Matthean Posteriority: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem" (Did Lukan redaction influence Matthew 23:37?)

[Ken Olson]

.
That doesn't seem so clear to me.

What does 'that' refers to here?

1)
I also think that Matthew's use of Ἰερουσαλήμ seems, at first glance, to be a good argument for his dependence on Luke. On the other hand, Paul proves that different usage can be meaningful and intentional, and Matthew could theoretically have intended it as well. This is less likely, but still quite possible.

At first glance, perhaps. The problem with the method employed is that there is a long list of other expressions that occur multiple times in Matthew (brood of vipers, wailing and gnashing of teeth, little faith are three), and less often in Luke, and only where Matthew has it in a parallel location. And those expressions are far more striking and unusual (not found elsewhere in the NT) than the less Hellenized spelling of Jerusalem, and we can account for Matthew having used that in other ways.

The problem, imho, is that Luke isn't consistent either. In chapter 13 this could be explained with the difference between direct speech and indirect narrative. But in chapter 19 there seems to be no reason why Luke could have used the two different spellings meaningfully and consciously. Verses 11 and 28 have the same context and indirect narrative.

I was trying to make the point up thread that Luke was not being consistent, or perhaps he was being consistent within some system, but we have not yet figure out what that system is yet. Wienert (as quoted up thread) think he was being consistent in using sources in Acts, but since we don't know what those sources were, that doesn't help us.

Luke 13
22 He went on his way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem (Ἰεροσόλυμα)
33 Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλήμ). 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, (Ἰερουσαλήμ Ἰερουσαλήμ) the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

Luke 19
11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλὴμ), and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.
28 And when he had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem (Ἰεροσόλυμα).

2)
The meaning of the logion is somewhat unclear. The person speaking here is obviously not the earthly Jesus, but rather God in the form of the earthly Jesus ("How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!"). The word “Lord” in Matthew 23:39/Luke 13:35 should probably make the reader think of the enthroned Christ (”Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”)

It probably demands that the "Jews" should accept the Christian confession and Christian preachers ("... until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"), but looks back at the murders of the OT-prophets.

The whole logion appears as a reception of Mark 11:1-11, but with a view to a much later present. Imho it fits more into Matthew's context, but seems to have been invented independently of that context.

Luke used the logion primarily as a theological explanation of why Jesus was still safe in Galilee. But then the direct speechs “Jerusalem, Jerusalem” and “you” don't fit there at all (Luke 13:31 "At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.")

You mean 13.34-35 is an appears a reception of Mark 11.11? I'll have to think about that. I think Luke is revealing that Jesus knew the course of his earthly mission in advance (in the way he does in John). That may result in Jesus being safe in Galilee (for his hour had not yet come), but I do not think that was the reason Luke put it where it is.

The lament over Jerusalem does seem to fit better in its context in Matt 23, where Jesus is in Jerusalem and has been addressing the teachers of the law and Pharisees.

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

At min. 56, Goodacre said: "What Allen Garrow says is that when Matthew is distracted by other material, you end up with lower verbatim agreement. That is a very important part of the NTS article..."

Here is a quotation from the NTS article:

"The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis(MCH)argues that there is no scope for ‘Q’ in Double Tradition passages where Luke and Matthew agree almost verbatim (High DT passages) since these are best explained by Matthew’s copying of Luke without distraction."
https://www.alangarrow.com/uploads/4/4/ ... demia_.pdf

At min. 27:30f of this Mythvision interview, Allen Garrow talks about how Matthew changes Luke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ataTSjxxVs

Matt. is against luke's law free gospel,
Matt. edits out female autonomy,
Matt. addresses a male audience, a richer audience, Matt turns down the dial on sayings against being rich, thus making it acceptable to the middle classes,

gryan,

How does the data support MPH over Farrer if we don't presuppose on theory or the other first?

How do you know that Luke did not add references to women and female anatomy (where?) and material about the proper use of wealth to what he found in Matthew (he certainly adds them to what he found in Mark)?

There are also a few odd pieces to consider that don't fit well with such generalizations. Matthew keeps the reference to the woman with the flow of blood for 12 years (Mark 5.25/Matt 9.20) and he also keeps Mark's Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7.24-29), which in Matthew becomes the Canaanite Woman in Matt 15.21-28) which Luke omits.

Are there examples of Matthew making the sort of editorial changes to Mark that Garrow assumes he's making to Luke?

Best,

Ken

[gryan]

At min. 56, Goodacre said: "What Allen Garrow says is that when Matthew is distracted by other material, you end up with lower verbatim agreement. That is a very important part of the NTS article..."

Here is a quotation from the NTS article:

"The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis(MCH)argues that there is no scope for ‘Q’ in Double Tradition passages where Luke and Matthew agree almost verbatim (High DT passages) since these are best explained by Matthew’s copying of Luke without distraction."
https://www.alangarrow.com/uploads/4/4/ ... demia_.pdf

At min. 27:30f of this Mythvision interview, Allen Garrow talks about how Matthew changes Luke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ataTSjxxVs

Matt. is against luke's law free gospel,
Matt. edits out female autonomy,
Matt. addresses a male audience, a richer audience, Matt turns down the dial on sayings against being rich, thus making it acceptable to the middle classes,

How does the data support MPH over Farrer if we don't presuppose on theory or the other first?

I don't think it is making a case for MPH over Farrer.

I was quoting Garrow in line with Goodacre saying that if MPH is correct, he likes Matthew less.

Garrow was saying in some ways, he likes Luke better than Matthew.

I'm curious, Ken, do you "like" one gospel better than any other? And would that shift for you if MPH were true?

[Ken Olson]

At min. 27:30f of this Mythvision interview, Allen Garrow talks about how Matthew changes Luke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ataTSjxxVs

Matt. is against luke's law free gospel,
Matt. edits out female autonomy,
Matt. addresses a male audience, a richer audience, Matt turns down the dial on sayings against being rich, thus making it acceptable to the middle classes,

Ken: How does the data support MPH over Farrer if we don't presuppose on theory or the other first?

I don't think it is making a case for MPH over Farrer.

I was quoting Garrow in line with Goodacre saying that if MPH is correct, he likes Matthew less.

Garrow was saying in some ways, he likes Luke better than Matthew.

I'm curious, Ken, do you "like" one gospel better than any other? And would that shift for you if MPH were true?

This is a quick and off the top of my head answer and perhaps irrelevant to solving the synoptic problem. You put like in scare quotes, so I'll give my own definition of the term. It could mean either (1) evaluating the author's literary talents highly or (2) finding the author's message agrees with one's own sentiments (here especially moral principles). I'll stick to addressing the question in the first sense in this post.

I evaluate both Matthew and Luke highly. Like most people starting out in New Testament studies, I accepted the Two-Source Theory in its Four Source version, which tends not to view the Matthew and Luke as authors but as 'scissors and paste' editors (the quotation marks indicate I'm using someone else's term there). They had different sources (Mark, Q, M, and L) which they edited and moved around. After reading Sanders and then Goulder, I rejected that view. I think Matthew was an accomplished (or at least competent) literary artist with a message who exercised considerable freedom in expounding on his Markan source using what Goulder called Midrashic techniques. Goulder later shifted to using the word creativity because of critics (notably Philip Alexander) who insisted he was not using the term in its technical sense as rabbi's expounding on biblical (i.e., Tanakh) passages. (There are still a number of scholars, including Old Testament specialists who still use the word in a sense at least close to the way Goulder used it).

I think Matthew made new stories from old ones. A number of the so-called doublets in Matthew are due to Matthew using the same material twice - and I think that happens in some of the stories which are not generally recognized as doublets as well. I've previously discussed the Centurion's Boy (Mark's Syrophoenican Woman), the Parable of the Great Supper (Mark's Wicked tenants), and Jesus appearing to the Women at the Tomb (Matthew has Jesus repeat what the angel has already told the women) on this forum. If the MPH is correct, Matthew is not the creative literary artist I take him to be and all of those stories were in his source (well, possibly not Jesus appearance to the women). Matthew also liked to write in the form of Semitic poetry, a form of repetition or parallelism which James Kugel described as "A, and what is more, B".

I take it that Luke is also a creative author, and one of the things I appreciate about him is his occasional irreverence which pushes back against dominant and overly pious themes in the bible or bible-based societies. (I think the book of Jonah is similar). I like that he compares God to an unjust judge, that he praises an unrighteous steward, and that the prodigal son didn't go back to his father because he realized he was morally wrong, he did it because he was hungry (and Luke thought such self interest was alright). I also like that he humorously suggests that Paul was a lethally boring speaker in Acts 20.9.

Much of what I appreciate about Matthew would be wrong on the MPH, and wrong about Luke if Garrow's particular take on the MPH was correct. Garrow thinks Luke has a proto-Luke to which he added Mark in blocks, so he isn't the author of, for instance the Lukan Parables (perhaps Paul's lethal boringness in Acts would survive).

Best,

Ken

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't think enough attention gets paid to the parallels between Matthew and Acts on the death of Judas. One of them clearly appears to be responding to the other, even given the differences:

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9

15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

The "Field of Blood" element cannot have been independently invented abd the elements which contradict each other are not random but thematic. Matthew says Judas was sorry and that he gave the money back and then killed himself and the priests bought a field after he was dead. Acts says he wasn't sorry, that he kept the money, bought himself a field, then was struck down by God.

Matthew is pro-Jewish, Luke-Acts is anti-Jewish. These are different receptions of the same story, the question is which story came first. In addition to these traditions there is a third in Papias which claims Judas got so fat he couldn't fit through a cart path and exploded. That version is the most classically "tropey." In a lot of classical histories, if a villain didn't get killed by violence or died by natural causes, then the natural causes would be inflated into massive, bizarre maladies like Herod pissing maggots in Josephus. Simply being suddenly struck down was also a trope. Suicide is not typically an ending given to baddies because that gave them too much honor. All of that is to say that it looks more like Matthew is responding to Acts or to already established tropes that Judas had been killed by God than that Acts is responding to Matthew.

That would make Matthew really late because Acts is really late. That could push Matthew to the middle of the 2nd Century which doesn't bother me since obviously the traditional use of Papias as witness to Matthew is fallacious and apologetic, but we also have to account for a redaction history. These works were not static nor were they originally perceived as sacred. They were works in motion responding to works in motion. What we have is what those works looked like in the 4th Century. A lot of changes can happen over a couple of hundred years and the truth is we don't know what any of the Gospels looked like before Constantine.

[gryan]

Ken Olson: Thanks for your comments on the literary talents of Luke and Matt respectively, with and without MPH.

RE: the comments of Diogenes the Cynic above:
Does MPH usually assume that Matt came after both Luke and Acts (such that Acts could have influenced Matthew)?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ken Olson: Thanks for your comments on the literary talents of Luke and Matt respectively, with and without MPH.

RE: the comments of Diogenes the Cynic above:
Does MPH usually assume that Matt came after both Luke and Acts (such that Acts could have influenced Matthew)?

I actually don't know. I haven't read much Matthean posteriority but I know it's now generally assumed that Luke-Acts was written at the same time.

[gryan]

I don't think enough attention gets paid to the parallels between Matthew and Acts on the death of Judas. One of them clearly appears to be responding to the other, even given the differences:

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9

15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

The "Field of Blood" element cannot have been independently invented abd the elements which contradict each other are not random but thematic. Matthew says Judas was sorry and that he gave the money back and then killed himself and the priests bought a field after he was dead. Acts says he wasn't sorry, that he kept the money, bought himself a field, then was struck down by God.

I too have noticed some striking verbal similarities (not mentioned above) between the portrait of Judas Iscariot in Matthew and Acts. My explanation is that Matthew (MPH) read Luke-Acts (although I have seen no scholarly discussion of the influence of Acts on Matthew) and aiming to replace Luke-Acts with Matthew-Acts, deliberately wrote a Gospel that would, in literary critical terms, appear to be written before Luke.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't think enough attention gets paid to the parallels between Matthew and Acts on the death of Judas. One of them clearly appears to be responding to the other, even given the differences:

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9

15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

The "Field of Blood" element cannot have been independently invented abd the elements which contradict each other are not random but thematic. Matthew says Judas was sorry and that he gave the money back and then killed himself and the priests bought a field after he was dead. Acts says he wasn't sorry, that he kept the money, bought himself a field, then was struck down by God.

I too have noticed some striking verbal similarities (not mentioned above) between the portrait of Judas Iscariot in Matthew and Acts. My explanation is that Matthew (MPH) read Luke-Acts (although I have seen no scholarly discussion of the influence of Acts on Matthew) and aiming to replace Luke-Acts with Matthew-Acts, deliberately wrote a Gospel that would, in literary critical terms, appear to be written before Luke.

The possible influence of Acts on Matthew seems to be largely ignored, maybe because Acts is so late, but Matthew is only pinned to the 1st Century by way of some iffy assumptions about Ignatius. These works all had redaction histories anyway and were added to over time. Matthew's Judas pericope might be a late addition made directly in response to Acts.

[perseusomega9]

The possible influence of Acts on Matthew seems to be largely ignored, maybe because Acts is so late, but Matthew is only pinned to the 1st Century by way of some iffy assumptions about Ignatius.

Yep, the whole field suffers from overly generous dating assumptions on the canon.