Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, Dave, I guess Mark-Luke relation would be for another day...

Quote:

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.

Yes, I suppose the agreements of omission in Mt/Lk against Mark, are indeed pretty good indicators where the proto-Mark was shorter than our canonical Mk. But this is a territory that has already been explored in some detail by Koester (and Vinnie has that stuff on his webpage).

So, yes, this is definitely one way in which _the negative_ AMAs are very useful in identifying the earliest texts.

But there's no doubt that also there are quite a few _positive_ AMAs that are also very useful in identifying how the earliest texts used to read. And Koester also did some work on that.

But I don't think anyone so far has gone to the ancient Aramaic texts to do these sorts of Synoptic comparisons. Because now it looks like there's a pretty good new tool to identify some pretty late AMAs in Mt/Lk.

So I suppose that, in general, this is THE BIG PARADOX of the AMAs. On the one hand, they could point to the _earliest_ pre-canonical texts, but OTOH they also can just as easily point to some of the _latest_ additions to the canonical Synoptic gospels.

And up to now, it looks like nobody could find any reliable methodology to distinguish between the early AMAs, and the late AMAs. But now I'm offering just such a methodology.

Best,

Yuri.

Bernard Muller

Yuri, I do not know what you are talking about. Maybe I should not have brought about Luke's "entered", I guess. Does the so-called mistake affect the conclusion the MA here is neutral, and if NOT so, why?
BTW, are you sure about the IDOU NOT in Mark5:22. I think the fifth case for MA's on IDOU should be Mark3:2.

I was doing some research on these IDOU's, and I bumped again on a Lukan MA.
In Mk3:1, "shriveled" or "withered" (hand) has a root XERANO.
In the corresponding stories in Mt and Lk, the word is replaced by root: XEROS.
XEROS is only used here in GMatthew Triple Tradition, but Luke used it twice (in the same story). Both Luke & Matthew used the word once in their own sondergut. I would say 50% Lukan MA (50% neutral). BTW, XEROS not in GMark or Q!

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Mt12:32 "And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, ..."

Lk12:10 "and whoever shall say a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him; but to him that speaks injuriously against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven."

Mk3:28-29a "Verily I say unto you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and all the injurious speeches [with] which they may speak injuriously; but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; ..."

There is no Son of Man title in Mk3:28-29, but once again, that's probably considered a "Matthean" MA in Dave's program. But I think it is rather a Mark-Q overlap (as you mentioned in a later post), or rather (and better) a rewrite by Q of a Markan passage with significant changes. Why?
Matthew kept a rewritten Mk3:28 in Mt12:31 (but Luke never reproduced it).
Lk12:10 is put in a large Q block (and NOT the one about Jesus & Beelzebub as for Mk3:28-29 & Mt12:31-32!).
Anyway, I would not consider that a MA at all. Just because I do not see your way means I have to do some basic groundwork.
It seems to me your are trying to make a circular argument here to support your theories.

One another subject, I came to realize there are no negative MA's in Category 212. By definition, negative MA's belong to Category 121. Actually this later Category is only about negative MA's. Maybe Dave can confirm that.

I'll put a post on my study of the five IDOU's in the MA's not before Monday. And then I'll comment on the proto-Mark, deutero- Mark, Proto-Matthew etc. That's for next week.

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky

Bernard,

Sorry, I've made some mistakes in the last paragraph of my yesterday's post. I guess I was tired when I wrote that...

This part was wrong: "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."

Instead, I should have written:

"Thus, even if this passage was in "Q", then it seems like the early version of Q didn't yet have the Son of Man title here, which is still reflected in Mk. So then a later version of Q added the Son of Man to this passage (which is now reflected in both Mt and Lk)."

Well, this is still an Anti-Markan Agreement between Mt and Lk, whether one likes it or not... And also it does look to me as if Mk is preserving the earlier text, lacking the Son of Man.

Quote:

One another subject, I came to realize there are no negative MA's in Category 212. By definition, negative MA's belong to Category 121. Actually this later Category is only about negative MA's. Maybe Dave can confirm that.

No, I would think that the negative AMAs would be in the Category 020, or Sondergut Mk. There are 641 words there.

Quote:

I'll put a post on my study of the five IDOU's in the MA's not before Monday. And then I'll comment on the proto-Mark, deutero- Mark, Proto-Matthew etc. That's for next week. Best regards, Bernard

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Bernard,

To put it simply, Mk has two words for "enter" in this pericope (ELQON and PROSELQWN), while Mt and Lk each have only one. So it looks like the PROSELQWN in Mk 1:31 was a later addition by a Markan editor, since it's not reflected either by Mt or Lk.

Are you using Aland's Synopsis? If not, you should, because it lays out these Synoptic passages very carefully word for word. Especially the Greek version of Aland's Synopsis is very useful. I don't blame you if you confused these passages, because it would be quite difficult to keep them apart without a good Synopsis. And also the English translations play all sorts of tricks with these words that are quite similar...

Quote:

Does the so-called mistake affect the conclusion the MA here is neutral, and if NOT so, why?

I'm not sure, but I think your term "neutral" may not even be applicable to the negative AMAs.

Quote:

BTW, are you sure about the IDOU NOT in Mark5:22. I think the fifth case for MA's on IDOU should be Mark3:2.

Mk 5:22 has IDWN, which is not the same as IDOU.

There's no IDOU in Mk 3:2 (at least not in Aland's).

Quote:

I was doing some research on these IDOU's, and I bumped again on a Lukan MA. In Mk3:1, "shriveled" or "withered" (hand) has a root XERANO. In the corresponding stories in Mt and Lk, the word is replaced by root: XEROS. XEROS is only used here in GMatthew Triple Tradition, but Luke used it twice (in the same story). Both Luke & Matthew used the word once in their own sondergut. I would say 50% Lukan MA (50% neutral). BTW, XEROS not in GMark or Q!

Maybe so, but the parallel between Mk and Lk isn't exact here.

Mt 12:10 ceira ecwn _xhran_
Lk 6:6 kai h ceir autou h dexia hn _xhra_

Best,

Yuri.

Bernard Muller

Yuri wrote:
"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"

then, after looking at the Old Syriac gospels:

"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.)"

Yuri, the most important thing to know is how your OS manuscripts fare relative to the other IDOU's and PROSERXOMAI's before drawing any conclusion. Can you investigate?

Yuri wrote:
"To put it simply, Mk has two words for "enter" in this pericope (ELQON and PROSELQWN), while Mt and Lk each have only one. So it looks like the PROSELQWN in Mk 1:31 was a later addition by a Markan editor, since it's not reflected either by Mt or Lk."

So I know now where my "mistake" is. I "forgot" to consider the PROSELQWN in Mk 1:31 as a later addition!
But Yuri, if we look at Mk1:29-31, Darby:

29 And straightway going out [root: exerchomai] of the synagogue, they came [root: erchomai] with James and John into the house of Simon and Andrew.
30 And the mother-in-law of Simon lay in a fever. And straightway they speak to him about her.
31 And he went up to [her] [root: proserchomai] and raised her up, having taken her by the hand, and straightway the fever left her, and she served them.

Everything look well into place in the narration. There is only one "enter". I do not see the PROSELQWN as another "enter", that is in Peter's house.
At verse 30, Jesus is in Peter's house, but it is not said the woman is in the same room or presented to Jesus. So the "went up" makes a lot of sense. It does not look like an insertion and why would an interpolator add this word? That does not even appear in the same pericope in GLuke & GMatthew.

And the other gospelers considerably abbreviate the story (causing deletions) and make change. Matthew does not have Jesus in the synagogue to start with:

Matthew 8:
14 And when Jesus had come [root: erchomai] to Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law laid down and in a fever;
15 and he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she arose and served him.

Luke 4:
38 And rising up out of the synagogue, he entered [root: eiserchomai] into the house of Simon. But Simon's mother-in-law was suffering under a bad fever; and they asked him for her.
39 And standing over her, he rebuked the fever, and it left her; and forthwith standing up she served them.

According to what I read here from you:
"But when I looked up these same passages in the Old Syriac gospels, it turns out that 3 out of the 6 aren't even there in the OS gospels! (The Syriac textual tradition only has 2 positive and 1 negative AMAs in the 6 passages above.)"

Would you say the PROSELQWN is missing from the Old Syrian manuscripts (into Mark1:31) and consequently, based on that, the same word was added later in the Greek of GMark?

A better explanation would be the OS would have follow GMatthew (or simply abbreviated) and removed the word in Mk1:31.

In my experience, translators are more likely (and have more opportunities) to make changes than copyists.

Yuri wrote:
"Well, this is still an Anti-Markan Agreement between Mt and Lk, whether one likes it or not... And also it does look to me as if Mk is preserving the earlier text, lacking the Son of Man."

Yuri, you are eager to have a lot of AMA's!. Ya, Mark is preserving the earlier text, because, as I think, the Q author used Mk3:28-29a to write Q Lk12:10/Mt12:30 (of course, after GMark was written). However the two later passages are definitively "Q". This is what I added up in my Q page:

>> Mk3:28-29a Darby "Verily I say unto you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and all the injurious speeches [with] which they may speak injuriously; [29=>] but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; ..."

Mt12:31-32 Darby "For this reason I say unto you, Every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men, but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men.
[32=>]And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, ..."

Lk12:10 Darby "and whoever shall say a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him; but to him that speaks injuriously against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven."

Let's notice how close is Mt12:32 relative to Lk12:10, almost word by word. The closest we have in GMark is Mk3:28-29a, which is "copied" in Mt12:31 (but ignored in GLuke). And considering "Luke" located Lk12:10 at the end of a block containing a series of "Q" sayings (Lk12:2-9, corresponding to the one in Mt10:26b-33, in the same sequence), then it is obvious Mt12:32 and Lk12:10 are "Q".
However, even if the overall meaning of Mk3:28 is different of Mt12:32/Lk12:12, the wording (including Mk3:29a) is very similar ("forgiven", "son(s)", "men/man", "injuriously", "speak(s) against the Holy Spirit" & "forgive...").
Consequently, "Q" Mt12:32/Lk12:10 is rewritten from Mk3:28-29a, with "Son of man" in evidence as generally in "Q": Mk=14, "Q"=8 ("Q" being one third of GMark in size). Also, the following statement, from "Q" itself, might have caused the switch in direction:
Lk7:34 Darby "The Son of man has come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold an eater and wine-drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners;" (also in Mt11:19).

Note: other isolated "Q" rewrites of GMark material: Mk4:22=>Mt10:26b/Lk12:2, Mk8:11-12=>Mt12:39/Lk11:29, Mk8:15=>Mt16:6/Lk12:1, Mk9:40=>Mt12:30a/Lk11:23a, etc. <<

So because of that, these so-called AMA's should go in category 202, instead of 212. Could a late interpolator dreamed up of the aforementioned passage and added it up to both (or either)GLuke & GMatthew (or with another one inserting it) **at a different relative location**? Most doubful.
And if you just change "sons of men" by "Son of man" in Mk3:28, the meaning is not the same as in Mt12:32/Lk12:12.

Of course, these Mark/Q overlaps, if the Q version is not considered from a text available to Luke and Matthew, would greatly increased the MA's of category 212. And the program & data of Dave do not allow for Q in these cases (as I recall Dave mentioning that).

Yuri wrote:
"No, I would think that the negative AMAs would be in the Category 020, or Sondergut Mk. There are 641 words there."

No, category 020 is about Markian material not in GMatthew AND not in GLuke. The zeros stand for no parallels, NOT for no Markian Keywords in the parallels.
As I said, the so-called negative MA's are Category121 (1311 words).
Dave, are you here? can you clarify?

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

MORE IDOUs ABOUT IDOUs

The MA’s on IDOU’s appear in the following parallels:
Case 1. Lk5:12/Mt8:2/Mk1:40
Case 2. Lk5:18/Mt9:2/Mk2:3
Case 3. Lk8:41/Mt9:18/Mk5:22
Case 4. Lk9:30/Mt17:3/Mk9:4
Case 5. Lk22:47/Mt26:47/Mk14:43

The implicated Markian verses (not showing IDOU’s!) are as followed. The number of verses in the same pericopes are indicated.

Case 1. Mk1:40: The leper appears to Jesus (1:40-45, 6 verses). The leper is cured, tells everybody and therefore crowds are after Jesus. (Lk5:12-16)

Case 2. Mk2:3: The paralytic & his bearers appear outside the house where Jesus is.(2:3-12, 10 verses). The Paralytic is allegedly presented to Jesus (through a hole in the roof!) & then cured, allowing Mark to make an argument about Jesus’ divinity and consequently his ability to forgive sins. (Lk5:18-26)

Case 3. Mk5:22: Jairus appears to Jesus (5:22-24a, 5:35-43, 13.5 verses). Consequently, Jesus allegedly resurrect Jairus’ daughter. (Lk8:41-42,49-56)

Case 4. Mk9:4: Moses & Elijah appear to Jesus & disciples (9:4-8, 5 verses). That proved transfiguration and resurrections and the form of resurrected bodies! (Lk9:30-36)

Case 5. Mk14:43 The betrayer, Judas, appears to Jesus at the arrest (14:43-50, 8 verses). The betrayal was prophesied in Mk14:18-21 & Lk22:21-23 (where Luke put another IDOU), as part of a God’s plan and a main cause for Jesus’crucifixion. (Lk22:47-53)

Observation: all these alleged events are very important, theologically/christologically, and “documented” by a fair numbers of verses each.

What do we see in the sondergut Luke, relative to Cases 1-3?

1) An IDOU at Lk 7:12, at the start of Jesus resurrecting the widow’s son, when the dead man is introduced. (Lk7:11-17, 7 verses).

2) An IDOU in Lk13:11, at the start of the story of a crippled woman cured by Jesus, when the woman is introduced. (Lk13:10-17, 8 verses). There is another IDOU in the same story, at Lk13:16.

3) An IDOU in Lk14:2, at the start of the story of a man suffering from dropsy, which got cured by Jesus. That gives Luke the opportunity to have Jesus make speeches (Lk14:1-14, 15 verses).

Generally speaking, Luke has a IDOU at the start of a healing/resurrecting miracle story of at least 6 verses long (either in GMark or Gluke), when the future healed/resurrected ones (or their parent) appear. This is very consistent with Luke adding up IDOU’s to GMark in the first three Cases.

On the other side of the coin, from his/her own sondergut material, Luke does not have a IDOU for the ten lepers cured by Jesus (Lk17:11-19). But that’s it for the exception.

Now let’s look for the places where Luke did not add up a IDOU above GMark:

a) The feeding of the 5000’s, but GMatthew does not have one here either. No future “miracled ones” appears to or close of Jesus. No healing/resurrecting involved here. Does not fit the pattern.

b) The withered hand man cured by Jesus (Lk6:6-11). Matthew has one IDOU here.

c) Jesus calms the squall (Lk8:23-25). There is NO to-be cured person (or their parents) in the story, which is also rather short. Does not fit the pattern. Matthew has one IDOU here, but the story is considerably stretched and the squall becomes a storm.

d) The demon-possessed man healed/exorcised by Jesus of (Lk8:27-33). Matthew has one IDOU here.

e) The woman subject to bleeding cured by Jesus (Lk8:43-48). Matthew has one IDOU here.

f) The blind man of Jericho cured by Jesus (Lk18:35-43). Matthew has one IDOU here.

What about the two miracle stories of Q?

g) The centurion’s servant healed by Jesus (Lk7:2-10). No IDOU here, neither in GMatthew.

h) The mute man cured by Jesus (Lk11:14). No IDOU here, neither in Gmatthew.

But we have also:

i) An IDOU at Lk9:38, when the father of the epileptic boy introduced himself to Jesus. The IDOU is NOT in the corresponding Markian and Matthean verses (my references here are ‘The Online Greek Bible’ and Darby. Both agree). More, Luke added up a IDOU in the next verse (NOT in GMatthew or GMark), when the boy is seen in convulsion (Lk9:38-43, 6 verses). Dave did not get these two ones: that would put a 2 in category 112 relative to IDOU. So Luke was also prone to add IDOU’s on Markian material where Matthew did not do it !!!

So, what to conclude?
The first three Cases are about (long) miracle healing/resurrecting stories, with the IDOU’s located when the to-be “miracled ones” (or his/her parent) show on the scene. From his/her own material, Luke placed a IDOU in analog situations, three out of four times. But Luke seemed to be restrictive on GMark & Q material because the IDOU’s are added here only four out of ten times (four out of eight times considering GMark only).
And out of the eight opportunities (according to Luke’s pattern) where Luke could have fitted a IDOU above GMark (1, 2), 3), b), d), e), f) & i)), **Matthew has a IDOU in all of them (except one, the epileptic boy, but Luke took care of that!) !!!***

We are not looking at coincidences here!

PS: the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (short story!) has NO IDOU in all the three synoptics. And Luke dropped the IDOU’s from GMark in stories NOT involving miracles: the parable of the sower and mother & brothers appearing outside the house where Jesus stays.

Now let’s look at the two last Cases:

Case 4. Mk9:4: Moses & Elijah appear to Jesus & disciples (9:4-8, 5 verses). That proved transfiguration and resurrections and the form of resurrected bodies! (Lk9:30-36)

Case 5. Mk14:43 The betrayer, Judas, appears to Jesus at the arrest (14:43-50, 8 verses). The betrayal was prophesied in Mk14:18-21 & Lk22:21-23 (where Luke put another IDOU), as part of a God’s plan and a main cause for Jesus’ crucifixion. (Lk22:47-53)

For Case 4, other heavenly or resurrected ones are presented with IDOU in GLuke:

a) An IDOU at Lk2:9, when angels appear to the shepherds (Lk1:8-15, 8verses).

b) An IDOU in Lk24:4, about the two angels appearing to the women in the empty tomb (Lk24:1-8, 9 verses).

c) An IDOU in Lk24:13, about resurrected Jesus appearing to two followers on the road to Emmaus (Lk24:13-35, 23 verses).

So the IDOU in Lk9:30 is not against Luke’s pattern. And the appearance of Moses & Elijah is quite a shocker, worth to be highlighted !!!

For Case 5, other important person(s) (for the story) appearing to other(s) with a IDOU are also featured in Gluke:
Into the first four aforementioned Cases, the angels (Lk2:9), Simeon of Jerusalem (Lk2:25), Joseph of Arimathea to Pilate (Lk23:50-52), the two angels (Lk24:4), the two disciples (Lk24:13), etc.
And the hand of the betrayer (Judas) is announced in Lk22:21 by a IDOU! NO IDOU to be seen in the corresponding verse in GMatthew (26:23)!
Furthermore, Luke used nine IDOU’s from Judas’ betrayal plan up to Jesus’ death (Lk22:1-23:49), when Matthew, in the corresponding passages (Mt26:14-27:56) used seven IDOU’s, with only one “coincidence” to show for!

So, regardless of Dave’s math, I do not see any problem about the five IDOU’s, and I do not need Luke to have a peek at passages of GMatthew. And this is not even considering the possibility of harmonizers down the line!

Best regards, Bernard

Yuri Kuchinsky

Bernard,

Can you be a bit more specific about the target of such an investigation?

Well, Aland's Synopsis says this was a mistake on your part, originally. So your argument now is with Herr Dr. Aland.

[snip further background materil on this issue]

Quote:

According to what I read here from you: "But when I looked up these same passages in the Old Syriac gospels, it turns out that 3 out of the 6 aren't even there in the OS gospels! (The Syriac textual tradition only has 2 positive and 1 negative AMAs in the 6 passages above.)" Would you say the PROSELQWN is missing from the Old Syrian manuscripts (into Mark1:31) and consequently, based on that, the same word was added later in the Greek of GMark?

Yes, this is my general position.

Quote:

A better explanation would be the OS would have follow GMatthew (or simply abbreviated) and removed the word in Mk1:31. In my experience, translators are more likely (and have more opportunities) to make changes than copyists.

But the problem with this is that the OS is usually also supported by the Old Latin and other very early MSS.

You really should consider this as a _textual problem_. Whereas you tend to treat the whole thing as an exegetical problem only.

My dear friend, I don't believe in Q. So all these arguments about Q really don't impress me very much.

But since we agree that Mark is preserving the earlier text here, let's just leave it at that.

Also, to say that this is an Anti-Markan Agreement between Mt and Lk is prima facie true, regardless of how I feel about AMAs in general...

Let's wait for Dave to come back (hopefully he will). He can clarify these things quickly enough.

Also, you wrote a long post after this one, but I'm really not sure where you're trying to take that argument. Your arguments seem to go into a number of different directions at once.

Once again, I think Textual Criticism is the key to all such issues. You need to pay attention to the ancient MSS, because they are the final authorities on all these matters.

And, in general, I think that Textual Criticism is the only thing that matters in the biblical studies today. The general neglect of Textual Criticism in recent biblical scholarship is a sure sign that the whole thing has mostly devolved into pseudo-science. And the whole "Q studies" industry is a prime example of this IMHO.

In my view, one of the biggest sins of modern biblical scholarship is that they are so eager to study a hypothetical Q-source (which doesn't exist in real life) but wouldn't touch the early sources that actually _do exist_, such as the ancient Aramaic gospels... Is this because they are in a Semitic tongue, perhaps?

Yuri.

Bernard Muller

For a start, would we see a blank when there are IDOU's in GMark & GMatthew, generally, or more specifically, about the five MA's IDOU in GMatthew. Would we see a blank when there are IDOU's in other parts of GLuke (other than the MA's five IDOUs)?
My point is: no conclusion can be drawn if the overall picture is not taken in account.

So what's the verdict about the PROSERXOMAI in Mk1:31 from the OS & early MSS & Old Latin gospels? More so relative to the OS gospels. A "general position" is not good enough.

What is the evidence of Dr. Aland about the PROSERXOMAI in Mk1:31 not being in the original? This is not what I see in many Greek texts available on the web (and translations).
Is Dr Aland God? You seem to think so, because you were so sure I made a mistake.

I suppose, if you reject Q, you are going to have a huge lot of AMA's, as long as you can find a Markian passage which remotely looks like a corresponding Q passage.

Not really, I gave a specific & documented answer for each case about MA's IDOUs in GLuke, showing they are to be expected. That's a lot more than I am getting from you, which is generalistic comments and no evidence. And I do not have to explain how some copyist would add up an unimportant word such as IDOU in some places but not in others. And why an author be faithful on one IDOU here and do the opposite on another IDOU there.

Even if missing as a old manuscript, Q is reproduced in GLuke & GMatthew, even when it hurts (that is going against the wiews of each gospeler). Enough of that.
Do we have manuscripts of these ancient Aramaic gospels?
I think not.
But if you are thinking about Old Syriac gospels, then are you sure they are so ancient, and if so, representative of the original gospels?
I think you are juggling with a lot of hypotheses here, some above another one.

I think there is more to that. We have to analyse the biases, the patterns, the main doctrinal items, the like & dislike, the coloring, the pet topics, etc., for each gospelers. Just seeing the gospels as just a bunch of words is not enough.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Yuri wrote:
Thus, for the word PROSERXOMAI
... [snipped]
The 4 positive AMAs:
Lk 8:24/Mt 8:25/Mk 4:38
Lk 8:44/Mt 9:20/Mk 5:27
Lk 20:27/Mt 22:23/Mk 12:18
Lk 23:52/Mt 27:58/Mk 15:43
... [snipped]
But when I looked up these same passages in the Old Syriac gospels, it turns out that 3 out of the 6 aren't even there in the OS gospels! (The Syriac textual tradition only has 2 positive and 1 negative AMAs in the 6 passages above.)
So the whole thing looks really strange. By the looks of it, the 3 AMAs that aren't there in the OS gospels may have been added by some late Greek editors. (Of course, in my view, OS gospels are more original than their Greek counterparts.)

Yuri, there is no variation whatsoever for the PROSERXOMAI in Lk8:24, 8:44, 20:27 & 23:52 in all Greek MSS, from any flavor, that is Alexandrian, Western, Cesarean, Byzantine, etc. If **some late Greek editors** would have added PROSERXOMAI in GLuke, then we would have discrepancies in the Greek MSS. They do not show that.

Yuri wrote:
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.

Yuri, once again, there is no variation on the IDOUs in Lk5:12,8:41,22:47 & Mt17:3; they show in all Greek MSS.
Once again, that would require some late Greek editors to have added IDOU's (an unimportant word) in all Greek MSS, with no discrepancy showing, a very unlikely proposition.
Note: all Greek MSS show no IDOU in Mk9:4.

According to the two points above, I would be very suspicious of these Old Syriac texts. Actually, that would prove to me they depart from all the Greek MSS (& just looking at two words & a dozen of cases only!!!), including you dearest western/peripheral texts.
Can you explain that, if the Old Syriac texts were faithful to the earliest gospels, why would all the Greek MSS agree with each others (on plain words like IDOU & PROSERXOMAI), but disagree with your cherished OS?

Yuri wrote (about the PROSERXOMAI in Mk1:31):
Well, Aland's Synopsis says this was a mistake on your part, originally. So your argument now is with Herr Dr. Aland.

The Nestle-Aland Greek (NA26) reproduces the PROSERXOMAI in Mk1:31. All Greek MSS have this word. There is no variation on Mk1:29-30 also. So as long as you do not show me a quote of the passage where Dr Aland wrote this PROSERXOMAI as not in the original Mk1:31, I am saying you are the one who made the mistake.

Best regards, Bernard