Matthean posteriority: Lord of the Sabbath

[gryan]

Re: The narrative meaning of “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Are the first words of the following story allusions to the earlier saying about "Sabbath"?

When the Sabbath (singular) had passed (διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου), Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so they could go and anoint the body of Jesus. 2Very early on the first day of the week,a just after sunrise, they went to the tomb. 3They were asking one another, “Who will roll away the stone from the entrance of the tomb?” 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, even though it was extremely large.

5When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen!...

Cf. Luke
But the number one day of the week (τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων), very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.

Cf. Matt
Very late σαββάτων (lit. Sabbaths plural), it being the dawn on the number one day of the week (τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων), Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

I'm wondering if Mark is suggesting that Jesus had become "Lord of the Sabbath" by resurrection (or something like that).

-------------

I'm wondering whether MPH might explain how Matt could be conflating Mark and Luke in his description of the day of the week.

Mark 16:1: Καὶ διαγενομένου [used of time: to have elapsed, passed] τοῦ σαββάτου Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ

Matt: Ὀψὲ [the sabbath having passed, after the sabbath] δὲ σαββάτων...

Mk 16:2: καὶ λίαν πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα, ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου.

Luke: τῇ δὲ μιᾷ ["one"] τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέως ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα ἦλθον

Matt: ...τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν ["one"] σαββάτων, ἦλθεν ἡ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ

----------
On, σαββάτων, lit. Sabbaths plural
"All four accounts use the same word to identify the day of the Resurrection:

Now after the Sabbath (σαββάτων), toward the dawn of the first day of the week (σαββάτων)... (Matthew 28:1) [ESV]
And very early on the first day of the week (σαββάτων)...(Mark 16:2)
But on the first day of the week (σαββάτων)...(Luke 24:1)
Now on the first day of the week (σαββάτων)...(John 20:1)"

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/21971/10108

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I'm wondering if Mark is suggesting that Jesus had become "Lord of the Sabbath" by resurrection (or something like that).

That's my impression too. It seems pretty clear that the resurrection occurred in GMark during the Sabbath. imho John picked up Mark's theme and developed it further:

John 5:16 Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews began to persecute Him. 17 But Jesus answered them, “To this very day My Father is at His work, and I too am working.”

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Luke edited this out and Matt agreed with the decision:

"The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath."

Tabor makes the point that this is too Pauline for the later writers, too much like saying "The law is made for people, not people for the law." i.e. too antinomian.

(bolding mine)

imho To Mark the Sabbath is not a legal matter. That seems to me to be the big difference between Mark and Matthew. In GMatthew, the pericope remains a legal case. According to Matthew, the Sabbath laws must be interpreted in the light of mercy, and he shows that Jesus makes better reasons than his opponents. In GMark, the Sabbath becomes a day of healing, a day of the proclamation of the kingdom of God and ultimately a day of resurrection. imho it's not about good or bad law. Fuck the law. Here comes the Lord bringing blessings.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

But on the 2DH, Farrer, and MPH theories, Luke is following one source at a time and not conflating. When he's following Mark, he's following only Mark (other than the so-called Minor Agreements, of course) and when he's following his non-Markan source (which I take to be Matthew), he's following only that source.

I find it difficult to think of the synoptic problem of this pericope in simplified models. Assuming Luke knew Mark and Matthew, his pericope shows that he mainly followed Mark, but critically studied Matthew's changes, sometimes accepting and even developing them, sometimes rejecting them, and sometimes going his own way.

Without a doubt, there is a considerable number of minor agreements in this pericope, which also speak for a literary dependency between Matthew and Luke.

[gryan]

@ Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Thanks for your comments!

I'm wondering: What drives some scholars to the MPH hypothesis? Are there shared tendencies among them?

[Ken Olson]

I'm wondering: What drives some scholars to the MPH hypothesis? Are there shared tendencies among them?

I was trying to find the response I gave to a similar question on another forum but could not locate it.

I think the initial attraction of the current form of the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis is that it

(1) seems to avoid the problems with the postulated Q hypothesis raised by proponents of Griesbach, Farrer, and others.

(2) retains the perception of Streeter and others that (2.1) the Lukan form of double tradition pericopes is often or most often earlier than the Matthean form and (2.2) that the Lukan order is generally earlier than the Matthean order (i.e., Luke would not have broken up Matthew's 5 or 6 Sermons, and especially not the Sermon on the Mount, and rearranged ('scattered') much of their material to different locations in his gospel.

Best,

Ken

[gryan]

I'm wondering: What drives some scholars to the MPH hypothesis? Are there shared tendencies among them?

I was trying to find the response I gave to a similar question on another forum but could not locate it.

I think the initial attraction of the current form of the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis is that it

(1) seems to avoid the problems with the postulated Q hypothesis raised by proponents of Griesbach, Farrer, and others.

(2) retains the perception of Streeter and others that (2.1) the Lukan form of double tradition pericopes is often or most often earlier than the Matthean form and (2.2) that the Lukan order is generally earlier than the Matthean order (i.e., Luke would not have broken up Matthew's 5 or 6 Sermons, and especially not the Sermon on the Mount, and rearranged ('scattered') much of their material to different locations in his gospel.

'

Thanks!

Do any of them argue that Luke was written before Marcion and Matthew was written after Marcion, in part to combat Marcionite misreadings of Luke.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I'm wondering: What drives some scholars to the MPH hypothesis? Are there shared tendencies among them?

One of Hengel's considerations was that the authorship of the gospels could first be attributed only to fellow workers of apostles (Mark, Luke) and only later to apostles (Matthew, John, Peter). Otherwise it would have become known that the gospels are pseudepigraphs.

In addition, Luke often offers a "simpler" version of a pericope or saying, and some scholars believe that the simpler version is the earlier one. At first glance, Luke's "Plucking grain on the Sabbath" is the simplest, least elaborate pericope (compared with Mark and Matthew).

[Ken Olson]

I'm wondering: What drives some scholars to the MPH hypothesis? Are there shared tendencies among them?

I was trying to find the response I gave to a similar question on another forum but could not locate it.

I think the initial attraction of the current form of the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis is that it

(1) seems to avoid the problems with the postulated Q hypothesis raised by proponents of Griesbach, Farrer, and others.

(2) retains the perception of Streeter and others that (2.1) the Lukan form of double tradition pericopes is often or most often earlier than the Matthean form and (2.2) that the Lukan order is generally earlier than the Matthean order (i.e., Luke would not have broken up Matthew's 5 or 6 Sermons, and especially not the Sermon on the Mount, and rearranged ('scattered') much of their material to different locations in his gospel.

'

Thanks!

Do any of them argue that Luke was written before Marcion and Matthew was written after Marcion, in part to combat Marcionite misreadings of Luke.

I haven't seen anyone argue that particular theory. I've seen online arguments that postulate an early and a later later Luke with Matthew coming between them. I think Jason Beduhn's theory of synoptic relationships is similar if we consider the early form of Marcion in place of early Luke and that canonical Luke and later Marcion (I am tempted to say canonical Marcion, but that would seem to be an oxymoron) are both descended from that (i.e., the common source of Luke and Marcion). IIRC he retains a smaller Q to explain the double tradition material that did not come from Marcion.

Before he switched to arguing for the absolute priority of Marcion (c. 2015?), Matthias Klinghardt postulated that Matthew knew Marcion (and Mark) and that Luke knew Matthew and Marcion (and Mark).

Klinghardt 2008 Diagram of Synoptic Relationships.png (58.08 KiB) Viewed 552 times

Matthias Klinghardt, The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion , Novum Testamentum 50 (2008) 1-27, p. 21.

Best,

Ken

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Re: Matthean posteriority: Lord of the Sabbath

It was nice to deal with this pericope again. Thanks for raising the issue.

Luke edited this out and Matt agreed with the decision:

"The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath."

Tabor makes the point that this is too Pauline for the later writers, too much like saying "The law is made for people, not people for the law." i.e. too antinomian.

imho this saying is primarily problematic because Genesis does not mention such a purpose of the Sabbath. The Sabbath came into being because God rested that day, but not on account of mankind. Mark's bold statement is therefore extremely questionable. That alone may be the primary reason Matthew and Luke omitted the saying.

Matthew adds something lacking in Mark and Luke:

Matt 12:5-7
Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are innocent? But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If only you had known the meaning of ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

I doubt that Luke would have edited out Matt's additions, had he known them. They are pretty interesting, and I see no reason Luke would have wanted those removed, since arguably, as for Matt, "for Luke, Jesus becomes more important than the Temple."

I understand your reasoning and find it worth considering, but in the end I don't find it compelling. It seems to me that Luke understood that the pericope in GMark is not a contest for the better argument, but rather a provocative performance with heated statements intended to keep the Pharisees at bay and draw the Pharisees' attention from the disciples to Jesus. For example, Luke changed the introduction to Jesus' response, imho to emphasize Jesus' active intervention to protect the disciples.

Mark	Matthew	Luke
And he said them: Never did you read ….	But he said them: Not have you read	And answering to them it said the Jesus: Not even this have you read

I believe that Luke may well have followed Mark here and rejected Matthew's „reasonable arguments“ in order to retain the pericope's character as a clash of the authority of the law and the authority of Jesus. But I'm just saying that I can think of other reasons Luke followed Mark at this point and omitted Matthew's argumentative additions.

In my opinion Matthew's version seems like an expansion of Luke's edit of Mark.

I agree that the key criterion would be to find the expansion of a previous correction to GMark.

Matthew lacks something Luke added to Mark:

Luke: added phrase underlined
"His disciples began to pick the heads of grain, rub them in their hands..."

I think Matt edited out Luke's "rub them in their hands" since the work activity of the disciples distracts from Matt's main focus: Jesus is greater than the temple.

At first glance, the addition "rubbing in the hands" could be a Lukan expansion of Matthew's previous correction to GMark.

Mark's pericope has been repeatedly criticized for containing a "skewed analogy", in addition to some errors relating to 1 Samuel. It is not clear in GMark why David's behavior in Nob should be a relevant case for the disciples' wrongdoing on the Sabbath. Matthew's main concern was to establish this analogy by adding the disciples' hunger and the eating of grains.

In Matthew's version, however, the impression could arise that the disciples are eating the heads of grain and not just the grain. At first glance, Luke's addition "rubbing in the hands" seems like a correction of this inaccuracy by Matthew. On the other hand, it could be (but less likely?) that Luke wanted to introduce not only the harvesting but also the threshing of the grain as a Sabbath offense by the disciples.

Berean Literal Bible

Mark	Matthew	Luke
23 And it came to pass, He is passing through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples began to make their way, plucking the heads of grain.	1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbaths, and His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat.	1 And it came to pass on a Sabbath, He is passing along through grainfields; and His disciples were plucking and were eating the heads of grain, rubbing them in the hands.
24 And the Pharisees were saying to Him, “Behold, why do they that which is unlawful on the Sabbaths?” 25 And He said to them, “Did you never read what David did when he had need, and he and those with him hungered - 26 how he entered into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the loaves of the presentation, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests - and he even gave to those being with him?”	2 And the Pharisees, having seen, said to Him, “Behold, Your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on Sabbath.” 3 And He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those with him – 4 how he entered into the house of God, and they ate the loaves of the presentation, which it was not lawful for him nor for those with him to eat, but only for the priests?	2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing that which is not lawful on the Sabbaths?” 3 And Jesus answering, said to them, “Not even have you read this, that which David did when he himself was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered into the house of God, and having taken the loaves of the presentation, ate and gave to those with him, which it is not lawful to eat, except to the priests only?”