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

[brewskiMarc]

From what I understand of the discrepancies, they are inspired by theological interests, primarily. Example, Matthew's Jesus was a "new Moses" and that perspective led him to rewrite much of Mark as he did.

Sorry, I jumped in late and short-cut my question. I was referring specifically to the question in the OP:

If Matthew and Luke were editing our Greek Mark, or if Mark was epitomising our Greek Matthew and Luke, we would have to explain why the later editor made each of the hundreds of small alterations. What labour. If, however, we have three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source, each of which has been subject to the normal process of being passed on with the addition of new material, perhaps, and with the ever-present possibility of scribal corruption, our task of interpretation is at once both more interesting and more plausible.

I was wondering if, rather than Hebrew or Aramaic, the author of Mark wrote originally in Latin before making a Greek version. And if so, could the authors of Matthew and Luke have used that as their base.

[neilgodfrey]

From what I understand of the discrepancies, they are inspired by theological interests, primarily. Example, Matthew's Jesus was a "new Moses" and that perspective led him to rewrite much of Mark as he did.

Sorry, I jumped in late and short-cut my question. I was referring specifically to the question in the OP:

If Matthew and Luke were editing our Greek Mark, or if Mark was epitomising our Greek Matthew and Luke, we would have to explain why the later editor made each of the hundreds of small alterations. What labour. If, however, we have three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source, each of which has been subject to the normal process of being passed on with the addition of new material, perhaps, and with the ever-present possibility of scribal corruption, our task of interpretation is at once both more interesting and more plausible.

I was wondering if, rather than Hebrew or Aramaic, the author of Mark wrote originally in Latin before making a Greek version. And if so, could the authors of Matthew and Luke have used that as their base.

"Could have" .... but the question calls for a grasp of the languages and details of the texts that is way beyond me. Only another Maurice Casey -- one with a Latin bent -- could answer that one, I suppose.

What is piquing my interest currently in a Hebrew background to the gospels is a creeping awareness of the French "Champs de Midrash" school and some of the fascinating proposals coming from there. Unfortunately, English language publishers appear to have firmly shut their doors to anything from that quarter.

Just one small instance: the gospel references to Jesus healing at sunset and the touching the edge of Jesus' garment -- they take on a very rich meaning when read in the context of some later rabbinic thoughts on Malachi. Now if those rabbinic thoughts were around as early as the Second Temple era, that potentially sets the gospel narratives in a different light.

But that's a different question from Mark writing a Latin text.

[brewskiMarc]

"Could have" .... but the question calls for a grasp of the languages and details of the texts that is way beyond me.

Same here. I barely manage with English. For any other text analysis I rely entirely on the kindness of strangers. Where I'm from, for most people if it's not King James it's not "the Bible".

But that's a different question from Mark writing a Latin text.

Perhaps some kind stranger out there with an excellent knowledge of Latin will chime in.

Marc

[Stuart]

There is too much overlap.

Can you elaborate on this point?

I meant overlap in specific words, phrases and order across the synoptic gospels (Marcionite, Matthew, Mark, Luke). You are left with two choices, either they copied each other or they worked from some common (though variant from document to document) source. IMO both elements are present, both things happened. I'm confident you are well aware of the arguments and example cases, so I wont do it here.

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that a prototype was the inevitable -- and only -- conclusion we are faced with.

Actually I am of the opinion a prototype is required, and it has to be in Greek. I'm just saying that is not the only process in the composition of the gospels as we have them. A second, sectarian competition, copying and correcting process happened on top of the buried prototype forms in the creation of the gospels as we have them.

If the prototype(s) were not in Greek then the common words and phrases in Greek would not have happened. Simply look at the Latin Vulgate and Tertullian's Latin translation of passages (or any other Latin father). Amazing number of different word choices and word order. You just don't see that in the common tradition of the synoptic gospels. For me this pushes the switch from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek well in the formation of the synoptic prototype(s) formation era, long before the evangelical gospels we have were written.

The Marcionite author knew the Baptism of John and lifted elements into his anti-John passages (chapter 7 of Luke) -- just one example of the gospel I think was first (or tied for first with Mark somewhere outside the sectarian battlefield) requiring a common source document. Further at the low level there are verses in the Marcionite which follow closer to Matthew words than Luke. I would take a book to demonstrate all of them, but Occam's Razor would say that the Marcionite gospel did not copy from Matthew; It is much more likely Matthew copied elements from the Marcionite.

The model I think is closest I came to from mostly mechanical analysis, combined with the working assumptions that gospels were written in response to already popularized gospels whose contents were too much at odds with the author's sect to be used and thus had to be corrected. That theological opposition led me to this sequence.

Marcionite gospel built on and responded to elements of the prototype gospel
Matthew responded to the Marcionite gospel, built on a prototype of a different form than the one the Marcionite author used
John, 1st edition (Joseph Turmel gave a rough outline of it's content) responded to Matthew's gospel, drew also from the Marcionite (e.g., Lazarus)
Luke revised the Marcionite gospel, corrected Matthew and drew elements from Matthew and Mark, probably some lost gospels as well
John was revised, harmonized with the synoptic gospels, likely using Mark for this.

The Marcionite author used a form of the prototype I call "L" (Lukan branch) as his base document
Matthew used a form I call "M" (Matthew branch) as his base document
Mark conflated the two prototype forms. In my view his local version of "M" was clearly later than Matthew's, a bit more expanded.
// doesn't mean Mark was necessarily written later, he just may have had a more recent version of "M" in his possession
// I'm agnostic on the placement of Mark, except that it was before the Catholic versions of John and Luke which made use of it.
// not enough sectarian material in Mark for me to draw any meaningful conclusions about the author's theology.

My opinion (let's be clear on that) is this explains how things got to where they are. A prototype is necessary for the construction of Matthew, Mark and the Marcionite gospel, but completely unnecessary for the compositions of John (both versions) and Luke.

There is way too much here for me to answer in a mere post. It requires a full on book.

[neilgodfrey]

The model I think is closest I came to from mostly mechanical analysis, combined with the working assumptions that gospels were written in response to already popularized gospels whose contents were too much at odds with the author's sect to be used and thus had to be corrected. That theological opposition led me to this sequence.

Marcionite gospel built on and responded to elements of the prototype gospel
Matthew responded to the Marcionite gospel, built on a prototype of a different form than the one the Marcionite author used
John, 1st edition (Joseph Turmel gave a rough outline of it's content) responded to Matthew's gospel, drew also from the Marcionite (e.g., Lazarus)
Luke revised the Marcionite gospel, corrected Matthew and drew elements from Matthew and Mark, probably some lost gospels as well
John was revised, harmonized with the synoptic gospels, likely using Mark for this.

The Marcionite author used a form of the prototype I call "L" (Lukan branch) as his base document
Matthew used a form I call "M" (Matthew branch) as his base document
Mark conflated the two prototype forms. In my view his local version of "M" was clearly later than Matthew's, a bit more expanded.
// doesn't mean Mark was necessarily written later, he just may have had a more recent version of "M" in his possession
// I'm agnostic on the placement of Mark, except that it was before the Catholic versions of John and Luke which made use of it.
// not enough sectarian material in Mark for me to draw any meaningful conclusions about the author's theology.

My opinion (let's be clear on that) is this explains how things got to where they are. A prototype is necessary for the construction of Matthew, Mark and the Marcionite gospel, but completely unnecessary for the compositions of John (both versions) and Luke.

Actually I don't have any problem with this overview of your analysis and conclusions. I think we've been talking past each other.

Somehow the Hebrew associations also need to be explained -- even if that explanation turns out to be some sort of coincidences -- and there I am imagining early discussions about the scriptures (Hebrew mostly, not only the Septuagint) and the formulation of the ideas that found their way into the first Greek language gospel.

[Charles Wilson]

Somehow the Hebrew associations also need to be explained...and there I am imagining early discussions about the scriptures (Hebrew mostly, not only the Septuagint) and the formulation of the ideas that found their way into the first Greek language gospel.

Giovanni Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla, ISBN 0-385-13152-6, p. 277:

"Genesis 10: 8 - 11 reports that the first warrior on earth was named Nimrod. For this name no satisfactory explanation has been found...The study of Eblaite and Ugaritic personal names reveals a frequency of the animal name plus the name of a god...ni-mi-ri-ya, "the panther of Ya," illustrate this pattern breaks down into nmmr, "panther" and -d, "Hadd"...[Panther-of-Hadd]".

That might imply that some person had an ingenious realization of Biblical Hebrew and broke down "Immr-Yah" into "Lamb-of-God" in John to make "Jesus" appear as the "Passover Lamb".

Best,

CW

[mlinssen]

A prototype is necessary for the construction of Matthew, Mark and the Marcionite gospel, but completely unnecessary for the compositions of John (both versions) and Luke

I agree with the gist of your analysis here, but wonder about this sentence

1) How can you make such a great distinction between Luke and Matthew, while they agree so very closely on the verbatim level? Although I'll agree that their audiences differ greatly, and so does their message / core (even though Luke has a few nasty Matthean elements)
2) How can you be fairly sure that Marcion wasn't the prototype - what does a prototype look like, how do you define it?

[mlinssen]

Neil, you don't engage with my arguments when I'm being polite.
Neither do you engage with them when I'm being less polite

I'm not interested in your arguments about Thomas. One of the reasons I only occasionally drop into this forum is the frequency of people reacting with their intestines rather than their craniums. Just try being polite and civil, okay? -- and even go so far as to trying to understand someone else's argument from their point of view -- without assuming they have some "attitude" or "agenda" problem. Maybe they do, but demonstrate that rationally, not reflexively. (And you're not "less polite" -- you're outright insulting.)

Saved for posterity so we all can have a good laugh

[Stuart]

A prototype is necessary for the construction of Matthew, Mark and the Marcionite gospel, but completely unnecessary for the compositions of John (both versions) and Luke

I agree with the gist of your analysis here, but wonder about this sentence

1) How can you make such a great distinction between Luke and Matthew, while they agree so very closely on the verbatim level? Although I'll agree that their audiences differ greatly, and so does their message / core (even though Luke has a few nasty Matthean elements)
2) How can you be fairly sure that Marcion wasn't the prototype - what does a prototype look like, how do you define it?

Theology. I accept the existence of the Marcionite gospel being essentially the base document, "proto-gospel," of Luke.

Matthew was written in response to the Marcionite gospel and copied elements from the Marcionite, creating much of the supposed "Q" material. But he added his own material.

Luke revised the Marcionite gospel and focused on correcting the "Catholic" presentation of Matthew which was too pro-Torah, so copied much from Matthew, although wrote his own protoevangelium and genealogy. Luke took the kitchen sink approach, copying from everything he could get his hands on. So he copied back material from Matthew to complete Marcionite text he inherited. The result was even more "Q" material. As far as agreeing with Matthew, the expanded material copied directly from Matthew of course does agree. But there are other verses where the Marcionite text agrees more with the Matthew text than Luke. Both indicate editorial activity. The common Matthew and Marcionite material itself comes from two sources, the first a common prototype, the second Matthew lifting from the Marcionite. (It appears Matthew lifted a few items from the Marcionite antithesis as well, as they show up in almost identical paraphrased form spoken by Marcionite champions and in one case a Manichean champion in the Patristic works, to support Marcionite positions.) Basically the argument of common words cuts both ways in arguments and proves neither point decisively on it's own.

[mlinssen]

A prototype is necessary for the construction of Matthew, Mark and the Marcionite gospel, but completely unnecessary for the compositions of John (both versions) and Luke

I agree with the gist of your analysis here, but wonder about this sentence

1) How can you make such a great distinction between Luke and Matthew, while they agree so very closely on the verbatim level? Although I'll agree that their audiences differ greatly, and so does their message / core (even though Luke has a few nasty Matthean elements)
2) How can you be fairly sure that Marcion wasn't the prototype - what does a prototype look like, how do you define it?

Theology. I accept the existence of the Marcionite gospel being essentially the base document, "proto-gospel," of Luke.

Matthew was written in response to the Marcionite gospel and copied elements from the Marcionite, creating much of the supposed "Q" material. But he added his own material.

Luke revised the Marcionite gospel and focused on correcting the "Catholic" presentation of Matthew which was too pro-Torah, so copied much from Matthew, although wrote his own protoevangelium and genealogy. Luke took the kitchen sink approach, copying from everything he could get his hands on. So he copied back material from Matthew to complete Marcionite text he inherited. The result was even more "Q" material. As far as agreeing with Matthew, the expanded material copied directly from Matthew of course does agree. But there are other verses where the Marcionite text agrees more with the Matthew text than Luke. Both indicate editorial activity. The common Matthew and Marcionite material itself comes from two sources, the first a common prototype, the second Matthew lifting from the Marcionite. (It appears Matthew lifted a few items from the Marcionite antithesis as well, as they show up in almost identical paraphrased form spoken by Marcionite champions and in one case a Manichean champion in the Patristic works, to support Marcionite positions.) Basically the argument of common words cuts both ways in arguments and proves neither point decisively on it's own.

Well, again, agree to most if not all of that.
Indeed, two extremely different audiences with similarly differing backgrounds and belief systems, requiring a fairly 180 spin on theology in between Luke and Matthew

But Matthew also copied from Luke, for instance

Luke 12:33 Πωλήσατε (Sell) τὰ (the) ὑπάρχοντα (possessions) ὑμῶν (of you) καὶ (and) δότε (give) ἐλεημοσύνην (alms); ποιήσατε (make) ἑαυτοῖς (to yourselves) βαλλάντια (purses) μὴ (not) παλαιούμενα (growing old), θησαυρὸν (a treasure) ἀνέκλειπτον (unfailing) ἐν (in) τοῖς (the) οὐρανοῖς (heavens), ὅπου (where) κλέπτης (thief) οὐκ (not) ἐγγίζει (does draw near), οὐδὲ (nor) σὴς (moth) διαφθείρει (destroy).
34 ὅπου (Where) γάρ (for) ἐστιν (is) ὁ (the) θησαυρὸς (treasure) ὑμῶν (of you), ἐκεῖ (there) καὶ (also) ἡ (the) καρδία (heart) ὑμῶν (of you) ἔσται (will be).

Matthew 6:19 Μὴ (Not) θησαυρίζετε (store up) ὑμῖν (for yourselves) θησαυροὺς (treasures) ἐπὶ (upon) τῆς (the) γῆς (earth), ὅπου (where) σὴς (moth) καὶ (and) βρῶσις (rust) ἀφανίζει (destroy), καὶ (and) ὅπου (where) κλέπται (thieves) διορύσσουσιν (break in) καὶ (and) κλέπτουσιν (steal);
20 θησαυρίζετε (store up) δὲ (however) ὑμῖν (for yourselves) θησαυροὺς (treasures) ἐν (in) οὐρανῷ (heaven), ὅπου (where) οὔτε (neither) σὴς (moth) οὔτε (nor) βρῶσις (rust) ἀφανίζει (destroy), καὶ (and) ὅπου (where) κλέπται (thieves) οὐ (not) διορύσσουσιν (do break in) οὐδὲ (nor) κλέπτουσιν (steal).
21 ὅπου (Where) γάρ (for) ἐστιν (is) ὁ (the) θησαυρός (treasure) σου (of you), ἐκεῖ (there) ἔσται (will be) καὶ (also) ἡ (the) καρδία (heart) σου (of you).

The italic part is verbatim, the bold italic is the gospel sandbox.
And once more we see how the free association works beautifully in Greek, with 'steal' inspiring ἀνέκλειπτον as well as κλέπτης and κλέπτουσιν. Assuming a Hebrew source behind this intricate labyrinth of verbatim Greek agreement is attesting to the fact that one knows nothing of textual criticism in the context of the NT, and has never read much if any of its MSS in the original language - or ine did the latter, and failed to see the overwhelming evidence for shared sources in the same language

The common Matthew and Marcionite material itself comes from two sources, the first a common prototype

From Thomas, I would argue - no comments from the CF's on this, see viewtopic.php?p=39320#p39320

76 (a)said IS : the(F) reign-of(F) king of the father she/r is-comparable to a(n) human [al] trader has/ve he therein [dop] a(n) Consignment
did he fall to a(n) Pearl
(b) the trader who/which therein a(n) wise-person is did he give-away his Consignment
(c) did he buy to he [dop] that-one Pearl single
(d) yourselves likewise you(PL) seek-after his treasure
not-usually he perish in-case he be-remaining outward the place
not-usually moth make-to-approach inward [dop] the-place-there to eat Nor not-usually he worm destroy

Is Thomas referring to Isaiah 51:8 with his 76d?

Isaiah 51:7 "Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law. Don't fear the reproach of men, and don't be dismayed at their insults. 8 For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my righteousness will be forever, and my salvation to all generations."

Bodies will be consumed like this when dead, so it's no use hoping that something great will happen after you're dead: seek elsewhere, is what Thomas seems to imply - although 'his treasure' is puzzling. Unaware of the Isaiah reference or not, the gospel-writers revert Thomas' message, pointing to heaven instead of earth - an opportunity that can't be missed out on.
Luke swaps the 'moth' for 'thief' and the 'worm' for 'moth'; his 'no thief approaches' is a rewording of 'no moth comes near' and once again Matthew changes that to the natural action of a thief: 'thieves don't break through and steal', highly likely inspired as well by logion 21e, which comes next. Luke is not very fluid with his 'treasure in the heavens that doesn't fail', and Matthew drops it. Thomas' 'destroys' is copied by Luke and changed to 'consume' by Matthew. Matthew also adds the very unique 'rust', possibly to move away from Thomas and cover his source, and repeats the dependent clause, juxtaposing earth to heaven - a beautiful effect

I've tried to reverse the order and pretend Thomas copying either Luke or Matthew - it is impossible, especially given the fact the 76d really makes no sense in the context of 76a-c, it is really alien to it. And of course, only Matthew has that piece, in an entirely different place:

Matthew 13:45 Πάλιν (Again) ὁμοία (like) ἐστὶν (is) ἡ (the) βασιλεία (kingdom) τῶν (of the) οὐρανῶν (heavens) ‹ἀνθρώπῳ› (a man), ἐμπόρῳ (a merchant) ζητοῦντι (seeking) καλοὺς (fine) μαργαρίτας (pearls); 46 εὑρὼν (having found) δὲ (now) ἕνα (one) πολύτιμον (very precious) μαργαρίτην (pearl), ἀπελθὼν (having gone away), πέπρακεν (he has sold) πάντα (all things) ὅσα (as many as) εἶχεν (he had), καὶ (and) ἠγόρασεν (bought) αὐτόν (it).

It is one of his 3-in-a-row quick and lazy copies of Thomas that make it impossible to reverse the direction of dependence. This is such blatant plagiarism with less than a minute spent on copying, tossing in a few very unimaginative words that summarise the essence of the Thomas logion, that only zealous would try to plea the opposite case.
Yet perhaps Neil Godfrey will come up with an Aramaic version of Thomas though, just like Perrin did - and "demonstrate" all kinds of "houses of cards", also exactly like Perrin did