Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §8.5
In each of the above cases we clearly have the same theme. But the agreement
and overlap in wording between the Matthean/Lukan parallels is so modest, even
minimal, that it becomes implausible to argue that the one was derived from the
other or from a single common source at the literary level. The hypothesis that
Matthew and Luke drew directly from Q (= Luke?) 256 simply does not make
enough sense of the data, whereas the similarity of theme and point being made
fits well with the flexibility and adaptability of oral retelling. 257 In each case the
Evangelist seems to have expressed and/or elaborated the common theme in his
own way: Matt. 10.37-38 (worthiness); Luke 14.26-27 (discipleship); Matt.
18.15, 21-22 (church discipline); Matt. 22.7, 11-14 (destruction of Jerusalem,
lack of wedding robe), Luke 14.21-22, 23 (the church's twofold mission). But
such retellings are well within the parameters of orally passed on teaching. 258 We
can conclude without strain that Jesus was remembered as warning about the
challenge of discipleship and the family divisions which would likely ensue, as
encouraging generous and uncalculating forgiveness, and as telling a story (or
several stories) about a feast whose guests refused to come (the variation in reasons
given is typical of story-telling) and who were replaced by people from the
streets. 259
256. See again, e.g., Fitzmyer, Luke, and Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, ad loc; Catchpole,
Quest 323-24. The parable of the talents/pounds (Matt. 25.14-29/Luke 19.11-27) could also
have been cited, where the difficulty in reconstructing Q is again clear (Robinson/Hoffmann/
Kloppenborg, Critical Edition 524-57; A. Denaux, 'The Parable of the Talents/Pounds [Q
19,12-27]: A Reconstruction of the Q Text', in Lindemann, ed., Sayings Source Q 429-60).
257. The Gospel of Thomas has variant traditions of the first and last of the three examples
above (Matt. 10.34-36/Luke 12.51-53/G77i 16; Matt. 10.37-38/Luke 14.26-27/GTA 55,
101 [but with typical Thomas embellishment]; Matt. 22.1-14/Luke 14.15-24/GTh 64 [but the
thrust slightly redirected — see below §12.4 n. 203); Mark 8.34 also knows a variant version of
Matt. 10.38/Luke \4.27/GTh 55.2b, which Matt. 16.24 and Luke 9.23 follow. Whereas in the
second example Didache again seems to know Matthew (Did. 15.3; Matt. 18.15-35), as probably
does Gos. Naz. 15 (Matt. 18.21-22).
258. Cf. Gerhardsson, 'Illuminating the Kingdom', who concludes that the differences
between the parables (narrative meshalim) demonstrate 'deliberate alterations of rather firm
texts' (291-98), though the assumption of the literary paradigm should also be noted.
259. The judgments rendered by the Jesus Seminar on these passages well illustrate the
highly dubious criteria and tendentious reasoning by which they reached their conclusions, including:
a rather naive idea of consistency (Matt. 10.34-36 seems to 'contradict' Jesus' teaching
on unqualified love; see further chapter 14 n. 242 below); Jesus was less likely to echo Scripture
than the Christian community (reason unexplained); use made of material indicates its
originating purpose (Luke 17.3-4 as the reflection of 'a more mature community than is likely
to have been the case with Jesus' followers during his lifetime'); the fallacy of 'the original
form' (the rationale of the procrustean bed of the literary paradigm) (Funk, Five Gospels 174,
216-17, 362, 234-35). But to discuss 'authenticity' by reference simply to such considerations
as precise wording, tensions with other sayings and appropriateness to later contexts, totally
236