New book by Dennis MacDonald

[Ken Olson]

Luke's use of Matthew

personally, if there is something I would assume under any Gospel X priority, is that Matthew follows Luke and not vice versa. Bruno Bauer has given a good example of this just talking about Luke 7:18 (being in its natural place in Luke, while being terribly dislocated in Matthew). See here:

The riddle is solved. Luke, the first successor of Mark, is also the first to have dared to assume, besides the mere fact of baptism, a personal connection of the Baptist with Jesus as the Messiah and to include it in the type of the Gospel history. But he still has him doubtingly ask whether he is the Messiah. Matthew is bolder, already drawn much more into the train that led the religious category of their completion, and ascribes to the Baptist the knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah even before the baptism; he should therefore actually leave out the story of his message, but he writes it, without noticing the contradiction, following Luke, because he is interested in the statements that Jesus is said to have made on the occasion of the Baptist’s doubting question.

(my bold)

So yes, I conclude that the hypothesis Q is even worse than the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis.

Why would you assume that Matthew follows Luke under the theory of Markan priority? It is true that Bauer asserts it in the quotation you provide, but what is the argument that establishes it to be true? Why do you assert that the question is in its natural place in Luke while bing terribly dislocated in Matthew?

Bauer's point in the quotation is is that there is a tension between John the Baptist's question in Matthew 11.1-3/Luke 7.18-20 and earlier passages in Matthew and Luke in which John seems to have already acknowledged Jesus's nature:

Matt 3.13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented.

and the scene in the Lukan infancy narrative in which Mary, following the revelation of the angel Gabriel about the child to whom she would give birth goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth:

Luke 1.39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechari′ah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

(Parenthetically I think John's question to Jesus 'do you come to me?' and Elizabeth's question 'Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" have the same function - to establish that Jesus is greater than John and there is likely a literary relationship between the two).

Bauer's point is that Jesus' status seems to be already acknowledged by John the Baptist long before John's question to Jesus in Matthew 11 and Like 7. But Bauer sets his argument against 'theologians' and seems to be arguing that the stories in Matthew and Luke are unrealistic.

Duh.

Mark's story of Jesus Baptism left unintended theological consequences that the later evangelists tried to clean up in their different ways. If John baptized Jesus, indeed if Jesus received the holy spirit through his baptism by John, wouldn't that make John greater than Jesus? And second, if John preached a baptism of repentance for remission of sins, and Jesus came to be John to be baptized, wouldn't that suggest that Jesus had sins he needed to repent for and have remitted?

Matthew seeks to address the problem directly by having John say it was rather he that needed to be baptized by Jesus, but baptizes Jesus because Jesus told him to and said it would 'fulfill all righteousness'. Clumsy, but it addresses the issue that it had to address.

Luke, on the other hand, makes it clear that even before their births it was revealed that John's purpose in life was to prepare the way for Jesus. Then he narrates that was John arrested in Luke 3.19-20, before Jesus is baptized in Luke 3.21, so we don't know who baptized Jesus in Luke.

Matthew and Luke's additions and alterations to Mark regarding John the Baptist are quite understandable as the evangelists' own creations, which were efforts to fix the theological problems Mark had inadvertently left.

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

Why would you assume that Matthew follows Luke under the theory of Markan priority? It is true that Bauer asserts it in the quotation you provide, but what is the argument that establishes it to be true? Why do you assert that the question is in its natural place in Luke while bing terribly dislocated in Matthew?

the short answer is this (later I will post the entire argument in short):

because the second argument by Bruno Bauer, in addition to the dubitative tone of the question (which is already conclusive, in my opinion) is that in Luke (not only in *Ev but in canonical Luke) it makes a lot of sense that the question by John the Baptist comes after the just described miracles of Jesus: Jesus does miracles, John hears about them, John becomes doubting (in *Ev he is even scandalized and after he raises the doubting question).

In Matthew the sequence of cause-effect is terribly broken, since Matthew 11:1 doesn't end with the description of Jesus's miracles, with the result that the next verse breaks bluntly the sequence of cause-effect delineated so well in *Ev and canonical Luke.

[Giuseppe]

Now for the long answer, quoted directly from Bruno Bauer (via the same link given above):

In the gospel of Luke, as we have maintained, the account has its origin, for it is only here that miracles occur, from which his disciples could have brought news to John. But the miracles! The miracles! The earlier ones, as far as we know them now, have dissolved: the captain of Capernaum, whose servant Jesus had healed only recently (Luke 7:1-10), has become the Canaanite woman; the raising of the youth of Nain, which gives the Lord the right to refer in his reply to the Baptist to his raising of the dead (Luke 7:11-17, 22), will also not have a solid historical basis – at least for now, we can say that much. So where are the miracles that were reported to John and on which Jesus relies? They are no more! Therefore, John’s message is also impossible without them!

(my bold)

Yes, the case is very persuasive.

[Ken Olson]

in addition to the dubitative tone of the question (which is already conclusive, in my opinion)

Let me ask you about the dubitative tone you find in John's question: why is John, who has heard of Jesus' works while in prison, asking Jesus: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?”

Why is John asking this of Jesus? Is he prepared to take Jesus' word for it?

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

in addition to the dubitative tone of the question (which is already conclusive, in my opinion)

Let me ask you about the dubitative tone you find in John's question: why is John, who has heard of Jesus' works while in prison, asking Jesus: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?”

Why is John asking this of Jesus? Is he prepared to take Jesus' word for it?

by inventing that question for John the Baptist, the occasion is given to Jesus in *Ev to explain why John the Baptist is inferior to the smallest ("Paulus") in the kingdom of heaven.
Only by having a John the Baptist who raises that doubting question, Jesus can well attack a such John the Baptist by saying “blessed is he who is not offended by me,” i.e. "blessed is he who is not the doubting John the Baptist".

This is obviously an argument that can very well be used by a proponent of the *Ev's priority over both Luke and Matthew.


The curious thing is that Bruno Bauer converts it in an argument also for Markan priority over *Ev:

Why? He just worked them into a longer speech by Jesus and created the message of the Baptist as the occasion for this detailed explanation. He could not put a full and explicit testimony into the Baptist’s mouth on this occasion, for he wanted to characterize him in Jesus’ speech as the forerunner, as the greatest prophet and at the same time as the one who is smaller than the smallest in the kingdom of heaven, i.e. as the one who, although very close to the kingdom of heaven, still stands far below the one who is the smallest in the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, John could only express doubt about the Lord, but even so, the occasion is still unfortunate and proves to be a late literary product; for if the Baptist, when he heard of the real Messiah, was still so wavering that the Lord had to give him the categorical answer, “blessed is he who is not offended by me,” then the prophet would actually have forfeited the glory and praise that would later be lavishly bestowed upon him. This glory could only have remained unimpaired in the one case if the Baptist had remained the Elijah, the forerunner and greatest prophet that he is in the Gospel of Mark, and had not come into a situation in which he could only be understood ambiguously because of the limitations of the older evangelical type.

In essentia, if Bruno Bauer was alive today, probably he would accuse Klinghardt and Vinzent of being unable to explain why, under the *Ev's priority, it is already assumed in *Ev that John the Baptist is, to use an Acts' expression (Acts 5:36), one "claimed to be somebody". Unfortunately, the Baptist Passage in Josephus is not enough, in order to have a John the Baptist "claimed to be somebody" in *Ev. For Bruno Bauer, John the Baptist could be "claimed to be somebody" in *Ev only if he is "the Elijah, the forerunner and greatest prophet that he is in the Gospel of Mark".

[Ken Olson]

Now for the long answer, quoted directly from Bruno Bauer (via the same link given above):

In the gospel of Luke, as we have maintained, the account has its origin, for it is only here that miracles occur, from which his disciples could have brought news to John. But the miracles! The miracles! The earlier ones, as far as we know them now, have dissolved: the captain of Capernaum, whose servant Jesus had healed only recently (Luke 7:1-10), has become the Canaanite woman; the raising of the youth of Nain, which gives the Lord the right to refer in his reply to the Baptist to his raising of the dead (Luke 7:11-17, 22), will also not have a solid historical basis – at least for now, we can say that much. So where are the miracles that were reported to John and on which Jesus relies? They are no more! Therefore, John’s message is also impossible without them!

(my bold)

Yes, the case is very persuasive.

It's very persuasive only if you want to be persuaded of the conclusion, or have already accepted it, and are not inclined to check whether the evidence actually supports it.

Or, as A.E. Housman put it in his classic essay 'The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism' (1922):

the reader often shares the writer's prejudices, and is far too well pleased with his conclusions to examine either
his premises or his reasoning

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Ho ... ought.html

But let's examine the texts:

Matt 11.4 And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.

Jesus has restored the sight of two blind men in Matt 9.27-31.

Jesus has made the lame (the paralytic) walk in Matt 9.1-8.

Jesus has cleansed a leper in Matt 8.1-4.

Jesus has cured a deaf-mute in Matt 9.32-34, the text specifically says the deaf-mute speaks, but that he can also hear is implied.

Jesus has raised a dead girl in Matt 9.19-26.

The poor have had the good news preached to them by Jesus in Matt 9.35-36, who has also has commanded his disciples to preach the good news to them in Matt 10.5-6. Matthew does not actually call them 'the poor' in either case, but used sheep as a metaphor to describe them. They are 'harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd' in Matt 10.36 and 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel' in Matt 10.6. Also, in Matt 10, Jesus does not use the language of the good news (as he does in 9.35-36, 'the good news of the kingdom'), but rather the synonymous 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand'.

Back in Matt 5.3, Matthew had written: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven'. According to a very widespread view found in commentaries on Matthew, “poor in spirit” is to be identified with the עֲנָוִ ים of Isaiah 61.1. After reviewing various scholarly theories on the meaning of ‘the poor in spirit’, M.A. Powell notes:

“A majority of modern scholars, however, identify Matthew's poor in spirit with the ‘ă·nā·wîm, that is, with the dispossessed and abandoned ones in Israel on whose behalf the prophets speak (Isa 11:4; 29: 19; 32:7; 61:1; Amos 2:7; 8:4; Zeph 2:3). F13”

Footnote 13: For a sampling, see Guelich, Sermon, 66-75; Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 91-92; M. Dennis Hamm, The Beatitudes in Context : What Luke and Matthew Meant (Zacchaeus Studies, NT; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1990) 80-81; David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 110-11; Meier, Matthew, 39-40; Schweizer, Good News, 86-87. (Powell, “Matthean Beatitudes,” CBQ 58.3, 1996, 460-479).

It seems clear that when Matthew refers to the sheep without a shepherd and the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he means the ă·nā·wîm, the dispossessed and abandoned ones of Israel of whom Isaiah spoke.

The saying in Matt 11.4 is not at all dislocated. Matthew has carefully reordered the Markan text so that all of the things Jesus claims to have been accomplished in Matt 11.4 (which, of course, are taken from Isaiah) have been fulfilled earlier in Chapters 8 and 9.

The Lukan form of Jesus' reply to John has:

22 And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.

I won't go over Luke's claims in the same detail, but I'll summarize. First, Luke has Jesus cure some blind men and unspecified others in between John's question and Jesus reply, managing to get them in just under the gun.

Luke 7.18 The disciples of John told him of all these things. 19 And John, calling to him two of his disciples, sent them to the Lord, saying, “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” 20 And when the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?’” 21 In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. 22 And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. 23 And blessed is he who takes no offense at me.”

But, unlike Matthew, Luke does not have any deaf person (κωφός = deaf-mute) cured by Jesus prior to Jesus' reply to John, though Luke does have one cured later in Luke 11.14.

It is Matthew, not Luke, which is the better ordered text with things narrated in the proper sequence.

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

But, unlike Matthew, Luke does not have any deaf person (κωφός = deaf-mute) cured by Jesus prior to Jesus' reply to John, though Luke does have one cured later in Luke 11.14.

It is Matthew, not Luke, which is the better ordered text with things narrated in the proper sequence.

apart the fact, explained abundantly by me here, that the doubting character of the question is imposed by the immediate context (hence making it inconsistent with the fact that, in Matthew 3:14 , John the Baptist knows already that Jesus is the Christ, therefore doubting about it is irrational), I deny even the fact that in Matthew the order is "better ordered text with things narrated in the proper sequence". So Bruno Bauer:

The account of the message which the Baptist sent to Jesus has neither its home nor the position it deserves in the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew did not create the account, nor did he know where to place it. A man who himself brings forth and shapes a new view will, in any case and as far as he is able, provide it with a point of support and a solid, well-founded foundation on which everyone can understand it and which can develop naturally. But he will not put it up in the air. This time, Matthew did just that. As we have already learned, his historical concluding remark at the end of the instruction sermon (Matthew 11:1) leads into the blue; and one may theologically craft, as one wishes), and give the “works” of Christ, from which John heard in prison and which gave him the occasion for his message, such an abstract meaning that they “do not or at least not exclusively” mean the miracles, but what does the theologian’s anxiety matter to us? – it remains that the works John heard of were primarily the miracles. But if Matthew does not mention anything about miracles in the general introduction to the account of the Baptist’s message, if even the long speech to the apostles has long diverted attention from the preceding accounts of miracles, in short, if Matthew does not tell us anything about the Lord’s extraordinary deeds, then he also does not make it clear to us how the news of “the works” of Jesus happened to reach the Baptist’s prison. Nor will he make us forget the difficulties that a free communication of the prisoner with the rest of the world had to face. Matthew did not know how to break open the doors of the prison with the news of extraordinary miracles.

In a writing where John has already greeted Jesus as the Messiah before his baptism, a report that presents the Baptist – initially, we must say: at all – as doubting could not arise, could not find a place for the first time. That John, as he appears at the baptism of Jesus, could not doubt.

The parts underlined by me in the Bruno Bauer's quote is decisive:
Even if Matthew had listed a long list of miracles before the doubting question by John the Baptist, the fact remains that Matthew did not that list just before the introduction of the episode of the doubting question by John the Baptist, but at contrary Matthew "has long diverted attention from the preceding accounts of miracles" by talking about an entirely different kind of argument, i.e. instructions to disciples. Note in red how much long is the diversion/digression made by Matthew before that, bluntly, in 11:2, the "deeds of the Messiah" obliged John the Baptist to a doubting reaction:

10 Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.

2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

9 “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— 10 no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. 11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24 “The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!

26 “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. 41 Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

11 After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.
2 When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

Forgive me, Ken, if your "arguments" of the contrary make you seem the polemical target of Bruno Bauer: one of the "theologians" by him attacked.

[Ken Olson]

I think I'm done with answering Giussepe here. The other members of the forum may judge for themselves whether Giuseppe or I have presented a better case. If others have questions for me, I'll try to answer those.

[Giuseppe]

If others have questions for me, I'll try to answer those.

only a last question (and this time truly the last). Given the rest of the your premises, it seems to me that for you the right conclusion is that John the Baptist is not alluded implicitly by Jesus in Luke 7:23:

Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”