drawn from a common written source unless it were a Mt 811-12 85-18 Not from a common source, but either from oral tradition or from independent written sources. note on Mt 85-18. See Not from a common written source, but from oral tradition or from different written sources. Or Lk. has been influenced by Mt. See the commentary. 112.8 I14-11 The Baptist. II 12. 13 II16-19 II 21-23a I 124 II 25-27 718-21. 722-28 1616 731-35 1013-15 1012. 1021. 22 Not from a common written source, but from independent similarity here may be accidental. See note on. 1222.23 From independent written sources. See note on Mt 1222. Mt 1316. 17 Blessed are your eyes. From independent sources. Lk 1023. 24. From a common written source. 13.20.21 Or Luke has been Lost sheep. Independent versions of the parable. See the commentary. 1767 1547.. 1821. 22 178. Independent written sources. 21821 influenced by Matthew. See note on Mt 1815. Or Luke may have been Independent. 729. 30. 21441 20181 Not from a common written source. See note on Mt 231. Independent versions of the parable. It will be seen that the material tabulated above falls into two groups. A. A few narrative sections: B. Sayings of Christ. Some of these are isolated sayings or small groups of sayings which occur in different contexts in the two Gospels; e.g.: * *Mt 518 = Lk 1484. 525-26 1257-59 68 1618 cf. 69-18 1230 619-21 1114. 622-23 1283-84 624 II 34-35 625-84 1618 77-11 1222-31 718-14 119-13 722-23 1324 811-12 1326-27 1024-25 1328-30 I026-83 640. 1034-36 122-9 1037-38 1251-53 1039 1426-27 1211 1783 145. 1023-24 21321 639. 729. 301 20181 t 2337-39 2443-51 2514-30 In the passages marked there is, besides the difference of setting, considerable verbal variation. Note, however, in Mt 69-13 = Lk 1114 the remarkable agreement in movσios. In the passages marked there is very close verbal agreement, with occasional variation. So far as these passages go, the divergence in setting, combined with the differences of language, are adverse to the theory of a common Greek source, unless that were a collection of detached sayings or groups of sayings. The few passages marked † might be explained by the view that Luke was acquainted with Matthew, and was sometimes influenced by his language, or by the view that the different sources used by the two Evangelists contained these sections, the agreement in language being due to derivation from a document lying behind the sources of our two Gospels. Other passages, however, present more difficulty, since the agreement is greater in extent; e.g. : The Sermon on the Mount, (2) The charge to the Twelve, Mt 5-7 = Lk 6. = II. 24 = 17. In the Sermon on the Mount there is very substantial agreement combined with, as, e.g., in the Beatitudes, remarkable divergence. The charge to the Twelve is remarkable, because Mt. has expanded and enlarged Mk.'s short charge. Lk. in the parallel to Mt. borrows Mk., but has one or two agreements with Mt. against Mk. But in the next chapter he gives a charge to the Seventy which agrees in many respects with Mt.'s expansion of Mk. In the discourse about the Baptist there is great verbal agreement. In the sayings of denunciation of the Pharisees the context is different, but there is great verbal agreement. The discourse about Beelzeboul has remarkable features. If Lk. were nonexistent, it might be supposed that Mt. had expanded Mk., adding a further section dealing with the request for a sign. But Lk., who omits Mk.'s discourse from its proper place in his Gospel, inserts later a discourse similar to that of Mt.'s, but places at the beginning of it both the charge of casting out devils by the aid of Beelzeboul and the request for a sign, thus weaving Mt.'s two consecutive discourses into one. The discourse about the last things in Mt 24 contains several sayings which Lk. has in a different context but in similar language in ch. 17. We may now take into consideration the whole of the sayings common to the two Gospels. The following theories have been put forward to account for their agreement: (1) "Both Evangelists drew from a common written source.” This is a natural way of explaining the fact that the two Gospels have so many sayings in common; and if they contained these sayings and no others, the conclusion that they drew from a common written source would be almost irresistible. But the fact that in both Gospels there are found many sayings not preserved elsewhere, considerably weakens the argument. For the fact that they both record many similar or identical sayings may be equally well explained by the probability that these were the best known and most widely current sayings of Christ in the early Church. Against this theory of a common written source may be urged the following objections: (a) It is almost impossible to reconstruct any sort of written document out of the common material unless indeed it were a series of isolated and detached sayings, or short groups of sayings. If the two Evangelists had before them a common written source containing discourses and parables connected with incidents, how is it that they differ so widely in the general order in which they record these sayings, and very often in the context or occasion to which they assign them? In following S. Mark the editor of the first Gospel rarely transfers sayings from one context to another. (b) If, however, it be supposed that the alleged source was a collection of detached sayings, the variation in language is still to be accounted for. However, it is true that in following S. Mark the editor of the first Gospel not infrequently alters the words of Christ's sayings. Cf. e.g.: Μι 84 τὸ δῶρον. ο κλίνην. 916 ἐπιβάλλει. 13 2 ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ. Μk 144 περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου. 28 διαλογίζεσθε. 211 κραβαττόν. 219 νηστεύειν. 221 ἐπιράπτει. 432 ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ. And it might be urged that he (and perhaps S. Luke also) has sometimes departed from the phraseology of the alleged source. But, taken as a whole, the variation in language in these sayings common to Mt. and Lk. suggest rather independent sources than revision of a common source, and in some cases the former alternative is necessary if Wellhausen1 is right in explaining the variations which occur in them as due to translation from an Aramaic original. For his suggestion that the two Evangelists had access not only to a Greek translation of the supposed common written source, but also to the Aramaic original, is a clumsy theory. It is simpler to suppose that the two Evangelists drew from different Greek sources.2 (2) "Both Evangelists drew from oral tradition." There is a great deal to be said in favour of this, for it will be remembered that we are dealing with groups of sayings, parables, or discourses which would be easily retained in the memory. And amongst the Jews, as to-day amongst the Chinese, the current educational methods 1 Einleitung, p. 36. ? I welcome a tendency in Germany to speak doubtfully about the material to be assigned to the alleged common source. Cf. Harnack: "ich zweifle nicht das Manches, was Matth. und Luk. gemeinsam ist und daher aus dieser Quelle stammen könnte, nicht auf sie zurückgeht, sondern einen anderen Ursprung hat," Lukas der Arzt, p. 108, Anm. 1. |