The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

ABuddhist wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:56 am
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?
That is basically the position of Michael Goulder in his Luke: A New Paradigm (1989); he died before completing his book on John, but had published a few papers on the topic. The late Frans Neirynck and the New Testament scholars at Leuven (e.g. Maurits Sabbe, also now deceased) are close to Goulder's position on John. Neirynck and Sabbe do not deny the possibility that John could have had sources other than the Synoptic Gospels, but in their published work, they have sought to explain how various pericopes in John may be explained satisfactorily based on the theory of John's use of the Synoptics. Neirynck, however, was an ardent defender of the Mark-Q hypothesis and opposed Goulder on Luke.

John Drury, The Parables in the Gospels (1989) and a few other titles, is in the Farrer-Goulder camp and agrees with Goulder about Luke, but has not, as far as I remember, published on John.

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by gryan »

ABuddhist wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:19 am
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.
I think Matt was intentionally composed to have an appearance of being the most ancient of the synoptics (to the uncritical fan who overlooks evidence to the contrary, and does so because being best is equated with being most ancient), and it succeeded.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

I suspect the major reason for the popularity of Matthew's gospel is the amount of teaching material, mostly gathered in Matthew's five great discourses. Mark, IMHO, was written during a time of persecution to encourage Christians to hold on to their faith just a little bit longer, as the second coming was going to arrive very soon. Matthew's teachings on the proper conduct of Christians provide a basic blueprint for a continuing church that Mark's gospel really does not.

Best,

Ken
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by ABuddhist »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:33 am I suspect the major reason for the popularity of Matthew's gospel is the amount of teaching material, mostly gathered in Matthew's five great discourses. Mark, IMHO, was written during a time of persecution to encourage Christians to hold on to their faith just a little bit longer, as the second coming was going to arrive very soon. Matthew's teachings on the proper conduct of Christians provide a basic blueprint for a continuing church that Mark's gospel really does not.

Best,

Ken
Matthew's gospel also presents Jesus from birth to death, unlike GJohn and GMark, and unlike GLuke does not claim to be written by a non-eyewitness.

As for GMark, it is such an enigmatic text portraying Jesus in such a strange light (especially as GMark 4:10-12) that I am not surprised that it never became popular compared to GMatthew.
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: Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:01 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:50 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:34 pm
gryan wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:07 pm Re: How Luke Was Written

Ken expressed his arguments on History Valley!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SnMK3u_SYk
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.

Best,

Ken
;)

I was just tickling you Ken - I'm not one for debate.
And while I excel at nitpicking texts, my presentation techniques are off the chart - in the wrong direction
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

This is a post I wrote for another forum which I am reposting here. In the interview on the Synoptic Problem with Jacob Berman on History Valley, linked above, I said that I did not think Luke's 'the poor' is earlier than Matthew's 'poor in spirit' because Matthew may in fact be closer to the meaning of Isaiah 61. I go over the larger context of that claim here. My other reason for posting this is that I want to put in question whether Jesus' command in Matthew 10.5 not to go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans actually shows an anti-gentile agenda in Matthew. I do not think it does, and if it doesn't it's questionable whether it shows an anti-Samaritan agenda either. But that issue will require a follow-up post.

* * *

David Catchpole’s argument from the Quest for Q (1993, pp. 16-23, directed agains the Farrer-Goulder theory, that “the poor have the good news brought to them” in Matt 11.5 has no antecedent in the text of Matthew because Matthew has changed “the poor” to “the poor in spirit” in Matt 5.3 is based on a weak exegesis of Matthew and cannot be maintained.

According to a very widespread view found in commentaries on Matthew, “poor in spirit” is to be identified with the עֲנָוִ ים of Isaiah 61.1. After reviewing various scholarly theories on the meaning of ‘the poor in spirit’, M.A. Powell notes:

“A majority of modern scholars, however, identify Matthew's poor in spirit with the ‘ă·nā·wîm, that is, with the dispossessed and abandoned ones in Israel on whose behalf the prophets speak (Isa 11:4; 29: 19; 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4; Zeph 2:3). F13”

Footnote 13: For a sampling, see Guelich, Sermon, 66-75; Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 91-92; M. Dennis Hamm, The Beatitudes in Context : What Luke and Matthew Meant (Zacchaeus Studies, NT; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1990) 80-81; David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 110-11; Meier, Matthew, 39-40; Schweizer, Good News, 86-87. (Powell, “Matthean Beatitudes,” CBQ 58.3, 1996, 460-479).

So we have to ask, is the gospel preached to any group or groups of people somewhere between Matt 5.3 and Matt 11.5. who might be considered the ‘ănāwîm – that is, the poor in the sense of the dispossessed and abandoned ones of Israel. There are, in fact, two such cases:

The first is near the end of Matt 9, the so-called miracles chapter. Matt 9.335-36:
“Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd*.” (NRSV).

The second is shortly later, at the beginning of Jesus’ Mission speech in Matt 10. Matt 10:5-8:
“These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.” (RSV; I have not used the NRSV here because it uses the words “good news”, which are not in the Greek).

Now if we look for the word poor, or a group of people who are economically poor, as I suspect Catchpole did, we might miss this. But if we look for a group that fits the OT poor, the ‘ănāwîm, the dispossessed and abandoned ones of Israel, then it seems that the “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd,” and the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” would appear to fit the bill exceedingly well.

To forestall one possible objection – that Matthew does not actually use the word ‘poor’ to describe the people who have the good news of the kingdom of heaven preached to them – we should note that many of the other claims in Matt 11.5 are similarly not precisely and literally fulfilled by their antecedents in the text: The lame who walks is not said to be lame, but a paralytic. The deaf-mute who hears is not said to hear, but to speak. And the dead girl who is raised is only said to be dead by bystanders; Jesus says she is not dead, but sleeping.

I think Catchpole’s argument for Lukan priority here cannot be maintained. Matthew is not guilty of any oversight. He is, rather, carefully using OT language in referring to the poor and the leaderless or lost sheep. That is enough to nullify Catchpole’s argument for Lukan priority and, thus, the argument for alternating primitivity based on it. Does it prove Matthean priority? Not quite. It is conceivable that Matthew had a source which used the word poor in an economic sense and chose to re-Judaize the saying, bringing it in line with traditional OT usage. But I think that is perhaps the less likely possibility.

Best,

Ken
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:21 am
ABuddhist wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:56 am
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?
That is basically the position of Michael Goulder in his Luke: A New Paradigm (1989); he died before completing his book on John, but had published a few papers on the topic. The late Frans Neirynck and the New Testament scholars at Leuven (e.g. Maurits Sabbe, also now deceased) are close to Goulder's position on John. Neirynck and Sabbe do not deny the possibility that John could have had sources other than the Synoptic Gospels, but in their published work, they have sought to explain how various pericopes in John may be explained satisfactorily based on the theory of John's use of the Synoptics. Neirynck, however, was an ardent defender of the Mark-Q hypothesis and opposed Goulder on Luke.

John Drury, The Parables in the Gospels (1989) and a few other titles, is in the Farrer-Goulder camp and agrees with Goulder about Luke, but has not, as far as I remember, published on John.

Best,

Ken
FWIW Meier, operating within a traditional two-source theory for the synoptics, suspects that Luke created the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Meier in general is suspicious of the authenticity of the parables found only in Luke.)

Andrew Criddle
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: Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:53 am This is a post I wrote for another forum which I am reposting here. In the interview on the Synoptic Problem with Jacob Berman on History Valley, linked above, I said that I did not think Luke's 'the poor' is earlier than Matthew's 'poor in spirit' because Matthew may in fact be closer to the meaning of Isaiah 61. I go over the larger context of that claim here. My other reason for posting this is that I want to put in question whether Jesus' command in Matthew 10.5 not to go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans actually shows an anti-gentile agenda in Matthew. I do not think it does, and if it doesn't it's questionable whether it shows an anti-Samaritan agenda either. But that issue will require a follow-up post.

* * *

David Catchpole’s argument from the Quest for Q (1993, pp. 16-23, directed agains the Farrer-Goulder theory, that “the poor have the good news brought to them” in Matt 11.5 has no antecedent in the text of Matthew because Matthew has changed “the poor” to “the poor in spirit” in Matt 5.3 is based on a weak exegesis of Matthew and cannot be maintained.

According to a very widespread view found in commentaries on Matthew, “poor in spirit” is to be identified with the עֲנָוִ ים of Isaiah 61.1. After reviewing various scholarly theories on the meaning of ‘the poor in spirit’, M.A. Powell notes:

“A majority of modern scholars, however, identify Matthew's poor in spirit with the ‘ă·nā·wîm, that is, with the dispossessed and abandoned ones in Israel on whose behalf the prophets speak (Isa 11:4; 29: 19; 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4; Zeph 2:3). F13”

Footnote 13: For a sampling, see Guelich, Sermon, 66-75; Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 91-92; M. Dennis Hamm, The Beatitudes in Context : What Luke and Matthew Meant (Zacchaeus Studies, NT; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1990) 80-81; David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 110-11; Meier, Matthew, 39-40; Schweizer, Good News, 86-87. (Powell, “Matthean Beatitudes,” CBQ 58.3, 1996, 460-479).

So we have to ask, is the gospel preached to any group or groups of people somewhere between Matt 5.3 and Matt 11.5. who might be considered the ‘ănāwîm – that is, the poor in the sense of the dispossessed and abandoned ones of Israel. There are, in fact, two such cases:

The first is near the end of Matt 9, the so-called miracles chapter. Matt 9.335-36:
“Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd*.” (NRSV).

The second is shortly later, at the beginning of Jesus’ Mission speech in Matt 10. Matt 10:5-8:
“These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.” (RSV; I have not used the NRSV here because it uses the words “good news”, which are not in the Greek).

Now if we look for the word poor, or a group of people who are economically poor, as I suspect Catchpole did, we might miss this. But if we look for a group that fits the OT poor, the ‘ănāwîm, the dispossessed and abandoned ones of Israel, then it seems that the “harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd,” and the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” would appear to fit the bill exceedingly well.

To forestall one possible objection – that Matthew does not actually use the word ‘poor’ to describe the people who have the good news of the kingdom of heaven preached to them – we should note that many of the other claims in Matt 11.5 are similarly not precisely and literally fulfilled by their antecedents in the text: The lame who walks is not said to be lame, but a paralytic. The deaf-mute who hears is not said to hear, but to speak. And the dead girl who is raised is only said to be dead by bystanders; Jesus says she is not dead, but sleeping.

I think Catchpole’s argument for Lukan priority here cannot be maintained. Matthew is not guilty of any oversight. He is, rather, carefully using OT language in referring to the poor and the leaderless or lost sheep. That is enough to nullify Catchpole’s argument for Lukan priority and, thus, the argument for alternating primitivity based on it. Does it prove Matthean priority? Not quite. It is conceivable that Matthew had a source which used the word poor in an economic sense and chose to re-Judaize the saying, bringing it in line with traditional OT usage. But I think that is perhaps the less likely possibility.

Best,

Ken

Matthew 5:3 “Μακάριοι (Blessed are) οἱ (the) πτωχοὶ (poor) τῷ (in the) πνεύματι (spirit), Ὅτι (for) αὐτῶν (theirs) ἐστιν (is) ἡ (the) βασιλεία (kingdom) τῶν (of the) οὐρανῶν (heavens)


53. His Disciples said to him: does the circumcision make be Useful Or no? He said to them: were he make be Useful, their father would beget them from their mother circumcised; Rather the true circumcision in Spirit did he find all usefulness.

54. IS said: some Fortunate are the poor: yours is the reign of king of the heavens

Indeed.
I could tell you where "poor in spirit" comes from... but you can likely read my mind already

ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ Fortunate Noun 7, 18, 19, 49, 54, 58, 68, 69, 103 (total of 10)

John 13:17, 20:29, and then naturally Acts ff.
The word appears 13 times in Matthew, 13 (sic) times in Luke, ... [drumroll] and 0 times in Mark

The source is evident.
I've said it before and I'll likely say it many more times to come: Matthew redacted *Ev into Luke while writing his own on the side: Luke to enchant the Chrestians with the Christian angle, Matthew to proclaim the word to idiots who knew nothing of the origins and certainly weren't very Judaic
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

This is a follow-up to my earlier post relating to Matthew 10.5-7:

Matt 10.5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 

This passage is sometimes seen as being hostile to Gentiles and Samaritans. I think this is a misinterpretation, as Matthew’s gospel is not in fact anti-Gentile. It concludes with with the risen Jesus commanding the disciples to go forth and make disciples of all nations, which would include Gentiles and Samaritans.

The point of Jesus’ instruction to the twelve in in Matt 10.5 is not that Gentile and Samaritans are to be excluded from the people of God, but that God is first keeping his promises made through the prophets (particularly Isaiah) to the dispossessed and abandoned ones in Israel, i.e., the poor or the lost sheep. It is the fact that Jesus has been fulfilling God’s promises that allows him to answer John the Baptist’s question:

Matt 11.2 Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples 3 and said to him, “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” 4 And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. 6 And blessed is he who takes no offense at me.”

But even before Jesus’ command to his disciples make disciples of all nations, there are a few signal examples in Matthew of Gentiles with exemplary faith, such as the Centurion:

Matt 8.5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him 6 and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.” 8 The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” 10 When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and will take their places at the banquet with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant[e] was healed in that hour.

The Gentile Centurion not only has faith, he has faith such as Jesus has not found in anyone in Israel. Jesus goes on to say that many who come from east and west (i.e., Gentiles) will take their place at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven while the heirs of the kingdom (i.e., the Jew or those of of Israelite descent) will be thrown into the outer darkness. Matthew’s Gospel is not anti-Gentile. Matthew seems to reserve his particular antipathy for the Jews, or, at least, those Jews who do not acknowledge Jesus as the Christ (e.g. Matt 27.25, ‘His blood be on us and on our children’, seems to have the Jews collectively not only accepting the blame for killing Jesus but making it hereditary).

Then there’s the Canaanite Woman, which is Matthew’s version of Mark’s Syrophoenician Woman from Mark 7.24-30. Matthew has changed Syrophoenician to Canaanite, perhaps to emphasize that she belongs to a people who are not only not Israelite, but from a people traditionally supposed to be hostile to Israel and portrayed negatively in the Scriptures of Israel.

Matt15.21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

Like the Centurion, the Canaanite woman shows exemplary faith and Jesus grants her request (it does not matter that she is a Canaanite, only that she has faith in Jesus), healing her child at a distance, just as he had for the Centurion. In fact, the two stories are so very much alike, other than the change in gender of the parent and child, that we might reasonably suspect that Matthew has created the story of the Centurion by using Mark’s Syrophoenician woman a second time and varying it a little bit (i.e., it’s a redactional doublet in NT Studies lingo).

In both stories a Gentile approaches Jesus, asking him to heal his/her child, who is not present in the scene. Jesus initially demurs. (Most commentators understand Jesus’ ‘I will come and cure him’ as questioning just what the Centurion expects rather than Jesus acceding to his wishes). The Gentile makes a statement of both remarkable humility and great faith. Jesus then praises the Gentiles’ great faith and says that the child will be healed, and the child, who is some unknown distance away, is healed at that very moment.

If this is correct, and Matthew has indeed created the story of the Centurion from Mark’s Syrophoenician woman, then it follows that Luke’s Centurion in Luke 7.1-10 and John’s Royal Official in John 4.46-54 are dependent on Matthew for their stories. The Q theory and the theory of John’s independence of the Synoptics allow scholars to claim we have multiple independent attestation for the story and attest to the fact that stories that Jesus was a miracle worker circulated very early, at least before the gospels were written, and perhaps during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses themselves. If the Farrer theory is correct, essentially all we have is Mark and nothing to check it against (except possibly the statement in Josephus’ Antiquities that Jesus was ‘a maker of miraculous works’).

Finally, there is the missionary statement to the disciples at the end of the gospel. Unlike the missionary statement in Matt 10.5, which commanded the disciples to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the risen Jesus command his disciples to go forth and make disciples of all nations:

Matt 28.16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

In summary, I don’t think Jesus’ command in Matt 10.5 to go only to the lost sheep of Israel and not to the Gentiles or Samaritans ought to be interpreted as reflecting an anti-Gentile or anti-Samaritan agenda on the part of the author of Matthew. The rest of the gospel does not bear this out.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis

Post by Ken Olson »

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. 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.
This is circular. It has some internal coherence, but is not backed up by facts outside itself.

1) Matthew was the most popular synoptic gospel in the early centuries (fact, or presumably so).

2) Matthew does not have stories with Samaritans in them and mentions Samaritans only once (fact).

3) This should be explained by postulating that Matthew was the latest synoptic gospel and knew that Samaritan stories were unpopular (baseless speculation).

I say this is a baseless speculation because you have not shown that Matthew was the most popular synoptic gospel *because* it has no Samaritan stories, nor that there is a direct relationship between a gospel's popularity and it not having Samaritan stories. Other factors regarding popularity might be (I think probably are) more important. I'm assuming that MacEwen is measuring popularity by (1) the number of of early manuscripts or fragments attesting to the gospel and (2) the number of times it is quoted by early Christians. It's not really clear to me exactly what he would mean by quickly.

Mark has 0 mentions of Samaritans and is the least popular synoptic gospel, Matthew has 1 mention and is the most popular synoptic, Luke has 4 mentions of Samaria/Samaritans and is less popular than Matthew, but more than Mark. John is not a synoptic gospel, but has 8 mentions of Samaria/Samaritans, and is witnessed in a a few more early (by 300 CE) manuscripts/fragments than Matthew and rivals Matthew in outside citations (I don't have exact numbers).

I do not believe you have presented any evidence that Samaritans stories were unpopular or made the gospels which contained them unpopular.

Best,

Ken
Post Reply