the self-evident accretions of the apostolic age. Otherwise, the alternative would be to treat the whole evangelic eschatology as a series of free compositions, in which the original thoughts of Jesus lie hopelessly buried. As they stand, the synoptic apocalypses cannot be brought within the limits of a single personality or situation without self-contradiction.

THE LOGIA

FOR obvious reasons it has not been possible to mark in the printed text of Matthew or Luke, the strata belonging to the incorporated Logia-document. This source, however, can be detected with approximate certainty. It probably consisted of "Logia," i.e. sententious words of Jesus regarded as utterances of the divine Mind, preserved in prose (as opposed to Xphoμo, the poetical form), and carrying with them a certain flavour of authority. Designed for instruction and edification, these traditional sayings of Jesus (λóyoɩ Toû kupiov 'Inσov, Clem Rom 131 467) naturally covered only a small portion of his life; even with the attached fragments of introductory narrative, they afforded little more than a bare sketch of the more salient points and phases in his career. Probably they emanated from the Palestinian, or even the Jerusalemite, circle of the early Christians. They represented the earliest attempt to crystallise in written form the apostolic tradition of Jesus as the teacher. Their contents may be most adequately defined as a practical manual of evangelic principles (which in the nature of the case assumed a biographic form), reflecting the current tradition of Jesus and his personality, but ultimately drawn up by a man who had somewhat definite views of his own, or rather who belonged upon the whole to the more liberal party of Jewish Christianity. "While the author was a man of conservative views, he was without controversial temper or interest" (McGiffert). Probably he sympathised with that large central body in the early church, which stood aloof from theological extremes. His personality is therefore less marked than his position. Indeed, so far as it is proper to speak at all of any one author or final editor in connection with these Logia, he was the representative of that average, characteristic piety which silently maintained itself amid the various parties of primitive Christianity, just as it afterwards formed their rallying-point. Behind the author of the Logia stood the generation whose faith he voiced. In this document, and in the [Continued on page 643.

1 This is admitted by many who refuse to go further in the critical analysis of Matthew. The hypothesis that this gospel represents a compilation of various documents has been for some time quite a derelict; but it has recently been refitted with considerable skill by Soltau (Eine Lücke d. Synopt. Forschung, 1899; ZNW, 1900, pp. 219-248, zur Entstehung des I Evglms."), who finds that our canonical Matthew is a second edition, containing additions from the hand of its final editor (1-2, 314. 15 414-16 817 1217-21 1314. 15 1335 2653. 56 279. 10; also 212-5 2615b 273-10, as due to the prophetic tendency of the writer; also, additions to the story of the passion, 2762-2820, with 2719. 24. 25. 51. 53 2734. 43. 57, and the three Petrine legends; besides 518. 19 1910-12). These are coloured by a uniform tinge. They reflect an author of catholic sympathies and dogmatic prepossessions in favour of the OT, anxious to discover a modus vivendi between Christianity and the Empire. The original Matthew, undogmatic and anti-Jewish, already lay before him, with its combination of the Marcan tales and the Logia. Its author, however, was not a JewishChristian, nor a Paulinist, but a sharp opponent of Judaism who endeavoured to mediate between Jewish-Christianity and Paulinism. The author of the third gospel, Soltau conjectures, knew only the Proto-Matthew, not the final edition.

(2228-30 (?) 2018 (?) 1146 1411

gospels, as in the Homeric epos or the Scots ballads, we hear the collective genius of an age; it is not an individual utterance so much as that of the nation, or of the Community echoing the self-expression of a Personality behind.

In the accompanying five specimens of critical reconstruction, the occasional Marcan or Johannine parallels have been excluded, for the sake of clearness. In spite of the divergences, it will be noted that the various attempts coincide in attributing to the source and its editors a large number of common sections throughout Matthew and Luke; the apparent intricacy of the problem will be surprising only to those who forget the more complex process by which early documents, like those of the Hexateuch, could be edited and arranged by various redactors.

Holtzmann's discussion of the contents of this second source is given in his Synopt. Evglien. (1863), pp. 126-157; cp. also Bruce, Miraculous Element in Gospels, pp. 103-108. For Wendt, cp. his Lehre Jesu, passim ; for Roehrich, his La composition des Évang. p. 94f. 265 f. Weiss (INT, ii. § 45) prefers to call the document an original apostolic source (=the Hebrew Matthew) accessible in a Greek translation to all three evangelists, containing not a collection of sayings or speeches, but discourses grouped round certain leading events in the life of Jesus, which were not chronologically arranged, but simply marked by the formula preserved in Mt 728 111 1353 191 261. Resch (most recently in his Die Logia Jesu, nach dem griechischen u. hebräischen Text wiederhergestellt, 1898) makes the Logia cover the sufferings, death, and ascension of Jesus as well, concluding with a list of the apostles (Ac 1); but he has found little or no support. It is to be noted that on Réville's analysis the eschatological discourse in Mt (p. 638) is composed of the apocalypse taken from the Proto-Mark, with the following fragments of the Logia intercalated, 2411. 12. 26-28. 37-51 25. The Logia, he thinks, were as a whole considerably more sober in their employment of prediction than the other synoptic sources; Mt 2384. 35,37, 38 is a quotation from some unknown apocalyptic source.

If these Logia be referred to the traditional writing of Matthew, their date is in the seventh decade of the first century. This is corroborated, and for most critics independently suggested, by the internal evidence; there are no indications of the fall of Jerusalem, but, on the other hand, the writer has lived long enough to see the hope of the second advent wane. His motive for writing was in part the desire to rekindle this hope, and that implies the death of a considerable number of eyewitnesses. The general standpoint is that of the Palestinian circles in early Christianity. "Wenn wir in der Grundschrift sehen, dass die abschliessende Begründung der neuen Gemeinde mit der Einweihung in den Tod Jesu und der Umbildung der messianischen Hoffnungen durch denselben eins ist, so lernen wir aus den Zukunfts- und weiterhin den Gemeindereden der Redesammlung, wie das Mittelglied dieser grossen Umwälzung eben die Lehren sind, auf Grund welcher die Zurückbliebenen sich ganz im Dienste des zu seiner Erhöhung hingegangenen, als Verwalter seiner Sache, und Erben seiner Zukunft wussten, und wie sie von diesem Standpunkte aus allmählich aus seinen Weissagungen die Geschichte der Welt als die Geschichte seines Reiches erkennen könnten " (Weizsäcker). The characteristics of the source, however, are not quite homogeneous, and have been variously interpreted as Jewish Christian or neutral. There is also uncertainty as to its original scope-whether it embraced the latter part of Christ's life or not-and upon the possibility that it was edited in more than one translation before it reached the

1 Wilkinson dates it (in Hebrew) c. 40 A. D. and (in Greek translations) some twentyfive years later, finding traces of it in the Ebionite gospel and the gospel according to the Hebrews; but this is certainly too early. The author or authors cannot any longer be ascertained. See above, pp. 265-266, and Jülicher (Einl. 280 f.).

It is usually held that Matthew had access to no sources beyond the Logia and Mark, or at least that such can no longer be traced. A possible exception, however, is the genealogy (Mt 11-17), which may have been adapted by the writer for his own didactic ends. Such registers were carefully kept in many families, owing to the importance of a pedigree for official purposes-if we may trust contemporary Jewish evidence (Schürer, IIJP, II. i. pp. 210, 212).

Several passages, e.g. 1127, 23, 2420, are repeatedly but inadequately taken as glosses; it is at any rate needless to mark them in the text, as they formed part of the original book, though not of its earliest component source.

synoptic authors. The popularity of the book would naturally lead to its reproduction in many versions, just as its incorporation in the larger gospels would account for its own disappearance. They increased, but it decreased. Its function was discharged when its contents were absorbed in writings of wider scope and depth; and there would be no further interest in preserving it, side by side with these more comprehensive volumes. The rise of the synoptic gospels shows that, as time went on, the simple and impressive stories of Jesus, which formed the earliest deposit of the Christian tradition, failed to satisfy the wider needs of Christendom, and that the class of writings to which the Logia as well as the Ur-Marcus belonged, had come into existence when the requirements of faith were less exigent. Like most popular growths, their exact origin eludes the research of later ages.

Who ever saw the earliest rose first open her sweet breast?

Even their shape would have remained for ever indistinct, had it not been that the artless, unpremeditated nature of such counsels and reminiscences led to their partial preservation in those ampler and more deliberate compositions which bloomed in the last quarter of the first century-that flowering-time of early Christian literature.

Mt 518. 19.-Widely taken as a Jewish-Christian interpolation, e.g. by Baur, Hilgenfeld, Strauss, Köstlin, Holtzmann (HC, ad loc.; NTTh, i. pp. 152-154), Dr. Cone (Gospel and its Interpret. p. 89), Soltau, Pfleiderer (Urc. p. 492 f.), Réville (II. p. 37), and Jacoby (NT Ethik). The apparent contradiction between the legalistic standpoint here and a passage like 2240 would not be a sufficient reason for rejecting the verses, for this duality is a feature of Matthew's representation of Jesus; nor is the particularism quite isolated (cp. 105. 23 232. 8). But ver. 20 follows ver. 17 very naturally (cp. Klöpper, ZwTh, 1896, p. 1f.), when the fulfilment is taken to mean the real completion of the Law by the Christian dikatoσúvŋ, in contrast to the imperfect method of the current religionists. In that case the saying (17+20) forms the basis of the subsequent antithesis between the higher method of Jesus, which is the true and ideal fulfilment of the Law, and the inadequate traditional fulfilment. Consequently, to re-affirm in rigid Jewish fashion (Bar. 41; cp. Edersheim's Jesus the Messiah, i. pp. 536-539) the literal significance and perpetuity of the Law is out of place, whether authentic or not (cp. Wernle, pp. 113, 183; Dr. G. L. Cary, IH, i. pp. 103, 104).

1

The whole question is bound up with the difficult problem of Christ's actual relation to the Jewish Law (literature in Weiss-Meyer, apud Mt 517-20), and the interpretation of that attitude by the apostolic age with its own strong and varied currents. I see no reason for suspecting (with Holtzmann) more than vers. 18, 19 as an interpolation, or for taking the whole section as a Jewish-Christian programme against Gal 214-21, 2 Co 517; nor is it likely that Jesus merely quoted the words of vers. 18, 19 as Pharisaic tenets (as Weizsäcker suggests, AA, i. p. 36 f.). When they are held, as is quite legitimate, to be an accurate reflection of Christ's conservative recognition that the written Law was absolutely and

1518-19 is not so clearly apostolic as 1618 1815 f. 2816-20. To the man who cannot hear in these latter passages the voice of primitive apostolic Christianity, the historical criticism of the gospels will remain for the most part a sealed book.