« AnteriorContinuar »
„ 1114. 15 109-16
147-11. 12-14 153. 8-32
177-10.11.-19. 20. 21
416-30 539 191.10
1013-15. 21. 22 ,, 1119.23
, 2115 f.
2144. 1928 5146 76 927-30 125-7 1324-30. 47-50 1344-46. 52 1617. 18 1724-27 1819. 20 1910-12 201.16 231.12 2531-46
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.
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 Evang. p. 94 f. 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 728 119 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 2334. 35.37. 38 is a quotation from some unknown apocalyptic source.
If these Logia be referred to the traditional writing of Matthew, their date 1 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 seine Weissagungen die Geschichte der Welt als die Geschichte seine 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 twenty-five 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.
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, HJP, 11. i. pp. 210, 212).
Several passages, e.g. 1127, 233, 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.; NTTĂ, 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. 23 232.3). But ver. 20 follows ver. 17 very naturally (cp. Klöpper, ZwTh, 1896, p. 1 f.), when the fulfilment is taken to mean the real completion of the Law by the Christian dikaloo úvn, 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).
The whole question is bound up with the difficult 1 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
1 518-19 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.
eternally valid (Keim, iii. pp. 322–324) for himself and his disciples, the best expositions are to be found in Wendt (LJ., Eng. tr. ii., pp. 7-22), Bruce (Kingdom of God, pp. 63–68), and Denney (DB, iii. pp. 73, 74). The saying (cp. Lk 1617) seems to have belonged to the Logia, but in its present form represents a Jewish-Christian current of tradition in the early church. Jesus is correctly represented as repudiating iconoclasm. But would he have extended the aegis of his authority to the ceremonial details of the law without qualification ?
Mt 1618, και επί ταύτη τη πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου την εκκλησίαν.(Unfortunately Mt 1615–1711 is lost in Syr-Sin). An addition to the original gospel, composed in the second century as a result of and a support to the Petrine catholicism of the Roman church : so Harnack (TU, 1. 3, p. 149 f.), Wendt (LJ, i. pp. 180, 181), and Resch (TU, x. 2, pp. 187– 198, 441; Logia Jesu, p. 55). The silence of the early church literature at points where it would most naturally have quoted such a passage (and where even ver. 19 is quoted) 1 is striking : 9 not even in the JewishChristian Clementines, devoted to the glorification of Peter, nor in Justin or Clem. Alex., can any definite trace of the saying be found. It occurs first in Tertullian and Origen. Even in the Petrine Mark it is omitted. Hence the conjecture that it is the addition of a Western redactor in the second century. The chief reconstructions are : Wendt : Μακάριος ει Σίμων βαριωνά: συ ει Πέτρος, και πύλαι άδου ου
Katio xúcovoiv oov. Resch : Makápios ei, Siuar Baplovā, oti odpě kai asua oủk ånekaluyév gol,
αλλ' ο πατήρ μου και εν τοις ουρανοίς· κάγώ λέγω σοι, ότι πύλαι
άδου ου κατισχύσουσίν σου. Weiss rejects ver. 19 also, but this is unnecessary. Like 2816-20, this passage, however, is quite credible in the period 75-90.3 Blair (Apostolic Gospel, pp. 325-331) regards the original saying (less the reference to Peter and the allusion to the church) as addressed to the twelve, and based on Lk 1021; and Wernle (op. cit. pp. 135, 136, 192) suggests that the canonical text blends two different conceptions of the “Rock”-name: the one personal, referring to the experience of the second Coming (parallels in TU, XIII. p. 26), the other ecclesiastical, denoting the primacy of Peter. The origin of the passage, he conjectures, may have been the strife between the original apostles and Paul; the whole section 17-19 is an additionwhether of the evangelist or of his predecessors or followers—not the oldest text. So Dr. G. L. Cary, IH, i. pp. 214–218. Whatever view be adopted, it is no argument to defend the passage by insisting on its highly poetic or dramatic character. Why should we assume that the writers of the gospels were dull, prosaic beings? No one denies that the
1 Tatian, e.g., appears to have merely read zaà sitiv ua zápics si Lipwr. xai túnces ädou dů XOTIV Xúrovo ív oe où el IIstpos (but cp. Zahn, GK, ii. p. 546).
2 Cp. Carpenter, First Three Gospels, pp. 275-277), Soltau, Drummond's Hibbert Lectures, Via, Veritas, Vita (Lect. i. p. 15 f.), and J. Réville, Les origines de l'Épiscopat, 1. p. 31 f. In any case the passage is Christian, even if it is not Christ's. The question at issue really is, whether Jesus contemplated a permanent society of his followers; and if so, whether such an expression of it is historically probable within his lifetime (Réville, II. pp. 220, 485 f., 499).
3 To defend the passage (vers. 16-20) as an integral part of a Christian book written in the seventh decade (Keim, iv. pp. 266, 267 ; Stevens, NTTh, p. 136 f. ; and Zahn, Einl. ii. p. 294, etc.) is a highly improbable solution. The alternatives are (a) either a late interpolation in an early gospel, or (6) an integral part of a gospel which is a product of the advanced Christian consciousness. I prefer the latter.
passage is worthy of Jesus. Had it been unworthy, we may be sure it would not have been inserted. In fact, the ordinary defence of the passage as a noble idealistic conception, worthy of its occasion and author, is quite irrelevant. To say, for example, that “no ordinary man who saw the form in which the church actually became historical, could have spoken of it in this lofty strain" (Denney, Studies in Theology, p. 178) is hardly accurate, even if an agreement could be arrived at upon the definition of “ordinary.” Surely, e.g., Paul had an experience of the local churches that would have sickened most men, and turned their idealism into a dull, sober estimate. But did that prevent him from cherishing and expressing in a grand style such conceptions of the church as those given in 1 Co 12, Col 178 f., etc. ? See also Ephesians throughout, 1 Pet 21-10, and the magnificent rhapsody in Heb 1222 f. (after the experiences of 1025 f. 123 f.!), besides the dream of a later writer (A poc 21, 22), who had passed through a disenchanting experience (A poc 2, 3) of the actual churches in Asia Minor. The whole problem, indeed, is often misstated. It is not a question of whether Jesus gathered a circle of intimate companions, whom he trained to propagate his ideas, or of how far he anticipated a future career for them which would involve his memory and spirit as their religious authority. The question is whether, with his belief in his own speedy return and the evident limits by which his outlook was beset, Jesus could have laid down the details of an ecclesiastical structure (Mt 1618 1815 f.) which presupposed a settled and expanding future ; in a word, whether Jesus the religious idealist, the prophet, the martyr, was also the religious organiser.
289. 10. -The disruption of the narrative (vers. 7, 8, 11) by this passage, together with its similarity to Jn 2014-18, has suggested the idea that it represents an editorial addition (date, 100–150 A.D.), inserted for the purpose of increasing the Jerusalem-appearances of Jesus after the resurrection, and thereby producing something like uniformity between the synoptic stories and that of the fourth gospel. Rohrbach (Der Schluss des Markus-evangeliums, 1894) also attributes to the same editorial process of supervision, under the charge of the Asiatic presbyters, the displacement of Mark's original close by the extant appendix (1619-20), which was taken from Aristion and corresponds to the gospel of Peter, besides the insertion, in the third gospel, of 2412. The passage in Matthew (289. 10), even if it is not “meaningless and undignified” (Keim), certainly adds nothing to what has already been said by the angels (Wernle, op. cit. pp. 176, 177). The writer also is apparently acquainted merely with the incomplete Mark (1–168). For this and other less probable interpolations in Matthew's narrative, cp. Keim (vi. pp. 308, 309) and Soltau (as above, p. 641). Otherwise, the verses must be simply taken (Weiss) as a characteristic addition made by the evangelist himself to the apostolic source upon which he worked. Mt 288-end is unfortunately amissing in Syr-Sin.
2816-20.-A later appendix : so, besides Strauss, Hilgenfeld, and Havet (iv. p. 280), Keim, who regards it as a wandering passage, containing a baptismal formula, which originated in the first half of the second century (vi. pp. 368–373, v. pp. 338, 339), but recapitulating some genuine commands of Jesus. Resch (Logia, p. 217) reconstructs it thus : top. oủv . π. τ. ε. και βαπτίσατε αυτούς είς μου τον θάνατον επ' ονόματος του θεού πατρός και μαρτυρία πνεύματος παρακλήτου κτλ. Similarly Schwalb, Unsere vier Evgln, 1885, pp. 201, 202. Besides the conception of Jesus as the source of authoritative rules and regulations for the church, and the idea of Christ's spiritual presence (ver. 20=1820), which can hardly be primitive,