[Synoptic-L] Re: Did Luke excerpt Matthew's Sermon on the Mount?
- Ron Price wrote:
>>.............. Au_Matt had no special concernMark Goodacre replied:
>> for the poor, as can be seen for instance in his omission of
>> the story of the widow's gift (Mark 12:41-44) and his
>> editorial introduction of the adjective "rich" in Matt 27:57.
>These points are superfluous if on other grounds it seemsWhat sort of argument is this? Something you think is "likely" appears
>likely that Luke's version is derived from Matthew's and not
>from a shared Q text.
in your eyes to render my argument null and void. Surely I am allowed to
put forward an argument which challenges something you think is
"likely"?! I am merely putting the case that just as Au_Luke might have
had an incentive to remove "in spirit", Au_Matt might have had an
incentive to **add** the phrase.
>The notion that Matthew has no greatMy argument here was not partly based on this, so it is a little
>concern for the poor is partly in any case based on the idea
>that he has "glossed" the Q beatitude better represented by
unfair to bring it up in this context.
>> (2) Borrowing an argument from Textual Criticism,Mark replied:
>> the Lukan reading is the more difficult. For why should the
>> poor, who generally had no choice about their status, be
>> blessed in preference to anyone else? But the topsy-turvy
>> outlook of the Lukan saying fits well with other
>> authentic-looking double tradition sayings which turn the
>> world's values upside down in an unexpected way.
> ......................... the remarkable thing is thatThis entirely misses my point. It's not a question of whether it fits
>narrative critics have no difficulty at all with explaining how
>"Blessed are the poor" fits into the development of Luke's
into Luke's narrative. (I agree it does.) The crucial question is which
version is more likely to have been authentic. I was attempting,
admittedly without going into detail, to invoke the criterion of
compatibility with other sayings judged to be authentic.
> The wordThis is true. But it is a weak argument because we have a ready-made
>"righteousness" is indeed characteristic of Matthew. One of
>the things that makes it characteristic ................
> of Matthew is its omission by Luke.
comparison in which Au_Luke had absolutely zero influence, namely the
comparison between Mark and Matthew. We agree that Au_Matt based his
gospel on Mark. However whereas DIKAIOSUNH is not mentioned in Mark, it
is mentioned seven times in Matthew. So here we have independent
evidence of Au_Matt favouring the word.
>What we need to ask is whether a change from "blessed areYour question, at least taken in isolation, reveals a clear bias. For
>those who hunger and thirst for righteousness" to "blessed are
>those who hunger now" is consistent with others of Luke's
>redactional interests. Indeed it is.
the neutral observer would see a symmetry here, and would ask the
question: "Is it more likely that the Matthean version has been altered
to the Lukan version or vice versa?" Is there not an equally strong case
to be made that the Matthean version suits the Matthean author's aims?
In any case we should also ask a question about the **original**
context: "Which version is more likely to have been spoken originally?"
This can be addressed quite independently of your question. Do you
**really** believe that the original version of the saying included the
word DIKAIOSUNH (or its Aramaic equivalent)?
> Q is anStephen Carlson made a similar point:
>hypothetical text, postulated primarily on the assumption that
>Matthew and Luke are independent of one another.
>today's leading scholars who actually argue for Q (e.g. Tuckett) do inI note (if my memory serves me right) that you two are on opposite
>fact argue for Q by showing that Matthew and Luke are independent of
sides of the fence regarding the existence of Q. Curiously you both seem
to share roughly the same view about the arguments for Q. But arguments
**for** a sayings source ought not to be confused with arguments
**against** Au_Luke's use of Matthew. These are logically different
issues and scholars ought to treat them as such (at least until the last
step of their hypothesis).
My point is this. If you consider the arguments for Q separately, they
do not, even when put together, and even if you accept their individual
validity, add up to a proof that Matthew and Luke are completely
independent of each other.
For instance, the "alternative primitivity" argument proves at most
that, say, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer and the doom oracle (Luke
11:49-51) come from a sayings source. The "doublets" argument proves at
most that there was a sayings source behind many of the sayings in
Matthew and Luke. The arguments invariably dry up before they have
covered the whole of the double tradition material. Therefore their
supporters should not claim that they have proved the complete
independence of Matthew and Luke. I have yet to see them claim that
Au_Luke **could not have derived** (as distinct from *didn't derive*)
the temptation story or the Centurion's Servant or Jesus' Thanksgiving
or the Parable of the Pounds from Matthew. Of course some of them do
claim that Au_Luke could not have largely ignored the Matthean birth and
resurrection stories if he had known about them. But this is a separate
argument which can be adequately countered without necessarily
demolishing the others (unless one has an objection in principle to the
possibility of Luke having had three written sources).
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
- At 11:57 AM 2/16/00 +0000, Ron Price wrote:
>I wrote re "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst forThis is a very interesting discussion. While I don't have much to offer, I
> >> Au_Matt was introducing one of his
> >> favourite words and (arguably) at the same time avoiding giving praise to
> >> a section of society for which he had no special concern.
>Mark Goodacre replied:
> >I disagree in particular with the last sentence. Is there any
> >evidence in Matthew that feeding the hungry is regarded as being
> >specially blessed? Indeed there is, in what is commonly accepted
> >to be one of the most blatantly Matthean passages in the Gospel,
> >25.31-46, "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was
> >thirsty and you gave me something to drink . . . " etc.
> You have a good point here.
> However the analogy is not *quite* as strong as you suggest. There is
>a difference between blessing those who feed the hungry and blessing the
>hungry themselves. It is at least arguable that Au_Matt might have made
>such a distinction.
am reading the thread carefully. The one comment I will make is that we
need to avoid oversimplification. When looking at Matthean references to
hunger and thirst (both are important), and especially, but not only,
Matthew 25, we need to keep in mind the complex relationship of Matthew 25
to Matthew 10:41 and, ultimately, to I Kings 13 (which Matthew surely has
in mind). Mark (Goodacre) is quite right that hunger - and I would add
thirst - is an important term in Matthew and (often at least) does
emphasize that feeding the hungry and giving drink to the thirsty are
Dr. Thomas R. W. Longstaff
Crawford Family Professor of Religious Studies
Director, African-American Studies Program
4643 Mayflower Hill
Waterville, ME 04901-8846
Office phone: 207 872-3150
FAX: 207 872-3802