The Traditio-Historical View
The traditio-historical view does not offer any new exegetical options which have not been reviewed so far. It is really an attempt to understand how the evangelists composed their Gos- pels and arranged the material out of the traditions at their disposal. But whereas the views we have already looked at harmonise all the accounts of Jesus’ teaching by arguing that every passage teaches much the same, the traditio-historical view admits that the different texts have different meanings, How- ever, it is argued that these differences reflect the special interests of the evangelists’ adapting Jesus’ teaching for the needs of the church they were writing for. As far as the divorce sayings are concerned, it is the exception clauses that stand out as peculiar to Matthew and which are often held to be this evangelist’s addition to the original teaching found in the other Gospels.
On the older traditio-historical view the exception clauses tended to be understood in the Erasmian sense. But this view has several disadvantages over the straight Erasmian interpretation in that it starts from the premise that Jesus taught the absolute indissolubility of marriage, but that Matthew deliberately contra- dicted Him. This approach also views Matthew as a very inept editor of the gospel stories with Jesus apparently changing His mind in successive verses. For these reasons there is a clear tendency among more modern tradition critics to favour the unlawful marriages interpretation as it avoids the contradictions of the Erasmian view. But since many of the older critical works assume the Erasmian view we shall examine it here in detail.
Statement of the Traditio-Historical View
This view concludes from studying the various sayings on div- orce in the New Testament that all of them cannot go back to
Protestants cite Matthew’s account as another example of the historical development and amplification that took place in the early church as Jesus’ teachings (tradition) were trans- mitted among the faithful. Catholics who hold this view find sup- port for their belief ‘that the Church has the power, not to abrogate the fundamental laws restated by its Founder, but to regulate their application taking personal situations into account.‘6
192 JESUS AND DIVORCE THE TRADITIO-HISTORICAL VIEW 193
Support for the Traditio-Historical View
It must be admitted that if the Erasmian interpretation of the exception clauses is assumed, critical scholars cannot be faulted for excising the clauses or attributing their presence to the hand of Matthew who supposedly found the absolute nature of Jesus’
teaching inapplicable in his church. Though at times they have accused the gospel text of confusion where none exists,7 scholars holding the traditio-historical view have done evangelicals a great service: they have provided the pressure needed to see that either the Erasmian interpretation must be abandoned or that a new view of inspiration should be adopted to take account of the historical developments that have supposedly taken place in the transmission of Jesus’ teaching.8 The latter option, however, confronts the evangelical with problems of a still more serious nature.
Tradition critics such as D.R. Catchpole hold that in remodel- ling Mark’s account of Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees, Matthew has introduced a great deal of confusion. He finds four points of incoherence in Matthew’s pericope.
(a) Verses lo-12 do not arise out of verses 3-9. (b) Verse 9 does not cohere with verses 4-8. (c) Verses 4-8 do not cohere with verse 3b’
[v. 3b contains a question of content, not a catch (peiruzd) question]. (d) Verse 3b does not cohere with 3a [i.e., if the discussion is wholly within the Pharisaic schools (‘for any cause at all’) as v. 3b suggests, why does this merit peirazd language as in v. 3a?J9
Catchpole then asks what adjustments, if any, would remove these awkwardnesses. He feels that (a) is not a problem because two separate traditions on a different topic are combined. He says (b) however, cannot be solved simply by separating verse 9 from verses 4-8 because in Matthew’s narrative verse 8 is not decisive enough to function as an ending. Tampering with verses 4-8 to bring them in line with verse 9 would be so far-reaching that another solution is preferred: ‘either verse 9 has replaced another conclusion that followed verses 4-8, or the trouble is intrinsic to verse 9, i.e. its cause is me epi porneiu, which would then be secondary’. lo These two solutions are felt to be very close alternatives.
In the case of (c) Catchpole feels that a drastic remodelling of
verses 4-8 must occur to make them cohere with verse 3b, or we must modify verse 3b itself. ‘This latter could hardly be other than the excision of kuta Pusan aifiun.‘” Finally, in case (d) either the removal of peirazontes (testing) or kutu Pusan uifiun (for any cause at all) would solve the problem Catchpole perceives.
Two options emerge: (1) either a drastic remodelling of verses 4-8 and the excision of ‘testing’ which leaves only verses 3b and verse 9 of the actual debate; or (2) a retention of verses 4-8 and of
‘testing’, but the excision of ‘for any cause at all’ and ‘except for immorality’. Catchpole feels overwhelming probability favours the second of these alternatives.
Especially interesting is Catchpole’s argument that Mark 10: 12, which assumes divorce proceedings initiated by a woman, is not impossible on Jesus’ lips in a Palestinian society. He points to Paul’s remark in 1 Corinthians 7: lla where he seems to be drawing on a tradition prohibiting the remarriage of a woman who carries through divorce proceedings (cf. Salome and Herodias),” and Paul associates that tradition with Jesus. l3 The bipartite form in Mark 10: 11-12 (directed to men and women who may divorce) is extremely similar to the bipartite form in 1 Corinthians 7: 10 and lib, and a tradition branding the remar- riage of a divorced woman as wrong is reflected in verse 11a.i4 Despite these possible parallels the vast majority of scholars agree that in a Jewish environment the right to divorce was in principle restricted to the man. The passage in Mark is clearly formulated with the Greco-Roman situation in mind.15
The remainder of Catchpole’s article consists of a defence of the two-document hypothesis where he answers all the objections that have been raised against it in the light of the unique features of Matthew 19 and Mark 1O.l6 Some of the ardent defenders of the two-document hypothesis have conceded that Matthew’s ver- sion seems more original than Mark and this has created some problems. l7 But Catchpole does an excellent job of defending the priority of Mark.
Critique of the Traditio-Historical View
In responding to Catchpole’s understanding of Matthew 19: 3-12, we can hardly see the internal problem he sees in verse
194 JESUS AND DIVORCE THE TRADITIO-HISTORICAL VIEW 195 3. The Pharisees were not merely asking for information or
clarification but were trying to elicit a response by which they could accuse Jesus. The disappointing thing about Catchpole’s article was his failure to consider the fine article by Q. Quesnell”
on the close relationship between verses 3-9 with what follows in verses 10-12. We have discussed this fully in chapter 2 of our study, and though we do not agree completely with Quesnell, he rightly challenged the disjuncture that commentators saw be- tween verses 3-9 and 10-12. We understand verses lo-12 to continue Jesus’ teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. On this understanding Matthew’s account is every bit as authorita- tive and powerful as the Marcan account and the critical problems vanish.
Furthermore, this older critical approach makes Matthew a very poor editor of the divorce sayings. The difficulties have been fully set out earlier in chapter 6 in the critique of the Erasmian view. Particularly one should note the two different senses of ‘put away’ in 19:9, and the way that Jesus contradicts Himself.
Having totally condemned the Pharisaic positions in verses 3-8, He suddenly retracts in verse 9 accepting the validity of the Shammaite stance. What is more, on this view Matthew took it into his own hands to change his Lords teaching; unlike Paul who carefully transmitted what Jesus had said. Even without a high view of biblical inspiration, it is surely poor exegesis which portrays Matthew as so inept in his handling of Jesus’ traditions.
As B. Vawter has said:
The most telling argument against this position is its plain arbitrari- ness. It may be rightly asked whether the respect accorded to the Lord’s logia elsewhere in the gospels has prepared us to believe that an evangelist could have introduced into one of them, on whatever authority, a clause which is surely not an adaptation or an extension of Christ’s teaching, but, as the interpreters themselves affirm, a formal contradiction of it. Interpolations should be presumed with difficulty.
This is wholly u priori. For laudable theological reasons they do not permit Jesus to contradict himself, thus they lay the blame on his recorder. Would not the more critical approach lie in first determining whether the alleged contradiction exists in fact? There is no great show of evidence that this approach has been pursued, or that these exegetes have examined very thoroughly their own premises before bowing in the ultimate refuge, the tampered text.”
When it comes to the differences in the synoptic accounts of Jesus’ divorce sayings we believe A. Isaksson’s analysis is more plausible than the reorganisation suggested by Catchpole.
Isaksson begins with an incredibly uncomplicated, yet sound approach. ‘The different versions of the logion must be adjudged to be different formulations of a common original tradition and not deliberate changes which an individual evangelist made from two different sources (Mk and Q).‘20 He continues with sound reasoning based upon what is clear in all the synoptic accounts:
If we regard the original form of the logion as being the one which says that the husband makes himself guilty of adultery if he divorces his wife and marries another woman, the other forms of the logion can quite simply be understood as examples of the applications and expositions of this original form which the Christian churches felt the need to make. From this original formulation it was clear to the disciples that Jesus maintained the indissolubility of marriage. What conclusions could they draw from this?*l
Starting with the saying that a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, we can see that the follow- ing conclusions were drawn from Jesus’ pronouncement on divorce:
(1) If the husband commits adultery by divorcing his wife and re- marrying, the wife also commits adultery if she divorces her husband and re-marries (Mk 10. 12). (2) Since marriage is indissoluble, it is against the divorced wife that the husband commits adultery, since this first marriage still subsists (Mk 10. 11). (3) Since marriage is indissoluble, the man who marries a divorced woman commits adul- tery (Lk. 16.18b, and Mt. 5.32b). (4) Since marriage is indissoluble, it is also forbidden for a man to divorce his wife, even though he himself does not re-marry. It may happen that his divorced wife may re-marry and in that case he is morally guilty of the fact of adultery in respect of this stilI subsisting marriage (Mt. 5.32~)”
Catchpole’s view makes Matthew a ham-fisted botcher of Mark’s material. It is much better to see both evangelists as intelligent, coherent authors, adapting, but not distorting, the traditions of Jesus for the particular needs of their readers in the way Lohmeyer and Schmauch have suggested:
196 JESUS AND DIVORCE THE TRADITIO-HISTORICAL VIEW 197 Mark’s composition is carried out in three parts; he begins with Moses’
legislation concerning divorce, primarily in order to set it aside, then sets forth the fundamental Law of Creation which makes marriage indissoluble, and in his supplement for the disciples he adds two pro- hibitions for husband and wife, that if divorced they may not marry again. This composition is determined throughout by interest in the readerfor whom the Mosaic divorce-practice is unimportant. Hence it is set aside at the outset before the positive command follows. Then an explanation isgiven to the disciples which appears to interpret this fundamental law for them, as the future missionaries to the Gentiles.
For the audience of Matthew, on the other hand, the marriage and divorce regulations of Moses are completely familiar. Thus there is no need to describe what Moses had commanded and what, therefore, would be the consequence if one divorced one’s wife.
Instead, it is possible to begin immediately by citing the decision according to the law of Genesis. The Mosaic regulation then appears next as an objection to this decision, and this is quite properly placed in the mouth of the antagonists. Moses is then authoritatively set aside, and it is possible in a conclusion to state definitively that any new marriage by a divorced man is adulte
8
. It is a Controversy-dialogue which lies before us, following the plan:
Refutation, ConclusionB UestionlAnswer, Objection1 From this perspective it is unnecessary to determine which account is more original. Each record stands on its own and communicates the teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage to their respective audiences.
Conclusion
For the above reasons more recent tradition critics have given up the Erasmian interpretation of the exception clauses. The prob- lemof viewing the exception clauses as a special Mattheanaddition is greatly diminished if they are understood along the lines of any of the other interpretations we have examined, whether early church, unlawful marriages, betrothal or preteritive views. In the latter cases all that Matthew is doing is making explicit some- thing taken for granted by Jesus’ first hearers. But simply be- cause the Matthean exception clauses taken in one of these senses is so congruent with the rest of our Lord’s teaching
on divorce, we do not see any difficulty in Isaksson’s view that Matthew 19: 9 contains the precise original form of Jesus’
teaching.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 199