Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

2514-30 2581-461 * 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 main 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 'Eẞpaidi διαλέκτῳ ; Irenæus, τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν (οἱ Εβραίοι) διαλέκτῳ ; Eusebius, πατρίῳ γλώττη ; and Origen speaks of the Gospel as γράμμασιν Εβραϊκοῖς 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 118-25 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 31-417 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 λéye or λéyovσw. Of the remaining 79 the editor of the first Gospel omits or alters 69, retaining only 10. Yet in 31-417 there are 7 such tenses,1 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.

[blocks in formation]

(b) There are some words and phrases which occur only or chiefly in this part of the Gospel; e.g.:

λάθρα, 119 27.

[blocks in formation]

κατ ̓ ὄναρ, 120 212. 13. 19. 22.

Besides only 2719.

Besides from Mk 171 2017 2637.

παραλαμβάνειν, 8 times.

Elsewhere, 1245 1816 2440. 41 2727.

åvaɣwpeîv, 5 times. Elsewhere, 924 1215 1418 1521 175. KaTOLKELV, twice. Elsewhere, 1225 2321.

The construction ἀναχωρησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἰδού, 120 21. 18. 19. Elsewhere, 932 2811

But this evidence is insufficient to prove the existence of a special written source for this part of the Gospel; and the fact that the Old Testament quotations in 118-2 and in 279.10 have probably been introduced by the editor into originally independent narratives, rather suggests that all the narratives above mentioned came to the editor as independent traditions, and not from a document into which they had been collected. 2652-54 and 314-15 may belong to the same cycle of traditions. 2616-20 is probably based on the lost ending of Mk. I have thought it advisable not to confuse these narratives peculiar to Mt. with the few narrative sections (see p. xliii) common to Mt. and Lk. The former are marked in the commentary by P (= Palestinian), the latter by X (unknown source).

The quotations in 122-23 25. 6. 15. 17-18. 23 414-16 817 1217-21 1385 214-5 279 present peculiar difficulties.

(1) Five of them, viz. 414-16 817 1217-21 1385 214-5, seem to have been inserted into or appended to a section of Mk. by the editor.

(2) Six of them, viz. 123 26. 15. 17-18. 28 279, might seem to be an integral part of the narrative in which they stand.

(3) One of them, 223, cannot be verified.

(4) All of them are introduced by a striking formula:

122 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος.

20 οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται διὰ τοῦ προφήτου.

215 ἵνα πληρωθῇ, κ.τ.λ.

217 τότε επληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἱερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος.

223 ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.

414 ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος.

817 ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος. 1217 The same.

1335 The same, with the omission of 'Hoatov.

214 τοῦτο δὲ γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος.

278 τότε επληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἱερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος. (5) 123 agrees in the main with the LXX; 26 seems to be an independent rendering of the Hebrew; 215 is also a rendering of the Hebrew; 218 is apparently quoted from the LXX, with reminiscence of the Hebrew in тà Téκva avrŷs; 223 cannot be traced; 415-16 is from a Greek Vs, but not from the LXX (see note, in loc.); 817 is an independent translation from the Hebrew ; 1217-21 is from the Hebrew, with reminiscence of the LXX in the last clause, or more probably from a current Greek version, which is already implied in Mk 11; 1385 seems to be an independent translation from the Hebrew, with reminiscence of the LXX in the first clause; 215 agrees partly with the Hebrew, partly with the LXX; 27o appears to be a free translation, with reminiscence of the LXX. Further, 26 seems to come in the main from Mic 514, with assimilation of the last clause to 2 S 52; 1218 from Is 4214, with assimilation of the last clause to Hab 14 (Heb.); Mt. 215 is a conflation of Is 6211 and Zec 99; 279-10 comes from Zec 1113, but has probably been influenced by Jer 326-9.

With these quotations might be compared 1110, which occurs also in Mk 12, and which therefore seems to have been current in Christian circles in a form slightly differing from the LXX. Here, too, there seems to have been a slight assimilation to Ex 2320.

It will be seen that there is a good deal of agreement with the Hebrew against the LXX. This makes it very unlikely that these quotations are due to the editor. For (a) in the quotations borrowed by him from Mk. the editor shows a tendency to assimilate the language more closely to the LXX. The single exception of change in favour of the Hebrew is Mk 1280 Mt 2287. For such assimilation, see Mt 1315 kai láσopaι avтous for Mk.'s καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς; Mt 158 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος for Mk.'ς οὗτος ὁ λαός; Με 19s adds καὶ (προσ)κολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικί αὐτοῦ; Mt 2232 adds εἰμί ; Mt 26 adds τῆς ποίμνης. So LXX A. Mt 274 ἵνα τί for εἰς τί.

=

(b) In nine quotations not borrowed from Mk., viz. 44. 7. 10 521. 21. 27. 38. 48a 918 = 127 2116, there is a general agreement with the LXX, except in kaì où, 913127, which agrees with Heb. and • LXX AQ against LXX B.

It seems, therefore, probable that the eleven quotations introduced by a formula, and also 1110, were already current when the editor compiled his work in a Greek form. They may come from a collection of Old Testament passages regarded as prophecies of events in the life of the Messiah. In this connection 228 is very important, because it must have originated in Jewish Christian, i.e. probably in Palestinian, circles.

« PreviousContinue »