The following is from a post I made earlier this week to the Synoptic list on Yahoo. It was in response to a post that cited several examples of what are called aphorisms or pithy sayings, claiming that the versions in Matthew are more primitive than found in Mark, meaning that Mark adapted from Matthew rather than vice-versa. The focus here is on which is the more “primitive” and this earlier version.

Presuppositions affect everyone in this debate, and most theories seem to be a collection of interdependent assumptions. I can’t help but wonder if claims of primitivity in passages like Mk 9:50//Mt 5:13 were partly a means of accounting for data that could not be reconciled with the scholar’s model. To begin with, Mark has the saying as part of the temptation about sinning, casting off the thing that causes one to sin. In the present context, losing one’s saltiness seems to be associated with the effects of sin, not in the sense of losing one’s testimony as in Mt following the Beatitudes.

Mark 9:49 Πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται.
Mark 9:50 καλὸν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται, ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε; ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα καὶ εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἀλλήλοις.

What I find more striking is that Mark leaves the reading without an answer to the rhetorical question, to puzzle it out on their own. I cannot imagine him removing the answer found in Mt and Lk; thus I would (subjectively, yes I grant you) construe Mk’s version as the more primitive.

Both Matthew and Luke provide answers to the rhetorical question, but each places the saying in a different context.

Matthew 5:12 χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν.
Matthew 5:13 Ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ μὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

With Matthew placing the saying (whatever its origin) after the Beatitudes, it has the effect of commenting on the possible effects of not following through on the challenges laid out in the preceding context, i.e.:

  • What happens if you DON’T persevere when persecuted for righteousness?
  • What happens if you GET EVEN instead of rejoicing when you are insulted and persecuted?

The implication seems to be that if they are salt and do not react as challenged above, they have lost their saltiness. Mt’s version rhetorically overstates the uselessness of the salt (“good for nothing”). It really is good for something, and introducing that “something” in the εἰ μὴ clause has the effect of drawing more attention to what it is good for than simply coming out and saying it (see Luke’s version). This is a pretty typical rhetorical device that adds prominence to the excepted element/proposition. In this case, it emphasizes the same point about worthlessness rather than introducing a positive alternative.

Knowing that there is nothing that can be done to renew the saltiness would be a chilling encouragement to think before reacting in an unbecoming manner. It seems reasonable to (subjectively) conjecture that Mt added the answer, if nothing else for better balance with the “light of the world” saying.

In Lk’s version the saying is final point about counting the cost of discipleship. In the context, the analogy to salt would seem connected to the closing statement of v. 33 about renouncing one’s possessions, perhaps the consequence of not renouncing them and nonetheless trying to be a disciple.

Luke 14:34 Καλὸν οὖν τὸ ἅλας· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθήσεται;
Luke 14:35 οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν, ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό. ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω.

Instead of using the rhetorical “It is good for nothing except…”, Luke simply cites specific negative examples: “It is good for neither X nor Y.” There is no αλλα to introduce ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό, but simple asyndeton. Lk’s version flattens out most of the rhetorical punch found in Mt, not unlike is done in other contexts to Mk’s reading. As with Mt, it seems more reasonable to see Luke adding/adapting the answer to the rhetorical question than to see Mk deleting it.

Presuppositions seems to drive much of the discussion about such matters. Taking a step back and reanalyzing discrepancies from scratch in the traditions could prove to be a useful way forward. I think determining primitivity is a lot more complicated than it sounds. I remain dubious about making such claims at this point, notwithstanding my respect for Davies and Allison.