Welcome back to our study of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here, we seek the true ideals and morals of the historical Jesus. If you are new to this study, you can start from the beginning by clicking here.
I'd like to apologize again for being absent for a week. Life has been exceedingly busy. I will try harder.
As regular readers will know, we've been sticking close to the text lately in terms of the scope of our study. As regular readers will also know, this is because we are currently studying the Sermon on the Mount, the longest, most detailed moral teaching of Jesus we have on record. Today, we are going to pan out and do something slightly different with our text. Today, we're going to compare our verses to some verses from the Gospel According to Luke which are nearly identical in both form and content.
Let's get started by checking out today's reading.
Matthew 5:25 through 5:26
25 Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.
26 Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.
------------------------------
Jesus, after having taught his followers about anger, advises them to avoid interaction with the judicial system by settling with their opponents outside of court. He warns that the judicial system will imprison those who don't, and that there will be no leniency in the terms of the sentence.
We could talk all day about what Jesus' teaching about the ancient Palestinian judicial system means in terms of the modern American judicial system, but, instead, we're shelving that discussion.
Today, I want to compare our reading to a reading from the gospel attributed to Luke. The verses in Luke in question are 12:58-59. They read as follows:
Today, I want to compare our reading to a reading from the gospel attributed to Luke. The verses in Luke in question are 12:58-59. They read as follows:
58 If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison.
59 I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.”
Questions immediately abound:
Might one not say that these are roughly the same verses?
Might one not say that these are roughly the same verses?
What are the implications of the fact that these verses are so similar?
Did the authors of the Synoptic Gospels write in tandem in order to keep their stories relatively homogenous in form and content? If not, how can we account for the similarity of form and content between the Synoptic Gospels?
What do we really know about gospel authorship?
What is the implication of the human authorship of the gospels?
What is the implication of the human authorship of the gospels?
Let us address these exciting questions together, one by one.
Question 1: Are these roughly the same verses?
It is clear on the face that these verses are, in content, identical. Jesus, in both cases, advises his followers to make out-of-court settlements as opposed to being subjected to the judgment of a member of the judiciary. In each case, he says the reason to avoid the judicial system is that the judicial system will imprison one without leniency of sentencing.
But, just how similar are these verses? To get a better understanding, we'll look at some of the original Greek of the text.
The word "judge" in each of these selections comes from the same Greek phrasing, "krités." "Krités" could also be translated as "magistrate," "umpire," or "ruler."
We get the word "opponent," in both cases, from the Greek "antidikos," which is often translated as "adversary."
The Matthean "guard" comes from the Greek "hupéretés," which originally signified a rower (as on a ship) but was later used in Athens as a title for a specific class of public officer. The Lucan "constable," however, comes from the Greek "praktór," which could also mean "agent" or "one who does."
"Prison," in each case, came from the Greek "phulaké" which could have also meant "jail," "detention," or "custody."
You won't be surprised, when comparing Matt 5:26 to Luke 12:59, that the original Greek versions of these two verses were virtually identical. The only differences are the lack of an "amen" in Luke's version, and a different word usage where we see the word "penny." In Matt, "penny" comes from "kodrantés," meaning "quadron," a low-value coin in use in the Roman Republic. In Luke, we get "penny" from "leptos," which were small coins used in ancient Greece.
"Prison," in each case, came from the Greek "phulaké" which could have also meant "jail," "detention," or "custody."
You won't be surprised, when comparing Matt 5:26 to Luke 12:59, that the original Greek versions of these two verses were virtually identical. The only differences are the lack of an "amen" in Luke's version, and a different word usage where we see the word "penny." In Matt, "penny" comes from "kodrantés," meaning "quadron," a low-value coin in use in the Roman Republic. In Luke, we get "penny" from "leptos," which were small coins used in ancient Greece.
We can see here that the vast majority of the ancient Greek language of these verses was the same, and that the differences between the two texts, linguistically, are very minor. So, yes, these verses are essentially saying the exact same thing in the exact same way.
Question 2: What are some of the implications of the similarity of these texts?
The similarity of these verses in form and content imply that these verses were either a) written in tandem, b) copied one from the other, or c) copied separately from a common text. There can be no other logical explanation for this phenomenon.
Some might argue that these verses are similar because d) God divinely inspired the language of the evangelists, essentially writing the gospels himself. This cannot be true, however, as the gospels tell similar, but not altogether identical tales. It does not make sense for a divine being to even occasionally contradict itself.
Why would God write a "Sermon on the Mount" in one account and a "Sermon on the Plain" in another? Why would God write the events of Jesus' life in a different chronological order in all three Synoptics? Why would Mark's version have no nativity story? Why would God give us two different "Lord's Prayers" in Matt and Luke and no "Lord's Prayer" in Mark?
The author of Luke even admits at the beginning of his account that many humans have already, by his time, attempted to write the history of Jesus, and that he is merely writing it again after having re-read other versions or having re-listened to other oral accounts. There is no extant evidence that the Synoptic Gospels were divinely inspired.
Question 3: Did the synoptic evangelists write in tandem, then, or copy from one another?
These numbers would indicate to some that these texts might have been written together, by men who knew and consulted one another. The truth is, though, that the evangelists probably never met one another. Despite their considerable similarities, there are, as we've noted, obvious differences between these texts that indicate that they were written by three different people working independently. This leaves us obliged to conclude that the verses we see here today in Matt and Luke were copied by the authors of Matt and Luke one from the other or from some other pre-existing text.*
Question 4: What do we know for sure, then, about Synoptic Gospel authorship?
We should start by saying that we know very little "for certain." Our knowledge about the authors of the gospels is based on probabilities. Scholars believe it is probable that Mark was written before the other two. It is probable that Matt and Luke were written separately, with a copy of Mark and at least one other common text used as primary references in each case. It is probable that the texts were written in different communities, and for different audiences.
Most importantly, given the many differences between the gospels, we cannot logically say that an omniscient and omnibenevolent being wrote them. The author of Luke himself admits to the human origin of his gospel.
The synoptic gospels were written by anonymous human beings.
Question 5: What are the implications of the the gospels being anonymous human records, and not "divinely inspired" holy texts?
The implication here is that these texts may be studied critically, just as we study all historical records. Knowing that the gospels were not divinely inspired liberates us to ask questions that, at other points in history, one was not allowed to ask.
Just as we study ancient stories about the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda critically, and just as we study stories about the foundation of Rome critically, and just as we study Herodotus critically, we may study the gospels critically. That is to say that we are allowed to question everything when we read the gospels.
In fact, I would say that we are obligated by common sense and logic to question everything.
If we are not willing to question the substance of these texts, then I believe the texts will forever be of no substance to us.
---
That will have to do it for today, brothers and sister. Thank you so much for reading. Remember that, no matter what anyone tells you, you have permission to study the gospels critically. If you consider yourself a Christian, you have an obligation to do so. Otherwise, in my estimation, you are living your whole life based on something you don't personally understand, which would be the apex of bad logic.
Please share this reading.
Love.
-------------------------
*Recall that this theorized "pre-existing text" is known to Bible scholars as "Q" or "quelle."
*Recall that this theorized "pre-existing text" is known to Bible scholars as "Q" or "quelle."
-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.
For the index of Christ's words, click here.
