We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Preliminary Remarks. There are in the Synoptic Gospels many examples of Sayings joined in pairs or larger groups. Separately and in other connections such texts have certainly been discussed again and again. But the phenomenon as such has hardly been dealt with in a coherent study. Therefore I have chosen to gather a number of these instances and discuss them together, especially those cases where two parts of a double saying are built up in an analogous way. But the present study has – as the sub-title ‘Analysis versus Theories’ indicates – also a synoptic intention. This is not, as in the case of most synoptic studies, to corroborate some already existing synoptic theory or to present a new one. The analysis has to be carried through radically. But why, then, especially take up those texts where we meet with ‘Coordinated sayings and parables’? Because here we have an opportunity not only to make a comparison between the versions of the evangelists, but also to complete this with a comparison between the coordinated sayings.
1 Cf. my article ‘Le parallelismus membrorum dans le Nouveau Testament’, Mélanges Bibliques en hommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux (Gembloux, 1970), 489–507.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Gerhardsson, B., The Testing of God's Son (Lund, 1966).Google Scholar
3 So Matt. 5. 25; Luke 12. 58 has: μπoτε κατασ 
ρ σε πρóς τóν κριτήν, cf. Acts 8. 3: σρων … παρεδoυ είς φυλακέν.
4 So Luke 12. 58; Matt. 5. 25 has: καà ó κριτς τ
πηρτ. Many Matthean MSS add σε παραδῷ to ó κριτς (cf. Luke: παραδώσει). That μπoτε in Luke only influences the first verb (κατασ
), not the following (παραδώσει), is not quite uncommon, but good Greek demands a correction into the subjunctive mood, cf. also 
;ως άν in Matt. 5. 26.
5 So Luke 12. 58; Matt. 5. 25 has: κα εíς φυλακν βληθσῃ.
6 So Luke 12. 59; Matt. 5. 26 prefixes μν.
7 So Matt. 5. 26; there also the word άν. Luke 12. 59 has λεπτóν and κα.
8 Clement of Alexandria (Paed. ii, x, 102, 3 ff., Stählin 1, 218) quotes almost verbally Luke 12. 22–3 and 24. But after the quotation he inserts the following words: κα ταυ˜τα μν τρoφης μoίως δ κα περ σθñτoς παρελλυ
, κτλ. He is evidently aware of the parallelism and finds it better to emphasize this than to quote the digression in Luke 12. 25–6.
9 Cf. Skeat, T. C., ‘The lilies of the field’, Z.N.W. 37 (1938), 211–14.Google Scholar
10 In the article mentioned in note I above, I have suggested that we have here to do with an allusion to a man in the market, crying his wares; ‘Are not two sparrows sold for one farthing, and five sparrows for two farthings?’ would in this way be the original saying, reconstructed on the basis of the man's cry: ‘Two sparrows for one farthing, five for two!’
11 B* D al have only this first part of the parallelism.
12 ck Cypr have, like Luke, ‘disciple’.
13 Cf. my article ‘The Parable of the Children's Game’, N.T.S. 22 (1975–1976), 159–79.Google Scholar
14 The same reading also in some Lukan MSS.
15 In Luke, many MSS omit the word, the Koine and A al have it at the end. In Matthew, those MSS which have the word have it together with ‘children’; this might indicate that ‘all’ belongs to the reading ‘children’ and is secondary.
16 καθμενoι appears in some Matthean MSS and is omitted in some Lukan texts.
17 Cf. Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen, 1937)Google Scholar, who thinks that already the Markan version of the parable is a mixture of two versions; this seems to be very probable, but does not affect the analysis above.
18 Cf. Sanders, E. P., ‘The Overlaps of Mark and Q and the Synoptic Problem’, N.T.S. 19 (1972–1973), 453–65Google Scholar, who on p. 456 quotes Streeter, ‘St Mark's Knowledge and Use of Q’, p. 173: both in Matthew and in Luke the parable of the Leaven is appended; on this basis Sanders polemizes against Streeter. But, as has been demonstrated above, the parable is not ‘appended’, but one of two coordinated parables.
19 Cf. James 5. 19 f.: ν τις ν άμĩν πλανηθ …, λινώσκετε óτι ó πιστρψας μαρτωλóν κ πλνης δo ατoũ σωώσει ψυχν ατoα κ θαντoυ.
20 Cf. D 157: καί πoλςαoα μλαν (+ ατ
ν in some MSS). Are these readings authentic? At any rate they are of some interest as they testify that the patterns work.
21 o not in D pc, cf. the previous note.
22 There are many other cases, e.g. Matt. 3. 7–12. Innumerable scholars here divide the text in this way: 7 b–10: ‘from Q’, 11: ‘from Mark’, 12: ‘from Q’, although it should be evident to everybody that a saying never started in this way: o; τò πτoν … Cf. my article ‘The Q-Problem reconsidered’, in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Essays in Honor of Wikgren, Allen P. (= Suppl. to Novum Testamentum, vol. 33) (Leiden, 1972), 46–7.Google Scholar
23 Cf. e.g. Morgenthaler, R., Statistische Synopse (Zürich, 1971)Google Scholar. There you may find many useful observations. For example, Morgenthaler draws attention to a very essential fact, almost forgotten, that the degree of agreement between the Gospels varies considerably, cf. e.g. the lists on pp. 258–62 on ‘Q’-material. On the other side, his Statistische Synopse should in many respects be used very cautiously.
24 Cf. my article ‘Das Dilemma der synoptischen Forschung’, Theologische Literaturzeitung (1976), no. 12, 881–92.Google Scholar
