• Matt 6:19–20 is an example of Semitic parallelism;22
• there is no parallel material between Matthew and Luke; hence, Matt 6:19–20 comes from M;23
• parallelism reflects oral tradition;24
• Matthew likes antitheses and parallelism;25
• only a few heaven/earth contrasts are attributable to the author;26
• the implied contrast to earthly goods in the positive exhortation invites explication by Matthew and Luke;27
• Luke 12:21 contains a reminiscence of Matt 6:19;28
• Matthew creates 6:19 to bridge the “Cult Didache” antitheses of Matt 6:1–18 and the other inserted material of Matt 6:22–34;29
• both texts have something there, so Q probably had something there, too.30
As a result, I find only a few arguments that are persuasive on either side of the issue.
On the one hand, as I will argue below, Matthew has made very few changes to Q 12:33/Matt 6:20. This is probably true for Matt 6:22–24 as well. I find this to be a strong argument that Matthew found 6:19 in Q. This is supported by James’s sole emphasis on the eschatological self-condemnation of those who hoard earthly wealth. On the other hand, Q pericopae that contain both “heaven” and “earth” do not contrast them as Matthew does. The Matthean preference for juxtaposing these locations redactionally is a good argument for Matthew adding the prohibition here. The almost perfectly symmetrical parallelism of Matt 6:19–20 makes me particularly suspicious.31
The result is that I find arguments for and against Matthew somewhat equally balanced. I am undecided as to whether Q created a second admonition that Luke replaced, or whether Matthew and Luke created introductions independently.
Q 12:333: Luke’s ποιήσατε or Matthew’s θησαυρίζετε
It is not uncommon for Q to use verbs in conjunction with cognate nouns and adjectives, as is found in Matt 6:20’s θησαυρίζω (“treasure up”) and θήσαυροϚ.32
Luke’s ποιήσατε (“provide”) appears to be dependent upon the subsequent βαλλάντια μὴ παλαιούμενα (“purses that do not wear out”), which itself appears to be of Lukan construction. The only thing that seems to speak for Luke’s verb is the rarity of the expression ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖϚ (“provide for yourselves”), which is found elsewhere in Luke only in 16:9.33 Yet, even there, it appears to form part of a redactional summary interpretation of the Parable of the Dishonest Manager (16:1–8). In Luke 16:9, one “makes for oneself” friends for the purpose of securing lodging in “the eternal tents.” Hence, the idea of giving away goods now to gain benefits in the hereafter is common to both passages.
The Parable of the Rich Fool, Luke 12:15–20, is probably taken from Lukan Sondergut, since it is not found in Matthew and its theme is consistent with themes found in Sondergut material. Luke 12:21 appears to be a redactional formulation of Luke.34 The point is relevant because Luke 12:21 is similar in theme and wording to Matthew’s version of Q 12:33.35 Specifically, the term θησαυρίζω is used by Luke for contrasting the storing of treasures for oneself with being rich toward God. Since Luke appears to be intentionally framing the Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope with Luke 12:16–21 and 12:33–34, it is quite likely that the verb in Luke 12:21 is a reminiscence of its prior use in Q 12:33, a use evidenced by Matt 6:19–20.36
Overall, strong arguments exist for Matthew’s verb and against Luke’s being that of Q, but not vice versa.
Q 12:334: Matthew’s δέ
The existence of the particle δέ (“but”) in Q is partly dependent upon a decision regarding variant Q 12:332.37 If Matt 6:19 was originally in Q, then there certainly existed an adversative conjunction in 6:20. Yet, the weak particle could have existed without a prior negative admonition.38 Q 12:31 reads “but seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you” (ζητεῖτε δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν). Q 12:33 follows with a similar admonition to seek heavenly things and might have been connected to 12:31 with a conjunction (without negative connotation) like δέ or καί. Luke’s omission would be due to the redactional addition of 12:33a (“Sell your possessions and give alms”), which does not allow for its use at this position in the saying.
On the other hand, if Matt 6:19 was not in Q, one is left with only the connective argument, which is itself quite weak. Matthean creation of 6:19 would provide a clear and obvious reason for δέ being in Matt 6:20. I am left undecided on this variant.
Q 12:335: Luke’s ἑαυτοῖϚ or Matthew’s ὑμῖν
Three texts seem particularly relevant: Luke 12:21; 16:9; Q 12:31. Luke 12:21 has θησαυρίζων ἑαυτῷ (“the one who lays up treasure for himself”) in what appears to be a saying based on Q 12:33. Q 12:31 immediately precedes Q 12:33 and uses the dative pronoun ὑμῖν. Luke 16:9 appears to be a redactional addition of Luke, and is the only other place in the NT where the expression ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖϚ is found.
Several arguments support Luke’s reflexive as the Q reading. Though 12:21 is a redactional creation of Luke, if it was suggested by Q 12:33 and includes Q’s θησαυρίζω (“treasure”), then the reflexive may have been taken from Q as well. ῾Υμῖν (“for yourselves”) is found more often in Q, but ἑαυτο– is found in Q in at least nine places, and ὑμῖν is never used reflexively elsewhere in Q.39 ῾Υμῖν is used in Q 12:31, but not reflexively. Assuming previous arguments for the position of the pericope (see above, Q 12:331 above), it seems peculiar for Q to have used ὑμῖν twice in the space of four words, but with different grammatical functions.40
On the other hand, Luke might have preferred a proper reflexive for both 12:21 and 12:33, changing ὑμῖν in Q 12:33 and adding ἑαυτοῦ redactionally in 12:21.41 The slight discomfiture between Q 12:31 and Matt 6:(19–)20 may have been a result of Q’s placing two previously unrelated sayings side-by-side, if 12:31 existed prior to its incorporation in Q. Luke would have eliminated this difficulty both by changing Q 12:33’s ὑμῖν and by inserting Luke 12:32. In Luke 16:9, Luke uses the full expression ἑαυτοῖϚ ποιήσατε (“provide for yourselves”) redactionally in a saying that is very similar to Luke 12:33a in its eschatologically-based ethic.
One other observation seems pertinent to the discussion. The personal pronoun is almost never used reflexively in the NT without a preceding preposition.42 Matthew 6:19–20 is unique in this, lending weight to Matthew’s ὑμῖν being the more difficult and hence more original reading. One of Matthew’s tendencies is to use the personal pronoun as a reflexive, but always with a preceding preposition (Matthew uses the reflexive with prepositions as well).43 It has been suggested that referring back to a Semitic original might be of help, since “Hebrew and Aramaic pronominal suffixes do not allow the distinction between personal and reflexive.”44 In other words, a translator may have accidentally translated a pronoun suffix as a personal pronoun, rather than a reflexive. This observation assumes, however, that Q was being translated in written form from an Aramaic original (be it oral or written). This is highly unlikely.45
Matthew’s reading is therefore the lectio difficilior (more difficult reading) in at least two different ways (suggesting that it is the more original reading). Matthew’s tendency to use the personal pronoun as a reflexive would balance Luke’s probable redactional preference for a proper reflexive if not for the fact that Matthew always uses a preceding preposition elsewhere. Hence, the evidence leans in favor of ὑμῖν in Q.
Q 12:336: Luke’s βαλλάντια μὴ παλαιούμενα
The phrase βαλλάντια