GentDave

Yuri, the verse numbers are probably right. I don't have the books here. The counts are right.

I suspect there are multiple casuses to the MAs. The fact that they are Matthian may reflect Luke's use of Matthew, or proto-Matthew, or it may reflect late additions to Luke, to match Matthew, as you are suggesting. Some may have other causes as well.

Bernard Muller

Bernard:

I can see that as a good argument for the deutero-Mark, with these 40 or so Voc. Items, multiplied in words in the text, above what shows in the original GMark, would generate MA's words.

Dave: Then the Mas sould look like Mark. They don't.

Ya, every times I used the term Deutero-Mark before, I immediately added on, with a Matthean flavor. I forgot this time, or I thought it was understood as such, but I meant a **Matthean** Deutero-Mark.

Dave: But Luke added lots to Mark, more than Matthew. But if we isolate the few times he agrees with Matthew against Mark, Luke has imitated Matthew style, whereas normally, he does not.

The same can not be said in reverse. If we look at the MAs in Matthew, there is nothing special about them. They are in Matthew's style, like the rest of MAtthew. They do not suddenly imitate Luke.

Fully agreed. I never meant anything else. These MA's are generated when both gospelers go beyond GMark, on the same path (that is extensive use of the same keywords), but with Matthew seemingly leading the way.
Otherwise, Luke, most of the times departs from Matthew's style, and even Mark's style a lot more than Matthew does.
What I cannot figure out is, regarding Luke, why the MA's follow the opposite trend?
With Luke being so much off center, normally the MA's should be Lukan, happening for the few times Matthew seemingly would "coincide" with "Lukan" keywords. But that is not the case.

OK, let's look at an "obvious" solution.
Either Matthean DTR-Mark, or Proto-Matthew or, even, GMatthew (heek, that hurts!!!) instead of GMark.
If Luke paid attention on any one of those, in order to pick up the MA words and insert them at the right places, then we face one problem:
Why would Luke make an effort to follow closely the Matthean book on 207 words, then depart from the rest a lot? (with the overall result being the "departure" looking greater as if using GMark as the reference)
In other words, the contrast is greater with Luke having a Matthean book rather than GMark, and much harder to explain, even with the 207 MA's removed (now being put in 222).

Now if we look at the other "obvious" solution, Luke had GMark and a Matthean book at the same time.
I think we have the same problem, but less accute. Why would Luke consult the Matthean book on a few items, then depart from both of them (style wise)?

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave

Bernard:

Why would Luke make an effort to follow closely the Matthean book on 207 words, then depart from the rest a lot?

Dave:

See, I don't think Luke would have had to make much effort. He just read all his sources, primarily followed Mark, and wrote in his own words. That a word or two here and there suggested by Matthew would sneak in would be only natural.

Alternately, copyists of Luke inserting a memory of Matthew here and there, works just about as well. (At least for the MAs, other features would need a different explination)

Bernard Muller

Hello Dave:
I made a sketch about the general relations between the synoptic gospelers' style and the MAs location.
I tried to express the relative proportions, but it is not according to any calculus (that might come later).

What do you think?
Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Do you think the old Syriac gospels were written in the 2nd or 3rd century? If not when? And why then & from which evidence?
Do you think the gospels were written in Syriac first or in Greek first?

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Dave: this is a better representation of the triple tradition according to your work. Category 212 might be located further to the left, between two parts of 211, but I do not have any data for that. What do you think? If to be moved leftward, by how many words (approximatly)? Of course, you would have to appraise an average.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

"But in my opinion the important thing to remember is the sheer size and richness of Luke's vocabulary, **his fondness for varying
synonyms** and the remarkable diversity even within each of
the two volumes." Mark Goodacre

Other infos I gleaned from 'A Historical Introduction to the New Testament' by Robert M. Grant
GMark's vocabulary: 1270 words
GMatthew's vocabulary: 1690 words
GLuke's vocabulary: 2055 words

My conclusion, if Luke used a more extensive vocabulary than Mattthew, including synonyms:
Then the strength of the keywords used by Luke would be diluted, as compared with the ones used by GMatthew.
Consequently, that would explain why Luke is always coming short against Matthew in the MA's (even if some appears to be "neutral").
In other words, if Luke would have used a smaller vocabulary, there would have been a better chance to have some Lukan flavored MA's.

Well that's at least one argument, which might be part of the solution.

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky

The case for IDOU (behold) -- 5 Anti-Markan Agreements of Mt and Lk

OK, this is what Dave provided. Now comes my own material.

IDOU occurs 5 times as an Anti-Markan Agreement.

1. Lk 5:12/Mt 8:2/Mk 1:40
2. Lk 5:18/Mt 9:2/Mk 2:3
3. Lk 8:41/Mt 9:18/Mk 5:22
4. Lk 9:30/Mt 17:3/Mk 9:4
5. Lk 22:47/Mt 26:47/Mk 14:43

I have now looked up all these passages in Aland's SQE, as well as in the Old Syriac gospels.

Aland's SQE Apparatus shows considerable variations in the MSS of the gospels for these passages. In each case except #1, some sort of a variation is shown either in Mk, in Mt, or in Lk, or in a combination of these. So this _alone_ indicates considerable late editing in the Greek textual tradition.

In the Old Syriac gospels, the evidence for Case #2 is lacking (only Lk 5:18 is extant). So we only have evidence for 4 out of these 5 cases.

So here's a shocker. In all 4 of these cases, there are no Anti-Markan Agreements in the OS textual tradition!

Here are some details.

1. No IDOU in Lk 5:12
2. OS evidence is lacking here [yet, as some other old MSS indicate, Mk 2:3 may have originally had IDOU]
3. No IDOU in Lk 8:41
4. No IDOU in Mt 17:3; possible early IDOU in Mk 9:4
5. No IDOU in Lk 22:47. Also, the Alexandrian Mk 14:43 does feature EUQUS (immediately), which is very similar to IDOU. Yet the OS Mk 14:43 has neither EUQUS nor IDOU.

And so, all this seems to indicate that these particular AMAs represent nothing else but the late additions to the Greek text. (Similarly to my previous study of PROSERXOMAI, but even more so.)

Thus, overall, these findings seem to be quite consistent with Dave's study (surprise, surprise... ). His study suggests that, as they are currently found in Lk, these AMAs seem to have a certain Matthean flavour. I'll have to agree, this may well be the case, but, of course, Dave's results only apply to the Alexandrian Greek text of Lk.

So, if these AMAs merely represent the late additions to the Alexandrian text of Lk (as my own study now suggests), then they are nothing more than a late artefact peculiar only to the Greek text.

As a result, since these AMAs are lacking in the Old Syriac Aramaic text of Lk, then they cannot serve to demonstrate that Lk was originally dependent either on Mk or on Mt.

OTOH, these AMAs can indeed serve as evidence that, at some later point in time, the Greek text of Lk may have been reworked by an editor who was fond of Matthean phraseology.

(Also, in a way, my findings may actually seem like they are providing some support for the deutero-Mk theories, since these particular AMAs do appear to be late additions to the Greek versions of Mt and Lk.)

How's this for a Synoptic break-through?

More details of my study can be provided later.

All the best,

Yuri.

Bernard Muller

Hi Yuri, Hi Dave, are you there!
One problem with your theory Yuri, or Dave's, about some "Matthean" scribe(s) adding up on GLuke, is why that would be done for unimportant words, like IDOU? And if he/they would do it, why not systematically?
I LOOOVE the results, but I am most doubful.

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Bernard,

In my view, the OS gospels are basically late 2nd century texts, with some still later additions (and this was also the view of Burkitt).

Whereas, objectively speaking, our canonical Greek gospels represent a 19th century Westcott/Hort edition based on 4th-5th century Alexandrian MSS.

Whether or not some of the gospels were first written in Aramaic is not really the question that I'm currently considering. But, generally, I do believe that Mt was first written in a Hebraic tongue (either Hebrew or Aramaic or both). Also possibly Lk.

Regards,

Yuri.