The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

This passage from the double tradition is similar in Matthew and Luke, but Matthew has "cleanse" (or "purify") at a spot where Luke has "give as alms" (essentially):

Matthew 23.25-26: 25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the dish [καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ ποτηρίου], so that the outside of it may become clean also."

Luke 11.37-41: 37 Now when He had spoken, a Pharisee asked Him to have lunch with him; and He went in, and reclined at the table. 38 When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. 39 But the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. 40 You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give that which is within as alms [πλὴν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην], and then all things are clean for you.

It was Julius Wellhausen who either first proposed or at least subsequently popularized the hypothesis that behind these Greek phrases lies a common Aramaic term, as explained here by Burney:

Charles Fox Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, page 9: Here it can hardly be doubted that the remarkable variant between Mt. καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς κτλ. and Lk. πλὴν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην is to be explained by the fact that New Heb. and Aram. זַכֵּי means both 'to purify' (occurring in Aram, as well as normal דַּכֵּי) and also 'to give alms' (cf. Wellhausen, Einleitung, p. 27). For the latter sense cf. the numerous occurrences in Midrash Rabba on Exodus, par. xxxiv; e.g. sect. 5 (New Heb.), 'If misfortune has befallen thy companion, consider how to give him alms (לזכות בו) and provide for him'; sect. 11 (Aram.), 'The Rabbis Yohanan and Resh Lakish were going down to bathe in the hot baths of Tiberias. A poor man met them. He said to them, "Give me alms" (זכון בי). They said to him, "When we come out we will give thee alms " (זכיין בך). When they came out, they found him dead.' The inference is that our Lord used some such expression as דִּבְגַוָּא זַכּוֹן 'That which is within purify'; this has been rightly rendered in Mt. and made more explicit by the addition of τοῦ ποτηρίου κτλ., while in Lk. it has been wrongly rendered, 'That which is within give as alms'. Ἡρμήνευσε δ' αὐτὰ, ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς, ἕκαστος.

That last sentence, in Greek, represents Papias' comment about the Hebrew gospel of Matthew: "And each translated them as he was able." All theories of gospel development aside, however, is there a better hypothesis? To be clear, the bare existence of a difference between Matthew and Luke in the double tradition is nothing special; the evangelists have at times changed their sources even more drastically than in this instance. What makes Wellhausen's case so attractive, of course, is its raw explanatory value in bridging the gap between the specific variants exhibited here: cleansing and giving alms. So is there a better explanation?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Secret Alias »

see footnote https://books.google.com/books?id=UKpWm ... ed&f=false

In the MT

https://books.google.com/books?id=KeY8D ... ed&f=false

it could also have resulted from a change in sounds associated with the letters regionally (and the text being read aloud):

https://books.google.com/books?id=GrS9C ... ad&f=false
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:01 pm see footnote https://books.google.com/books?id=UKpWm ... ed&f=false

In the MT

https://books.google.com/books?id=KeY8D ... ed&f=false

it could also have resulted from a change in sounds associated with the letters regionally (and the text being read aloud):

https://books.google.com/books?id=GrS9C ... ad&f=false
Zayin and daleth... good point.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Ken Olson »

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.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:46 pmI 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”
Excellent stuff, Ken. Thanks.

Luke definitely has a soft spot for the poor, and correspondingly for the giving of alms and the performing of other tangible services for one's fellow humans. So there is no problem in imagining Luke taking an idea like purification and giving it flesh, as it were. Also, those passages from Tobit are spot on, so far as relating the ideas of purity and alms is concerned. Well spotted, and so far so good.

What I wonder is whether your explanation adequately covers the wording of Luke's admonition: "But give the things within as alms" (πλὴν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην). What does that mean, to give "the things within" as alms? The motif of inside and outside works fairly well in Matthew's version: "First cleanse the inside of the cup." And the context already has the Pharisees cleaning the outside but failing to clean the inside, so the admonition to clean the inside is natural. Luke's version, while more concrete, comes across as more disjointed to me; interestingly, in that patristic quotation you gave Ambrose omits "the things within" entirely and goes straight for the alms: Date eleemosynam, et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis.

If the idea of giving what lies inside as alms has some definite meaning, then of course Luke can appeal to it. But I am not sure what that meaning would be. If the idea does not have a definite meaning, then is it your position that Luke simply copied Matthew's direct object too closely while changing the verb?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I think I may have it. Maybe "the things within" are "the things within" your cup. In context, "the things within" sound like things within a person. But maybe Luke has changed the meaning in a way that comes off as a bit too clever.

This reminds me somewhat of the debate over the meaning of Luke 17.21 ("the kingdom of God is within/among you").
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I do not seem to be the only person who has struggled with the meaning of "the things within."

John Chrysostom, in Homily 50 on Matthew, says: "For this cleanses from sin. 'For give alms, and all things will be clean unto you (δότε γὰρ ἐλεημοσύνην, καὶ πάντα ὑμῖν ἔσται καθαρά).'" In Homily 52 on Matthew he quotes it in almost exactly the same way: Δότε γὰρ ἐλεημοσύνην, καὶ πάντα ἔσται καθαρά. In his Homily 69 on John he says, "The words are not mine, but those of the Lord Himself, who says, 'Though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as snow,' and, 'Give alms, and all things shall be clean unto you' (δότε ἐλεημοσύνην, καὶ πάντα ὑμῖν ἔσται καθαρά), and by such a disposition you shall beautify not yourself only, but your husband." In Homily 81 on the same it comes out as: Δότε γὰρ ἐλεημοσύνην, φησὶ, καὶ πάντα ὑμῖν ἔσται καθαρά. In Homily 9 on Hebrews he writes, "For hear what the divine scripture says: 'Give alms, and all things shall be clean (δότε ἐλεημοσύνην, καὶ πάντα ἔσται καθαρά).'" So Chrysostom never seems to deal with "the things within" from Luke 11.41.

Tertullian does deal with it, in an interpretive sort of way, in Against Marcion 4.27.3: Date quae habetis eleemosynam, et omnia munda erunt vobis (give what you have as alms, and all things shall be pure for you). So he takes "the things within" to mean "what you have." Maybe he was thinking of "what you have" in your cup, but he does not say so.

The Vulgate interprets "the things within" as quod superest, "what is left over" or "what is superfluous."

ETA: At least Basil of Caesarea quotes this part of Luke 11.41 exactly in Asceticon Magnum II: πλὴν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Secret Alias »

If I may be afforded an opportunity to reference my own ideas in this thread. Yes? Ok well, as with most things scholars write about, their decision to accept or deny a proposition most often has everything to do with whether the idea contradicts one of their core presuppositions. So the critics of the Mar Saba letter often want to reduce the synoptic problem down to Mark, Matthew, Luke etc. In this case - the matter you are speaking of - it is similarly related in my opinion. It isn't just that they are suggesting that Aramaic might have influenced Luke. No, no, no. That's not the REAL issue that is deciding the matter here. For surely in an abstract parallel universe it must be granted that AT SOME POINT during the development of Christianity THERE WERE ARAMAIC SPEAKING CHRISTIANS and THEY SURELY HAD A VERSION OF THE GOSPEL(S) IN ARAMAIC. The Jewish writings were rendered in this manner. We know the Old Syriac the Diatessaron etc. So that isn't the problem.

The REAL problem is the dating of Luke. This is the issue that lurks in the background in the discussion. That Luke would have been SO LATE that it WOULD HAVE USED AN ARAMAIC SOURCE - this is the problem. But it isn't really a problem at all when we look at the explicit citation of 'Luke' as the name of a gospel. Late second century. Do we really think there wouldn't have been an Aramaic gospel at this period? These problems are so stupid. As I've said many times before - scholarship will improve when scholars drop acid, eat magic mushrooms, smoke weed BEFORE CONFERENCES!

The point isn't WHAT I WANT or WHAT WE WANT TO BE TRUE but IS IT POSSIBLE - given the state of the evidence (not our 'will to make what we've published authoritative') that Luke used an Aramaic source, was there an Aramaic source available at the latest possible date for Luke? Of course it is. Whether or not we agree with the fact that Luke used an Aramaic source is a whole different matter. It is possible.

When you pretend or unconsciously promote that claim that Luke was from the first century of course that makes for the argument that the 'Hebrew gospel' might have been first century and all the rest of the nonsense that follows. But really and truly - Luke is a second century gospel, late second century at best. So surely there was Aramaic source material available. It's not about limiting debate but opening ourselves up to all the possibilities.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben Smith wrote:
What I wonder is whether your explanation adequately covers the wording of Luke's admonition: "But give the things within as alms" (πλὴν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε ἐλεημοσύνην). What does that mean, to give "the things within" as alms? The motif of inside and outside works fairly well in Matthew's version: "First cleanse the inside of the cup."
Well, I was writing on the theory of mistranslated words and not a commentary on this pericope in Luke. I did give a nod to Johnson's theory that, "How a man disposes of his possessions ... can stand as a symbol of the state of a man’s heart before God."

I agree that Matthew's version (which I misquoted slightly) is fairly straightforward and the more primitive version (and, in my opinion, Luke's source).
Matt 23.25: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean.
I think Luke is riffing off the suggestion that the outside is determined by the inside. Internal goodness will manifest itself in external goodness, such as almsgiving. But there's a lot more going on in Luke's pericope that needs to be considered.
Luke 11:37 While he was speaking, a Pharisee invited him to dine with him; so he went in and took his place at the table. 38 The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not first wash before dinner. 39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you.
From the first two verses, it is clear that Luke is writing about Jewish or Pharisaic table fellowship here. Luke does not specifically deal with the inclusion of Gentiles in the People of God and the dietary laws until Acts 10, and his gospel does not have Mark's lengthy passage about observing the tradition of the elders Mark 7.1-23, which includes the detail that some of Jesus' disciples ate with unwashed hands (vv 2-3), and this:
Mark 7.18: Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19 since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
Luke won't deal with the issue of dietary laws until Acts 10, but he manages to work the issue of handwashing and what it is that makes a person clean or unclean into the ministry of Jesus here in Luke 11. The logical corollary of Mark's statement that "evil things come from within" is that good things (like almsgiving) also come from within.

I'm think I'll leave it there for now. The other subject that needs to be discussed is the role of holy spirit, which is the thing within Christians. But that would take another post as long as this one.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The Semitic background of Matthew 23.26 = Luke 11.41.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Tacitus, Histories, Book 2:

"Vespasian was an energetic soldier; he could march at the head of his army, choose the place for his camp, and bring by night and day his skill, or, if the occasion required, his personal courage to oppose the foe. His food was such as chance offered; his dress and appearance hardly distinguished him from the common soldier; in short, but for his avarice, he was equal to the generals of old..."

Luke 11: 37 (RSV):

[37] While he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table.
[38] The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner.

This points to one of the sub-currents of the NT Transvaluations. It is not that certain foods are unclean. It is that certain foods should not be eaten in honor of God, who has declared that these foods are unclean. See also: "The Law is not a burden".

Deuteronomy 30: 11 - 14 (RSV):

[11] "For this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
[12] It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
[13] Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'
[14] But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

A way must be found to declare the Law Null and Void. "If you break one law you break'em all".

"Thus, do we do away with the Law? Never..." Except, you have.

In a certain Championship Golf Match a few years back, a player touched the golf ball inadvertently with his club in the fairway. He did not move the ball or gain any advantage from the touching but he self-reported it and took the prescribed penalty. Nothing would been different except his Honor told him to report it. So it is here.

If you must deify the Flavians you must make the things they did "just and holy". "Thus, he pronounced all foods clean."

Well, no. No more than before (See: "Godfearers"). It must appear to be new teaching. Platonism over Semiticism.

CW
Post Reply