Ben C Smith

This post presumes Marcan priority, and argues that Matthew and Luke are interdependent (that is, that one of them copied from the other).

The sermon on the mount (in Matthew) or plain (in Luke) is one of those parts of the double tradition that the evangelists have placed in different parts of the Marcan outline. In Matthew the sermon comes very early, shortly after the call of the first four disciples (Matthew 4.18-22 = Mark 1.16-20 = Luke 5.1-11). In Luke it comes later, not long after the healing of the withered hand (Matthew 12.9-14 = Mark 3.1-6 = Luke 6.6-11).

So this looks like one of those instances that B. H. Streeter was talking about when he said that Luke would have to be a crank to treat Matthew and Mark like he did on the assumption that Luke knew Matthew: Luke in this case had to extract the Matthean content (the sermon of Matthew 5.1-7.29) from its Marcan context (at either Mark 1.21-22 or Mark 1.39) and insert it into some other Marcan context (roughly Mark 3.13). Rather than thinking of Luke as a crank, the argument goes, it is easier to suppose that Matthew and Luke positioned the sermon on the mount or plain independently of one another (each without knowledge of the other).

And so I used to think. What I have since noticed is that, while the general Marcan context is different between Matthew and Luke (Mark 1 as opposed to Mark 3), the specific context is quite the same.

Matthew has followed Mark closely up to the call of the first disciples in Mark 1.16-20, at which point he jumps to Mark 1.39 to tell how Jesus taught in the synagogues in Matthew 4.23, then roughly repeats Mark 1.32, 34 in Matthew 5.24, and then (and this is the important point) makes yet another jump, this time to Mark 3.7-8 to describe the great multitudes who were following after Jesus in Matthew 4.25. The very next event in Matthew (in 5.1) is Jesus ascending a mountain to deliver his sermon. In Mark, meanwhile, the next thing is 3.9-12, but most of this goes unparalleled anywhere in Matthew, and then in 3.13 Jesus ascends a mountain in order to commission his twelve disciples. In other words, Matthew 5.1 is parallel to Mark 3.13, a point to which we shall return shortly.

Luke, meanwhile, like Matthew, has followed Mark very closely in the early going, but even quite a bit further than Matthew. Except for the transpositions of the call of the first disciples (Mark 1.16-20 = Luke 5.1-11) and the rejection at Nazareth (Mark 6.1-6a = Luke 4.16-30), Luke and Mark walk arm in arm right up until the healing of the man with the withered hand (Mark 3.1-6 = Luke 6.6-11), at which point Luke has Jesus going off to pray on a mountain, then commissioning the twelve in 6.12-16; now Luke describes the great crowd which has followed after Jesus, then the sermon begins. Sound familiar? It should, since despite the local transposition of the crowds with the commission of the twelve it is readily apparent that Luke 6.12-13 is following the Marcan script, and, in fact, Luke 6.12-13a is parallel to Mark 3.13.

So now we know that both Matthew 5.1 and Luke 6.12-13a are parallel to Mark 3.13. Here, then, are all three together:

Matthew 5.1: But when he saw the crowds he ascended the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him.

Mark 3.13: And he ascended the mountain and called those whom he himself wished, and they came to him.

Luke 6.12-13a: And it was in these days that he went off to the mountain to pray, and he spent the whole night in prayer to God. And when day came he summoned his disciples to him.

Matthew and Luke both launch into their respective sermons from here, but Mark lacks any such sermon.

Despite the very real fact that the sermon comes at two different narrative points in Matthew and Luke, then, both Matthew and Luke have chosen the same immediate Marcan context, to wit, the crowds of Mark 3.7-8 and the mountain call of Mark 3.13, to serve as catalyst for the sermon. Is this a coincidence?

For my money the mutual situation of the sermon on the mount or plain in conjunction with Mark 3.13 is evidence that Matthew and Luke are not truly independent of one another. What this argument really does is turn the sermon on the mount or plain into what I refer to as one of the major agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, and provides evidence that either Matthew knew Luke or Luke knew Matthew.

I look forward to any responses.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

ROFL. Like I said, Luke is like one of those "snap-to" functions in an image processing program, where everything "snaps to" Mark.

Yep, that was essentially the argument I made in your question from Kloppenborg. Did you push that further to get to this?

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

No, this has been simmering with me for several months, ever since I made my synopsis then had to change it several times to account for the parallels.

In your challenge to my Kloppenborg-inspired argument, you had Luke moving the Marcan Beelzebub incident out of Luke 6 (the parallel with Mark 3) with one hand while moving the Matthean Beelzebub saying into Luke 6 with the other... and then dropping the Beelzebub phrase that prompted the move in the first place. Ships passing in the night.

This is quite different. This is Luke and Matthew both choosing, not the same overall Marcan context, but precisely the same Marcan setting (the crowds from all over, the mountain call) to place their respective sermons. I submit that this move was not mutually independent, and was not based on the putative setting of the sermon in Q, unless we have yet another usually unnoticed Mark-Q overlap (paralleling Mark 3.7-8, 13).

I am not certain how you will respond to my response to you on that other thread, but I see very big problems with your solution there, as I wrote there.

Always a pleasure.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Hi Ben

I regard Matthew and Luke as less in agreement here than you do.

In Matthew the Sermon follows immediately after Matthew's version of Mark 3:13.

In Luke Luke's version of Mark 3:13 is followed by Luke's version of Mark 3:14-19 followed by Luke's version of Mark 3:7-12 Only then does the sermon start.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

All of this is quite true, and in fact involves what Kloppenborg regards as the only example of Matthew and Luke both moving the same Marcan pericope, to wit, the commission of the twelve, which Matthew removes to kick off his mission discourse and Luke merely transposes locally, switching it with the great crowds.

Once we grant a local transposition, however, it is evident that all of these pericopes are in the same basic spot, not by chance, but by design:

Matthew: Crowds > mountain call > — > sermon.
Mark: Crowds > mountain call > commission > —.
Luke: Mountain call > commission > crowds > sermon.

Surely this cluster of pericopes, concluding in both Matthew and Luke with the great sermon, is no coincidence. Is it?

Ben.