Sources of the Synoptic Gospels Part 15

These might be considered merely as variants of the same original saying.

If the reference to Peter be taken, like some of the other references to him in Matthew, to be later than the saying itself, the insertion of this reference in Matthew, whether by Matthew or his source, may have changed the form of the saying from its original as preserved in Luke. But the very slight verbal agreement makes any specification of a common literary source hazardous.

REWARDS FOR DISCIPLEs.h.i.+P

(Mt xix, 28; Lk xxii, 28-30)

The first part of this section varies greatly between Matthew and Luke; with strong similarity in idea, there is practically no verbal agreement.

The last ten words are almost identical. Matthew inserts the section into a speech the rest of which is taken from Mark. Luke takes the same speech from Mark, without making this insertion. The verses occur with him in quite another context. His vs. 30_a_ is more primary than anything in Matthew's version. The first part of the section contains too little agreement to have been worked out of an identical source; the last part agrees so closely as to indicate an ultimate common source. We therefore a.s.sign the section to QMt and QLk.

AGAINST THE PHARISEES

(Mt xxiii, 4; Lk xi, 46)

The agreement is slight, but somewhat significant. f??t??? is used only thrice in the New Testament outside of this pa.s.sage. This is the chief linguistic warrant for a.s.signing the pa.s.sage to QMt and QLk.

"WHOSO HUMBLES HIMSELF"

(Mt xxiii, 12; Lk xiv, 11)

This proverbial saying is used by Luke in this instance as the conclusion of a speech about taking the chief seats at a feast. He also uses it in xviii, 14, as the conclusion to his parable of the Publican and the Pharisee in the temple. Matthew also uses it in two very different contexts; here as part of a speech against the Pharisees, and in xviii, 4, with reference to a child as type of true greatness. Considering these various usages, the brevity of the saying, and its apparently proverbial character, it can scarcely be a.s.signed to any form of Q, tho it certainly cannot be proved not to have been in that doc.u.ment.

AGAINST THE PHARISEES

(Mt xxiii, 13; Lk xi, 52)

It is possible to regard these rather as variants of the same saying than as workings over of the same source. Even in the divergences, however, some striking resemblances are to be noted. Matthew says ??e?ete t??

as??e?a?; Luke says ??ate t?? ??e?da. These words seem to betray a common literary source in the background. The idea conveyed by the two phrases is the same. Matthew says, "Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven before men"; Luke says, "Ye take away the key of knowledge" (of salvation, probably, as in Lk i, 77). The last part of the saying is still more unmistakably based upon an ultimate common source. Yet, as I have so often argued with reference to other and similar sections, to ascribe to either Matthew or Luke, working upon an identical source, the amount of re-working here involved, credits them with a degree of freedom in the treatment of Jesus'

sayings which finds no parallel in their treatment of such sayings as they take them from the Gospel of Mark. We therefore a.s.sign the section to QMt and QLk. But such a.s.signment cannot be insisted upon.

AGAINST THE PHARISEES

(Mt xxiii, 23-26; Lk xi, 39-42)

There is thruout this section a varying degree of verbal agreement. The sections are very differently placed, Matthew putting them among the Jerusalem sayings, Luke early in the ministry. What is conclusive evidence for some form of Q, indeed for the two recensions, is the translation variant in vss. 26 and 41.[98] The section is thus not merely a.s.signed, but we may say is demonstrated to belong, to QMt and QLk.

A WOE UPON THE SCRIBES

(Mt xxiii, 29-31; Lk xi, 47-48)

There is so little verbal agreement here as to raise the question whether we have not merely two different traditions of the same saying. What inclines us to cling to the a.s.signment to QMt and QLk is the fact that these words are preceded and followed in both Gospels by pa.s.sages which have much more close verbal agreement with each other than is found in this section. The verses are a.s.signed to Q by all five of the investigators quoted at the beginning of this chapter. But anyone who will compare the slight verbal agreement thruout these verses with the verbal ident.i.ty shown in other pa.s.sages a.s.signed to Q will wonder why these scholars have not availed themselves of the hypothesis of the two recensions. For upon the basis of their treatment of other pa.s.sages, both from Q and from Mark, the divergences in this pa.s.sage are altogether too great to be a.s.signed directly to Matthew or Luke.

"I SEND UNTO YOU PROPHETS"

(Mt xxiii, 34-36; Lk xi, 49-51)

The a.s.signment of this section to simple Q, and the ascription of all divergences to one or the other of the evangelists, would be easier if it could be shown that either evangelist shows a uniform tendency in the divergences. But such is not the case. Luke seems more primary, and nearer to the source, when he quotes the words of the pa.s.sage from "The Wisdom of G.o.d"; for no evangelist, finding the words ascribed to Jesus in his source, would take them away from him and ascribe them to anyone else. But Matthew, or his source, may merely have interpreted the words "The Wisdom of G.o.d" to refer to Jesus. Luke is later than Matthew, where he subst.i.tutes "apostles" for Matthew's "scribes"; but Matthew is secondary to Luke where he has sta???sete, in apparent reminiscence of the death of Jesus. He is also secondary in his vs. 34, which seems to reflect the persecutions of the Christians. But Luke again is secondary in omitting Matthew's mistaken identification of Zachariah as the son of Barachiah.

The use of verbs in the second person in Luke and in the third person in Matthew is accounted for by the quotation in the one Gospel and the direct address in the other. ?p? t?? ??? and ?p? ?ata???? ??s?? may be translation variants. Careful comparison of the verbal similarities indicates unmistakably a common literary source lying in the background; but a source much worked over before reaching Matthew and Luke.

THE LAMENT OVER JERUSALEM

(Mt xxiii, 37-39; Lk xiii, 34-35)

Tho placed so differently by Matthew and Luke, this section has the greatest verbal agreement. Out of fifty-six words in Matthew and fifty-three in Luke, fifty are identical. Luke omits the repet.i.tion of one verb, omits "desolate" and subst.i.tutes two particles of his own for four of Matthew's. Harnack's explanation of Luke's omission of "desolate"[99]

on the ground that the meaning is the same without it does not seem conclusive. It is better to a.s.sume that it was added by Matthew in deference to Jer xxii, 5. The wording of the section shows so little deviation between the two Gospels that it may be a.s.signed simply to Q.

THE DAY OF THE SON OF MAN

(Mt xxiv, 26-27; Lk xvii, 23-24)

There is slight verbal resemblance here, but enough to indicate unmistakably a literary relations.h.i.+p. QMt and QLk are much more likely than simple Q.

THE BODY AND THE EAGLES

(Mt xxiv, 28; Lk xvii, 37)

In Matthew, but not in Luke, these words form the conclusion to the words just considered. The subst.i.tution of s?a for pt?a sounds like an oral variation; but it may be Luke's way of avoiding a word which he nowhere uses. The wording is otherwise so close as to warrant a.s.signment to simple Q.

THE DAYS OF NOAH

(Mt xxiv, 37-39; Lk xvii, 26-27)

Luke, or his recension of Q, says here, as elsewhere, "the days of the Son of man," where Matthew says "the parousia of the Son of man." The reason for this deviation is not obvious, unless the variation was in the source.

We therefore a.s.sign the pa.s.sage to the two recensions.

THE ONE TAKEN, THE OTHER LEFT

(Mt xxiv, 40-41; Lk xvii, 34-35)

In Matthew, but not in Luke, these words are immediately connected with those just discussed. Luke, or his source, wishes to indicate that the parousia may be in the night, and so adds the words ???t? and ??????. But the arrangement of the verses is in the same order in both Gospels, and there is strong similarity, especially in vss. 41 and 35. We consider a.s.signment to QMt and QLk to account most nearly for all the facts.

THE WATCHING SERVANT

(Mt xxiv, 43-44; Lk xii, 39-40)

The verbal coincidence here is great. The last fourteen words are exactly alike in both Gospels, even to their order. It should be a.s.signed to simple Q.