D Sermon on the Mount Plain

A curious feature of the Sermon on the Mount tradition is the variableness in the closeness between the Matthean and Lukan versions. In what we might call (for the sake of convenience) the third quarter of Matthew's Sermon, the degree of closeness is such that the passages qualify as good evidence for the existence of a Q document.246 But in the other three-quarters the verbal parallel is much less close, so much so as to leave a considerable question as to whether there is evidence of any literary dependence.247 If, alternatively, we look at the Sermon on the Plain (Q/Luke 6.20b-23, 27-49) and other Q parallels, the equally striking fact emerges that the closeness of the parallels with Matthew is quite modest, again leaving open the question of literary dependence.248 In most cases much

244. These considerations (including the focus more on the cup than on the wine) ease the problem of conceiving how a Jew could require his disciples to drink blood (e.g., Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 421-23; Funk, Acts ofJesus 139). In any case, it needs to be remembered that an act of prophetic symbolism (see below § 15.6c at n. 231) was in view from the first: they ate bread (not flesh); they drank wine (not blood); see now J. Klawans, 'Interpreting the Last Supper: Sacrifice, Spiritualization, and Anti-Sacrifice', NTS 48 (2002) 1-17.

245. Particularly Matthew's addition of the phrase 'for the forgiveness of sins' (Matt. 26.28), the very phrase he seems deliberately to have omitted in 3.2 (cf. Mark 3.3). See further below § 11.3b.

246. Matt. 6.22-23/Luke 11.34-36; Matt. 6.24/Luke 16.13; Matt. 6.25-34/Luke 12.2232; Matt. 7.1-2/Luke 6.37a, 38b; Matt. 7.3-5/Luke 6.41-42; Matt. 7.7-1 I/Luke 11.9-13; Matt. 7.12/Luke 6,31.

247. Despite which, most discussions simply assume redactional use of Q; see, e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke, Davies and Allison, Matthew, and Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, adloc. Streeter recognized the likelihood of 'oral tradition in more than one form', but argues that differences have to be explained by Matthew's 'conflation' of Q and M — that is, by literary editing (Four Gospels251-53).

248. Bergemann, Q aufdem Prufstand, concludes that Luke 6.20b-49 was not part of the more plausible explanation is of two orally varied versions of the same tradition. As before, the evidence does not determine whether one or the other (or both) has simply drawn directly from the living oral tradition known to them, or whether one or the other has borrowed in oral mode from the Q document. Either way the evidence is more of oral dependence than of literary dependence. Consider the following examples.

Matt. 5.13

Luke 14.34-35

You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can it be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out to be trampled under foot.

34 Salt is good; but if even salt has lost its taste, how can it he seasoned? 35 It is fit neither for the earth nor for the manure heap; they throw it out.

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Study Aid

Study Aid

This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To Getting A Scholarship And Financial Support For Your Studies.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment