Gospel Synopsis Commentary, Part 6
Matt 5:1–12 // Luke 6:20–26
(avg. read time: 9–18 mins.)
Part 1: Matt 4:23 // Mark 1:39 // Luke 4:44
Part 2: Matt 4:18–22 // Mark 1:16–20
Part 3: Matt 4:1–11 // Mark 1:12–13 // Luke 4:1–13
Part 4: Matt 3:1–17 // Mark 1:2–11 // Luke 3:1–9, 11–15, 21–22 // John 1:19–34
Part 5: Matt 7:28–29 // Mark 1:21–22 // Luke 4:31–32
Part 7: Matt 4:12, 17 // Mark 1:14–15 // Luke 4:14–15
The subject for today is a pair of texts featuring sets of beatitudes (and more): Matt 5:1–12 and Luke 6:20–26. The former is the opening of the Sermon on the Mount, while the latter is the opening of the Sermon on the Plain. The lead-up for the Matthean and Lukan parallels are only somewhat similar, as Matt 4:25 parallels Luke 6:17, but Luke 6:18–19 parallels a completely different portion of Matthew (12:15–16). What follows each text also differs significantly, as Matt 5:13 and following parallel divergent parts of Luke, while Luke 6:27 and following parallel various parts of Matthew. As implied by the names, the settings for these teachings are presented differently, although the parallels between them are among the indications that Jesus reiterated teachings on multiple occasions with a number of variations.
As with each of these parts, I reiterate my method for marking the texts. In this case, we are using the simplest marking method for double parallels. For all texts, plain font words are absolute similarities between texts, regardless of where they appear in word order and without repetition (if one word appears once in one text and twice in another, it is only counted once, and so on). Italics signify either a different form of the same word or a synonymous word paralleled in each text. Bold font signifies what is unique to each text. The Greek is taken from NA28 and the similarity scores outlined below are based on this text. Brackets include variants attested in at least five Greek witnesses that make the text closer to parallels. Alternatively, brackets may feature text-critical notes on what the majority of texts include or lack.
For each text, I will give two scores of similarity to each of the other Gospels: one will be cases of absolute matching and the other will be cases of “weighted” matching, not counting variants (assigning a value of 1 to absolute matches, 0.75 to alternate forms of the same word and 0.5 to synonyms). There is no easy way to account for variation in word order in these similarity scores, thus my only solution to make note of these variations is to put a < symbol next to scores to signify that the verbal similarity is actually less than the calculated score would indicate because of the difference in word order where the wording is otherwise similar.
Text-critical Observations