Aland (_SQE_ 15), Boismard-LaMouille (_Synopsis Graeca Quattuor
Evangeliorum_) and Huck-Leitzmann (_Synopsis of the First Three
Gospels_, 9th ed.), as well as the Harper-Collins edition of the NRSV,
all include vss. 24-25 within this larger pericope of Matt 10:17-25.
They title it, variously, "The Fate of the Disciples," (Alland) or
"Coming Persecutions" (H-C NRSV) [B-L do not title their pericopae].
But I can't see what the seven verses referring to persecution have to
do with the sudden observation that disciples and slaves are not better
than their superiors?
The jarring discontinuity between these two verses and what precedes it
makes me wonder two things:
1) why do many editors lump these verses all together as if they all
have to do with the same thing? Do they, but I'm missing it?
And assuming they do not have much in common:
2) the difference between verses 24-25 in Matt and 6:40 in Luke is
considerable: in Luke/Q the reference does not come out of nowhere.
Given the source critical options available to us, I'm trying to figure
out which hypothesis deals best with this.
On the 2DH, Matt has been following Mark at 13:9-13, and then turns to
Q 6:40 and then 12:2-9. Matt is skipping around in Q, but that is
consistent with how he treats both Q and Mark. The material from Q
12:2-9 follows nicely on Matt's previous 10:17-23, but Matt's insertion
of 6:40 here is jarring. On the 2DH, it seems, Matt has been a sloppy
Matt having written first (Two Gospel/Griesbach Hypothesis) requires
that he wrote this passage this way. While the 2DH makes Matt a sloppy
redactor, the 2GH appears to have to argue that he is inarticulate.
Might this suggest that the Q/Luke placement of the verse/s is original
and Matt's secondary? Is it more probable that *somebody*, Luke or Q,
originally composed something that makes sense than that Matt composed
something that does not? Is the 2DH explanation, with its equally
unflattering depiction of Matt, any better?
On the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis, Matt follows Mark, then adds
significant material not found in Mark (Matt's 10:17-40). F-G must
argue that Matt had sources which led him to sloppily add this verse; if
they have Matt compose this section on his own, they run into the same
problem as the 2GH. Further, they have to argue that Matt's placement
is more original here than Luke's (as they do in every instance of the
double tradition, which poses its own problems). They might be able to
do this, it seems to me, with something related to the text-critical
principle of lectio difficilor.
Any ideas or contributions?
Zeba Antonin Crook (Ph.D. Cand)
University of St. Michael's College
Faculty of Theology
81 St. Mary Street
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(please note new web page address)
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...