Deutro Mk, Proto Lk, LkA, Q, etc. A Common theme?
There are several synoptic theories that include hypothetical or otherwise non-extant documents that appear to provide essentially the same position in the synoptic problem. Chronologically they exist in roughly the same space, being earlier than Lk, and acting as a source other than Mk seen by the authors of both Mt and Lk. Typically they are characterized as a later version of Mk, an earlier version of Lk, or a different, independent, source document. Nevertheless, they all seem to be intended to provide the same function: to account for the minor agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk, and also the ‘alternating primitivity’ between Mt and Lk. Given that so many theories require something here to perform this function it would seem that all such theories could be ‘collapsed’ into one, as they all seem to be requiring basically the same document, but just described from a different point of view. Can these theories actually be ‘collapsed’ in this way, or is there some function that one or other of these additional documents provides that cannot be provided by any of the others?
David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
Direction of dependence - the Wedding Banquet (was: The Lukan Travel Narrative)Bruce Brooks wrote:
The parable of the Feast is equally obvious as a Lukan story butchered in Matthew by the addition of a superfluous King (who sits down to eat with his guests in a city which he has just destroyed), whence Lk > Mt.
It's not at all obvious to me.
On the contrary, the sequence as I see it is:
Matthew found the saying: "Many are called, but few are chosen" in the logia. He decided to create a story around it, as he did with several other logia sayings, such as "Those who are last will be first and the first will be last" incorporated into the Workers in the Vineyard (Mt 20:1-16).
That this was a Matthean story is evidenced by its typically Matthean vocabulary, e.g. "man king" (22:2), "friend" (hETAIRE, 22:12), "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (22:13).
Luke made use of the story. But he didn't like his parables to have kings. Nor did he like the punitive bits (22:7 & 22:13), nor the need to have a wedding robe - surely very un-Pauline. So he removed these uncongenial parts.
Also Luke gave the ending a transformative twist. For the "chosen" in the original logia saying would undoubtedly have been Jews, if not specifically those Jews who had elected to follow Jesus. But in "none of those who were invited will taste my dinner", Luke most likely had in mind the Jewish people who for the most part seemed to have rejected Jesus.
With regard to the Double Tradition as a whole, it seems to me that the only clear cases where the directionality is Luke --> Matthew occur in aphorisms, and this suggests that the explanation for 'alternating primitivity' is to be found in an early collection of the sayings of Jesus used by Matthew and Luke (at least).