Seeking the Imperishable Treasure. Steven R. Johnson

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ an effective counter-argument to the obvious Lukan interest in both the gospel and Acts. As to the source for Luke 12:33a, the initial imperative is probably taken from Mark 10:21, with minor alterations (cf. Luke 18:22).

      The Matthean prohibition of 6:19 is another issue. It is an almost exact mirror of the positive admonition in Matt 6:20. Such close verbal similarity in an antithetical parallelism is rare in the gospels, and may have partially led to Luke’s replacement with 12:33a.18 However, there is antithetical parallelism in Matthew’s immediate context, both in Matt 6:2–4, 6:5–6, and 6:16–18, and in 6:31–33 (Q 12:29–31). The question is whether Matthew retained this parallelism from Q and placed it with 6:22–24 in its present location as a transition from 6:1–18 (Matthew’s “Cult Didache”) to 6:25–34 (Q’s Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope) or created the parallelism for this very purpose when relocating the saying to the Sermon on the Mount.

      Matthew, Luke, and Thomas all contain introductions to this saying, though the introductions differ from each other both in form and content (Matthew a prohibition, Luke an exhortation, and Thomas the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price). The fact that they all have introductions can be taken as an argument for there having been one in Q as well. The Epistle of James, which reflects knowledge of a Q-like version of this saying (Jas 5:2–3), is interested in the eventual destruction of earthly treasures and those who hoard them, just as Matt 6:19 warns against storing up earthly treasures. Luke 12:21 contrasts the storing of earthly riches with being rich toward God. Both texts may therefore reflect an original contrast in Q. The antithetical parallelism in Q 12:33 (Matt 6:19–20) may have originally followed the passage of Q 12:29–31. The interpretation of the two passages is very different, but the general theme of dealing with possessions and the contrast of earthly concerns as opposed to the seeking of the Reign of God may have been reasons for the original grouping of 12:22–31 and 12:33–34 in Q. John Dominic Crossan even suggests that the negative admonition of Matt 6:19 is more original than the positive one in 6:20, which he considers to be a secondary elaboration.19

      On the other hand, a positive admonition that contains an implied contrast to present, earthly concerns invites expansion by means of a saying dealing with earthly goods. As will be shown later, John modifies the Thomasine version of this saying by using elements of the saying to create a prohibition and an exhortation (John 6:27; cf. GTh 76:3).20 Thomas attaches this saying to a parable about the selling of all one’s merchandise to buy a single pearl. Matthew and Luke may have “taken the bait” as well and prefaced the saying with their own introductions, each introduction dealing with earthly possessions. So the fact that Matthew and Luke both have introductions that deal with possessing earthly goods is not surprising, and the usual argument that since both Matthew and Luke have something there, so Q probably had something as well, is not relevant here. The question remains whether Q received or created a negative admonition that Luke replaced, or whether Matthew and Luke created introductions independently.

      The use of μή (“Do not”) in Matt 6:19 is the primary link between Matt 6:1–18 and 6:20–34, and μή (with imperatives) appears to be the primary catchword for the entire sixth chapter of Matthew, a compilation of antitheses and contrasts in attitude and piety.21 While continuing in the antithesis style of the “Cult Didache,” Matt 6:19–21 begins a new section that focuses on greed, earthly possessions, and ultimate loyalties. So Matt 6:19 may have been created in the process of constructing the Matthean sermon in order to bridge two large sections of material. The addition of Matt 6:19 would also fit Matthew’s interest in pairing or contrasting heaven and earth. On the other hand, Matt 6:19–21 may have been placed at this point in the Matthean text on the very basis of its pre-existing antithetical parallelism.

      Most of the arguments that are given for or against Matt 6:19 can be countered with equally plausible counter-theories. The arguments have been:

      • Matt 6:19–20 is an example of Semitic parallelism;22

      • there is no parallel material between Matthew and Luke; hence, Matt 6:19–20 comes from M;23

      • parallelism reflects oral tradition;24

      • Matthew likes antitheses and parallelism;25

      • only a few heaven/earth contrasts are attributable to the author;26

      • the implied contrast to earthly goods in the positive exhortation invites explication by Matthew and Luke;27

      • Luke 12:21 contains a reminiscence of Matt 6:19;28

      • Matthew creates 6:19 to bridge the “Cult Didache” antitheses of Matt 6:1–18 and the other inserted material of Matt 6:22–34;29

      • both texts have something there, so Q probably had something there, too.30

      As a result, I find only a few arguments that are persuasive on either side of the issue.

      On the one hand, as I will argue below, Matthew has made very few changes to Q 12:33/Matt 6:20. This is probably true for Matt 6:22–24 as well. I find this to be a strong argument that Matthew found 6:19 in Q. This is supported by James’s sole emphasis on the eschatological self-condemnation of those who hoard earthly wealth. On the other hand, Q pericopae that contain both “heaven” and “earth” do not contrast them as Matthew does. The Matthean preference for juxtaposing these locations redactionally is a good argument for Matthew adding the prohibition here. The almost perfectly symmetrical parallelism of Matt 6:19–20 makes me particularly suspicious.31

      The result is that I find arguments for and against Matthew somewhat equally balanced. I am undecided as to whether Q created a second admonition that Luke replaced, or whether Matthew and Luke created introductions independently.

      Q 12:333: Luke’s ποιήσατε or Matthew’s θησαυρίζετε

      It is not uncommon for Q to use verbs in conjunction with cognate nouns and adjectives, as is found in Matt 6:20’s θησαυρίζω (“treasure up”) and θήσαυροϚ.32

      Luke’s ποιήσατε (“provide”) appears to be dependent upon the subsequent βαλλάντια μὴ παλαιούμενα (“purses that do not wear out”), which itself appears to be of Lukan construction. The only thing that seems to speak for Luke’s verb is the rarity of the expression ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖϚ (“provide for yourselves”), which is found elsewhere in Luke only in 16:9.33 Yet, even there, it appears to form part of a redactional summary interpretation of the Parable of the Dishonest Manager (16:1–8). In Luke 16:9, one “makes for oneself” friends for the purpose of securing lodging in “the eternal tents.” Hence, the idea of giving away goods now to gain benefits in the hereafter is common to both passages.

      The Parable of the Rich Fool, Luke 12:15–20, is probably taken from Lukan Sondergut, since it is not found in Matthew and its theme is consistent with themes found in Sondergut material. Luke 12:21 appears to be a redactional formulation of Luke.34 The point is relevant because Luke 12:21 is similar in theme and wording to Matthew’s version of Q 12:33.35 Specifically, the term θησαυρίζω is used by Luke for contrasting the storing of treasures for oneself with being rich toward God. Since Luke appears to be intentionally framing the Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope with Luke 12:16–21 and 12:33–34, it is quite likely that the verb in Luke 12:21 is a reminiscence of its prior use in Q 12:33, a use evidenced by Matt 6:19–20.36

      Overall, strong arguments exist for Matthew’s verb and against Luke’s being that of Q, but not vice versa.

      Q 12:334: Matthew’s δέ

      The existence of the particle δέ (“but”) in Q is partly dependent СКАЧАТЬ