The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

[Ken Olson]

Re: MacEwen’s Argument as presented by Ken Olson:

1) There is extensive word-for-word agreement between Matthew and Mark.

2) There is extensive word-for-word agreement between Matthew and Luke.

3) There is much less word-for-word agreement between Luke and Mark.

I find that the starting point is only half true. Ben and I had a nice discussion once and we both agreed that it's actually Luke who sometimes just copies Mark word for word. Contrary to first appearances, Matthew does this far less often, always changing a few small words here and there, although the story appears to be the same in translation.

The point is to distinguish between content and word usage. In terms of content, Luke takes much more liberties and differs from Mark more often than Matthew. Then of course he uses other words. But in terms of word usage, Luke copies Mark more thoughtless, while Matthew usually has these little twists. So when Luke fully agrees with Mark on the content, he rarely changes words, mostly just to smooth out the style. Matthew, on the other hand, always has his little changes.

Ben and I found that fascinating.

Thanks for engaging! Can you give a link to where you and Ben discussed this?

MacEwen's claim is based on his method of tabulation. He is counting the Significant Verbal Agreements (SVA's), which are verbatim agreements of four words or more. He counts the number of words found in SVA's in each category (e.g., Mark-Luke or Mark-Matthew) divided by the total words in each category to obtain a percentage. Much of the book is taken up with laying out the method and then presenting the results it in a multitude of tables (he actually lists all the SVA's in each category). If you use a different method to measure agreement, your results will vary - and, as I point out in the blog, one may not entirely agree with MacEwen on what pericopes should count as belonging to a particular category (particularly the Matthew-L.uke category).

Best,

Ken

[mlinssen]

(79a) A woman from the crowd said to him, "Blessed are the womb which bore you and the breasts which nourished you." (79b) He said to her, "Blessed are those who have heard the word of the father and have truly kept it.
(79c) For there will be days when you will say, 'Blessed are the womb which has not conceived and the breasts which have not given milk.'"

(Mark 13:15 and let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter in, to take anything out of his house. 16 Let him who is in the field not return back to take his cloak. 17 But woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babies in those days!)

17:31 In that day, he who will be on the housetop and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away. Let him who is in the field likewise not turn back.

21:23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who nurse infants in those days! For there will be great distress in the land, and wrath to this people.

(Matthew 24:17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take out the things that are in his house. 18 Let him who is in the field not return back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are with child and to nursing mothers in those days!)

72 of cases like these in my https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins

Emphasised for (dis)agreements, and everything copied in full - so you can verify the extent to which MacEwen has a point

Needless to say, his findings fit perfectly with Luke being based on an already existing source, of course - which is redacted by Matthew into Luke

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Thanks for engaging! Can you give a link to where you and Ben discussed this?

Hi Ken, I don't think I'll find it again. It was a discussion that was slightly off topic of the thread.

Ben held that certain passages in GMark show that Mark used a source. I countered that there is a very specific word usage of Mark that can be found throughout Mark's gospel and also in the passages mentioned by Ben. Ben admitted this, but countered that typical word usage does not prove that no source was used, citing Matthew as a counter-example. Matthew used Mark as a source but he edited Mark's text with his own typical usage of words. (e.g. Matthew always used Nazorean instead of Mark's Nazarene. It is the same with many other words and phrases.) Although Matthew used a source, he edited this source very carefully in a way that created a typical Matthean style. I had to agree with Ben on this point but we also agreed that the same is not true of Luke and John to the same extent.

[Ken Olson]

Thanks for engaging! Can you give a link to where you and Ben discussed this?

Hi Ken, I don't think I'll find it again. It was a discussion that was slightly off topic of the thread.

Ben held that certain passages in GMark show that Mark used a source. I countered that there is a very specific word usage of Mark that can be found throughout Mark's gospel and also in the passages mentioned by Ben. Ben admitted this, but countered that typical word usage does not prove that no source was used, citing Matthew as a counter-example. Matthew used Mark as a source but he edited Mark's text with his own typical usage of words. (e.g. Matthew always used Nazorean instead of Mark's Nazarene. It is the same with many other words and phrases.) Although Matthew used a source, he edited this source very carefully in a way that created a typical Matthean style. I had to agree with Ben on this point but we also agreed that the same is not true of Luke and John to the same extent.

Okay, thanks. I don't know if you know Michael Goulder's Luke: A New Paradigm (1989) or mot, but he has a section on the Matthean Vocabulary fallacy and the Lucan Priority Fallacy. He argues that Matthew has a very recognizable style full of favorite words and phrases while Luke has a very broad vocabulary. This means that in the double tradition, where Mark is not present, Matthew's version will look Matthean and Luke's version will not look especially Lukan. This is why Q scholars (and MPH proponents) see Luke as the more primitive/earlier form. It's a bit more complex than that, of course, but those are the basics. But yes, Matthew's style is recognizable (except, of course where it shows up in Luk ).

Best,

Ken

[mlinssen]

But yes, Matthew's style is recognizable (except, of course where it shows up in Luk ).

Why isn't that a sign of Matthean redaction of Luke?

[Ken Olson]

But yes, Matthew's style is recognizable (except, of course where it shows up in Luk ).

Why isn't that a sign of Matthean redaction of Luke?

What I had in mind when I wrote that is the 17 instances of striking expressions found in multiple times in Matthew and occasionally in Luke that Goulder enumerated in 'Self Contradiction in the IQP' JBL 118 (1999) 506-517. Goulder gives counts for how often they occur in Matt/Mark/Q (i.e., Luke)/the rest of the NT. For each expression, in all the cases Matthew has multiple uses and Luke has it fewer times and only in contexts where Matt had it (i.e., he never has it elsewhere, only in contexts where Matthew has it), while Matthew has it several time in other contexts. Also, the expression does not occur elsewhere in the NT (including Mark). These expressions include 'wailing and gnashing of teeth', 'brood of vipers', and 'little faith.'

In the abstract, this could have been due to Matthew and Luke taking these expressions from Q and Matthew, liking them and using them additional times elsewhere in his gospel, while Luke took only some of them from Q and never added them elsewhere in other contexts (as the IQP suggests). That's not impossible. It could also be due to Luke copying them from Matthew (as Goulder proposes). Luke doesn't copy all of them, but picks up a few of them as he copies and reworks Matthean material. Goulder's point in the article is not that what the IQP claims is impossible, but that once you say that much of Matthew's redactional vocabulary is made up of expressions that occurred once or only a few times in Q which Matt liked and repeated multiple times, you cannot reconstruct Q by claiming Luke likely has the original version because Matthew's version is in Matthew's style (because you've just claimed that Matthew's style is taken from Q in a multitude of instances).

The same phenomenon could also be due Matthew having redacted Luke, as you suggest, or a later editor redacting both, or a number of other ways. Why isn't this possibility just as likely?

The answer has to do with intentionality and explicability. The possibility that Goulder advocates, that Luke took over one or a few of each instance of favorite Matthean expressions is something that is very likely to occur when an author is using a source and following its wording fairly closely, even without the author intending specifically to preserve instances of his sources favored expressions.

If Matthew redacted Luke, on he other hand, he must have decided he was going to add his favorite expressions to Luke, but in only a few cases, not all of them, and that he was never going to add these favorite expressions in other places where he had not used them in his own gospel. It's not at all obvious why he would intentionally set about to do that, and in such a way as to create the same effect as would have happened unintentionally in the course of Luke's use of Matthew.

As as an analogy, the Griesbach hypothesis postulates that Mark must have intentionally tried to base his version of the pericopes on the common wording of Matthew and Luke for the pericopes they had in common sequence (he discards the pericopes that are not in common sequence, even though many of them have extensive agreements in wording). This is not impossible, but we don't know of any other ancient writers trying to do this and it seems arbitrary (i.e. it's hard to supply a good rationale for what Mark decided to include and exclude).

The theory of Markan priority, on the other hand, can explain the same effect (why Mark is the middle term between Matthew and Luke in many pericopes) as something that is very likely to occur (i.e., it's very unlikely *not* to occur) as they rewrote Mark making their choices of what to use and what not to use independently of each other. That is to say, they had no intention to make Mark as the middle term, that it is something that is a necessary byproduct of the fact that they are both rewriting Mark

Best,

Ken

[mlinssen]

What I had in mind when I wrote that is the 17 instances of striking expressions found in multiple times in Matthew and occasionally in Luke that Goulder enumerated in 'Self Contradiction in the IQP' JBL 118 (1999) 506-517. Goulder gives counts for how often they occur in Matt/Mark/Q (i.e., Luke)/the rest of the NT. For each expression, in all the cases Matthew has multiple uses and Luke has it fewer times and only in contexts where Matt had it (i.e., he never has it elsewhere, only in contexts where Matthew has it), while Matthew has it several time in other contexts. Also, the expression does not occur elsewhere in the NT (including Mark). These expressions include 'wailing and gnashing of teeth', 'brood of vipers', and 'little faith.'

In the abstract, this could have been due to Matthew and Luke taking these expressions from Q and Matthew, liking them and using them additional times elsewhere in his gospel, while Luke took only some of them from Q and never added them elsewhere in other contexts (as the IQP suggests). That's not impossible. It could also be due to Luke copying them from Matthew (as Goulder proposes). Luke doesn't copy all of them, but picks up a few of them as he copies and reworks Matthean material. Goulder's point in the article is not that what the IQP claims is impossible, but that once you say that much of Matthew's redactional vocabulary is made up of expressions that occurred once or only a few times in Q which Matt liked and repeated multiple times, you cannot reconstruct Q by claiming Luke likely has the original version because Matthew's version is in Matthew's style (because you've just claimed that Matthew's style is taken from Q in a multitude of instances).

The same phenomenon could also be due Matthew having redacted Luke, as you suggest, or a later editor redacting both, or a number of other ways. Why isn't this possibility just as likely?

The answer has to do with intentionality and explicability. The possibility that Goulder advocates, that Luke took over one or a few of each instance of favorite Matthean expressions is something that is very likely to occur when an author is using a source and following its wording fairly closely, even without the author intending specifically to preserve instances of his sources favored expressions.

If Matthew redacted Luke, on he other hand, he must have decided he was going to add his favorite expressions to Luke, but in only a few cases, not all of them, and that he was never going to add these favorite expressions in other places where he had not used them in his own gospel. It's not at all obvious why he would intentionally set about to do that, and in such a way as to create the same effect as would have happened unintentionally in the course of Luke's use of Matthew.

As as an analogy, the Griesbach hypothesis postulates that Mark must have intentionally tried to base his version of the pericopes on the common wording of Matthew and Luke for the pericopes they had in common sequence (he discards the pericopes that are not in common sequence, even though many of them have extensive agreements in wording). This is not impossible, but we don't know of any other ancient writers trying to do this and it seems arbitrary (i.e. it's hard to supply a good rationale for what Mark decided to include and exclude).

The theory of Markan priority, on the other hand, can explain the same effect (why Mark is the middle term between Matthew and Luke in many pericopes) as something that is very likely to occur (i.e., it's very unlikely *not* to occur) as they rewrote Mark making their choices of what to use and what not to use independently of each other. That is to say, they had no intention to make Mark as the middle term, that it is something that is a necessary byproduct of the fact that they are both rewriting Mark

Best,

Ken

Hah - that's an awful lot of context and there seems to be nothing amiss at first sight. But I'll get the article and then see how those fit with my theory of LukeMatthew which, to be perfectly frank, I never even put to the test

But it is all about intention indeed! The idea is that, when I strip the Matthean redaction from Luke, that I get *Ev - Matthew just couldn't be bothered to create a Lukan style other than what his input gave him: Mark, *Ev and (I think Coptic) Thomas. So where he needs Luke to support his own gospel (or vice versa) he just copies verbatim

At least that's my idea - let's see how that works out

[DCHindley]

I still think that E P Sanders' The tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969) has completely emasculated attempts to claim that expansions and contractions of accounts "prove" dependence or independence.

I had scanned and posted the TOC and his summary here:

viewtopic.php?p=39649#p39649

And isn't the definition of "agreement" or "disagreement" as variable as there are scholars who use it as a criterion?

DCH

[mlinssen]

I still think that E P Sanders hast completely emasculated attempts to claim that expansions and contractions of accounts "prove" dependence.

I had scanned and posted the TOC and his summary here:

viewtopic.php?p=39649#p39649

And isn't the definition of "agreement" or "disagreement" as variable as there are scholars who use it as a criterion?

I haven't read Sanders, but the link you posted here.
It is idiotic to take a literary device and then see whether that's conclusive in demonstrating dependence, either Sanders is an incompetent idiot like Nicholas Perrin or his goal is to sow doubt

Compare Matthew's 13:44-48 with Thomas' logion 109, 76 and 8, and it is evident that Thomas couldn't have created those in the basis of what Matthew has

Biblical scholars fail because they focus on context when if they do look at content - most of them are perfectly incapable of sticking to only the content. And then the boundaries of agreement and disagreement get vague, indeed.
Verbatim agreement and verbatim disagreement: those are what to look for and decide upon

[Ken Olson]

I still think that E P Sanders' The tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1969) has completely emasculated attempts to claim that expansions and contractions of accounts "prove" dependence or independence.

I had scanned and posted the TOC and his summary here:

viewtopic.php?p=39649#p39649

And isn't the definition of "agreement" or "disagreement" as variable as there are scholars who use it as a criterion?

DCH

David,

Two points.

1) I fully agree with Sanders that there is no principle that accounts (individual pericopes) become either longer or shorter in the course of transmission. It could go either way. I don't recall anything I've said to suggest otherwise. (This is one of many points with which I agree with what Sanders argued in Tendencies - great book).

Who in this thread are you pointing to as in disagreement with this principle?

2) It's true that agreements and disagreements can have many definitions. But this is one of the virtues of MacEwen's book - he gives a specific definition that what he's talking about are what he calls Significant Verbal Agreements meaning verbatim agreements of four words or more. That makes it possible to evaluate his claims using the definitions he gives.

Also, as I've said before, he is unusually even-handed in applying his method to the different source theories in his book.

Best,

Ken