Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, Bernard, at this point I don't really want to stray too far beyond the evidence... So far, I've done a detailed analysis of multiple AMAs involving these two words only. So my conclusions are tentative, since they are only based on this limited set of data.

The Old Syriac evidence seems kind of promising, nevertheless, and I suspect that it will be duplicated with some additional studies involving other words.

In general, I don't think that this type of the AMAs that I've been investigating recently is the only type that's in there. Don't forget that there are about 1000 of them altogether. So, naturally, there are also probably other types of AMAs. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are also a lot of the AMAs that are very early, and go back to the original Christian proto-gospel (I know of quite a few such AMAs actually).

Thus, there's no reason to think that AMAs only involve "unimportant words like IDOU". I'm pretty sure that many AMAs also involve some very important words as well. And I do believe that the ancient Aramaic gospels can also help to identify those ones.

But, of course, ancient Aramaic gospels are taboo in the NT field as we see it today, full that it is of bias and bigotry of a particular kind. They want to see Jesus as Greek, so, as a result, the ancient Aramaic gospels have been out of print for nearly a century. It's the best kept secret in NT studies!

Regards,

Yuri.

Bernard Muller

I do not know about the 1000's. Dave came up with 207 words only, including negative MA's. I think you need to be very picky, and look at KAI & DE to come up with such a big number. But if you have evidence, present it!

Well I would like to see evidence. Maybe Dave can answer that. Is there some MA's which harmonize with the other gospel on matter of Theological/Christological importance (most likely above GMark)? Or to avoid a major contradiction between GLuke & GMatthew?

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky

I'm surprised to hear this from you, Bernard. With all your experience in the NT field, you still don't know how many AMAs are out there?

In actual fact, the total count ranges from 750, as itemised by Neirynck (a 2SH stalwart that he is) to around 2000, as counted by some other authorities. So, all in all, 1000 may seem like a conservative number...

As to Dave's 207 words, that was never meant to be representative in any way.

Quote:

Well I would like to see evidence. Maybe Dave can answer that. Is there some MA's which harmonize with the other gospel on matter of Theological/Christological importance (most likely above GMark)? Or to avoid a major contradiction between GLuke & GMatthew?

There are all sorts of AMAs, but now it seems like you'll still need to do some basic groundwork in this area.

Let's take this as an example,

Mt 12:32/Mk 3:28/Lk 12:10

Here both Mt and Lk have the Son of Man title, but Mk lacks it in its parallel passage. Surely this might have some theological relevance.

Regards,

Yuri.

Bernard Muller

Thanks, but did you see me looking at the Greek for MA's, verse by verse? I always had a blind spot for MA's and I am glad Dave's study brought some light on the issue for me.

Mt12:32 & Lk12:10 are part of Q (Mk3:28 does not show a parallel with the aforementioned verses).
At least, that's the way it is commonly accepted.

Best regards, Bernard

GentDave

Bernard,

Sorry I've been MIA.

I'm really not sur I understnd the diagrams.

On this:
==
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.
==

I really don't think that is the case. Luke's rich vocabulary is his style. The study can see for example that 002 and 112 look alike.
They both use Luke's rich vocabulary.

On average the occurance of any key word would be small, but departure from a small number will affect probabilities more that departure from a large number. i.e. if we expect 12, 10 is not unusual, but if we expect 2, 4 is a bit more unusual.

Without going in to more detail, I believe the probability calculations are corrrect.

GentDave

Yuri,

Very interesting.
But you say:

"they cannot serve to demonstrate that Lk was originally dependent either on Mk or on Mt"

We'd have to look at other catgories to talk about the Mark-Luke relation, no? We've been focused on Mt-Lk.

GentDave

Yuri writes,

I'm pretty sure that there are also a lot of the AMAs that are very early, and go back to the original Christian proto-gospel

Dave:

There may be some, but I think the agreements of omission against MArk, are better indicators of a proto-Mark. I would guess the changes from proto-Mark to Mark are 90% addition 10% omission, but that's just a guess.

Bernard Muller

I decided to look closely at the six MA’s caused by the word PROSERCHOMAI, 4 positive, 2 negative. That’s 6 out of 207 MA’s, 2.9%.

CASE 1: Lk 8:24/Mt 8:25/Mk 4:38
“And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish.”
“And his disciples came to [him], and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish.”
“And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master [Teacher would be more correct here], carest thou not that we perish?”

a) First, the ending is the same: “we perish” or “we are perishing”. The other words of the disciples are removed. And then Jesus is called Master in by Luke, Lord by Matthew, and Teacher by Mark.

b) The front shows also some difference: Luke has a DE, “they” & “him” when Matthew has KAI, “disciples” & no “him”.

Now to the main subject. Why Luke and Matthew used “came to” (root: ) PROSERCHOMAI, when Mark did not show any movement of the disciples towards Jesus?
Maybe Luke and Matthew were thinking, if despite the waves & the noise & the motion of the boat, Jesus was still sound asleep, he required to be shaken up out of it.
Overall, this case is troubling, a lot more than the others, with the choice of the same word against Mark. I would certainly be open for a later harmonization between the two passages, but a concordance of thoughts (shortening of Mark’s wording, requirement for the disciples to get to Jesus) may very well explain the “coincidences”. But definitively a “Matthean” MA, 80%, to take in account a possibility of concordance of thoughts.

CASE 2: Lk 8:44/Mt 9:20/Mk 5:27
“Came behind [him], and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.”
“And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind [him], and touched the hem of his garment:”
“When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.”

CASE 3: Lk 20:27/Mt 22:23/Mk 12:18
“Then came to [him] certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,”
“The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,”
“Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying”

CASE 4: Lk 23:52/Mt 27:58/Mk 15:43
“This [man] went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.”
“He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.”
“Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.”

In the three cases, the MA is caused by Mark using (root: ) ERCHOMAI, when the other two, used (root: ) PROSERCHOMAI instead. According to Strong:

ERCHOMAI
1) to come
--- a) of persons
------- 1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning
------- 2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
2) metaph.
--- a) to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence
--- b) be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto
3) to go, to follow one
For Synonyms see entry 5818

PROSERCHOMAI
1) to come to, approach
2) draw near to
3) to assent to

It looks here that PROSERCHOMAI is very suited to show a movement of a person (within the same general area) to another person. But ERCHOMAI, a word with more meanings, is not suited for, even wrong, in the context of the three verses of GMark.
Looking at the three cases, PROSERCHOMAI is a lot more appropriate than ERCHOMAI, and it should not be so surprising both Luke & Matthew made the switch, more so when both used the words more extensively than GMark: Mt=49, Mk=5, Lk=10.
If Luke borrowed a few PROSERCHOMAI from Matthew, why not more? I rather see here both authors correcting Mark with a word found somewhere else in GMark (and PROSERCHOMAI is of the same family as ERCHOMAI!).

So are these three MA’s “Matthean”: Hardly so, but I would give them a 30% weight in that regard (but without conceding Luke had to have “Matthew”).

NOTE: PROSERCHOMAI is considered “Matthean” (no challenge). What about ERCHOMAI?
Matt=113, Mk=80, Lk=96. Apparent advantage Matthew again, but considering GMark is much shorter than GMatthew, the word is more “Markian” than “Matthean”.

CASE 5: Lk 4:39/Mt 8:14/Mk 1:31
“And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her: and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.”
“And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.“
“And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.”

Here, it is the reverse: Mark used PROSERCHOMAI when Matthew used ERCHOMAI. But Luke, quite off-center on this clause, used “entered” (root: EISERCHOMAI) in the preceding verse, a “Lukan” word (Mt=33, Mk=32, Lk=48), to indicate the movement into Peter’s house.
Then one question arise: Why would this MA be “Matthean”? I see no reason for that, more so because Luke used his/her **own Keyword**. Both Luke and Matthew disagreed between each other, and on a "Matthean" keyword at that!
So the MA here is neutral.

CASE 6: Lk 10:25/Mt 22:35/Mk 12:28
“And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,”
“And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?”

Here is an interesting example:
a) The two “saying” are very usual words (KJV “saying” Mt=102, Lk=104). But I think that may count for one MA. If it does, that should be considered neutral.

b) The two “tempting” jump at you, but the words are different: (root: ) EKPEIRAZO for Luke, (root: ) PEIRAZO for Matthew. Then of course, in GLuke and GMatthew, Jesus is tempted/tried/tested by Teachers of the Law and Pharisees a lot more than in GMark. And this pericope definitively invites “tempting”.

c) “Scribes” is (root: ) GRAMMATEUS and describe low level teachers of the Law.
However, the parallel word (“lawyer”) used by both Luke and Matthew is (root: ) NOMIKOS (Mt=1, Lk=6) designating the same but of high level. The word in “Lukan” and only used by Matthew here. So we would have a “Lukan” MA here, 100%. Right! (and Matthew had to get that from GLuke!!!) Not in Dave’s program, because the Keywords (807 only) are on the most used in the synoptic gospels and the seven occurrences of NOMIKOS are probably below the radar screen. In other words, NOMIKOS is not among the Keywords (implied by the fact none of the MA’s are “Lukan” according to Dave).

Now on the main subject: Mark used PROSERCHOMAI, the others do not indicate any movement of the man (but GLuke has “stood up”). Why? Well, Luke & Matthew shortened GMark here, so “came”, rather unnecessary, was discarded by both, among other things.

A “Matthean” MA? Not at all, more so when both skipped PROSERCHOMAI and did not bother to replace it by another word, more true for Matthew than Luke. Totally neutral for me, for the same reason as CASE 5.
But we discovered another MA, this one very positive, and 100% "Lukan" (NOMIKOS). Let's give due justice to NOMIKOS, saving it from the waste basket.

CONCLUSION:

For the six MA’s, we have 80, plus 3 times 30 for “Matthean” flavor, that’s 170/600 = 28% (that's a lot less than 100%).
We have 100 for “Lukan” flavor, that’s 170/600 = 17%
Neutral: the rest, 55%.

My method is not cold and dry, somewhat empirical, but still shows the danger of a totally computerized approach.

I bumped into negative MA’s, and I am very suspicious that most of them, if any, should stay in the “Matthean” camp.

I bumped into parallel “corrections” of both Luke and Matthew of Markan material, and well deserved. I suspect a lot of MA’s can be explained that way.

I bumped into a “Lukan” word, NOMIKOS, not included in the 807 Keywords of the study, and consequently not causing a “Lukan” MA. Because, due to the large vocabulary of Luke, way larger than Matthew, a lot of Lukan Keywords were not used in the 807 Keywords, and consequently not generating any “Lukan” MA’s.

A reminder: GMark's vocabulary: 1270 words
GMatthew's vocabulary: 1690 words
GLuke's vocabulary: 2055 words

The discarded Lukan words (more of those than their Matthean counterparts), and especially when they are synonym of "Matthean" keywords, make the other remaining ones lacking numbers as compared with the ones of Matthew, who has a smaller vocabulary. On this observation, I would look at the cases of almost neutral MA’s carefully. They might be more neutral than thought, and some of them even leaning in Luke’s camp.

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky

You've made a mistake here, Bernard.

Because we've been talking about Mk 1:31 (using PROSELQWN), and not Mk 1:29 (using ELQON). The ELQON in Mk 1:29 is paralleled by two similar words in Mk and Lk, but not the PROSELQWN in Mk 1:31.

Quote:

c) “Scribes” is (root: ) GRAMMATEUS and describe low level teachers of the Law. However, the parallel word (“lawyer”) used by both Luke and Matthew is (root: ) NOMIKOS (Mt=1, Lk=6) designating the same but of high level. The word in “Lukan” and only used by Matthew here. So we would have a “Lukan” MA here, 100%. Right! (and Matthew had to get that from GLuke!!!) Not in Dave’s program, because the Keywords (807 only) are on the most used in the synoptic gospels and the seven occurrences of NOMIKOS are probably below the radar screen. In other words, NOMIKOS is not among the Keywords (implied by the fact none of the MA’s are “Lukan” according to Dave).

Yes, you've definitely have a case here with NOMIKOS. This wasn't a part of Dave's study, and thus shows some possible bias in the Synoptic data that the study was based on.

Quote:

... But we discovered another MA, this one very positive, and 100% "Lukan" (NOMIKOS). Let's give due justice to NOMIKOS, saving it from the waste basket. CONCLUSION: ... I bumped into a “Lukan” word, NOMIKOS, not included in the 807 Keywords of the study, and consequently not causing a “Lukan” MA. Because, due to the large vocabulary of Luke, way larger than Matthew, a lot of Lukan Keywords were not used in the 807 Keywords, and consequently not generating any “Lukan” MA’s. A reminder: GMark's vocabulary: 1270 words GMatthew's vocabulary: 1690 words GLuke's vocabulary: 2055 words The discarded Lukan words (more of those than their Matthean counterparts), and especially when they are synonym of "Matthean" keywords, make the other remaining ones lacking numbers as compared with the ones of Matthew, who has a smaller vocabulary. On this observation, I would look at the cases of almost neutral MA’s carefully. They might be more neutral than thought, and some of them even leaning in Luke’s camp.

All that may well be valid. But now, the new evidence that I've discovered in the ancient Aramaic gospels certainly opens up a whole new way to look at these things.

My new finding is that a lot of these AMAs in the Alexandrian Greek text, that Dave's study analysed, are not even there in the OS Aramaic gospels. So how is this new data to be explained?

The most obvious explanation is that these AMAs had only been added at some later point by Greek editors. They are not reflective of the earliest versions of the gospels.

And what would be the alternative to this? That the later OS editors removed these AMAs? But why?

And also, judging from my past experience, most passages in the OS gospels are usually supported quite well by lots of other very early Western/Peripheral texts. So this makes them very early.

Now also here's some new info about USTERON, that Dave already mentioned.

USTERON (= afterwards) in Lk 20:32/Mt 22:27/Mk 12:22

This is a seemingly Matthean word in Lk. But there's no AMA there in the Old Syriac Mt/Lk!

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

But, Bernard, Mk 3:28 does follow in the same sequence as Mt here, following after Mt 12:30/Mk 3:27. So, if anything, this looks like one of those "Mk/Q overlaps".

One of the main reasons I prefer to use AMAs (Anti-Markan Agreements) rather than MAs (Minor Agreements), is that this terminology helps to avoid such vague and wooly issues like these so-called "Mk/Q overlaps". An Anti-Markan Agreement of Mt and Lk is still an Anti-Markan Agreement, any way you slice it or dice it.

Thus, even if this passage was in "Q", then obviously Q didn't have the Son of Man title here, which is still reflected by both Mt and Lk. So then Mk added the Son of Man in this passage.

Regards,

Yuri.