Imagini ale paginilor
[ocr errors]



$1. Sources and Documents
$2. The Extent and Nature of the Documents
83. The Literary Principles of Luke and of Matthew
84. Document compared with Document
$5. Results of Comparison of Document with Document
$6. Gospel compared with Document
$7. Results of Comparison of Gospel with Document

[ocr errors]



$1. SOURCES AND DOCUMENTS The sources for the proposed study of the teaching of Jesus about the future are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These sources seem to bear literary relations to one another. Many attempts have been made to solve the problem presented in these apparent relations. If these sources stand to one another in literary dependence of any degree, a study of their content cannot be made with entire disregard of the implications of such a dependence. Conclusions may not be drawn on the basis of three independent witnesses to the teaching of Jesus, if, as matter of fact, any one of them is depend- * ent upon any other for certain portions of his material. Therefore, it is imperative, as preliminary to any study, that there be a definition of attitude toward the Synoptic Problem.

It is believed that this problem has been solved, in its main features, by Professor Ernest DeWitt Burton in his monograph, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem. The results reached are stated in these terms:

The conclusions to which our whole study has led may then be summarized as follows:

1. Our Mark, or a document in large part identical with it, was employed as a source of both our First and Third Gospels.

2. Matthew and Luke also possessed in common a document which contained substantially the material standing in Luke 3:7-15, 17, 18; 4:2b-13 (14, 15), 1630; 5:1-11; 6:20-49; 7:1–8:3; herein referred to as the Galilean document (G).

3. Matthew and Luke also had a document in whole or in part identical with Luke 9:51–18:14 and 19:1-28, which, however, they used in very different ways; herein referred to as the Perean document (P).

4. Matthew also had a document not employed by Luke, chiefly or wholly made up of discourse material. This is presumably the Logia of Matthew spoken of by Papias (M).

5. Additional minor sources there must also have been, the first and third evangelists having, in the main, different ones, as is illustrated in the case of the

· Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1904.


« ÎnapoiContinuați »