Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

tention to the subject, thinks it did not; and he has been followed by the majority, including Harnack. Professor Burkitt, on the other hand, inclines to believe it did. While admitting that not a single phrase in the last three chapters of Matthew can be supposed to come from this lost source, he points out that some of the peculiar matter in the twenty-second chapter of Luke is actually given in earlier chapters of Matthew: in other words, there is found in Luke, chapter 22, matter which comes from this lost source. But if it be the case, as it really seems to be, that Luke gives his extracts from this source xa¤¤‡‚§ -in the order in which he found them-it is clear that the source did tell things about the Passion, and so was in some sense a gospel as truly as Mark.'

The question, though interesting, is not vital. It is of less consequence to know the exact compass of the document than to be acquainted with its date and authorship. Until quite recently it was held by all who admitted its existence to be older than Mark. Opinions differed as to whether he had or had not made use of it in his work, but its antiquity was unchallenged. The opinion, too, was widely spread that it was of apostolic authorship. It was connected, perhaps ingeniously, perhaps also soundly, with another of the traditions of the Elder John preserved by Papias. We have already quoted what this elder, an immediate disciple of Jesus, says about Mark. 'But concerning Matthew,' Eusebius proceeds in his quotation from Papias, 'the following statement is made [by him]: so then Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'' The expression

1 Weiss, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, § 45; Die Quellen der synoptischen Ueberlieferung, 1-96; Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, 88–102; Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission, 133; Journal of Theological Studies (Review of Harnack), viii. 454.

'Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 39. The translation is again from Professor Gwatkin.

'composed the oracles' is probably identical in meaning with 'wrote his gospel'; but the term 'oracles' suggests that the main interest of the work in question is to be found in the words of divine authority which it contains. The description would suit quite well such a document as the vanished source used in common by our first and third evangelists; and as our first gospel, in the form in which we have it, is certainly not a translation from Hebrew (or Aramaic), but a writing based chiefly on two sources, Mark and the one we are now discussing, which lay before the compiler (as they lay before Luke) in Greek, it was open to any one to propound the hypothesis that the words of Papias referred not to our first gospel but to the Aramaic original of the source common to it and Luke-a source which would thus be of immediate apostolic authorship, the work of Matthew the publican. The first gospel owes its characteristic peculiarity to the fact that it amasses the oracles of the Lord and presents them so as to minister to the needs of the Church; and as preserving in a suitable historical framework the substance of the publican apostle's work, it might reasonably, though not with strict accuracy, be called the gospel according to Matthew. This combination of the data gains in plausibility when we consider that the lost source under consideration originally existed in an Aramaic form;1 and although, in the nature of the case, it does not admit of demonstration, it has in the judgment of the writer a far higher degree of probability than any other hypothesis with which he is acquainted.

It would, of course, be thoroughly discredited if we could accept the conclusion of Wellhausen, who from internal evidence infers that the lost source of Matthew and Luke was somewhat inferior to Mark in age, and altogether inferior to it in authority. His most im

'See Wellhausen's notes on Luke 62, 11.

portant argument is the general one that the process of 'Christianising' the material, which in Mark is practically limited to the section chapter 827--105, has in this document been carried through from beginning to end. Jesus everywhere speaks to His disciples as Christians, and that in a predominantly esoteric fashion. It is not only when He has His Passion in view that He re veals Himself to them as the Messiah who is destined to pass through death to glory; on the contrary, He comes forward as Messiah from the first; His preaching throughout is directed to this end-to found His Church, and in doing so to lay the foundation of the Kingdom of God upon earth. What has been already said of Wellhausen's estimate of the 'Christian' section of Mark can be applied here also: even if we find in the source with which we are concerned features which prove that there was no solution of continuity between the life of Jesus and the life of the Church, we shall not for that reason hold that such features are necessarily unhistorical. We shall not feel obliged to argue that the Church has carried back its faith and experience into the life of Jesus, and is putting its own mind into the lips of its Master. Even if it were the case-which we do not believe-that the lost document was more recent than Mark, it would be a stupendous and groundless assumption that Mark meant to tell us all that was really known of the words and deeds of Jesus; and that everything in Matthew or Luke which goes beyond him was either unknown to him or regarded by him as of no value. The contents of the source which Matthew and Luke used in common besides Mark did not come into existence in a moment. They were not produced out of nothing by the author who wrote them down. It is as certain as anything can be in history that in substance 1 Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 84.

they were being taught in Christian churches at the very same time and under the very same conditions in which the contents of Mark's gospel were being taught. Luke did not write to the excellent Theophilus to tell him what he had never heard before, but that he might know the certainty about the things in which he had been instructed. Even if we cannot identify the author of this second source, nor fix the very year in which he wrote, we can be confident that it is for all practical purposes contemporary with Mark and equal with it in authority. Both have behind them the authority of the teaching, and of the teachers, who dominated the Church in the 'sixties.

Nor is this authority prejudiced when we admit, as far as we need to admit, that the word of Jesus fructified in men's minds, and that there may be cases in which it is impossible to draw the line between the very words which Jesus uttered and the thoughts to which these words gave birth in the minds to which they were addressed. Wellhausen argues that the spirit of Jesus lived on in the Church, and that the Church not only produced the gospel of which Jesus is the object, but also gave a further development to His ethics. This development took place, no doubt, on the foundation he had laid; and that in which His spirit expressed itself seemed to have intrinsically the same value as what He Himself would have said in similar case. It is not with the idea here that we have any quarrel, but with the inconsiderate application of it. There is no reason to doubt that many of the words of Jesus were preserved mainly by being preached, and that they were liable in this way to a certain, or rather an uncertain, amount of modification with a view to bringing out the point of them in one or another set of circumstances. Every minister in preaching from a text sometimes expands the text in the person, so to speak, of him who uttered it; and if the original

speaker was Jesus, he puts words into Jesus' mouth freely in doing so. In this sense Wellhausen is right in saying that it is the discourses in the gospels, and not the narratives, that are most liable to 'development' in the course of time; contrary to the older criticism which held that while legendary stories grew with a rank and marvellous fertility, the discourses of Jesus were comparatively trustworthy. But the modern preacher who 'develops' a word of Jesus in the person of the Speaker knows what he is doing; and it is only natural to assume that the primitive preacher or catechist knew also. He did not mean that the words he used were literally Jesus' words; they were the word of the Lord as he understood it. This, however, is quite a different thing from the wholesale ascription to Jesus in a historical bookand when all is said and done the gospels are meant to be read as narratives of fact-of a great mass of discourses which have no immediate connexion with Him. The result of Wellhausen's criticism, applied as he applies it, is, as Jülicher has said,' that the most profound, simple and moving elements in the gospels are set down, simply because our literary evidence for them is supposed to be later than Mark, as of no historical value. The primitive Church is made to appear richer, greater and freer than its Head. For this, however, analogies are completely wanting; if the gospels as we have them are the fruits of faith, and not a historical testimony to Jesus, they are such fruits as have no example elsewhere. How did it come to pass that these fruits so suddenly ceased to appear on the tree of faith? How did its fertility come to an end? And when Christian faith was yielding such gracious fruits apparently without conscious effort, when it uttered itself spontaneously in the parables of the Kingdom or the Sermon on the Mount, how are we Theologische Litteraturzeitung, 1905, col. 615.

« ZurückWeiter »