Well, I answered some questions from the host, Jacob Berman, and some from the Live Chat. The most useful feedback I got from the comments was two people telling me not to bang the table the microphone was on. (I'll work on it).
The episode was originally supposed to have been a debate with me representing Farrer-Goulder vs. someone representing Matthean Posteriority, but that didn't work out and Jacob just interviewed me. I pitched a few ideas to Jacob afterward and we're planning to do further episodes where I talk about the extent of Matthean creativity on the Farrer-Goulder theory, the date of the synoptic gospels, and perhaps a debate if Jacob can find someone to take the opposing position.
Well, I answered some questions from the host, Jacob Berman, and some from the Live Chat. The most useful feedback I got from the comments was two people telling me not to bang the table the microphone was on. (I'll work on it).
The episode was originally supposed to have been a debate with me representing Farrer-Goulder vs. someone representing Matthean Posteriority, but that didn't work out and Jacob just interviewed me. I pitched a few ideas to Jacob afterward and we're planning to do further episodes where I talk about the extent of Matthean creativity on the Farrer-Goulder theory, the date of the synoptic gospels, and perhaps a debate if Jacob can find someone to take the opposing position.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:34 pm
The episode was originally supposed to have been a debate with me representing Farrer-Goulder vs. someone representing Matthean Posteriority, but that didn't work out and Jacob just interviewed me. I pitched a few ideas to Jacob afterward and we're planning to do further episodes where I talk about the extent of Matthean creativity on the Farrer-Goulder theory, the date of the synoptic gospels, and perhaps a debate if Jacob can find someone to take the opposing position.
I'm impressed by the argument that Matt has Jesus telling his disciples to avoid the Samaritans and Matt also omits Luke's stories involving Samaritans.
I also listened to this interview:
Matthew's Dependence On Luke's Gospel And The Didache - Professor Alan Garrow
While I'm interested in learning more about the idea that parts of Didache functioned as an M source, I am opposed to Garrow's argument that Didache was the actual letter sent by the pillar James. I think it is later than Paul. Garrow accepts a prevailing reading of Paul's arrogant posture toward the pillars which I am deconstructing.
Well, I answered some questions from the host, Jacob Berman, and some from the Live Chat. The most useful feedback I got from the comments was two people telling me not to bang the table the microphone was on. (I'll work on it).
The episode was originally supposed to have been a debate with me representing Farrer-Goulder vs. someone representing Matthean Posteriority, but that didn't work out and Jacob just interviewed me. I pitched a few ideas to Jacob afterward and we're planning to do further episodes where I talk about the extent of Matthean creativity on the Farrer-Goulder theory, the date of the synoptic gospels, and perhaps a debate if Jacob can find someone to take the opposing position.
Best,
Ken
Do you need any volunteers?
Martijn,
You might contact Jacob Berman at History Valley and suggest he do an episode on your theory of absolute Thomasine priority if you want to do that. But what he and I discussed was having me debate a representative of the Matthean Posteriority camp such as Rob MacEwen or Alan Garrow.
Are there books arguing for Matthean Posteriority?
Are there (in said books) implications of the thesis? I think in particular about Matthew being not more considered as a Jewish-Christian Gospel (= one in some way connected with the "memory" of the Pillars) but as a Catholic gospel (one where the presumed Jewish pro-Pillars surface is fictional, being built artificially purely in opposition to the gentilizing Luke) ?
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:15 am
Are there books arguing for Matthean Posteriority?
Are there (in said books) implications of the thesis? I think in particular about Matthew being not more considered as a Jewish-Christian Gospel (= one in some way connected with the "memory" of the Pillars) but as a Catholic gospel (one where the presumed Jewish pro-Pillars surface is fictional, being built artificially purely in opposition to the gentilizing Luke) ?
I'm not aware of any books on Matthean posteriority that discuss the issue of Matthew as a Catholic rather than a Jewish Christian gospel. Rob MacEwen's book, mentioned in the OP, does not, nor IIRC do the papers of Ronald V. Huggins and Alan Garrow. They are all focused on the synoptic problem in the narrow sense.
gryan wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 11:48 pm
Yes, subsequent to listening to your interview, I listened to this one:
Did Matthew Use Luke's Gospel? - Dr. Robert K. MacEWEN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjHNRztImSM
I'm impressed by the argument that Matt has Jesus telling his disciples to avoid the Samaritans and Matt also omits Luke's stories involving Samaritans.
gryan,
Most of the earlier enumerated points MacEwen gives in his power point are points that have been previously made by proponents of the Farrer theory, but reversed. His point (3), countering the argument that Matthew would not have omitted so much of Luke's special material had he known it is the reverse of the Farrer counter to the argument that Luke would not have omitted so much of Matthew's special material had he known it. On a general level, I think both sides (MPH and Farrer) make a good point. An author might well omit some material, or even a lot of material, found in his or her sources. I'm not claiming Farrer has an advantage over the MPH in that.
Regarding the specific argument about why Matthew omitted Luke's stories involving Samaritans (timetrack 18:10), MacEwen's explanation is one possibility. However, I think the reason that Matthew did not use any of Luke's Samaritan stories may be the same reason that Mark didn't use any of Luke's Samaritan stories, which reason MacEwen does not address. That reason may well be that Mark and Matthew did not know any Samaritan stories, and perhaps they did not even exist when Mark and Matthew were written. It is perfectly understandable on the Farrer theory that the canonical gospels were written in the order Mark Matthew Luke John that the several mentions of Samaria and Samaritans in Luke-Acts and John are later additions to the tradition. I would go so far as to suggest that a very plausible case can (and has) been made that the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10 and the story of the Samaritan Woman in John 4 are, at least in the canonical form in which we have them, compositions by the evangelists in whose gospels they appear.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:46 am
I would go so far as to suggest that a very plausible case can (and has) been made that the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10 and the story of the Samaritan Woman in John 4 are, at least in the canonical form in which we have them, compositions by the evangelists in whose gospels they appear.
Best,
Ken
Why is a similar attitude not taken to all material unique to Luke and unique to John? Or is it by some scholars?
Re: "The Gospel of Matthew quickly became the most popular synoptic Gospel"
MacEWEN made a point of this during his closing statement. Is this evidence that it was written last? I suspect it is so.
Thesis: The last written synoptic Gospel was the most appreciated because the author knew his intended audience better. For example, perhaps he knew the Samaritan stories were disliked, and so omitted them. On the other hand, perhaps he also knew that James the Lord's blood brother had a growing fan following, and so he added that bit from Mark which Luke had omitted--minus the "lesser" put-down.
Last edited by gryan on Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
gryan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:17 am
Re: "The Gospel of Matthew quickly became the most popular synoptic Gospel"
MacEWEN made a point of this during his closing statement. Is this evidence that it was written last? I suspect it is so.
Thesis: The last written synoptic Gospel was the most appreciated because the author knew his intended audience better.
If so, why were there no traditions attempting to explain and justify its lateness, as with GJohn? Rather, the traditions insisted that it was the first written.
I am not disagreeing with you, but throwing out ideas.