The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 10:53 am https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kl ... ospels.svg

494px-Klinghardt's_Marcion_hypothesis_-_four_canonical_gospels.svg.png

"Conventional wisdom"? Or is just a tad easier to play a game if one sets the rules himself?
No; while the 'conventional wisdom' to which I referred is based on the findings of classicists that ancient authors generally followed one source at a time, the choice between the Farrer and Matthean Priority Hypotheses is based on a logical deduction, which the three students analogy was intended to illustrate.

Case 1: On the Farrer theory, if Luke follows Matthew alone for the Beelzebul pericope while changing much of the wording, he will take over some of Matthew's agreements with Mark because they are in Matthew's text. Tenorikuma's claim that it's very unlikely to take over only bits of Mark that Matthew also took over is wrong, because a Luke who is following Matthew alone has access *only* to those bits of Mark that are in Matthew. The thing that Tenorikuma thinks is unlikely is actually nearly inevitable.

Case 2: The same is not true for Tenorikuma's own theory theory that Matthew conflated Mark and Luke. On that theory, Matthew is not taking over all of Mark's words nor all of Luke's, but he gets very nearly everything they have in common. Unlike the above case, this is very unlikely to happen unintentionally. Matthew must have intended to take over (nearly) every word they have in common as the basis for his own version, which would require him to have closely compared the texts and somehow noted which words were in agreement (by underlining maybe?) and then write his own version to include them. That's not impossible, but it's much more difficult and I don't know of any examples of an ancient author doing it.

So the fact that Matthew has (nearly) every word that Luke and Mark have in common in the Beelzebul pericope could be either an unintentional side-effect that will necessarily occur if Luke was using Matthew alone (Farrer, Case 1) or it could be the result of Matthew deciding, for unknown reasons, to identify all the words his two sources had in common and make those the basis for his own version, a procedure which is difficult and , as far as I'm aware, unprecedented.

This is the basis for saying that the Farrer theory is preferable to the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis for the Beelzebul pericope (i.e., it can give a more plausible account of why the data look like they do).

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:52 am
mlinssen wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 10:53 am https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kl ... ospels.svg

494px-Klinghardt's_Marcion_hypothesis_-_four_canonical_gospels.svg.png

"Conventional wisdom"? Or is just a tad easier to play a game if one sets the rules himself?
No. While the 'conventional wisdom' to which I referred is based on the findings of classicists that ancient authors generally followed one source at a time, the choice between the Farrer and Matthean Priority Hypotheses is based on a logical deduction, which the three students analogy was intended to illustrate.
"Ancient authors" - do you think that is a good sample to compare the gospel-writers to?
Would you put all contemporary authors in the same box when trying to come up with theories, methods, variations - or do you think that it is hilariously convenient to do so, and awfully shortsighted?

It is absolutely ridiculous (and I am being very kind here) to not even separate between fiction and non-fiction, let alone to take into account the entire goal behind a text. Do you think a Socrates or Plato had only one source? Seneca? Marcus Aurelius? The Tao? Philo? Josephus, for that matter?

Are we using a generic label again ("classicists") to refer to the very specific group of select people that biblical academic would like to use (and doesn't shy from doing so) in order to make their truths come true? "Historians" is one such term as well.
I have had a classical education, they call that Grammar School in Britain - let me tell you that we were taught (and verified with our own eyes) that the very essence of a good author is that he pulls from multiple sources - the more the better
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Stuart »

Going back to the OP, if for no other reason than it'll take me hours to read through all 6 pages of posts (but I'll try), synoptic problem studies are hopelessly deadlocked, with no (popular) model successfully accounting for all the material. I think the problem is, all the arguments are completely devoid of theological context. (So yes Vinzent is correct, Patristic studies is required to gain insight.)

All the popular models result in requiring that new communities with beliefs that do not map to anything we know exist.

All the popular models hold sway, as does MacEwens, if we examine passages that fit the model, but ignore passages that don't. Usually a great deal of the argument is attempting to downplay or disqualify elements that contradict the theory.

For those reasons I junked the approaches that attempted to resolve the Synoptic problem purely mechanically, or by simple one way redaction, without consideration of the theology. And junking these, I also junk the false assumptions and recognize instead:

1. None of the Gospels we have is an early form, and none of them is an intermediate form. All are redacted and adjusted final versions.
2. The real process of writing the gospels was evolutionary, not inspirational. That is they developed organically from communities that were using much of the material for some other purpose than evangelism, they were not (initially) invented out of whole clothe.
3. The communities must have conformed relatively closely to communities described by the earlier church fathers.
4. These were not easy to make, and required strong motivation to compose them, not some whim.
// this should be self evident, as to prosper a gospel must have a supporting sect to produce copies and evangelize this version of the gospel.
// each gospel we have was initially the result of one sect or other taking (great) offense at a gospel in circulation, so sought to correct it.
// some of the gospels were reworked at least two times after their initial release.

As a result I think all the models are correct for an element here or there, but mostly incorrect. I think the proper approach is the work backwards and determine which gospel in circulation was the one this other gospel we are looking at was written in response to.

I recommend you start with the Gospel of John and work backwards from that.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by perseusomega9 »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:52 am ...While the 'conventional wisdom' to which I referred is based on the findings of classicists that ancient authors generally followed one source at a time...
Is this a conclusion derived from scroll use or scroll and codex?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

perseusomega9 wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:37 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:52 am ...While the 'conventional wisdom' to which I referred is based on the findings of classicists that ancient authors generally followed one source at a time...
Is this a conclusion derived from scroll use or scroll and codex?
Perseusomega 9,

After this long on the forum, I probably shouldn't be surprised that people are much more interested in the introductory clause of the sentence I wrote than in the main clause and the argument that follows it in the post. My argument in that post was that we have reason to prefer the account that can be offered by the Farrer theory to that offered by the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis that are independent of the theory that ancient authors generally followed one source at a time (though consistent with that theory).

If you want to know to which classicists I was referring, you could read my MA Thesis, which was linked in the earlier thread to which I linked:

https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/hand ... sAllowed=y

Abstract
This thesis examines the viability of the Farrer theory of how The Gospel
According to Luke was written in light of the influential criticisms of that theory by F.G.
Downing. Downing argues that on Farrer’s theory, Luke has departed from known
compositional procedures of Graeco-Roman authors in deserting the common witness of
his sources, in picking out Matthew’s additions to Mark from Matthew’s gospel to use in
his own work, and in removing the Markan parallels from the Matthean additions that he
has picked out. This thesis will argue to the contrary that in following one of his sources
at a time rather than trying to follow both simultaneously, and in using material from his
second (Matthean) source to supplement his main (Markan) source, Farrer’s Luke appears
to be following accepted ancient compositional methods, and that he has no demonstrable
tendency to remove Markan parallels from his use of Matthew

There, I discuss the one-source-at-a-time which synoptic scholars F. G. Downing and Robert Derrenbacker find in the classicists they read (which I cite in the thesis). A more concise version of the thesis was published as Ken Olson, 'Unpicking on the Farrer Theory' in Questioning Q, edited by Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin (2004) 127-150.

In this thread, I have acknowledged that scholarship since then has increasingly acknowledged that we have examples of ancient authors conflating within episodes. It was never denied that authors used more than one source, but that they generally did not closely conflate reading of individual within episodes and even within individual lines. While we do have examples of conflation, this does not mean that we should *expect* any given ancient author to conflate his sources in any particular case and I'm not aware that anyone has argued that no ancient author followed one source at a time.

More recent bibliographical suggestions:

James Barker, 'Ancient Compositional Practices: A Reassessment' Journal of Biblical Literature 135.1 (2016) 109-121.

Abstract
Recent studies of ancient compositional practices and the Synoptic Problem have
validated the Two-Source hypothesis and challenged the “Augustinian,” Farrer–
Goulder, and Griesbach hypotheses. These studies conclude that, according to
the Two-Source hypothesis, subsequent evangelists would have adhered to the
Greco-Roman conventions of working with one source at a time and not working
backward through a text. The present essay adduces counterexamples such as the
Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever, which predates the Gospels, and
Tatian’s Diatessaron, which postdates the Gospels. Upon further examination,
simultaneously accessing multiple sources and reordering those sources were
established compositional practices in the first century. Moreover, every solution
to the Synoptic Problem necessitates such scribal conventions. Therefore, the
lesser extent of these ancient compositional practices does not privilege the Two-
Source hypothesis over its rivals.

Barker has another piece in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook to the Synoptic Gospels. I've read his piece, but I don't know when the volume will be published. Nor does Barker, for that matter.

Specifically advocating the Farrer theory (but discussing the roll vs codex issue about which you asked):

John C. Poirier, 'The Roll, the Codex, the Wax Tablet, and the Synoptic Problem, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35: 3–30 2012.

Abstract
The Farrer hypothesis, especially as defended by Michael Goulder, has often been
faulted for its supposed reliance on an anachronistic and technically impracticable
understanding of Luke’s compositional practices. A closer look at the arguments against
Farrer and Goulder, however, reveals a number of problems with this charge, including
(but not limited to) its dependence on an inadequate understanding of how works
were actually composed in antiquity. Goulder’s suggestion that Luke worked backwards
through Matthew, in particular, has received a certain amount of criticism, but that
scenario is shown here to be both technically feasible and perfectly in keeping with the
way the ancients sometimes worked. Perhaps the greatest problem with the arguments
made against the Farrer hypothesis is that they ignore Luke’s likely use of the wax
tablet as a compositional aid—a medium that would have allowed Luke to rearrange
Matthew’s material as freely as Farrerians suppose

.
Best,

Ken
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by schillingklaus »

All those questions are self-created problems of uncritical scholars, specifically Markan prioritists . By recognizing the need of lost sources, those disappear like ice in the sunshine.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

schillingklaus wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:09 am All those questions are self-created problems of uncritical scholars ...
On the contrary. These questions are, by their very nature, questions of the historical critical scholarship.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by robert j »

robert j wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:56 pm
mlinssen wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:42 am
Simon Peter is in Thomas, logion 13 and 114 ...

With absolute Thomasine priority, how would you account for the previously unknown personal name “Peter” in logia 13 and 114 in GThomas?

mlinssen wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:48 pm
...

3) The name points to logion 9, that of the Sower

ⲁ ⲩ ϩⲉ ⲉϫⲛ ̅ ⲧ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲁ - did they fall upon The Rock

Singular, stands for Da Rock as we know it: pages 116-118 of the Commentary if you please

https://www.academia.edu/46974146/Compl ... n_content_

I’m confused here.

About the name Simon Peter in logion 13, in your response here to my question, you wrote that the name Peter points to logion 9, the sower ---

3) The name points to logion 9, that of the Sower

But in your linked commentary on logion 13, you wrote that “Simon Peter … The Rock of logion 9, and the Tanakh, and the core of Judaism” (p. 148). So does Simon Peter represent the sower or the rock in logion 9?

If I understand your wider commentary there and for logion 9, the rock in logion 9 represents Judaism and the God of the Jews (related the use of “rock” in the Tanakh). And the failed sowing of seed on the rock surface represents a polemic against Judaism and the God of the Jews, as well as a polemic against Simon Peter. Is that the gist of it?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by mlinssen »

robert j wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 8:28 am
robert j wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 1:56 pm
mlinssen wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:42 am
Simon Peter is in Thomas, logion 13 and 114 ...

With absolute Thomasine priority, how would you account for the previously unknown personal name “Peter” in logia 13 and 114 in GThomas?
That's easy, they're all characters in Thomas' story:

viewtopic.php?p=122994#p122994

Peter is a Rock just like the Rock in logion 9 is: both represent the mono-minded Judaism

I hope you're not making the error of "previously unknown" by starting in the NT, dating that as early as possible, and consequently inquire after every other text how said text could possibly know about that previously unknown character.
You can't use any of the dating, it's all hearsay and no MS has been carbon dated but one of the covers of the NHL - to 350 CE round and about

Follow the texts, establish precedence of one over the other, rise and repeat - that's the only way


mlinssen wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:48 pm
...

3) The name points to logion 9, that of the Sower

ⲁ ⲩ ϩⲉ ⲉϫⲛ ̅ ⲧ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲁ - did they fall upon The Rock

Singular, stands for Da Rock as we know it: pages 116-118 of the Commentary if you please

https://www.academia.edu/46974146/Compl ... n_content_

I’m confused here.

About the name Simon Peter in logion 13, in your response here to my question, you wrote that the name Peter points to logion 9, the sower ---

3) The name points to logion 9, that of the Sower

But in your linked commentary on logion 13, you wrote that “Simon Peter … The Rock of logion 9, and the Tanakh, and the core of Judaism” (p. 148). So does Simon Peter represent the sower or the rock in logion 9?

If I understand your wider commentary there and for logion 9, the rock in logion 9 represents Judaism and the God of the Jews (related the use of “rock” in the Tanakh). And the failed sowing of seed on the rock surface represents a polemic against Judaism and the God of the Jews, as well as a polemic against Simon Peter. Is that the gist of it?
In logion 9 ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲁ is the proper Coptic Greek loanword (sic) for rock, and it is feminine. ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ isn't even in the dictionary, but it's how the masculine creation of the word world look like. What the sower ejaculates falls on the rock, feminine singular, in logion 9 / payable of the Sower - and fails to root, to the bottom of the earth, and also fails to put forth heads of grain, upward to the heaven

That's a double wink-wink there on top of the word rock of course: there's even wordplay on buying a place into heaven as grain was used as monetary means and the particular dialect form of "put forth" is very close (yet unattested in the dictionary) to that of the verb "to buy"

Thomas works in perfect order, his logia are very coherently working towards his story - Simon doesn't exist yet in logion 9, so logion 9 puts down Judaism (see explanation above) and logion 13 puts down Judaism by having Peter give the religious answer - and of course he gets ignored, like Matthew (who gives the philosophical answer).
The sowing doesn't fail, by the way ;)
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by robert j »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 8:55 am ... Simon doesn't exist yet in logion 9 ...
Sure, the personal name hasn't been introduced yet, But ... ???

In your linked commentary on logion 13, you wrote that “Simon Peter … The Rock of logion 9, and the Tanakh, and the core of Judaism” (p. 148)
Post Reply