Mark 6:3
Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας
Luke 4:22
Isn’t this the son of Joseph?
Οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος
Matt 13:55
Is this not the carpenter’s son?
Isn’t His mother’s name Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός
οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ
Luke kept Mark's grammar of parentage (son in nominative + genitive of name, Mary) but switched from naming the mother to naming the father (son, nominative + genitive of name, Joseph).
Assuming Matthean posteriority, Matthew kept Luke's focus on the father's side, but instead of naming him, gave the paternal occupation. To this end, he changed Mark's nominative carpenter to a genitive (son, nominative + genitive of father's occupation, carpenter).
I'm on the fence on this one. I think the Farrar hypothesis (Lukan posteriority) might be easier this time. Perhaps Matthew kept Mark's words, but changed Mark's focus. The result might be perceived as awkward (son of the carpenter). Luke smoothed out Matthew's awkwardness (son of Joseph).
Matthean posteriority: From "son of Mary", to "son of Joseph", to "son of the carpenter"
Re: Matthean posteriority: From "son of Mary", to "son of Joseph", to "son of the carpenter"
Farrer has an easier time on this, but it's not a knockdown argument. The entire pericope of Luke 4.16-30 is either heavily redacted by Luke from Mark's Rejection at Nazareth in Mark 6.1-6a (as I tend to think) or not dependent on Mark but from a Lukan special source. Also, Luke 4.22 seems to express the idea previously stated in the Lukan genealogy at Luke 3.23: 'He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph, son of Heli'.gryan wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 4:11 am I'm on the fence on this one. I think Farrar hypothesis (Lukan posteriority) might be easier this time. Perhaps Matthew kept Mark's words, but changed Mark's focus. The result is awkward (son of the carpenter). Luke smoothed out Matthew's awkwardness (son of Joseph).
The reason I don't think this is a knockdown argument is that we're in the same position we often are in the Matthew-Luke parallels: Matthew's version is Matthean and Luke's version is Lukan. While the case that Luke's version is Lukan is pretty strong (IMHO), the necessity of positing Luke's dependence on Matthew is not. Matthew and Luke both change Mark's 'carpenter', but that may not be enough to imply direct dependence between Matt and Luke in the particular instance.
Oh, on other thing: why do you consider 'son of the carpenter' awkward?
Best,
Ken
Re: Matthean posteriority: From "son of Mary", to "son of Joseph", to "son of the carpenter"
If you look at Luke with Thomas in hand, you'll find that Luke is always very close to Thomas.gryan wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 4:11 am Mark 6:3
Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας
Luke 4:22
Isn’t this the son of Joseph?
Οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος
Matt 13:55
Is this not the carpenter’s son?
Isn’t His mother’s name Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός
οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ
Luke kept Mark's grammar of parentage (son in nominative + genitive of name, Mary) but switched from naming the mother to naming the father (son, nominative + genitive of name, Joseph).
Assuming Matthean posteriority, Matthew kept Luke's focus on the father's side, but instead of naming him, gave the paternal occupation. To this end, he changed Mark's nominative carpenter to a genitive (son, nominative + genitive of father's occupation, carpenter).
I'm on the fence on this one. I think the Farrar hypothesis (Lukan posteriority) might be easier this time. Perhaps Matthew kept Mark's words, but changed Mark's focus. The result might be perceived as awkward (son of the carpenter). Luke smoothed out Matthew's awkwardness (son of Joseph).
If you look at Luke with Matthew in mind, you'll find that the resulting message in Luke always is directed at the *Ev audience, contradicting as much as possible what was in *Ev: the goal of Luke is to set the Chrestian record straight in the eyes of the Christians
This could be a case of battling Docetism by associating IS with Joseph directly instead of merely pointing to his mother Mary - who was merely a nuisance anyway, of course. Do note the only one mention in Mark (save for the resurrection blame game) and then her total destruction / defamation in Luke with the seven demons (8:2), sitting at the lord's feet (10:39)
22 Καὶ (And) πάντες (all) ἐμαρτύρουν (were bearing witness) αὐτῷ (to Him) καὶ (and) ἐθαύμαζον (marveling) ἐπὶ (at) τοῖς (the) λόγοις (words) τῆς (of the) χάριτος (grace) τοῖς (that) ἐκπορευομένοις (are proceeding) ἐκ (out of) τοῦ (the) στόματος (mouth) αὐτοῦ (of Him); καὶ (and) ἔλεγον (they were saying), “Οὐχὶ (Not) υἱός (the son) ἐστιν (is) Ἰωσὴφ (of Joseph) οὗτος (this)?
Cf Matthew 15:11,18: ἐκπορευόμενα ἐκ τοῦ στόματος.
Mark 7:15,20 has τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά.
Luke 4:22 has τοῖς ἐκπορευομένοις ἐκ τοῦ στόματος, one of the countless LukeMatthew agreements against Mark - Ken
But Matthean posteriority? I know nothing but, in the context of the Thomasine parallels
Last edited by mlinssen on Mon May 29, 2023 5:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Matthean posteriority: From "son of Mary", to "son of Joseph", to "son of the carpenter"
Suppose I'm familiar with Mark's version:
Mark 6:3
Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν
ὁ τέκτων
ὁ υἱὸς
τῆς Μαρίας
And then I see Matt's version which keeps his word order up to,
but not including "τῆς Μαρίας":
Matt 13:55
Is this not the carpenter’s son?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν
ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος
υἱός
Might this phrasing seem awkward, given my Markan expectations?
Re: Matthean posteriority: From "son of Mary", to "son of Joseph", to "son of the carpenter"
The change from shepherds to angels and magi is a strong reason to support Matthean posteriority. Matthew didn't like a humble welcome for the davidic messiah.
Re: Matthean posteriority: From "son of Mary", to "son of Joseph", to "son of the carpenter"
It might seem awkward to you if you begin with the assumption that Mark 6.3 is the context in which to interpret Matt 13.55.
But suppose Matt presumes and audience that had read (or had read to them) the infancy narrative that he placed earlier in his gospel. How then might he have expected them to understand the two separate questions (instead of Mark's single question) about Jesus' father and Jesus' mother:
Matt 13:55
Is this not the carpenter’s son?
Isn’t His mother’s name Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός
οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ
Is this not the carpenter’s son?
Isn’t His mother’s name Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός
οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ
Best,
Ken
Re: Matthean posteriority: From "son of Mary", to "son of Joseph", to "son of the carpenter"
I think I get your point.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 5:15 amIt might seem awkward to you if you begin with the assumption that Mark 6.3 is the context in which to interpret Matt 13.55.
But suppose Matt presumes and audience that had read (or had read to them) the infancy narrative that he placed earlier in his gospel. How then might he have expected them to understand the two separate questions (instead of Mark's single question) about Jesus' father and Jesus' mother:
Matt 13:55
Is this not the carpenter’s son?
Isn’t His mother’s name Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός
οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ
Matt saw Mark's audience asking two questions.
Mark 6:3
Isn’t this the carpenter?
The son of Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων
ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας
Matthew's audience would have been interested in both parents, as seen from the hometown audience's point of view.
It is commonplace to argue that proto-Luke had no infancy narrative. Is the same argument commonplace in critical views of Matthew's narrative? Was there a proto-Matt with no infancy narrative (other than Mark)?
Re: Matthean posteriority: From "son of Mary", to "son of Joseph", to "son of the carpenter"
It's not commonplace, but I imagine someone has argued that Matthew originally circulated without the infancy narrative. (The internet has shown us that someone somewhere has claimed nearly everything). The Ebionites mentioned in Eusebius HE 3.27 and Epihanius Panarion 30 were law-observant and did not accept the Virgin Birth, so that could be used as the starting point for suggesting the Ebionite gospel was an earlier form of canonical Matthew.
Best,
Ken
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Matthean posteriority: From "son of Mary", to "son of Joseph", to "son of the carpenter"
btw it looks like John knows all three versions (which is also the general belief of some scholars)gryan wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 4:11 am Mark 6:3
Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας
Luke 4:22
Isn’t this the son of Joseph?
Οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος
Matt 13:55
Is this not the carpenter’s son?
Isn’t His mother’s name Mary?
οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός
οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ λέγεται Μαριὰμ
John 6:42
Is this not Jesus,
the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know?
Οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς
ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ,
οὗ ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα