Sectional Analysis

Each writer has a certain amount of introductory material that would not be part of an original oral pericope. (In Luke's case I have used ellipsis for the extended and unparalleled material in 3:1-2.) Marcan priority theorists find their first evidence here in that all three have an "unusual" use of Isaiah 40:3. Notably none match any known MT or LXX translation and all three end the verse with "of him" rather than "of our God" as Isaiah does. Surely this unusual translation comes of Mark being a source for Matt and Luke? Not at all. QMers don't think out of the box: the "of him" variation likely found its roots in John himself as he prepared to identify Is. 40:3 with the one coming after him, a particular person. (Note how John personalizes Is. 40:3 to himself in John 1:23: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.") Thus the invariability is attestable to Christian use of OT texts for a purpose even prior to the Gospels (as Witherington, Mark commentary 71, allows). The "him" is an "interpretation of divine redemption along Christological lines" (Green, Lukan commentary, 171). There is no evidence for Matthew copying Mark here; indeed that they have John's description and mission range in reverse order speaks against direct copying and points to oral variations and roots of Matthew and Mark in independent work! Luke drops the allusion to Elijah (which his Roman reader would not understand) and replaces it with further material from Isaiah, probably independently, though he may have found it in Ur-Matthew.

And now Q theorists get their first exciting moment, as they cannot visualize Luke taking this directly from Matthew. They ask, why would remove the polemic against the Pharisees and Sadducees? Q supposedly offers a "simpler explanation," and we are shown thereby the "motives" of each writer. Well, it is surprising that those who deign to go so far to explain motives based on a Q supposition don't bother to "ask themselves" why Luke might have made a change; and there is a simple reason why, here (and in Luke 23:27), Luke broadens the charges to take in the whole crowd.

The QM supposition is that the "crowd" was the original Q story and that Matthew inserted the P & S gang for his own polemical purposes. Well, it is no big shock that Matt disliked the P & S gang, but to suppose that the story was originally only concerned with a general-identity "crowd" just doesn't work. Matthew (3:5-6) and Luke (3:3-4) both indicate, albeit in different ways, that people as a whole were coming to John for baptism, and the warning that follows doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless there was already a mixed group coming for baptism in the first place, because we hardly expect John to go to all the trouble of offering baptism and then insulting everyone who shows up! If everyone who came was a viper, then why is John even bothering to offer baptism? How does John know that everyone in the crowd is a viper? Does he have intimate knowledge of their personal lives? The warning, in fact, makes a whole lot more sense as something said to a select group with known beliefs and practices that suggest that they are coming to be baptized for the wrong reasons. And in fact, one might argue that Luke betrays knowledge of the original identity of the "crowd" when he quotes Johnny B. about these folks bragging that they are part of Abraham's family (3:8). Every Jew could say this, but it would only be a self-righteous sort of group like the P & S crowd that would suppose that it would mean anything in relation to John's baptism. The average "crowd" member wouldn't have the theological or religious sophistication to make such an appeal!

We argue, then, that it is Luke who has de-identified the P & S crowd and generalized them, and for his own reasons -- perhaps as one who is more inclined to stress the universal nature of the Christian faith (this would also explain why he turns Matthew's "scribe" and "disciple" in Matt. 8:19-22 into anonymous persons); perhaps also as one who knows Pharisaic Christians in the Jerusalem church and does not want to open up old wounds; or perhaps, as one writing a defense brief for Paul, not wishing to show Jesus or John in conflict with the powers that be. Whatever the reason, it is clear that the creation of a Q source is a superfluous explanation. It is simpler to suppose that Luke got this from Matthew (Ur-Matthew).

Note the variation between carrying sandals in Matthew and loosening them in Mark/Luke, which makes little sense under a direct-copy paradigm but does fit within oral variations. Note as well that here, Matt and Luke have an agreeing witness against Mark in John's version of events, which fuses the Coming One-spirit baptism saying where Mark divides it (and also, agrees with Matt and Luke on making "baptize" present tense). This last point is often used to support Griesbachian theories, but it also suits our thesis of a common oral core and/or Ur-Matthean core/

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

I send the messenger of-me before face of-you who will-prepare the way of-you before you. Voice crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way Lord straight make the paths of-him. came John baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming baptism repentance to remission of-sins. leather around the loin of-him the and food of-him was locusts and wild honey. Then went-out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the neighborhood of Jordan and were-baptized in the Jordan by him having-confessed the sins of-them. seeing And many of-the Pharisees and Sadducees coming on the baptism of-him he-said to-them offspring of-vipers Who warned you to-flee from the coming wrath? Produce then fruits worthy of repentance and not do-think to say in yourself A father we-have the Abraham I-say For to-you that is-able the God out of the stones these to-raise-up children to Abraham. already And even the axe at the root of-the trees is-laid. any Thn tree not producing fruit good is cut off and into fire is-thrown. I indeed baptize you in water to repentance. he But after me coming stronger me is of-whom not I-am worthy the sandals to-bear; he you will-baptize in Spirit Holy and fire of-whom the fan in the hand of-him. And he-will-cleanse the floor of-him and will-gather the wheat of-him into the barn the but chaff he-will-burn-with fire unquenchable.