Sayings of Jesus, Harnack

7/30/2019 Sayings of Jesus, Harnack

1/339

Crown Theological Library

si;9


2/339

4


3/339

.'. v..


4/339


5/339

CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY

HARNACK'S THE SAYINGS OF JESUS


6/339

X


7/339

i^eh) ^Testament ^tubiesII

THE SAYINGS OF JESUSTHE SECOND SOURCE OF ST. MATTHEW

AND ST. LUKEBY

ADOLF HARNACKPROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE

UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN

TRANSLATED BYTHE REV. J. R. WILKINSON, M.A.

LATE SCHOLAR OF WORCESTER COLLEGE,OXFORD ; RECTOR OF WINFORD

^ or THEUNIVERSITYOFic--'?^-

NEW YORK : G. P. PUTNAM'S SONSLONDON: WILLIAMS & NORGATE

1908


8/339

T-' ^ ^ ^'y^' .'>

^ A ' '^

Printed by Ballantyne ^r' Co. LimitedTavistock Street, London


9/339

PREFACEIn the following pages an attempt is made to deter-mine exactly the second source of St. Matthew and St.Luke (Q) both in regard to its extent and its contents,and to estimate its value both in itself and relativelyto the Gospel of St. Mark. I have been moved tocomplete and to publish these investigations by Well-hausen's " Introduction to the First Three Gospels "(1905). The attitude of opposition I am driven toadopt towards an important result of Wellhausen'sresearches, does not detract from my high appreciationof the merit of this work.A supplementary observation which I have mademay serve as an additional proof of the unity of thesource Q. In St. Matthew are found about 112 words,and in St. Luke (without the Acts) about 261, whichoccur in these gospels and do not occur elsewhere inthe New Testament. Now of these 373 words, thereconstructed text of Q given on pp. 127 ff. containsat the most 16i.e. 13 (12) from St. Matthew (^/3ia


10/339

vi PREFACEthe copious and distinctive vocabularies of St. Matthewand St. Luke, is a welcome additional proof of thedistinct individuality of Q. On the other hand, thevariety of the stylistic, rhetorical, and poetic forms inwhich the discourses and sayings in Q are thus seen tobe cast, is no argument against its distinctive unity,but even serves to confirm our confidence in the indi-viduality as well as in the genuineness and originalityof this source.

If in the following investigation I have correctlydefined the limits and have justly estimated the valueof Q, I have only given fresh utterance to the long-established judgment of competent scholars, though itis to be hoped that I have established it upon a moresecure foundation than that upon which it has restedhitherto. No words of mine are needed to explainwhat this means for our knowledge of the history ofour Lord. And yet one can scarcely hope that therewill be an end of wild hypotheses in regard to thathistory. The temptation to confine one's gaze toisolated details, and to view these as reflected in thedistorting mirror of prepossession and prejudice,without deep and reverent study of tradition, is toogreat for us to expect that these strivings will evercease.

I offer my hearty thanks to my friend Professor vonDobschiitz for the active and kindlv interest which hehas devoted to this undertaking of mine while it waspassing through the press.

A. H.Berlin, 8tA December^ 1906.


11/339

CONTENTSPAGEIntroduction ix

CHAPTER IThe Analysis and Textual InvestigationOF THE NoN-MaRKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO

St. Matthew and St. LukeI. The sections almost verbally identical ... 1

II. The sections where the differences are greater . 40Appendix. The sections where the differences arevery great........ 118

CHAPTER IILinguistic and Historical InvestigationOF the non-Markan Sections common to

St. Matthew and St. Luke (Q)L The text 127

II. (a) Vocabulary (Verbs p. 147 ff. ; Substantivesand Adjectives, lh2 f. ; Prepositions, Ibl f.) . 147

(b) Grammar and style 159III. The formal characteristics of the subject-matter . 163IV. The order of the sections 172V. Can we discover any trace of Q in the matter that

is peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke, orin indirect Evangelic tradition ? . . . 182

vii


12/339

viii CONTENTSPAGE

VI. The essential characteristics of the contents of Q.A comparison of Q with the Gospel ofSt. Mark 193

YII. The origin and historical value of Q . . . 246Appendix. Translation of Q .... 253

Excursus I. St. Matt. xi. 25-27 (St. Luke x. 21, 22) andSt. Matt. xi. 28, 29 272

Excursus II. The Yoice from Heaven at ,the Baptism(St. Luke iii. 22) 310Index to the reconstructed text of Q . . . 315


13/339

INTRODUCTIONThe sections which are common to St. Matthew andSt. Luke, excluding those which they share with St.Mark, are, as is well known, very considerable bothin number and content. They amount altogetherto about one-sixth of the text of St. Luke and two-elevenths of the text of St. Matthew.^ The researchesof very many scholars have led them to the unanimousconclusion that neither St. Matthew nor St. Luke havecopied the one from the other, and that these sectionsare thus dependent upon either one or several connnonsources. The former alternative is generally preferred,and rightly so ; and yet one does not thereby concealfrom oneself the possibility that it may well have beenotherwise, and that in regard to many points of detailand many passages there is still room for the hypo-thesis of several written sources and even of depend-ence upon oral tradition. In this connection a greatnumber of other questions arise which cannot bepassed by. The most important are the following:

1. Is it not possible that after the publication of the1 Here of course difficulties begin at once. It is not always a

simple matter to determine the limits of these sections ; differentopinions may be held as to the origin of the doublets which arefound both in St. Matthew and St. Luke ; and in regard to a fewimportant sections, it must remain doubtful whether they are notmutually dependent upon a much earlier source, which is thus notidentical with the main source.

iz


14/339

X INTRODUCTIONgospel of St. Luke and St. Matthew the one was somuch corrected from the other ^ that the task ofsettling the text of the source has been rendered verydifficult ?

2. Did St. Matthew and St. Luke use the samerecension of Q ? Or did the former use it in one form(Q 1), the latter in another (Q \ Q\ Q ^ &c.) ?

3. If Q first existed in Aramaic, did one or both ofthe evangelists pay attention to this Aramaic original,^and occasionally make use of it ?4. Since it is a priori probable that neither of thetwo evangelists quite exhausted the contents of thesource, in which of them is it best reproduced bothin regard to extent and arrangement? and which ofthe passages that are transmitted to us by only oneof our authorities belong nevertheless to

the source ?5. Judging from the investigation of those sections

which may be with certainty assigned to the source,are we to regard Q as a collection of sayings or a"gospel"? And is it possible that the answer tothis question may afford us a principle by which wemay decide whether doubtful sections belong or donot belong to} the source? Or, if this question cannotbe answered, is it not hopeless to attempt to determinethe extent of Q ?

These problems, so numerous and of such intenseimportance, seem to render it so difficult to answerthe question : What is Q ? that one can easily under-stand a person of sceptical mind refusing to concern

^ Compare, for instance, Blass's reconstruction of the text ofSt. Matthew (" Evang. sec. Matth. 1901 ").

2 It is quite certain that in general both used one and the sameGreek translation.


15/339

INTRODUCTION xihimself with it. Yet, on the other hand, such scepti-cism is only permissible when there is distinct proofof the hopelessness of all attempts to solve thequestion. But no proof of such a kind has as yetbeen produced. It is true that Q has been muchwritten about and investigated by Weiss, Holtzmann,Wendt, and Wernle, and by other scholars followingtheir lead, last of all by Wellhausenthough it isstrange how much more attention has been devotedto St. Mark ; but as yet no work has appeared whichtakes into account all the details. Such a work oughtin the first place to confine itself with rigorous ex-clusiveness to the non-Markan passages which arecommon to St. Matthew and St. Luke; to subjectthese to a thorough investigation from the point ofview of grammar, style,

and literary criticism ingeneral, and after having thus gained a firm stand-point, to see what definite results may be deduced. Ifsuch an investigation fails of its aimthat is, if it isshown that nothing connected or distinctive is evolvedfrom the study of the passages in questionthen itfollows that Q vanishes as a tangible entity, indeeddisappears altogether, and accordingly that the pro-blem of the relationship between St. Matthew andSt. Luke in those parts which are not covered bySt. Mark is declared to be insoluble. The necessaryconsequence of this would be that the discourses andnarratives contained in these portions of the gospels(whether in sections of greater or smaller extent)would have to be dealt with each by itself.Up to the present, however, there has been no finalsettlement of the preliminary textual questionin


16/339

xii INTRODUCTIONwhich of the two gospels do these sections appear intheir more original form ? If we seek counsel amongthe critics we only meet with unconvincing statements,that both evangelists allowed themselves to makenumerous changes and revisions of the text, while itis usually added that on the whole more trust is tobe placed in St. Luke than in St. Matthew.^ Oneseeks in vain for a proof of this thesis, in so far as itsfeeble character at all permits of one, and even thequestion which at once suggests itselfWhat are thenthe points of view and the principles in accordancewith which St. Matthew and St. Luke have respec-tively corrected the source ?is propounded by scarcelya single critic. The situation here is the same as inthe case of a dozen other important problems of thecriticism of the gospels : men soar away into sublimediscussions concerning the meaning of " the Kingdomof God," the " Son of Man," " Messiahship," &c., andoccupy themselves with investigations into the " historyof religion," and with problems of genuineness, in thelight of " higher " criticism (as if the critic were in-spired with absolute knowledge of historical mattersfrom some secret source) ; while the " lower " problems,whose treatment involves real scavenger''s labour inwhich one is almost choked with dust, are passed byon the other side. Or where this is not the case, theinvestigation is still never carried far enough; itbreaks off prematurely, and the critic rests satisfiedwith work only half done. Hence the wretched plight

^ Wernle forms an exception. This scholar has shown that apartfrom some instances of severe revision the text appears in a moretrustworthy form in St. Matthew. His work on Q is quite excellentbut not detailed enough.


17/339

INTRODUCTION xiiiin which the criticism of the gospels finds itself inthese days, and indeed has always found itself^withthe exception of the work of a few critics, and apartfrom the Markan problem, which has been treated withscientific thoroughness.But even in the case of the Markan problem muchimportant work remains to be accomplished by the

* This wretched state of affairs is apparent above all in the caseof those who are compelled to take their knowledge of the criticismof the New Testament at second-hand, or have condemned them-selves to this unassuming intellectual position. They are like reedsswaying with the blasts of the most extreme and mutually exclusivehypotheses, and find everything in this connection which is offeredthem " very worthy of consideration." To-day they are ready tobelieve that there was no such person as Jesus, while yesterday theyregarded Him as a neurotic visionary, shown to be such with con-vincing force by His own words, if only these are rightly interpreted,which words by the way have been excellently transmitted bytradition. To-morrow He has become for them an Essene, as maybe proved likewise from His own words ; and yet the day beforeyesterday none of these words were His own ; and perhaps on thevery same day it was accounted correct to regard Him as belongingto some Greek sect of esoteric Gnosticsa sect which still remainsto be discovered, and which with its symbols and sacraments repre-sented a religion of a chaotic and retrograde character, nay, exerciseda beneficial influence upon the development of culture. Or rather,He was an anarchist monk like Tolstoi ; or, still better, a genuineBuddhist, who had, however, come under the influence of ideasoriginating in ancient Babylon, Persia, Egypt, and Greece ; or,better still, He was the eponymous hero of the mildly revolutionaryand moderately radical fourth estate in the capital of the Romanworld. It is evident, forsooth, that he may possibly have been all ofthese things, and may be assumed to have been one of them. Iftherefore one only keeps hold of all these reins, naturally with aloose hand, one is shielded from the reproach of not being up todate, and this is more important by far than the knowledge of thefacts themselves, which indeed do not so much concern us, seeingthat in this twentieth century we must of course wean ourselvesfrom a contemptible dependence upon history in matters of religion.


18/339

xiv INTRODUCTION"lower"" criticism, and remarkably little is to befound in our books on the question of the relation-ship of Q to St. Mark. "The problem of theliterary relationship between Q and St. Mark mustat least be propounded and needs thorough in-vestigation. It is indeed most extraordinary, to useonly a mild expression, that such an investigationup to the present has never been set on foot"(Wellhausen, '' Einleitung in die drei ersten Evan-gelien," s. 73). The last remark is scarcely correct;several scholars have occupied themselves with theproblem. But Wellhausen's astonishment is never-theless quite justifiable. If the criticism of thegospels had been carried on methodically, so thateach scholar stood as it were upon the shoulders ofhis predecessor, this cardinal problem would neces-sarily have been thoroughly discussed long ago, thewhole material for discussion would have been setin order, and the definite and final conclusion wouldhave been drawn. Instead of this everything is stillenveloped in a cloud of uncertainty, and amid thedearth of preliminary

studies of a connected andscientific character, we can easily understand how ithas come to pass that Wellhausen has produced asolution of the problem which has this merit, thatby its very paradox it has summoned theologiansto descend from the airy heights of their criticalspeculations and to gird themselves for strenuouslabour as hewers in the mines of knowledge.

In the following treatise I begin by ascertainingthe relatively original text of the sections which areexclusively common to St. Matthew and St. Luke, and


19/339

INTRODUCTION xvby deducing at the same time the points of view andthe principles according to which each of the twoevangehsts has workedthat is, has edited the hypo-thetical common source. Before coming to a conclusionas to the most approximately original text of St.Matthew and St. Mark, I have thoroughly workedthrough the texts adopted by Blass, Wellhausen, andothers, together with the editions of older scholars. Ihave convinced myself anew of a fact that I had alreadylearned at the time of my studies on the text of theActsnamely, that Blass has assigned far too greatweight to the testimony of the important Codex Dwith its satellites, as well as to the isolated readings ofother authorities (Chrysostom !). In my opinion, evenWellhausen goes too far in this direction. Neithercan I recognise that the text of St. Luke has had thesubsequent influence upon the text of St. Matthewwhich Blass supposes ; indeed, as compared with him, Ikeep much more closely to the text of Westcott andHort.As is well known, the sections of St. Matthew and

St. Luke which concern us are of such a characterthat a very considerable portion of them occurs inpractically verbal similarity in the two gospels, whileanother (very small) portion shows variations whichare so great as to compel us to doubt whether it iseven possible to accept in their case the hypothesis ofa common immediate source (vide p. v). In betweenlies the great mass of the remaining sections, whichshow more or less numerous and important variants.The first group has the great advantage in that fromit we are enabled to draw conclusions of the highest


20/339

xvi INTRODUCTIONprobability. I have therefore divided the materialinto three parts, and I shall first consider those sec-tions in which the differences between St. Matthewand St. Luke are comparatively very slight. Equippedwith the results of this investigation, I shall proceedto the examination of the second group, in whichthe differences are more numerous. I shall then,only after the fashion of an appendix, deal withthose sections in which the difference is so great thatone must seriously doubt whether they belong to Q.They include only one saying and two parables.


21/339

VOF-T

CHAPTER ITHE ANALYSIS AND THE TEXTUAL INVESTIGATION OF THE

NON-MARKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO ST. MATTHEWAND ST. LUKE (Q).

St. Matt. iii. 7^ : Vepvr^-fxara i'^iovcoi', tlcould easily fall out of the text after Kapir6v. A


22/339

2 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSOV TO TTTVOV iv Tf] X^^PâvTOv, Koi. SiaKaOapiei rrjvdXcopa avTOv Kai avvaêiTOV CTLTOVaTToOyjKijp^

-s

avTOv 19 Triv\ '^\ IfTO Se a-)(ypov

KaTaKavcrei irvpi aa-êa-Tio.

avTov (tov) SiaKaOapniKai crvvayayeiv (?)avTOv pr. perhaps wanting,

avTou sec. certain, cnro-6if}Kr]v (avTov)

Verse 11 ( = Luke iii. 16) stands also in St. Mark;there and in Q it had essentially the same form ; in Qit ran as follows:eyud fxev vjmag âirTlYwv vSaTi efV fxeTavoiav 6Se oiTLcrco /ulov ip-)(^6juLV09lar-ûpoTepo? fjiov ecrTtVf ouovK eijuu Uavog Ta viro^rj-/maTa /BacrTaa-aL

'

auro?vjULci^ âTTTLcreL ev TrvevjuLaTi

vSaTi âiTTuQjt) vjuLOLi (with-out P and efV /uLCTau.), asin St. Mark. The remain-ing variants in St. Lukeare likewise due to the in-fluence of the Markan text,ayicy is very doubtful.

ayi(p KOI TTvpl.The few variants are easily explained ; almost always

St. Luke appears as the evangelist who has altered theoriginal text. He has substituted the plural Kapirovgfor the not very logical singular ; he has replaced fixtjS6^t]T by lULr] ap^rjcrOe (a favourite phrase of his) ; ^he has improved the construction by the infinitive(SiaKaOapai),^ and instead of the more pregnant ex-

^ Yet this is not quite certain. J. H. Moulton ("A Grammar ofN. T. Greek," 1906, p. 15) thinks, on the contrary, that dp^rjade ismore original, because it is a Semitic idiom (so also Dalman andWernle) ; but it is frequently found in St. Luke even where he isindependent of Q, and seems to have been used by him purposely(in imitation).

' It is questionable whether St. Luke wrote awayayeiv, or avpdêiwith St, Matthew ; the authorities are evenly balanced on thispoint. At all events, avpdêi stood in Q.


23/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 3pression, "his wheat into the barn," he has insertedthe smoother phrase, " the wheat into his barn."" Kmin verse 10 is added by St. Luke to give more flexi-bility to the construction, as in the case of St. Matt,xxiv. 28, and elsewhere. The style is also improvedby the placing of vSari (without iv) at the beginning.Probably the reading Svyarog is original in St. Luke,but it was substituted for the reading of the source bythe evangelist himself. In St. Matthew and St. Markit is never used of a person ; see, however, St. Lukei. 49 ; xiv. 31 ; xxiv. 19, and four passages in theActs.St. Luke perhaps wrote : Kai top juev airov(Tvva^eL e/? airoOrjKriv. We cannot be certain thateU jULerdvoiav belonged to Q ; yet it is very probablethat it stood in the source, for its absence in St. Lukeis not decisive, seeing that St. Luke follows the textof St. Mark ; and seeing, moreover, that /uLerdvota doesnot occur in St. Matthew except in this section fromQ, it is not probable that that evangelist added itof his own initiative. (On the other hand, in otherpassages juLerdi^oia is purposely added by St. Luke;here however it could the more easily fall out of thetext, seeing that it has no corresponding antithesis inthe following clause.) The end of the verse as itstood in Q can no longer be restored with certainty.In St. Mark the text ran iv TrpevjuaTi dyiw; in St.Matthew, iv TrvevjuiaTi dyio) koi Trvpi; in St. ]l.uke,v TTvevjuiaTt Kal irvpl (in both cases Syr. Sin. gives thewords in the reverse order). It is therefore most pro-bable that Q read ev Trvpi, for this phrase only iscovered by the succeeding clauses which do notdevelop iv irvevfxaTi dyicp.


24/339

THE SAYINGS OF JESUSSt. Matt. vi. 21 : ottov

yap [ecTTfj^] o Qj^craupo^(Tov, CKcl [euTaij Kai rjKapSia (TOV. (22) 6 \v-)(yo^TOV (TOOjUaTOg ecTTiv 6 6(p-uaAjULog. eav ovv fj o o(p-OaXjUiog (TOV aTrXovg, bXovTO (TCOJUa (TOV (pCOTClVOVecTTai (23) eav Se 66(p9a\jULO^


25/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXTKai o iraTrjp vjulcov o ovpavio^Toecpei avra' ov-^ vjmei^jmaWov Sia(pepT avroov ;(27) t/?


26/339

6 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSThe variants in St. Luke, in so far as they are of

a stylistic character, appear throughout as secondaryreadings (corrections in style). This is especially clearin the case of a-Koirei {orKoirelv is wanting in the gospelsbut occurs several times in St. Paul), also in the threeinstances where St. Luke removes the rhetorical ques-tion for the sake of smoothness (a correction which, aswe shall see, he makes in other places), also in thepedantic addition of oiKertjg (wanting in the gospelsbut occurring in Acts x. 7 ; Rom. xiv. 1 ; 1 Pet.ii. 18), in Karavoware (constantly used by St. Luke)twice substituted for eya/3Xe\|Aa(7^6 eig and for the un-usual word KaraimdOere, in ttoVo) prefixed to /naXXov,in TToVft) for ov ttoXXw, in the koi which is added, asso often, in verses 22, 23, in oi^ ovk ecrriv rajuL. ovSeairoOijKr] (improvement in style), in the feeble moralreflection el ovv ovSe \a-)(j.(Trov Svuaa-Qe (to eXd-^^icTTOvis in the New Testament exclusively confined toSt. Luke, vide in addition to this passage xvi. 10;xix. 17) TL Trepl twv Xoittcov juLcpiiavaTe ]also theabsence of eva with 7rrj-)Qjv is probably secondary;likewise the sentence ttco^ ovre v/jOei oure vcpaivei, forav^avovcri, appeared to be unessential; and vdyalvei isa stylistic improvement upon kotticoo-iv. In St. Matthewverse 28, St. Luke has replaced "clothing" by ra\oi7ra, while in St. Matthew verse 31, he omits italtogether ; it was evidently a matter of less anxietyto him than to the native of Palestine. In the samepassage he has replaced the somewhat feeble jur]IULpi/uiV)](Tr]T Xeyovre^ by the strenuous prohibition :Koi vfjLeh (one of the few cases where St. Luke hasthe pronoun when it is wanting in St. Matthew)


27/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 7/jirj ^r]TiT, and thus leads up to the ^tjreire ofSt. Matthew verse 33 (Ctjreiv is much more frequentin St. Luke than in St. Matthew) ; again irXi'iv is insertedby him (it is found five times in St. Matthew, fifteentimes in St. Luke). The phrase /mrj jULerecopll^cG-Oe issingular both in St. Luke and in the New Testament.No certain interpretation can be given of the phraseas found here (it occurs in Philo, Sirach, Plutarch, andthe medical authors). It may mean either " be nothigh-minded," or "seek not after high things," or"be not covetous," or "be not driven hither andthither (by cares)." If the word stood in Q it is notwithout significance for determining the plane ofculture of the first translator of the source ; but itis much more probable that St. Luke inserted it inplace

of TLTrepi/SaXciojuLeOa.

In this case it is to betaken in the same general sense as the phrase pre-viously inserted by him : rl irep) twv Xoittcov /ULepijuvare,On the other hand, the text of St. Luke is, as it seems,to be preferred where the phraseology is less biblicaland liturgical than that of St. Matthew ; thus wherehe reads tov^ KOpaKag, 6 Oeo? (for 6 irarrjp v/mcov 6 ovp.),Ta Kpiva (without tov aypod) and ev aypw tov yoprov(for T. ^. T. aypou), in the omission of 6 ovpdvio?(with irarijp), in the expression rd iOvrj rod koctjulou(t . k6(t/ul. is unnecessary in the language of theBible), in the omission of Trpwrov and rrjv SiKaioavvtjv.Upwrov indeed is wanting in some authorities for thetext of St. Matthew, and SiKaioavvt] as an element inthe gospel proclamation of the synoptists is foundonly in St. Matthew. And yet Ta Trereivd tov ovpavovis perhaps to be preferred to Toh KopaKa^, for St. Luke


28/339

8 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSuses this expression also in the parable of the MustardSeed {vide infra) and in ix. 58. He may have pre-ferred to use a more specific word in this passage,because of the specific word {ja Kplm) which follows.Tov KOG-juLov may also have been added by St. Luke.

St. Matt. vii. 1: M;;Kpivere, \va jarj KpiOrjre.(2) V (b yap Kpi/ULanKpLvere KpSriarecrOe, Kai ev(h jULerpcp jULerpeiTe /JLerprj-Oi](TTai VJULIV. (3) Tl Se/SXeTreig to Kapcbog to evTw ScbOaXjuLw TOV aSeXcpov(TOV, Ti]V ^e ev Tcp arw6(p6aXjULO) SoKov ov KQTa-voeig ; (4) J/ ttco? epei^ twaSeX


29/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 9KpovovTi avoiyrjarerai. (9)tj Ti? eCTTlV eh V/ULCOV civ-OpCOTTOg, OV aiTJ](Tl O fÔ?avTOv apTOV, Ikf] XlQov7riS(Jci(Ti avTip ; (10) t] Kai

fxt] o(hiv(11) el ovv

IxOv-vuvv aiT7]crei,iSwcTTiowcreL avrw

f/xef? TTOvrjpoi ovreg o'lSare[SojULara] ayaOa SiSovaiTOL]re ftlua TTOLCCXTLV V/ULtVol avOpcoTTOi, OL/TO)? KQi v/iieigTTOieire avToig ' ovTog yapeCTTlV 6 V0JUL09 Kai ol TTjOO-(prJTai.

TLva oe e^ f/z. t.ITarepa airijo-ei 6 vloslÔvv, /mtj avrl LyQvo Ka\ ov, of iravraovv ocra eav > Kai KaOcog, and of ovreg > virapyôvreg{v7rap-)(Lv is a favourite word with St. Luke). 'Ev wyap KpLjuLan Kpivere KpiOi'jcrecrOe must be judged original ;the parallelism with what follows was disturbed by St.lAike, because he inserted clauses parallel to jut] Kplvere(viz. Ka\ fjirj KaraSiKaêre Kai ov /urj KaraSiKaa-OrJTe'aTToXvere, Kai airoXvOijcrecrOe SlSoTe, Kai SoOtja-eraiv/uLiv luirpov KaXov ireiriea-iêvov cea-aXeu/jLcvov virepeK^vV'


30/339

10 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSvojiievov Soocrovariv etV tov koXttov vjulwp, perhaps derivedfrom a Q which varied from the Q of St. Matthew).'ASeXche is certainly interpolated by St. Luke; thevocative is wanting in St. Matthew and St. Markonthe other hand it is very frequent in the Acts; thevocative singular occurs also in Acts xxi. 20. TheLukan variant to St. Matt. vii. 9, 10 (" egg ""' and " scor-pion" for "loaf" and "stone," and in reverse order) isproblematical. The text of St. Matthew has a morenatural sound ; St. Luke is perhaps influenced by aGreek proverb or he possessed another recension of Q.He manifestly improves the text by replacing avOpcowo^and o uio? avrov by "father" and "son" (the textwhich Wellhausen prefers is scarcely the right one ;rig comes from St. Matthew). A serious alterationin the sense is effected by St. Luke's substitution ofirvevjj.a dykov for ayaOa, his preference for this con-ception is well known.The text of St. Matthew is subject to objection inonly two passages. He has replaced 6 irarrjo 6 ePovpavov (vide St. Luke xi. 16) by his usual phrase,6 irarrjp vjllwv 6 ev roh ovpai/oi^, and in accordancewith his own purpose and aim he has added to the" Golden Rule " the sentence : For this is the Lawand the Prophets."

St. Matt. viii. 19 : koi St. Luke ix. 5760. ttoo-TTpoareXOoop ek ypa/uLjULarevg creXO. eh ypa/ULju. om. elTreveiirev avrw' oiSacTKaXe, Ti^ itpo^ avrov SiSdaKoXeaKoXovO/jcro) croi birov eav om,airep-)(yi. (20) Kai Xiyet GLirevavTcp 6 'Itjo-ov^' ai aXoo-


31/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 11TTCKeg (pcoXeovg eyov(jLv KaiTO, TreTeiva tov ovpavovKaTa(TKr]vu)(Tig, o oe i/io?TOV avOpCOTTOV OVK ^l TTOVT^r K(pa\r]v KXivrj, (21)Tpo^ Se rcov iuiaO>]TWPelirev avTW Kvpie, eiTLTpk-ylfov fJioi irpo)Tov aTTcXOeivKOI Od'âi TOV iraTepa /ulov.(22) 6 Se 'lr](Tovg \eyeLavTW' aKoXovOei jiioi, Kaiacbeg roi'? veKpov^ OayâiTOU? kavToov vcKpovs.

9 ^^ y rf 'oe TT/OOC TOOV' QKO-Lirev Oe ttô? cTcpovXovOei juLoi. 6 Se elirev

Kvpie om. ctTreX-Q6vTi{-Ta) without koicLirev Se aura) (without o 'I.)OLKoX. . . . KOI om. add.crv oe aTreXOcov oiayyeWeTt]v iSacriXeiav tov Oeovpost VCKpOVg,

The Lukan text (corresponding to St. Matt,viii. 2122) is certainly clearer and so far better,but it is scarcely original. As the text runs inSt. Matthew, it would have absolutely compelled athoughtful writer to begin the passage with the com-mand of Jesus, cLKoXovOei /moi. But the ek ypa/uL/ma-Tev


32/339

12 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSin St. Luke can scarcely have stood in Q, for (1)SiayyeWeiv occurs again in the New Testament onlyin Acts xxi. 26 (also in Rom. ix. 17 in a quotationfrom the LXX) ; (2) the ciKoXovOei juoi which is antici-pated in St. Luke required a substitute, whichnaturally had to be more emphatic than the simplecLKoXovOeiu,

St. Matt. ix. 37 : rore St. Luke x. 2.Xeyei Toig /aaOrjTais avTOv' eXeyev Se irpo^ avrovfo juev OepicriuLO^ ttoXu?, olSe ipydrai oXiyoi' (38)Sey^OrjTC ovv tov KvpiouTov OepicrjuLod otto)? eKJSaXu epyara^ eKJSaXuepyara^ cii tov Oepicr/uiovavTOu,

The introduction in Q ran simply : Xiyei avroig orToh imaOrjraig avrov.St. Matthew gives the originalorder k/3. ipy. rore is often inserted by St.Matthew.

St. Matt. X. 10^ : a^iog St. Luke x. 7^.yap 6 epyaTt]^ t?? Tpo(pfJ9 tov /ulictOovavTOv.

The labourer is worthy not only of his food,but also so thinks St. Luke of his hire ; theoriginal lies in St. Matthew. Seeing, however,how short the saying is, it must remain question-able whether we are justified in assigning it to thesource.


33/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 13St. Matt. X. 15 : ajurjv St. Luke x. 12. a/z^i/ om.

Xe-yo) vjULiV avcKTorepov ^oS6fxoi


34/339

14 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSSt. Luke xii. 2. Se foryap a-vyKeKoXvjUjuipov

St. Matt. X. 26 : ovSevyap ecTTiv KKa\vjuijuLvovo ovK a7roKa\v(pO?j(rTai,Kai KpviTTOV o ov yvcocrO}]-crerai.

St. Luke prefers composite words, and substitutesthem for simple words.St. Matt. xi. 3 (7V 1

t\


35/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 15oucoi^ Tcov ^aa-i\i(jt)v. (9)oXXa TL e^r]\OaT ; irpO'(p^rrjv iSciv; pal Xeyo) v/uliv,Kai irepicraroTepov irpocpri-Tov. (10) ovTO's ecTTiv Treplou ycypaTTTai* iSov eyu)aTTOCTTeWco Tov ayye-\ov /JLOV irpo 'TrpocraoTTOv(TOV, b? Karaa-KevacreiTrjv ooov (TOV ejuLTrpocr-Oev aov, (11) aiULr]v \eycovjuLiv, ovK iyyjyepTai evyvvt]TOi


36/339

16 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSjuLoXaKa (j)opovvTg is an awkward expression whichoffended St. Luke*'s sense of style ; rpud)^ is a wordwhich is wanting elsewhere in the gospels, and there-fore is nrost probably to be ascribed to St. Luke.The present in verse 4 is changed by St. Luke intothe more correct aorist. Ovk eyrjyeprai sounded tohim too un-Hellenic. His tov Oeov in the place ofTwu ovpavcov may alone be original. What St.Matthew (Q) reads in verses 12 and 13 was as difficultfor him to understand as for us. It is certain thatSt. Matthew, in distinction from St. Luke, has in themain preserved the original versionnote particularly(og apri,because evayyeXi^ca-Qai is a favourite wordwith St. Luke. Also the unusual order of olTTpocprjrai KOI 6 pojuLos is original ; irag eig avTrjvPiaCeTai is an attempt to explain the words of St.Matthew (Q). Are we then to suppose that St. Luke,who here everywhere shows himself to be less originalthan St. Matthew, is right in placing verse 13 beforeverse 12, and in inferring " continued unto " (in hisrendering " the Law and the Prophets unto John ")for " prophesied unto

" ? It is in his favour that hisorder of the sentences is more natural than that ofSt. Matthew. But does this decide the question ?

St. Matt. xi. 16 : tlvl ^eojUiOi(jO(TOt} Trjv yeveau Tav-Tr]v ; ojULola (ttlv iraiSloigKaOt]jULi'OL^ v Toiq ayopal^,a ITpoa(puivovvTa tol^ ere-poig (17) XeyovcTLV rjvX^-aajmev vjuliv koi ovk

St. Luke vii. 31-35;X. 13-15, 21, 22. odv (f. Se)Tov^ apQpcoTTOvg T. yVa^raurr]'} kqi tlvl eLcriv bjnoioi;OJULOLOL eiO'LV TTaiS. TOL^ Vayop. KaOrjjUL. KaL irpoacpoo-vovcTLv aX\}]\oLg XeyovTeg*


37/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 17

K'

Kcu ovK CKoyâaOe. (18)^jXOev yap 'looduvr]^ /m/jreecrOicov /ULijre ttlvcov, KaiXeyoucriv Saijmoviov eê/.(19) ^]\0P 6 vlog Tov av-OpCOTTOV CrOl(JOP KOI TTIVCOV^Kai Xeyouariv ISov avOpco-TTog (payoi Kai oivoTrorrjg^TeXcovcov (piXo^ Kai ajmap-TcciXcov. Ka\ eSiKaicoOi] r]arocpia airo to3v \epy(j)V ?TKV(iOV ?] aUT^9.

(21) oval (701, XojOa-Vj ova\ (TOL, î^Qcra'tâv

OTi 1 ev 1 fiOO) Kai ZjiowvleyivovTO at SwdjuLeig atyevoixevai ev vjmiv, iraXaiav ev oraKKO) Kai onrooipjULTev67]arav. (22) ttXi^ve-yo) vixiv^ 1 vpi> Kai JLiocovi

aveKTOTcpov ecrrai ev ^jmepaKpiaeco^ r] vjuliv. (23) Kaiau, K.a(papvaoviuL, jj-r} eoogovpavov v>^(joQy](jY] ; eco^ aoovKara/^tjcn]. . . .

(25) ev CKeivo) tw KaipcpaTTOKpiOeh

6 lr]crov^ elireveôfJioXoyovjuLaL


38/339

18 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSKai aireKoXvy^a^ avrapt]7rLoi9' {^6) val, 6 Trar^p,OTi ovTO)9 evSoKia eyevcTOcjULTrpocrOeu crov. (^l)7rai/TafJLOi TrapeSoOrj vtto tovirarpo^ imov, koi ovSe]^ ein-yiVO0(TKl TOV vloV 1 /ULt] 6 yiVCOCTKei, T19 (TTLV 6 vlO},Traryjp, ovSe tov iraTepa . . . koI t/? ccttlv 6 iraTrjpT19 eiriyivucxTKei ei juaj 6 vlo


39/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 19wise Xeyere in St. Luke is a natural correction forthe indefinite \eyovariv in St. Matthew.iravroov mustbe regarded as belonging to the

text of St. Luke, itis indeed a favourite word of his ; but for this veryreason we are justified in not assigning it to Q.TeKvwv is the only intelligible reading ; epycov is avariant which gives a sense most difficult to interpret,and which besides has only found its way into a partof the authorities for the text of St. Matthew. Athoughtless scribe was probably led by eSiKaicoOt] tothink of epya.cyevrjOrja-aVy like the addition ofKaSri/uLvoi, is a stylistic improvement (so also the tovbefore ovpavov).The two words Kare^ria-av and Kare-fil^aXpv occur in Ezek. xxxi. 16, 17 ; St. Luke pre-ferred the latter form, perhaps because of its rhythmiclikeness to {jy^tjoBria-ii. I have given the passage,xi. 25-27 (St. Luke x. 21-22), in the form whichmust be adopted on the evidence of the manuscripts.But judging from the exceptionally numerous andancient quotations of this passage, we may concludewith great probability that, on account of the import-ance of its subject-matter, already at a very early dateit had experienced serious correction, and, moreover,(1) that both in St. Matthew and St. Luke jjiov wasoriginally wanting after Trarpo^, (2) that the originalreading in St. Luke was cyvca (not yivcoarKei),^ (3)that the words tov vlov el jmr] 6 Tranip, ovSe (and T19

1'E7j'w is found, for instance, in quotations by Justin.

"Apol." i.63 {bis); "Iren." i. 20, 3 (Markosians) ; " Tertull. adv. Marc."

ii. 27; Euseb. " Demonstr." v. 1; Euseb. "Eclog." i. 12; Euseb."Hist. Eccl." i. 2, 2; Euseb. " Eccl. Theol." i. 12; "Dial, derecta fide," i. p. 44, ed. van de Sande ; Clem. " Horn." 17, 4 ; 18.4, 11, 13, 20.


40/339

20 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS7nyivu)(TKi) were perhaps originally wanting in St.Matthew (the corresponding words were certainlywanting in St. Luke).iv avrij rij copa is a specificallyLukan expression (occurring with him six times, neverin St. Matthew) ; on the other hand, ei/ eKelvw rcoKaipw is only found in St. Matthew (twice again),and most probably comes from Q.tjyaWidcraTo tooTTvevjuaTL T. ay. is Lukan ; this does not need to beproved for r. iri^. r. ay., while ayaXXiai^ is used byhim four times (gospel and Acts), and ayaXXiacri^three times ; it is wanting in St. Mark, and is foundonce in St. Matthew in the formal phrase : y^aipereKal ayiaWiaaOe.airKpv>^a


41/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 21St. Matt. xii. 27: kol

1 iyo) ev êekYeôvKKj3aX\oi) Ta SaijULOvia, olVIOL viJLWv ev TLVi KpaA-XovcTLv; Sia tovto avTOiKpiTai earovrai v/mcov. (28)1 oe ev TTvev/uLaTi Oeov eydoeKâXXco to, Saijmovia, apae(pOa(Tv (h' vjULag rj /3a


42/339

22 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSxxxi. 18 ; Deut. ix. 10 ; Ps. viii. 4) ; he takes nooffence at certain anthropomorphic phrases whichhave Bibhcal authority

vide i. 51 :^payîcov Oeov,

i. 66 : ê)jO Kvpiou, i. 73 : opK09 tov Oeov. The solemnconcluding phrase of verse 32 (a verse which St. Lukehas corrected in regard to style) may be an inter-polation by St. Matthew.

aircKi

St. Matt. xii. 38 : roreplOtjcrav avTM TivegTwv ypa/UL/uLaTecov koi âpi-

cralwvXiyovTe^' SiSao-KoXe,OeXojULev airo crov crtj/ULiovISeiv (39) o ê airoKpiQei


43/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 23Either the verses 41 and 42 have been reversed in

order by St. Luke, or what is more probable, verse 41was originally wanting in the Lukan text (vide infrd).The introduction is transformed by both evan-gelists. The scribes and Pharisees, and the vocativeSiSda-KoXe, are peculiar to St. Matthew ; the originalintroduction probably ran somewhat as follows :(they said) : OeXo/aev airo crov a-rjiuLeiov iSelu. In St.Luke the correcting hand of the stylist is hereclearly traced ; likewise ^ yevea ktX. is a stylistic im-provement. Again, yaof^^aX/? is elsewhere avoided bySt. Luke as a vulgar word. Here also, contraryto his usual practice (see, however, St. Matt. xi. 27),he replaces the compound verb by the simple ^tjrel,because he appreciates the special meaning of thecompound.The respectful affix tov irpocb^TOv, wasmost probably added by St. Matthew.rcov avSpwvis inserted by St. Luke ; compare a similar insertionin St. Matt. xi. 16.

The words KaOcog yap . . . t^ yevea ravrrj in St.Luke are original (read, however, oxjirep for Kado)


44/339

24 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSLuke can only be due to an ancient error of a scribe,unless with codex D and Blass we regard St. Matthewverse 41 = St. Luke verse 32, as an interpolation inthe Lukan text. This is the more probable, in thathere r^? -ycjêa? ravrtj^ is not changed into twv avSpcovT^9 yeveai ravrr]^. The verse, however, certainlystood in Q. The aTroKpiOei^ of verse 39 is in thestyle of St. Matthew.

St. Matt. xii. 43 : oravSe TO CLKaOaprov Trvevjma

i^rjTOvv apairava-iUf Koi ou-êupKTKei. (44) totc Xeyei'

St. Luke xi. 24-26.om.

aTTO TOV avOpwTTOv,^lepyerai Sl avv^poov tottwv

1^ TOV OLKOV lULOV e'TTKT'e^tjXOoV KoiiXOov eupicKeL cryôXaôvTa

[Kai^ (T(Tapw/uievoi' KaiKKO(TIUL}]jULeVOV. (45) t6tTTOpeveTat koi 'irapaXa/UL-/3avi jULcO' eavTOV eTrra'Kvevjj.aTa irovtjpoTepa kav-TOv Kai eiQ-eXOovTa kqtoi-Ki Kiy Kai ylvcTai ra(T)(aTa TOVyetpova twv irpcoTOov.

cvpKTKOV Xcyeiviro(TTp ek T. oi. jjl.

M

[Kai] om.rxoXa^covTa

lueO' eavTov om.TTVeVjil.TOV eiTTa

Tpakav'

avupcoTTOv

Both /uLt] and evplcKou are improvements in style, soalso the changed order of the words in verse 44*, andthe substitution of vTroa-Tpeyp-co for eTricTTpeypco (vwo-CTpecpeip is found in St. Luke [gospel and Acts]thirty-three times, never in St. Matthew and St.


45/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 25Mark). The omission of o-^ôXaôj/ra is intelligible,not so its addition ; the same is true of /xeO' kavrov,*'YiTpo^ is found in St. Mark never, in St. Matthewnine times, in St. Luke's gospel thirty-three times ;it has accordingly been added here. Tore pr. per-haps belongs to St. Matthew.

St. Matt. xiii. 16 : u/xwi/ê jiiaKapLOL oi ocpOaXjUoloTi (SXeirovuLv, Kai ra coralyjUL(J0P'\ OTL aKOVOVdiV. (17)aiJ.r]v yap \eyco v/uliv, otlTToXXoL TrpocprJTai KaiSUaioi eTreOvjULtjorav iSeiv a/5Xe7reTe koi ovk elSav, koIOLKOvcrai a aKovere^ Kai ovkJ^KOV(TaV

St. Luke X. 23, 24.v/uLwv Se om.OL PXeTTOPTcg a /SXeTTcreKai Ta . . . aKovovG-iv om.aiJ.riv om. Xeyco yap[jcai /Sao-iXeig'l for Ka\ SiKaioi

rjOeXricravv/ULch /BXeTT. [/calaK. . . . i^Kovcrav om.]

Here St. Luke begins with a stylistic correctionand with a pedantic simplification of the thought.Blass, following some authorities, is right in omittingthe last seven words of St. Matthew from the text ofSt. Luke. The " hearing

" was already wanting inSt. Luke's parallel to verse 16 ; and if the concludingsentence of verse 17 had appeared in St. Luke itshould have read v/mecs aKovere (cf. the inmiediatelypreceding words of the Lukan text). Evidently St.Luke did not like it to be said that the prophets hadnot heard, only that they had not seen. The emphaticviJLei^ is strange in St. Luke, seeing that this evangelistelsewhere is accustomed rather to omit the pleonasticpersonal pronouns of Q ; but in this passage he hadomitted the vjjlwv at the beginning, and the vfxeh is


46/339

26 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSnot pleonastic where he places it.aixriv may possiblybelong to the source, but may also have been insertedby St. Matthew. Ka/ âa-iXek, in spite of its doubt-ful textual authority, must be regarded as belongingto the Lukan text ; for its later addition cannot beeasily explained, while it is explicable that it shouldhave dropped out of the text. If, however, it stoodin St. Luke, it stood also in Q, and the SiKaioi of St.Matthew is a correction due to this evangelist, whohas a special liking for SiKaioarvvfj. 'JiOeXrjcrav fori-TreOvjULtja-av is an obvious stylistic improvement (eTri-6vjuLiv occurs only once elsewhere in St. Matthew).In Q, therefore, the saying ran essentially as it doesin St. Matthew, with the exception of SUaioi (andperhaps of the ajuLrjv), Note also the parallelism inSt. Matthew.

St. Matt. xiii. 3S : St. Luke xiii. 20, 21.aWtjv irapaôiXrjv eXaXf}- Kai iraXiv elireV tlvlaev avTOii' ojULOia icniv tj o/uloiuxtco t. /Saar. t. Oeou;âoriXeia rodv ovpavwv ojuLOia ecrrh ^vjui]Xf'l^lli V^ Xaôvara yuvtjevcKpvêv eig aXevpou craraTpla, eft)? ov el^vjUicoOrj bXov.

Here, apart from the introduction, all is identical.The Lukan introduction seems preferable, as St. Lukeelsewhere is prone to transform rhetorical questions.Commentators rightly point out that most pro-bably the parable of the Mustard Seed, which is foundin St. Matt. xiii. 31-32 = St. Luke xiii. 18-19, sideby side with the parable of the Leaven, must also beassigned to Q, although it is also found in St. Mark


47/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 27(iv. 30-32). Proof:(1) The two parables areclosely allied, and it is in itself improbable thatthey were handed down in tradition apart from oneanother ; (2) they occur together in St. Matthew andSt. Luke ; (3) the parable of the Mustard Seed has inthese gospels a form which varies from that of St.Mark ; (4) this form is akin to that of the parable ofthe Leaven.

Mark. Matthew. Luke.Kal eXeyev Trws o- aXAr^v Trapa^oA^v cAcyev ovv tlvl 6-fiono(T(DiiVTrjV fSacTL- 7rap6r]KvavTOL


48/339

28 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSSt. Matthew abbreviates. It is noteworthy that St.Luke here shows himself to be independent of St.Mark, differing in this point from St. Matthew, andalso follows a simpler construction than the latterevangelist, because he has kept closely to the source.On the other hand, the /c^tto? of St. Luke is scarcelyoriginal (St. Matt, aypo^St. Mark yrj)^ and thehistoric present of St. Matthew is to be preferred.The expression ra Trereim tov ovpavov, in com-bination with KaracrKTivovv, is also found again inSt. Matt, viii, 20 = St. Luke ix. 58 ; ra irereLva t.ovpavov again in St. Matt. vi. 26 (St. Luke has here01 KopaKcg). Ko/c/fo? crivaTreco^ also occurs again in St.Matt. xvii. 20 = St. Luke xvii. 6 ; likewise av^dveiv^(Tirelpeiv, and the pleonastic \a/3u)Vf are again foundelsewhere in Q.

St.Matt.xv.l4: Tfc^Xo? St. Luke vi. 39: /mrjriSe TV(p\6v eav oStiyu, Svvarai TV(pX6g TucpXovoLjiKpoTepoL ek /366uvov 6Stjyiv; ov-)(j. ajucpOTepoi elgTrecrovvrai, ^oOvvov cfxirecrovvTai ;

The only difference is in the form, which is morefull of life in St. Luke ; but is his version to be re-garded as more original on that account.? 'Eaj/ isvery frequent in Q, and St. Luke has very oftenchanged it. St. Luke has replaced the simpleirecrovvTai by the compound, as is often the case.

St. Matt, xviii. 7 : St. Luke xvii. 1 : avev-avayKY} iXOelv to. aKav- ocktov ecttiv tov ra ctk.SaXa, 7r\t]V oval tco av- /ul>] iXO. [^ovai Se] T(pOpcoTTW Si' ov TO (TKOLvSaXov apOpcoTTif) om. TO CKav-ep-^CTai. CaAov om.aXov


49/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 29The first half of the saying is certainly most

original in the version of St. Matthew (avdyKt] isfound only here in this gospel, while it occurs a fewtimes in St. Luke). Also the second half, becauseof the parallelism, is preferable in the form of St.Matthew. It is uncertain whether St. Luke wroteirArjv ovai or ovai oe.

oarrigSt. Luke xiv. 11.

o TaireLvcov

St. Matt, xxiii. 12 :

Ta7r6ivo)0}j(TTai, Kai ocrrf?TaireLvw(T6L kavTOv v^^uiOri-aerat.

Transformation of the finite verb into the parti-ciple is frequent in St. Luke, likewise the substitutionof Traj for o? and octti^.

St. Matt, xxiii. 37:*lpov


50/339

30 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSMost of the variants are without significance, and

yet even here the text of St. Matthew shows itself tobe the more ancient. The reading eo)? dv rj^u {velewq v^i) ore is very pecuHar, and little germane tothe style of St. Luke. If we could accept Well-hausen^s conjecture that ore represents the Aramaicrelative (is cui), and that the real subject is theMessiah, then this reading would necessarily be themore original ; but the thought : " Ye will not seeMe until He comes, to whom ye shall say, Blessed isHe that cometh, &c.,"" is too amazingly circumstantial.In reference to apri, it is to be noted that this wordis found in the gospels only in St. Matthew and St. John(oLTT apri again in St. Matt. xxvi. 29, 64, and three timesin St. John). St. Luke has omitted this vulgar and,moreover, pleonastic expression ; in the parallel passageto St. Matt. xxvi. 29, he uses airo rod vvv (a phrasewhich occurs again four times in the gospel and oncein the Acts).On acplerai eptjjULo^ Wellhausen re-marks : " The destruction of the city is not somethingin the future, it is already destroyed and is to remainin ruins. . . . The later commentators shut their

eyesand think of all sorts of things." And again on St.Luke xiii. 34, 35 : " The omission of eprj/uo^ is veryremarkable.'' I cannot see why acpUrai eptj/uog can-not be a prophetic future ; and that St. Luke omittedpr]fxo9 (the word, moreover, is not absolutely certain inthe text of St. Matthew) because Jerusalem rose againfrom its ruins, is to me questionable. The saying inSt. Matthew is only a reproduction of the prophecv ofJeremiah (xxii. 5) : ei*? iptjjucoa-iv ecrrai 6 oiKog outo^.But the reproductionacplerat vjuliv 6 oIkos vjuLwtJ


51/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 31eprjfxo^did not sound quite logical, for the idea ofdestruction has to be supplied, and also was notgood Greek. St.

Luke improved this version bythe omission of eprj/mo^. St. Matthew read: " Yourtemple will to your disadvantage be left in a con-dition of desolation " ; St. Luke corrected : Yourtemple will to your disadvantage be delivered up[left]." The passive cKplea-Qai has now the same senseas in St. Matt. xxiv. 40 f. = St. Luke xvii. 34 f., whereit stands in contrast to TrapaXaixâvecrOat.As to thequestion whether this saying is our Lord's, or is a quota-tion used by Him (or put into His mouth), vide infra.

St. Matt. xxiv. 43: St. Luke xii. 39, 40,'El/ceFi'o ê yivuxTKere, on 42-46. tovto (f. CKeivo)el ^Sei 6 oiKooecnrOTrj^TTola (pvXaKii 6 /cXeTTT/y?epyeTaif eyptjyoprja-ev avKcu ovK av elacrev oiopvÔrj-vai Tr]V oiKiav avTov. (44)Sia TOVTO Kal vjuei^ yiveaOeCTOlfMOlj OTL OU dOKlTWpa 6 VLO^ TOV avOpcoTTOVep-êTai. (45) tl^ apa io-Th6 TTKTTO^ SovXo9 Kai (ppO-vi/ULog, ov KaTecTTrjcrev oKvpio^ eiTi Tt]9 oiKTeiagavTOv TOV Sovvai avTOigTrjv Tpo(pt]v ev Kaipip; (46)jmaKapiog 6 SovXog eKCivo^fOV AU(jOV O KVpiO^ OVTOV 6V-pricreL ovtocxs iroLOvvTa. (47)a/x^v \ey(X) Vfxiv otl ctti

copa (f. (pvXaKij)eyprjyopr^nrev av

Koi om. OVK av a(p^KvTOV oIkovSia TOVTO om.copa OV SoKiT6 (the wholever. 44 is perhaps an inter-polation from St. Matt.)

oiKov6fjL09 (f. SovXo

OepaTrela^ (f. oiKereiag)SiSovai avTOig om.

V Kaipw TO (TlTOJU.TpiOV

iroiovvTa ovTcogaXtjOco^ (f. a/j.i]v)


52/339

32 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSVTraoYoutTivracrii' Toig virapyji

auTOv KaraarWjareL avrop.(48) eav Se eiirn 6 KaKogSovXo^ eKivo9 ev Trj KapSlaavTov' (49) XP^^^K^'- ^^^

KaK09 om.O KUl

O KUpiog, Kai\ ifap^rjrai Tvir-

T61V TOv


53/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 33too unemphatic a position) ; he drops the superfluouswords eypt]y6pr](jv dp Kal, Sia tovto, avTo7^, andKaKog, on the other hand he adds ep^êa-Qai toXpovll^î, because he wishes to express the principalverb which is implied in St. Matthew. He replacesoiKiav by 01K09, which is in fact the more appropriateword. He takes offence at the vulgar oiKerela, andreplaces it by the classical Oepairela, He changes theSovXo?, who indeed even in St. Matthew is not anordinary slave but both slave and overseer, into anoiKovofJLog, and accordingly the aijvSovXci must also betransformed (this word is never found in St. Luke,while it occurs again four times in St> Matt, xviii.2833). He replaces viroKpiTal by ainj-Toii a wordwhich was more current with his readers {viroKpLTalare much less frequently met with in this gospelthan in St. Matthew) ; the colourless rpocpij givesplace to a-iTOjUL6Tpiov^ certainly a technical term whichmoreover is not met with elsewhere(pvKaKrj to wpa,because the thief does not only come during the(pvXaKrj, but at any time. Only in the case of thesubstitution of acprJKev for eiacrev do I find difficultyin conjecturing St. Luke's reason for the change ;eiaaev is, however, certainly the original reading, foreav is only found here in St. Matthew, while it oftenoccurs in St. Luke (ten times in the gospel and Acts).Finally, St. Luke has interpolated between verses 44and 45 of St. Matthew the words : 'Eairev Se 6 Uerpo^'KvpiCi "TTpog rjixag rrjv TrapaôXrjv Tavrrjv Xeyeig rj koiTTpog TTCLvrag ; koi etirev 6 Kvpiog. They interrupt theconnection of the passage, which shows here only aseeming hiatus, and they answer to the style and

c


54/339

34 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSmanner of St. Luke, who lays great weight upon thedefinite address of the discourses. Also Karaa-Ti^a-ei(instead of Karea-rtja-ev) is intended to be an improve-ment ; it however stands in a certain connection withthe interpolated question of St. Peter.The verse in St. Luke corresponding to St. Matthew,verse 44, is perhaps an interpolation from St. Matthew.If so, we cannot be sure that it stood in Q.

St. Matt. XXV. 29 : rw St. Luke xix. 2(i :evovTi [TvavTi] SoOijcrerai iravri t. e^.Km 7rpicrcrevd^oreTai' roO koi Trepicrcr. om. ctTro Se toude /JLtJ -)(0VT09 Kai O -)(lapOr]


55/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 35xi. 22 ; St. Luke often gives it in his text of Q (videSt. Luke X. 12, 24 ; xi. 51 ; xv. 7, &c.) ; it thus stoodin Q, and it is therefore possible that it was alsoomitted by St. Luke here and there. (3) It cannotbe proved that St. Matthew in iii. 9 replaced apPria-Oeby S6^}]T, and it is quite improbable that he insertedefV fieravoiav in iii. 11.

In regard to the remaining instances, thirteen affectthe introductions to the discourses (not the discoursesthemselves), or contain insignificant stylistic altera-tions. The discourse, St. Matt. viii. 19 f., is intro-duced by the words : koi irpocreKQwv a? ypajuLjuLarevg,and in the same passage (verse 21) rwv /ULaOrjrwv ^ isadded to erepo?, together with the addition of thevocatives SiSda-KoXe, Kvpie. Here also (verse 22), andin xi. 4, 7, 6 'Itjcovs is inserted, and in xi. 25 airoKpiQei^6 'Itja-ov^. The discourse of xii. 38 ff. is introducedby the words : rore aTreKplOTjcrav avTM Tives toovypa/uijUiaTcov koi ^apia-alwv Xeyovreg, and the dis-course of xii. 22 ff. by rore irpoa-tjve'^^Qrj avrw Saijuovi-^6juivo9 ; lastly, the parable of xiii. 33 by the wordsoXXrjv Trapa^oXtjv eXaXtjcrev avToi^. Tore (a favouriteparticle with St. Matthew, occurring in his gospelninety times, in St. Mark six times, in St. Luke foui'-teen times) is inserted in ix. 37, and perhaps in xii. 44.One cannot be quite certain whether in St. Matt. xi. 16the words koi tlvl elcriv ojULotoi ai'e omitted, or whetherSt. Luke has added them. The former alternative isprobable, because also in the case of St. Matt. xiii. 33,St. Luke exceeds St. Matthew in reading the words :

^ It is questionable whether in St. Matt. ix. 37 rots /xadrjTaTs avrovis an interpolation ; it may also be original.


56/339

36 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSTivi ojnoiocKTco Tfjv /Sao-iXeiav tov Oeov ; though he else-where shows a dislike for rhetorical questions. Inxii. 39 Tou 7rpo(pt]Tov is added to 'Iwiâ, and in xii. 22the dumb man is both blind and dumbsimilaramplifications occur in St. Matthew''s treatment ofthe Markan text.

The group that is now left (about fifteen instances)comprise changes made in the actual fabric of thediscourses themselves. Here we must at once agreethat St. Matthew has a distinct preference for theexpression " your (the) Heavenly Father,"" or for theepithet "Heavenly,"" and for the substitution of" Heaven "*' for " God,'"* of which preference theexciting cause does not seem to have been found inQ. Thus in vi. 26, 6 irarrip vjmoov 6 ovpaviog is sub-stituted for 6 Oeo?) in vi. 32, 6 ovpdviog is added to6 Trarrjp vjulwv, in vii. 11, 6 TraTtjp vjulwv 6 ev TOiqovpavoig is written instead of 6 Trartjp 6 e^ oupavov,and in xi. 11, t. fiaa: rwv ovpavwv instead of r. âar.T. Oeov. It is evident that in these cases the text ofthis gospel is secondary, seeing that these terms alsoappear in passages which are not dependent upon Q.Again, this evangelist has also a preference for theconception SiKaio^ (SiKaiocrvvt]). In vi. 33, koi TrjvSiKaioarvprjv is certainly an additionand a by nomeans unimportant one !and in xiii. 17, the âcriXehare certainly more original than the SUaioL, Onemay perhaps discern imitation of sacred Biblicalphraseology in vi. 26 (ra irereim tov ovpavov forTot'S' KopaKas)} in vi. 28 (ra Kpiva rod aypod for raKplva), and in vi. 30 (tov yôpTOv tov aypov for evaypw TOV ôpTOv), yet here we cannot be certain.


57/339

^INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 37The expression of St. I^uke (xii. 30) ra eOvtj rovKoa-jULOv (in St. Matt. vi. 32, rov kocjulou is wanting),which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testamentnor in the LXX, may be original (an Aramaicphrase) ; St. Matthew may have omitted tov Koajmovas superfluous.-^ There remain a few passages ofgreater weight and significance. In vi. 33 St.Matthew has inserted Trpcorov, and has thus limitedthe exclusiveness of the command to seek after thekingdom of God; in vii. 12 he has added to theGolden Rule the words : ouro^ yap icmv 6 vojuog koiol TTpocprJTai, He has given a complete twist to thepassage concerning Jonah, in that he has applied tothe simile a new tertium comparationis (Jonah's threedays' abode in the whale's belly), and thus hasinterpreted it of our Lord's abode in Hades; thepresent tense in xi. 27 is probably due to him, aswell as the conclusion of xii. 32.On the whole it may be said St. Matthew has

treated the discourses with great respect, and hasedited them in a very conservative spirit. Seeingthat the more important corrections are so few innumber, it is absurd to attempt to deduce from themthe permanent motives which guided the evangelistin making them. The alteration in the terms for" God," or for " the Kingdom," was no correction inhis eyes ; still less perhaps the summary phrase,"This is the Law and the Prophets." Thus, thereremain only the addition of " Righteousness " and" TTjOWTOi'," and the transformation of the " Sign of

* One cannot be sure of Q's term for the Last Day in St. Matt.X. 15 and xi. 22 {i.e. whether rj ij/x^pa Kplaeus is original or not).


58/339

38 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSJonah," which transformation may have been foundby him already carried out in his exemplar of Q.

In contrast with these few instances of correctionon the part of St. Matthew, we reckon nearly onehundred and Jifty instances of correction by St. Luke ;hut these are all^ with very few exceptions^ of a stylisticcharacter. St. Luke''s interest in style manifests itselfin detail in the most varied directions, and yet itremains consistent with itself. Let us here give asummary of its most important manifestations :

1. He replaces vulgar expressions by those thatare more refined, and substitutes more appropriatefor inappropriate words.

9>. He replaces simple by compound verbs.3. He replaces conjunctions by the relative.4. He replaces /cat with the finite verb by ^e (or

by the participle, or by a final sentence) ; but, on theother hand, he also inserts Kal when it makes thepassage run more smoothly.

5. He improves the arrangement of the words.6. He makes a more logical use of tenses andnumbers, and is fond of participial constructions.7. He prunes away superfluous pronouns which

easily crept into translations from Semitic languages,and, moreover, into the language of the commonpeople.

8. He varies the monotonous use of eav by otherconstructions (oa-Tig av by Tra?).9. He corrects too great circumstantiality of

language ; but, on the other hand, he explains obscureexpressions.


59/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 3910. He reduces the number of rhetorical questions.11. He introduces the construction of iyivero

with the gen. abs. followed by a finite verb.12. He multiplies the instances where / is used

in construction with the participle.Beyond these stylistic motives which have led him

to make corrections,^ no definite bias of any kindcan be discovered in his treatment of the sectionswhich we have considered with one exception,namely, the introduction of the Holy Spirit intothe passage parallel to St. Matt. vii. 11. Theomission of the clothing in the passage parallel toSt. Matt. vi. 28, 31, and the corresponding recastingof the words, is a somewhat drastic change, but inso far as it displays bias, the bias is very innocent.When he replaces " bread and stone

"by egg and

scorpion,'' he may be dependent upon another tradi-tional form of the saying which was perhapsinfluenced by a current proverb (vide supra on St.Matt. vii. 9). He has indulged in a fairly longinterpolation in the words : arv Se aireXOuov SiayyeWeTrjv ^aa-Lkelav rod Oeov (ix. 60, cf. St. Matt. viii. 22) ;but the interpolation is, so to speak, neutral in char-acter. Again, in order to give greater liveliness ofform, he interpolates into the discourse of St. Matt.xxiv. 43 ff., after verse 44, the words : eiTrev Se 6Hirpo^ ' Kvpie tt^ooj ^yua? rrjv irapalSoXrjv ravrtjvXeyeis rj koi irpog iravrag; Kal elirev 6 KvpLO


60/339

40 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSevidently unintelligible even to himself, in his balderversion : airo Tore rj âariXeia tov Oeov evayyeXlêrai,KOI Tra? e(V avTtjv /Biaêrai,

If we neglect these few instances, in which indeedit is possible that another text of Q than that usedby St. Matthew may have lain before St. Luke, thenwe may say that in regard to the rest of the text(that is, the text as a whole), o?ie and the same text liesbehind St, Luke and St. Matthexv. It further followsthat the connection between these two gospels, ofwhich neither is the source of the other, must be aliterary connectioni.e. the dependence of each uponcommon oral sources is not a sufficient explanation.

Having gained this firm standpoint, we now pro-ceed to the investigation of those sections commonto St. Matthew and St. Luke in which the differencesare greater.

IISt. Matt. iii. 7^: lîcv St. Luke iii. 7^ eXeyev

Se TToXXovg TU)v âpLcraidov oe \_ovv ?] toI^ eKiropevo^Koi âSSovKalcov ^PX^~ l^^ôig 6)(Xoig /BaTrricrOtjvaijLievoug cttJ to /BaTTTicrjuLa vir \_V(jo'7riov~\ avrov.CLTrev avTOi^ '

It is no longer possible to determine exactlywhat stood in Q, certainly not " the Pharisees andSadducees" (they are characteristic of St. Matthew),nor the imperfect eXe'yei^ (for it is characteristic ofSt. Luke), nor the infinitive âTrTKrOtjvai, which islikewise characteristic of St. Luke ; perhaps, how-


61/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 41ever, Q had ttoXXo/ with the genitive, for it is neverfound elsewhere in St. Matthew (see, however, St.Luke i. 16),^ probably also the word avroi^i. Thesource may have run somewhat in this way : l^oovTToXXov? . . . epyofxevov^ eirl to iSaTmcr/uLa eiirevavToU. From St. Matthew verse 5 = St. Lukeverse 3, it follows that iracra fi '7repL^(jdpo


62/339

42 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSpriiJLaTL (eKTTopevojtxepa) Sia(TTOjuaTO^) Oeov.

(5) Tore irapaXajulBaveiayiav ttoXiv, Kai ea-Trj-crev avTOV eiri to iTTepv-Tov lepoVj (6) Kaieyei avToo' ei viog l

yiov'yei avT(p' ei VLogTov OeoVy /3aXe (reavTOV

Karco' yeypairrai yapOTL T019 ayyiXoi^ av-TOV euTeXeiTai irept(TOV, Kai 7ri "^eipcovapovcTLV (r6j /ULrj iroTeirpOG-KO^rig irpog \i6ovTOV rrroSa arov. (7) e(prjavTcp 6 'Irjarovg' iraXLvyeypaiTTai' ovk CKTrei-paaei^ Kvpiov tov Oeov


63/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 43rai yoLp* Kvpiov tov SiScojui avTrjv' crv ovv eavOeov crov irpocTKVvrjcrei^ TrpocrKvvrjcrr]^ evcoiriopKa\ avTO) jULOvo) Xarpev- e/mov, ecrTai crov Trucra. koiaeig. aTTOKpiOeh 6 'Irjcrov?

elirev avrw' What fol-lows is identical, butwithout vTraye, oraTavaand yap,

(11) T0T6 acbiricriv av- Kai cruvTeXecra^ iravraTOV 6 Sid^o\o9y KOI iSov ireipaarfMov 6 SialBoXogayyeXoi TrpoarfKOov Kai airea-Trj air' avrov ayjaSiijKOvovv avTU), Kaipov,

In the above passage I have indicated by spacedtype all the words which are common, or whichclosely correspond to one another, in the two gospels.It is at once seen that we have here an essentiallyidentical text. The chief difference is that in St.Luke the third temptation has become the second.It is in favom' of the order of St. Matthew thatthe temptation on the mountain is undoubtedly thechief temptation ; here it is no longer a questionof the Divine Sonship being put to the test, butof its renunciation : the Son of God is temptedto enter into the service of Satan. It is in favourof St. Luke's order, that according to it the sceneof the temptations changes only at the last tempta-tion, that the devil makes his final assault with atemptation actually based upon the words of Scrip-ture, and that our Lord's answer forbids furthertemptation. It is not possible to give a certain de-cision on the point, but probability is on the side


64/339

44 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSof the order of St. Matthew. Nothing can be builtupon the viraye ârava of St. Matthew, for thesewords can scarcely be original. If they were, whatreason could St. Luke have had for omitting them ?{vwayeiv is indeed a rare word with him, neveroccurring in the Acts and only once in the gospel,while it is found twenty times in St. Matthew,fifteen times in St. Mark, and thirty-three timesin St. John). Besides, the phrase occurs again inSt. Matt. xvi. 23, and may therefore, perhaps, havebeen inserted from the latter passage (where St.Mark viii. 33 also has it).The wide divergence at the beginning and end ispartly due to the influence of the Markan text.Hence it is that St. Matthew derives the episode" ayyeXoL SitjKOvoui/ avrw " (^TrpocrrjXOop belongs tothe style of St. Matthew, the word is found morethan fifty times in this gospel). It is from St. Markthat St. Luke derives " ^fxepag jul ireipaXpiJLevo(s viroTov Sia/BoXov " (St. Mark : yu' ^jucipa^ ireipaôjuievog viroTov ârava). All further deviations of St. Lukefrom St. Matthew in the introduction are likewisesecondary, so that we must recognise the pure textof Q in the version of St. Matthew ; for (1) in placeof the representation of the Spirit as the activesubject St. Luke writes in accordance with hisstyle and mode of thinking : irXrjpt]? TrvevjULarog ayiovand ev rw irvevâTi^ (2) he inserts virearpeêv airoT. 'lop^. {yiTO(TTpe(peLV is found twenty-two times inthe gospel and eleven times in the Acts, never inSt. Mark or St. Matthew) ; (3) he writes the imper-fect riyero for avYi-Ôr} (the use of the imperfect is


65/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 45almost peculiar to St. Luke; moreover, avri^Or] iscertainly original, for it is found in St. Matthewonly in this passage, and it gives a correct touch oflocal colouring [the wilderness is on the high ground]elsewhere in St. Luke the word occurs frequently ;it is dropped here because the evangelist did notunderstand its significance) ; (4) he omits the fortynights as superfluous (agreeing with St. Mark) ; (5)he replaces the clumsy va-repov by the good Greekphrase a-vPTeXea-Oeio-cov avroov, (6) he mistakes thetechnical vYiarreveiv, and replaces it by the extravagantovK ecpayev ovSep, (7) by his corrections, or throughthe influence of the Markan text, he has made itappear doubtful whether the temptations occurredduring the forty days or first after that periodhad passed.

St. Matt. 3 : Trpoa-eXOcov is added by St. Matthew(vide supra) ; Se is put for Kdl by St. Luke ; 6 Treipdl^oovis most probably the original word.

St. Matt. 8 : The one stone of St. Luke, and theaddress to the stone, seem to me secondary, justbecause they better suit the situation. Why shouldSt. Matthew have changed them ?

St. Matt. 4 : 6


66/339

46 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSin verse 8, again in St. Matt, xxvii. 27) was distastefulto him.

St. Matt. 5 : St. Matthew has replaced " Jerusalem"'''

by " the holy city "" (see also xxvii. 53) ; for the gospelof the Hebrews also read ' Jerusalem. "'"'

St. Matt. 5 : St. Luke avoids the Semitic repetitionof avTov.

St. Matt. 5 : evrevOev is a Lukan interpolation ;the word is found elsewhere in St. Luke, never howeverin St. Matthew and St. Mark.

St. Matt. 6 : Tov SiacpvXd^ai ere is an interpolationof St. Luke''s (according to the LXX), so also onhere and in verse 7.

St. Matt. 7 : Here St. Luke with koi aTroKpiOeh 6'I>ycrot'? elirei/ avru) is the more circumstantial of thetwo, so also in St. Matt. 10.

St. Matt. 7 : The ttoXiv of St. Matthew is original ;St. Luke avoids iraXiv (see also St. Matt. 8) ; it isfound about seventeen times in St. Matthew, twenty-nine times in St. Mark, forty-seven times in St. John ;on the other hand, only two (three) times in St. Luke'^sgospel and five times in the Acts.yeypairTai^ noteipfjrai^ is original, for the latter (together with toip}]juLPov) is peculiar to St. Lukevide ii. 24 ; Actsii. 16, xiii. 40 ; elsewhere only in Rom. iv. 18.

St. Matt. 8, 9 : opog v>\rri\6v^ perhaps also attestedby the gospel of the Hebrews; St. Luke rationalisesand leaves the scene somewhat in shadow (he wouldprobably have us suppose that om* Lord was raised upinto the air so as to be able to see everything).Theword oiKovjuLEVT] is Lukan (used by St. Luke eight times,once by St. Matthew, never by St. Mark and St. John) ;


67/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 47v (TTiyiuLO) ypovov is of course interpolated by St. Luke(the words kol rtjv So^av avrwv have either been dis-placed in St. Luke or should be omitted altogether).St. Luke's theological opinions have likewise led himto amplify the devil's address to our Lord by the longinterpolation : a-oi (set at the beginning, cf. the e/xoland (TV in what follows) ^wcrco Ttjv e^ovcrlav TavrrjvairacraVi on ijULol 'jrapaSeSorai koi


68/339

48 , THE SAYINGS OF JESUSTreipaa-Orjvai vtto tov SiajSoXov, koi vrjcrTevG'as ^juepag julKOI vvKTag jjf varrepov eirelvacrev, koi 6 Treipa^wv etircvaVTO)' 1 VL09 L TOV U60V, ClTTe IVa OL AlUOl OVTOL apTOlyevojpTai, koi aireKpiQri' yeypairrai' ovk eir aprep/ULovo) rrycrerat 6 avOpotyirog. irapaXaju/SaveL Se avrovig lepovaraXrj/uL Kai ecTTrjcrev avTOV ein to TTTepvyiov tovlepov KOI \eyL avTW' el viog el tov Oeov, âXe creavTOVKaTCi)' yeypaiTTai yap otl Toh ayyeXoi^ avTOuevTeXeiTai

irepi orov,Kai ein "êipcov apovcriv ere,[JLY] TTore irpocTKoyîJ^ ttjOO? XiOov tov iroSa


69/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 49(6) fxaKapioi ol 7rivu)VT9

Kol Siyl/coPTcg rtjv Sikgio-crvvrjVf OTL avroi "^ôpracr-drjcrovTai.

(11) fiaKapioL e(TT oravoveiSiccocnv v/aag Kai oioo^w-ariv Ka\ e'nruxjLV irav irovrjpovKaO^ vfJLWV yêvSo/ULcvoi[evcKev efjLov]. (12) yalpeTCKQLL ayaWiacrOe, otl ojJLLCrQo^ V/ULU>V TToXu? V T019ovpavoi9* ovTcoi yap iol-coâv Toi'9 XjOO^TJTay Tovgirpo vjuLwv,

wv (post ireLvwvTe^^Kcu . . . Sucaiocr. om.

avTOL om. "ôpraa-Bri-arecrOeecrea-Oe (?) orav /ULiarrjcrMcrivvfxag ol avOpooTTOi kol oravacpopia-oocriv vfj-ag [Kai ovei-SlG'WO'IV ?^ Kai K/3a\(J0G'lVTO OVOfXa VfJLWV 0)9 TTOvrjpovVKa Tov viov Tou avOpco-irov. yapYire iv cKeivn r^rjiJLepa Koi crKipT^craT' iSovyap 6 jULia-Qog v/ulwv TroXf?

ovoavcp' Kara raaura yap eTTOiovv toi?irpocpâig oi TrarepesavTWv.

It is still possible practically to settle the questionof the original text of verses 3, 4, 6} As (KaiSiylrm'reg) rrjv SiKaiocrvvtjv is added by St. Matthew,so also with the greatest probability we may decidesimilarly concerning rw Trvev/uiaTi (the simple tttcoôJis also found in St. Matt. xi. 5 : Trrajpôi evayyeXi-I'ovrai). On the other hand, AcXa/oi/re? (for ireu-OovvTcg) is certainly a correction of St. Luke, who

1 Apart from the order, and perhaps also the question whetherthe first or third person is original. The pronoun v/iirepos iscertainly Lukan {vide a Concordance) ; but it may stand for anoriginal vfj.Qv. Wellhausen and others decide for St, Luke. Butthe repetition of the pleonastic avrol gives an impression of origin-ality, and St. Luke also elsewhere (c/. St. Matt. xi. 18) transformsthe third person into the second. D


70/339

50 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSis fond of using KXaleiv (eleven times in the gospel,in St. Matthew only two occurrences and one of thesein a quotation, qf. St. Luke vii. 32 = St. Matt. xi. 17) ;KXaleiv then brought about the yeXda-ere in the follow-ing clause (St. Luke is fond of strong expressions, yeXapoccurs again with him only in vi. 25? never elsewherein the New Testament), Ps. cxxvi. may have influencedthe evangelist here. The twofold pvv is of course alsointerpolated by St. Luke (vvv occurs thirty-seven timesin the gospel and Acts, four times in St. Matthew).

St. Matthew 11 and St. Luke 22 look like twoseparate translations, yet are not so, as is shown bySt. Matthew 12 = St. Luke 23. We must startfrom the consideration of this verse and it will thenappear that St. Luke is almost everywhere secondary.^lEip eKeivr] th riimepa is as secondary as mjv ; the im-perative aorists are an improvement in style ; a-KioTri-arare (for ayaXXiaa-Oe) is a genuinely Lukan exaggera-tion (vide supra yeXda-ere) ; crKiprdv is peculiar toSt. Luke in the New Testament {vide i. 41, 44), like-wise l^ov yap (never found in St. Matthew andSt. Mark, six times in St. Luke) ; St. Luke doesnot care for the plural oupavoU, and {Kara) rd avrdis Lukan (elsewhere in the New Testament only inSt. Luke vi. 26 and Acts xv. 27). 'J^ttolovu foreSicoPav was written by St. Luke, because in the preced-ing clauses not only persecutions but also other trialsare mentioned. A genuine translation-variant appearsto stand at the conclusion. Wellhausen says : St.Luke has read ' their forefathers "" as the subject ofthe verb; St. Matthew has read 'your forefathers'in apposition to the Prophets. The difference in


71/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 51Aramaic is only that of daq'damaihon (ol TrarepeâvTcov) from daq'daviailidn (tov9 irpo vjuloop).'''* But thereis yet another explanation of this variationnamely,that St. Luke is here influenced by his reminiscenceof the familiar invective against the Pharisees (St.Matt, xxiii. 29 f. = St. Luke xi. 47 f.) ; in that passagethe prophets and the fathers are spoken of together,and thence he has derived " the fathers "" here. Thismay have happened the more easily since the wordsin St. Matthew (i.e. in Q), rovg irpo v/ulwv, appearedliable to misinterpretation (Apostles= Prophets), oras an unnecessarv addition which of itself cried outfor some better substitute.

It accordingly follows that St. Matthew 12 pre-sents the original text of Q, which has been alteredby St. Luke. Then, however, it is possible thatalso St. Matthew 11 = St. Luke 22 are not twodifferent translations of a common original ; ratherit is probable that here again St. Luke has deliber-ately alteredin fact, has transformedthe, wholeverse. This, in the first place, shows itself in thestylistic variants. In place of irovtjpov . . . -vp-efô-IJLevoi (the very fact that y\fev^6iJiV0L does not occurelsewhere in the synoptists shows that it probablybelongs to Q) he writes the excellent Greek phi-aseto)? TTovijpov, and supplies the subjectless verbs withthe subject ol avOpcoiroi. One of the principal dif-ferences is that St. Matthew has oveiSlcrcoG'iv, Siw^cocriv,elirwariv irav 7rov>]pov KaO' vfxwv yêvSojuevoi, whileSt. Luke writes /ulkt/jctcoo-li/, a(popi(Tco(Tiv, eK/BaXcocrip t.ovo/ma vjULcov cog 7roP7]p6v. The order in St. Matthewis not quite logical, in St. Luke it is strictly logical :


72/339

52 THE SAYINGS OF JESUShatred is followed by excommunication, excom-munication by the general defamation of the name.Besides, we find that St. Luke uses /miareiv also inother places where it does not occur in the parallelpassage of St. Matthew (vi. 27, xiv. 26), and thateK^dWeiv, in the metaphorical sense= " to defame"(here only in the New Testament), is good Greek,whereas eliretv irav Trovrjpov is not Greek at all.Accordingly, here also the text of St. Matthew iseverywhere to be preferred. It must remain an openquestion whether, in the places where St. Matthewis secondary, the corrections are due to the evangelisthimself or whether a secondary text already laybefore him. The Beatitudes certainly circulated invarious recensions from an early period, indeed fromthe beginning. Thus Polycarp (Epist. 2) quotesas follows : jixaKapioi ol tttcoôi koI ol SicoKO/mevoi evcKevSiKaioavvtjg, on avTCDV ccttlv fi âcriXcia tov Oeov,This looks like a combination of the texts ofSt. Matthew and St. Luke ; perhaps, however, itis a combination of these two and of the source,or perhaps it is another version of the source.A word must be said concerning [evcKev ejuLov] inSt. Matthew and evcKa tov vlov tov avOpwirov inSt. Luke. St. Matthew's phraseology here is some-what redundant ; many authorities have thereforeomitted ypêvSojuevoi ; but this word seems to me tobe supported by the oj? irovfjpov of St. Luke (videsupra). On the other hand, eve/cei/ ejjiov should beomitted from the text of St. Matthew, for a suc-cession of ancient Western authorities do not readit; others read 'ivenev SiKaiocrvvtjg (Da.b.c.g'.k) ; the


73/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 53ancient Syriac reads cvckcv tov ovo/maTOi fiov. If thesewords were wanting in St. Matthew then the cvck. t.vlov T. apQp. of St. Luke most certainly did notstand in Q. This phrase stands in close connectionwith TO ovojuLa vjuwv, which also does not belong to Q(vide supra). If, nevertheless, the critic asserts thati/Kv must belong to Q, it is no longer possible toascertain what word came after this preposition inthe source.

St. Matt. V. 13, 15, 18,25, 26, 32.

(13) vfjieig iare to d\agTfj9 yf]S'

iav Se TO d'XajjULcopavOuj ev t'lvl oKkj-6r](TTai; et? ovSev Icr'^eLctl 1 jurj I^XtjOeu e^coKaTairaTGicrOaiavOpooTTCOv.

VTTO TVOV

(15) ovSe Kalovaiv Xi/^-vov Kai Tl ',(TLV aVTOVVTTO TOV JULOOIOV, aAA7ri Trjv Xv^VLaVf Kai\aiuL7rei ttolctlv to2


74/339

54 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS(25) 'i&6i evvowu Tip av-

\


75/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 55expression by ovk evOerog (evOero^ and avevOerog arepeculiar to St. Luke, cf. xiv. 35 and Acts xxvii. 12),and reinforces it according to his custom with thephrase oure eig ytju ovre el


76/339

56 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSdently intends to improve the sense of the passage ;he perhaps also thinks of the missionary aspect ofthe gospel (though this is doubtful).The third saying in Q ran as follows : eco? dv irapeXQri6 ovpavo9 Kai ^ yrj^ lodra ev j? fxla Kepaia ov jULt] irapeXQnairo Tov vofxov. In regard to form, St. Luke hasimproved the clumsy construction, but he has alsoaltered the thought by the evKOTrcorepov which hehas adopted from other sayings (^vide St. Matt. ix. 5cum parall.; xix. 24 cum paralL). According to St.Matthew, the Law abides as long as Heaven and Earthremain ; according to St. Luke, it lasts longer thanthey. Here we discern St. Luke's genuinely Hellenicreverence for the Old Testamenta reverence whichcould be so deep, because the writer stood remotefrom the controversies concerning the applicationof the precepts of the Law to the daily life. Theconverse hypothesis (Wellhausen) that St. Matthewhas attenuated the thought is unacceptable fromconsiderations both of matter and style. St. Lukehas introduced ireaelv in order to avoid the doubleirapeXOn {irea-dv in the metaphorical sense is notfound in the gospels, but cf. Rom. xi. 11, 22; xiv. 4;1 Cor. X. 12; xiii. 8; Heb. iv. 11), and he hasomitted the Icora ev as superfluous and somewhatsingular. In St. Matthew the opening words a/i^j/y. X. viMv and the concluding clause ew? dv iravra yeu.are perhaps secondary. The latter was probablyadded because the preceding passage in St. Matthewspeaks of " fulfilling " ; the evangelist may, besides,have been influenced by a reminiscence of St. Markxiii. 30.


77/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 57Close consideration of the fourth saying also shows

that St. Matthew has excellently preserved the textof Q (perhaps ayur/i/ is secondary). The temporal o)?at the beginning is specifically Lukan (references arehere unnecessary) ; eir' ap-^ovra is an explanatoryinterpolation, and '[(tOl cvvocov (here only in the NewTestament) seemed to St. Luke too weakhe replacedit by the transparently clear phrase Sos epyaalavairrjWa-^Oai air avrov (epyacrla is not found elsewherein the four gospels, see however Acts xvi. 16, 19 ;xix. 24, 25 ; Ephes. iv. 19 ; neither is airaXkacrcreLvfound elsewhere in the four gospels, see howeverActs xix. 12 : aTraXXdcrcrecrOai air' avTwi/). St. Lukehas just as happily avoided the awkward phrase Ta')(y0)9 OTov el imeT avrov (he places the /merd at the verybeginning), as well as the unnecessary repetition of6 dvTiSiKOi, Moreover, his sense of style would notallow him to describe the action of the adversary andthe judge with one and the same word (St. Matthewuses wapaSovvai in both cases) ; he writes here Kara-(Tvpeiv and irapaSovvai (Karaarvpeiv does not occurelsewhere in the New Testament, but crvpeiv [of men]is peculiar to St. Luke, occm'ring indeed three times inthe Acts). St. Luke has replaced the very indefiniteword VTrrjperrjg by the technical term 6 TrpctKrcop, andthe vulgar KoSpavrrj^ by Xctttov. In all these casesit is simply inconceivable that St. Matthew had beforehim, and has altered, the text presented in St. Luke.In the fifth sa3dng St. Luke is evidently dependentnot only upon Q but also upon St. Mark x. ii. (o?av airoKvarn Trjv yvvaiKa avrov Kai yajuDja-u aX\r]i'^/j.oij(arai eir avrrjv Kal idv avrrj diro\vaa


78/339

58 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSav^pa avTt]9 \yel eav yvi/tj eêXOrj airo rod avSpogavrrjg Kai] yajuajcrr} aWov, jULoiâTai). Accordingly,in St. Matthew we have only to omit the introductionand the phrase TrapeKTog \6you iropvela^. In St. LukeKOL yajuLuov erepav comes from another sourcein fact,from St. Markand by its insertion the sense of thesaying is altogether changed (that St. Luke's correct-ing hand was at work here is also evident from thesubstitution of the participle for 09 eav yafxyjarn). InQ the saying gave expression to the austere thought :" He who divorces his wife causes her to commitadultery : both she and her new husband are guiltyof adultery." St. Luke has completely changed thisthought.

St. Matt. V. 39, 40, 42,44-48.

(39) "OcTTf? ere paTTiêieig Tr]V [êîav^ crLayova((70u), crTp6\ôv avT(p KaiTijv aWrjv,

(40) Kal TO) OeXovTL ctolKpiQrjvaL Kat Tov "îTcova(Tov Xa/Beiv, a


79/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 59KOI

virep Tcov Cicokoptcov vjuLcig,VIULCOV

(45) 0X0)9 yeutjcrOe violTov irarpos vjmcov tov evovpavoig, on tov ip\.iovavTOv avareXXei ein irovt]-povg Kai ayaOovg koi

aSi

t ISeyei errri )iKaiov9 KoiiKovg.(46) eav yap ayairr]-

arjre Tovg ayaTrcovTag vj^-cig,TLva fjLicrOov e-^ere; ov-)(j.Kai OL TeXoovai to avTOTTOiovcnv;

(47) Kai eav acnrao'tja-OeT0V9 aoeXcbovg v/mcov ijlovov,TL irepiarcrov iroieiTe; ov-^iKQl OL eUVlKOi TO aVTOuiTTOIOVCTIV;

earecrOe(48) ecretTVe ovv vjuei?TeXeioi 0)? o iraTrjp vjmwv oovpavoL7


80/339

60 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSthe awkward un-Hellenic and diffuse ro) OeXovri a-oiKpiOrjvai Kai . . . Xa/3eiv by airo tov alpovTOS (in thelatter instance he has transformed a command relatingto behaviour in case of a judicial action into a generalmaxim ; hence /mt] KcoXua-ijg for the more positive acpeg.St. Matthew says : ' He who wishes to sue thee forthy coat, allow him to take also thy cloak " ; St. Lukesays : " He who takes thy cloak, hinder him not fromtaking also thy coat "). ^Pairii^eiv is found in the NewTestament only in St. Matthew (viz. once again in xxvi.67); crrpecpeiv is used by St. Luke only in the form(TTpacpei^i notice also the Semitic repetition of thedative in avr^ (D. has avoided this by writing 6 OeXcov),In the order, " cloak "" coat,"" St. Luke might seemto represent the original; "for the coat is nearer tothe body than the cloak." But St. Luke was obligedto begin with the cloak, for the robber catches holdof the cloak, not the undergarment ; we can thuseasily understand that the Lukan text is secondary inits origin, but we cannot explain a secondary originof the text of St. Matthew.

The Lukan insertion of iravrl in St. Matthewverse 42, is also found in the Lukan version of thefifth petition of the Lord''s Prayer and elsewhere inSt. Luke; likewise the substitution of SlSou for 86$also occurs in the fourth petition of that prayer.AiSov is more correct Greek, seeing that the commandis general. In what follows, the words airaiTeiv (notethe play upon alrelv and airaireiv) and airekTrlXeLv ofthemselves show classical feeling ; the possessive pro-noun {ra era) is also Lukan ; the whole clause, koiairb rod aipoprog . . . airaiTeh is interpolated by


81/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 61St. Luke. On the other hand, verse 42^ in St.Matthew is original, for the thought is expressed inSt. Luke 35, and the construction in St. Matthew isclumsy (the middle a7ro(TTp(p


82/339

62 THE SAYINGS OF JESUSSt. Matthew. Did he think that it did not express thethought clearly enough ? That he had it before himin his source seems to follow from Trovrjpovg, whichcomes in haltingly at the close (the SiKaiog and aSiKogof St. Matthew are suspicious; the former being afavourite word with this evangelist). " Your Fatherin Heaven,''' in St. Matthew, is almost always sus-picious. At the very least, " in Heaven "" is to beomitted.

In verse 46 rlva julictOov r)(eTe is certainly original ;for yapi'Si given by St. Luke, is a specifically Lukanword (found twenty-five times in the gospel and theActs, never occurring in St. Matthew and St. Mark).The question in 46^ is also original ; for kol yap isLukan (vide the fifth petition of the Lord's Prayerin St. Luke, where St. Matthew has m Km, inSt. Matthew koi yap occurs twice, in St. Luke'sgospel nine times), and St. Luke has often removedrhetorical questions from Q. Again, the reXcovatmust be more original than the more general termol ajULaprcoXoi. St. Luke perhaps did not wish torepeat the phrase to avro iroiovcriv (vide verse 47),therefore he develops it here. The el here and inthe following verse is certainly secondary; in Q,edv is very much more frequent than et. Also inother passages St. Luke has changed edv into e:.

In verse 47 St. Luke understood darTratea-Qai tomean to be friendly disposed towards anyone,""to devote oneself in love towards anyone" (prob-ably rightly), and has accordingly rendered it bydyaOoiroieiv, it is obvious that St. Matthew isoriginal here. The julovov of St. Matthew is also


83/339

INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 63original ; St. Luke avoids this use of the word (onlyonce in the gospel [viii. 50]and that from St.Markwhile in St. Matthew it often occurs ; it alsooccurs only once in the Acts). For jroia v/ulip ')(OLpi


84/339

64 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS

Documents

Sayings of Jesus, Harnack