The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

[DCHindley]

Ohhh K.

Sanders might be looking down from heaven and thinking the same about you.

[Ken Olson]

Ohhh K.

Sanders might be looking down from heaven and thinking the same about you.

He's still alive (or was last I heard).

Best,

Ken

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I have posted a critique of Robert MacEwen's argument from verbatim agreement, focusing on the Crucial Issue of Verbatim Agreement in his response to Mark Goodacre (linked above), but dealing with the data he presented in his book Matthean Posteriority as well:

https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... t-macewen/

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).

Of course, I don't know if everything you say about Robert MacEwen's argument is true. But if that's the case, I find your counter-arguments persuasive. That doesn't mean I would reject the MPH but just MacEwen’s arguments in favour of it.

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.

Ultimately, I have absolutely no idea and no overview of all the problems that play a role here. However, from the two or three things I looked at, I got the impression that the appeal to Luke's so-called primitiveness doesn't hold water.

I find it really interesting to see the different outcome of considerations that include other factors or not. I think that if you just compare Matthew's and Luke's Lord's Prayer, almost everything suggests that Luke's version is more original, especially the opening formula.

Matthew 6:9	Luke 11:2
Our Father who is in the heavens!	Father!

Luke's shorter formula seems simpler and more primitive. If you then consider that Matthew also used the phrase „our father who is in the heavens“ in several other places and it is therefore a very typically Matthean phrase, there is actually every indication that Matthew extended Luke's formula.

But it seems to me that we get a very different impression if we include Paul and Mark in our considerations.

Paul	Mark	Matthew
Romans 8:26 We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.	11:10 “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” 11:25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father who is in the heavens may forgive you your sins.”	6:9 “’Our Father who is in the heavens, hallowed be your name, 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

From Paul we get the impression that the Lord's Prayer did not exist in his time and that it is a later creation. Also, one of the sources of this creation seems to be Mark 11:25.

Mark used the phrase „your father who is in the heavens“ as an admonition to the disciples that the true father is not the earthly ancestor David, but the heavenly God. It seems to me that Matthew used Mark’s phrase, turned it into „our father who is in the heavens“, liked it and used it elsewhere as well. Because of this, there seems to be much more evidence that Luke reduced Matthews formula.

[mlinssen]

Ohhh K.

Sanders might be looking down from heaven and thinking the same about you.

Let me explain where my thinly veiled anger comes from: there are so many useless studies that get used by others as if they were a demonstration of anything:

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.

Look at just the ToC of his book, and then the conclusion that you draw - where is the relation between either?
Yet here you are, making a sweeping statement about "expansions and contractions of accounts" and how Sanders has "completely emasculated attempts to claim that "they prove "dependence or independence"

Look at the burial of Jesus and it is clear that Mark starts it, and John really gets all Jewish about it. Matthew and Luke obviously are inbetween somewhere, but in which order? Yet would e.g. John come first and Mark come last? Then you'd need to provide an argument for the fact that Mark drops so much.
Look at the crucifixion: none of them has any nails, hands and feet, crossbean or anything - and then, finally, at the end behind the end, John has Thomas inquire about the 'type' (imprint) of nails in his hands - and that is guaranteed to be a late interpolation exactly because the content of the crucifixion only has a stake and nothing more.
Look at the parable of the tenants in Thomas and the Synoptics, hell, look at all 72 copies of Thomas - I've gone by them all in a most objective and complete way and the 140 pages of result are free to read: https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins

Just have a go at them DCH, and see for yourself whether size matters

[Ken Olson]

Of course, I don't know if everything you say about Robert MacEwen's argument is true. But if that's the case, I find your counter-arguments persuasive. That doesn't mean I would reject the MPH but just MacEwen’s arguments in favour of it.

Right. I'm not claiming to have disproved the possibility of the MPH, only that MacEwen's argument does not give reason to favor it over other hypotheses. Or at least, not Farrer. I have to admit I really did not examine his arguments against Griesbach carefully.

Ultimately, I have absolutely no idea and no overview of all the problems that play a role here. However, from the two or three things I looked at, I got the impression that the appeal to Luke's so-called primitiveness doesn't hold water.

I find it really interesting to see the different outcome of considerations that include other factors or not. I think that if you just compare Matthew's and Luke's Lord's Prayer, almost everything suggests that Luke's version is more original, especially the opening formula.

Matthew 6:9	Luke 11:2
Our Father who is in the heavens!	Father!

Luke's shorter formula seems simpler and more primitive. If you then consider that Matthew also used the phrase „our father who is in the heavens“ in several other places and it is therefore a very typically Matthean phrase, there is actually every indication that Matthew extended Luke's formula.

But it seems to me that we get a very different impression if we include Paul and Mark in our considerations.

Paul	Mark	Matthew
Romans 8:26 We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.	11:10 “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” 11:25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father who is in the heavens may forgive you your sins.”	6:9 “’Our Father who is in the heavens, hallowed be your name, 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

From Paul we get the impression that the Lord's Prayer did not exist in his time and that it is a later creation. Also, one of the sources of this creation seems to be Mark 11:25.

Mark used the phrase „your father who is in the heavens“ as an admonition to the disciples that the true father is not the earthly ancestor David, but the heavenly God. It seems to me that Matthew used Mark’s phrase, turned it into „our father who is in the heavens“, liked it and used it elsewhere as well. Because of this, there seems to be much more evidence that Luke reduced Matthews formula.

I think we're in agreement here. I do not believe that the Lord's Prayer existed in Paul's time, or Mark's, but that Matthew composed it, mostly on the basis of Markan material. (I have a paper on this from 2014: 'Luke 11.2-4: Abridged Edition, in Marcan Priority Without Q, edited by John C. Poirier and Jeffrey Peterson, in which I follow up a proposal of Michael Goulder's from 1963). I gave a recap of the theory on this forum here:

viewtopic.php?p=121696#p121696

Best,

Ken

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I think we're in agreement here. I do not believe that the Lord's Prayer existed in Paul's time, or Mark's, but that Matthew composed it, mostly on the basis of Markan material. (I have a paper on this from 2014: 'Luke 11.2-4: Abridged Edition, in Marcan Priority Without Q, edited by John C. Poirier and Jeffrey Peterson, in which I follow up a proposal of Michael Goulder's from 1963). I gave a recap of the theory on this forum here:

viewtopic.php?p=121696#p121696

Oh great. Sorry, I missed that.

[andrewcriddle]

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.

I'm not sure but it may have been a discussion that developed in the middle portion of this long and confusing thread.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5982

Andrew Criddle

[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.

I'm not sure but it may have been a discussion that developed in the middle portion of this long and confusing thread.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5982

Andrew Criddle

Thanks, Andrew.

Reading now.

Best,

Ken

[mlinssen]

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.

I'm not sure but it may have been a discussion that developed in the middle portion of this long and confusing thread.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5982

Andrew Criddle

Thanks, Andrew.

Reading now.

Best,

Ken

viewtopic.php?p=105644#p105644 is the post in that thread that contains the pointer that andrew talked about, which is viewtopic.php?p=81548#p81548

[mlinssen]

I'm just going to go pick from Ben's post there because it's too long for my mobile at the mo

Therefore, this notice seems to presume readers will already know about John's imprisonment, in much the same way that John seems to presume that his readers will know about it:

No, Mark just needs his get out of jail free card: as long as the fate of John is in the dark, the Elijah in him can operate freely. In Jesus, for example.
But John is in Thomas, even though he has no function at all there

Mark 1.16 seems to presume that readers will already know who Simon is. Unlike most characters in the gospel, Simon is given no introduction by nickname, patronymic, or any of the usual manners; and his brother, Andrew, is identified by his relationship to Simon. Refer to my post on named characters in Mark for more information: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2551

Simon Peter is in Thomas, logion 13 and 114, and he's portrayed as the religious misogynist

The gospel of Mark uses the title "son of man" in a way which seems to expect its readers already to know what it means. Mark 2.10 and 2.28 may be using the phrase "son of man" to mean "human," which is one of its main functions as a Semitic idiom. But in Mark 8.31 it means something more, and this "something more," as a title for Jesus, is never really explained, leaving modern scholars to write entire monographs on the topic

Son of man is in Thomas, in quite a few variants - though never directly applied to IS save for logion 86: "the child However of the human"

So the introduction of groups may not follow the pattern of introducing individual characters

A feeble point, as there are only 2 options: either Jesus is directly accused or Mark plays it indirectly by blaming his disciples - in which case there are other disciples needed to counter / oppose. Nah

long before Judas has betrayed his Lord, Mark already mentions that betrayal

That's a funny one indeed, and Mary goes along with it, yes.
There's a Judas and a Mary in Thomas of course...

Pilate, like Simon Peter, is one of the characters in Mark who needs no introduction: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2551. He comes in unannounced

Yup. No Pilate in Thomas though - but perhaps in *Ev? I'd have to check but would be surprised. So perhaps there's some investigating needed here

In a similar manner, readers of Mark are expected to know who two sons of one of the supporting characters is

A typical case of Ben leading the witness. No go

Mark 15.40 seems to presume that readers will know how to sort out the names of the women

No, that's daft. Mark is just being his complicated self, which is quite usual

There. Some fine points though!
Save for Pilate, all these are in Thomas, and they're likely in *Ev too - I'd have to check