One of the most interesting/frustrating aspects of Double Tradition material is how some pericopae can be very similar and others very different. One example would be the story of the Two Slaves in Matthew 24.45-51 and Luke 12.41-46 juxtaposed with the story of the Pounds/Talents of Matthew 24.14-50 and Luke 19.11-27. Below I will post the SBL GNT text of both of these narratives in downloadable PDFs. I have marked in red where it seems like the text relates and left black where it does not. Take a look at these two (both classified as Double Tradition) and note the drastic differences:
Two Slaves: LePort. Two Slaves
Pounds and Talents: LePort. Pounds and Talents
You may find an error or something overlooked. If so, let me know!
Yes, it is interesting. It shows that the author of Luke’s gospel sometimes copied the text in front of him almost slavishly (if you’ll excuse the pun), and sometimes he adapted it quite freely to present his own interpretation in is own style. On the Three-Source Theory the similarities in both cases can be explained as results of Luke copying/adapting Matthew.
@Ron: I’ve been reading Mark Goodacre’s book on the Synoptic Problem and he seems to support the Three-Source Theory. I am anticipating exploring it.
Actually Mark Goodacre supports the Farrer Theory. The Three-Source Theory is a compromise between the prevailing Two-Source Theory and the Farrer Theory. In my opinion the 3ST gets the best of both worlds, as well as leading to the reconstruction of a collection of the sayings of Jesus which was originally in Aramaic. The latter is consistent with the statement of Papias quoted by Eusebius (“Matthew arranged in order the sayings in the Hebrew [=Aramaic?] language, and each one interpreted/translated as he was able” – as translated by R.E.Brown).
@Ron: Thank you for the clarification. I mistakenly conflated the two.
On a side note, I’ve read some explain Papias’ statement Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ as meaning a Hebraic way to speaking/arguing rather than the language (= Aramaic). For example, he divides his Gospel into five major sections which some think parallels the Pentateuch or his consistent Christology wherein Jesus embodies Israel (Jesus in the wilderness for forty days like Israel in the wilderness forty years; Jesus on the mountain with a new “law” like Moses on Sinai with the old). Have you heard of this and what are your thoughts?
No, I haven’t come across this interpretation of ‘Hebrew dialect’, but I still think the more natural understanding of the phrase is as referring to a language, and of that of the ‘logia’ is as a collection of the sayings of Jesus. I agree that Matthew’s gospel was divided into five major logical sections, and I’m sure it was in deliberate imitation of the Pentateuch. Papias is (correctly in my opinion) usually taken as referring to the apostle Matthew. However I don’t believe that Matthew’s gospel was written by the apostle Matthew because, among several good reasons, an apostle would not have been dependent on a non-apostle (Mark) for his stories about Jesus. So I don’t believe Papias could have been referring to the author of the ‘Gospel of Matthew’.
Comments are closed.