The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 9:28 am
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)
You're leaving out something here robert j - why? Did you click Submit too early ;)

Simon Peter; ⲥⲓⲙⲱⲛ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ, ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲁ: The Rock of logion 9, and the Tanakh, and the core of Judaism. Simon is portrayed as Simon the believer, the faithful, the religious follower, the mono-minded one, soaked in Judaism. And if that message isn't clear enough, his answer does the rest: an ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛ- ⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ is what IS resembles, according to him: although an ἄγγελος originally was just a messenger and nothing more, a Messenger in this case, perhaps an Angel is meant, yet it is one who is Righteous (the same word as in logion 12) at that: the superlatives stumble upon one another in this small sentence, where Simon The Rock calls IS a Righteous Messenger, and it is abundantly evident that Simon envisions a Rabbi "pur sang", a Teacher with a Divine touch - and Thomas once again ridicules religion in general but Judaism in particular, and the people that adhere to it.

robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by robert j »

@ mlinssen

OK, so Simon Peter represents --- or serves as stand-in, or serves as a model of, or some such --- the Rock of logion 9, as apparently indicated on page 148 of your commentary. (“Simon Peter … The Rock of logion 9, and the Tanakh, and the core of Judaism” p. 148)

And the failure of the seed sown on the rock to take root into the earth and to put forth heads of grain upward to the heaven in logion 9 is a polemic against Judaism, and indirectly against the “soaked in Judaism” (p. 148) Simon Peter introduced in logion 13.

Sure, there’s more to the message than that, but is at least that much accurate?
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 10:06 am @ mlinssen

OK, so Simon Peter represents --- or serves as stand-in, or serves as a model of, or some such --- the Rock of logion 9, as apparently indicated on page 148 of your commentary. (“Simon Peter … The Rock of logion 9, and the Tanakh, and the core of Judaism” p. 148)

And the failure of the seed sown on the rock to take root into the earth and to put forth heads of grain upward to the heaven in logion 9 is a polemic against Judaism, and indirectly against the “soaked in Judaism” (p. 148) Simon Peter introduced in logion 13.

Sure, there’s more to the message than that, but is at least that much accurate?
Almost. The Rock is of course wordplay on that same Rock in the Tanakh - hence why it's singular in logion 9 whereas the acacias are plural, and The Path naturally is singular; and hence why Simon is called Rock as well

One Tanakh, one Rock: the LORD. One Rock also in logion 9, the proper feminine word. And one "Rocky" so to say, a man called Simon nicknamed after said Rock - yet a masculine form of the word in logion 9

So whoever "falls to" (discovers) The Rock will find only shallow ground, and if you're nicknamed Rocky you'll see a Righteous Angel in anyone who speaks in riddles that you don't understand - because you're a gullible idiot.
Check? I forgot how we got here, to be honest. You are working towards something it would seem, but what is there in the Commentary that is unclear in this regard?
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 12:30 pm
robert j wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 10:06 am @ mlinssen

OK, so Simon Peter represents --- or serves as stand-in, or serves as a model of, or some such --- the Rock of logion 9, as apparently indicated on page 148 of your commentary. (“Simon Peter … The Rock of logion 9, and the Tanakh, and the core of Judaism” p. 148)

And the failure of the seed sown on the rock to take root into the earth and to put forth heads of grain upward to the heaven in logion 9 is a polemic against Judaism, and indirectly against the “soaked in Judaism” (p. 148) Simon Peter introduced in logion 13.

Sure, there’s more to the message than that, but is at least that much accurate?
Almost. The Rock is of course wordplay on that same Rock in the Tanakh - hence why it's singular in logion 9 ...
Yes, I acknowledged your interpretation on that connection in a response earlier today.

mlinssen wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 12:30 pm
One Tanakh, one Rock: the LORD. One Rock also in logion 9, the proper feminine word. And one "Rocky" so to say, a man called Simon nicknamed after said Rock - yet a masculine form of the word in logion 9

So whoever "falls to" (discovers) The Rock will find only shallow ground, and if you're nicknamed Rocky you'll see a Righteous Angel in anyone who speaks in riddles that you don't understand - because you're a gullible idiot.
OK, I understand your interpretation on that.

mlinssen wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 12:30 pm
You are working towards something it would seem, but what is there in the Commentary that is unclear in this regard?
I think I'm clear on your interpretation of the relationships between logia 9 and 13. Whether or not I might be working toward something, I guess time will tell. But, at least for now, I'll need to put this discussion on a back burner.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by gryan »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:52 am
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.
I fixated here:

Mark
καὶ ἐὰν βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν μερισθῇ, οὐ δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία ἐκείνη·

Luke
Πᾶσα βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν διαμερισθεῖσα ἐρημοῦται,

Matt
Πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ' ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται

Looks to me like Luke read Mark and got creative. Then Matt read Luke and made only slight but painstaking and studious changes to Luke's wording (with awareness of Mark's wording).

I like "Case 2".
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:04 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:52 am
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.
I fixated here:

Mark
καὶ ἐὰν βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν μερισθῇ, οὐ δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία ἐκείνη·

Luke
Πᾶσα βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν διαμερισθεῖσα ἐρημοῦται,

Matt
Πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ' ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται

Looks to me like Luke read Mark and got creative. Then Matt read Luke and made only slight but painstaking and studious changes to Luke's wording (with awareness of Mark's wording).

I like "Case 2".
gryan,

Do you have a logical argument for why the sequence Mark=>Luke=>Matthew is better than Mark=>Matthew=>Luke, or is your liking Case 2 better an intuitive or perhaps aesthetic judgment?

And how did Matthew manage to keep his sources from agreeing against him (other than with ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν), was this a coincidence or an intentional result of his deliberately taking over the words they had in common?

Best,

Ken
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 »

gryan wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:04 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:52 am
I fixated here:

Mark
καὶ ἐὰν βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν μερισθῇ, οὐ δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία ἐκείνη·

Luke
Πᾶσα βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν διαμερισθεῖσα ἐρημοῦται,

Matt
Πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ' ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται

Looks to me like Luke read Mark and got creative. Then Matt read Luke and made only slight but painstaking and studious changes to Luke's wording (with awareness of Mark's wording).

I like "Case 2".
That's the basic scenario for most of the 72 logia that I traced in the NT.
What exactly is Matthew Posteriority if not this?
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by gryan »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:46 pm
gryan wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:04 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:52 am
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.
I fixated here:

Mark
καὶ ἐὰν βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν μερισθῇ, οὐ δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία ἐκείνη·

Luke
Πᾶσα βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν διαμερισθεῖσα ἐρημοῦται,

Matt
Πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ' ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται

Looks to me like Luke read Mark and got creative. Then Matt read Luke and made only slight but painstaking and studious changes to Luke's wording (with awareness of Mark's wording).

I like "Case 2".
gryan,

Do you have a logical argument for why the sequence Mark=>Luke=>Matthew is better than Mark=>Matthew=>Luke, or is your liking Case 2 better an intuitive or perhaps aesthetic judgment?

And how did Matthew manage to keep his sources from agreeing against him (other than with ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν), was this a coincidence or an intentional result of his deliberately taking over the words they had in common?
Ken,

In this tiny part of a verse (assuming Mark came first, and there is no Q) Luke is arguably closer to Mark, and Matthew is arguably derivative of Luke.

This tiny example supports my big picture: I think Matthew was written with Mark and Luke as sources, but composed intentionally to try to look more ancient/authoritative than both--more Hebrew, less Gentilizing, less influenced by Paul's gospel. I like the idea that the author of Matthew was composed so as to "keep his sources from agreeing against him" on anything essential (since a house divided against itself on essentials cannot stand).
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 »

gryan wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 6:49 am Ken,

In this tiny part of a verse (assuming Mark came first, and there is no Q) Luke is arguably closer to Mark, and Matthew is arguably derivative of Luke.

This tiny example supports my big picture: I think Matthew was written with Mark and Luke as sources, but composed intentionally to try to look more ancient/authoritative than both--more Hebrew, less Gentilizing, less influenced by Paul's gospel. I like the idea that the author of Matthew was composed so as to "keep his sources from agreeing against him" on anything essential (since a house divided against itself on essentials cannot stand).
gryan, that's exactly my findings for the 72 logia in the NT.
I think you'll enjoy the triple agreements in them, just search for

(Mark

and you'll find them all. Perhaps some are only double agreements, but most aren't. 37 of them anyway, the first starts at page 11 and the last one is at page 123

https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins

They're all written out in full - of course.
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 »

gryan wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 6:49 am
gryan wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 2:04 pm I fixated here:

Mark
καὶ ἐὰν βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν μερισθῇ, οὐ δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία ἐκείνη·

Luke
Πᾶσα βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν διαμερισθεῖσα ἐρημοῦται,

Matt
Πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ' ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται

Looks to me like Luke read Mark and got creative. Then Matt read Luke and made only slight but painstaking and studious changes to Luke's wording (with awareness of Mark's wording).
In this tiny part of a verse (assuming Mark came first, and there is no Q) Luke is arguably closer to Mark, and Matthew is arguably derivative of Luke.
I also stumbled upon this agreement with Mark.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 8:35 am It seems to me that Tenorikuma's most important argument is the third argument. He explained that.
But the converse isn’t true: not a single word borrowed from Mark 3 into Luke 11 is missing from Matthew 12. Not one. The odds of that happening are very small.

This claim is not entirely true. As far as I could see, there is at least one word. Mark and Luke agree in the phrase "ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν" (Mark 3:24, Luke 11:17) while Matthew used "καθ' ἑαυτῆς" (Matthew 12:25).
But Mark 3:26, Matthew 12:26 and Luke 11:18 agree in "ἐφ' ἑαυτὸν" and I think it's possible that Luke copied it from Matthew 12:26 and then he preferred it in Luke 11:17 as well.

Mark 3 Matthew 12 Luke 11
24 καὶ ἐὰν βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν μερισθῇ, οὐ δύναται σταθῆναι ἡ βασιλεία ἐκείνη·25 καὶ ἐὰν οἰκία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν μερισθῇ, οὐ δυνήσεται ἡ οἰκία ἐκείνη σταθῆναι. 25 Πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ' ἑαυτῆς ἐρημοῦται, καὶ πᾶσα πόλις ἢ οἰκία μερισθεῖσα καθ' ἑαυτῆς οὐ σταθήσεται. 17 Πᾶσα βασιλεία ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν διαμερισθεῖσα ἐρημοῦται, καὶ οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον πίπτει.
26 καὶ εἰ ὁ Σατανᾶς ἀνέστη ἐφ' ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἐμερίσθη, οὐ δύναται στῆναι ἀλλὰ τέλος ἔχει. 26 καὶ εἰ ὁ Σατανᾶς τὸν Σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει, ἐφ' ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσθη·πῶς οὖν σταθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ; 18 εἰ δὲ καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐφ' ἑαυτὸν διεμερίσθη, πῶς σταθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ;

Post Reply