Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Could be.

At any rate, a lot of the Herodian stuff in Luke (most of the material obtained from Josephus, it would seem) is absent from Evangelion and probably a later addition to the textual tradition that became canonical Luke.

Tenorikuma wrote:Thanks for the thoughts, Neil. So you would agree then, that comparing the post-Parousia Jesus to a king known for his cruelty was not a problem for the writer/redactor of this passage . . .

Correct. This is completely compatible and in accord with the concept of "God" in the Roman-Greek-Jewish and Christian religious ideas of the era in question.

Tenorikuma wrote: As for Luke correcting Matthew, the more I study this passage, the more convinced I am that it's the other way around. Matthew is spiritualizing Luke's parable; instead of slaves becoming rulers of cities (a typical Lucan role-reversal), Matthew has them "enter into the master's joy" — whatever the hell that means. Just like how the poor "in spirit" are blessed according to Matthew (who finds the extolling of poverty somewhat distasteful). There are other inconsistencies in Matthew's version too.

Two points:

1. The question becomes a little more complex if we think of canonical Luke as being a two-stage development: first the "proto-Luke" then the anti-Marcionite canonical one. Did Matthew fit in between these two?

2. Does it necessarily follow that the more spiritual-sounding version necessarily builds on what seems more practical-earthy presentation?

Hi Neil. I'll be exploring these issues in some future blog posts. My preliminary observations and research suggest:

1. Yes, Matthew seems to fit in between. Matthew supplemented Mark with material from proto-Luke. Matthean material and harmonizations were later added back into Evangelion and Catholic Luke. (There is plenty of manuscript evidence for the latter — just look at the Lord's prayer.) Catholic Luke was supplemented with a variety of details from Josephus as well as the Gospel of John and other sources. One telling point is that some snippets of Mark seem to have "hitched a ride" with Lucan material into Matthew (in the case of the Parable of the Minas/Talents, it's Mark 4.24, which is reappropriated as the conclusion of Luke's parable). It's hard to explain this on the Q hypothesis.

2. Not necessarily, but Matthew's spiritualizing versions often seem ad hoc while the non-spiritualized version fits well into Luke's context. In the Parable of the Talents, is "entering into the master's joy" really a meaningful part of the allegory? Kind of a milquetoast reward for faithful service if you ask me. It makes somewhat more sense as an attempt to get away from the literal earthly rewards of wealth and power that Luke envisions. There are other inconsistencies in the Matthean parable as well.