Sources of the Synoptic Gospels Part 12

THE LORD'S PRAYER

(Mt vi, 9-13; Lk xi, 2-4)

This is one of the sections that point most clearly to different recensions of Q in the hands of Matthew and Luke. It is improbable that any collection of the sayings of Jesus should have lacked this prayer. It is equally improbable that Luke could have had it before him in the more elaborated form of Matthew, and have abridged it to suit himself.

Matthew's more elaborate form, on the other hand, does not sound like the deliberate alteration of any one author, but like the acc.u.mulated liturgical usage of the Christian community. Luke's introduction to the prayer is certainly not his own invention, and is so appropriate that it is hard to believe that Matthew found it in connection with the prayer in his source and deliberately omitted it. Luke's form seems decidedly more primary. The use in both Gospels of the strange word ?p???s??? seems to carry the two traditions back to one original; but the variations are certainly greater than can be accounted for by the literary habits of Matthew and Luke, working upon the same original. In other words, that original had pa.s.sed thru a different history before it reached our two evangelists. The section is a.s.signed to QMt and QLk.

A SAYING ABOUT TREASURES

(Mt vi, 19-21; Lk xii, 33-34)

The verbal similarity is not close. Except for the proximity of other Q material, the section might be a.s.signed to two entirely different sources.

There is, especially, a quite different turn given to the saying in Luke, from that which it has in Matthew, by the introduction of the words "Sell your goods and give alms." In spite of Luke's interest in alms-giving, as disclosed in the Book of Acts, it is hard to credit him with such a re-wording of his text without some help from his source. But the last twelve words in the section are identical in the two Gospels, except that Luke uses the plural form of the p.r.o.noun where Matthew uses the singular.

Largely on account of these last twelve words the section is a.s.signed to QMt and QLk.

A SAYING ABOUT THE EYE

(Mt vi, 22-23; Lk xi, 34-35)

Of forty-four words in Matthew and forty in Luke, thirty-two are identical. The divergences in the use of conjunctions (?ta? for ???, e.g.) and the improvement by condensation of the last sentence are such changes as might be easily ascribed to Luke. The section may, with reasonable a.s.surance, be a.s.signed merely to Q.

ABOUT DOUBLE SERVICE

(Mt vi, 24; Lk xvi, 13)

There are twenty-seven words in this saying according to Matthew, twenty-eight according to Luke. Luke appears to have been the innovator; his addition of ????t?? improves the sentence in a way often accomplished by him. With the exception of the presence of this word in Luke and its absence in Matthew the saying is identical in the two Gospels. It is therefore a.s.signed simply to Q.

ABOUT CARE

(Mt vi, 25-33; Lk xii, 22-31)

Considering the length of this pa.s.sage, the verbal similarity is remarkably close. Out of one hundred and sixty words in Luke and one hundred and sixty-six in Matthew, about one hundred and fifteen are identical. Beginning in the middle of Luke's vs. 22, and at the first of Matthew's vs. 25, there are twenty-six words in Luke which are identical with the same number of words arranged in identical order, in Matthew; except that Luke has omitted (or Matthew has supplied) three words, without affecting the meaning of the pa.s.sage. Beginning with Matthew's vs.

32 and Luke's vs. 30, there are again twenty-one identical words out of twenty-four in Luke and thirty-one in Matthew. Matthew may here easily be credited with the addition of the words which const.i.tute the difference; for his ? ???????? and his ?a? t?? d??a??s???? are characteristic of him: the former expression being used by him seven times and not at all by the other evangelists; the latter, seven times by Matthew, once by Luke, and not at all by Mark. His addition of p??t?? in his vs. 33 has a decidedly secondary sound. The pa.s.sage may therefore be a.s.signed simply to Q.

ABOUT JUDGING

(Mt vii, 1-2; Lk vi, 37-38)

Between the beginning and the end of this saying, both of which are alike in the two Gospels, Luke has an amplification of some length. It is highly improbable that this amplification is the work of Luke, who is much more inclined to condense than to enlarge. The Q context in both Gospels, and the almost exact agreement of the saying, except for the enlargement in Luke, warrant the a.s.signment to QMt and QLk.

THE BEAM AND THE MOTE

(Mt vii, 3-5; Lk vii, 41-42)

The verbal agreement is very close. Out of sixty-four words in Matthew and sixty-nine in Luke fifty-six are identical, except for deviation in mode or number. The greater condensation seems characteristic of Matthew. The changes do not seem too great to be ascribed to the two evangelists working on the same source, Q.

ABOUT SEEKING AND FINDING

(Mt vii, 7-11; Lk xi, 9-13)

The agreement is close, except where Luke in his vs. 12 adds the item of the egg and the scorpion which has no parallel in Matthew. In spite of the addition of this verse in Luke, out of eighty words in his version and seventy-three in Matthew's sixty-two are still identical. Luke's subst.i.tution of "holy spirit" for Matthew's indefinite "good things" is characterized by Schmiedel as a "deliberate divergence." The same phrase would hardly describe the addition of vs. 12. According to the principle here followed, it might seem natural to a.s.sign this verse, and so the whole context, to Luke's recension of Q. But in the whole section, aside from this verse, there are so few deviations, and these so easily accounted for on the part either of Matthew or Luke, that the writer inclines to a.s.sign the section simply to Q. Luke's vs. 12 would then be regarded as a gloss, or an addition of Luke from some source of his own, perhaps oral. Between this disposal of the matter and the a.s.signment of the entire section to QMt and QLk there is not much to choose.

THE GOLDEN RULE

(Mt vii, 12; Lk vi, 31)

The last clause of Matthew may be his own addition, or perhaps a formula common among the Christians. It may have been a gloss, or may have been found by Matthew in his recension of Q. At all events, it is not like Matthew to have added it himself; his tendency toward condensation is too well known. Except for this addition the section is sufficiently alike in the two Gospels to admit its a.s.signment simply to Q.

THE NARROW GATE

(Mt vii, 13-14; Lk xiii, 23-24)

With much resemblance in meaning there is here very little similarity in wording. Luke's saying is much briefer, and is introduced by a question addressed to Jesus. It sounds almost like an abstract of the saying as it stands in Matthew--if only a precedent could be shown for Luke's making such an abstract. One can hardly speak with any a.s.surance; but considering the difference of setting, the fact that in Luke the verses we are here considering are part of a considerably longer speech, and the slight verbal resemblances, it may be best to a.s.sign Matthew's version to Q, and Luke's to some source of his own, whether oral or written. If a.s.signment to QMt and QLk is not impossible, it is certainly difficult.

THE TREE AND ITS FRUITS

(Mt vii, 16-18; Lk vi, 43-44)

For this saying Matthew has a doublet in xii, 33-35. Mt vii, 20, is also an exact reproduction of vii, 16, with the particle ??a?e prefixed. If Matthew found this saying in two of his sources, it is impossible to say what the second of these was, for it apparently was not Mark. In Matthew's second report of the same saying he has used the words "generation of vipers," which he has in iii, 7, ascribed to John the Baptist. The fact that both speeches in which the phrase occurs have to do with trees, and the fact of the repet.i.tion, not only of the saying twice in Matthew, but of the same sentence twice in one report, may perhaps indicate that Matthew found the saying only in his version of Q, and is himself responsible for the repet.i.tion. Or the saying may have been recorded twice in Matthew's version of Q, with the variations shown in Matthew's two citations of it. Upon either hypothesis the form of Mt xii, 35, is much nearer to Lk vi, 45, than is Mt vii, 19-20, or vss. 16-18. The writer a.s.signs the section to QMt and QLk.

WARNING AGAINST SELF-DECEPTION

(Mt vii, 21-23; Lk vi, 46; xiii, 26-27)

Of the first of these three verses in each Gospel, Harnack says it is "perhaps not derived from Q." But the verse stands in substantially the same context in both Gospels--in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Level Place in Luke. In spite of the difference introduced thruout the verse by Matthew's having it in the third person and Luke's giving it in the second, a reminiscence of the same source may be found in the fact that ????e is used by Matthew in the vocative, where a more strict construction would require the accusative. The last two verses of the section Matthew has combined with the first, whereas in Luke the context for them is quite different. Thru all three verses Luke seems to have the more primary form. Not only the second person of the verbs, and the direct address of Jesus to the crowd, but the words, "we have eaten and drunk in thy presence and thou hast taught in our streets" have an original sound, whereas Matthew's form, "Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, we have preached in thy name and in thy name have cast out demons," would seem rather to come from a time when many men had been preaching in the name of Jesus. Harnack says that the two sayings are "quite independent," but that there is "a common source in the background." This common source in the background might be the undifferentiated Q, and the immediate sources might be the two recensions of that doc.u.ment. The general character of the sayings, and the context, would encourage such an a.s.signment. Since here as in many other places the version of Matthew seems to indicate adaptation to a later time, but since the Gospel of Matthew cannot be shown to be later than the Gospel of Luke, it seems fair to attribute the divergence between the two evangelists here to the different history thru which their two versions of their common source had pa.s.sed before coming into their hands. The writer therefore a.s.signs the section to QMt and QLk, tho not without admission that it might be as well to a.s.sign the section in one Gospel to Q and in the other to some entirely other source.

THE TWO HOUSES

(Mt vii, 24-27; Lk vi, 47-49)

Comparison of these sections shows a much slighter verbal agreement between them than might have been expected from their general agreement in idea. Even in idea the agreement is not extremely close. Matthew's two houses are built, respectively, upon the rock and the sand; Luke's are built, respectively, with and without a foundation, irrespective of the soil. If Matthew's version be here regarded as the more primary, as is warranted by the fact of its greater simplicity (Matthew seems here also to be nearer to the Aramaic, as indicated by his recurrent use of ?a? at the beginning of a sentence), the reinterpretation and consequent re-wording shown in Luke's version are altogether too great to be ascribed to the hand of Luke himself, working upon a source identical with Matthew's version. Let anyone compare Luke's treatment of the sayings of Jesus in Mark with the treatment of this saying, which would be required upon the hypothesis of an identical source before him and Matthew, and he will feel that that hypothesis cannot be maintained. And yet, in addition to the general similarity in the sections, there is one other thing that argues strongly for their inclusion in some form of Q, viz., their position, as conclusions, respectively, to the Sermon on the Mount, and the Sermon on the Plain. The writer therefore ascribes them to QMt and QLk.

THE CENTURION'S SON

(Mt viii, 5-10; Lk vii, 1-9)