« ÎnapoiContinuați »
infancy narratives and the almost wholly independent additions to Mark's account in the passion and resurrection history.
6. Thus the sources of Matthew are the Matthaean Logia, Mark, the Galilean document, and the Perean document, besides certain minor sources. In his employment of these sources the first evangelist gave the chief place to Mark and the Matthaean Logia, employing the Galilean document for illustrative purposes, and the Perean document for the enrichment of the discourses the basis of which was found in the Logia or in Mark.
7. Luke has the same chief sources as Matthew, with the exception of the Matthaean Logia. In his use of them he made Mark the basis, interpolated material from the Galilean document, omitting Mark's similar narratives when they seemed to him less full and vivid; added the Perean document in two solid sections, making the junction with Mark in such way that the arrival at Jericho indicated in this document should synchronize with that recorded by Mark.
Each of the two later evangelists pursued a consistent and easily intelligible method in the use of the sources, but each his own method.
$2. THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS The documents restored by Professor Burton are set forth on separate sheets accompanying this work, except that of the Gospel of Mark only so much is shown as is needed for illustrative purposes, namely, Mark 1:1–6:44. Such departures, mostly minor, as are made there from the precise documentary limits set by Professor Burton will be dealt with in the course of subsequent discussions. In particular, it may be said here that certain sayings assigned to document M by Professor Burton, brief sayings of an isolated character, are not shown in document M, because they are regarded by the present writer as better placed in the minor sources peculiar to Matthew.'
The general character of the Gospel of Mark is well known. An examination of the portion shown in the accompanying exhibit will reveal that within that portion the chronological indications are scanty; and that the movements of Jesus, apart from general statements as to tours, are not more precisely defined geographically than by the simple assertion of his presence upon, or on either side of, the Sea of Galilee. The single mention of a place away from the sea is in the vague term, “his own country.” Used as a source, this portion of Mark imposed no restrictions upon an editor of a gospel because of its chronological or geographical precision.
1 For a discussion of these omitted sayings as a body, see pp. 361–72.
It will be agreed that document G shows “a marked uniformity in general literary character; that the narratives are all vividly told, surpassing in this respect even the vivid narratives of Mark; and that in literary style it reaches the high-water mark of the gospel material.” Like Mark in the Galilean period, its chronological data are few and simple; and, as to place, it might appropriately be called the Capernaum document, knowing Nazareth, but no other city by name except Nain. As a source, it also offered freedom for editorial rearrangement, if such were at any point the wish of its user in gospel construction.
Within the document M there are neither chronological nor geographical data, except the assertion that the Sermon was spoken on the Mount. The material is discourse, the narrative element forming no part of this collection. Therefore, an editor might distribute it as he wished, having regard only for the fact that two large bodies of the material stood as formal and well-articulated addresses. But though the several vivid parables which form the second group, M 9815-25, all had a similar theme, the kingdom of heaven, they permitted, by their literary character as separate units, distribution to such various points within narrative material as might be deemed appropriate by an editor.
While the document P is a most notable combination of narrative and discourse, it shows a surprisingly small number of clear references to time and place, especially when its length is considered. From first to last it knows the name of only a single town through which Jesus passed, Jericho, P 863. It does not locate the home of Mary and Martha more definitely than as in “a certain village,” P $11. “A certain place," "a certain village,” are its repeated phraseology, P8812, 58. Similar is its use of “a certain lawyer, or man, or woman,” P882, 10, 16), 23. Events are placed “as they went in the way,” P $82, 11; and discourses long or short are introduced by the formula, “And he said unto his disciples,” P $824, 47, 54, 60. Now and then the address is directed to the multitudes, P 8833, 44. This paucity of geographical indication Luke seems to have endeavored to relieve by inserting at certain intervals some broad suggestions of a general progress southward toward Jerusalem. Thus in P&I the opening assertion that “he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” seems to be an introduction to the whole document, framed by Luke
himself. The same thought appears again in P $83, 38, 57, 64C. In P 857 the addition of “through the midst of Samaria and Galilee" seems to have been suggested as appropriate at this point by the definite reference in P 858 to one of the lepers as a Samaritan. It may be reasonable to assume that document P as used by Matthew was devoid of even these very vague hints of progress southward, and that the incident in P 363 was the only one related definitely to a place by name. As for time hints, they are infrequent, and not strong enough to control editorial adjustment of document to document.
Another of the marked characteristics of the P document is the very evident looseness of connection between certain of its parts, especially of sayings to sayings. This may be seen by an endeavor to find relationship in thought between P $817, 21, 22, 34, 37, 45, 50, :52, 56 and the sections which precede or follow each of these. To this general informality of structure there is to be added the presence of indications that, at some points, junction has been effected on the basis of a misunderstanding of content. Such seems to be the case, for example, in the relation established between P $$19, 20, where the thought in the first verse of P $20 has been taken as if opposed to “hypocrisy,” a supposition seen to be without support when the thought of P $20 as a whole is grasped.
In view of the general character of document P, as exhibited in these striking particulars, it would seem that it is open to editorial choice, in using it as a source, either to use it as a whole or to distribute its material at various points within another document which has clearer hints of geographical and chronological movement. Especially is this true of the sayings of Jesus contained in this document.
From this cursory examination of the nature of the several documents from which Matthew and Luke wrought their gospels, it may be concluded that, even working as editors with the utmost of reasonable reverence for their sources, our first and third evangelists were free, so far as concerned the inner necessities of the documents, either to use the documents as a whole or to redistribute them in whole or in part.
83. THE LITERARY PRINCIPLES OF LUKE AND OF MATTHEW
There may be stated summarily at this point the leading principles actually employed by these authors as determined by a study of the
works they have produced, it being left to subsequent examination of the application of these principles to justify the inference that they were the controlling factors in the editorial task.
The literary principles of Luke seem to have been:
Principle 1.—To disturb the form and the order of his several documents only in such degree as was necessary in order to effect a satisfactory individual junction, or the union of them into a consistent whole.
Principle 2.—To omit in the use of document MK such narratives or sayings as seemed to be duplicates of narratives or sayings in his other documents, favoring especially the fuller and more vivid narratives of document G.
Principle 3.—To supply minor statements of movement from event to event, or of progress within a general period.
The application by Luke of these principles to his documents may now be followed step by step:
Documents MK and G both regarded the gospel history as begin- y ning with the public activity of John the Baptist. Whether in Luke 3:1-6 (G GIA) we have preserved for us exactly the original form of the opening paragraph of document G may not be affirmed with certainty. That document G had some such introductory paragraph is clear from the content of those verses which Matthew and Luke use first in common from G, G §¡B.Having introduced thus the ministry of John, Luke used document G GiB-F. Of this material, G giD stood also in document MK $1H.3 But MK SIH was not without its influence, for apparently from it there was drawn by Luke (and Matthew) the phrase, “the Holy Ghost,” the document MK
i The necessity for certain brief arguments about the limits of the documents arises from the differences of opinion between the present writer and Professor Burton as to the precise content of the documents. Perhaps for simplicity of statement, Professor Burton seems to have preferred, for the most part, not to credit two documents with similar material, except when the external evidence compelled it. Conflict of opinion affects only a few, minor passages.
2 That some G f1A has influenced both Matthew and Luke seems indicated by their phrase, “the region round about Jordan,” which is not derivable from document MK.
3 That it stood in both documents is evidenced by the similar order of its parts in Luke 3:16 = Matt. 3:11, an order called for by the presence of G 81C with its question, toward the end, directed to John.
parallel to the "fire" of document G. Since Luke uses here G&IF, the account of the same fact which appears later in MK 832C-E is omitted (Principle 2), only MK 832AB being used at that point, Luke 9:7–9. It may not be affirmed with assurance that Luke found his 3:21, 22 as $2 of document G rather than as $2 of document MK, but, in view of the presence of document G 84B-E in both Matthew and Luke, some such preceding section as G 82 must be credited to document G.3
Luke's respect for the order of his documents, especially for his document G, is nowhere more strikingly shown than in his retention of G 83 at the point where that document seems to have given it to him. It would have been entirely natural for him to have transferred document G S3 to some point in the infancy section, rather than leave it here, where it interrupts the most natural movement from G $2 to G 84. Following this use of document G 83, Luke used G $4, being uninfluenced by document MK S3B, which, however, Matthew used as Matt. 4:116.4 Passing from the temptation of Jesus, Luke used successively from document G its next three sections, G 885–7. Having used here the document G account of the visit of Jesus to Nazareth, he omits later the account in document MK 829 (Principle 2). For document G 85 the document MK equivalent is MK $4. Document MK now presents in 85 an account of the Call of the Four, but the call, as there described, is abrupt and without preparatory conditions. Apparently for that reason, Luke prefers to use the more circumstantial and natural narrative supplied to him by document G 88. But that section of document G presupposes the presence of a great multitude of followers. Document MK 89 supplies the conditions for the gathering of such a multitude. Document G 87 is followed, therefore,s in Luke by document MK $86-9, after which
See pp. 20, 21.
? That Luke 3:19, 20 is not the product of the condensation and transference of document MK $32C-F seems assured from the fact that if it be such it is the single instance of such procedure in the whole work of Luke.
3 Perhaps support for this conclusion is found in the use of "the heavens were opened” by Matthew and Luke as against “rent asunder" by Mark.
4 That Luke 4:1, 2a, or its equivalent, stood as G $4A seems necessitated by G $4B-E, though the thoughts of G $4A may be found as MK $3A.
5 It is not assumed that the editorial motives of the evangelists may be determined with certainty. But there is not excluded the endeavor to assign a reasonable and sufficient motive.