Non-Markan Texts in Matthew
& Luke
3.
Why Parables?
Matt 13:10-17 // Mark 4:10-12
// Luke 8:9-10
Turn off Pop-up blocker to insure hyperlinks work properly.
Missing
Appendix
Unlike
Mark &
Luke,
Matthew
concluded Jesus' explanation of his rationale for speaking in parables
by commending his disciples for seeing what others did not [Matt
13:16-17]. This commendation underscores the distinction between imperceptive
outsiders & the well-informed inner circle
of Jesus' followers. By placing this saying at the climax of this pericope,
Matthew clearly gave Jesus' explanation a positive focus that is missing in
the parallel accounts of both Mark & Luke.
|
Displaced
Parallel
Mark has no equivalent of
Matthew's climactic commendation of Jesus' disciples anywhere in his
gospel. Luke, however, includes a very close paraphrase of this saying
in Jesus' celebration of the successful mission of 70 disciples that he
locates 16 scenes after the conclusion of this discussion on parables:
|
EYES
BLESSED |
Matt
13 |
Mark |
Luke
10 |
|
|
|
23 |
Then, |
|
|
|
|
turning to the
disciples, |
|
|
|
|
he said privately: |
16 |
"But |
|
|
|
|
blessed
are your eyes, |
|
|
"Blessed
are the eyes |
|
for they
see, |
|
|
that
see
what you see! |
|
and your ears, |
|
|
|
|
for they hear. |
|
|
|
17 |
Truly,
I <tell> you <that> |
|
24 |
For
I
tell you that |
|
many prophets |
|
|
many prophets |
|
and
righteous men |
|
|
and
kings |
|
longed
to
see what you see, |
|
|
desired
to
see what you see, |
|
and did not see it, |
|
|
and did not see it, |
|
and to hear what you hear, |
|
|
and to hear what you hear, |
|
and did not hear it." |
|
|
and did not hear it." |
Color
Key |
Teal |
Two
gospels use same vocabulary. |
Black |
Words unique to a particular
gospel. |
|
No
parallel passage in this gospel. |
Question of Source
It is conceivable, even
probable, that Jesus used the same saying on more than one occasion. But
the use
of a single saying in different narrative contexts by authors whose
texts show some type of literary relationship complicates the question
of which author was dependent on what source.
The absence of a Markan equivalent to this parallel saying in Matthew & Luke
does not prove that Luke used the gospel of Matthew, as the hypotheses
of Augustine, Griesbach &
Farrer
assume.
That would be the case only
But the first condition is beyond
proof & the second not true. The fact that Luke uses the same
non-Markan saying as Matthew is evidence only that these two authors knew the
same material. The question is: which editorial scenario presents a more
plausible explanation of the fact that each author records it in a different
place in his narrative?
-
Luke took this saying from
Matthew's discussion of Jesus' use of parables but reserved it for
use 16 scenes later, after the mission of the 70 (an incident not
included in either Matthew or Mark); or
-
Luke got this saying from a
source other than Matthew & recorded it in his gospel without
consideration of how Matthew had used it.
|
Problem
of Transposition
If an editor modifies a passage from a written
source, we can assume (s)he was trying to clarify and/or correct it. If that
editor omits a passage from the text being revised, we can assume that for
some reason (s)he did not find it essential or even useful. But if an editor
drops lines from one scene & then reproduces virtually the same
lines in another literary context, then we have to assume that (s)he liked the
idea but thought it would function better somewhere else than where it
was previously recorded.
The block move & drag features in modern
word processors have made the transposition of text a relatively simple
operation. Without these tools, this electronic text would have taken far
longer to compose than it did.
In the world of handwritten manuscripts or even
typewritten texts, however, the transposition of even a single sentence
more than a line or two in any direction is a cumbersome maneuver that
consumes precious time & material. The words to be moved have to be marked
in the original text. Then they must be copied between the lines or in the
margins at the place in the text where they are to be inserted. Many ancient
manuscripts, including those of the gospels, provide ample evidence of such
editorial practices (Codex Sinaiticus,
for example). In antiquity writing materials (papyrus or parchment)
were so costly that these emended texts were generally not thrown away. The
next time they were copied by a scribe, however, the words marked for deletion
were omitted, while marginalia & interlinear wording was copied directly
into the text.
Moreover, in antiquity an editor would have had to
have a rather compelling reason to transpose any saying or other
passage from one literary context in an extant work to a position much later in a
new revised version. For scribes did not have
electronic clipboards where they could store lines they had excised from one
context until they finally got to the point in the revised composition where
they thought it would fit better.
|
Inferior Construction
In terms of both rhetoric &
logic, however, Luke's presentation of this aphorism is actually inferior to Matthew's.
-
Both verses of Matthew's
version contain rhetorically balanced references to seeing
& hearing; while Luke's first verse lacks any reference to
hearing.
-
In Matthew this saying is
linked by catchwords to its context, while in Luke it is not. Matthew's
balanced reference to eyes & ears echoes the pair
of references to eyes & ears in the citation of Isa
6:10 which prefaces it. There are no word links between this
saying & the thanksgiving to which it
is appended in Luke.
-
In Matthew this commendation
is used to distinguish Jesus' followers from outsiders who have just been
described as imperceptive. In Luke the rationale for this commendation
being addressed to the disciples is less clear, since the thanksgiving
that precedes it celebrates a paradoxical revelation that is known only to
infants.
- In Matthew's context "what
you see" has a clear antecedent (Matt
13:11: the secrets of the kingdom of heaven), but in Luke's context it
does not.
So, if Luke got this commendation from
Matthew, he not only plucked it from a rhetorical context in which it fit very
well, he made Jesus' reason for uttering it unclear.
Such deliberate obfuscation is hardly credible of Luke,
since he insists that he has followed all things exactly (πᾶσιν
ἀκριβῶς) & written things in order (καθεξῆς) [Luke
1:3]. It is easy for anyone who compares these two gospels to see that here
as elsewhere Luke does not follow Matthew's order. And it should
be obvious to careful readers that Matthew has done a better job than
Luke in integrating this aphorism with the surrounding material.
|
A Simple Solution
The Two Source hypothesis offers a simpler explanation of the location of
this non-Markan aphorism at
different points in Matthew & Luke. For if Luke did not use
the gospel of Matthew but rather the same source [Q]
from which Matthew also got this saying, then one does not have to explain why
he dismantled a well-constructed passage in Matthew only to
recall one element in a less appropriate context. All it requires is the
historical sense to recognize that Luke & Matthew could have both had access to
copies of a document [Q] that was later lost -- like the works of Papias,
Tatian, Origen & many other early Christian writers --
& cited passages from it without consulting each other's gospel.
|
last revised
01 March 2023
|