Читать книгу Seeking the Imperishable Treasure - Steven R. Johnson - Страница 7

Introduction

For most biblical commentators, the primary point of departure in the study of the Treasure in Heaven saying is the content and interpretation of this saying in Matthew and Luke, where we find the clearest and most elaborate expressions among canonical parallels. Intimately connected to the issue of how Matthew and Luke employ this saying is the issue of how they adapt their primary source for this saying, the sayings gospel Q. In order to understand how they have altered the content and, hence, intended meaning of the Q version of the saying, one must first reconstruct this earlier Q version. In the process of reconstruction, by noting some of the redactional tendencies of Matthew and Luke, some of the answers to the question of how Matthew and Luke use and adapt the Treasure saying will begin to become clear. Subsequent to the reconstruction of Q will be a discussion of the following: (1) how the composers of these three texts used the Treasure in Heaven saying; (2) how these texts might be related to the larger context of Jewish wisdom and eschatology; (3) the place of Mark 10:21 in the history of the transmission of this saying.

Q 12:33

Q 12:330: Is Luke 12:33 par. Matt 6:(19–)20 in Q?

1

This variant is occasioned by the different positions of the sayings in Matthew and Luke, the difference in the internal order of the adversity clauses in the two versions, and the lack of verbal agreement between the versions (relative to most Q texts in Matthew and Luke). The only significant “minimal Q” words and phrases are θησαυρο– (“treasure”), ἐν οὐραν– (“in heaven), ὅπου (“where”), σήϚ (“moth”), and κλέπτ– (“rob”).2

A number of arguments, however, support Luke 12:33/Matt 6:(19–) 20 as coming from Q. (1) This saying is found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark—the fundamental premise for identifying Q material.3 (2) Both versions of the saying have Q 12:34 (“For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also”) attached as a rationale for the behaviors recommended in the Treasure saying (against GTh 76:3 and all other versions of the saying to be identified in this study). It is not likely that the two sayings would be attached independently in pre-gospel oral traditions. (3) Both gospels group Q 12:33–34 with the Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope of Q 12:22–31 (Matt 6:19–21, 25–34). (4) A catchword connection exists between Luke 12:33/Matt 6:19–20 and the Son of Humanity Coming as a Robber saying of Luke 12:39/Matt 24:43 (“thief” and Matt 6:19–20’s “dig through”). This connection is most especially significant since Matt 24:43 is located quite some distance from the sayings clusters of Matthew 6.4 Taking into account the cumulative force of these observations, and starting with the presupposition of the Q hypothesis, there should be little doubt that this saying existed in Q.

Q 12:331: Position of the Pericope in Q

Determining the position of Q 12:33(–34) in Q must take into consideration several issues. Are there good redactional rationales for Matthew or Luke to have moved the saying to its present position in one or the other gospel? Matthew’s present position preceding the Generous Eye and Two Masters sayings (Matt 6:22–24) is almost universally recognized as being secondary. But what if Matt 6:19–21 (Q 12:33–34) immediately preceded Matt 6:25–34 (Q 12:22–31) in Q?5 How well do the respective positions fit in the larger context of Q 12:2–40?

Ordinarily, one would expect the issue of redactional rationales to provide the strongest argument for one choice or the other. Such is not the case here. It could be argued that Matthew has very good reasons for placing Q 12:33–34 (Matt 6:19–21) ahead of Q 12:22–31 (Matt 6:25–33).6 This repositioning is suggested by the last saying in the “Cult Didache” (Matt 6:1–18) on the Father’s reward for proper and pious behavior and/or by the antithetical parallelism of Matt 6:1–18. After repositioning Q 12:33–34, Matthew then would have added Matt 6:22–24 to create a three-saying aphoristic collection on the subject of greed and divided loyalties.7 Matthew 6:19–24 would thus provide an apt transition from the “Cult Didache” to the Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope (Matt 6:25–33/Q 12:22–31), which addresses concerns about obtaining food and clothing.8 All of these redactional arguments, however, are mitigated by the simple fact that if Q 12:33–34 already preceded Q 12:22–31 in Q, then all of the above advantages would have been gained merely by inserting Q 12:33–34, 22–31 as a block into the Sermon on the Mount after Matt 6:18 and inserting Q 11:34–36 and Q 16:13 (Matt 6:22–24) between them.9

On the other hand, one could argue that Luke has moved Q 12:33–34 to its present position in Luke, modified Q 12:33, and inserted a complex of sayings and parables (Parable of the Rich Fool, etc.—Luke 12:13–21) in 12:33’s former position in order to frame the Q Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope with Lukan ethical interests regarding the hoarding of possessions and almsgiving.10 The addition of Luke 12:32 (“Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom”) creates a summary that frames the speech (“do not be anxious” [12:22]/”fear not” [12:32]), and exposes the lack of a good original connection between Q 12:31 and Q 12:33. If Luke 12:33–34’s position is original, however, then framing the Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope with Lukan concerns would have been accomplished merely by redacting Q 12:33 and inserting 12:13–20 into its present position, with a Lukan moral, 12:21, created from Q 12:33’s original vocabulary. In short, redactional rationales in either direction are mitigated by simpler arguments based on the sayings being located in their present positions. Having thus disposed of the issue of redactional rationales, the following arguments seem most cogent to me:

1. Obvious catchword connections exist with Q 12:2–12/12:22–2411 and Q 12:33/12:39,12 but not with either Q 12:2–12/12:33–34 or Q 12:22–31/12:39–40.

2. Conceptual and metaphorical connections exist between Q 12:4–7, 11–12 (Not Fearing the Body’s Death, Hearings before the Synagogues) and 12:22–24: God’s providence in a crisis or concerning daily needs and God’s care for birds as an a minore ad maius (“from the lesser to the greater”) argument for God’s concern for people.13

3. The assertion of God’s providence in Q 12:11–12 provides a strong rationale for the transitional διὰ τοῦτο (“for this reason”) in Q 12:22, which allows for the rhetorical development of the argumentation in Q 12:22–31 without explicit mention of God’s providence until Q 12:24. The location of Q 12:33–34 preceding 12:22–31 would interrupt this (and the μεριμνάω [“be anxious”] catchword) connection.14 Luke’s insertion of 12:13–21 also interrupts this development of thought in favor of Luke’s thematic concern for dealing with wealth. The issue of earthly/heavenly concerns is shared by Q 12:22–31, but Q 12:22 and its διὰ τοῦτο (“for this reason”) does not logically follow Luke 12:21.

4. There is a thematic connection between Q 12:31 and 12:33 in that the two imperatives call for seeking divine or heavenly things over earthly things. However, the redactional Luke 12:32 creates a better summary to 12:22–31 as a whole, and in the process obscures this thematic connection between Q 12:33 and 12:31 that may have been part of the original reason for placing the two pericopae together in Q. Any such connections noted here or in (1) and (2) above would have been lost with Matthew’s relocation of Q 12:22–31, 33–34 in the Sermon on the Mount.

5. Consideration should also be given to the reminiscence theory, that Luke 12:21 recalls the original position of Q 12:33 (as found in Matthew), since Luke does appear to frame Q 12:22–31 with Luke 12:13–21 and Q 12:33–34.15 However, Luke 12:21 may now stand as an indication of Luke’s ethics-based intentionality in framing Q 12:22–31, not as a reminiscence of 12:33’s prior position in Q.

Q 12:332: Luke’s πωλήσατε . . . ἐλεημοσύνην or Matthew 6:19

The Lukan introduction to Q 12:33 reflects Lukan thematic interests concerning the stewardship of one’s possessions and the giving of alms to the poor.16 While the specific terminology is not especially Lukan (except ὑπάρχω),17 the framing of Luke 12:22–31 with 12:13–21 and 12:32, 33–34 suggests that Luke has a different audience in mind—one that actually has appreciable disposable wealth—than that which is reflected in Q. The addition of Luke 12:33a reflects this different audience. The fact that Luke uses different words elsewhere in reference to almsgiving does not provide 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 upon a decision regarding variant Q 12:332.37 If Matt 6:19 was originally in Q, then there certainly existed an adversative conjunction in 6:20. Yet, the weak particle could have existed without a prior negative admonition.38 Q 12:31 reads “but seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you” (ζητεῖτε δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν). Q 12:33 follows with a similar admonition to seek heavenly things and might have been connected to 12:31 with a conjunction (without negative connotation) like δέ or καί. Luke’s omission would be due to the redactional addition of 12:33a (“Sell your possessions and give alms”), which does not allow for its use at this position in the saying.

On the other hand, if Matt 6:19 was not in Q, one is left with only the connective argument, which is itself quite weak. Matthean creation of 6:19 would provide a clear and obvious reason for δέ being in Matt 6:20. I am left undecided on this variant.

Q 12:335: Luke’s ἑαυτοῖϚ or Matthew’s ὑμῖν

Three texts seem particularly relevant: Luke 12:21; 16:9; Q 12:31. Luke 12:21 has θησαυρίζων ἑαυτῷ (“the one who lays up treasure for himself”) in what appears to be a saying based on Q 12:33. Q 12:31 immediately precedes Q 12:33 and uses the dative pronoun ὑμῖν. Luke 16:9 appears to be a redactional addition of Luke, and is the only other place in the NT where the expression ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖϚ is found.

Several arguments support Luke’s reflexive as the Q reading. Though 12:21 is a redactional creation of Luke, if it was suggested by Q 12:33 and includes Q’s θησαυρίζω (“treasure”), then the reflexive may have been taken from Q as well. ῾Υμῖν (“for yourselves”) is found more often in Q, but ἑαυτο– is found in Q in at least nine places, and ὑμῖν is never used reflexively elsewhere in Q.39 ῾Υμῖν is used in Q 12:31, but not reflexively. Assuming previous arguments for the position of the pericope (see above, Q 12:331 above), it seems peculiar for Q to have used ὑμῖν twice in the space of four words, but with different grammatical functions.40

On the other hand, Luke might have preferred a proper reflexive for both 12:21 and 12:33, changing ὑμῖν in Q 12:33 and adding ἑαυτοῦ redactionally in 12:21.41 The slight discomfiture between Q 12:31 and Matt 6:(19–)20 may have been a result of Q’s placing two previously unrelated sayings side-by-side, if 12:31 existed prior to its incorporation in Q. Luke would have eliminated this difficulty both by changing Q 12:33’s ὑμῖν and by inserting Luke 12:32. In Luke 16:9, Luke uses the full expression ἑαυτοῖϚ ποιήσατε (“provide for yourselves”) redactionally in a saying that is very similar to Luke 12:33a in its eschatologically-based ethic.

One other observation seems pertinent to the discussion. The personal pronoun is almost never used reflexively in the NT without a preceding preposition.42 Matthew 6:19–20 is unique in this, lending weight to Matthew’s ὑμῖν being the more difficult and hence more original reading. One of Matthew’s tendencies is to use the personal pronoun as a reflexive, but always with a preceding preposition (Matthew uses the reflexive with prepositions as well).43 It has been suggested that referring back to a Semitic original might be of help, since “Hebrew and Aramaic pronominal suffixes do not allow the distinction between personal and reflexive.”44 In other words, a translator may have accidentally translated a pronoun suffix as a personal pronoun, rather than a reflexive. This observation assumes, however, that Q was being translated in written form from an Aramaic original (be it oral or written). This is highly unlikely.45

Matthew’s reading is therefore the lectio difficilior (more difficult reading) in at least two different ways (suggesting that it is the more original reading). Matthew’s tendency to use the personal pronoun as a reflexive would balance Luke’s probable redactional preference for a proper reflexive if not for the fact that Matthew always uses a preceding preposition elsewhere. Hence, the evidence leans in favor of ὑμῖν in Q.

Q 12:336: Luke’s βαλλάντια μὴ παλαιούμενα

The phrase βαλλάντια μὴ παλαιούμενα (“purses that do not wear out”) is decidedly Lukan vocabulary. Βαλλάντιον (“purse”) is found in the NT only in Luke (4 times!).46 Its presence in Q 10:4 is due to Lukan redaction.47 Παλαίοω (“wear out”) is also found only in Luke among the gospels.48 Since Luke’s initial verb ποιήσατε (“provide”) appears tied to this subsequent phrase, it, too, should be rejected as Lukan redaction.49

A general problem with Luke’s version of the saying is that minimal Q words like “treasure,” “in (the) heaven(s)” (i.e., a place), “moth,” and “thief” (κλέπτηϚ, “thief”; not λῃστήϚ, “bandit”) imply a treasure to be found in a somewhat fixed location, whereas Luke’s version with “purses” that do not “wear out” (from regular use?) and a thief that “approaches” (presumably the treasure in the purse) suggests the mobility of the treasure. Matthew’s version, on the other hand, is consistent with minimal Q terminology: moths and other things eat away at a sedentary treasure—like fine linen, perhaps—and thieves break into homes or storehouses to steal such treasures. In other words, while Lukan redaction scores style points for creating an appositive parallelism in Luke 12:33b (“make purses that do not wear out, a treasure unfailing in the heavens”) and a tighter structure in Luke 12:33c (the adversity clauses), it does so by using Q terminology that better fits another context, one which is best represented by Matthew (as well as the Gospel of Thomas).

Q 12:337: Luke’s θησαυρόν or Matthew’s θησαυρούϚ