Sources of the Synoptic Gospels Part 16

THE TRUE AND FALSE SERVANT

(Mt xxiv, 45-51; Lk xii, 42-46)

The connection of these sections with the one just considered is the same in both Gospels. The verbal agreement is equally striking. Out of one hundred and ten words in Matthew and one hundred and two in Luke, eighty-two are identical; twenty-six of these occur consecutively and with no deviation in order. The section may be a.s.signed to Q.

RESULTS OF THE PRECEDING INVESTIGATION

This investigation yields about one hundred and ninety Q verses (in some instances only parts of verses) in Matthew, paralleled by about one hundred and eighty Q verses in Luke. The difference in the number of verses has no significance, being due chiefly to the verses not being similarly divided in the two Gospels. Of this total, ninety-eight in Matthew and ninety-four in Luke are ascribed simply to Q. This does not mean, as has been said before, that Matthew and Luke both had a doc.u.ment Q, and in addition Matthew had a doc.u.ment QMt and Luke another doc.u.ment QLk; but merely that Matthew and Luke had two recensions of Q, each of which had pa.s.sed thru a history of its own, and had become in many ways differentiated from the other; and that in certain parts of each recension such differentiation had not occurred, so that these sections of the two recensions may still be referred to under the symbol Q. Of the two recensions, therefore, so far as these reappear in parallels in Matthew and Luke, about half in each differs so widely from the same half in the other that it is altogether unreasonable to attribute the difference to either or both of the evangelists.

If it be asked, why we should attempt to attribute to any form of Q this material which is too seriously dissimilar to have been drawn directly by the evangelists from an identical source--why we do not simply a.s.sign this to totally separate sources, and restrict Q to the sections which are practically identical in the two Gospels--the answer is: this material in the two gospels seems to betray not merely an oral but a literary affinity; it is of the same general character as that which is a.s.signed directly to Q; and almost without exception, in one gospel or the other or in both, it is inextricably mingled with this.

Thruout this discussion the distinction between narrative material and sayings-material, and the difference in treatment accorded to these two kinds of material by Matthew and Luke, must be constantly borne in mind.

The amount of literary divergence that may be fairly a.s.signed to the initiative of Matthew or Luke in their use of a doc.u.ment of sayings is hard to define. But Sir John Hawkins is surely wrong when he says[100]

that Matthew and Luke need not be expected to adhere more closely to Q than they do to Mark. For in the sayings of Jesus which they find in Mark, Matthew and Luke do generally adhere very closely. It is in the narrative portions of Mark that they permit themselves liberties. But there is little or no narrative in Q; the only certain instance of narrative being that of the healing of the centurion's son; and in this instance it is significant that the deviations between Matthew and Luke are in the narrative and not in the logian portions. Speaking of each doc.u.ment as a whole, it should be clear that Q would be followed with very much greater fidelity than Mark by both Matthew and Luke.

Now the translation variants are proof positive of two Greek translations of the original Aramaic Q, these two translations having been made from two texts of the original which betray some divergences or corruptions.

Tho these two Greek translations were thus made from two Aramaic copies, nevertheless in about half of the matter which Matthew and Luke agree in taking from these translations no substantial differences had crept in; but half, also, shows deviations too great to be ascribed to Matthew and Luke. If all the matter common to Matthew and Luke were identical, or nearly so, no need would arise for QMt and QLk. If it were all as dissimilar as half of it is, no place would be left for Q of any sort.

The distinction between Matthew's and Luke's recensions of Q best accounts alike for the agreements and the divergences.

In the preceding examination the number of Q (including QMt and QLk) verses ascribed to Matthew and Luke respectively is substantially the same as the number ascribed to them by Harnack and Hawkins in Tables II and III (pp. 110-11 and 116-17). This agreement merely indicates that Harnack and Hawkins have confined their Q material pretty closely to the sections which show the greatest verbal agreement. The difference between the position reached in these pages and that reached by Harnack and Hawkins is that the present writer feels that those two scholars cannot be justified in ascribing such wide divergences to the literary activity of the evangelists themselves, and that they have hampered themselves by not taking advantage of the fact of the recensions, as guaranteed to us by the translation variants.

CHAPTER III

Q IN THE SINGLE TRADITION OF MATTHEW (QMT)

Thus far, examination has been made of only such material as is somewhat closely duplicated in Matthew and Luke. Examination will now be made of the sayings that are found in Matthew, unduplicated in Luke, to see whether any of these may also be a.s.signed, with any great probability, to Q. In this unduplicated material no data are at hand for distinguis.h.i.+ng QMt from simple Q; but since QMt is the symbol for the copy of Q used by Matthew, that symbol will be employed here instead of Q.

The criteria for distinguis.h.i.+ng Q material in Matthew unduplicated by Luke are the general character of the material, chiefly its eschatological use of the phrase "the kingdom of heaven," its Jewish coloring, its antipathy to the Pharisees, the absence of indications of Matthean invention, and the proximity to and connection with other material heretofore attributed to Q or QMt. This last item is not so important in Matthew, on account of his habit of transposing his Q material; yet within limits it is a valuable criterion.

Examination will be made of all pa.s.sages in which there is reason to suspect the possible presence of Q material. This having been done in the case of the Gospel of Matthew, a similar examination will be made of the Gospel of Luke. The results of these two examinations will give us data for the comparison of Q as used by Matthew and Q as used by Luke. We shall then be able to say whether the differences between what we have called QMt and what we have called QLk are too great for the a.s.sumption that they are different recensions of the same ground-doc.u.ment. Matter already a.s.signed to Q (or QMt or QLk) will not be examined again. As the sayings reported in each Gospel are examined, in cases where the material is rejected from QMt or QLk, suggestions will be made as to possible or probable sources.

TWO BEAt.i.tUDES

(Mt v, 4-5)

Many ma.n.u.scripts invert the order of these beat.i.tudes. Vs. 4_a_ is a quotation from Ps x.x.xvii, 11. Vs. 5 sounds like a reminiscence of Ps cxxvi, 5, and Isa lxi, 2. The tendency to apply prophecy to Jesus is especially strong in Matthew; but whether this should be charged to him or his source remains to be determined. The [Hebrew] of the Hebrew, or the ????se? of the Greek, of Isa lxi, 1, would forcibly suggest such application in this case. Of the Judaistic and the universalistic tendencies found side by side in Matthew it is probable that the Judaistic are earlier, and therefore that they belonged in the source; the universalistic, naturally a.s.sumed to be later, will be more easily attributed to Matthew. Aside from this it is hardly to be a.s.sumed that Matthew invented any beat.i.tudes on his own account. From both these considerations it is reasonable to conclude that these two beat.i.tudes were added to Q before it reached Matthew.

FOUR MORE BEAt.i.tUDES

(Mt v, 7-10)

For vs. 7 there is no close Old Testament exemplar, tho Joel ii, 13, has been suggested. The suggestion is the more plausible since the same verse would also have served as an indirect source of the next beat.i.tude in vs.

8. There is no reason for crediting Matthew with the manufacture of either of these beat.i.tudes. Vs. 8 may be reminiscent of Ps xxiv, 4; li, 10; lxxiii, 1, as well as of the verse in Joel. "They shall see G.o.d" is probably used here in an eschatological sense. An expression combining the ideas and in part the wording of vss. 8 and 9 is found in Heb xii, 14: ??????? d???ete ... ?? ????? ??de?? ??eta? t?? ??????. If this is not a reminiscence of these beat.i.tudes in Matthew, it at least embodies a similar tradition. The d??a??s???? of vs. 10 is peculiar to Matthew among the Gospels. From its Judaistic coloring it is to be ascribed to Matthew's Q rather than to the evangelist himself. If I Peter iii, 14, be allowed to be a direct reference to this beat.i.tude, this will heighten the probability that all these beat.i.tudes were added to Q before its use by Matthew. It is not impossible that Matthew found in Q only the beat.i.tudes now standing in Luke, and that he added these others (also making correction in those now duplicated in Luke), not inventing these himself, but possibly taking them from an oral tradition, or from a separate written source. But this theory seems to the writer to be much more complicated and less probable than the one here advocated. It is quite out of the question that Luke should have found these six beat.i.tudes in his Q and should have omitted them. Yet the beat.i.tudes common to Matthew and Luke are by all scholars attributed to Q. Harnack is undoubtedly correct in saying, "The beat.i.tudes certainly circulated in various recensions from the beginning."[101] The process of alteration and accretion would begin long before the days of Matthew.

"YE ARE THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD"

(Mt v, 14)

In the Johannine tradition this saying has become "I am the light of the world." Like the saying, "Ye are the salt of the earth" (in Mt v, 13), it emphasizes, as against Luke's version, the direct address of the beat.i.tudes and the conjoined sayings to the disciples. It probably stood in Matthew's Q.

"LET YOUR LIGHT s.h.i.+NE"

(Mt v, 16)

The intervening vs. 15 is found in Luke. With that verse omitted, the connection between vss. 14 and 16 is improved. I Peter ii, 12, is a reminiscence, or almost a direct quotation, of vs. 16. Of vss. 13_a_, 14, and 16 it should be observed that, while they are unduplicated in Luke, they change the character of all the words in their context from the character which those words have, so far as they are duplicated, in Luke; for they make of them no longer general remarks, but words of extremely earnest exhortation addressed directly to the disciples. It is extremely unlikely that Matthew should have found the sayings in Q as mere general remarks, and should himself have given them this character of pointed exhortation by inserting the words, "Ye are the salt of the earth," "Ye are the light of the world," etc. But it is equally improbable that Luke should have found these pointed words in his recension of Q, and should by their omission have degraded the sayings to the rank of mere general observations. The best way to save these sayings for Q is by the hypothesis of the recensions.

VARIOUS SAYINGS FROM THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

(Mt v, 17, 19-24, 27-28)

Concerning the section v, 17-48, Hawkins says, "I would place this section by itself as one which we may regard as more likely to have formed part of Q than any other which is to be found in a single Gospel."[102] Yet it is to be noted that in the section of which Hawkins makes this statement there are eleven verses (vss. 18, 25, 26, 32, 39, 40, 42, 44-47) which are not "found in a single Gospel," but which have very close parallels in Luke, and would on this latter consideration be a.s.signed to Q. This fact heightens the probability that the unduplicated verses should also be a.s.signed to some form of that doc.u.ment. Only those verses are considered here which have no parallel in Luke.

Thruout these verses there is a strong Judaistic coloring. They may be compared in this respect with such other New Testament pa.s.sages as Rom iii, 31; x, 4; Jas ii, 10; II Pet ii, 14. The words, "till heaven and earth pa.s.s away" at the beginning of vs. 18 do not quite agree with the words "until all things be fulfilled" at the end of the verse; the latter words have been suggested by Schmiedel as being a gloss. If, with the two verses that follow them, they be not such a gloss, they are, says Schmiedel,[103] not from the final editor, who does not care for Jewish legalism, but from some earlier editor. In other words, universally attributed as the section is to Q, these words were not in Luke's version of that doc.u.ment, and it is inconceivable that Matthew should have added them. They are part of the accretion that took place in Matthew's recension of Q before it reached Matthew. Harnack, however, maintains that there is no inconsistency in attributing the words to Jesus himself.

Vs. 20 ill.u.s.trates the unchronological placing of the sayings, since it implies that the break with the pharisees has already occurred. In vss. 21 and 22 is the word ??????, occurring four times; Matthew uses it in one other pa.s.sage where he has taken it from Mark, who uses it twice; but Luke consistently avoids it, both in his Gospel and in Acts. Unchronological in their setting are also the words in vss. 23-24; they were evidently spoken in Jerusalem, not in Galilee. They would not have been added from an oral tradition, much less invented, in times as late as those of the final editor of the Gospel.

A SAYING ABOUT OFFENSES

(Mt v, 29-30)

For this saying there is a doublet in Mt xviii, 8-9, taken from Mk ix, 43-48. Mark may in this pa.s.sage also have been following Q. That this saying should have been absent from Luke's recension of Q, while present in that of both Matthew and Mark, and that it should also, as Dr. Stanton maintains, have been absent from Luke's copy of Mark, seems rather too much of a coincidence. But the saying is like several others which Luke omits because of their strong tincture of asceticism, or because the instructions in them might be understood in too literal a way. Whether it was or was not in Luke's recension of Q, its character and connection seem to indicate its presence in Matthew's recension of that doc.u.ment.

THE COMMANDMENT ABOUT DIVORCE

(Mt v, 31)

Like vss. 21, 27, 33, 38, and 43 of this same chapter, this verse quotes an Old Testament commandment, as introductory to the teaching of Jesus upon the subject of that command. Since much of the teaching of Jesus upon these items is duplicated in Luke, but this quotation of the Old Testament commandment is omitted by him each time, the quotation will be ascribed either to Matthew or his source. The fact that it is his source, and not the final editor (who for convenience is all along here called Matthew), who is responsible for the Judaistic coloring of the Gospel, the universalistic tendency being attributed to Matthew, inclines us to a.s.sign all these verses in quotation of the commandments to QMt.

ABOUT OATHS

(Mt v, 33-37)

This pa.s.sage has also a strong Judaistic coloring. It is reminiscent of Ps xlviii, 3. Most students a.s.sign it simply to Q. If it stood in Luke's recension of that doc.u.ment, the same non-Jewish bias which is observable in many of his omissions of Marcan material would account for his omission of the saying. It is neither possible nor necessary to prove that these verses were not in Luke's recension. But considering their character and their context, it is much more likely that Matthew took them from his recension of Q than from any other source known to us.

THE SECOND MILE