Ben,
I gave a paper titled "Mistranslated Aramaic or Septuagintal Greek?" at SBL in 2008. I'll copy the pertinent section here:
II. MATTHEW 23.25-26//LUKE 11.39-41: “CLEANSE” AND “GIVE ALMS”
In its Matthean form, Jesus’ saying to the Pharisees on cleansing the cup and the plate reads:
οὐαὶ ὑμῖν γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί ὅτι καθαρίζετε τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τῆς παροψίδος ἔσωθεν δὲ γέμουσιν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας. Φαρισαῖε τυφλέ καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ ποτηρίου ἵνα γένηται καὶ τὸ ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ καθαρόν.
Woes to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside you are full of extortion and rapacity. You blind Pharisee! First cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside may be clean.
Luke’s form differs somewhat:
νῦν ὑμεῖς οἱ Φαρισαῖοι τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ πίνακος καθαρίζετε τὸ δὲ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν γέμει ἁρπαγῆς καὶ πονηρίας. ἄφρονες οὐχ ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἔξωθεν καὶ τὸ ἔσωθεν ἐποίησεν. πλὴν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην καὶ ἰδοὺ πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστιν
Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give for alms those things that are within; and behold, everything is clean for you.
The argument for a common Aramaic source for this saying is based especially on Luke’s use of δότε ἐλεημοσύνην where Matthew has καθάρισον. Wellhausen’s suggestion, as given earlier, is that Luke has read the Aramaic dakkau as zakkau, thus changing “cleanse” to “give alms.” In its earliest form, the Aramaic source hypothesis depended on the view that the evangelists were trying to render their sources as closely as possible and differences were due to different translations, or mistranslations, of particular words. More recent forms of the Aramaic source theory allow that the evangelists are not attempting to give literal or “wooden” translations of their sources, but rather are interpreting them in light of the evangelist’s own particular interests. Such hypotheses undermine themselves to a large degree. If the changes introduced by the evangelists are in keeping with their redactional interests as seen elsewhere in their works, this draws into question the reason for positing a hypothetical source in the first place.
It must be admitted that Luke’s “give for alms those things that are within” has proven something of a crux for Lukan commentators, particularly those who insist on interpreting the saying in relation to its Matthean parallel. It is not surprising that some have invoked the theory of differing interpretations, or even mistranslation, of a hypothetical source in order to explain it. Nonetheless, it can be reasonably argued that the saying makes good Lukan sense.
None of the evangelists is more concerned than Luke is with almsgiving or the more general question of the proper use of wealth. In his doctoral dissertation, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, L. T. Johnson argued that Luke uses possessions as a metaphor for man’s response both to his fellow man and to God:
Luke uses possessions with great frequency to express man’s response to God’s Visitation. How a man disposes of his possessions indicates the quality of that response, whether it is one of accepting or rejecting God’s presence in his life. We have suggested that Luke’s understanding is such that they can stand as a symbol of the state of a man’s heart before God
.
The theme that the way a man disposes of his possessions mirrors the way the man responds to God in his heart, or “inner self,” can be illustrated from several passages in Luke’s gospel, both in the material he has in common with Matthew and in Luke’s special material. I will give two examples.
First, there is the saying about “treasure in heaven” common to Matthew and Luke. The version in Mt. 6.19-20 reads:
Do not lay up for yourselves treasure on earth, where the moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
While Lk. 12.33 has:
Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes and no moth destroys.
Luke’s version of the saying is far more specific than Matthew’s is. The Matthean version appears to be a general admonition not to set one’s sights on earthly things, which are ephemeral, but on heavenly things, which are eternal. The nature of the heavenly and earthly things is not explained in the saying itself. The Lukan version gives specific instructions on how to make for oneself a treasure in heaven: sell one’s possessions and give to the poor. Thus, the way someone disposes of his wealth is an outward indicator of his inner response to God and of God’s acceptance of this response.
Second, there is the Zacchaeus story in Lk. 19.1-10. Zacchaeus, who is identified as a sinner, tells Jesus:
Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.
and Jesus answers him:
Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek out and save the lost.
What is interesting here is that Luke does not explicitly describe Zacchaeus’ response to Jesus in terms of his faith in Jesus or in God, but in terms of the way he disposes of his wealth (which, it may reasonably be inferred, is an outward sign of Zacchaeus’ inner faith). Further, it is implied that Zacchaeus’ giving to the poor is in some way redemptive and in some manner compensates for his being a sinner.
Advocates of an Aramaic source hypothesis might well allow that Luke is interested in almsgiving and even that he believes that almsgiving has the effect of purifying the soul. Nonetheless, it is possible to argue that Luke’s substitution of almsgiving for cleansing in this specific context was suggested to him by something he found in an Aramaic source.
It is possible, but it is not necessary. The idea that almsgiving is a type of purification or cleansing was already present in Judaism before Luke. It is found in Sirach and Tobit. Sirach has a lengthy passage about almsgiving in 29.9-13:
Help the poor for the commandments sake, and in their need do not send them away empty-handed. Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend, and do not let it rust under a stone and be lost. Lay up your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High, and it will profit you more than gold. Store up almsgiving in your treasury, and it will rescue you from every disaster; better than a stout shield and a sturdy spear, it will fight for you against the enemy.
While this passage has certain similarities to Luke, such as the fact that almsgiving is a meritorious act that lays up a treasure against “disaster,” it is not clear that such almsgiving has the effect of cleansing one from sin. But that it clearly implied in Sirach 3.30: “As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin.”
The salvific effect of almsgiving is also clear in Tobit’s ethical instruction to his son Tobias (4.6-11):
To all those who practice righteousness: give alms from your possessions, and do not let your eye begrudge the gift when you make it. Do not turn your face away from anyone who is poor, and the face of God will not be turned away from you. If you have many possessions, make your gift from them in proportion: if few, do not be afraid to give according to the little you have. So you will be laying up a good treasure for yourself against the day of necessity. For almsgiving delivers from death and keeps you from going into the Darkness. Indeed, almsgiving, for all who practice it, is an excellent offering in the presence of the Most High.
But for our purposes, the most important formulation of the principle that almsgiving has a cleansing effect is found in the angel Raphael’s instruction to Tobias (12.8-10; emphasis mine):
ἀγαθὸν προσευχὴ μετὰ νηστείας καὶ ἐλεημοσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἤ ἀγαθὸν τὸ ὀλίγον μετὰ δικαιοσύνης ἤ πολὺ μετὰ ἀδικίας καλὸν ποιῆσαι ἐλεημοσυνην καὶ ἢ θεσαυρίσαι χρυσίον. ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ ἐκ θανάτου ῥύεται, καὶ ἀυτὴ ἀποκαθαριεῖ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν.
Prayer and fasting is good, but better than both is almsgiving with righteousness. It is better to give alms than to lay up gold. For almsgiving delivers from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life, but those who commit sin and do wrong are their own worst enemies.
The importance of v. 9a here is in showing that the concepts expressed by καθαρίζω, to cleanse, and ἐλεημοσύνη, almsgiving, were already associated in Judaism before Luke wrote his gospel. Luke could very well have interpreted καθάρισον to suggest δότε ἐλεημοσύνην without any need to postulate interference from another source.
While I think it probable that Luke knew both Tobit and Sirach, this cannot be shown with certainty. He never refers to them by name or quotes them verbatim. Even passages with striking similarities, such as Lk. 12.16-21 (The Rich Fool) and Sirach 11.18-19 may conceivably be explained by Luke’s use of a pre-Lukan tradition rather than his direct knowledge of Sirach or Tobit. However, for our present purposes, it is not necessary to show Luke’s direct knowledge of Tobit and Sirach. One can avoid the conclusion that Luke knew them only by hypothesizing that he draws instead on a tradition of Hellenistic Jewish ethical beliefs, and particularly of beliefs about the ethical use of wealth, that he shares with them. Anyone who prefers to think of Luke’s dependence on the ethical traditions of Hellenistic Judaism rather than his dependence on the books of Sirach and Tobit is free to do so. The underlying point that almsgiving was seen as a form of purification remains.
To the best of my knowledge, these passages on almsgiving from Tobit and Sirach have not previously been adduced as an argument against the hypothesis of an Aramaic source for Lk. 11.41. Nonetheless, the connection between Lk. 11.41 and Tobit and Sirach regarding the atoning effects of almsgiving did not go unnoticed in the early church. In the fourth century Ambrose of Milan expounded on the verse in his commentary on Luke (7.100-101) thus:
Et ideo quasi bonus praeceptor docuit quemadmodum nostri mundare corporis contagium debeamus dicens: “Date eleemosynam, et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis.” Vides quanta remedia? Mundat nos misericordia, mundas nos Dei sermo, juxta quod scriptum est: “Jam vos mundi estis propter sermonem miam, quem locutus sum vobis;” Nec hoc loco solum sed etiam in aliis quanta sit gratia expressum tenes: “Eleemosyna enim morte liberat;” et “Conclude eleemosynam in corde pauperis, et haec pro te exorabit in die malo.”
And, therefore, so to speak, a good teacher taught us how we should cleanse the pollution of our body, saying, “Give alms; and, behold, all things are clean unto you” [Lk. 11.41]. You see how many are the remedies? Compassion cleanses us, the Word of God cleanses us according as it is written: “Now ye are clean by reason of the word which I have spoken to you” [Jn. 15.3]. And not only in this passage, but also in others ye have manifest how great is grace; for “Alms delivers from death” [Tob. 12.9], and, “Shut up alms in the heart of the poor: and it shall obtain help for thee on an evil day” [Sir. 29.12].
To recapitulate the argument presented here: Black’s assertion that “the genesis of Luke’s reading is quite certainly to be found in a wrong understanding of Aramaic dakko, ‘cleanse’” is to be rejected. The concept of almsgiving as a form of cleansing can be found in Sirach and Tobit, and was presumably circulating in Greek in Luke’s time. As it coheres with Luke’s interest in almsgiving and the ethical use of wealth in general, Luke’s substitution of almsgiving for cleansing is quite understandable without need to posit Aramaic interference.