New solution to the Synoptic problem? The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis

Just found his online. I've been aware of alternatives to the 2-document hypothesis (or 2DH), or Q hypothesis, for a while, but never checked them out in detail. For example, there's Marc Goodacre, who defends the Farrer hypothesis, that Luke uses Mark AND Matthew, and that Q doesn't exist. Then there's Thomas Thompson, who also argues against 2DH in his Messiah Myth, but he doesn't give an extended criticism of the theories there, focusing on his literary ideas.

But this 'new' theory (there have actually been other people saying similar things, but not sure to what extent), the Matthew Conflator Hypothesis, seems to take into account all the phenomena that led to the Q hypothesis, as well as the evidence suggesting that Matthew and Luke knew each other's gospels (in one direction or another).

Allan Garrow has a video version of his paper (currently in peer review) on his website. You can view them here:

http://www.alangarrow.com/mch.html

Seems pretty convincing to me. Although I'm still interested to see how Marcion's gospel fits into the mix - it may complicate or simplify some matters, or both, as Tyson suggests in Marcion and Luke-Acts. For example, if Marcion used an early version of Luke, did Matthew use an early Luke as well? Might this explain the differing birth and resurrection narratives? At this point, I'm not well-versed enough in the specific parallels to say one way or the other.

And the follow-up presentation is particularly fascinating:

http://www.alangarrow.com/extantq.html

So, on the one hand, the theory significantly shortens the "Q" material. Chances are, most of that material is simply Luke's creation, which was then copied by Matthew. But, on the other, there DOES seem to be some shared 'source' material (against the Farrer hypothesis excluding a second source). That's where the second video is so interesting, because Garrow argues that this 'source' is extant: it's the Didache! So the 'hypothetical Q' actually exists, but not in the form scholars have imagined for the last hundred-plus years. The common 'sayings of Jesus' are in fact culled from the Didache.

In other words:

First came Mark. (apparently Garrow argues elsewhere that Mark used Didache to some degree, but he doesn't mention that in the videos)
Luke used Mark and the Didache.
Matthew used Mark, Luke, and the Didache.

This actually fits with the picture presented by both Doherty and Elegard: the epistles and other 1st-century Christian writings are not dependent on the gospels. If anything, the gospels use THEM. They take 'sayings from the Lord' (i.e., scripture quotations, or revelatory material), or pithy unattributed sayings (e.g., in Ignatius or wherever), and put them in the mouth of Jesus in the gospels.

Garrow links to a new book on his page: Robert K MacEwen, Matthean Posteriority (LNTS, London: T&T Clark Bloomsbury, 2015)

Garrow's previous book is The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache (JSNTSupp 254: London; Bloomsbury, 2004)

Not to mention the fact that much of the gospels is derived from the OT, from PAUL, modeled on Homer, with several other Greek literary infusions. It's a creative pastiche. AND, I think, Luke just made up a LOT of stuff.

Re: the dating of Matthew, Garrow says this in the comments section of his page:

The relative dates of Luke and Matthew is relevant to the discussion.

Matthew is commonly dated prior to Ignatius - but on rather thin grounds. When Ignatius mentions events that also appear in Matthew there is no way of telling whether he got these from Matthew direct or from Matthew's source. Matthew could, therefore, have been composed (I would guess) at any time within 80-135 CE.

Luke's relationship to Josephus is, of course, critical to its date. If the Synoptic Problem has taught us anything, however, it is that confirming the direct dependence of one text on another is exceptionally difficult - even when they share very extensive material. Personally, I favour an early date for Luke - but the evidence is not clear cut.

And this is really the point. Compared to the standard methods for dating Luke and Matthew the evidence of their differing compositional techniques is relatively concrete: Matthew appears to have used a more advanced technique than Luke ... and this suggests (but does not prove) that Matthew wrote some time after Luke.

Click to expand...

So he may favor an early date for Luke, but even then suggests Matthew may be as late as 135, which is pretty late.

As for early attestations of Matthew, there's just this:

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Click to expand...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

The references in Ignatius could just as well have been the SOURCE of certain sayings in Matthew, as Elegard suggests. Aside from Ignatius, I can't find any other pre-150 references to Matthew.

Thanks for the dating info.

Based on Pervo's work on Acts which is rather meaty, followed by Tyson's, it seems that Luke-Acts was written in reaction to Marcion so the dates of Marcion's activity would be important. Also, if Trobisch is correct (and he makes a good case), then Polycarp would have written/redacted Luke-Acts as well as redacting and/or writing other books that became the canon. Polycarp's dates are generally given as AD 80 – 167. Marcion's are generally given as c. 85 – c. 160. Marcionism was rather well developed so it had probably been going awhile when Polycarp would have produced Luke-Acts, so let's make it in the general vicinity of 130-140 +/- 5 or 10 years. (That's about the best that can be done, I think.)

The conclusion is, I think, that Luke must be rather late also so no "early Luke".

Then, taking into consideration the Markan factor: Carotta makes a very good case for much of Mark having been a record of the itinerary/exploits of Julius Caesar in its most primitive form. And, since Luke is seen to utilize much of Mark, it seems to me that the alleged "primitive Luke" that was said to have been Marcion's gospel may very well have been a stage in the redaction of Mark.

Tertullian accuses the Valentinians of having corrupted the text of John 1:13. However, it turns out, thanks to modern biblical critical methods, to have been the other way around: the Valentinians had the original text while that of Tertullian had been altered to fit his orthodoxy. This could have been done before Tertullian, but it is also possible that he made the changes himself and then trumpeted his accusations against the Valentinians in the usual psychopathic way: accusing the victims of what you do yourself.

Applying this yardstick to the accusations against Marcion certainly give one pause when considering what gospel he may have been using. Calling it a corrupted form of Luke would blow smoke around the production of a "proper" version of Luke, i.e. a book quite different from Mark yet supposedly legitimized by the fact that Marcion had "corrupted" it and claimed it to be the only correct gospel.

Knox even suggests that Mark may have been this "Ur-Luke".

I haven't thought much about Matthew... but none of the above excludes a date as late as 150 for it.

I'm not quite sure it might have any bearing on this topic but today I stumbled upon a website giving an overview of the Jewish-christian gospels and especially Matthew.

_http://www.textexcavation.com/jewishgospels.html

_http://www.textexcavation.com/hebrewmatthew.html

Hope this helps a bit. :)

Came across another bit of data today:

In a review by Robert Price, he mentions John Robinson's attempt to re-date the New Testament to before 70 AD on the datum that Mark 13 makes predictions about the siege of Jerusalem that were not fulfilled.

The general view of the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem put in Jesus' mouth in the synoptics is that it is evidence that they were written AFTER the event, retrojected into the past. That means the predictions are accurate because they are after-the-fact. So what to do with a prediction that is wrong except to assume that it was a genuine prediction and part of it happened and part didn't. That's the fundie view, anyway.

BUT, Price points out: "If Robinson is right, and Mark 13 does not perfectly match the Roman siege of 70, that may be because, as Hermann Detering argues, the Olivet Discourse actually stems from the time of Simon bar Kochba in 132 CE." (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/reinventing_jesus.htm)

Now, isn't that a daisy?

And he's talking about MARK.

However, there's an easy solution to the problem: Polycarp.

Laura said:

BUT, Price points out: "If Robinson is right, and Mark 13 does not perfectly match the Roman siege of 70, that may be because, as Hermann Detering argues, the Olivet Discourse actually stems from the time of Simon bar Kochba in 132 CE." (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/reinventing_jesus.htm)

Now, isn't that a daisy?

And he's talking about MARK.

However, there's an easy solution to the problem: Polycarp.

Click to expand...

Whoa! After reading Doherty and Ellegard, I'm really thinking that the gospel stories were just created out of whole cloth (well, with some seeds from the OT and Christian epistles) in the early 2nd century. No 'oral traditions', no 'early sources'.