If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

[Stuart]

Matthew probably was revised. For example, I very much doubt the gardener was part of the first version answering Jewish critics who postulated the disciples moved Jesus' body. This objection likely grew long after the gospels were popularized.

But it's also possible Luke borrowed the words from Matthew in his revision of the Marcionite gospel. Each one needs a deep dive to know if it is from the first cut of Matthew or the edited final version. Either way it doesn't impact the main revision scenario.

[mlinssen]

Matthew probably was revised. For example, I very much doubt the gardener was part of the first version answering Jewish critics who postulated the disciples moved Jesus' body. This objection likely grew long after the gospels were popularized.

But it's also possible Luke borrowed the words from Matthew in his revision of the Marcionite gospel. Each one needs a deep dive to know if it is from the first cut of Matthew or the edited final version. Either way it doesn't impact the main revision scenario.

I agree that these stories must have undergone various revisions, especially over the course of the 2-3 centuries preceding the 5th CE.
Yet we never have these conversations of order about Mark, and it's always about Luke vs Matthew or Matthew vs Luke - it is the easiest and most likely scenario that they simply copied one another

Why does everyone think that such a scenario automatically leads to giant agreements, and hence is not plausible because Luke and Matthew are so different (while agreeing so incredibly verbatim on so many, many occasions)?!

As obvious as it is that no text was ever written in Hebrew or Aramaic, it is similarly obvious that Luke and Matthew "originated from the same table".
It is not a scenario that befits the Churchian agenda, and it has possible repercussions that befit that even less - but it is a likely scenario

All these "layered traditions" scenarios only serve to prolong the stalemate - which naturally does befit the Churchian agenda

[Stuart]

I don't think you can say Luke and Matthew originated from the same table. They have very different theologies and very different vocabulary (e.g., Lukan favorite words).

Here is a passage that is almost certainly post first edition of Matthew (verses 3:7-10), found also in Luke (verses 3:10-10), which seems to derives from John 8:39-40 (definitely first edition of John, which was written after Matthew!). Further Luke 3:15 has John 1:19-20, 1:24-25 in view. Luke (all verses here post Marcion) seems to be answering two questions posed in John. I tend to think somebody back ported the passage into Matthew after Luke was written, as it isn't connected to the passages before or after.

The later layers in Matthew create some problems. That I agree.

[mlinssen]

I don't think you can say Luke and Matthew originated from the same table. They have very different theologies and very different vocabulary (e.g., Lukan favorite words).

I have worked my entire life for global multinationals and IT consulting firms. I have rewritten mine and others' work dozens of times to address a different situation, audience, etc.
Imagine yourself as a Christian missionary, having to write 4 pages on Jesus, meant to address 2 audiences: Africans as well as Aboriginals.
Of course, you want to mold your story onto theirs and then take over. Marcionites versus Judaics: how similar could those two different stories really be?

Here is a passage that is almost certainly post first edition of Matthew (verses 3:7-10), found also in Luke (verses 3:10-10), which seems to derives from John 8:39-40 (definitely first edition of John, which was written after Matthew!). Further Luke 3:15 has John 1:19-20, 1:24-25 in view. Luke (all verses here post Marcion) seems to be answering two questions posed in John. I tend to think somebody back ported the passage into Matthew after Luke was written, as it isn't connected to the passages before or after.

The later layers in Matthew create some problems. That I agree.

I'll look it up and respond later. Fun!

[Stuart]

I don't think you can say Luke and Matthew originated from the same table. They have very different theologies and very different vocabulary (e.g., Lukan favorite words).

I have worked my entire life for global multinationals and IT consulting firms. I have rewritten mine and others' work dozens of times to address a different situation, audience, etc.
Imagine yourself as a Christian missionary, having to write 4 pages on Jesus, meant to address 2 audiences: Africans as well as Aboriginals.
Of course, you want to mold your story onto theirs and then take over. Marcionites versus Judaics: how similar could those two different stories really be?

The theologies are not very compatible. You are assuming a post-sectarian writing here. That the great compromise that gave birth to trinitarianism has already occurred and consolidation complete. But that is definitely not the case. That would not happen until likely well into the 3rd century.

These gospels were competing for the Greek mainland, which is Asian Minor(western Turkey) and Greece. There is more likely a temporal difference than a spacial one. Matthew and Luke no more came from the same table than to say Marcionites and Valentinians came from the same table. The Catholic table took a long time to form, and it evolved and over time. Had this happened Luke would not have been so partisan, rather it would have more closely resembled the theology of the compromise.

Put another way, these things take time.

[mlinssen]

John 8:39 Ἀπεκρίθησαν (They answered) καὶ (and) εἶπαν (said) αὐτῷ (to Him), “Ὁ (The) πατὴρ (father) ἡμῶν (of us) Ἀβραάμ (Abraham) ἐστιν (is).” Λέγει (Says) αὐτοῖς (to them) ὁ (-) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus), “Εἰ (If) τέκνα (children) τοῦ (-) Ἀβραάμ (of Abraham) ἐστε (you were), τὰ (the) ἔργα (works) τοῦ (-) Ἀβραὰμ (of Abraham) ἐποιεῖτε* (you would do);
40 νῦν (now) δὲ (however) ζητεῖτέ (you seek) με (Me) ἀποκτεῖναι (to kill), ἄνθρωπον (a man) ὃς (who) τὴν (the) ἀλήθειαν (truth) ὑμῖν (to you) λελάληκα (has spoken), ἣν (that) ἤκουσα (I heard) παρὰ (from) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (God). τοῦτο (This) Ἀβραὰμ (Abraham) οὐκ (not) ἐποίησεν (did)

Matthew 3:7 Ἰδὼν (Having seen) δὲ (now) πολλοὺς (many) τῶν (of the) Φαρισαίων (Pharisees) καὶ (and) Σαδδουκαίων (Sadducees) ἐρχομένους (coming) ἐπὶ (to) τὸ (the) βάπτισμα (baptism) ‹αὐτοῦ› (of him), εἶπεν (he said) αὐτοῖς (to them), “Γεννήματα (Brood) ἐχιδνῶν (of vipers), τίς (who) ὑπέδειξεν (forewarned) ὑμῖν (you) φυγεῖν (to flee) ἀπὸ (from) τῆς (the) μελλούσης (coming) ὀργῆς (wrath)?
8 ποιήσατε (Produce) οὖν (therefore) καρπὸν (fruit) ἄξιον (worthy) τῆς (-) μετανοίας (of repentance).
9 καὶ (And) μὴ (not) δόξητε (presume) λέγειν (to say) ἐν (within) ἑαυτοῖς (yourselves), ‘Πατέρα (As father) ἔχομεν (we have) τὸν (-) Ἀβραάμ (Abraham).’ λέγω (I say) γὰρ (for) ὑμῖν (to you) ὅτι (that) δύναται (able is) ὁ (-) Θεὸς (God) ἐκ (out of) τῶν (the) λίθων (stones) τούτων (these) ἐγεῖραι (to raise up) τέκνα (children) τῷ (unto) Ἀβραάμ (Abraham).
10 ἤδη (Already) δὲ (now) ἡ (the) ἀξίνη (ax) πρὸς (to) τὴν (the) ῥίζαν (root) τῶν (of the) δένδρων (trees) κεῖται (is applied); πᾶν (every) οὖν (therefore) δένδρον (tree) μὴ (not) ποιοῦν (producing) καρπὸν (fruit) καλὸν (good) ἐκκόπτεται (is cut down) καὶ (and) εἰς (into) πῦρ (the fire) βάλλεται (is thrown).

Luke 3:10 10 Καὶ (And) ἐπηρώτων (were asking) αὐτὸν (him) οἱ (the) ὄχλοι (crowds), λέγοντες (saying), “Τί (What) οὖν (then) ποιήσωμεν (shall we do)?”

I think this is the order you would like to see those?
I fail to see any resemblance

[mlinssen]

I don't think you can say Luke and Matthew originated from the same table. They have very different theologies and very different vocabulary (e.g., Lukan favorite words).

I have worked my entire life for global multinationals and IT consulting firms. I have rewritten mine and others' work dozens of times to address a different situation, audience, etc.
Imagine yourself as a Christian missionary, having to write 4 pages on Jesus, meant to address 2 audiences: Africans as well as Aboriginals.
Of course, you want to mold your story onto theirs and then take over. Marcionites versus Judaics: how similar could those two different stories really be?

The theologies are not very compatible. You are assuming a post-sectarian writing here. That the great compromise that gave birth to trinitarianism has already occurred and consolidation complete. But that is definitely not the case. That would not happen until likely well into the 3rd century.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely talking about 2 different audiences. I take it for granted that "Gentiles" as well as Judaics were readily available in great numbers in Palestine in any century preceding or following 0 CE

These gospels were competing for the Greek mainland, which is Asian Minor(western Turkey) and Greece.

How can you tell? Are you claiming that both Luke and Matthew were written with the sole goal of being directed at that area?
And how would they be competing? By telling a fairly different theology, albeit the exact same story, to the same audience?

There is more likely a temporal difference than a spacial one. Matthew and Luke no more came from the same table than to say Marcionites and Valentinians came from the same table. The Catholic table took a long time to form, and it evolved and over time. Had this happened Luke would not have been so partisan, rather it would have more closely resembled the theology of the compromise.

Put another way, these things take time.

It's easy to talk in absolute terms, but how much time world you put in between Luke and Matthew?
Something the like that is between Marcionites and Valentinians, I presume?

You can't compare these two pairs though - unless you manage to come up with Marcion's gospel

[Stuart]

These gospels were competing for the Greek mainland, which is Asian Minor(western Turkey) and Greece.

How can you tell?

This I admit takes some explaining. It applies mostly to Matthew, which is the earlier of the two. It more comes down to Matthew written in opposition the Marcionites, and the evidence of a battle over patron saint (especially John vs Paul; but Philip, Peter and Andrew also competed, with Matthew/Matthias and Philip legends lying a little to the east, greater Armenia you could say) for the region of Asia along with it's sectarian/political ramifications (Price's Colossal Apostle covers a lot of this, albeit with a lot of Price's less than fully dispassionate commentary; but he gives a lot of references you can follow up on). This is the one region with strong evidence of sectarian competition for control. The various Acts, both apocryphal and canonical, largely focus on the travels in this region. This is where the contest was waged, and logically this is where the early gospels were written. It takes a book to cover that.

Luke was written later, and likely has a wider audience. That much is likely. Since you asked how much time, probably a bit over a generation had passed between Luke's writing and the first version of Matthew. There had to be time for the first version of John to have been written and needing to be responded to. That Luke pulled in some elements from Mark indicates a wider geographical reach than the Marcionite-Matthew-Johannine were concerned with; they answered each other directly and pointedly indicating a very direct and very local threat.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely talking about 2 different audiences.

That is an assumption, a very big assumption. Define those audiences, both who and where (locale), and why the different theological emphasis works for them.

It's easy to talk in absolute terms

Says the pot to the kettle.

[mlinssen]

I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely talking about 2 different audiences.

That is an assumption, a very big assumption. Define those audiences, both who and where (locale), and why the different theological emphasis works for them.

It's easy to talk in absolute terms

Says the pot to the kettle.

I'll answer both

1)

There is a marked difference between the way that Luke treats major Christological events, such as the baptism of Jesus, the last Supper, and the betrayal of Jesus

A)

Matthew protests the baptism, naturally - Jesus being baptised for the remission of sins was one of the greatest Markan screw-ups. An understandable one, since Malachi dictated that the Lord would unexpectedly visit the Temple of the forerunner - and of course John couldn't have a temple because it would be the first non ephemeral object in all of the NT - but Mark really digs his own grave in the opening verses of his own gospel.
John simply refuses to have Jesus baptised. He sketches the scene, he leads the reader to it - but he will have none of that nonsense, of course.
Luke? No problem at all whatsoever

B)

The last Supper is a colossal event in John where the scene itself almost collapses under its own weight.
The morsel is referred to three times, explicitly pointing to Boaz and Ruth having their first supper, where Boaz welcomes Ruth as a foreigner eager to join a new religion - like Judas was welcomed by Jesus. Judas is only an innocent puppet in the hands of Jesus who purposely forces him to betray him by knowing that he will become possessed by Satan.
Matthew follows Mark with all eyes turning to Judas.
Luke? Judas isn't even named, there is no morsel, no dipping, nothing

C)

The betrayal itself is legendary, of course. Mark starts it, Matthew blows it out of all proportions with Judas not only showing remorse but even killing himself, and of course he has to make it overflow worth non existing "prophecies".
Luke mitigates the role of Judas by making him possessed by Satan, and he does the exact same thing that John does with the baptism: he sketches the scene, but doesn't let it actually happen.
John? John goes even further and drops the entire scene

- as you can see, in these three events Luke shares almost everything with John and nothing with Matthew.
"Sin" apparently didn't mean much if anything to the Lukan audience, but Judas - oh my, that name must have meant and implied an awful lot, perhaps even more than the protagonist himself.
When we compare Luke to Matthew here, we see that Matthew puts great weight on the Judaic aspects, whereas those seem to be absent in Luke. And the way that Luke resembles John is telling us that their audience is similar, if not identical

[Stuart]

mlinssen,

You have not defined the audience, just listed a few differences (we all see those) in the narrative without really tying them to any theological camp or system. And no explanation of where they came from.

The question was who was this directed, and why would the theology make a difference to them?