viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7622&p=118261#p118261
The Parable of the Talents/Pounds
It’s always possible to offer alternative explanations for the data, as you have done. It’s possible to suggest that the original story (whether Luke or the common source of Luke and Matthew) told of a master who had ten slaves, of whom only three play any further role in the story. And maybe Matthew saw that the other seven servants, realized they were completely unnecessary to the story and edited it to omit them.Bernard: About the pounds/talents parable, I don't see your point.
The one who made ten pounds is the first one who reported to the king.
The one who made five pounds is the second one who reported to the king.
And then another is among the remaining eight servants who did not reported yet to the king.
I don't see any connection with the three servants in gMatthew.
And then, if the Q document existed, it may have featured ten servants but "Matthew" reduced that to only three.
However, the extraneous seven servants who are each given a pound and then play no role in the story is a secondary, supporting argument for fatigue. The main argument concerns “give it to the one who has ten.”
Matthew 25.28: “So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents.”
Luke 19.24 He said to the bystanders, ‘Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’
The Greek of the master’s saying is nearly identical in word choice, except for the difference in talents and pounds, though there are a few differences in word order. The Greek verb προσεργάζομαι means “to earn in addition, make more” (BDAG), or “make, earn in addition” (Liddell-Scott) and is cognate with the noun πρόσεργον “earnings, interest on money.”
In Matthew, the first servant was given five talents, and made another five talents, so he has ten talents. In Luke, the first servant was given one pound, and made ten more pounds, so he has eleven pounds. None of the three servants Luke tells us about is “the one who has ten” (see Goodacre, Fatigue, 10; also 10 n. 44).
There are all sorts of ways that one could respond. You could say that the servant with the ten pounds might be one of the other seven servants that Luke introduced but then didn’t then tell us about. You could say that since the master does not say “give it to the one who has *exactly* ten pounds”, so he might mean the one with eleven pounds because anyone with eleven pounds must necessarily have ten pounds. You could go the Alan Garrow route of rejecting the argument from fatigue entirely and claiming that maybe the original story contained an error and the later writer noted it and corrected it. (I kind of like the idea of conjecturally emending the text of Luke 19.26 so that the servants tell the master, “Lord, he has eleven pounds.”) But I contend that none of these alternative explanations is as strong as the one Goodacre (following Goulder) offers. Luke changed the text early on by giving the servants different amounts of money and then lapses back into following his source without taking into account the change he introduced.
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matt 11, Mark 9, Luke 5, John 12, Acts 19; Gal 3)Bernard: Another argument:
The authors of gospels made use of two spellings for Jerusalem, 'Hierosolyma' and 'Ierousalēm'. "Luke" & "Mark" employed both, and "John" used only 'Hierosolyma'. What about "Matthew"? He utilized 'Hierosolyma' eleven times and 'Ierousalēm' twice in 23:37. It just happens Mt23:37 would be part of the common source: the counterpart is Lk13:34 which also features 'Ierousalēm' twice. And all the eleven occurrences of 'Hierosolyma' in GMatthew are in Markan or Matthean material, that is NOT in that common source.
Therefore, with "Matthew" being consistent with 'Hierosolyma', Mt23:37 is very likely to have been copied from a different source, "Q".
Ἰερουσαλὴμ (Matt 2, Mark 1, Luke 27?, John 0, Acts 41?; Rom 4, 1 Cor 1, Gal. 2, Heb 1, Rev 3)
The argument here is that, where we find word (or phrase) X in evangelist A only at locations where it is paralleled by evangelist B, but evangelist B also has it in other locations, this indicates evangelist A has taken X from evangelist B or they have a common source for X.
The problem with such one way indicators is that they can be found pointing in both directions. One well known example used to illustrate the point is “Your faith has saved you” which is in Mark 5.34, 10.52, and which Luke has in parallel cases in Luke 8.48, 17.19, but also in 7.50, 18.42. This is generally taken to mean Luke re-used an expression he liked from from Mark, rather than that Mark used Luke or that we must postulate a common miracle source for the two evangelists containing all the uses of the expression.
Goulder has compiled a list of 17 such expressions that occur in Luke only where Matthew has a parallel, but additional times in Matthew (“wailing and gnashing of teeth,” “brood of vipers,” and “little faith” being three of the most recognizable). In those cases, scholars who accept Q argue that Matthew found those expression in Q and re-used them. Goulder points out that (1) there are a more of these indicators going from Matthew=>Luke than vice versa, (2) the ones he has pointed out are unusual and striking expressions not found elsewhere in the NT (or earlier Greek literature in the case of “little faith”), and, perhaps most importantly, that if Matthew is taking the language he inserts redactionally elsewhere from Q, then the fact that language is known Matthean redaction cannot be used to say it wasn’t in Q in places where Matthew and Luke have different wording.
Neither of the two spellings of Jerusalem are at all rare or striking. They both occur multiple times elsewhere in the NT (and in other literature). Luke 13.34 is not the only place Mat could have gotten that spelling of Jerusalem. It’s also in Mark. The theory that Matthew must have depended on Q or Luke for the spelling of Jerusalem he used in in 23.37 is uncompelling.
Then the question is why Matt might have used a spelling for Jerusalem in Matt 23.37 that differs from his usual one. Any such explanation calls for some speculation. We should note that in Matt 23.37, Jesus is addressing the city of Jerusalem directly. He’s speaking to it, not of it. This unusual form of address to a city is also found in the woe to the unrepentant cities in Matt 11.21 “Woe to you Chorasin! Woe to you Bethsaida!” (= Luke 10.13), which is also a case of Jesus acting as a prophet of foretelling disaster for cities.
Another prophetic address to a city is found in Matt 2.6, which begins “And you Bethlehem, in the land of Judah.” Matthew introduces the quotation saying, “as it has been written by the prophet,” but the quotation which follows depart considerably from the known text of LXX Micah 5.1. Whether Matthew used a variant text or modified it himself is a subject of debate. I think he likely modified it himself. He drops Micah’s description of Bethlehem as ‘of Ephratha’ and substitutes ‘in the land of Judah.’ He also changes ‘one of the little clans of Judah’ to ‘by no means not least among the rulers of Judah.’ It may be that he dropped Ephratha because he thought it would not have meant anything to his audience. But what’s interesting is that his (mis)quotation of Micah immediately follows the chief priests and scribes telling Herod that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem in the land of Judea. The chief priests and scribes say Judea, the more Hellenized form, but the prophet says Judah. That may also be what’s going on in Matt 23.37, where Jesus is speaking prophetically and poetically to ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem,’ he uses the more archaic, less Hellenized form of the name rather than the more pedestrian one. Parenthetically, I depart slightly from Goulder here when he suggests that the addresses to the cities all contain doubled geographical references (Bethlehem/Judah, Chorasin/Bethsaida, Jerusalem, Jerusalem). I suspect it more likely that Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem was meant to recall David’s repetition of Absalom’s name in his lament over his son in 2 Sam. 18.33, 19.4.
Hate Your Family
And:Bernard: Another strong argument in favor of "Luke" not knowing gMatthew:
Lk 14:26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple"
gMatthew has the following corresponding verse (which make a lot of sense(:
19:37 "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;"
Don't you think if "Luke" knew about gMatthew, she would have written her extreme & unrealistic saying as she did?
No, I don’t think it’s realistic. I think it’s extreme and unrealistic, as you said. That is why I, along with every Lukan commentator I know of, take it that Luke is using hyperbole.Bernard: you think it is realistic that in order to become Christian, one has to hate every members of his family, including himself and his wife?
As G.B. Caird put it (with perhaps just a hint of insensitivity or anti-semitism) in his commentary on Luke:
The same non-literal, hyperbolic use of hate can be found elsewhere in the OT:To hate mother and father does not mean on the lips of Jesus what it conveys to the Western reader (cf. Mark 7.9-13). The semitic mind is comfortable only with extremes – light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate – primary colors with no half-shades in between. The semitic way of saying ‘I prefer this to that’ is ‘I like this and I hate that’ (cf. Gen. 29.30-31, Deut 21.15-17). Thus for the followers of Jesus, to hate their families meant giving the family second place in their affections. Ties of kinship must not be allowed to interfere with their absolute commitment to the kingdom. (Caird, St. Luke (1963) 178-179).
This must mean that your son will be better off if you discipline him, therefore you should discipline him if you really wanted to show your love for him.He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him (Proverbs 13.29)
I find it baffling that anyone would be convinced by this line of argument.Bernard: According to Aramaic scholar Jack Kilmon:"The interesting interface between Aramaic and Greek is that where Greek has many words for one meaning, Aramaic ... a "meat and potatoes" language ... has one word with several meanings ..."
"The Aramaic of Luke's source document, in part, was: "whoever comes to me and does not "hate" his father and mother ...
The word "hate" in Aramaic, however, is an idiom meaning "to set aside." The saying was originally to SET ASIDE your mother, father, brothers, sisters, to follow Jesus ..."
"Luke" had a bad translation of the saying. She certainly did not get that from gMatthew, but from a document like "Q".
First (but less importantly), while I don't deny Jack Kilmon knows some Aramaic, he is not "an Aramaic scholar." He's an informed amateur interested in historical Jesus studies. I took a semester of Syriac. That doesn't make me an Aramaic scholar (or even a Syriac one). And I suspect the phenomenon of Luke and Matthew choosing different words that could possibly translate the same word in a different language is not uncommon. I bet you could find examples in French or German and probably Swahili. The idea that where Luke and Matthew use different words in a given location, and there is a word in another language that could be translated with the words they used, we should accept that they made independent translations from that language sets the bar way too low.
Second, and more importantly, the implication of the argument you are making is that you do accept that it is meant literally. Luke may not have liked it, but he felt bound to reproduce what was in the faulty Greek translation of an Aramaic source that he had, and he was telling his fellow Christians they had to hate their families. My study of Luke’s use of his Markan source does not lead me to believe that he was nearly so bound by his sources as you suggest. He was not a copyist, but was writing a work of literature with theological aims. His own theological aims. If he doesn’t want to have Jesus baptized by John, he doesn’t have Jesus baptized by John. If he wants to have Jesus begin his ministry in his hometown of Nazareth and declare himself to be Christ at the outset, he does.
Aramaic Q Again
The theory of Aramaic interference between Matthew and Luke is unnecessary and uncompelling. I’ve discussed Matt 23.26 and Luke 11.41 on this forum here:Bernard: Another argument:
Lk11:41a: "But give alms inwardly, and behold, all things are clean to you."
A scholar, Wellhausen, suggested that the Aramaic word dakkau (to cleanse, purify) was misread as zakkau (to give alms)
Then, if Lk11:41 was a mistranslation from the Aramaic, we would have near concordance with Mt23:26:
Mt23:26 "... First cleanse the inside of the cup, that the outside also may be clean"
Let's compare it with the "corrected":
Lk11:41a "But cleanse inwardly, and behold, all things are clean to you."
The "corrected" version would make more sense because, in Lk11:39b, what is inward is "greed and wickedness" and NOT goods for the poor:
Lk11:39-40a "... Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! ..."
Let's compare it to the parallel "Q" passage in GMatthew:
Mt23:25 "... you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence."
http://earlyritings.com/forum/viewtopic ... bit#p84459
N.B. I am respecting the author of The Gospel According to Luke’s self-identification as male (pronouns: he, him, his).