3 sy ‘\ A RSL — ee - *s \ f: \. Leip Ae aN wats Keg ¢ se Cpe ff AS \, Me F ie x x ems ae pr: a NK eae, 2 ; oy a, ee . H AAR eatin pee a SIRES a ee ARI é

| 39371109 S.1SVHOIW “LS SO ALISYSAINN

“TRA

The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and ew Cestaments.

UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF

THE Rev. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.LITT., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford;

THE REv. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D, Late Master of University College, Durham; AND

THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.LITT.,

Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Ussion Theological Seminary, New Vork.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY MORRISON AND GIBB LTD., LONDON AND EDINBURGH

FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH

NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS

The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY

A

SRERICAL AND EXE GE VICAL COMMENTARY

ON THE

GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S$. MATTHEW

BY THE VENERABLE

WILLOUGHBY -C.JAREEN IM:A:

ARCHDEACON OF MANCHESTER, PRINCIPAL OF EGERTON HALL SXAMINING CHAPLAIN TC THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

THIRD EDITION

EDINBURGH T&T: CHARK 33 GEORGE STREET

MIRSP ME DITION ey eel a LOO W, Seconp Epitron . . . 1907 ETE D ey DITION) seuers) en eel o Le IREDHUNICE othe tee) een eo, Repriitcd aa. noe en ate suelo As REpninicd 1. its Wie Meno MLO | Reprinted) 2s ee LOD

MAY 16 1964

CON TENSES

ae PAGE CONTENTS . . . . : . : : . ‘ . . IlI-IV PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION . : : : . , : . My PREFACE . . ° ° : ‘ : : : . i-xii INTRODUCTION . : . : : : : . . xili-lxxxvill THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL : . : ; =) xill A. S. Mark . : 3 : A d : 4 : 5 ball I. Omissions : : < ; 5 : 2 . ee Xai 2. Changes in order . 5 : A 4 : : xili-xvil 3. Abbreviation . - : : 5 : : 2 xXvil (az) condensation of ‘snes a ; 5 : : . Xvii (6) omission of details 5 ; ; ; . XViI-xvili (c) omission of sayings . : 5 C . Xvi (d) abbreviation of narratives. ‘ ; i XVili-xix 4. Expansion of discourses . : : ; : : hy xix 5. Linguistic changes . 6 : : ; - : oe XIX (a) particles : : ; ; ‘ : ‘ xix—xx (6) tense and voice . : : : : A XX—XXI1V (¢) avoidance of repetition . é . ; » XXIV-XXvi (1) in tautologous phrases. (2) in negatives. (3) in compound verbs with a preposition. (d) in vocabulary 5 : : . : . XXVI-XXvii (e) insyntax . : . ° : . oye xxvii (/) in prepositions eal adverbs . a . . -XXVii-xxx (g) in conjunctions . . 5 5 3.085 (Z) to assimilate to another Fisese: of the Gospel a XXX (z) to heighten an antithesis : : : 2 Xcxl 6. Changes with respect to the Person and Draacies of Christ . : : : . XXXI-Xxxili 7. Changes with een: to the i gastes ec . . XXXII-Xxxiv 8. Changes to emphasise fulfilment of prophecy . . oe SKI 9. Qualifications and explanations : : : . XXX1V-XXXV to. Changes for the sake of accuracy . . = : - XXXV 11. Some alterations in fact . - . 5 SPOOKY,

Similar treatment of the Second Gospel = S. Luke xxxv-xxxviii These agreements due in part to independent revision of Mk. by Mt. and Lk. . ; : : - XXXVII-xxxix Mt. and Lk. had no second source containing matter parallel to the whole of Mk. . 5 . SeeCXEX Probable explanations of the agreement of Mt. and Lk. against Mk... : : : . : . . -Xxxix—xl Lk. may have seen Mt. . : ° . . . - x]

Ill

Iv CONTENTS PAGE B. Matter common to Mt. and Lk. 4 F xli-xhii The common sayings - : xliv Theories to account for r agreement of Mt. and Lk. in these sayings : “ 2 : xlv—xlix I. Theory of a common written source . ° : xlv—xlvi 2. Oral tradition . 3 : : . xivi-xlvii 3. Independent written sources . . 5 - . xivi 4. Lk. had read Mt. 4 : “ . xivii-xlix The common narratives : : : . xiix-l C. Matter found only in Mt. . : . liv (a) Editorial passages . : : : lit (6) Sayings inserted into Mk.’s darvative Sine : 5 liv (c) Sayings grouped in long discourses . 5 ° : liv (dz) other sayings . : ; ° ° : liv (e) Incidents liv (7) Quotations from the Old Teelament : liv Characteristics of the say ings . ; : lvi-lvii Their probable source is the Matthzean lade : . lvii-lx Consideration of the narratives . Ix-hxi The quotations : ° - : Ixi-Ixii PLAN AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 2 GOSPEL . Ixiti-lxv THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL Ixvi-lxxix A. Christology : I 5 . . . Ixvi-lxvii B. The Kingdom of the Flew ens . : . . = 3) Uo C. The Son of Man < , ixxi-lxxv D. The Church. Ixxv-lxxvi £&. Jewish-Christian Geeeres of the ailenia and of the Cea) Ixxvi-Ixxix THE AUTHOR . . : . : . : . lxxix—Lxxxi The Gospel according to the Haro: 5 : - Ixxxi-lxxxili THE DATE : . 5 . . c : Ixxxiv—Ixxxv THE STYLE AND LANGUAGE . : - Ixxxv—Ixxxvii THE TEXT. : . : : . Ixxxvii-Ixxxviii LisT OF AUTHORITIES : : . . . . Lxxxix—xciv ° ABBREVIATIONS . ° . . + -XCV—xcvi COMMENTARY : c - c 3 . 1-308 Note on the historical value of the Gospel : ‘ 309-320 Additional Notes . a - ~ : “ 5 . 321-323 APPENDICES Appendix A.. , “ « ; : : 325-330 Appendix B.. : : - - A a ° - 330-333 INDICES I. General . : - : : 335-337 II. Modern Authors . ‘ : : 337-338 III. References to the Bible ane to Femien and other nee Literature . : : ; 2 : - 338-346 IV. Greek Words. : : - : . . 346-351 V. Hebrew and Aramaic Words 5 . é * ° . 351-354

PRE PACE TO-THIRD: EDITION

SINCE the first publication of this book two important Commentaries have appeared, viz. Dr. Plummer’s valuable Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, London, 1909, and Klostermann’s most useful Commentary in the Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Tiibingen, 1909. In this third edition of my Commentary no attempt has been made to revise the whole work. A number of corrections, for which I have to thank many kind friends, has been made in the text, some additional notes and references are appended, and two supplementary notes on the subjects of Divorce, and of the Date of the Gospel, are printed at the end by kind permission of the Editor of The Expository Times. By way of supplement to what I have said on pp. lvii-lix as to the Matthean Logia, may I refer to an Essay on “The Book of Sayings used by the Editor of the First Gospel” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem, Clarendon Press, 1g0l.

\, Oo) diay IU Ua ' p av i ; zn Spal depaatetin Cres dW er ae eet ae | aol! Ce ee ihe gae> nl) ae he : Fewer at at oh Rig gn privat Hees: Opie pal ie : a edd mae, hk Wil; ce) . ith on ants

~ : an) ; Ape Ae (5 ¥. ary, Asay Tee bys Cae

+7, if (iy oul: . ae ae a hare ar. oe ry Mee VAL "Wy Mie eine Vilna: Ee, Pe : ay Hii Pe LepAG Ny ei.ep Uk i Dat) } 0 a f i as iy LTAG ‘y q es +4 ieee in i" L | ey och” ant iy Tit ny Wha idee Se ae iecet ek Te ade ie Wy a Fe r MAY a Y Paaliens bee a! ty ah ; i. 4 AT OLE i hi) aie é | ; i

PRE AC

===

PERHAPS no one, especially during the last thirty years, has undertaken to write a Commentary on one of the Canonical Gospels, without experiencing again and again, during the process of production, that he had undertaken a task which was beyond both his strength and his equip- ment. That has certainly been my own experience in writing this Commentary on the First Gospel. For a commentator upon this book, who is to do his work efficiently, should have many qualifications. He should be a competent Greek scholar, versed in the Hellenistic Greek literature, and acquainted with the bearing of modern archeological discovery upon the history of the language. He should be acquainted also with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, with the various Aramaic dialects, and with the later dialects of the Talmuds and Midrashim. If the writings of Deissmann on the one hand, and of Wellhausen and Dalman on the other, have shown what new light can be thrown upon the New Testament by experts in their own department, they have also illustrated the defective character of a one-sided knowledge, and have given indica- tions of the sort of work that may be done by a scholar of the future, who shall be at the same time a Grecian and an Orientalist. The commentator should further be a master of the material for the textual criticism of the Gospel, which is in itself the study of a lifetime. He should have a thorough knowledge of the literature dealing with the so-called Synoptic Problem, and should have formed a

a

”

il PREFACE

judgement based upon independent investigation as to the literary relationship between the Canonical Gospels and the sources which lie behind them. He should have studied the growth of theological conceptions as illustrated in the Old Testament, and in the apocryphal and apoca- lyptic literature up to and during the period in which our Gospels were written. And he should have mastered the Talmudic and Midrashic theology at least sufficiently to be able to form an independent judgement as to the possibility of using it for the purpose of illustrating theological conceptions and religious institutions in the first century A.D. I can lay claim to no such qualifications as these. Nevertheless, within the limits to be mentioned presently, I venture to hope that the present volume will give some help to those who desire to find out what this Gospel meant to the Evangelist as he wrote it. How much may here be done Dalman has shown us, but much still remains to be done; and it is probably the case that, in some measure, the secret of the Gospels will never altogether disclose itself to those who cannot approach them from the Jewish-Oriental view of life, as well as from other aspects. In view of what has been said, it will be understood that the following Commentary has been, of necessity and intentionally, made one-sided in its method and aim, and it will be desirable to try and explain the principles upon which it has been written.

There are, I think, roughly speaking, two methods of commenting upon one of the Synoptic Gospels. One, and that the traditional and familiar one, is based upon the two assumptions, fivs¢, that all three Gospels are sources for the life of Christ of equal value; atid, second, that the commentator is in direct contact with the words of Christ as He uttered them (due allowance being made for trans- lation from Aramaic into Greek), From this point of view the commentator will always be mindful that it is his duty to elucidate and explain the words of the Gospel upon which he is at work, in such a way as to enable the

PREFACE ili

reader to reconstruct for himself as nearly as possible the life of Christ; to see before him the scenes being once again enacted; to hear, and to understand as he hears, the words flowing from Christ’s lips. From this standpoint that which is common to all the Gospels will be all- important. The special features of each, in so far as they cannot be easily harmonised with the other Gospels, will be treated as a difficulty to be explained away. Where two Gospels differ in detail, the commentator upon one of them will feel it to be his duty to account for the difference, and to try and ascertain what the actual historical fact was which underlies, and accounts for, the two divergent records, The atmosphere in which the commentator works will be one of effort to harmonise apparent discrepancies, and, so far as possible, to represent the Gospels as in essential agreement.

The very important element in the Gospels which such a treatment of them overlooks, or minimises, is the individuality of the respective Evangelists. It leaves no room for the obvious fact that, as they penned their Gospels, these writers selected, arranged, compiled, redacted, with the intention of trying to set before their readers the conception of the Christ as they themselves conceived Him. In its haste to arrive at the actual facts of Christ’s life, it tends to obliterate individual characteristics of each separate Gospel, and to lose sight of the contribution to a complete impression of the Christ which is made by each individual Evangelist.

Further, the assumptions by which this method seeks to justify itself are thoroughly artificial and mechanical. The Gospels, of course, are not all, and, in their every component part, of exactly equal historical weight and value. For practical purposes, the ordinary Christian may safely regard them as such, and he will not be far wrong. But it is impossible for the student of life to allow such rough generalisations to keep him from studying the Gospels in the best and latest method that the science of

iv PREFACE

history can suggest to him; and historical method is always improving year by year. Precious stones, ¢g., have a value for their beauty and brilliance to the ordinary public. But such wide generalisations as that “diamonds are beautiful” cannot deter the student of life from endeavour- ing to investigate the life-history of diamonds, and to discover the cause of their radiance by scientific analysis. And the results of his investigation, that a diamond consists of such and such chemical elements, does nothing what- soever to destroy the value which diamonds have for the unscientific purchaser ; nay, rather would a thousand times enhance their value and interest, if he understood but a thousandth part of the extraordinary process which has gone to produce the stone which he buys.

The method of dealing with the Gospels upon the basis of these artificial assumptions seems to the modern student of life to cast an atmosphere of unreality round them, and to lead to results which are of the nature of theories without foundation in actual fact. Of course, it may ultimately prove to be the truth that these assump- tions are in reality intuitions of facts of first-rate importance. And that is, indeed, my own belief. The Synoptic Gospels are, I think, historical sources for Christ’s life of nearly equal value, and the reader is, I believe, in large measure in immediate touch with the acts and words of the historical Christ. The impression which he obtains of the Person of the Lord from one Gospel is, with very slight reservation, the same as that which is given him by another. In all of them it is the same Christ who acts and speaks. But these impressions or intuitions become vicious when they are used as grounds for treating the Gospels in a quite artificial and mechanical way. So far from being, from the point of view of the student of history, axioms with which he starts, they themselves need to be proved and justified by historical investigation.

The fact that the study of the Gospels is in such a chaotic condition, is partly due to this radically false

PREFACE v

method of studying them. On the one hand, traditional commentators have used these assumptions as a ground for treating the Gospels in a wholly artificial manner. By force of reaction the modern critic has often not only (and quite rightly) insisted on studying the Gospels on historical methods, but has also too often, and with fatal effect, refused to see that these assumptions are of the nature of brilliant intuition of elements in the Gospel, which are in part outside the range and scope of his scientific analysis, but which in some measure his analysis should have discovered, if he had not been wilfully blind to them.

When, if ever, the irritating and provocative influence of false and artificial methods of dealing with the Gospels ceases to create an equally false opposition method of studying them, it will, I believe, be found that the scientific investigation of the Gospels, upon the best historical methods that the future can ever give us, will lead to results which will in large part coincide with the old conservative and traditional intuitions. On the one hand, it will be found that the sources of our Gospels are early in date, and that, with some slight reservations, they describe for us the historical life of the Saviour of Mankind. It will be seen that the personality of the Evangelists plays a relatively very small part in their records, whilst these agree in an astonishing degree in giving to us an harmoni- ous and consistent account of a unique Personality.

No real student of life will ask, “Why then all this critical investigation of the Gospels, if it is simply to give us the old results?” and if the simple-minded should ask this, it is to be feared that no answers which could be given would satisfy him. But two obvious reasons are these. First, that false and antiquated methods of exegesis do incalculable harm to the young and simple, and to the coming generation of men. The science of history has within the last century undergone a revolution. It has adopted new methods of research, which are every day being improved and perfected. Nothing is more calculated

vi PREFACE

to shake the faith of the men of the new age in the historical character of the Gospels, than to find that the Christian commentator still interprets the Gospels on the basis of purely @ priort assumptions which should them- selves be first proved, and by methods which are outworn and unlike the methods used by students in every other department of history. On the other hand, nothing will so reassure the faith of the younger generation of thoughtful men as the discovery that the Gospels, when studied and interpreted along the lines of ordinary historical research, still present to our love and adoration the figure of the Divine Saviour, and that the efforts to prove the Gospels to be late and legendary growths are in large measure a failure, because they start from unscientific presuppositions, and employ unscientific methods of historical inquiry. And, secondly, the consideration of value must, of course, always be kept out of sight by the student. A very large part of historical and scientific research will always seem to the practical man to be of little immediate value. But the student will care nothing for that. He investigates because he must. And the Gospels cannot, any more than any other element in life, be hidden away from the curious search and restless probing of the human intellect.

It will hardly be necessary to add now that I have deliberately set aside the methods which I have just tried to describe. I have zot employed the other Gospels in order to weaken impressions left by the words of the First Gospel, zor have I allowed myself to approach it as an exact representation of Christ’s sayings and words.

It remains, therefore, to describe the method which I have adopted.

In accordance with this method, the work of a com- mentator upon a Gospel should form only one stage in a complicated process of historical investigation and inquiry. The first stages of this process should belong to the textual critic, and to the scholar whom, in default of a better name, we may term the literary critic. The former should

PREFACE Vil

give us a Greek text of the Gospel upon which to work ; the latter should have decided for us such questions as the relationship of the Gospels one to another, and to any source or sources which have been embodied in them. Properly speaking, this first stage of textual and literary criticism should have been completed before the com- mentator begins his work. But, unfortunately, the day is not yet when we can believe that we have a final Greek text of the Gospels, and the work of literary analysis is probably much nearer its beginning than its end. I have, however, reduced to as small an amount as possible the textual critical element in this Commentary. Handbooks to textual criticism, and editions of the text with full critical apparatus, are now easily accessible. On the other hand, whilst assuming what I believe to be the one solid result of literary criticism, viz. the priority of the Second to the other two Synoptic Gospels, I have thought it desirable to try and prove, by a detailed and full com- parison of the first two Gospels, that, so far as they are concerned, this assumption everywhere justifies itself as an explanation of the relationship between them. This will explain the large part which S. Mark’s Gospel plays in the following pages. S. Luke’s narrative, in so far as it is parallel with the Second Gospel, lies, of course, on this assumption, outside the range of a commentator on the First Gospel.

The second stage in the process should be the work of the commentator on the text of each separate Gospel. Starting with the results given to him by the literary critic, and equipped with the Greek text supplied by the textual critic, the commentator will approach each separate Gospel with the purpose of ascertaining what were the conceptions of the life and Person of Christ which governed and directed the Evangelist in his work. From this point of view the main interest of the commentator will lie rather in what is characteristic of, and peculiar to, each Gospel, than in what is common to them all. He will

vill PREFACE

refuse to try and harmonise discrepant details or diver- gent conceptions. Rather he will emphasise these as important, because they enable him to reconstruct the life of Christ as it presented itself to the minds of the Evangelist and of his readers. He will always be mindful of the fact that he is immediately concerned, not with the actual facts of the life of Christ or with His doctrine, but rather with these as mirrored in the mind of the particular Evangelist with whom he is dealing.

The third stage in the process belongs to the historian. Just as the commentator is obliged to rely very largely upon the work already done by the literary critic, so the historian must depend for his material to a great extent upon the work of the commentator and of the critic alike. He will have as his material the Gospels as analysed into their sources by the critic, and the mass of not always harmonious impressions of the life of Christ, as given to him by the commentators upon the separate Gospels. With this material at his disposal, it will be his duty to attempt to recover the historical facts of Christ’s life, to ascertain as far as possible the exact words which He spoke, and to determine the meaning which these words originally carried with them.

In accordance with what has been said, I have felt it to be my duty to begin my work equipped with some acquaintance with the results of the literary criticism of the Gospels. If I have found it necessary partly to assume the results of such labour, and partly to work out a view of my own as to the sources of the Gospel, that is only because the work of the critic and of the com- mentator cannot in the present conditions of knowledge be quite kept apart. On the other hand, I have done my best not to encroach upon the sphere of the historian. Here and there I may have been tempted to express some view as to the historical character of some incident or saying, as apart from the general credibility of the source of which it forms a part, but generally speaking it has

PREFACE ix

been my aim to consider the contents of the Gospel always in the first place from the standpoint of their meaning for the editor of the Gospel, and only secondarily from the point of view of their relation to the historical Christ.

This explains, of course, in large measure, the limita- tions of the Commentary which follows. Considerations as to the historical character of the incidents which the Gospel records, have for the most part been carefully avoided ; and no attempt has been made to discuss the question whether the teaching here put into the mouth of Christ was as a matter of fact taught by Him. These are questions which should be left to the historian who is dealing with all the sources which are available for the reconstruction of the life of Christ, and should not be approached by the commentator who is dealing with only one Gospel.

This limitation carries with it the omission of reference to much literature, ancient and modern. If the commen- tator is engaged in explaining the meaning of a single Gospel from the standpoint of the Evangelist, he clearly need not discuss those ancient and modern conceptions of the historical Christ with which an historian of Christ’s life must grapple. Consequently purely controversial dis- cussion of modern critical views has been purposely avoided in the following pages.

Of course, I am aware that in practice the several stages in the process which I have described cannot be kept rigidly apart. The commentator must to some extent exercise his independent judgement in revising the work of the literary critic, and the historian will always find it necessary to test the work of both critic and commentator. But the range of subjects and acti- vities connected with the work of using the Gospels as historical sources is so vast, that it is probable that in the future as, and in so far as, scientific method is improved, the commentator on the Gospels will not be expected to cover more than a part of the ground. He will, e,g., to

x PREFACE

a greater extent than is at present possible, be able to accept a Greek text from the hands of the textual critics, and so relieve his Commentary of any textual critical apparatus. He will be able also, with more justification than he can at present, to adopt the results of the labours of the literary critics, and so omit from his Commentary a good deal of critical analysis that is at present indispensable. This will leave him free for the more important work of endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the contents of the Gospel to its writer and first readers, by the methods of investigation into the philological meaning of the words of the Gospel, and of illustration of its ideas from con- temporary sources.

But within narrower limits the absence from these pages of continual reference to the vast literature dealing with the Gospel requires some apology. It would have been easy to double the size of this book if constant refer- ence had been made to the interpretation of single passages by previous commentators. The limitation that I have imposed upon myself of stating simply the meaning that, as it seemed to me, a particular passage had to the mind of the Evangelist as he wrote it, without giving also the several or many other interpretations which have been given of such a passage by ancient and modern writers, requires some defence, and is, I feel, open to criticism.

I have adopted this course on the following grounds: (1) the purpose of this Commentary, to attempt to make clear the conception of the Evangelist, made it desirable to omit the interpretations of many writers who have commented on the book, with the quite different object of ascertaining the meaning of the sayings here recorded as they were spoken by Christ Himself. If, ¢e.g., in deal- ing with 16’7-° I had given in detail, and with some dis- cussion, all the views that have ever been taken of these much debated verses, I should have required many pages ; but the reader’s attention would only have been distracted from the end which I had in view, viz., to set before him

PREFACE xi

as clearly as possible the meaning which these words had in the mind of the Evangelist when he placed them in their present position in his Gospel.

(2) In writing the following pages, I have always had chiefly in view the needs, not of the preacher nor of the general reading public, but of the student who desires to have some understanding of the growth and development of the Gospel literature in the first century A.D., and of the meaning which this particular Gospel had for the Evangelist and his first readers. Now aCommentary which is also a catalogue of all possible interpretations which have ever been read into the Gospel, and at the same time an Encyclopedia of information upon all subjects directly or indirectly connected with the subject-matter, is no doubt a very useful book, but Commentaries of this nature already exist, and they are very tedious to read. The student who wishes for information of this kind knows that on the one hand he can turn to the Commentaries of Meyer or Alford, and on the other to such indispensable works of reference as Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, and Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, or the Encyclopedia Liblica. 1 have myself often felt the need of a Commen- tary on this Gospel which would tell me, not all that can be known about every subject mentioned in it, nor every view that has ever been held about its sayings; but, what the words of the Gospel meant to the Evangelist, that I might form my own conclusion as to the value of that meaning; and I have purposely avoided filling these pages with, what seemed to me to be, needless iteration of information, which is easily accessible to every student.

Anyone who turns over the following pages will realise how impossible it is for me to express adequately my obligations to others. I have added to the Intro- duction a list of the writers to whom I have referred by name in the Commentary, but I owe an equal and in some cases a much greater debt to many others whose names will not be found there. I am particularly indebted to the

xii PREFACE

editions of Meyer's Commentary edited by Dr. B. Weiss, to Zahn’s admirable Commentary on St. Matthew, to Wellhausen’s brilliant notes on the first three Gospels, to the English Commentaries of Dr. Plummer on S. Luke, Dr. Swete on S. Mark, and Dr. Gould on S. Mark, and to Dr. A. Wright for his excellent Syopszs. To the members of the class which has met at Dr. Sanday’s house for some years to study the Synoptic Problem I owe much, and especially to Mr. C. Badcock, the Rev. V. Bartlet, the Rev.-B. W. Streeter, and the Rev. Sir John Hawkins, whose Hore Synoptice is the invaluable companion of every student of the Gospels. Sir John Hawkins was so kind as to read the proofs of the Intro- duction of this book, and it owes much to his correction and addition. Lastly, Dr. Plummer, as supervising editor, has very kindly made many most valuable suggestions and corrections.

Of my obligations to Dr. Sanday I cannot write ade- quately. He is in no sense directly responsible for anything that these pages contain, but if there be any sound element in method or in tone in what [ have written, it is probably ultimately traceable to his influence and to that of his writings.

Finally: I think that no scholar will mistake the character and purpose of my translation of the texts of. the First and Second Gospels. It aims neither at elegance of diction nor at correctness of English idiom. On the contrary, I have not hesitated to sacrifice idiom and correctness alike, in order to give a literal and bald ren- dering which should, so far as is possible, represent in English the differences in tense, in syntax, and in vocabu- lary between the Greek of the Second and that of the First Gospel.

END ROD, eT TON:

-—_—-———_

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL. A, S. MARK.

1. AtmMosT the entire substance of the second Gospel has been transferred to the first. The only omissions of any length are the following :

(a) Mk 12328 Healing of a demoniac.

(2) 1°5-39 Preaching in the synagogues of Galilee. (c) 476-29 Parable of the seed growing secretly. (d) 782-37 Healing of a deaf man.

(e) 82-26 Healing of a blind man.

(3) 9°8-40 The exorcist. (g) 1241-44 The widow and her alms.

2. But in 3-13°° the editor makes a good deal of alteration in the order of Mk.’s sections. The following table will exhibit this. Passages enclosed in square brackets are interpolations into Mk.’s narrative :

[A. Birth and Infancy of the Messiah. 1. 2.] &. Preparation for His ministry.

(i) 3) a Mk 1138, 7-10. 12 (A), ged = Mk 191, 14-15 (3) at = Mk 11213. -lla C. First period of work in Galilee. 09 ee a = Mien 13-16 (2) 418-22 = Mk 116-20, (3) (a) 4° substituted for Mk 121, (6) [st=7")] 728-28 = Mk 122, omits Mk 123-28,

XiV THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

(0) 8 ey 14-15 16 (17)

omits

gi8-S4 Ee | 1-17 18-26 27-34

4)cor [37-38] tol I 02-58 [ors 9-10a pie

11-14 expansion of [5-111] omits (5) afer (6) (a) r2i-21—_______ 6-7. 1-12. 17-21) 22-23 substituted for 24-50. 27-28. 30. 82-45 Bb) 121-52 es 24-30, 33, 35-52 [omits Mk 421-24 26-29) 1 353-58

= Mk 129-31, Mk 1322-34, Mk 135-39, Mk 140-45,

Mk 21-22, tae

——————_ Meee 13a Mk iov.21, Mk 322-88, Mk.4u82 ~ Mk 435-52, — a Mika

Mk 521-43,

Mk 6%, Mk 67,

Mk 689, Mk 610-11, Mk 61218,

Mk 3}9b-21,.

The alteration of order here shown is not arbitrary nor without reason, but is due to the scheme upon which the editor is building

up this first part of his Gospel

In 3!—4!7 he has matter parallel to Mk 1115 with considerable additions. It may be doubted whether he is here borrowing from another source, or whether he is borrowing from Mk. and expanding his narrative by additions, either from oral tradition, or

from a second written source.

Ais22 comes from

Mk 116-20,

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xv

The editor then comes to Mk 171,

He has already (4!%) anticipated the mention of Capharnaum,! and can therefore omit Mk 17/4 Mk 17! speaks of teaching in the synagogue. Here, therefore, is an opportunity of inserting an illustration of Christ’s teaching, which is to be followed by an illustrative group of His miracles. As an introduction to these two sections of illustration, the editor substitutes for Mk 171 a general sketch of Christ’s activity (4°%-5), using for this purpose phraseology borrowed from various parts of the second Gospel The reason why he places his illustration of Christ’s teaching before that of His miracles is no doubt to be found in Mk 1%, which describes the effect produced by that teaching on the people. The editor therefore inserts the Sermon on the Mount between Mk 12! and 2", and closes it with this latter verse. Thus:

48-25 are substituted for Mk 7. 5-77" are inserted. 7 28-29 = 122,

The editor now proposes to give illustrations of Christ’s

miracles. The next five sections in Mk. are:

173-28 The demoniac.

179-31 Peter’s wife’s mother.

152-34 Healing the sick.

155-39 Retirement and tour.

140-45 Healing of a leper. We therefore expect the editor to begin his series of illustrations with the narrative of the demoniac, but he omits this altogether, and, passing over Mk 152-89, continues with Mk 1494 the healing of the leper:

git = Mk 1%;

It is not easy to account for the omission of Mk 128-8, and for the transposition of #45, The following reasons may have co- operated to produce them:

(a2) Mt. has omitted the reference to Capharnaum (Mk 1?}), and has adapted Mk 1”? to an entirely different situation. But still he might have inserted a statement of an entry into Caphar- naum to form a link between the Sermon and the healing of the demoniac.

(4) The incident of the leper is recorded by Mk. without any detail of time or place, after a verse which states that Christ “‘came preaching in their synagogues throughout the whole of Galilee.” It is therefore not unnatural to place the healing of the leper after the Sermon, which may be taken as illustrative of this synagogue preaching.

(c) Leprosy was perhaps the most dreaded of all bodily

1The xargxnoev of 41% implies that Capharnaum will henceforth be the headquarters of Christ’s ministry.

xvl1 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

ailments in Palestine, and its cure forms a fitting introduction to a series of three healings of disease.

(d) The reason why, after inserting the healing of the leper, the editor did not continue with that of the demoniac, may have been that he wished to form a series of three healings of disease, and that in the Church tradition the healing of the centurion’s servant was closely connected with the Sermon. Lk. has the same connection.

(e) Moreover, there were features in the story of the demoniac which did not recommend it to the editor, features which Lk. found it desirable to modify. See below, p. xxxiii.

After inserting Mk 14°-#5 and omitting 2-8, the editor inserts the healing of the centurion’s servant, 8°18, and can then continue with Mk 1281, thus forming a series of three healings of disease--- leprosy, paralysis, fever. He closes the series with words borrowed from the succeeding verses of Mk %?-%4, adding a quotation from Isaiah. Thus:

a = Mk 140-45, 85-13 are inserted.

gl4-15 as 129-31, g16 kid 32-34,

817 is inserted.

The next section in Mk. is 155°, This would be out of place in a series of miracles, and is therefore omitted. Mk 14%# has been already inserted. The editor, therefore, comes to Mk 2}, This he postpones, perhaps because it occurred on a visit to Capharnaum different to that just described. By recording it here the editor would confuse the two visits. Mk 2°°-36 he reserves for a controversial section. 3785 contain no miracle. 4% he reserves for his chapter of parables. He therefore comes to 4%. Here Christ is surrounded by a crowd. The editor adapts this to his context :

gis = Mk 455, inserts 819-22, and then takes over Mk 46-5 with considerable omissions : 923-34 = Mk 436-520, In Mk 52! Christ returns to the western side of the lake. Mt. adds to this, that “‘ He came to His own city”:

Mt g! = Min gt and can then go back and borrow Mk 2!-!2 with its sequel 13-3: Mt 9217 = Mk 21-22,

thus completing a second series of three miracles which illustrate Christ’s power over natural forces (8°-2”), over the hostility of demons (28-34), and in the spiritual sphere (the forgiveness of sins, 9}). The editor now postpones Mk 273-454 for the same reasons as before. He comes therefore to 522%. This he abbreviates, and

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xvii

adds two other miracles, thus forming a third series of three miracles illustrating Christ’s power to restore life, sight, and speech : g 18-26 ee Mk 522-48, g*7-1 inserted. > ener

Having thus given illustrations of Christ’s teaching and miracles, the editor now proposes to show how this ministry found extension in the work of the disciples. He therefore postpones Mk 61%, and expands ® into an introduction to this mission modelled on the similar introduction 423% ;

35 = Mk 68>, 9°6-38 inserted.

Chapter 10! continues with Mk 67; but the editor here inserts Mk 31%! which he had passed over. The rest of 10-11! is an amplification of Mk 6%;

to! 107-111 1170 inserted.

There now follows a series of incidents illustrating the growth of hostility to Christ on the part = the Pharisees. For these the editor now goes back to Mk 278-284.

Mk 67. 68-1,

i tt

tals = Mk 223-28, 129-14 = 1-6, mot summarises gre.

1217-21 inserted. Having already borrowed Mk 3}%!% he now comes to 3-21 and #230, For this he substitutes a similar but longer discourse introduced by another miracle :

hee enlarged from Wheto and continues with the next section in Mk. 1246-50 = 331-85,

This brings him to Mk 4, which is a chapter of parables. ‘The editor borrows this and adds other parables :

13152 = Mk 41-4, As he has already inserted Mk 4°°-548 he now comes to Mk 61! ; I sad -58 = Mk 61-6,

From this point the editor follows the order of Mk.’s sections.

8. The editor not infrequently abbreviates Mk.’s record. (a) Some examples of abbreviation in expression are given below on p. xxiv. (4) In other cases details are dropped from the narrative. £.g. Mk 138 “ He was with the wild beasts.” 120 “with the hired servants.” 179 “with James and John.” 276 “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.”

XVlil THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

Mk 227 “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” 317° Boanerges. 4°8 “upon the cushion.” 5}3 “about two thousand.” 62 the mission of the Twelve. 6°7 “two hundred pennyworth.” 659-49 “by companies—green—in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties.” 78-4 the explanation of “ unwashen hands.” g? “so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.” 14° “three hundred pence.” 14°! the young man who fled naked. 157! “the father of Alexander and Rufus.” 15** Pilate’s inquiry about the death of Christ. Especially statements of the thronging of the multitudes and the inconvenience caused by it.

£.g. Mk 1°83 “and the whole city was gathered together at the

door.”

1# ‘‘so that He would no longer enter into a citv.”

2%. 4 “ And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, no, not even about the door. ... And when they could not come nigh unto Him for the crowd.”

3° “And He spake to His disciples, that a little boat should wait upon Him because of the crowd, lest they should throng Him.”

310 “pressed upon Him.”

379 “so that they could not so much as eat bread.”

631 ‘*they had no leisure to eat.”

(c) Not infrequently sayings are omitted from a discourse. But, for the most part, such sayings have already been inserted in an earlier part of the Gospel. The left-hand column shows where the saying has been omitted, the right-hand column where it has been inserted.

Mt 1323-2 Mk 421 Mt 525. 1 223°24 422 1078, 1 223-24 24a 73,

23-24 24b 12 13 ig 135 gsi 109,

5 41 42 18 9 IO--s 139 50 518, ar22 ; meas 614, 248 139. 11-18 1017-20,

(2) In other cases a whole narrative or section is given in a much abbreviated form. E.g. Mk 37? is compressed into two verses in 12°16, The

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xix

reason is obvious. The editor is collecting illustrations of the controversies between Christ and the Pharisees. Having just borrowed Mk 23—31!-6, which is suited to his purpose, he comes to 3712, which has nothing bearing upon the subject. He might well have omitted it, just as he omitted 15539, But the thought of Christ’s ministry of healing, Mk 31°, suggested to him a contrast between the Lord’s quiet work of love with its shrinking from publicity, Mk 31%, and the hostile clamour of the Pharisees. He therefore shortened Mk 37! and added a quotation from Isaiah to emphasise this contrast.

Mk 5!-8 is much shortened in Mt 878-4 918-26, See notes on 828 18,

Mk 614-29 is abbreviated in Mt 14!!*,

Mk g!*29 appears in a shorter form in Mv 17}479, See note on

1718

4. Contrasted with this shortening of narrative sections is the amplification of discourses. £.g. Mk 178, the preaching of the Baptist is expanded into Mt gui,

Mk 3776, the refutation of the charge of diabolical agency is expanded into Mt 1274-45,

Mk 4, the chapter of parables is considerably lengthened in Mirrs.

Mk 611, the charge to the Twelve is expanded into Mt 105-42,

Mk 9°*5-59, teaching about greatness is expanded into Mt 18?*9,

Mk 1237>-40 denunciation of the Pharisees forms the nucleus

of a whole chapter in Mt 23. Mk 13, the discourse on the last things is expanded in Mt 24-25 into double the length.

Four of these bodies of discourse, formed by interweaving some other source or sources with the shorter discourses found in Mk., viz. chs. 10. 13. 18. 24-25, are closed by a formula: kat éyévero dre éréXeoev 6 “Ingots Siatddéowv Tots dHdexa pabytats avtov, 111; Kal éyévero Gre éréAecev 6 Incods tas mapaBodas tavras, 1353; Kal éyévero Gre éréhecev 6 Ingots Tovs Adyous TovTous, 191; Kal éyevero Ore €réecev 6 "Inoods wavras tous Adyous TovTovs, 261, These to- gether with the Sermon on the Mount, chs. 5-7, which closes with a similar formula 728, cf. Lk 71, form one of the most striking features of this Gospel.

5. In linguistic detail there are a certain number of character- istic changes made in Mk.’s language.

(a) Mk.’s characteristic words kai ev@vs, radu, the adverbial mo\Ad, and ore after verbs of saying, are frequently omitted, and de is repeatedly substituted for kai.

xX THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

evOvs or Kai edOvs occurs in Mk. about 41 times, in Mt. about 7 times only, all borrowed from Mk.

awdadw occurs in Mk. about 26 times, in Mt. about 16, only 4 of these coming from Mk.

The Aramaising adverbial woAAd occurs in Mk. about 13 times, in Mt. 4 times.

dru after verbs of saying occurs about 50 times in Mk. Of these about 42 are omitted by Mt. It occurs in Mt. some 38 times, 8 of these being from Mk. Of the others, about 20 occur in the formula, “I say unto you that.” In a few instances it is inserted in Marcan passages where Mk. omits it, e.g. 131! 19% 9 28-28 2123,

Mt. substitutes d€ for Mk.’s xaé about 60 times. On xaé in Mk., see Hor. Syn. p. 120.

(4) Mk.’s historic presents and imperfects are frequently sup- planted by aorists, and his ypgaro with an infinitive is generally avoided. So also eiva: with a participle, and changes are made in the voices of verbs.

Sir John Hawkins! reckons 151 historic presents in Mk., of which Mt. retains only 21. Mt. has about 93 such presents, 21 of them being from Mk. About 66 are cases of A€yet or A€éyovow, about 11 of them being from Mk. Nine of the historic presents retained from Mk. occur in Mk 1427-41= Mt 2621-45, It seems clear, therefore, that Mt. generally avoided the historic present when reproducing Mk., and some of the 21 cases where he retains it may be due to assimilation. In reproducing other sources he seems also to have avoided the present, except in the case of A€yet and A€yovow. The small number of other exceptions occur in parables (but in the nature of things the Logia would not have many such presents), and in chs. 2-444. The presence of some 9 presents not including Aéye in this section is very curious, and would be naturally explained by the theory that this section was drawn from a source in which such presents were a marked feature, if there were sufficient corroborative evidence. See below, p. Ix.

Mt. substitutes aorists for imperfects in the following cases:

Mk 122 édepov. Mt 81° zpoonveyKar. 38 edidovv, BL; éroiouy, 1214 €\aGor. A al; éroinaay, 8 C.

12 éreripa. 1216 éreripyoev. 4? edidacker. 13° eAaAnoev. 433 éXadeu. reat a 513 éxviyovto. - 82 aieOavov.

17 zapexadouv, D, 854 qapexdAcoar.

iB ’ z p 67 edidov. 10! wxer. 679 eofeiro. 145 eoBnOy.

1 Hor. Syn. pp. 114 ff.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL

Mk 64! ediov. 6°6 écwlovto. 91! érnpwtov. 13 76eXov. 10! zpocédepor.

wo

10}8 ézerinwv, A D al. latt.

48 > lA 10% ezeripwv. 1048 expacev. 10°? #KoAovder.

118 éortpavvvov, D curss. St

1119 e£exopevovto. 12)? e&cbavpalor. 1218 ernpwrwv. 12°4 é€roApa. 14° éxurrev.

55 a I4°° NuptoKov,

14% éxodadifov, D ack.

14°° jpvetro. 147? ékAauev,

WH) ny 151° eyivwoKe. 1573 edidour. 1541 nKoAovdour.

Mt 1419 dwxev. 14°6 dverdOnoav. 17!° exnpotnoav. Eye noeXynoay. 19!3 rpoonvexOnoayr. 19)8 ereripyoar. 2031 ETETIPLNOE. 20°! éxpagar. ZO. jKodovOnoay. 218 éotpwoar. 2117 e&dOev. 22°? eGavpacay. 2273 émnpwtynoar. 2246 eroAunoer. 26°9 érecev. 26° efpor. 26% éxodaduoay. 267 ipyycaro. 26" ékNavoe. 2718 nde. 2754 wxav. 2755 nxoAovOncav.

xxl

To these may be added about ro cases where «izrev (ov) is sub-

stituted for €Aeyer (ov).

avoided by omission or by paraphrase.

np&aro (avto) with infinitive :

Mk 1* npgaro xnpiocev.

273 npgavto Gd0v movetv TiA-

Aovres. 41 npkaro diddoKew. 517 npgavto mapaxaety.

mapekadouv, D,

520 npgaro Knpiocev. 62 jpEato didacKewv. 67 npéato aroareAXew. 634 npéato didackewv.

655 nogavtro—mepipepetv.

81! npgavto ovvlyretv. 831 npgaro biddcKev. 882 nparo éruTypay. 10%8 npgaro Aéyetv. 1022 104! npgavto ayavaktelv. 1047 npgaro Kpacewv. 115 npgato exBddrev. 12! npgato—Aareiv.

Mt Mt

. Omits the verse.

12! npgavto tidXeww.

13! éxa@yro. 854 zapexddecav.

Mt. omits the verse.

Mt

13°4 édidacker.

10° daéorewXev.

14!* omits clause. 14° rpoonveyKav. 161 omits.

162! npgaro Seuxvverv. 167? npéato émutipar. 19?" <izrev.

2017 ”

2074 7yavaxTyoay, 20° éxpagav.

2112 eféBarev.

21°53 omits.

In about 187 other cases the imperfect is

xxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

Mk 135 wpfaro déyeuw. Mt 24! elev. 14)° npfavto—Aé€yewwv. 2672 npfavro—Aeyewv. 14° npgaro éxbapBeioba 2657 npgaro Aveta Oar. 14© npgavro—eurrvew, 2657 evérruaay. 14° npgaro déyeuv. 2671 d€ye. 141 npgato avabepnariley. 267! npéaro Katabeuaricew. 15° péaro aireio Oa. 2716 omits verse. 1518 ypavto aordler Oar, 2779 paraphrases. 518 npEato mapaxaXety, D latt. Mt. omits the verse. 8% nogaro avaBAdfar, D latt. 5 section. 14” npgaro kAatew, D. Mt 26° éxAavoev.

It will be seen that Mt. retains the construction six out of twenty-six times. He has it also in 417 117-20 1480 7824 2449,

elvac with a participle.

(a) Imperfect.

Mk 16 jv—evdedupeévos. Mt 3 clyey 7 &vdupa ator. 193 jv—ériovvnypevy. 816 omits. 2° joav—xabypevou. Go Sas; 218 Foav—vnortevovres. Das 4°8 nv—xabevdur. 874 exadevoev. 55 av Kpdlwv. 878 omits. 652 v—reTwpwpern. Ly Pe 9! joav cvvAadowrTes. 17° omit 7oar. 10°? Aoav—avafsaivovtes. 2017 paraphrases. 10° jv mpodywr. 2017 omits. 14 joav—déyavaxrody res. 268 yavaxtynoay. 14° junv—o.dacKwr. 26° éxabelounv diddoKwr 1454 jv cvvKabypevos. 26°8 éxaOnro. 157 nv—dedenevos. 2616 omits. 15% Hyv—emvyeypappern. 27°7 paraphrases. 15*° noav—Oewportoat. 27° noav éxei-—Oewpodoau. 153 nv mpoabexomevos. 27°" paraphrases. 15*° jv AcAaTounpevor. 27° eatounoev.

Mt. has the construction four times from Mk., viz. 729 899 19%? 2643, Besides only twice, 9°6 124,

(6) Future.

This occurs only once in Mk. (13!8= Mt 1072 24°). Mt. has it besides four times in the saying about binding and loosing, 1619 (2) 1318 (2),

Perhaps we might place under this head:

Mk 14 éyévero—xnpiocur. Mt 3! rapayiverat—xypioowyr. 9’ éyévero—émioxialovea. 175 éreckiacev. 8 éyevero otihBovta Xevka. 172 évévero Nevka.

Cf. 42? éyevero aroxpudov. >

For éyévero in these cases as equivalent to jy, cf. Dn 11% ip

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXIi1

ava.povpevos, LXX = éyévero dvatpovmevos, Th.; Dn 2° Aerra ey€évero, LXX = éXerrivyoar, Th.; La 116 éyévovro—ngavicpévon

Changes of voice.

Passive for Active or Middle:

Mt 4! av7xOn. Mk 1!2 éxBarXeu. 8) jyépOn. 151 pyepev. % e€eBAnOn. 5%° exBaddv. 14) jvéxOn, 68 jveyKev. 14 €866n. 678 edwxer. 1517 éxBadAerat. 719 éxmopeverat. 1676 aderAnOyoerar 8°6 deXel, 188 BAnOjva. 9* aed Oetv. 1918 rpoonvexOnoav. 1013 zpoaépepov. 247? éxodoBabncar. 137 éxoAdBucev. 2472 coAoBwhyjcovTan 1320 : 2657 ovvnyOnoav. 14°3 cuvépxovra. 27°8 oravpovvTat 1577 oravpodvou. Active for Middle: 197° édvAaga. 107 édvragapny. 26% éuBawas. 14% éuBarropevos. 265! aréoracev. 1417 oracdpevos. Middle for Active : 14’ airnonray 6% airnoys. Active for Passive: 27° éhardunoev. 1546 jv AeAaTounpevov.

A parallel to this substitution of aorists or perfects for presents or imperfects, of imperfects for jv with participles, and of passives for actives, may be found in the two Greek versions of Daniel.

LXX. Theodotion. Dn 2°! édpaxas. eOewpens. ae ” ” 254 karnderev. éXertuver. 24 cuvnAdnoe. éX\ erruvev. 3 exypugev. ¢B0a. 3) nKoveay. HKOVOV, 3) mpocekvivnoav. a pooeKUVOUV. 38 du€Badov. 51€Baddrov. 5° cypawav. €ypadov. 674 cOAacay. eAérruvar. 72 évérecov. mpooéBadXov. 75 elirev. é\cyov. 817 &reca. Tint. 818 exounOnv. ” 9® é\aAyoav. eAdXouv. 10’ dmédpacay. épvyov.

20 2 ake 6*9 eure. hv KapTTov.

XXIV THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

LXX. Theodotion.

Dn 61° ézoiet. hv Towv. 85 drevoovpyv. enV cvviov. 3% cv Oynoav. ovvayovTat, 118 cionxOyoav elo nyayev. 213 én Oy. elnrnoav. 41° areorady. Karen. 617 Avex On. nveyKay. 617 ere. evéBaXov. 810 éopay On. erecev. 810 kareraryOn. ouveratycay.

(ce) The repetition and redundancy which are such striking features of Mk.’s style are avoided. In the following list, words in brackets are omitted by Mt. because they are verbally or in

substance (x) 135

repeated in an adjacent clause - , < . ‘ »¥ {3 / A“ Lal [werAnpwrat 6 Kaipos Kai] nyyuney 7 Baorre’a tod Geod peravocire [kal muorevere ev TH ebayyeAlo]. Sinwvos, Mt. airod. éWias 5¢ yevomerns [dre éucev 6 HALos]. ‘ 29’ Oe 13, 2 a ¢€ Z NT? i kal evOis [arnOev ax’| adrod 7) Aerpa [kal] exabepioOy. [joav yap ToAAol Kai HKodovGovv atta]. 207 g 2 / \ lal e an \ lad iddvtes [re olen pera TOV duaptwrav Kal Tewvdv]. [dcov xpovov éxovew Tov vupdiov per abrav od dvvavrat vnorevew ]. , > > 4 ae , rote—|év exelvyn TH HEA]. dre [xpelav Exyxev Kat] éreivacev. [avros] kat of per’ airod. mpos THV Oddacoay éxi THs ys. Mt. emt rov aiyraddy. Kal édidacKkey . . . Kal eAeyey airois ev TH Sidaxy aidrod. Mt. kal éAcAnoer airois. } év rit aiti tapaBoAz Oadpev]. oTav o7rapy|. Tov emt THS y7s |. Ny 33 & eCury. SoG , , Kal éxdracev 6 avenos] Kal eyeveTo yadyvyn peyaAn. iva eis adtovs eiceAGwper |. iva ow] Kat Chon. ade] pos Huas. Kal & Tos cvyyevedowy avTod] Kal €v TH otkia avrov. Tiv yuvaixa Tod adeApod gov. Mt. airyv. [76 Kopdcvov ]. non Gpas .roAARsS—7dn Gpa woArAy. Mt. avoids the repetition. ~ / e ~ e , T7) Tapadocet UpLWV [7 mapedwxare |. \ > a / [eowbev] yap ex THs Kapdias. Mt. omits because it is substantially repeated in the next verse.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXV

82 rH yeved Tavry. Mt. airy. 817 ovTw voeire [ovde ovviere]. 2 kar idiay [vdvous]. 107" [aAX’ od rapa Geo. 1046 kal epxovrat cis “Teperxo]. 1178 | iva tatra 7ov7s |. 1214 |ddpev 7) py Oper]. 1277 |rodd mAavacbe|, cf. v.74. 13)9 am apxns xticews [jv exticev 6 Beds]. 137 rovs éxAexTovs [ovs efeAeEato]. gee BXErere Gypurvette. Mt. ypyyopetre. 14° pupov [vapoov motuxys |. 14° [adere airy |. TAS Eee | TovTy TH vuKTi. 14% [iva el duvarov eat mapeAy a ar avtod » apa]. 14 xparjoate avrov [Kal ardyete dogpadds|. 144 [AGor] evOds tporeh Gav. 14 Are éws [eow eis | TY addy. 14°! és.w7a [kat OvK amreKplvato ovdev]. 14°! [érnpdra airov Kal] A€yer adr. 14° ovre olda [ovre eriorap.as |. 14° [ééw] eis TO mpoavArov. 1516 |éow ris avdAns 6] eoriw mpaitwpioy. 15°? [Owpev] Kal mucrevowper. (2) Double negatives. The words bracketed are omitted by Mt. Mk 14 pydevi [under]. 377 od dvvatat ovde’s, Mt. was dvvarai tis. 9® [ovkere] ovdeva. 114 unKxéeri—pdeits. Mt. od pyxére. 1254 ovdels [ovxere]. Mt. transfers otxére to the next clause. 14% ovixére ov py mio. Mt. od py miw am adpte. 14°! ovx azexpivato ovdev. Omitted in Mt 26%; cf. Mt 2712 ovdev aexpivato. But Mt. retains the double negative in the parallels to: Mk 1214 od péAer cou epi ovdevds. 12°4 ovdels ovxeTe eroApa. Mt. ovdé érodApyoev Tes—ovdKETL. 15° ovxére ovdey azexpiOy. Mt. ov« drexpify—rpds ovde ae (3) Mk. is fond of using a compound verb followed by the same preposition. Mt. not infrequently omits the compounded preposi- tion, or substitutes another Verb; ¢192 Mk 116 Tapd-ywv Tapa. Mt 4}§ repuraraév rapa, 171 cioropevovTar «is. 4}3 é\Gav—eis. 2! ciaeAOav—eis. 9! 7Aev eis.

XXVi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

Mk 3! eionjAdev—eis. Mt 129 7AOev eis. 5)8 eianAOor eis. 8°? aandOar eis. 5)" amedeiy aro. 854 weraBy aro. 61 eéndOev exeifer, 13°3 wernpev exetber. 610 éfeAOnre exeiOev. toll éf€A@yre. 731 e&eA Oa ek. 1579 pweraBas exeiber. 9 céerOe e€. Cf. 1718 éénA6ev azo. g*? repikerrat—repl. 18° Kpenac6y —rrept. 1075 dua—dredr tv. 1974 dua—eioed Oety. 10” cis—eioedOeiv. 1974 omit eiceAGetv. 131 éxopevowevov—ex, 241 e&eXOav—aro,

But in Mk 226 327 610.11 715(2).18. 20.2% 943.45 yo28 yyll15 728 y 312 Mt. retains the double preposition. Other cases in Mk. are 129. 45 52.812 654 719. 24, 25. 26.29 B23. 26 g25. 28 yol5. 24 772.16 765 where Mt. omits the whole paragraph or clause.

That Mt. has less liking than Mk. for these redundant phrases may be seen from the following, the relative length of the two Gospels being borne in mind. I quote from the Concordance of Moulton and Geden:

cic €pxeoOar eis—Mt. 27, Mk. 24.

Of Mt.’s 27 all but 5 are in sayings. Of the 5, 2 (2110-12) are from Mk., and another (8°) probably a reminiscence of Mk. The reading in 27! is doubtful. This leaves one (275°) to the credit of the. editor.

On the other hand, of Mk.’s 24, 10 occur in narrative.

eSépyeoOar ek—Mt. 11, Mk. 13.

Of Mt.’s 11, 2 only are in narrative, 152! 2117, and both are from Mk. Of Mk.’s 13, 7 are in narrative.

eioropeverOar eis—Mt. 1 in a saying, Mk. 4 in sayings, 2 in narrative.

extopever$ar ex—Mt. 2 in sayings, Mk. 3 in sayings, 2 in narrative.

dcepxerOa Sua—Mt. 2 (1974") in sayings, Mk. 2 in sayings.

Siarropeveo Gar Sud—Mt. 0, Mk. 1 in narrative.

mapdayew mapad—Mt. o, Mk. 1 in narrative.

mepixecc Oar mepi— Mt. o, Mk. 1 in a saying.

cuvetavpova Fat ovv—Mt. 1 in narrative, from Mk., Mk. 1.

In other words, these iterated prepositions are common in both Gospels in sayings. In narrative there are about 24 cases in Mk. and about 8 in Mt., of which 6 come from Mk.

Once in a saying Mt. has eioéAOyze eis (264!) where Mk. (14°) has €AOnre cis, 8* B; but eicéAOnre, NC AC DL aa.

(Z) Not infrequently a commonplace word is substituted for an uncommon or unusual one; e#g. :

Mk 1 oyiLopevovs. Mt 316 jvedxOnoav. t? éxBadra. 41 avnxOn.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL

Mk 116 audiBadXovras. 211 xpdBarrov. 271 éripdarret.

378 rots viots TOV avOpdrrwv.

g? oriABorta. 10% rpvpadias. 118 oriBadas. 14°8 rpoavaAtov. 1472 ériBadov. 151! dvécewav.

XXVIl

Mt a BadXovras aupiBrnotpov.

9® KAivny. 916 emiBarr«.

12°! zols avOpwras. 172 ws TO as. 19*4 tpypatos.

218 xAddous.

267 rvAwv.

267 efeXOov ew?

2720 erevoayv.

(e) Mt. often corrects the harshness of Mk.’s syntax; cf. especially the notes on 10! 13% 23. 32, (7) Prepositions and adverbs.

amo and ék: Mt 3/6 azo 161 & 1718 aro 241 amd aAey |S; 2647

In 36 the change is perhaps intentional

he teh colt a

Mk 1? ék. git 3

ote ek.

1 ¢é, 137 éx. 14% zapa. See note.

In 16! 24! 2647 the changes seem without significance, but in 1718 241 the substitution of dé avoids Mk.’s iteration: efeAGe é€, ex:

ropevonevov— ek.

eis and év and emi:

Mt 3! & voare ér avTov eis 9) ed’ doov 12! dative 13” éxi Tome 9}8 é’ airy

1533 éy 102? és 19)5 éxutiBeis—airots 218 ev 2216 é év adn Geig 24° ézi 1017 éy 2418 éy 24°0 éxt 264 ddrw 265 ev td Aa@ 2610 eis 2618 ey

Mk 18 ddarz. 110 cis atdtov. 116 ey, ie 223 éy, 4" is. 7a eet atTy. 84 exi. eV. 1016 7Gels ex’ —aiTa 118 eis, 1214 éx’ adnOelas. nod Perc. ish) Gist 1316 éis. 1 3°5 ey, 14! év dodo. 147 tov Aaov, 14° év. 14° is.

XXVIli THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

Mt 2638 ey = Mk 14” éis. 2654 éy = 14°9 omit, 26°° éxi tov Incotw = 14° avTo. 26% éxi = 14° werd.

878 Sarpoviopevor 52 év rvevpate axabapro. 97° aipoppootea = 5% ovcoa ev pice aiparos. In 3!6 the change of ézi for eis is probably intentional. See note. In 418 eis is perhaps more natural than ev after BdAXovtas. In 1378 éwi is also more natural after the verb wizrew than eis. In 9! and 265° Mt. substitutes éé with accusative for the dative after émiriMecOar tiv xetpa; but he has the dative in 19! where Mk. has the accusative with éi, so that the change is without significance. In 15% év is perhaps easier than ézi. In 10% Mt. has eis 6voya for év évouare; but the succeeding words are different, and the passages are not really parallel. For eis dvoua, cf. Mt 1041 @) 1820 2819, Jn 218 éy is easier than eis, and this is the case with emi, 243, and év, 1017 2418, The substitution of ézé for ev, 24°9, and for perd, 26%, is due to desire to assimilate to Dn 7!8 (LXX). And the participles in 878 92° avoid Mk.’s curious use of év. eri with different cases :

Mt 916 éxt inariw = Mk 2” émi ipdriov. 13? eri Tov aiyiakov = = 41 éri ths y7s. 14 a3 > A“ a 34 yet? > , 1414 ér avrois = 6%4 éx airovs. 19 32\ aA / = 89 2 ~ , 14) él Tov xoptov = 6°? et To XOpTH. 14% éxi tiv OaXaccav = 648 ei THs Gadaoons. 15° ext tH ynVv = 8° emi rs ys. 1018 éri nyeuovas = 13° emt Hyepovwr. Cf. 217 én’ airav = 11’? aire. Ve > / a7 A 7 ot) : 3 4 21? éravw avtav _ 11’ em avrov 18 err’ airyy = 573 airy.

195 airots 1016 éx’ avra. 26° ei tov "Inootv 14% aro.

In 9!6 the dative is perhaps more natural after the weakened sense of émiBddAev, which Mt. substitutes for Mk.’s éxipamrrev, than the accusative.

In 13? cf. for the accusative after tornus, Rev 1218 141 152; but the genitive is found in Lk 61’, Ac 214, Rev 10% 8,

éxi with the dative after orAayxvifecOa: is found in Mt 144 and Lk 71%. Mk (64 8? and 9?) has the accusative, and so Mt 15°”.

In 14!9 the verb is dvaxXuOjva. After the similar verbs Kabjoba and xafilew, emi frequently takes genitive or accusative. The dative only occurs in Rev 7!° r9* 21°. Mt.’s substitution of genitive for dative is, therefore, not unnatural. Cf. his substitution of kaOynpevov dé aitod ext tov "Opovs, 243, for Mk.’s cai xaOypéevov avrov eis Td “Opos, 13%. For the latter, cf. 2 Th 24 dare avrov eis Tov vaov Tov Geov xalivan.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXix

In 14% Mt. substitutes the accusative for Mk.’s genitive and has the accusative in v.%, but in v.?6 he retains Mk.’s genitive.} Jn 6% has the genitive. The change of accusative for genitive in 1018 is conditioned by the change of verb, ax@joeo6e for crabjcecbe.

In 217 Mt. has éx airév for Mk.’s simple dative, but he has changed the verb from é7iBdAXewv to eritifecGa. After this verb the usual constructions are the simple dative or ez with accusative, but Mt. has the genitive again in 27%. In the same verse Mt. has éravw aitav for ér aitav. emdvw occurs 8 times in Mt., only once, 14°= “‘ more than,” in Mk.

Tpos :

Mt 816 dative Mk 1°2 xpés.

os

: ” = 2 ” 1p ” = gi? ” zs ” — 1127 ” ED ee = ctl 27° ” a 15% ”

In 86 and 9? Mt. substitutes zpoopépev for Mk.’s ¢épew. mpoodeperv is a favourite word with him, and he always uses the simple dative of a person after it. In 1717 the verb is épew in Mt. and Mk. Mt. has the dative again in 141% Mk. uses the dative 7°4 32%, or xpos 152 2° o}9-20 r17. In 21% 2275 and 27°, Mt. substitutes his favourite word zpocepyxeoOar for épyerbar, Mk 1127 1218 and eioépyeoGar, 154%. The substitution of the dative for mpos is a natural consequence.

Other changes:

Mt 124 per avrod = Mk 2% ow airo. 12 xaf? éautys = 324 ed’ éautny. m2 ” = ” But Mt. retains éf’ éavrov in v.?9, 13)9 ev TH Kapodia aitav = 4)5 cis avrovs. 10!4 omit — 61! troKxato. 2418 éricw = 1316 eis 7a b7riow. 14” dative = 648 mept with accusative. 1477 = 6°° wera adtav.

AaXeiv perd occurs only here in the Synoptic Gospels, 4 times in Jn., 6 in Rev. But cf. Mt 173 cuvAadodvres per aitov= Mk gt the dative.

157° rapa = Mk 7°! eis. 167 ev éavtots = 816 zpds adAnAovs. 16?! dative = 831 wera with accusative. 1723 = 31 7 ” 9 ”

1See Abbott ( Johannine Grammar, 2342), W ho urges that Mk.’s repurardy éwi Tis dardgons is ambiguous, and might mean ‘“‘ walking about on the edge of the sea.’

XxX THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

Mt 20! dative = Mk 10% wera with accusative. 211 eis ro “Opos = 11! mpos 7d “Opos. 21% éy éavtots = 11° apos éavtovs. 21% ” = EZ! ” 2678 epi = 1474 imép. 2634 éy = 14°° dative. 27°3 edOovtes eis = 152? hépovew—eri. 27% epi = 15°4 dative. 27° dative = 156 emi with accusative.

Many of these changes are without significance, but those in 316 24°° 26% are probably intentional, whilst those in 24! 137-819 15°83 218 243 rol? 2418 828 920 o16 1419 ease the construction. Those in 816 go? 1717 2123 2223 and 27°58 are to conform to Mt.’s usage else- where.

(g) Conjunctions.

Mk. three times has dérav with the indicative, viz. 34) 111% 2, Mt. avoids this construction. Cf. Mk 65° ézov ay etaopevero, which Mt. omits. Cf. Rev 144 drov ay iraye (AC).

ei in a Statement meaning “‘ that not,” Mk 8!2, Mt. substitutes ov.

(Z) Changes made in Mk.’s language are sometimes due to the fact that the editor has inserted similar sayings from another source in another part of his Gospel, and assimilates Mk.’s language to these similar passages.

E.g. Mk 4%=Mt 13; but Mt adds xat repiccevOyjoera, to

assimilate to 2529,

Mk 8!” has té 7) yeved atry Cytet onpetov ; dunv A€eyw tpiy el Sobjoetar TH yevea TavTn onuciov; but

Mt 164 has yeved rovynpa kai porxadls onpetov émiytet Kal onpetov ov Sofjcerat aitp ei pay TO onpetov ‘lwva, to assimilate to 129%,

Mk 8% has odoer; but Mt 16% has etpyoe, to assimilate to 10%,

Mk 9* has éav oxavdadicy—aroxoyov—oe—td mip Td do Beorov; but Mt 188 has ei oxavdadile.—éxxopov—ool, and adds xat Bade ad cod, to assimilate to 5°, and has 76 wtp 76 aidvioy, to assimilate to 2541.

Mk 9* has xaAdv éeorw ei; but Mt 18% has cvupdeper—iva, to assimilate to 5°°.

Mk 947 has éa4v—oxavdariin—éxBare—oe¢; but Mt 189 has ei— oxavoadile.—éEeXe— ol, and adds kai Bare azo coi, to assimilate to 52°, and rot zupds, to assimilate to 522.

Mk ro4=Mt 109% Mt. adds (ei) uy eri zopveia, to as- similate to Mt 5%? zapexrés Adyou Topveias.

Mk 11=Mt 2171. Mt. adds éav éxyre wiorw, to assimilate to07e":

In 15°**-89 Mt. assimilates the language to 14191,

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXxXi

(¢) A few changes seem to be due to the desire to emphasise an antithesis, e.g. : Mt 157) 8&4 ri of pabyral cov rapaBaivovow. 153f dia ti kal ipets tapaBaivere. 15*\ 6 yap Oeds elev tina. 15°) tpets de A€yere—ovd py TysHorer. 198\ Mwvons—ererpever. 19°f A€yw de byiv.

6. More important, however, than changes in language, are alterations which seem due to an increasing feeling of reverence _ for the person of Christ. The second Evangelist had not scrupled to attribute to Him human emotion, and to describe Him as asking questions. Such statements are almost uniformly omitted by the editor of this Gospel.

£.g. he omits the following :

Mk 3° wepiBreYapevos aitots pet dpyns ovvAvrovpevos. Cf.

the way in which Mt 12*° avoids zepiAcWapevos of Miki 3** 141 orAayyuobeis ; but Da ff? have dpyioGeis.} euBpyrnodpevos. 371 eféarn. 6° eéatvpacer. 822 dvacrevacas TO mvevpart. S! has: “ He was excited in spirit”; Arm. “He was angry in His spirit.” Cf. Mt.’s omission of 7G rvevpare adrod from Mk 28. 10!4 jyavaxtnoey. 107! éuPrdPas atta Nyamnoev aitov. 14°35 Mt has Avreto Oar for éxbapPBeicOa.

He omits also clauses which seem to ascribe inability to Christ, or desire which was not fulfilled.

E.g. © dore pnKeri adtov SivacGai—e«ioed Ociv.

65 otk edvvato éxel rorpoar ovdeuiav Sivapw. Mt 13°8 substitutes ovK éroinoey éxet Suvdpers ToAXAs. 648 nOcXev wapeAOetv abrovs. Mt. omits. 774 oddéva nOehev yvdvar kal ovx yovvacbn Aabelv. Mt. omits. 9° Kai odx nOeAev iva tis yvot. Mt. omits. 14°8 katradiow. Mt 26% dvvapyar xatadtoa.

In 1118 Mk. describes the Lord as coming to a fig tree [ei apa Te edpyoeév aity Kal eAGav] er avtiy ovde cipey ei uy) PUAXa [6 yap Katpos otk iv avkwv]. Mt. omits the bracketed clauses, which might give rise to the question why Christ expected to find figs which did not exist, and that out of season.

1See note on 8% Mt. uses omdayxvifer@a of Christ four times (9% 14! 15™ 20%), and probably read dépyicGels in Mk 14,

XXXil THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

The same feeling of reverence may have caused the following changes :

Mk 68 6 réxrwv. Mt 1355 6 tov téxtovos vids.

1018 ri we A€yes dyabov; Mt. 19!" ri pe épwrds rept Tod ayaod; 1352 odd€ 6 vids. Mt 24°6 omits.

He omits also the following questions which Mk. places in the mouth of the Lord :

Mk 5° te coe dvopua;

5° ris pou HWaro Tov ipatiwv ; 6°8 zocous ExeTE apTous ; 82 ri yeveda avry Cytet onpetov ; 823 ef re BAEres ; go! ras yéypartat ert Tov vidv Tod avOpdrov; g!6 ri cutnreite zpos ators ; 97! adcos xpovos eativ ds TOTO yéyovev avT@ ; 9° ri ev TH 606 dteAoyilec Oe ; 10° ti tptv éverei(Aato Mwvo7s ; 1414 rod éortiy TO KaTdAvpa pov;

Due to the same causes are, no doubt, changes made in regard to the miracles.

There is a tendency to emphasise the immediacy of a miracle ; cf. the insertion of a6 ris dpas éxeivns, Mt 9% 1528 1718. A more striking case of this occurs in the parable of the Fig Tree. In Mk. an interval of a day is placed between the denunciation of it by the Lord and the observation of the disciples that it had withered in the meantime. But Mt. draws together the two sections of the narrative, states that the tree withered immediately upon Christ’s word, and that the disciples were astonished at this immediate fulfilment of the Lord’s word (2171). There is a similar heightening in the universal scope of Christ’s healings. Mk 1%? %% records that ‘“‘all” who were sick were brought to Christ, and that He healed . “many.” Mt. reverses the adjectives—‘ many ” were brought, and “all” were healed (81°). There is a similar alteration in Mt 12% as compared with Mk 371°, Here, too, may be noticed the heightening in number in the two miracles of feeding by the insertion of the phrase xwpls yuvatkav Kal rardiwv, 147) 15°8,

Noticeable also is the omission of the two miracles, Mk 78! 8228. in which the cure is effected by physical means: “ He put His fingers into his ears, and spat, and touched his tongue,” 7°; ‘* He spat on his eyes,” 823. Moreover, in the latter incident the cure is a gradual one, necessitating a twofold laying on of hands. Contrast the emphasis laid by Mt. in two cases on Christ as healing “with a word,” 8816 Another noticeable change of this sort is found in Mt 171718, Mk 920-26 describes how the spirit tare the sufferer as he was brought to Christ, so that he fell on the ground and wallowed foaming. The Lord presently bade

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXX1i]

the spirit come forth ; whereupon, “having cried out and rent him sore, he came out. And he became as one dead, so that many said that he had died.” Mt. omits all these details, simply saying that “the demon came forth from him.” St. Luke retains much of this description, but omits all traces of physical suffering after Christ’s command. A similar desire to avoid descriptions of bodily anguish after Christ’s healing word may have co-operated with other motives in causing the omission of Mk 178-8, Mk. records that after Christ’s word “the unclean spirit rent him, and cried with a loud voice.” Here again a similar motive has influenced St. Luke, who states indeed that ‘‘the demon threw him down in the midst,” but adds, ‘came out from him, having done him no hurt,” 4°°

In view of the facts recorded above, it may perhaps be not too fanciful to see a striving after a reverential attitude in the following changes. In Mk 4°*8 the disciples ask the half-reproachful question, “Ts it not a care to Thee that we perish?” Mt 8% substitutes “save, we perish.” In Mk 6%’ they ask a question which might be interpreted in an ironical sense: ‘‘ Are we to go away and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread?” Mt 14!’ omits.) Does Mt. omit Mk 1* because, side by side with the statement that Christ was unable to do something, it records an act of direct disobedience to Christ’s express command? Lastly, Mt. has substituted for Mk 1278-34 ga narrative of very different tone. Did he find the approbation of Christ’s teaching expressed by the scribe too patronising? See note on 22°4, For the relation of Mt. to Mk. in the account of Christ’s use of the parabolic method in teaching, Beer Ont px310-12:

7. Side by side with these changes in expressions dealing with the person of the Lord runs a series of somewhat similar alterations in favour of the disciples.

£.g.,in Mk 4} there is a rebuke addressed to the disciples, “Do ye not know this parable, and how shall ye appreciate all the parables?” In Mt 13!©1!7 this rebuke is omitted, and there is inserted instead a blessing, ‘‘ Blessed are your eyes,” etc.

In Mk 4% ovrw éxere rictw becomes édrrydmicror in Mt 876, Mk 652 ov yap ouvykay él Tos aptots GAN’ HY airay 7) Kapdta TEeTMOPWLEVY, is omitted from Mt 14%,

Mk 817 TeTWpopevyy Exere THY Kapdtay % Day 5 ; dpOarpodts exovres ov BAérere kal ta Exovtes ovK aKoveTeE, 1s Omitted at Mt 169, and in v.!2 a statement is inserted to the effect that the disciples did understand.

At Mk 89 Mt. inserts the eulogy of St. Peter, ‘“‘ Blessed art

thou, Simon Barjona,” etc., 1617-19, 1 Cf. also the omission of the question Mk 5*! from the parallel in Mt. ¢

XXXIV THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

At Mk 9!8 another clause is inserted to emphasise the fact that the disciples understood Christ’s teaching (Mt 171%).

From Mk 9°, Mt 17* omits the statement that St. Peter ‘knew not what to answer.

Mk 9, which records that the disciples disputed about the rising from the dead, is omitted at Mt 17%.

For Mk 92 “ And they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask Him,” there is substituted in Mt 17?8 the harmless words, ‘‘ And they were very grieved.”

From Mk 9*8-34 Mt. omits the statements that the disciples had disputed who was the greater among them, 181.

In Mk 1to* an ambitious request is ascribed to James and John. In Mt 20? this request is transferred to the mother of the two Apostles.

In Mk 4118 the Twelve are represented as ignorant of the meaning of Christ’s parables. Mt. avoids this.

From Mk 14* the words, “and they knew not what to answer Him,” are omitted by Mt 26%,

Compare also the omission of of 8¢ pabyrat CapPotvro er: rots Adyos airod (Mk 1074) in Mt 19”, and the omission of kat €OapBotvro (Mk 10%?) in Mt 2017,

8. The following alterations are due to a desire to emphasise a fulfilment of prophecy in an incident recorded by Mk. :

Mk 11? w@Aov dedeuevov. Mt 21? dvov dedenevynv kat wOXAov per avrys. The citation from Zec 99 follows in v.°.

Mk 14" érnyyeiAavro aire dpyvpiov dotva. Mt 26 eornoayv avT® tpiaxovta dpyvpia. Both éorycavy and pidKovra occur in Zec 111%, and are here inserted to prepare the way for the quotation of Zec 11 in 279 10,

Mk 1523 éopupvicpevov otvov. Mt 27% olvoy pera xOoArs fewtypevov, with probable reference to Ps 69”.

9. The following changes or brief insertions are made by Mt.

to qualify or explain a statement of the second Evangelist :

Mk 84=Mt 164. Mt. adds <i pi 7d onpetoy Idva, remembering that in 124° he has already represented Christ as making this qualification of His words.

815— Mt 16% Mt. substitutes xai Saddovxatwv for Kai THs Ciuns ‘Hpwdov to prepare the way for his explanation in v.12 that “‘leaven” meant “teaching.”

829— Mt 1616 Mt. adds 6 vids rod Geov tov Lavros.

1oll=Mt 19% Mt. adds (ei) pur) eri zopveia.

10°*= Mt 201% Mt. substitutes cravpOoa for aroxtevovow.

14©= Mt 2687, Mt. adds ris éorw 6 maicas oe to explain TpopyTevoov.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXXV

15%—Mt 274% Mt. has of d& Aorol efray for Mk.’s ambiguous Aéywyr.

Lastly, the substitution of otrés éorw in Mt 3!” for 3d fin Mk 1! may be due to a desire to make it clear that the divine voice was heard not by Christ alone, but by others also. It was a public announcement of His divinity.

10. Under the head of changes made for the sake of greater accuracy may be noted the following : Mk 276 éri “ABiddap dpxrepews. Mt 12* omits. 57? eis TOv apxicvvaydywv. Mt g!8 dpywy eis ; cf. Schiirer, TOG. 614 Bacirte’s. Mt 14! retpadpyys. 672 ris Ovyarpos abrov (ait7s) Hpwdiddos. Mt 14° 4 Ovyarnp THs “Hpwo.ddos. 881 931 10% wera tpeis nuepas. Mt 162! 1723 20!9 ry zpity P€p 4. 9° “HAcias oly Mwvoet. Mt 173 Mwvons wat “HAeas. 141 10 mdcya kai ra alupa. Mt 26? omits xat ra alupa 14” 7H mpwTn nuepa Tov alipwv Ore TO Tacxa eOvov. Mt 2617 omits dre To tdaya eOvov. 157! épydpevov dx aypov= ‘coming from work.” Mt 27%? omits. See note. 154° ayopacas owddva. Mt 2759 omits. See note.

11. Some noticeable changes in point of fact are: Mk 214 Acveiy tov Tod “AAdaiov. Mt 9° dvOpwrov—MaGatov Aeyopevor. 51 Tepacnvav. Mt 828 Tadapnvav. 52 avOpwros. Mt 8% dvo. 810 AaApavovda. Mt 15° Mayaday. 10° 6 vids Tipatov Bapriparos tupAds mpocairyns. Mt 20%? dv0 tupAol. 14°7 twes. Mt 26° dvo.

It is hoped that the facts collected above will be sufficient to convince the reader that of the two Gospels, that of S. Mark is primary, that of S. Matthew secondary. They seem to point all in the same direction. That is to say, whilst it is not inconceivable that such changes should have been made by a later writer in the text of S. Mark, it is extremely improbable that the author of the second Gospel should have been dependent on the first, and have made the changes in the reverse direction. From every point of view, whether it be of linguistic style, of reverence for Christ, of esteem for His Apostles, or of consideration for the reader, the alterations made by Mt. give the impression of be- longing toa later stage of evangelic tradition as compared with

XXXVI THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

that represented by Mk. Isolated cases may seem open to question, but anyone who reads through the first Gospel with Mk. before him, asking himself why it is that Mt. differs from the second Gospel, will, I believe, be led to the conclusion that, taken as a whole, his deviations from Mk.’s text can only be explained as due to motives which interpenetrate every part of his work.

This subject, however, must not be left without some con- sideration of the fact that Mt.’s treatment of Mk. often finds a parallel in Lk. In other words, Mt. and Lk. often agree against Mk. in omission and in substitution of a word or phrase, and (rarely) in an insertion. This fact has led to the suggestion that in addition to Mk., Mt. and Lk. had a second source containing parallel matter, and that they not infrequently agree in preferring the language of this second source to that of Mk. This second source might, of course, be either a document already used by Mk., or a document independent of Mk., but containing many parallel sections.

The following facts are worthy of consideration :

Lk. like Mt. omits many details from Mk.’s narrative.

£.g. Mk 1}8 the wild beasts.

129 James and John.

2%6 Abiathar.

3i7 Boanerges.

4°§ the cushion.

58 “about two thousand.”

6°7 “two hundred pennyworth.”

6°9 “green”; Lk. also omits “grass.”

64° “in ranks ”—“ by hundreds.”

9° the fuller.

14°! the young man. 157 the father of Alexander and Rufus. 15** Pilate’s question about Christ’s death.

Especially the statements about the thronging of the multitudes : 133 45 92 39.10. 20 631,

Lk. like Mt. frequently omits Mk.’s characteristic words and phrases, kal ed@vs, mdAuv, mwoAXd, ore after verbs of saying ; and substitutes 8€ for kai.

kal evOvs occurs only once in Lk. in a non-Marcan passage, 6%.

mdAwv occurs 3 times in Lk., once, 237°, from Mk.

woAAd (adverbial) occurs in Lk. twice, both from Mk., 9?? 17%

ére after verbs of saying is omitted by Lk. from Marcan passages 14 times.

dé is substituted for kai by Mt. and Lk. 26 times. See Hor. Syn. p. 120.

Like Mt., Lk. avoids Mk.’s historic presents. There is but one instance in Lk., viz. 84?= Mk 5° See Hor. Syn. p. 119.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXXVIl

Like Mt., Lk. substitutes aorists for imperfects, e.g. in Mk 1°? 4? 513-17 67 1218 1472, But Mt. is much more consistent than Lk. in this change.

Like Mt., Lk. omits yp£aro-avro, from Mk 517: 20 634 881 1028. 82. 47 13° 149; but Lk. has this construction 27 times.

Like Mt., Lk. sometimes avoids Mk.’s redundant phrases. Clauses bracketed in the following are omitted by Lk.:

Mk 1°? [dyias de yevoperys |. 142 [kai éxabepioOy |. 215 | joav yap roXXo‘]., iddvres Gru eoOler pera TOV GpaptwAdv Kal TeAwvdr], dcov—vyorevew |, xpelav exer]. 12 Lk. abbreviates, 519 [ rpds Tots cous]. 6° Lk. abbreviates. 102" [adAN’ od rapa Gea), 1046 [kai éxropevopevou 1178 | iva tadrTa rows |. 1214 | ddpev 7 py Sper]. Lk. sometimes agrees with Mt. in the substitution of one word for another, generally a common word for a rare one, ¢.g. : Mk 1” oxilopevovs; Mt. Lk. jrvewyOnoar, dvewxOnvar 112 éxBadrAeac; Mt. avnyOn; Lk. iyero. 241 xpaBarrov; Mt. xAivny; Lk. xAuvidvov. 271 émipamrer; Mt. Lk. émuBarrAcr. 614 BaciXevs ; Mt. Lk. rerpaapyys. 10” tpvpadias; Mt. Lk. tpyparos. 1447 éraccev; Mt. waragéas; Lk. éxaragev. 14” émBaraov; Mt. Lk. e&eAOav Ew? 1548 évetAnoev; Mt. Lk. evervAcéev.

Lk. agrees with Mt. in nearly all the changes mentioned on pp. xxxi ff. with reference to the person of the Lord, omitting either the words in question or the whole paragraph. Exceptions are that Lk. retains the questions in Mk 5% and 14", and ri pe A€yets ayaov in 108. He omits the entire incident of the cursing of the fig tree which Mt. has modified, and avoids the direct statement of disobedience to Christ’s command in 1*°, which Mt. omitted.

In the following changes of the same kind he has not the support of Mt.

Mk 1°8 é&AOov; Lk. ameordAnv, to make it clear that the coming forth from God is intended.

Lk. omits the agony in the garden, Mk 14°84 (Lk 2249-44, which is not in Mk., is omitted by 8*A BRT S'); the mockery by the soldiers, Mk 15162; the spitting, Mk 14%; the feeling of desertion by God, Mk 15*4; the rebuke of Christ by St. Peter, Mk 8°,

Teperya}

XXXVlll THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

Lk. also agrees with Mt. in some of the changes with reference to the disciples.

Mk 4!8 Lk. omits.

4° oirw éxere tiotw; Lk. rod H riotes tyav; 6°2 Lk. omits the whole section. 817 Lk. omits the whole section. 9° Lk. omits the whole section. g** Lk. adds a clause to explain that the ignorance of the disciples was due to the fact that the matter was hidden from them (by God?) ; cf. Lk 18%4 2416, 1074 Lk. omits. to*2 Lk. omits. 10%-45 Lk. omits the whole section. 14*° Lk. omits the paragraph.

In the following changes of the same kind Lk. has not the support of Mt. :

8%3 the rebuke of St. Peter. Lk. omits the paragraph. 14°° the flight of the disciples. Lk. omits.

(1) Of these changes many of the more important might well be due to independent revision of Mk. by Mt. and Lk., especially those relating to Christ and His Apostles. It is evident that contemplation of the life of the Lord, and reflection upon His Person and work, and all that it meant for human life; and the deepening reverence that springs spontaneously from the life of meditation upon His words, and from spiritual communion with Him, and from worship of God in His name, was gradually leading Christian writers partly to refine and purify, partly to make careful choice of the language in which they described His life. In connection with His Sacred Person the choicest words only must be used, choicest not for splendour or beauty of sound or of suggestion, but as conveying in the simplest and most direct way the greatest amount of truth about Him with the least admixture of wrong emphasis. In this respect the Synoptic Gospels present in miniature the same process that afterwards took place on a larger scale in the history of the creeds. Already the Gospel writers found themselves committed to the task of describing the life of One whom they knew to have been a truly human Person, whom yet they believed to have been an incarnation of the Eternal. This task, in which it could never be possible to attain more than a relative amount of success, was increased by the fact that the books to be written were intended not for Christians with years of Christian thought and instruction to soften apparent inconsistencies, nor for men trained in the art of so softening the intellectual] paradoxes of life as to escape from mental paralysis, but for the average member of the Christian congregation, simple-minded and matter-of-fact, to whom the narrative of the Lord’s life with its

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXX1X

double-sidedness would repeatedly suggest hard questions, until use and custom blunted their edge. How could the Lord, if He was divine, ask for information? How could He wish or will things that did not happen? How could it be said that He could not do this or that? Did God really forsake Him in the garden? Could it be that He had prayed a prayer which was unfulfilled ? Was it possible that S. Peter had rebuked Him?. Why was He baptized if baptism implied repentance and forgiveness of sin? The first and third Gospels prove themselves to be later than the second by the consideration which they show for the simple- minded reader in questions like this, and it is quite possible that Mt. and Lk. may often have agreed in a quite independent revision of Mk. in these respects. A good many of the verbal agreements, e.g. the grammatical changes, such as the substitution of aorists for historic presents, or the correction of an awkward turn of phrase in Mk., might also be due to independent revision. But no doubt this explanation will not account for all the agreements between Mt. and Lk. taken in their entirety, and we must look for other more comprehensive or supplementary explanations.

(2) The theory that Mt. and Lk. had in addition to Mk. a second source, containing parallel matter to almost the whole of Mk., is very unsatisfactory. Here and there it seems to promise a solution. But the attempt to make it explain all the agreements in question ends in the reconstruction of a lost Gospel, almost identical with our S. Mark, save for the points of agreement between Mt. and Lk. which are in question. Is it in the least likely that there should have existed a second Gospel so similar to that of S. Mark? And granting this, is it probable that two later writers would have independently turned from S. Mark to pick out words and phrases from this Mark’s “double”? See, further, Abbott, Corrections of Mark, 319. Here and there, however, the principle which underlies this explanation will be of service. Mt. and Lk., ¢.g., agree, against Mk., in certain words of the parable of the Mustard Seed. It is possible that Mt. turned here from Mk. to the Logia (see p. lvi), whilst Lk.’s account of the parable, which does not stand in his Gospel in the place where Mk 430-82 should occur, but later, was taken from some source where it occurred in a form like that of the Logia. This would account for agreements between Mt. and Lk.

Along these lines, that the agreements in question are sometimes due to the fact that Mt. and Lk. independently agree in re-editing Mk., and they are sometimes due to the fact that Mt. and Lk. sometimes substitute for Mk. a second tradition which they drew immediately from different sources, much may be explained.

But three other factors must probably be taken into account.

(3) Some of the agreements in question are probably due to

xl THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

the fact that the copy of Mk. used by Mt. and Lk. had already undergone textual correction from the original form of the Gospel. That is to say, the text of Mk. used by Mt. and Lk. may be called a recension of the original Mk., whilst the text of Mark as we have it is another recension. £.g. Mk 1*! has orAayxvioGeis, but Mt. and Lk. both omit the word. It is quite possible that their copy of Mk. had épycets, which is read by Daff% The omission of Mt. and Lk. would then be parallel to other changes made by them in Mk.’s text.

In Mk 118 the majority of MSS. have éorpwoav, but D S! curss. have the imperf. éorpdvvvov, which has the advantage of being in Mk.’s style and is probably original. Now Mt. probably read the imperfect in Mk. He alters it in accordance with his custom into the aorist in 218, but he shows his knowledge of it by repeating the verb in the imperfect. And Lk. also read the imperfect in Mk.

(4) Some of the agreements in question are probably due to the fact that the texts of the first and third Gospels have been assimilated.

£.g. Mt. in 22°+40 and Lk in 10%-27 have a narrative similar to Mk 1228-84, in which they have several agreements against Mk. One of the most important of these is the word vopxds, by which they describe the questioner. But vopuxds is omitted from Mt. by 1. S! Arm. Orig., and may be due to assimilation to Lk.

In Mt 21*# the majority of MSS. have a verse which is not found in the section in Mk., but which is also inserted in the corresponding section in Lk. But in Mt. the verse is omitted by D 33abeff!-2 S!}, and may be due to assimilation to Lk.; or, as suggested in the commentary, it may be a gloss which came into the first Gospel, and was incorporated into the third by the same or by a later copyist.

If we could recover the text of our two Gospels as they left the hands of the Evangelists, it is quite possible that the number of their agreements would be largely diminished.

(5) Lastly, amongst his many sources (Lk 1!) Lk. may have seen and read Mt., though his use of it is so slight that he cannot have had it constantly before him. This can nowhere be proved, but would obviously explain many agreements, both in matter parallel to Mk. and in non-Marcan material. I am inclined to believe that Lk 17! is due to abbreviation of Mt 18%! (see notes), and the agreement of Mt. and Lk. in substituting évervAcée for the eveiAnoev of Mk 1546 seems to me to be most naturally explained by the theory that Lk. had read Mt. and was here influenced by reminis- cence of his language. Of course, if a reasonable case could be made out for Lk.’s dependence upon Mt. in any one case, then a large number of agreements between the two Gospels would be at once more easily explained by this fact than by any other theory.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xli

8B. MATTER COMMON TO MATTHEW AND LUKE ALONE.

Mt 37-2 = Lk 3717. See note on Mt 371%. Probably not borrowed from a common written source. qr =Lk 4713, See note on Mt 4?. Probably not borrowed from a common written source.

bas Sermon. = Lk 617. 20-23, 5390 40, 42 e 629. 30, Bere i! 634. 35, Gee ie 6278. 28b, 5" “5 635, Cae 5 632,

Be 5 633, chk : 636, Te ” 6374 7 - 638b

oa : 641. 42 7i2 te 631

2 : 644

a 5 643

21 ‘ Gio?

aad 647-49

them different recensions of the Sermon on the Mount.

See p. 70. 5134 Sermon. = Lk 14% 35, 33

15 * 11°)

18 f TO",

25, 57-59 525. 26 x ipgles

32 i 16!°: 68 oA cf. 1290: 69-13 . rri-4, 619-21 aN 1233 84. 622. 23 ie 1134 35, 6% ” 16}8, 625-34 e 1222-31, gril ‘3 112-13,

13, 14 3 eles 722. 23 1325-27,

”

It will be seen that Mt. has in close connection sayings which in Lk. appear in different contexts. There is also a good deal of divergence in language. The former fact makes it unlikely that these sayings were

1 Cf. Mk 9”.

xlii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

drawn from a common written source unless it were a document containing detached sayings and groups of sayings. The latter fact suggests diversity of source. Mies East and West. eke So Centurion. aslo Not from a common source, but either from oral tradition or from independent written sources. See note on Mt 8513,

oo Two aspirants. ofr se Not from a common source. See note on Mt 8.

Ba Beelzeboul. Lk r1!4",

oe Labourers few. 102, 1010b Charge to the Twelve. 107, rol2- 18 " ene 1015 a 102, To16a 45 10%, 10724: 25 i 610, 1026-33 i 1279, Me rtd ms 1251-53 108% 88 ws 1426. 27 1029 6 1733,

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.

EEA The Baptist. Wee er bs 7 22-28, pplz. 18 “ 1616,

y y16-19 781-35, pr21-238 i 1018-15, 11% = 102,

1125-27 ro2l- 22.

”

Not from a common written source, but from independent written sources. See the commentary.

12H Lost sheep. TAP: Not from a common written source. poo! Beelzeboul. ire The similarity here may be accidental. See note on. Es Beelzeboul. pies 1230 ss 1123, 1232 a 1210, 1238-35 if 643-45, E222 Sign. re 1239. 40 7 1122 30, ozo si ree 1242 ‘3 rie

1240-45 II 24-26 |

”

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xlili

From independent written sources. See note on Mt 127%,

Mtr 316th Blessed are your eyes. kenos 2: From independent sources. ee Leaven. gio

From a common written source. Or Luke has been influenced by Matthew.

1514 Blind leading blind. 6°. Independent fragments.

162-3! 1254-561,

7720! Grain of mustard seed. 170!

ope Lost sheep. te Independent versions of the parable. See the commentary.

187 Offences. nye.

1815 Forgiveness. site

1 Q2l- 22 174.

” Independent written sources. Or Luke may have been influenced by Matthew. See note on Mt 18.

282 729. 30,

Independent. arts 20187,

But the verse is probably spurious in Mt. See note. zoe AO The Great Commandment. TOs 234 Denunciation of Pharisees. 1 146d, 2312 a r4ll 73l4, eae . rae 2328 = nee 2 2.25. 26 e 1139-41,

2 227. 28 “ sea

2 229-31 i ryt? 48, 2 234-86 ay 1149-51, 2 337-89 i 1384 95,

Not from a common written source. See note on Mt 23}. 2423-26-28 End of world. 1723 24. 37, 2437-39 fe 1726. 27. 90, 2440. 41 5 1734 35,

From independent sources.

2448-51 End of world. Toes

Perhaps from a common written source.

a Talents. TG).

Independent versions of the parable. It will be seen that the material tabulated above falls into two groups. A. A few narrative sections:

Mt 85-18 = Lk 7!10 The Centurion. a = 9°7-69 The two aspirants. g27435)ch..g =» x8* Lhe dumb devil.

1Cf. Mk 1278-%,

xliv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

Mt 1238 = Lk 116 Request for a sign. Pg oa) = 10%5-27 The great commandment To which may be added— Me si = Lk 371” John’s preaching. qr = 4713 The temptation.

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. :

= Mtict = Eka

* 518 at 1133,

¥ 518 = ret?

* 525-26 2 1257-59,

* 522 Be: 1618, 68 cf. es

* 69-18 rk rit

* 619-21 A 1233-34,

i 622-23 = 1 134-35,

fi 624 = 1613,

; 625-34 = 1222-31,

+ 77 us Se Sry

* 713-14 = 1224,

* 722-23 Be 1226-27,

* gil-12 2s 1325-30,

# 92425 iS 610,

# 5926-83 Be 1222,

# = 984-36 = 1251-58,

Se 37-38 = 1426-27,

E10"? = 1753,

* y2ll = 145,

f 131617 = 1023-24,

+ xslt = 639,

area Bat = 729. 309,

te) cone? = 20187,

i] Dipl = pall 1814,

t 2387-89 = 1234-35,

¢ 2443-51 = 1239-46,

* 9514-20 a vqul2st

In the passages marked * there is, besides the difference of setting, considerable verbal variation. Note, however, in Mt 6°18 = Lk 11! the remarkable agreement in émovowos. In the passages marked 7 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 t might

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xlv

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. :

(1) The Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5-7 = Lk 6. (2) The charge to the Twelve, LOW ON Ea: (3) The discourse about the Baptist, TINS. eer: (4) The discourse about Beelzeboul, 12ee— 0 ete (5) The denunciation of the Pharisees, Pye Is 11 (6) The discourse about the last things, 2A eae 7e

In the Sermon on the Mount there is very substantial agree- ment combined with, as, e¢.g., in the Beatitudes, remarkable diverg- ence. 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 agree- ment. 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 non- existent, 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 pre- served elsewhere, considerably weakens the argument. For the fact that they both record many similar or identical sayings may be

xlvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

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 serles 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.

(2) 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. eg.:

Mt 84 70 ddapor. Mk 1% zepi tod Kabapiocpod cov. gt evOupetobe. 28 duadoyileo be. 9° Krivnv. 21 xpaBarttov. 9) revOety. 219 ypyoreveuv. 916 emiBadrAe. 271 éxipamret. 13°2 év tots kAddous adrod. 4°? bro TH OKLaY AUTON.

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. suggests rather independent sources than revision of a common source, and in some cases the former alternative is necessary if Wellhausen? 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) “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 Finlettung, p. 36.

2 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 k6nnte, nicht auf sie zuriickgeht, sondern einen anderen Ursprung hat,” Zukas der Arzt, p. 108, Anm. Tf.

THE SOURCES OF 1HE GOSPEL xlvii

trained the memory to retain masses of teaching. When Josephus (c. Apion. ii. 19) says that “if anybody ask any one of our people about our laws, he will more readily tell them all than he will tell his own name,” he may have generalised too far, but there is every probability that Christian converts in the early Church knew by heart sayings and parables which had been taught to them as traditional sayings of the Master.

However, there is little need to force the oral tradition theory to cover all the facts presented by the agreement between Mt. and Lk., because there is reason to think that both writers used written sources.

(3) “The two Evangelists drew from independent written sources.” It is quite unlikely that when these editors drew up their Gospels, S. Mark’s writing was the only written source before them. So far as S. Luke is concerned, he distinctly implies that there were many evangelic writings. And, indeed, nothing is in itself more probable than that sayings, parables, and discourses of Christ should have been committed to writing at a very early period. Not, of course, necessarily for wide publication, but for private use, or for communication by letter, or for the use of Christian teachers and preachers. The assertions frequently made, that the Christian eschatological doctrine would have acted as a prejudice against writing down the words of Christ, and that the Jewish scruple about committing the oral law or the targums to writing would have transferred itself to the early Christian community and the teaching of their Master, are purely conjectural, and without founda- tion. We are dealing with a society in which, as the letters of the New Testament show, writing was well known and in common use.! In every Christian community there would probably be found individuals who possessed in writing some of the words of Christ.

(4) S. Luke was acquainted with the first Gospel. This is at present a view very much out of favour amongst critical writers, But there is much to be said for it. §S. Luke may well have read the first Gospel and been influenced by its phraseology, and here and there by its arrangement of sayings. On the other hand, its Jewish-Christian colouring, its anti-Jewish polemic, its artificial grouping of Christ’s sayings, may well have seemed to S. Luke to be features in it which it was undesirable to imitate. The popular supposition, that if he had been acquainted with it he could not have omitted from his Gospel anything that the editor of the first Gospel had recorded, is an entirely conjectural and unnecessary fiction. There is no reason to suppose that he intended, any more than the author of the Fourth Gospel, to record everything that tradition handed down of the sayings and acts of Christ. On

1 In Oxyrhynchus Papyrt, 1-4, there are about twenty-eight private letters of the first cent. ; in Hay#m Towns about twenty.

xlviil THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

the other hand, the fact that he had read the first Gospel amongst many other evangelic writings would sometimes explain agree- ments in language and arrangement between the two Gospels in matter common to them. It would also explain another feature. In matter parallel to S. Mark, where they are presumably copying the second Gospel, they often agree in omission or in alteration of a word or phrase against S. Mark. For this there are probably several co-operating causes. In part, they may independently agree in revising the second Gospel. Again, the copies of S. Mark which lay before them may have been recensions? of the second Gospel differing from that which has come down to us, but agreeing in some of those points in which Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. Further, the second Gospel may have undergone revision since its use by the first and third Evangelists, or the agree- ments of Mt. and Lk. against Mk. may in part be due to textual assimilation of one of these Gospels to the other. But, lastly, some of these agreements may be due to the fact that Lk. has read the first Gospel, and was influenced by its phraseology even where he had Mk. before him, and was reproducing it.

If, now, we ask how far these hypotheses can be applied to the matter tabulated above, we shall find the theory of a single written source unsatisfactory. Variation in order, in setting, and in language all alike are evidence against the use of such a source. And what can be more uncritical than to heap together in one amorphous and conjectural document a number of sayings simply because they occur in two Gospels? Is there any more reason for supposing that they come from one document than for assigning them to a number of sources? It is urged that, whereas other written sources are entirely conjectural, we do know of one source the writing of which” Papias speaks. But not only does an earlier writer than Papias speak of many who had undertaken to draw up evangelical records (Luke 11), but the reconstruction of the Aramaic document mentioned by Papias out of the material common to Mt. and Lk. is an impossible task. Let us assume that the two writers had before them the same translation. Why then do they present its contents in such different methods? Why does Mt. mass together in the Sermon on the Mount sayings which Lk. distributes over chs. 11-16? Why does Mt. give us nine beatitudes, whilst Lk. has four blessings, counterbalanced by four woes? Why does Mt. place the Lord’s Prayer in the Sermon, whilst Lk. records it in quite a different connection, and in a shorter form? Or, allowing that in spite of this arbitrary treat- ment of their source, such a document can be reconstructed, why then do they so wilfully alter its phraseology ? Upon what sort of principle did Mt. alter zpaxrope into trypéry (Mt 5%, Lk 12°8), or

1 Translations of the second Gospel if based on an Aramaic original. 3 See p. Ixxviii.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xlix

Aerrév into Kodpdvryv (Mt 56, Lk 1259), or oixrippoves into TéAevoe (Mt 548, Lk 63°), or xdpaxas into werewa tod odpavod (Mt 6%, Lk 12%), or mvedpa ayov into ayafa (Mt 71, Lk 111%), and the like ; or for what reason did Lk. make the reverse changes? What is needed to explain the variations in order, in context, and in language between these sayings as they appear in the two Gospels, is not a single source, but a multiplicity of sources. And if Wellhausen is right in saying, e.g., that xafdpurov, Mt 23%, and ddre éXenuootvyy, Lk 114, are derived from an Aramaic original, how is it possible that in this and similar cases Mt. and Lk. had before them a Greek document as the source of this and all the other sayings which they record in common ?

Shall we say, then, that the two writers drew these common sayings from oral tradition? ‘The counter argument, that they agree in phraseology to a very remarkable extent, is no good reason against oral tradition as a source. For there is every probability that sayings and discourses would be handed down in oral tradition with just that predominant uniformity of language, varied with occasional divergence, which the Gospels present to us. Nothing, e.g., is more likely than that there might be in different parts of the Christian Church traditional forms of the Sermon on the Mount the same in general outline but differing in length and varying very often in expression. If there were any good reason for denying the existence of a multiplicity of written sources, the con- ception of oral tradition as a source for these sayings would be less artificial and more agreeable to the data than the hypothesis of a single written source.

In view, however, of the facts that Mt. demonstrably used one written source, viz. the second Gospel, and that Lk. professes that he was acquainted with many, out of which he certainly used one, viz. S. Mark; in view, further, of the great probability that collections of the Lord’s words were committed to writing at a very early date, and of the fact that Papias speaks of one such collection as made by Matthew the Apostle, it would be arbitrary to assign all the sayings common to Mt. and Lk. to oral tradition. Wherever verbal agreement extends over several verses, it may reasonably be supposed either that Lk. had seen Mt., or that both writers had before them written sources containing, not, indeed, identical, but similar sayings. That amongst these written sources one or more may have been used by both Evangelists is, of course, possible, but can nowhere be proved with certainty so long as the possibility remains that the literary link consists in the dependence of Lk. upon Mt.

If we turn now to the common narrative sections tabulated on p. xliii f., it may be at once admitted that there are two possible solutions. Either the verbal agreement is due to the fact that Lk.

d

] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

has been influenced by Mt. or both Evangelists drew from common sources. ‘The agreement in language in the case of “‘the centurion’s servant” and of “the two aspirants” is very close. And this is also the case in the narratives containing the Baptist’s preaching and the Temptation. The incident of ‘“‘the great commandment” is still more remarkable. Mt.’s account of it differs considerably from Mk 1228-84, Lk. has omitted Mk 1228-34, but has placed earlier in his Gospel a narrative which has some points of agreement with Mt., where Mt. differs from Mk. In all these cases it is a plausible view that the two Evangelists were using common sources. Is it possible to combine these narratives with the discourses specified on p. xlv, and possibly with all the sayings common to the two Gospels, and to reconstruct a Gospel used by both writers? Hardly, because the few narrative sections with which we are dealing, combined with six discourses and a large number of detached sayings or groups of sayings, seem insufficient material wherewith to construct a Gospel. And even if it were done, the question why did the two Evangelists dismember this document and change the form of the Lord’s words, raises itself again as an insoluble problem. Nor, indeed, is there any real need for this heaping together into one document a few narratives and discourses and many sayings, because there is more probability that Lk., if not Mt., was acquainted with several non-Marcan documents than there is that he knew of only one writing containing Gospel material. The Sermon on the Mount is really the crucial case. Both Evangelists had before them a Sermon, but not identically the same Sermon ; that is, they were borrowing from different sources. In the same way it may be supposed that their sources contained the other sayings, discourses, and narratives which are substantially common to them both, in forms varying from close agreement to very considerable variation.

C. MATTER FOUND ONLY IN MATTHEW. 2. 14-15 ~=An insertion in Mk.’s narrative. Editorial. 15-16" Quotation: 23-25 Description of Christ’s ministry. Editorial. 1.2.4 Sermon on the Mount. Vv.!:? editorial.

8 9 10

Isa ‘ Editorial.

14 ss o V.144 editorial.

1

3 4

4

5

5 Bf 3 5

5

5

5

5 Bie

719. 20-22 28a 81. 5a

R17 13a

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL hi

Sermon on the Mount.

” Ww

” 34 TapeKTos Adyou Topvetas.

Sermon on the Mount. V.8? editorial 4.

” ”

= cf. Lk 646 1326. 37,

: “4 Editorial,

PS “e Editorial Quotation. An insertion in Mk.’s narrative. Editorial.

Healing of two blind men. Editorial.

Cf. Lk 1114. Healing of a deaf demoniac. Editorial. A description of Christ’s ey. Editorial. Editorial.

Charge to the Twelve.

39 ” 39 9 ” 99 bP) ” Editorial. Elias. Editorial. Editorial.

Come unto Me.

An insertion in Mk.’s narrative.

ie * but cf. Lk 145. Quotation. Cf. Lk 1114, Healing of a blind demoniac. Editorial. Every idle word.

Quotation. Editorial.

Editorial, cf. Lk 844.

The Tares.

Quotation.

Explanation of the Tares. V.5® editorial.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

z= 1345: 46 1347-50 1351. 52 1253 1428-31

I a 13 yp 23-25 I Sat

162-3 16llb. 12

The Hid Treasure. The Precious Pearl. The Draw Net.

Every scribe instructed.

Editorial. S. Peter on the water. An insertion in Mk.’s narrative.

An insertion in Mk.’s narrative. Sy . Editorial. Taking the place of Mk 731%. Editorial. An insertion in Mk.’s narrative. Editorial (if genuine). Editorial. S. Peter and the keys. An insertion in Mk.’s narrative. Editorial.

a

33 An insertion in Mk.’s narrative, cf. Lk 17% The Stater in the fish’s mouth. As a little child. An insertion in Mk.’s narrative. One of these little ones. The Church. The two debtors. Editorial. (ei) py ert wopveia. Eunuch. Vv.}91! editorial. An insertion in Mk.’s narrative. cf. Lk 22780, The Labourers in the Vineyard. V.!° editorial

Quotation. An insertion in Mk.’s narrative. ae - Editorial.

zapaxpya. Editorial.

The Two Sons, cf. Lk 729%, Editorial.

Editorial if genuine, cf. Lk 2018. The Marriage Feast.

Editorial.

Denunciation of Pharisees. V.! editorial.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL liii

23°33 Denunciation of Pharisees. 241012 False prophets.

247 poe cafBarw. Pay, oY, Sign of the Son of Man. Editorial. eee The Ten Virgins.

ee) | Seka res

25%146 The Sheep and the Goats. 261 Editorial.

aa =

26°254 An insertion in Mk.’s narrative. Editorial. 27710 =‘ Judas and the blood money.

27°19 Quotation.

aa Pilate’s wife.

277-2 Pilate washes his hands.

hase Editorial.

3 27°1553 The resurrection of the dead Saints. 27°25 The sealing of the Tomb. 28ierd24 Editorial. 28-15 = The bribing of the guard. 2816-20 Christ’s last words.

This may be classified as follows:

(a) Editorial 11-17 31415 423-25 <1-2. 13a la. $3! 7283 gl-Sa 926. 27-31! 82-84, 35-36 yo2 p71. 1214.20 222-23 731415. 18. 360.53 7-23-25. 90-1 7620-3. (if genuine) 412. 22 1 76-7-13 ygla. 10-11 2016 2714. 19443. 44 (if genuine) 2253. 34 231 2430 261. +4. 52-54 9736. 43 281 Gewpnoa tov tadov, 2+.

11-17 is a compilation of the editor, and 42-* and 9*- © are from his hand. 3!*-)5 is inserted by him into a section from Mk., but may, of course, rest on tradition. 5! are probably due to him. For 5} 14+ 33 see the notes. 7% and the similar formulas 11 13° 19! and 26! are probably from his hand. 8! and perhaps *, see p. 73, are editorial connecting links. 9% and * are due to the editor, and 975. 32-34 may be his work. 10™ is an editorial link. So is 11” probably. 11!%1* is probably due to the editor, but 13-14 embody traditional logia. 1272°3 may be the editors work. 13!** are from his hand, and so is 1318, and probably 4, 1523-5 may be his work, or may rest upon a non-Marcan source. 1553! are due to him. 167° and 21* are from his hand if they are genuine. 161512 are his work, and so is 167%. 17% are due to revision of Mk. 19!°is probably editorial, and so less probably is v.41. 2016 is an editorial repetition of 19%. 21!* is due to editorial revision of Mk. 2115>1!6 may be due to tradition. 219 Kai é€npavGn wapaypyua 7) cvxy, is editorial, and so is v.%. 23! is due to the editor. So probably are 245% 26% 5254. 2743 is in- serted by him, and 28! to # are due to revision of Mk.

liv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

(4) Sayings inserted into a section borrowed from Mk. : gifs gilda y25-7.U-l2a ye1213. 28-25 7 62-8.1719 7720 pQs-16 1gl0-12. 28 2 ,15b-16. 43 5 410-12. 80a 652-54",

(c) Sayings peculiar to this Gospel in one of the great dis- courses formed by the editor on the basis of short discourses recorded by Mk., or in the Sermon on the Mount, or in chs. 11

Or 23. 4, 5. 7. 8 9.10. 14. 16. 17. 19-20. 21-24, 27-28, 31. 33-37. 38-39a, 41. 43,

61-7. 8. 10b. 13b, 16-18. 34, 6. 12b, 15. 19. 20-22, TOdb-8. 10b. 16b, 23. 25b. 36. 41, 1 114: 28-30, 1236-87, 1224-30. 36-43, 44. 45-46. 47-50, 51-52, 133: 4. 10. 14. 16-20. 23-35, 221-3. 5. Tb-11. 15-22. 24, 28, 32-33, 251-13. 14-30. 31-46,

(d) Other sayings:

2oll6 5128-82 oo1-14 (e) Incidents : 118-25 2, 7428-31 y 724-27 5710.11 2652-54? 973-10. 19, 24-25, Bla 33, 62-66 99-10. 11-15. 16-20,

(f) Quotations from the Old Testament:

123 215. 18.23 415-16 IT 7917-21 7395 p74.5 949,

It will be noticed that the great majority of the sayings tabu- lated under 4 and ¢ have a common character. They are (a) parabolic, or (6) anti-Pharisaic, or (¢) strongly Jewish-Christian, or (d) couched in Jewish phraseology.

Thus (a) Parables:

1324-80. 86-43. 44, 45-46. 47-50 7823-35 gol-16 go1-14 gp1-13.14-80 Tf we

count 251-80 as one section, all these parables are introduced by similar formulas of a type which finds parallels in the Rabbinical literature. 1374 ‘OpowOn, 91: 44 45-47 6uoia eoriv, 1873 dporwOy, 201 Spota eorty, 22! wpowwsOy, 251 tore GuowwHnoerar. In all except the last the subject is 7 BactX\cia THv ovpavar. (6) Anti-Pharisaic : a) “except your ‘righteousness’ surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees.” 618. 16-18 By the “hypocrites” of this section the Pharisees are no doubt intended. 13a “mercy and not sacrifice,” cf. v.14. 10% It was the Pharisees (1274) who called the master ol the house Beelzeboul. 1257 occur in an anti-Pharisaic context, cf. 12%.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL lv

r2il-12a also in an anti-Pharisaic context.

151213 the Pharisees are blind guides.

ore “the kingdom shall be taken from you.” Cf. v.*

“the chief priests and the Pharisees.” 231-3: 5. Th-l1. 15-22. 24, 28. 32-83 are directly anti-Pharisaic. (¢c) Jewish-Christian : Bue 19. 21-22. 27-28. 31. 33-37. 38-39a,. 43 The Mosaic law to be “ ful- filled,” not destroyed.

70 Ovovacrnptov.

Rea mapekTos Aoyou wopveias represents Christ as reaffirm- ing the Mosaic law.

610b “Thy will be done,” a Jewish prayer.

ae “swine” = the Gentiles ?. 7 iab Emphasis on the law and the prophets. ii “false prophets.”

Wom “ prophesied.” 10°-8. 23 See note on 105,

104! “a prophet.”

nee “every scribe.”

152824 ‘7 was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

ro “two witnesses” to conform to the law.

19° (ei) pa ext wopveca represents Christ as reaffirming

the Mosaic law. 198 ‘judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

2420 pnde caBBarw. The Mosaic law is to be observed.! (2) Coloured by Jewish phraseology

Be See note.

5° = Ps; 361) (EX):

Bias 95 Seeiotes.

Bee 9 Bactrelta TOV oipaver.

Bae TOV TaTEpAa Lav TOV EV TOLS OVpavoTs. ah Tos Kvoi—TOv xolpuwv.

1128-30 = See _ notes.

36-37 Serre fe

12 ev NEPA. KpLoEws.

1617-19 gapé Kal aiua—s rarip 6 ev Tots ovpavois—mvAaL adov —r7s Bacireias tHv ovpavav—dyjons—Arvons, and the contrast ezi ths yys—ev Tots ovpavois.

Fo év TH Bacircla Tov ovpavar.

Eo TOD TAaTpOS Lov TOU EV OUpavots.

14 , » A / a > > a“

18 OéAnpa eumpoobey Tov watpds pov ToD ev ovpavots.

1 The editor probably inserted ude caBBdrw into Mk I 318 because he found a saying with this addition in the Logia. In the same way he has inserted (ed) ih él mropveig, 19%, into Mk Io", because a parallel saying which he has in- serted in 5% was to be found in the Logia with a similar limitation.

lvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

1816-20 “Two witnesses,” “‘ binding and loosing,” “ earth and

heaven,” ‘‘ My Father who is in heaven.”

1978 ev TH Tadryyeveoia OTav Kabioy 6 vids Tod avOpwrov ext

Opovov dons avrod.

To these may be added 84-2, which is Jewish-Christian (“ with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob”), and anti-Pharisaic (‘the sons of the kingdom”) in character, and which seems to have been inserted by the editor into its present context.

The following phrases are characteristic of these passages: (1) 9 BactreLa tov obpavdy, 510 19@).20 gil oT 7324. 44. 45. 47. 52 7619 18%: 4 23 ygl2 201 222 251. We might on that account add to our list 5°, which differs in language from Lk 62°; 721, which differs from Lk 646; 1112, which differs from Lk 1616 ; and 23}, which differs from Lk 1152, The phrase occurs in these passages 23 times, and else- where im; jthes(Gospel’ 9 times, viz. (37, 41" rit) a3Ubtes erat 19! 23, “In; 3? 41" 134-81? 78! 10! 23 the editor has inserted the phrase into Marcan passages. The two remaining verses, 11 and 13°3, might, with some probability, be added to our list.

(2) warip 6 év (rots) otpavots :

516 61 1617 1810. 14. 19, We might on this account add to our list 545 (which differs from Lk 6%) 69 711-21 1082-83, The phrase only occurs’ besides in) 12"; where it is substituted for Mk.’s tov @eov.

(3) matip 6 otpavios:

1513 1835 29, We might on this account add to the list 548 (which differs from Lk 6%) 614. °6. 32, The phrase occurs nowhere else. (4) rarnp 7ipodv, tudv, cov, adtav: 516 61. 4. 6(2). 8. 18(2) 7 343 239, We might on this account add 545-48 69. 14. 15.26.82 411 and 1029, which differs from Lk 12°.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that these verses, character- ised as they are for the most part by special features, and dis- tinguished by the use of two or three striking Jewish phrases, came as a whole, or in large part, from a single source.! And here, if anywhere, the information of Papias can assist us. He speaks of a compilation put together in Hebrew or Aramaic by Matthew containing 7a Adya. On the other hand, we find in our Gospel a number of sayings of marked Palestinian characteristics and phraseology. If the editor of the Gospel borrowed these from the Matthzan document, whether it lay before him in its original form or in a Greek translation, we have at once an explanation of the reason why the name Matthew attached itself

1Cf. E. De Witt Burton, Przzczples of Literary Criticism and the Synoptit Problem, p. 41. I have been much indebted to this book.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL Ivii

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 Matthzan 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 Matthzean collection. The following would be not out of harmony with the tenor of many of the Logian sayings:

518 “nota jot or tittle to pass from the law.” Cf. Lk 161".

592 Cf. Lk 1618, who has not the limitation zapexros Adyou Topvelas.

6°18 the Lord’s Prayer. The prayer as found in a different context in Lk 1114, has lost some of its Jewish colouring.

131617 zpodynrar Kat Sikavoc is Jewish. The verses occur in a different context in Lk 1078-24 with BaowAets for dikaot.

2 34: 28. 25-26. 27. 29-81. 84-86, All anti-Pharisaic. Cf. Lk 11595? in a different context.

512 Anti-Pharisaic: “they persecuted the prophets.” Cf. 23378,

I venture, therefore, to assign the following to the Matthzean

Logia: 3-12,

51816 Probably not in Sermon. 17-20, 21-24

52°26 Probably not in Sermon. 27-28

529-39 Probably not in Sermon. 31-32, 33-37,

538-42,

543-48,

ol,

65-6,

67-15 Perhaps not in Sermon.

616-18.

619-33 Probably not in Sermon. 91-5

* KK *

*

* kK KK OK OK OK

be 78 | Probably not in Sermon. 7711 Probably not in Sermon. 12 713-14 Probably not in Sermon. # 715-23. 724-27,

viii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

* giL12 * g's, es 10°?-8, * 1023. 1074-25 Not in this connection. 1076-33 Not in this connection. 10°4-41 Not in this connection. 11730 Not necessarily in this order. 125-7, * yoll-l2.

1275-45 Not necessarily in this order. 1316-17,

x OK OK OK OK OK = ) ce Co

23 Not necessarily in this ordes.

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL lix

* 2014-80, 2 x31-46? % 4652-54!

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 character- istics 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 Matthzan 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 “EBpaid dvadextw ; Irenzeus, 77 (dia abrav (of “EBpator) duadéxtw ; Eusebius, matpiw yAdéttn; and Origen speaks of the Gospel as ypdppacw ‘EBpaixots ovvreraypévov. 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 Logia. 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

Ix THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

that some features in sayings common to Mt. and Lk. cannot be explained without reference to an Aramaic original (Z7n/eitung, 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 sub- stance, 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 y 428-81 7724-27 2110-11 243-10. 19, 24-25. 514-53. 62-66 5811-15 a] 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 17747 as written before the fall of Jerusalem, see Wellhausen, zz Joc. 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 3!—4!" overlapped with Mk 114 £.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 Aéyer or A€youow. Of the remaining 79 the editor of the first Gospel omits or alters 69, retaining only 10. Yet in 3!-4!7 there are 7 such tenses, viz, 3!-18-15 45.8@).-N, 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. datverar, 24° (but B has épdyn) and 2}9,

THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xi

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

AaOpa, 119 27,

"TepoodAvpu, fem. sing., 23 35°.

mapaytyverOar, 21 31-18,

auvOaverbat, 24.

Kat dvap, 120 212.13.19.22, Besides only 271%,

mopavapPavev, 8 times. Besides from Mk 17! 2017 2637,

Hlsewhere, 124 1816 2440-41 9727,

dvaxwpev, 5 times. Elsewhere, 924 12! 1418 1521 175,

Katoukety, twice. Elsewhere, 12% 2371,

The construction dvaywpyodvtwv b& adbrdv idov, 120 21-13. 19,

Elsewhere, 9%? 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 1!8-2 and in 27% 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. 265254 and 31415 may belong to the same cycle of traditions. 28160 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 g17 y 917-21 y 385 24-5 27° present peculiar difficulties.

@)PPivevof them, viz! 41416 $1" 121-2! 7 23 2145) seemitovnave been inserted into or appended to a section of Mk. by the editor.

(2) Six of them, viz. 128 26-15. 17-18. 23 979, might seem to be an integral part of the narrative in which they stand.

(3) One of them, 22%, cannot be verified.

(4) All of them are introduced by a striking formula:

122 rotro dé GAov yéyovey va TANpwhy TO PyGev bd Tot Kuplor 81a ToD tpodyrov A€yovTos. 26 ovrws yap yéypartat b1a Tod tpodrrov. 215 tva wAnpwO, K.T.A. 217 tore erAnpodbn Oo pybey dia ‘lepeutov tod mpodiror A€yovtos. 2°3 Gus tANpwOn 7d pybev Sia TGV rpodyTav. 414 va zAnpwOh 76 pybev dia “Hoatov tod tpodyrov d€yorTos. 817 6rws tAnpwhh TO pyOev Ova "Hoaiov rod tpodyrov A€yovros. 1217 The same. 13> The same, with the omission of "Hoatov.

Lxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

214 rovro dé yeyovey tva tAnpwbhH TO pyOev dua Tod zpodyrov AeyorTos. 279 roreerAnpwOy To pybev dia “Tepeuiov tov mpopyrov AéyovTos.

(5) 125 agrees in the main with the LXX; 2° seems to be an independent rendering of the Hebrew; 2% is also a rendering of the Hebrew; 218 is apparently quoted from the LXX, with reminiscence of the Hebrew in ta réxva airys; 223 cannot be traced; 41516 is from a Greek Vs, but not from the LXX (see note, 77 Joc.) ; 8!" is an independent translation from the Hebrew ; 1217-21 is from the Hebrew, with reminiscence of the LXX in the last clause, or more probably from a current Greek version, which is already implied in Mk 11!; 1335 seems to be an independent translation from the Hebrew, with reminiscence of the LXX in the first clause; 21° agrees partly with the Hebrew, partly with the LXX; 27° appears to be a free translation, with reminiscence of the LXX. Further, 26 seems to come in the main from Mic 5}, with assimilation of the last clause to 2 S 52; 1218 from Is 4214, with assimilation of the last clause to Hab 1* (Heb.); Mt 21° is a conflation of Is 62! and Zec 9°; 279%! comes from Zec 111%, but has probably been influenced by Jer 32°.

With these quotations might be compared 111, which occurs also in Mk 1?, and which therefore seems to have been current in Christian circles in a form slightly differing from the LXX. Here, too, there seems to have been a slight assimilation to Ex 237°,

It will be seen that there is a good deal of agreement with the Hebrew against the LXX. This makes it very unlikely that these quotations are due to the editor. For (a) in the quotatians borrowed by him from Mk. the editor shows a tendency to assimilate the language more closely to the LXX. The single exception of change in favour of the Hebrew is Mk 12°°= Mt 2257. For such assimilation, see Mt 13! kai idcouar aitovs for Mk.’s kal apeOy avrots; Mt 158 6 Xads obros for Mk.’s otros 6 Aads; Mt 19° adds kal (apoc)koAdnOyjoetar TH yuvatkt avrov; Mt 2252 adds eit; Mt 26%! adds ts wofuvys. So LXX A. Mt 27%6 tva ci for €lS Tl.

(4) In nine quotations not borrowed from Mk., viz. 4* 7-10 521. 27. 88. 48a 918727 2116 there is a general agreement with the LXX, except in kai ov, 9!%=127, which agrees with Heb. and LXX AQ against LXX B.

It seems, therefore, probable that the eleven quotations intro- duced by a formula, and also 11!, were already current when the editor compiled his work in a Greek form. They may come from a collection of Old Testament passages regarded as prophecies of events in the life of the Messiah. In this connection 278 is very important, because it must have originated in Jewish Christian, Ze. probably in Palestinian, circles.

THE PLAN AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL 1xiii

THE PLAN AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL.

In making the second Gospel the framework of his own, the editor has adopted the general outline and plan of that Gospel, which is as follows:

A. Mk 113 Introductory. The Messiah had been heralded by the Baptist, had been declared to be the Son of God at His baptism, and had been prepared for His ministry by temptation.

B, 145-73 Ministry in Galilee.

C. 774g Ministry in the surrounding districts.

This period is marked by the confession of S. Peter, and by teaching as to Christ’s death and resurrection.

D, to'*? The Journey through Perea to Jerusalem.

£. 11-168 The last days of the Messiah’s life.

To this general framework the editor prefixes two chapters dealing with the genealogy, birth, and three incidents of the Messiah’s childhood.1

[A. 1. 2 Birth and Infancy of the Messiah. ]

He then inserts Mk.’s introductory section with considerable expansions.

B. 31-4" Preparation for His ministry, [7-10-12 14-15 48-11),

Passing to Mk.’s section #, the editor makes considerable alterations in the order of Mk 115-618, For a detailed examination of these alterations, see pp. xili—xvVil.

The result is as follows :

C. 412-1529 Ministry in Galilee:

(1) Public appearance as a teacher, 4itiT [13-16], (2) First disciples, 438-22, (3) Illustrations of His teaching and work: (a) Preliminary, [423-25], (4) His teaching, 51729 [51-727], (c) His work, 81_o 84 [ 35-15. 19-22 927-31. 82-34),

(4) Extension of His mission in the work of the Twelve, 9%5—111 [985-98 1 o5b-8. 10b, 15-16. 28_y 711. [(5) Survey of His ministry, Cre. (6) Illustrations of His controversies with the Pharisees, y21-45 [5-7. 17-21. 22-23, 27-98. 30, 82-45], (7) His relations seek Him, EQ, (8) Illustrations of His teaching in parables, 13 [16-17 24-80, 83, 35-527, From this point the editor is entirely guided by the order of sections as they stand in Mk. [14°81 and 151214 are not found in Mk. }. (9) Various incidents, 13°31 520, 1 Passages enclosed in square brackets are interpolations into Mk.’s narrative.

Ixiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

In the next sections he follows the order of incidents in Mk.’s section C. Thus:

D. 1571-18°5 Ministry in the neighbourhood of Galilee, [1522-24 1628-17-19 7 724b-27 83-4. 7. 10-95),

E. 19!—-20% Journey to Jerusalem, [rg Me 2sizoieL

F. The last days of the Messiah’s life, rH Real Gas IE

2228-82. 43-45 221-14 23 (very greatly enlarged from Mk 1287-40) 2426-28 pe 2625. 52-54 > 73-10. 19. 24-25, 49, 52-53, 62-66

239-10. 11-227,

The life of Christ as thus presented in the Gospel is framed in an Old Testament setting.

He was the Jewish Messiah descended from Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation (1}, cf. 3°), and within narrower limits from David (r2° 1279 21°- 15 22%)5 \ In; particular; heawasmene Messianic King (2? 215 2711-29. 37.42), the Messianic Son of God (317 48 1127 1433 1616 175 2754), and the Messianic Son of Man. See pp. |xxi ff.

Many of the incidents of His life had been foretold by the prophets. His birth (1278) by Isaiah, at Bethlehem (2°) by Micah, Herod’s massacre of the children (21718) by Jeremiah, Christ’s return from Egypt (215) by Hosea, the settlement of His parents at Nazara by the prophets, the coming of His herald (3%) by Isaiah, His own mission in Galilee (4!*1!6) by Isaiah, His work of mercy in healing the sick (8!7) by Isaiah, His avoidance of publicity (1217!) by Isaiah, His preaching in parables (13%5) by the Psalmist, and the inability of the people to understand them (131415) by Isaiah; His entry as king into Jerusalem (2145) by Zechariah, and the use to which the price of His life was put (27910) by “Jeremiah.” His betrayal (2674-5456), His desertion (2631), and many of the incidents of His death and burial had been foretold in Scripture (27% %- 39. 43.57), And of His three days’ sojourn in the tomb Jonah was a type, 124°

Three features of the Gospel are prominent as characteristic of the editor’s method:

(a) the grouping of material in 42°-13 into sections illustrative of different aspects of Christ’s ministry.

(4) the massing of sayings into long discourses.

(1) the Sermon on the Mount (5-727), which seems to be an expansion of a shorter Sermon found in the Logia.

(2) the charge to the Twelve (10).

(3) the chapter of parables (13).

4) the discourse about greatness and forgiveness (18).

5) the discourse about the last things (24-25).

These are all ended by a special formula.

THE PLAN AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL lxv

We might add: (6) the discourse about the Baptist (11). (7) the denunciation of the Pharisees (23). (8) the parables of warning, 2178-2214. (ce) the arrangement of incidents or sayings into numerical groups. J e.g. three, five, and seven:

three divisions in the genealogy, rie three incidents of childhood, 2. three incidents prior to His ministry, 314i, three temptations, Ae three illustrations of righteousness, 65! three prohibitions, 619_ 78, three commands, 7-20, three miracles of healing, see three miracles of power, 823_ 98. three miracles of restoration, iret threefold ‘‘fear not,” ripe aot threefold answer to question about

fasting, lt three complaints of the Pharisees, itil three ovK €or pov aévos, Lose. three parables of sowing, ngs three sayings about “‘little ones,” pies Bb Le three prophetical parables, 2178_2214 three questions, zany three parables of warning, 24%3_2 530, three prayers at Gethsemane, 20 three denials of S. Peter, 2689-75, three questions of Pilate, ghia he ZED three incidents which vexed the Pharisees, 121-4. three petitions in the Lord’s Prayer, ou: three aspirations in the Lord’s Prayer, 610, five great discourses, 5-77’ 10. 13. 18. 24-25,

ended with a formula. five illustrations of the fulfilment of the law, 571-48. seven woes, 2g.

Cf. also 124° seven demons, 18?!-22 forgiveness seven times, 22%5 seven brethren, 15°4 seven loaves, °7 seven baskets.

Many commentators reckon seven beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount, and seven petitions in the Lord’s Prayer, and Sir John Hawkins! reckons ten miracles in 8!—9*4.

For ‘wo, cf. the two demoniacs, 8°8; two blind men, 20°9; two false witnesses, 26° ; two blind men, 9?’.

1 Hor. Syn. p. 134

Ixvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL. A, CHRISTOLOGY.

Jesus was the Messiah of the Old Testament (11), and was therefore descended from David and from Abraham (1). His ancestral line rose to monarchical power in the person of David (1°), lost its royal dignity at the time of the Captivity (1), but recovered it in the person of Jesus, the anointed Messiah (11°). Jesus was therefore born as King of the Jews (27), entered Jerusalem as its king (21*), and died as a claimant to royal power (2711-29. 87.42). He was born of a virgin, as the Prophet Isaiah had foretold (122), by conception of the Holy Spirit (19), so that He could be called God-with-us (12%), or Son of God (215 317 43-6 829 1483 775 2663 2740.43.54). At His baptism the Spirit of God came down upon Him; and here, as at the Trans- figuration, He was proclaimed by God to be His Son, the Beloved, divinely elected (3!” 175). He therefore spoke of Himself as “Son,” and of God as “‘ Father” in a unique sense! (1127 24%°).2 As Messiah, He fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. His supernatural birth (122), several incidents of His early years (25 15.17.23), His public ministry in Galilee (4!4), His ministry of healing (8!’), His avoidance of publicity (1217), the misunderstand- ing of His hearers (13!*), His use of parables (13°°), the manner of His entry into Jerusalem (214), His betrayal (2674), His desertion (26%1), His arrest (26545), and the use to which the money given for His betrayal was put (27%), had all been foretold in the Old Testament. As Son of God, He cast out demons by the Spirit of God (1278). He preached the near advent of the kingdom of heaven (see below). He performed miracles, chiefly of healing, but He also cast out demons, raised dead persons to life, walked on the water on one occasion, and twice fed multitudes with a few loaves and fishes. He foretold His death and resurrection, and promised that He would come again in the near future (see below) to inaugurate the kingdom. He spoke of Himself as the “Son of Man.” As such He had angels at His command (13*! 241), and

1 The distinction is also implied in the fact that Christ is represented as speaking of ‘‘ My Father,” but not of ‘‘ our Father,” except in 6°, where the phrase is put into the mouths of the disciples. Schmidt (7he Prophet of Nazareth, p. 154) argues that ‘‘Jesus said neither ‘My Father’ nor ‘your Father,’ but ‘the Father who is in heaven.’” But whilst it is true that Christ may have used Abba (=the Father) in the sense of ‘‘ My Father,” cf. Mk 14% and Dalm. Words, 192, the evidence of the first Gospel, that He spoke of “‘your Father” and ‘‘ their Father,” must not be set aside, since it is supported by the usage of the Jewish literature. Cf. the instances cited on p. 44. Consequently the absence from the Gospel of ‘‘our Father,” except in 6°, is

very significant ; cf. Dalm. Werds, 1go. 2 But see note on 24.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL Ixvii

would come again in glory with angels (1627 24°), and sit on the throne of His glory (1978 25%).

Thus three aspects of the Messiah’s work are represented in the Gospel : (1) The work of healing and preaching, which formed a sort of preparation for the coming kingdom; (2) the reappear- ance at the end of the age, when He would come again to inaugurate the kingdom; (3) His death. This was, from one point of view, a necessary stage in the development of the divine purpose. If the Son of Man was to appear on the clouds of heaven in His kingdom, He must first return to the Father in heaven to be invested with the divine glory. Thus the Son of Man “ must ” suffer (161), This was a part of the divine scheme (1678), It had been foretold in prophecy (26% §),

But it was something more than a necessary link in a divinely foreseen chain of events. It had in itself a redemptive aspect. His blood was “shed for many,” that their sins might be forgiven (268), This bloodshedding signified the ratification of a covenant between God and man (26*%8), The idea presumably is that the death could be regarded as a sacrifice which once and for all propitiated God, brought men into a right relation to God, in virtue of which men could approach Him and be received by Him without further sacrifices. Hence it can be said that He came for this very purpose to “‘give His life a ransom for many” (2078 from Mk 1o*°).

8. THE KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS.

This phrase occurs in the Gospel 32 times, viz. 32 417 5% 10, 19 (2). 20 21 Bll yo? zyll.12 7 ll. 24. 81, 44. 45. 47.52 7619 [ gl. 3 4. 23 1g}. 14. 23.24 (Z 133 124 157 S! S2abce, but & Bal row Geod) 20! 22? 2314 251. We find also » Baotrcia tov Geod in 1278 1974 (s B a) 2151-48 and 6% (E a/latt S2, but & Bg!k omit rod Geod). This phrase occurs in Mk. 14 times; Mt. 5 times substitutes 9 BactAcia tév oipavdv, and 8 times omits or paraphrases. In the remaining case, Mk 10%=Mt 19%4, both readings are found in Mt.; but, in spite of the fact that rév otpayar is not so well attested as rod Geo, there is a strong presumption against the latter, from the fact that in the 13 other cases the editor omits, paraphrases, or substitutes tév otpavav for tod Geod. In any case, it is clear that in 1278 21°! and 43 there must be special reasons for the occurrence of 7 BaciAela rod Geot. In 12%, which finds a parallel in Lk 11%, the phrase probably occurred in the source used by the Evangelist. He would, no doubt, have substituted ray oipavay if the context had admitted it. But, as will be shown below, he everywhere uses 7 BactAcia tov otpavav of the kingdom which Christ announced as at hand, to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came on the clouds of heaven. In 1278 the editor found in

Ixviil THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

his source the words, “‘ But if I by the spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God came upon you.” Whatever “the kingdom of God” means here, it clearly has not quite the same significance as ‘‘the kingdom of the heavens” in such passages as 841 13%, The editor therefore retains tov Ocov to mark the contrast between “ the kingdom of God” as used here, and “the kingdom of the heavens” as used elsewhere in the Gospel. In 21% 9 BacwAea tod eod is again probably due to the source used. And here we might have expected the editor to substitute tév otpavav with a future verb. ‘Will go before you into the kingdom of the heavens ” would have given a very good sense. But he is faithful to his source, which had a present tense, “ go before you into the kingdom of God.” It was clear to him that, whatever the phrase meant, the kingdom here was not quite the same as “ the kingdom of the heavens” as used by him elsewhere in the Gospel, and he recorded his sense of the difference of meaning by retaining rod Geod. In 21%, on the other hand, 7 Bacwde/a rod Geod is probably editorial (see the notes). Why, then, does not the editor use trav ovpavav? Because he wished to explain the taking away of the vineyard, and the giving it to others (#1). And there was no phrase which would so well correspond to the vineyard as “the kingdom of God.” ‘The kingdom” alone would have been too suggestive of merely earthly political power. ‘The kingdom of the heavens,” as elsewhere used in the Gospel, had never been, like the vineyard, entrusted to the Jewish nation. But “the kingdom of God” might well be used to sum up that whole revelation of God to the Jewish people which was to be transferred to others.

We find, further, the simple 7 BaoAcia in 47% 812 935 1319 and the following: “‘ His kingdom,” 6°8 1341 1628; “* Thy kingdom,” 610 2021; “the kingdom of their Father,” 134%; “the kingdom of My Father,” 267%. For the idea of “the kingdom of heaven” in Jewish literature, see Dalman, Words, pp. 91 ff.; Bousset, Fed. Jud. 199 ff. Dalman has shown that in Jewish writings “mn,” when applied to God, means always the “kingly rule,” never the “kingdom.” In other words, it should be translated by “sovereignty” rather than ‘‘kingdom.” The ‘‘kingly rule” of God was His divine sovereignty, which governed all things in heaven and in earth; cf. Ps 103!9 “ His ‘sovereignty’ ruleth over all,” Dn 434 ‘His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His sovereignty from generation to generation,” Loch 84? “Thy power, and kingship, and greatness abide for ever and ever.” Hence men, in devoting themselves to the service of God, can be said to choose or accept His sovereignty, cf. /wdilees 1219 ‘Thee and Thy dominion have I chosen”; JMechilta (Ugol.) 384: “They joyfully agreed to receive ‘the sovereignty’”; and the

THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL lxix

service thus accepted is called a “‘ yoke”; cf. Siphri (Ugol.) 916: “Take upon you the yoke of the sovereignty of heaven.”

But the conception of God’s sovereignty is an ideal one, and there is much in life which seems inconsistent with it. The future would see a universal recognition of it. Hence the idea easily becomes an eschatological one, and blends with the conception of the coming Messiah as king. Cf. Dn 714, Sid. Or 345-46 rére 57 Baoirteia peylotn aOavdrov BaciAjos éx avOpdroot davetrat, 167 Kai rote On e€eyeped BaciAnov eis aidvas ravtas éx avOpurovs ; Assumption of Moses 10: “Then will His kingdom appear through- out all His creation” ; A/echilta (Friedmann) 56° ‘‘ Then shall God alone be absolute in all the world, and His sovereignty shall endure for ever.” It is in this eschatological sense that the phrase is used in this Gospel. Jesus was of the royal line (1116). In Him the Davidic family recovered once again its lost Sovereignty ; but more than recovered it, for Jesus was the anointed Messiah (116), He was born ‘‘ King of the Jews” (22). As “king” He entered Jerusalem (215), and as king He suffered (2711: 2% 37. 42), As king He would sit upon the throne of His glory to judge all nations (25% *°), cf. Orac. Sid 3499 née & dyvos avaE racns yas oKATTpa Kpatnowv els aldvas amavtas erevyopévoto xpovuio. The announcement of the coming kingdom was frequently the subject of His preaching.

He proclaimed its near advent. It was at hand (4!’), and He bade His disciples make the same proclamation (107). This preaching was an evangel, z.e. good news (4° 9°). The disciples were to pray for the coming of the kingdom (61°). It would, however, not come in the lifetime of the Messiah, but after His death, when He would come as Son of Man (1678, cf. 21). This coming would usher in the end of this dispensation (24). It would take place immediately after the great tribulation (249) which would accompany the fall of Jerusalem (24) 1°), ze. within the lifetime of that generation (24%4, cf. 1678 1073). But God alone knew the exact day and hour (24°°), and the good news must be preached first to all nations (24}4, cf. 281%). It seems clear that the Evangelist saw no obstacle to this preaching being effected within a very short period (10). The inauguration of the kingdom is called the new birth (1978). Then the Apostles would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. They who should find a place in it were ‘“‘the pure in heart” (58), those who were “‘ persecuted in the cause of righteousness” (5!°). Those who broke the Mosaic law and taught others to do so would be called least in it (5!°). They alone whose righteousness exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees would enter into it (52°). Rich people would hardly find entrance (1974). But they should

1 Quoted by Dalman, Words, p. 99.

Ixx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

obtain admission who did the will of God (771), and who were of childlike character (18° 19!*). On the other hand, the chief priests and elders, the representatives of the Jewish nation, would have the kingdom which should have been theirs taken from them (2143, cf. 812). Publicans and harlots would enter in before them esl):

Christ’s disciples were to give up all earthly possessions for the sake of the kingdom (197%), even life itself (167426). Some of them would renounce marriage (19!*). They were to strive after the kingdom first (6°).

In ch. 13 we have a series of illustrations intended to throw light upon the nature of the kingdom. But it is clear that no definition of the kingdom can be deduced with certainty from them. They can only be used as illustrations of a conception which is already clearly defined. In some of these parables the kingdom might seem to denote an abstract principle, the divine sovereignty, so that “the kingdom of heaven” would be equivalent to the “will of God.” In others it lends itself easily to definition as the Church, the Christian Society in which the principle of recognition of the divine sovereignty finds expression. But without inquiring into the ideas involved in the phrase as used by Christ Himself, it seems probable that so far as the editor of this Gospel is concerned we should give to the phrase in these parables the meaning which it seems to bear elsewhere in the Gospel, z.e. the meaning of the coming kingdom to be inaugurated at the end of the age.

Thus in 1374-30 86-43, a parable from the Matthzan Logia, the story deals with the period of preparation for the kingdom which is to be set up at the end of the age (*#). The world during this period is compared to a field. Christ the Son of Man (%”) has sown in it the good seed of the knowledge of the true nature and near approach (cf. 417) of the coming kingdom. But in the meantime the Devil also sows tares, z.e. false teaching. The good seed ripens to maturity in the ‘‘sons of the kingdom,” z.e. those who are destined to enter into it (cf. the same phrase of the Jews in 8!2). The tare seed develops into unbelievers, z.e. sons of the evil one (°8), z.e. those who partake of his nature, and who will be excluded from the kingdom. The end of this period of preparation is likened to a harvest (*). Then the Son of Man will come and inaugurate the kingdom (cf. 16% “coming in His kingdom”). From it will be excluded the wicked, whilst the righteous will shine forth in it as the sun (4%).

The teaching of the parable of the Sower (13%?8) seems to be to the same effect. The seed is ‘the word of the kingdom” (19), z.e. the doctrine of its near advent, and of the requirements of entry into it. This must fall into receptive hearts if it is to develop

THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL Ixxi

into the righteousness which qualifies for admission into the kingdom.

‘he short parables of the Mustard Seed (13%!%?) and of the Leaven (13**), another parable from the Logia, seem to illustrate the quick spreading and deeply penetrating influence of the doctrine of the kingdom.

Two other Logian parables, “the Hid Treasure” (134) and “the Goodly Pearl” (13446), teach the lesson that a man must strain every nerve and give up all else that he may acquire the right to enter into the kingdom.

Lastly, the parable of the Drag Net (134759) describes the doctrine of the kingdom as a truth which attracts disciples of different qualities, some good, some bad. At the end of the age, when the kingdom is inaugurated, there will be a separation.

Besides these parables in ch. 13, there are seven others bearing upon the kingdom. 187*85 (Logia) teaches the necessity of a forgiving spirit as a qualification of a disciple preparing for the kingdom (cf. 18° “Shall not enter”). 20!!6 (Logia) seems to teach that in discipleship of the kingdom priority in date of admission to discipleship did not necessarily carry with it special privileges. All alike would receive eternal life when the kingdom came.

On the three parables, 2175-8? (Logia) 2133-4 and 221-14 (Logia), see the notes.

It has been noticed above that the phrase 7 BacwArela tov otpavGy occurs 17 times in passages which are peculiar to this Gospel, and which probably come from the Logia, viz. 510 19 @). 20 Poe eetisoasT. 52 GIF 7 994-38 Folt ooh 227 25h.) Ityoeccurs;) (besides, 8 times in sayings which are paralleled in Lk., but which may also come from the Logia, viz. 5° 72! 107 144) 12.1398 188 2313,

In passages of the first class we find also 812 13%8 oi viol ris Bacir<ias, 134! tis BactAclas aitod, 13% THs Bactdelas Tod TaTpos abtray, 2131 rHv Bactrelav Tod Geod, 21% 7 Bucreta Tov Beod, 2554 tiv Hromarpevnv wpiv Bacrdreiay ; and in passages of the second class, 6°33 tiv Bactdr<iav atrov. It seems not improbable, therefore, that this Jewish phrase was characteristic of the Matthzean Logia, and that the editor of the Gospel was strongly influenced by it. He has inserted it into matter parallel to Mk. in 3? 181, and has substituted it in 4)” 1311-31 yol4 23 for Mk.’s 7 BactActa Tov Geod.

Cc. THE SON OF MAN.

Mk. has this phrase 14 times. Mt. retains it in all these cases. 831 is not an exception ; for though Mt. in the parallel to that verse, 1621, has airov for tov vidv tod av@pwrov, he has already inserted the latter phrase by anticipation in 164%, Mt. has the phrase in

Ixxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

addition 19 times. The editor seems to have seen in the phrase two lines of signification. On the one hand, the phrase had previously been used in Messianic connections. The writer of Daniel had foretold the coming of “one like a Man or Son of Man,” 7!%. And whatever may have been the precise meaning of the original writer, his phrase was soon taken up and used with Messianic significance. The Messiah regarded as “‘Son of Man” or “Man” was of mysterious origin. Already in the Book of Daniel the “one like to a Man or Son of Man” comes ‘ with (Heb.) or upon (LXX) the clouds of heaven” (cf. S7b. Or 349 50 quoted on p. lxix and 2. ; Kal Tor’ am jediouo Oeds réewer Baordja ds Tacav yalay ravoret TOAEMOLO KaKOtO),

and the phrase ‘‘Son of Man” is adopted by the writer of one section of the Book of Enoch to designate the supernatural Messiah ; cf. 467+ 48? 62. In the same way the writer of 2 Es 13 describes the Messiah as coming from the midst of the sea ‘‘in the likeness of a man,” v.°; cf. v.!2 “the same man,” v.% “a man coming up from the midst of the sea,” v.51 “the man coming up from the midst of the sea.” The motive power that gave rise to these conceptions was probably the desire to represent the coming Messiah as of divine origin. And yet, to fulfil His functions, He must be also man, or at least in the guise of man.

The editor of our Gospel clearly saw in the phrase thus put into the mouth of Christ in the sources which he was using, a proof that Christ would fulfil this anticipation of a supernatural Messiah. He was to come as Son of Man (10?%) in the glory of His Father (1627) upon the clouds of heaven (24°°). He would then send forth His angels and gather the elect (24%!; cf. 134), and sit upon the throne of His glory (1978 251). Then He would render to every man according to his deed (16?"), and all nations would be gathered before Him (25%!). For ‘“‘upon the clouds of heaven,” cf. Dn 7!%; for “render to every man according to his deed,” cf. Enoch 45° “On that day Mine Elect One will sit on the throne of glory, and make choice among their deeds”; 618 “He will weigh their deeds in the balance”; for the gathering the elect, cf. Enoch 51? “He will choose the righteous and holy from amongst them”; for the gathering of all nations before the throne of glory, cf. Zxoch 623 “There will stand up in that day all the kings, and the mighty, and the exalted, and those who hold the earth, and they will see and recognise Him, how He sits on the throne of His glory.”

But, secondly, if Christ had used the phrase ‘‘Son of Man” of Himself with reference to His future coming, He had also used the phrase in non-eschatological contexts. He was to come as Son of Man, but He also was the Son of Man during His life

THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL Ixxili

This Sonship was not a prerogative to be bestowed upon Him in the future. It was a present possession. Of course, we might suppose that the editor thought that Christ had often used the phrase of Himself in an anticipatory sense. But there are features in the Gospel which make it rather probable that he believed Christ to be by nature “the Son of Man,” and regarded the phrase as illustrative of the mysteriousness of His person.

Christ was born of a virgin (118-5), He was in an unique sense Son of God (1127 2241-46), He had been chosen by God (3!”). What better phrase could be found to express the mysterious nature of such a personality than the “Son of Man,” which was already in use to designate the supernatural Messiah? It empha- sised His real humanity, it hinted at the mysterious nature of His birth, it drew attention to His Messianic office and functions, and it heralded His future glory.

It does not lie within the scope of this Introduction to raise the question whether Christ did or did not use this phrase of Himself, or in the latter case why the Evangelists have attributed it to Him. Only two facts need here be noticed. /irs¢: the editor found the phrase so applied in both his main sources, Mk. and the Logia. It has therefore as much attestation as any phrase attributed to Christ. Second: the argument that the phrase “Son of Man” as a title is linguistically impossible in Aramaic, is unwarranted. ‘Son of Man” having already been used by the author of Daniel and converted into a semi-technical term by the writer of Hoch, it must have been as possible in Aramaic as in any other language to refer to it, and to say “‘¢#e Son of Man,” or “‘ the ‘man,’” or ‘‘ the whatever else may be the right equivalent of wax 72 in Daniel.”

In order to make the matter clearer, it may be well to add a few words on the origin of the phrase and its meaning. That “Son of Man” is a semi-technical description of the supernatural Messiah in Zxoch and in 2 Esdras is clear. But whence did they derive it? Almost certainly from the wx 72 of Dn 7%. Dalman is inclined to the view that wx 72 was not in common use in early Palestinian Aramaic. WN was employed to denote “a man,” NWIN ‘92 to denote “men.” w28 72, on the other hand, was a literary phrase formed by imitation of the rare and poetic O78 3, and means “one of the human species,” “one who had in himself the nature of a human being.” But in the later Jewish Galilean dialects it came to be used in the sense of “a human being,” “anyone.” If it were desired to express in Aramaic ¢he WIN 12, this phrase would become Nw28 73. This was the original of 6 vids tod avOpdérov, and was the phrase used by Christ. The Greek expression is an intentionally over-literal translation, because the more idiomatic rendering 6 av@pwos would have introduced

Ixxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

inexplicable confusion into the Gospel narrative. From this point of view Christ borrowed the title from the Book of Daniel, and its use by Him was quite distinctive, since WX 13 was not at that time in use to denote “‘ anyone.”

On the other hand, it is urged by Wellhausen that xw2x 73 and woN 12 can mean nothing but ‘“‘man”; not an individual man, but man in general. Already in Daniel YX 72 means a man, a member of the human race. Hence it is impossible to express in Aramaic the Son of Man, because ‘*‘son of Man” in that idiom means simply “man” collectively. Christ, therefore, could not have used the phrase “the Son of Man.” And 6 vids rod avOpazrov was created by the Evangelists. For a discussion of the linguistic point, see Driver, DB iv. 579 ff. So far as I can judge, the follow- ing points seem to be clear. (1) It has not yet been shown that NWIN 2 was in use in Aramaic of the first century to mean “ man.” It is still, therefore, possible that Dalman is right in supposing that this phrase was used by Christ in the sense of the ‘Son of Man” of Daniel. (2) wox 12 in Daniel means “‘a man,” ze. ‘“‘a member of the human race.” The subsequent use of ‘Son of Man” in Enoch, of “man” in 2 Esdras, and of the phrase underlying 6 vids tov avOpwrov in the New Testament, is due to reminiscence of Daniel. The later writers would have been linguistically more correct if they had spoken of ¢he “man” of Daniel ; but their exact translation ““Son of Man” seemed more appropriate, as retaining the outward form of the phrase to which they were referring, and as less likely to introduce confusion than the more accurate trans- lation ¢he “man.” (3) Christ adopted the semi-technical term already in use to designate the supernatural Messiah, and spoke of Himself as ¢#e “Son of Man,” 7.e. the “Son of Man” of whom Daniel and Enoch had spoken. That there was some way of giving expression to such a designation in the Aramaic which He spoke, cannot be doubted in the face of the evidence of the Gospels.

But this, of course, only carries us back to the Book of Daniel. It is often supposed that w3x 123=like a man, simply describes the Jewish nation as humane in comparison with the four empires which had preceded it in the sovereignty of the world. But it is doubtful whether such an interpretation really satisfies the terms of the vision. Rather those writers are moving in the right direc- tion who see in the phrase as used in Daniel the adaptation to the Jewish Messiah .of a term “man,” borrowed from an earlier eschatological tradition of “the man” who should form the meet- ing point between heaven and earth when the final act in the drama of the world’s history was being played. The primitive unfallen Man of God’s original creation should once again appear. (See Gressmann, /sraelitisch-judischen Eschatologte, 334 ff.; Volz,

THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL Ixxy

Jiid. Eschat. p. 215; Gunkel, ZWT, 1899, 582-590.) If this be the case, then the conception of the “ideal” man had been for long a part of the pre-Christian Jewish Messianic theology. When the Lord used the term “the Son of Man” = ‘¢he “ Man,” as a title for Himself, He thereby claimed for His own person such qualities as pre-existence (cf. Loch 48%), uniqueness as contrasted with other men, yet real humanity, and such prerogatives as election by God to fulfil Messianic functions and to receive Messianic glory.

Parallel to this conception of the Messiah as “the Man,” runs the more fragmentarily illustrated conception of the Messiah as mysteriously born of the woman (cf. Is 7!4, and Gressmann, pp. 270 ff.) The fact that we get the two side by side in the first Gospel throws light upon the Evangelist’s conception of the Person of Christ. He was born of a virgin (118%). He was therefore God’s Son (3!7). He had been elected to Messianic functions (317), and was the King Messiah, the Beloved (3!’). He was also “the Man,” the meeting-point between the divine and the human, who should come, as Daniel had said, on the clouds of heaven to inaugurate the kingdom of heaven.

Cf. Driver, DB iv. 579 ff.; Dalman, Words, pp. 234 ff. ; Well- hausen, Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, vi. 200f., Einlettung, pp. 39f.; Drummond, /Z%S, April, July 1901; Lietzmann, Der Menschen- sohn, Leipzig, 1896; Gunkel, ZWT vii.; Volz, Jiid. Eschat. pp. 214f.; Fiebig, Der MJenschensohn, 1901; Gressmann, Js. Jid. Eschat. pp. 334 ff. ; and the references in Driver’s article.

D. THE CHURCH.

_ The Messiah had come. He had preached the coming of the kingdom. He had been put to death. He would come at the end of the age on the clouds of heaven. In the meantime His disciples were to preach the doctrine of the kingdom, and make disciples by baptism into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost (28!%). The disciples constituted an ecclesia (1618 1817), They were to cultivate such qualities as humility (5° 18%), mercy (57), forgiveness (614-15 1815. 21-35), love (5**) ; and to practise almsgiving (62), prayer (6°15 77-11), and obedience to Christ’s com- mands (72427), They were to be prepared to give up all things for Christ’s sake, e.g. marriage (1912), property (19?9), earthly relation- ships (1929 1087), even life itself (10%? 167-6), They were to rely upon God’s providence, and to avoid the accumulation of riches (61*-84), Wealth was a hindrance to admission into the kingdom (203), Marriage was an ordinance of God (19*®) ; but divorce, except for zopveia (5°? 19°), was an accommodation to human weakness (198).

Ixxvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

The righteousness to be aimed at by them was to be based on right motive rather than observance of rules, upon the spirit rather than the letter of the law (521-48 151-20).

All the disciples were brethren, having one Father, God, and one Master and teacher, Christ (2381). As such they constituted the ecclesia (181”), and possessed common authority to legislate for the Church’s needs (1818). Wherever two or three met for prayer, Christ would be with them (1819). (Cf. 2820.)

As in the Jewish Church so in the Christian, there would be prophets (104 2334), wise men (2374), and scribes (13°? 22%)

But from among the disciples twelve in particular were com- missioned to preach and to baptize (10° 281%). Amongst these Peter was pre-eminent (cf. 10? azp@ros) It was he to whom first was revealed the true nature of the Christ which was to be the foundation rock of the Church (1617). He was to have adminis- trative and legislative power within the kingdom (16119). But in that kingdom all twelve would sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (197°).

£. JEWISH CHRISTIAN CHARACTER OF THE LOGIA.

The probability that these sayings were collected and preserved by the early Church in Palestine is suggested by the following considerations :

(a) The title and conception of the kingdom of the heavens as found in these sayings is Jewish in character. See above.

(4) The interest shown in S. Peter, and the prominent position attributed to him, points in the same direction.

(c) The mission of the Messiah and of His Apostles is limited to the Jewish nation.

Cf. 1524 “I was not sent save to the lost sheep of the house

of Israel.” 1o® ‘Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 1073 ‘Ye shall not exhaust the cities of Israel till the Son of Man come.” 19% ‘Ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” 6 See note.

(811-12, though in its present position it seems to express a forecast of the admission of Gentiles into the kingdom, would not necessarily convey this meaning to a Jewish Christian society. Nor need the parables 2178-82. 33-46 221-14 have seemed to such a community to bear this meaning.)

The editor of the Gospel has preserved these sayings in spite of the fact that he himself clearly believed that the good news of

THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPEL Ixxvil

the kingdom was intended for Gentiles. For he inserts 8513, adding to it from the Logia wv."-!, the result being that the admission of Gentiles is clearly alluded to. And the three parables 21°8_2214 in their present position in the Gospel seem to suggest the same lesson. Compare also his insertion of 25146, possibly a Christian homily, of 2414 from Mk.; and of 281-29, especially v.19, which is probably also derived from Mk.’s lost ending.

There is, however, nothing in these passages as recorded by Mt. which takes us outside the Jewish Christian point of view of ‘he early Church at Jerusalem as described in Ac 1-15. In that Church reluctance to the admission of the Gentiles into the Church was at length so far worn down, that it was admitted that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles. But the stand- point adopted was somewhat similar to that of the canonical prophets, who advocated the view that the Jewish religion was destined to attract to itself all nations, but who never seem to have doubted that the result would be the submission of the Gentiles to the privileges of Judaism rather than the complete supersession of Judaism by a new religion. In the same way there is nothing in the first Gospel which is not consistent with a conception of Christianity as a purified Judaism which was destined to absorb within itself disciples (proselytes) from all nations.

Of course, Christ’s sayings contain within themselves a wider and freer spirit than this, but the Jewish Christian Church of Palestine may well have failed to see the ultimate goal of universalism towards which this teaching inevitably tended.

(d) The insistence on the permanent validity of the Mosaic law.

Cf. 517-20 1816 233-28 ratra dé eer wornoat, Cf. 712>, and especi- ally the law of divorce for unchastity, 5°.

This has so far influenced the editor, that he inserts a similar saying into Mk.’s narrative 107!?= Mt 191°, where it is certainly out of place. See noteson Mt 1g. Cf. also the insertion of the words pydé cafBarw in 242°, the omission of Mk 22%, and the emphasis on the fulfilment of prophecy.

(e) The Jewish phraseology of the sayings.

Cf. especially :

9 Bacreia Tv otpavar. 6 maT1p 6 év (Tots) ovpavots. 6 maTip 6 obparos. TATHP LAB, HjLOV, TOV, AUVTOY, on which see above. And 518 idta &y 7 pia Kepala. Bas pakd. 673 rovypds. See note.

Ixxviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

13% filavia.

13°8 of viol THs BactXel/as.

134° cuvréAcia TO aidvos.

13°? ypappaters.

1617 capé Kai atya,

1618 wvAau adov.

ro! |< bind’ and! loose

1818 ” ” ”

19% wadtvyyeveria—Opovov dd€ys. Cf. also the word-play in Nawpatos, 2“, and in BecAfeBovd,

122

(f) Anti-Pharisaic polemic ;

3°.

2B:

Ci tohts wee hls

Of course, this anti-Pharisaic attitude is observable also in a less degree in the editor’s other source, viz. the second Gospel, where the Pharisees are represented as finding fault with Christ’s teaching, 2°, or conduct, 216 3222, or with the conduct of His disciples, 21824 75, They combine against Him with the Herodians, 3° 12!8. They ask Him for a sign, 81!, and question Him about divorce, 10? (but see note on 19%). They question Him about His right to teach, 1177. Christ bids His disciples beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, 8, and beware of the scribes, 1258, They plot to kill Him, 141. The Pharisees are mentioned by name in nine of the above cases, viz, 214 18. 24 36 75 8.15 to2 1218, In the others, viz. 26 322 141, it is the scribes who are mentioned, and it is scribes who with other members of the Sanhedrin effect the arrest of Christ, 14%, and His condemna- tion, 1453 15},

But the editor of the first Gospel extends the anti-Pharisaism of his sources. He not only borrows the polemical sayings from the Logia and the polemical incidents from S. Mark, but so arranges and adds to them as to give a very dark picture of the Pharisees. ‘To them and to the Sadducees the Baptist spoke his words of denunciation and warning, 37!%. Against their teaching was directed a considerable section of the Sermon on the Mount, 5% 61-18, His teaching was, says S. Mark, “not as the scribes,” not, adds S. Matthew, as the scribes and Pharisees.! The editor also alters Mk.’s of ypapparets tov Papicaiwy (216) into ot Papicator, and Mk.’s of ypapparets (322) into of Paproaion (124, cf. 934). The

1 Thetr scribes % B: their scribes and the Phartsees \att S.

THE AUTHOR Ixxix

same change occurs in Mk 128=Mt 2241, and in Mk 12%= Mt 22%4, See also critical note on 19%.

Mk.’s short denunciation of the teaching of the scribes, 1237>-40, is lengthened into a long and severe denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, ch. 23. The parable, Mk 121-2, is there, as in Mt 2178-44, addressed to the chief priests and elders ; but in Mt 21 it is the chief priests and the Pharisees who recognise that it was aimed against them. Indeed, the whole section, 217°-2246, seems ta be directed against the Pharisees; cf. 2145 2215-84-41, This polemical motive probably explains the fact that in 21°! 4! 22? the opponents are made to utter their own condemnation (A€yovow). The whole section seems to develop towards the terrific condemna- tion of ch. 23. Lastly, in 27° it is the chief priests and the Pharisees who effect the sealing of the tomb and the placing of the guard before it. It is perhaps due to the same anti-Jewish motive that we owe the insertion of the incident of Pilate’s hand- washing (2724-25),

THE AUTHOR.

1. Papias apud Eusebius, 7. Z£. iii. 39:

MarOatos pev ovtv “EBpaids dvadéxtw Tra Adyra ovveypawaro.} “Hppyvevce 0 aita as Rv Suvatos? exacTos.

2. Irenzeus, iil. 1. 1 apud Eusebius, H. £. v. 8. 2:

6 pev 37 MarOaios év trois “EGBpatous TH idia abr@v dvaréxtw kat ypadiy eEjveyxev EvayyeAiov, TOU Tlérpou kat Tov IlavAouv ev ‘Poun evayyeAlopevwv Kal GepedvovvTwr THY éxxAqotay.

3: Origen apud Eusebius, LTE, Wa: 25:

ore mparov pe yéypamtat TO Kata Tov Tote tehovay, vorepov 8 axdatoAov ‘Tyoob Xpurrov MarOaiov, exdedwkdTa aito Tots azo lovdaicpod micrevcact, ypappacy ‘Efpaixots cuvretaypevov.

4. Eusebius, #1. iE iil. 24. 6:

MarOaios pev yap mpdtepov “EBpatois xnpigas, os nucdXev Kal ed’ érépous i€vat, tatpiw yAwtrn ypady Tapadods TO Kat aitov ’EvayyéAuov, 70 Xetrov TH adtod Tapovoia TovTas ap av éoréAXeTO, da THS ypadis avetAnpov,

5. Eusebius, 4. Z. v. 10. 3:

6 Idyravos Kai eis “Ivdods eXOety Aeyerar, EvOa Adyos etpeiv airov tpopbacayv TV avTov Tapovatay TO Kara MazGatov ebaryyéhuov Tapa Teo aitoo Tov Xpuorov € ereyvuxoow, ols BapGodopaioy TOV aTooTOAwy éva Knpveat avrots TE ‘EBpatwv ypdppace THY Tod Maréatov xaradciwat ypadny, nv kat cdlerba eis Tov SnAovpevov xpovor.

If we interpret ta Adya in No. 1 as equivalent to ‘the Gospel,” z.e. ‘“‘the Gospel which bears his name,” we seem to have a uniform second century tradition (Papias, Irenzus)

1y./, cuverdtaro. 2 v1. ndvvaro.

[Xxx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

repeated in the third (Origen) and in the fourth (Eusebius), to the effect that the first Gospel was written by Matthew, the toll gatherer and Apostle, in Hebrew. ‘Ihe necessary inference must be that our canonical Gospel is a translation of the original Apostolic work.

This tradition (and inference) is, however, directly con- tradicted by the testimony of the first Gospel itself, for that work clearly shows itself to be a compilation by someone who has interwoven material from another source or other sources into the framework of the second Gospel. This renders it difficult to suppose that the book in its present form is the work of the Apostle Matthew. It is indeed not impossible, but it is very improbable, that an Apostle should rely upon the work of another for the entire framework of his narrative. If he did so, he certainly composed his work in Greek, not in Hebrew, for the first Gospel has largely embodied the Greek phraseology of the second Gospel. It is inconceivable that the compiler should have rendered Mk.’s Greek into Hebrew, and that this should have afterwards been retranslated into Greek so closely resembling its Marcan original.

It would therefore seem that if the five passages quoted above represent a uniform tradition, the only course open to us is to assert that tradition has here gone astray. Our first Gospel was not originally written in Hebrew, nor is it likely that in its present form it is the work of an Apostle. But such a direct negative only forces us to examine more closely the facts at issue. The main points are these:

(1) From the end of the second century it has been believed that our first Gospel was the work of the Apostle Matthew, who wrote it in “‘ Hebrew.” How did it come to bear his name?

(2) According to the tradition represented by Papias, MS composed 7a Adyza in “ Hebrew.”

In the first place, it is clear that whilst the description ra Adya need not necessarily exclude narrative material, it is admir- ably qualified to describe a book containing sayings, discourses, and parables. If there is corroborative evidence, we may reasonably suppose that S. Matthew’s Hebrew work was of this description.

Secondly, our first Gospel contains some 411 verses, being about two-fifths of the whole book, which consists of sayings, some of them in small groups, others forming part of long discourses or of parables. These sayings are in large part characterised by common features. See above, p. livf.

Now, if we assume that the compiler of the first Gospel drew these sayings from the Apostolic work or from a Greek translation of it, we have at once an explanation of the following facts:

THE AUTHOR lxxxi

(1) That our first Gospel has been ascribed to Matthew from the end of the second century. On the one hand, an anonymous Gospel based on S. Mark’s Gospel and on the Matthean Logia was in use in the Church. It might, of course, have been called after its compiler. But there would be an irresistible tendency to find for it Apostolic sanction; and the tradition as represented by Papias, that the Logia, which formed so large a part of it, were drawn from a work of the Apostle Matthew, would naturally suggest the name of that Apostle as a sanction for the importance ascribed to the first Gospel. To have called it after its other and chief source, S. Mark’s Gospel, would have led to confusion, since the second Gospel was also in common use.

(2) That the Church writers from the second century onwards speak of the first Gospel as having been written in “ Hebrew.” This is quite simply explained as an after consequence of the transference of the name Matthew from the original Apostolic work to the canonical Gospel. It was traditional knowledge that Matthew had written an Evangelic work in Hebrew, and this statement easily became attached to the first Gospel. If there seems to be a measure of unreality about such a statement as applied to the first Gospel, the fault must lie at the door of those who first transferred the name Matthew from the primary to the secondary work. Yet what could they do? They wanted a name for the first Gospel. The compiler was either unknown, or, if known, a man of second rank in the Church. The book embodied — much of the Apostle’s work, and it would be a pity to allow his name as an authority for the Church’s records to pass into oblivion. And so the first Gospel became the work of the Apostle. But S. Matthew, as all men knew, had written in “Hebrew.” And so wherever the first Gospel became known as his work, the state- ment that he had written in Hebrew followed his name, and was attached to the Gospel.

The canonical Gospel was not the only work ascribed to the Apostle Matthew in the second century. The Jewish Christian sect of the Nazarenes possessed a Gospel, which is referred to by second and third century writers as the Gosfel according to the FHlebrews. I give below some of the references to it. Lists of quota- tions from it may be seen in Preuschen’s Azii/egomena, or Nestle’s Novi Testamenti Supplementum, or (in German) in Hennecke’s Neutestamentliche Apokryphen. For critical discussions of the questions connected with the Gospel, see Zahn, Gesch. des Kanons, il. 642 ff., or Adeney in the Azdbert Journal, Oct. 1904.

1. Ignatius (Hieronymus, De Vir. Lilus. 16):

Ignatius—scripsit—ad Smyrnzeos—in qua et de evangelio, quod nuper a me translatum est, super persona Christi ponit testimonium dicens ‘“ Ego vero et post resurrectionem in carne eum vidi et credo

f

Ixxxll THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

quia sit; et quando venit ad Petrum et ad eos qui cum Petro erant dixit eis: Ecce palpate me et videte, qui non sum dzemonium in- corporale. Et statim tetigerunt eum et crediderunt.” Cf. Ignatius, Ad Smyrn. iii. 1. 2. Jerome himself ascribes the expression “in- corporale demonium” to the Gospel ‘‘ quod Hebrzorum lectitant Nazarei,” Comm. in Isaiah, pref. to Bk xviii. Origen, De Princip. 1, procem. 8, says that the expression “non sum damonium incor- poreum ” came from the book called Petri Doctrina.

2. Hegesippus (Eusebius, 4. £. iv. 22):

& te TOU kal’ “EBpaious ebayyediov Kal ToD Svpiakod Kat idiws éx Ts EBpaidos diadéxrov tia tiOnow.

3. Papias (Eusebius, HOE. iii. 39):

exteGertar d& Kai aAAny é toroptav rept yovauros emt moAXais ayap- riais dvaBAnOetons ext Tod Kupiov, Hv TO Kal? “EBpaious evayyediov TEpLexet.

Eusebius does not here assert that Papias quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

4. Irenzus, Adv. Her. i. 26. 2:

Solo autem eo quod est secundum Mattheum evangelio utuntur (Ebionzi), et apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatem eum legis dicentes.

5- (a) Origen, Comment. in Joh. vol. ii. 6 (Paris, 1759, vol. iv. 63).

éeav d€ zpocierai Tis TO Kal? “EBpaious etayyéuov.

(6) Origen, Comment. in M1. vol. xv. 14 (Paris, 1740, vol. iii. 671).

Scriptum est in evangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebrzos, si tamen placet alicui suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem propositz queestionis.

6. Clement Alex., Stromata, il. 9:

1 Kav TO Ka? TPdatous cbayyeAiy—yeypamrat,

a. (a) Eusebius, Z. £. iil. 253

"Hon 3 ev rovrous Twes kal 70 Kal? “EGpaious evayyéAvov katéXeEav, © padiota “EBpaiwy ot tov Xpurrov Tapadedpevor Xalpover.

(4) Eusebius, . £. ili. 27:

evayyediw de boven TO kal? “EBpaious Aeyopevw xpwopevot, Tov oud OpuKpov erovovvTo Adyov.

8. (a) Jerome, De Vir. Lllus. 3:

Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Cesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissime confecit. Mihi quoque a Nazareis, qui in Bercea urbe Syriz hoc volumine utuntur, describendi facultas fuit.

(6) Jerome, Contra Pelag. iii. 2:

In Evangelio juxta Hebrzos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque Sermone, sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazarzeni, secundum apostolos sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthzeum, quod et in Ceesariensi habetur bibliotheca, narrat historia, etc.

THE AUTHOR Ixxxiil

(c) Jerome, Comment. in Is 11?:

Evangelium quod Hebrzeo sermone conscriptum legunt Nazarei.

(dz) Jerome, Comment. in Mic 77:

Evangelium ‘‘quod secundum Hebreos editum nuper trans- tulimus.”

(ec) Jerome, Comment. in Is 40°:

Evangelium ‘quod juxta Hebrzos scriptum Nazarzi lecti- tant.”

(f) Jerome, Comment. in Ezech 1638:

“In evangelio quoque Hebrzeorum, quod lectitant Nazarei.”

(g) Jerome, Comment. in Mt 12}:

In evangelio quo utuntur Nazarzni et Ebionitze, quod nuper in Greecum de Hebreo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthzi authenticum, etc.

(z) Jerome, Zf. 20. 5:

Denique Matthzus, qui evangelium Hebrzeo sermone con- scripsit, ita posuit: Osanna barrama.

(¢) Jerome, Comment. in Mt 23°:

In evangelio quo utuntur Nazareeni, etc.

(J) Jerome, De Vir. Lllus. 2:

“Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur Secundum Hebreos et a me nuper in Greecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Origenes szepe utitur,” etc.

It will have been seen that Papias and the Gospel had a narra- tive in common; but it does not, of course, follow that Papias had seen the Gospel. Ignatius has a saying which was also contained in the Gospel. Hegesippus quoted from it. Irenzeus speaks of it as in use among the Ebionites; but he probably uses Ebionites loosely as a general term for the Jewish Christians of Palestine. It was, as Jerome many times states, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, whilst the Ebionites had another Gospel (Epiphanius, eves. xxx. 3. 13). Jerome saw the Gospel at Bercea, and says that there was a copy in the library at Cesarea. He translated it into Latin and into Greek, and not infrequently (some eighteen times) quotes from it in his writings. The extant fragments of it are too scanty to admit of positive judgements, but it is unlikely that there was any dependence of our canonical Gospel upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or vice versa. All that can be said is, that from the beginning of the second century the Jewish Christian Nazarenes had a Gospel which they ascribed to Matthew, and which was written in the Aramaic language and in Hebrew letters. It may have been ascribed to Matthew for the same reason that caused his name to be connected with our canonical Gospel, viz., the fact that one main source for its material was that Apostle’s col- lection of sayings of Christ.

Ixxxiv THE GCSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

THE DATE.

The data furnished by the Gospel itself seem best satisfied if we suppose that its author compiled it within a period of a few years before or after the fall of Jerusalem in a.p. 70. An earlier date does not seem possible, in view of the fact that the compiler had S. Mark’s Gospel before him.

The writer’s forecast of history is clear and unmistakable. The coming of the Son of Man, whom he clearly identifies with the crucified Christ, would be the first stage in a series of events, comprising the gathering of the elect and the final judgement, which together would form a terminus to the present dispensation of the world’s history. Compare the following:

245 “What is the sign of Thy coming, and of the consumma- tion of the age?”

24°° “They shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven,” etc.

25°! “When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, then shail He sit on the throne of His glory, and all nations shall be gathered before Him.”

This coming and the consummation of the age lay in the near future. Compare the following:

1023 “Ye shall not finish the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come.”

1628 “There are some of those who stand here, who shall not taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

24°4 “This generation shall not pass away, until all these things come to pass.”

But it could be still further defined, for it was to take place “immediately after the tribulation of those days,” 2479; and this tribulation is clearly to the writer the distress which would accom- pany the downfall of Jerusalem ; cf. 24? “There shall not be left a stone upon a stone.—When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?”

It is true that the writer anticipates a previous preaching of the goodness of the kingdom in all the world to all nations, 2414; but he makes it clear that in his opinion this could be accom- plished before the great tribulation of the final overthrow of the Jewish-nation ; cf. 24!4# “then shall come the end. When, there- fore, ye see (the approaching fall of the city),” etc. It is probable that he saw in the apostolic preaching in the West, culminating in the arrival of S. Paul at Rome, an ample fulfilment of this “preaching in all the world (oikovpevy) for a testimony to all nations.”

THE STYLE AND LANGUAGE Ixxxv

It seems impossible to suppose that a Gospel in which Christ’s sayings are so arranged as to give this quite definite impression that He had foretold His coming as Son of Man, and the con- summation of the age, in close connection with the events of the year 70 A.D., could have been written more than a very few years after that date.

Nor does the Gospel contain anything that decisively conflicts with such a date.

Certainly not the narratives of chs. 1. 2. Whatever the amount of historical fact here recorded may be, there is no reason why these traditions should not have been recorded before the year 75 A.D., this date being chosen as the latest probable limit. See note on chs. 1. 2. It is only the narrow and undiscerning logic of modern criticism which finds it necessary to detect earlier and later stages of thought in these chapters, on the ground that one and the same writer could not have recorded the story of the supernatural birth, azd, at the same time, have compiled as an introduction to it a genealogy professedly designed to emphasise the fact that Joseph was in a real sense the father of Jesus. I have en- deavoured to prove in the commentary that the Gospel as it now stands is an indivisible unity ; and that the only stages required are an early cycle of Palestinian traditions, and a compiler who placed them at the beginning of his Gospel, and compiled as an intro- duction to them a genealogy of the main figure in his Gospel narrative. The traditions may well have been current in Palestine before the year 70 A.D., and the compiler need not have done his work much later, if at all later, than this.

Nor need such sayings as 1617-19 1816-20 reflect a late period of Church history. The ‘‘Church” may well be the Palestinian com- munity of Jewish-Christian disciples of Jesus in the middle of the century, and the prominence given to S. Peter probably reflects his position in the Palestinian Church during that period. If we regard the writer of the Gospel as a Jewish Christian, and do not read into his record of Christ’s words ideas which the later Church quite naturally found there in the light of the develop- ment of Christianity, there seems no reason to suppose that he may not have written his book within the period 65-75 a.p. And his arrangement of Christ’s eschatological sayings almost conclusively points to that period.

THE STYLE AND LANGUAGE.

The Greek of the Gospel is not so full of Aramaisms and of harsh constructions due to translation from Aramaic as is the Greek of the second Gospel. Nor, on the other hand, has it the

Ixxxvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

Septuagintal and, so, Hebraic ring of the language of the third Gospel. It has rather the lack of distinction which characterises any narrative compiled from previous sources by an editor who contents himself with dovetailing together rather than rewriting the sources before him.

The following phrases are strikingly characteristic of the Gospel :

tote. This occurs in narrative at the beginning of a new para- graph,! 313 41 gl¢ 1120 1222 88 1 336 rol 1821 1918 2020 2215 231 2614. Sl. 86 275 27, or in the course of a section, 2716-17 35.15 45.10.11 26 96. 29. 37 1213 pol 28 1612 20.24 713.19 yo27 py] 2721 263. 38. 45. 50. 52. 56. 05. 67. 74 27% 13. 16. 26. 38. 58 2810. Frequently also in sayings and parables, 54

5.28 glS 1229. 44.45 26.43 1627 1882 28.13 p49. 10. 14, 16. 21, 23. 80 (2). 40

25l- 7. Bl. 34. 87. 41, 44, 45,

idov.2, This occurs in narrative, either alone, 120 2}. 18. 19 g18. 32. 46 2647, or with Kad prefixed, 41617 82 24. 29. 32.84 92 3.10.20 210 7522 1735 1916 2930 2651 2751 289; in sayings and parables, either alone, 118-10.19 2247 738 927 2018 224 242% 25.26 2646 287, or with xa/, 74 287. 20,

orws, 17 times.

dvaxwpetv, Io times.

mpocépxerOa, 52 times.

mpookvvelv, 13 times.

mpoodepe, 14 times.

ovvayev, 24 times.

dxAo. Mk. has 6yAos 37 times, 6yAor once, ch. 10 (but D Stabcffikq dxdos). On the other hand, Mt. has oxAa 30 times, dxAos 17.

For other phrases, see Hore Syn. pp. 4-7, 25-27, and above,

ovis i Another characteristic of the editor’s style is a tendency to repeat a phrase or construction two or three times at short intervals. This is particularly noticeable at the beginning or close of a section.

Cf. the following :

(1) rod de *Incod yevvnbévros—isov, 2}. avaxwopnoavTwv S¢ adrav—idov, 2}, teXeuTHTavros Sé TOD “Hpadov idov, 2),

(2) mapayivera, 3}.

1

9 (3) axovoas 6é, 412, meputatov b¢, 438, mavioclen 1 As arranged in the text of Westcott and Hort.

* This word is characteristic of Mt. only as contrasted with Mk. It is common in Lk.

THE TEXT Lxxxvil

(4) xataBavyre (os) dé airé (od), 8% eiaeA Govtos (1) dé adrod (@), 85. (5) Kat éuBavre aire, 87%, Kat éAOovte aita, 878, (6) Kai éuBas, gt. Kal Tapayov, 9°. (7) «is GAnv thy ynv éxelvyny, 9*. év An TH yn éxetvy, 9°. (8) ev exeivw TO Kaup@, 117 123, (9) ot d€ etOws adévres, 420 22, (10) «dds dé, 1427. evdews Sé, 149), (11) Kai e&eAOdv exetGev, 1571. Kal pwetaBas éxeidev, 157%. (12) THv Baorreiay rod Geov, 2151, » Bacreta Tod Geod, 214, (13) Kat karaBawovrwv aitav—evereiAaro atrots, 17%, kal eAGovrwy—mpoondGev aita, 1714, (14) dvactpepopévwr dé airav, 1772. eAGovrwy dé adrov, 1774. (15) GAAnv rapaBodny rapeOnKev avrois A€yov, 1374 31, dAAnv wapaBoAnv eAddXnoev avtots, 13°, (16) dpota eoriv, 13%. madw opota eotiv, 13% 47,

THE TEXT.

The task of an editor of the first Gospel is complicated by the fact that he not only has to decide questions bearing on the text of the first Gospel, but also to investigate the text of S. Mark. I am unable to assume that the edition of Westcott and Hort gives us a final text in either Gospel. In particular, I am inclined to believe that the second century readings, attested by the ecclesiastical writers of that century, and by the Syriac and Latin versions, are often deserving of preference. I have made no special study of the Latin versions, but some investigation of the Syriac versions has long convinced me that the Curetonian may be regarded as a revision of the text presented by the Sinaitic version ; and that whilst the former, when it differs from the Sinaitic, rarely retains an original reading, the latter is often of great importance. On the other hand, I cannot subscribe to the exaggerated estimate of the value of the Sinaitic versions taken by Dr. A. Merx.! For the early Syriac versions, the student should study the admirable edition of Mr. Burkitt.

1 Die Vier Canonischen Evangelien.

Ixxxvili THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW

I have used the ordinary symbols for the Greek and Latin MSS. To those usually quoted add

Ox =A papyrus fragment, containing Mt 11 22-14-20, published

in Oxyrhynchus Papyrt, 1. The Syriac versions are quoted thus: S! =the Sinaitic MS. S? =the Curetonian. S3 =the Peshitta. S* =the Harclean. S5= the Jerusalem Lectionary.

The Old Latin (pre-Vulgate) MSS. are quoted under the ordinary letters (a b c, etc.), or in cases where several agree as late.

No attempt has been made to give the whole of the evidence for textual readings. The syllable a/ means “ with other uncial MSS.,” ¢.g. E F a/ means that a reading is attested by E F and other uncials.

AUMEOR TITIES:

aod

Apgott, E. A., Zhe Corrections of Mark. London, 1901. ~ Johannine Vocabulary. London, 1905. Johannine Grammar. London, 1906.

ABRAHAM, Die Afokalypse Abrahams. Herausgegeben von C. N. Bonwetsch. Leipzig, 1897.

AvENEY, W. F., Zhe Gospel according to the Hebrews (Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1904).

Ascension of Isaiah. See Charles.

Assumption of Moses. See Charles.

BacHER, W., Die Agada der Tannaiten. Strassburg, 1884-1902. Die Exegetische Terminologie der Judischen Traditions- literatur. Leipzig, 1905. Bacon, B. W., Jesus’ Voice from Heaven (American Journal of Theology, ix. 458). ’ Baruch. See Charles. Bice, C., Zhe Church’s Task under the Roman Empire. Oxford, 1905. BiscuoFF, E., Jesu und die Rabbinen. Leipzig, 1905. Buass, F., Zexthkritische Bemerkungen zu Matthdus. Gitersloh, 1900. Grammar of New Testament Greek. Translated by H. St. John Thackeray. London, 1898. BoussEt, W., Die Religion des Judentums. Berlin, 1903. Box, G. H., Zhe Gospel Narratives of the Nativity and the alleged Influence of Heathen Ideas (Interpreter, Jan. 1906). Brices, C. A., Messianic Prophecy. Edinburgh, 1886. The Messiah of the Gospels. Edinburgh, 1894. New Light on the Life of Jesus. Edinburgh, 1904. Criticism and the Dogma of the Virgin-Birth (North American Review, June 1906). Burkitt, F. C., Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe. Cambridge, 1904. The Gospel History and its Transmission. Edinburgh, 1906. Burton, E. De Witt, Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem. Chicago, 1904.

Ixxxix

xc AUTHORITIES

Cuartes, R. H., Zhe Book of Enoch. Oxford, 1893.

The Book of the Secrets of Enoch. Oxford, 1896.

The Apocalypse of Baruch. London, 1896.

The Assumption of Moses. London, 1897.

The Ascension of Isaiah. London, 1900.

The Book of Jubilees. London, 1902.

Eschatology, Hebrew-Jewish and Christian. London, 1899.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Hibbert Journal, April 19¢5.

Cuask, F. H., The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church (Texts and Studies, vol. i.).

The Lord’s Command to Baptise (Journal of Theological Studies, vi. 481 ff.).

Cueyne, T. K., Galilee, Sea of (Encyclopedia Biblica, ii, 1635). Cuwotson, D., Das Letste Passamahl Christi und der Tag Seines Todes. St. Petersburg, 1892.

Ueber das Datum im Evangelium Matthat, 26" (Monats- schrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden- thums, Ixxiii. 537 ff.).

Concordance to the Septuagint (Hatch and Redpath). Oxford,

1897-1906.

Concordance to the New Testament (Moulton and Geden). Edin- burgh, 1897. Conybeare, F. C., Article in the Guardian. April 29, 1903.

Article in the Zeitschrift fiir die Neutestamentliche Wissen- schaft, 1901, 275 ff.

Cook, S. A.. Zhe Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi. London, 1903.

Datman, G., Zhe Words of Jesus. Authorised English Version by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh, 1902. Grammatik des Jiidisch-Palastinischen Aramaisch. Leipzig, 1905. A ramdinch- Newhebriiisches Worterbuch. Frankfurt, 1897. DeissMANN, G. A., Bible Studies. Authorised translation by A. Grieve. Edinburgh, 1903. Dictionary of the Bible. “Edited by J. Hastings. Edinburgh, 1898-1904. Dictionary of Christ and of the Gospels. Edited by J. Hastings, vol. i. Edinburgh, 1906. DitTENBERGER, G., Sylloge /nscriptionum Gracarum. Lipsix, 1888-1901. Ditrmar, W., Vetus Testamentumin Novo. Gottingen, 1899-1903. Driver, S. R., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deutero- nomy. Edinburgh, 1895. The Book of Daniel (Camb. Bib.). Cambridge, 1900.

AUTHORITIES xci

Driver, S. R., Son of Man (Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 579 ff.). Poor (Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 19 ff.). DRuMMOND, J., Zhe Use and Meaning of the Phrase “ Son of Man” in the Synoptic Gospels (Journal of Theological Studies, April, July 1901).

Epmunps, A. J., Buddhist and Christian Gospels. Tokyo, 1905. Enoch. See Charles. Encyclopedia Biblica (Cheyne and Black). London, 1899-1903.

Fiesic, P., Altjiidische Gleichnisse. Tubingen, 1904. FRIEDLANDER, M., Die Religtosen Bewegungen Innerhalb des Juden- tums im Zeitalter Jesu. Berlin, 1905.

GouLp, E. P., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark, Edinburgh, 1896.

GRENFELL and Hunt. See Papyri.

GRESSMANN, H., Der Ursprung der Israelitischjiidischen Eschato- logie. Gottingen, 1905.

GuNkKEL, H., Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstandnis des Neuen Testaments. Gottingen, 1903.

Harnack, A., Lukas der Arst.