Page images
PDF
EPUB

.

188. 4. 23

[ocr errors]

1816-20

“Two witnesses," "binding and loosing," "earth and

heaven,” “My Father who is in heaven.” 1928

εν τη παλιγγενεσία όταν καθίση ο υιός του ανθρώπου επί

θρόνου δόξης αυτού. To these may be added 811-12, which is Jewish Christian (with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob"), and anti-Pharisaic ("the sons of the kingdom ”) in character, and which seems to have been inserted by the editor into its present context.

The following phrases are characteristic of these passages : (1) η βασιλεία των ουρανών, 510. 19 (2). 20 811 1o 1324. 4. 45. 47. 52 1610

1912 201 222 257 We might on that account add to our list 58, which differs in language from Lk 620 ; 721, which differs from Lk 646 ; 1112, which differs from Lk 1616; and 2313, which differs from Lk 1152. The phrase occurs in these passages 23 times, and elsewhere in the Gospel 9 times, viz. 32 417 1111 1311. 81. 83 181 1914. 23. In 32 417 1311. 31' 181 1914. 23 the editor has inserted the phrase into Marcan passages. The two remaining verses, ull and 1333, might, with some probability, be added to our list. (2) πατήρ ο έν (τους) ουρανοίς:

51661 1617 1810. 14. 19. We might on this account add to our list 545 (which differs from Lk 635) 69 711. 21 1032. 33. The phrase only occurs besides in 1250, where it is substituted for Mk.'s toll Ocoû. (3) πατήρ ο ουράνιος:

1518 1835 23o. We might on this account add to the list 548 (which differs from Lk 636) 614. 26. 32. The phrase occurs nowhere else. (4) πατήρ ημών, υμών, σου, αυτών:

516 61. 4. 6(2). 8. 18(2) 1348 23o. We might on this account add 545. 48 69. 14. 15. 26. 82 711 and 1029, which differs from Lk 126.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that these verses, characterised as they are for the most part by special features, and distinguished by the use of two or three striking Jewish phrases, came as a whole, or in large part, from a single source. 1

And here, if anywhere, the information of Papias can assist us. He speaks of a compilation put together in Hebrew or Aramaic by Matthew containing dóyla. On the other hand, we find in our Gospel a number of sayings of marked Palestinian characteristics and phraseology. If the editor of the Gospel borrowed these from the Matthæan document, whether it lay before him in its original form or in a Greek translation, we have at once an explanation of the reason why the name Matthew attached itself

Cf. E. De Witt Burton, Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem, p. 41. I have been much indebted to this book,

to the first Gospel, of which these sayings form a substantial proportion. Of course, if there be sufficient reason for supposing that the editor used this Matthæan source, it will then be probable that he borrowed from it some of the sayings which he has in common with Lk., but in a different form and context. Whilst he drew them from a Greek translation of the Logia, Lk. will have drawn them from other sources into which they had passed from the Matthæan collection. The following would be not out of harmony with the tenor of many of the Logian sayings :

518 not a jot or tittle to pass from the law." Cf. Lk 1617. 532 Cf. Lk 1618, who has not the limitation Tapektos lóyou

πορνείας. 69-13 the Lord's Prayer. The prayer as found in a different

context in Lk 1114, has lost some of its Jewish

colouring.
1316-17 προφήται και δίκαιοι is Jewish.

The verses occur in a different context in Lk 102

23-24 with Baorleis for δίκαιοι. 234. 23. 25-26. 27. 29-31. 34-36. All anti-Pharisaic. Cf. Lk ii

a different context. 512 Anti-Pharisaic : "they persecuted the prophets.” Cf. 2382-33,

I venture, therefore, to assign the following to the Matthæan Logia :

58-12
518-16 Probably not in Sermon.
517-20
521-24
525-26 Probably not in Sermon.
527-28
529-80 Probably not in Sermon.
533-87

39-52 in

*

*

*

*

31-32

*

*

38-42

*

*

543-48
614.
65-6
67-15 Perhaps not in Sermon.
616-18
619-93 Probably not in Sermon.
71-8
78 Probably not in Sermon.
77-11 Probably not in Sermon.
712
718-14 Probably not in Sermon.
715-23

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

13891

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1331-48 134 1345-46 1347-50 1351-52 1512-14

1524 * 1617-19

1720. 183-4. 1810. 1812-18 1814 1815-20 1821-22 1823-36 1910-13

*

#

[ocr errors]

1928

201-16
2116
2 1 28-32

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

2514-30

2531-467 * 2652-54 ?

Of course, much that is here assigned to the Logia may have come from other sources. The passages marked with an asterisk are in the peculiar to Mt., and have the Palestinian characteristics referred to above. These may be assigned to the Logia with much probability. The remaining passages are for the most part found also in Lk. But his variations in setting and language make it probable that he drew them from other sources than the Logia. And, to some extent, he may have been influenced by reminiscence of the first Gospel.

We must, therefore, think of the Matthæan Logia as a collection of Christ's sayings containing isolated sayings, sayings grouped into discourses, and parables. If there was any particular arrangement or order observed, it is, of course, not possible now to rediscover it. One of the longer discourses was probably the Sermon on the Mount ; but as this now stands in the first Gospel, it has been enlarged by the editor, who has inserted into it sayings from other parts of the Logia. There were also in all probability a group of eschatological sayings, and groups of parables.

The original language was either Hebrew or Aramaic. Papias calls it 'Espaid. διαλέκτω; Ireneus, τη ιδία αυτών (οι Εβραίοι) διαλέκτω; Eusebius, πατρίω γλώττη; and Origen speaks of the Gospel as γράμμασιν Εβραϊκούς συντεταγμένον. On historical as well as philological grounds it is probable that the language was rather Aramaic than Hebrew. When the editor of the first Gospel used it, it had already been translated into Greek. The fact that he was using a Greek rendering of S. Mark's (probably originally Aramaic) Gospel does not, of course, preclude the possibility that he may have had the Aramaic Logia before him, but suggests that this was not the case. A stronger argument is the fact that some of the many sayings which Mt. and Lk. have in common agree very closely in language. This is not best accounted for by the theory that both Mt. and Lk. used a common Greek translation of the Logia, nor by the view that Lk. is dependent on Mt. Rather, the editor of the first Gospel used a Greek translation of the Logia. Then other translations were made, and from these excerpts and groups of sayings passed into the "many" evangelic writings with which Lk. was acquainted. This accounts for the fact that Lk. had before him, or was acquainted with, sources containing sayings and groups of sayings which are often nearly identical with sayings contained in the first Gospel, and yet frequently differ from them. The Logian sayings must have passed through several stages of transmission before they reached Lk., whilst Mt. drew from a translation of the original collection. Wellhausen has rightly seen that some features in sayings common to Mt. and Lk. cannot be explained without reference to an Aramaic original (Einleitung, p. 36). Since, however, he clings to the theory that the verbal agreement in many of these sayings forces us to suppose that they used a common Greek source, he is obliged to hazard the complicated and unnecessary conjecture that the two Evangelists sometimes altered their Greek original and sometimes substituted for it a new translation from the original Aramaic (p. 68). But, as I have already shown, the great amount of disagreement in substance, in setting, in order, and in language between Mt. and Lk. in these sayings is only explicable if they were not directly using a common source. Mt. drew directly from a Greek translation of the Logia. Other translations were also made, and from these the Logian sayings passed in a form substantially agreeing, whilst often slightly differing in language, into the evangelic writings of the Church.

Hence, when Lk. wrote his Gospel, he found these sayings dispersed in many quarters. Some of them, e.g. the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer, had passed through many stages since they were first extracted from the Logia. Others had suffered but little change. If at times the agreement in language between Mt. and Lk. seems remarkably close, it must be borne in mind that Lk. may well have read the first Gospel, and have been sometimes influenced by it.

The narrative sections tabulated above under (e) call for special consideration, since it is unlikely that they came from the same source as the sayings just discussed. The narratives contained in ¡ 18-25 21-12. 13-23

1428-31 1724-27 2110-11 278-10. 19. 24-25. 51a-53. 62-66 2811-15 all look very much like Palestinian traditions. Judgment upon their date and value must be almost wholly subjective, but to the present writer they seem to be early in date, or, to say the least, there seem to be no cogent reasons for placing them late. For 1724-27 as written before the fall of Jerusalem, see Wellhausen, in loc. Whether they came to the editor in written form, or whether he had himself collected them in Palestine, it is impossible to conjecture. Some little evidence might be adduced to show that 118-417 came from a special source which in 3-417 overlapped with Mk 11-15. E.g.:

(a) The editor of the Gospel shows a distinct tendency to remove historic presents from a source before him (p. xx). In Mk. there are 151 such tenses. Of these, 72 are cases of Néyel or déyovou. Of the remaining 79 the editor of the first Gospel omits or alters 69, retaining only 10. Yet in 3–427 there are 7 such tenses, viz. 31. 18. 15 45.8 (2). 11, This would be explicable if the editor were following a source of which the use of the historic present was a marked feature.

*Cf. palvetai, 213 (but B has épávn) and 219

« PreviousContinue »