[Part 1]
Having examined Mt 12.25,26 and Lk 11.17,18 it is readily apparent that Matthew and Luke preserve the same story of Jesus’ confrontation with his opposers. Close analysis reveals both the earlier, underlying form of the story and the proclivities of the individual evangelists. In this portion of the narrative Matthew leans toward editing his source for literary or theological reasons. Conversely, Luke follows Q very closely and has resisted making changes to the tradition even when his literary sensibilities would seem to make him likely to do so. The gospels continue (NRSV):
Mt 12.27,28
If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.
Lk 11.19,20
Now if I cast out the demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.
The agreement here is striking in its exactness, with a single, pivotal exception to be considered shortly. The minor differences in how they begin (If/Now if) should be ignored, as the conjunctions are essentially equivalent.[1] There are, however a few other minor exceptions not visible in translation and I will discuss them presently.
Mt 12.27,28
καὶ εἰ ἐγὼ ἐν ‹Βεελζεβοὺλ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν ἐν τίνι ἐκβάλλουσιν; διὰ τοῦτο ˜αὐτοὶ κριταὶ ἔσονται ὑμῶν˜. εἰ δὲ ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ ἐγὼ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.
Lk 11.19,20
εἰ δὲ ἐγὼ ἐν ‹Βεελζεβοὺλ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν ἐν τίνι ἐκβάλλουσιν; διὰ τοῦτο ˜αὐτοὶ ὑμῶν κριταὶ ἔσονται˜. εἰ δὲ ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ °[ἐγὼ] ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.[2]
One first notices the high degree of agreement even in word order with relatively few textual variants. It is true that corruption due to scribal harmonization of the two accounts could produce this indistinguishable similarity, but that kind of unwarranted skepticism would throw out the synoptic gospels altogether. What mitigates against this possibility—besides general text-critical principles—is that this is not the kind of devotional or confessional passage that is likely to be so memorable as to be conflated.
The variants on Beelzebul are inconsequential spelling differences, indicative perhaps of the provenance of the archetypal manuscripts. The variance within the phrase “they will be your judges” is to be expected given the flexibility the language. The words themselves are the same and so the NRSV translators took Matthew and Luke to be identical, the difference in their final forms in the Nestle-Aland 26th being a function of their individual transmission.[3]
The explanation for the omission of Luke’s ego in some manuscripts is self-evident: since the subject of the verb is clear from its inflection the first-person pronoun is unnecessary, and was therefore easily overlooked by scribes at various points in the transmission process. For this reason the weight of the manuscripts that omit it have no bearing. Consider that while ego serves a purpose in the first verse (of both accounts), stressing Jesus’ exorcism over others’, it does not do so in the second verse making accidental omission more likely.
My purpose in dragging this out is to underscore that textual corruption has not obscured what the evangelists wrote and that Matthew and Luke must both be following the tradition perfectly to get this kind of agreement.[4] Now we come to where they diverge. Matthew has “the Spirit of God” as the means of exorcism, Luke has “the finger of God.”
In determining the more primitive version, Matthew’s narrative leading into the pericope and his conclusion to it weigh heavily. In 12.15-18 Matthew has Jesus fulfilling the words of Isaiah 42, the servant upon whom is active God’s spirit. Concomitant with this, and even more telling, is Matthew’s arranging of dominical sayings to condemn the Pharisees. He has inserted two paragraphs of denunciation between the pericope under consideration and the ‘wandering spirit’ (Mt 12.43-45/Lk 11.24-26), with which Luke follows immediately. Matthew ends the Beelzebul encounter, not with the rather soft Lukan “Whoever is not with me is against me…” (11.26), but with the severest of strictures: “Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12.32).
For this condemnation to stick, it must be clear to Matthew’s audience that the Pharisees have indeed spoken against the Spirit (κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου). For Matthew the finger of God would not do as the means of exorcism.[5] He must have the Spirit there and must therefore emend the tradition if it is not so. This, together with Matthew’s redactional activity thus far, makes his text suspect.
Luke might well have an agenda also. Since he has just concluded relating Jesus’ teaching on prayer with “how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him” in 11.8—immediately preceding the Beelzebul encounter—he would be predisposed to have Jesus’ exorcism accomplished by means of this spirit. So it is exceptionally hard to explain why Luke would write this odd anthropomorphic saying if he had a much easier reading in front of him, one that so suited him. Attempts to make sense of this fail utterly. Turner, after discounting one unsatisfactory hypothesis, says:
The shift in terminology (a clear reference to Ex 8:19 [LXX Ex 8:15]) is probably in the interest of Luke’s prophet like Moses christology but still refers to the Spirit; cf. the parallel term “the hand of the Lord,” which was interpreted to refer to the Spirit.[6]
This doesn’t satisfy. Luke, despite his facility with the Scriptures, would not have changed the text to such an arcane phrase; certainly not for Theophilus. It is Matthew who makes the change avoiding a difficult reading, just as he did with “—for you say that I cast out the demons by Beelzebul.” Luke, then, has the earlier expression.
[Part three forthcoming]
____________________
[1] Perhaps Luke (δὲ) saw more contrast than did Matthew (καὶ), or Matthew saw δὲ in Q a simple conjunction.
[2] I have attempted to reproduce the sigla from the NA26 in a way that I hope will be obvious.
[3] Apparently no difference was found even in emphasis. I’m making more of this than I should, especially given the equivocation in the manuscripts, but note that they did find a difference in emphasis in the καὶ and δὲ, so they were not insensitive to it.
[4] Though I’m persuaded that the relationship between Luke and Matthew is literary, an ‘oral Q’ could also account for this. It would necessitate a very early, widespread, and exact Greek oral tradition.
[5] “Finger of God” is a reference to God’s spirit, but it is oblique and lacks the directness of Matthew’s πνεύματι θεοῦ, Jewish audience or not. As I will argue, the finger of God is a much more nuanced allusion to God’s involvement.
[6] M.M.B. Turner, IVP Dictionary of the New Testament, 485. I will deal with the background of the expression in the final part of this essay. For now it suffices to say that these connections cannot so easily be made, especially on the basis of a Moses christology.
