Re: [Synoptic-L] Lk dependent on Mt 5:39-48?
- --- E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:
> To: Synoptic-LPerhaps Luke does not omit at all, and that it is
> In Response To: Tim Lewis
> On: Mt 5:3-48 || Lk 6:27-36
> From: Bruce
> What the certified Farrer Theorists would say, we
> will know when all five of
> them have responded. Meanwhile, this unofficial
> bystander sees little
> difficulty in accepting the Farrer assumptions for
> the passage in question.
> Close parallels (in CAPS) follow Swanson, Horizontal
> Line Synopsis, slightly
> emended. Impressionistic notes follow for the first
> few units, and are
> offered for discussion or refutation.
> GIVEN: The above Mt/Lk passages
> ASSUMED: Mt > Lk, no other sources
> TO SHOW: Lukan changes as authorially/theologically
> 1. Mt 5:38 You have heard that it was said, An eye
> for an eye, and a tooth
> for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist one who
> is evil.
> Lk: Om
> [Lk similarly omits "you have heard that it was
> said" passages at Mt 5:21,
> 5:27, 5:33. Whatever the reason, it is consistently
Matthew who writes "you have heard that it was
said" referring to Luke's Gospel that he
(Matthew)based his text on.
> 2. Mt 5:39-41 But if any one STRIKES YOU ON THELuke's text appears more primitive. Matthew appears to
> right CHEEK, turn to him THE
> OTHER ALSO; and if any one would sue you and TAKE
> YOUR shirt let him have
> YOUR cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go
> one mile, go with him
> two miles.
> Lk 6:29 To him to STRIKES YOU ON THE CHEEK, offer
> THE OTHER ALSO; and from
> him who takes away YOUR cloak, do not withhold even
> YOUR shirt.
> [The similarity is stronger than the VERBAL
> PARALLELS imply. Lukan deletions
> here are the adversative "But," superfluous since
> the initial contrast is
> omitted, and Mt's limitation to legal proceedings
> ("sue you" and "compel you
> to," a right belonging to Roman soldiers of
> occupation, but not intelligible
> in larger context). Motive of generalization.
> Fitzmyer 1/638 at "right
> [cheek]" argues against Q as a source for Lk, but
> his argument also
> eliminates Mt as a source. It is better to note that
> Mt's "the other cheek"
> implies an antecedent "one cheek," which Lk's
> deletion better expresses. It
> also avoids the not impossible legalism, "What if
> they strike you first on
> the left cheek?" The Lukan order of loss cloak >
> shirt (chiton) is more
> readily visualizable, as endured at the hands of a
> robber, than is the
> original Matthean shirt > cloak. Lk's reversal makes
> for easier
be writing "right cheek" in accordance with the Roman
ritual of manumitting a slave, something that would
seem to be a latter development.
> 3. Mt 5:42 GIVE TO him WHO BEGS FROM YOU; AND do notIt is MT who specifies "borrow" as a criteria. Luke
> refuse HIM WHO would
> borrow from you.
> Lk 6:30 GIVE TO every one WHO BEGS FROM YOU; AND of
> HIM WHO takes away your
> goods, do not ask them again.
> [Lk's addition "every one" makes the generality
> explicit. Lk's rewording of
> the second clause distinguishes money lending
> (likely to be the first
> thought of certain readers, but disapproved by Lk as
> a paradigmatic
> activity; cf Lk 6:34) from the theft of objects. As
> in preceding examples,
> one should not seek through law to recover losses or
> compensate injuries.
> The Mt parallel clauses become chiasmic or
> reflective parallels in Lk;
> presumably a device of style].
leaves the term broadly expressed that includes
borrowing with or without permission (perhaps assumed
by the borrower) and includes those who take away
goods by force (not to sue for the return of the
goods). This appears more primitive as a text compared
to Matthew's, that addressed what appeared ambiguos in
Luke. In other words, the Church raised questions
about Luke's text and Matthews later text answered
> 4. Mt 5:43 You have heard that it was said, YouCompare Luke 6:27-28, the apparently more primitive
> shall love your neighbor and
> hate your enemy.
> Lk: Om
> [Another instance of the trait noted in #1 above]
> 5. Mt 5:44 BUT I SAY TO YOU, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES ANDIn this case Matthew appears to rewrite what Luke had
> PRAY FOR THOSE WHO
> persecute YOU.
> Lk 6:27 BUT I SAY TO YOU that hear, LOVE YOUR
> ENEMIES, do good to those who
> hate you, bless those who curse you, PRAY FOR THOSE
> WHO abuse YOU.
> [Lk's "But" is to distinguish this positive advice
> from his preceding
> "woes." Lk's "abuse" is less pointed, but more
> general, than Mt's
> "persecute." The Lukan expansions "do good to those
> . . . " underline the
> maxim and increase its rhetorical weight. See next.
> Fitzmyer ap Lk 6:27:
> "Only the first and last [commands in Lk] have
> counterparts in Matt 5:44.
> Luke has obviously added the other two in view of
> the four outrages
> expressed in the fourth beatitude (6:22); thus the
> three that follow specify
> the kind of love that the Christian follower is
> expected to show toward an
> enemy." This is nicely said, and might have come
> from the mouth of any
> certified Farrer adherent. It is an example of the Q
> hypothesis (to which
> Fitzmyer ostensibly cleaves, see his 1/vii and 2/)
> failing to do the work
> expected of it by nominal Two Source theorists].
> 6. [Lk transfers his preceding parallel to the head=====
> of this section]
> [The "love your enemies" maxim is logically the
> parent of all the particular
> ones in this section. Its transference to the head
> of the section makes this
> logic clear; it lights up the whole. It is a form of
> emphasis separate from,
> but consistent with, that mentioned in #5. Fitzmyer
> ap Lk 6:27: "This is
> Luke's introduction to a new part of the sermon on
> the plain. In a sense it
> is the introduction to the whole middle section of
> the sermon (vv 27-45),
> the most important part, for which the exordium has
> been preparing"].
> And so on. Lk seems throughout to be editorially
> active. He consistently
> generalizes, deprovincializes, and delegalizes the
> advice inherited from Mt.
> Literarily, he shifts weight and emphasis, and
> alters some sequences, to
> achieve those goals. There is also some cleaning up
> of Mt's diction, and
> some closing of logical loopholes. Lk is not a
> copyist, but there are
> significant exact verbal agreements (colored fuchsia
> in the Farmer
> Synopticon, p160, cf p11f), and a pervasive general
> agreement as to sense.
> Lk stays within the Mt model, and in the end
> produces a tighter, more
> consecutive, and quite possibly more actionable
> version of that model. All
> (to me) most reasonable. What exactly is the problem
> E Bruce Brooks
> Warring States Project
> University of Massachusetts at Amherst
> Synoptic-L Homepage:
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
John N. Lupia, III
Toms River New Jersey 08757 USA
Fax: (732) 349-3910
God Bless America
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
MessageGood question. Let me jump in with my own tentative reply, and I would like to see how other Farrer-type people respond.First, I would think that Luke knew of Matthew's approach toward this material from the Sermon on the Mount Section. He retains it in his sermon on the mount, although he has a different focus, and so dispenses with the "you have heard it said, but I say" format that is somewhat cross-examining the understanding of the Law.But Luke's focus is to utilize the material within the context of "love your enemies"... and so he reframes the Matthean material so that it is more of a stand-alone teaching (perhaps flowing out of the woes in the beatitudes, reacting against the selfishness of the rich/powerful) on love of others and its importance as a crucial teaching. Notice that the teaching begins in 6:27 with "love your enemies", and is completed in 6:35 with "love yor enemies." And this flows into a related issue of judging.Is he using Matthew? I would say yes, but in a strictly "source-dependent" way. He is freely recasting the material into his own compositional product that sees a series of major themes that he wants to emphasize (e.g. riches, or love, or prayer) by creating thematic clusters.Now I also think it possible that he knew much of this material from some oral sources as well. I don't think we can be so dogmatic as to nail down precisely all his sources, and I certainly would not rule out of hand the possibility of other sources having some influence here. (only Goulder is that dogmatic) If there was an independent source,it may have had an influence on the way Luke phrased the issue.But for me the emphasis would be on Luke's freedom as a composer, and his willingness to utilize Matthew (and Mark) in a very creative and dialogical way. Thus we find at times some very close verbatim similarity, but at other times (and here would be an example) he is willing to transform the Matthean material more loosely. At the same time, it also appears that strong similarity between Luke and Matthew here suggests some literary linkage. and I also think a "Q" theory would have the same problem of positing the "original" source Q that can explain how Luke and Matthew would differ so much.markMark A. MatsonAcademic DeanMilligan Collegehttp://www.milligan.edu/administrative/personal.htm-----Original Message-----on 5/11/04 7:01 PM, Tim Lewis at tlewistlewis@... wrote:
From: owner-synoptic-l@... [mailto:owner-synoptic-l@...] On Behalf Of Tim Reynolds
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:57 PM
To: Tim Lewis; synoptic-l@...
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Lk dependent on Mt 5:39-48?
I would like to know if there is agreement amongst Farrer theorists about when a Mt-Lk parallel is (or is not) to be derived from Lukan dependence on Mt's version. E.g. the Lord's prayer is often taken to have already existed with local variations so that Lk is not actually dependent on Mt for it.
Is the material in Mt 5:39-48// Lk 6:27-36 on retaliation and loving enemies really seen by Farrer theorists as Luke's "omitting and redistributing Matthean matter" (quoting in part from Goodacre, Case Against Q, p98)? There are virtually no significant verbal agreements here at all. Would Farrer theorists all agree with Goodacre here that Luke is dependent on Mt for this material? Am I missing something? Is it simply Mt's grouping of material that Lk depends on, perhaps?
Timothy M. Lewis
Cranbourne, VIC 3977
Part-time Greek Tutor at Whitley College,
Melbourne College of Divinity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
This whole class of cruces evaporates if Luke is, as I proposed a couple of weeks ago, differentiating his text as much as possible from Mt, systematically prefering his own "pirated" text and material from his informant (Mary or a longtime associate) to Mt.
- To: Synoptic-L
In Response To: John Lupia
On: Lk < Mt 5:39-48?
Omitting as much as possible from previous messages:
1. [Lk om Mt 5:38 and similar passages]
JOHN: Perhaps Luke does not omit at all, and that it is Matthew who writes
"you have heard that it was said" referring to Luke's Gospel that he
(Matthew) based his text on.
BRUCE: That's the other possibility. Either Mt put these previous-law
references in (a Lukan original) or Lk left them out (from a Mt original).
Both posited behaviors are consistent for their respective authors. So
expressed, it's not strong enough to count as a directionality indicator,
and I note that McNicol et al, Luke's Use of Matthew (1996) does not take
this sequence as an example. But Tim's challenge was to show that an
intelligible picture of ALk could be proposed for this passage, and I think
that has been met. Personally, I find it the more likely case that a
legalistic Mt (with his vision of a New Law being handed down on a Different
Mountain), who inconsistently urges avoiding litigation but still speaks
largely in terms of judicial procedure, would be simplified and generalized
by Luke for small bodies of the faithful, living increasingly outside Jewish
law and also probably without access, on favorable terms, to Roman law. But
I wouldn't go to SBL with nothing more than that in my pocket.
2. [Mt "right cheek," Lk om "right"]
JOHN: Luke's text appears more primitive. Matthew appears to be writing
"right cheek" in accordance with the Roman ritual of manumitting a slave,
something that would seem to be a latter development.
BRUCE: If Lk took "right" this way, no wonder he dropped it. But I frankly
can't see what a manumission ritual would be doing where the context
requires not freedom, but insult. The older commentators took it as such
(walking past "right," or lamely suggesting that it is natural to mention
"right" first, though no explicit "left" follows). More recently, Davies and
Allison (1988) 1/543 give references to show that a slap was an insult as we
would have expected, and that a slap on the right cheek (necessarily a
backhanded slap, assuming a right-handed assailant) was especially
offensive; so also Gundry (2ed 1994) 95: "But surpassing righteousness
requires meekness even in the face of the worst insult." If this was Mt's
sense, then it might well have worked better for readers equally acquainted
with such authorities as m. B. Qam. 8:6, but less well for a wider audience,
such as I suspect Lk to have been addressing.
3. [Lk takes away < Mt would borrow from]
JOHN: It is MT who specifies "borrow" as a criteria. Luke leaves the term
broadly expressed that includes borrowing with or without permission
(perhaps assumed by the borrower) and includes those who take away goods by
force (not to sue for the return of the goods). This appears more primitive
as a text compared to Matthew's, that addressed what appeared ambiguos in
Luke. In other words, the Church raised questions about Luke's text and
Matthews later text answered them.
BRUCE: It's always possible that later believers required a more detailed
code of procedure, and that development can certainly be seen at many points
in the Pauline corpus. And it is agreed that Mt is here more specific, and
Lk more general. But I can't see that this necessarily makes Lk "more
primitive." Whether he was well advised or no, he seems to be concerned,
here as in the previous two cases, to take the rules out of the specific
Occupied Palestine context, and put them in broader terms. I can imagine
that being a workable agenda for an early Gospel writer, without prejudice
to the parallel need of the faithful for more elaborate rules of procedure.
Those rules of procedure seem to have been rules of self-governance or local
governance, and echoes of Jewish or Roman law would not necessarily have
been relevant. Thus, I don't see the Matthean specificity here as plausible
answers to procedural questions likely to have been raised by the early
Church about a formulation such as that of Lk. I see the Mt version as a
plausible first attempt to define Christian law adversatively, against the
explicit precedent of formerly applicable codes. Luke relies more on natural
law and sensibility.
4. [Lk om Mt 5:43 "love your neighbor"]
JOHN: Compare Luke 6:27-28, the apparently more primitive text.
BRUCE: No, Lk 6:27 (in parallel to Mt 5:44) is the more revolutionary text.
See next. The point here is that, as in all other cases, Mt has, and Lk
lacks, these adversative references to earlier codes. All those differences
are certainly one difference, and they certainly have a single explanation,
and that explanation must make consecutive sense with other explanations.
5. [Lk 6:27 < Mt 5:44; q Fitzmyer]
JOHN: In this case Matthew appears to rewrite what Luke had already
BRUCE: That is certainly how Fitzmyer, a staunch advocate of the Two Source
Hypothesis, himself consciously took it. I was merely concerned to point out
that his wording is at war with his advocacy; he speaks of Luke "adding"
(never mind from where) to the parallel Matthew. This is not an envisionment
that the 2SH allows. Silent slippage into the opposing view. I suspect there
is quite a bit of this going around, and that it tends to show that the 2SH
is really not tenable, in detail, as a sufficing account of Synoptic
6. [Lk transfers "love your enemies" maxim to head of section]
JOHN: [No comment]
BRUCE: I venture to reiterate my point, that the repositioning of this
passage illumines a previously less consecutive order in Matthew, and that
it is therefore plausible as an improvement on Matthew. Commentators,
without necessarily mentioning Synoptic implications, have frequent praise
for this positioning (see my original note). They do not step forward
equally to point out virtues in the Matthean placement. If better, than
presumptively later. Anything is possible, but it is hard to see Mt burying
the Lukan theme statement in the midst of a bunch of examples and
illustrations of it, if the Lukan version was what Mt had to work from (or,
what is equivalent, if Lk under the title "Q" was what he had to work from).
Here, I suggest, Lk is not only omitting Mt's recurring adversative-context
legal statements, but replacing one of them by a deep principle from which
the following examples can be seen as flowing. Two changes, not one. If
there is a directionality indicator anywhere in this basket, I think this is
And I will add that a general study of Lukan repositionings seems to me to
be fruitful in directionality indications, of which the few I have so far
scrutinized all point in the same direction. They show Luke not as a clumsy
copyist of Mt, but as a reactor to and critic of Mt, shaping (and reshaping)
Matthean doctrine and its presentation with his own consistent style and
agenda. Not that Mt *lacked* an agenda, but that Lk is concerned to one-up
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...