I took my Aland synopsis to bed with me last night and boyhowdy, was it ever hard to put it down! Just time for one gem from the original for today. I have been reading through introductions to the Synoptic problem, and been surprised at how quickly the appeal to Q or some other source quickly derails consideration to why the particular wording was chosen over against Mark. My initial impression is that much of what is attributed to Q could just as easily be understood as adaptation by the gospel writer. Take a look at this instance for example.
Mark 1:7 Καὶ ἐκήρυσσεν λέγων· * ἔρχεται ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου ὀπίσω μου, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς κύψας λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ.
Mark’s version focuses on “the one more powerful than me” as the one who is coming, whom he is not worthy to untie the thongs of his sandals. Here the “more powerful than” is an attribute of the subject, with the action being his arrival.
Luke’s version portrays this figure in the same way as in Mark, only changing the placement of the contrast between the “stronger one” coming and John’s ministry of baptizing with water. He also uses the relative clause to add the comment about not being worthy to untie the thongs of his sandals.
Luke 3:16 ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων πᾶσιν ὁ Ἰωάννης· * ἐγὼ μὲν ὕδατι βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς· ἔρχεται δὲ ὁ ἰσχυρότερός μου, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·
Matthew changes the proposition around slightly, but with dramatic effect. Like Luke he includes John’s statement about his own ministry of baptism with water, introduced with a prospective μέν. This particle signals the proverbial first shoe dropping, expecting a counterpart in the following context.
Matthew 3:11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί·
Note that whereas Mark and Luke identify the one coming as “one who is more powerful” than John, Matthew takes a different tack. This same entity is identified as “the one coming after me” instead of as the one who is stronger. Instead of using the strength as the identifying characteristic and ascribing the action of “coming” to them, Matthew inverts these. “The one coming” is now the identifying characteristic, and the comment about this person is that he is stronger than John.
So while we have essentially the same content being communicated: coming, being stronger, etc., there is a distinct difference in how this information is prioritized. Mark and Luke assign more prominence to the action of coming, where Matthew assigns it to what is the identifying characteristic in the other Synoptics. I had never noticed this before reading in synopsis. There are a whole gaggle of other such minor shifts in Luke 3, probably enough to devote my SBL proposal to it. But alas, I will venture forth further afield, questing for more great stuff.
Ain’t grammar awesome?
Aland’s Synopsis is awesome. It’s a great way to observe this kind of issue.
Whether or not Luke and Matthew drew from Q, they clearly did quite different things with the material.
I love this kind of close comparison of related texts because it makes it easy to see discourse features that might go unnoticed in a casual reading of either text in isolation.
Don’t get me started ranting on Q and the synoptic theory. Ever since I first heard it as a sophomore in college it has struck me as an Emperor’s New clothes argument. Scholars refer to Q all the time as if it were real and actual and not a single shred of evidence, document, etc. exists for it. Fortunately Eta Linneman saved me with her (out of print I suspect) book, “Is There a Synoptic Problem?” Short summary: No. I suspect her book wasn’t well received because everyone was too concerned about being accepted by the “academic establishment,” which seems remarkably similar to what we see in the global warming shenanigans. Thank the Lord for Eta Linneman.
John, I won’t be selling Q since I didn’t buy it. I will be focusing on the discourse significance of variation within primarily the triple tradition material, posting on neat things I find. I hope to present some of these findings at ETS and SBL as micro-level evidence that that Evangelist really were thinkers, not robots. Even if one accepted the idea of an underlying source, what was it about the wording in the non-Markan source that was appealing. One still has to engage this issue, source or not.
Agreed, Steve. It’s nice to have someone out there (besides Eta Linneman) who says the “Evangelists really were thinkers, not robots.” The possibility seems to have escaped a lot of people who are very intelligent otherwise…