« PreviousContinue »
The righteousness to be aimed at by them was to be based on right motive rather than observance of rules, upon the spirit rather than the letter of the law (521-48 151-20).
All the disciples were brethren, having one Father, God, and one Master and teacher, Christ (238-10). As such they constituted the ecclesia (1817), and possessed common authority to legislate for the Church's needs (1818). Wherever two or three met for prayer, Christ would be with them (1819). (Cf. 2820.)
As in the Jewish Church so in the Christian, there would be prophets (1041 2334), wise men (2334), and scribes (1352 2394).
But from among the disciples twelve in particular were commissioned to preach and to baptize (105 2819). Amongst these Peter was pre-eminent (cf. 102 mpôros) It was he to whom first was revealed the true nature of the Christ which was to be the foundation rock of the Church (1617). He was to have administrative and legislative power within the kingdom (1618-19). But in that kingdom all twelve would sit on thrones, judging the twelv tribes of Israel (1928).
E. JEWISH CHRISTIAN CHARACTER OF THE LOGIA.
The probability that these sayings were collected and preserved by the early Church in Palestine is suggested by the following considerations :
(a) The title and conception of the kingdom of the heavens as found in these sayings is Jewish in character. See above.
(6) The interest shown in S. Peter, and the prominent position attributed to him, points in the same direction.
(c) The mission of the Messiah and of His Apostles is limited to the Jewish nation. Cf. 1524 "I was not sent save to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel." 106 “Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 1023 “Ye shall not exhaust the cities of Israel till the Son
of Man come." 1928 “Ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel." 70 See note. (811. 12, though in its present position it seems to express a forecast of the admission of Gentiles into the kingdom, would not necessarily convey this meaning to a Jewish Christian society. Nor need the parables 21 28-32. 33-46 221-14 have seemed to such a community to bear this meaning.)
The editor of the Gospel has preserved these sayings in spite of the fact that he himself clearly believed that the good news of the kingdom was intended for Gentiles. For he inserts 85-13, adding to it from the Logia vv.11. 12, the result being that the admission of Gentiles is clearly alluded to. And the three parables 2128-2 214 in their present position in the Gospel seem to suggest the same lesson. Compare also his insertion of 2531-46, possibly a Christian homily, of 2414 from Mk.; and of 2816-20, especially v.19, which is probably also derived from Mk.'s lost ending.
There is, however, nothing in these passages as recorded by Mt. which takes us outside the Jewish Christian point of view of the early Church at Jerusalem as described in Ac 1-15. In that Church reluctance to the admission of the Gentiles into the Church was at length so far worn down, that it was admitted that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles. But the standpoint adopted was somewhat similar to that of the canonical prophets, who advocated the view that the Jewish religion was destined to attract to itself all nations, but who never seem to have doubted that the result would be the submission of the Gentiles to the privileges of Judaism rather than the complete supersession of Judaism by a new religion. In the same way there is nothing in the first Gospel which is not consistent with a conception of Christianity as a purified Judaism which was destined to absorb within itself disciples (proselytes) from all nations.
Of course, Christ's sayings contain within themselves a wider and freer spirit than this, but the Jewish Christian Church of Palestine may well have failed to see the ultimate goal of universalism towards which this teaching inevitably tended.
(d) The insistence on the permanent validity of the Mosaic
Cf. 517-20 1816 233. 23 taūra dè čdel toiñoal. Cf. 712b, and especially the law of divorce for unchastity, 532.
This has so far influenced the editor, that he inserts a similar saying into Mk.'s narrative 102-12 = Mt 193-10, where it is certainly out of place. See notes on Mt 19. Cf. also the insertion of the words unde oaßßátw in 2420, the omission of Mk 227a, and the emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecy.
(e) The Jewish phraseology of the sayings.
η βασιλεία των ουρανών.
πατήρ υμών, ημών, σου, αυτών, on which see above. And
518 ιώτα έν ή μία κεραία.
1325 ζιζάνια. .
1928 παλιγγενεσία-θρόνου δόξης. . Cf. also the word-play in Naśwpasos, 223, and in Beelsebota, 1224 ) Anti-Pharisaic polemic:
Of course, this anti-Pharisaic attitude is observable also in a less degree in the editor's other source, viz. the second Gospel, where the Pharisees are represented as finding fault with Christ's teaching, 29, or conduct, 216 32. 22, or with the conduct of His disciples, 218. 24 75. They combine against Him with the Herodians, 30 1213. They ask Him for a sign, 811, and question Him about divorce, 10% (but see note on 19%). They question Him about His right to teach, 1127. Christ bids His disciples beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, 815, and beware of the scribes, 1238. They plot to kill Him, 14? The Pharisees are mentioned by name in nine of the above cases, viz. 216. 18. 24 36 75 811. 15 102 1213. In the others, viz. 26 322 14', it is the scribes who are mentioned, and it is scribes who with other members of the Sanhedrin effect the arrest of Christ, 1445, and His condemnation, 1468 151
But the editor of the first Gospel extends the anti-Pharisaism of his sources. He not only borrows the polemical sayings from the Logia and the polemical incidents from S. Mark, but so arranges and adds to them as to give a very dark picture of the Pharisees. To them and to the Sadducees the Baptist spoke his words of denunciation and warning, 37-12. Against their teaching was directed a considerable section of the Sermon on the Mount, 520 61-18. His teaching was, says S. Mark, “not as the scribes,” not, adds S. Matthew, as the scribes and Pharisees. The editor also alters Mk.’s οι γραμματείς των Φαρισαίων (216) into oι Φαρισαίοι, and Mk.'s oi ypappareis (322) into oi Papioaloi (1224, cf. 934). The
same change occurs in Mk 1235 = Mt 2241, and in Mk 1228 Mt 2234, See also critical note on 193.
Mk.'s short denunciation of the teaching of the scribes, 1237b-40, is lengthened into a long and severe denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, ch. 23. The parable, Mk 121-12, is there, as in Mt 2 123-44, addressed to the chief priests and elders; but in Mt 2145 it is the chief priests and the Pharisees who recognise that it was aimed against them. Indeed, the whole section, 2123–2 246, seems to be directed against the Pharisees; cf. 2145 2215. 34. 41. This polemical motive probably explains the fact that in 2181. 41 2220 the opponents are made to utter their own condemnation (λέγουσιν). The whole section seems to develop towards the terrific condemnation of ch. 23. Lastly, in 2762 it is the chief priests and the Pharisees who effect the sealing of the tomb and the placing of the guard before it. It is perhaps due to the same anti-Jewish motive that we owe the insertion of the incident of Pilate's handwashing (2724-25)
1. Papias apud Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39:
Ματθαίος μέν ούν Εβραίδι διαλέκτω τα λόγια συνεγράψατο “Ηρμήνευσε δ' αυτά ως ήν δυνατός 2 έκαστος.
2. Irenæus, iii. 1. I apud Eusebius, H. E. v. 8. 2:
ο μεν δή Ματθαίος εν τοις Εβραίους τη ιδία αυτών διαλέκτω και γραφήν εξήνεγκεν Ευαγγελίου, του Πέτρου και του Παύλου έν Ρώμη ευαγγελιζομένων και θεμελιoύντων την εκκλησίαν..
3. Origen apud Eusebius, H. E. vi. 25:
ότι πρώτον μεν γέγραπται το κατά τον ποτέ τελώνην, ύστερον δε απόστολον Ιησού Χριστού Ματθαίον, εκδεδωκότα αυτό τους από Ιουδαϊσμού πιστεύσασι, γράμμασιν Εβραϊκούς συντεταγμένον.
4. Eusebius, H. E. iii. 24. 6:
Ματθαίος μεν γαρ πρότερον Εβραίους κηρύξας, ως ήμελλεν και έφ ετέρους ιέναι, πατρίω γλώττη γραφή παραδούς το κατ' αυτόν Ευαγγελίον, το λείπον τη αυτού παρουσία τούτοις άφ' ών έστέλλετο, διά της γραφής ανεπλήρου.
Eusebius, Η. Ε. ν. 10. 3: ο Πάνταινος και εις Ινδούς ελθείν λέγεται, ένθα λόγος ευρείν αυτόν προφθάσαν την αυτου παρουσίαν το κατά Ματθαίον ευαγγελίον παρά τισιν αυτόθι τον Χριστόν επεγνωκόσιν, οίς Βαρθολομαίον των αποστόλων ένα κηρύξαι αυτούς τε Εβραίων γράμμασι την του Ματθαίου καταλείψει γραφήν, ήν και σώζεσθαι εις τον δηλούμενον χρόνον.
If we interpret tá lóyia in No. 1 as equivalent to "the Gospel,” i.e. “the Gospel which bears his name,” we seem to have a uniform second century tradition (Papias, Irenæus) 1υ... συνετάξατο.
2 υ... ήδύνατο.
repeated in the third (Origen) and in the fourth (Eusebius), to the effect that the first Gospel was written by Matthew, the toll gatherer and Apostle, in Hebrew. The necessary inference must be that our canonical Gospel is a translation of the original Apostolic work.
This tradition (and inference) is, however, directly contradicted by the testimony of the first Gospel itself, for that work clearly shows itself to be a compilation by someone who has interwoven material from another source or other sources into the framework of the second Gospel. This renders it difficult to suppose that the book in its present form is the work of the Apostle Matthew. It is indeed not impossible, but it is very improbable, that an Apostle should rely upon the work of another for the entire framework of his narrative. If he did so, he certainly composed his work in Greek, not in Hebrew, for the first Gospel has largely embodied the Greek phraseology of the second Gospel. It is inconceivable that the compiler should have rendered Mk.'s Greek into Hebrew, and that this should have afterwards been retranslated into Greek so closely resembling its Marcan original.
It would therefore seem that if the five passages quoted above represent a uniform tradition, the only course open to us is to assert that tradition has here gone astray. Our first Gospel was not originally written in Hebrew, nor is it likely that in its present form it is the work of an Apostle. But such a direct negative only forces us to examine more closely the facts at issue. The main points are these :
(1) From the end of the second century it has been believed that our first Gospel was the work of the Apostle Matthew, who wrote it in “Hebrew." How did it come to bear his name?
(2) According to the tradition represented by Papias, Matthew composed tà dóyia in “Hebrew."
In the first place, it is clear that whilst the description à lóyia need not necessarily exclude narrative material, it is admirably qualified to describe a book containing sayings, discourses, and parables. If there is corroborative evidence, we may reasonably suppose that S. Matthew's Hebrew work was of this description.
Secondly, our first Gospel contains some 411 verses, being about two-fifths of the whole book, which consists of sayings, some of them in small groups, others forming part of long discourses or of parables. These sayings are in large part characterised by common features. See above, p. liv f.
Now, if we assume that the compiler of the first Gospel drew these sayings from the Apostolic work or from a Greek translation of it, we have at once an explanation of the following facts :