75. Ferdinand Hahn lists the following as paraenetic sections in the canonical epistles: 1 Thess 4:1–9; 5:(1–11, 12–14,)15–22; Gal 5:14—6:10; Phil 4:4–9; Rom 12:9—13:14; Col 3:5—4:6; Eph 4:17—6:17; Heb 13:1–9, 17; 1 Pet 2:11—4:11; (5:1–11); Jas 1:3—5:11 (Hahn, “Die christologische Begründung,” 89, n. 13).
76. E.g., cf. the following: Rom 12:14/Luke 6:27–28/Matt 5:44; Rom 12:17, 21/Luke 6:29/Matt 5:39–40; Rom 13:7/Mark 12:17 par.; Rom 13:9/Mark 12:28–30 par. (cf. Mark 10:17–22); Rom 14:10, 13/Luke 6:37/Matt 7:1. See Neirynck (“Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” 270) for a table of allusions and a number of scholars who argue for each of them. Included in this table is Rom 12:21/Luke 6:27ff/Matt 5:39ff; Rom 14:14(20)/Mark 7:15 par.; and Rom 16:19/Matt 10:16b. Romans 14:13 is usually compared to Mark 9:42 par. with their common use of σκανδαλ–. Walter and Patterson include Rom 12:18/Mark 9:50/Matt 5:9 (Walter, “Paul,” 56; Patterson, “Paul,” esp. 29 n. 26).
77. Even in Romans 13–14, where Paul returns to argumentative style, the “allusions” are usually the point of the rhetoric, not supportive material in the body of the argument. Rom 13:7 is a rhetorical recapitulation, giving the elaboration pattern of 13:1–7 a specific, practical focus. Rom 13:8–10 stands on its own, though it is smoothly connected to the preceding thought. Rom 14:10a is the issue subsequently defended in 14:10b–12, and this issue of judging others is the essential departure in theme from Paul’s more elaborate discussion in 1 Cor 6:12–11:1.
78. E.g., Robinson, “Kerygma and History,” esp. 40–46; Kuhn, “Der irdische Jesus,” esp. 308–18; Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” esp. 244–50.
79. Tuckett, “1 Corinthians and Q.” Tuckett is right to question a Q relationship to the three citations in 1 Corinthians, as well as Koester’s 1 Cor 2:9/Matt 13:16–17 (Q 10:23–24) parallel, though he appears to miss the point when he observes the different uses of νηπίοιϚ in 1 Cor 3:1 and Q 10:21–22. If Paul’s opponents understood themselves as enlightened “newborns” due to their recent baptism and spiritual instruction, then Paul’s condescending use of “newborn” makes an effectively snide attack on their self-understanding. In effect, Paul is saying “Yes, they are newborns, but for that very reason they are spiritually immature (or, as he puts it, σαρκίνοιϚ) and ought to be treated as such.”
80. Kuhn goes as far as to suggest a tradition-historical connection between the opponents of 1 Corinthians, the tradents of Q, the opponents in the letter of Polycarp, and the Gospel of Thomas (“Der irdische Jesus,” 518).
81. Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” 248. But see also idem, “One Jesus,” 230. On GTh 17 specifically, see Onuki, “Traditionsgeschichte.” For a critique of Onuki, see Dunderberg, “John and Thomas in Conflict?” 365–70.
82. Patterson, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition”; Davies, Gospel of Thomas, 138–45. See also Kelber, who argues that substantial similarities in the Gospel of Thomas support the existence of a sayings tradition at Corinth (Oral and Written Gospel, 176).
83. Davies, Gospel of Thomas, 141–43. “Paul writes of them, ‘you are completely satisfied . . . , you have grown rich . . . , and you have begun your reign . . . .’ These are three distinct metaphors for present fulfillment, and Paul’s opponents apparently applied them to themselves” (141). Cf. esp. Thomas 109 and 110 on becoming rich, and 2 and 81 on becoming rulers. As discussed above, Paul’s opponents may have called themselves babes in a positive sense, a self-designation that Paul derides. For an example of this kind of self-designation, Davies notes Thomas 4, 21, 22, 37, and 46 (p. 143).
84. Col 3:1–4:6. See, e.g., Pokorny, Colossians, 157.
chapter 2 The Synoptics and Q
Introduction
For most biblical commentators, the primary point of departure in the study of the Treasure in Heaven saying is the content and interpretation of this saying in Matthew and Luke, where we find the clearest and most elaborate expressions among canonical parallels. Intimately connected to the issue of how Matthew and Luke employ this saying is the issue of how they adapt their primary source for this saying, the sayings gospel Q. In order to understand how they have altered the content and, hence, intended meaning of the Q version of the saying, one must first reconstruct this earlier Q version. In the process of reconstruction, by noting some of the redactional tendencies of Matthew and Luke, some of the answers to the question of how Matthew and Luke use and adapt the Treasure saying will begin to become clear. Subsequent to the reconstruction of Q will be a discussion of the following: (1) how the composers of these three texts used the Treasure in Heaven saying; (2) how these texts might be related to the larger context of Jewish wisdom and eschatology; (3) the place of Mark 10:21 in the history of the transmission of this saying.
Q 12:33
Q 12:330: Is Luke 12:33 par. Matt 6:(19–)20 in Q?
1
This variant is occasioned by the different positions of the sayings in Matthew and Luke, the difference in the internal order of the adversity clauses in the two versions, and the lack of verbal agreement between the versions (relative to most Q texts in Matthew and Luke). The only significant “minimal Q” words and phrases are θησαυρο– (“treasure”), ἐν οὐραν– (“in heaven), ὅπου (“where”), σήϚ (“moth”), and κλέπτ– (“rob”).2
A number of arguments, however, support Luke 12:33/Matt 6:(19–) 20 as coming from Q. (1) This saying is found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark—the fundamental premise for identifying Q material.3 (2) Both versions of the saying have Q 12:34 (“For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also”) attached as a rationale for the behaviors recommended in the Treasure saying (against GTh 76:3 and all other versions of the saying to be identified in this study). It is not likely that the two sayings would be attached independently in pre-gospel oral traditions. (3) Both gospels group Q 12:33–34 with the Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope of Q 12:22–31 (Matt 6:19–21, 25–34). (4) A catchword connection exists between Luke 12:33/Matt 6:19–20 and the Son of Humanity Coming as a Robber saying of Luke 12:39/Matt 24:43 (“thief” and Matt 6:19–20’s “dig through”). This connection is most especially significant since Matt 24:43 is located quite some distance from the sayings clusters of Matthew 6.4 Taking into account the cumulative force of these observations, and starting with the presupposition of the Q hypothesis, there should be little doubt that this saying existed in Q.
Q 12:331: Position of the Pericope in Q
Determining the position of Q 12:33(–34) in Q must take into consideration several issues. Are there good redactional rationales for Matthew or Luke to have moved the saying to its present position in one or the other gospel? Matthew’s present position preceding the Generous Eye and Two Masters sayings (Matt 6:22–24) is almost universally recognized as being secondary. But what if Matt 6:19–21 (Q 12:33–34) immediately preceded Matt 6:25–34 (Q 12:22–31)