So I have to dialogue with myself again?
You could have read on in Mason’s cited text in which Mark is presented as the Pauline-style gospel, whereas Luke specifically eliminated Pauline terms. OK, I agree, that’s not very likely.
With not much more effort, you could have referred back to my own recent posts here, in which I noted how sharply the various Resurrection accounts divide between a Jerusalem faction (Luke 24, John 20, and especially Mark 16:9-20)and a Galilee faction (Matthew 28, Mrk 16:1-8 and John 21). I acknowledge that Luke specifically corrected the reference to Galilee in Luke 24:6. Similarly all the seven occurrences of “the gospel” could have been edited out. All seven? More reasonably eliminate the extreme Two-Document Hypothesis and admit that Luke did not see Mark in its extant form. (Why would anyone think that, anyway?) Luke saw a text of Mark that did not say “the gospel” anywhere.
But that brings us back to “the gospel” being a late term as far as the gospels go.. Luke, if late, nevertheless had an earlier version of Mark without “the gospel”. Canonical Mark is late, as is the closely related Matthew (that contains the extra four chapters of Mark that are not in Luke). As Matthew is less Pauline in theology than is Mark, it contains just four instances of “the gospel”. Both Matthew and Mark would seem to draw on a shared Pauline Proto-Matthew, thus both from the ‘50’s or later. Even if Mark is so Pauline, that is evidence it is later than Luke, or its sources are later.
That date is more integral than Pauline typology is shown by the Acts of the Apostles. Its sources never contains “the gospel”, but where the writer (presumably Luke) does not have the source available, he uses “the gospel” at 15:7 and 20:24. So Luke does not on principle eliminate “the gospel”, at least where Paul himself is involved. I think I can reasonably stand on my contention that Mason’s discovery supports both my hypotheses, the seven written gospel accounts and the Evolving Proto-Gospel in which Luke got written before the other two Synoptics
Horizontal Synoptic Solution
Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution
I need to do a research paper on “legein” vs. “eipen” in the gospels, but let me sketch out a start to where I seem to be going. Contrary to what I had been coming to expect, GMatthew prefers “legein” wherever M material is added, the classic “truly I say unto you” coming out “amehn gar legoo” or similar at Mt. 5:18, 20. In contrast GMatthew uses “eipen” in agreement with GLuke whenever the Proto-Gospel Greek portion (as it usually did) must have had it so and copied into Proto-Matthew on its way to GMatthew (but ever so often switched to “legein” in GMark) and into Proto-Luke on its way to having additions and becoming our GLuke. Thus we have among those Minor Agreements between GMatthew and GLuke:
Where they agree at “eipen” forms against GMark at GLuke
Lk. 5.22, 6.3, 6:10, 9.31, 18.21, 18.24, 18.28, and at GMatthew
Mt. 9.4, 12.3 12.11, 17.4, 19.23, 19.24, 19.27
As against the paralleling “legoo” and such at GMark at Mk.
Mk. 2.8, 2.25 3.4, 9.5, 10:23, 10.24, 10.28
None of the above should happen according to Marcan Priority, and the above is just from a short investigation of the Matthew component.
Where there is an unforced choice where Aramaic must be translated, GLuke tends to go with “eipen” as against Proto-Matthew’s tendency to “legein”.
Everybody at the intermediate level prefers “legein” as against the Proto-Gospel Greek portions preference for “eipen”. Thus “eipen” persists at Lk. 4:14 against Mk. 1:41 and Mt. 8:31; at Lk. 5:20 against contrasting Mk 2:5 and Mt. 5:20; at Lk. 5:24 against Mk 2:10 and Mt. 4:6. Indeed, as almost must be the case for my Proto-Gospel theory, it persists in all three gospels at Lk. 8:48, Mk. 5:34, and Mt. 9:22. It’s everywhere at Lk.20:5 and 6, Mk 11:31 and 32, and Mt. 21.24 and 26. GLuke shows the most use of “eipen”, being basically just removed from the Proto-Gospel as Proto-Luke (little changed when enlarged to GLuke in contrast to Proto-Gospel being changed substantially twice in Proto-Matthew and subsequent major changes going to GMatthew and GLuke. All these occur within Proto-Gospel Greek segments. That’s impressive when in Mark 11 I had only assigned 11:27-33 to it and hit specifically 31 and 32 only there!
Seeing this verb everywhere, I had first thought it was redactional in all three Synoptics, but it’s everywhere because it was already everywhere in the Proto-Gospel (Greek portion) and is also used independently by its example there. In contrast, working from the Aramaic portions we see “legoon” at Mt. 5:2 introducing the Sermon on the Mount vs. “elegen” at Lk. 6:20.
So far so good in matching my rendition of the Aramaic source vs. the (by then anyway) Greek source, but the Jerusalem debates come out by my new method almost universally from Greek, not Aramaic. I suppose I can plead that they are Q2, the Q known only from a Greek source(s), but I will likely revise my split of the verses. I can’t edit Peter Kirby’s Oct. 10, 2013 work-up in "Ur-Marcan Priority..." of my work under his name, so be advised that I would now show the last six chapters of Mark as more from Peter (or John Mark) and less from Matthew in my seven written eyewitnesses account hypothesis. At least my new research here is supportive (so far) of my new Evolving Proto-Gospel Hypothesis, maybe even of Lucan priority.
Where they agree at “eipen” forms against GMark at GLuke
Lk. 5.22, 6.3, 6:10, 9.31, 18.21, 18.24, 18.28, and at GMatthew
Mt. 9.4, 12.3 12.11, 17.4, 19.23, 19.24, 19.27
As against the paralleling “legoo” and such at GMark at Mk.
Mk. 2.8, 2.25 3.4, 9.5, 10:23, 10.24, 10.28
None of the above should happen according to Marcan Priority, and the above is just from a short investigation of the Matthew component.
Where there is an unforced choice where Aramaic must be translated, GLuke tends to go with “eipen” as against Proto-Matthew’s tendency to “legein”.
Everybody at the intermediate level prefers “legein” as against the Proto-Gospel Greek portions preference for “eipen”. Thus “eipen” persists at Lk. 4:14 against Mk. 1:41 and Mt. 8:31; at Lk. 5:20 against contrasting Mk 2:5 and Mt. 5:20; at Lk. 5:24 against Mk 2:10 and Mt. 4:6. Indeed, as almost must be the case for my Proto-Gospel theory, it persists in all three gospels at Lk. 8:48, Mk. 5:34, and Mt. 9:22. It’s everywhere at Lk.20:5 and 6, Mk 11:31 and 32, and Mt. 21.24 and 26. GLuke shows the most use of “eipen”, being basically just removed from the Proto-Gospel as Proto-Luke (little changed when enlarged to GLuke in contrast to Proto-Gospel being changed substantially twice in Proto-Matthew and subsequent major changes going to GMatthew and GLuke. All these occur within Proto-Gospel Greek segments. That’s impressive when in Mark 11 I had only assigned 11:27-33 to it and hit specifically 31 and 32 only there!
Seeing this verb everywhere, I had first thought it was redactional in all three Synoptics, but it’s everywhere because it was already everywhere in the Proto-Gospel (Greek portion) and is also used independently by its example there. In contrast, working from the Aramaic portions we see “legoon” at Mt. 5:2 introducing the Sermon on the Mount vs. “elegen” at Lk. 6:20.
So far so good in matching my rendition of the Aramaic source vs. the (by then anyway) Greek source, but the Jerusalem debates come out by my new method almost universally from Greek, not Aramaic. I suppose I can plead that they are Q2, the Q known only from a Greek source(s), but I will likely revise my split of the verses. I can’t edit Peter Kirby’s Oct. 10, 2013 work-up in "Ur-Marcan Priority..." of my work under his name, so be advised that I would now show the last six chapters of Mark as more from Peter (or John Mark) and less from Matthew in my seven written eyewitnesses account hypothesis. At least my new research here is supportive (so far) of my new Evolving Proto-Gospel Hypothesis, maybe even of Lucan priority.
Last edited by Adam on Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution
Examining the final Jerusalem appearances by the “say” method I am now posting about on a research paper or commentary level, Mark 12 in this post, we come first to the Parable of the Tenants with the inauspicious Mark 12:1 “lalein” not matched by the other two Synoptics, and in 12:6 Mark is merely matched by “legoon” at Mt. 21:37, which would be expected from Marcan priority anyway. Mk. 12:7 “eipan” comes in close with “eipon” at Mt. 21:38. On all theories Mark and Matthew are reciprocally in Greek or in source (my theory), it’s the tie with Luke that’s looser, and that fits only my theory that the relationship of these to Luke is only through an Aramaic ancestor. However, the common Proto-Gospel has the conclusion stated in Greek, evidenced by “eipen” in both MK. 12:12 and Lk. 20:19. (Mt. 21:45 deviates to “legei”, but this is just the shared preference by all the intermediate-stage writers.) Thereafter the march to Greek hardly stops, with Mk. 12:14 “legousin” the only departure from “legontes” in Lk 20:21 and Mt. 22:10. Notice that it is unreasonable to claim two deviations by Luke and Matthew, so Mark cannot be the source-text.
We are on solid Greek ground now, Mk. 12:15 “eipen” matched by Lk. 20:23 and Mt. 22:18. At Mk. 12:16 the phrase “legei…eipan” is partially matched by Lk. 20:24 “…eipan” and by Mt. 22:20 “legei…legousin”. The original would seem to be from Mark, but the real original is in the mutual source of all three. Mark 12:17 “eipen” corresponds to Lk 20:25 as against Mt. 22:21 “legei”. Clearly the original cannot be Matthew (not that anyone would say so), and if refusing to consider sources the election so far would be Luke as source text. (However, my Lucan priority does not mean any other gospel writer saw any form of Luke, and I don’t hold that the first Luke held all our current chapters.)
Mark 12:18 “legousin” has to be regarded as a deviation from “legontes” at Luke 20:27 and Mt. 22:23.
Mt. 22:24 “eipen” diverges from Mk. 12:19 and Lk. 20:28 “egrapsen” (in telling us what Moses said or wrote). Where Jesus replies, two agree on Lk. 20:34 and Mt. 22:29 “eipen” against Mk. 12:24 “efe” (a form of “say” rarely seen, perhaps an affectation of later scribes). This is still Greek-based, but from a source.
Wrapping up the Sadduccees encounter about Resurrection,” we have sharply contrasting Mt. 22:31 “rethen…legontes”, ” Mk. 12:26 “eipen…legoon” and Lk:20:37 “emenysen….legei” . So it must be an Aramaic (or Hebrew) source where Jesus replies. This concluding reference to the “God of Abraham” etc., is pulled into this pericope at the Proto-Gospel level, providing an indicator that the Proto-Gospel was already down to one combined text, though in two (or more) languages.
Mark 12:34 is the same as Lk. 10:26 & 27 & 28 using “eipen” and altered to Mt. 22:37 “efe”. Luke is so out-of-place here that we know (as all but Lucan-priorists more extreme than I all agree anyway) that our Luke was not used by the other two Synoptics.
Mk. 12:35 (but preceded by “apokritheis…elegen”), Lk. 20:41 and Mt. 22:42 all agree on “legousin”. Mk. 12:36 “eipen” contrasts with Lk. 20:42 and Mt. 22.43 “legei”, yet another disproof of Marcan priority.
Mark 12:36, Lk. 20:42, and Mt. 22:44 agree on the Lord saying “eipen”, from the Proto-Gospel source. Similarly Lk. 20:44 and Mt. 22:45 agree on “kalei” (call), but Mk. 12:37 goes for the Minor Agreement “legei”.
Switching to evidence of an Aramaic source (or redactional interjections), Mk. 12:38 “apokritheis…elegen” is not like either Lk. 20:46 “eipen” nor Mt. 22:46 “apokritheis….legon” nor the immediately following Mt. 23:1 “elalehsen….legoon” . Then Mark 12 concludes with Greek where Mk. 12:43 and Lk. 21:2 match at “eipen” (absent in Mt this story of the widow’s mite).
We are on solid Greek ground now, Mk. 12:15 “eipen” matched by Lk. 20:23 and Mt. 22:18. At Mk. 12:16 the phrase “legei…eipan” is partially matched by Lk. 20:24 “…eipan” and by Mt. 22:20 “legei…legousin”. The original would seem to be from Mark, but the real original is in the mutual source of all three. Mark 12:17 “eipen” corresponds to Lk 20:25 as against Mt. 22:21 “legei”. Clearly the original cannot be Matthew (not that anyone would say so), and if refusing to consider sources the election so far would be Luke as source text. (However, my Lucan priority does not mean any other gospel writer saw any form of Luke, and I don’t hold that the first Luke held all our current chapters.)
Mark 12:18 “legousin” has to be regarded as a deviation from “legontes” at Luke 20:27 and Mt. 22:23.
Mt. 22:24 “eipen” diverges from Mk. 12:19 and Lk. 20:28 “egrapsen” (in telling us what Moses said or wrote). Where Jesus replies, two agree on Lk. 20:34 and Mt. 22:29 “eipen” against Mk. 12:24 “efe” (a form of “say” rarely seen, perhaps an affectation of later scribes). This is still Greek-based, but from a source.
Wrapping up the Sadduccees encounter about Resurrection,” we have sharply contrasting Mt. 22:31 “rethen…legontes”, ” Mk. 12:26 “eipen…legoon” and Lk:20:37 “emenysen….legei” . So it must be an Aramaic (or Hebrew) source where Jesus replies. This concluding reference to the “God of Abraham” etc., is pulled into this pericope at the Proto-Gospel level, providing an indicator that the Proto-Gospel was already down to one combined text, though in two (or more) languages.
Mark 12:34 is the same as Lk. 10:26 & 27 & 28 using “eipen” and altered to Mt. 22:37 “efe”. Luke is so out-of-place here that we know (as all but Lucan-priorists more extreme than I all agree anyway) that our Luke was not used by the other two Synoptics.
Mk. 12:35 (but preceded by “apokritheis…elegen”), Lk. 20:41 and Mt. 22:42 all agree on “legousin”. Mk. 12:36 “eipen” contrasts with Lk. 20:42 and Mt. 22.43 “legei”, yet another disproof of Marcan priority.
Mark 12:36, Lk. 20:42, and Mt. 22:44 agree on the Lord saying “eipen”, from the Proto-Gospel source. Similarly Lk. 20:44 and Mt. 22:45 agree on “kalei” (call), but Mk. 12:37 goes for the Minor Agreement “legei”.
Switching to evidence of an Aramaic source (or redactional interjections), Mk. 12:38 “apokritheis…elegen” is not like either Lk. 20:46 “eipen” nor Mt. 22:46 “apokritheis….legon” nor the immediately following Mt. 23:1 “elalehsen….legoon” . Then Mark 12 concludes with Greek where Mk. 12:43 and Lk. 21:2 match at “eipen” (absent in Mt this story of the widow’s mite).
Last edited by Adam on Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution
Mark 13 is the eschatological chapter, different even from Matthew 24 but especially from Luke 17 and 21. This argues right away to switching to an Aramaic source. Mark 13:1 “legoo” is not equivalent to either Luke 21:5 “legoutoon” or Mt. 24:2 “eipen”. Mk. 13.2 “eipen” agrees with Lk.21:6, but not fully with Mt 24:2 “apokp[theis…eipen”. The disciples ask more from Jesus at Mk. 13:4 “eipon” as against Lk. 21:7 and Mt. 24:3 “legontes”—which by my theory indicates a Greek original “legontes” carried into both Proto-Matthew and Proto-Luke but personalized finally by GMark. Jesus’s reply at Mk 13:5 “legein” stands apart from the “eipen” of Lk. 21:8 and Mt. 24:2 (or by Marcan Priority is another Minor Agreement that has to be explained away or attributed to a Proto-Mark underlying our GMark). Mk. 13:6 “legontes” is matched by Lk. 21:8 and Mt. 24:5. In the body of Jesus’s words few “say” words occur in any gospel, so in the main an Aramaic original seems indicated along with prefacing Greek words quite often introduced into the Proto-Gospel.
Similarly in Mark 14 we find the Proto-Gospel partly in Greek in a chapter that was likewise partly Aramaic. Mk. 14.2 “elegon” is followed in Mt. 26:5. Mk. 14:6 “eipen” is followed by Mt. 26:10 and probably relates to Lk. 7:40 “eipen” as well. (The quite different settings leave this a poor argument here for Greek origin, however.) Mark 14:9 and Mt. 26:13 “legoo” is contrasted with Lk. 22.9 “eipan”.
Mk 14:12 “legousin” stands alone compared to Lk. 22:10 “eipen…legei” and Mt. 26:17 “legontes”. Mk 14:13 and Lk. 22:11 read “legei” , but Mt. 26:18 reads “eipen”. Mk. 14:14 “eipate” is in union with Mt. 26:18, but not with the equally unusual “ereite” at Lk. 22:11. Mk. 14:16 “eipen” agrees with both Lk 22:16 and Mt. 26 21. Mk. 14:18 , Lk. 22:21, and Mt. 26:21 all read “legoo” as usual following “Truly”. Mk. 14:19 “legein” agrees with Mt. 26:23, but not with Lk. 22:23 “synzetein”. Mk. 14:22 and Mt. 26:26 read “eipen”, but it is Lk:22:19 that departs from the (Proto-Gospel) Greek source with “legoon”. At Mk. 14:24 “eipen” departs and contrasts with Lk. 22:20 and Mt 26:27 “legoo”. Quoting Jesus after “truly (amen)” we find the full agreement at Mk. 14:25, Lk. 22:18, Mt. 26:29 with “legoo”.
Lk. 22:33 agrees with Mt. 26:33 “eipen” against Mk. 14:29 “epseh” where Peter speaks, but then where Jesus replies, Mk. 14:30 shows “legei”, Lk. 22:34 “eipen”, and Mt:26:34 “efe”. Mark 14:32 “legei” is not matched by either Lk. 22:40 “eipen” nor Mt. 26:35 “eipan”. Mk 14:36 shows “elegen” departing from both Lk. 22:42 and Mt. 26:3 9 “legoon”.
Where Judas intervenes in the Garden at Mk. 14:43, Lk 22:47 and Mt 26:47 we switch to a common Greek redaction in which all agree on “Lalountos”. A common text (but likely from Aramaic) reemerges at Mk. 14:60 “legoon” up against the Minor Agreement Lk. 22:67 “eipon” and Mt. 26:62 “eipen”. Closer come Lk. 22:67 “eipoo” compared to Mk. 14:62 and Mt. 26:63 “eipen”. (Remember, agreements between Mt. and Mk. Matter little, as they share a fully Greek Proto-Matthew exemplar.) Mk. 14:67 “legei” opposes Lk. 22:56 “eipen” and Mt. 26:69 “legousa”. (Perhaps that was just an isolated verse in Aramaic in the Proto-Gospel.) Mk. 14:68, Lk 22:57, and Mt. 26:70 agree on “legoon”, but in prefacing a quotation all three Synoptics (as after “Truly”) routinely use “legoo” or “legoon” as here. Lk. 22:58 goes for “efe” against Mk. 14:68 and Mt. 26:70 “legeis”. More closeness to Greek follows in Lk 22:59 “legoon” compared to Mk. 14:69 “legein” and Mt. 26:72 “legei”. One-to-one comparisons fail until Mk. 14:72 and Lk.22:61 “eipen” corresponds to Mt. 26:75 “eipehkotos”, differing only in tense (the last being future tense). A compromise solution may apply here, a version in Aramaic having been worked together without translation in the Proto-Gospel inter-twined with the Greek version.
My study here thus argues for a largely Aramaic text of the Proto-Gospel for Mark 13 and 14.
Similarly in Mark 14 we find the Proto-Gospel partly in Greek in a chapter that was likewise partly Aramaic. Mk. 14.2 “elegon” is followed in Mt. 26:5. Mk. 14:6 “eipen” is followed by Mt. 26:10 and probably relates to Lk. 7:40 “eipen” as well. (The quite different settings leave this a poor argument here for Greek origin, however.) Mark 14:9 and Mt. 26:13 “legoo” is contrasted with Lk. 22.9 “eipan”.
Mk 14:12 “legousin” stands alone compared to Lk. 22:10 “eipen…legei” and Mt. 26:17 “legontes”. Mk 14:13 and Lk. 22:11 read “legei” , but Mt. 26:18 reads “eipen”. Mk. 14:14 “eipate” is in union with Mt. 26:18, but not with the equally unusual “ereite” at Lk. 22:11. Mk. 14:16 “eipen” agrees with both Lk 22:16 and Mt. 26 21. Mk. 14:18 , Lk. 22:21, and Mt. 26:21 all read “legoo” as usual following “Truly”. Mk. 14:19 “legein” agrees with Mt. 26:23, but not with Lk. 22:23 “synzetein”. Mk. 14:22 and Mt. 26:26 read “eipen”, but it is Lk:22:19 that departs from the (Proto-Gospel) Greek source with “legoon”. At Mk. 14:24 “eipen” departs and contrasts with Lk. 22:20 and Mt 26:27 “legoo”. Quoting Jesus after “truly (amen)” we find the full agreement at Mk. 14:25, Lk. 22:18, Mt. 26:29 with “legoo”.
Lk. 22:33 agrees with Mt. 26:33 “eipen” against Mk. 14:29 “epseh” where Peter speaks, but then where Jesus replies, Mk. 14:30 shows “legei”, Lk. 22:34 “eipen”, and Mt:26:34 “efe”. Mark 14:32 “legei” is not matched by either Lk. 22:40 “eipen” nor Mt. 26:35 “eipan”. Mk 14:36 shows “elegen” departing from both Lk. 22:42 and Mt. 26:3 9 “legoon”.
Where Judas intervenes in the Garden at Mk. 14:43, Lk 22:47 and Mt 26:47 we switch to a common Greek redaction in which all agree on “Lalountos”. A common text (but likely from Aramaic) reemerges at Mk. 14:60 “legoon” up against the Minor Agreement Lk. 22:67 “eipon” and Mt. 26:62 “eipen”. Closer come Lk. 22:67 “eipoo” compared to Mk. 14:62 and Mt. 26:63 “eipen”. (Remember, agreements between Mt. and Mk. Matter little, as they share a fully Greek Proto-Matthew exemplar.) Mk. 14:67 “legei” opposes Lk. 22:56 “eipen” and Mt. 26:69 “legousa”. (Perhaps that was just an isolated verse in Aramaic in the Proto-Gospel.) Mk. 14:68, Lk 22:57, and Mt. 26:70 agree on “legoon”, but in prefacing a quotation all three Synoptics (as after “Truly”) routinely use “legoo” or “legoon” as here. Lk. 22:58 goes for “efe” against Mk. 14:68 and Mt. 26:70 “legeis”. More closeness to Greek follows in Lk 22:59 “legoon” compared to Mk. 14:69 “legein” and Mt. 26:72 “legei”. One-to-one comparisons fail until Mk. 14:72 and Lk.22:61 “eipen” corresponds to Mt. 26:75 “eipehkotos”, differing only in tense (the last being future tense). A compromise solution may apply here, a version in Aramaic having been worked together without translation in the Proto-Gospel inter-twined with the Greek version.
My study here thus argues for a largely Aramaic text of the Proto-Gospel for Mark 13 and 14.
Comes the Resurrection
The next morning, here comes a new chapter. Mk. 15:2 “legei…legeis” is dissimilar to Lk. 23:3 and Mt. 27.11 “epseh…legeis”. Pilate replies to Jesus Mk. 15:4 “legoon” not unlike Mt. 27:13 “legei”, but not like Lk. 23:4 “eipen”, and with a different content of his reply. The crowd in Mk. 15:8 “aiteisthai” (and 15:13 and 15:14 “ekraxan”) in contrast to Lk. 23:18 “legontes” (and in 23:2 and 23: 5) and at Mt. 27:23 “efeh” and “ekrazon legontes”. Again in Mk. 15:9 Pilate speaks “legoon” in contrast to Mt. 27:17 and Lk. 23:14 “eipen” (which is another Minor Agreement). Mk. 15:12 “elegen…legete” contrasts with Mt. 27.23 “efe…ekprazon legontes” and Lk. 23:20 “prosephoonesen”. Mk. 15:14 “elegen” contrasts with Lk. 23:22 “eipen” and Mt. 27:23 “efe”, Pilate’s third.
Mk. 15:29 and Lk. 23:35 agree on “legontes” as against Mt. 27:41 “elegon”, arguing against the Griesbach Hypothesis. Mk. 15:31 “elegoon” compares to Luke 23:37 “legontes” for “saying King of the Jews” and compares to John 19:21 “elegon”, a comparison case for Aramaic origin (and could serve for my view that the John source was first).
Mk. 15:35 “elegoon” is similar to Lk. 23:42 “elegen” and Mt. 27:47 “elegon”. (I use “oo” for long “o” pronunciation of omega, doubling with those who use it for the sound of long “u” as in “fool”.) The Centurion in Mk. 15:39 “eipen”, Mt. 27:54 “legontes” and Lk. 23:47 “legoon” don’t match, indicating Aramaic source. Lots of indications of Aramaic source for Mark 15. Mark 16:3 “elegov” stands alone, and Mk. 16:6 ”legei” contrasts with Mt. 28:5 “eipen” and Lk. 24:5 “eipan”, without agreeing on whether an angel or a young man(men) spoke. For Lk. 24:7 “legoon” stands alone against both Mk. 16:7 and Mt. 28.7 “eipate”. Mk. 16:8 “eipan” implicitly relates to Lk. 24 10 “elegon” though the latter is saying and the former is not. Though there is evidence of a mutual source for the final comparative Synoptic chapter, but the Proto-Gospel here was in Aramaic. At least for verse 7 we can see that Mt. and Mk. Shared a common Greek (Proto-Matthew) text.
Judging by the comparison with John 20, there were Jerusalem appearances of the resurrected Jesus as in Luke 24, but Luke 24 works the Aramaic (portion of the) Proto-Gospel towards these alone as against the translation to Proto-Matthew eliminating any Jerusalem traces except Mt. 28:9-10 and giving only Galilee predictions and (in Mt.) the main appearance in Galilee. Perhaps the substance of John 21 was in the Proto-Gospel, but it got displaced to John 21 only and subsequently Luke 24 ignored it, Mark 16 lost it, and Mt. 28 summarized the gist quite clumsily.
As for the next step after the rest of Matthew after it continues beyond the cut-off from Mark 16:8, the immediately following verses Mt. 28:8b-10, Mt. 28:10 seems so in substance the same as 28:7 while the corresponding Greek words use synonyms or different forms of the same verb (and not as a manner of style, as both 28:8b and 28:10 read “apaggeilai” and “apaggeilate”), so it may not trace back to Proto-Matthew. However, the story of the guards in Mt. 28:11-15a includes the rarely seen word “eipete” (as in Mk. 14:14 and Mt. 26:18) at Mt. 28:13, so we might suppose this came from Proto-Matthew and that the lost ending to Mark may have as well. On the other hand, where Mt. 28:7 reads “poreutheisai” for “go” in parallel with “eporeuthesan” at Mt. 28:16, it makes Mt. 28:16-20 look like the continuation instead of the Mt. 28:11-15s that uses at 28:11 “poreuomenoon”.
Re-evaluating for the big picture, the Synoptics all feature “Galilee” right at the start of the Resurrection appearances. This shows to me that the source in John (as identified by Howard M. Teeple—but not in any later editions either), presumably attributable to Mary Magdalene as the eyewitness per my theory, predates even the Proto-Gospel that adds the appearances at and in the tomb to the women. Given that the version in Luke so contrasts with the remaining two gospels here, we should suppose that the original introduction of this theme read something like, “Hi-ho, Galileans, why are you expecting Jesus to be here when He told you He would rise after three days?” This neutral present-oriented original favored neither the Jerusalem faction nor the Galilee faction. For the purposes of GLuke (more likely at the Proto-Luke level preceding it) this was minimized to merely a past event, “Recall how he spoke to you while he was yet in Galilee…and yet on the third day rise.” Thereafter in Luke (and as well in Acts 1:11, where the original reading still shows through, “Men of Galilee…”, and “Galilee” appearing only three more time in all of Acts), the focus is only on Jerusalem or its environs. (The long ending in Mark retains this same party line, likewise never mentioning Galilee.)
Mk.28:7 and Mk.16:7 slant the mention of Galilee in the opposite, future-tense direction with (in the present tense even in Matthew), “tell his disciples….he is going ahead of you into Galilee” (reinforced by the later quite differing Greek-word redaction at Mt. 28:10) “report to my brothers…they must leave into Galilee” (NWT, NJB). The first 7 ½ and 8 verses respectively by my system go back to the Proto-Matthew take-off from the Proto-Gospel by someone(s) determined to elevate Galilee, and if we delete Mt. 28:2-4 and 8b-10 as later interpolations, Jesus never appears in Jerusalem at all! The highlight becomes Mt. 28:16-20 (granted that the Trinity at 28:19 may be a further incursion, but “poreuthentes” there seems like “poreutheisai” at Mt. 28:7). However, as seen a few paragraphs above, Mt. 28:11-15 is the best match stylistically to Mk. 16:1-8 (“eipate”), so it also seems likely to have been part of Proto-Matthew. (An argument against that would be that the conspiracy against the Resurrection happens in Jerusalem, but maybe that’s an argument for it?) Later Mt. 28:2-4 and 28:8b-10 were added in.
In perspective, this doesn’t say much for Mt. 28, dismissing the angel opening the tomb and Jesus appearing to the women, but I had always regarded Matthew as derivative. My view now would be that John 21 had earlier been written, perhaps for a while been part of the Proto-Gospel, but if so soon detached (by the Proto-Luke writer who was suppressing Galilee events?) and eventually winding up only in John 21. I would view the Proto-Gospel as also containing something like Lk. 24: 44-49b and Acts 1:6-12, but ambiguous about the location (perhaps to muddle to outsiders where the followers of the Way were residing), that the Jerusalem party in these verses specified as in Jerusalem and the Galilee “Eleven” (Mt. 28:16) incorrectly wrote as in taking place only in Galilee (and again, perhaps to fool outsiders). So Proto-Matthew was probably Mt. (=Mk. 16:1-8) 28:1, 5-8b, 11-15a, 16-20) and the intervening verses were added when our Mt. 28 was finished soon afterwards.
Mk. 15:29 and Lk. 23:35 agree on “legontes” as against Mt. 27:41 “elegon”, arguing against the Griesbach Hypothesis. Mk. 15:31 “elegoon” compares to Luke 23:37 “legontes” for “saying King of the Jews” and compares to John 19:21 “elegon”, a comparison case for Aramaic origin (and could serve for my view that the John source was first).
Mk. 15:35 “elegoon” is similar to Lk. 23:42 “elegen” and Mt. 27:47 “elegon”. (I use “oo” for long “o” pronunciation of omega, doubling with those who use it for the sound of long “u” as in “fool”.) The Centurion in Mk. 15:39 “eipen”, Mt. 27:54 “legontes” and Lk. 23:47 “legoon” don’t match, indicating Aramaic source. Lots of indications of Aramaic source for Mark 15. Mark 16:3 “elegov” stands alone, and Mk. 16:6 ”legei” contrasts with Mt. 28:5 “eipen” and Lk. 24:5 “eipan”, without agreeing on whether an angel or a young man(men) spoke. For Lk. 24:7 “legoon” stands alone against both Mk. 16:7 and Mt. 28.7 “eipate”. Mk. 16:8 “eipan” implicitly relates to Lk. 24 10 “elegon” though the latter is saying and the former is not. Though there is evidence of a mutual source for the final comparative Synoptic chapter, but the Proto-Gospel here was in Aramaic. At least for verse 7 we can see that Mt. and Mk. Shared a common Greek (Proto-Matthew) text.
Judging by the comparison with John 20, there were Jerusalem appearances of the resurrected Jesus as in Luke 24, but Luke 24 works the Aramaic (portion of the) Proto-Gospel towards these alone as against the translation to Proto-Matthew eliminating any Jerusalem traces except Mt. 28:9-10 and giving only Galilee predictions and (in Mt.) the main appearance in Galilee. Perhaps the substance of John 21 was in the Proto-Gospel, but it got displaced to John 21 only and subsequently Luke 24 ignored it, Mark 16 lost it, and Mt. 28 summarized the gist quite clumsily.
As for the next step after the rest of Matthew after it continues beyond the cut-off from Mark 16:8, the immediately following verses Mt. 28:8b-10, Mt. 28:10 seems so in substance the same as 28:7 while the corresponding Greek words use synonyms or different forms of the same verb (and not as a manner of style, as both 28:8b and 28:10 read “apaggeilai” and “apaggeilate”), so it may not trace back to Proto-Matthew. However, the story of the guards in Mt. 28:11-15a includes the rarely seen word “eipete” (as in Mk. 14:14 and Mt. 26:18) at Mt. 28:13, so we might suppose this came from Proto-Matthew and that the lost ending to Mark may have as well. On the other hand, where Mt. 28:7 reads “poreutheisai” for “go” in parallel with “eporeuthesan” at Mt. 28:16, it makes Mt. 28:16-20 look like the continuation instead of the Mt. 28:11-15s that uses at 28:11 “poreuomenoon”.
Re-evaluating for the big picture, the Synoptics all feature “Galilee” right at the start of the Resurrection appearances. This shows to me that the source in John (as identified by Howard M. Teeple—but not in any later editions either), presumably attributable to Mary Magdalene as the eyewitness per my theory, predates even the Proto-Gospel that adds the appearances at and in the tomb to the women. Given that the version in Luke so contrasts with the remaining two gospels here, we should suppose that the original introduction of this theme read something like, “Hi-ho, Galileans, why are you expecting Jesus to be here when He told you He would rise after three days?” This neutral present-oriented original favored neither the Jerusalem faction nor the Galilee faction. For the purposes of GLuke (more likely at the Proto-Luke level preceding it) this was minimized to merely a past event, “Recall how he spoke to you while he was yet in Galilee…and yet on the third day rise.” Thereafter in Luke (and as well in Acts 1:11, where the original reading still shows through, “Men of Galilee…”, and “Galilee” appearing only three more time in all of Acts), the focus is only on Jerusalem or its environs. (The long ending in Mark retains this same party line, likewise never mentioning Galilee.)
Mk.28:7 and Mk.16:7 slant the mention of Galilee in the opposite, future-tense direction with (in the present tense even in Matthew), “tell his disciples….he is going ahead of you into Galilee” (reinforced by the later quite differing Greek-word redaction at Mt. 28:10) “report to my brothers…they must leave into Galilee” (NWT, NJB). The first 7 ½ and 8 verses respectively by my system go back to the Proto-Matthew take-off from the Proto-Gospel by someone(s) determined to elevate Galilee, and if we delete Mt. 28:2-4 and 8b-10 as later interpolations, Jesus never appears in Jerusalem at all! The highlight becomes Mt. 28:16-20 (granted that the Trinity at 28:19 may be a further incursion, but “poreuthentes” there seems like “poreutheisai” at Mt. 28:7). However, as seen a few paragraphs above, Mt. 28:11-15 is the best match stylistically to Mk. 16:1-8 (“eipate”), so it also seems likely to have been part of Proto-Matthew. (An argument against that would be that the conspiracy against the Resurrection happens in Jerusalem, but maybe that’s an argument for it?) Later Mt. 28:2-4 and 28:8b-10 were added in.
In perspective, this doesn’t say much for Mt. 28, dismissing the angel opening the tomb and Jesus appearing to the women, but I had always regarded Matthew as derivative. My view now would be that John 21 had earlier been written, perhaps for a while been part of the Proto-Gospel, but if so soon detached (by the Proto-Luke writer who was suppressing Galilee events?) and eventually winding up only in John 21. I would view the Proto-Gospel as also containing something like Lk. 24: 44-49b and Acts 1:6-12, but ambiguous about the location (perhaps to muddle to outsiders where the followers of the Way were residing), that the Jerusalem party in these verses specified as in Jerusalem and the Galilee “Eleven” (Mt. 28:16) incorrectly wrote as in taking place only in Galilee (and again, perhaps to fool outsiders). So Proto-Matthew was probably Mt. (=Mk. 16:1-8) 28:1, 5-8b, 11-15a, 16-20) and the intervening verses were added when our Mt. 28 was finished soon afterwards.
-
schillingklaus
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm
Re: Horizontal Synoptic Solution
This proves once more the absolute falsity of the ideology of Markan Prioritism and the folly of modern scholarship compared to pre-Victorian times.