Imagini ale paginilor

to the first Gospel, of which these sayings form a substantial proportion. Of course, if there be sufficient reason for supposing that the editor used this Matthæan source, it will then be probable that he borrowed from it some of the sayings which he has in common with Lk., but in a different form and context. Whilst he drew them from a Greek translation of the Logia, Lk. will have drawn them from other sources into which they had passed from the Matthæan collection. The following would be not out of harmony with the tenor of many of the Logian sayings:


"not a jot or tittle to pass from the law."

Cf. Lk 1617. 582 Cf. Lk 1618, who has not the limitation waρEKтÒS λóyoν


69-18 the Lord's Prayer. The prayer as found in a different context in Lk 1114, has lost some of its Jewish colouring.

1316-17 προφῆται καὶ δίκαιοι is Jewish. The verses occur in a different context in Lk 1028-24 with Baσideîs for


234. 25. 25-26. 27. 29-81. 84-86

All anti-Pharisaic. Cf. Lk 1189-52 in

a different context.

512 Anti-Pharisaic: "they persecuted the prophets." Cf. 2382-83. I venture, therefore, to assign the following to the Matthæan Logia:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

2514-80 2581-461 2652-54!

Of course, much that is here assigned to the Logia may have come from other sources. The passages marked with an asterisk are in the main peculiar to Mt., and have the Palestinian characteristics referred to above. These may be assigned to the Logia with much probability. The remaining passages are for the most part found also in Lk. But his variations in setting and language make it probable that he drew them from other sources than the Logia. And, to some extent, he may have been influenced by reminiscence of the first Gospel.

We must, therefore, think of the Matthæan Logia as a collection of Christ's sayings containing isolated sayings, sayings grouped into discourses, and parables. If there was any particular arrangement or order observed, it is, of course, not possible now to rediscover it. One of the longer discourses was probably the Sermon on the Mount; but as this now stands in the first Gospel, it has been enlarged by the editor, who has inserted into it sayings from other parts of the Logia. There were also in all probability a group of eschatological sayings, and groups of parables. The original language was either Hebrew or Aramaic. Papias calls it 'Eẞpatdı Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ ; Irenæus, τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν (οἱ Εβραίοι) διαλέκτῳ ; Eusebius, πατρίῳ γλώττη ; and Origen speaks of the Gospel as γράμμασιν Εβραϊκοῖς συντεταγμένον. On historical as well as philological grounds it is probable that the language was rather Aramaic than Hebrew. When the editor of the first Gospel used it, it had already been translated into Greek. The fact that he was using a Greek rendering of S. Mark's (probably originally Aramaic) Gospel does not, of course, preclude the possibility that he may have had the Aramaic Logia before him, but suggests that this was not the case. A stronger argument is the fact that some of the many sayings which Mt. and Lk. have in common agree very closely in language. This is not best accounted for by the theory that both Mt. and Lk. used a common Greek translation of the Logia, nor by the view that Lk. is dependent on Mt. Rather, the editor of the first Gospel used a Greek translation of the Logía. Then other translations were made, and from these excerpts and groups of sayings passed into the "many" evangelic writings with which Lk. was acquainted. This accounts for the fact that Lk. had before him, or was acquainted with, sources containing sayings and groups of sayings which are often nearly identical with sayings contained in the first Gospel, and yet frequently differ from them. The Logian sayings must have passed through several stages of transmission before they reached Lk., whilst Mt. drew from a translation of the original collection. Wellhausen has rightly seen

that some features in sayings common to Mt. and Lk. cannot be explained without reference to an Aramaic original (Einleitung, p. 36). Since, however, he clings to the theory that the verbal agreement in many of these sayings forces us to suppose that they used a common Greek source, he is obliged to hazard the complicated and unnecessary conjecture that the two Evangelists sometimes altered their Greek original and sometimes substituted for it a new translation from the original Aramaic (p. 68). But, as I have already shown, the great amount of disagreement in substance, in setting, in order, and in language between Mt. and Lk. in these sayings is only explicable if they were not directly using a common source. Mt. drew directly from a Greek translation of the Logia. Other translations were also made, and from these the Logian sayings passed in a form substantially agreeing, whilst often slightly differing in language, into the evangelic writings of the Church.

Hence, when Lk. wrote his Gospel, he found these sayings dispersed in many quarters. Some of them, eg. the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer, had passed through many stages since they were first extracted from the Logia. Others had suffered but little change. If at times the agreement in language between Mt. and Lk. seems remarkably close, it must be borne in mind that Lk. may well have read the first Gospel, and have been sometimes influenced by it.

The narrative sections tabulated above under (e) call for special consideration, since it is unlikely that they came from the same source as the sayings just discussed. The narratives contained in 118-25 21-12. 18-28 1428-81 1724-27 2110-11 278-10. 19. 24-25. 51a-55. 62-66 2811-15 all look very much like Palestinian traditions. Judgment upon their date and value must be almost wholly subjective, but to the present writer they seem to be early in date, or, to say the least, there seem to be no cogent reasons for placing them late. For 1724-27 as written before the fall of Jerusalem, see Wellhausen, in loc. Whether they came to the editor in written form, or whether he had himself collected them in Palestine, it is impossible to conjecture. Some little evidence might be adduced to show that 118-417 came from a special source which in 31-417 overlapped with Mk 11-15. E.g.:

(a) The editor of the Gospel shows a distinct tendency to remove historic presents from a source before him (p. xx). In Mk. there are 151 such tenses. Of these, 72 are cases of déye or déyovoi. Of the remaining 79 the editor of the first Gospel omits or alters 69, retaining only 10. Yet in 3417 there are 7 such tenses,1 viz. 31. 18. 15 45. 8 (2). 11. This would be explicable if the editor were following a source of which the use of the historic present was a marked feature.

1 Cf. palverai, 218 (but B has épávn) and 219

(b) There are some words and phrases which occur only or chiefly in this part of the Gospel; e.g.:

λάθρα, 119 27.

Tepooóλvua, fem. sing., 28 35.

παραγίγνεσθαι, 21 31. 18.

πυνθάνεσθαι, 24.

κατ ̓ ὄναρ,

KaT' ovaρ, 120 212. 18. 19. 22. Besides only 2719.

παραλαμβάνειν, 8 times.

Besides from Mk 171 2017 2687.

Elsewhere, 1245 1816 2440.41 2727.

åvaxwpeîv, 5 times. Elsewhere, 924 1215 1418 1521 175. KaTOLKELV, twice. Elsewhere, 1225 2321.

The construction ἀναχωρησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν ιδού, 120 21. 18. 19. Elsewhere, 982 2811.

But this evidence is insufficient to prove the existence of a special written source for this part of the Gospel; and the fact that the Old Testament quotations in 118-2 and in 279.10 have probably been introduced by the editor into originally independent narratives, rather suggests that all the narratives above mentioned came to the editor as independent traditions, and not from a document into which they had been collected. 2662-54 and 314-15 may belong to the same cycle of traditions. 2616-20 is probably based on the lost ending of Mk. I have thought it advisable not to confuse these narratives peculiar to Mt. with the few narrative sections (see p. xliii) common to Mt. and Lk. The former are marked in the commentary by P (= Palestinian), the latter by X (=unknown source).

The quotations in 122-23 25. 6. 15. 17-18. 28 414-16 817 1217-21 1385 214-5 27° present peculiar difficulties.

(1) Five of them, viz. 414-16 817 1217-21 1385 214-5, seem to have been inserted into or appended to a section of Mk. by the editor.

(2) Six of them, viz. 128 26. 15. 17-18. 28 279, might seem to be an integral part of the narrative in which they stand.

One of them, 223, cannot be verified.

All of them are introduced by a striking formula:

12 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος.

20 οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται διὰ τοῦ προφήτου.

215 ἵνα πληρωθῇ, κ.τ.λ.

217 τότε επληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἱερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος.

223 όπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.

414 ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος. 817 όπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος. 1217 The same.

1385 The same, with the omission of 'Hoatov.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »