Luke 6:46 reads "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and do not do the
things I say?
". Its parallel in
Matthew 7:21 reads "Not all saying to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the kingdom of Heaven,
but the one doing the will of my Father in Heaven
".
The Egerton Gospel provides a third parallel, in part, by asking "Why do you call me
with your mouth 'Teacher', not [...]ing the thing I say?
". Egerton's
usage is closer to Luke's, and some have claimed this as evidence that Egerton is dependent on Luke
(usually en route to calling Egerton a sort of Diatesseron).
I intend first to ascertain what Q could have read at this point. Then I will investigate where else Egerton could have used Luke. This done I will see if Egerton more likely used Luke, or a prior saying that Luke happened to share.
Matthew and Luke share the connexion with "Lord, Lord" and doing Jesus-and-God's will, both further connect their respective verse with Luke 6:47-49 == Matt 7:24-27, and neither version is found in Mark. Accordingly all agree Luke 6:46 == Matt 7:21 is Q material.
But the wording is wildly different in each. The original is so hard to discern,
a century ago Adolf von Harnack was willing to throw in the towel
(The Sayings of Jesus 71, transl. JR Wilkinson, New Testament Studies 3 1908):
"The common source perhaps lies far in the background of time, and we may not with
absolute certainty claim the verse for Q
" (Kloppenborg p. 46).
Matters have improved since then.
This is not the only time Matthew has "will of my Father" where Luke does not.
Matt 10:29 parallels Luke 12:6: "Not one will fall to the ground without the will of my Father
"
against "Not one is forgotten before God
". Also, Matt 12:50 parallels Mark 3:35, substituting
"will of my Father
" for "God's will
". "Will of my father" is Matthean vocabulary.
So is "Father in Heaven". Mark 11:25 and Luke 11:13 use it, but that is all for Mark and Luke. But Matthew uses it in verses 5:16, 5:45, 6:1, 6:9, 7:11, 10:32, 10:33, 16:17, and many others, often overriding parallels in Mark and Luke to do it - including 12:50. "Kingdom of Heaven" does not appear in Mark or Luke at all, but all over Matthew, standing in for Mark's "Kingdom of God".
Even the construction "not all - but -" is unique to Matthew, who also uses it in 19:11 as a personal appendix to Mark 5:31-2's saying on marriage.
The real debate is therefore over the form the first part took,
Luke 6:46's "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord', and do not do ...?
", or Matthew 7:21's
"Not all saying to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the kingdom of < God >,
but the one doing ...
". Luke's construction is the more likely.
The "second epistle of Clement", incidentally, appears to have picked up Matthew's version and altered its
vocabulary.
2 Clement 4:2 claims that the Lord said, "Not all saying to me 'Lord, Lord' will be saved, but the one
doing righteousness
". This is not uncommon to 2 Clement (Koester pp. 349-360).
Egerton parallels Luke in two other places: the healing of the leper in 17:11-19, and the controversy of 20:20-21. At those points Luke is mirroring Mark 1:40-44 and 12:14, respectively, so Luke's work is easy to spot. Egerton shows knowledge of none of Luke's changes to Mark.
In addition, I propose here that Egerton was the source for the Johannine Passion narrative, which is also followed in part by Mark and Matthew. Luke followed a radically different order from John, Mark, and Matthew; and therefore most likely from Egerton as well.
Luke 6:46 as yet stands alone in that Gospel as a potential source for Egerton, both in what survives today and in what is its most likely reconstruction.
Egerton's innovation, independently of Mark,
was to intersperse this saying with Isaiah 29:13. "With your mouth" is the first part of Isaiah 29:13
and Egerton follows with the rest: "This people honours me with their lips, but...
".
"Teacher" is likewise relevant to the context of Egerton, as the questioners have called him
"teacher", not "lord".
These differences between Egerton and Luke can be explained, as Egerton harmonising the
saying with the surrounding context and with Isaiah 29:13.
But note that Luke's version calls Jesus "Lord" and demands you do what he says. Egerton shares that outlook; it is odd that the author used the verse here and removed its Messianism, rather than keeping it for another story, perhaps aimed at recalcitrant fans or followers.
The other difference is that where Egerton said, the thing singular, agreeing with Matthew;
Luke says, the things plural. Elsewhere in Q, Luke 12:12 had
"'a eipein / those which to say
" in the plural,
but that verse answered 12:11's "ti eiphte / what thing to say
", which was in the singular.
Luke 12:12's parallel Matthew 10:19 preserved not only Matthew 10:18's singular but the very word
ti. Luke was more comfortable with the plural form,
and her variant can be explained as a personal preference. We do not know Egerton's preference.
Egerton did not use Luke elsewhere, and here it developed a part of Luke in a non-Lukan manner. It is more likely that it did not use Luke, than that it altered it against messianism and according to a grammar preference.
I have found no evidence that Egerton was dependent on Luke. It is more likely that Egerton
was dependent on a saying that also ended up in Q. I would reconstruct Q,
Ti me kaleite: kurie kurie, mh poiwnteV o legw;
.
This means that Egerton is not dependent on apocalyptic Q either, but on a wisdom-based predecessor, that had a teacher ask "why do you call me teacher if you don't listen to what I say?". In like manner the Bethsaida Section and Luke both caught the Q warning against the leaven of the Pharisees, but most likely Bethsaida's is in a form more primitive than Q's.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^) zimriel@sbcglobal.net
The first version of this project was written 30 March - 2 April 2002. 7 May, incorporated the Egerton Passion project.