One Bible contradiction sometimes pointed out by critics is the disagreement in the order of Jesus' three temptations in the wilderness. Matthew lists them as (1) stones turned into bread, (2) throwing himself from the pinnacle of the temple, and (3) getting all the kingdoms of the world. Luke's Gospel switches the order of the last two temptations.
One obvious rejoinder to such a criticism is that it is very minor issue and of the sort that any two people might make when remembering a story told to them by Jesus. Such a difference in detail could even be taken as evidence that Matthew and Luke were relying on two independent witnesses rather than the same one. But most of us would still like to know why the two differed anyway.
There are a few good reasons for taking the Matthew order of temptations as being chronological. The strongest indication that this is so is the connecting word tote (“then”) appearing at Matthew 4:5 and palin (“again”) at 4:8. By contrast, in Luke's version the three temptations are separated, respectively, by kai and de. Both conjunctions simply mean “and,” even though some translations such as NRSV, TEV, JB and AB render them as “then.” NIV doesn't even bother translating these two minor words. Thus, we needn't think that Luke is intending to indicate a chronological order at all.
Another piece of evidence pointing in the direction of Matthew's order as being chronological is a little more subtle. In several places in both the OT and NT when a writer or speaker is alluding to an extended passage in Scripture or answering more than one question, he deals with the last question first and proceeds then to the earlier question(s). A prime example of this practice is found in Matthew 24 where Jesus addresses the apostles' last question before dealing with the first one (see my post on “Matthew 24: One or Two Questions?”). With that background in mind, you may note that Jesus responds to Satan by quoting from three passages in Deuteronomy. If we take the order of events in Matthew, these three passages appear in the exact reverse of their order in Deuteronomy: Deut. 8:3 in Matthew 4:4; Deut. 6:16 in Matthew 4:7; and Deut. 6:13 in Matthew 4:10.
Thirdly, Bruce Metzger points out that several Old Latin translations of this passage as well as St. Ambrose's commentary on Luke change his order to coincide with that of Matthew, not vice versa.
On the other hand, there are others who defend the order in Luke as being in the correct chronological order based on the testimony of Luke 1:3, where the author says he set out to write “an orderly account.” But Fitzmyer notes that the meaning of kathexes (“in order”) in this verse “is quite contested.” For example, NASB translates it as “in consecutive order” while the Anchor Bible says “systematically,” applying the adverb either to Luke's presentation of his material or the method in which he went about his historical investigations. And then there is the NLT rendering of “accurately.”
After presenting several earlier proposals as to the meaning of this Greek word, Fitzmyer asks “But what kind of order? Cadbury, having admitted that the best meaning is 'successively' or 'continuously,' then made the strange remark that this need not 'imply accordance with some fixed order, either chronological, geographical, or literary.' This is baffling. I readily agree that attempts to insist on Luke's historical sense have overstated the chance of chronological agreement with the actual succession of events. But why rule out literary order? To me that is the most evident sense of the adverb, and it is suggested by the use of kathexes by Luke himself in Acts 11:4, where Peter explains his Joppa visit to the apostles and brethren in Judea, 'speaking to them in order,' i.e. in a systematic presentation.”
But what possible literary considerations could Luke have had in mind if that were the case? Bill Mounce offers one suggestion. For Luke, the temple is of great theological importance. Just look at Luke 9:51 and 13:33 as two examples. Then couple that fact with the observation that in all sorts of literary compositions, where three events are listed it is always the concluding one on which the author's stress lies. (Recall the number of fairy tales that utilize that technique).
I would offer another literary reason that I think is even closer to the mark. In Luke's presentation of his material, he often disagrees with both Mark and Matthew in the order of events. And in some of these cases, it is obvious that he has grouped his material together according to common key words and themes rather than chronologically. One example is found in Luke 17, where Luke has displaced material found in Matthew 24 and coupled it together with a much earlier event in which the Pharisees similarly asked Jesus regarding signs of the coming of the Kingdom:
The Structure of Luke 17:1-18:17
A. To the disciples: causing little ones to sin (17:1-4)
B. On faith and a humble attitude (17:5-19)
C. To the Pharisees – Kingdom signs (17:20-21)
C'. To the disciples – Kingdom signs (17:22-37)
B'. On faith and a humble attitude (18:1-14)
A'. To the disciples: let the children come (18:15-17)
Some scholars dispute this fact by claiming that Luke 17:22-37 represents an entirely different
situation, but the comparison below demonstrates how those passages in Lk. 17 exactly parallel the
Last Days sections found in Matthew 24.
Luke 17 and Matthew 24
Second Coming (24:4-14)
Luke 17:22-23
Destruction of Jerusalem (24:15-22)
Luke 17: 31
Second Coming (24:23-31)
Luke 17:22-24, 27
Destruction of Jerusalem (24:32-35)
none
Second Coming (24:36-51)
Luke 17:26-27, 34-35
So if Luke is known to have on occasion purposely departed from the more strictly chronological
scheme of Matthew and Mark in favor of a thematic or catch-word order, could that also have been
possible in the case in question? It turns out that Luke ends his account of the temptation with a closing
sentence not found in Matthew, namely “When the devil had finished every test (temptation), he
departed from him until an opportune time.” If you look at the previous verse, Luke 4:12, it contains
Jesus' reply to Satan: “It is said, 'Do not put the Lord you God to the test.” If Luke had followed
Matthew's order of events, the occurrences of the key word “test” would not have been placed adjacent
to one another.
(Only Luke 17:31 does not fit the pattern in this last table above, but it turns out that it represents yet
another example of Luke arranging his material thematically. You will have to look at my post
“Matthew 24: One or Two Questions?” if you want to see that example.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments