Imagini ale paginilor

tion of Matt. 10:17-42 will reveal that it contains all of this material; the order is as follows: Document MK 13:9-13=P $22+document G $14B + document P $20=MK 8:38+document P$32+ P $44B'=MK 8:34, 35+document MK 9:37=P $6+document MK 9:41. It will be observed that in Matt. 10:23 there is a definition of the limits of the mission which corresponds in conception to that in Matt. 10:5,6.” That Matthew did actually draw from the documents after the manner here set forth can be tested in the case of documents G and MK; in the former, by observing how he omitted G $14B in his use of that section in the construction of the Sermon on the Mount, because not germane to the subject, but uses it here; in the case of document MK, by studying the omissions and reconstructions of Matthew when writing parallels to his document MK at MK 13:9-13=Matt. 24:9-13; MK 9:37-42=Matt. 18:5,6. Apparently because Matthew had so enlarged the scope of the instructions to the disciples about their mission, the fact of an actual mission at that time in the history, MK 831B, is lost sight of by the evangelist, and in its place there stands a statement of activity on the part of Jesus himself, Matt. 11:1. By this statement, however, a fitting introduction is made to that which is now supplied by document G $20. In the use of G $20, the portion B is dropped as being implied in Matt. 11:1, and D as being narrative interrupting the course of the thought of Jesus. In the place of portion D there is supplied from P 850 the sole reference of document P to John the Baptist, supplemented by the interpretation of John suggested by document MK 9:13.

Document P has been used to the end of $4; P $6 also has been taken up. Since Matthew has not used his material so as to record an actual tour of the disciples, P 87 is not usable in his narrative. The next two sections of unused but usable material in document P are therefore P $85, 8; these are made by Matthew to follow immediately after G $20, a suitable introduction being supplied by Matt. II: 20.3

A review of Matthew's use of document MK to the present will show that there has been taken up from it all but the following sections:

1 In his use of P 844B, there is an illustration of Matthew's Principle 9.
2 On the source of Matt. 10:16b, 23, 256, 41, see pp. 88-92 and 361-72.'
3 On the source of Matt. 11:28-30, see pp. 361–72.

MK 8814–16, 18–24, 29, 32, 33. These sections Matthew now places consecutively in his narrative in the precise order in which they stand in document MK; and, what is quite as striking, he does not depart again from the order of MK to the end of that document, except in making the cursing and the withering of the fig tree to happen on the same morning, Matt. 21:18–22 as against MK 11:12-14; 20–25. That is to say, Matthew under the influence of documents G and P, but especially the narrative document G, removes from his document MK and rearranges certain sections; but when he has passed beyond the limits of the influence of document G, he sets down what remains of document MK in the precise order of that document, thus bringing into direct sequence those parts separated by the gaps caused by his excerpts, for example, MK S$24, 29. But in his further use of document MK, Matthew shows constantly the influence of his remaining documents, P and M. Thus in the midst of MK $15 there may be detected the influence of the narrative in P$43A." His unwillingness to attribute anger to Jesus (Principle 11) accounts for his omission of words to that effect which appear in MK $15. When he undertakes to use MK $16 he is faced again by the assertion of demoniacal confession of Jesus, MK $16C, and in accordance with his fixed Principle 10 he eliminates that part of the record, putting in the place of it a lengthy quotation from the Old Testament (Principle 8) which attributes a quite different motive for the charge that Jesus be not made known.

The next unused section was MK $18, and to this MK narrative Matthew held a parallel in P $16. He therefore applied Principle 2, and formed a union of documents MK and P in the following order: P$16A + MK $18B=P $16B +P$16D = MK $18C +P$16F + MK $18 D=P $16 G+P $16H+MK 918E+P $21°+P$16C+P $16K3 +P ŞIÓN+P 16M+P $161. Because MK $16 had supplied the multitude required by MK $18A, the latter falls out of Matthew's narrative. The choice of MK $18D as against P $16G is explainable by the obscurity of the latter. The bringing-in of the only other saying

1 On the source of Matt. 12:5–7, see pp. 361–72.

On the source of Matt. 12:33-37, see pp. 218–21.

3 Matt. 12:40 seems to be the Matthaean substitute for P $16L, written in the light of history.

upon this subject from P 821 is very instructive as to the method of Matthew (Principle 3). Two applications of Principle 7 may be seen by comparing P $16BC with Matt. 12:24, 38. The editorial additions in Matt. 12:23a, 456 are suggestive of some Matthaean tendencies. If Matthew omitted P $16J because he intended to follow immediately with MK $19, that tends to confirm the suggestion previously made that P $16J is the document P account of the same incident as is related by document MK in MK $19. The discourse which now follows in document MK, MK 8820-24, is supplemented by parables drawn from documents P and M, the order being apparently as follows: MK 820A+MK $21C+MK 820B +0.T. quotation (Principle 8) +P $9+MK $20E+M $15A+MK $23=P $37A+P $37B+MK 824A +O.T. quotation (Principle 8) +MK 824B, adapted so as to prepare for M $15B+M $$16-19.' The omission of the parable in MK $22 may have been due, as was suggested in the case of the same Lukan omission, to its similarity to that of the Sower, supplemented in Matthew's case by the likeness of the parable taken from M $15.

Document MK S$25-28, 30, 31 having been already used, Matthew next takes MK $29, and follows it immediately by MK 832. In his use of the latter, Principle 5 is applied, to the shortening of the narrative. When Matthew passed from MK $32 to MK 833 it was not possible for him to use MK $33A, because he had not recorded the actual tour of the disciples which MK $33A implies, namely, that in MK $31B. But he uses the rest of MK $33, omitting only portion C which he had employed as a fit setting for the commissioning of the disciples, Matt. 9:36.

Enough of the Gospel of Matthew has been considered for an adequate exhibit of his principles and method in the use of his documents. His method having been set forth, such of his material as is concerned with the teaching of Jesus about the future will be examined subsequently in connection with the special theme of which each part of it treats. It would seem that the conclusion of Professor Burton to the effect that “each of the two later evangelists pursued a

1 The discourse is discussed as a whole on pp. 315-22, at which point the reasons for the Matthaean procedure are considered, and the few minor verbal departures from documents are reviewed.

consistent and easily intelligible method in the use of the sources, but each his own method” is supported by an examination of the facts.

84. DOCUMENT COMPARED WITH DOCUMENT It is highly instructive and will yield important results for use in a constructive exhibit of the teaching of Jesus about the future to make a careful study of such material as is common to two or more of the documents from which our gospels have come. Though not all of the common material bears upon the theme of the present work, it is profitable to review it all, its narrow limits making a complete study possible without undue digression. To know what differences in form or in substance are to be observed in reports of sayings of Jesus which have come down to us through different lines of tradition is of the very first order of importance. 1. Document G compared with Other Documents




DOCUMENT MK $1 Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance : and think not to say within yourselves. We have Abraham to father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And even now is the axe laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize down and unloose. I baptized you with water; you with [[ the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. fan is in his hand, and he will throughly cleanse his threshing-foor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.

Have we here two different and fundamentally opposed conceptions of the prospective work of the Christ? That document G did not contain “the Holy Ghost and,” but that this phrase was taken by Matthew and Luke from document MK, seems probable. It is the only element which document MK could contribute to the enrichment of document G, and is wholly foreign to the fundamental thought of G$1. Document Gţi deals throughout with a baptism of fire. Shall it be said that G reports the real forecast of John while MK sets forth that outcome which history actually gave? Which conception is more in accord with the expectations current in the days of Jesus ?


to the poor:

Which conception does subsequent history show to have been that of John the Baptist? If that of document MK, why did John doubt whether Jesus was the Christ when Jesus was actually fulfilling the programme of MK $1? But this doubt of John is recorded by document G only, G $20. Has it failed to find a place in MK because it would be inconsistent with the expectation of John recorded in MK $1? Does document G in its whole representation of the message and attitude toward Jesus of John take us nearer to the facts of the history?


DOCUMENT MK $4 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit Now after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee: and a fame went out concerning him into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and say: through all the region round about. And he ing, The time is fulfilled, and ihe kingdom of God taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
Because he anointed me to preach good tidings
He hath sent me to proclaim release to the cap-

And recovering of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty them that are bruised,
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he closed the book, and gave it back to the at-
tendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the
synagogue were fastened on him. And he began
to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been
fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and
wondered at the words of grace which proceeded
out of his mouth.

By which method and with which message did Jesus begin his public activity in Galilee? Is not the message in document G the assertion of a sense of prophetic vocation, while that in document MK is the announcement of an impending crisis? Does the subsequent detailed record of document MK support the belief that Jesus began his ministry with such an announcement as is credited in MK $4? What was the attitude of Jesus toward any approach to a premature messianic interpretation of himself? Or is MK to be regarded not as a report of words actually spoken by Jesus but as a suńmary of the evangelical conception of the content of his early messages ? And if the latter, is it in accord with the development of events as these are reported subsequently, even in document MK ? Which of the two courses is more in keeping with the general spirit and method of Jesus ? Which form of statement more properly

« ÎnapoiContinuați »