spin

Bad cut and paste, Joe. Two reasons, the Greek is unreadable and you left out important bits. Willker says "The support for οργισθεις is very slim." He then gives some support for considering it.

Another interesting point from Willker is:

It is possible, as Jeff Cate has pointed out to me, that Mark wrote σπλαγχνισθεις, but intended it as anger (not compassion). Cate notes that σπλαγχνα (in pre-Christian times) was used for impulsive emotions such as anger and lust (Liddell and Scott). He writes: "If Mark intended σπλαγχνισθεις as anger (even though the verb normally didn't mean that), it could possibly explain why the Old Latin tradition ends up split between anger (iratus) and compassion (miseratus)."

This actually cuts the other way as well, for if Cate can propose this for his Mark, it is also valid for a scribal adjustment, ie a scribe may have taken σπλαγχνισθεις as intended as anger and emended the word.

This should mean that we can trust the earliest manuscripts as we preferably should and explain the change to οργισθεις (he became angty) as a reinterpretation of σπλαγχνισθεις (he felt pity).


spin

Solo

Well, yes Earl, that does make sense. But it cuts both ways. Once you adopt a theory of 'three-way assimilation' and the resulting uncertain origins of the surviving textual wordings, the need for a definitive, multilayered Q text to explain select agreements in the definitive canon becomes pretty Q(uestionable) exercise. I would summarize by saying: yes, it is reasonable to assume there are layered traditions behind the text common to Matt and Luke, but to assume that these were in some form of a definitive text are, if not unfounded, then in the final analysis, unprovable. From simplicity point of view, two-way assimilations between Mt-Lk in the textual generation would be the preferable way to go.

Back to your Farrar-Goodacre skepticism: the two examples in your argument that Luke did not know Matt strike me as unconvincing. Luke, unlike Matthew, was not concerned with the priority of the apostolic over spiritualist tradition. Mark 4:10-11 postulates the precedence of the spiritual discipleship over the Twelve. (The spiritual disciples have access to Jesus even when he is alone - they understand because they have the gift of spirit). Matthew (13:11-13) naturally cannot accept this formula and has his (earthly) disciples approach Jesus with the question on the parable speaking. This has the effect of not just modifying but reversing the intent of Mark. The secrets are given to the apostolic figures in a purely legalistic transfer: "it is given to you by me," says Jesus in effect "and everyone knows who I am". In that context, Matthew quotes Isaiah. Luke's overall purpose is to harmonize traditions and has no intention to argue for either Mark's or Matthew's points of view. Now notice that in Mark and Matt's Jesus is asked why he speaks to the outsiders in parables. In Luke, Jesus is asked what the sower parable means by the disciples themselves. And like in Mark, Jesus explains. In Matthew, he explains nothing - he quotes Isaiah instead.

Similarly, with the C-P Peter's confession, in Matthew 16. This ringing endorsement of Mark's faithless coward, has nothing of interest for Luke. Nor is he interested in dragging in Pete's well-known association with Satan. IOW, the textual silences on Matthew by Luke are well explained by the divergent theopolitics of the two gospel schools. They do not need to attest to a lack of Luke's knowledge of Matt.

Regards,
Jiri

neilgodfrey

Hi Earl,

I can understand treating Luke as a distinct composition from Acts, but one can also argue that an early Luke (beginning at 3:1) has been fleshed out by the same person who authored Acts.

If so, the question becomes a bit more complex in that we may have to factor in what the later author found in his original Luke, and (let's say) antiMarcionite and/or catholicizing themes. If this is mid second century, we also might need to consider evolving ideas such as the reverence for Mary.

If there is some such continuity between Luke and Acts, therefore, the "upon this rock" example you use is not so strong. This Luke-Acts author is using Paul to be the first Christian in Rome and the founder of the church there, while Peter, John and "the other James" all gradually fade from the scene. Peter is the leader of the twelve, but by no means "THE leader" of all apostles throughout.

You also regularly use the Beatitude differences: Matthew's spiritual poor versus Luke's "more primitive" physically poor. I don't see that this as requiring an ad hoc explanation, as you say such differences require if we do not factor in Q. One might well see a constant Lukan theme at work here: in place of Matthew's story revolving around the high and mighty (the royal court and wealthy magi from afar) one sees Luke opposing a more humble gospel -- even one that has taken some offence at Matthew's setting for narrative. Luke recreates the humble scenes of the lowly pious persons in Judges and 1 Samuel, in place of magi there are lowly shepherds; in place of the royal court and a house in Bethlehem, Luke has a manger in a stable; Mary's prophecy dwells on the theme of bringing down the exalted and raising up the poor. Matthew speaks of the requirement for Christians to be more righteous than even the exalted Pharisees; Luke rebukes with a simple honouring of the poor.

One could continue, but one begins to see that such a difference as this beatitude may indeed be interpreted in accordance with a Lukan theme, and not require an ad hoc explanation.

As for Luke not repeating the full passage in Isaiah, it is surely significant that what this most merciful of gospel authors omits from both Mark and Matthew are the prophetic words of Calvinist-like inevitability of condemnation. He stops short at the point before God declares the people responsible for a sin he is himself inflicting on them.

As for the birth narrative itself, I have already covered factors that would explain some of the differences in illustrating one of Luke's themes in my point about the beatitudes. We can add here an emerging reverence for Mary from the mid second century. Matthew's genealogy contained women with questionable pasts, and Matthew's narrative brings to the reader's mind the suspicions that plagued Joseph's mind. Luke goes all out to remove all such hints against Mary from his gospel. So he sets the readers' minds in the right frame of reference by imitating the sort of miracle God used to perform for the righteous barren (though elderly). With this setting in mind, the reader never for a moment gleans a hint of the negatives that Matthew alluded to.

We also might see an anti-Marcionite theme at work in the narrative of Luke. Luke is stressing the centrality of the Temple in the beginning of Jesus' mission. He removes all hints of gentile associations (from Matthew's nativity and also again in the "Great Omission") until the time of Acts.

I am suggesting these as pointers to themes throughout a later composition of Luke-Acts (building on an earlier Luke). If these are themes, then we may have an explanation for some of these Matthew-Luke differences that do go beyond ad hoc explanations.

(By the way: I did not address the difference in the parables of the talents (Matthew and the 3 servants) and minas (Luke and the ten). Such differences as there are read to me like the sorts of variations that one finds in jokes as they get passed on. Matthew's parable finishes with reference to the ten talents; Luke begins with ten minas, suggesting the parable circulated independently of Matthew's account anyway, and was known in different variations-- and it was easy for an author to begin with the version most familiar to him before getting too far back to copying. Okay -- this one is an ad hoc explanation, I admit. I mention it only to suggest that "editorial fatigue" is not the only alternative possibility.)

N

EarlDoherty

On my Jesus Puzzle website, as some of you may know, I have a feature called “The Sound of Silence: 200 Missing References to the Gospel Jesus in the New Testament Epistles”. Someone on the IIDB (can’t remember the name right now) once tried to come up with an explanation for every one of these, though I think he only got part way through. Some of these explanations were ad hoc and even far-fetched, some were perhaps reasonable. But he ignored the overriding consideration: that there were so many of them, and that so many explanations were required, and that beside them stood zero clear references by any writer to that Gospel figure.

I find the same thing in exercises like yours, Neil, as reasonable as some of them might seem. It’s probably feasible to come up with some sort of explanation for each one if one tries hard enough. (And some of them strike me as reading a lot into Luke, relying heavily on the type of modern scholarly subtleties I’m not sure are applicable to the evangelists, simply in the interest of coming up with some sort of explanation.) But can we really believe that in every case of Matthew performing a redaction or addition to a Markan periscope, that Luke found every one of them uncongenial and had no interest in taking any of them?

Possible explanations (ad hoc or otherwise) notwithstanding, at the end of the day we are still left without clear positive evidence that Luke used Matthew. If the case for Luke using Matthew is 99% demonstrating how we can explain why he did not do such-and-such (whether taking Matthew’s redactions of Mark, or why he would show movement toward primitivity in taking over many of Matthew’s “Q” sayings, or why the body of material he did take over from Matthew just happened to be lacking every reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and so on), then we are being given a very empty case indeed.

(You know my thoughts on the so-called "minor agreements" in the absence of any early manuscripts. Incidentally, where did Chaucer come up with "700-1000" of them?)

Which leads me once again to my great overriding question which no one has ever answered for me. Given the negative nature of the case for Luke using Matthew, why would anyone want to choose it as preferable to the existence of a Q? Surely not just because of the Occam’s Razor principle? Surely not because of the fact that there is no extant copy of Q? Surely not so that we can reject any notion that behind the Gospels lies the Kingdom-preaching community they are all so bent on portraying (for what reason in such an absence is inscrutable to me)? What is the actual appeal of the no-Q / Luke copying from Matthew scenario?

Earl Doherty

angelo

Perhaps the doubters [whether legit or not] of Q are trying to undermine the Jesus as myth scenario brick by brick.

Chaucer

You must be referencing someone else(?). I don't recall coming up with such a figure. Any possible Luke dependencies that I intently focused on involved instead the stylistic linguistic ticks typical of Matthew's Greek writing style, as duly analyzed by Dave Gentile, and appearing in Luke at only those points where certain Q passages are rendered identically in Luke and Matthew.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

spin

Acts is a composite book with at least three written sources and two layers of interpolation. What did this same author actually author?


spin

aa5874

The existence or non existence of "Q" does not in anyway alter the mythology of Jesus.

Once "Q" signifies common material in gMatthew and gLuke, then the MYTHOLOGICAL conception and birth of Jesus can be found in both.

Now "Q" is not really a "brick".

Once there is no definitive date of writing and no secure way of knowing the original contents of gMatthew, gMark and gLuke then "Q" becomes mere speculation.

What I find completely odd is that Justin Martyr clearly wrote about a document or documents called "Memoirs of the Apostles" that were read in the churches on the first day of the week while Justin was supposedly ALIVE yet this information appears to have been completely ignored by virtually all other Church writers.

Justin Martyr is a christian source that cannot account for the named authored Synoptics up to the middle of the 2nd century and I find that Justin's admission or exclusion extremely significant.

It would appear to me that the common material for the Synoptics may be from the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as found in the writings of Justin Martyr since passages found in the canonical Synoptics were mentioned by Justin Martyr when he made references to the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

This is Justin in "First Apology" LXVII
Excerpts from the Memoirs of the Apostles found ONLY in gLuke from "Dialogue with Trypho" CV

Luke 23:46 - Excerpts from The Memoirs of the Apostles found ONLY in gMark from "Dialogue with Trypho" CVI

Mark 3:17 - Excerpts from Memoirs of the Apostles found ONLY in gMatthew from "Dialogue with Trypho" CVI

Matthew 2:1-2 -
Justin Martyr has provided information from a document or documents called "Memoirs of the Apostles" that have material common to the Synoptics yet did not mention at all any writers called Matthew, Mark or Luke at any time and this was as late as the the middle of the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr presents an actual case that gMatthew, gMark and gLuke may have been derived from information found in the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and not hypothetical "Q" which has not been found any where in antiquity or mentioned by any Church writers.

youngalexander

I cannot lie, twas I referencing Mark Goodacre #6

There are about a thousand Minor Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark. There is barely a pericope in the triple tradition (Matthew-Mark-Luke) that does not feature any. Among them are some that are so striking that Q begins to look vulnerable.

angelo

Burton L. Mack makes a very strong case for the Q document in his book, Who Wrote The New Testament He explains that it's found more completely in the gospel of Luke rather than Mathew who does a little more editing. He also cites the community of Q as the earliest written record we have from this community of Jesus people. From around the 20s until after the war in the 70s more and more was attributed to the sayings of Jesus.
Exactly like a myth would be created from a not necessarily historical person in my very humble opinion. Exactly like urban myths are created, by the constant re-telling and adding or subtracting of substance to the story until you have nothing of historical value.