hatsoff

Hi, all.

For a long time I've been mulling over this question. I do believe that 2SH is the most plausible of any individual Synoptic solutions, but of course it is nevertheless highly speculative. If, then, we attempt to use 2SH in any literary discussion, we should be prepared to give a nod to its alternatives. So, just what is the most plausible scenario, after 2SH? The Griesbach, Augustinian and Farrer hypotheses seem to be the next most popular, respectively, among critical scholars. Yet in my admittedly limited research, I find all three considerably inferior to the explanatory power of a hypothesis whose model, as far as I know, has no accepted name.

Now, what I'd like to do is take a conclusion common to Farrer and 2SH, that being Markan priority. Some further reading on this includes Peter Kirby's outline and Dan Wallace's synoptic problem introduction. Now, if we assume Mark did in fact write first, and that Q did not exist, then we have a choice of two simple formulations: Either Lk drew from Mt and Mk, as Farrer posits, or Mt drew from Mk and Lk. It's easy to see why one might initially be more inclined to accept Farrer. For instance, when Lk notes in 1:1 that "many have undertaken to compile an account," one tends to imagine he is speaking of Mt and Mk. Similarly, though Markan priority intrudes on the ancient idea that Mt wrote first, one still may be inclined to slate him before Lk out of some unconscious respect for tradition. Yet the more I read of the Synoptics, the more I have come to believe that, if Mt and Lk have a direct literary relationship, it is Lk who served as the source, and Mt the editor. I have found it exceedingly difficult to test this hypothesis, however, and I am unsure if I have found myself reading the Gospels as if I had already decided that Mt must have drawn either from Q or Lk. I'd therefore appreciate some feedback.

To begin, though, let's look at two good examples of why I think Lk is a more plausible source for Mt than Mt for Lk. The first of them is perhaps best known as one of the most striking of the minor agreements against Mk, used by the likes of Michael Goulder to argue against Q. It is as follows:

Then some began to spit on him, and to blindfold him, and to strike him with their fists, saying, “Prophesy!” The guards also took him and beat him.
--Mk 14:65

Now the men who were holding Jesus under guard began to mock him and beat him. They blindfolded him and asked him repeatedly, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” They also said many other things against him, reviling him.
--Lk 22:63-65

Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists. And some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy for us, you Christ! Who hit you?”
--Mt 26:67-68

The notable agreement against Mark here is the line, "who hit you." It gives one even greater pause in the original Greek, being a perfect duplication of five words: τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε

It has been suggested that this is the result of a textual corruption, usually in Mt, and this is indeed the most likely solution given the weight of 2SH. However, you must remember that we are assuming 2SH is false, and that either Mt or Lk must have copied the other. So, which is it?

Now, let's ask ourselves, why add the question at all? The answer to that seems simple enough: For, in Mk Jesus is blindfolded and asked to prophesy. Then, in the first expansion of the his account, a specific prophecy is added for color. Ordinarily, this wouldn't help us very much, except that in this case the expanded material relies on the blindfold for context. Since Mt omits reference to that, I find it most likely that Lk was the origin, with the blindfold reference being lost when Mt edited the two sources together.

Of course, this is hardly an air-tight example. It could be that Mt lost the blindfold reference, and that Lk noticed the discrepancy, or even that he accidentally corrected it by way of weaving in Mk's text. However, I find these explanations less compelling.

The second example I'd like to give draws from a double tradition, the Beatitudes:

“Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.
“Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
“Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
“Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject you as evil on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and jump for joy, because your reward is great in heaven. For their ancestors did the same things to the prophets."
--Lk 6:20-23

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.
“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things about you falsely on account of me. Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way."
--Mt 5:3-11

In Lk's version, the message is perfectly uniform: Blessed are those who suffer now, because in Heaven they will be rewarded. Yet Mt's vision is somewhat more complex. Instead of "hunger," we see "hunger and thirst for righteousness," and instead of the "poor," he gives us the "poor in spirit." The additional Beatitudes entail blessings for the plainly virtuous, such as the "pure in heart" and "peacemakers." Yet the core theme of endurance in the present for future rewards remains present with Mt.

As before, there is no smoking gun to settle the matter beyond dispute. Yet given what we have to work with, I find the idea that Lk truncated Mt to rid it of mysticism and simplify the message to be a considerably less satisfying explanation than that Mt added his own interpretive bias to an initially straightforward speech.

So, that's what I've got. I was hoping y'all could give your thoughts, especially if you have experience with this topic.

Ben C Smith

Marcan priority with Matthew copying both Mark and Luke is Wilke, I believe. The same scenario, but with Q, is Hengel.

Somewhere Mark Goodacre wrote a very good rebuttal to the notion that the beatitudes (especially the one on poverty) show either Lucan priority or primitivity in the double tradition. But offhand I cannot remember where (perhaps in The Case Against Q).

The who hit you agreement is admittedly more complex, I think.

Ben.

renassault

I don't think either Luke nor Matthew revised one or the other. The example that you give does not mean Matthew revised the canonical Luke but Q (the Sermon on the Mount). It has been rightly pointed out by scholars that Luke does not rearrange the material within the sources he uses, although he does break it up for a better chronology (e.g. the small and great interpolations), and this is especially seen in areas where the sayings of Jesus that Luke took over from Q follow each other with absolutely no connection (e.g. Lk. 12.8-10 and 12.11-12, and Lk 16). Specifically Luke 16.16 is considered to be a Lukan reworking of Mt. 11.12 but I think it's more likely that Luke's copy of Q did not have the saying in Mt. 11.12 (since "the Prophets and the Law were until John" in Lk 16.16 is Mt. 11.13 and Matthew is known for rearranging his sources), or what's more likely is Matthew retained 11.12 whereas Luke retained the remaining portion of 16.16, since the two are similar but not identical, and this may have been due to seeming repetitiveness. Matthew is known for omissions (two miracles) and Luke does not have Mt 24.20/Mk 13.18 in Luke 21.

As for an alternative to the 2SH, I personally think that the theory of an ur-Markus and Q instead of Mark and Q as the basis of Matthew and Luke's (and Mark's) gospels is far more supported. Firstly, there are verses in Mark that are missing from the other two (Mk. 3.30, 14.51). Secondly, portions of Mark are evidently summarizations of already existing material (Mk. 1.13), and this is especially evident in the ending of Mark where there is no summary of the appearances, yet Mark knows of them as per 16.7. Luke and Matthew have Mark 1-6 rearranged (the difference in rearrangement is due to Matthew's desire for chronology and Luke's desire for preservation of order in his sources), as well as minor differences in the parallels between them from Mark 7 and beyond. An ur-Markan "Vorlage" or source for Mark is not only attested to by Papias, who also says that Mark rearranged the material and omitted what wasn't suitable to his audience, but is also likely due to the fact that the sayings (Q) which would have arisen in Palestine in 30-40 AD would eventually need a narrative as the church expanded to include the Gentiles. Even though Paul began the Gentile mission in about 50 AD, there were Christians as early as the 40's (the expulsion of Jews in 44 AD) in Rome, which would suggest there were probably many Gentile Christians throughout the Asian provinces, making ur-Mark a reality at about 45 AD, eventually resulting in the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the 50's.

hatsoff

Thanks for the responses so far, but I think I should clarify a couple of things: I do agree that 2SH is the most likely out of the major hypotheses. I'm only looking to determine what might be the second-most likely. As for the ur-Marcus/Q scenario, I consider that a subset of 2SH.

Basically, what I'm seeking here is what happens, hypothetically, if we dispense with Q.

hatsoff

It is The Case Against Q, yes. Chapter 7, to be exact. And as I said, I agree that even the Beatitudes are no "smoking gun" for Lukan primacy. Yet even given Goodacre's arguments, I still think Lukan primacy is the best explanation in that particular instance. In fact, his argument that poverty as virtue is a Lukan theme is further support that the blessing in 6:20, if not original to Q, was probably a Lukan innovation which Matthew expanded.

Yet are there other, competing instances where the Matthean material seems primary to Luke's? Meanwhile, are there additional parallels where Luke's primacy is reinforced?

renassault

I'd say Matthean priority is more likely than Lukan. That Luke would redact Matthew 5.3 is far more likely than the other way around.

hatsoff

How so? As Goodacre notes, poverty as virtue is an idea expressed elsewhere in Luke, which makes it quite reasonable to expect he is the origin of the passage. Moreover, we must look at the Beatitudes as a whole, and see that Matthew's desire to interpret makes sense for an expansion, whereas Luke has no apparent motive to truncate the Matthean material.

For example, Mt may be hesitant to teach the message that poverty and starvation are desirable in life. Conversely, Lk's refusal to convey the benefits of purity and peace would seem a bit unusual.

Huon

http://www.hypotyposeis.org/synoptic-problem/

by Stephen C. Carlson

dog-on

Then some began to spit on him, and to blindfold him, and to strike him with their fists, saying, “Prophesy!” The guards also took him and beat him.
--Mk 14:65

Now the men who were holding Jesus under guard began to mock him and beat him. They blindfolded him and asked him repeatedly, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” They also said many other things against him, reviling him.
--Lk 22:63-65

Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists. And some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy for us, you Christ! Who hit you?”
--Mt 26:67-68


Mark wrote the original.

Matthew, using Mark, expanded on it.

Luke, using both Mark and Mat, realized that Jesus would have probably seen who hit him, based on Mat's version, so adds a blindfold. He also realizes that this would not be the end of their taunts in a "real-world" setting so he adds this:


Solved....next?

Ben C Smith

Thanks very much for reminding me where his argument is to be found.

I have a page on my site that discusses examples of direction of dependence arguments. This page is intentionally presented as neutrally as I am capable of presenting it; you will find examples of each synoptist copying from each other in no overall pattern, based purely on how strong I feel the argument is. There is thus absolutely no firm result in terms of the synoptic problem; the whole point (much like that of your OP) is to try to think along new lines.

Ben.