhammad-Ali" duality.)

I have highlighted in bold face the common themes between the four gospels. These are:
  • (1) After me comes who is mightier than me
  • (2) Whose shoes I am not worthy to untie
  • (3) I baptize with water
  • (4) but he baptizes by the Holy Spirit
Note significantly the difference in order.
Matthew: (1) -- (2) -- (3) -- (4)
Mark: (1) -- (2) -- (4)
Luke: (3) -- (1) -- (2) -- (4)
John: (3) -- (1) -- (2)

In three out of the four cases, (2) appears before (4), and in all four cases, (1) appears before (2). The problematic element, however, is (3) which is absent in Mark and precedes all the other elements in Luke and John. Mark is known to miss things which are found in Matthew such as establishing a Jewish legitimacy for Jesus though that are also found in Luke, and since this fits the pattern if we establish Matthean primacy then (3) came after (2) and this was ignored by Mark. Under Markan primacy, (3) was originally absent and was therefore inserted by John, and therefore by Luke. Thus, Luke used both Matthew and Mark, and responded to John.

Due to the explicitly Jewish nature of Jesus and his movement I favour Matthean primacy and in fact a very early origin for this narrative; it would be unlikely for a later anti-Semitic/Gentile and Gnostic-influence church to want to fabricate claims linking Jesus to the Old Testament heritage. It is also pretty clear that Matthew is situated within broader Messianic claims of Second Temple Judaism (for example, in the work of Daniel Boyarin).

What remains to be addressed, however, is why Luke and John would feel the need to emphasize that John the Baptist baptizes with water while it is downplayed in Matthew and absent in Mark. I believe this is due to the prevalence of baptism within first century Judaic and Gnostic sects (indeed, ritual immersion continues to this day in Judaism and also in Islam), and the need to grant greater legitimacy to Jesus's baptism being secondary to an ordinary baptism. Thus Luke and John are establishing a greater authority of Jesus from the Divine, as the believers are given direct baptism in the Holy Spirit (i.e. unlike the Gnostics/Mandeans).

Thus in conclusion, I believe that Matthew and Mark came first, then John, and finally Luke in response to certain misunderstandings which emerged as a result of John's gospel leaning heavily into mysticism.
The interesting fact is that your fine analysis here leads to a much more logical sequence
  • (1) After me comes who is mightier than me
  • (2) Whose shoes I am not worthy to untie
  • (3) I baptize with water
  • (4) but he baptizes by the Holy Spirit
John: (3) -- (1) -- (2)
Luke: (3) -- (1) -- (2) -- (4)
Mark: (1) -- (2) -- (4)
Matthew: (1) -- (2) -- (3) -- (4)

John starts the order, Luke adds Spirit.
Mark then reverses the order, assuming water as the default and dropping it. Matthew fixes that by putting it back in

Either way, it is evident that Mark and Matthew belong together, as do John and Luke - and that they come from different sides of the fence.
And the above order is precisely which Irenaeus slips in when he elaborates on the four pillars:

viewtopic.php?p=140676#p140676
Post Reply