Parallel Texts in Matthew,
Mark & Luke
3.
The Lamp
Mark 4:21-25 // Luke 8:16-18
Matt 5:15 // Luke 11:33
Matt 10:26-7 // Luke 12:2-3
Turn off Pop-up blocker to insure hyperlinks work properly.
Source?
Which source hypothesis
has a simpler explanation of this data?
Any source theory needs to be supported by redaction
criticism. It must be able to account for both narrative transpositions as
well as any parallels or variations in content. Only a hypothesis that is
consistent with each gospel's editorial tendencies at other points can be
considered plausible.
A hypothesis that presupposes that Matthew
is the primary source of this pericope (A & B)
must be able to explain why both of the other synoptics
- link aphorisms that
Matthew presents in separate contexts; &
- agree with each other in altering Matthew's
rhetoric; &
- insert this aphoristic pair at the same
point in the narrative that differs from the setting of either
saying in Matthew.
Any hypothesis that Mark is the basic
source (C & D) only has to explain why
Matthew presents these two aphorisms separately, in contexts that differ from
that in Mark.
A hypothesis that Luke used Matthew as a
secondary source (C) also has to explain why he decided to
alter Matthew's setting for his second version of each of these
aphorisms. Thus, the Two Source hypothesis (D) has far
fewer problems to resolve than other source theories.
|
Testing the Theories
The aphorism of the
lamp is distinct from that of the disclosed
secrets in rhetorical form, logic & vocabulary. Thus, it is
quite plausible to conclude that these were originally separate sayings -- as
in Matthew -- which were first linked by Mark (or Luke, if one follows Griesbach).
Augustine's
theory that Mark abbreviated Matthew, however, is not an accurate
description of either these aphoristic formulae or their use in the respective
narratives.
- Wording: The combined number of Greek
words in these two sayings is identical in Matthew and Mark. Since Mark
appends an injunction to hear that is not
associated with either of these sayings in Matthew, his version is
actually more verbose.
Word
count |
Matt |
Mark |
Lamp |
20 |
19 |
Secrets |
16 |
17 |
Ears |
|
6 |
Total |
36 |
42 |
-
Rhetoric: Matthew's
version of the aphorism of the lamp is
rhetorically simpler than Mark's. For Mark
ironically names two inappropriate settings for a lamp (under
bushel or bed) while Matthew mentions only one (bushel). If Mark
got this saying from Matthew he complicated it by (a) turning a statement
into a rhetorical question & (b) inserting a 2nd setting for his
audience to reject.
-
Logic: Matthew's
version of the aphorism about disclosed secrets
is logically more coherent than Mark's. According to Matthew, Jesus simply
predicts that everything hidden will eventually be disclosed. Though a
world in which literally everything is known may seem an
exaggeration, it is at least conceivable. Mark's version, however,
has Jesus make the absurd claim that the only
reason for hiding anything is to reveal it. Such an observation, if not
completely inaccurate, is at least more problematic than Matthew's.
-
Context: Although Mark
does present a briefer version of Jesus' missionary instructions to the 12
[Mark 6:7-13 // Matt
10:1-42], he does not echo Matthew by
reporting the aphorism about disclosed secrets in
that context. Instead,
he locates it here in a less suitable setting among parables that he
-- unlike Matthew -- claims Jesus deliberately designed to keep
outsiders from grasping the secret of God's kingship [Mark
4:11].
-
Deconstruction: Mark
reports only 6 aphorisms that approximate elements of Jesus' inaugural
Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.
Motif |
Matt |
Mark |
Salt |
5:3 |
9:50 |
Lamp |
5:5 |
4:21 |
Hand |
5:30 |
9:43 |
Divorce |
5:32 |
10:11 |
Forgiveness |
6:14-15 |
11:25 |
Measure |
7:2 |
4:24 |
Two of these -- the lamp
& the measure -- are presented together here
in a narrative context totally unrelated to the themes Matthew used them to
support. The rest Mark scatters in his account of the conclusion of
Jesus' public career.
So, if Mark got this material from Matthew, he
is better described as totally dismantling that text rather than epitomizing
it. Moreover, in the process of reassembling the few fragments he saw fit to
salvage, Mark would have deliberately complicated & obscured sayings that
were simple & clear in his supposed source. And he would have inserted
them into a chapter on parables with which they share no common motif or
verbal link even though they contradicted his own version of the rationale
for Jesus' parables. Why he would have done this is unclear.
Thus, Augustine's theory that Mark edited Matthew
raises many redactional questions here, thereby creating conditions for further unverifiable speculation about Mark's
editorial agenda.
|
B |
Did Mark conflate Matthew & Luke? |
At first glance, Griesbach's theory that Mark
drew on material from both other synoptics might account for Mark's
suggestion of two inappropriate places to put a lamp:
under a bushel (as in Matt) & under a bed (as
in Luke). According to this hypothesis, both
Mark's linking of this aphorism with that about disclosed secrets & his
appending of this aphoristic pair to the interpretation of the parable of the
sower could be interpreted as evidence of his dependence on Luke.
Yet this passage does not support the general
redactional tendencies that supporters of the Griesbach theory usually suppose for
Mark. For in
this case Mark does not favor Matthew's text nor does he preserve those
passages in which both Matthew & Luke agreed. In fact, close examination shows that
Griesbach's theory
does not adequately describe the actual linguistic data in these texts &
poses more redactional problems than it solves.
If
Mark used Luke as well as Matthew, he would have inexplicably
- favored the version of the linked aphorisms
that is reported only by Luke, even though it differed from
Matthew in both wording & narrative context; &
- rejected the separate version of the aphorism
about disclosed secrets in both gospels, despite the fact that they are identical in wording; &
- eliminated the phrases that frame both
versions of Luke's versions of the aphorism of
the lamp [purple text], although they are worded exactly the same; &
- dropped the reference to lamp lighting &
its illumination of people that is explicit in both the
Matthean & Lukan versions of this
aphorism; &
- turned a saying that is a statement
about lamps in Matthew & both Lukan versions into a rhetorical question;
&
- ignored an explicit statement about secrets
becoming "known" that is in all other
synoptic versions of the sayings about disclosed
secrets [blue text], including the linked aphorism in Luke that he paraphrases; &
- inserted a redundant injunction
to hear echoing that appended to the parable of the
sower, despite the fact that it is not tied to any version of these aphorisms in either Matthew or
Luke.
In other words, Mark gives no evidence here
that he is collating two written sources but rather is clearly
composing this section of his gospel quite independent of the presentation of
these aphorisms in the texts of both Matthew & Luke.
Moreover, Griesbach's hypothesis only compounds
the redactional problem of accounting for the various versions of these
sayings by making Luke responsible for
- moving both the aphorism
of the lamp & that of the disclosed
secrets from their literary contexts in Matthew; &
- creating a redundant
doublet by linking these sayings despite the lack of a clear catchword
or parallel logic; &
- appending that extra pair of aphorisms to
the discussion of the parable of the sower, despite the fact that it
contradicts his own report that Jesus
designed this parable to keep his message of God's kingdom a secret from
the general public.
Thus, this source theory actually creates more redactional problems here than it solves.
|
In explaining the different versions of these
aphorisms, the hypothesis that Luke's primary narrative source was Mark
has two advantages over hypotheses that assume the primacy of Matthew:
- it has no need to try to explain why either
Mark or Luke would radically reconstruct Matthew's text simply to join
these two aphorisms & insert them into this section on parables
although they do not fit better here than where
Matthew has them; &
- it is easier to interpret Luke's text as an
expansion of Mark than as a rewrite of Matthew, since the first pair of
Luke's versions of these two aphorisms is located in the same narrative
setting as Mark's, while neither version shares Matthew's setting.
The question remains, however: what led Luke to
include a redundant separate version of each aphorism? Some written source is
probable because Luke's 2nd version of the aphorism
of disclosed secrets:
- is virtually identical in Greek with
Matthew's version; &
- is followed by practically the same series
of sayings as Matthew's.
The question, then, is whether Luke derived
these sayings directly from the text of Matthew or from the same source
as Matthew.
Farrer's claim that there is no need to
assume a hypothetical sayings source common to Matthew & Luke complicates
matters here. For it requires one to imagine the following editorial scenario:
- Matthew derived the aphorisms of the
lamp & the disclosed secrets from Mark's segment on parables but:
- divided them, &
- paraphrased them, &
- moved both several chapters forward into
other speeches of Jesus;
- using the lamp, along with paraphrases
of 5 other aphorisms from later in Mark,
in his composition -- de novo -- of the Sermon on the Mount
[Matt 5-7]; &
- inserting the disclosed secrets into his
expansion of Mark's version of Jesus' missionary instructions to the
12 [Matt 10//Mark 6].
- Luke followed Mark by keeping both aphorisms
linked to the parable of the sower,
but introduced sayings material from Matthew into Mark's outline by
- recording a condensed version
of Matthew's Sermon [Luke 6], minus the aphorism of the lamp, prior
to his version of the parable of the sower [Luke 8]; &
-
transforming the first
half of Matthew's missionary instructions to the
12 [Matt 9:37-10:16], minus the
aphorism of the disclosed secrets, into instructions for the 70 [Luke
10:2-16] & relocating this speech after the parable of the
sower; then
-
appending the version of
the aphorism of the lamp that he had
extracted from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount [Matt
5:15] to a cluster of
sayings about the sign of Jonah & other sayings that Matthew
recorded prior to the chreia about Jesus' true kin [Matt
12:46-50] & transferring this expanded cluster to a new setting after
a paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer [Luke
11:2-4], which he had also
extracted from the Sermon on the Mount [Matt
6:7-13]; then
-
turning a few aphorisms
from the second half of
Matthew's missionary instructions to the 12 [Matt
10:26-33], beginning with
the aphorism on disclosed secrets, into
a new speech [Luke 12:2-9] & appending it to a string of warnings
about scribes & Pharisees that he extracted from another speech
near the end of Jesus' public career in Matthew [Matt
23:23-36] & moved
to the beginning of Jesus' trip to Jerusalem.
If Luke made such a through
revision of Matthew's text, it is all the more remarkable that both
versions of his aphorisms of the lamp & the disclosed secrets are closer
to Matthew's wording than to Mark's. Why he would have shown more
respect for Matthew's phrasing of individual sayings than for the well
composed speeches that Matthew credited to Jesus is unclear. Thus,
Farrer's theory here creates such a complex picture of inexplicable editorial
activity by both Matthew & Luke that it strains credibility.
|
D |
Are Matthew &
Luke independent revisions of Mark? |
The Two Source
Hypothesis is able to avoid the redactional incongruities that plague
other explanations of the aphorisms of the lamp & the disclosed secrets by
presupposing that Luke did not depend on the text of Matthew but on a
written source of Jesus' sayings other than Mark that had also been used by
Matthew, a source that modern scholars generally call Q.
As a collection of oral material, Q was composed of a number of originally
independent clusters of sayings without its own narrative framework. Most of
the contents of Q was sayings ascribed to Jesus that were not used by
Mark: e.g., a sermon, a prayer, the sign of Jonah, warnings to scribes &
Pharisees, etc. But Q contained versions of some sayings that Mark had
also gotten from oral tradition: e.g., the aphorisms of the
lamp & the disclosed secrets, the
parable of the mustard, a set of mission instructions, etc.
As editors expanding Mark, Matthew & Luke
were able to insert the same Q material at any point in Mark's
narrative that either thought appropriate. Thus, the different
narrative contexts into which Matthew & Luke set the unlinked
versions of the aphorisms of the lamp & the disclosed secrets is a good
example of Matthew & Luke's independent citation of Q sayings in
their revision of Mark. Matthew had used the Q version of these aphorisms before
he got to editing the section on parables in Mark. Luke, on the other
hand, came to using these same Q sayings only after he had already
transcribed Mark's complex of sayings surrounding the parable of the sower.
Recognition of this allows an advocate of the Two Source hypothesis to offer a
simple explanation of the differences between Matthew & Luke's
presentation of these aphorisms.
Matthew tended to organize Q material into long
speeches with related motifs.
- He used a lot of Q material in composing the
Sermon on the Mount [Matt 5-7] that he inserted near the beginning of
Mark's narrative outline. He probably expanded the original framework of
Jesus' sermon in Q to include, among other things, the aphorism
of the lamp & the Lord's prayer.
- Then, he combined the versions of the
mission instructions in Mark & Q with a number of other Q sayings
encouraging those who faced opposition -- including the aphorism
on disclosed secrets to form another long speech of Jesus [Matt
10].
- When he finally came to editing Mark's
section on parables he simply dropped Mark's version of these aphorisms
because (a) he had already used the Q version of each & (b) they were
neither parables nor sayings well-linked to other motifs in this chapter.
Luke did not use Matthew's reorganization of Q
material any more than he used Matthew's revisions of Mark. Rather, he tended
to reproduce sayings from either source in the approximate context in which he
found them even though the links of these sayings to the logic of surrounding
material was tenuous at best, as in the case of Mark's citation of these
aphorisms.
Yet, Luke also tended to prefer the wording of
the sayings he found in Q. Therefore, he not only copied the clusters of
loosely organized Q sayings that contained a version of these aphorisms that
differed from Mark's, he revised the Markan version of these aphorisms to
conform more closely to the version he found in Q.
Thus, the Two Source Hypothesis allows an
explanation of the differences in the synoptic presentation of the aphorisms
of lamp & disclosed secrets that is consistent with reasonable redactional
principles of distinct editors without having to suppose that two of
them engaged in dismantling & reorganizing speeches that written sources
ascribed to Jesus. Other major source hypotheses do not.
|
last revised
28 February 2023
|