Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:59:57.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Parable of The Children's Game

BAPTIST AND SON OF MAN (MAAT. XI. 16–19 = LUKE VII. 31–5): A SYNOPTIC TEXT-CRITICAL, STRUCTURAL AND EXEGETICAL INVESTIGATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Olof Linton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The parable of the children's game belongs to those so-called ‘Q’-texts where there is a considerable agreement between the version of Matthew and that of Luke. Such texts often appear together as is also the case here.1 In three passages which follow immediately or almost immediately after each other, the conformity between Matthew and Luke both as to structure and vocabulary is very striking:

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , January 1976 , pp. 159 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. my article ‘The Q-problem reconsidered’ in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Essays in Honor of Allen Wikgren = Novum Testamentum, Suppl. 33 (1972), pp. 43–59; and my survey ‘Den synoptiske forsknings dilemma’ in Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift XXXV (1972), 47–62, which will soon appear, revised and translated, in Theologische Literaturzeitung.

2 CfGrundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 2nd ed. (1961), p. 162: ‘Lukas fügt seinem Evangelium wieder ein Stück aus der Spruchquelle ein, die vierte Folge, in der er sowohl im Wortlauf wie in der Wortfolge am stärksten mit Matthäus übereinstimmt. Gemeinsam gehören ihnen zu: Luk. 7, 19. 22 f. = Matth. 11, 2 b–6; Luk. 7, 24–28 = Matth. 11, 7–11; Luk. 7, 31–35 = Matth. 11, 16–19’. Cf. also Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2–5 ed., p. 22.Google Scholar

1 Another hypothesis – that Luke uses an amplified edition of ‘Q’ – was promoted by E. Hirsch and acknowledged as possible by Grundmann (op. cit. p. 162).

2 Our pericope also has given rise to such ideas, see below, p. 164.

3 οτυν does not, however, seem to fit very well in the Lukan context. For in the foregoing ‘all the people’ – except the Pharisees and the lawyers – accept John's baptism. Now π⋯ς ⋯ λα⋯ς – mentioned in a positive (or at least neutral) way – is a favourite expression in Luke, cf. ii. 10; iii. 21 (⋯ν τῷ ßαπτισθ⋯ναι ἄπαντα τ⋯ν λα⋯ν); ix. 13; xi. 53; xviii. 43; xix. 48; xx. 6, 45; xxi. 38; Acts iii. 9, 11; iv. 10; v. 34; x. 41; xiii. 24. It is therefore very possible that Luke introduced this expression in vii. 29 – the certainly very divergent version in Matt. xxi. 31–2 mentions not only the tax-gatherers, but also the prostitutes, and says nothing about the people.

1 Cf. Isa. xl. 18 and Strack–Billerbeck 11, p. 8, n. 5 (to Mark iv. 30).

2 Cf. also the very common short introductions with προσ⋯ρχεσθαι.

3 Thus according to the best attested texts. There are, however, several variant readings, see below, part II.

4 CfMcNeile, , The Gospel According to St. Matthew, p. 157: ‘Mt. often prefers a plural’, Klostermann, Das Matthäusevangelium (1927), p. 99: ‘Mt liebt den Plur.’, etc. etc.Google Scholar

5 A. H. McNeile, op. cit. p. 157: ‘⋯ν τ. ⋯γοραῑς implies that the children's games were a frequent spectacle; ⋯ν ⋯γορᾷ (Lk) pictures a single scene’.

1 An alteration into ⋯τ⋯ροις in Matthew would be quite natural. Matthew distinguishes clearly between ἔτερος and ἄλλος (except in xvi. 14) and might have introduced ⋯τ⋯ροις here in order to stress the distance between the two groups; in xi. 2 Matthew has ἤ ἔτερον προσδοκ⋯μεν (Luke vii. 19, 20 ἄλλον), which might also depend on an intention in Matthew. Luke is less cautious in the use of ⋯τερος. In the parable of the Sower (Luke viii. 6, 7, 8) Luke has ἔτερον (Mark ἄλλο, Matth. ἄλλα) although the idea that the seed differed in quality would spoil the parable completely. If the prototype had ἄλλοις the Lukan ⋯λλ⋯λοις would be yet more natural. But this of course is only a guess.

2 It is perhaps worth mentioning that Mark only uses κλα⋯ω three times, in v. 38, 39 about mourning over a dead girl, and in xiv. 72 about Peter (⋯πιßαλὼν ἔκλαιεν), and that Matthew uses the word twice only, in ii. 18 in a quotation from Jer. xxxi. 15 and in xxvi. 75 like Mark of Peter, whereas Luke has the word 11 times. This does not mean that it is a ‘Lukan’ word – in John it appears 8 times, in Acts only thrice. But in the Gospel it appears relatively often, which is hardly accidental.

3 Most ancient Latin MSS have: lamentavimus (vobis) et non planxistis. d has flevimus et non lamentastis, k: planximus et lamentati non estis (sic!), Vulg.: lamentavimus, et non planxistis. Translators into modern languages were faced with a dilemma: an exact rendering ‘and you have not beaten your breast (through grief)’ was too verbose in the rhyme. Most editions therefore acquiesce in a freer translation often inspired by the Lukan version, Luther: ‘und ihr wolltet nicht weinen’ (in Luke: ‘und ihr habt nicht geweint’); RV: ‘and ye have not lamented, or ‘and ye have not wept’. NEB even has: ‘we wept and wailed, and you would not mourn’ in both Gospels.

1 Wellhausen (Das Evangelium Matthaei, p. 55) says as to the Matthean version: ‘Die Tempora sind in 11, 18 and 11, 19 völlig gleich…Wenn also Johannes hier der Vergangenheit angehört, so auch Jesus.’ But Matthew surely took ἧλθεν more seriously. Jesus did not come once, but once for all.

2 Cf. Joh. Schneider, art. ἔρχομαι etc. in Kittel's Theologisches Wörterbuch, 11, 664 f.

3 If we take the perfect seriously, it would imply that both Jesus and John actually dwelt in the wilderness, cf. Klostermann, Das Lukas-evangelium (1929), p. 90: ‘⋯ξεληλ⋯θατε. var. lect. weshalb seid ihr jetzt hier draußen?’ But according to the Gospels the Baptist was in prison when Jesus uttered the words here recorded, which Matthew asserts in the introduction to the Baptist's question (Matt. xi. 2) and which Luke mentions already in iii. 20 (before Jesus was baptized!). But the idea that Jesus succeeded the Baptist is probably Markan, and the source here in question may not have shared this idea. Still it is hard to imagine that Luke wrote ‘⋯ξεληλ⋯θατε. if he combined it with such a strict sense of the perfect form as Klostermann thinks.

1 This point is often underlined by the Fathers, cf. Origen, Homilies in Luke, XI. 125: ‘Erat igitur in deserto Ioannes et nutriebatur novo et extra humanam consuetudinem modo.’

2 Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III, ch. 6, §52. 4) has a remarkable variant: φ⋯λος τελων⋯ν κα⋯ ⋯μαρτωλ⋯ς. This could be the original Jewish rumour – still heard in Clement's days? Anyway it does not, like the common reading, allow a Christian interpretation (cf., however, John ix. 16, 24).

3 Cf. e.g. μου ὑπ⋯ τ⋯ν στ⋯γην in Matt. viii. 8 (cf. Luke vii. 6).

4 Wellhausen, , Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin, 1904), p. 55: ‘Lagardes Versuch (Agathangelus 1887, p. 128), beides auf אידבע zurückzuführen, scheitert daran, daß; dies nur mit δο⋯λοι oder höchstens mit παῑδες, aber nicht mit τ⋯κνα wiedergegeben werden konnte.’Google Scholar

5 ⋯ γενε⋯ αὐτη, the double question, recorded in Luke, the parataxis in the rhyme, the use of ἦλθεν (or ⋯λ⋯λυθευ) of a prophet or of Messiah, δαιν⋯νιον ἔχει, υἱ⋯ς το⋯ ⋯νθρώπου, ἄνθρωπος φ⋯γος (cf. M. Black, An Aramaic Approach 2, p. 250), the characteristic use of τελ⋯ναι and ⋯μαρτωλο⋯, τ⋯κνα σοφ⋯ας (so Luke), σοφ⋯α = the Wisdom = the wisdom of God, ⋯π⋯, if it renders an Aramaic min (see below, p. 177).

1 π⋯ντων is omitted in D Θ ψ fam. 1, etc.; syrcur, A and the Koine MSS have ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ν τ⋯κνων αὐτ⋯ς π⋯ντων.The standard text of modern editors appears in B, W, fam.13 and some few other MSS.

1 In this connection I leave aside the variants ⋯τα⋯ροις and the addition of αὐτ⋯ν. The MSS mentioned are for the most part only samples.

1 CfColwell, E. C., Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New Testament Tools and Studies) (1969), p. 2: ‘He (Hort) based his claim (the superiority of the Beta text-type) on the argument that what has been shown to be superior in part may be assumed to be superior in the whole’, cf. also p. 6: ‘He (Klijn) pleads for following codex Vaticanus even where the evidence is not clear – on the grounds of its general excellence.’Google Scholar

1 Surely this is a nonsense reading, and it should according to E. C. Colwell (Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1969, p. 105) not be counted. I am not quite sure that Colwell is right here. Certainly we cannot as a rule accept nonsense readings as originals, but they often betray something of the history of the text, e.g. if they are the result of a combination of text-forms, cf. my article ‘Evidences of a second-century revised edition of St Mark's Gospel’, N.T.S. XIV (1967–1968), 347, in which I have shown that the reading of D in Mark xiii. 10 is a combination of the original and a revised text.Google Scholar

1 CfKilpatrick, G. D., ‘Western Text and Original Text in the Gospels and Acts’, J.Th.St. XLIV (1943), 36: ‘We may then conclude our inquiry by suggesting that the textual criteria require a rigorous eclecticism and indicate that, although the Alexandrian text and especially B are our best authorities, yet all the early types and witnesses contribute something of value and none can be rejected. A modern reconstruction of the text will differ much from D, but it will also differ not a little from B.’Google Scholar

2 This correction is not unique. Cf. Mark ii. 15 in Θ 565 where ‘The substitution of οι for και is an elegant amendment’ (cf. my article: ‘Evidences’, etc., N.T.S. XIV, 328).

1 See above, page 164, note 5.

2 Cf. Colwell, op. cit. pp. 21 f.: ‘The Gospels must be studied one by one. Enough single-gospel papyri are available now to demonstrate that the gospels existed as single books for some time.’ In an article in N.T.S., ‘Evidences of a second-century revised edition of the Gospel of Mark’, I have demonstrated that very early there must have existed a separate revised edition of the Gospel according to St Mark (N.T.S. XIV, p. 321–55).

1 Creed, J. M., The Gospel according to St. Luke (1953), p. 108.Google Scholar

2 McNeile, A. H., The Gospel according to St. Matthew (1957), p. 157.Google ScholarCf. also e.g. Leaney, A. R. C., A Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke (1958), p. 145: ‘The men of this generation. This passage becomes clear if we suppose that the men included both John and Jesus on one hand and their contemporaries on the other; it is Jesus who has piped and failed to make his contemporaries dance and John who has mourned and failed to make them weep.’Google Scholar

3 Klostermann, E., Das Matthäusevangelium (1927), p. 99: Only reasonable ‘wenn der Text v. 16 einst gelautet hätte: “Kindern gleicht es (dies Geschlecht), die auf dem Markt sitzen und denen die Gespielen zurufen”.’Google Scholar

4 Bruce, A. B., The Parabolic Teaching of Christ (London, 1882), pp. 413–26.Google Scholar

5 Plummer, A., An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (1910), p. 163. This attempt merely to put the common interpretation upside-down has not been very successful.Google Scholar

6 Clement of Alexandria (Paid. I ch. v, § 13, 3) has a quite different introduction, an assimilation to a most common pattern: ατυθ⋯ς τε παιδ⋯οις ⋯μοιοῖ τ⋯ν ßασιλε⋯αν τ⋯ν οὐραν⋯ν ⋯ν ⋯γοραῖς καθημ⋯νοις κα⋯ λ⋯γουσιν ηὐλ⋯σαμεν κτλ., and adduces other biblical texts in order to establish the equation παιδ⋯α,τ⋯κνα = disciples.

1 A. B. Bruce, op. cit. p. 417: ‘It is in favour of this view that it assigns to Jesus and John the initiative.’ On this point see below, p. 176.

2 McNeile, op. cit. p. 158. Cf. innumerable commentaries, e.g. Keil, C. F., Commentar über das Evangelium des Matthäus (Leipzig, 1877), p. 276. He characterizes Matt. xi. 16–19 as ‘Rüge des leichtsinnigen und lauenhaften Characters der Zeitgenossen’.Google Scholar

1 Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Matthaei (1904), p. 55.Google Scholar