Michael BG wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:45 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:44 pm
Michael BG wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:30 pm
I wonder how many times Matthew uses “Kingdom of Heaven” in the double tradition? Should we expect Luke to have used the term at least once in this tradition if he is using Matthew? I can’t find Luke using the term at all.
Correct. Luke never uses the term "kingdom of heaven" (at least not in the standard texts; I have not checked very hard for variants). That is a Matthean affectation.
If Luke was using Matthew shouldn’t we see him suffer fatigue in relation to the “Kingdom of Heaven”? As we don’t this could be because Luke didn’t have Matthew to work from.
"Should" is a rather strong word for this possibility. Editorial fatigue is never, ever automatic. One has to wait for the author/editor to drop his or her guard a bit, and some authors/editors are so conscientious that they will avoid lapsing into fatigue by far most of the time, if not avoiding it altogether.
I agree both aspects have to be present. Editorial fatigue has to involve words and retaining words from the perceived source as well as inconsistency. Without the use of the same word or words there is no way of knowing it was fatigue rather than just bad editing. There has to be leakage from the source into the story suffering from fatigue.
I agree that Matthew’s story appears to be the same story as in Luke, but the inconsistencies or as you term them inconcinnities I think are there because of Matthew's intended editorial work and not the result of him suffering from editorial fatigue and failing to change something in the original story.
Your example of the king burning some cities while being a little inconsistent does not show that Luke’s version is the original form.
You are still using the terms in ways that I do not, but I can agree that Matthew's additions to the core story are what make Matthew's version problematic. Call that process what you will. And I believe we are more than justified in referring to a "core story" here because, when one removes from Matthew's version (A) those parts which reflect Mark's parable of the tenants more than
Luke's parable of the great feast and (B) those parts which reflect neither Mark nor Luke, what remains is a story very much like Luke's parable, and just as complete and unproblematic. This ought to be explained.
I agree with you it does point to it being Matthew’s editorial work and so unlikely to be in the original version.
Bear in mind, however, that Ken's argument is precisely that Matthew's version of the parable of the feast is both
more original than Luke's version and
entirely the product of Matthew's editorial work. There is no either/or for Ken on this point. The parable, in his view, is the result of Matthew's editorial activity on Mark's parable of the tenants.
I want to emphasize that here and now, as ever and always, when I refer to Matthew's version or to Luke's version or what have you I am taking a shortcut; it could be Matthew's source or Luke's source.
It is still possible that Matthew has retained more of the original story and Luke has substantially changed it.
In the abstract, this is true. Where Matthew's account of the wedding guests differs from Luke's, it is possible that Matthew is still the more primitive.
In the concrete, however, there is at least one point at which I believe Luke's version is pretty clearly more original than Matthew's, granted the rest of my arguments. Matthew has changed individual servants in Mark's parable of the tenants to groups
of servants in his own rendition of that parable. Similarly, in the parable of the feast, where Luke has an individual servant, Matthew has groups
of servants. This makes it look to me as if Matthew has made both of these changes (rather than Luke having turned groups of servants into one individual servant).